Waiting for Fitzgerald

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
So there is no difference between the US sending soliders into WWII where some of them forseably died, and the government intentionally infecting black men with syphillis (which they knew would could them - the Tuskegee experiement) for a study.

Pretty much the same thing?

No. But that wasn't your original example. In your original example, which concerned Iraq, I don't think there is much difference between Saddam killing his citizens to maintain power and us killing thousands of innocent Iraqis to overthrow him. The killing of Iraqi civilians may be an unfortunate but supportable evil. But they're just as dead either way. And Saddam is gone, but we're still killing Iraqis, which suggests to me that they aren't all that thrilled we're there.

That is what happens when you have moral relativists sitting around saying that we can not be the policemen of the world, we can't shove western values down other peoples throats, and if innocent people died when we were trying to stop the genocide that would be just as bad as the genocide.

I don't really think that you can blame that entirely on moral relativists. In the first place, we can't afford to be the world's policemen. In the second place, the fact that we generally choose to act only when it also suits our economic or geopolitical interests belies the notion that what has kept us from acting to stop genocide is people saying we can't shove western values down peoples' throats.

Call me cynical, but where have we been throughout the last several decades when various tribes in Africa have been engaging in widespread genocide? We've been either ignoring it, or sitting on the sidelines generally decrying it. But I haven't seen a Republican groundswell in favor of marching from Khartoum to Pretoria, spreading democracy and peace all along the path.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Either (a) you haven't looked, or (b) you rely on the NYT and its ilk for your information. There were many sources of reliable opinion-samplings both before and after our invasion that directly support the thesis that the majority - the vast majority - welcomed us, wanted us, and, in fact, still want us. If there's a difference of opinion right now, it centers on, when should we leave - and none of the favorite answers include "soon."

If I'm wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If I'm wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.

Last year's referendum proved you to be on the wrong side of the country's populace and history. Please admit the same.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's not just a political label, you know. It means that people are free and empowered to have a say in the running of their own lives - that people can affect the course of their own existence, that people aren't just slaves to some powerful thug. I guess our basic disagreement, then, starts right here - it's not only our right, it's our duty.

Doesn't that run the risk of just making us the most powerful thug of all? How do we know we are always right? And what keeps us from moving to "empowering people" to run their lives the way we say?

You don't trust the federal government to decide when a religious majority is imposing its views on our children here at home, but you trust it to go roaming free throughout the world, picking off governments it decides aren't sufficently democratic?

And how are we to pay for this? You are on record as saying that taxes are too high now. How much higher do you think they would have to be to support a standing military that numbers in the tens of millions?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In the first place, we can't afford to be the world's policemen.

As the haves, I doubt we can afford to NOT be the world's police force.

In the second place, the fact that we generally choose to act only when it also suits our economic or geopolitical interests belies the notion that what has kept us from acting to stop genocide is people saying we can't shove western values down peoples' throats.

There are so many places deserving of our attention that we have to prioritize. Why not first work on the ones whose improvement will also benefit us? That's just common sense.

Call me cynical, but where have we been throughout the last several decades when various tribes in Africa have been engaging in widespread genocide?

Listening to Clinton tell us how he felt our pain, at least in the big genocide. As for the earlier ones, I think we may have been occupied in Kosovo, or in Kuwait, or in Haiti, or in Panama, or in . . .

We've been either ignoring it, or sitting on the sidelines generally decrying it. But I haven't seen a Republican groundswell in favor of marching from Khartoum to Pretoria, spreading democracy and peace all along the path.

See Haiti, Panama, Kuwait, Grenada, Beruit, Liberia, etc. All R-led, IIRC. We don't swell lots of ground when we act, T, we just act. And then listen to the D's decry the interventions. Know what really entertains me? The new D line that Bush didn't put enough troops in Iraq. Wonder why Bush didn't put more troops into the fight? Because the D's would have had an effin' fit if he had.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Doesn't that run the risk of just making us the most powerful thug of all? How do we know we are always right?

Life is risk. I'm willing to take the chance that freeing people is generally a move in the right - i.e., the "moral" - direction. Do you just watch them die out of some fear that you might offend someone, somewhere?

And what keeps us from moving to "empowering people" to run their lives the way we say?

Hopefully, our sense of justice, and right and wrong. Given that we're taking risks and incurring costs and pain in order to free them, I'd give us a fair amount of benefit of doubt on that one.

You don't trust the federal government to decide when a religious majority is imposing its views on our children here at home, but you trust it to go roaming free throughout the world, picking off governments it decides aren't sufficently democratic?

No, I give the American people that trust. Historically, I think we've earned it.

And how are we to pay for this? You are on record as saying that taxes are too high now. How much higher do you think they would have to be to support a standing military that numbers in the tens of millions?

Cuts. Lots of cuts. Bridges for polar bears, Lawrence Welk museums, road beautification projects, subsidies for sugar beets and mohair and sex-change operations, parks and ampitheaters serving local interests and named after congresswhores, studies about mollusk pheromes, designations of state fungii, . . . I can find some slack in there somewhere, probablly enough to pay for the invasion of Syria and Iran, too.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fortunately for us all, this approach is less so.

Really? It wasn't meant to be. I'll have to tighten up my language.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wonder why Bush didn't put more troops into the fight? Because the D's would have had an effin' fit if he had.

So the Iraq mess is the D's fault? Who's leading this country, anyway?


P.S. Hi, bilmore!

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
Be honest, censored.

Okay, but since when have you become a champion of Taxwonk's right to threaten to kill the President?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
No sometimes it makes us enforcers of justice. We should missed a big chance in Rwanda. You think it was a good thinkg we stayed out of there and did not "impose our ideals on those people".

I would have been more impressed with the bona fides of the operation if we had intervened in Rwanda.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I would have been more impressed with the bona fides of the operation if we had intervened in Rwanda.

Isn't it just a Western arrogance that allows us to assume that Rawandans value life as we do? Who are we to impose life on them?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wonder why Bush didn't put more troops into the fight? Because the D's would have had an effin' fit if he had.

This, of course, clearly explains the Administration's policy on troop levels ever since the very public smackdown of (the proven accurate) Shinseki years ago.

"We'd love to send 300,000 or so troops, but that Boxer and Kennedy? Ohhhh, they're meanies. Let's try to make do with what we have."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
This, of course, clearly explains the Administration's policy on troop levels ever since the very public smackdown of (the proven accurate) Shinseki years ago.

"We'd love to send 300,000 or so troops, but that Boxer and Kennedy? Ohhhh, they're meanies. Let's try to make do with what we have."

Tell me why the admin would worry about keeping troop levels as low as possible if not for the purely political reason of not wanting to give the D's more ammo. Tell me why it would argue with its own generals, if not because it knew that the more troops it sent, the louder the D's would object, and the more chance that the right course of action would become politically unacceptable. I imagine that, left with no opposition, Bush would have sent way more people. He'd have no real reason not to.

You want to stare at your cake as you digest it. Can't do that.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think my biggest problem with your side of this discussion is that you seem determined to treat it all as a theoretical Con Law debate, and totally and doggedly ignore the idea that the costs you seem so willing to leave incurred are being incurred by real people with kids and hopes and fears.

I disagree with your postion on a theoretical level.

However, on a more practical level, I disagree with you because you seem to forget that the people you will be sending off to die for this noble cause are real people with real kids, hopes, and fears. The people you want to pay for it are also real people with real kids, hopes, and fears.

The man making the big decisions, however, seems to be more concerned with lowering the tax burden on those most able to support their kids, realize their hopes, and protect themselves from the bulk of their fears.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Tell me why the admin would worry about keeping troop levels as low as possible if not for the purely political reason of not wanting to give the D's more ammo. Tell me why it would argue with its own generals, if not because it knew that the more troops it sent, the louder the D's would object, and the more chance that the right course of action would become politically unacceptable. I imagine that, left with no opposition, Bush would have sent way more people. He'd have no real reason not to.

You want to stare at your cake as you digest it. Can't do that.

By "opposition," do you mean the Secretary of Defense?