nkgupta80

I can believe liberty applies to all human beings, but that doesn't mean I decide how it should be spread around the world...I would argue military action in Iraq was an overreaction to 9/11. The reality is that gaurding ourselves against another attack requires internal security. Its not like us being over there is whats keeping them from doing another terrorist attack.. its the fact that we upped our intelligence, our airport security, etc.

DeeJayH

Internal security is being done as well
but alot of people are pissing and moaning about it (read Patriot Act)

__________________
These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb. - Joshua P. Allem

WI Crippler

Yes, I can agree with your assessment to a point. I honestly do not really know what the Bush Administrations real reasons for going into Iraq were. I have stated before, that I believed that Saddam did have WMDs, not so much because of what our government told us, but because of Saddam's repeated behavior regarding the UN inspections. That and the chem suit I had to wear in the desert while I was over there, in the 130 degree heat, and my smallpox and Anthrax vaccinations I received prior to deploying over there. Why would we go through all that as a military, if there was no credible threat of WMDs?

Anyway, thus far the WMDs have failed to materialize, and I am willing to admit I bought it. I did not so much buy the Saddam/AQ link, and I figured that was a sell to the American public. But I didn't let it concern me. I supported the decision to remove Saddam from power, and replace it with some form of a democracy. And I still do.

Like I said, I don't know if we will ever know the true motivations of this administration. But what I support, is the ideal of us attempting to acheive liberty for all people around the world. The opportunity to accomplish this exists right now, in Iraq, regardless of what the reasons were for the invasion. It is GWBs failure to emulate this ideal, that bothers me so, and makes me question his intentions.

I wish that the ideal of promoting liberty outside ones own borders was shared by other western cultures. This does not always mean miltary action, but it includes it if necessary. But it is not. I am beginning to think that the true arrogance of the west, is not in showing our wealth or power, but our refusal to share with other cultures, the ideal of liberty because we are supposed to be more mindful of "other cultures" right to exist, rather than the rights(or more accuratley the lack thereof) of the individuals who live within those cultures. Its as if, in having democracy, we have discovered fire. Some feel that we should let these other cultures mire in the darkness and cold until they discover the fire on their own. And thats fine to have that point of view. But its not one I agree with. I believe that we should share the fire, not by merely giving them our own, but by teaching them how to make their own fire, their own brand of democracy. Look at Canada, or France, or Mexico. These are all democracies of some shape or another. They do not have a democracy that is the same as the US. Similar, but not the same. I believe that democracy can exist in all cultures, without tainting or tarnishing the cultures negatively(which is the reason given why we should not spread democracy). In fact, I think it can only have positive ramifications in the long run, for humanity.

__________________
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."- Reg

nkgupta80

maybe the average american goes into a war supporting the ideal (and the average american does matter). But our government (who after election holds the true power) has gone in to conflicts for more important reasons such as imminent threats, geopolitical reasons, economics. World War II is a good example. Liberty and Freedom was not the driving impetus to enter the war.

Secondly, I do not think the reason given for not spreading democracy is that we taint cultures. The reason is that military conversion usually does not work. A good example is Iran. Nukes aside, the people are ready for change, but they will do it on their own terms. Maybe military conflict would accelerate the change, but it would also most probably destroy the infrastructure which could put people in a situation where they just wanna think about their immediate well-being. This creates strife, and that initial movement for change within the people is thwarted. (which is why perhaps secret military coups supporting democracy would probably be better ).

Proteus

Actually, this isn't by my math at all and the relevence is questionable at best. You're welcome, and indeed encouraged, to think for yourself and do your own arithmatic, but I would prefer you don't give me credit for your mental musings.

+1 for comedic value

Again with calling it "my" math. It's a simple computation and not of my invention. And I would have considerably more confidence in leadership that at least considers mathematical reality than one that ignores it and who's decisions are guided by hysteria and political opportunism.

I fully acknowledge that the terrorism threat is real and diligence is an absolute must.

The question I ask you is do you acknowledge that it is at least hypothetically possible to overreact?

Proteus

I'm fairly new here but based on this comment, which I wholeheartedly agree with, can I assume that you applauded the SCOTUS decision in the GiTMO case?

WI Crippler

I cannot.

I do not believe that enemy combatants have a right to our civilian court system, since they are not "our" civilians. I would like to see international law, i.e. Geneva Conventions, to update and clarify the position of the treatment of non-uniformed enemy combatants captured on the field of battle. Its pretty clear about the rights of uniformed soliders, and even guerilla units that are uniformed, but there is no clear cut language in the Geneva Conventions for non-uniformed terrorists that are captured. I believe enemy combatants, no matter if they are uniformed or not, should be tried by military tribunals or international courts(unless of course the attack comes way of a US Citizen on US soil), depending on the case. Our civilian court system is for our civilians use, and to uphold laws that are enforced within our borders. The SCOTUS jurisdiction ends there, and either our military courts or international courts pick up the jurisdiction, depending on the situations that arise outside our borders, or as in the case against Saddam Hussein, that countries own judicial system.

WI Crippler

No, liberty and freedom were not the impetus for the entrance of the US into WWII. Had it been, we would have seen US forces in Europe earlier, and our Naval Fleet would have been halfway across the Pacific when Japan took over Indo-China, and joined Italy and Germany as Axis powers. Instead of swift military reaction, we placed an oil embargo on Japan and slept our fleet in the warm Hawaiin waters, where they were ultimatley destroyed. It was our laisse-faire policy that even allowed these situations in the Pacific and Europe to manifest to the levels they did. And it was our "stability in the middle east at all costs" policy that has allowed for religious fanatics to have safe havens to plot their terrorist acts, and disenfranchised youth populations to recruit from. Had we, after the Cold War, taken the opportunity to engage in trying to spread the virtue of freedom and liberty, instead of just being happy with simply stopping communism, then prehaps we combat terrorism at its roots, rather than paying it scant attention up until 9/11. And this attitude of Americans being unwilling to sacrifice on behalf of anybody else was noticed in large by OBL after Somalia. Hell, Dick Cheney's own comments about going after Saddam in the Gulf War speaks volumes to the oppressed populace of Iraq, and the American attitude of being unwilling to seek change for the better. " How many American deaths is it worth to take down Saddam Hussein, and the answer is not very many" What does that statement say to the Iraqi people, living under Saddams oppression? It tells them, and the rest of the arab community, that America is willing to look past the transgressions of dictators, so long as it either benefits us and/or you do not violate the borders of our allies. It tells the people, that they do not matter and this is where the disenfranchisement against America begins. That attitude absolutely had/has to change, if we are to honestly believe in the ideals of liberty and freedom.

To your second point, I stated that I approve of all solutions to promote the spreading of liberty and freedom around the world. This does not always have to be military in nature, but at times it may require it. Also, an amazing amount of infrastructure in Iraq was preserved. We did not wipe Iraq off the map, even though it is certainley within our capability to do so. Yes, some infrastructure was destroyed/damaged, but that is going to happen in war, especially in one where the enemy hides within the civilian infrastructures to begin with. I would say the infrastructure in Iraq, while damamged, was not made irreperable to the point that it encouraged violence against us. In fact, I would figure that now, most infrastructure damamge is caused by terrorists, and not US forces.

Proteus

My brain is not capable of reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilably contradictory sentiments. I'm afraid I might get a headache if I try. I'm happy for you that you can and I thank you for your time.

WI Crippler

Its more a question of jurisdiction than rights. I do believe all have the right to a fair trial. I do not believe the US civilian court system has the jurisdiction in the case of foreign enemy combatants.