[mike777]

Of course Peter , you state the obvious, but the media does not report this debate.

I only wish there was a heavy, heavy obligation...but where in Iraq in 2002 and in Afganistan in 2007? I did not see it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Can we agree that to say we should NOT be in ANY civil wars but we should be in SOME civil wars is nonsense?

I have made this point over and over again. sigh

If so then we agree.

O.K., I got sidetracked.

Let me attempt to answer your question. I agree. The way you phrased it is utter nonsense - as soon as there are exceptions you rule out ANY and must then admit that SOME must be the operable wording.

It is somewhat of a semantic debate but I agree with it. Some might say it akin to a statement such as, "There are no days off except sick days with a doctor's note." The proper framing semantically would be, "The only days off allowed are sick days with doctor's notes." This implies you are expected to work all other days but there can be exceptions to this rule.

Ergo, the proper wording of your example should be one of these: either, 1) We should never be involved in a civil war or 2) The only civil wars we should engage in have these characteristics.....

It seems you are wanting an answer to more than semantics, but the way you framed the question is about the semantics. Is there more to your question?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Of course Peter , you state the obvious, but the media does not report this debate.

Is this the fault of the media or of ourselves? If the media took the time and trouble, would we watch? If the choices were ABC and a 30-minute in-depth look into America's history of involvement with foreign civil wars and Fox's 30-second sound bite leader of "Brittney Spears arrives at Grammy's sans panties" which channel would get the ratings? And then, of course, they stick the Brittney story at the end, making you watch the other 29 minutes waiting to find out just how far they went in their reporting and she in her.....acceptance speech.

[pbleighton]

" only wish there was a heavy, heavy obligation...but where in Iraq in 2002 and in Afganistan in 2007? I did not see it."

The obligation existed, but it was ignored.

Most of the mainstream media seemed to think that their job was to pimp for the war.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 24 2007, 07:27 AM, said:

So many candidates just say we should be or been in Rawanda or Darfur but not in a Civil war in Iraq where we are targets and make numerous mistakes. This argument of course makes no sense as presented yet so many Democrats seem to be running on it.

It sure seems we are, today, in a civil war in Aghanistan were we are targets and have made numerous mistakes. Y et I do not see these same politicians say we should leave...or stay there or why.

To repeat my point, if we should be in these places, fine, but tell us why there and not Iraq. There may be very good reasons but I do not seem them reported/discussed in the media.

Here's my dramatically oversimplified answer to a very complex problem.

Conceptually, I am not opposed to an interventionist foreign policy. I believe that there are some cases where military intervention in another country is justified. However, I also believe that the opportunities where it is desirable to do so are few and far between. In general, when I consider these types of issues, I try apply a three part test.

1.Feasibility
2.Efficiency
3.Morality

Feasibility is shorthand for a long, complex process of balanced the end result against existing capabilities. Simply put: Precisely what are we trying to achieve? Do we have the necessary infrastructure in place to achieve these ends? Feasibility requires accurately framing the question at hand.

Efficiency is usually the most difficult hurdle to get over. When I talk about “efficiency”, my primary concern is whether or not there is a more cost effective mechanism to accomplish the same ends. Personally, I believe that military intervention is almost always inefficient. Moreover, those few occasions that do require military intervention almost always represent a failure to invest appropriately in prophylactic measures earlier in the process. While I am an interventionist, I strongly believe that foreign aid is the most cost effective way to accomplish our goals. (Isaac Asimov famously said “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”. I think that there is enormous truth to this statement. Its a fairly good reflection of my beliefs)

It might seem strange to place “Morality” last on this list. However, I don't believe that its possible to make an informed decision about whether or not its “right” to do something without already having an answer to the “Feasibility” and “Efficiency” questions.

With this in mid, lets consider your original question: Is it logically consistent to oppose the War in Iraq but favor military intervention to address the humanitarian crisis in Sudan? My personal belief is that largely scale military intervention in Sudan fails to base the “feasibility” hurdle

1.I don't believe that the Bush administration is competent to manage this complex a project .
2.The US military is horrendously over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe that we have the force structure required to successfully stabilize Sudan.
3.I don't think that US citizens have the political will necessary to support a new campaign.
4.US politicians don't like to admit it, but the government in Sudan is one of our allies in the great war against terror.

Based on this, I think that talk about direct US military intervention in Sudan boils down to posturing.

With this said and done, I haven't seen many people arguing in favor of the US “invading” Sudan. Those individuals who are suggesting intervention seem to be doing so within the context of an international force which addresses some of the efficiency issues and is very different from the simplistic picture that I've drawn.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Anyway back to the post of will they follow us home if we leave, lose or do not fight "them", whoever they are? Glad to see Biden put it out there.

Mike, I believe you are right in that this is the core question to be answered. And I believe I can place a name on the "whoever they are" - the fear is a fear of Islam.

The true, underlying question is whether or not there is a "war of ideologies", as Bush claims, and whether greater Islam has intents on world Islamic conversion via warfare. If the U.S. completely abandonded the middle east and Africa, would the Islamic Jihad still exist?

Is the hate of the U.S. based upon the fact that it is non-Islamic?

A religion Ph.D. told me that Islamics describe Islam not as a religion but as a way of life based on the Law of God; anyone who does not follow this way of life/Law is an infidel; and thus, there is no provision for detente.

Now for a gross onversimplification:
As for me, I think this is an example of Marx's "opium of the people", that religions depend on the lack of quality of life of the masses in order to sedate and control beliefs with promises of eventual blessings and victories, that if these masses had decent jobs, 3-bedroom houses, drove a relatively new car, and after work could drive home and watch Iranian Idol on their color T.V.s they would be much less predisposed to blow themselves up in the name of Allah.

Of course I know that there are educated Islamics, but these types tend to be the leaders who direct the masses to sacrifice themselves, when their own goal is really only power.

Although I have no proof of this, it seems reasonable to me to guess that the more moderate of Islamics are those who have the higher standards of living, and thus the best way in the long run to diffuse the anger is to decrease the gap between rich and poor, the exact opposite of what has been happening globally for the past 40 years or so.

[mike777]

It does seem to be to be the ultimate question. If they, whoever they are, are not going to follow us home, I do not think we should send our young boys and girls to fight oversees. If we pulled out of Iraq and they would not follow us home, why bother fighting there, today in 2007. I do not know. If Mrs. Clinton, Murtha and Obama believe this I hope that they say it and the media reports on it.

OTOH, if THEY do follow us home, what if any our response should be will be interesting. Winston seems to argue for sending only the FBI after them.

If we really are in a 40 year battle with radical Islam, I repeat, I expect the fight to be messy, inefficient, and mistake prone. We will fight the war as we start all wars with out of date tactics and equipment and infrastructure. The enemy will adapt and we will be slow and ponderous to change.

On your issue Winston, at the very least it seems simply through population growth and free elections in the West, radical Islam can more easily assert their political agenda.

About 2% of the USA population is Jewish and yet 12% of the Senators are. I see no reason why Islamic voters cannot do the same here or in France, Holland, Spain, Germany, Belgium or the UK.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 08:36 PM, said:

On your issue Winston, at the very least it seems simply through population growth and free elections in the West,  radical Islam can more easily assert their political agenda.

About 2% of the USA population is Jewish and yet 12% of the Senators are. I see no reason why Islamic voters cannot do the same here or in France, Holland, Spain, Germany, Belgium or the UK.

There have actually been some interesting statistical studies published on this subject.

"Islam" is not a statistically significant predictor of the number of children that will be born to a family. However, Islam often serves as a placeholder for religious fervour. More simply put, it doesn't matter if you're a muslim, a catholic, a jew, or a mormon; People who self identify as strongly religious tend to have a large families. For example, in Israel, the ultra orthodox tend to have larger families than similarly observant muslims.

If we look at Western Europe and all the crap about demographic time bombs... I just don't buy into it. Behaviour changes over time and money and secular humanism are very corresive forces. If I didn't believe so, I'd be out shooting Southern Baptists as we speak....

[Winstonm]

Quote

OTOH, if THEY do follow us home, what if any our response should be will be interesting. Winston seems to argue for sending only the FBI after them.

I think it is even more difficult to answer than will they/won't they follow us home. The real question in my mind is whether these groups are a small minority of Islam or whether they represent the views of the majority of Islam - the responses would differ depending on the size of the enemey.

The reasons I believe the problem more of police/intelligence matter than a broad-based military matter are based upon views that we are dealing with minority groups and not the entirety of Islam, the prevailing hate is anti-Zion and not simply anti-non-Islamic, there is infighting among Islamics themselves, and more moderate Islamics are either allies or at least non-enemies of the U.S.

I do not believe that 9-11 was an act of war by the Islamic majority; I believe it was an act of terrorism, propagated by minority interests in the Islamic world.

Warfare has never been an effective means of fighting these types enemies, proven by the U.S. in Vietnam and the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan. Therefore, these types enemies should be fought in more of a police/intelligence/covert action than warfare until such a time that economic justice removes the will and need to of the enemy to fight.

Warfare must be 100% win or lose - to believe that there is a war of ideologies that must be won in order for civilization to continue means that you believe Islam as a whole is the enemy and therefore Islam as a whole has to be targeted and destroyed.

To me, that sounds a whole lot like the Crusades, and the exact same thinking of the purported enemy. It makes Islam out to be the Great Satan. To try to subcategorize into "radical Islam" verses "moderate Islam" is to refuse to answer the real question - do terrorists speak for the majority of Islam or are they the minority? If the terrorist views are the views of the majority of Islam, then Islam is the enemy, and moderates who don't get out of the way would be collateral damage. But if the terrorist views are only a fanatical minority, then Islam is not the enemy and there is no worldwide battle of ideologies - there is only terrorism.

I happen to take a rosier view of man's nature - the preponderance are logical and fairminded - and it is the sociological and economic imbalances that cause minority radical groups to flourish. If you can long term change those aspects, then you allow the logic and fairmindedness to overcome the hatred of despair.

[mike777]

"...propagated by minority interests in the Islamic world...".

I believe all war is propaged by minority interests. In the American Revolution about 1/3 were Pro Rebels, 1/3 Pro British and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone in peace to make money.


If radical Islam is just a few hundred or less our response has been insane.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

"...propagated by minority interests in the Islamic world...".

I believe all war is propaged by minority interests.  In the American Revolution about 1/3 were Pro Rebels, 1/3 Pro British and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone in peace to make money.


If radical Islam is just a few hundred or less our response has been insane.

The world population of Muslims is estimated at over 1.75 billion, so you could have hundreds of thousands of hard-liners and still have an extreme minority.

[mike777]

Winston are you saying we or someone is at war with hundreds of thousands of people?

Are you suggesting they are following us home?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

Winston are you saying we or someone is at war with hundreds of thousands of people?

Are you suggesting they are following us home?

Let me state it clearly. When you cannot identify the enemy within the greater group of the ordinary, everyday, then it is insane to go to war unless you are willing to wipe out everyone, good and bad alike, in order to insure the enemy is destroyed.

If you try to pick and chose targets, battling the minority interest within a larger group, you are engaged in guerilla tactics, whch is more in the province of police/intelligence actions.

I have no idea how many there are. I have no idea whether or not they would follow us home. No one else does, either.

Ask me what I believe, and that is different - I believe the enemy is a tiny minority of Islam. I believe that if they struck once here, they may well attempt to do so again. I believe the threat at home is overexaggerated due to the inordinant complexity of creating a terrorist strike on U.S. soil using foreigners who must first get into the country, get their supplies, and carry out the mission all the while not being located and stopped by intelligence/cia/fbi/local police. So to say if we leave Iraq terrorist will follow us home is a simplistic viewpoint attempting to create favor by re-instigating fear. IMHO.

[Winstonm]

New data on the "follow us home" fears:

Quote

Polling Data

Do you think America’s safety from terrorism depends upon our success in Iraq, or does it not depend on our success in Iraq?

Does not depend upon our success in Iraq
61%

Depends upon our success in Iraq
34%

Don’t know
5%



In your opinion, should the United States...?

Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately
19%

Gradually withdraw all troops over the next 12 months
51%

Have troops stay in Iraq for as long as
it takes to stabilize the country
27%

Don’t know
3%



Source: Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index / Foreign Affairs
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,013 American adults, conducted from Feb. 21 to Mar. 4, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Isn't it a strange coincidence that the percentages living in fear and supporting the war as long as it takes closely approximates the sentiment polls of Bush?

[mike777]

Well I still think this is the key question for many/most of us. Is it real practical question or just a PR fear mongering slogan for the Reps. to hang on to power....

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Apr 11 2007, 06:15 AM, said:

Isn't it a strange coincidence that the percentages living in fear and supporting the war as long as it takes closely approximates the sentiment polls of Bush?

What has fear to do with this? The question was whether U.S. security depends on success in Iraq. That's a rather vague question.

First, it's not the same as asking whether one is concerned with the U.S. security. It's perfectly logical to be concerned about U.S. security and at the same time think that it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Second, "success" could be defined in many ways. My personal association with the concept "U.S. success in Iraq" could be something like withdrawing as soon as possible, leaving the country in a reasonably stable state. Even restoring the Baa't rule (somewhat hypothetical) or turning it into an Iranian satellite, would be huge improvement relative to the current situation, as long as it would stop the civil war. I'm sure "success" could be defined in many other ways.

I suppose your point is that Bush's 2004 reelection campaign was based on people's fear. That's probably correct, you U.S. people know more about that than I do. But I don't think it's rational to stay in Iraq out of concern for the U.S. security. One might argue that withdrawing from Iraq immediately would be bad for Iraqi security, though, or maybe for the long-term interests of U.S. oil companies.

Winston on behalf of his brother who's a major in the U.S. army said:

With the U.S. gone, Iran will not take over Iraq but Iraq would become in essence a satellite of Iran, giving Iran control over the oil in both countries. Iran cannot be allowed to possess this much money and influence in the middle east.

I think we should stop demonizing Iran. Unlike the rest of the Middle East (Israel and to some extent Lebanon notwithstanding), it's a quasi-democratic country, and it has a large Western-oriented middle class. The present government is problematic but it will probably loose the next elections, and even in the present state of affairs, Iran is more sensitive to reason than so-called U.S. allies in Middle East like Saudi Arabia. Farsi is even an Indo-European language

I think Iran is a natural ally for the Western World. Just like I consider the U.S. a natural ally for Europe. You happen to have a diabolic government for the time being, but most of us have friends, family and and professional connections in the U.S. and that's more important.

[pbleighton]

"I think we should stop demonizing Iran. Unlike the rest of the Middle East (Israel and to some extent Lebanon notwithstanding), it's a quasi-democratic country, and it has a large Western-oriented middle class. The present government is problematic but it will probably loose the next elections, and even in the present state of affairs, Iran is more sensitive to reason than so-called U.S. allies in Middle East like Saudi Arabia. Farsi is even an Indo-European language

I think Iran is a natural ally for the Western World. Just like I consider the U.S. a natural ally for Europe. You happen to have a diabolic government for the time being, but most of us have friends, family and and professional connections in the U.S. and that's more important."

I agree, though "problematic" is a mild word for their present govenment.

As to their acquiring nukes, I don't like it, but a lot of countries will be acquiring them over the next 50-100 years. We're going to have to live with it.

We're going to have to grow up as a species.

Peter

[cherdano]

Sorry, this is off-topic: Peter, your posts would be a LOT easier to read if you wouldn't resist so strongly to using the "QUOTE" button. It is more readable and not more work for you.
(Just my opinion of course.)

[Al_U_Card]

They don't need to follow us home, we took our homebodies and moved them there so they could send them back to us in bags........just so Cheney and his band of megalos could ride the bomb on the way down. (Dr. Strangelove where r u?)

[pbleighton]

"Sorry, this is off-topic: Peter, your posts would be a LOT easier to read if you wouldn't resist so strongly to using the "QUOTE" button. It is more readable and not more work for you.
(Just my opinion of course.) "

I've always wondered how to do this. Would you explain please?

I can't figure it out for myself, I'm a software consultant

Peter