|
Post by timfarney on Mar 21, 2011 20:39:47 GMT -5
"This little intervention makes me pretty nervous, given our record of keeping our noses where they belong in the Middle East, but this is nothing like Iraq. Not even in the same universe. And the reasons to oppose or support are nothing like each other." Thanks for noticing that, Tim. No problem, Flake. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this one yet. It has all the touch points of legitimacy, but it still could be a disaster. I think Obama will provide cover to give the rebels a fair shot but stay out of the fray. I hope that's a good guess. But comparing it to Iraq is dumb enough that it doesn't take a second moment's thought to dismiss it as little more than argument fodder. The only thing they have in common is region. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 21, 2011 20:47:27 GMT -5
To Russell's earlier question, sort of, both Poland and Hawaii are democracies now rather than the benevolent dictatorships they were so it all turned out OK in the end. Let's hope for the best while expecting the worst so we won't be disappointed either way. So the massacre of the Polish intelligentsia and military leadership by the Germans, the murder of Polish Jewry, followed by sixty years of domination by the Soviets; and robbing the Hawaiians of their sovereignty--these were no biggie because "it all turned out OK in the end"? Piling up bodies and suppressing people's right to govern themselves (and in the case of Hawai'i, repressing their culture) is just some unfortunate detour on the way to eventual "democracy"? How hideous do events need to get before they're just really, really bad shit happening to people?
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 21, 2011 20:53:41 GMT -5
Silly question, Russel. They have to end up someplace that doesn't contribute to world markets, of course. Democracy is not even necessary. If there's enough money to be made, we're cool.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 21, 2011 21:08:14 GMT -5
I can recall when I became opposed to the Iraq invasion. I became opposed to it when it became clear that it was a bungled operation; when it became clear that the administration not only hadn’t done their homework, they didn’t even seem to understand that homework was necessary.
I realized something was seriously wrong when I heard our top dog war planner, Donald Rumsfeld, wondering aloud what the difference was between Shiite and Sunni and why anyone would care when most everyone else had realized that we had stumbled blindly and unprepared into a long simmered blood stew of vengeful tribe and idiot religion.
I am not a complex person. I became opposed to the Iraq war when it became clear that the administration had cluelessly blundered the country into an expensive, tragic, intractable mess.
I fear that could be the same case now, but I don’t know that it will be the case. As I wasn’t consulted, I, along the rest of us, will wait and see what happens. If it turns out to be as ill conceived and executed as the Iraq debacle, I will oppose it. If it somehow works, stops the killing in Libya and leads to a stable government that is half-assed reasonable, and doesn’t cost too much in life, limb, and dollar, I will support it.
.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 21:14:02 GMT -5
"This little intervention makes me pretty nervous, given our record of keeping our noses where they belong in the Middle East, but this is nothing like Iraq. Not even in the same universe. And the reasons to oppose or support are nothing like each other." Thanks for noticing that, Tim. No problem, Flake. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this one yet. It has all the touch points of legitimacy, but it still could be a disaster. I think Obama will provide cover to give the rebels a fair shot but stay out of the fray. I hope that's a good guess. But comparing it to Iraq is dumb enough that it doesn't take a second moment's thought to dismiss it as little more than argument fodder. The only thing they have in common is region. Tim Just to clarify, you are agreeing with the point I made in the post you quoted, right?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 21, 2011 21:32:36 GMT -5
I don't understand how anyone can support any of these wars. I see supporting any of these wars as saying someone's child other than yours is fine to come home in a box.
NO war is ever right unless you are attacked.
EVER
War is not about governments or politics it's about putting children in body bags.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 21, 2011 21:42:38 GMT -5
No problem, Flake. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this one yet. It has all the touch points of legitimacy, but it still could be a disaster. I think Obama will provide cover to give the rebels a fair shot but stay out of the fray. I hope that's a good guess. But comparing it to Iraq is dumb enough that it doesn't take a second moment's thought to dismiss it as little more than argument fodder. The only thing they have in common is region. Tim Just to clarify, you are agreeing with the point I made in the post you quoted, right? This quote? Nope. Don't agree. One was unilaterally starting a war/occupation/nation-building project to, "spread democracy" in the Middle East. The other is a regionally-approved UN intervention into an existing conflict to prevent a slaughter. Different cause. Different actors. Different objectives. Wholly different ethical ground. So opposing Iraq and supporting Libya, while the latter does indeed make me nervous, is justifiable. Thinking Iraq was a good idea and Libya a misadventure? You're going to have to explain that one to me in some detail, because on the surface all I can come up with is a Democrat is at the wheel this time. Unless maybe you oppose it because there is too much moral rationale and not enough political manipulation. Tim
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 21:51:49 GMT -5
Did you read the next sentence where I described such thinking as nonsesne?
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 21:58:07 GMT -5
Really, it would make it easier if you read the posts all the way through. As it stands, you seem to be vehemently arguing with a ghost.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 21:59:53 GMT -5
BTW (and not that it actually matters), Bush had more coalition partners for Iraq than Obama has for Libya.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 21, 2011 22:02:50 GMT -5
Maybe they are all a bit gun shy now, Jeff?
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 22:03:51 GMT -5
Really. It was the very next sentence.
The sentence that you went off on was a demonstration of the absurdity of Dharma's formulation.
Guess it worked.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 22:07:12 GMT -5
Maybe they are all a bit gun shy now, Jeff? Whatever the reason, the facts refute the argument that Obama's war is better than Bush's war because Obama is acting as part of a coalition. That doesn't, in and of itself, mean either war can be judged good or bad for that reason alone. It just means its a silly and factually incorrect argument.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 22, 2011 4:03:22 GMT -5
To Russell's earlier question, sort of, both Poland and Hawaii are democracies now rather than the benevolent dictatorships they were so it all turned out OK in the end. Let's hope for the best while expecting the worst so we won't be disappointed either way. So the massacre of the Polish intelligentsia and military leadership by the Germans, the murder of Polish Jewry, followed by sixty years of domination by the Soviets; and robbing the Hawaiians of their sovereignty--these were no biggie because "it all turned out OK in the end"? Piling up bodies and suppressing people's right to govern themselves (and in the case of Hawai'i, repressing their culture) is just some unfortunate detour on the way to eventual "democracy"? How hideous do events need to get before they're just really, really bad shit happening to people? Actually, Russell, I was being sarcastic. We're promoting democracy as if that was the goal. Trouble is a lot of places aren't really atuned to the requirements of democracy and I don't think it's a viable goal but if that's our goal and we think democracy would cure the ills, have at and good luck. I'll hope for the best but I fear the worst.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 22, 2011 6:22:52 GMT -5
Really, it would make it easier if you read the posts all the way through. As it stands, you seem to be vehemently arguing with a ghost. My apologies for jumping in too quickly. I'm afraid, however, that we still disagree (surprise). Although I don't personally love the UN mission, I can easily see how you could rationally dismiss Bush's deception-predicated misadventure in Iraq and still support this UN operation in Libya. The opposite is just evidence of hypocrisy, gullibility, or questionable morals. Or pure, cynical politics. The former is "he is doing nothing now that he hasn't done for years, but we think he has WMD, we really want to believe he has WMD, we will act as if we know he has WMD and we will kill a few hundred thousand innocent people, invade, occupy, overthrow and convert his country to our ideology on really weak evidence of WMD." The latter is "his armies are killing people, right now, so we're going to hobble his air game and cripple his tank attacks to give those people a fighting chance." I don't know if either one of them is ours, or the UN's business, but there is no comparison between the two. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 22, 2011 6:22:52 GMT -5
I don't understand how anyone can support any of these wars. I see supporting any of these wars as saying someone's child other than yours is fine to come home in a box. NO war is ever right unless you are attacked.
EVERWar is not about governments or politics it's about putting children in body bags. Exactly. It's the body bags that concern me. I don't think we can just watch while Qaddafi puts half his citizens in matching bags.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 22, 2011 7:14:59 GMT -5
I don't understand how anyone can support any of these wars. I see supporting any of these wars as saying someone's child other than yours is fine to come home in a box. NO war is ever right unless you are attacked.
EVERWar is not about governments or politics it's about putting children in body bags. Exactly. It's the body bags that concern me. I don't think we can just watch while Qaddafi puts half his citizens in matching bags. So you are ready to see your neighbors child in a body bag to get in a war that is none of our business. If we are not attacked then going to war is a bad thing, ALWAYS. Ever wonder why people who have been in war are pacifists.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 22, 2011 7:23:06 GMT -5
Really, it would make it easier if you read the posts all the way through. As it stands, you seem to be vehemently arguing with a ghost. My apologies for jumping in too quickly. No worries. I went a little off the rails there too. To me the real lesson vis a vis Iraq is figuring out what happens after we "win". We are in the process of manufacturing a power vaccuum. What makes us think we will like the way it gets filled? What makes us think we can decide who fills it? Even if we manage that, what's our track record like when installing leaders in foreign countries? Anyway, its too late now. We broke it. Now its ours. There is no turning back. That's the part of this that shocks me the most. I would have thought Obama understood that there is no such thing as interfering "just a little". We are now stuck in Libya.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 22, 2011 7:35:08 GMT -5
Exactly. It's the body bags that concern me. I don't think we can just watch while Qaddafi puts half his citizens in matching bags. So you are ready to see your neighbors child in a body bag to get in a war that is none of our business. If we are not attacked then going to war is a bad thing, ALWAYS. Ever wonder why people who have been in war are pacifists. As I stated earlier, I'm in favor of this, provided that we stick to the original plan: a limited engagement that lasts days with no ground troops. I'm not sure that it's going to work out like that, especially the "days" part. But I think we're already stretched too thin for a full scale war. And I have serious doubts that we can fix anything over there. I think we're already nearing the point calling it good enough. Any long term issues should be solved by the Arabs.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 22, 2011 7:53:58 GMT -5
Dead on day one is the same as dead on day 100 or day 500.
|
|