London Bombings

[Hugo]

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. American military interventionism... 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.

No, I don't expect that they would. They'd have to be stupid. What would happen is that American firms simply wouldn't do business in chaotic and unstable parts of the world - which is pretty much what happens now, of course. As to charity, transfers of wealth between governments generally do next to nothing for people. Private charities (which work in some pretty awful parts of the world, bless 'em) are much better.

In any case, I can't see what you are arguing for here. Are you proposing that the USA must send vast armies overseas so that soldiers and foreigners can die for business interests?

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?

Why would the abolition of military adventuring make mutual defence obsolete?

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.

For sure, America is a better place to live than most other countries in the world. The problem is that with every war America fights, the government accumulates more power and abrogates more freedoms. None of these ever return once abrogated: temporary taxes and restrictions become permanent. What poses the greatest danger to the American way of life is the so-called defence of the American way of life. War is the health of the State.

[Argus]

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?

Canada was probably Suharto's greatest friend. During his reign Canada never said or did a single thing against him, and our corporations were among his favourite in helping exploit Indonesia's natural resources. Canada always sided with Indonesia whenever their behaviour was criticised in the international arena.

And Jean Chretien tore up Canada's constitutional protections for free speech and assembly after promising his good friend Suharto he would not have to face any kind of embarrassing demonstrations during the Vancouver APEC summit. Chretien's hatchet man Jean Carle ordered the RCMP to arrest anyone who tried to demonstrate within sight of Suharto, on whatever pretext, legal or not.

Oh, you mean the tsunami aid, $350 million of which ha sbeen pledged and $78 million spent.

How much did it cost to send all those warships and helicopters there and keep them there helping people? Canada eventually sent about a hundred people (there are 5,000 by comparison, on one aircraft carrier), many weeks later, after enormous criticism, and when there was really not much for them to do.

Then it deducated the cost of sending those people there from its aid pledge.

Cute.

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

What of the wars they started?

Like?

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.

No, actually, by ending the conflict, and fairly quickly, too. You are probably thinking about Kosovo.

The point here is there are always examples where intervention has negative consequenses.

You can do nothing. That is Canada's policy. Then you can't be criticised for causing any problems, right? Or you can do something to try to help. It may work, it may not, or it may be a mixed bag. What you fail to appreciate is all the things which the US put a stop to simply because of their existence, and because rogue nations feared they would intervene. What would the world look like if the US suddenly adopted an isolationist foreign policy and rogue states no longer had to worry about the prospect of them interfering in what they wanted to do. Just as a start, North Korea would invade South Korea. I'd expect the Arab states would do their best to overrun Israel. Iran would probably try to take over Iraq, and then the Gulf states. India would probably go to war with Pakistan, and China would start gobbling up all the smaller states around it.

[BHS]

Regarding Bosnia;

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're confusing Bosnia with Kosovo. Arguably, the worst atrocity in Bosnia was the Srebrenica massacre wherein Bosnian Serbs executed 8000 Muslim men and boys in front of the Dutch Peacekeepers set to guard them. Without, might I add, the encouragment of American bombardment.

Srebrenica Massacre

[BHS]

Why would the abolition of military adventuring make mutual defence obsolete?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not adventuring, interventionism. Mutual defense exists on the premise that one nation will come to another nation's aid in a time of crisis, as the US did for Britain and France in the World Wars, and as the NATO Pact obliges all signatories to do. Taken a step further, a strong nation may wish to provide for the defense of a weaker nation as a token of friendship and come to it's aid in a time of crisis, as the US did for Kuwait in 1991. This isn't adventurism, and it would be a great loss to the world if the Americans decided to pull out of all foreign conflicts.

[Argus]

Why would the abolition of military adventuring make mutual defence obsolete?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not adventuring, interventionism. Mutual defense exists on the premise that one nation will come to another nation's aid in a time of crisis, as the US did for Britain and France in the World Wars, and as the NATO Pact obliges all signatories to do. Taken a step further, a strong nation may wish to provide for the defense of a weaker nation as a token of friendship and come to it's aid in a time of crisis, as the US did for Kuwait in 1991. This isn't adventurism, and it would be a great loss to the world if the Americans decided to pull out of all foreign conflicts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But among the reasons they're criticised is, for example, putting troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudis to deter a possible Iraqi attack. In fact, I believe that was Bin Laden's major complaint.

[Hugo]

Not adventuring, interventionism. Mutual defense exists on the premise that one nation will come to another nation's aid in a time of crisis, as the US did for Britain and France in the World Wars

No, they did not. They turned up several years late when they felt it was in their interests.

Taken a step further, a strong nation may wish to provide for the defense of a weaker nation as a token of friendship and come to it's aid in a time of crisis, as the US did for Kuwait in 1991.

I don't see how this draws any ties between defence and military adventuring. It seems to me that you are arguing - for an analogy - that unless I am permitted to leave my house with a gun and go shooting people, there is no hope that I could defend my house from an intruder.

But among the reasons they're criticised is, for example, putting troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudis to deter a possible Iraqi attack. In fact, I believe that was Bin Laden's major complaint.

Given all the heady talk of democracy-seeding I think it the height of hypocrisy for the USA to be coming to the aid of disgusting little regimes like Saudi Arabia.

[Argus]

But among the reasons they're criticised is, for example, putting troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudis to deter a possible Iraqi attack. In fact, I believe that was Bin Laden's major complaint.

Given all the heady talk of democracy-seeding I think it the height of hypocrisy for the USA to be coming to the aid of disgusting little regimes like Saudi Arabia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the US is supposed to ignore countries which aren't democracies? Give them the back of their hands, so to speak?

We certainly don't. We befriend dictarors all the time. Our Prime Minister hugs and laughs and holds hands with butchers of every variety.

And aren't we the most noble and moral people in the history of the planet earth?

The lefties all seem to think we are.

[BHS]

So the US is supposed to ignore countries which aren't democracies? Give them the back of their hands, so to speak?

We certainly don't. We befriend dictarors all the time. Our Prime Minister hugs and laughs and holds hands with butchers of every variety.

And aren't we the most noble and moral people in the history of the planet earth?

The lefties all seem to think we are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on, Suharto was a pussycat. Why else would the RCMP go medieval with the pepperspray to protect his machinegun-toting bodyguards from inconveniently vocal demonstrators? Chretien's laughing response: "I put da pepper on my food."

In 2000 Suharto was placed under house arrest, but was unable to stand trial for embezzlement due to poor health. It is estimated that during his 32 year rule more than $70B US passed through his family's hands.

Shudder. I just got a mental image of Chretien and Suharto reinacting the knighting scene from Episode III. Did anyone else get that? "Arise, Lord Incomprehensible".

[Hugo]

So the US is supposed to ignore countries which aren't democracies? Give them the back of their hands, so to speak?

We certainly don't. We befriend dictarors all the time. Our Prime Minister hugs and laughs and holds hands with butchers of every variety.

This is a strawman fallacy. You imply that since I denounce the foreign policy of the USA, I must therefore embrace that of Canada, when I said nothing of the sort.

[Argus]

So the US is supposed to ignore countries which aren't democracies? Give them the back of their hands, so to speak?

We certainly don't. We befriend dictarors all the time. Our Prime Minister hugs and laughs and holds hands with butchers of every variety.

This is a strawman fallacy. You imply that since I denounce the foreign policy of the USA, I must therefore embrace that of Canada, when I said nothing of the sort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I'm suggesting is that you are attempting to impose a standard of behaviour on the Americans which exists noiwhere among any of the nations of the world, now or in the past.

[Hugo]

What I'm suggesting is that you are attempting to impose a standard of behaviour on the Americans which exists noiwhere among any of the nations of the world, now or in the past.

Firstly, as I had said, it is not so much that the USA conducts itself differently from any historical State in its quest for power and, if possible, hegemony, but the hypocritical terms in which it couches it - the name of freedom and liberty. Of course, all empires need their causes. The Romans built their empire for civilization, the British in the name of the white man's burden, the Nazis in the name of racial purity and manifest destiny, and now the Americans are doing it for freedom. Of course, all of those things turned out to be fallacious: Roman society was barbaric and more violent and degenerate than the "barbarians" it conquered, the British arguably detracted from the lives of their colonial subjects as much as they added to them, Nazi racial theories were based on some of the worst "science" of the 20th Century, and the USA is steadily abrogating all of the freedoms it purports to be spreading around the globe.

Secondly, simply because a quality or idea is rare or even unknown is no reason not to advocate it. At one point, the same could be said of women's rights, abolitionism, democracy, and so forth. Nevertheless, those are all fact now, almost wholly because some people did not listen to the arguments that these must be impossible merely because they had never been done before. Kind of like the man who argued that we don't need a patent office because everything that could be invented was already invented.

[BHS]

So the US is supposed to ignore countries which aren't democracies? Give them the back of their hands, so to speak?

We certainly don't. We befriend dictarors all the time. Our Prime Minister hugs and laughs and holds hands with butchers of every variety.

This is a strawman fallacy. You imply that since I denounce the foreign policy of the USA, I must therefore embrace that of Canada, when I said nothing of the sort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, what you're describing is bifurcation, also known as the false dichotomy. It would be a straw man argument if he misrepresented Canadian policy so that it could be compared to America's policy in an unfavourable light. Since you don't appear to disagree with his statement regarding the policy, it's not a straw man argument.

[Hugo]

Actually, what you're describing is bifurcation, also known as the false dichotomy.

That is true, his argument is a false dichotomy. However, I feel that it can also be described as a strawman since he is ignoring my main argument in favour of attacking a much weaker one that I never made.

[Argus]

Actually, what you're describing is bifurcation, also known as the false dichotomy.

That is true, his argument is a false dichotomy. However, I feel that it can also be described as a strawman since he is ignoring my main argument in favour of attacking a much weaker one that I never made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. I was attempting to point out that you are unfairly targeting the US for its actions not living up to its self-image when our actions don't come close to our self-image either. We are, according to our government, the world's most moral, noble and selfless nation. But in reality, our foreign policy is focused only on what profits we can make. We don't care about human rights in the least. We don't care about the welfare of others. Hell, we don't even care about the welfare of our own people abroad. We care about money. Now usually, the reason I use arguments like this is that those who are most vocal in their criticism of the Americans are proud, patriotic Canadians who believe wholeheartedly in that noble, selfless image bullshit. They even think we're famous for our noble peacekeeping efforts when in fact we do very little now that we have no military to speak of.

Does the US' professed love of democracy and freedom often collide with realpolitik? Sure. Of course. Anyone but an idiot would admit that. But I do think that in their hearts most Americans, and even American policy does want to encourage freedom and democracy wherever they can. But not at their own expense. If encouraging freedom means an anti-Western, anti-Israeli theocracy, for example, then they'll certainly oppose it.

[Hugo]

No. I was attempting to point out that you are unfairly targeting the US for its actions not living up to its self-image when our actions don't come close to our self-image either.

But that is a strawman, because I never, ever claimed that the actions of the Canadian State meet my wishes either.

We are, according to our government, the world's most moral, noble and selfless nation.

Pretty much every State will claim that, even the ones engaged in bloodthirsty massacres. The State depends upon at least the grudging consent of the populace and so has to wage an unceasing propaganda battle. What a State claims is really irrelevant, you are dealing with virtually pathological liars here.

Now usually, the reason I use arguments like this is that those who are most vocal in their criticism of the Americans are proud, patriotic Canadians who believe wholeheartedly in that noble, selfless image bullshit.

But I'm an anarchist who does not acknowledge the need or desirability of any Government or State, including the Canadian one. Very recently, in fact, I have labelled the Canadian State as a gang of thugs, murderers, thieves, kidnappers, counterfeiters, extortionists, etc.

I know that there are many people who believe Canada to be the model of pacifistic, benevolent foreign policy even as they attack US foreign policy, however, I'm not one of them.

Does the US' professed love of democracy and freedom often collide with realpolitik? Sure. Of course. Anyone but an idiot would admit that. But I do think that in their hearts most Americans, and even American policy does want to encourage freedom and democracy wherever they can.

I do not see how freedom and democracy are actually helped by abrogating freedom of speech, imprisoning without trial, searching (breaking and entering) without judicial oversight, torturing the enemies of the State, and so forth.

But not at their own expense.

And here we have it. Freedom definitely comes at the expense of the American State, so they will basically pay as much lip-service to it as the electorate demands and move to abolish it wherever they can justify it or where it will not be noticed. This has been the pattern of American government since the Revolution. Each new war and new crisis brings new taxes, new State powers (and the concentration of State power in Washington), and less freedom.

[BHS]

I do not see how freedom and democracy are actually helped by abrogating freedom of speech, imprisoning without trial, searching (breaking and entering) without judicial oversight, torturing the enemies of the State, and so forth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see how you can call yourself an anarchist and still complain about a lack of judicial oversight.

[Hugo]

I don't see how you can call yourself an anarchist and still complain about a lack of judicial oversight.

Why? I oppose State-monopolized courts, therefore, I must support the concentration of State power and the abolition of such checks and balances as exist? That doesn't make sense.

[BHS]

I don't see how you can call yourself an anarchist and still complain about a lack of judicial oversight.

Why? I oppose State-monopolized courts, therefore, I must support the concentration of State power and the abolition of such checks and balances as exist? That doesn't make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just think it's odd for an anarchist to acknowledge the need for any sort of legal body or any system of checks and balances. I would have thought you would want all of it scrapped in favour of your trusty AK47.

[Hugo]

I just think it's odd for an anarchist to acknowledge the need for any sort of legal body or any system of checks and balances. I would have thought you would want all of it scrapped in favour of your trusty AK47.

You're thinking of emotivist-anarchism. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. There are many more schools besides, such as anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, individualist (or egoist) anarchism, and probably more. But those are the major ones.

[Argus]

I just think it's odd for an anarchist to acknowledge the need for any sort of legal body or any system of checks and balances. I would have thought you would want all of it scrapped in favour of your trusty AK47.

You're thinking of emotivist-anarchism. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. There are many more schools besides, such as anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, individualist (or egoist) anarchism, and probably more. But those are the major ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of us just group them all together under the general "kook" category.

[Hugo]

Most of us just group them all together under the general "kook" category.

Yes, right where suffragettes, abolitionists, democrats, heliocentrists and evolutionists used to be. This is what's called an ad populum fallacy, Argus - the notion that if an idea is not widely accepted it is therefore wrong, and conversely, if an idea is widely accepted, it must be right.

[BHS]

I just think it's odd for an anarchist to acknowledge the need for any sort of legal body or any system of checks and balances. I would have thought you would want all of it scrapped in favour of your trusty AK47.

You're thinking of emotivist-anarchism. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. There are many more schools besides, such as anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, individualist (or egoist) anarchism, and probably more. But those are the major ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, there are pro-law-and-order anarchists? Is that right? How do they differ from libertarians?

[Hugo]

So, there are pro-law-and-order anarchists? Is that right? How do they differ from libertarians?

Libertarian used to mean anarchist. Now it usually means a minarchist, like a Randian. Anarcho-capitalists can be regarded as radical libertarians, or those who take libertarianism to its logical conclusion. Such anarchists accept the need for law and order, they just reject giving any group a monopoly on prescribing, providing and enforcing it. Basically, if the free market provides better at less cost, why not apply that to law, courts, etc? Indeed, in the USA there are more private security guards than cops, and more cases are settled in private courts than State ones each year. Private police forces have better track records than State ones both in the prevention of crime and in the misuse and abuse of force. Anyway, there are other threads where I discuss this in more detail (still open) - let's not let this thread wander too much.

[Argus]

Most of us just group them all together under the general "kook" category.

Yes, right where suffragettes, abolitionists, democrats, heliocentrists and evolutionists used to be. This is what's called an ad populum fallacy, Argus - the notion that if an idea is not widely accepted it is therefore wrong, and conversely, if an idea is widely accepted, it must be right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm hardly one to embrace the herd, Hugo, but the human race spent quite a few eons working its way up from anarchy to civilization and I see no logic behind your desire to return from whence we came. Like it or not societies function far better within an ordered environment where all know the rules. Likewise business requires stability and order. Anarchy, by its very nature, brings neither.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

But among the reasons they're criticised is, for example, putting troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudis to deter a possible Iraqi attack. In fact, I believe that was Bin Laden's major complaint.

Bin Laden did indeed resent US troops 'on the soil of the land of the two holy places', and had made an offer to expel Iraq from kuwait himself. The offer was rejected by the Saudis (whose royal family Bin Laden hates anyway) which led to Bin Laden having his Saudi citizenship revoked. However, in pure speculation, had Saudi Arabia accepted, Baghdad might have been targetted instead of New York on 9/11. Bin Laden would have been far too busy. Edited July 18, 2005 by theloniusfleabag