Why they distrust us

[kyleb]

i agree Himself, but others think it is all part of the dawn of a wonderful new era that they have been working to create for quite some time.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, I said the situation was not totally unlike world war II. You have one country invading other countries for reasons that it finds valid but few other countries do.

I don't see it similar at all. I think most other countries can actually see our point of view, though they may not agree with it. I don't believe the same case could be made for Nazi Germany.

The leader of the invader has almost unanimous support due to patriotism,

Hardly. Particularly in the case of Great Britain. Bush has majority of US support, but nothing near "almost unanimous."

Contrary views are unpatriotic and immoral even when it's not being characterized as "leftist", "liberal", "chicken", etc, etc.

And supporting views are being labeld as "war mongers", "uncivilized", "cowboys", etc. What else is new.

The thing to note is, unlike Nazi Germany, those with contrary views are not being hauled away en masse and gassed to death. Slight difference, perhaps?

Just about any excuse will do to justify invasion and placate the rest of the world, evidence is toss off without checking it so long as it supports their pont of view.

Again, can be said for either side of the debate. They will justify any excuse to pacify Sadam, evidence of terrorism and refusal to disarm is toss-off.

And for a more direct comparison, if from a different slant, just like WWII, America sees itself as the saviour of the world, the hero rushing in to right wrongs, fighting evil and saving the day for the cause of truth, justice and the American way.

And we tried to convince the nations of the world of our case, rather than marching into Iraq, or Paris, or Poland, and declarining it so.

It's a war that is a cause. The war I can tolerate somewhat as a UN thing just doing a job, the linking of it as a cause of rooting out evil is very dangerous because there will always be someone that is going to get the label of evil. It's a very dangerous precedent for that reason and for the idea of invasion as a deterent or preemptive strike by removing the government.

I agree that it notion of linking a cause to the rooting out of evil can be dangerous. However, this is not simply about that. It's about Sadam not complying with 12 years of resoultions, culminating in 1441. "Evil", in other words, is defined by his non-compliance / deception in this case, which everyone agrees with.

I would be more worried if the "world" didn't agree that Sadam is evil, than I am worried that we agree he's evil, with the disagreement being about how to handle it.

 

[kyleb]

"Evil", in other words, is defined by his non-compliance / deception in this case, which everyone agrees with.

you are leaving people like me out of your definition of "everyone." :?

 

[RussSchultz]

So which do you not believe:
- that Saddam is not in compliance with all those resolutions?
- that he's being deceptive?
- he's evil because of it?

edit: egad. I screwed up a bunch of double negatives there.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Right. To be clear, by "everyone" I am saying that EVERYONE agrees that Sadam is in non-compliance. Do you, kyle, believe he is in compliance?

 

[Himself]

[quote="Joe DeFuria]I agree that it notion of linking a cause to the rooting out of evil can be dangerous. However, this is not simply about that. It's about Sadam not complying with 12 years of resoultions, culminating in 1441. "Evil", in other words, is defined by his non-compliance / deception in this case, which everyone agrees with.

I would be more worried if the "world" didn't agree that Sadam is evil, than I am worried that we agree he's evil, with the disagreement being about how to handle it.[/quote]

[Not going to do the point to point thing, I find that annoying to read personally.]

What the war is about seems to be rather shaky, oh, it's about disarming a world threat with WMD, no, it's about removing Saddam Hussein, no, it's about revenge for 9/11, no, it's about removing a supporter of terrorism, no it's about giving democracy to the Iraq people, etc. Frankly, I suspect there is a large component left out of the list, stabilizing oil production and pricing, which I would put at a 80% value of the motivation here.

Sure, the world might agree that dictatorship is a bad form of government, so is a monarchy for that matter, but you don't invade all countries with kings or queens for that reason, a king is just a descendent of a dictator after all. The world can agree that murder is a crime to be punished, but evil is not a reluctance to hand over your sovereignity or not doing what someone else wants fast enough. Iraq citizens might be willing to have thier power lines destroyed, buildings demolished, their economy ruined and their personal livlihoods wiped out just to get rid of one criminal, but maybe they would prefer some other means without all the destruction and killing, hmm?

 

[kyleb]

incomplete compliance is how i define his current position. hence, the idea that "evil is defined by non-compliance / deception" is what felt it is important that you understand not everyone agrees to Joe.

and more to the point of Russ's line of questioning:

-yes
-most probably
-no

 

[RussSchultz]

I'll assume (due to my crappy double negatives) that you mean:

Yes, you believe he is in non-compliance.
Most probably, you believe he is being deceptive.
No, he's not evil because of it.

Interesting.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

What the war is about seems to be rather shaky...

Seriously, it's probably because you don't actually listen to the official statements about what the war is about, and prefer to get the "reasons" for the war from publications with ceratian agendas. (Both in favor of, and against the war.)

I can tell you exactly what it's about:

Disarming Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Where all those other things get "mixed" into the "reason":

1) The only manner in which we can do this, is to remove Sadam from power, because it's obvious he is not willing to fully comply on his own, even with sanctions and other "peaceful" pressure.

2) We are persuing this NOW, because of the real threat WMD are to us, due to witnessing 9/11 and what terrorists are willing to do, and because there are links from Iraqi regime to terrorism

3) As a RESULT of ousting Sadam, Iraqi people will be liberated.

Unfortunatley, all of those things (1, 2 and 3), get confused by the media, pacifists, and war mongers as various "REASONS" for the war. They are not. The reason has been clearly stated by the administration. And the means of achieving that goal, and the consequences of achieving that goal are sub-topics.

Frankly, I suspect there is a large component left out of the list, stabilizing oil production and pricing, which I would put at a 80% value of the motivation here.

Frankly, I'm not saying oil or economics has nothing to do with it, but I would put very little value on it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

incomplete compliance is how i define his current position. hence, the idea that "evil is defined by non-compliance / deception" is what felt it is important that you understand not everyone agrees to Joe.

I understand that.

My POINT is, that everyone agrees that Sadam is WRONG. Unamimous support for 1441. Sadam didn't comply with 1441. Sadam is wrong for not complying.

You can disagree that force is not prudent action to take even though he's wrong.

However, this is a WHOLLY DIFFERENT situation than Nazi Germany, as some would like us to believe. I don't recall any nations saying "Yeah, Poland and France did somethign wrong...wrong being defined by an international resolution that was not complied with...so we can at least see a Germany's point of view here. We do agree that SOMETHING had to be done with France and Poland, though maybe attack was a bit harsh, but what the hell, we'll let them use our airspace or roads to aid their actions in taking Poland...."

I find it basically insulting and intellectually hollow for someone to compare the U.S. and Nazi Germany as even remotely similar situations.

 

[kyleb]

I'll assume (due to my crappy double negatives) that you mean:

Yes, you believe he is in non-compliance.
Most probably, you believe he is being deceptive.
No, he's not evil because of it.

Interesting.

you got me on the money there on all three counts; i glad to see that i am not constantly misunderstood by you Russ.

 

[kyleb]

incomplete compliance is how i define his current position. hence, the idea that "evil is defined by non-compliance / deception" is what felt it is important that you understand not everyone agrees to Joe.

I understand that.

My POINT is, that everyone agrees that Sadam is WRONG. Unamimous support for 1441. Sadam didn't comply with 1441. Sadam is wrong for not complying.

You can disagree that force is not prudent action to take even though he's wrong.

Joe shows understanding of my views too, oh happy days.

However, this is a WHOLLY DIFFERENT situation than Nazi Germany, as some would like us to believe.

yes, it seems you are one who would like us to belive it is "wholly different", i remain unconvinced.

I don't recall any nations saying "Yeah, Poland and France did somethign wrong...wrong being defined by an international resolution that was not complied with...so we can at least see a Germany's point of view here. We agree that SOMETHING had to be done with France and Poland, but maybe attack was a bit harsh.

yes, there are many differences in the details.

I find it basically insulting and intellectually hollow for someone to compare the U.S. and Nazi Germany as even remotely similar situations.

i find it insulting that you overlook the value of the similarities that we are trying to call attention too. at least we are on even grounds when it comes to feeling insulted though i suppose. :?

 

[Himself]

I think that's just the party line, the legal technical excuse, and the only solution thing is like a man with a hammer seeing everything as a nail. There is no immediate threat, you have the guy boxed in, he can do nothing and he had to continue to destroy some weapons to be seen as complying. You want an alternative? Well too late now, isn't it. It might cost money to keep troops on standby, but it will cost money after an invasion as well, likely manyfold, and you can't put the price on human life. Terrorists will act or not act regardless of anything the US does in Iraq, it will just inspire more recruits and fodder for their hate, which is at max already, they will get their supplies from somewhere else, like they probably already do. You think they need an entire country to get the weapons they use? 9/11 involved what weapons of mass destruction? Iraq is just being a scapegoat to show the American people that something was done, even if it solves nothing.

My main source is watching the man speak on the topic for several hours on the last two occasions. If he didn't speak I might be more inclined to go along with the official statements.

 

[kyleb]

exactly, 9/11 was pulled off with a few box knifes and bunch unbridled and misguided aggression against oppression. there are many ways which we can regulate the devices of mass destruction but there will always be ways that are overlooked as well; and as long as oppress each other, some of those people will unfortunately be inspired to find those ways.

 

[Deflection]

Why doesn't the world direct some of it's outrage for Saddam. He can step down from power and save his own people and the rest of the world from another armed conflict. Maybe even win the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts!

Seriously, Saddam must not be a threat to the US despite his money, power, connections, and declarations of doing everything he can to destroy the US.

If we're so naive to believe the leaders of the US have no ulterior motives we must be too naive to believe Saddam doesn't fund terrorism.

Of course it's the US that is the cause of all the problems in Middle East anyway. It's not human nature to find it easy to shift blame to someone else for your own problems. I'm not claiming the US's hands are clean but people need to stop blaming the US for all the worlds ills.

Maybe the US should take the high ground worldy outlook, but don't expect it when no other country is willing to do so either.[/b]

 

[kyleb]

declarations of doing everything he can to destroy the US.

i cannot say i have ever seen such words from Sadaam, at least no time in recent history; what are you referring to Deflection?

If we're so naive to believe the leaders of the US have no ulterior motives we must be too naive to believe Saddam doesn't fund terrorism.

Of course it's the US that is the cause of all the problems in Middle East anyway. It's not human nature to find it easy to shift blame to someone else for your own problems. I'm not claiming the US's hands are clean but people need to stop blaming the US for all the worlds ills.

yet if we are so naive to cover things with blanket statements and then argue that we would be naive to belive them, we are being so naive that we are only allowing ourselves to belive what we have made predeterminations that we want to belive. you can belive anything if you let yourself do that.

Maybe the US should take the high ground worldy outlook, but don't expect it when no other country is willing to do so either.[/b]

so you recommend that we do not show reverence for the good of human nature, but assume the worst of others in an effort to justify our urges to sink to such a level?

 

[horvendile]

Sure, the world might agree that dictatorship is a bad form of government, so is a monarchy for that matter, but you don't invade all countries with kings or queens for that reason, a king is just a descendent of a dictator after all.

Oh come on. The US (and many other countries) has no intrinsic problem with dictators, at least not enough problem to act in every single case, or really care. But this particular man really wants WMDs and has used them, unprovoked, several times before. In the light of that, Iraq is not representative for "all countries with kings or queens".

(BTW, I believe that in most monarchies, the monarch have no real power.)

 

[Himself]

Oh come on. The US (and many other countries) has no intrinsic problem with dictators, at least not enough problem to act in every single case, or really care. But this particular man really wants WMDs and has used them, unprovoked, several times before. In the light of that, Iraq is not representative for "all countries with kings or queens".

(BTW, I believe that in most monarchies, the monarch have no real power.)

I know of one country for sure that has used nukes, twice, and really wants them, and that is the US. Provoked, maybe, but necessary is certainly debatable. They haven't done so lately though, so maybe the world doesn't need to invade the US at this time.

 

[kyleb]

i don't think anyone does anything unprovoked; but we often react very differently in different situations and we all wind up in our own different situations as well. this whole individuality thing we get is funny like that.

 

[DemoCoder]

Kyoto is not a "small cost".

Other countries have succeeded in introducing significant CO2 saving measures, and it turned out that it wasn't expensive. On the contrary, it
a) Generated new jobs through the research
b) Saved costs by lowering energy usage.

Irrelevent. Other countries are not the US. It matters not that Lichtenstein could meet their targets. The original Kyoto required the US to reduce levels to 7% of those in 1990 by 2008-2012. (EU had target of 8%, Japan 6%). However, the US had unprecedented economic growth in the 1990s leading a rise of 14% in CO2, so that now going back to to those levels by 2008-2012 would require a devastating hit to our economy. There is no technological fix for this to be done in 5 years without severe consequences.

Moreover, the very nature of some cultures and geography of their country make it easier to take the cuts. Japan is a country whose population is highly compressed to the exteriors of its islands, making a rail based transportation network highly efficient, and a generation that has been raised on trains. And like France and Germany, Japan produces much if its energy from the cleanest energy source: Nuclear power.

Simply getting rid of SUVs and making cars 20% more efficient here wouldn't meet our Kyoto targets. We can't build any more nuclear energy plants because of the anti-nuke environmental hysteria, the layout of US population just isn't good for taking the train to work, and the culture doesn't like taking public transport anyways.

There is no way we can make the cuts so quickly without drastic social engineering and civil engineering. You can't replace the coal plants with wind and solar over 5 years, etc etc

The problem of reducing US emissions to 7% below 1990 levels is much harder. Because Japan and Europe had lukewarm economies in the 90s, they didn't have as far to go.

Moreover, the largest producer of CO2 in the US is the transportation industry, primarily trucks. Transportation maps directly to economic growth. The more demand, the more stuff gets shipped. It is not likely that transportation trucks are going to be made that much more efficient, and it is also unlikely that we will build a national freight hauling railroad in 5-9 years that can haul freight everywhere trucks can, e.g. to the local supermarket.


The US is simply in a worse position, and needs more time to make the changes. The Kyoto treaty accepts the "principle of differentiation" when it comes to asking people to make different cuts, it should also recognize the difficulty of making those cuts, and allow a much more gradual, longer reduction period.