• SeanRenaud said on Nov 12, 2006....

  Yes we have a responsibility to end tyranny.  Damn near every major inteligence group at the time believed Saddam had WMD's hell HE CLAIMED to have WMD's. 
   
  We have a responsibility to take any and all appropriate actions to make the rest of the world just like America.  Now what is an appropriate action is what we should be debating, obviously war shouldn't be the first option.

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 12, 2006....

  Quite simply yes.

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 12, 2006....

  The point I was trying to make was that you can't force democracy on other people and think it is all going to work out. People naturally defy anything forced upon them, good or bad. We should be worrying more about people who are starving, are being constantly driven from there home by militias, and aren't strong enough to fight for themselves. We have a greater responsibility to help these people than to force what we see as the superior form of government on others.

• momsrock said on Nov 12, 2006....

  I think the US does have a responsibility to the rest of the world. The "hotspots" in this world have the same things in common. These areas are melting pots of religions, ethnic differences and different political ambitions, causing deadly disputes that drag out for centuries. The only way to end the constant problems is for someone else to step in and provide stability for them to get on their feet. Obviously, the US is the prime candidate. It is the prime candidate because the same thing could have just as easily happened here. What prevented it? What prevented hundreds of years of fighting between different religious groups and ethnic differences here? Democracy. That is the only thing that has set the US apart from the Balkans and the Middle East. So yes, the US does have the responsibility to step in.
   
   
  People might not agree with that, but this country could have just as easily spent the last 200 years fighting over religious differences and having one tyrant after another. We owe it to the rest of the world to give them a democratic government as well. As for Saddam Hussein... he should have been taken out the first time we were there! He's lucky he got another 15 years to murder. Hang him.
   
   
   

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 12, 2006....

  The disputes in this country have been deadly in the past (civil war, KKK, so on). Democracy isn't what kept the US out of religious wars, it is freedom of religion in this country that kept us out of it and this was created since that is the reason a lot of the colonist came here for. If this country were to go completely democratic we would have a lot more divisions based on religion, ethniticity, and so on since in a true democracy the majority rules, even if it isn't what is best for the country. Obviously in the US, it would be Christianity supressing the other religions. In fact, our government is a republic, not a democracy in the true sense of the words.
   
  I still have to disagree with you based on the fact that you can't force things on other people even if you think it is what is best for them. Even with the power we have in the world, we should be leading by example and helping people without imposing our beliefs on them. Lead by example so to say. In the last century we have imposed our beliefs on other people more than actually helping the world see what our style of government has to offer. We actually helped put the former Iranian government in power, the one that the Iranian people rebelled against and then created the one we have so many problems with today. We did that all because the government they were forming (based on the democratic system) was too socialist for us to handle in the time of the Cold War. Same with Saddam's party- we helped put them in power. We ditched out of Afganistan after it no longer served our interest to help them (after the USSR left) and left the country to disintegrate into civil war. That's when the  Taliban took over and allowed Al Queda to train in the country. What I'm trying to say here is that by maintaining a policy of forcing our system on other countries we have created even larger threats to modern day democracy. We may see ourselves as justified in what we do but the people we are trying to help see us more and more as facist.

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 12, 2006....

  @Nobody:  All solid points.
   
  As far as us forcing our will I don't believe that we should force our will.  I'm saying that we should protect the helpless.  ANY time we hear about some dictator mass murdering his own citizens we should sweep in kick some ass ask the locals what they need aside from that guy being dead give it to them and step out.
   
  In a place like say China we should just keep whining and probably limit trade with them and other sanctions.  When it comes to a country like say the UK we should lead by example.  Its a matter of appropriate action.
   
  Yes we live in a democratic republic.  Why because real democracy is too fucking slow.  Its immpractical when dealing with more than five people.  There are other obvious reasons behind it but that is one of the biggest.

• momsrock said on Nov 12, 2006....

  The disputes in the US have not continued for hundreds of years...that is the difference. The way our government was set up is the reason we have not had the problems the other areas, like the Middle East have had. That is why we have a responsibility. These countries will have an opportunity to form their government however they choose. They are righting their own policies and declarations. We provide the stability until they do. We give an example, but when the US leaves they can do whatever they want. I don't see how that is forcing ourselves on them.

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 12, 2006....

  The thing about sweeping in and taking out dictators who are mass murders is that we can't take them all out, even if we are the most powerful nation we don't have the resources needed to do so and I think this is starting to show in Iraq. We can't do it with the limited world support we have either and part of the lack of support on the world stage comes from the results of our past actions. That's why we need to lead more by example and helping countries like a lot of the African countries that need our help and want it. Part of the reason we don't put in as much of an effort there as in Iraq is because they have nothing to offer us and that just makes us look like greedy bastards.
   
   Sanctions, like you said, are often a better way to go, but if the sanctions are too severe and widespread is causes even more division in the world which has the potential to create another world war. Some say there is no real division caused by the sanctions but I have to disagree. Look at how much Iran's, China's, and Venezuela's economies have become dependent on each other since we often hand out these countries and others sanctions too often.

• momsrock said on Nov 12, 2006....

  It does make us look greedy. But, what happens to the US without the Middle East? You have to protect what you need. We could sit back and let the world go to hell but how much world support would we get then? You do what you can with what you have and unfortunately the Middle East has the biggest impact on the US.

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 12, 2006....

  We don't have the resources partially because we don't want them.  We had a much larger military as of say 20 years ago before Clinton started shrinking it.  As far as Iraq goes you could argue that this proves we don't have the power, to me it just proves the resolve of our enemies.  A lot of the problems we are having here aren't with the locals its with terrorists who have come there to stymie us.
   
  I agree that leading by example is preferable in some cases.  To me sometimes that isn't enough.  Its like when I see friends, family neighbors I try to lead by example (and follow theirs when they are doing soemthign better than I am.  Because that is the appropriate action in those cases.  If I saw a neighbor beating his wife I would call the police.  If the police were unwilling to help I would either confront the man myself or with a group of my friends.  I wouldn't invite him over to spend time with me and my S/O in order to lead by example.  I would stop the problem by whatever means necessary.
   
  I agree that sanctions cause divisions.  At some point however you have to stop worrying about hurting somebody's feelings and instead at the very least stop associating with the individual.

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 12, 2006....

  @momsrock
   
  It's forcing our system on them because, especially in Iraq, the Islamic religion calls for theocracy, not democracy, and we wouldn't allow them to form that style of government. So in all reality we don't allow them to choose whatever form of government the want. The thing we tend to forget is that there is a way to combine the two but we overlook that because the main working example is in Iran.
   
  Actually we have had a constant rift in this country between the black and white communities as well as the American government and Native Americans since this country was created and into modern times. It has been off and on again violent since the American revolution so you can't say it is non-existent. I give you credit that it hasn't excalated into all out war because of our style of government, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
   
  I think the current situation in the Middle East is like what happened during the Middle Ages. It is a sensitive situation that our constant meddling with has made much worse. The leadership in America, once not hated by a lot of Muslims in the Middle East, has created a lot of the animosity towards us through our foriegn policies of trying to police the world. You can't forget that the US was originally against the creation of Israel which is where much of the tension in the Middle East has come from. We were against it because of the possibilites of future violence and conflict it would cause in the area, but the UN and Britian were for it and at that time there was little we could do. If we would have had the power we had then, Israel wouldn't exist, and also if we would have remained neutral on the Israeli issue I don't think the situation would have escalated this far. Now we do have a responsibility to protect Israel even if it means destabalizing the region. The terrorists aren't against us because of our religion or idea of government, they are against us because of our constant influence and presence in there homeland.

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 12, 2006....

  We have what we need in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico if we would be willing to reform our use of energy to include other means., especially the use of ethonal based fuels like Brazil. It is also our need for oil that first caused our interest in the Middle East and we weren't as 'politically correct' then as we are now. It's not what we are now that matters there though, it is how we were and how we were had tendecies to destabalize the region. Continuing the same policies of influence in the region will only repeat history.
   
  It's more than hurting someones feelings with the sanctions. By seperating oursleves from these countries we lose any credibility we would have had, and like I said cause divisions in the world. It goes beyond just trying to influence a single country when these countries grow together independant of the nations that put sanctions on them. The divisions between countries in the world has been the overlying cause of WWI, WWII, and the Cold War- so what next?

• momsrock said on Nov 12, 2006....

  But, we won't be in Iraq forever. We are giving them something to stand on until they can form their own government. In my opinion, the US is treating Iraq like kids fighting. You step in, hold them apart until they can come to an agreement. Then, you step out. That is all that is happening.
   
   
  There isn't as big of an issue between black and white as everyone seems to think. There are specific instances, fueled by the media, that spark controversy. But, the average every day life in America is not centered around race. And we don't blow up city blocks because there was a white person on the corner. I keep hearing about the real race issue existing in the deep South. I have to say that I have never had a problem. I am white as can be with a black son. We walked through parts of Atlanta that I never care to see again. The people there went out of their way to talk to us...even with my blonde hair and blue eyes.  And I have honestly never experienced anything different. So I would be hesitant to agree with you on the scale of that issue.
   
   
  I hated my parents for constant meddling as a child too. But that didn't keep them from disciplining me. If we can stop the fighting and give them a chance, we owe them that. In my opinion, the other countries should be more involved so we don't have to. Some people think that it is not our problem, but we share one world. It is our problem. I'm not saying the US is always right, but at least we're trying...

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 12, 2006....

  By comparing the Iraqi citizens to children fighting you give the condescending view that seems to influence American foreign policy. It is what has created much of the problems in the Middle East today. We wouldn't even need to be in Iraq if we hadn't helped Saddam's party get power in Iraq in the first place. But we keep trying to fix the region using the same techniques as before only on a larger scale in turn making the problem escalate. Plus there's a difference meddling in a child's business than meddling in a culture's business that is far older than our own.
   
   

• schreist said on Nov 12, 2006....

  Who decides what is tyranny?
  

• momsrock said on Nov 12, 2006....

  And I just missed my favorite show!! Damn Iraq!! It's been fun debating about this since I know NOTHING about government or politics or Iraq! But, the more I disagreed the more I learned. So I kept going... with the help of wikipedia...;) So next week if you want to debate potty training...let me know! I'm pretty quick on that though. I won't have to look up most of your terms....

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 12, 2006....

  How it seems now whatever country that is fighting against it.
   
  Don't worry, I missed mine too.

• momsrock said on Nov 12, 2006....

  I noticed your web address, is this what you write about?

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 12, 2006....

  Tyranny= Citizens who are being killed by their own government.
   
  Plus there's a difference meddling in a child's business than meddling in a culture's business that is far older than our own.
   
  No there isn't.

• Expendable said on Nov 12, 2006....

  Sean, you said "tyranny = citizens who are being killed by their own government."
   
  Would you want another country invading us over the Kent State massacre? 

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 12, 2006....

  Come on, an isolated incident of where less than a dozen people died is in no way comprable to mass executions of your people.  If you need me to put a specific number on it I'll try.  If based on the information that you have you would save more lives by invading than would be cost in the war then you should invade.  If not then no.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 13, 2006....

  ex, that's a complete red herring, as sean rightly notes.  it's not like those deaths were the intentional implementation of government policy.
  
  sean, when you say "we have a responsibility to take any and all appropriate actions to make the rest of the world just like america" i have a problem.  b/c if every nation subscribed to a similar philosophy (substituting their own nation for america in the quotation), we would increase the amount of fighting.  i think homogeniety among nations is in fact to be avoided.
  
  nobody special: i think the US has a responsibility to end terrorism directed at the US or american interests.  i think the US has a responsibility to address threats in whatever manner the sitting president deems suitable.  but as an active, aggressive force for combating communism or tyranny in military terms, no, absolutely not.
  
  1.  we haven't the right.  the government in most cases is (ostensibly) duly elected by the people.
  2.  i wouldn't want another nation thinking the same and sending a liberation force into the US.
  
  ed
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2006....

  So are we to sit back and watch as people are murdered and taken advantage of Silver?  Note I didn't say war is an appropriate action.  Appropriate action might be simply to publicly denounce an action.
   
  You wouldn't want them to do it right now under the circumstances we are in right now.  If the military unilaterally (impossible I know) turned on the citizens or if we found ourselves in the middle of a second Civil War (as many liberals keep claiming will be in soon) I would welcome any assistance any nation would give us.  I doubt we'd get any but it would be nice.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 13, 2006....

  that's unnecessarily didactic sean.  look again at what i wrote specifically to you.  you say we have a responsibility to go and make other places like us.  did you become borg over the weekend?  i mean, seriously, that's what that quoted bit sounds like.
  
  the military would never turn against US citizens.  every soldier knows that you do not follow an illegal order.  and it doesn't get any more illegal than shooting unarmed americans, so the example you cite is strictly fictional.
  
  when you say "appropriate action", sean, that phrase normally includes options up to and including armed, military responses and i refuse to believe you're a naive enough observer of politics to think otherwise.
  
  i think that the US should go where we're invited or where US interests are threatened.  and that's it.
  
  ed
  

• bloc said on Nov 13, 2006....

  @sean
  "We have a responsibility to take any and all appropriate actions to make the rest of the world just like America."
  
  That is so arrogant and bigoted that I can't believe you said it.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2006....

  Sanctions and public denouncements are also appropriate actions.  Though I do see your point.
   
  I agree that the military would never cleanly turn on the US citizens but granted I've been out for a year but last I checked they were generally pretty supportive of Bush.  IF there were a civil war broken roughly along party lines the majority of the military would likely side with the Republicans.  But lets say that they split evenly down the milddle, I still wouldn't mind help to speed things along. :-p
   
  I agree with you US interests or where we're invited.  How many people would be required for you to consider it an invitation?

• bloc said on Nov 13, 2006....

  @sean
  "second Civil War (as many liberals keep claiming will be in soon)"
  
  wtf? Did you not eat your Wheaties this morning or something?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2006....

  @bloc:  Let me rephrase that Bloc.  As many CRAZY left wing liberals claim.  I in no way meant anybody with a lick of sense. 

• bloc said on Nov 13, 2006....

  what crazy left wingers are you talking about? These generalizations get really old fast. You take a few nuts and use them to generalize about all liberals. That's lazy writing at best, deceit at worst. I could use fred phelps to generalize about conservatives but that wouldn't be honest on my part would it?
  

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 13, 2006....

  It's not just liberals trying to claim there's going to be a civil war. Some of the pro-gun people have claimed that also and having been saying so for a lot longer than the liberals. That leaves all the moderates caught in the middle.

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2006....

  @Bloc

• bloc said on Nov 13, 2006....

  What liberals are you guys talking about? Please give some names or something. I read liberal blogs all day and haven't heard any saying anything remotely close to this.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2006....

  Damnit where did my post go?
   
  @Bloc: I wouldn't mind you using a few crazies if it was making a point that was auxillary.  The point that I was making was about the fact that if the US military were against us I wouldn't mind some foriegn aid.  You might not need guns to get violent but they sure as fuck help.  I for one don't want to wage a war with UMD's I want tanks!
   
  In short I'm having a hard time finding anybody of any true affiliation who is denying this.  Its kinda like calling Mel Brooks a liberal and saying that liberals believe the government was behind 9/11.  Its a bit deceptive.  Though like I said my point wasn't anything negative about the liberals, it was rather an auxillary point to make the concept of a civil war sound believable cus in my head it isn't.  I mean as much as I hear people bitch about Bush and how he pissed on the constitution and took too much power and is controlling the votes and all that everybody for some reason still thinks the system works.  :-)  Which I suppose is good cus I have no idea which side I would fight for if somethign did jump off.

• GrapeKoolaid said on Nov 13, 2006....

  Why hasn't anyone said a peep about Niyozov?  He's the president for life in Turkmenistan.  As far as despots are concerned, he's as bad as Kim Il Sung(not Kim Jong Il, but his father, who started the cult of personality in North Korea).  Niyozov renamed the Turkmen word for "bread" after his mother.  He's got solid gold statues of himself all over the place, he's got his book in every mosque, to be read in conjunction with the Koran.  He's a remnant of Stalinist despotism, and his people are oppressed and can't read, and can't feed themselves, etc., etc...
  
  So why hasn't the US said a peep about him?  Because he's willing to play ball with the US, that's why.  He's willing to let military bases be built in his country, he's willing to let pipelines go across his country.  As long as he's playing ball with the US, he gets to eat tablescraps from the master's table, and the master leaves him alone. 
  
  Want to talk about the most oppressive govt' in the world?  Why aren't we at war with the Chinese?  Why are we letting our trade gap get bigger and bigger with them?  Why are we importing poverty and exporting wealth? 
  
  It's not about democracy, it's not about freedom.  It's about the bottom line, it's about profit margins. 
  
  I harp on this all the time, so I'll just leave it at that.  I'm sure many of you are tired of me ranting about this. 
  

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 13, 2006....

  I think GrapeKoolaid has it exactly right. Like I said before, there are much worse people than Hussein but we don't give a damn about them because they have nothing for us.

  As far as the far left liberals talking about civil war, I have actually found a few websites calling for just that, some by liberals, some by conservatives, some by libertarians, etc. I'll try and see if I can find them again and post them here. Some of the reasons they offer are actually quite ridiculous, but what else can you expect by radicals on any side. I think one of the nihilist sites was the worst.

• bloc said on Nov 13, 2006....

  "there are much worse people than Hussein but we don't give a damn about them because they have nothing for us."
  
  AND we liked hussein while he was gassing people because he was "playing ball" with us as grape put it.
  
  @nobody
  I'm sure some nutjobs say those things. The problem I had with what sean said is the way he worded it as a generalization of liberals. The constant smearing of the word liberal by placing it with crap like this is shameful. I love debating with sean because he's open minded and honest so I was shocked when he said it twice. He must be tired or something :)
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2006....

  More like I wasn't really thinking.  It was one of those times like when I say something about blacks being gangsters and rappers and perpetuating that through the media.  I'm black and obviously I don't fit into the Tupac mold.  Nor does Bill Cosby.  I was kinda hoping that those who it didn't apply to would smile and nod. 

  The only times that I get on liberals is when they are really hardcore Bush bashing because I think its gotten a point where he gets bashed for breathing.  I hate defending him.  Just like the few and far between times when I start defending various organized religions but there comes a point where it is pointless to continue bashing.
  

• NobodySpecial said on Nov 13, 2006....

  Here's an interesting test that rates your political views. Check it out- http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire. It goes into the fact that there is more than one kind of liberal, more than one type of conservative, more than one type of communist, etc.

• bloc said on Nov 13, 2006....

  "there comes a point where it is pointless to continue bashing."
  
  I don't agree with this. It's like saying there comes a time when slaves need to stop complaining about being slaves. If a serious injustice is occurring then we should continue to speak up about it. Bush's power grabs and abuses of the constitution fit this description.
  
  p.s. - I knew you didn't mean it, but I'm tired of the smearing of the term liberal. I had to make sure it didn't pass even if I knew you didn't mean it. People that don't know you like we do may read it differently.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2006....

  1st.  If the slaves were starving and dying of stupid diseases and now are just living as slaves yeah maybe they do need to stop bitching.  That's not the point I was trying to make.  My point as I thought I'd said was that some people get mad at Bush for don't basic things like breathing.  I don't mean you but its gotten to the point where liberals bash Bush just like conservatives bash Clinton.  Oh shit it seems like he's breathing!
   
  P.S.: Liberal and conservative are both terms worthy of 90% of the smearing they get.  Thanks for knowing I wasn't trying to be offensive though.

• bloc said on Nov 14, 2006....

  i don't buy the idea that he bashing of bush and clinton are equivalent. One wasn't seeking dictatorial powers, didn't start an unnecessary war that lasted over 10 times longer than predicted and looks worse every day, didn't get our country deep into debt, etc, etc, etc.
  

Comment on "Ending Tyranny and Communism?"

Currently tagged	foriegn policy us war politics democracy diplomacy foreign policy iraq (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously