ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

swdowning, you are very optimistic (not many optimists out there nowadays). However, I don't see destroying countries as increasing global prosperity.

Your God(ess) | 10/06/08

Besides, what rights do we have to act as global police. The strong should only interrupt things abroad when somebody threatens us or our allies. If we hadn't been interfering in the middle east for so many years, we probably wouldn't have prompted Muslim extremist terrorists to launch an attack on US soil.

Adam the Great | 10/06/08

WAIT WAIT WAIT.....SO your saying that we should wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade? Do you know how many right wing military dictators we have supported? I mean your living in a dream world. You have a pompous, ignorant way of looking at the globe. Lets name a few brutal dictators we brought into power. Hussein, Pinochet, Batista, The Shah, Khmer Rouge, The Diem regime in Vietnam(who we later killed anyway) Those are just a few of your "democratic military interventions" Ridiculous. You have no concept of political history. Do you understand why they hate us? They do not hate us for our freedom, or our "christian" values. They hate us because we have been subverting their governments for half a century.

ReVoluTionNow! | 10/06/08

Hmmmm.... I've been thinking, and shouldn't it be swdowning who should be supporting his/her claim that some wars ARE worth fighting? Logically, it is impossible to prove that it is not worth it to fight any war, because there are an infinite possibilities of reasons for going to war, and with only 3600 characters to argue with, well, I hope you get my point.

Your God(ess) | 10/06/08

Wars just shouldn't be fought if most people in America (sadly) don't have an idea of what we're fighting and how to fight it. Military? Sure, why not? Political solution along with military stabilization? No way - we could never have thought of that.....That's why wars such as WWII and the "proxy wars" in the Cold War eras were mostly successful - except for Vietnam.

CorruptAbramoff | 10/06/08

The mark of tyrancy and imperialism is blindly fighting to achieve your cause, whether or not those you are intending to liberate even want your help. Iraq is an example. They do not view us as liberators, but as an occupation. They didn't ask for our help, but we needed some oil, so we unwisely sought to "free" them of Saddam (and I am aware that that guy was a murderer, but also aware that he was, for some time, an ally). A couple trillion dollars later, nothing in return but a drop in international standing, respect, and economic stability, have we learned our lesson? Probably not, because we still talk of war with Iran, still talk of war with Pakistan; and don't forget, we are now losing much needed ground in Afganistan because of these endeavors. Every great soceity that attempted to spread their agenda suffered because of it; Rome, Sparta, England, and several others (some not so great...but fought believing they were), and now America. I'm not saying I believe the US is imperialistic, but from another point of view, it may be a little more clear.

GoIrish! | 10/07/08

Your God(ess): If the result is a capitalistic democracy that becomes our ally, have we really destroyed that country? If more global free trade is the result of our newly-created alliance, then there will be more prosperity. And of course, we can't truly destroy a country; we can, however, do away with an oppressive tyranny. But that's a good thing. Adam: We not only have the right, we have the duty to halt the racist and tyrannical annihilation of a people, such as the Iraqi Kurds. If we define our interests as including the opposition of holocausts (as I submit any moral person would favor), and if we have the means - and we do - then we also have the moral obligation. Our system is better than a tyrannical system. Objectively better. People have better lives under our system than under Saddam's. The world is safer and wealthier to the extent that we can export our system. That fact alone makes it our business. ReV: Politics makes strange bedfellows. Our national interests change as events unfold. At any given time, our behavior depends upon the salient conditions, and those conditions are apt to change. The first imperative of any organization (including our nation) is this: survive. That requirement will usually result in a bizarre dance as we adjust our strategy and tactics to accommodate changing global conditions. But you subscribe to the demotic and pedantic myth that the U.S. is evil and always on the wrong side of history (never mind the fact that our system allows you to publicly criticize it, while no nation we have ever invaded and subsequently converted would previously have allowed such subversive expression). So let me ask you: Under what other system would you rather live? Soviet communism? Sharia law? Hussein's Iraq? Ahmadinejad's Iran? Kim Jong-Il's North Korea? Tell me. I'm really willing to hear what system you think is better than ours. Which system would you rather have? God(ess): The second sentence of my first argument supports my claim tha

swdowning | 10/07/08

GoIrish: We have taken no oil from Iraq, so how can this be our motive? As to the value of our "standing," do you really think our foreign policy should be based more upon how much the rest of the world likes us, as opposed to what is really in our national interest (let alone our singular ability to halt genocide)? You need to realize that our failure to advance our agenda will result in our being overthrown. Are you willing to live under Sharia law? When you're asked the question "Do you convert to Islam or do you die?" what will be your answer?

swdowning | 10/07/08

You see your argument makes no sense. " Politics makes strange bedfellows." That is your excuse for supporting murderous dictators? That makes it ok? We truly are the best of the worst. You keep asking people what other system they would live under rather than here. Your argument is the same as every other conservative. "Go live somewhere else if you do not like it." Anytime anyone promotes a positive progression within society you people demonize it as Anti American, Anti Capitalism, ANTI ANTI ANTI...You cannot have it both ways. You cannot spread democracy and support military dictators at the same time. Do you not realize that an entire world generation hates America because of policies you support. I have no problem with a noble military intervention. Darfur would have been my choice to Iraq. Our military interventions are almost never noble. Some type of vampiric business interest is always at stake. Our military no longer fights for freedom or any of the BS that our soldiers are told. They fight for our dollar not our freedom. It is a sad reality.

ReVoluTionNow! | 10/07/08

I do believe that some wars are worth fighting, just not this one. World War II was worth fighting. On both fronts. One because we were attacked and the other was to step in to help allies who begged us to be there to help against an aggressor who would not have stopped until he had all of Europe and beyond. Iraq is not the same. It is a pre-emptive attack on a sitting government (nightmare that it was), where we did not have the backing of a huge part of the world and we had no reason to go in.

Proud 2 b liberal | 10/07/08

ReV: I didn't ask you what system under which you would prefer to live because I was suggesting that you go there. I was asking because I want to know which other system you would rather have controlling America. Which one would you rather conquer us? You use a term, "positive progression." I'm not familiar with this term. Would you please define it for us in terms of a comparison between the horrible system the U.S. employs, and the system you would rather have? Your "dollar, rather than freedom" point is a red herring. The economic and military strength of the U.S. are not mutually exclusive. Freedom, worldwide, can be directly linked to the economic might of the U.S. To suggest otherwise is akin to saying that a person's physical existence can somehow be separated from his spiritual existence.

swdowning | 10/08/08

Proud: Would you have all of our military endeavors be subject to global approval? You suggest that, since we had not the backing of "a huge part of the world," that we ought not have gone into Iraq. At the same time, you say that we were right to join WWII on the side of the allies. But if, prior to that, we had asked Japan and Germany and Italy if we should enter the war on the allies' side, they would all have said "no." Do they not comprise a huge part of the world? What's the difference now? The fact is, we don't, and shouldn't, need the rest of the world to approve our military actions. We must retain our ability to independently act to preserve our interests. We have pulled France's fat out of the fire in two world wars, and they chose not to support us this time. Going into war without France is like going hunting without an accordion. And we cannot allow their ilk to dictate our military action.

swdowning | 10/08/08

I would definitely look to build consensus before we entered into any pre-emptive strikes. There was no immenent threat from Iraq to us or anyone else. His military had been beaten down to the bones. I do agree that we have to preserve our right to protect our interest but what GWB and his boys did was 100% contrary to our interests. The difference between this war and wwII is huge. Hitler invaded eastern Europe and so started the war, Japan bombed us (therefor no concensus needed). We were begged to go in and it took us a long time before we engaged. Saddam had done some rather evil things and had invaded Kuwait. We had our chance then to take him out but we drew back. We had NO reason to go into Iraq at this time. NONE. This was always a crap war and although I support our troops with every fiber of my being, I do not support this cause. they have reaked havoc on a region that already was in turmoil and created a terrorist haven where there had not been one before.

Proud 2 b liberal | 10/08/08

Wars are not a good thing, period.

jhnedrmr | 10/09/08

swdowning---Before I respond please clarify the following: (1)are you asserting that the war in Iraq is designed to protect our national interests; (2) are you asserting that ALL U.S. military operations result in (a)greater freedom, (b)the advance of liberty, and (c)capitalistic economies, and(3)are you asserting that these ends ALWAYS increase global prosperity. Thanks.

Kattman | 10/11/08

Kattman: 1: Yes, because stability in the middle east is not only in the best interest of the U.S., but in the best interest of the world. This applies even when we wean ourselves of foreign oil. 2: Not all U.S. military operations accomplish a, b, and c. Only those operations that are successful do this. After Japan surrendered to us at the end of WWII, and we proposed to establish a capitalistic democracy there, we heard the same "they can't handle freedom" argument that the left is currently advancing viz Iraq. 3: Yes, even if the participation is more local than global. If a, b, and c are effectively established, the cause of global prosperity is always advanced. I suppose it's possible for it to be indirectly advanced (such as if the only tangible benefit is that we don't have to expend so many resources occupying the country), but I can't think of an example. I'd certainly like to hear any example you might have of a nation in which we have effectively established greater freedom, effectively advanced liberty, and fully established a capitalistic economy, and in which global prosperity has not been increased.

swdowning | 10/11/08

It might be noted that a fully capitalistic economy exploits those who do not hold the reigns to the detriment of every society regardless of it location and historic origin. Its the same mentality that promotes sweat shops and even child labor in smaller and less powerful countries. War for american interests could be said is the same as war for profit. In the case of post WWII society, most of the conflicts have been over profit not freedom. Sure, we all want to be free, but freedom is not only making big business bigger for the betterment of ???who, what, ....you? Yup, sure seems that war is good for business, and when the resources are in another weaker country, we can just go in there and take it in the name of liberty and freedom.......I really wish you would grow up.

peaceplease | 10/22/08

SWD: Regarding your responses to my questions: (1) this was not designed to further our interests as a people, it was initiated for other motives. Our national interests were best served if Iraq remained status quo, and we were aware that they posed no threat. There are excellent humanitarian reasons for deposing Sadam(y), but they were incidental to our cause and broadcast for promotional purposes only. The region was carved into nations according to the perceived best interest of England and the US to begin with, and done so often with inadequate regard for tribal and cultural conflicts and affinities. Oppression and bloody conflict were inevitable. That written, it is quite obvious that what we do from this point forward in Iraq is critical to the interests of the world at large.

Kattman | 11/04/08

(2) I agree that in some cases of military intervention our cause was noble and results were exceptional. I think your example of Japan is a good one. However, I do not think that Japan is representative of most other places. They were a medieval culture before the war, and they rapidly progressed into a prosperous nation, this is true. However, their case is incomparable to that of most other undeveloped cultures, as their national character and culture already positioned them as exceptional candidates for a system like ours. They had a stellar work ethic, and a philosophy of work much like that of Protestants. They placed a strong value on success and civic virtue, and they responded well to a culture of order and hierarchy, which lent itself to corporatism. Most undeveloped countries do not fit this model.

Kattman | 11/04/08

Your last sentence is impossible to argue against because of the way it is stated. swd: I entered this debate with a strong opinion on all aspects of this topic, but I am willing to look into other views. Deposing an awful regime is a noble cause if it produces a moral effect, and is not done solely for opportunist motives and concluded in a way that sets the table for more tyranny. If you can recommend a book or documentary that supports the policy of unsolicited interventionism in undeveloped nations and their conversion into democratic, capitalist societies, then I will look into your view with an open mind. I believe there is a possibility that a pragmatic argument for this may have teeth, and its merits investigation.

Kattman | 11/04/08