Third Party & Independents: Archives

It’s good to see someone from outside the Red Column taking a wider view on the extensive war on terror.
Personally, I get tired of hearing the blame for all the problems in the world being laid at the feet of the United States and our current administration, whoever it may be.
We aren’t alone in this messed up world and we have not caused ALL the problems.
Sure we have contributed to some of them. Sure we can take some blame and responsibility.
That won’t stop the U.S. from trying to help fix some of the problems - and sure things won’t always go right - the rest of the world has to help too - and stop blaming us for everything.

Bush was right to encourage those fighting for liberty, freedom, human rights, democracy …to stand up and fight for them. He was right to say that the U.S. would stand by those who want liberty and that we will help them along their road to a free life.
What other countries will send people to help set up new governments and aid those fighting for freedom?
Seems the UN won’t send anyone until they know it is completely safe. What kind of sign is that for people needing help? ‘Sorry, we won’t come until you finish the hard part.’

Many of us are not thrilled about Iraq. Maybe Bush shouldn’t have started there - maybe it was right. We still won’t know the answer to that for a long time to come.
So far the elections look like they will have a large turnout. Bigger than ours. Sure there will be those that don’t vote for fear of being killed. Hopefully the Sunnis will realize that the most important thing they can do right now is vote and do it.
At this point I am encouraged by the reports on the possible voter turn out.
I am also encouraged that a good turn out will lead to more people in that region deciding to stand up for their rights and fight for their freedom.
Yes … I’m optimistic, but I don’t see how being pessimistic can help anything.
Reality will set in soon enough.

Yes … I’m optimistic, but I don’t see how being pessimistic can help anything.

This debate has nothing to do with optimism and pessimism. It’s about reality and fantasy - a plan that will work vs. futile, unnecessary bloodshed.

Cheney just recently admitted that the administration may have been a little over-optimistic in it’s assessment of the Iraqi people’s acceptance of a US enforced democracy. Gee, ya think?

So we told ‘em at the time that plan wouldn’t work. Then we told ‘em they needed more troops to secure the country. Now we’re telling ‘em that elections alone - without full representation of all factions and even a general knowledge of democracy beyond knowing how to check a box on a ballot - are going to make the situation worse.

We’ve offered up all kinds of constructive criticism. There’ve been no takers from the ruling party. Frankly, we’re getting tired of saying, “I told you so.”

Misha,

The problem with this so-called ‘unambiguous worldview’ of Bush (I’d prefer ‘obliviously ignorant’), is it’s selective application and continued failure to consider the centuries old cultural, religious and sectarian ramifications before making the high pressure ‘democracy’ sales pitch.

All the Iraqi people know right now, is that ‘democracy’ does not come with the restoration of electricity and water, that was promised nearly two years ago. Yes, they overwhelmingly approve of military action against the Insurgents, yet if the return of a Saddam Hussein regime would bring back basic services and peace, point them towards the voting booth.

Why didn’t Bush and the neo-Cons perfect this Wolfowitz New World Order first on say the African nation Warlords committing the same subjugation and atrocities on their own people? There you’ll find dictatorships empowered only by the extent of their graft, and might of those that support them. No confrontations with theocracies, but an opportunity to foster a string of successful emerging democracies, we can then use as product samples when we call on the rest of the world.

As for the first question you posed:

1. You’re inference as to what a ‘young pro-Western majority’ in Iran means, is pure supposition. Through their web connection to the outside world, they are more enthralled with the materialism of American culture than an expressed yearning for democracy. Unlike China, it is not the Students vs. oppressive Dictator equation. There is an established Moderate political movement in Iran, which gets most of its support from said restless youth demanding reform and freedoms that probably look nothing like what we offer.

Dawn, it is important to distinguish between a war on terrorism (terror being an emprically observeable act) and a war on tyranny (a subjective term defined by how a people respond to their governors).

Bush’s address did not mention terror, he was talking about tyranny according to his own definition meaning, not mirroring the U.S. Huge difference, with even larger consequences for Americans and masses of peoples elsewhere in the world.

David- this is really a response to a couple of posts you made (one responding to me on another thread), but i thought it belonged most on this thread. You are confused when you dont see that the war against fundamentalist islamic terrorists is directly tied to the TYPE of government that rules in the muslim world.

Furthermore, there is a bizzare inversion/contradiction in the arguments against the Bush position on this thread and on other threads today. It is the assumption that it is possible to “impose” freedom on people- and somehow wrong to do it. I take as a perfect exposition on why this is a contradiction statements by noted terrorist al-Zarqawi:

“We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it…Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion…against the rule of God.”

Once you understand (as Zarqawi does) that what we are talking about is NOT merely the right of 51% of the people in any part of the world to choose their form of government- but a structure within which popular sentiments AND individual rights are respected, the argument that we are somehow imposing freedom falls apart.

Every person has a right to choose their religion- regardless of which part of the world they live in (moreover, this is a right regardless of how strong they are- regardless of whether they are able to succesfully take up arms to defend it- regardless of whether their fellow countrimen do not agree that this is their right). Bush’s doctrine is that we will help, in different ways, different people who wish to fight for their freedom. Kind of like when Reagan met with the refusniks. In any case, given how this administration has mucked up a lot of Ira war, i am not confident at ALL that the administration has the debtness and skill to do this succesfully, i am just saying that the broader approach of supporting those who would defend their individual rights against oppression is the correct one.

Misha,
I am all for the spread of Democracy, however, I think that is nescessary for the oppressed people of those countries to stand up for themselves and at least take responsibility for their own countries.
Let’s support revolution in those countries that want it.
Let’s not rush in, however, and impose our will on countries that don’t seem to be ready for it.

“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

Misha, it is the lack of ratio-nality in the Bush rhetoric that I find so very, very dangerous. If one person in a society of millions is deprived of religious or political freedom, is that sufficient justification for killing and destroying the lives of thousands or 10’s of thousands in the name of one or a handful complaining of loss of individual freedom?

The only justificaton for the evil of war, is a far greater evil of not going to war. Unless, as Rocky states, a people in a regime rise up of their own volition against their government and ask for our assistance in their struggle, it is most likely a greater evil will be created by intruding on other nations to help those who have not asked for our help and demonstrated their will to fight for themselves.

Bush’s rhetoric is utterly void of anykind of such rational thinking or justification for American expansion of democracy or imperialist expansion of markets for US companies and corporations.

Maybe we are disagreeing about what Bush’s plan was. From what I understood it as, is that we should SUPPORT, in some way, those who fight for their freedom. Just because we used force in Iraq, does not mean we will use force in other places. I believe anyone who is fighting for their individual liberty against an oppressive government is (or should be) a friend of america. the ammount and type of help we give to that friend is exactlyt he complexity to which my article refers.

Misha,
Look around the world.
Do you see any revolution formenting anywhere?
Are we suporting the Tamal rebels in Shri Lanka?
How about the Muslim rebels in Indonesia?
Phillipines?
Anywhere in Africa?
Why would he even bring it up?
Sorry, Bush’s remarks were meant for the leaders of Iran and North Korea, not their populations.

Rocky

I wouldn’t want us to support the Tamil Tigers or the Muslim insurgents in Philippines. Insurgents are not always and probably not usually democratic. I don’t believe the President was referring to these kinds of things. I sure hope not.

Jack,
I only brought it up as a solid example of a place where revolution is actually taking place on this planet.
Menachem Begin was considered a terrorist by the British duing Israel’s fight for independence. We all know him as a great leader of Israel, and a man who helped bring peace between Egypt and Israel.
Belive me, I would never compare him to Bin Laden, but one mans freedom fighter is often another mans terrorist.

No - Begin was a terrorist, who only later almost became a statesman. Anwar Sadat and Jimmy Carter are the heroes of that story, in any case.

Probably our greatest Secretary of State George C. Marshall resigned when Harry Truman recognized Israel. Things that went on at that time were sometimes heroic, often nasty.

Jack,
All that asside please understand the point.

We, America, cannot assume that we can rush to the rescue of all the people of the world.
Had the people of Iraq not been screwed by America before and had risen up in revolt against the repressive regieme of Saddam, I would have been all for going in there and tearing his heart out. I was all for it during Desert Storm but we had the constraints of our aggreements.
We need to define what we, as a country, can be expected to do. The Limbaugh crowd has been telling us that we aren’t the worlds police force for years.
Ok, why were they for this?
Please don’t tell me about WMDs, or humanitarian, or UN 1441. That’s all just baloney. There was no great upswell for revolution in Iraq. We did this for our own purposes.
America, the great place that it is, rarely does anything that doesn’t benefit America.
And please don’t tell me that Pakistan is our new best buddy in the war on terror either.

All I want from my President is that he not piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.

I don’t think that is too much to ask for.

“Please don’t tell me about WMDs, or humanitarian, or UN 1441. That’s all just baloney. There was no great upswell for revolution in Iraq. We did this for our own purposes. “

Of course we did- luckly those purposes can only be served by getting the middle east into a democratic-rights respecting region. We fought the cold war on many fronts for our own safety- but our safety was tied to the fall of tyrranic communist regimes. It is NOT just pure serendipity that doing “humanitarian” actions to increase rights-respecting democracies is in our best interest- as it was during the cold war. It is a conclusion of the fact people and regimes living under principles in contradiciton to freedom and indvidual rights are logically alligned against our interests, and current, our very existence. This is the link that the Bush speech properly pointed to. The more complicated question is how do we get from here to there.

“It is no coincidence that the area of the world that poses the gravest threat to our security is the only region where freedom, democracy and individual rights have made little advance.”

And when a fledgling democracy does arise in the region, what happens? Well it depends. If it wants to nationalize its oil and take control of its own resources, then apparently a US-backed coup is what happens.

The coup against Mossadegh in Iran was a particularly blatant example of anti-democratic policy undertaken by the British and Americans, supposedly the world’s defenders of the same. Mossadegh was a fervent nationalist, but not a radical Islamic, and not a communist. The toppling of Mossadegh undermined a promising democracy of the Middle East which, if left intact, might have changed the course of 20th-century history in the region. The coup and subsequent installation of the Shah engendered tremendous mistrust in the region of Anglo-American intentions, setting the stage for Khomeini’s 1979 rise to power.

Misha said: “i am just saying that the broader approach of supporting those who would defend their individual rights against oppression is the correct one.”

Ratio-nality requires a weighing of the cost of such actions. When an ideology creates more harm than it eliminates, it is no longer ideal, but, evil in its own right by virtue of consequences. Especially when their are multiple motives, some of which are personal gain or benefit.

Adam Smith articulately defined what was known for centuries, self-interest motivates. Bush’s motives in setting the stage for exercising America’s economic and military might in order to force other nations to change their governments are multiple with American interests dominant among them. And his doctrine outlined in his speech does not contain the predicate of oppressed people asking for our help and rising in revolution and insurrection of their own volition. Bush’s doctrine is entirely different as spoken than one of standing ready to aid upon request, oppressed peoples organized to change their governments from within.

Misha,

If we really want to win this war, we have to take a long hard look at U.S. policy. The Presidents speech was pretty, but it was mostly empty rhetoric most nations saw right through. We have pledged to stand behind those nations seeking democracy before only to leave them twisting in the wind when they needed us most.

Word, are just that words, without action to back them up and make them mean something. The United States has never stood for the principles of its own founding, how then can we export that which we do know how to procure for ourselves? Liberty begins at home. And this begs a much broader question: what does true liberty and freedom within the confines of American Law mean to you?

The forgoing aside, here is a way to deal with the current world threat: even the playing field. By that I mean tackle to causation of the strife, of the discontent, and you will resolve the issue of hared against the U.S. Invading Iraq was absolutely the wrong thing to do, and in so doing Bush and his cohorts demonstrated once again that America and by extension Americans will never shed their arrogance and respect the rest of the world.

Therefore Bush’s near-sided plans to export liberty and democracy will never beard fruit, not while he is in office. The world distains him far too much.

EM- of course the united states has never lived up to its full principles. Of course, you and I disagree on the ways it is failed to live up to its promise (for example, I think allowing abortion on demand is a failure to provide equal protection under the law, you do not); we agree on other areas, however (the rights of people accused of terrorist activities in the war on terror). The bottom line is that in any particular issue, I want our country to make the right choice, regardless of whether it has and continues to make wrong choices in other areas. I am sure you agree.

Where you and I disagree is the following statement: “By that I mean tackle to causation of the strife, of the discontent, and you will resolve the issue of hatred against the U.S.”

I do not think it is America’s actions that is the cause of the hate toward america by the terrorists who want to blow us up (although it may be a minor cause). i think the more emmidiate and worrisome cause of the hate-leading-to-violencetoward america is the political state of most middle-eastern nations. That is, perhaps our actions may cause some people to dislike us, that is fine, and we do need to worry about that. But what makes people want to blow us up is their desperate state- caused by their lack of economic and political freedom (not too many people from France want to turn our cities in rubble- even though many of them hate us). There will always be disagreements between nations and peoples, but it is when a large portion of the world is so oppressed do we need to always be worried that one of them will strap a bomb on and take out one of our buildings…

One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.

GOD, how I hate that phrase, I’ve hated it any time it has been used by anyone, and to be honest any respect I might have for someone who uses it drops to zero. It is simply the most vile form of fuzzy logic I’ve heard in a long time.

A person is a terrorist if he is a terrorist. He may be fighting for freedom, he may not, but that has nothing to do if he is a terrorist or not. If he is using terrorism, he is quite simply a terrorist.

Rhinehold,
Do you know your history of the Middle East? Israel in particular?

At one time virtually all the leaders of Israel were accused of terrorism. They were, at the time, fighting for independence from England.
David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Menachem Begin were all considered terrorists. The ends justified the means.

As I said before, I am not comparing these people to today’s insurgents.
Learn your history Rhinehold.

Rhinehold:

ter·ror·ism n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sounds like a definition that could apply on each side of a conflict, to me.

Or try this one:

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I now how some folks like to make up their own definitions, especially Rep. or Dem. supporters. But, language is meaningless without established definitions. Definitions reflect a great deal about a person who plays fast and loose with them. It reflects an unwillingness to conform and rebelliosness with no regard for society, custom or tradition. Lot of that going around lately, even under the guise of being conservative. But what is conserved when one redefines language to suit their own means and ends.

Like most other things, these definitions are a matter of degree and connotation. By definition two, a police officer giving you a parking ticket could be considered an act of terrorism. Definition one includes the word lawful, which begs the question, whose law.

Begin was a terrorist. Terrorists can change their ways.

One man’s terrorist is not another’s freedom fighter. There might be some disagreement depending on whose side you are on. But a good measure might be turning it around. A deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians or a reckless disregard is an act of terror no matter who does it. Most people know when they see it. Old soldiers usually develop respect for honorable adversaries even when they were tough and ruthless, but they continue to despise the dishonorable ones who engage in terrorism. They know the difference and generally so do we. My father, a veteran of D-day and the Battle of the Bulge, spoke with respect of ordinary German soldiers who wounded and almost killed him on several occasions, but he had undying hatred for members of the Waffen SS who murdered American prisoners. We may come to respect the fighters who risk their lives to attack our soldiers, but people like Zarqawi will always just be despicable vermin.

Misha,

You missed my point. I am not blaming the U.S. for the political and or economic situations of Third Word, and or Middle Eastern nations. What I am saying is that we can do a better job of actually promoting democracy through action and not just words. We have habitually abandoned people and movements when they needed us most and then wonder why we are trusted. We did it at the The Bay of Pigs Invasion, twice in Iraq, and again in Afghanistan after the Soviets were thrown out. And we abandoned Rhodesia back in the mid 1980’s when we had no further use for them. The U.S. has a habit of breaking promises and propping up dictators when it suits our purpose.

The rhetoric does not match action.

We have an opportunity here to better the fortunes of the world through the United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, and the World Bank. If we want to uplift the peoples of the world, it needs to be a multi-lateral effort; we cannot and should not do it alone. Country by country, governments and institution have to be put into place that enrich their societies and stop the needless and thoughtless, greed inspired rape of millions of people by multi-national corporations and heartless leaders. Corruption needs to be weeded out and people of vision, compassion, and intellect need to come to power. Economic prosperity without the enrichment of all leads to discontent, regardless of the political suasion of the government. Humans need to feel as thought they are working to enrich their lives, and they need to know that the government will protect them and their property.

Freedom means different things to different societies, and American style freedom is not always preferred. People need structure to proper and pursue happiness, but they should be allowed to choose for themselves what form that structure takes, not the U.S. out security will be found when those who are now being exploited feel a sense of economic and personal security.

Jack, lobbing bombs into cities with civilians, especially children known to be ‘collateral damage’ from the effort, matches every definition of terrorism I can find. It terrorizes the civilian population with the hopes of putting distance between it and the opposition. It is a terrorist act. Is it justified? That is debateable. The fact that it is terroristic, is not.

Shock and Awe was as deliberate and intended a campaign of terrorism as the 9/11 strikes. Had much the same effect on many Iraqis as the al-Queda had on Americans. That is why our enemy in Iraq continues to be undefeatable. Their outrage and committment over the Shock and Awe campaign is every bit as intense and justified in their minds as American’s outrage and commitment after 9/11 to go get the SOB’s. The SOB’s were in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. That was the great injustice and indefensible act which caused such outrage and ‘to the death’ opposition in Iraq that we seem unable to defeat today.