One reason why I hate this country...

[Helm]

I wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

Holy shit, I just realized after SSH posted that you effectively said that fighting the Italians and Germans when they invaded Greece in WWII were 'nationalist wars'. Wow. Very well-informed there.

[Snarky]

I don't have time right now to reply at length, but I do wish to say that it's ridiculously easy to wind you up, Helm. It's like you have this huge red button marked "Do Not Push!" that will just set you off. While it might be more responsible (though less entertaining) to not deliberately provoke you, you could also try to be less emotional about this political discussion.

I wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

Holy shit, I just realized after SSH posted that you effectively said that fighting the Italians and Germans when they invaded Greece in WWII were 'nationalist wars'. Wow. Very well-informed there.

Actually, you said that:

Greece has fought a bloody war with the Turks, then fought Italians, the Germans and finally had a civil war so we could have this outmodded ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY you speak of, and on which actually, our whole country rests upon.

I'll respond in detail later. In the mean time, you might want to look up "nationalism". You can start here and here.

[SSH]

I'll respond in detail later. In the mean time, you might want to look up "nationalism". You can start here and here.

Surely if you use the "love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it" definition of nationalism, then EVERY war is nationalistic, so tagging a war as nationalistic is pointless. Of course, since some people mean "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other" by nationalism, then tagging something that meets one definition, and then using another is confusing and potentially offensive.

[Andail]

When it comes to the dangers with having one aggressive military state acting without the support of the global community, attacking and invading other nations as it pleases it, USA constitutes a good example.
This is why I find it strange that people still choose to cling onto the idea that using military force whenever it tickles one's fancy can always be justified. It would be more understandable if USA did not have the history that it now in fact has.

It would be understandable if USA had a history of short, clinically planned military actions, fundamentally supported by the global community as well as their own population.

Tragically, USA has a history of lengthy, ill-planned, non-justified bloodbaths, and since Snarky is such a keen supporter of wikipedia, I'm sure he dig up references there.

Sometimes it feels like people are forgetting the past.

[esper]

This whole concept of internationalism as presented by Snarky certainly makes me think about the Third Reich. There's no balance of power. I purposely do not find myself inclined to investigate the inner workings of this American system of government, but from school I remember the system of "checks and balances" as they call it responsible for making sure the US government administration stays within the bounds of what is desirous of everyone involved. Why is America the international police force? Because it has the biggest weapons? Certainly not because it stands on the highest moral ground. And yet, there is NO ONE in the international scope who is capable of checking and balancing us. And when they try, we lay them waste. We're still moaning about the dead of 9-11, but we fail to note that we had before and have since caused the exact pain and suffering to others multiple times over. So, our people die and we go to war over it, but we put down the efforts of anyone else who goes to war because their people die? Who gives us the right? God? Is it because George Bush is a male Aryan Christian?

As is evident in the by-now-long-forgotten-by-us Boston incident, the United States government uses fear to control its people. The other tool it uses is patriotism. If you aren't afraid of imminent death at the hands of mad arabian terrorists, you think that the government has your best interests constantly in mind and everything they do is beneficial for you, thus making people stand up for ignorant concepts such as an international community. Goddammit, people don't want to be members of an international community. It's obvious Helm doesn't, so why force it on him? It's obvious I don't, so why force it on me? It's obvious everyone in the Middle East doesn't, so why force it on them? I've been to Kenya, Trinidad and Tobago, and up in the mountains of Mexico where few outsiders have ever been. These people could care less. They just want to be left on their own. They don't want things to change. The Masai thought my laptop was cool, but when the novelty had worn off they went back to trying to get me to drink reindeer blood. They have a way of doing things, and they are fiercely proud of it.

My fiancee is Chinese, from China, and is currently living in Datong city in Shanxi province.  You know what that silly girl told me she was most afraid of when she was here at college in America? She told me she was afraid that tall, bald black men sporting tatoos would gang rape her! She said she had been taught that such things happen all the time in America in her schools. I tried to explain to her that she lives in a Communist country and that was propaganda, but she didn't want to hear otherwise. She's happy just the way she is.

So why do you think internationalism is such a great thing? It sounds like a wonderful dream of a utopian society to some people, but those people need to realize they are not the only bloody people on earth!

America's only goal is the redistribution of wealth. We do NOT live in a country of the people,  by the people, and for the people unless said people are predisposed to be wealthy and can assist those in charge of the government to further their wealth. Everything is about money. This is not so much a country or a government as it is a really big industry, and people who are against it are scabs with kneecaps just waiting to be broken. The only reason we are in Iraq now is for their oil. It's obvious. We claim that intelligence showed they possessed WMD's, but where were they? No, the only real reason we had to invade was to control their oil. People on both sides are dying en masse because George W. Bush is an oil tycoon.

Furthermore, I'm a little tired of this whole lauding the nobility of the US soldiers... I have worked in a large hotel used primarily by soldiers in the second largest military intelligence training facility in the country, and I have seen nothing from these men and women but complete depravity. One of them was passing out pictures of Iraqi soldiers he had shot and killed. I used to hear them tell their war stories, and you could always tell when they were talking about a particularly gruesome battle when they started hooping, hollering, and cheering. I've worked in hotels all across the country, including one famous tourist landmark in Newport, Rhode Island, and I've never.... ever.... EVER had to have so many people removed by the police as at this hotel. I've never seen so many prostitutes go in and out of a hotel. And I have most definitely never heard anyone talk about shooting a ten year old girl in the god damn face with such a tremendous smile. (EDIT: I understand this is unfair to those men and women who, like Snarky or any of us would if we were US soldiers, believe their government is trying to do something good and are honestly, albeit blindly, fighting for freedom)

So this government can sodomize itself furiously without vaseline for all I care, as I'm sure it's soldiers have been doing to pubescent Iraqi girls for some time now.

[Andail]

Very good post, Esper.

And yeah, the trend that most people add the claim "....but don't get me wrong, I still support the troops" is mostly because they want to sooth the people they're debating with, by not breaking the final taboo; to criticise the brave soldier himself.

I personally think you're responsible for your own actions. If you kill a person, don't blame anyone else.
USA does not practise mandatory drafting, and even though poor teenagers might be gullible enough to actually join the army with good intentions, it's still a matter of choice.

Every time you hear an official person, or a talk show host or whoever, condemn the war, or at least mildly question the moral excuse for it, they will always end with "but God bless our troops, they fight for what they think is right, yadyadya.."

So damn tired of it. Most of them are soldiers because they enjoy shooting with big guns.

[TheYak]

I think you're confusing sentiments, Andail.  There is a difference between blindly proclaiming that we ought to support our troops, particularly when it's declared as a knee-jerk reaction to some perceived insult or "anti-patriotic" sentiment and supporting individuals that (while you might not agree with their actions) at least seem to be doing the wrong things for the right reasons. Likewise, supporting those who actually think they're doing something to help (and might be accomplishing something) versus those who are bragging about their conquests doesn't seem entirely warmongering. 

I will not blindly support every last troop in Iraq, but I have known several who've gone and returned, or gone and will never return that were good men.  From what I know of their character, they wouldn't have stooped to a default to violence, would protect innocents of the "enemy" side even at the risk of provoking their superiors and lead a perfectly normal and non-depraved life outside of their service. 

The reasons for joining military service are varied.  From having joined, served, and honorably discharged, I can speak from experience on this one.  In an economy that makes it difficult to support one's family, particularly providing health benefits, it made sense to me to join for the sake of my family, particularly during a more peaceful time when the likelihood that I would have to make decisions based upon my morality was minimal.  I'm enough of a non-violent person, that I had difficulty going to practice at the rifle range using silhouetted semi-human-shaped targets - not because the target-shooting wasn't enjoyable, but because I was forced to recall why I was training in the first place. 

On a different note, I'm surprised that more people aren't called out for their questioning of people's patriotism.  It's incredibly hypocritical to proclaim that you're patriotic and that you're also against fanatics (as the patriots would refer to the small percentage of Muslims that are fundamentalist jihadists).  Since patriotism refers to zealously defending one's nation, even at the cost of one's personal interests (i.e. being fanatical themselves) - often even blindly jumping to the defense of it, it disgusts me that it becomes the default verbal position while they condemn Iraqi nationalists in debate yet live their lives in such an apathetic fashion. 

Also, I appreciate Helm's raving response.  There were a couple of declarations of when it was acceptable..  no, necessary to enter military conflict that defined my feelings on the matter more succinctly than I've been able to thus far.  I've realized that it isn't practical to do away with the military and stay out of all conflict, but feel stupid for not having been able to phrase my stance on when it's necessary in so few words.
[edited. My grammar's going to shit]

[Helm]

I don't have time right now to reply at length, but I do wish to say that it's ridiculously easy to wind you up, Helm. It's like you have this huge red button marked "Do Not Push!" that will just set you off. While it might be more responsible (though less entertaining) to not deliberately provoke you, you could also try to be less emotional about this political discussion.

You are ridiculous and I have no further interest in discussing with you. You 'riled me up' so I guess you win the internet! Congratulations. Hopefully the other paticipators in this thread, both vocal and silent have a better understanding of a political argument than your 'American Gladiators' method, and have drawn their own conclusions. I retreat from this thread.

[LimpingFish]

An interesting view on the concept of chain-of-command and the soldier as an individual entity, and not just a drone, is here.

[Snarky]

You are ridiculous and I have no further interest in discussing with you. You 'riled me up' so I guess you win the internet! Congratulations. Hopefully the other paticipators in this thread, both vocal and silent have a better understanding of a political argument than your 'American Gladiators' method, and have drawn their own conclusions. I retreat from this thread.

:

Oh chill!

The quality of political debate on forums such as this is incredibly low anyway, and most of the attraction is to observe how "regular people" think as opposed to the experts, intellectuals and other pundits who contribute to political journals. That can be enlightening, but rarely because of the substance of the opinion.

As for the rest, this forum is recreational, and I don't see a problem with getting some entertainment out of the discussion. I will strike a more conciliatory note from now on, though, in case you wish to calm down.

I actually think we agree on the big issues (much as you pooh-pooh human rights, I don't think you actually approve of them being violated), if you would just stop making assumptions about who I am.

Instead the US directly and indirectly helped the coup happen, and supported the dictatorship for as long as it was in effect. As it had done similarly for a lot of countries with left-leaning powers of influence as very well know. You inconsiderate person. You should be more careful.

Yeah, the US has done a lot of bad things, and that's definitely one of them. You can add installing of the Shah in Iran. Its meddling in Latin America has been almost universally malign. Absolutely despicable stuff. No argument there.

I still think that a (realistic, well-thought through, last-resort) UN military action to overthrow the junta would have been a good thing.

I am not a nationalist. If you use that term to mean 'person who believes that countries should be sovereign' you inconsiderate person, you should know that a nationalist is one that believes his country to be better than the countries of others. That is something you accuse me of without any grounding. I don't know about your country, but that, in Greece, the insinuation that one is a nationalist, especially when leveled against people of the left (such as I) is an insult. It was uncalled for. You should be more careful. You should be thinking more about how to have a conversation over politics without insulting people, rather than what to tell them to piss them off even more. This isn't a court-room and you're not winning any points by brow-beating your opposition.

It was not an insult. I am not intimately familiar with political jargon in Greece, but "nationalism" is a well-established term in English that rather accurately labels the views you have argued. Not incidentally, the Greek Revolution is the canonical example of nationalistic political revolt (nationalism later led to the unifications of Italy and Germany, Irish independence, Finnish independence, etc.).

Yes. Our culture has come to believe that there are universal human rights; standards that should apply everywhere.

Supporting one unrealistic demand with another. Nice going. 'Our' culture, does not exist. The western world has a lot of different aspects to it and to collapse it all into a coalesched nothing like you do is a huge disservice to the individual nations and their history, politics, ethics and law. EXACTLY because the west isn't one thing, we don't agree. This discussion is proof of the opposite of your bullshit claim. 'Human rights' are just a piece of paper (and leverage) when a country strong-arms its way around based on superior military like the US does. And you have the audacity to talk to me about human rights.

I think there certainly is an "our" culture. Not just a western culture, but an emerging global culture. Just because we have disagreements doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm sure you have disagreements with other Greeks, too. Whether you like it or not, the concept of human rights has been adopted by all western nations, and many others, too.

It is not just used to strong-arm nations. In many nations where it is enshrined in law, it provides legal protection (or at least legal recourse) against all kinds of abuses. It is used to prosecute perpetrators of atrocities and war crimes. And it provides the underpinnings for the moral condemnation of outrages such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Whenever someone is being mistreated somewhere, the agreed-upon basis for talking about it is in terms of human rights.

Is it sometimes used as a pretext for military actions that are really motivated by other interests? Of course. But states have always come up with excuses for going to war (the one excuse you are ready to accept, self defense, is one of the most commonly used). In fact, that human rights are seen as a palatable rationale just shows that they are highly respected and considered legitimate.

(And I remember that Greece was one of the few western nations that opposed this action, so I know you may not agree.)

Why do you equate me with my country? I do not support PASOK (in power for about 40 years before giving it up for), NEA DIMOKRATIA (currently in power). I am in the left of both.

You associated me with the foreign policy of a country that isn't even mine. Besides, in your post right before mine you condemned NATO's Kosovo action, so it wasn't just idle speculation on my part.

What has nationalism got to show for itself other than a history of wars and a mindset of chauvinism and xenophobia?

I detest your insinuation that I am a nationalist, or that supporting my country's constitution, for which THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED makes me a xenophobe or a chauvinist.

Nationalism is the accurate term for your political philosophy. The word has attracted a secondary meaning of belief in national supremacy. Why? Because historically, nationalism has often been associated with chauvinism. Now, it is my belief that this is no coincidence, that the philosophy of national sovereignty above all, when it is implemented, promotes a jingoistic mindset.

That is not to say that I believe you personally hold those attitudes. I just think that your political ideas are flawed because they lead to a situation where such prejudices will dominate. (Just as I would argue with an idealistic, utopian socialist that her principles were flawed because they would lead to totalitarianism, even if she did not approve of tyranny herself.)

You talk about being an internationalist... you're using the term as a scapegoat. A true internationalist would be tolerant of other peoples and their ways, even if they go against those 'human rights' you speak of. An 'internationalist' that is only such when and only when everybody else in the world agrees to play along with their own set of arbiterate rules is not anything other than a dictator.

As an internationalist, I believe it is better for the world to exist as a single community, which rules for acceptable and unacceptable behavior of its members (individual states), rather than each country looking out only for themselves, letting others fend for themselves and act however they like as long as they are not themselves directly affected. Just as it is better for people to live in an organized society than in a state of anarchy where it is every man for himself.

I think that community is just starting to take shape. The UN, as I mentioned, is an important expression of that. The unilateral US action in Iraq was not really a move in that direction (which was one of my main reservations before the invasion), but by backfiring so spectacularly it may actually have pushed us further towards that.

In some ways, the current situation can be compared to the period in the US known as "the Wild West", when settlers were moving into the American interior and to the west coast. At first, these people had little in terms of organized communities. Each man had to protect himself and his family from native Americans, gangsters, con-men and usurers. Survival was often a matter of kill-or-be-killed, and had little to do with justice. If someone didn't bother you, it was none of your business what he might have done to someone else. That's what the world used to be like on the nation-state level until recently.

These people did the best they could, however. They banded together, and towns and groups of farms tried to create some semblance of civilization. They appointed sheriffs, and sometimes they would form a posse (or a lynch mob). Was this perfect? Absolutely not. Due process was a matter of luck at best. Most were deeply racist and often suspicious of outsiders. Corruption and gaming the system was rife.

Within a relatively short time, though, the West was not so Wild any more. The makeshift communities had done one thing: they had provided a measure of security, enough for a real modern society to take hold. Law and order followed. Still not perfect, of course (and it sucked for the native Americans), but better than the state of nature "red in tooth and claw" it had started out as? Most definitely.

I hope and think the world is following that same path. Human rights will be a part of the foundation for the international society to follow: part of what makes each state and each individual feel secure enough to afford their neighbors the same rights.

I believe in creating and strenghtening a community of nations, a brotherhood of man that is above borders and state lines.

Under whose authority. Who stands to benefit? Geopolitical powerplay isn't a fairy tale. Somebody's doing some convincing and somebody is put in a tight situation. Some nations go to war, people die. The power balance shifts. This is the way it was, this is the way it'll always be. Proof? Since the UN and the EU and NATO have formulated, there have been wars around the world. A lot of them. There will still be wars. I have absolutely no faith in 'a world without borders' and this is why I am interested in the continued survival of my own country and that only. Not because it is better than someone elses, not because it has a right to exist more than any other. But because it is always under threat by the vast, obscene, immoral monstrosity that is the true law of geopolitics: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Don't hide behind your finger, don't say it isn't so. The US isn't persuing a western-world-human-rights agenda, it's persuing a US-POWER agenda. It is clear as day to anyone that can look at the historical facts and is, of course, inclined to speak the truth.

Although recent history can look pretty bleak, a longer historical view reveals that people are probably better off now than they have ever been in the past. Of course, Europe in particular has seen an unprecedented degree of peace since WWII. It is at least frequently argued that the EU has been a contributing factor to this stability. (I have no idea whether they're right or not.)

Part of what a global community would do is to protect the weak from the abuses of the mighty. Much like a state (that respects human rights) does within its borders. Sure, the little guy still gets screwed by the big guy (as you say, this is the way of the world, and will probably always be so), but within limits. You're not at the complete mercy of everyone who comes by who could take you in a fight.

Having an interest in the continued survival of your own country and that only (aka "nationalism") is kind of like supporting your neighborhood gang because they protect you against the other gangs around you, and because you're lucky enough that your particular gang hasn't raped anyone lately. Instead, maybe it would be better to curb the power of the gangs, have them all police each other so that none of them can make any mischief.

Yes, part of why I believe in a stronger international community is that it would decrease America's ability to act unilaterally, without "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Still, I would argue that while American actions abroad have sometimes been loathsome, they have at other times been laudable, and that if you look at the history of Great Powers, the US is better than most. Part of the reason for that, I think, is that the US has (occasionally) realized that it is in its own interests to help others. (The obvious and familiar examples are the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan.)

And I don't think you know the first thing about my country's foreign policy. Do you even know where I'm from?

Are you a german living in the US? I am talking about the US. And I know enough about the US foreign policy.

Norwegian, but close enough. And US foreign policy is a reliable cause of frustration and anger for me.

Sometimes, it's better to take action, knowing that it's likely you will end up killing dozens or hundreds of kids, than it is to sit idly by and let thousands be massacred. Inaction is also a kind of action, and you have a responsibility for the consequences of that, too.

Who made you god? I totally oppose this ethical viewpoint. Killing is the last resort for those under the threat of death. War is the last resort of the country defending its existence. Anything more than that is moral bankruptcy.

So then you are willing to stand idly by as innocents are hacked to death by government-sponsored millitias in some foreign country? As minority groups are forced out of their homes and sent on death marches? As political dissenters are slaughtered in the streets or "disappeared" down into torture chambers?

I can not accept that, and I'm willing to support the use of force to stop it. Yes, that requires me to take moral responsibility for the victims of that action. But your stance requires you to take moral responsibility for the victims of the inaction. I would find that a far heavier burden.

[Alynn]

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.

Yeah this is late, but I just happened to read this post.

Anyway, yes, the Iraqi people want us out... I don't have exact figures, but last I heard most polls the majority of US people wanted us out... Well why aren't we out? Two words... The Governments.

The Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave (to my knowledge), and Bush doesn't want us to leave. Therefore, the troops are staying. End of Line (Tron reference, not arrogance).

No, I don't beleive that had the US invaded before September 11th that the attack would have ceased, in fact, it may have been accelerated.

This isn't a short term change. We are talking over 10-20 years. While working with the Iraqi's that worked for us, they are just normal people, and they learned about us the way we learned about them, by deeds and actions. They were just good guys. Doing what they could to support their families, many of them from our work force left when the Iraqi army was formed to join it, one told me on his last day of work that it was because he saw how proud we were of our country, and he wanted to be proud of his.

Iraq doesn't have much, it's a dirty, dusty dingy country, there are dumps everywhere, and people live in those dumps. Some spend their entire existance rooting through trash. People don't have much to look forward to, or live for, after quite a few years of that I'm sure I'd have some background hatered. So when someone comes along that can convince you to direct that hatred toward a source of your misfortune (even if that source has nothing to do with your misfortune) using your ignorance of that source to convince you to kill them.

For those 35 people that worked for us, they aren't ignorant of the US, at least, of the small group of a couple hundred soldiers that they talked to and worked with on a daily basis. Anti US propaganda is less likely to work on someone that is more informed of who the US people are.


Now as far as keeping a hold on a region to not let the terrorists win... Thats just Bush BS. More shit to feed the non thinking Reps. Terrorism is an idea, not a country, and the unfortunate side effect of this whole thing is that Bush set a presidence on invading countries that harbor terrorists. This, honestly, scares me to death, because I could really see this type of situation (if it happens, with Dems pretty much guaranteed to take the office come next year it seems that there will be an exit plan within the next 4 years) escalating into the third world war.

All in all, I'm what I call an internalist. Personally, if I were president, unless it directly impacts my people of my country, I'll just leave it alone, perhaps at best make a statement. We have too many broke things within our own borders that need that money that is right now being sent for boots and bullets in the desert. The moral high ground global police force thing needs to stop, instead, lets fix the education system, the healthcare system, etc.

[Nikolas]

All in all, I'm what I call an internalist. Personally, if I were president, unless it directly impacts my people of my country, I'll just leave it alone, perhaps at best make a statement. We have too many broke things within our own borders that need that money that is right now being sent for boots and bullets in the desert. The moral high ground global police force thing needs to stop, instead, lets fix the education system, the healthcare system, etc.

Exactly! But this is what most people fail to understand because it's been covered by everything else outside the US, that involves the US. Everybody is talking about Iraq and everything else, but no one seems to be talking about Boston anymore. Heck this thread started about Boston goverment stupidity and ended discussing (once again) foreign US policy, for which to be frank 99% of the members here (including me) have no clue actually.

There are two issues that I've been thinking after snarkys' long post (regarding the Junda actually), so here they are:

It appears that US/NATO/Europe did nothing in the case of Junta, don't know if it's good or bad, per se, but my fear is what would've come afterwards, had the US came in. You see taking down Junta is not a bad thing, not at all, but afterwards leaving Karamanlis (for example), or Papandreou (who was anti-american) out, and choosing a lovely royal maybe, or at least american controled goverment would not be very nice.

And that's the problem in all the prementioned cases, Iraq etc... The US comes in, does everything nice and good, and then stays "to secure that everything will flow nicely". But, to do that it makes sure that "the goverment is not influenced by anyone (except the west *ahem*)"... And so on...

I don't think that Hussein coming down is a bad thing, but the US staying there, it is!

Second thing I've been thinking is how come exactly US did not came after Junta, or the former president of Syria (a *tyran* for 30 something years), or Hussein for 20 years now, but came after Milochevich, almost immediately (few years that is), and Hussein now, and Vietnam pretty soon after... Where is the line where a tyran needs overthrowing as fast as possible, and another doesn't matter if he stays there for ever?

Now I'm not implying at all that there are are motives to the US foreign policy. What I'm saying (becasue I realised that it was not clear fro mthe above paragraph at all), is that some countries have actually benefited from the presence of tyrans.  Syria being one, Iraq being one, not Vietnam, not former Yogoslavia, etc. Note that I'm talking about countries, meaning that I'm not talking about the citizens, but the country as a country. (don't know how else to say this really).

Oh, btw, troops are following orders, that's a fact for me. And the army does make you... some kind of monster, like the ones esper describes... (Not that being so brutal will come down to "I was following orders", but being there it comes down to exactly that).

[Andail]

Snarky, it seems you have composed an extremely extensive post that only focuses on one idea, on one "vision". It would be interesting if you could touch upon the means of pursuing that sort of global ideal community, because, even though you're primarily a private insultant, I think you make many good points.

I agree with you (and would go farther than Helm in that respect) that it's not morally injustifiable to apply pressure on a certain state to change the direction of its political "course" so to speak, as long as it's not carried out unilaterally, but with the support of e.g. UN and globally agreed upon documents, like the charter for human rights.

My fundament in this case is that this cannot be obtained by external brute force. Not by military action. Not ever. Violent uprisers maybe, but not an invading force.
You mentioned how the invasion of Iraq backfired in a way that almost benefited the UN, simply because it became blatant what a bad decision it was. Well, to many of us it was blatant even before it happened. It shouldn't have had to happen. We have a history to lean on, we have the Vietnam, we have South America, we already know what's working and what's not.

My horror scenario is that USA starts bombing Iran now as well. My girlfriend has friends and family still left in Iran. In Iran people are enlightened and educated, the underground culture scene is vibrant and groundbreaking, people are hospitable and relatively western-friendly. Persians are not Arabs, they have less reason to be pissed off at westernes, and if you would travel there people would invite you for dinner. Persians always invite you for dinner.
So far.

Unfortunately, the people have still not managed to rise up against their leaders, the revolution is still to take place. The president of Iran is a psycho, a warmongering chauvinist who keeps challenging USA and UN mostly because he has some sort of illusions of grandeur.
What the global community can do, is to pour money into the oppositional movements in Iran, they can reach the young people via the internet, they can strengthen the democratical network, maybe even help installing political figures and pay their campaigns (and this figure should not be installed to serve the economical purposes of USA, as has always been the case before). Apply pressure, but not with bombs.

Now, in the end the revolution in Iran may turn out bloody. Trust me, I may sometimes refer to myself as pacifist, but I'm also a keen enthusiast of student revolts, and I know that in the end, a leader may have to be thwarted violently.
But it must be Iran's own revolution, and it must be allowed to take time. It must not be americans bomb, it must be Persian sticks and stones and banners and slogans.

The moment the first american (or Israeli) bomb drops on the soil of Iran, a certain percentage of its people will start to support their president instead, and a certain percentage will start to grow hostile and suspicious towards USA and in extension the global community.

Of course, all this applies to Iraq as well, only in Iraq it's too late now.

[SSH]

You mentioned how the invasion of Iraq backfired in a way that almost benefited the UN, simply because it became blatant what a bad decision it was. Well, to many of us it was blatant even before it happened. It shouldn't have had to happen. We have a history to lean on, we have the Vietnam, we have South America, we already know what's working and what's not.

Well, to be fair to the USA, I can see how the Afghan invasion (which was multilateral: most troops were Afghan Northern Alliance in fact, supported by UN resolutions and less dodgy than the Iraq invasion in most people's eyes, IMHO) had convinced it that it would have not much insurgency and post-invasion trouble. The insurgency in Afghanistan only really took off after the Iraq invasion, although there had been a few signs in January 2003.

Of course, they failed to appreciate:

1. The Ba'athists might be ready for insurgency faster than the Taliban
2. Many probably saw Afghanistan as a direct revenge for 9/11 and to some extent "fair enough". Iraq was nowhere near "fair" in anyone excpet the most hawkish's eyes.
3. Iraq was unilateral, rather than multilateral
amongst other things...

And of course, I'm just talking about the practicalities of post-invasion here, rather than any ethical basis of the invasion.

[Snarky]

My fundament in this case is that this cannot be obtained by external brute force. Not by military action. Not ever. Violent uprisers maybe, but not an invading force.
You mentioned how the invasion of Iraq backfired in a way that almost benefited the UN, simply because it became blatant what a bad decision it was. Well, to many of us it was blatant even before it happened. It shouldn't have had to happen. We have a history to lean on, we have the Vietnam, we have South America, we already know what's working and what's not.

Well, the point I made earlier is that military intervention has worked in the past. I brought up Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, the NATO campaigns in the former Yugoslavia, and the British intervention in Liberia. As SSH points out, Afghanistan looked reasonably successful for a while, too. (I'm not sure whether the current setbacks were inevitable or are due to mismanagement. Probably a combination.)

And of course, in the back of our minds is always Rwanda and Bosnia, where slowness or failure to act allowed horrible things to happen. The same thing is happening in Darfur right now. Janjaweed killers are committing genocide against the people there, with the support and help of the military. The government sits in Khartoum and refuses any attempt to stop it, or to help the victims, on the basis of "national sovereignty". So nothing happens, and the massacres go on. Yeah, excuse me if I don't rank respect for national sovereignty very high on my list of priorities.

A string of recent successes with using military force to end wars and atrocities, and shame over the failures in Rwanda and Bosnia, caused some of us to put too much faith in the ability of an army to solve problems as big as Iraq. The debacle there is a gruesome reminder of the limitations of force. For example, although I'm disgusted with the world's failure to do something about Darfur, I wouldn't recommend just sending in troops to impose peace against the government's will. The genocide is all tied up with Sudans multiple ongoing civil wars and its brewing wars with its neighbors. Taking sides in all those conflicts is not going to do anyone credit. But: Putting an essentially unlimited amount of pressure on Khartoum to force them to accept peace keeping troops; that's probably a much better idea.

[Andail]

I think in a close-up perspective, there have been military interventions that have been successful, yes.
To create long-term stability, you need to make the world used to solving matters diplomatically. The recent intermezzos have increased the tension in the world again; USA is producing weapons like never before and their defense budget is astronomical. Israel makes ambiguous allusions towards nuclear weapons, Korea as well as Iran are directly challenging USA with threats about WMD's.

USA has lost its role as a nonpartial mediator. The world is getting even more polarized; middle-east versus the west. Terrorists thrive. You can be as sceptical as you want about this dystopian scenario (and claim that it's better now than in the middle ages or whatever) but I think you must agree that USA once had a really really good chance of becoming a true role model, the perfect mediator, but that chance is lost, and it will take ages to mend that reputation.

One way to lower the tension between A and B is if A takes advantage of the forces and movements that already exist inside B, and applies pressure with pr and money and good examples.

And then again, sure, in a few isolated occassions of on-going and immediate genocide, a well-planned and multi-laterally founded intervention can be justified.

[DGMacphee]

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?

Yeah this is late, but I just happened to read this post.

Anyway, yes, the Iraqi people want us out... I don't have exact figures, but last I heard most polls the majority of US people wanted us out... Well why aren't we out? Two words... The Governments.

The Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave (to my knowledge), and Bush doesn't want us to leave. Therefore, the troops are staying. End of Line (Tron reference, not arrogance).

Understandibly, but you do realise that the same purpose for fighting the war (to stop Anti-American sentiment in the region) is actually doing the opposite (creating more Anti-American sentiment)? That's was more my point, the hypocrisy of the purpose.

No, I don't beleive that had the US invaded before September 11th that the attack would have ceased, in fact, it may have been accelerated.

Thanks for answering this, though I should mention that the comments about linking the Democrats with the terrorists was me going off on a tangent and wasn't specifically aimed at you.

[Alynn]

Honestly though, what invasion/occupation is looked on favorably at the time? This is one of those situations where we don't have the luxury of hindsight. This is something that will only have a full effect impact in a decade or two, when people will have hindsight.

[DGMacphee]

Honestly though, what invasion/occupation is looked on favorably at the time? This is one of those situations where we don't have the luxury of hindsight. This is something that will only have a full effect impact in a decade or two, when people will have hindsight.

Are you kidding me??

Dude, at the time (I'm talking March 2003) the Bush Administration had a 70 per cent plus  approval rating. (http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm)

Likewise, most polls of that time indicated a 70 per cent plus favourability rating for Iraq War. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

I think that's a fairly good indicator of invasion/occupation being looked on as favorably at the time.

And if you really want to talk hindsight, look at the public response during the Iraq War compared to now. In fact, speaking of hindsight, four years ago Cheney was saying the US would be greeted as liberators. Bullshit!

I mean, c'mon, you gotta be kidding me with this "hindsight" nonsense.

[LimpingFish]

Next stop...IRAN! Thank you, Elizabeth Cheney et al.