Lieberman offers clear assessment on Iraq

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I think it would be worth the effort to rid the world of terrorists. But that will never fully happen. To me, it is about allocation of scarce resources, money, manpower, and interdiction against terrorism. If we devote all of our resources for such a long time to the building of Iraq, what are we unable to do elsewhere? Look at what the lack of focus on Afghanistan has done to the effort there. The situation has regressed steadily there since the Iraq war began. Then look at Iran, even if we wanted to there would be nothing that we could militarily to address that threat, other than bomb them, so they effectively no that invasion is off the table, for the forseeable future.

Finally, I am with you in saying that the best solution, in a perfect world, would be a multi-decade heavy presence in Iraq that would help turn into a functioning democracy. But the world is no perfect, and I KNOW that the political will necessary is not there to do what is in the super-long term interest of the United States. We also may not be able to afford it.

I think we do see agree about a lot of what is going on, but we see different approaches to settling it. There is no easy solution.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

These are not aboriginies like Caesar found in Gaul, or American settlers found in our continent. It's a culture highly developed for better or worse. We can't impose righteousness and liberty on them.

I am not sure I have ever seen a more arrogant, racist or misguided statement on this board. You should be embarrassed. Moreover, if you retreat behind the "I never use TIC" smokescreen, you should still apologize.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

This problem that you identify is my main beef with the neocons. I believe that a democratic Middle east would be fantastic and in that sense I think that the neocons are visionary. But I don't think that you can impose democracy at the butt of a gun. Unless you are willing to hold that gun, for a very, very long time. Even then it is highly unlikely because imposition of values is nearly impossible.

I think you may be forgetting the purple-finger election in which DROVES of non-butt-of-gun folks turned out to express their will.

We're dealing with an extremely violent minority here. They are large enough of a minority, true, that they could potentially destabilize the gov't were they left to their own vices. But the high turnout in every election Iraq has held so far sort of blows away the "imposition of values" argument.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They're essentially murdering their own. We can't straighten that mess out. It's unfortunate we've contributed to it, and to the extent there may be a hell I think that GWB and Cheney may have some explaining to do to the judge.

True. As Detroit pointed out (if I understood him correctly), the will to do it on their own just isn't there.

I have mixed emotions about being the world's police force. If we (the USA) don't help, nobody will and we're vilified for not helping. If we help, we're vilified as pushing our will on the rest of the world.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am not sure I have ever seen a more arrogant, racist or misguided statement on this board. You should be embarrassed. Moreover, if you retreat behind the "I never use TIC" smokescreen, you should still apologize.

No TIC, and I don't shrink or apologize from what I said. I'm sorry not to share your paternalistic, noble savage view of things. Do you deny that the developments which I referenced were better for the world? You can't possibly sit enjoying the privileges you enjoy and not feel that way. I know you are not so self-satisfied in your abstract notions of things that you are blind to that hard fact. Do you despise your liberties and material comforts that your fathers won for you? Have you ever read about the kind of lives that were led in Gaul and in North America before Ceasar and the Pilgrims came, the suffering, what the original inhabitants did to one another, etc.? It's a sad fact that civilization and liberty has itself left in its wake much bloodshed and suffering. I don't know why a loving God would creat such a world; it's the ultimate mystery. This is not an untenable ground upon which one could found an atheistic view of the world, and is the one most often cited. But what was there before civilizatoin arrived was not the Eden-like fantasy that you pretend existed in your self-righteous indignation. I think you know better.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No TIC, and I don't shrink or apologize from what I said. I'm sorry not to share your paternalistic, noble savage view of things. Do you deny that the developments which I referenced were better for the world? You can't possibly sit enjoying the privileges you enjoy and not feel that way. I know you are not so self-satisfied in your abstract notions of things that you are blind to that hard fact. Do you despise your liberties and material comforts that your fathers won for you? Have you ever read about the kind of lives that were led in Gaul and in North America before Ceasar and the Pilgrims came, the suffering, what the original inhabitants did to one another, etc.? It's a sad fact that civilization and liberty has itself left in its wake much bloodshed and suffering. I don't know why a loving God would creat such a world; it's the ultimate mystery. This is not an untenable ground upon which one could found an atheistic view of the world, and is the one most often cited. But what was there before civilizatoin arrived was not the Eden-like fantasy that you pretend existed in your self-righteous indignation. I think you know better.

Your response is only so much more windbaggery. You are arguing with someone, apparently, but not me. Show me where I ever said anything about "eden-like" existence. Apparently just to be safe, you also chose to take a swipe at religion. God had nothign to do with your very disappointing comment. Save the hyperbole for your closing arguments. I am too busy to respond fully to you on this topic right now, but I will later.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think you may be forgetting the purple-finger election in which DROVES of non-butt-of-gun folks turned out to express their will.

We're dealing with an extremely violent minority here. They are large enough of a minority, true, that they could potentially destabilize the gov't were they left to their own vices. But the high turnout in every election Iraq has held so far sort of blows away the "imposition of values" argument.

My choice of the word "values" was poorly chosen. What I really meant is that I believe that it is nearly impossible to create the conditions necessary for a stable, democratic society through the military apparatus. And you are coorect in that the turnout for votes has been encouraging. But...

Holding a vote is probably the least important part of democracy. It is what comes after, when all parties show respect for the outcome of the vote, when people support parties based upon issues rather than identity, and when the rule of law follows from elections. Iraq is a nominal democracy, i.e. they hold votes. This is a positive first step.

But it is a small step when there is chaos going on in the streets. Furthermore, the rise of sectarian parties does not bode well for embracing of pluralist democracy or even for a workable power sharing arrangement. I hesitate to call the elections, mere window dressing, because I think it is disrepectful of the Iraqis. However, until the security situation improves dramatically, that is what they are.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Your response is only so much more windbaggery. You are arguing with someone, apparently, but not me. Show me where I ever said anything about "eden-like" existence. Apparently just to be safe, you also chose to take a swipe at religion. God had nothign to do with your very disappointing comment. Save the hyperbole for your closing arguments. I am too busy to respond fully to you on this topic right now, but I will later.

There was no swipe at religion. Any thoughtful person has made the same observation, which isn't novel. Who has engaged in hyperbole? My post had nothing to do with race. You could more tenably accuse me of culturalism, I guess, but that would be unduly narrow and lacking perspective.

Beyond that, I'll wait and see how much deeper you dig yourself in before saying anyting further.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

There was no swipe at religion. Any thoughtful person has made the same observation, which isn't novel. Who has engaged in hyperbole? My post had nothing to do with race. You could more tenably accuse me of culturalism, I guess, but that would be unduly narrow and lacking perspective.

Beyond that, I'll wait and see how much deeper you dig yourself in before saying anyting further.

Your generosity is remarkable. And the eden-like fantasy?

Your frequent use of false dichotomies is, as always, evident here. One not sharing your observation is not thoughtful. Of course, how else could it be? Those damn aborigines in North America were very fortunate to be rescued from their inferior and brutal cultures. Your burden must be heavy indeed, SU.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Your generosity is remarkable. And the eden-like fantasy?

Your frequent use of false dichotomies is, as always, evident here. One not sharing your observation is not thoughtful. Of course, how else could it be? Those damn aborigines in North America were very fortunate to be rescued from their inferior and brutal cultures. Your burden must be heavy indeed, SU.

You are inferring an overly simplistic viewpoint from what I wrote, and in doing so evincing the radical PC viewpoint of culteral and moral relativism that has come to infect our schools, and is one of the primary reasons for their decline. You must believe that the current suffering in sub-Saharan Africa is all becuase of former colonial overlords.