One reason why I hate this country...

[Nacho]

What is childish is the reply to the act. There hasn' t been any violent act in reply to the ETA strikes in the Airport terminal, or the "Al-Qaeda" () attack on 11-m in Madrid. No, as far as I know, 500 madrileños hasn' t put a bomb belt into his chest, went into Casablanca, and start killing Morroccoans Militars.

On the other hand:
You make this rule of 3:
"51% of the americans voted Bush, so, they are arrogant"

I said: "47% of the iraquians support killing american soldiers, so, they are childish"

Curious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not? I just have said that 500 people killing theirselfs in front of an unique hope of freedom and democracy is childish, mainly because we haven' t seen these attitudes before, when some dictadures felt in some other places (Did Fascists start suicide bombings after the coup d' etat in Spain 1981 failed? Did communist nostalgics start suicide bombings in Russia after the fall of the Communism? And in Serbia? and In Rumania? What about the reaction of the Chinese students after the repression in Tian Anmen? Did they start to bomb China as a "response to the agression"?

I don' t really understand the over-reaction. I don' t really understand why your statement can be allowed and accepted without any complain in this forums (specially from the americans) I really feel sorry for them, they are so unpopular in the World (Blame it to their president) that they have been ideologically anesthetizeds to reply in front of such statements...

Well... I am not anesthetized. Sorry.

Let me tell you something. Iraqians don' t support those "insurgents" to kill civilians... Because that would imply insurgents killing them. That means that Iraquians don' t want to be killed, not that they "don't support violence". The reply to the iraqians to an opportunity of peace has been extremelly idiot. I really hoped (After seeing how they destroyed Saddams statues) that they would going to start a path to peace, as many coutries did, but appartently, they just want to go on in their path to self-destruction.

I really hoped that they could life in peace, but now I really do agree with you, and I want the americans to leave the country. If they want to kill theirselfs, they have my bless. As Helm said once, "let anyone clean their own shit". For me, this countries really deserve their shit.

Excuse me for the angry reply... But your "America is bad" because they voted Bush, and "Iraq is ok" even in 47% of them want terrorist acts, really annoyed me.

[Snarky]

Let me tell you something. Iraqians don' t support those "insurgents" to kill civilians... Because that would imply insurgents killing them. That means that Iraquians don' t want to be killed, not that they "don't support violence". The reply to the iraqians to an opportunity of peace has been extremelly idiot. I really hoped (After seeing how they destroyed Saddams statues) that they would going to start a path to peace, as many coutries did, but appartently, they just want to go on in their path to self-destruction.

I really hoped that they could life in peace, but now I really do agree with you, and I want the americans to leave the country. If they want to kill theirselfs, they have my bless. As Helm said once, "let anyone clean their own shit". For me, this countries really deserve their shit.

What is childish is the reply to the act. There hasn' t been any violent act in reply to the ETA strikes in the Airport terminal, or the "Al-Qaeda" () attack on 11-m in Madrid. No, as far as I know, 500 madrileños hasn' t put a bomb belt into his chest, went into Casablanca, and start killing Morroccoans Militars.

Curious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not? I just have said that 500 people killing theirselfs in front of an unique hope of freedom and democracy is childish, mainly because we haven' t seen these attitudes before, when some dictadures felt in some other places (Did Fascists start suicide bombings after the coup d' etat in Spain 1981 failed? Did communist nostalgics start suicide bombings in Russia after the fall of the Communism? And in Serbia? and In Rumania? What about the reaction of the Chinese students after the repression in Tian Anmen? Did they start to bomb China as a "response to the agression"?

The bloodshed in Iraq amounts to (among other things) a civil war. Oh, how childish of the Iraqis to start a civil war! Oh, how quickly we forget! Because it's not like Spain, Ireland, Finland, Russia, and several other European countries fought astonishingly bloody civil wars this last century or anything. And in circumstances that were far more self-inflicted than those Iraqis find themselves in.

History has dealt the Iraqis a bad set of cards, and although they could probably play them better, we shouldn't be so smug just because we're currently sitting on aces.

PS: Besides, your examples aren't very good. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia and the other ex-Soviet states have fought numerous wars, civil wars and insurgencies, most notably in Chechnya. And that war has included suicide attacks and terrorist bombings. My understanding is that Chechnya at its worst was at least as bad as Iraq is. Serbia, of course, is the remainder of Yugoslavia after a decade of civil war and ethnic cleansing. And if you want to talk about China, a better parallel would probably be China about a hundred-hundred and fifty years ago, after the British had (quite deliberately) fucked over the Empire, and the country broke down into small bits of land ruled by squabbling warlords, International "interest zones" functioning as de facto European colonies, and the Manchurian puppet state governed from Tokyo.

[Helm]

SSH, while your reply was noted (and I don't know much about the examples you gave) I had to disregard it to an extent to get this conversation on more important 'wars' and wars. You also ignored Becky where she debunked one of your examples, am I to assume that if I look more into your other examples they'll also be similarly ambiguous or even blatantly wrong?

You have this habit of information sniping, SSH. Posting only when you have something to add (which is good) but without followup or proper discussion over your points. People say a lot to you, and you reply not at all, or reply to only a small piece of what they said, or make a joke. It is difficult to discuss with you because of that reason. Furthermore, on this subject I am looking by answers by other people, american people, who aren't playing devil's advocate but who sincerily believe the US military action is serving their freedom and wellbeing.

So:

Vietnam was part of a larger policy of containment, the goal of which was to stop the spread of communism. As World War II ended, ideological differences between the USA and the USSR along with the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe led to the development of the domino theory, which basically said that if communism was left unchecked, it would spread throughout the whole world. As a result, wherever communism seemed to be on the rise, the US would basically support the opposing side. If you really want to put it in it's proper context and feel like reading more, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the Cold War.

So wait, Wikipedia man, the Vietnam war 'protected' the Americas from an idea, right? That's what you think 'serve our freedom' means. Protection from political ideas the current administration may have considered not to their benefit. Great.

The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan harbored, supported, and protected the Al-Qaeda organization. In addition to 9/11, Al-Qaeda is also suspected of having planned and carried out numerous other terrorist attacks, so hopefully it's clear why the US wanted them destroyed. The two groups had a close relationship, so destroying one basically meant destroying both.

So wait, in order to destroy terrorist cells one has to invade a country, right? The tried-and-tested american method of sending in assassins in the night in banana republics hasn't been working this time? I'm sure a Rambo in Afganistan killing Al-Qaeda would make for a few good movies, yes? Hey, wait....

And furthermore, now that the Al Qeada is delt with (oh, wait!) and Osama is dead (what, what?!) the Americas are safer, right? Because terror is fought by ripping off the hydra heads, right? Because nobody, no victims, no families of victims of an unjust invasion into a country are recruited into being terrorists themselves after that, right?

I propose that the war on terror isn't serving the freedom of the american public, it is serving anything but.

Iraq was alleged to have WMD and links to Al-Qaeda. Of course, we all know how those claims turned out ....

So wait, you're playing devil's advocate too? Argh. I don't want to have an academic discussion on this, I've had enough. I want real, actual americans - like Rharpe - that believe this sort of reasoning and that's why they want to 'hug every american in uniform they see'.

I find it funny how the only way people are willing to have this debate is theoretically, and when it doesn't apply to them. I want to hear some honest I LOVE THE TROOPS THEY KEEP ME FREE opinions here, not just blah blah by people who have no other stake in it than their fondness for going-nowhere-arguing.

I think you need to put yourself in the role of the decision-makers and examine why they made these decisions in the first place and why they ended up succeeding or failing. There are lots of lessons to be learned in doing this, one of them being that not everything is as simple and clear-cut as we'd like it to be.

Just as long as you don't believe US interventionism serves the freedom of the US public, sure, let's ponder on the finer things all night.

[SSH]

I don't think the Suez Crisis is an example of the US using it's military to ensure the wellbeing of it's citizens. 

Sorry, Helm pointed out that I had missed this, and I hand't noticed that part of your message. Sorry, Becky. In Suez, the American military evacuated (some of) their citizens from Egypt. Similarly with many of the other ones I listed: they were mainly or entirely evacuation efforts of US citizens from "troubled" countries. That is an example of the US only protecting its citizens.  While the US didn't get involved in the Egypt vs France/UK dispute, I'd say that was an argument in their favour: all the US military did was ensure the wellbeing of US citizens.

While I understand and agree the general point that US-lead invasions since WWII have done little to protect its citizens (although the Korean War might be arguable), I wouldn't want to be as general as to say that "US foreign military action is all bad since 1945". It's not fair to the US leaders and military who were involved over the past 60 years in doing exactly what Helm implied the US military should be doing: protecting US citizens.

I'm not playing at being a devil's advocate, because the US is not entirely a devil. If you want an analogy, it's like saying that the Volkswagen Beetle was a great car, even though Hitler was a bastard.

[DGMacphee]

Do I think that the Iraq war is helping American Freedom? Not yet. But I believe it's a step in trying to remove some Anti-Americanism, and Anti-Western sentiment in that area. More of an attempt really. Either way, trying to change that opinion (no I don't mean taking Saddam out of power, I mean winning the hearts and minds of the people, and we are trying, you don't hear about it alot on the news, but humanitarian efforts go on day by day by day there) does protect the country by slowing, or curbing a potential bed of individuals that could wish to do us harm in the future. Could Iran be next? Possibly, North Korea, possibly. I try not to think about what foreign country I may have to spend in combat in again, I like being home with my family.

I'm having trouble piecing this together. You say the Iraq war is a step in the right direction of removing Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment in the region. But surveys from the British military in September 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing presence of coalition troops. By these statistics, doesn't that logically mean the very presence of US troops in Iraq is actually generating more Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment?

I'm not critical of the troops, mind you. Troops fight where they're told to. Can't blame them for the decisions of the leaders above them. Following that, I am very critical of foreign policy decisions such as the ones in force now. You have to admit, it's been a huge fuck up that now has no "good" ending despite whatever option is chosen.

As a side note: I also don't think it's a good idea to keep hold of the region for the sake of not letting the terrorist win. All this garbage about certain Democrats, like Obama, wanting to withdraw and thus pleasing the terrorists... I don't think terrorists really give a shit what's happening in Iraq. Let's say the US occupied Iraq prior to 9/11; do you think the terrorists wouldn't have crashed the WTC because of this? I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of terrorists groups act very independently from Iraq. If the War on Terror is a road, then Iraq is basically a detour with no end in sight.

Nacho and SSH: Just to add to your discussion...

SSH:

You asked: "how many americans decided to invade"... well, ultimately 1: George W. Bush.

Incorrect, you forgot the Senators and Congressmen who approved the invasion.

Nacho:

Curious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not?

Because I don't think it's childish to be pissed off with a military force that is occupying your country, has blown up a lot of the region and is responsible for the many civilian deaths. I'm sure if the US was being occupied by another country, they'd be just as pissed. But I do think it's arrogant of the US to say they're stepping into a peace-keeping role for a country they destabilised in the first place.

Nikolas:

Thing is that, while your math are correct and indeed a 0.002% is not a high percentage, you do need to compair it with a different country... for example the UK. Here in the UK there's been 2 bombings in all? For the past 5-6 years, unless mistaken. But certainly not 500. And the population is about the same. That does give an idea...

I don't think that's a good comparison. The UK isn't under military control by another country. And you'll see from other occupations that there is retaliation though not in the form of bombings. Consider the British occupation of Ireland in 1171 by King Henry II. There were several wars and rebellions against the British until the War of Independence (1919-1921). This is pretty much the same as Iraqi insurgents rebelling. And I'm just taking a guess here, but the frequency of attacks by Irish Catholics would have been about the same (or possibly greater) than the number of attacks by Iraqi insurgents. The only difference the the weaponry has changed to something a little more explosive.

So, the moral of the story is if you're going to compare Iraq to another country, compare it to one under a period of occupation. Don't compare it to the UK of today because doing so is meaningless.

---

Okay, on to something new... here's how I'd deal with Iraq: A majority of Iraqis are against the US occupation, right? What I think needs to be done is to withdraw US troops from the area but form a deal with another country for their troops can step in as peacekeepers because, for a start, there's no fucking way the US can fulfill such a role. Basically, they need a good mediating force that can gain the Iraqi's trust. The US can cut back on spending for escalating their military and fund a proxy army in an agreement of bi-lateral control with another country. Maybe keep a minimal amount of US forces as secondary force but have the primary peacekeeping taken over by another country. Plus the US can focus on using the evacuated forces in keeping the homeland safe.

You'd need a country that is not currently an ally of the US in the War on Terror, like France or Germany. A country that will say, "We're not participating in the War on Terror and we had nothing to do with the Iraq War... but we're willing to help rebuild Iraq." That way the insurgents will be less likely to target them. The problem is I doubt you'll find a country that'll lend a hand since the Bush administration has pretty much ruined all diplomatic relations with countries not fighting in the War on Terror. A lot of potential countries would turn their noses up saying, "You want US to risk lives to clean YOUR mess?! Pfft, fat chance!!"

Then again, perhaps it's not too late. Perhaps the US can find a diplomatic ally before things get worse in Iraq. Then again, why would the Bush Administration do such a thing especially when oil prices have been rising steadily over the last four years. Oh wait, I forgot, that's a coincidence and I'm a left-wing hippie freak who believes in crack-pot conspiracy theories.

Anyway, tell me if my Iraqi plan is somewhat workable or not. If you guys think it is, I'll e-mail it to Obama or Clinton or Edwards or Gore if he'll run. Not Biden though because I'll be damned if I'm giving away my plan to a candidate polling at 2 per cent! Although he's got his own plan for Iraq so it doesn't matter. But I think mine is better.

[SSH]

"51% of the americans voted Bush, so, they are arrogant"

I said: "47% of the iraquians support killing american soldiers, so, they are childish"

Curious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not?

OK, forget Bush, I don't think I said that Bush voters made America arrogant, anyway. How were the French resistance, who probably had more than 47% support of the French, NOT childish?

I just have said that 500 people killing theirselfs in front of an unique hope of freedom and democracy is childish, mainly because we haven' t seen these attitudes before, when some dictadures felt in some other places. (Did Fascists start suicide bombings after the coup d' etat in Spain 1981 failed? Did communist nostalgics start suicide bombings in Russia after the fall of the Communism? And in Serbia? and In Rumania? What about the reaction of the Chinese students after the repression in Tian Anmen? Did they start to bomb China as a "response to the agression"?

Those are all civil war situations, not a foreign invader. It's a strawman. And why are suicide bombing particularly more childish than other bombings?

I don' t really understand the over-reaction. I don' t really understand why your statement can be allowed and accepted without any complain in this forums

Who said that no-one can counter my points?

I really hoped that they could life in peace, but now I really do agree with you, and I want the americans to leave the country. If they want to kill theirselfs, they have my bless. As Helm said once, "let anyone clean their own shit". For me, this countries really deserve their shit.

What about the sh!t that the British  and US left in Iraq by causing and supporting Saddam? Who clears that up?

[Helm]

SSH I understand and agree with your post before the one above.

[Nacho]

Dear SSH, the french resistence was born in 1946.

Anyway, if you mean that the US army deserves a revolt as much as the Nazi army did... Well... it' s up to you. Do you really compare the USA with Hitler' s Germany? I know it' s a very popular current in Europe, but I don' t really know your opinion.

I would really liked that the situation got stabilised and that people had peace.

Apparently, some of the auto-named "pacifists" preffer a burning Iraq ensuring them victorious debate moments in the internet and coffee chats. Curious way of pacifism. That reminds me an anecdote that happend the day the war in Iraq ended (The day of the falling Saddam statue). I (the "fascist war-lover")was extremelly happy and I said in my college, loud: "Finally, it has ended". And a "pacifist" replied "No, it hasn' t... There is still some time where the Iraqis will kill those american bastards"

Are you one of those "pacifists"?

Because whereas I know that there are some "muslimophobic fascists" hidden in the amount of people who deffended the war in Iraq as a good choice, I also know that there are some die hard anti americans in your side. It should be great to put the cards on the table, so we can save time.

And really... How can bombing in markets, commisaries, and mosques be a revolt against foreign invaders?

I mean... I had the (mistaken) idea that invassion=deputing Saddam=peace=less death people. From the very start in my posts the idea that some deaths can "save lives". You, as far as I know, allways deffended the idea that "peace is the option, diplomacy is the good choice, flowers in the guns, blah, blah, blah..."

Now you move to "Iraq insurgency" is equal to "French resistance"? Now you mention the resistance against Franco in Spain... Are you moving the line? Are you trying to say that "some violence is good"?

And DG: I can' t really discuss with you, because we are discussing different things.You are saying "pears are green!" and I am saying "appples are red!!!". No matter how many we shout. No one is going to be right. Ã, 

What I am really talking about is about the bombings in markets, police stations, mosques and civilian neigbourhoods. You are talking about resistance agains an invading country (and I agree, that a certain degree of annoyance is "normal") and the other is to volutarilly start a civil war when you have the first opportunity in decades to have peace.

I think you can agree with me that a civil war between sunnis and chiis is childish. No matter if you say no, and you win some internet debates because that war has been provoqued by the "Yankees". Inside you, I am sure you agree with me. Ã, 

[Helm]

Apparently, some of the auto-named "pacifists" preffer a burning Iraq ensuring them victorious debate moments in the internet and coffee chats. Curious way of pacifism. That reminds me an anecdote that happend the day the war in Iraq ended (The day of the falling Saddam statue). I (the "fascist war-lover")was extremelly happy and I said in my college, loud: "Finally, it has ended". And a "pacifist" replied "No, it hasn' t... There is still some time where the Iraqis will kill those american bastards"

At least for one, I am not any sort of pacifist or bleeding-heart humanitarian. A country can be in as much problems as it wants. It should never be enough for another country to step in with their military and say 'now we're going to solve your problem for you!'. EVEN IF THEY DO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, I am against that sort of imperialism. Diplomatic or economic pressure? Yes. Killing children to liberate children? No.

It's not a matter of being left or right, liberal or republican. It's a matter of constitutional right and the whole premise of a sovereign state. A country takes care of its own problems. They can only make it your problems if they go to war with you. Now I know and you know in the end the world doesn't work this way, and countries go to war constantly, form alliances against each other and generally meddle in each others' affairs. But that they do doesn't mean it's okay, and an apologists's 'sigh and realization' oh well, that's how it's going to be is bullshit. We should try more to do as we say rather than aplogize (or even worse, rationalize and moralize) for how we do.

Further in your post you begin building strawmen out of the people that are discussing with you in this thread. You shouldn't care, and shouldn't present the ethics of whomever else you've discussed beforehand in relation to whom you're speaking to in this thread. I think random, wild Ad Hominems will never get you anywhere. And as far as I can remember you arguing politics on this board, it have never gotten you anywhere.

We don't care what sort of people you had discussed with in the past, and what their failings were. We don't care how we might be similar to them. It is simply not pertinent for the purposes of this discussion to liken anyone to anyone in your past. What you are doing is "x person in my past was an idiot, you are like x person, therefore also an idiot!'. You do this CONSTANTLY. You seem to be discussing with 'x persons' through us, not with us.

'Save time'? How about we don't save time.

[Nacho]

But Helm, that, preciselly, is what a high amount of people does with me (assuming that I am an "imperialist kid killer") when I talk of Iraq.

So, I guess we have a draw here.

[Helm]

Has anyone done this in this thread?

Furthermore, does this mean if your opposition in an argument falls at a logical fallacy, you're free now to do the same?

[Nacho]

Maybe not directly, but in this forums I have the feeling that I am "morally inferior" because I don't hate America more time than any non-masoquist soul can support.

And I don' t own a masoquist soul.

[Akatosh]

This may be a little off-topic, but... I never got how people could hate a country, anyway. You can hate people, you can hate groups of people, you can hate Jamba (ooooh yeah)... but a country? A country is a mere concept, some lines on a map. This is why you shouldn't say "America is this", "America is that", "America invaded Iraq"...

Fact is, Bush ordered all of this. So George W. Bush is the one to blame. He and his little helpers.

[Becky]

Nacho, I think if you read the posts here, no one hates America, they hate American foreign policy.

[Andail]

Apparently, some of the auto-named "pacifists" preffer a burning Iraq ensuring them victorious debate moments in the internet and coffee chats. Curious way of pacifism. That reminds me an anecdote that happend the day the war in Iraq ended (The day of the falling Saddam statue). I (the "fascist war-lover")was extremelly happy and I said in my college, loud: "Finally, it has ended". And a "pacifist" replied "No, it hasn' t... There is still some time where the Iraqis will kill those american bastards"

Are you one of those "pacifists"?

Hm, it's interesting that you don't see anything wrong with yourself celebrating how "the war in Iraq ended"...what ended, Nacho? Just because Bush pompously claimed "mission accomplished", didn't mean that anything ended. It's still happening.

You know what, Nacho, you've once again confused your own profound aversion against pacifists (because damn me if you don't take up various personal experiences you've had with pacifists every time debates like these arise) with what could actually pass as a reasonable argument.

Pacifists don't "prefer a burning Iraq" so that they can win debates, and you're being stupid and provokative for saying so. The fact is that Iraq is burning while we speak, we're having a debate about it, and we pacifists are saying war is wrong because it makes stuff burn, countries and puppies and people and such, that's why we think war is inherently wrong, and, seriously Nacho, I don't know what you think about it. The only thing that ever comes clear out of your debate posts is that you don't like pacifists.

[Nacho]

Read my post again. I placed the anecdote in the day where the Statue was destroyed. Most people thought the war was ended. If you didn' t, I admire your clarividency, but I don' t have that super powers.

Still, whereas I agree that I have aversion against some "pacifists", some people must consider recognising that they have a simillar degree of aversion towards a country.

And sorry, I won' t be provokative and again.

Ciao.

[Andail]

Read my post again. I placed the anecdote in the day where the Statue was destroyed. Most people thought the war was ended. If you didn' t, I admire your clarividency, but I don' t have that super powers.

I see that your idea of wars is that they are like computer games, which end after a certain symbolic act, like the capturing of a flag or destroying of a statue, and then everyone is happy and scores are awarded. 
It doesn't take super powers to understand that America's affairs in Iraq would have long-lasting consequences.

[EagerMind]

But those reasonings do not, to me, demonstrate that the foreign policy decisions of the United States have ensured the freedom of US citizens - especially when the surrounding policies of intelligence surrounding the "War on Terror" have demonstratably stripped away the civil freedoms of US citizens to an almost unconstitutional degree.

I think I see what you mean. But I think it's difficult to summarily evaluate something like the "War on Terror" because it's really a bunch of relatively distinct policy decisions with a common "theme." I think ultimately you need to look at each decision separately and evaluate their merits.

We invaded Afghanistan to destroy a terrorist organization (and the government that supported it) whose aim was basically to destroy our government and way of life and demonstrated a repeated ability to attack critical parts of our infrastructure. I think this is a fairly clear example of acting to protect our freedom - after all, much of our freedoms are enshrined in our government, our culture, and our way of life. Iraq, on the other hand ... not so much.

I think the domestic security issues that you're talking about is, again, another issue, and one that's raised its head before - the Red Scare in 1917-20, post-WWII McCarthyism, etc. I think it's a constant (and useful) reminder that we're always fighting to keep a balance between how much personal liberty we're willing to sacrifice in exchange for "security." It also goes to show why even in democratic societies we need to fight to exercise and protect our freedoms against those times when the government may step across the line.

It's casually making the entire middle east out to be a bunch of children that is so annoying.

And I think it's annoying and presumptuous to readily brandish racial stereotypes based on what appears be a deliberate mischaracterization of one person's analogy.

I am looking by answers by other people, american people, who aren't playing devil's advocate but who sincerily believe the US military action is serving their freedom and wellbeing.

Actually, I was responding specifically to Becky's question, and in such a way that I figured she could gain more information (which it turns out she already had) and make her own decisions. Sorry to have offended in taking this approach.

[Snarky]

At least for one, I am not any sort of pacifist or bleeding-heart humanitarian. A country can be in as much problems as it wants. It should never be enough for another country to step in with their military and say 'now we're going to solve your problem for you!'. EVEN IF THEY DO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, I am against that sort of imperialism. Diplomatic or economic pressure? Yes. Killing children to liberate children? No.

I, also, am not a pacifist. I would go even further than Helm and say that I think military intervention can be justified in many circumstances. This whole notion of absolute sovereignty is outmoded. If you neighbor hits his kids, you don't say "his house, he can do whatever he wants". In the same way, the community of nations should not let one country do whatever it likes to its citizens. (Of course, it's much more difficult because there's no global enforcer of law and order, so you essentially have to round up a posse and break down the neighbor's door. Still, rough justice can be better than no justice.)

There are many examples of how military intervention has suppressed or ended atrocities, from Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, to NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo, to Great Britain in Liberia. And of course there are examples where they have failed.

As "humanitarian" interventions go, the US invasion of Iraq is a disgrace. Actually helping the Iraqis was at best an afterthought in a war designed with short-sighted American and partisan interests in mind. Almost no thought was put into managing the aftermath (or, more precisely, the thought that had been put into it was overlooked and ignored), and consequently the country broke down into chaos.

I will freely admit that I supported the invasion initially. I thought the Iraqis would be better off under an American-installed government than under Saddam. This was naive, but as non-experts we all know all lot more about the internal strife in Iraq today than we did back in 2003. While I severely underestimated the difficulties of establishing a stable, free Iraq, I also dramatically overestimated the competence of American military and political policy-makers. It had never occurred to me (and it still boggles my mind) that the White House and the Pentagon didn't have a detailed and realistic plan for what to do once they had captured Baghdad, and made preparations just as carefully for the occupation as they did for the invasion. I mean, who does that?! Who thinks "Once we've captured the country everything will be OK. We can just wing it from there"? Unforgivable.

[Andail]

Eagermind, if you can come up with examples of how citizens of any other nation have actually threatened the freedom of the American citizens, maybe people like Helm will take interest in your arguments again.

Of course, those examples must not be disproportionately insignificant compared to how the American state assaults the freedom of its own people, because then the whole case will turn pretty academic.

Like this:
Random middle east citizen's (afghan, iraqi) threat to american citizens = X

Threat generated by the panic, the domestic hunt for terrorists, the fear and sense of insecurity of being a nation in war, the economical consequences of the military operation, the patriot act, etc = Y

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it, if X really outweigh Y. Cause I have this funny feeling that X is like really really tiny in comparison.