Written by wormdrink414 on 11.03.2011 at 02:28

Bravo. My fellow lefties over here have the nasty tendency to assume that whenever we use our military power its done for our own economic gains. The argument that, imo, the Bush administration should have made is this: Since Saddam was a fascist who was slaughtering the people he controlled, burning Iraq's land (not to mention, seeking nukes and to burn the lands and control the peoples of other countries), we entered Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people, particularly the Kurds. Throw on top of that that Saddam was seeking nukes and already had used WMD, and all of the argument that needs to be made is for the "anti-war" movement to make. The Team America argument, though hilarious and fair, takes the morality and superpower question and makes light of it.

Liberals here, however, through their indulgence of their anti-republican impulse, can't recognize real enemies when they see them. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watchfeature=player_embedded&v=xd9OYJMX9t4 .

(What's most infuriating about that video is the comparison the woman makes of Japanese-American concentration camps during WWII to Islamophobia. Hardly anyone appears able to distinguish between religious groups and races. Muslims are not a race. They're a group of people who, in their holy book, are commanded to murder apostates and stone adulterous women. Etc. On top of that, the people who (sometimes rightly) fear them, aren't trying to send them to "relocation centers". But this argument isn't really related to Iraq, so I digress.)

You seem to forget some important aspects of the debate.
1. America put Saddam in power, not once but twice. This was when he was still working to further US influence in the region. If you look at the early Saddam years, the guy was quite friendly to the US (although still a fascist).
2. America has historically had no problems at all with fascism. In Chile they supported Pinochet, who overthrew the democratically elected party through a bloody coup. They also have supported countless other fascist regimes over the years, including but not limited to Egypt, the French-friendly governors in Vietnam and the Saudi government.
3. The US were very friendly to the taliban during the period of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Why would they do this? The reason that must be looked into is material gain, reflected through an influence in the region. Incidentals are occurences that happen one time out of sheer chance, if it happens pretty much every time certain conditions present themselves, we have a pattern. As to what that pattern is, deeper analysis of the events is required. This particular pattern goes far back, before the US was the main offender, and has been analyzed over and over again. In fact, if we look at history, war (or conflict) only becomes a fact for two reasons:

1. Your material possessions are threatened, and you need to defend your assets (the Cold War, The Vietnam War, when Argentina attacked the Falkland islands, when Nigeria attacked Biafra etc).
2. You need to expand your reign and gain new assets (World War 1, World War 2, The Napoleon War, attacking Afghanistan, attacking Iraq etc).

What you then tell the people, is an entirely different story. Ideals are not enough to send a nation into war (and only the worst idealist would think it to be that way), there must also be material gain involved of some kind (or a defensive motive).

There are more reasons to question the validity of the "bring democracy to the middle east" argumentation. First one could look at what makes a working democracy, and one could draw some conclusions from what has happened during the course of history.

1. The liberation of a country is much more likely to work if it is the work of the people who live there. Forcing democracy on a nation has proved not to be such a great tactic, and almost always results in corrupt fake-democracies.
2. Despite what the American freedom talk would let you believe, there are some material requirements that must be met if a nation is to be capable of having a working democracy. You can't have a democracy in a country without the infrastructure to support it. Afghanistan is a prime example of such a place where democracy can't work right now, because these requirements are not met. If a significant part of the population can't read and do not even have a basic education, running a democratic system is impossible. Afghanistan, used as an example earlier, is decades away from being able to support a democratic system, even under such conditions that the development is positive (which it is not right now).

And as for the actual motives of the actions in the middle east taken by the west, I am going to quote our minister of external affairs, Carl Bildt (a right-wing politician). He was being confronted by a journalist about the fact that Sweden had supplied Egypt with weapons and supported the (now former) government, and was asked if he thought this was a mistake, to which he replied:

Quote:
No, I don't think it was. Sometimes we must support even governments with questionable motives in order to ensure stability and to further the agendas that we deem to be right for the region.

I think that says it all acctually.

Also, I think this is relevant:



Also, no, I am not a liberal in any way. I despise liberalism and the democrats just as much as I despise the neo-conservative republicans. They're basically two sides of the same coin.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 11.03.2011 at 14:52


You seem to forget some important aspects of the debate.
1. America put Saddam in power, not once but twice. This was when he was still working to further US influence in the region. If you look at the early Saddam years, the guy was quite friendly to the US (although still a fascist).
2. America has historically had no problems at all with fascism. In Chile they supported Pinochet, who overthrew the democratically elected party through a bloody coup. They also have supported countless other fascist regimes over the years, including but not limited to Egypt, the French-friendly governors in Vietnam and the Saudi government.
3. The US were very friendly to the taliban during the period of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Why would they do this? The reason that must be looked into is material gain, reflected through an influence in the region. Incidentals are occurences that happen one time out of sheer chance, if it happens pretty much every time certain conditions present themselves, we have a pattern. As to what that pattern is, deeper analysis of the events is required. This particular pattern goes far back, before the US was the main offender, and has been analyzed over and over again. In fact, if we look at history, war (or conflict) only becomes a fact for two reasons:

1. Your material possessions are threatened, and you need to defend your assets (the Cold War, The Vietnam War, when Argentina attacked the Falkland islands, when Nigeria attacked Biafra etc).
2. You need to expand your reign and gain new assets (World War 1, World War 2, The Napoleon War, attacking Afghanistan, attacking Iraq etc).

What you then tell the people, is an entirely different story. Ideals are not enough to send a nation into war (and only the worst idealist would think it to be that way), there must also be material gain involved of some kind (or a defensive motive).

There are more reasons to question the validity of the "bring democracy to the middle east" argumentation. First one could look at what makes a working democracy, and one could draw some conclusions from what has happened during the course of history.

1. The liberation of a country is much more likely to work if it is the work of the people who live there. Forcing democracy on a nation has proved not to be such a great tactic, and almost always results in corrupt fake-democracies.
2. Despite what the American freedom talk would let you believe, there are some material requirements that must be met if a nation is to be capable of having a working democracy. You can't have a democracy in a country without the infrastructure to support it. Afghanistan is a prime example of such a place where democracy can't work right now, because these requirements are not met. If a significant part of the population can't read and do not even have a basic education, running a democratic system is impossible. Afghanistan, used as an example earlier, is decades away from being able to support a democratic system, even under such conditions that the development is positive (which it is not right now).

And as for the actual motives of the actions in the middle east taken by the west, I am going to quote our minister of external affairs, Carl Bildt (a right-wing politician). He was being confronted by a journalist about the fact that Sweden had supplied Egypt with weapons and supported the (now former) government, and was asked if he thought this was a mistake, to which he replied:

Quote:
No, I don't think it was. Sometimes we must support even governments with questionable motives in order to ensure stability and to further the agendas that we deem to be right for the region.

I think that says it all acctually.

Also, no, I am not a liberal in any way. I despise liberalism and the democrats just as much as I despise the neo-conservative republicans. They're basically two sides of the same coin.

The argument that, because we fucked up in the past, we shouldn't be allowed to intervene and attempt to correct that which we fucked, is moot. The fact that we aided Saddam in the early 90's has no relevance to the moral responsibility the superpower has to oppose fascism and mass murder. The same applies to the fact that we've been friendly to fascistic regimes in the past. If anything, the fact that we supported Saddam in the past made our opposition to him in '04 more urgent (indeed, we should have intervened earlier, but Clinton was too politician-like to do what was necessary). The sliminess of the Bush administration (and of U.S. foreign policy in the past) shouldn't prevent one from recognizing a just war when its proposed and/or waged.

The 'bringing democracy to countries in which it is doomed to fail' is also irrelevant to my point. When a sadist and nihilist is gassing his own people, burning his people's land and crops, we have a moral obligation to stop him, regardless of the shameful old political and military ties we might have to him. The opposition to those who attack human-rights should always be the leftist's position. The fact that neo-cons and Christian idiots instead were those pushing to overthrow Saddam shouldn't matter. Once again, leftists, and their "anti-war" movements, are too wrapped up in the ongoing culture war over here to recognize real enemies when they're presented (see the video I posted earlier).

America should stop intervening everywhere.

i already find it hilarious that people are decrying us for NOT getting active in Libya. because the last time we knocked out a dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own we were thanked so well. (I guess euros only care when we use troops against mustachioed dictators killing white Euros... if the mustachioed dictator in question is brown and killing hundreds of thousands of brown people, well, who gives a shit? send him a sternly worded letter and slaughter away!)

I realize many peoples in foreign countries take issue with our involvement, because, well, when their countries dominated the world, they raped and pillaged every corner of it. (Africa today is still in chaos as a result of European imperialism) ... in the mean time, well, America has indeed taken military action in places, but rather than make them territories (god I would love to have a summer home in France or Italy, which some might recall we moved troops through), we have dumped a shit ton of money into rebuilding.

our motives confuse them. we didn't colonize France or Italy like they did, oh, the Americans, Africa, Vietnam...

frankly, let the rest of the fucking world burn. if Country A doesn't fuck with us, let them kill their own. or kill their neighbors. fuck 'em. not our problem. just like Libya now. we dare not do anything... they have oil, so clearly we shouldn't intercede, even if we could stop the slaughter, as clearly the Oil is our primary motivation.

Just like it was in Normandy...

Withdraw our troops and let chaos ensue.

I'm sure the hippie drum circles will cure all the world's ills... just like they did in liberating Tibet 30 years ago. (wait? they haven't?)

I'[m sure the EU can fix everything... just like Darfur. oh. wait.

Written by BitterCOld on 12.03.2011 at 03:55

I'm sure the hippie drum circles will cure all the world's ills... just like they did in liberating Tibet 30 years ago. (wait? they haven't?)

That can tie into the argument that liberals make against the war in Afghanistan--that, by fighting jihadists, we're spreading jihad. If we were to not fight Islamists, we'd be helping defeat them. Seems pants-on-head to me.

@ wormdrink414 and BitterCOld:

1) You both seem to insist that the US is always HELPING other countries from dictators, while in ForeverDarkWoods' elaborative post i think he proved otherwise. (USA had absolutely no problem supporting Mubarak's regime, the saudi monarchy, taliban, the shah of iran, saddam hussein, and others)

2) To deny that the US did not reap the rewards of its intervention by sucking up the country's oil and resources would be blasphemy, true it might not be the 'only' reason, but you can't say you didn't get your bonus reward.

Sidenote: Saddam didn't have any Nuclear weapons, as proven by the IAEA inspectors lead by Dr. Mohamed Elbaradei, and he announced in the UN that the inspectors had found zero evidence that Iraq resumed their nuclear program that was put on hold in the 1980's, and refused to provide a false legitimacy to the invasion of Iraq... and he was awarded the Nobel peace prize for that !

As a note, I dislike the EU as well. I am not alone in doing so. During some of the latest surveys, it was shown that 2/3 of the Swedes participating hated the EU and wanted Sweden to get out while there is still a slight theoretical possibility.

And yes, I fully agree that the leftist crowd (and even more so the liberal crowd, with liberalism being a RIGHT WING IDEOLOGY through and through) is often full of lifestyle seekers and confused upper-middle class kids. They are the ones with their drum circles. We who are serious are criticizing both sides, but we also realize that the future of the peoples of Libya and Egypt, and even more so the future of Afghanistan and Iraq, must be crafted by their own peoples. We can not force democracy on a nation. Just about every attempt to do so in the past has failed.

And about the "stop the dictators from slaughtering their people" argument, no I don't fucking buy it. I don't see how a person could possibly be naive enough to buy it, when the history is all around you. Yeah, America was fighting for democracy in Vietnam too, and if you watch the third Rambo movie where he was in Afghanistan, the talibans were also fighting for freedom and democracy. It's the same rhetoric over and over again, and it turns out to be bullshit over and over again. That is not an isolated incident, that is a pattern. Why should we believe it this time around?

And no, I do not believe that America would go into Libya and take all the resources, since Gaddafi was also a US ally up to extremely recently and has sold lots of oil (among other things) to both the US and the EU while keeping Russian and Chinese companies from advancing in the area. What I believe, is that what the west is scared of is not Gadddafi at all, but the revolutionaries. Gaddafi wasn't about to cut the deals off with the US and the EU, but regarding the revolutionaries, there is no telling what they'll do. If the west were to go in, remove Gadaffi and pose as the saviours of the region, they could force themselves into a position where they maintain their presence even after the revolution. In quite a "sure, you could have a revolution alright, but you're not allowed to change anything".

These tendencies were seen in the debate articles in the right wing magazines over here not just regarding the Libyan uprisings, but regarding Egypt and Tunisia as well. It is not hard for me to draw conclusions, when the right wing here are not even dishonest with their opinions for starters, but only later try to cover it up (when they realize the protests aren't dying off) and hoping everyone here would forget that the revolutionaries were terrorists trying to destabilize the region just a few weeks ago (which they usually do).

Also, I fucking hate when Americans haven't read up on their history and tries to take credit for dealing with Hitler. The real war was on the East front, and we owe it to a couple of million dead Russians that we aren't living in Germany right now (but then again, Sweden was practically allied with Germany, so I don't know how that would have turned out).

To illustrate the way propaganda works, and the way opinions can change, followed by complete denial, take a look at this piece of American propaganda from WW2:


How many Americans today, would believe that the American government would actually see the Soviets as allies?

What I wanted to prove, is the fact that the world cannot be simplified to an us-good, them-evil kind of scenario. It's all about a conflict of interests, a nation will always work to further it's own interests, no matter who you have to work with. In the future, it is entirely possible that America and Europe would become enemies, as we have been before, if a direct conflict of interest arises. Then it wouldn't matter who's the most democratic and free, all that would matter is the conflict of interest. And that is also all that matters now.

Are you suggesting that, because of our shady military history and political rhetoric, our modern military interventions must automatically be shady as well? Obviously its an obligation for everyone in a democratic system to understand history and approach every military decision of their government critically, but that doesn't detract from the point that, by overthrowing Saddam, we rid the middle-east of a psychopathic and fascistic gangster. Even if the intent of the U.S. was selfish, what we did was just.

Here's where I would comment on the poor handling of the intervention. Since that has little to do with what I've been arguing, though, I won't elaborate. Overthrowing fascists is almost always justified. With the case of Iraq, one is almost forced to decide whether the opposition to fascism is more urgent than the opposition to imperialism. Since, as Ernil already put well, our actions in Iraq haven't really been imperialist, I'd say the decision is an easy one to make.

Written by wormdrink414 on 13.03.2011 at 05:56

Are you suggesting that, because of our shady military history and political rhetoric, our modern military interventions must automatically be shady as well? Obviously its an obligation for everyone in a democratic system to understand history and approach every military decision of their government critically, but that doesn't detract from the point that, by overthrowing Saddam, we rid the middle-east of a psychopathic and fascistic gangster. Even if the intent of the U.S. was selfish, what we did was just.

Here's where I would comment on the poor handling of the intervention. Since that has little to do with what I've been arguing, though, I won't elaborate. Overthrowing fascists is almost always justified. With the case of Iraq, one is almost forced to decide whether the opposition to fascism is more urgent than the opposition to imperialism. Since, as Ernil already put well, our actions in Iraq haven't seemed imperialist, I'd say the decision is an easy one to make.

But if you decide to support some fascists, and overthrow others, then fascism is not the motivation, is it? Something else is the motive. Imperialism basically works like this:

1. You have a non-puppet government, be they fascist (Iraq, Afghanistan), communist (Vietnam), liberal (several nations) or whatever.
2. You invade said country and take out the government.
3. Government is replaced by a puppet government, consisting of people who are posing as communist (Soviet satelite states), socialist (Gadaffi, Mubarak), liberal (Pinochet) or whatever but who in reality are puppet fascists.

The invasion of Iraq reeks of imperialism. While I agree that the Ba'ath party are scum, I do not believe conditions will improve in Iraq after the war has ended. A new government of puppets can never move the country forward. This is exactly the reason that any democracy in that country must be created by the people and for the people. Now I ask myself if this is a material possibility in a country like Iraq, and I would actually maintaint that under present conditions, it is not. Iraq lacks the structure needed to support a democracy at this time, and although it is not quite as far away from that point as Afghanistan, it's still got quite a way to go. What most Americans seem to believe is that as soon as you remove the fascists, democracy will begin to take it's place and everyone will be happy. This is naive and idealist.

There are some things that are needed for Iraq to develop it's standard to the point where democracy can begin to develop. This includes, but is not limited to:
1. Control of their own natural resources.
2. Stability that is not kept by foreign troops in the region (and yes, this can be accomplished through fascism but also through other means, although not through puppet-fascism).
3. Something resembling independance from imperialism.
4. A government with ties to Iraq rather than to the west.

The US is not moving Iraq in this direction. I smell the rotting stench of imperialism, all the telltale signs are there.

Written by wormdrink414 on 13.03.2011 at 05:56

.. by overthrowing Saddam, we rid the middle-east of a psychopathic and fascistic gangster. Even if the intent of the U.S. was selfish, what we did was just.

yeah, and look at how great that turned out, Iraq now is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than when Saddam ruled (dictated).

Written by Zombie on 14.03.2011 at 01:15

Written by wormdrink414 on 13.03.2011 at 05:56

.. by overthrowing Saddam, we rid the middle-east of a psychopathic and fascistic gangster. Even if the intent of the U.S. was selfish, what we did was just.

yeah, and look at how great that turned out, Iraq now is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than when Saddam ruled (dictated).

Since predicting the future isn't really in the cards, all we could know was that Saddam was a nihilist and a gangster who was killing the people who called him leader, gassing them, and burning their crops. Those who said that we should let him continue, who suggested that we should, in effect, let Iraq burn, are those who need to explain themselves.

(Side-note: Those who, through misplaced Nixon-era paranoia, fear that "we" can't know what the government knows, indeed know little about our government. One example: the much feared CIA has proved time and time again that it's an incompetent and profoundly boring bureaucratic institution.)

There's little question, as it were, that, in overthrowing Saddam, the U.S. was justified. That's all I have been arguing. You're arguing with, it seems, imagined insinuations.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 13.03.2011 at 15:23

But if you decide to support some fascists, and overthrow others, then fascism is not the motivation, is it? Something else is the motive. Imperialism basically works like this:

1. You have a non-puppet government, be they fascist (Iraq, Afghanistan), communist (Vietnam), liberal (several nations) or whatever.
2. You invade said country and take out the government.
3. Government is replaced by a puppet government, consisting of people who are posing as communist (Soviet satelite states), socialist (Gadaffi, Mubarak), liberal (Pinochet) or whatever but who in reality are puppet fascists.

The invasion of Iraq reeks of imperialism. While I agree that the Ba'ath party are scum, I do not believe conditions will improve in Iraq after the war has ended. A new government of puppets can never move the country forward. This is exactly the reason that any democracy in that country must be created by the people and for the people. Now I ask myself if this is a material possibility in a country like Iraq, and I would actually maintaint that under present conditions, it is not. Iraq lacks the structure needed to support a democracy at this time, and although it is not quite as far away from that point as Afghanistan, it's still got quite a way to go. What most Americans seem to believe is that as soon as you remove the fascists, democracy will begin to take it's place and everyone will be happy. This is naive and idealist.

There are some things that are needed for Iraq to develop it's standard to the point where democracy can begin to develop. This includes, but is not limited to:
1. Control of their own natural resources.
2. Stability that is not kept by foreign troops in the region (and yes, this can be accomplished through fascism but also through other means, although not through puppet-fascism).
3. Something resembling independance from imperialism.
4. A government with ties to Iraq rather than to the west.

The US is not moving Iraq in this direction. I smell the rotting stench of imperialism, all the telltale signs are there.

Motivations aren't of nearly as much importance as the actions themselves. I'm sure we can agree on that. Even if what we did was in the spirit of imperialism (I clearly have my doubts), by preventing Saddam from torturing the Iraqi people and raping Iraqi land further, we acted morally.

The "puppet government" in Iraq > Saddam. Don't even try to suggest otherwise, because the Kurdish minority and the masses of Iraqi persons who go to vote have made this clear. (These are also relevant: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1060956.html , http://haysvillelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/iraqi-marshes-1976-landsat.jpg?w=470&h=734).

Has our occupation been perfect? Of course not. But, since we did indeed give Saddam much of the power he used against the Iraqi peoples, its an obligation we must face head on to help correct what we played a role in destroying. If you are willing to concede that, the question then becomes whether or not military force should have been used. Knowing of no other way of dealing with corrupt, psychopathic dictators, I'd say the answer is yes.

Written by wormdrink414 on 14.03.2011 at 01:39

Written by Zombie on 14.03.2011 at 01:15

Written by wormdrink414 on 13.03.2011 at 05:56

.. by overthrowing Saddam, we rid the middle-east of a psychopathic and fascistic gangster. Even if the intent of the U.S. was selfish, what we did was just.

yeah, and look at how great that turned out, Iraq now is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than when Saddam ruled (dictated).

Since predicting the future isn't really in the cards, all we could know was that Saddam was a nihilist and a gangster who was killing the people who called him leader, gassing them, and burning their crops. Those who said that we should let him continue, who suggested that we should, in effect, let Iraq burn, are those who need to explain themselves.

(Side-note: Those who, through misplaced Nixon-era paranoia, fear that "we" can't know what the government knows, indeed know little about our government. One example: the much feared CIA has proved time and time again that it's an incompetent and profoundly boring bureaucratic institution.)

There's little question in my mind that, in overthrowing Saddam, the U.S. was justified. That's all I have been arguing. You're arguing with, it seems, imagined insinuations.

Iam just questioning whether or not it will make the situation better for the people of Iraq. Right now, most things point to a no to that question, which was also predicted before and during the initial stages of the invasion, much due to the same reasoning we are proposing.

Everything is not an isolated event that cannot be predicted. There is a real possibility to learn from history in order to not make the same mistakes of the past. Nixon is not president anymore. So what? If the new people are pushing the same agenda for the same reasons under similar conditions, what would make anyone believe the result of the endeavour would be radically different just because different people are in charge of the execution?

The development of a country is a result of the material conditions that apply during a certain situation. I can motivate anything by blaming the fascists, but if I have not devised a plan to improve the conditions while taking this into full account, anything I do is doomed to fail (and that is assuming my motives were honourable to begin with).

In my mind, there is little doubt that (if I disregard all possible motives the US might have had, and probably had):
1. Conditions in a country will either improve or deteriorate following an event. This is a result of the execution of said event and has nothing to do with your percieved ideals of freedom and democracy. If I throw a ball in a certain way under certain conditions, it will fly in a certain pattern, regardless of what I was thinking when I threw the ball.
2. This is not to say that one's ideals cannot have an impact on the outcome of a situation, but in these cases these ideals must be put into material action. And then again, even this is not enough. The analysis of the situation done before putting your ideals into action must be a correct one (this is where point number 1 comes in). If it is not, the results of your actions will not be as predicted (since the situation has been misjudged) and the ensuing development might actually be directly harmful.
3. There is no inherent "good" or "bad" property that can be assigned to a certain occurence or individual. If one is to judge Saddam, one must look at what was before, and what it is realistic to believe is to come after. Sure, compared to anything in America, he was extremely "gangster", so to speak. But if one is to look at Iraq, the story becomes more complex, and Iraq must be evaluated from the material conditions that apply in said country, and not from western ideals.
4. In Iraq, what was before the Ba'ath took power was an unsustainable system plagued by outdated feudal structures. For many, this society was actually worse than living under Saddam. There is a reason that the Ba'ath at least historically had a lot of support among the general populace. And some of the development started by the Ba'ath was actually progressive, before Saddam's insanity started to get the better of him and corruption became a huge problem in the Iraqi regime. Serious attempts were made to abolish some of these feudal structures and to retake the natural resources from foreign interests. Now, the Ba'ath did quickly turn against the people to satisfy their own ambitions, but they did in fact manage to retake a lot of the natural resources. Compared to before, this was progressive, since it gave the country a theoretical possibility to build something better, should the Ba'ath somehow disappear.
5. If we look at what the future has in store for Iraq, it looks to be deteriorating again. Some of the feudal structures are starting to reemerge, and radical conservative ideologies are on the rise among the uneducated populace. There is little in the way of material circumstances that would cause a progressive development (more likely, a regression is to occur). The infrastructure is ruined, the market is ruined, and foreign corporate powers are once again moving in to fill the void left by the demise of the ruined Iraqi industry.
6. In this situation, conditions are not likely to improve compared to the time when Saddam was in power, but rather deteriorate (long-term, that is, when the direct involvement ceases and the new government takes over completely). Congratulations, America, you just made the situation worse than it already was. It also wouldn't surprise me if Saudi-styled puppet islamo-fascism is to be expected in the future.
7. If the intentions were honourable, and the result is deterioration, then the analysis was obviously faulty and the action was a mistake.

Now, you can moralize all you want. Now, if I do something with the motivation of saving lives (an honourable ideal) and I end up making the situation worse, I can not hide behind morals to try and justify what I've done. It still doesn't make my actions correct in any way, no matter the intent. If that was the case, good intentions could be used to justify anything.

In this post, I am also not even getting into the imperialism aspect (in this case, what has happened was actually the intended development).

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 14.03.2011 at 02:26

Iam just questioning whether or not it will make the situation better for the people of Iraq. Right now, most things point to a no to that question, which was also predicted before and during the initial stages of the invasion, much due to the same reasoning we are proposing.

Everything is not an isolated event that cannot be predicted. There is a real possibility to learn from history in order to not make the same mistakes of the past. Nixon is not president anymore. So what? If the new people are pushing the same agenda for the same reasons under similar conditions, what would make anyone believe the result of the endeavour would be radically different just because different people are in charge of the execution?

The development of a country is a result of the material conditions that apply during a certain situation. I can motivate anything by blaming the fascists, but if I have not devised a plan to improve the conditions while taking this into full account, anything I do is doomed to fail (and that is assuming my motives were honourable to begin with).

In my mind, there is little doubt that (if I disregard all possible motives the US might have had, and probably had):
1. Conditions in a country will either improve or deteriorate following an event. This is a result of the execution of said event and has nothing to do with your percieved ideals of freedom and democracy. If I throw a ball in a certain way under certain conditions, it will fly in a certain pattern, regardless of what I was thinking when I threw the ball.
2. This is not to say that one's ideals cannot have an impact on the outcome of a situation, but in these cases these ideals must be put into material action. And then again, even this is not enough. The analysis of the situation done before putting your ideals into action must be a correct one (this is where point number 1 comes in). If it is not, the results of your actions will not be as predicted (since the situation has been misjudged) and the ensuing development might actually be directly harmful.
3. There is no inherent "good" or "bad" property that can be assigned to a certain occurence or individual. If one is to judge Saddam, one must look at what was before, and what it is realistic to believe is to come after. Sure, compared to anything in America, he was extremely "gangster", so to speak. But if one is to look at Iraq, the story becomes more complex, and Iraq must be evaluated from the material conditions that apply in said country, and not from western ideals.
4. In Iraq, what was before the Ba'ath took power was an unsustainable system plagued by outdated feudal structures. For many, this society was actually worse than living under Saddam. There is a reason that the Ba'ath at least historically had a lot of support among the general populace. And some of the development started by the Ba'ath was actually progressive, before Saddam's insanity started to get the better of him and corruption became a huge problem in the Iraqi regime. Serious attempts were made to abolish some of these feudal structures and to retake the natural resources from foreign interests. Now, the Ba'ath did quickly turn against the people to satisfy their own ambitions, but they did in fact manage to retake a lot of the natural resources. Compared to before, this was progressive, since it gave the country a theoretical possibility to build something better, should the Ba'ath somehow disappear.
5. If we look at what the future has in store for Iraq, it looks to be deteriorating again. Some of the feudal structures are starting to reemerge, and radical conservative ideologies are on the rise among the uneducated populace. There is little in the way of material circumstances that would cause a progressive development (more likely, a regression is to occur). The infrastructure is ruined, the market is ruined, and foreign corporate powers are once again moving in to fill the void left by the demise of the ruined Iraqi industry.
6. In this situation, conditions are not likely to improve compared to the time when Saddam was in power, but rather deteriorate (long-term, that is, when the direct involvement ceases and the new government takes over completely). Congratulations, America, you just made the situation worse than it already was. It also wouldn't surprise me if Saudi-styled puppet islamo-fascism is to be expected in the future.
7. If the intentions were honourable, and the result is deterioration, then the analysis was obviously faulty and the action was a mistake.

Now, you can moralize all you want. Now, if I do something with the motivation of saving lives (an honourable ideal) and I end up making the situation worse, I can not hide behind morals to try and justify what I've done. It still doesn't make my actions correct in any way, no matter the intent. If that was the case, good intentions could be used to justify anything.

In this post, I am also not even getting into the imperialism aspect (in this case, what has happened was actually the intended development).

*Crushed by the weight. Can't breathe.

Are you insinuating that, under Iraq's political and historical circumstances, Saddam was the best they could get? I've already made it clear, I hope, that I think that that's a load of bullshit. Iraq doesn't have a stable democracy (yet), the birds still hum quasi-fascistic Iraqi songs, and the remnants of the Ba'ath party still have their paws in Iraqi internal affairs. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate an explanation for how the middle east is more tumultuous without Saddam. The facts I see are that the Kurds don't have to worry about Saddam's goons coming into their land and slaughtering them, the Iraqi marshlands are moistening, and there's one less wretched warmongerer seeking nukes in the middle east.

To reiterate: Just because the U.S. isn't a moral exemplar doesn't mean that it can't act morally. And, yes, I don't believe that war is a subject that can be approached solely from the detached lens of geo-politics; there is obviously a moral component to it. And it"s that component that I think is more important.

Here's where we say, yeah well that's just your opinion man and go back to arguing about rpgs, right?

You should watch this (if you have 2 hours to spare) and tell me what your responses are:

A vessel; German-owned, Liberian-flagged, chartered by a French company, loaded with Iranian weapons, departed from Syria to Turkey to be bound off Alexandria, EG.
wtf is that?!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12746333

Written by Zombie on 14.03.2011 at 01:15

Written by wormdrink414 on 13.03.2011 at 05:56

.. by overthrowing Saddam, we rid the middle-east of a psychopathic and fascistic gangster. Even if the intent of the U.S. was selfish, what we did was just.

yeah, and look at how great that turned out, Iraq now is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than when Saddam ruled (dictated).

wait wait wait. so knowing what happened after a dictator was toppled in one country (Iraq), you get on the current US Administration for not moving faster to topple a dictator in another country (Egypt).

huh?

this is a perfect example of why the US shouldn't do fucking anything.

the same guy damning us for what we did eight years ago now damns us for not doing pretty much the exact same thing this year. there is zero guarantee either Egypt or Libya will develop into a well-adjusted nation once the dictators are gone... so if you argue leaving Saddam in power would have been preferable, same is the case with your own douchebag dictator. at least now if you descend into chaos it's ain't our fault... it's yours.

we cannot win. nothing we do will make people happy, so do nothing. stop spending money on other places, stop providing any type of aid, stop sending troops and let whatever happens happen.

When exactly did i EVER say that the US should have intervened to remove Mubarak from power ?

all i said was that u supported Saddam for as long as he suited your needs, and then ditched him.. and you kept supporting Mubarak, Kind Saud, and your other allies because they didn't cause you any problems yet, if they had then you would've done exactly like u did with saddam.

i believe you misinterpreted what i wrote, dude.

Some protests started in Syria, and 4 got killed, heard that on news.

Written by [user id=28526] on 19.03.2011 at 00:34

Some protests started in Syria, and 4 got killed, heard that on news.

Could you please wait a month or two? Gaddafi is not yet dealt with (but thankfully things look better now)... Plus situations in Bahrein and Yemen worsen each, it's difficult to keep track of everything...

More seriously, I wish you the best of luck, but for all I know you have one of the most ruthless dictators here in Syria...

We need support !!

The Ex-Ruling Party and the Muslim Brotherhood are taking over Egypt now by their poisonous propaganda and the ignorant masses (the result of 30 years of mubarak's tyranny) are now being misled to follow them, and even the state media and state organizations are seeking their own benefits and sucking up to the muslim brotherhood ..

if you can spread this message to the western countries, we need help, we -the educated few- need our voices to be heard and support in educating our fellow less-fortunate Egyptians... watch this video of this french politician (i dont know his name unfortunately), it describes EXACTLY what we need

This is Daniel Cohn-Bendit, famous agitator and member of the ecologist party (left-wing).
This dates from the 17th of January, and to date Europe didn't do a lot for Tunisia, sadly. Thankfully for them the situation evolves relatively well now, after two months of turmoil they finally got someone who is pushing for change. But once again it came from the Tunisians themselves, so I'm afraid you Egyptians will have to do it alone too... Just see how many weeks (yes, weeks) for the 'international community' to agree over the no-fly zone in Libya while gaddafi bombed and murdered... A shame.

That said, even in Western, so-called educated, countries, people don't vote for the best person, but for the one who uses best the media, and who has the most connections (see Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Bush...). That's the inherent problem of democracies in the media age, I guess In that regard, I can almost already say to you "welcome to the club"

All I could make out in that video was "baguette, baguette, baseball sucks, fuck baseball".

Written by Darkside Momo on 19.03.2011 at 03:25

That said, even in Western, so-called educated, countries, people don't vote for the best person

Written by wormdrink414 on 19.03.2011 at 08:48

All I could make out in that video was "baguette, baguette, baseball sucks, fuck baseball".

wouldn't kill you if u learn a foreign language =p .. most of us on the forum are bilingual and quite a few are trilingual too.

Written by Zombie on 19.03.2011 at 14:21

Written by wormdrink414 on 19.03.2011 at 08:48

All I could make out in that video was "baguette, baguette, baseball sucks, fuck baseball".

wouldn't kill you if u learn a foreign language =p .. most of us on the forum are bilingual and quite a few are trilingual too.

I wrote that right before the French sent jets to fight Gaddafi. They're doing their part.

I wish I could speak more than one language, but I can't say I'm ashamed of being monogamous with English. French is probably first on my list to learn, though, followed closely by Klingon. And the language of Mordor.

Written by Zombie on 19.03.2011 at 02:53

We need support !!

we -the educated few- need our voices to be heard and support in educating our fellow less-fortunate Egyptians...

I am very sad for your country. You are not alone but at some point you have to quit struggling because you cannot save the 90% who take the "wider path"... You cannot make them see that what they follow is propaganda and brainwashing. I can tell... I voted recently but it was of no use... foreign media was shocked to see how people in my country elected the same dudes again who would have been toppled in any other country...

Anyway... never forget your values... live them and act according to them... even if masses around you do exactly the opposite. Just stand up and go forward, even if that is so much harder than what the majority do...

Written by Ernis on 19.03.2011 at 23:11

...

The problem is, the next parliamentary elections will be crucial in defining the politics of Egypt and would be either crowning the revolution with success, or declaring its absolute failure .. coz, what made Mubarak so powerful, is that he changed the constitution to give him ultimate powers and make him a super-president .. so, the next parliament will put the new constitution .. so, if it's all muslim brotherhood and ex-ruling party then we're surely to become an Islamic dictatorship .. so, fuck that, i didnt get shot at and suffocate from gas-grenades and overthrow Mubarak to come up with an even worse dictator in the end !!
this is a nightmare, seriously this can't be happening !
my country is going down the shithole now, hello Iran, we're the new YOU !

Written by Zombie on 19.03.2011 at 23:37

Written by Ernis on 19.03.2011 at 23:11

...

The problem is, the next parliamentary elections will be crucial in defining the politics of Egypt and would be either crowning the revolution with success, or declaring its absolute failure .. coz, what made Mubarak so powerful, is that he changed the constitution to give him ultimate powers and make him a super-president .. so, the next parliament will put the new constitution .. so, if it's all muslim brotherhood and ex-ruling party then we're surely to become an Islamic dictatorship .. so, fuck that, i didnt get shot at and suffocate from gas-grenades and overthrow Mubarak to come up with an even worse dictator in the end !!
this is a nightmare, seriously this can't be happening !
my country is going down the shithole now, hello Iran, we're the new YOU !

i know the situation down there is really critical but your worst fears should be the idea of being the next ''IRAQ'' which i think is a lil bit better than Iran but it's not good for sure..actually it's really good to think that egypt didn't turn out to be iraq at least till now
i don't think that Egypt will ever become the new ''IRAN'' i dont think it can happen because if u thought about it for one second you'll find out that Egypt is too different from Iran the whole situation is different i guess and as we all know in middle east our worst fears are religious parties it's not that i'm against them but they just doesn't work in countries that has many religions..it's just that you can't make an islamic party rules a country which has other religions cuz they'll do what islam tells them to do and we all know this won't suit ppl from other religions anyways it's just sad that some ppl vote according to religion i hope this won't happen to your country but i think it will

Written by kokosho on 24.03.2011 at 21:47

u should be the idea of being the next ''IRAQ'' which i think is a lil bit better than Iran

We do not have that many different sects of Islam in Egypt, we almost have no shiaa (very a few and most of them are Iraqi refugees), and Christians are not a minority in the common fashion, they make up about 18% of the population which is quite alot in a country with population over 80 Million people, so civil wars between different followers of different religions would be something that i dont think will happen.
But religious groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafi movement, and the Jihad groups would surely try to seize control of the country by influencing the simple people, the poor and uneducated masses that are easily manipulated by religious speech (about 60% of the population are poor and uneducated) .. so to turn into new "Iraq" isn't what i fear, maybe Libya would become a new Iraq when western countries "Liberating it" from Qaddafi and then reap their rewards from Libyan oil.. but Egypt is going more down the "Iran" road. The Shah wasn't mush different than Mubarak, and the Imam Khomeini isn't much different than the Muslim Sheikhs or the Salafis.
i really hope the secular opposition become united under one leader (since they all share the same ideology of democracy and equality) and hopefully they'll be lead by Dr. Elbaradei, the guy that refused to provide legitimacy to the US invasion of Iraq, and announced in the UN that there was no reason whatsoever for military intervention in Iraq, and got the Nobel Peace Prize for that, now the ex-ruling party agents accuse him of being THE reason for the war on Iraq, and the simple deluded masses believe them.

PS: Mubarak dug the Suez Canal a few meters deeper so that US warships could safely pass through the canal, and Elbaradei refused to give legitimacy to the war, you be the judge on who is the traitor !

Written by Zombie on 24.03.2011 at 22:10

i really hope the secular opposition become united under one leader (since they all share the same ideology of democracy and equality) and hopefully they'll be lead by Dr. Elbaradei, the guy that refused to provide legitimacy to the US invasion of Iraq, and announced in the UN that there was no reason whatsoever for military intervention in Iraq, and got the Nobel Peace Prize for that, now the ex-ruling party agents accuse him of being THE reason for the war on Iraq, and the simple deluded masses believe them.

We hope he won't be sent to his own grave!

Khamis Gaddafi, military leader of the Khamis brigade and youngest son of Muammar Gaddafi is reported to have died in a hospital in Bab Elaziziya from burns as a kamikaze pilot crashed his plane into his quarters. That ought to spice things up a little in Libya.