Reasons to go to war - not too amusing!

[ACPlayer]

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/...gonsNewMap.htm

Maybe we will see the scenario repeated again and again.

[andyfox]

Very interesting and important article. No doubt we intend to force those not in the loop to conform to our standards of the way things should be. This is the meaning of "the axis of evil."

[MMMMMM]

Do you think there is necessarily something wrong with that, andy?

Do you think that the democratic way is better than the dictatorial way?

Things aren't all relative. When a small band of thugs brutalizes and controls an entire country, philosophically speaking, it isn't just "our way" versus "their way"; to say that it is, is to confuse the "their way" of that small band with the "their way" of the entire populace of that country.

Dop you agree that Hitler's doctrine was evil or wrong? How about Pol Pot's ? Saddam's? Stalin's?

It's one thing to be appropriately leery of being too judgmental, or of being too egocentric or ethnocentric--but it's possible to err too far on the side of caution, as well.

The Axis of Evil is just that--if you consider it to be the governments not the people which we are labeling.

[brad]

'When a small band of thugs brutalizes and controls an entire country, philosophically speaking, it isn't just "our way" versus "their way";'

ashcroft: if youre not with us then youre with the terrorists.

ashcroft: those who complain about phantoms of lost liberties are aiding the terrorists.

so yeah, i agree with you 100% M.

[ACPlayer]

I have nothing against freedom and democracy.

However, decisions by a small coterie that effect lives of millions is neither freedom nor democracy.

However, a system where all checks and balances have been removed (by a rubber stamp republican party and the wimpish vote fearing democrats) in the decision making process is not democracy and freedom;

However, the sight of head salesmen Powell and Rice buying support of countries is not democracy or freedom,

However, the removal of constitutional rights of the citizens of the US and reduction in their freedoms is not democracy or freedom;

However, deriding long term allies for their point of view is not democracy or freedom;

We have vested a great deal of power in a person who has no doubts about the good of killing thousands. Brings to mind the dangers that Lord Acton wrote about 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men'.

Beware the ides of march!

[andyfox]

"Do you think there is necessarily something wrong with that, andy?"

If by "that," you mean forcing people to live the way we want them to live, yes, I do.

"Do you think that the democratic way is better than the dictatorial way?"

Yes, I do. That's why I don't want us to dictate to them how to run their affairs. The article was not talking about democracy vs. dictatorship. It was talking about forcing countries to be a part of "globalization."

"Things aren't all relative."

I agree. But neither are things all black and white. Hitler does not equal Saddam. Ho was not Stalin. Bush II does not equal Bush I. When we make such false equivalencies, it clouds our judgment and analysis, not to mention our policy decisions.

[MMMMMM]

"Do you think there is necessarily something wrong with that, andy?"

If by "that," you mean forcing people to live the way we want them to live, yes, I do.

that's not what I meant by "that", except in support of the removal of tyrannical dictatorships by force. I was asking, in essence, if you agree with such removal.

"Do you think that the democratic way is better than the dictatorial way?"

Yes, I do. That's why I don't want us to dictate to them how to run their affairs. The article was not talking about democracy vs. dictatorship. It was talking about forcing countries to be a part of "globalization."

I wasn't trying to support everything the article said--sorry if I somehow gave you that impression. However I do think it's probably more than coincidence that countries which aren't a part of "globalization" are also generally dictatorships.

"Things aren't all relative."

I agree. But neither are things all black and white. Hitler does not equal Saddam. Ho was not Stalin. Bush II does not equal Bush I. When we make such false equivalencies, it clouds our judgment and analysis, not to mention our policy decisions.

I never drew such equivalences (except I have at times said that Saddam is equal to Stalin in spirit if not in capability). And even if I was drawing equivalences between these tyrants, in the context of the point I was making it would be acceptable and logical--not clouding-- since my point is that supporting the removal of tremendous tyrants can be for the most part a black and white moral judgment. You might take issue with that statement, but there is no confusion induced by offering a brief list of tyrants to whom I believe it applies. In addition, I was asking, not telling, in that list: I was asking you regarding each one...if their doctrines were evil or wrong. If you felt that didn't apply to one you could so specify.

I rather suspect you just don't like the idea of condemning certain governments or tyrants unconditionally and in strong terms. Well if so, maybe you'd change your mind if you ever had to live under one.

[andyfox]

Sorry if I put words in your mouth. Let me try again.

1) I cannot give you a hard and fast rule as to whether or not I believe in the removal of tyrannical dictators by force. Depends on who the dictator is and what force is involved. I believe one should consider the costs and consequences of action, as well as inaction. During the early Cold War, our government determined that the Soviet Union was ruled by a tyrannical and irrational dictator and that he posed the greatest threat to the world that it had ever seen. Yet they did not decide to remove him by force. They did not launch a preemptive war with the Soviet Union.

2) Globalization is a code word for control of the world's economy by the haves, in particular, us.

3) You metioned Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and Pol Pot in the same question, implying an equivalency. The comparison with Hitler is made with regularity by the "talking heads."

We were told by our government not long ago (and, in fact, one of the chief tellers was Elliott Abrams) that Nicaragua was a totalitarian dungeon, that the thugs we hired and trained to murder people were the moral equivalent of the founding fathers. It was a big lie. Many of our engagements in the postwar (WWII) world were based on supposedly black and white issues that were not as claimed by our leaders.

4) It is one thing to condemn certain governments and quite another to start a preemptive war. We have removed government we didn't like before through clandestine action; for example, to use the Nicaragua example I alluded to above, we did everything we could to make sure we influenced the election to get the Sandanistas out of office, and we were successful.

Now obviously there will not be an election in Iraq that results in Saddam losing. But we have also fomented coups and subverted and destroyed many leaders who we felt, rightly or wrongly, were tyrannical dictators.

5) I don't think it necessarily takes a chicken to recognize an egg. I have never done anything but condemn Saddam Hussein. I have not heard anyone who opposed the upcoming war praise him.

[MMMMMM]

1) And I too have said that pragmatism must play a part when it comes to removing totalitarian regimes--what I was talking about in the prior post was good and evil, right and wrong: the moral aspects of so doing, not the practical.

2) I disagree strongly, and feel that that is a highly flawed interpretation of globalism. Free enterprise and free markets benefit both the haves and the have nots. Are the have-nots going to get any richer by not interacting with the rest of the world? Of course not.

Yes, free markets may benefit the haves more,
but they benefit the have nots also. This is because economics isn't a zero-sum game (as most socialists and communists erroneously seem to believe). Just as two parties, each with an excess of certain goods and a paucity of other goods, both benefit from trade, so too do free markets benefit all. Additionally, free enterprise benefits all because by its very nature it stimulates innovation and finds ways to fulfill needs. The top may rise faster than the middle, but the bottom and middle are stil rising. Those who think poverty is determined by how much richer someone else is are missing the point: if quality of life, material possessions are going up for everybody on average, it's helping those at the bottom too (since the bottom is the broadest base).

3) yes it implies an equivalency for the purposes of the specific question only--which is whether you view the doctrines of these particular tyrants as evil or wrong. Remember we (or at least I;-)) were discussing black and white moral judgments,as specifically related to tyrannical governments.

Yes some other issues the USA supported were not nearly so black and white, morally speaking. However I was cautioning against taking the concept of being non-judgmental too far--as anyone would be doing if they claimed that tyrannical regimes were just an "alternate" or different but equal form of government, with comparable moral right to exist. I don't think you subscribe to this view, but some others on this forum certainly seem to.

[brad]

google joseph stiglitz and get back 2 us.