London Bombings

[Argus]

I would like to direct your attention to Hong Kong and Taiwan. The influence of these offshore, capitalist islands on the Chinese mainland has been immense and has contributed greatly to the liberalisation of the Chinese economy and polity, as Chinese have travelled to these places for business and training and as offshore capital has flowed into the mainland.

You mean this has contributed to Communist China's brutal dictatorship getting more money in order to modernize its massive armed forces? Yes, I agree. I see no sign of liberalization in any other way, however, other than a tolerance of capitalism - so long as it is in concert with corrupt government agents.

Compare this with the dimwitted American policy of embargo and encirclement, which led to the entrenchment of dictators in Iraq and Cuba,

A policy warmly and fully embraced, nay, demanded by most of the western world when directed at South Africa and Rhodesia, where they are reckoned as having greatly contributed to the fall of Apartheid. Are you actually suggesting that if the US and UK had bene more eager to trade with Saddam he'd have seen the light and become a freedom loving capitalist? This is in the same post you condemn the west for helping him survive by, well, mostly by trading with him.

and to more crackdowns, more brutal rule and more misery for their people. Taiwan and Hong Kong didn't kill Mao, but they did help ensure that his successors have been progressively more liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see no signs of liberalism in China's massive slave labour camps, its torture chambers, its destruction of Tibetan culture, it's murder and imprisonment of religious people of all persuasions, it's corruption, or its massive espionage efforts in the west. If China is your idea of a liberal nation I'm glad I'm not a liberal.

[Argus]

I'm sure the American military doesn't intentionally attack buses full of people. These people know what they are targeting and who they are going to kill.

As was stated before, but obviously bears repeating, there's little moral distinction between setting a bomb off on a bus with the intention of killing civilians and dropping a bomb or firing a tank shell into a civilian area knowing that civilians will die as a result.

While there is little practical difference to the civilians involved there is considerable moral difference. It is the difference between someone who goes on a shooting rampage and a policeman who, while shooting at him, misses and kills a civilian. Or perhaps, if you don't like that example, consider the neccesity of protecting your own people in a war. Much has been said about the allies bombing of Germany, and the resulting civiilan casualties. But that war became a war of production, and thus the enemy's means of production became the main target. If by destroying an enemy aircraft plant (and unfortunately killing some innocent civilians nearby) you saved your own people from being killed by the bombs which would have come off those aircraft then you can hardly condemn that in moral terms.

If by Blowing up a terrorist reingleader in the midst of planning an operation against Israel some Palestinian innocents are killed, but this results in Israelis being saved who would otherwise have died, then the Israeli government has made a perfectly moral choice.

[Argus]

Are you suggesting that the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons started because of the Iraq war? Because my understanding is they've been at it for quite some years now, with dispersed, underground research and development labs.

Of course not. My point is that the only way to truly stop a country with lots of oil money from gaining nuclear weapons is to convince the leaders that they do not need nuclear weapons.

Define "need". You, I believe, are defining them in terms of protection. I don't believe protection has any part of Iran's eagerness to develop nuclear weapons. I believe they want them for status and as a threat against Israel. Iran has seen Israel as its real enemy since the revolution, notwithstanding the fact they share no trade or borders. They simply hate Jews. I believe the Iranian leadership believes its primary goal is to destroy Israel and then lead a pan-Arab Islamic state. Having nuclear weapons would be a great aid in this for a number of reasons. Imagine, if you would, that Iran has nukes, and sends its military forces across to the gulf states - perhaps with the conivances of a Shiite religious govenrment in Iraq. The presence of their nukes in this instance would be to deter US involvement. After all, between them, Iran and Iraq (presuming a new Shiite controlled Iraq after the US leaves) have ample power to take over all nations east of Israel, and thus confront the Israelis with a united Arab enemy. Surely you don't think the Iranian Mullahs haven't thought of this.

[Riverwind]

Imagine, if you would, that Iran has nukes, and sends its military forces across to the gulf states - perhaps with the conivances of a Shiite religious govenrment in Iraq. The presence of their nukes in this instance would be to deter US involvement.

From the perpepective of Iran, Isreal is a threat to them in the same way that the American believed that Hussain's Iraq was a threat to America. So it would be completely ethical under the new rules advocated by Bush and company for Iran to develop nukes and use their power in that way.

[Argus]

Imagine, if you would, that Iran has nukes, and sends its military forces across to the gulf states - perhaps with the conivances of a Shiite religious govenrment in Iraq. The presence of their nukes in this instance would be to deter US involvement.

From the perpepective of Iran, Isreal is a threat to them in the same way that the American believed that Hussain's Iraq was a threat to America. So it would be completely ethical under the new rules advocated by Bush and company for Iran to develop nukes and use their power in that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think Iran believes Israel is any kind of threat to them. They simply believe Israel is an offence to God and in the way of a united Arab nation. Furthermore, invading a free and democratic state in order to destroy the inhabitants is somewhat different from invading a brutal dicatatorship in order to free the inhabitants.

Don't you think?

[Black Dog]

While there is little practical difference to the civilians involved there is considerable moral difference. It is the difference between someone who goes on a shooting rampage and a policeman who, while shooting at him, misses and kills a civilian. Or perhaps, if you don't like that example, consider the neccesity of protecting your own people in a war. Much has been said about the allies bombing of Germany, and the resulting civiilan casualties. But that war became a war of production, and thus the enemy's means of production became the main target. If by destroying an enemy aircraft plant (and unfortunately killing some innocent civilians nearby) you saved your own people from being killed by the bombs which would have come off those aircraft then you can hardly condemn that in moral terms.

You raise a pretty shit example, given that much of the Alled bombing campaign was a campaign of terror directly targeting the civilian population (ie. Dresden, Hiroshima).

If by Blowing up a terrorist reingleader in the midst of planning an operation against Israel some Palestinian innocents are killed, but this results in Israelis being saved who would otherwise have died, then the Israeli government has made a perfectly moral choice.

That's an extreme example used to justify the indefensible. Take the case of Sheik Yassin, killed by an Isralei missile (along with a number of innocent bystanders). Here was a man, whom Israel claimed was a terrorist mastermind, yet whom they themselves held in custody (twice!) and later released. So, if it was possible to take him into custody once, surely they could have done it again. Instead, they opted for the path that most certainly would (and did) lead to innocent blood being shed. To me that's pretty much the same as a suicide bomber on a bus.

Anyway, moral superiority is always claimes by the individual or nation doing the killing, which means such claims are essentially meaningless.

I don't think Iran believes Israel is any kind of threat to them. They simply believe Israel is an offence to God and in the way of a united Arab nation.

What do Iranians have to do with Arabs?

[Guest eureka]

I would suspect that Iran would see a united Arab nation as the biggest possible threat to Iran.

The religious threat is overblown. Arab nationalism has been a growing force since 1919 and Iran has been no part of that.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Much has been said about the allies bombing of Germany, and the resulting civiilan casualties. But that war became a war of production, and thus the enemy's means of production became the main target. If by destroying an enemy aircraft plant (and unfortunately killing some innocent civilians nearby) you saved your own people from being killed by the bombs which would have come off those aircraft then you can hardly condemn that in moral terms

I have to agree with Black Dog,

You raise a pretty shit example, given that much of the Alled bombing campaign was a campaign of terror directly targeting the civilian population

Much of the allied bombing (mostly on the part of the UK) was in accordance with the classic definition of terrorism. That is, the UK (and especially Arthur 'Bomber' Harris) decided that they would target civilians in a campaign known as 'terror bombing' to try to make the civilians take action against their own gov't to sue for peace, or capitulate. That is what terrorism is, attacking a supposedly innocent third party, hoping that they will in turn force a second party to capitulate to the party in the first part.

At the time, the US didn't want to be part of it, and stated that they would only bomb war production and industrial facilities only.

Arthur Travers Harris won the nickname 'bomber' for his single-mindedness in his approach, but was called 'Butch', short for 'Butcher', by his crews. Evidently his actions did carry some moral weight, for he was denied a peerage after the war, and many senior staff and politicians tried to distance themselves from him over his outspoken pride over what became a controversial issue.

[PocketRocket]

"Terrorist" is what the big, powerful army calls the small, sneaky army.

Notice how for quite some time, attacks on US troops in Iraq, AFTER the USA had invaded, were called "terrorist attacks" on the news.

When you attack a soldier, you are carrying out an act of war.

If you are doing so in plain clothes when your country is occupied, then it's called "guerilla warfare".

Otherwise, we could well describe America's war of independance as a series of terrorist acts as few, if any, American soldiers had actual uniforms.

Besides, they hid behind bushes and sniped, whereas the accepted method of warfare at the time was to line up in nice neat ranks, facing your apponents, and then simply blow the hell out of each other.

Sorry about getting facetious, but this thread is starting to annoy me with its circular arguments.

[Melanie_]

I'm reminded of an issue of the Toronto Star from many years ago, during apartheid. The big, black, bold front page headline spoke of two black men killed in Soweto. Well inside, on page thirty nine or something, in a small square box, was the story of five thousand tutsis killed by Hutus in tribal warfare.

If protestors are shot down in the streets of Damascas, the Muslim world shrugs. if Muslims activists are killed by security police in Indonesia, nobody cares. But let one Palestinian protestor trip on his shoelaces while throwing a rock at an Israeli checkpoint and bloody his nose and the Arab world rocks with outrage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have reinforced my point, that the media really decides what is worth our attention, and what is not. Aparthied was in the news more than Rwanda because that is what publishers believed would sell more newspapers - they catered to what they thought would interest us. Riots that result from Western injustices against Muslims are deemed to be of more interest to us than any action resulting from Muslim injustice against Muslim. I don't trust journalists motives, obviously; I think the most anti-Western news is often related for the sole purpose of giving us the opportunity to claim the moral high ground, shake our heads and murmer "tsk tsk, how backwards those goat herding Arabs are, we are so superior in so many ways".

[I Miss Trudeau]

I was responding to you, not August. If your post was shallow and thoughtless don't blame me for making an obvious response.

In that case, reread my post, apply a little bit of thought, and then try to respond again.

[Argus]

I was responding to you, not August. If your post was shallow and thoughtless don't blame me for making an obvious response.

In that case, reread my post, apply a little bit of thought, and then try to respond again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Difficult. Your post had no thought in it. Perhaps you'd care to offer up another challenge?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Difficult. Your post had no thought in it. Perhaps you'd care to offer up another challenge?

August suggested that invading another nation was analogous to passing same sex marriage in your own nation. I questioned him on how exactly that analogy was supposed to work. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.

[Hugo]

If you can see no difference between the kind of society the US wants to foster and the kind of society the Soviets wanted or bin Laden wants, then you are either willfully blind or your judgment is seriously in error.

Perhaps you have not seen the Patriot Act and its successor? Perhaps you are unaware that the US government now controls more than one-third of the economy? The differences between the American, Soviet and Wahabbist ways of life are really of degree. All these States believe that the initiation of violence and fraud can be just, all believe that people are too stupid or evil to be allowed to run their own lives, and so forth.

I see a great difference between the US intervention in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

It's worth noting that Afghanistan was the only war in which Soviet troops left their own borders. The USA, on the other hand, has sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the Phillippines, the Middle East many times, and more besides. The USSR was pacifistic compared to the USA, at least in foreign policy.

The Soviets and Chinese interfered with and continue to interfere with local politics and no one is trying to bomb them, well, except locals. Incidentally, the Chinese treatment of their Muslim minority is murderous, but draws no condemnation from the Arab world or the Muslim 'street". And the US and UK have no troops in any streets except Afghanistan and Iraq.

You don't think the Russians have a problem with Chechen terrorism? Perhaps Wahabbists don't target China because the Chinese only oppress the very small number of Muslims within their own borders and have no seeming desire to spread that overseas, and perhaps because the Chinese State is oppressive of all religions, including Christians and Buddhists. The USA does provide considerable backing to Saudi Arabia and used to back Iraq as well. The presence of troops is a very direct method of intervention and the Cold War saw the introduction of proxies - the USA does not have to risk any of its own troops when it can simply fund and train those of local tyrants, like Chiang Kai-Shek, or the succession of South Vietnamese despots. I would say that the Wahabbists are just picking their targets by threat level.

I like the way you make it sound about as complex and damaging as switching from one internet provider to another. Never mind the massive economic chaos and dislocation which would first result

Civilization as we know it failed to end in the oil crisis of the 1970s. In fact, that crisis was quite instrumental in, for instance, persuading people to abandon their gas-guzzling V8s. Economic troubles of the time can largely be attributed to the inflation and interventionism of the Carter administration - errors largely reversed by Reagan. The worst economic dislocation in American history was not caused by any natural disaster or shortage, but by inflationary money policy.

In short, never mind my actual point, which was that what the US was doing was good for the entire Western capitalist world

Yes, they said that in WWI as well. What a crock that turned out to be.

Not everything is about money, Hugo, especially to religious wackos.

Analogy:

Argus: "Americans don't like ham."

Hugo: "Americans actually consume quite a lot of ham."

Argus: "Not everything is about ham, Hugo. Especially to Americans."

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Suppose you tell us what policy they're to abandon - specifically? Abandon Israel? Run away and leave the Afghan and Iraqi governments to fall and ignore the resulting bloody civil wars? What?

Yes. It's hard to understand, but there are things in this world where the best way out of a situation looks painful. For instance, in a recession there is nothing a government can do beyond prolonging and deepening it. The only thing to do is ride it out. There is never going to be stability in the Middle East as long as the USA intervenes there and in such a heavy-handed way. The more they attempt to stabilize, the more destabilized it becomes because the local people resent the stabilizing agent and the manner in which it "stabilizes".

[Hugo]

No, because it wouldn't have. If by backing you mean selling weapons he would have found other sellers. If by backing you mean backing him against Iran it was a good idea. Use one enemy to kill another enemy.

Well, it didn't work in Vietnam, and it didn't work in WWII, and it didn't work with Iraq. Can you name me an occasion when it did work?

You mean this has contributed to Communist China's brutal dictatorship getting more money in order to modernize its massive armed forces? Yes, I agree. I see no sign of liberalization in any other way, however, other than a tolerance of capitalism - so long as it is in concert with corrupt government agents.

Actually, pretty much all of the reforms demanded by the Tiananmen Square protesters have been granted. In any event, it's for certain that the Chinese government is now less brutal than it was under Mao Zedong.

Since the dictatorships of Iraq and Cuba were not moderated at all by US encirclement and embargo, we're comparing partial success against absolutely no success at all. Given that choice, I go with the partial success.

A policy warmly and fully embraced, nay, demanded by most of the western world when directed at South Africa and Rhodesia, where they are reckoned as having greatly contributed to the fall of Apartheid. Are you actually suggesting that if the US and UK had bene more eager to trade with Saddam he'd have seen the light and become a freedom loving capitalist? This is in the same post you condemn the west for helping him survive by, well, mostly by trading with him.

Western trade brings in the liberalizing influence which motivates forces against people like Saddam. Who reckons that embargos are a great contribution to the fall of Apartheid? As far as I know, the fall of Apartheid was to do with the increasing refusal of blacks to be oppressed, the influence of their leaders and anti-Apartheid activists, internal and border fighting, and the impossibility of a tiny white minority successfully governing a hostile black majority. If it were due to embargo, you'd think that Apartheid would have ended soon after the embargo was begun. It didn't. I think the embargoes were quite a small part of what happened and if they had not taken place, Apartheid would still have collapsed.

I see no signs of liberalism in China's massive slave labour camps, its torture chambers, its destruction of Tibetan culture, it's murder and imprisonment of religious people of all persuasions, it's corruption, or its massive espionage efforts in the west. If China is your idea of a liberal nation I'm glad I'm not a liberal.

Strawman argument. My point is not that China is liberal - it isn't. My point is that it's a lot more liberal than it was under Mao - and it is.

[Argus]

No, because it wouldn't have. If by backing you mean selling weapons he would have found other sellers. If by backing you mean backing him against Iran it was a good idea. Use one enemy to kill another enemy.

Well, it didn't work in Vietnam, and it didn't work in WWII, and it didn't work with Iraq. Can you name me an occasion when it did work?

It was not tried in Vietnam or WW2(though Churchill wanted to let the Russians and Nazis kill each other). It did work in having Iraqis shed their blood to kill Iranians and stop them from moving into the Gulf.

You mean this has contributed to Communist China's brutal dictatorship getting more money in order to modernize its massive armed forces? Yes, I agree. I see no sign of liberalization in any other way, however, other than a tolerance of capitalism - so long as it is in concert with corrupt government agents.

Actually, pretty much all of the reforms demanded by the Tiananmen Square protesters have been granted. In any event, it's for certain that the Chinese government is now less brutal than it was under Mao Zedong.

Why is it certain? Who says it's certain? Do you have some kind of learned citation about the comparative benevolence of the Chinese Communist government?

Since the dictatorships of Iraq and Cuba were not moderated at all by US encirclement and embargo, we're comparing partial success against absolutely no success at all. Given that choice, I go with the partial success.

I don't know if the embargo of Cuba had any positive affects. Don't forget that Cuba had an adventurous phase, itself, seending its troops abroad to other countries to help prop up dictatorship, or overthrow them. Who knows if US pressure put an end to that. And the Iraqi embargo was not a "US" embargo it was a UN embargo.

A policy warmly and fully embraced, nay, demanded by most of the western world when directed at South Africa and Rhodesia, where they are reckoned as having greatly contributed to the fall of Apartheid. Are you actually suggesting that if the US and UK had bene more eager to trade with Saddam he'd have seen the light and become a freedom loving capitalist? This is in the same post you condemn the west for helping him survive by, well, mostly by trading with him.

Western trade brings in the liberalizing influence which motivates forces against people like Saddam. Who reckons that embargos are a great contribution to the fall of Apartheid?

Most of those involved in the struggle. And you are ignoring the duality of your own post. You think trade brings on liberalization yet criticize the west for propping up Iraq by trading with him.

As far as I know, the fall of Apartheid was to do with the increasing refusal of blacks to be oppressed, the influence of their leaders and anti-Apartheid activists, internal and border fighting, and the impossibility of a tiny white minority successfully governing a hostile black majority.

Militarily, the Whites had things pretty much under control, and that's without resorting to really vicious fighting. Their army was first rate, and the efforts of those fighting them were never of a calibre with those we see coming from the Palestinians against Israel, for instance. For the most part they killed a few farmers and that was it. The occasional riot mostly destroyed black property.

I see no signs of liberalism in China's massive slave labour camps, its torture chambers, its destruction of Tibetan culture, it's murder and imprisonment of religious people of all persuasions, it's corruption, or its massive espionage efforts in the west. If China is your idea of a liberal nation I'm glad I'm not a liberal.

Strawman argument. My point is not that China is liberal - it isn't. My point is that it's a lot more liberal than it was under Mao - and it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the US is more liberal than it was in the sixties. So what? Is that because of the liberalizing affect of trade, too?

[Argus]

If you can see no difference between the kind of society the US wants to foster and the kind of society the Soviets wanted or bin Laden wants, then you are either willfully blind or your judgment is seriously in error.

Perhaps you have not seen the Patriot Act and its successor? Perhaps you are unaware that the US government now controls more than one-third of the economy? The differences between the American, Soviet and Wahabbist ways of life are really of degree.

That is a facile statement. A matter of degree? Everything is a matter of degree. I could say the difference between you and your average mafia don is just a matter of degree, too and be just as correct. The difference between having lustful thoughts with regard to a thirty year old and a three year old is just a matter of degree, as well.

It's worth noting that Afghanistan was the only war in which Soviet troops left their own borders. The USA, on the other hand, has sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the Phillippines, the Middle East many times, and more besides. The USSR was pacifistic compared to the USA, at least in foreign policy.

Why is it worth noting? Of what value to the discussion is this? The Soviets worked mostly through agents. It got other people to do its killing and dying for it, like the Cubans, for example, or the Chinese. The Soviet Union was not the least bit Pacifist. It spent an enormous amount of money it did not have in an effort to subborn governments all across the country, and to support communist guerrila movements wherever they could cause trouble for western or western supported nations. Putting nuclear missiles into Cuba was hardly the act of a pacifist nation either.

I like the way you make it sound about as complex and damaging as switching from one internet provider to another. Never mind the massive economic chaos and dislocation which would first result

Civilization as we know it failed to end in the oil crisis of the 1970s. In fact, that crisis was quite instrumental in, for instance, persuading people to abandon their gas-guzzling V8s. Economic troubles of the time can largely be attributed to the inflation and interventionism of the Carter administration - errors largely reversed by Reagan.

Again, I like the way you casually dismiss the massive economic chaos and lives ruined in so cavalier a fashion. Let us not forget that the oil crisis ended. Had it not, things would have been quite different. Attributing the entire economic mess of the seventies and eighties to Jimmy Carter's one term administration is equally absurd. Reagan's so-called 'trickle down" economic policies were largely failures, though compared to the idiotic kleptocarcy emerginging the US today with the Bush boys I'd have to almost call them enlightened.

In short, never mind my actual point, which was that what the US was doing was good for the entire Western capitalist world

Yes, they said that in WWI as well. What a crock that turned out to be.

That is not an answer. Nor do I believe they said anything of the sort in WW1, nor, even if they did, would that have any relation to what is happening now.

Suppose you tell us what policy they're to abandon - specifically? Abandon Israel? Run away and leave the Afghan and Iraqi governments to fall and ignore the resulting bloody civil wars? What?

Yes. It's hard to understand, but there are things in this world where the best way out of a situation looks painful. For instance, in a recession there is nothing a government can do beyond prolonging and deepening it. The only thing to do is ride it out. There is never going to be stability in the Middle East as long as the USA intervenes there and in such a heavy-handed way. The more they attempt to stabilize, the more destabilized it becomes because the local people resent the stabilizing agent and the manner in which it "stabilizes".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't answer the question. Perhaps you'd like another try.

What policy do you want the US to abandon. Specifically.

[Hugo]

It did work in having Iraqis shed their blood to kill Iranians and stop them from moving into the Gulf.

And Iraq then moved into the Gulf instead. This is why I say that that policy didn't work: the USA may have successfully have played one minor State off against another, but that former State just became a problem at least as big as the latter State would have been, so nothing was really gained!

Why is it certain? Who says it's certain?

R. J. Rummel. The atrocities that the Chinese State commits today are very small next to those committed under Mao. I consider this to be progress: a thousand murders is better than a million. None would be better still, but it is better to pass through a thousand on your way to none than to remain at a million, no?

I don't know if the embargo of Cuba had any positive affects. Don't forget that Cuba had an adventurous phase, itself, seending its troops abroad to other countries to help prop up dictatorship, or overthrow them. Who knows if US pressure put an end to that.

The collapse of the USSR put an end to that, and it wasn't due to US action either - it was due to the internal contradictions of socialism and liberalization, or Western influence, one might even say.

You think trade brings on liberalization yet criticize the west for propping up Iraq by trading with him.

I criticize Western States for propping up Saddam by trading by him. Iraq isn't a person, it's a country, and my definition of "free trade" doesn't include States confiscating money from citizens and buying things with it to give to foreign States, or using said money to facilitate deals between large corporations that walk hand-in-hand with benefactor States and beneficiary States.

Militarily, the Whites had things pretty much under control, and that's without resorting to really vicious fighting. Their army was first rate, and the efforts of those fighting them were never of a calibre with those we see coming from the Palestinians against Israel, for instance. For the most part they killed a few farmers and that was it. The occasional riot mostly destroyed black property.

I think you gloss over the whole thing far too hastily. The internal pressures in South Africa between 1985 and 1988 were incredible and approached a state of civil war.

And the US is more liberal than it was in the sixties. So what? Is that because of the liberalizing affect of trade, too?

The government has more powers and money than it did before, the economy is more statist, the pace of collectivization continues, etc. On what grounds do you say that the USA is more liberal now than 40 years ago?

[Hugo]

That is a facile statement. A matter of degree? Everything is a matter of degree.

Then why are you insisting that this War on Terror is in fact some kind of Good vs. Evil struggle, when what you have just said should lead you to view it as just a turf war between different (but very powerful) gangs of thugs?

Why is it worth noting? Of what value to the discussion is this? The Soviets worked mostly through agents. It got other people to do its killing and dying for it, like the Cubans, for example, or the Chinese. The Soviet Union was not the least bit Pacifist. It spent an enormous amount of money it did not have in an effort to subborn governments all across the country, and to support communist guerrila movements wherever they could cause trouble for western or western supported nations. Putting nuclear missiles into Cuba was hardly the act of a pacifist nation either.

Nor was putting nuclear missiles into Turkey. Anyway, I don't believe a case can be made that the USSR was more belligerent than the USA during the Cold War. US troops went overseas far more often than Soviet ones.

How many wars did the USSR fight by proxy, anyway? They pulled out of Korea. They backed Chiang Kaishek in China. They didn't do anything about Vietnam until it became clear that the USA was going to intervene.

Again, I like the way you casually dismiss the massive economic chaos and lives ruined in so cavalier a fashion. Let us not forget that the oil crisis ended. Had it not, things would have been quite different.

The oil crisis produced great adaptation in the West. People abandoned gas-guzzling cars for smaller ones, found new ways to conserve energy, etc. Had the oil crisis continued, this development would have intensified. I appreciate that you believe I am indifferent to the suffering this caused, however, I think this suffering pales beside the suffering that the instabilities and struggles in the Middle East have produced.

Attributing the entire economic mess of the seventies and eighties to Jimmy Carter's one term administration is equally absurd.

Put it together with the disastrous administrations of Nixon and Johnson and you have your explanation, though. These administrations pursued very similar policies economically and socially.

Reagan's so-called 'trickle down" economic policies were largely failures

The gap between rich and poor was considerably smaller then than it was during either the 1990s or so far this decade. Trickle-down economics were more successful at improving the lot of the poor than either Clinton's measures or Compassionate Conservatism.

That is not an answer. Nor do I believe they said anything of the sort in WW1, nor, even if they did, would that have any relation to what is happening now.

My point is that grandiose war aims do not a just and wise policy make. Woodrow Wilson called WWI a war to "make the world safe for democracy." What WWI actually and foreseeably did was to make WWII inevitable, which snatched the whole of continental Europe out of democracy, and the aftermath of which left most of Europe and many other parts of the world in tyranny.

What policy do you want the US to abandon. Specifically.

Foreign interventionism.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo and Argus,

What policy do you want the US to abandon. Specifically.

Foreign interventionism

Kooky. All us lefties want the same thing....

[BHS]

Dear Hugo and Argus,

What policy do you want the US to abandon. Specifically.

Foreign interventionism

Kooky. All us lefties want the same thing....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you'd be happy with someone like say, Pat Buchanan in the Presidency?

The problem with complaining about American interventionism is that it flies directly in the face of efforts like the One campaign and the Live 8 shows, which lefties generally support. American isolationism is in many ways just as undesirable as an enthusiastic American foreign policy.

I'm guessing your really talk about American military interventionism. Which is fine, I guess, accept that it goes hand in hand with American foreign investment. You can't seriously expect American business to send ships into the world without protection from piracy, of both the private and national kinds.

Furthermore, what you're demanding makes organizations like NATO obsolete, as America will no longer be able to participate in mutual defence arrangements with allied nations. Is that really what you want?

[Guest eureka]

I agree with what I think Hugo is saying about the Cold War and the USSR. The Communism of Stalin and his successors was not a "world movement." Rather, Russia had staked out its sphere of influence and was determined to maintain it. The Cold War, for Russia, was more a national preoccupation than an international one.

It often put out probes such as Cuba, but there were no really serious efforts to greatly extend its Empire. It had all it could handle.

[August1991]

Before Hugo decided to go nuclear/weird in this thread (see below), there was this quote which I chose to ignore but now feel obliged to answer.

August suggested that invading another nation was analogous to passing same sex marriage in your own nation. I questioned him on how exactly that analogy was supposed to work. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.

The analogy is the following: Many Canadians called opponents of same-sex marriage "bigots", and subjected them to harsh verbal abuse. Are those same Canadians willing to defend such a principle of freedom elsewhere in the world?

So, the question is: Should we compromise with bigots? Or should we be honest and call them bigots, understanding what that might mean, as a consequence?

----

If you can see no difference between the kind of society the US wants to foster and the kind of society the Soviets wanted or bin Laden wants, then you are either willfully blind or your judgment is seriously in error.

Perhaps you have not seen the Patriot Act and its successor? Perhaps you are unaware that the US government now controls more than one-third of the economy? The differences between the American, Soviet and Wahabbist ways of life are really of degree. All these States believe that the initiation of violence and fraud can be just, all believe that people are too stupid or evil to be allowed to run their own lives, and so forth.

Right. As someone else said in another thread: Bernie Ebbers is no different from a kid who takes a Snickers bar. They're both thieves. And in a black and white world, that's true.

Soviet? I'll note Solzhenitsyn and Conquest, or my personal favourite, Kravchenko, first published in 1946.

Wahabbi? How about Robert Lacey or Dale Walker, but my personal favourite is seeing in Riyadh a CD of The Sound of Music with Julie Andrew's leg covered by a swath of black magic marker.

China? Read this. Few books criticise so well the moral laziness of the traditional North American left. I can live with political correctness. I don't know if I could live with the Red Guards.

Hugo, find me an equivalent personal story written by an American in America. FGS, The Sound of Music.

America is not perfect, nor is Canada. I too think government is too large. But Hugo if you cannot see degrees of colour, then you are blind. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Argus]

Dear Hugo and Argus,

What policy do you want the US to abandon. Specifically.

Foreign interventionism

Kooky. All us lefties want the same thing....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you want them to abandon interventionism such as they recently undertook in Indonesia? How about when they intervened in the Mediteranian Sea to prevent a war between Greece and Turkey? How about when they intervened financially to prevent the collapse of Asia's banking system? When they finally got tired of the Europeans and intervened in Bosnia to stop that war?

[Black Dog]

Do you want them to abandon interventionism such as they recently undertook in Indonesia?

Oh you mean when they propped up Suharto as he massacred tens of thousands in East Timor? Oh, you mean the tsunami aid, $350 million of which ha sbeen pledged and $78 million spent. (To compare, Bush's inaguration cost $45 million and the Iraq war costs about $177 million per day)

How about when they intervened in the Mediteranian Sea to prevent a war between Greece and Turkey?

What of the wars they started?

When they finally got tired of the Europeans and intervened in Bosnia to stop that war?

By launching a bombing campaign that precipitated some of the worst atrocities of the conflict? yeesh.

The point here is there are always examples where intervention has negative consequenses. Most of the major issues today (such as terrorism) are direct results of those interventions. Aericans and their apologists need to be reminded of George Washington's sage advice: "the Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."