Where does the fear come from?

[Catawba]

alright, so you would go with Option 1, which is a de facto support? do nothing, as (for example) we did in Rwanda?

Wrong, I am not suggesting no action. My suggestion was withholding support from dictators, which is what we should have done with Saddam.

 

[cpwill]

no action is support; as it causes you to naturally extend to them both political and economic ties that strengthen the regime.

 

[justabubba]

yeah, that's a nasty case. given that i rather doubt that any wealth from trade would end up with the people, I'd have to go with political and economic isolation, hoping that eventually the regime would collapse and we could move in, or it would be possible to partner with China (or preferably India) in such a venture.

1. Do Nothing ...

2. Soft Pressure: this involves economic sanctions and cutting regimes off from international interaction. inevitably, dictatorial regimes are not about to put the good of their people above their own, and so the general populace is hardest hit by this pressure. Liberals then accuse the United States of waging economic war not on the dictator, but against the people, and lay the subsequent suffering at our feet.

3. Support Regime Change ...

so, you have selected the second option of soft pressure
color me dubious that liberals would suggest that would result in waging economic war against the burmese population
making your conclusion - to put it starkly - wrong

it is significant that your criterion for choosing between soft pressure and regime change is whether the USA would realize economic gain (wealth from trade was your description)
clearly, such a decision has nothing to do at all with achieving democracy, or facilitating freedom, or ridding the world of an evil menace, but that it has everything to do with enhancing American wealth as an outcome of active regime change

i do thank you for your honest answer, which enabled this acute illustration of the real underlying motivations as an active sponsor of regime change

 

[Catawba]

no action is support; as it causes you to naturally extend to them both political and economic ties that strengthen the regime.

Providing financial and military support to a dictator is an action. An idiotic action, but one that we took none the less.

I suggest we not take that action in the future.

 

[cpwill]

so, you have selected the second option of soft pressure

as a temporary measure until hard power becomes 1 tenable and 2 more likely to do more good than harm.

color me dubious that liberals would suggest that would result in waging economic war against the burmese population
making your conclusion - to put it starkly - wrong

really. i tell you what - look over the past 100 or so pages of this and the "creating terrorists" thread, and count for me how many times catawba and others have accused the US of being responsible for 100K Iraqi deaths due to the sanctions.

:doh

it is significant that your criterion for choosing between soft pressure and regime change is whether the USA would realize economic gain (wealth from trade was your description)

actually if you'll reread you'll notice that the criterion there was whether the people of Burma would realize that economic gain

clearly, such a decision has nothing to do at all with achieving democracy, or facilitating freedom, or ridding the world of an evil menace

actually that consideration does; Fareed Zakaria in particular has done some very interesting work arguing that the maintenance of a stable liberal democracy is impossible without a solid middle class. frankly, i'm not positive he's correct, but it's a legitimate argument that we should see played out in the next couple of centuries.

 

[cpwill]

Providing financial and military support to a dictator is an action. An idiotic action, but one that we took none the less.

:shrug: and providing that support is also generally the inevitable result of inaction.

 

[Catawba]

:shrug: and providing that support is also generally the inevitable result of inaction.

In Saddam's case what was the previous inaction that caused us in the 80's under the Reagan Administration to have Iraq removed from the terrorist states listing and doing business with him for oil, and providing him with a precursor needed for the internationally banned mustard gas, that he later used against his own people?

 

[High Noon]

In Saddam's case what was the previous inaction that caused us in the 80's under the Reagan Administration to have Iraq removed from the terrorist states listing and doing business with him for oil, and providing him with a precursor needed for the internationally banned mustard gas, that he later used against his own people?

Im gonna have to daps that bud, DAPS (low-five)

Catawbas completely correct in those regards, This country and previous administrations have been comfortable with "no-accountability" as long as it was financially or politically wise to do so, consider the weapons to afghanistan to stave off communist encroachment, which later on (exo-facto, TODAY) we are having to deal with... kinda the same isht dont you think...

 

[cpwill]

In Saddam's case what was the previous inaction that caused us in the 80's under the Reagan Administration to have Iraq removed from the terrorist states listing and doing business with him for oil, and providing him with a precursor needed for the internationally banned mustard gas, that he later used against his own people?

it wasn't any inaction on our part; it was action on Iran's part that caused that. What I am pointing out is that maintaining regular diplomatic, political, and economic ties with dictatorial regimes strengthens them by extending them political legitimacy, an air of inevitability, and economic power.

 

[Catawba]

:shrug: and providing that support is also generally the inevitable result of inaction.

it wasn't any inaction on our part; it was action on Iran's part that caused that. What I am pointing out is that maintaining regular diplomatic, political, and economic ties with dictatorial regimes strengthens them by extending them political legitimacy, an air of inevitability, and economic power.

Oh, let me catch up with your moving of the goal posts. Let's see, first you said our support was the result of inaction. Then later, you said, it wasn't any inaction on our part?

Which one do you want to go with?

Reagan removing Iraq from the Terrorist State Listing, establishing economic ties, and providing them components for internationally banned WMD, helped Saddam retain his power.

 

[cpwill]

Reagan removing Iraq from the Terrorist State Listing, establishing economic ties, and providing them components for internationally banned WMD, helped Saddam retain his power.

yes, and we did that because of Iran.

....do you really need this too explained to you?

 

[Catawba]

yes, and we did that because of Iran.

....do you really need this too explained to you?

So unethical behavior in aiding and abetting a dictator with internationally banned WMD, and who murders his own people is OK by you as long as it suits your desires at the present? Is that your rationale?

 

[cpwill]

desires? no, we didn't frankly like either of those countries, and wished both of them could lose. but the fact was that one of them would win, and we would rather it be the (slightly) less worse of the two.


sometimes you have to help out Stalin if you want to beat Hitler. one of those unfortunate realities that the "oh we can just make only pure happy flower kitten decisions" crowd doesn't seem to grasp.

 

[Catawba]

desires? no, we didn't frankly like either of those countries, and wished both of them could lose. but the fact was that one of them would win, and we would rather it be the (slightly) less worse of the two.

sometimes you have to help out Stalin if you want to beat Hitler. one of those unfortunate realities that the "oh we can just make only pure happy flower kitten decisions" crowd doesn't seem to grasp.

Sort of like playing God with the ethics of the Devil. Yeah, I think I got it!

Just like with the terrorists, the ends justify the means!

 

[cpwill]

:shrug: trying to make the best of only bad choices, more like. we live in a fallen world that doesn't always afford us the luxury of good ones.

and for probably the umpteenth time; the "ends justify the means" charge is crap since everyone believes it. it's the equivalent of saying "well you think we should do X!" when the person, is, in fact, advocating X.

 

[Catawba]

:shrug: trying to make the best of only bad choices, more like. we live in a fallen world that doesn't always afford us the luxury of good ones.

and for probably the umpteenth time; the "ends justify the means" charge is crap since everyone believes it. it's the equivalent of saying "well you think we should do X!" when the person, is, in fact, advocating X.

Please rephrase, I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[cpwill]

Sort of like playing God with the ethics of the Devil.

not really "playing God"; but picking the best among a set of bad alternatives. sometimes if you want to beat hitler you have to ally with stalin.

the ends justify the means!

is a meaningless statement, thrown out there by sophomores who have taken a poli sci class and now think they are, like, so much more in-tune, up to date, and wiser than their father.

 

[Catawba]

not really "playing God"; but picking the best among a set of bad alternatives. sometimes if you want to beat hitler you have to ally with stalin.

is a meaningless statement, thrown out there by sophomores who have taken a poli sci class and now think they are, like, so much more in-tune, up to date, and wiser than their father.

If we sacrifice our ethics in the process, it makes us no better than those we condemn.

 

[cpwill]

If we sacrifice our ethics in the process, it makes us no better than those we condemn.

what part of "no good options" do you not understand?

 

[Catawba]

what part of "no good options" do you not understand?

The radical Muslims use the same excuse for their unethical actions. How else do they defend Muslim lands from foreign occupation from superior forces?

With terrorists actions which we deplore as unethical.

Like John Prine said so well, "Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore, its already overcrowded from your dirty little war."

 

[cpwill]

The radical Muslims use the same excuse for their unethical actions. How else do they defend Muslim lands from foreign occupation from superior forces?

plenty of different ways. you're not a terrorist if you're attacking uniformed troops; then you are an insurgent. you are still being immoral for the simple reason that you are placing civilians in danger by not wearing a uniform (which is why Geneva Accord protections don't apply to you.). you're a terrorist when you start targeting and attempting to maximize casualties in civilian populaces.

With terrorists actions which we deplore as unethical.

yeah. because they have better options, and they choose not to take them.

Like John Prine said so well, "Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore, its already overcrowded from your dirty little war."

:roll: whatever. some people are just unable to unhook their emotion from their logic. which is why you are fundamentally unable to deal with this reality.

 

[Catawba]

plenty of different ways. you're not a terrorist if you're attacking uniformed troops; then you are an insurgent.

Or a foreign resistance fighter. Either way, they know they are hopelessly out gunned against our superior conventional weapons. They take terrorists options because it is their best option. Just as you claim our providing components for the internationally banned mustard gas and supporting Saddam financially despite our knowing he was murdering his own people was our best option. Just as you claim our targeting civilians safe drinking water supplies was our best option.

There is no moral difference.

you are still being immoral for the simple reason that you are placing civilians in danger by not wearing a uniform (which is why Geneva Accord protections don't apply to you.). you're a terrorist when you start targeting and attempting to maximize casualties in civilian populaces.

Or knowingly do it as we did.

yeah. because they have better options, and they choose not to take them.

How would you defend borders from a foreign occupation of a hopelessly superior force?

Did we have better options than targeting the safe water supplies of civilians?

Did we have better options when we became the first country to use nuclear weapons on a civilians?

:roll: whatever. some people are just unable to unhook their emotion from their logic. which is why you are fundamentally unable to deal with this reality.

You mean some are unable to unhook their morals to defend immoral actions by our side. It is why many of us are fundamentally unable to accept that our country behave no better that terrorists.

At least the terrorist do it for defense and ideology. We do it for control of their oil.

 

[cpwill]

firstly, i would like to say that i am intensely amused at how justabubba automatically thanks all your posts. is he a separate identity that you crafted for the purpose of agreeing with yourself, or is he really just a Me Too with bad judgment?

Or a foreign resistance fighter.

:lol: who is operating as an insurgent. that's sort of like saying that Cpl Smith isn't a soldier, he's a high-school football player from Ohio who just happened to join the Army after he graduated.

Either way, they know they are hopelessly out gunned against our superior conventional weapons.

if they wanted to stand up in a kinetic linear battle, yes. but not just our superior conventional weapons; but our training, doctrine, logistics, and so forth.

which is why they utilize guerrilla tactics. which in and of itself is legitimate. what is not legitimate is hiding among a civilian populace and attempting to maximize their casualties.

They take terrorists options because it is their best option.

short term perhaps they believe so. fortunately for us, they are incorrect, and it is costing them.

Just as you claim our providing components for the internationally banned mustard gas and supporting Saddam financially despite our knowing he was murdering his own people was our best option.

v. Iran?

as i said, sometimes you gotta back Stalin against Hitler.

Just as you claim our targeting civilians safe drinking water supplies was our best option.

actually i said that we pursued sanctions while putting in place the food-for-oil program in an attempt to find a "best option". I then asked you what option you prefer to utilize when dealing with dictators, and you pretended that you could simply alter the rules of reality in order to not have negative results from your policy.

There is no moral difference.

actually there is plenty.

Or knowingly do it as we did.

I would like to see your evidence that the US attempted to maximize Iraqi civilian casualties.

How would you defend borders from a foreign occupation of a hopelessly superior force?

in depth and focusing on their lines of supply. certainly not by driving car bombs into crowds of my fellow American citizens.

Did we have better options than targeting the safe water supplies of civilians?

if you militarize a target, you don't get to complain that it then got hit. that's why the Geneva Conventions places such strict restrictions on the militarization of targets such as hospitals and civilian water supplies. Saddam Hussein hoped to kill more people by breaking those restrictions, figuring that we would not then strike his forces. he bet wrong.

Did we have better options when we became the first country to use nuclear weapons on a civilians?

nope.

You mean some are unable to unhook their morals to defend immoral actions by our side.

no, i mean that some are simplistic and thus unable to get over their horror of the fact that sometimes reality is mean. you can often find them congregated in places protected from this reality; colleges, well-developed cities, and so forth.

At least the terrorist do it for defense and ideology. We do it for control of their oil.

and you have yet to demonstrate any evidence of this.

and you have demonstrated rather repeatedly a complete ignorance as to the motivating factors of Islamist Fundamentalists.

 

[Catawba]

firstly, i would like to say that i am intensely amused at how justabubba automatically thanks all your posts. is he a separate identity that you crafted for the purpose of agreeing with yourself, or is he really just a Me Too with bad judgment?

I'm guessing it is because he's not blinded by nationalism to our killing innocent people for control of their for oil.

:lol: who is operating as an insurgent.

Oh, that's right we just called any Iraqis that tried to defend their country insurgents. Guilt relief, I understand.

if they wanted to stand up in a kinetic linear battle, yes. but not just our superior conventional weapons; but our training, doctrine, logistics, and so forth.

BS! You try to make it sound like the US is some kind of bad ass for knocking out country we had de-clawed already in the first GW. They were virtually defenseless.

How do you think we were able to take their capital in about the time it took us to get there?

which is why they utilize guerrilla tactics. which in and of itself is legitimate. what is not legitimate is hiding among a civilian populace and attempting to maximize their casualties.

Yeah, that's what people do in war, try to maximize their casualties. Give me a break!

short term perhaps they believe so. fortunately for us, they are incorrect, and it is costing them.

Why take out our anger on the Iraqis? What have they done to us?

It was Saudi terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, and with just a few thousand terrorists without planes, tanks, or ships, they have kept the most powerful nation on the planet in fear and in an incredibly expensive war (more than Vietnam) for 9 years.

v. Iran?

as i said, sometimes you gotta back Stalin against Hitler.

Right, the terrorist philosophy, the ends justify the means. Yeah, I forgot

actually i said that we pursued sanctions while putting in place the food-for-oil program in an attempt to find a "best option". I then asked you what option you prefer to utilize when dealing with dictators, and you pretended that you could simply alter the rules of reality in order to not have negative results from your policy.

Saddam was no longer a threat after GW1, to anyone. We unnecessarily caused the deaths of 100,000 - 500,000 innocent civilians to try to get rid of the government there who kicked big oil out of Iraq.

actually there is plenty.

(difference in morals)

Only that we kill for oil, they kill to defend their fellow Muslims.

I would like to see your evidence that the US attempted to maximize Iraqi civilian casualties.

We knowingly knocked out power to their safe drinking water supplies for the citizens and would not let them rebuild it or even import emergency generators/pumps to get safe water to the people.

I've posted documentation of it in this thread.

in depth and focusing on their lines of supply. certainly not by driving car bombs into crowds of my fellow American citizens.

What? Most of the suicide bombers were Saudis, not Iraqis!

And they had no weaponry that could have been a threat to our supply lines.

So what would you do then?

if you militarize a target, you don't get to complain that it then got hit. that's why the Geneva Conventions places such strict restrictions on the militarization of targets such as hospitals and civilian water supplies. Saddam Hussein hoped to kill more people by breaking those restrictions, figuring that we would not then strike his forces. he bet wrong.

How did Saddam militarize the safe drinking water supplies? And how was a fat old man with a shotgun, a threat to us? I really do not understand the fear of him.

nope.
no, i mean that some are simplistic and thus unable to get over their horror of the fact that sometimes reality is mean. you can often find them congregated in places protected from this reality; colleges, well-developed cities, and so forth.

We sure as hell did. It was already announced that Japan was ready to surrender before we nuked their citizens.

So, from your perspective you are ok with our killing civilians if it suited our needs? And how is that different from the terrorists?

and you have yet to demonstrate any evidence of this.

I have provided evidence that Iraq was no threat, and I have provided evidence of the Cheney task force that says basically we have no energy future without middle east oil. And I know that 1 + 1 = 2. That's about all that's need to figure that little mystery out.

and you have demonstrated rather repeatedly a complete ignorance as to the motivating factors of Islamist Fundamentalists.

That somehow they are immune to wanting us to stop bombing them and occupying their countries? Yeah, missed that somewhere along the line.

But I guess it does ease the guilt for those that supported it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Can anyone explain why so many Americans are as frightened as little school children of al Qaeda?

"The risk of being killed by a terrorist for most Americans is so small it can’t be measured.* Well it can – it is = (4,000/300,000,000/8 years).* Send me your answers – Americans are terrible in math and many think they are at risk right now of being killed by Bin Laden or one of his millions of Al Qaeda members.* Many so called Christian TV shows continue to scare their watchers by saying Al Qaeda will take over the world and force all Christian to become Muslims if we don’t fight wars in all Muslim countries. (The answer = 0.00000176)

Risk from Al Qaeda:
4,000 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 (about 500 per year over the last 8 years)

100,000 Americans killed by medical mistakes in hospitals each year (800,000 over the last 8 years)

30,000 Americans are killed by hand gun death each year (240,000 over the last 8 years)

17,000 Americans are killed each year by drunk drivers (136,000 over the last 8 years)

7,000 Americans die by drowning each year (65,000 over the last 8 years)

Conclusions:
Americans are 300 times more likely to die in a hospital from a medical mistake, from a hand gun, a drunk driver, or by drowning than by terrorist attack.
In fact if you live anywhere but New York City and DC your risk is even smaller.* No one has died in 46 states from terrorist attack and the risk there is zero."

Facts about Al Qaeda:

"Total number of Al Qaeda members worldwide unknown, estimated at about 5,000 in a world populations of 6,700,000,000.

Total number of countries controlled by Al Qaeda = none

Total number of countries where Al Qaeda operates in the open = none

Total number of governments that openly supports Al Qaeda = none

Total number of military equipment of Al Qaeda, planes = none, tanks = none, ships = none, satellites = none, drone aircraft = none, and so on and so forth

Total number of Al Qaeda living in the open – none they are all in hiding and being hunted as I write this blog.

Total number of Al Qaeda attacks in America in the last 8 years = none
Given the above why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan?* Those two wars have cost us almost $1 trillion dollars and are scheduled to cost another $500 billion over the next 8 years.*(Edit: Update - Obama just requested $708 billion for the military for next year.)

What would happen if we pulled out of those two third world countries?* The first thing is no Americans would be killed in those two countries.* The second is we would save about $500 billion over 8 years that could be used for things we need here in America.*(Edit: Update - Obama just requested $708 billion for the military next year)

Would Al Qaeda take over Iraq?* No chance of that happening.* Would Al Qaeda take over Afghanistan – no, but the Taliban might come back and take over.* Would the Taliban let Al Qaeda set-up training bases as they did in the past?* Maybe, no one knows the answer to this question for sure.* If they did would we know about it and could we take them out with air power – yes.

So the risk to America from Al Qaeda is extremely small and our risk stays small even if we leave both Iraq and Afghanistan."
The Real Terrorist RISK to Americans from Al Qaeda in 2009

So why are so many Americans so frightened? I think we need to buck up, after all we are the most powerful nation on the planet.

So - the death-factor is the only issue that anyone is concerned with?

Somehow - the death-factor of a terrorist attack is menial in comparison to the wider implications of such a disposition.

The overall opinion and position in the world is basis for my dislike of 'terrorists' - not their potential to kill me.

If I avoided things that could kill me I might as well just commit suicide and get over it.