|
How exactly is the selection of which foreign leaders to topple by invasion and occupation to be made?
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not a neoconservative position. Neoconservatism is about the imposition of American/western power on other nations, on the grounds that American democracy is the best form of government. Saying that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing is not inherently neoconservative, unless we are to take the position that the USA was opposing neoconservatism when it supported the Pinochet government and the Brazilian junta. Please, explain the justification under which removing Saddam Hussein, as an action in and of itself, is a morally neutral or immoral action. The problem here is that viewing the removal of Saddam Hussein from power without reference to the context in which it happened is next to pointless, the equivalent of saying "it is good to do good things, and to oppose bad things" (hey, I just realized why this Iraq garbage fits in this thread so well!). To ignore that context, particularly as it was (at least) the third excuse offered up by the neo-cons for why we invaded in the first place, after "they've got WMDS!" and "they helped with 9/11!" both were shown to be complete lies, misses the point and threatens to whitewash the whole nightmarishish shitshow that was the Iraq War in a way that would make Cheney the Deathless proud, were he capable of admiring the actions of pitiful humans such as us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
emfive posted:How exactly is the selection of which foreign leaders to topple by invasion and occupation to be made? Why, I happen to have prepared a white paper addressing this very question. You can read it on my think tank's website, howdareyoucallmeneoconservative.org
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:43
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The problem here is that viewing the removal of Saddam Hussein from power without reference to the context in which it happened is next to pointless, the equivalent of saying "it is good to do good things, and to oppose bad things" (hey, I just realized why this Iraq garbage fits in this thread so well!). To ignore that context, particularly as it was (at least) the third excuse offered up by the neo-cons for why we invaded in the first place, after "they've got WMDS!" and "they helped with 9/11!" both were shown to be complete lies, misses the point and threatens to whitewash the whole nightmarishish shitshow that was the Iraq War in a way that would make Cheney the Deathless proud, were he capable of admiring the actions of pitiful humans such as us. I don't see why it's necessary to take classify the removal of Saddamn Hussein as a negative outcome of the invasion of Iraq, though. You can still point out how the American government relied on shifting lies to sell the war, attempted to institute a thorough system of imperial exploitation in Iraq, destroyed most of the country's infrastructure, annihilated political stability, and all the evil consequences of our attack on Iraq. The added bonus is that you're no longer implicitly endorsing mass-murders and invasions so long as the wealthy countries don't do them. Or, to put it another way, would it be an immoral action for the USA to use its intelligence apparatus to destabilize Vladimir Putin's government and support dissident elements within Russia? This is apart from it being a smart or stupid action. emfive posted:How exactly is the selection of which foreign leaders to topple by invasion and occupation to be made? I don't see what this has to do with what I'm saying.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Boy, I wish we could go back to the 1980s, when we firmly opposed neoconservatism by supporting the Khmer Rouge in their efforts to resist the Vietnamese invasion.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Guys let's overthrow governments, and replace dictators we installed with other dictators, but let's do it a little more smartly this time, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:50
|
|
SedanChair posted:Guys let's overthrow governments, and replace dictators we installed with other dictators, but let's do it a little more smartly this time, yes? How are democratic and open governmental systems to be established without removing the authoritarian and closed systems that currently exist? What is the means by which the USA, or I guess if you're particularly intelligent for a vulgar leftist, the Global North, is incapable of fostering said governments?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't see what this has to do with what I'm saying. If the removal of some head of state is a moral thing to do in some circumstances, what exactly are those circumstances?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Let's kill thousands in the process of choosing leaders for other countries, but woe betide he who calls me a neoconservative. I propose that we slay thousands solely for the purpose of advancing human rights. You could call me a "Scoop Jackson Democrat."
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:56
|
|
emfive posted:If the removal of some head of state is a moral thing to do in some circumstances, what exactly are those circumstances? I believe that a democratic and open system of government is best, so governments that oppose these means, by killing, imprisoning, or terrorizing dissenters, committing mass-murders, removing or minimizing the ability of the people to influence the government, committing abuses of human rights, invading other countries, engaging in imperial exploitation of other countries, supporting other countries that do any or all of these things, etc. should be opposed to their destruction. This of course covers the United States of America's government (and those of many wealthy countries), and what a wonderful thing it is that the USA is only partway down the scale on the domestic end so it can be opposed and changed more easily.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
emfive posted:If the removal of some head of state is a moral thing to do in some circumstances, what exactly are those circumstances? Always. What's that? Declaring war on half the world is a bad idea, you say? Shows how much you looooooooooovvvvvvvve Saddam!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Let's kill thousands in the process of choosing leaders for other countries, but woe betide he who calls me a neoconservative. I propose that we slay thousands solely for the purpose of advancing human rights. You could call me a "Scoop Jackson Democrat." Hussein caused way more deaths than the American intervention did. Sorry buddy
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
I'm glad that so many supposed leftists and liberals think that Vladimir Putin's government should remain in power, and that the house of Saud should forever rule over the people of Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy, and that the coup in Thailand will only do good as it eliminates western nonsense like the freedom of speech and elections.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
See, now you regret calling me neoconservative. Neoconservatives might think it's a bad idea to start a nuclear war because you don't like the leader of Russia, whereas I
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
"Hey, maybe we should not storm into a country, destabilize the government and leave the nation worse off than it was before." "Oh, so I guess you just love sucking terrorist cock and think our military should kill puppies instead?!" Truly a stunning level of intellectual honesty from the conservatives in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:03
|
|
SedanChair posted:See, now you regret calling me neoconservative. Neoconservatives might think it's a bad idea to start a nuclear war because you don't like the leader of Russia, whereas I Finally, someone who can come out and say that whether a government is open and democratic or not is just a matter of taste. Maybe they should start offering package tours for pseudoleftists to visit Russian prisons and beat the poo poo out of imprisoned communists.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"Hey, maybe we should not storm into a country, destabilize the government and leave the nation worse off than it was before." It was illegal to own a satellite dish in Iraq under Hussein so I'm pretty sure we left it off better than it was before actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Number of people in this thread who know what it's like to live a single day under a fascist dictator: 0 (zero)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:How are democratic and open governmental systems to be established without removing the authoritarian and closed systems that currently exist? What is the means by which the USA, or I guess if you're particularly intelligent for a vulgar leftist, the Global North, is incapable of fostering said governments? Television. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emily.oster/papers/tvwomen.pdf You can't be what you can't see. People in, say, North Korea can't even conceive of an open democracy because they've never seen it. Show it to them - like showing women in rural India TV shows where wife beating is shocking and unacceptable - and they will want it and move towards it on their own. Show up with an aircraft carrier and start shelling things ... Well they understand that. Naked shows of force with empty pompous claims of goodness/moral superiority are something they see a lot of. Be the shining city on the hill. Be a good example. Forget military imperialism. Go for cultural imperialism. Because it's not a "just war" until you've tried everything else. None of this, "they have oil we want, we've tried nothing, and we are all out of ideas" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
This thread is HEATING UP
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:07
|
|
Conservatives of history would include Jack Kirby, with his disgusting propaganda about violently assaulting Germany and its duly-chosen leader, Adolf Hitler, just because he didn't like the guy. Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel went even further by having their (fascist) stand-in Superman overthrow the government of Germany entirely and turn Hitler over to the imperialist institution of the League of Nations.McAlister posted:Television. Imperialism is a bad thing, actually, and this is Friedmanist nonsense. This only works for a society where democratic institutions exist in sufficient form for people to change things simply through yelling loudly enough. Overthrowing a tyrannical regime like the Fiji junta requires things like coordination.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Television. The Ba'ath Party controlled the media in Iraq so this would not have been possible but I'm glad you're of the opinion that Western countries should work to get more citizens of fascist dictatorships to watch Western TV, as they are being murdered by the tens of thousands
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Peta posted:Number of people in this thread who know what it's like to live a single day under a fascist dictator: 0 (zero) Number of people in this thread who know what it's like to be vaporized by white hot fire from an American bomber because they live under a fascist dictator: 0 (zero)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Imperialism is a bad thing, actually, and this is Friedmanist nonsense. This only works for a society where democratic institutions exist in sufficient form for people to change things simply through yelling loudly enough. Overthrowing a tyrannical regime like the Fiji junta requires things like coordination. So you come from an alternate reality where things like the Haitian slave revolt, the American revolution, the French Revolution, etc never happened? Or where the English monarchy never went from having absolute power to being mostly figureheads? If open democracies have to be imposed by an outside force to happen there wouldn't be any. And I can't help but note that the homegrown democracies are worlds more stable than the ones imposed by outside force. Patting yourself on the back for creating a puppet democracy or some other unstable situation that collapses the moment you turn your back is silly. And there is nothing wrong with being so awesome all the other people want their countries be like yours. Theocrats lack the patience for it is all. Give them any power and they'll immediately try to force people to be "good" oblivious to the fact that "goodness" extracted under threat of punishment doesn't actually count.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Number of people in this thread who know what it's like to be vaporized by white hot fire from an American bomber because they live under a fascist dictator: 0 (zero) Agreed, one or two years of civilian wartime casualties compares to the death toll that Iraq suffered under Saddam
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
McAlister posted:So you come from an alternate reality where things like the Haitian slave revolt, the American revolution, the French Revolution, etc never happened? Well postwar Japan has been pretty stable so I'd say the problem is more with the political/cultural/religious climate of the Arab world
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Peta posted:Agreed, one or two years of civilian wartime casualties compares to the death toll that Iraq suffered under Saddam Get purified by suffering, foreigners. It's for your own good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm glad that so many supposed leftists and liberals think that Vladimir Putin's government should remain in power, and that the house of Saud should forever rule over the people of Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy, and that the coup in Thailand will only do good as it eliminates western nonsense like the freedom of speech and elections. OK so who're we hittin' next? There's a lot of work to be done if everybody's to eventually enjoy the benefits of a capitalist plutocracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Get purified by suffering, foreigners. It's for your own good. The civilian casualties inflicted by the US never held a candle to the civilian casualties inflicted by Saddam
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Peta posted:Agreed, one or two years of civilian wartime casualties compares to the death toll that Iraq suffered under Saddam "No, see, our killings weren't as bad as those killings, therefore they were 100% righteous and just." Do you even realize what you're saying and how insane it sounds?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
I think we're all missing the point here in this Theocracy thread. Any government grounded in Allah is better because there is but one God and that God is Allah. E: Praise Allah Eye of Widesauron fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Peta posted:The civilian casualties inflicted by the US never held a candle to the civilian casualties inflicted by Saddam "Sure I murdered my wife but, your honor, it wasn't as bad as Jeffrey Dahmer's murders!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Peta posted:Well postwar Japan has been pretty stable so I'd say the problem is more with the political/cultural/religious climate of the Arab world rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
You are literally arguing that any sum of civilian casualties is enough to condemn a war that is being fought for the basic freedoms of those civilians, while greater numbers of civilians have been killed on an annual basis by the party that has been restricting their basic freedoms. You have managed to contradict every single normative moral philosophy that I can think of
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But then that's a reason why the invasion, even as a theoretical idea, was a dumb one! You have just elucidated a reason why it was not simply a matter of implementation that this example of a 'just war' failed, contradicting what you were saying earlier, about it merely being a operational failure! Nah I don't think it's impossible or even necessarily implausible to install a democracy in the Middle East
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Is a claim being made that Saddam was annually killing 100,000 people or so?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Widestancer posted:I think we're all missing the point here in this Theocracy thread. Nice casual Islamophobia but the Arab world isn't the only place where theocracies exist. The imperialist Christian Global North is a theocracy in all but name
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Peta posted:You are literally arguing that any sum of civilian casualties is enough to condemn a war that is being fought for the basic freedoms of those civilians, while greater numbers of civilians have been killed on an annual basis by the party that has been restricting their basic freedoms. You have managed to contradict every single normative moral philosophy that I can think of Your whitewashing the deaths of civilians. That is what you are doing. You're saying that it's ok to violently kill innocent people because "Well you can't make an omelette without making a couple thousand orphans and cripples."
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Your whitewashing the deaths of civilians. That is what you are doing. You're saying that it's ok to violently kill innocent people because "Well you can't make an omelette without making a couple thousand orphans and cripples." Actually I'm just saying that the Iraq War was a good idea and I'm accepting the natural assumption that wars generate some number of civilian casualties. I'm not nor have I ever been approving of the way the war was carried out
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Peta posted:Nice casual Islamophobia but the Arab world isn't the only place where theocracies exist. The imperialist Christian Global North is a theocracy in all but name Why are you assuming that I'm not a muslim
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:46
|
|