cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-30-2006, 05:10 PM   #41
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan View Post
What is interesting to me is that the same people to whom it seems obvious that we can't be getting into adventures around the world where we can't control the outcome (and additionally think it imperialist, immoral, jingositic and arrogant for us to do so) also want very much for us to cure all of Africa's ills from aids to the genocide occurring in Darfur. Darfur that is in the middle of a sectarian (or close enough) civil war (or close enough) that will ultimately make additional bloodshed unvoidable because they just don't want to live together peacefully or share power. Darfur that is run not by the Sudanese government, but by the Janjaweed (a militia). Darfur that poses no threat to us and has never attacked us. Starting to sound familiar?

I think that as between those who hypocritcally say we have no business in Iraq but should intercede in the Sudan and those who cycnically say that we have interests at stake in Iraq and nothing at stake in the Sudan I probably give more credit to the latter because at least there is a cogent thought process behind it.
It is a complex issue which you are intentionally oversimplifying to make a point. Curing AIDS and replacing regimes are not the same thing and cannot fairly be compared.

As for comparing the Sudan to Iraq, those are also two different issues. If the end result is to maximize human rights in the area, engaging in Sudan is clear, to me. It doesn't require toppling a government, replacing it with a puppet government, and won't destabilize the region, thereby emperiling more people. In fact, it could bring more stability to the region.

In Afghanistan, we were attacked, and our need to preserve our own security demanded a response.

In Iraq, our security did not demand an invasion, and later Bush (and many others, like yourself if I recall correctly), then tried to make it sound like a humanitarian issue. No question Sadaam was brutal, but you also have to calculate the costs to Iraqis of removing Sadaam. As we have discussed before, I think the clear outcome was instability in the region which is now heading towards full blown civil war (and millions of deaths, along with more contempt for the US). There are a lot of factors at play in each decision.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2006, 05:19 PM   #42
RockyBalboa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 7,297
RockyBalboa is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via MSN to RockyBalboa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
I'm the only one? I was unaware that you were speaking on behalf of all other people.
I honestly feel bad for you. Sometimes.

It's hard to feel bad for someone so deliberately intellectually dishonest.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.
RockyBalboa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2006, 05:46 PM   #43
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
LOL. Hey UtahDan and Archaea: thanks for so carefully articulating "my position" for me when I stated I have no desire to do so. Straw men can be a lot of fun, eh?
To the extent, I have misinterpreted your position, I apologize. My take on your position was based on past conversations and on your description of my approach to Darwinian. From that, I derived you sympathized with the non-sensical approach to foreign policy. Of course, there are many nonsensical approach, but only a few advocate assistance not-aligned with one's national interests.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2006, 06:22 PM   #44
UtahDan
Senior Member
 
UtahDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
UtahDan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
It is a complex issue which you are intentionally oversimplifying to make a point. Curing AIDS and replacing regimes are not the same thing and cannot fairly be compared.
Actually, I'm oversimplying for the same reasons a mother bird chews up the worm before she gives it to her chicks. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Actually, what I was doing was moving to a larger point than the one that you started with, not trying to comparing curing AIDS to regime change directly only. Nevertheless, I think that to the extent we do anything in the realm of foreign intervention it is fair to examine the over-arching reasons we do so, making comparison on that basis fair. I can't really compare curing AIDS in the US to intervening in Iraq for example, but I think I could compare the Iraq war to any affirmative steps we take to aid Africa and ask whether or not the reasons Iraq may be a bad idea also might be reasons aid to Africa is a bad idea. Primarily my point was that putting troops on the ground in Darfur is problematic for many of the same reasons that Iraw is problematic. The Janjaweed are muslim arabs. I think that is apples to apples and realize it was beyond the scope of your initial comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
As for comparing the Sudan to Iraq, those are also two different issues. If the end result is to maximize human rights in the area, engaging in Sudan is clear, to me. It doesn't require toppling a government, replacing it with a puppet government, and won't destabilize the region, thereby emperiling more people. In fact, it could bring more stability to the region.
Hard to argue your first point because I can't accept the premise that our goal is ever to maximize human rights if what you mean by engage is put troops on the ground. For reasons that many on the left have articulated well, if that is really the goal then there is a universe of places where we could potentially act and we should be asking which places and why. The point is that regardless of our reasons for going, we will be facing an armed militia who will not be happy to see us. While of course it is true that they could never being to challenge us on a conventional field of battle, they will surely be smart enough to know that they can wage a gueriila war such as being waged in Bagdad and outlast us. When the casualties start mounting there is it not fair to ask, as we are asking in Iraq, why a Sudanese life is worth an American life?

Your points about toppling a government are not germaine to what we are talking about. In Iraq we sucessfully toppled the government, it is the aftermath that is a disaster. In the Sudan, the disaster already exists. So it is apples to apples to ask how we will be recieved in a power vaccum where there is currently a sectarian civil war ongoing and what, if anything, we will or can do to alter the vacuum. If we don't try to set up a "puppet government" then all we are doing is forestalling the resumption of hostilities that will inevitably follow when we leave. Why would you believe that we can affect any permanent solution in Darfur, and if you do not, why would you willing to expend your taxes and the lives of other there? Maybe you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
In Afghanistan, we were attacked, and our need to preserve our own security demanded a response.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. When did Afghanistan attack us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
In Iraq, our security did not demand an invasion, and later Bush (and many others, like yourself if I recall correctly), then tried to make it sound like a humanitarian issue. No question Sadaam was brutal, but you also have to calculate the costs to Iraqis of removing Sadaam. As we have discussed before, I think the clear outcome was instability in the region which is now heading towards full blown civil war (and millions of deaths, along with more contempt for the US). There are a lot of factors at play in each decision.
First, many, including me, believed that our security did demand an invasion because there was a dictator who possessed WMD, was hostile to the United States, had shown him self over a very long period of time to be impervious to influence by other means, and who was paying Palistinians to carry out suicide attacks. The though process was that it was only a very small leap to image that one who would pay a terrorist to blow himself up might also employ a terrorist to deliver a WMD to a US city. Post 9-11, we began to understand that we could not let a threat like that gather and wait for it to come to fruition before responding because the result would be so terrible. This is the sole reason we invaded Iraq, notwithstanding the mention of other collateral benefits, such as human rights benefits.

Upon finding no WMD, the focus of the argument changed (for me and others) to the idea that we had now "broken and bought" Iraq, so to speak, and that it would be both be wrong and against our interests to abandon it so as to leave it worse, both for Iraqis and for us, than when we found it. What I, and apparently those who should have known better, underestimated was our ability to stabilize a state that had only been prevented from having civil war by Saddam's (a Sunni) ability to subjucate and oppress the Shia majority. I underestimated the thirst on each side to re-fight that war. I had assumed that they would welcome an opportunity for republican government. So far I was wrong. I don't think that outcome was ever "clear" as you say and is only so in hind sight, but yes we have already discussed that.

I think that if you want to analyse any of this from a purely humanitarian perspective, then I would actually agree that we could impose ourselves in Darfur and as long as we are there the humanitarian interests of the non-Baggara peoples will be advanced. Mean while, US troops will probably die and Janjaweed will probably die and, no doubt, the White House will be picked by people carrying signs saying "The Janjaweed never Attacked Us!" and Cindy Sheehan will appear to explain who W and his oil buddies are enriched by all of this. I'm not really exaggerating much. Since we are calculating costs, as you suggest, I think it is fair to wonder why one US Solider ought to die in the Sudan when we have no interest there at all.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo
UtahDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2006, 06:30 PM   #45
UtahDan
Senior Member
 
UtahDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
UtahDan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
LOL. Hey UtahDan and Archaea: thanks for so carefully articulating "my position" for me when I stated I have no desire to do so. Straw men can be a lot of fun, eh?
1. I was talking to Archaea, not you.

2. I was not characterizing your position, just making an observation about the beliefs of some based on a comment Archaea had made.

3. When I erect a strawman you will never know it or see it coming because I will have used all of my evil lawyer powers to disguise it. BWAHAHAHAHAH!
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo
UtahDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 05:15 AM   #46
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan View Post
Actually, I'm oversimplying for the same reasons a mother bird chews up the worm before she gives it to her chicks. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Actually, what I was doing was moving to a larger point than the one that you started with, not trying to comparing curing AIDS to regime change directly only. Nevertheless, I think that to the extent we do anything in the realm of foreign intervention it is fair to examine the over-arching reasons we do so, making comparison on that basis fair. I can't really compare curing AIDS in the US to intervening in Iraq for example, but I think I could compare the Iraq war to any affirmative steps we take to aid Africa and ask whether or not the reasons Iraq may be a bad idea also might be reasons aid to Africa is a bad idea. Primarily my point was that putting troops on the ground in Darfur is problematic for many of the same reasons that Iraw is problematic. The Janjaweed are muslim arabs. I think that is apples to apples and realize it was beyond the scope of your initial comments.
You are all over the place here. You go from saying we can compare AIDS in Africa to Iraq to a sudden shift to Darfur. Let's try to keep this thread a bit more focused or the conversation will quickly become unmanageable (it is already approaching that level, and my post here may not help as I respond to the tangential issues you raise in your post). Explain how attempting to cure AIDS in Africa is comparable to putting troops on the ground in Iraq and toppling their government. With AIDS, you are dealing with education, collaborative efforts with African governments, donations to foreign governments to combat a disease, and a race to find a cure before 120 million people die from the disease. You say we should ask if the "reasons Iraq may be a bad idea also might be the reasons aid to Africa is a bad idea." Of course, once again you get off the topic by generalizing the debate (which isn't about all aid to Africa but specifically about aid for curing AIDS). Show me why the reasons Iraq is bad are the same reasons trying to cure AIDS is bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by utahdan
Hard to argue your first point because I can't accept the premise that our goal is ever to maximize human rights if what you mean by engage is put troops on the ground. For reasons that many on the left have articulated well, if that is really the goal then there is a universe of places where we could potentially act and we should be asking which places and why. The point is that regardless of our reasons for going, we will be facing an armed militia who will not be happy to see us. While of course it is true that they could never being to challenge us on a conventional field of battle, they will surely be smart enough to know that they can wage a gueriila war such as being waged in Bagdad and outlast us. When the casualties start mounting there is it not fair to ask, as we are asking in Iraq, why a Sudanese life is worth an American life?
This, again, is dealing with a secondary issue to the issue I am raising here, but I will say that obviously intervention is a difficult issue. The US cannot be involved in every human rights issue throughout the world. It simply isn't practical. That said, I think most would agree that there does come a line where US intervention does become justified and necessary. Where that line is probably cannot be clearly defined, any more than terrorism can be defined, and it will vary from person to person. So, sticking to the topic, I find it obvious that the potential for 120 million AIDS related deaths (most of which will occur in Africa) within the next 25 years IS worthy of intervention. I wouldn't be at all surprised, by the way, if 125 million deaths is more than the total number of people who have died in every war ever fought.

Quote:
Your points about toppling a government are not germaine to what we are talking about. In Iraq we sucessfully toppled the government, it is the aftermath that is a disaster. In the Sudan, the disaster already exists. So it is apples to apples to ask how we will be recieved in a power vaccum where there is currently a sectarian civil war ongoing and what, if anything, we will or can do to alter the vacuum. If we don't try to set up a "puppet government" then all we are doing is forestalling the resumption of hostilities that will inevitably follow when we leave. Why would you believe that we can affect any permanent solution in Darfur, and if you do not, why would you willing to expend your taxes and the lives of other there? Maybe you don't.
How can you seriously try to separate the toppling of the government from the aftermath? Isn't that like saying, "Well, we successfully started our campfire, you can't focus on the fact that it burned down the forest." The two issues go hand in hand. Toppling a government isn't difficult. We could topple every government in the world tomorrow if we wanted to. The aftermath IS the issue. Then what? The aftermath we are talking about is the aftermath of US involvement. In Iraq, our involvement has created a disaster. In Sudan, there is no aftermath yet because we have not yet acted. We do need to be asking the questions you are asking (such as what a peace would look like and how it would be attainable) and then we need to be working towards attaining such a peace. Turning a blind eye is hardly the solution, since the aftermath of that decision is certain: millions more dead. At least with intervention there is a chance. What chance is there under your "plan?" It is the same reason I think we need to stay in Iraq now as opposed to immediate withdrawal. One has no chance, the other has some, albeit slim. I thought you supported staying in Iraq for the same reason. Why the fatalism with Darfur and not with Iraq?


Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. When did Afghanistan attack us?
When did I say Afghanistan attacked us? I said we were attacked (passive voice, assigns no subject) and I said that attack required a response. Those responsible happened to be in Afghanistan at the time (which is not the same as saying Afghanistan attacked us). Certainly you understand that terrorists are frequently not state actors, don't you?



Quote:
First, many, including me, believed that our security did demand an invasion because there was a dictator who possessed WMD, was hostile to the United States, had shown him self over a very long period of time to be impervious to influence by other means, and who was paying Palistinians to carry out suicide attacks. The though process was that it was only a very small leap to image that one who would pay a terrorist to blow himself up might also employ a terrorist to deliver a WMD to a US city. Post 9-11, we began to understand that we could not let a threat like that gather and wait for it to come to fruition before responding because the result would be so terrible. This is the sole reason we invaded Iraq, notwithstanding the mention of other collateral benefits, such as human rights benefits.
How small does that leap appear now? By the way, for all the rhetoric I hear about "not letting a threat like that gather and wait for it to come to fruition," I have yet to hear an explanation for why other proponents of that viewpoint, and I imagine yourself included, do not favor an invasion of N. Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Quote:
Upon finding no WMD, the focus of the argument changed (for me and others) to the idea that we had now "broken and bought" Iraq, so to speak, and that it would be both be wrong and against our interests to abandon it so as to leave it worse, both for Iraqis and for us, than when we found it. What I, and apparently those who should have known better, underestimated was our ability to stabilize a state that had only been prevented from having civil war by Saddam's (a Sunni) ability to subjucate and oppress the Shia majority. I underestimated the thirst on each side to re-fight that war. I had assumed that they would welcome an opportunity for republican government. So far I was wrong. I don't think that outcome was ever "clear" as you say and is only so in hind sight, but yes we have already discussed that.
Clear as a bell!

Quote:
I think that if you want to analyse any of this from a purely humanitarian perspective, then I would actually agree that we could impose ourselves in Darfur and as long as we are there the humanitarian interests of the non-Baggara peoples will be advanced. Mean while, US troops will probably die and Janjaweed will probably die and, no doubt, the White House will be picked by people carrying signs saying "The Janjaweed never Attacked Us!" and Cindy Sheehan will appear to explain who W and his oil buddies are enriched by all of this. I'm not really exaggerating much. Since we are calculating costs, as you suggest, I think it is fair to wonder why one US Solider ought to die in the Sudan when we have no interest there at all.
We do have an interest there- preservation of law, order and human life and respect. I hope we do get involved, and I hope we actually have a plan before becoming involved. Whether or not Cindy Sheehan protests is not of paramount concern to me.

Last edited by Cali Coug; 12-01-2006 at 05:20 AM.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 04:38 PM   #47
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
We do have an interest there- preservation of law, order and human life and respect. I hope we do get involved, and I hope we actually have a plan before becoming involved.

Who appointed us God of the world? We have an interest in law and justice being enforced?

Do you actually believe this to be a tenet of foreign policy?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 06:11 PM   #48
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
Who appointed us God of the world? We have an interest in law and justice being enforced?

Do you actually believe this to be a tenet of foreign policy?
Sure we do. We have "an interest." That interest does not always override other interests, but it is an interest and one that we have historically viewed as important.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 06:16 PM   #49
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

And there we part company, and that is part of the failed foreign policy of the ignominious President Jimmy Carter.

Foreign policy is policy designed to address how your country interacts and protects its interests. Nations failing to protect and primarily to address its interests fail.

I can't see it any more clearly than that.

From the beginning of time, no successful culture has ever believed or conducted itself in that manner. As learned as you are, you come up with some doozies.

Study the Mongols, China, Russia, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Great Britain, Minoans, and none of those cultures ever adopted that point of view. Other than naivete, what makes you believe that perspective is valid?

How could it relate to commerce?

It's akin to stating that Standard Oil's purpose should be to promote solar power and to disregard its duties to its shareholders.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2006, 06:59 PM   #50
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
And there we part company, and that is part of the failed foreign policy of the ignominious President Jimmy Carter.

Foreign policy is policy designed to address how your country interacts and protects its interests. Nations failing to protect and primarily to address its interests fail.

I can't see it any more clearly than that.

From the beginning of time, no successful culture has ever believed or conducted itself in that manner. As learned as you are, you come up with some doozies.

Study the Mongols, China, Russia, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Great Britain, Minoans, and none of those cultures ever adopted that point of view. Other than naivete, what makes you believe that perspective is valid?

How could it relate to commerce?

It's akin to stating that Standard Oil's purpose should be to promote solar power and to disregard its duties to its shareholders.
None of those cultures ever adopted that point of view, and each of their empires subsequently collapsed. You haven't given me a great example of how their foreign policy led to preservation!

You are failing to see that promoting law and order and human rights can also promote selfish interests. Countries that observe law, order and human rights also tend to be more stable economically and, thus, better trading partners. They also pose less of a threat to our security interests. Same thing with BP, for example, who is spending billions of dollars on finding alternatives to oil. It is great for the world that they do it, and it is also great for them because then they will have a product that they can profit from at the end.

Another example: dolphin safe tuna. People got angry that tuna nets were killing dolphins, so corporations made their nets dolphin safe. You almost can't buy tuna today that doesn't say "dolphin safe" on the label. They did something good at considerable expense which then came back to be beneficial for them in the end (by attracting customers again).
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.