# Reality Intrudes



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2005)

It is interesting to see people going into contortions as they try to reconcile their positions and beliefs about the Bush administration with the "truth on the ground". Case in point:



> BY JAMES TARANTO
> Wednesday, March 2, 2005 10:53 a.m.
> 
> 'But as an American . . .'
> ...


----------



## mdh (2 Mar 2005)

It is remarkable how events have turned around in the space of two months.   First the Iraqi election, democratic reforms in Egypt, and now this - fascinating stuff.   

And you're right a-majoor, if this continues to unfold we could be seeing enough contortionism among the left to shame Cirque du Soleil.   

The real question is to what extent does this signals a genuine populist movement in Lebanon, and whether it will spread to Syria and Iran.   

If it does, I would suggest that the Assad regime and the Mullahs will do everything in their power to contain, and destroy it - and that's when things will get really dangerous. 

cheers, mdh


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Mar 2005)

If Lebanon regains anything resembling its former self, the US won't have to lift a finger against Syria.  Ordinary Syrians will have a role model that isn't Turkey or Israel or Iraq and will eventually demand better than what they have now.


----------



## mdh (3 Mar 2005)

Brad,

I hope you're right. But considering the reaction of the Baathist regime to the Hama uprising in 1982, when thousands were slaughted by the Syrian army and security services,(interestingly enough to quash an Islamic uprising), I wouldn't bet on it. 

Syria is on par with Saddam's Iraq as being one the most repressive in the world (to the point where fax machines and the internet were banned.) Moreover the country is ruled by a minority Islamic sect, the Alawites, who are considered heretics by the Shiite majority. 

That means they have no where to go if they lose power.

Lebanon has been less strictly controlled despite the Syrian occupation. 

But what would happen if there was a mass protest movement in the streets of Damascus? Would the regime stand idly by and let it happen?

And if there was a brutal crackdown what would the US response be? Stay tuned.

cheers, mdh


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2005)

> latimes.com
> http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-boot3mar03,0,2094258.column?coll=la-home-utilities
> 
> MAX BOOT
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2005)

> *â Å“When Good News Strikesâ ?*
> Glum liberals' try coping with a changing world.
> 
> If the world that Democrats have been living in lately were made into a reality disaster show, it would be called â Å“When Good News Strikes.â ?
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (8 Mar 2005)

And now, the hard part:


Pro-Syria Demonstrators Gather in Lebanon
Pro-Syrian Demonstrators Gather in Lebanon's Capital in Response to Hezbollah Call
By TANALEE SMITH
The Associated Press

Mar. 8, 2005 - Pro-Syrian protesters gathered in a central Beirut square Tuesday, answering a nationwide call by the militant Shiite Muslim Hezbollah group for a demonstration to counter weeks of massive rallies demanding Syrian forces leave Lebanon.

Loudspeakers blared songs of resistance and organizers handed out Lebanese flags and directed the men and women to separate sections of the square. Black-clad Hezbollah guards handled security, lining the perimeter of the square and taking position on rooftops. Trained dogs sniffed for bombs.

Large cranes hoisted two giant white and red flags bearing Lebanon's cedar tree. On one, the words "Thank you Syria" were written in English; on the other, "No to foreign interference."

The square was just a few blocks from another downtown square where opposition protesters have been staging protests for days, demanding that Syria withdraw the 14,000 troops it maintains in Lebanon.

A day after the Syrian and Lebanese leaders announced that the forces would redeploy to eastern Lebanon, most of the troops were still in position, with Associated Press reporters in the mountains overlooking Beirut seeing only scattered movement of military trucks heading toward the Bekaa Valley.

A truck carrying 11 soldiers and supplies headed east at midmorning but most of the military traffic was moving the other direction empty trucks and buses traveling west apparently to collect soldiers and equipment. Also headed toward western Lebanon and the capital, Beirut, were scores of cars bearing passengers waving Lebanese flags on their way to a Beirut protest.

Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim group, has been mobilizing its followers from across the country for the protest, also meant to denounce a U.N. resolution that, in addition to its demand for Syrian withdrawal, called for dismantling militias a point Hezbollah sees as aimed at its well-armed military wing.

In the outlying heavily Shiite regions of the Bekaa and the south, loudspeakers urged followers to travel to Beirut for the protest. A newspaper reported that convoys of Syrians were being brought across the border in buses to take part but that could not be confirmed.

Opposition leaders, who have been courting Hezbollah's support in their effort to oust Syrian troops, accused Lebanese intelligence agents of exercising pressure on municipalities, public schools and institutions to drive the numbers up.

Hezbollah officials denied the charges, saying it is part of a campaign to make the demonstration seem "imposed and involuntary."

Hezbollah, founded by Iran and backed in part by Syria, has emerged as a key player during the latest political instability, capable of tilting the balance either in favor of the pro-Syrian government or the anti-Syrian opposition.

On Monday, in the biggest demonstration yet of anti-Syrian furor, more than 70,000 Lebanese shouting "Freedom! Sovereignty! Independence!" thronged central Beirut. The demonstrators waved Lebanon's cedar-tree flag and thundered, "Syria out!"

The demonstrators marched to the site of the Feb. 14 bombing that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and touched off the angry but peaceful street protests that drove Lebanon's pro-Syrian government to resign a week ago. Many Lebanese accuse the Syrian government and their government of responsibility for Hariri's death; both deny any involvement.

Faced with incessant international pressure and raging Lebanese opposition, Syrian President Bashar Assad on Saturday announced his troops would withdraw after nearly three decades in Lebanon. On Monday, he met with President Emile Lahoud in Damascus and jointly announced a plan.

But the plan set no deadline for the complete withdrawal of Syrian troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon, and Washington rejected the pullback as insufficient. The plan also was unlikely to satisfy the Lebanese opposition and the rest of the international community, which have demanded that all Syrian soldiers and an unknown number of intelligence agents leave the country.

On Tuesday morning in the mountains east of Beirut, there was little movement of Syrian troops heading eastward toward the Bekaa Valley or Syria. In Hammana, high up in the foggy and rainy mountains, five soldiers huddled around a bonfire.

Under the plan announced Monday, all Syrian troops in Lebanon would fall back to eastern regions near the Syrian border by March 31. Military officers will decide by end of April on duration and size of Syrian forces to remain in that region. After that period, the two governments would decide on a date for pullout.

Syria has had troops here since 1976, when they were sent as peacekeepers during Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war. When the war ended, the troops remained and Syria has dominated Lebanon's politics ever since.

The United States, France, Russia, Germany and the U.N. Security Council have firmly demanded that Syria withdraw all the troops and stop interfering in the affairs of its smaller neighbor. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder issued a joint statement Monday calling for a full pullout "as soon as possible."

Washington wants a full withdrawal of Syrian soldiers and intelligence agents before Lebanese parliamentary elections expected in April and May. The White House called the Lebanese-Syrian plan "a half measure."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures


http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=560660



I have to admit, "_On one, the words "Thank you Syria" were written in English; on the other, "No to foreign interference."_" gives ANSWER and the rest a run for their money in the "Unintentional Irony" department.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2005)

From Jonah Goldberg in todays NRO



> *Liberal Myopia*
> Getting my groove back.
> 
> This is a very strange moment, as I am sure liberals and conservatives will agree. Democracy seems to be spreading in the Middle East, albeit pregnant with the possibility of disappointing failure. The Independent, Le Monde and the New York Times â â€ not to mention the likes of Jon Stewart and Daniel Schorr â â€ have been forced to at least ponder whether, in the words of Schorr, "Bush may have had it right."
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Mar 2005)

Excellent article ... funny how today's "liberals" don't really seem to care much for the principles of _liberalism_ ...


----------



## CivU (10 Mar 2005)

I think we are going to have to let this test of time truly prove whether US intervention was of positive consequence to Iraq...


----------



## Infanteer (10 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I think we are going to have to let this test of time truly prove whether US intervention was of positive consequence to Iraq...



Yep.  You couldn't tell if Guadacanal or Kursk were going to be as important or effective as they were until you had the capability of hindsight.  Cheerleading and Nay-saying are, for now, quite irrelevent but as it stands, I'm behind the guys on my team who are doing their best to bring about consequences which will benefit us (my family, my community, and my country) in the future.  

Sound one sided?  I don't pretend to aspire to lofty idealism which often seeks the unattainable (ie: everybody gets what they want).


----------



## CivU (10 Mar 2005)

"I'm behind the guys on my team who are doing their best to bring about consequences which will benefit us"

As long as your pragmatic and cutting to the chase in acknowledging that whatever happens, the greatest, or any benefit for that matter, will inevitably be to "us" in the West...


----------



## Infanteer (10 Mar 2005)

...and should it be any different?  I do not elect politicians, pay taxes, and put my ass on the wall to ensure that someone else receives the benefits.

As I said, lofty idealism focuses on the unattainable - in reality, we have to prioritize.

If it means assertively dealing with the problem of 3,000 people killed by assymetric attacks and ensuring that our way of living doesn't go down the drain as opposed to leaving the Middle East, with its Mullahs, Dictators, and xenophobic Fundmamentalists, on its own, then so be it.

The solution is never going to be fair and satisfiable to everyone on the planet, there is a "zero-sum" element to such things.  But if the difference is me and my own (family, community, country) and others who don't like me, then the choice is apparent.  As you said, we can never be positive that the choices we make are the right ones until we have the hindsight of being able to look back on the whole picture (The Germans were quite ecstatic in 1940...) but until then, we have to put our energy somewhere - hopefully using it in a proactive manner to contribute to a suitable outcome.  Fencesitting and Armchair-quarterbacking always seem to remind me of the proverb "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem...."

As I've said before, the course of action we in the West have taken (to secure our own interests) may not be foolproof or ideal, but considering the alternatives, they're the best we've got.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "I'm behind the guys on my team who are doing their best to bring about consequences which will benefit us"
> 
> As long as your pragmatic and cutting to the chase in acknowledging that whatever happens, the greatest, or any benefit for that matter, will inevitably be to "us" in the West...



This sort of attitude drives me up the wall. The Mullahs, Ba'athists and Jihadis are no benefit to the average person in the Middle East, and a real and present danger to all of us in the West. Please don't forget the example of Daniel Pearl, the journalist who was quite sympathetic to the entire "Root cause/misunderstood" paradigm and cultivated contacts with the Jihadis. He felt he could get close and "tell their story" to us, and everyone would come out with a better understanding of each other....

The Jihadis looked at him and said "An American and a Jew", lured him in with an offer to do interviews, then kidnapped him, tortured him and beheaded him on camera for the viewing pleasure of fellow Jihadis and the Al Jezzera network.

Yet these are the sorts of people that Micheal Moore lauds as "minutemen", that CBC will not identify as terrorists, and who really don't give a s**t about you either as a part of the West or as an individual person, except insofar as they can dominate you for their profit and personal pleasure. Frankly, I will be pragmatic and acknowledge the best outcome for us is their deaths at the hands of coallition troops or their permanent incarceration in very secure and remote island prisons where they can be no danger to us or anyone else.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Mar 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Frankly, I will be pragmatic and acknowledge the best outcome for us is their deaths at the hands of coallition troops or their permanent incarceration in very secure and remote island prisons where they can be no danger to us or anyone else.


what he said (but with more cussin')


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sound one sided?   I don't pretend to aspire to lofty idealism which often seeks the unattainable (ie: everybody gets what they want).



Or better yet, everyone gets what they deserve.


----------



## Slim (12 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "I'm behind the guys on my team who are doing their best to bring about consequences which will benefit us"
> 
> As long as your pragmatic and cutting to the chase in acknowledging that whatever happens, the greatest, or any benefit for that matter, will inevitably be to "us" in the West...



Do you have some sort of weird desire to see the west fail, or take a second place to these countries in the middle east...I Mean...Could you explain excactly what you want?! ??? :


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Mar 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> what he said (but with more cussin')



Nice one!  ;D


----------



## CivU (12 Mar 2005)

"Do you have some sort of weird desire to see the west fail"

I'm not sure where you draw this from, but that is not my desire.  I do however disagree with the goals of the present hegemonic and jingoistic US foreign policy platform.  I don't think I'm the only one either...


----------



## paracowboy (12 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "Do you have some sort of weird desire to see the west fail"
> 
> I'm not sure where you draw this from, but that is not my desire.   I do however disagree with the goals of the present hegemonic and jingoistic US foreign policy platform.   I don't think I'm the only one either...


you're right, you aren't. You're in good company: Hizbullah, the Ba'ath Party, North Korea, the Liberal Party, oh the list is just endless. 


"hegemonic and jingoistic"  : What's next? Imperialist Running Dogs?


----------



## Slim (12 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> "Do you have some sort of weird desire to see the west fail"
> 
> I'm not sure where you draw this from, but that is not my desire.   I do however disagree with the goals of the present hegemonic and jingoistic US foreign policy platform.   I don't think I'm the only one either...



For a moment lets pretend that you're right and this is all about oil...How did you get to work this morning? Because the way i see it we use oil everyday of our lives.

Now as for what you're trying to get at I do not have a clue...So I guess you need to explain it to me using small sylibal words so I can understand it.

I would also like to know why you limit your posting to the political forum?

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (12 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you draw this from, but that is not my desire.   I do however disagree with the goals of the present hegemonic and jingoistic US foreign policy platform.   I don't think I'm the only one either...



As I said earlier, both Cheerleading and Naysaying are irrelevant.  I've seen lots of rhetoric and suspicion coming out of your posts, but never anything in the way of a concrete alternate for approaching the problem, whether with regards to general strategy (War on Terror) or specific Policies (US in Iraq).  

Its easy to sit back, condemn, and play armchair quarterback, but what would you have us do?  Many of us have repeatedly expressed their rational for supporting "hegemonistic jingoism" - we've either served directly in the effort or have close friends and comrades directly engaged - but I've yet to see a counterclaim from you that would be regarded as effective in dealing with the problem and not derided as "imperialist".

I'm all ears....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, both Cheerleading and Naysaying are irrelevant.   I've seen lots of rhetoric and suspicion coming out of your posts, but never anything in the way of a concrete alternate for approaching the problem, whether with regards to general strategy (War on Terror) or specific Policies (US in Iraq).
> 
> Its easy to sit back, condemn, and play armchair quarterback, but what would you have us do?   Many of us have repeatedly expressed their rational for supporting "hegemonistic jingoism" - we've either served directly in the effort or have close friends and comrades directly engaged - but I've yet to see a counterclaim from you that would be regarded as effective in dealing with the problem and not derided as "imperialist".
> 
> I'm all ears....



The ball, as they  say, is in your court....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I do however disagree with the goals of the present hegemonic and jingoistic US foreign policy platform.



I've never really thought of freedom, democracy and self-determination as particularly hegemonic ...


----------



## CivU (13 Mar 2005)

I think you mean "syllable" but thats just fine....in coherent statements greatly contribute to the discussion...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I think you mean "syllable" but thats just fine....in coherent statements greatly contribute to the discussion...



CivU - you are going to have to do a lot better than a simple ad hominem attack....

Answer the question.


----------



## The_Stu (13 Mar 2005)

The guy that wrote the original article should have watched Jon Stewart a few more times, because the point was raised a few shows later by another guest that democracy in the middle east would be detrimental to the Republicans, and a positive to the Democrats, in that Bush wasnt elected to go spread democracy. While it may not be a negative for the Republicans, its a bigger positive for the democrats, asuming they can spin it right.

As for CivU, well, I agree to a certain extent, like Jon Stewart said in the original article (although you would never know it, reading what was bolded) I dont agree with the tactics, but the results are there. As for a counter arguement, an alternative approach? Well show me where in the rules it says one is required. No, not there? Just because I / we think its the wrong approach, doesnt mean theres a right one, the lesser of all evils is still evil.


----------



## McG (13 Mar 2005)

What is the "lesser of all evils"?  The one that you believe that the west should pursue?


----------



## Slim (13 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I think you mean "syllable" but thats just fine....in coherent statements greatly contribute to the discussion...



If you don't want to answer then just say so...Unfortunately (for you) no one is buying the "smug and superior" attitude you seemed to have developed in the forum, and to tell you the truth you're just pissing allot of people off.(including some high-ranking officers who know your name and could be very beneficial to your future career if you took the time to listen instead of preach)

Why don't you clean up your act and attempt to get along with everyone else, instead of working so hard to push all of our buttons...?!

Slim


----------



## CivU (13 Mar 2005)

As far as the correct approach to foreign policy...how about no approach at all.  It is much easier to not invade a country unilaterally than to participate in the quagmire that has become of Iraq.  This was the approach that most nations took on the issue.  And Iraq, as an experiment, as I stated earlier, has yet to show tangible improvements.  The election worked best as a means of ostensibly finalizing the campaign and relegating the issues on the ground to A17 of the daily paper.  

You may condemn attacks on the US approach to foreign policy, but it is just as easy to hop on the GW Bush bandwagon as it is to throw tomatoes as it passes by...


----------



## paracowboy (13 Mar 2005)

> And Iraq, as an experiment, as I stated earlier, has yet to show tangible improvements.


 oh, I beg to differ! Let's see, improved infrastructure than under the Ba'ath Party, free elections, free press, yadda yadda yadda, etc, etc. On the international scene, we have various Autocracies realizing (from the example set in Iraq) that they'd best smarten up, and various terrorist groups reeling from pressure applied by those they've oppressed for so long.

No improvement, whatsoever. Have you ever left this continent? Have you seen the conditions under which most of the world lives? Things are definitely showing tangible improvement. 

Not making a decision is, by default making one. *Except* that you are accepting whatever decision is being forced on you by those who have the strength of character to do so, whether that character is inclined towards Good or Evil.


----------



## Highland Lad (13 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> As far as the correct approach to foreign policy...how about no approach at all.



Okay... I'll bite. Is isolationism supposed to be a valid approach to foreign policy now?


----------



## Slim (13 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> As far as the correct approach to foreign policy...how about no approach at all.   It is much easier to not invade a country unilaterally than to participate in the quagmire that has become of Iraq.   This was the approach that most nations took on the issue.   And Iraq, as an experiment, as I stated earlier, has yet to show tangible improvements.   The election worked best as a means of ostensibly finalizing the campaign and relegating the issues on the ground to A17 of the daily paper.
> 
> You may condemn attacks on the US approach to foreign policy, but it is just as easy to hop on the GW Bush bandwagon as it is to throw tomatoes as it passes by...



Still no answer...Just likes to preach...


----------



## CivU (13 Mar 2005)

Yadda yadda yadda?   I have most often read the conditions in Iraq as having changed, not improved.

As far as isolationism.   That was not what I was suggesting.   Many nations did not involve themselves in Iraq but did not isolate themselves from the War on Terrorism by not participating in Afghanistan, including Canada.   Perhaps more selective involvement...


----------



## Slim (13 Mar 2005)

> author=CivU link=topic=27643/post-182909#msg182909 date=1110746258]
> Yadda yadda yadda?   I have most often read the conditions in Iraq as having changed, not improved



Oh...So the Big Bad U.S.A. should stop dropping bombs on the poor AQ freedom fighters so that they can return IRAQ to a near-medieval state where no one has any rights, women are treated like possesions sand education (reading books actually) is considered a bad thing?



> As far as isolationism.   That was not what I was suggesting.   Many nations did not involve themselves in Iraq but did not isolate themselves from the War on Terrorism by not participating in Afghanistan, including Canada.   Perhaps more selective involvement...



Hell...Why don't we just go apologize for the whole thing, give them a ton of cash and leave them alone...That what you want?!

Give your head a shake...


----------



## paracowboy (13 Mar 2005)

> I have most often read the conditions in Iraq as having changed, not improved.


of course you have.   :

  





> Perhaps more selective involvement...


selective involvement is all that we're capable of. We are entirely dependent on others' good will to even get to someplace we can be involved in, and once there, are still dependent on others to be able to make a contribution. I have no issue with picking and choosing where we'll play, but I am incensed at having those choices dictated to us by the selfishness and greed of our leaders. We didn't decide to stay out of Iraq on any sort of moral grounds, we stayed out because our so-called leaders were making a fortune by doing so. And, should we have wanted to go, we would have had to rely on someone else to get us there, again due entirely to the self-interest of our leaders.

But anyway, I can see that nothing anyone says is going to get you to remove your blinders, so I'm OUT. You have a super day, now.


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Mar 2005)

> I think you mean "syllable" but thats just fine....in coherent statements greatly contribute to the discussion...




You meant "incoherent" right?  (Ironically)    Glass houses, CivU


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Mar 2005)

Muskrat, my night shift is going to go a lot faster with that great laugh I just got.....


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2005)

CivU is proving the point of the thread; his posts are from some alternative universe since the "reality on the ground" is so clearly at variance to what he is saying.

But don't take it from me; Iraq the Model, InstaPundit, Powerline, the Belmont Club and dozens of soldiers from the US and Coalition forces are reporting far more than the latest "bomb of the day" on their Blogs.

In fact, you can put the story together from the MSM by keeping a large map of Iraq and a supply of push pins handy, and marking where these stories are taking place; only four Iraqi provinces (the Tikrit Triangle) have significant Jihadi activity, somewhat like talking about a terrible Canadian Insurgency discovering that the only bombs going off are in in PEI and New Brunswick (terrible for them, unsettling for the rest of us). A map of the Middle East would have push pins showing where elections are being held for the *VERY FIRST TIME*, and a global map would show people power toppling corrupt governments in the Ukraine and attempting to do the same in Lebanon. I suppose you can split hairs and say this is "only" a change, and not an "improvement", so I would question 

a: *How you would define "improvement"?*, and, 

b: *What catalyzed these changes?*


----------



## couchcommander (14 Mar 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> A map of the Middle East would have push pins showing where elections are being held for the *VERY FIRST TIME*, and a global map would show people power toppling corrupt governments in the Ukraine and attempting to do the same in Lebanon....
> 
> 
> ....b: *What catalyzed these changes?*



You guys are right that the situation is improving on the ground in Iraq. That much is undeniable.

However...

What connection can you draw between Ukraine, Lebanon, and Iraq? Just to be clear here, the Ukrainian party that won the election ran on a platform that was against involvement in Iraq and the Ukraine is currently withdrawing it's troops from Iraq (it was the old corrupt party that supported involvement in Iraq...) 

Further, the independance movement has been active in Lebanon since '76, and the current tension and withdrawl of Syrian troops was sparked by rumours that it was Syria who assasinated Rafik Hariri.

It might be the case that the American attack on Iraq proved their resolve and has provided further impoteus for Syria to comply with American demands, though I hardly think you can pin all of this on a great spreading tide of "freedom" at the hands of American liberators. As you posted in one of your other threats a_majoor, "people power" is the driving force, not American tanks. It just goes to show you don't need to invade a country to have positive change happen....

I'm sorry if that is not what you were trying to imply, that is just what I took from the question.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Mar 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> What connection can you draw between Ukraine, Lebanon, and Iraq? Just to be clear here, the Ukrainian party that won the election ran on a platform that was against involvement in Iraq and the Ukraine is currently withdrawing it's troops from Iraq (it was the old corrupt party that supported involvement in Iraq...)



It's not support for the Iraq action _per se_; it's support for freedom from tyrrany!  With respect to Ukraine specifically, Bush wore 'the orange tie' (as requested) it signalled US support, which may or may not have been critical, but definitely did nothing to stop the momentum.



> Further, the independance movement has been active in Lebanon since '76, and the current tension and withdrawl of Syrian troops was sparked by rumours that it was Syria who assasinated Rafik Hariri.
> 
> It might be the case that the American attack on Iraq proved their resolve and has provided further impoteus for Syria to comply with American demands, though I hardly think you can pin all of this on a great spreading tide of "freedom" at the hands of American liberators. As you posted in one of your other threats a_majoor, "people power" is the driving force, not American tanks. It just goes to show you don't need to invade a country to have positive change happen....



Why not climb down from our ivory tower and ask the leader of the Lebanese freedom movement?

"... The leader of this Lebanese intifada is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. ...

  "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.""
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45575-2005Feb22.html (or course you are entitled to your own opinion)


----------



## couchcommander (14 Mar 2005)

I, myself, don't doubt that American support for demoracy in the middle east has had some positive effects. Having the worlds superpower behind your movement will give it credibility. I am just not entirely convinced that the american invasion of Iraq has actually helped spread democracy at all (despite what Walid Jumblatt says, the course of events speaks a different story, notably the largest rally of them all taking place today exactly after a month after Hariri was killed, demanding an inquiry into the matter. ). Democracy was and is taking root in these nations on their own volition, not BECAUSE of American involvement in the region, which may (and I am not saying that it is, just saying maybe) be actually retarding this growth (by pissing people off).


----------



## CivU (14 Mar 2005)

a: How you would define "improvement"?

Let's look at the long term impacts on Iraq, monitor any significant changes in the HDI standing for the nation and see how quality of life indicators demonstrate, if possible, the the day to day existance of an ordinary Iraqi is improving.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> a: How you would define "improvement"?
> 
> Let's look at the long term impacts on Iraq, monitor any significant changes in the HDI standing for the nation and see how quality of life indicators demonstrate, if possible, the the day to day existance of an ordinary Iraqi is improving.



Go to the top of page 40 (sheesh!): http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Mar 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Democracy was and is taking root in these nations on their own volition, not BECAUSE of American involvement in the region, which may (and I am not saying that it is, just saying maybe) be actually retarding this growth (by pissing people off).



Just like Ray-Gun perpetuated the Soviet regime, eh?


----------



## Andyboy (14 Mar 2005)

Sounds like a good plan CivU. Now no more posting until you have the long term data compiled! ;D 

Seriously, I understand what you are saying, but I question your sources. Are you basing your opinion on what you read/see in mainstream media? I ask because most of what I have read from primary sources (i.e. people living and working on the ground right now) tell a far different story from what I read in most media sources.   

In the meantime here is a link you might want to check out. Although it probably doesn't help your argument much it does a pretty good job of detailing the progress on the ground. 

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/03/good-news-from-iraq-part-23.html


----------



## Slim (14 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> a: How you would define "improvement"?
> 
> Let's look at the long term impacts on Iraq, monitor any significant changes in the HDI standing for the nation and see how quality of life indicators demonstrate, if possible, the the day to day existance of an ordinary Iraqi is improving.



Sorry to inject real life into your picture-perfect world of schoolbooks...But things are just a little bit harder than that in reality. It takes far more time to build than to tear down, sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better.

Now I have something else to say to you and I'm posting it publicly because all the "friendly warnings" you've gotten from PM's has not sunken in...

 I'm going to strongly suggest that you reign it in a bit and consider that you've never been to the area that you're busy lecturing us about, and from what I can see, have far less experience dealing with these issues than some of the folks you're speaking to here, both on the forum and in this thread.

thus far you haven't displayed anything but smug superiority to anyone on the site. I for one, think its rather rude and disrespectful to the others who come here for good discussion. (whether military or not)
Its high time that your attitude change as, personally I'm sick of getting complaints all regarding your posts and the way you "address" others, myself included.

If you want to continue posting here, regardless of your opinion (which is welcome, believe it or not) you will need to lose the attitude. Consider this a fair warning.

The ball's in your court.

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> As far as the correct approach to foreign policy...how about no approach at all.   It is much easier to not invade a country unilaterally than to participate in the quagmire that has become of Iraq.   This was the approach that most nations took on the issue.   And Iraq, as an experiment, as I stated earlier, has yet to show tangible improvements.   The election worked best as a means of ostensibly finalizing the campaign and relegating the issues on the ground to A17 of the daily paper.



Wow, that was friggen creative.   Do nothing.

So you dispute the invasion of Iraq, which is debatable (but as you've asserted, by no means declared "right" or "wrong" yet).

But do you argue this approach at the strategic level as well?   Should the US-led coalition (which is most of the West, despite disagreement on tactical approaches like Iraq) "do nothing" with regards to the Middle East?   I would assume this would mean disengagement and removing any support for Israel (and Western-friendly figures like Mubarak of Egypt, Abdullah II of Jordan, and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia).   This is the impression I'm getting, especially with regards to your general tone whenever US Foreign Policy is mentioned (hegemon and imperialist come to mind).

Or even if we "put our foot in the door" with regards to going into Afghanistan, would you have us sit on the periphery of Dar al Islam and avoid contact with the strategic "center of gravity" of rabid Islamic fundamentalism?   That is really taking a proactive approach - I would consider it akin to remaining in North Africa after throwing the Germans out and doing nothing about Europe.

If this is what you're supporting, I'd like to see some sort of arguement on how this would benefit our interests in the West in particular or the international community as a whole in general



> You may condemn attacks on the US approach to foreign policy, but it is just as easy to hop on the GW Bush bandwagon as it is to throw tomatoes as it passes by...



I don't get how you're bringing the "GW bandwagon" into this.   By doing so, you're displaying an affinity for selective memory of recent history.   The Clinton Administration was very proactive in the Middle East, lobbing Tomahawks around, threatening to invade Iraq (actually mobilizing troops to do so once in the early 1990's, IIRC), and adding to the general roar in labelling Saddam Hussein as a threat that needed to be removed (I've posted the quotes from Albright and Co. frequently around here).

US Foreign Policy has been quite assertive in the Middle East since the first Gulf War, regardless of administration; 9/11 only served as a catalyst in what was a general trend.

Reading your counterclaim of "do nothing" combined with an attempt to side-track the debate with a reference towards the current US Administration leads me to believe that you haven't really put much critical thought into the issue - rather you're just running with some sort of typical "Amerika sux" attitude combined with whatever Michael Moore or the University Sociology Department gave you.

Keep trying.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2005)

How do you explain the myopia (and futility) of advocating American Isolationism without running afoul of Godwin's Law?


----------



## CivU (15 Mar 2005)

I_am_John_Galt

That poll is hardly a resounding endorsement for the improvement of the situation in Iraq, it appears as though there is certainly little consensus on the present position.  I also question the validity of a poll conducted in such a destabilized country, how do the findings represent remote regions, marginalized groups, etc.

Andyboy

I guess there are discrepencies between media and individual accounts.  I have read nothing however that demonstrates that things have improved consideradbly in quality of life or indicators that I mentioned, but as I stated, I believe we need to see in the long term whether it works out either for or against...too early to tell?

Slim

Your continually, as an individual, getting worked up over my contributions to the discussion.  I'm not sure if it has to do with a disparity in opinion, but I have been respectful when treated with respect and will continue to do so.  Your paternalism is as condescending as anything I have had to say...

Infanteer

By do nothing I mean do nothing unilaterally.  Multilateral engagements, such as Afghanistan, have shown a considerable degree of success.  In studies I read regarding human development indicators in the country they showed considerable improvement, when recordable, over pre-invasion.  But, as one journal piece stated, Afghanistan is not Iraq.  As I said before, some countries chose the do nothing approach over the Coalition of the Willing debacle...

As far as an America sucks attitude, I don't think I'm the only person here who disagrees with their foreign policy agenda; however, those are neither products of Michael Moore, who I have spoke poorly of on here, or Sociology, which has no bearing on the discussion but appears your whipping boy.  My approach is the result of numerous streams and disciplines relating to issues of the history and current critical debate on foreign policy.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> By do nothing I mean do nothing unilaterally.   Multilateral engagements, such as Afghanistan, have shown a considerable degree of success.   In studies I read regarding human development indicators in the country they showed considerable improvement, when recordable, over pre-invasion.   But, as one journal piece stated, Afghanistan is not Iraq.   As I said before, some countries chose the do nothing approach over the Coalition of the Willing debacle...



Getting warmer, but I fail to see how you are considering the US action in Iraq "Unilateral".   

Who went in?

USA, Britain, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Poland and a host of smaller countries.   Japan and South Korea contributed as well.

Who abstained?

Canada, France, Germany, Russia, China and a host of smaller countries.

Clearly, this is not "Unilateral" in the sense that the US "went in alone".   There are many countries on both sides of the fence and these countries have a variety of reasons for ending up where they did.   "Appeasing the US" is about as good as "Continuing to make profit off of Iraq and Saddam".   I don't think anyone states rationale for the path they took is altruistic or simplistic.

Or do you mean "Unilateral" in terms of not waiting for the UN?   Well, I suppose that is a different issue altogether, not hinging on US Foreign Policy but on the issue that numerous nations chose not to await UN (in)decision on the issue and have done so successfully in the past (Kosovo).   Waiting for a concensus in the world of competing interests and rivalry is a waste of energy.   I imagine WWII would have been spectacular if Britain and France had awaited League of Nations backing (or, perhaps the support of the US and the Soviet Union instead) prior to declaring war on Germany.

So, you're willing to support Afghanistan, which is a result of hegemonic and jingoistic US Foreign policy (remember the protests when they went in there?).   Now what?   Again, we sit on the periphery of Dar al Islam and do nothing?   Do you think the US, which holds the title (by nature of its position) of Target #1, is willing to hedge its security on a passive approach that requires the international community (I guess this means France, Germany, and China, right?) to come around and figure out what's best?

I'm still not seeing any proactive solutions here - just some dithering with a "do nothing" approach.


----------



## dutchie (15 Mar 2005)

I thought I'd wade in here, the water seems warm....

In the past, I have been very vocal in my criticism of the War in Iraq, specifically with regards to the invasion and the justification for war. I have levelled similar criticisms as CivU has, and debated with I_Am_John_Galt, Brad Sallows, Infanteer, et all ad naseum. I found, at the time, the debate to be enjoyable and I actually learned a thing or two. 

I now see the debate on the invasion, WMD, 'just war', etc to be pretty much irrelevant. That doesn't mean I take back every criticism I have posted here (although I wish I could take back some of them), but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Iraq has more pressing matters than whether or not they were invaded justly. There is still a pretty significant security problem in Baghdad, the infrastructure still needs work, there is the transfer of power to the newly elected government, etc. There was a time when the debate of the validity of the invasion was timely, namely from just prior to the invasion to around 10 months ago when it became clear that the US led force was not going to be ousted from Iraq. 

The US is there, rightly or not, so crying foul is pointless. A discussion on the rebuilding of Iraq, the transfer of power, the development of Iraq's new Army/Security forces, etc is much more relavant. In fact, the situation in Lebanon has more bearing on the future quality of life of Iraqis than a discussion on the validity of the Iraq invasion. Same goes for the situation in Iran and Syria.

So go ahead, CivU, debate till you are blue in the face. I may support some of your points, but it's an exercise in futility.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> My approach is the result of numerous streams and disciplines relating to issues of the history and current critical debate on foreign policy.



You were who Professor Douglas Ross (Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University) was describing when he wrote:  "Canadian public opinion meanwhile remains essentially naÃƒÂ¯ve, uninformed and self-absorbed to the point of narcissistic isolationism."  

I'm suprised you and your ego can fit in the same space....



Matthew.   :


----------



## Slim (15 Mar 2005)

> Slim
> 
> Your continually, as an individual, getting worked up over my contributions to the discussion.  I'm not sure if it has to do with a disparity in opinion, but I have been respectful when treated with respect and will continue to do so.  Your paternalism is as condescending as anything I have had to say...



CIVU

Well that's just it...They're not contributions at all are they?! You are very condecending  to other members of this board and do not trreat anyone here with anything but casual distain...Almost as if you are too good for this forum and the people in it. Is that the case?

...Lose the attitude.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I_am_John_Galt
> 
> That poll is hardly a resounding endorsement for the improvement of the situation in Iraq, it appears as though there is certainly little consensus on the present position.  I also question the validity of a poll conducted in such a destabilized country, how do the findings represent remote regions, marginalized groups, etc.



Interesting interpretation and refutation.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> You were who Professor Douglas Ross (Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University) was describing when he wrote: "Canadian public opinion meanwhile remains essentially naÃƒÂ¯ve, uninformed and self-absorbed to the point of narcissistic isolationism."



I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry ...



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> My approach is the result of numerous streams and disciplines relating to issues of the history and current critical debate on foreign policy.



Perhaps you should enumerate some of these 'streams and disciplines' for the benefit of those of us not blessed with the omnipotence of the intelligentsia.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I now see the debate on the invasion, WMD, 'just war', etc to be pretty much irrelevant. That doesn't mean I take back every criticism I have posted here (although I wish I could take back some of them), but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Iraq has more pressing matters than whether or not they were invaded justly. There is still a pretty significant security problem in Baghdad, the infrastructure still needs work, there is the transfer of power to the newly elected government, etc. There was a time when the debate of the validity of the invasion was timely, namely from just prior to the invasion to around 10 months ago when it became clear that the US led force was not going to be ousted from Iraq.
> 
> The US is there, rightly or not, so crying foul is pointless. A discussion on the rebuilding of Iraq, the transfer of power, the development of Iraq's new Army/Security forces, etc is much more relavant. In fact, the situation in Lebanon has more bearing on the future quality of life of Iraqis than a discussion on the validity of the Iraq invasion. Same goes for the situation in Iran and Syria.



Sounds about right to me, Caesar.  Regardless if one views America as "Bearer of Democracy" or as "Imperialist Hegemon" (or as most of us with a head on our shoulders see it, somewhere in between) the fact is that they are in Iraq right now and it seems to be in the interests of most decent people to see success in the region.  Sitting back and crying poopoo because of the way the American coalition got there does nothing to help either the operational situation (seeing Iraq change for the better) or the strategic situation (seeing real change in how the Middle East conducts itself on the world stage).

We are not doing our neighbours or the War on Terror any favour by sitting back and playing the "Moral Highground - wait for the UN to decide" game before we offer even political support towards the campaign in Iraq.  Seems as if "doing nothing" is a sound strategy right now, doesn't it?


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Mar 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> dominate you for their profit and personal pleasure



I'm sure that's how the "Jihadis" see it too.


----------



## dutchie (15 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We are not doing our neighbours or the War on Terror any favour by sitting back and playing the "Moral Highground - wait for the UN to decide" game before we offer even political support towards the campaign in Iraq.   Seems as if "doing nothing" is a sound strategy right now, doesn't it?



"Yes, but if we actually stopped whining, stomping our feet, and making statements of 'moral responsiblity', we might actually have to DO something, and you know, ACT. It's so much easier to abstain out of priniciple and avoid responsibilty for failure, even if it means giving up credit for success. Who cares if our best friend asked for our help? He acted like a dick, so we should sit here and let him fix the problem. Never mind that he is our primary client, and we his, teaching our friend a lessen is way more important than our financial health. We'll show him! Were doing this for the poor soul he's beating up...it's so unfair! You want us to actually help the poor lad? No. We didn't start it, we'll let our buddy sort it out. But don't misunderstand, we care about the poor boy, just not enough to step in and help pick him up. Our friend understands. I hope we're still invited to his party next week....."


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> "Yes, but if we actually stopped whining, stomping our feet, and making statements of 'moral responsiblity', we might actually have to DO something, and you know, ACT. It's so much easier to abstain out of priniciple and avoid responsibilty for failure, even if it means giving up credit for success. Who cares if our best friend asked for our help? He acted like a dick, so we should sit here and let him fix the problem. Never mind that he is our primary client, and we his, teaching our friend a lessen is way more important than our financial health. We'll show him! Were doing this for the poor soul he's beating up...it's so unfair! You want us to actually help the poor lad? No. We didn't start it, we'll let our buddy sort it out. But don't misunderstand, we care about the poor boy, just not enough to step in and help pick him up. Our friend understands. I hope we're still invited to his party next week....."



Lol.... 



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I'm sure that's how the "Jihadis" see it too.



You're most likely correct.   I refuse to put conflicts into some "Good" and "Evil" boxes - people on each side see themselves and their cause as "good".   I feel that "Evil" only exists on the plane of Warhammer and Dungeons and Dragons, where factions recognize their cause as evil and pursue it for that reason....(I always wanted to fit those games into a political discussion... ).

That being said, how does one decide where to place their energy and support?   Who to support if nothing ever lives up to the altruistic aims it holds as its ideals?   I would (and do) approach it in a bit of a rough Mill-esque Utilitarian approach.

No political or social system will ever provide everyone with satisfaction.   People will always slip through the cracks and many will never be happy with their lot in life.   The way I see it, one should look to what systems provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.   As I said, the analysis is always rough, injustice will inevitably occur, and when you got down to smaller levels of community, divergence and reevaluation of what constitutes "good" can occur.

But basically, one can hold some sort of Hobbesian definition of "natural law" as a universal constant of how to compare social systems:

*"The right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto."*

People, for the most part, really just want to live in peace, raise a family, and not have to worry about getting killed.   Throw religion into this, and it is unchanging - people want to live their lives in peace as good children of God/Allah/Jehovah/etc/etc and make it to the afterlife (for which, Tolerance is required).

You can apply this basic model and see that Democracy, although far from perfect, has done a far better job of providing these goods in the greatest amount to the greatest number of people.   Looking at fascism, communism, and absolutism in the 20th century, they simply didn't make the cut.   I look at the condition most people in the Middle East are in and I can make the same judgement; people under autocratic dictatorships or fundamentalist theocracies don't get to pursue a basic law of nature to the extent that they can under a more liberal social system.   Sure, some may prosper (the mullahs, the sheiks), but most don't, and end up being victimized in something approaching Hobbes' _State of Nature_ (They have no legitimate covenant with the Leviathan, so they instead becomes victims of it).

Call it Westernism gone rampant, closed-mindedness, or an inability to see through others eyes if you want, but I think the proof is in the pudding by the fact that Iranian students continually push for reform, immigrants flock to instead of from the West, and most of the world's prosperity lies within societies which structure their systems around liberal democratic principles (I'm not talking about prosperity in terms of material goods, I'm talking about prosperity in terms of QOL, education, food, and relative peace and security - factors that support Hobbes' First Law).

Until a system that comes about that replaces the liberal democratic order in Utilitarian terms, I really care not for "Jihadis" who see us as interfearing with their "profit and personal pleasure" because the profit and personal pleasure benefits few at the expense of women (who are shunted away), outsiders (who are regarded as idolaters), and society in general (who have no choice in many of the aspects of life - if they derivate, they are beheaded).   I have no doubt that we will often go afoul with many of our policies in the West - to err is human - but I have no compunction against claiming that, in the long run, the path we are taking is as good as it gets.


----------



## CivU (15 Mar 2005)

Is that the case?

No...it isn't. However, you chose to treat my comments with disdain, and I do so to yours accordingly...

Blackshirt, are you not Canadian? Where does that place your opinion?

Infanteer, unilateral in the sense that they went in without United Nations or NATO support.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Infanteer, unilateral in the sense that they went in without United Nations or NATO support.



Can you imagine a stuation where Canada would have to act without the support of NATO or the UN in order to protect her interests?

Dave


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Infanteer, unilateral in the sense that they went in without United Nations or NATO support.



So, what is the level of consensus required to not be "unilateral" - it seems to get broader everytime it gets brought up.   Now NATO also needs to be consulted?   Anyways, lets look at the 26 members of NATO and see what they thought of the invasion:

NATO members who supported in the Invasion of Iraq (bold countries made some sort of troop commitment):
*-   United States*
*-   United Kingdom*                  
*-   Netherlands*      
*-   Denmark*
*-   Italy*       
*-   Portugal* 
*-   Spain* (flip-flopped after election)    
*-   Poland* 
*-   Czech Rep*
-   Iceland    
*-   Estonia*      
*-   Slovakia*
*-   Bulgaria*
*-   Hungary*
*-   Latvia*                  
*-   Lithuania*                   
*-   Romania*
-   Turkey

NATO members that didn't support the Invasion of Iraq:
-   France      
-   Belgium                   
-   Canada  (Wow, looking at this esteemed group sure makes me proud  :)                   
-   Germany                   
-   Greece                  
             
NATO members who were uncommitted:
-   Luxembourg                   

NATO members who were ambiguous (initially supported the invasion but later came out against when the UN resolution failed):
*-   Norway* (which has since sent troops for the stabilization of Iraq)                   
-   Slovenia

Lets see, 18 members of NATO, out of 26, supported the Invasion of Iraq, with 16 actually sending troops to the region.

Now, there are States outside of NATO that count as well in terms of international relations.   Russia and China were against the war, along with scads of developing nations.   But then again, Australia, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea were in support - and these are all fairly important states and valued allies.

I'm not trying to debate the war, I'm pointing out that the claim of "Unilateralism" and hinging a Foreign Policy on a "Do Nothing if Unilateral" approach is, quite simply, ridiculous.   You further define "Unilateralism" as gaining UN and NATO support.   Well, clearly from the facts above, UN and NATO support were merely geopolitical rubberstamps that had no real credibility in the long run as at least half, if not more, of the states that really mattered supported the war and eventually decided to wade into Iraq.

Anyway you cut, Iraq or American Foreign policy in the Middle East is not "Unilateral".   It appears that there really is a "Coalition of the Willing" that is determined to get things done, with or without the blessings of antiquated Cold-War political structures.


----------



## Highland Lad (15 Mar 2005)

Let's see... the UN Security Council passed how many resolutions calling for Iraq to drop all opposition to inspections, and to respect the actual UN conditions imposed on the 'Oil for food' programs (as opposed to the French and Russian oil companies' conditions)?

As I see it, the UN voiced their support for US actions long before the troops hit the ground.


Let's put it this way: Imagine a situation where a thug is keeping a neighbourhood in terror. Finally, the neighbourhood watch decides to do something. It goes something like this.

Neighbourhood Watch: "Don't steal any more, or the Neighbourhood Watch will call the police. This is your last warning."

Thug: "OK, I won't steal any more."

(Thug continues in his horrible ways).

NW: "You were warned. We will call the police if it happens again."

(Thug continues to steal. Some NW members call for immediate police action, as that was what was promised if the thug didn't stop. One founding member of the NW tells the others to give him one more chance.)

NW: "This is your last warning, and we really mean it. If you continue to steal from us, we will call the police."

Thug: "OK, I won't do it any more. I promise."

(Thug continues to steal. It turns out that the dissenting member of the NW is buying stolen property from the thug. Instead of calling him on this, and embarassing a friend, one of the other members goes ahead and calls the police about the thug. The police come and arrest the thug. Is everyone happy? No; the founding NW member (who was buying stolen property) points to the guy who called the cops and accuses him of going it on his own, after the NW had agreed to give the thug one more chance...)

If this scenario sounds ludicrous, I believe it is... but only at the local level. At the international level, it sounds familiar.

Does it make what the US did right? Not by itself, but if one member of the NW does the right thing, we would all cheer him, and the guy buying stolen goods would probably also face prosecution, not so?

(my rambling 2 ¢)


----------



## Highland Lad (15 Mar 2005)

Let's look at it again, and see which of these nations supported the UN Security Council's ultimatums regarding opening doors to inspections, oil for food, etc. It might be an interesting case study, no?


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

I don't really want to turn this into an Iraq War debate.  I'm seeking to find the discontent with US Foreign Policy, whether it be Iraq in particular or the Middle East in general.  So far, it seems the answer (complaint) of Unilateralism isn't really all its made to be ("uni" imples "one")


----------



## Highland Lad (15 Mar 2005)

OK - I agree. Like the old story about mudwrestling with a pig - you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it...

My point is that multilateral statements (i.e., the UN Security Council's multiple _unanimous_ resolutions imply multilateral action. Therefore, any action taken to fulfill those resolutions cannot be truly said to be unilateral.

It's the same way that a criminal lawyer can argue that, if several parties make an agreement and only one acts, all can be prosecuted. (but as we've seen, rules that apply to individuals do not apply to nations...)


----------



## CivU (16 Mar 2005)

"Lets see, 18 members of NATO, out of 26, supported the Invasion of Iraq, with 16 actually sending troops to the region"

This hardly speaks to the contributions made, outside of American and British troops, to the campaign in Iraq...

It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Mar 2005)

Quote,
It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...

.....so what? He presented you some cold hard facts and this is your retort?  Maybe they outweighed everyone else BECAUSE THEY CAN!.....and of course now we go back to the root of the[your] problem as I mentioned long ago.
Too hard for some to handle that we are not the biggest dog on the street, so I will hold my breath untill I turn purple.......... :crybaby:


----------



## McG (16 Mar 2005)

WARNING! WARNING!   SENSORS DETECT THE RANDOM TANGENT DEFENCE!



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> This hardly speaks to the contributions made, outside of American and British troops, to the campaign in Iraq...


You have argued that the US actions in Iraq have been unilateral (as in done without the consent of other nations).   You've now been provided with a list of nations that did support the US actions.   That those nations provided soldiers or not (comparable in number to the US or not) is irrelevant.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Mar 2005)

>It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...

The UN could've passed a resolution supporting the war and exactly the same nations could have participated and other than the resolution, what would have been the difference?  Really?


----------



## enfield (16 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...



The same could be said for Korea, Gulf War I, Kosovo Air War.... Anytime the US shows up in serious way, their contributions will far outweigh all others combined. 
In the end, four of the top eight economies in the world participated in OIF - a far better average than most UN endeavours.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> This hardly speaks to the contributions made, outside of American and British troops, to the campaign in Iraq...
> 
> It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...



Pretty lame, don't you think.  I thought you could have come back with something better then that.

First of all, what do troop contributions have to do with the issue.  As Brad Sallows stated: *"The UN could've passed a resolution supporting the war and exactly the same nations could have participated and other than the resolution, what would have been the difference?  Really?"*  You claim that American strategy is flawed because it is unilateralist - which implies that it requires some form of political consent.  Where does troop contributions become equated with political concent?  Better try again.

Anyways, since you want to, lets consider the troop contributions.  Does the absolute weight of the troop contribution correspond directly to the level of political support a state gives?  If this is the case, Canada's contribution to WWII is invalidated because of relative weight was small - Canada raised 5 divisions to fight the Germans in WWII while the British raised 60, the Americans 90, and the Soviets 400; is WWII simply nothing more then Soviet Intervention?

Let's take a look at these puny contributions of troops to the actual war:

http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html (interesting page I stumbled upon)

Iraq Troop numbers March 2004 

1 USA - 130,000
2 United Kingdom - 9,000
3 Italy - 3,000
4 Poland - 2,460
5 Ukraine - 1,600
6 Spain   - 1,300
7 Netherlands - 1,100 
8 Australia - 800 
9 Romania - 700
10 Bulgaria - 480 

24 countries have had more then 100 soldiers in Iraq (which for many of them is a significant contribution).   The top 7 had over 1,000 troops - which represents a respectable projection of military power.

Both Poland and Italy contributed more soldiers then we in Canada have managed to send to Afghanistan, while other countries have sent troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan.   These represent countries from all continents of the world and, as Enfield pointed out, four of the top eight economies in the World.

So the American's represent a significant number of the combat troops - care to find any other military that can strategically project over 100,000 soldiers around the globe?   Do these numbers invalidate the political and military support that other nations offered in the Iraq Invasion, indeed relegating America's actions to "unilateral adventurism"?

Look at the first Gulf War, one that had the rubberstamp of the UN (and seems to meet your criteria of multilateral and therefore, correct).

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309065801/html/95.html

_Coalition Forces and Force Strength

Total U.S. forces deployed: 697,000; peak personnel strength: 541,400

Total other coalition forces: 259,700 at peak personnel strength_

So, even in the first Gulf War, America sent more then twice the amount of soldiers then all other states combined, and this was at the end of the Cold War when world Military Force Structures were still quite large.   It seems that Canada sent 2,000 soldiers to the Gulf while the US sent over 500,000.   Does this mean that Canada's support, both political and military, is *specious* and invalidated because our troop commitment was relatively insignificant?

So, "Unilateralism" seems to be a farce when one cares to look at the facts, as specious as you may find them.   No one here, and these are some fairly intelligent people who have commented, seems to be convinced that you've offered a better strategy with _"do nothing if the action is unilateral"_; rather they've shot your counterclaims to bits and revealed your entire argument to be lacking a rational leg to stand on.

I'm still waiting for something from your end of the rink that can give anyone here a substantial pause with regards to either the operational or strategic actions of the US led Coalition (and yes, there is a coalition).   Are you going to give us something with substance, or are you just going to fall back on "numerous streams and disciplines relating to issues of the history and current critical debate on foreign policy."

Your peers are waiting, sir.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Mar 2005)

If I find the time today, i will try and express troop contributions as a percentage of available forces.   Sadly, I am overdue on a paper about Motivation, which I can't seem to get excited about...

Dave


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2005)

Once again, we see the contortionists in action (that is the point of this thread), despite the "Ground Truth" being brought up again and again, we see contant evasions, straw man and ad homineim attacks in attempts to deny or obscure what is actually happening.

There is a corresponding movement in the greater world outside our forum, the MSM is attempting to deny that the outbreaks of democracy in the Middle East have anything to do with the successful outcomes of Afghanistan and OIF, it is just some sort of bizarre coincidence that the first elections in Saudi Arabia, the first opening of elections to opposition parties in Egypt, the spontaneous demonstrations of over 800,000 people in Lebanon demanding the withdrawl of Syrian occupation troops etc. etc. are all happening now. After all, it is the "revealed wisdom" of the MSM that the end of the Cold War wasn't caused by President Reagan's cranking up the military and economic competition with the USSR until the system was overwhelmed by its internal contradictions; rather old Micheal was just such a nice guy and was in power when, by odd coincidence, the Soviet system collapsed because its internal contradictions finally overwhelmed it.

I will be interested to see what the history books say 20 years from now...will they still be trying to play up CivU's "points" or will they report what the "Ground Truth" was in the first decade of the 21rst century.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Is that the case?
> 
> No...it isn't. However, you chose to treat my comments with disdain, and I do so to yours accordingly...
> 
> ...



My opinions tend to contrary to the majority of which you are a part.

I think the UN is a corrupt joke.
I think Chretian/Desmarais should be in jail (and the media punished for not covering the blatant conflict-of-interest)
I was for the war on Iraq regardless of WMD (democratization was my bigger issue).
I am for missile defence although I believe the current model of trying to hit incoming warheads (as opposed to targeting missiles during launch phase) is flawed.
I am for aggressive promotion of democracy in Lebanon/Syria/Iran.
I am for bombing the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities if they do not cease & desist with construction of the facility.
I would recognize Taiwan immediately and put in place punitive trade sanctions against China for its bullying tactics.
I believe our demands for higher social spending on ourselves as opposed to support for failing states proves how selfish we are as a nation (although we delude ourselves very well)

....and I think your ideology is fundamentally flawed because you never you take any of your policies and compare then against the litmus test of history.

You want to feel stupid?   Take your arguments in this thread and run them against the pre-amble to WWII including the 1938 Munich Agreement.

Welcome aboard Neville....




Matthew.    :


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Mar 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> It's specious to think of the _Second World_ War in Iraq as anything more than an American _Russian_ intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...



BTW, I think I pointed you to the wrong page of the Brookings Institution survey (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf): Page *39* contains results concerning THEIR view of quality of life ... even though the majority feel that their lives have gotten better and the vast majority feel that it will be better in a year, I suppose they aren't smart enough to know that they are now permanent victims of American Hegemonytm and thus worse off than when they had the sociopathic Stalinist their great benefactor Saddam Hussein raping, torturing and killing protecting them from self-determination and democracy evil imperialist Yanks.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2005)

I am still going to await CivU's justification of his claim that multilateralism is defined by a level of relative troop contribution.   It seems to underline his theory of a faulty "unilateralist" strategy.   If the UN had rubberstamped the deal and France and Germany had sent contingents to the fight, the situation would still be one of US preponderance in military power (ie: 50-75%).   How does this all the sudden shift from being "American Intervention"?

So if this doesn't work, then CivU must be basing "multilaterial" off of some other criteria and is simply being facetious with regards to military commitments.   But, in that it has been shown that the US led-coalition had representation of a good percentage of the international community (18 of 26 NATO members, 4 of 8 G8 countries, etc, etc), I'm struggling to find his definition of a requirement for "multilateralism" based upon political rather then military support.

Regardless of overall political support, is the "green light" from France and Germany required for a policy to change from "unilateral" to "multilateral"?   If this is the case, I suspect there is some sort of underlying bias for criticizing US policy for not being "multilateral".

Maybe CivU has shares in TotalFinaElf?



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If I find the time today, i will try and express troop contributions as a percentage of available forces.   Sadly, I am overdue on a paper about Motivation, which I can't seem to get excited about...
> 
> Dave




Dave, the link I provided above has these figures already layed out:

http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Mar 2005)

Hey check it out: yet another (no doubt totally bogus) survey that show Iraqis are positive about the direction in which their country is going!  

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=1&u=/usatoday/20050316/ts_usatoday/mostiraqissayfuturelooksbrighter  

When will these fools wake-up to the disaster they're in?!?

I wonder why I've never seen a survey that shows Iraqis agreeing with the Western left ...


----------



## TCBF (16 Mar 2005)

Because they don't.

"The facts of life are conservative." - Margaret Thatcher

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2005)

I'm really not trying to turn this into some left/right spin-cycle - I think real and effective statesmanship leaves that stuff for academia to bun-fight with.   As I said before, I really want to get to the root of discontent with the strategy that the US in taking towards the War on Terror.   I'm beginning to sense that the "Unilateral" argument is something based more upon emotion or "numerous streams and disciplines relating to issues of the history and current critical debate on foreign policy" rather then critical thought.


----------



## TCBF (16 Mar 2005)

Sadly, the "critical thought of facts" no longer has a place in modern politics.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Sadly, the "critical thought of facts" no longer has a place in modern politics.



Judging from human history, I don't think it really ever did....


----------



## couchcommander (17 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I said before, I really want to get to the root of discontent with the strategy that the US in taking towards the War on Terror.  I'm beginning to sense that the "Unilateral" argument is something based more upon emotion or "numerous streams and disciplines relating to issues of the history and current critical debate on foreign policy" rather then critical thought.




I'll bite (though I am pretty sure I will regret it).

Firstly, there is a problem with the philosophical backing of the "Bush Doctrine". I discussed it in greater detail in the "World War IV" thread, but briefly that the entire struggle of "Good" vs. "Evil" is fundamentally flawed idea.

The fact that the philosophy behind it is f*cked really isn't the issue for me, though. I don't give a f*ck whether or not modern philosophy backs whatever I, or others, are doing. But in this particular instance it has rather bad repurcussions, in that with this doctrine in all likelyhood they will end up attacking a nation or some people that are actually not "evil" because they cannot actually definae what is or isn't evil. They may be going after "evil" but because they have no idea what it really is they will in all likehood kill a lot of "good" people.

On top of this, in their great quest to rid the world of "evil" they seem to be willing to sacrifice the lives of untold masses of innocent people in order to acheive their idea of "good". And it's not that people aren't dying now, indeed that is far from the case, nor am I saying that inaction is the solution, no no, that is also not the case. My point here is just that in the neocon crusade there is little concern for the lives of the innocent people caught up in their wars; once again they can justify this as necessary to defeat evil.

Furthermore, there seems to be little respect for the rights or dignity of man (the treatment of prisoners, the increasingly restrictive and rights abusing laws the states continues to pass, etc. etc.). They seem to justify this on the grounds that the nation is under threat. Yes we were attacked, yes it was horrible, yes we need to prevent that, but has there really been a need to keep the nation in a "hightened" leve of alert for the past 3 years? Are we actually under THAT much of a threat? I mean, lets be serious here, if someone wanted to explode a bomb in a public place, somewhere in the US..... it's a sad fact that it really wouldn't have been that hard, and no level of security is going to protect us. The fact is that in large part this "threat" is fictious (ie Iraq had no WMD's.... are you going to actually take the administrations word for it that Iran does?? Seriously?) really irks me the wrong way.... The really scary thing is that the Bush administration, and the neocons before them, have no problem with this, because they are trying to defeat evil.

This becomes a big problem when you think about what I first said, they can't tell us what this "evil" actually is that they keep using as a justifaction; which means it makes a perfect justification to use if you want to be able to do ANYTHING (and at the same time convince yourself that you are doing good)......

There is a great fear, and some would say that this has already occured, that "evil" will become used to describe things which the administration either doesn't like or wants for itself, not things that are in fact actually "evil" (ie there is a lot of talk that the reason they invaded Iraq was not actually even because they thought there were WMD's, that they only gave lip service to the fact that saddam was a horrible dictator (and there are lots of dictators, many of them very worse off, so even that's can't really be used as a reason to attack Iraq, that they didn't actually care about the plight of the people, but instead were simply after trying to establish another stable oil source, which would fit in with their plans to open the alaska wildlife refuge to drilling, not to mention Bush's and Cheney's ties (and shares I might add) in oil companies.....)

There are a lot of otherthings, ie unilateralism on the part of the states (and no it's not about the number of states or the percentage of troops, it's the "we are doing this whether or not anyone else comes on board" that makes it a "unilateral" decision), coorperate influence in the decision making process, etc. etc. etc.

....disclaimer time.... there is nothing wrong with wanting to spread democracy. There is nothing wrong with want to remove the world of wmd's, or horrible dictators, or any such things. That is not the issue. The issue is with what has been said above.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Mar 2005)

:boring:

"Good" and "evil" is silly - anyone who takes that politcal rhetoric as reality doesn't have a head on their shoulders - I'm sure people felt the same "crusade" overtones with "ridding the world of the Nazis/Fascists/Communists".   So you don't like the "twist" they've put on the latest war - does it mean that the strategy is flawed?

Other then that, can you give me something that isn't so stale, or are you going to fall back on the same old "neo-con, corporate influence" canned answers?

US Foreign Policy was assertive towards the Middle East long before the "Neocons" and "Haliburton" came along - look up Clinton's record in the area (both in terms of political posturing and actual use of force).   As I said, 9/11 was a catalyst for the inevitable.

As well, you never answered my question on the whole "unilateralist" accusation (I see an attempt, and it was pretty weak) - I don't see how "Neocons" could spur Britain (Labour is "Corporate Neocon"?), Japan, Australia, and the rest of a respectable amount of the international community to join the coalition (Does Mongolia have Neocons?).     So the US takes its natural leadership position (kinda hard not to when your the only Superpower) and says "damn the UN rubberstamp" (which, most would agree, is highly irrelevant anyways) - I've yet to see how this all of the sudden makes an action "unilateral".


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :Other then that, can you give me something that isn't so stale, or are you going to fall back on the same old "neo-con, corporate influence" canned answers?



Perhaps the longevity of these canned answers speaks to their veracity...

Just a thoight.

Dave


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Mar 2005)

When it comes to the Iranian threat of WMD, it is only necessary to take Iran's word.  The US's word is unnecessary.

Safety measures are always finite.  Perhaps too much is being done; too many freedoms are being sacrificed.  I certainly believe some of what is being done is either counterproductive or pointless (and sometimes both).

When the next "event" occurs, and unless there is clear evidence of basic incompetence on the part of our security agencies, I expect only to hear a rousing chorus of "Well, we did all we should have, and more" from the supporters and the critics alike.  Except for a small contingent of hawks, I do not expect to hear any hand-wringing, and certainly none from those opposed to measures being taken.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2005)

Just to weigh in on the Multilateralist angle; given the UNs increasingly abysmal record for supporting Human Rights (Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Oil for Food Scandle, the UN sex for peacekeepers scandle in the Congo, their total inaction on the Genocide in Dafar....) I would be tempted to ask _why would we even want the sanction of such a body_.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Perhaps the longevity of these canned answers speaks to their veracity...



About as long-lived and veracious as the "unilateralist" arguement that I've seen chucked around, even in solid journals like Foreign Affairs.  Although I paid attention to it before, it seems to be shot to pieces now that I've looked at the hard facts.

So is the arguement shifting now?  US Policy in the Middle East, both tactically (in Iraq) and strategically (War on Terror), is flawed because it is driven by a corporate agenda.

Any better way to go about dealing with the threat to the West if this is the case?  It would seem that "do nothing if corporatation are involved" seems to be silly from the get go, considering that it smells of "tin-foil hatness" and that corporations have always been involved in State war efforts.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Mar 2005)

So you are saying that we need pragmatic realism - judged on results, not reasons?


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2005)

"they can't tell us what this "evil" actually is that they keep using as a justifaction; which means it makes a perfect justification to use if you want to be able to do ANYTHING (and at the same time convince yourself that you are doing good)......"


At what point do they NOT tell us that the enemy of the day is evil?  I see not lack of explanations why the Russian "Evil Empire" was evil, nor does Saddam have a big fan club  (he is probably now wishing he was a leftist, then our Pinko ComSymp Care Bear Gallery would REALLY love him) around the world.

So, not only are they calling people evil, they are giving us reasons WHY they are evil too.

Of course, I could be wrong.  Maybe we should have left Hitler alone as well.

Tom


----------



## The_Stu (19 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> "Good" and "evil" is silly - anyone who takes that politcal rhetoric as reality doesn't have a head on their shoulders - I'm sure people felt the same "crusade" overtones with "ridding the world of the Nazis/Fascists/Communists".  So you don't like the "twist" they've put on the latest war - does it mean that the strategy is flawed?


Please, thats like saying the justification for a crime is irrelavent, as long as your plan is strategically sound. The "twist" has everything to do with it, its the whole justification, without it, everything falls apart.

And I believe US Foreign Policy first became assertive, or interested at all for that matter in the middle east, with the rise of oil in the global economy.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Mar 2005)

The_Stu said:
			
		

> Please, thats like saying the justification for a crime is irrelavent, as long as your plan is strategically sound. The "twist" has everything to do with it, its the whole justification, without it, everything falls apart.



The "twist" is never the whole story, and is never the sole motivation.  Remember when WMD was the "twist" on the invasion of Iraq - I can guarantee you it was never the biggest concern for going in there (not that it matters).  The "twist" is relevent to time and space, the used-car salesmen must find a way to sell a pragmatic policy to his people.

As for "good" and "evil", I challenge you to find me a foreign policy decision that was executed along altruistic ideals or did everything right.



> And I believe US Foreign Policy first became assertive, or interested at all for that matter in the middle east, with the rise of oil in the global economy.



Well duh.  We aren't involved with the House of Saud because they put on great Tupperware parties.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2005)

What, you missed Prince Fasil's invitation? It was great, and the dancing girls really set off the small storage containers and drinking cups......... ;D


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2005)

Lets here from someone on the ground:

http://democracyiniraq.blogspot.com/2005/03/2-years.html


> Sunday, March 20, 2005
> 2 Years
> It has been now two years since the United States, UK and other countries invaded our nation. It has been two years since Iraqis have had to live with daily violent attacks and rampant terrorism. It has been two years since our nation began being turned upside down. It has been two years since the road to democracy began.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2005)

More and more Arabs are encouraged to push for democracy



> *In the Gulf, Dissidence Goes Digital*
> Text Messaging Is New Tool Of Political Underground
> 
> By Steve Coll
> ...


----------

