Thursday, November 24, 2005

Response to a previous post

Cubicle's last post has created commentary that is far in excess of the actual post. I would like to tackle some of it here. Previously published commentary will be in bold and italics.

1. That is nonsense. For any person of right mind i should be fairly simple to see that the terrorist are bad guys and America are the good guys. As to Iraq, it is fairly simple to see that they are caught up in a vicisous tribal warfare cycle that can only be ended by action from the outside. It worked out for the indians (gambling) and it will work out for the Iraqies if they rid theirselves of the bad guys.

Always assuming that you are righteous and morally correct is a sign of fascism. There should be some sort of standards to apply who is right or wrong. Never assume that America is always the good guy just because they are cutting your checks. Also, Iraq isn't plagued by tribal warfare. That's Afghanistan. We are mostly facing Zaqarwi's forces and former elements of the Baath party along with some foreign insurgents. BTW, American Indians are the most marginalized minority in our country. They used to be the sole inhabitants, but I guess those casinos really make up for it.

2. No, they don't have to the EXACTLy the same. What i am saying is that if their are no good reasons to have troops in Iraq (where the enemny is and fighting) then we have no good reason to be anywhere. If they army is not fighting the enemy, they they are useless and a waste of money.

You are right. We should just start an endless war to justify our military spending. (Oh wait we did). We can't cut our military spending because if we ever get in a position where we maintain standing armies in only half or three quarters of the world or come anywhere close to reducing our spending to the level of the second highest nation people will cry. And as a soldier I can tell you exactly what our purpose is. We stand ready to fight in order to deter war. When deterrence fails, we quickly and decisively defeat the enemies of the United States. This whole World Police kick isn't actually anywhere in our doctrine or policies.

3. you have a choice. You can either fight this war (iraq, afganistain, war on terror) or you can choose not to fight.If you choose not to fight you loose.

You also have a choice on how to fight, and you can choose solutions that ameliorate the situation rather than exacerbate it. How exaclty are we tying Iraq into the war on terror these days? Because they didn't train or harbor terrorists, it would seem logical that the war on terror could have been fought without invading Iraq. Then maybe Afghanistan would be the terrorist magnet, Al Qaeda wouldn't have a propaganda boost, and we could have better focused our efforts elsewhere.

Why is America a target of terrorism? Prosperity? Or a history of supporting tryants like Saddam? Are there any non-military solutions to terrorism (which is admittedly not exactly a military problem)? And if we are all about democracy and choice, then are we willing to deal with democratic countries that don't necessarily agree with us? Would we respect the wishes of the Iraqi people if they asked America to remove its military and corporations after their country stabilizes?

5 comments:

Cubicle said...

"There should be some sort of standards to apply who is right or wrong."

yes, but who? The only one i presently turst to make that judgement is the US and several other Key allies.

The UN as a whole has failed continously at that task.


"Also, Iraq isn't plagued by tribal warfare"

not outright, but there have been cases where certian groups have been targeted in order to create more tribal (or rather sectaian warfare)

"This whole World Police kick isn't actually anywhere in our doctrine or policies."

Unfortunatly that has changed. The last comment that I made had a few links to our current stragey.



"Would we respect the wishes of the Iraqi people if they asked America to remove its military and corporations after their country stabilizes? "

Presently that is the million dollar question. I think that we should, if there is a good chance they will not have a civil war.

The Iraqies are in fact already asking for that.

http://annika.mu.nu/archives/134919.html

Sandcastle said...

If there are standards for right and wrong, then they should be stated so that everyone can apply them. One administration should not be in charge of determining where and when they are applied. Example, is it worse to charge a country with defying a UN resolution (without presenting proof) or to go to war with that country against the rules set out in the UN Charter?

transientforeigner said...

I'll agree that one of the most, if not the most serious failing in Iraq has been the U.S.'s entire approach toward the conflict. Uniform standards are the most direct way to demonstrate objectivity. The U.S. has sought to straddle guiding lines throughout the conflict, whether it be the use of white phosphorous, the enemy combatant status, or the failure to work within the United Nations.

I have never argued that Saddam Hussein did not need to be deposed. I have never argued that there is not some good to be gained by a U.S. presence in Iraq. The U.S. has simply gone about the war badly and so badly that we now have likely undermined our own goals.

And Cubicle, I will assume that other readers will be able to understand the serious dangers of your reasoning and positions :"The only one i presently turst to make that judgement is the US and several other Key allies." and "For any person of right mind i should be fairly simple to see that the terrorist are bad guys and america are the good guys."

I only know of negative terms associated with that thinking: narrow-mindedness, ethnocentrism, fascism, group think... and of course the list goes on.

Cubicle said...

"I only know of negative terms associated with that thinking: narrow-mindedness, ethnocentrism, fascism, group think... and of course the list goes on."

If not america, then who?

The french (the ones on the take from Saddam.)

the UN (also on the take from saddam.)
the Chinnese (yea right)
other arab states (i doubt that).
Africa (can't solve their own problems)
Europe (want take action to save their own skin -i.e. Iran)
South America (agian, yea right)
The japs (If they actually had an army, i probably would trust them, but they don't)
The Jews (they only care about theirselves - I think woodrow wilson said that.)

I will again state - America is the only one i trust. You have yet to persent a reason why that is not true, you know - besides calling me a facist.

Present another workable and fair alternative that is plausblie. I would be willing to listen, but right now there is not one.

Cubicle said...

"The U.S. has simply gone about the war badly and so badly that we now have likely undermined our own goals."

I doubt that. We have done a fairly good job. I do not think anyone else could have done a better job than us. They would have either ran at the first death of a solider or would not have been able to substain the investment over the prolonged period of time.

Were there things we could have done better? Yes.
Could someone else have done better than the US? No.

As to undermining our goals. That is a very silly statment considering out goal was to bring demoracy to Iraq and we have made great strides on that point.