.....................................

You'll have to forgive me, it's at times difficult to find something to respond to in your drive by, two sentence posts.



Why did you leave out 3. aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.?

Please define surrender.

Please define how our invasion and occupation fits into the just war theory.

If you cannot or will not, then how can you possibly ask others to drop the argument? Are you more interested in debating or simply raising your post count with scatter-shot rhetoric?

Why did you leave out 3. aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.?



Because we don’t do that.

Surrender as in leave Iraq no matter what - now. Stop all support for Israel (Osama does not like this). Leave SA regardless of the fact they have not asked us to do so. And let OBL expand his demands so that we can quickly comply.

We can then wait for the same type of demands from Hamas and others.

Going to respond to my post above DTOM? Or ignor?

Here it is again:

Should we have asked permission from bin Laden before we went into SA at their request. Or should we have let Saddam have Kuwait? Pick one.

You cannot be for and against at the same time sir. If you were “for” stopping Saddam in Gulf I as you said you were then the alienation of bin Laden came out of that. Add this to the fact that we had no idea this was his “trigger” or that our support for Israel was not more important and you have a the situation outlined by Hobbs.

We act as we see fit based on national security issues and regional allies. We will make enemies and AQ is one of them.

Sure Ted, even though you regularly fear answering my questions, and then only after repeated insistence, I'll answer your questions.

Should we have asked permission from bin Laden before we went into SA at their request.

Of course not. And it's a farcical non-sequitur.

Or should we have let Saddam have Kuwait?

Repelling Iraq from Kuwait fell into the moral legitimacy of the just war theory.

Care to [again I ask] answer my question? Please define how our invasion and occupation fits into the just war theory. How about 'please define surrender'?' Surely you won't ignore them for a third time?


I'm all ears as to how invading a nation that had no ties to the terrorist group who attacked us, falls into that same moral legitimacy that governs accepted international law; and how that is possibly covered by the just war theory. Our action is easily defined as a naked act of aggression, the type of foreign policy action that we deride other nations for; and the type of action that exhorts a new generation of indigenous people to rise against us.

Your argument rests on the premise that it was just to attack Iraq when we had not been attacked by Iraq. In order to justify this premise, you must define how regime change is a legitimate aim of a just war. If regime change is decided to be legitimate, then it carries with it the moral imperative to assume custody of the political, social and economic reconstruction of that nation. Clearly, as this imperative was utterly disregarded by the administration, our actions appear as criminal as if we assume the invasion itself was not justified.

Even if you disagree with the case concerning legitimacy in regards to the threat to our national security, anyone who contends to seriously debate the initial question has to realize how our policies are viewed by the population that is affected.

Yes, we have been fairly hypocritical in regimes we have chosen to support, and those we have not (these would fall under the 'high-handed and selfish' category ). However, I don't think those have that much to do with our current issues with Middle Eastern terrorism. Even the Iranian Revolution took place some 30 years ago...(I'd be willing to bet that the majority of terrorists don't even remember the incident, and even if they do, it would be pretty far down the lists of things they would mention as their reasons for their actions), and was actually a leader we helped depose, although we had supported him previously. The Iranian Hostage Crisis took place when we, reluctantly, let him into our country for treatment of Hodgkins disease, when he couldn't get treatment anywhere else--something that seems more merciful than evil.



I won't argue with that. I have had that same argument with many myself. But I think we need to be careful what 'center' is. While I would agree that recent US policy does seem tilted towards this labeling and classification...most of the incidents cited as examples of our high-handedness occurred well before then. I have always believed that foreign policy is the most pragmatic of disciplines--just about every foreign policy from every country is geared towards achieving desired ends, moreso than based on any ideological belief. Hence we intervene in affairs in the Middle East, but ignore transgressions in Africa. I don't see this basis changing anytime soon..its been that way throughout human history. In fact, one of the issues that we did do out of a moral basis--the creation and support of Israel--is also probably the single most disruptive issue we have. So, what is needed, I think, is a better understanding of what the long term implications of our actions will be. That is easier said than done--it is very hard to peer into a crystal ball predict what world events might be 10 or 20 years from now. Consider Iraq, which is certainly getting more attention right now than anywhere else on earth. Can anyone really claim to know what things will be like in Iraq in 10 years? I can see a pretty wide range, anywhere from complete chaos and barbarism to a successful stable democratic state. Are we better off in the long term cutting our losses, or trying to achieve the latter? It's a hard call. Similar situations will always be involved in forming our policy--we make decisions based on what we think certain outcomes will be, and make adjustments as things go on. That's just how it works. Right now we're clearly in the midst of 'adjustments'...which is all well and good, and really just the normal course of things.



Because we did everything we could to stay out of that incident completely--we wanted no part of the issue there. That area has no strategic value for us, so we had nothing at all to gain, nor with the underlying issues of the conflict. So, it's really a better example of how hard it is for the US to maintain neutrality than it is of our overbearing foreign policy. We only became involved when criticism of our lack of involvement became something we needed to address, whereas this thread seems to be about the opposite situation...issues we caused because of our involvement. As such, it probably belongs in the discussion, pointing out that not getting involved can sometimes cause just as much of a problem as getting involved--or that not getting involved in various global conflicts early just leads to getting drug into them later.

Did that above. (Surrender as in leave Iraq no matter what - now. Stop all support for Israel (Osama does not like this). Leave SA regardless of the fact they have not asked us to do so. And let OBL expand his demands so that we can quickly comply.

We can then wait for the same type of demands from Hamas and others.”


.

I will assume you are referring to Gulf II since you agreed (you said but will not confirm) Gulf I. Gulf I lead to troops in SA the consequence of which was his attack. (we believe)

As for Gulf II – “as a naked act of aggression” only fits if Iraq was a nice peaceful country that had no history with us, the region, or 20 or so UN resolutions and lots of missing WMD. Add all that in and the situation is vastly different esp. if said country happens to be amidst more that ½ the worlds oil.




Regime change was a Clinton policy and not the subject of UN 1441. The failure to comply with UN 1441 was the reason for the war.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, it is.........refreshing. But I disagree on the above point. Most other cultures around the world have a much different view of time and grievances than our society. I believe that the culmination of not only our transgressions against other sovereign people, but the transgressions of colonialism are being used to emphasize a long history of imperialism by western powers. Additionally, the peoples of the Middle East see our dearth of interest and aid to other parts of the world, and they know that it's primarily because of oil. They use this to rationalize their belief [with no small amount of merit] that our prime interest is to exploit the region for natural resources and it's accompanying strategic position. Islam is primarily the catalyst and vehicle to move this belief into action.



True, but in this age of polarizing rhetoric, the pendulum is bound to swing wildly until we can get a collective grip on the national debate on this topic............AND..........curb the excesses of presidential power and the loss of civil liberties.



That still doesn't make any sense. Surrender in the accepted sense means to lay down arms and let a foreign power retain or maintain a level of control over one's sovereignty. None of that would/will happen when we leave Iraq. By the way.......if we accept your definition of surrender.......who would we be surrendering to, by leaving Iraq?



You are still failing to tie our invasion and occupation of Iraq into the concept of just war, or the legitimacy of preventive war. That's been my question to you, for quite some time now. I'm not looking for rhetoric, I'm looking for logic.



I'm sorry, I forgot which reason was this week's pick as to why we invaded and occupied Iraq. Theoretical WMD, regime change, oil.......it's hard to keep track when one doesn't get the script sent to them from the administration.

That is an excellent point, DTOM...most other cultures do indeed have a different view of time and grievance than we do--particularly the Eastern cultures, IMHO. I would emphasize one important point you made, though, about the 'transgressions of of colonialism are being used to emphasize a long history of imperialism by western powers.', ie, not just the U.S. Consider Iraq, for example. Britain had a long history in the area before the U.S. ever even set foot in the Middle East, for the same reason (oil) and with a similar set of policies. So, your point is accurate, in that Middle Easterners probably do remember this long history, but I would say that it unfairly places the blame on the U.S. for what has been a much more widespread problem. As far as that goes, if you really look at the history of the area, they have been overrun by just about every global power throughout history. The Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols -- all had a brutal history in the area. It was the Mongols that overran Baghdad, effectively ended the Muslim Golden Age...yet they trade and have good relations with their descendants. This is why I say that although they may cite certain transgressions against them as the cause of their ire...I believe it is really more fundamental issues they have that are driving factors--economics being one of the major ones.

You have, of course, been much closer to the issue than I have, DTOM. I am curious...what do the Iraqis that you have talked with have to say about this?

Certainly a lot of truth to that, but the ire compiled from various sources has been and is being vented towards the current perception of threat to the region, and the current instigator of that threat - the United States. It may be unfair that the US bears the brunt for many ills not committed by us, and that our history also includes many good acts........but I think reality has to trump emotions and feelings of what constitutes fairness, especially since we will be looking at these issue through a western prism.



None of them relayed any grief about Greeks and Mongols to be sure, but some of the educated Iraqi's drew parallels to the British rule of Iraq. Some were happy that our efforts may bring a semblance of democracy to Iraq, though it likely won't be what we currently envision; some Iraqi's were openly hostile, telling me that before we invaded life was hard, but it's absolutely tougher now, that at least prior to 2003 the Shia-Sunni division was not lethal. And some were ambivalent, either choosing not opine or not having much or a foreign policy opinion.

By and large, the Iraqi's who seemed to be happiest with our presence were those who were making money. Cellphone and satellite sales and service guys, and those who benefited from our micro-grant programs, at least outwardly were happy we were there, which is why much more effort needs to be directed economically rather than militarily, to influence nations and populations to democratize.

I believe that our unconditional support of Israel is foolish and unnecessary...I'm not entirely sure about immoral; I'm in the process of reading up about Israel's history and after I do I'll have a definitive answer for you.


It's as if you've ignored my last post. I kept it brief with the hopes that you wouldn't. No one is claiming that we should alter our foreign policy to comply with the demands of terrorists. We should alter it because it is immoral and violates the sovereignty of other nations. Again, no one is saying: "the US should embrace a foreign policy of non-intervention in order to assuage terrorist attacks on our nation." What we [correct me if I'm wrong in speaking for you, DTOM] are saying is that our interventionist foreign policy is immoral and it should be altered...And on top of that, altering our foreign policy will likely result in significantly decreased anti-Americanism abroad.

Additionally, 'surrender' is a legal term with legal ramifications and a legal definition. It is wholly inaccurate to label a withdrawal from Iraq as 'surrender'. If you want to use a negative term to associate with that position, 'retreat' is more accurate. But then again, the last time a Republican retreated it was called 'Peace with Honor' .

CP

Easy to figure out DTOM. Try reading the statements of UN people who were there, Demms who had no reason to support Bush and intel from around the world. If fact you need not listen to one word from the White House.

Try it and we can discuss. But them you have re written history and your mine id made up – isn’t it.

.

Ok I am with you but lets remember we will not “prevent” terrorist attack by doing what “they” think is right. Gulf I imo was a just war and was vital to our interests. If this. gave us AQ then we have to deal with that.

It is amazing the power of reverse psychology. The people who attacked us want a. Because we do not like the people who attacked us we must reject a and opt for b. Yet it is b that made those people attack us in the first place.

You can never begin to combat the threat that we face from Al Qaeda unless you know why it is that they want to commit terrorist acts against the US. You cannot believe that the United States can on the one hand intervene in other countries with military bases and no-fly zones and on the other hand be protected from backlash at those actions. Something has to give. So actually listening and understanding to what Al Qaeda's intentions are and why they have chosen to conduct operations may actually give insight into how to defeat them. But you like many others would rather thump their chest like pre-human apes than actually take steps to make the world safer.

Ted, I'm unconcerned as to what 'they' think is right. Again, what I am saying is that I do not believe our current foreign policy is right. We should be non-interventionist because it is the right thing to do, not simply because that's what <insert terrorist group name here> would like. Decreased animosity toward Americans would be a great side-effect, but the main reason why a massive overhaul of our foreign policy is needed is because our current one is wrong on so many levels.

You've got it right Leder. The logic, or lack thereof is astounding. We can't reform our foreign policy even if we acknowledge its failures, mistakes and atrocities because that is what terrorist groups want. But if we hadn't had an interventionist foreign policy to begin with, it is unlikely that we would be a major terrorist target in the first place. It boggles the mind. We have to, according to some, continue along on our same path despite its obvious and fatal flaws because to change it would somehow be a concession to terrorism.

It's like if you fall asleep under a bee hive, a bee stings you and you stay there to spite the bee...then the whole colony attacks.

What terrorist groups are demanding of us [that is, get the hell out of our countries] is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable and immoral is the way they demand us [that is, killing civilians]. Simply stated, terrorists are using inexcusable violence to demand that we do what is the moral and just thing to do [again, getting the hell out of their countries] and we will not do so out of spite, spite that is due almost exclusively to the way by which they demand us [again, killing civilians].

CP

I'd like to point out that Ted's argument is a type of ad hominem known as Reductio ad Hitlerum: "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad." Thus, even though organizations like Al Qaeda want the US out of Islamic holy land, doesn't mean that it is undesirable/bad for the US to remove itself from Islamic holy land.

It's funny you posted that Logo, I was just in the process of looking up the name of the fallacy. I knew it was a logical fallacy but was unsure of the name. Most obliged

CP

Yes, if there is one flaw we seem to have in our dealings in the Middle East (and anywhere else but Europe), is that we tend to look at things from our perspective and ignore the perspective from the other sides. This is probably what has led to any of the 'evil' actions one might cite that we have taken. It is something I would wholeheartedly agree we need to address. Any foreign polciy should take this into consideration, as you couldn't possibly understand what the full and lasting ramifications of any policy would be without considering all the perspectives. At the very least it would give you the information you would need to more successfully carry out your policy, as many of the difficulties encountered will be along these lines. This is, I think, certainly what happened in Iraq. The administration failed to really understand what the dynamics in Iraq would be, and therefore failed to successfully plan for them. A democracy, for example, is certainly achievable in Iraq (or anywhere else)...but only one that fits their dynamics.



I wouldn't have expected them to have given much thought to the Greek/Mongol invasions...those were millenia ago (although their conflict with the Jews goes back a similar amount of time--memory can be funny that way). I do think we should give good consideration to their more recent history with the West, starting with their occupation by Britain. I would point out that what you are saying here is that the Iraqi's themselves (and, from what I have seen, much of the rest of the Middle East) has a fairly pragmatic view of our involvement there. I have noticed this since even before we invaded...the Middle East seemed to have a more objective view of things than even people over here. The trick, then, naturally, is to make sure it is indeed a good thing for most Iraqis--which is turning out to be much easier said than done. But it is hard to judge the real success or failure of these policies without the benefit of history. Many things have been done throughout history that seemed like a good idea at the time, but were ultimately disastrous.... just as many things that seemed calamatous at the time turned out to be quite good things many years later. Consider our own history. If we were having a similar discussion in, say, 1779 or 1780, one could quite easily make arguments that the decision to revolt against Britain was clearly ill conceived and doomed to failure (many citizens did indeed come to that conclusion, and became Loyalists)--yet here we are. History only remembers the ultimate outcome.

No thank you, you seem uninterested in actually debating, since you continue to ignore my pointed questions to you, after I take the time to respond to your. Additionally, I like to debate with people who take the time to spell in English.



Exactly. I agree that a non-totalitarian state is possible in Iraq, it just won't be what we [read=administration] envisions. You bring up good points about utilizing history, and I may turn out to be wrong as to my prognostication of the outcome. I think though that the success rate for nations that evolve in to some semblance of representative democracies is higher when the change started and was nurtured from within........sort of a native political evolution. That's not to say that it couldn't or shouldn't be encouraged diplomatically and economically, but militarily doesn't seem to be logical in most cases.

In general I might agree with that statement, but I don't think its the reason there's a problem having a functional democracy in Iraq. The citizens there seemed very enthusiastic about it... look at all those who went to the polls despite the very real threat to their lives in doing so. Heck, only about 40% of Americans vote just because it might take them an extra hour or two of their time. The problem there, IMHO, has been with those involved in actually setting up how the government would work...they haven't been sufficiently incented to actually make it work. That might be easier to overcome were the movement there started from the ground up...but we have installed democracies by force successfully in other areas--Japan comes to mind. So, I think the issue in Iraq wasn't so much in trying to install a democracy at all...it was in not adequately planning how to go about it.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to cite the oft-cited examples of Japan and Germany; I believe that there are fundamental differences between the three societies that do not lend themselves to equal comparison. The 2005 Iraqi elections, while wildly trumpeted as a victory for democracy, were much more of a legitimatized power grab by the Shi'ite population, after decades of brutal Sunni rule. Issues such as de-Ba'athification and other restraints erected by the Coalition Provisional Authority, did not constitute an example of fair suffrage. That was certainly an example of extremely poor planning, but that planning wasn't the only factor in why Iraq is not yet a democracy.

The Iraqi's that I've spoken with during the course of my deployment have all expressed eagerness for the District and Neighborhood Action Councils, but virtually no confidence in either the Maliki Government nor the idea of a national democracy in general; almost as if they want local democracy for the issues that rule their daily lives, but a quasi-totalitarian centralized government to keep warring factions at peace and to provide national security. That is a bit of translation and speculation on my part. Which in turn highlights a problem: are the US authorities in Iraq actually listening to Iraqi concerns or simply forcing the decisions of the Administration as to how a new Iraq should be formed?

In any case, IF US forces are to be required to implement foreign policy and regime change, then there is an absolute imperative for State, USAID, WMF and other agencies to be as much of a key player as those armed formations.

.


We KNOW why AQ attacked us because they made it crystal clear numerous times – and it fell out of Gulf I which I considered to be necessary.


The no-fly zone was part of the UN mandate and we were the instrument of that. It was there to stop another Shiite massare if you remember correctly.

The troops in SA (at their request) was the Osama trigger. You can make us the bad guy all you want and ignore the good all day but you cannot re write history.

.


I agrre and would not do squat in Africa for example. The ME is vital and we need to be there – but we could pull out of Germany, Japan, South Korea, and anywhere else our vital interests are not tied to.



Not at all. We organized Gulf I because a Saddam with nukes and other WMD was a threat. A threat we could not allow to spread into Kuwait. Anyone disagree? The outcome of this was troops in SA. So the fact that Osama took this personally does not make what we did in Gulf I wrong. No logic in that at all.

That is very true. Those differences are what I believe was unaccounted for in the lack of planning, and they are critical to Iraq. I merely cite these others as examples of the fact that democracies can be successfully created, as opposed to formed naturally from internal forces.



Good question...and the answer needs to be the former. Not sure if it is or not, which would perhaps explain the struggles they are having--although I'm not sure how a totalitarian government could be formed for them that wouldn't favor one portion of the population over the other. But, if indeed that is what the Iraqis seem to want, it would seem that more attention should be paid to local governments, and less to the national one. Maybe follow our model, and give them a do-nothing Congress? --



Absolutely agree with this. I would even say these other agencies are a far more important factor, at least past a certain point. Security is probably a prerequisite for some of the work these other agencies could do, but not all. The issues in Iraq are not, IMHO, military issues so much as they have become so becuase of failure to address other issues--issues that these other agencies could certainly help with.

Do you care to back up your assertion?

The Iraqi no-fly zones are two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger.
Wiki

What was that you were saying about re-writing history?

What are these 'vital interests'? Oil? What are they, Ted, because I hear that excuse all the time. What are these interests and do we have a right to them to begin with? Are they worth the blowback and the righteous anger that our presence will arouse?

Just what are we talking about when we talk about our 'vital interests' in the ME? Just what good are we doing there?

CP

My error. Your description is more complete.





Oil is certainly a big one. Should we have allowed (what would become) a nuclear armed Iraq with all the oil fields of Kuwait? Where over ½ the worlds oil is.

I agree with this overview from 1996

“My friends, first of all, the left-liberals in America need to get over this notion that it's somehow embarrassing or even immoral to have vital global interests. The isolationists need to get over the idea that, with Soviet communism gone, we no longer have global interests. The fact is, the United States is a global power. Responsibility as a global power requires us to behave like a global power.
We can protect neither our interests nor our values unless we remain a global power. As we approach the 21st century, we must apply the lessons we learned in the 20th century: It is too dangerous for us to hide and to put our heads in the sand.
I believe the world longs for America's leadership, the kind of leadership that led Ronald Reagan to stand there in Berlin in 1987 and demand, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Each day we find out more and more from Soviet archives how it was U.S. strength that freed the people of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe.
I believe the world is a freer, safer, more stable place when the U.S. is actively pursuing its own vital national interests.
“VITAL INTEREST #1: Safeguard U.S. national security.
VITAL INTEREST #2: Prevent a major power threat to Europe, East Asia, or the Persian Gulf.
VITAL INTEREST #3: Maintain access to foreign trade.

VITAL INTEREST #4: Protect Americans against threats to their lives and well-being

VITAL INTEREST #5: Maintain access to resources.
The American economy depends on foreign oil, which now accounts for more than 50 percent of America's oil consumption and is expected to provide an increasing share of future oil consumption. A threat to our oil supply is a threat to our national interest. Tour the oil fields of Kuwait, as I did three months ago, and you will see first-hand why we must maintain our access to vital natural resources.
Reduced to their basics, then these are America's five vital interests.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Political...sophy/HL557.cfm

This is a different argument. I was referencing another point you were making:
As to your revisionist history with regard to the Gulf War, I'll let that be. It is clear you're willing to rewrite history so that you may cling to your talking points.

You lost me here. Were you against Gulf War I? Should we have let Saddam have Kuwait?

I'm sorry, who are we to allow or disallow to sovereign countries from waring with each other? What right do we have to be the global referee and from where is this right derived? We didn't 'allow' or 'disallow' anything, we intervened as opposed to not intervening. What have we gained from our presence in the ME? Cheap gas ? Support from the locals ? A stable, peaceful region ? None of the above.


The man who wrote this is a fool if he believes 'left-liberals' [a nonsensical term] are the only people who oppose American imperialism. And make no mistake when he speaks of 'conservative internationalism' and claims we must begin acting like a 'global power', what he's talking about is just that, imperialism. Additionally, no one is saying that it is immoral to have 'interests' abroad. The difference between an 'interest' and a 'colony' is military force. If we back up an 'interest' with the United States military, we've created a 'colony'. 'Interests' in American foreign policy normally manifest themselves in big business abroad. The US government has no right to back our 'interests' [READ: business] abroad with the American military. That is a massive violation of sovereignty. And it's not as if I'm some nationalist or protectionist. I fully embrace globalization. What I don't embrace is one country using its military to protect its economic interests abroad.

Our interventionist foreign policy is responsible for anti-Americanism and oftentimes violent anti-Americanism which manifests itself in terrorism. That in now way safeguards U.S. national security.

Preventative military action is unjust according to 'just war theory'. Pre-emptive wars are not. There is a major difference. We have no right to prevent a nation from becoming a threat to another foreign country.

Brilliant. Maintain access to trade, a mutually beneficial, consensual act between two or more parties, with the MILITARY . This boggles the mind.

See response to: VITAL INTEREST #1.

It is in our national interest to develop an alternative to oil, not using our military to control it. And once again, what you are saying Ted is that because there is a perception that we need oil, that we therefore have the right to obtain it through our military. It's the same argument that welfare-statists use to justify <insert redistributive program here>. Simply because there is a need [or perceived need...As I said, what we NEED is to wean ourselves off of oil] does not mean that there is a right. What right do we have to Kuwaiti oil? What is this right that some believe we have to be a global hegemon?

CP

Well laugh all you like sir but I agree with the scholar above about our vital interest and if you remember correctly it was a UN operation. Not “us” but the UN and last time I checked we were a paying member – not that we get much from them.

And yes the region will be more stable with Saddam and his WMD gone.



Hate to interrupt you here but exactly what was “imperialistic” about the UN operation. Please list.



We are not trying to “control it” only keep the supply from being interrupted – which would be a disaster for our economy. we are decades from an "alternative"

Certainly I would love, as you, to pull out of everywhere and let the damn world go to hell but the grim reality is we can’t do that.

Indeed, our soldiers did fight under the UN flag. The UN forces looked like the US Armed forces with a foreign exchange program. If you remember correctly, George Bush the Elder launched Operation Desert Shield, an American operation carried about by American soldiers. To claim that the first Gulf War was anything other than a nominal international effort is absurd. The operation was, for all intents and purposes, an American one.
LINK
697,000. It was an American operation, let's not delude ourselves.

Iraq isn't even more stable with Saddam and his WMD [the existence of which has not been proven] gone, and you're telling me the region will be? Very difficult to believe.

An unfortunate side effect of quoting someone mid-sentence is that you lose context. The paragraph that included my partial quote had nothing to do about the first Gulf War. It was a response to the 'scholar's' overall view on American foreign policy and his imperialist leanings.

"We are not trying to 'control it', only keep the supply from being interrupted". Essentially what you've just said is, 'We're not trying to control it, we're only trying to control it'. It takes a degree of control [a significant one at that] in order to maintain a supply of another country's natural resources, no?

It's my view that this world isn't ours to let go to hell or not.

I'll ask again, Ted what gives us the right to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries in the name of our 'interests'. God knows no American would be okay with any other country invading the US to protect any interests they have here.

CP

I think you still have yet to prove how our actions can be sacrosanct while another nations similar actions are cause for us to invade, attack or sanction. You have yet to address how our recent actions in Iraq fall within the parameters of the just war theory.

And if you think that the just war theory need not apply to us [only others], and we should remain free to conduct preventative and precautionary aggression, how can retribution because of that action be in any way criminal?

If you're considering Mr. Feulner a scholar..........I would suggest you broaden your horizons a bit beyond the Heritage Foundation [it is after all no better a resource than MoveOn or fill-in-the-blank liberal think tank]. I can easily give you a comprehensive list of non-partisan foreign policy and military institutions that maintain websites that have all points of view.

You need to read up a little on Iraq. We went in and found massive WMD and even an advanced nuclear program. If you doubt this let me know. The evidence is miles high.

“The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction





OK so the question now becomes – is the “supply safer” since we liberated Iraq. I say yes.



Gulf one lead to Gulf II they cannot be looked at separately. If the UN had done their job we would not have invaded. The second war was based on the non response by Iraq to UN 1441. Bush should have waited - he didn't. Everthing else is 20/20

Really? Saddam was going to sell oil no matter what, economics typically do not trump grudges. But with insurgent attacks on pipelines and refineries, and the continued threat of those attacks, is that supply really safer?



Contrast that with the dearth of WMD found after 2003, thus even further removing legitimacy for the invasion. It may be 20/20 but the interventionist mindset remains in many policy makers and politicians [not to mention political hacks]; if we state that the invasion was legitimate, that paves the road for future unnecessary warfare based on political agendas.

Are you EVER going to tackle the question that I and especially CP have posed: I'll ask again, Ted what gives us the right to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries in the name of our 'interests'. God knows no American would be okay with any other country invading the US to protect any interests they have here.

Or are you just going to stick to the 'my country, right or wrong' mantra?

Ted, DTOM has essentially covered what I was going to say. That said, I apologize for imprecision. I was well aware of the Sarin, and Mustard gas found in Iraq. That said, I question the use of 'advanced' when describing the nuclear program. The Iraqi Study Group states in your link that "Saddam's ambitions in the nuclear area were secondary to his prime objective of ending UN sanctions". So advanced is a stretch. But again, I was imprecise.

With that having been said, you have not, as DTOM stated, answered a vital question that I've repeated several times.

It's a pretty good question; I'd appreciate an answer.

CP

Not only safer but it will be expanding rapidly. The government has issued contracts for oil field development. And it is said they have more available, easy to get oil than SA. And god knows the supply is our problem now.



I agree on the rush to bring Iraq to compliance – the UN should have been pressured to this – as Bush I did.

The 2003 WMD issue is clear to me – we gave Saddam every opportunity to move the WMD – and he did.




Want to define which countries and when. Gulf I does not apply and Gulf II was Bush stupidly moving to resolve UN 1441. Gulf I was a UN operation clearly in out security self interests. Gulf II was just stupid.

You have failed to define your assertion that the oil pipelines and refineries in Iraq are safer.



That may be your opinion, and your fervent desire..............but you offer no proof whatsoever. So that argument falls utterly flat.



Allow me to bring you up to speed. We were not simply discussing the foreign policy actions that took place during your years of watching Fox News, we are discussing US foreign policy in total, which boasts many, many occasions of subverting, cajoling or outright invading sovereign nations. Study some history, we are not here to make up for an unsatisfactory public school education.

BTW, in case it slipped your mind, you STILL haven't answered CP's question.

I don't think it's going to happen DTOM.

Ted, the question is a general one. What right do we have to violate the sovereignty of foreign nations in the name of protecting economic interests [or other 'interests'...if non-economic interests exist]? Because, again, God knows Americans would not stand for other countries doing the same to the US.

CP

If 'rights' were paramount, then no one in the world would need a military, would they? 'Rights' never have anything to do with any conflict...they are always about 'interests'. We have defined access to oil as a vital interest, one that we would vigorously defend, for quite some time now. This is not new.



See above. It is not a question of 'right'...never has been. Maybe at some point later in human history, but not now, and not at any time previously has such a 'right' ever even been a question. It is, rather, whether or not one has the ability. Might, in essence, makes right. You can wish that weren't true all you want, but you'd be stepping away from the reality of our world to do so. If we were to stop defending our interests, then pretty soon we wouldn't have anything left to defend, as we'd be gone.



Not true. We have the support of the Saudi's...which is really the most important, since they control the most oil, and can essentially set the price (up until recently, anyway). I would also ask what makes you so sure that any of the conditions of which you speak would be any better had we NOT intervened. You may place your faith in Saddam Hussein as a stabilizing force in the region, but I certainly would not. This was essentially the dilemma prior to 'intervening', as well. War may not have been a 'good' solution, but it was deemed better than any of the others nonetheless. Any other solution either involved continuing the status quo (bad), completely undefined diplomatic solutions (nonexistant), just leaving and leaving Saddam Hussein in power (worse), removing Saddam from power through some other means, leaving his sons in power (much, much worse). Everyone seems to forget that it was Saddam who started all this by invading Kuwait. We didn't 'intervene', he did. Unless you're willing to argue that we shouldn't defend our vital interests, and thereby accept the consequences of economic devastation without doing anything, then our actions after that were pretty much preordained.

As for any question as to whether or not 'oil' is a vital interest, one would think that goes without saying. What do you think would happen to us if we lost access to oil? Our economy would essentially come to a complete standstill. Life as we know it would cease--and there's no guarantee we'd come out of it. Where would the money to move away from oil come from with our economy at a standstill? No where. Anarchy would probably quickly reign... I guess making the whole issue of ME terrorism pretty moot as it became dwarfed by far greater internal issues. Even short of that, we are certainly extremely susceptible to price swings or even temporary lack of access. Such things could be very devastating to our economy. I don't know if any country in history has ever had a resource as vital to its interests as oil is to ours. It is the very definition of a 'vital interest'.

Yes. If a country's rights [sovereignty, etc] it may use its military to re-claim them. If every country respect ever other country's rights, a military would not be necessary. But because that is no the case, a military is necessary.

My question goes unanswered. Unless your answer to the question 'what gives us the right/authority to violate the sovereignty of other nations in order to protect our 'interests'' is "we have free reign to defend our 'interests''. I think what it comes down to is: A: those who support an interventionist foreign policy believe the ends justify the means because America is in the right and B: Might makes right. Because we 'can' defend our interest with military force, it is the right thing to do. If that's your view [I'm speaking in general, Hobbes, not to you right now] then I do not understand how your indignation and horror in response to terrorism should be taken seriously. Basically: if you believe that the US should back up its 'interest' abroad with economic force, you need to accept that American citizens will be killed as a result. I don't accept premise [that we should use the military to back our 'interests', other wise known as colonizing] or the conclusion [American civilians will be targets of terrorists]. And oil certainly is not the only 'interest' the US 'protects' and has 'protected' before.

This questioned can be answered most effectively by taking a quick look before and after at the ME. Before our invasion Iraq was a country without major terrorist activity, the US was less universally despised throughout the region and world, there was no ethnic strife within Iraq [due to Hussein's barbaric treatment of other ethnic groups]. Simply stated, the region was in better shape before our invasion. That's not to say it was in great shape...but it certainly hasn't gotten any better by any objective measure since our invasion.

There are other ways to 'defend' our interests without using military force. Diplomacy, not force. We're talking about economic interests, and I referenced before, we're talking about defending trade [a voluntary and consensual activity] with force. We don't have a right to [in the case of oil] the natural resources of another country. And as far as I'm concerned, taking, by force, something that belongs to another party is called 'theft'.

Hobbes, this completely ignores the fact that the majority of our oil comes from outside of the Middle East. Even if we lost all of 'our interests' in oil in the ME, we would have a supply of oil and your apocalyptic scenario would not occur.

CP

Will this work for you DTOM?

“BAGHDAD — A sharp drop in attacks on pipelines has enabled Iraq to increase oil exports from northern oil fields and profit from the rise in world energy prices, the country's oil minister said Friday.

Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said pipeline attacks fell from an average of 30 a month in 2007 to only four last month. Most of the attacks had been in the north, where Sunni insurgents were active.

Al-Shahristani told Al-Sharqiya television that the reduction in attacks has enabled Iraq to export more oil from the northern oil fields around Kirkuk to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. The northern pipeline had been frequently shut down for extended periods during the past four years because of sabotage.

Iraq's oil exports, most of which come from southern oil fields around Basra, have risen above 2 million barrels a day for the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, the Oil Ministry said this month.”

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/World%20N...-pipelines-down


What has a “general question” go to do with the debate?

Ok – in general imo Clear and Present Danger would be ample reason to attack.

The questions for debate are:
My question [which I still have a fleeting hope that you may answer] pertains to the second question. If we have some right to intervene in the affairs of foreign countries then there would be no legitimate reason for others to be angered by our interventions/attack us and no one would rightly sympathize with the terrorists' cause. So I'll ask for the fifth, maybe the sixth time:

What right do we have to violate the sovereignty of foreign nations in the name of protecting economic interests [or other 'interests'...if non-economic interests exist]? Because, again, God knows Americans would not stand for other countries doing the same to the US.

CP

What right do we have to violate the sovereignty of foreign nations in the name of protecting economic interests [or other 'interests'...if non-economic interests exist]? Because, again, God knows Americans would not stand for other countries doing the same to the US.

We in the US have a difficult time imagining that we are anything but good-hearted and have the entire world’s “interests at heart”. We think that our impact on the world is generous and up-lifting. In our obsession with national security that has consumed us and the administration since the 9/11 attacks , IMO we seem to have grasped on to the belief that nothing we have done before September 11th contributes to that event or the attacks that have continued. We have not assessed our foreign policy over the last forty years and how it has impacted the Muslim world. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has wondered whether or not our foreign policies have motivated our attackers.

“The future always comes as a surprise, but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise might be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam.” Hilaire Belloc, 1938

IMO we are in our current condition because we have totally failed to study US and world history, and to realize that we are not exempt from the lessons and warnings that exist in our history books. George Washington's last speech before leaving office gave us some good advice which nobody seems to heed:

"A passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and Wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite Nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation."

Does this seemingly endless war with the Muslim world have anything to do with the United States "passionate attachment" to Israel?

There is a great deal of difference between 'defending your interests' and 'colonizing'. We shouldn't confuse the two. Every nation defends their interests...the alternative would be to not defend them, and I can't imagine why any nation would choose that. As for being able to support defending such interests and still be outraged at terrorism...this would be alot like supporting capitalism but decrying bank robbery...a position I find easy to defend. Keep in mind that its not 'colonizing' that gives us a bad impression in the Middle East (what colonizing had we done prior to Iraq?), it is our support of Israel. One could argue we didn't understand the long term implications in the area of doing so, but trying to provide a safe haven for the victims of the Holocaust hardly qualifies for the sort of vilification that gets directed at our foreign policy. We have been the least 'colonizing' global power ever in history--every other global power actively sought to use that power to increase its territory, we have not. That doesn't mean we've been perfect, but I think we need to keep things in perspective, too. The simple fact is that no matter what our policy was, there would still be groups in the world that will hate us for it...either for doing something, or not doing something. Given that, then, it only makes sense to defend your interests, as you're going to be hated by certain groups anyway. The question is not whether or not we should do so, it is how should we do it in the best manner.



First, a 'quick look' is never sufficient for judging such things--they are simply too complicated, and the impacts are generally not seen for years. However, in this quick look, terrorism was certainly present in Iraq--that is how Saddam obtained and kept himself in power. The US was just as despised in the ME before...that was part of the dilemma we were in. The sanctions we were applying to Iraq were being used as an example of how we didn't care about the people there, and having almost no effect on Saddam. There was certainly ethnic strife within Iraq...how do you think the minority power kept the majority in line? Saddam had invaded two countries previously (Iran and Kuwait), and had a stated goal of becoming the ruling power within the region--hardly a situation of stability. Are things better now? No, not really. I would argue that is more due to flawed planning than poor policy... a good strategy poorly implemented is seldom successful. Will things be better in a few years? I think so. Regardless of how things end up in Iraq, they'll be free of Saddam, and not a threat to the region.



There were no workable diplomatic solutions, and those that had been tried (sanctions, etc) were just making the situation worse. Had there been a workable diplomatic solution, I would have been all for it.

As to the oil, we didn't 'take' the oil (I HATE that argument! ). We have never had a policy of 'taking' the oil--who knows, maybe we'd be better off if we had. All we had was a policy of defending our access to the resource. If we'd wanted to 'take' the oil...we had control of the oilfields during the first Gulf War. Why did we give it back, if taking the oil was the goal? The only answer is that it wasn't the goal.



The ME is the primary supplier to the global oil market. If the supply of oil there were not critical to us, why do we always go to Saudi Arabia to try to moderate price swings? It is true that we don't currently get a lot of our oil from the ME...but if supply there dried up, that would have ramifications throughout the oil market...making its effect on us the same. As the world's largest user of oil, we are the country most susceptible to supply issues anywhere, and therefore the country most concerned about the supply from the region that has the most of it.



Yes, absolutely it does. In fact, I would state that it is almost entirely due to that.

Short post [I'm at work], but doesn't the fact that American oil companies receiving exclusive no-bid contracts just within the last few days put your defense at risk? And as a corollary, doesn't this event at least put our foreign policy in a dimmer light than before, to the people of the region?

'Defending our interests' and colonizing typically go hand and hand. This is due to the fact that we typically 'defend our interests' through any and all means. Ask the Guatemalans, the Iranians and the Saudis and several other foreign citizens. 'Defending our interests abroad' is becoming a prettier sounding word for neo-imperialism. Which sounds far less pretty.

Not every nation has the means to 'defend their interests'. Only strong countries do...And that brings us back to 'might makes right'. In addition, we're still talking about 'defending our interests'