The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[David Panzer]

Only so long as governments are not held to their own laws. And if they are not, then their lawlessness increases.

As long as governments exist, there will be a variety of black ops going somewhere with layers of plausible deniability.

[Jonas]

How many people do you want to die for your ideals? My number's lower.

I don't see anyone leaving Afghanistan yet.

As for Pakistan, with which this has created a major diplomatic incident that is screwing with the stability of the whole region... yeah, that's not going to help, either.

As for my ideals, they have nothing to do with this. I'm just proposing that a democratic government should be forced to comply with democratic principles and international law. Not really a very radical position - well, at least it used not to be radical. Like human rights.

I don't think there's a choice between invading countries and assassinating your enemies. Both are the methods of nations that do not feel bound by law or democracy. If there are rogue nations on this planet, it's the nations that behave like this.

[David Panzer]

Does it really matter how one's enemies die?

[Jonas]

Does it really matter how one's enemies die?

Is there a difference between mob justice and trial by jury?

[David Panzer]

Is there a difference between mob justice and trial by jury?

I don't see a military operation as mob justice. And I wouldn't have been upset if Bin Laden was mauled by an animal, or died from a heart attack, or however other ways someone can die.

[Doom Shepherd]

I don't see anyone leaving Afghanistan yet.

I can't exactly turn backthe clock. In any case, anybody who knows anything about Afghanistan is concerned that leaving now would let the shaky government fall back into the hands of the militants and fanatics... much the same way that ignoring them after the Soviet pullout permitted it in the first place. Nobody wants that. Leaving now would be asking still more Afghanis to die for our ideals.

As for my ideals, they have nothing to do with this. I'm just proposing that a democratic government should be forced to comply with democratic principles and international law.

Yes, ideally but why start now? I thought we were tired of leading the world.

I don't think there's a choice between invading countries and assassinating your enemies. Both are the methods of nations that do not feel bound by law or democracy. If there are rogue nations on this planet, it's the nations that behave like this.

What's your third way? "I don't know" and "do nothing" will not be accepted as valid answers.

[Jonas]

I can't exactly turn backthe clock. In any case, anybody who knows anything about Afghanistan is concerned that leaving now would let the shaky government fall back into the hands of the militants and fanatics... much the same way that ignoring them after the Soviet pullout permitted it in the first place. Nobody wants that.

No, the Afghanis want that. Because the Taliban, as terrible as they are, enjoy widespread support - and will, as long as a foreign army is occupying the country.

Leaving now would be asking still more Afghanis to die for our ideals.

No, it would be putting an end to an illegal war of occupation, and it would be what the majority of the Afghani population rightfully demand. And yeah, the new government will be terrible. The United States do not need to support it.

Yes, ideally but why start now? I thought we were tired of leading the world.

Leading the world has nothing to do with it. Not behaving like a rogue state does.

What's your third way? "I don't know" and "do nothing" will not be accepted as valid answers.

The law provides enough methods of going after criminals. And if they don't work? Well, then they don't work. Killing Osama bin Laden is not more important than upholding the principles that make one different from people like him. That's part of what being a democracy means. And if you really want to stop Osama bin Laden and similar lunatics, the only way of doing that is by robbing him of the source of his power - by no longer supporting dictatorships in the Middle East. If the United States stop interfering in the area, people there will no longer hate the United States. The secular revolutions have already deeply weakened Al Qaeda more than any invasion or killing ever did.

[Marsden]

(I wonder, in watching Babylon 5, do you support Sheridan or Clark? Sheridan fights to protect the constitution, but you don't seem to have a problem with the constitution being ignored and governments making their own rules. So is Sheridan wrong?)

Incidentally, Sheridan also had no problem inserting strike/extraction teams into the territory of "allied" governments, like the Drazi.

I was thinking if we could start another thread on this specific topic, staying in B5, I think I'd be interesting and more fun to discuss than this one. Anyone like this idea?

[Dr Maturin]

Just to be sure...you do realize that that song/video is making fun of, not celebrating America, don't you?

Sorry, conservatives are too uneducated, unenlightened and unsophisticated to pick up on such subtleties.

As we do with all such media, we take it and use it as our own meme.

I can appreciate the intended message as comedy, but people who genuinely believe that the U.S. should take a non-interventionist approach to geo-political events are naive at best.

Enough...I never should've gotten into this except for somebody posting a mocking song as though it were a song praising the USA. Perhaps if they had listened to the entire thing...

Jan, I find the above quote to be much more provocative than some of the relatively mild stuff you've chided others for in this very thread.

[David Panzer]

I think the only time that the US should intervene is when the US' sovereignty and/or security is threatened or attacked.

[Doom Shepherd]

No, the Afghanis want that. Because the Taliban, as terrible as they are, enjoy widespread support

[citation needed]

And if you really want to stop Osama bin Laden and similar lunatics, the only way of doing that is by robbing him of the source of his power - by no longer supporting dictatorships in the Middle East. If the United States stop interfering in the area, people there will no longer hate the United States.

And if I pooped gold, I'd be a billionaire. However, in the real world, neither of these things ever happen. (Incidentally, I love how nobody ever seems to mind when any other nation other than the US projects force. It's so marvellously hypocritical, especially when the truth of the matter is that the complainers would project their own force, for exactly the same reasons, given the opportunity.)

Unfortunately, the policy of aliances with jerkasses resulted from the necessity of containing a greater evil throughout the days of the cold war... a conflict with a jerkass nation whom we'd previously been allied with in order to destroy an even BIGGER jerkass nation. You remember... back almost a century ago right about the time people started realizing that the whole "we can't get involved in a fight a whole continent away" idea was rapidly dying off as the planet shrank?

But I do like how you manage to insist that we should let people have the governments that they want, AND not support them, at the same time with no apparent cognitive dissonance. Do you, by any chance, have the Balseraph Resonance?

I notice that we've turned against no less than 5 dictatorial regimes in the region... meanwhile, our Left is still sucking up to the Dictator of Cuba, not to mention a few other wannabes in Latin America. (Yeah, I know, Socialist Dictators aren't "real" dictators.)

The secular revolutions have already deeply weakened Al Qaeda more than any invasion or killing ever did.

To quote Willy Wonka: "Strike that, reverse it."

Or to draw the obvious Koshism: "The pebbles must be dislodged BEFORE the avalanche can begin." Our effective annihilation of AQ in Afghanistan, and our "assistance" (interference) to those who are working against it in the Arab world, helped embolden the type of people who would fight against it.

(At least, we hope so. The "secularists" may turn out not all really to have been that. We already suspect Iran of involvement in some of these revolutions, and we know how "secular" they are. HEY! maybe someone should tell IRAN to stop meddling with its neighbors! I won't hold my breath to hear ya rattle off THAT one.)

[Doom Shepherd]

I was thinking if we could start another thread on this specific topic, staying in B5, I think I'd be interesting and more fun to discuss than this one. Anyone like this idea?

Might be entertaining... if only to dispell illusions like the one addressed there.

[Doom Shepherd]

I think the only time that the US should intervene is when the US' sovereignty and/or security is threatened or attacked.

You do realize how broadly such things can be defined.

[David Panzer]

You do realize how broadly such things can be defined.

Well, yeah. What's the military industrial complex to do for work if the US isn't involved in a war

[Jonas]

[citation needed]

Well, I'm currently writing from a 56k connection, so I can't link to any of the dozens of articles about the subject, but my statement was certainly not particularly controversial.

And if I pooped gold, I'd be a billionaire. However, in the real world, neither of these things ever happen.

I'm not actually sure what you're talking about here.

(Incidentally, I love how nobody ever seems to mind when any other nation other than the US projects force. It's so marvellously hypocritical, especially when the truth of the matter is that the complainers would project their own force, for exactly the same reasons, given the opportunity.)

I think it's hilarious that you think no-one does. Why do the supporters of bully nations always think they're the only ones being picked on? Why are people protesting similar tactics by Europe, Australia, Canada, India, China...?

Unfortunately, the policy of aliances with jerkasses resulted from the necessity of containing a greater evil throughout the days of the cold war...

A greater evil? You know, the Soviet Union was pretty rotten, but not everyone in the world buys the old Cold War propaganda of the Evil Empire - not given what the United States did in the Cold War themselves. Most people think both sides were equally, or almost equally, insane.

a conflict with a jerkass nation whom we'd previously been allied with in order to destroy an even BIGGER jerkass nation.

And what precisely would you say made these nations "jerkass" nations? That they did not obey international or national laws, indiscriminately killed civilians in wars of conquest, eliminated their enemies without trial... all things that you advocate as perfectly justified for the United States.

But I do like how you manage to insist that we should let people have the governments that they want, AND not support them, at the same time with no apparent cognitive dissonance.

Why, where's the problem? Where is the contradiction in thinking it wrong to interfere, especially by force, and thinking it wrong to support dictators? Is the only alternative to invading a country giving its dictators weapons and support?

I notice that we've turned against no less than 5 dictatorial regimes in the region... meanwhile, our Left is still sucking up to the Dictator of Cuba, not to mention a few other wannabes in Latin America. (Yeah, I know, Socialist Dictators aren't "real" dictators.)

It's rather ridiculous to refer to South American countries (I presume you mean Venezuela and a couple of others) as dictatorships. That their democratically elected governments do not do the bidding of the United States does not make them dictatorships, no matter how much propaganda the media present. Neither does it make them perfect. And they're certainly not socialists - Social Democrats, perhaps.

Cuba, unfortunately, is not a free country. It is not the hell it is often presented as, but it's certainly not a model of what a country should be.

Or to draw the obvious Koshism: "The pebbles must be dislodged BEFORE the avalanche can begin." Our effective annihilation of AQ in Afghanistan, and our "assistance" (interference) to those who are working against it in the Arab world, helped embolden the type of people who would fight against it.

That's... well, that's not really true. The revolutions in the Middle East are not in support of American interference - in fact, much of the anger is there because these dictatorships have been propped up (and are still being propped up, in many cases) by the United States.

(At least, we hope so. The "secularists" may turn out not all really to have been that. We already suspect Iran of involvement in some of these revolutions, and we know how "secular" they are. HEY! maybe someone should tell IRAN to stop meddling with its neighbors! I won't hold my breath to hear ya rattle off THAT one.)

Why do you assume that such tactics are only condemned when they come from the United States? This isn't us versus them - not everyone is thinking in binaries. You seem to have rather strange preconceptions about what other people want.