The Military Fights to Defend our Freedom, or absurdist things the news tells me.

[LuisDantas]

The dictatorship of Saddam has been removed. While there are still problems, there is little fear that speaking out politicaly will land you six feet under or in jail indefinately as had happened under Saddam. Is this an improvement?

Barely. And one that cost both sides dearly. It was not worth it.

It has been said that GWB might have sincerely believed that democracy sprouts about spontaneously once a dictatorship is removed. He was wrong, of course, and quite naively so.

History shows us quite clearly that removing a dictator accomplishes little, since a dictatorship can only exist when the social environment fails to discourage it. The successor of a dictator will usually be another dictator, even if he happens to be freely elected.

True democracy can only exist when a certain level of social, economical and political maturity has been attained. It is not something easily found, or easily maintained. The US themselves are on the fringe of losing it for good, and can make no convincing claim of having given it to anyone else in this past decade.

You talked about the US 'image' being harmed by the Iraq war, I was merely pointing out how pointless it is to talk about US 'image' being hurt when the only people who bring up America's troublesome image are the ones that don't like it much anyway.

Well, I disagree emphatically with pretty much every single idea that you present here. The US had considerable good will from other countries and from the UN. GWB chose to throw it all away out of a messianic delusion of grandeur. That is not a minor loss, not by any measure.

In fact, it is not even only an American loss. The very dynamic of foreign relations was hurt to a very ominous level.

I believe those heavy weapons did a magnificent job for our foreign policy in Iraq.

In the sense that being hanged is a wonderful remedy for a headache, I must agree.

So you should know that Iraq has satisfied the three F's of a stable democracy: free, frequent and fair elections. It has not been a one and done like many South American countries.

As I just told you, elections are simply not enough to a democracy make. Most pretentious dictators are elected at one time or another. Quite a few delude themselves into believing that they are paragons of democratic virtue, even. You're overestimating the differences between South American banana republics and Iraq.

 

[dust1n]

In the US, 2,739 drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2008.

Teen Driving Statistics

And most of them pretty much did this to themselves (or their friends) - due to being inexperienced drivers. The vast majority of these people were not MURDERED by people who hate them and their way of life.

Sorry - no comparison to deaths caused by terrorism.

The number of deaths in 2008 due to terrorist attacks was 15,765

Terrorist Attacks Fell 18 Percent in 2008, Report Says

34,017 Americans died in 2008 due to car related accidents.

FARS Encyclopedia

And I will go ahead and let you know, the very large majority of those dead due to terrorist attacks are not American.

And if you are concerned with the 'fault' aspect, I do believe over 400k people die of heart disease every year.

 

[kai]

The number of deaths in 2008 due to terrorist attacks was 15,765

Terrorist Attacks Fell 18 Percent in 2008, Report Says

34,017 Americans died in 2008 due to car related accidents.

FARS Encyclopedia

And I will go ahead and let you know, the very large majority of those dead due to terrorist attacks are not American.

And if you are concerned with the 'fault' aspect, I do believe over 400k people die of heart disease every year.

therefore?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis,

It has been said that GWB might have sincerely believed that democracy sprouts about spontaneously once a dictatorship is removed. He was wrong, of course, and quite naively so.

Nice world you have there. Assign an absurd belief to GWB and then slam him for it. Where on earth did you get the idea that GWB believed that a democracy would spring up like nothing after a dictatorship is removed? I don't believe you have one shred of evidence showing that GWB believed that.

History shows us quite clearly that removing a dictator accomplishes little, since a dictatorship can only exist when the social environment fails to discourage it. The successor of a dictator will usually be another dictator, even if he happens to be freely elected.

True democracy can only exist when a certain level of social, economical and political maturity has been attained. It is not something easily found, or easily maintained. The US themselves are on the fringe of losing it for good, and can make no convincing claim of having given it to anyone else in this past decade.

The irony is that despite Saddam's tyranny Iraq's civil society was one of the most advanced before the war. And they are showing the world with those skills as they build a mature democracy before our very eyes (not yours though, you still deny it).

Well, I disagree emphatically with pretty much every single idea that you present here. The US had considerable good will from other countries and from the UN. GWB chose to throw it all away out of a messianic delusion of grandeur. That is not a minor loss, not by any measure.

In fact, it is not even only an American loss. The very dynamic of foreign relations was hurt to a very ominous level.

Political 'good will' is one of the most overrated aspects of international relations. Countries interact based on specific interests. Only weak countries talk about all the supposed merits of 'good will.' Read Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nice world you have there. Assign an absurd belief to GWB and then slam him for it. Where on earth did you get the idea that GWB believed that a democracy would spring up like nothing after a dictatorship is removed? I don't believe you have one shred of evidence showing that GWB believed that.

I'm not sure he did. Still, that would be one of the most generous readings possible for his choices regarding Iraq.

I'm surprised that you say it is an absurd belief, because I really thought that it was the one you were purporting here in this thread. Frankly, I'm confused now.

The irony is that despite Saddam's tyranny Iraq's civil society was one of the most advanced before the war. And they are showing the world with those skills as they build a mature democracy before our very eyes (not yours though, you still deny it).

Quite correct. I don't believe it is happening quite as wonderfully as you claim. Democracies don't come to be so effortlessly.

Political 'good will' is one of the most overrated aspects of international relations.

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, I will say that it is also one of the worst. Except, of course, for all the others.

Countries interact based on specific interests. Only weak countries talk about all the supposed merits of 'good will.' Read Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power.

Weak countries hide behind weapons, because they're not sure they can live without them.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis,

I'm not sure he did. Still, that would be one of the most generous readings possible for his choices regarding Iraq.

I'm surprised that you say it is an absurd belief, because I really thought that it was the one you were purporting here in this thread. Frankly, I'm confused now.

So, now you have jumped from assuming GWB believed something so absurd (of course you have no evidence that he believed such an absurd belief) to assuming that I believed something so absurd. Hey Luis, we're talking here, you can simply ask me what I believe.

Quite correct. I don't believe it is happening quite as wonderfully as you claim. Democracies don't come to be so effortlessly.

Oh, it takes a lot of work, but its happening.

Weak countries hide behind weapons, because they're not sure they can live without them.

And utopians hid behind their theories because they are scared of the real world. Would hoping the Nazis have stopped killing done the job, would hoping the Soviets stopped killing done the job.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, now you have jumped from assuming GWB believed something so absurd (of course you have no evidence that he believed such an absurd belief) to assuming that I believed something so absurd. Hey Luis, we're talking here, you can simply ask me what I believe.

See, that is what puzzles me. I saw no need to ask, because you stated as much in various posts. Please notice that you are the one claiming that it is an absurd belief, not me.

Oh, it takes a lot of work, but its happening.

It would happen in a far better way without the military action, particularly if the UN weren't snubbed in the proccess.

And utopians hid behind their theories because they are scared of the real world. Would hoping the Nazis have stopped killing done the job, would hoping the Soviets stopped killing done the job.

If you say so. I wonder why you do say so, however. It has no relevance that I can see.

 

[Sunstone]

The vast majority of these people were not MURDERED by people who hate them and their way of life.

Kathryn, do you seriously believe the main reason the US is attacked by terrorists is because the terrorists hate our way of life? If so, who told you that?

 

[dust1n]

therefore?

I know.. this bit is a little hard to follow.

So, 450k Americans die annually to heart disease. In 2007, the government allocated 3 billion to research heart disease. Let's say in 2004, a little bit over 70 Americans died due to terrorist attacks (according to the National Counter-Terrorism Center). Using that number as an average (which is generous, to say the least), we spend 161.8 billion dollars annually to fight terrorism.

The US government spent 54 times the amount of money fighting terrorism rather than trying to prevent a disease that kills 6600 times more people than terrorism does.

Therefore, the military is a joke. Again, I am not interested in my freedom being defended, I'm much more interested in fighting the deadliest disease at the moment.

 

[kai]

I know.. this bit is a little hard to follow.

So, 450k Americans die annually to heart disease. In 2007, the government allocated 3 billion to research heart disease. Let's say in 2004, a little bit over 70 Americans died due to terrorist attacks (according to the National Counter-Terrorism Center). Using that number as an average (which is generous, to say the least), we spend 161.8 billion dollars annually to fight terrorism.

The US government spent 54 times the amount of money fighting terrorism rather than trying to prevent a disease that kills 6600 times more people than terrorism does.

Therefore, the military is a joke. Again, I am not interested in my freedom being defended, I'm much more interested in fighting the deadliest disease at the moment.

Hey don't blame the Military if the politicians don't spend enough on something you want them to spend on. after all they don't control the purse strings. and dont blame the Military if the politicians send them to do the job their trained for if you don't agree with it. take it up with the politicians at polling day.

 

[Duck]

The yoke of Saddam's dictatorship was removed by the US military and the institutions of democracy were nurtured by the US. The Iraqis chose democracy when the elections came around defying the liberal claim that you can't 'create democracy by the barrel of the gun.'

Ah, yes, the Yoke of Saddam's dictatorship that was propped up by and supported by the US until Saddam became inconveniently aggressive by invading Kuwait.

It will be interesting to see how long democracy lasts without the US actively guarding the polling places.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis,

See, that is what puzzles me. I saw no need to ask, because you stated as much in various posts. Please notice that you are the one claiming that it is an absurd belief, not me.

This is a straw man of my position. Nowhere did I claim that democracy miraculously rises up after a dictatorship is toppled. You speculated that GWB believed such a thing (with no proof mind you) and then transferred this absurd belief to my worldview (again with no proof of me actually believing it).

It would happen in a far better way without the military action, particularly if the UN weren't snubbed in the proccess.

You seriously believe the UN would have removed Saddam from power? Do you actually believe that?

If you say so. I wonder why you do say so, however. It has no relevance that I can see.

In your utopian worldview military weaponry is considered a bad thing. I am asking you how would the Nazis have been stopped in your world. If military weaponry could not have been used, what would have stopped the Nazis? Your reality-defying belief system cannot account for actually stopping evil in this world (I'm sure you don't believe evil exists, except maybe to label Israel as evil).

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

do you seriously believe the main reason the US is attacked by terrorists is because the terrorists hate our way of life? If so, who told you that?

Read The Al-Qeada Reader by Raymond Ibrahim and then get back to us. You obviously don't even know what they believe. Do your homework.

Amazon.com: The Al Qaeda Reader (9780767922623): Raymond Ibrahim: Books

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Duck,

It will be interesting to see how long democracy lasts without the US actively guarding the polling places.

Are you cheering for the demise of Iraq's young democracy?

Isn't Iraq choosing their political leaders in some form of democracy preferrable to Saddam's tyranny or does your ideological blinders prevent you from believing that?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

How many fanatical Muslims have to attempt to kill Americans to make you believe that we are at war with them? Just off the top of my head there is Major Nasan, who murdered 13 Americans. The Christmas-day bomber and the Times Square bomber.

Why are some people so blind to that fact that they want us dead?

Do you think that ALL muslims are fanatical? War on terror is a joke.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Flying,

Do you think that ALL muslims are fanatical? War on terror is a joke.

Your question is a joke. The specific Muslims I mentioned are the fanatical Muslims and they are murdering Americans or trying to murder Americans. Keep your head in the sand (a la South Park).

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

In your utopian worldview military weaponry is considered a bad thing. I am asking you how would the Nazis have been stopped in your world. If military weaponry could not have been used, what would have stopped the Nazis?

There is no comparison between WWII Germany and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When we invaded Iraq the second time and Afghanistan, those countries posed no immediate threat to the U.S. or its allies. Afghanistan was guilty of harboring a terrorist organization, not plotting to takeover the free world. Iraq was no threat at all. The expenditure in lives, money and resources in both those wars is totally unjustified, and has only increased the hatred toward the U.S. that helped fuel the terrorist attacks in the first place.

 

[christallen]

I see that this has turned into a bit of a screaming match about the legitimacy of our current foreign conflicts, but I have yet to read anyone refute my original point.

Do these wars protect Americans' rights?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Hi Flying,



Your question is a joke. The specific Muslims I mentioned are the fanatical Muslims and they are murdering Americans or trying to murder Americans. Keep your head in the sand (a la South Park).

The fanatical muslims you mentioned were american citizens as well. Well, at least two of them. And the third was Nigerian.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I see that this has turned into a bit of a screaming match about the legitimacy of our current foreign conflicts, but I have yet to read anyone refute my original point.

Do these wars protect Americans' rights?

Not in the least bit.