American dominance?
Don Quixote on Jan 27 2011 at 7:51 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
[Because this thread is still going strong, I've moved it up to the top of the blog this morning -- Bookworm.]
Zachriel raises a new and very interesting point:
“A strong an prosperous America leading free nations is a good thing. Dominance of one nation by another is undemocratic and inherently unstable. If, as many Americans agree, Washington is detached from the concerns of the people of Aberdeen or Bangor, then why would anyone expect Washington to be able to run the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah.”
I think he’s right that America is ill-suited to run things in Kandahar or Fallujah. Of course, I’ve always been uncomfortable with American intervention in other countries, witness my opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But, if intervention into other countries is necessary to protect Americans against future 9/11s maybe it is a necessary evil even if we don’t run things all that well in Kandahar and Fallujah. Every country has a right to defend itself, a right that, in its execution, may necessarily extend beyond its borders. Israel, for example, should not be required to wait until Iran drops an atomic bomb on it before acting to prevent that from happening.
What do you all think about this?
Email This Post To A Friend
268 Responses to “American dominance?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
DQ, while I appreciate your yeoman effort to engage Z and use him as a springboard for discussions here, it should be obvious by now that he has little regard for the exact use of language. To wit, we have no idea how dominance is either “undemocratic” and “inherently unstable.” We’re just supposed to accept the pontification as though it were self-evident. (Nor is dominance itself defined. For example, we dominate Canada economically. Is this supposed to be bad or is it, rather, the natural disparity that exists between something huge and something small?)
Regarding the first, Z assumes that we all know what he means by democracy (which he seems to hold in great awe) and regarding the second, I refer him to Rome’s 500-year domination of Gaul. We all recall how inherently unstable that dominance was.
As for Kandahar and Fallujah, I don’t recall that the U.S. has set up a puppet government that reports to Washington in either. Both countries have a central government that often disputes U.S. policy. Some dominance!
The missing realization here is that the United States in under no obligation to treat any foreign country as an extension of itself. It certainly is wonderful to empathize, but the problems of “dominated” countries are secondary to the main goal of U.S. foreign policy: keep the United States safe.
Ah, Charles, Zachriel is entitled to his opinion that “Dominance of one nation by another is undemocratic and inherently unstable” and you are entitled to ask for a definition of terms (though I hope we don’t get bogged down in definitional disputes again). I took him to mean political dominance, to such a severe extent that the internal democracy of the “subject” nation is upset. I also took him to mean “unstable” in the sense that the “subject” nation will bristle at being dictated to or dominated by an external country and will, at some point attempt to reassert its independence.
The kind of “dominance” you describe is relatively benign and I don’t believe is what he’s talking about. Of course, he can speak for himself; I’m just saying how I read him in deciding to make a post of this.
By the way, I agree completely with your last paragraph, although an awful lot of folks on the left would argue the one-world perspective that would make America beholden to, oh, say, the U.N. or the World Court, or some other supra-national body.
Remember, the US went into Iraq to take over the oil! Now that the war is over, no doubt we are pillaging that country of all its oil. Right? Oh…wait a minute.
Fact is, somebody will be the dominant power in the world. This isn’t a kumbaya world we are talking about. So, if not the U.S….who? China? Russia? Cuba? Venezuela, Iran….who? Who do you prefer?
This may sound harsh but when it comes to self defense I much prefer the blowing up to be done on another continent. I realize that in some minds that no longer counts as defense but, for myself and my children, I appreciate that our military is standing between us and those who consider 3,000 people who went to work one morning to be a good start and doing it in a way that has left the average citizen’s life remarkably un-interrupted.
Just a small book plug to make here – I just started reading Power, Faith, and Fantasy by Michael Oren. The book is about the United States’ dealings with the “Middle East” (i.e, the Arab World) since 1776 to the present day.
I’m less than 100 pages into this 600+ page book; However, it is so far very fascinating to read. Right now I am in the middle of reading about the US Navy (or the start of a Navy) and the US Presidents in dealing with the Rulers on the Barbary Coast (remember the Marine Corps Hymn? “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli . .”).
Some of the descriptions about that part of the world haven’t changed much – Thomas Jeffeson described the Barbary Coast as a “pettifogging nest of robbers.” Well, okay, we are a little more “PC” in our descriptions today. But doesn’t that sounds very much like the coast of Somalia?
One ruler on the Barbary coast said:
“It was . . written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their [Muslims'] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”
That was written in 1785; well, it sounds like it could have been written just yesterday!
It is also interesting to note that many in the early years of the United States as an independent country were in favor of just paying bribes to the Barbary Rulers rather than waging war – they argued that it would be “cheaper.” (I guess Democrats were chickens back then too?) And, yes, waging war against the Barbary Coast was much more expensive; But only if one views the situation in terms of strictly dollar figures. The cost of paying bribes was that the demands continued to increase each year, US trade was often disrupted as demands increased (How to get an increase in payments? Take another US tradeship “hostage”, make the sailors of that ship “guests” in your prison. That’s how.), other nations viewed the US as weak, etc.
Once the US got serious about sending warships and showing those despots that the US was serious about protecting its citizens and their cargoes the bribes decreased and eventually stopped. (US warships and troops showing up outside a ruler’s city with his exiled brother wanting the crown tend to make that ruler be more “generous” in dealing with the US – cool, no?)
The bottom line, DQ, is this:
The United States has two options: Engage in the world or remain/become isolationist.
As they saw back in the day of the Barbary Pirates; our grandparents and parents learned from two world wars during the 20th century; and we, hopefully, learned from 9-11; isolationism is not possible, the world will eventually come “knocking” on our door. We will have to answer that knock.
So, in reality, that leaves us with only two choices – enage the world on others’ terms or engage the world on OUR terms.
Personally, I prefer OUR terms. Selfish? yep, it is. But it is also self-presevationism.
And, unfortunately, DQ, our terms must sometimes include “invading” another’s territory. It would have been far better for the US to invade and take Saddam out during the first Persian Gulf war rather than letting him stay in power for another decade; and not just better for the US (maybe 9-11 would not have happened?), it would have been better for the Iraqi people to not have suffered/be murdered during those 10+ years.
Let’s also not confuse “dominance” with guidance!
Would a Russia have helped to rebuild Germany or Japan after the war, or would it have been like the Allies at the end of WWI, just setting the stage for another war? Would a Russian or Chinese reaction to 9-11 have been “nicer”? Would another world power have “stepped up” and helped the Ethnic Chinese being kicked out of Vietnam, or in Indonesia; would another world power have tried to prevent the “ethnic cleansing” of the Balkins (didn’t we see Dutch troops, under the UN and the EU authorities, just “sit by” while hundreds were murdered in the former Yugoslavia?) Did the US “dominate” Western Europe the same way the the Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe? Hopefully, people should answer no to that last question.
Does the US make mistakes? Do we invade when another route would have worked? Sure, but, in general, the US methods/terms are often better than the methods/terms laid out by other powers; and not just better for the US. The problem is that no one can have all the answers – people are far to conplex for simple answers.
P.S. sorry, only meant to do a small book plug and got carried away!
If a country is trying to break you, you have every right to try to break them first.
In fact, you (the national government) not only have the right to do so, you have an obligation to do so, for your citizenry. If a national government is supposed to do *anything*, it is supposed to protect its people from foreign harm.
> If, as many Americans agree, Washington is detached from the concerns of the people of Aberdeen or Bangor, then why would anyone expect Washington to be able to run the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah.”
It might or might not be in your best interests to “fix things” after a war or an intervention. Sicne when did war ever require that in the aftermath of victory, you are *required* to “run the affairs” of whom you defeated? They came after you first; you went in there and stopped them by smashing around and defeating them. Take a look around, mutter “what a mess”, and get the hell out. That’s a perfectly fine solution. Sometimes you hang around, sometimes you don’t. Depends on each case.
Obama’s a tough one to figure out, sometimes. It appears his administration was solidly involved in the Stuxnet Virus attack on Iran’s centrifuges, setting their nuclear program back years. That was an act of war.
Don Quixote: Every country has a right to defend itself, a right that, in its execution, may necessarily extend beyond its borders.
That’s correct. Under international laws, a nation has the right to self-defense, even if that means invading another country. However, preemptive attacks are normally considered an act of aggression (though a case can be made under some limited circumstances). Even a tin-horn dictator will pay lip service to self-defense, whether to justify a war, or to justify internal suppression.
Don Quixote: witness my opposition to the invasion of Iraq
Most countries consider the invasion of Iraq to have been a violation of the laws of war, and an overreaction to 9-11. Not only did this undercut U.S. credibility, but it undermined the very alliances that were essential for the actual fight against international terrorism.
Charles Martel: he has little regard for the exact use of language
Quite the contrary.
Charles Martel: Nor is dominance itself defined.
It was in response to a question posed by suek. The term seemed clear enough to others.
Don Quixote: I took him to mean political dominance, to such a severe extent that the internal democracy of the “subject” nation is upset. I also took him to mean “unstable” in the sense that the “subject” nation will bristle at being dictated to or dominated by an external country and will, at some point attempt to reassert its independence.
Charles Martel: I refer him to Rome’s 500-year domination of Gaul.
And the Soviets held it together for seven decades. There are technological and political differences in the modern world that make such domination much more difficult.
Charles Martel: As for Kandahar and Fallujah, I don’t recall that the U.S. has set up a puppet government that reports to Washington in either.
And yet, they bristle.
Danny Lemieux: Remember, the US went into Iraq to take over the oil! Now that the war is over, no doubt we are pillaging that country of all its oil.
They can’t even keep the lights on in the capital.
poliwog: I appreciate that our military is standing between us and those who consider 3,000 people who went to work one morning to be a good start and doing it in a way that has left the average citizen’s life remarkably un-interrupted.
Unfortunately, that’s not where they’re standing. The occupation has little to do with any threat to the U.S. Please note that bin Laden has never been brought to justice.
Charles: It would have been far better for the US to invade and take Saddam out during the first Persian Gulf war rather than letting him stay in power for another decade
Quite possibly. Saddam was a war criminal, and he should have been brought to justice. The entire world, Arab and Muslim included, were united. It’s important to realize the importance of leading under international law. After WWII, the U.S. and its allies insisted on setting up an framework of international law, including what constituted just war. Waging of aggressive war was determined to be the supreme international crime. No matter what borders were left after WWII, even if they were unfair, they were to be considered inviolate, and only changed through peaceful means. When Saddam invaded Iraq, the entire world rose up to support this fundamental principle. All that work, all the effort of generations, was tossed aside when the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq. They’ve paid a heavy price for their folly.
Charles: Did the US “dominate” Western Europe the same way the the Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe?
The U.S. dominated Latin America through intimidation, threats, coups, interventions, and supporting ruthless dictators.
Mike Devx: when did war ever require that in the aftermath of victory, you are *required* to “run the affairs” of whom you defeated?
Since the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Keep in mind that, like the Convention Against Torture, these are promises that the U.S. and other countries have made.
Charles Martel: As for Kandahar and Fallujah, I don’t recall that the U.S. has set up a puppet government that reports to Washington in either.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
Zachriel says: Most countries consider the invasion of Iraq to have been a violation of the laws of war, and an overreaction to 9-11. Not only did this undercut U.S. credibility, but it undermined the very alliances that were essential for the actual fight against international terrorism.
I presume Zachriel is speaking of the 2nd Iraq War, not Desert Storm. These are unsubstantiated premises supported by vague terms like “most”: first, if that was a violation of the laws of war, the United Nations would have said so, instead of authorizing it. Also, you need to consider all the U.S.’s allies that signed on to the expedition…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq#List_of_nations_in_the_coalition
Undercut U.S. credibility with whom? The reports that I read are that China and Russia pretty much wet their pants at the rapidity and efficiency with which Saddam’s military (one of the largest in the world) was destroyed in Gulf War I and II. The death rate of Iraqis during the war was a fraction of what they had been during the pre-Gulf War I years and, especially, during the Embargo years under Clinton. As far as I know, there has been tremendous cooperation in the war on terrorism, especially with the French (who actively opposed us and tried to undermine the Iraq operation to no avail).
Where has our credibility or international cooperation in fighting terrorism suffered, exactly?
Zachriel says: However, preemptive attacks are normally considered an act of aggression (though a case can be made under some limited circumstances).
So, in Zach’s view, a U.S. president should be willing to absorb the consequences of a first strike. That sounds like a winning electoral platform.
Zach says: The U.S. dominated Latin America through intimidation, threats, coups, interventions, and supporting ruthless dictators.
In a land long, long ago and far, far away. Were you talking about all of Latin America or just a few countries in Latin America. We also removed some ruthless dictators and liberated some countries from dictators (Panama, Nicaragua).
Zach says: All that work, all the effort of generations, was tossed aside when the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq. They’ve paid a heavy price for their folly.
Actually, the “world” was still at war with Saddam Hussein at the time of Operation Desert Shield. He just happened to violate the ceasefire agreement. Iraq’s borders are still intact and Iraq was no longer occupied the moment it formed a national government.
So, Zach, the world is worse off now that Saddam is gone?!
Got to work again, but I’m curious, Zachriel. I agree that we should have taken out Saddam the first time. And I agree that we should not have invaded the second time. But what is the “heavy price” we have paid? And Danny’s question is a good one. With whom has our credibility been undercut and in what way?
Who said Washington DC was running things in Fallujah?
Part of the problem after the Iraq invasion, was the US government, including almost everything, including the military services, wanted a hands off approach to the issue. Iraqis had no votes, so politicians wanted to get rid of the problem. ALong came Diversity Casey with his “Iraqi face” plan. Which ended up a ridiculous farce in Fallujah 1.
Then General Petraeus implemented an actual distributed, localized defense plan called counter-insurgency. But the Democrats and the Left refused to support local Iraqi efforts, and thus bad mouthed Petraeus and his COIN initiative.
You’re supposed to already know all this, DQ. At least Zach has the excuse of living in the Leftist sphere.
Most countries consider the invasion of Iraq to have been a violation of the laws of war
That’s hilarious. Zach wants to talk about most countries, when most countries haven’t had a war since the last century (more than half a century ago). What the hell do they know about the laws on war? They’re still paying good money for sexual slaves and worrying about how to fight their war on poverty and immigrants. Just what the hell do those countries know about the laws of war.
They can’t even keep the lights on in the capital.
To people like Zach, primitive or technologically inferior cultures and nations, aren’t “actual people”.
As expected of the progressive, egalitarians that Zach refers to in his “we” statements.
The occupation has little to do with any threat to the U.S. Please note that bin Laden has never been brought to justice.
People who are the tools of Democrats that end up releasing serial child rapists and murderers from death row, now want to talk about “bringing” people to justice? What a joke.
Another one of those fictitious lies made up by the Left for their own propaganda mill.
Quite possibly. Saddam was a war criminal, and he should have been brought to justice. The entire world, Arab and Muslim included, were united.
That’s pretty ignorant. The Arab support for the US’s basing and logistics in Saudi Arabia was contingent on the US not invading any Arab country, except Kuwaitt in order to check Sddam. SA would not have supported the US overthrowing Saddam, purely because they would have been afraid SA would be next on the list. Schwarzkoph, the primary source on the matter, has already released the US game plan during those days. And most of it wasn’t pretty, due to US collusion with international “good will”.
The US military was doing 99% of the fighting, so they didn’t need the “Arab hanger ons” at the back of the military front. But the decision was made politically not to go into Iraq precisely because the President and other weak kneed cabinet officers were worried about “international opinion”. Nor was the world ready to bring Saddam to trial. Cause how will you capture him without invading? And no country had the balls to conduct a military operation. Not even in Kosovo. That was America, again, that brought Milosovic in and the Un who treated him as their God.
So it’s rather ironic that Zach here wants to be a monday quarterback by talking about how the US should have taken out Saddam using international law, when international opinion dictated that Saddam be let free to do his thing. Ironic, but not surprising given the hypocrisy and mendacity of the Left.
So, in Zach’s view, a U.S. president should be willing to absorb the consequences of a first strike. That sounds like a winning electoral platform.
The Democrats can always blame it on Republicans. That’s their hole card. And people like Zach don’t really care who gets killed, so long as it isn’t them.
On the issue of self defense, I have a bit of knowledge on this matter.
It’s a truth and fact here in the United States that pre-emptive attacks are often deemed justified so long as the person responsible for it can justify their pre-emptive attack based upon a credible perceived danger.
Thus, when a parent finds an unknown person in his child’s room, the child is there, and it is at night, and they didn’t invite the guy in, then the parent can just draw and shoot the unknown person in the head. And it would deemed justified homicide, by warrant of pre-emptive self-defense.
Zach, of course, would demand that they would need pictures, sent out to the international court for review, of the unknown man raping the child, before action can be ruled self-defense.
As expected of the egalitarian, progressive, wannabe reformists.
Danny Lemieux: Undercut U.S. credibility with whom?
Nations that support international law, that is, most of America’s allies, and much of the rest of the world.
Danny Lemieux: The death rate of Iraqis during the war was a fraction of what they had been during the pre-Gulf War I years and, especially, during the Embargo years under Clinton.
The same metrics used to determine the high rate of early mortality during the embargo also show very high rates of mortality during the occupation. That excludes the Iran-Iraq War (which the U.S. also had a hand in).
Danny Lemieux: a U.S. president should be willing to absorb the consequences of a first strike.
Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Also, you may not want to agree to treaties you don’t intend to honor. Do American promises matter?
Danny Lemieux: In a land long, long ago and far, far away. Were you talking about all of Latin America or just a few countries in Latin America.
Yes, just a few mud huts.
While the U.S. celebrates the 150th anniversary of Fort Sumpter, other countries have holidays too. You can be sure the Latin Americans are celebrating the battle in Honduras to ensure the supply of bananas to the free world. Or the Mexican American War. Or the invasion of Cuba. Or CIA involvement in the Chilean coup against the democratically elected government there. The U.S. supported groups and governments linked to death squads (a.k.a. terrorism) in Central America as recently as the 1980′s.
Don Quixote: But what is the “heavy price” we have paid?
Thousands of U.S. dead, tens of thousands wounded. Trillions of dollars. The lack of a significant threat as required as a justification for war. The strained alliances. Most of all, the responsibility for the horrible consequences of the war, including hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Ymarsakar: when most countries haven’t had a war since the last century (more than half a century ago).
When was the last time the French fought and died in war with Americans?
Ymarsakar: What the hell do they know about the laws on war? ‘
They wrote them down.
Zachriel: They can’t even keep the lights on in the capital.
Ymarsakar: To people like Zach{riel}, primitive or technologically inferior cultures and nations, aren’t “actual people”.
“They” refers to the occupation forces. The occupiers, as well as the occupied, are “actual people”.
Ymarsakar: Thus, when a parent finds an unknown person in his child’s room, the child is there, and it is at night, and they didn’t invite the guy in, then the parent can just draw and shoot the unknown person in the head. And it would deemed justified homicide, by warrant of pre-emptive self-defense.
You’re not very good at analogies. If your country or home are invaded, you can defend yourself. But if you preemptively invade your neighbor’s home because you think he is building a bomb that he is going to throw at you, and when you break his door down, shoot his wife and dog, but there is no bomb, then there’s your analogy. That the man was known to be cruel and violent in the past won’t justify your actions. The fact that the police had searched the house beforehand and didn’t find a bomb will only further highlight your irresponsibility.
>>Please note that bin Laden has never been brought to justice. >>
Just how would you do that? I mean…even assuming that we captured him, what evidence do you have?
Are you aware that certain muslims have declared war on the US? Yes, I’m aware that no _recognized_ muslim nation has done so – but it is also true that non-national-specific recognized groups _have_. How would you address those groups?
And actually the Iraq invasion was simply an extension of the Gulf War. We never had a treaty, only a cease fire which was based on terms that Saddam violated daily.
And by the way….”they” does _not_ include “occupiers” in Iraq. The “occupiers”, as you call them, are restricted to designated bases. The Iraqis are in control in their country, we – the US – are not. Any failure to maintain civilization to your level of expectations is on their heads, not ours.
Zach says: Nations that support international law, that is, most of America’s allies, and much of the rest of the world.
Again vague references. You didn’t even look at that list of American coalition allies, did you? Also, care to look up the UN resolutions that authorized the first Gulf War? The 2nd-Gulf War was only an extension of the first. Specifics, Zach, specifics.
The same metrics used to determine the high rate of early mortality during the embargo also show very high rates of mortality during the occupation. That excludes the Iran-Iraq War (which the U.S. also had a hand in).
Specifics? (Please don’t include that thoroughly discredited Lancet study, it was a joke! Actually, the Lancet has always been a joke, but that’s another story. Even the WikiLeaks revelations showed that to be a farce!) Incidentally, who was responsible for killing the large majority of civilians during this period?
Also, the U.S. had virtually no involvement in the Iraq-Iran war. As Kissinger said, “Too bad they can’t both lose”. Maybe you can provide specifics to support your position?
Zach says: While the U.S. celebrates the 150th anniversary of Fort Sumpter, other countries have holidays too. You can be sure the Latin Americans are celebrating the battle in Honduras to ensure the supply of bananas to the free world. Or the Mexican American War. Or the invasion of Cuba. Or CIA involvement in the Chilean coup against the democratically elected government there. The U.S. supported groups and governments linked to death squads (a.k.a. terrorism) in Central America as recently as the 1980′s
The U.S. never invaded the nation of Cuba. It liberated a Spanish Territory and proceeded to guide it to independence. The Chilean coup was engineered by a leftwing president who overthrew the constitutional government of Chile with Cuban help. The role of the U.S. in helping the Chilean opposition has never been detailed, but it was a good thing for Chile. The U.S. also helped to dismantle the death squads in El Salvador, Columbia and Guatemala and force democratic elections in those countries. As far as the Mexican-American War, Mexico had hardly existed as a country when it lost the formerly Spanish South West to the Gringos. That was the Southwest’s gain, not loss. If you think otherwise, look at Mexico today.
Zach says: Most of all, the responsibility for the horrible consequences of the war, including hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Actually, accepted values place the total number of Iraqi dead at slightly less than 100,000. Same question applies: just who was it that killed all those civilians?
Also, this may surprise you as another anathema, but the Iraq War was a relatively small contributor to our deficits this past decade.
And an “oh yeah” … it might be good to have a discussion about dominance and leadership….can one exist without the other…
I bet even Ceasar Milan can answer that one…
Danny Lemieux: Again vague references. You didn’t even look at that list of American coalition allies, did you? Also, care to look up the UN resolutions that authorized the first Gulf War? The 2nd-Gulf War was only an extension of the first. Specifics, Zach{riel}, specifics.
That’s funny. Did you care to provide, er, specifics. Have you considered how much pressure and inducement a country like the U.S. can bring to bear? You are more than able to convince yourself that the legality of the Iraq War was not an issue.
Danny Lemieux: Please don’t include that thoroughly discredited Lancet study, it was a joke!
But it was *you* who relied on a Lancet study based on the same types of measures that determined the increased mortality under sanctions. We just pointed out that the same metrics show comparable early mortality during the occupation. You do understand that they are not counting killed, but early mortality?
Danny Lemieux: Also, the U.S. had virtually no involvement in the Iraq-Iran war.
Right.
Danny Lemieux: The U.S. never invaded the nation of Cuba. It liberated a Spanish Territory and proceeded to guide it to independence.
Remember the Maine!
Danny Lemieux: The Chilean coup was engineered by a leftwing president who overthrew the constitutional government of Chile with Cuban help.
If you mean Nixon ordered it, then yes. It included undermining the Chilean economy. The CIA aided and abetted the Chilean military which led to a brutal dictatorship, suppression of all political dissent, and the disappearance (desaparecidos) of opponents, many tortured, raped, then dropped from aircraft into the sea.
Danny Lemieux: The U.S. also helped to dismantle the death squads in El Salvador, Columbia and Guatemala and force democratic elections in those countries.
The U.S. funded and trained organizations involved in death squads for decades.
Danny Lemieux: Mexico had hardly existed as a country when it lost the formerly Spanish South West to the Gringos.
The Mexican War was one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.
Are you seriously maintaing that the U.S. has not constantly interferred in Latin America?
Danny Lemieux: Actually, accepted values place the total number of Iraqi dead at slightly less than 100,000.
Sorry, that’s not the “accepted value”, but the number of counted civilians directly killed. This does not count military or paramilitary killed. More significantly, it does not count early mortality.
Danny Lemieux: the Iraq War was a relatively small contributor to our deficits this past decade.
Direct costs of Iraq-Afghanistan are about $1 trillion, so far. Total cost will probably be about $2-3 trillion. Pocket change for Americans, apparently.
Stuck in moderation queue.
Zach, perhaps you could tell us about the Sandinistas and their attempt to extend democracy to Nicaragua and how the U.S. thwarted that?
We are back on the merry-go-round. I just read from Zach that we have the right to defend ourselves, even beyond our borders, but pre-emptive is evil.
You know that is simply fallacious, or juvenile. Much of Zach’s presentation is oriented around the time of the French Revolution, or the American War of Independence. These are not those times. You cannot wait for the first strike if you are certain that it is coming. Simple idea; but that is the world we live in.
Sarah Palin had some trouble with the Bush Doctrine; she did better than Charlie the Schmuck, but she stumbled around a bit. One of the key elements of the Bush Doctrine was the idea of “Defensive Prememption”. It is a sound policy in today’s world.
Bu rap in some respects to blame the U.S. for trying to run things in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anywhere else for that matter. There was no intent for the U.S. to run things in Fallujah, Kandahar, or anywhere else. If you actually read the thoughts of the Bush Officials, they thought that once Sadaam was overthrown, elements of the Army, the bureaucracy, and the overseas emigrant community could be used to establish a new government. Armitage, Colin Powell and others undercut the plans. Bremer, who worked for State, i.e. Powell, completely gutted the plan. The rest is pretty well known. In fact what I have just outlined should be well known.
Same idea in Afghanistan. It was clearly stated by President Bush that once the Taliban were deposed, it would be an Afghan show. Light footprint was his clear intent. In fact, he turned the military side over to NATO. We learned from that exercise just what a hollow farce NATO actually is. We also learned to our sorrow The Democrats, in order to beat up on Bush over Iraq, started the song that Afghanistan is where we should be confronting the enemy (which they had trouble naming), although Bin Laden was their symbol. Obama wanted the Afghan war; now he has it and he doesn’t want it any longer.
We have learned a few lessons over the years. One is that you better not leave a void in a volatile and potentially dangerous region. We got trapped in these two. The situation on the ground after years of brutal despotism was worse than expected; and in-fighting within our own government led to poor implementation of plans.
That is the world we live in now; and that is the actual history of recent events. So, Zach tell me how the French Revolution, and its philosophical basis, got us to this point.
Like Book said, modern day progressives are actually regressives. Reactionary regressives even.
Who wrote what down? China and Russia wrote the human rights laws in the UN. That must be what Zach is talking about. War criminals writing down the “laws of war”. How ironic is that.
Suek, Zach thinks you have to take care of the native primitives. Just like “big government” does for America.
Charles Martel: perhaps you could tell us about the Sandinistas and their attempt to extend democracy to Nicaragua and how the U.S. thwarted that?
The Sandinistas overthrew the dictorial Somoza regime in 1979. They instituted a universal literacy campaign as the first step towards elections. The U.S. supported the Contras, a guerrilla group with a pattern of human rights abuses. The Sandinistas won free elections in 1984. They lost the elections in 1987, and gave up power voluntarily to the opposition. They remain a potent political force in Nicaragua today.
Oldflyer: I just read from Zach that we have the right to defend ourselves, even beyond our borders, but pre-emptive is evil.
The U.S. has agreed — insisted —, that aggressive war is the supreme crime that underpins all other war crimes.
Oldflyer: One of the key elements of the Bush Doctrine was the idea of “Defensive Prememption”. It is a sound policy in today’s world.
In fact, it led to a debacle.
Ymarsakar: China and Russia wrote the human rights laws in the UN.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world …
Charter of the United Nations: WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small …
You might notice the similarity to American documents.
I did it again. Distractions. I meant to say that we learned to our sorrow, that what passed for government in Afghanistan was not much more than an amalgamation of corrupt war lords, tribal chief and religious fanatics.
(We may help drag the reactionary elements of Afghanistan into the 21 century, but only with patience and sacrifice; and it is not a sure thing by any measure.)
Not a debacle yet, Zach old son. Despite the mistakes and outright sabotage of intended policy by some elements within our own government, as I indicated, it may turn out ok. Only if the current efforts ultimately fail, can you call the freeing of millions of people from oppression a debacle. I do not accept your flawed premises, nor do I accept your pe-emptive judgment of failure.
In fact, very little of what you have presented is acceptable.
Still waiting hoping you will lay out some credentials. I visited your website; didn’t find any there. Found the portrait of Bismarck prominently dispalyed on your site, which as I said was really confusing given your postings. I have seen you quote or reference a lot of selective writings. But, what backs all of this up? What are your credentials to make so many judgments?
Here are mine. Not terribly impressive to an intellectual, I know. But, I am a 25 year Naval Aviator, and general purpose Naval Officer. Post Navy I did commercial flying and airline instruction in different parts of the world (I actually observed some alternate cultures and governments first hand). I have a BA in International Relations and an MS in a technical field. I have studied and read some history. Government and its evolution interest me. I am particularly interested in how the U.S. Government was formed; what philosophies underpin it, and how it has evolved. As an American, I am greatly interested in the relationship of the government to the governed. I try to stay informed on those issues. I am not completely Libertarian, still I much prefer minimal necessary government. I am suspicious of “Activist” government because of the threat that such governments have historically represented. But, also because government has proven itself with some consistency to be an unwieldy, inefficient, and wasteful operation. That does not mean–even though you have tried to paint those who disagree with you with a broad brush–that I do not recognize the necessity for government at various levels. In fact, I think the Constitution pretty much has it correct. I believe that the Framers were extraordinarily well educated on the subject of governance; and did a a marvelous job. With a small number of adjustments, not all necessary or well thought out by any means, it has stood the test.
So, I am admittedly an amateur, with a little education and some ability to think for myself and function in a variety of environs. I have bared myself. What about you? Inquiring minds want to know.
>>Suek, Zach thinks you have to take care of the native primitives. Just like “big government” does for America.>>
But but… how can we do that unless we establish ourselves as a controlling governing body? And if to that is undemocratic, then are we required to just let them rot?
Which then is more “moral”…to leave them to their own devices and let them rot, or take over the country and govern it until their population is more capable. At least, I’m assuming they _could_ become more capable. If we assume that native primitives are not _capable_ of becoming able to govern…what then?
Oldflyer: Not a debacle yet
Debacle, as in a great disaster. But some good may come of it. The Iraqi people will eventually find a way to carve out a better life.
Oldflyer: Here are mine. Not terribly impressive to an intellectual, I know.
It has nothing to do with credentials, but with what you can support.
suek: how can we do that unless we establish ourselves as a controlling governing body? And if to that is undemocratic, then are we required to just let them rot?
It’s difficult to understand your point. But if your question concerns responsibilities for an occupying power, then it’s simple. Don’t invade another country, because if you do, you are responsible for everything that happens.
Zach says, “The U.S. has agreed — insisted —, that aggressive war is the supreme crime that underpins all other war crimes.”
Quotes? References? please.
Zach provides us with the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world …
Current Members of the UN Human Rights Council include: Mauritania (still practices slavery), Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Cuba.
I go to sleep content to know that my human rights are safe in the hands of these countries.
Zach says (regarding civilian deaths in Iraq): Sorry, that’s not the “accepted value”, but the number of counted civilians directly killed. This does not count military or paramilitary killed. More significantly, it does not count early mortality.
His previous estimate was “hundreds of thousands”. Now he provides a citation that says “100,000″. At least this is moving in the right direction (Iraq Body Count has its own problems of methodology, by the way).
I will try to untangle this source response later, but the question remains – who was doing the killing?
Zach says: The U.S. funded and trained organizations involved in death squads for decades.
Prove it. Citing Dan Rather or the Kos files doesn’t count.
Zach proves that the U.S. was deeply involved in the Iran-Iraq war by showing us… a picture of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
I am at a loss for words.
Zach explains the overthrow of Allende in Chile by General Pinochet and a general uprising thus: If you mean Nixon ordered it, then yes. It included undermining the Chilean economy. The CIA aided and abetted the Chilean military which led to a brutal dictatorship, suppression of all political dissent, and the disappearance (desaparecidos) of opponents, many tortured, raped, then dropped from aircraft into the sea.
First, it was Allende that staged the coup, not Nixon nor the Chilean military. Nixon supported Allende’s opponents, he didn’t “order” the coup. Allende had violated the constitution and assumed total power over the government (extra-constitutionally). Second, there was a civil war – it was ugly. Consider this juxtaposition:
Chilean Civil War (to prevent the imposition of Cuban-style slavery): population est. 20 million. Est. number of dead 3,000. Result: prevention of slavery and upgrade of Chile from 3rd World economy to 1st world economy under direction of Pinochet & U. of Chicago-educated economists.
American Civil War (fought to remove existing slavery): population est. 20 million. Est. number of dead 700,000. Result: reunification of country and elimination of slavery.
In both cases, the U.S. did a good thing.
Zach writes: Direct costs of Iraq-Afghanistan are about $1 trillion, so far. Total cost will probably be about $2-3 trillion. Pocket change for Americans, apparently.
This article below has a nice graph that puts the Iraq-Afghanistan wars into perspective.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html
This article below has a nice graph that puts the Obama versus Clinton-Bush budgets into perspective:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
>>But if your question concerns responsibilities for an occupying power, then it’s simple. Don’t invade another country, >>
But we didn’t invade. We had a ceasefire that had been violated. We resumed active hostile action.
>>because if you do, you are responsible for everything that happens. >>
When does that responsibility end?
Zach has problems being responsible for his own views and his own thinking.Go easy on him for dictating the responsibilities of a nation of 300 million people, guys. He can’t handle that kind of pressure.
You might notice the similarity to American documents.
You poor son of a gun. To think you actually believe the UN is based on the US Constitution. There’s got to be a limit to your grasp on reality here vs fantasy.
Don’t invade another country, because if you do, you are responsible for everything that happens.
Which means, you are responsible for jack zero. Yet you think you can call other people to account based upon some fabricated casualty list. By yor own admission, you are responsible for nothing. So why don’t you shut up instead of hindering those actually doing something? Yes, we’re responsible for ending rape chambers and Saddam torture chambers. AQ torture chambers too. What good were you responsible for during the Iraqi wars?
That’s cause you can’t shut Up Zach. You can’t, because you still want to interfere and control the lives of other people. You want a share of the power, but at the same time, you are dumping all responsibility on other people. The world doesn’t work that way. And you can’t even make it work that way. We’ll see you fail in that.
Tell me again how our educational system has enabled our world dominance?
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nobody-ever-fails-at-nycs-top-school
And how effective you think it’s going to be in maintaining our world dominance from here on out into the future??
Oldflyer: Here are mine. Not terribly impressive to an intellectual, I know.
Your credentials are fine.
Suek, we may not dominate the world anymore with schooling like that, but we certainly will be “special”.
Zachriel: The U.S. has agreed — insisted —, that aggressive war is the supreme crime that underpins all other war crimes.
Danny Lemieux: Quotes? References? please.
United Nations Charter, Article 2: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Ratified by the U.S. Senate on July 28, 1945.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” — Robert H. Jackson, chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg.
Danny Lemieux: Current Members of the UN Human Rights Council include: Mauritania (still practices slavery)
Yes. It’s technically illegal, but the government doesn’t prosecute violators.
The United States held slaves for generations after the Declaration of Independence declared all men were created equal, and had segregation for generations after the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal rights for all citizens.
Mauritania should live up to their avowed responsibilities. Shouldn’t the U.S. also live up to theirs, the true meaning of their creed?
Danny Lemieux: His previous estimate was “hundreds of thousands”. Now he provides a citation that says “100,000″.
You’re not paying attention. That’s the number of they directly counted from conventional sources. Iraq Body Count’s “calculates that over 150,000 violent deaths have been recorded since March 2003, with more than 122,000 (80%) of them civilian.” And there are probably more that aren’t counted. And this does not include early mortality due to the war.
Danny Lemieux: I will try to untangle this source response later, but the question remains – who was doing the killing?
The U.S. military says is “doesn’t do body counts”. It’s reasonable to believe that many or most of the deaths were due to sectarian violence.
Zachriel: The U.S. funded and trained organizations involved in death squads for decades.
Danny Lemieux: Prove it.
Seriously? You’re still not aware of U.S. history in this regard? Whenever you hear about American secrets, keep in mind that they are only being kept secret from Americans. Like Abu Ghraib. The Iraqi people already knew what was going on. It was only the American people who were in the dark.
There are so many incidents, and would require so much material, but we will just take a few representative examples.
Recently declassified documents show that the CIA was intimately involved in the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Chile in 1973. Those documents include handwritten notes of the CIA director with orders from Nixon to cause the coup, Project FUBELT. The coup led to a military dictatorship and the torture and deaths of thousands.
Then there’s Battalion 3-16 in Hondoras. Again, recently released documents show direct CIA involvement. ”The intelligence unit, known as Battalion 316, used shock and suffocation devices in interrogations. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-negroponte1a,0,294534.story
If you prefer, you can read the read the interim report of the National Commissioner for Human Rights in Honduras.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/honduras/hidden_truths/hidden.htm
There’s the close ties between the U.S. and the Somoza regime in Nicaragua. The Guardia Nacional was created by the U.S. during its occupation early in the 20th century due to a resistance against the occupation. The U.S. not only created the Guardia, but commanded most of the units. They tortured prisoners and destroyed entire villages, then took pictures of their victims. The International Commission of Jurists: “The scale of the assassinations and torture of opponents . . . was such that they cannot be regarded merely as the results of overzealous or abusive acts by the National Guard. Rather, they were part of a system of government.”
Then there’s that incident in the Philippines.
Danny Lemieux: Zach{riel} proves that the U.S. was deeply involved in the Iran-Iraq war by showing us… a picture of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. I am at a loss for words.
Those squiggly things next to the picture, those are words. Note the date. You will also find links to documents and other source material.
Danny Lemieux: Nixon supported Allende’s opponents, he didn’t “order” the coup.
Everyone knew that Nixon ordered the coup, except the Americans apparently. It’s amazing how long people will keep denying things. But now that the documents are available, perhaps they will begin to face the facts.
Danny Lemieux: Second, there was a civil war – it was ugly.
There was no civil war in Chile in 1973. There was a coup followed by the torture and murder of political opponents, then a generation of oppression. But we can be certain that Victor Jara’s voice was a threat to the military regime.
moderation, please.
suek
Do you think there will be apprentice openings for goat herders and shepherds for the ‘graduates’. The ‘no fail’ system has groomed them for a village somewhere in a third world country.
Zach you ducked the question again. Several people here do not agree that you are supporting your arguments; in fact I have not seen one who agrees with you. So, let us dispense with the idea that your logic is sufficient. You have come to a site where people express themselves more or less anonymously, and you throw out provocative statements, repeatedly. To the point that you have virtually dominated the site for a couple of days. A site, which, by the way, was an interesting and pleasant place to exchange thoughts, long before you showed up.
Since your arguments alone do not have sufficient credibility, I have asked repeatedly for you to state the authority by which you make them. It is silly to believe that arguments are sufficient to the day, without the credibility of the person advancing them. That is the stuff of con men, and victims. There are no victims here. Your status is unresolved. Your one liners, and the references you are so fond of, do not do the job in my mind. I doubt that they are sufficient for other readers.
I do not like conspiracy theories–and I would hate to be lumped with the birthers. But, they do have a point, in this sense. If you have documentation, why not present it?
Frankly, this whole thing has become extremely boring. I will return out of curiosity to see if you have responded to my challenge; but that is it.
Well…
I’m a “birther”. Because the problem isn’t so much where he was born as it is that the law at the time he was born required at least one of his parents to be a US citizen legally able to pass on his citizenship. His mother was not of sufficient age, his father was a citizen of another nation – and passed that citizenship on to his son, making him a dual citizen which is specifically mentioned as a bar to “natural born”. Additionally, he was adopted by an Indonesian, and unquestionably was a citizen there, since a child had to be a citizen to attend school there – and we know he _did_ attend school there.
Of course there’s more, but the question is really what do we do about it. It’s obvious that it’s pretty much an untouchable in any place that can actually do something. And if he _were_ declared ineligible…if we determined he never _was_ eligible – what then? Forget the “civil war” “riots in the streets” stuff – what happens to any and all legislation he’s signed? executive orders?
How do you turn back the clock?
The funny thing is…some have suggested that he’s the result of an illegitimate relationship. I’ve heard several possibilities – his mother and someone else, his grandfather and some one else …but the upshot of all of them is the same – if any of them are correct, the “natural born” problem goes away. All the people who could possibly be embarrassed are dead and gone…so if that’s the problem, it isn’t really a problem.
I’m not going to live long enough to see this one through, I think. Darn.
Too many unanswered (nope, make that too many unasked questions). Why did the O’s forfeit their law licenses? Why are his college records sealed? On what passport did he travel to Pakistan and why there? Why was Stanley Dunham’s passport information deleted?
Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.
Read more: Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833#ixzz1BdER58uH
Suek. I am with you on that. I have recently written in one forum or another, that I simply don’t understand why that aspect of the law has been ignored. The question of citizenship should have been adjudicated in the courts based on the provisions of law at the time of his birth.
By the way, I was guilty of painting with a broad brush when I used the term “birther” as a pejorative; and as synonymous with conspiracy theorists. The point I really meant to emphasize was that it could all be put to rest by simply producing the relevant documents. Refusal to do so feeds doubt. Birthers and Swift Boaters, are two terms of Leftist invention. I am definitely a Swift Boater, and still get angry when I think of how Kerry lied to corrupt the intent of the Purple Heart award; and incidentally get himself out of Vietnam.
I would have been better served to have used the example of the 9-11 “truthers” to explain my antipathy toward conspiracy theorists. They clearly are provocateurs, or moon-bats, who argue against observable fact.
You were right to call me out.
I definitely hope we pass a law before 2012 requiring every candidate to file a publicly available birth certificate prior to running for office. It is a requirement of the Office, according to the Constitution.
Naturally, this applies to Barack Obama and his planned one billion dollar campaign in 2012.
United Nations Charter, Article 2: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Ratified by the U.S. Senate on July 28, 1945.
Certainly, explains their inconsistencies. I’ve never been able to determine their purpose. The larger they’ve grown the bigger the barnacles.
http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml
Don’t wait for Neil Aberzombie to find it
http://sadhillnews.com/2011/01/20/hawaii-governor-neil-abercrombie-is-a-marxist
It is a requirement of the Office, according to the Constitution.
The thing is, if they are ignoring the Constitution, why would they follow a law made by Congress, which actually has lower precedence and status than a Constitutional article?
Oldflyer: Since your arguments alone do not have sufficient credibility, I have asked repeatedly for you to state the authority by which you make them.
We claim no authority whatsoever. When appropriate, we do cite expert authority.
Oldflyer: It is silly to believe that arguments are sufficient to the day, without the credibility of the person advancing them.
That is exactly wrong. Arguments don’t rise or fall based on individual authority.
Oldflyer: If you have documentation, why not present it?
Credible cites have been repeatedly provided. If you don’t think a particular argument has been well-supported, then please be specific.
I guess Zach just described himself as a cog and tool. Someone without authority to make a judgment on what is or is not true about what other people say and claim.
Rather contradictory, in a Leftist doublethink fashion.
You have no authority to tell the truth from the illusion, Zach. You said it yourself. So why don’t you stop claiming otherwise.
Oh, because you can’t. I forgot.
I for one hereby declare I no longer have time to rehash history with Zach’s Howard Zinn view of world, there isn’t enough time and we’ve covered so many of these issues before. So, I will concentrate on the more topical issues at hand, as time permits. Zach, you must either be retired, a trust-fund baby or unemployed. Your commentary at all hours of the day is prodigious. Me, I have to earn a living.
I find it interesting that supposed intellectuals on the Left find such a need to defer to established “expert” authorities (UN, IPCC, etc.) without question. It supports some interesting experiments that I came across long ago when I was working on my psychology degree.
Where Zach seems to hit a wall is that so many participants on this blog are quite willing to question “authority”.
Danny Lemieux: I find it interesting that supposed intellectuals on the Left find such a need to defer to established “expert” authorities (UN, IPCC, etc.) without question.
We don’t unreservedly rely on authority. We *cite* authority. All scientific claims are considered tentative and subject to review or revision in the light of the evidence.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
For example, when taking university classes, it is appropriate to tentatively accept an appeal to authority. They are teaching the consensus view among authorities in the field, as well as areas of reasonable disagreement. The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence. Handwaving it not an argument.
>>Handwaving it not an argument.>>
I suspect we also have a problem with the handwaving bit…in other words, we consider some disagreements to be very basic, but since they disagree with your experts – your “cites” – you consider them “handwaving”. Trust me…we don’t. On the other hand, we (at least most of us) consider your “cites” to be a form of “handwaving”….”So and so says…” Bam. End of story as far as you are concerned.
We need to discuss definitions – to find out if we can at least agree on basics – but you state the definitions that are acceptable to you, and BAM! That’s the end of that.
You remind me much of the Democrats perception of “bipartisanship”…by which they mean “do it our way”. If the GOP doesn’t accede to “do it their way”, then they’re the ‘Party of NO”.
Thank God for the Party of No!! You have to have an adult _somewhere_ in government!!
suek: I suspect we also have a problem with the handwaving bit…in other words, we consider some disagreements to be very basic, but since they disagree with your experts – your “cites” – you consider them “handwaving”.
No. You can address the appeal to authority directly, such asby showing that the cite is to an expert not properly representing the consensus in the field, or that there is no such consensus. Or you can sidestep authority by appealing directly to the evidence. Handwaving means that you reject the argument without offering a reason. You just don’t like those fancy, dancy sciency people.
suek: We need to discuss definitions – to find out if we can at least agree on basics – but you state the definitions that are acceptable to you, and BAM! That’s the end of that.
Again, no. But you have to show why the usual definition doesn’t apply in a given situation, not merely redefine common words in special ways, then conflate them with the standard meanings. How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Zachriel, are you a science person? You have never answered that question.
What are your credentials?
Danny Lemieux: What are your credentials?
Zachriel is not the topic. One person’s opinion is not authoritative. Arguments should be based on what can be shown.
Thank God for the Party of No!! You have to have an adult somewhere in government!!
Bravo – Spot on and very well said, suek.
>>Zachriel is not the topic. One person’s opinion is not authoritative. Arguments should be based on what can be shown.>>
Badda bing badda BOOM!
Badda bing badda BOOM!
You must have been reading my mind. Maybe our new visitor is ‘using’ this blog to hone his skills for a term paper. For all I know, it may be a class project. Find a conservative blog, wait for a half dozen posts, step in and argue every point from the defined narrative from a progressive view. It makes for weary reading, because there is no inertia from Zach. While I think it’s a good thing to discuss any of the issues with opposing views – it is not necessary to cite every comment and counter comment with links. This is quite a departure from our normal give and take. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many links on any other blog nor the need from any commenter to take to task everything that does not sit well with the reader. I certainly do not want to dissuade Zach from contributing, but it sure would be nice to hear his thoughts without an echo chamber. To argue a point from cited authorities post #54 is subjective. Cited authorities and expertize in several fields, if you live long enough, have shown to themselves to be ‘full of it’. A recent example would be Dr. Wakefield, who pushed the idea that a certain vaccine caused autism, only to discover 10 years later that the doctor received $800,000 for his ‘research’. I have no intention of listing all the proclamations that I’ve heard in the last 50 years that later proved to be incorrect, wrong and misleading.
If one person’s authority isn’t definitive, then a whole bunch of those same people would be even more of a zero.
SADIE, I’ve noticed that the language of the responses is canned. It looks as if it has been cadged it off a talking point sheet designed to lull with its oh-so-reasonable-sounding tone even as it refuses to address the question(s) asked. To this day, we only know what Z’s authorities claim to know, but we do not know his own thoughts in his own language. His point of view is an endless roundelay of URLs.
For example, when I tried to tease out Z’s opinion of the Sandinistas, his response was machine writing about the Sandinistas’ great accomplishment (apparently literacy) and two dates when they held elections. Nice, reassuring blandness that evaded any mention of the Sandinistas’ oppression of opponents in the press, or their persecution of the Miskito Indians, or their radicalization of school texts to extol Marxism. There must have been a reason why the Sandinistas were so thoroughly repudiated at the polls in 1990 (not 1987 as Z picked up from his talking points source).
I’m with you SADIE. It’s like talking to a wall.
Charles Martel, one of the many wonderful things about this particularly blog is that we bring, not just our personal knowledge, but a little of the ‘personal’ as well. Bookworm has referred to this blog as a salon. In this sense, we’ve entered her parlor, her room to gather, talk and discuss the issues and how the very same issues effect all of us in the real world. I am in her ‘home’ and I try to behave like a good house guest. Bookworm, several threads and too many URL’s ago, asked our new visitor a direct question that went unanswered. As you know, she rarely interrupts a conversation (she’s a very good listener as well as writer) so…I just figured it was just plain rude not to respond to the hostess. I am suspicious of anyone who hides behind links.
I don’t try to reason with 5 year olds, I just pull out the tried and true mother method when asked Why, too many times -BECAUSE I SAID SO
Zachriel describes his definition of “authoritative” as thus:
We don’t unreservedly rely on authority. We *cite* authority. All scientific claims are considered tentative and subject to review or revision in the light of the evidence.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
Yet, when it comes to the issue of man-made global warming (AGW), he justifies his position on the basis that there “is general agreement” on the issue among authorities with a general hand wave that “consensus” has decided this to be true. Among those authorities that should not be above question are the UN which, frankly, I consider to be one of the least credible organizations in modern times.
Yet, if we look at the IPCC Report on Climate Change, we find that the alarmist report was supported by about 2,500 scientists (deemed acceptable in Zach’s Temple of Orthodoxy) while the 32,000 signatories of the AGW-skeptic Global Petition Project “don’t count”. Why, because Zach and his temple priests have declared them to be anathema.
So, revere the 2,500 IPCC signers on one hand, dismiss the other 32,000 with the other hand, and voila!…we have consensus.
Unfortunately, even if this was held to be true, science has never moved forward by consensus.
Danny, must I, the greatest cudgel-wielder of all, take up the cudgel on Z’s behalf? Did he not make it perfectly clear that many of those 32,000 scientists lack the proper credentials?
(Note to Z: Oh, physician, heal theyself!)
Zachriel:
Or CIA involvement in the Chilean coup against the democratically elected government there.
Those who consider the democratically elected Allende a victim of the US and CIA have examined the historical record in a very superficial manner. Three weeks before the coup, the also democratically elected Chamber of Deputies passed by a 81-47 vote, a strong 63% majority, a Resolution on the issue of Allende’s abuse of power. An excerpt follows.
“5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;
6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government…”
In general and in specific, the resolution could be interpreted as an invitation to a coup. Allende himself called it such. The democratically elected members of the House of Deputies would not have passed such a strongly-worded resolution by a commanding 63- 37% majority if their constituents, the Chilean people, were not also disgusted with the Allende government’s repeated violations of law and democratic procedure.
When the democratically elected House of Deputies passed by a commanding majority a resolution that states that President Allende has repeatedly violated the tenets of democracy, such as following the laws and Constitution that were democratically voted on, that doesn’t say much about the democratic bonafides of President Allende, doesn’t it?
Chilean President Patricio Aylwin, the first elected President after the Pinochet years, had been head of the Christian Democratic Party during the Allende years. He played a leading part in the crafting of this resolution. Aylwin had supported the coup, and later helped lead the NO vote in the 1988 referendum that lead to the December 1989 elections that replaced the Pinochet regime. A supporter of a Declaration that was an invitation to a coup, is later a leader in the NO vote in the 1988 Referendum that means that Pinochet has to leave office, and subsequently gets elected President in a center-left coalition. History is messy.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile%E2%80%99s_Democracy
Thanks for the historical record, Gringo.
I note that the same scenario almost happened in Honduras, where President Manuel Zelaya was legally ousted by the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court for having tried to usurp total power (essentially, for trying to commit a coup).
Yet, the Obama administration tried to force the Honduran government to reinstate Zelaya against the wishes of the government and people of Honduras. It would be interesting to learn Zach’s take on these events. Certainly, to the MSM, it was “no big deal”.
SADIE: While I think it’s a good thing to discuss any of the issues with opposing views – it is not necessary to cite every comment and counter comment with links.
No, but when there is disagreement, then citing data or original sources is relevant.
SADIE: Cited authorities and expertize in several fields, if you live long enough, have shown to themselves to be ‘full of it’.
That’s called handwaving.
SADIE: A recent example would be Dr. Wakefield, who pushed the idea that a certain vaccine caused autism, only to discover 10 years later that the doctor received $800,000 for his ‘research’.
That particular example doesn’t support your derision of peer review. Wakefield’s results could not be replicated, there were problems with his methodology, and the findings were immediately looked on skeptically by his peers.
Ymarsakar: If one person’s authority isn’t definitive, then a whole bunch of those same people would be even more of a zero.
The scientific method has been very effective at understanding natural phenomena. Part of the scientific method is publication and replication of results. It only takes one scientist to be right, but when lacking direct access to the data, then a valid appeal to authority is reasonable. For instance, if a great mathematical physicist has problem with his plumbing, he calls a plumber.
Danny Lemieux: Among those authorities that should not be above question are the UN which, frankly, I consider to be one of the least credible organizations in modern times.
Please read more carefully. No authority or even a consensus of authorities is above question. As for the UN, if the issue is agreements that the United States has entered into, then pointing to that written agreement is significant.
Danny Lemieux: So, revere the 2,500 IPCC signers on one hand, dismiss the other 32,000 with the other hand, and voila!…we have consensus.
Because most of the 32,000 are speaking outside their area of expertise, so they are not expressing a professional opinion.
>>That’s called handwaving.>>
No…it’s called life experience…
Gringo: Three weeks before the coup, the also democratically elected Chamber of Deputies passed by a 81-47 vote, a strong 63% majority, a Resolution on the issue of Allende’s abuse of power.
Under the constitution, it took a two-thirds vote to convict the president of an abuse of power. The Chamber was illegally suggesting a military coup. In any case, that doesn’t justify American intervention just because they didn’t like the Chilean government’s policies. The result was a murderous military regime.
>>Because most of the 32,000 are speaking outside their area of expertise, so they are not expressing a professional opinion.>>
And of course, the only expertise that will be approved is by those who accept the approved dogma…
You should know that…!
The scientific method has been very effective at understanding natural phenomena.
Human behavior isn’t called natural phenomena. It’s called human nature. Science has no power over the irrationality of humans.
For instance, if a great mathematical physicist has problem with his plumbing, he calls a plumber.
That has nothing to do with anything.
The result was a murderous military regime.
A supporter of mass murderers like Saddam and Ho Chi Min, now wants to talk about murderous military regimes. In reality, you just wanted things to get blown up in Chile, the same with after Saddam died in Iraq. Any hint of human progress you label murderous military regime, and any actual murderous military regime, you leave alone or simply cheer on from the side lines.
Because most of the 32,000 are speaking outside their area of expertise, so they are not expressing a professional opinion.
So is Zach, but that never stopped him, now did it.
Ya know….
We have Ymar, and now we have Zach…
Surely there’s a Xavier out there somewhere who’d like to join the conversation…
What saved Pinochet’s reputation, in my view, is that: a) he rebuilt Chile’s economy into a first-world economy, b) he rebuilt Chile’s governmental institutions, c) he designed a model social security system that should long ago have been emulated by the U.S. and d) he resigned.
I don’t think we can say the same for Allende’s soul mates like Castro, Chavez (Venezuela), Ortega (Nicaragua) and Morales (Bolivia). Funny, nobody ever seems to lament much about how “murderous” these individuals are. Quite the contrary: these avaricious and vicious thugs are made out to be heroes.
I recognize that some terrible things happened during the Pinochet regime. However, the total number of dead from that period was finally estimated to have been less-than 3,000 and many of the reports of mass killings and torture were found to have been grossly exaggerated (dropping prisoners from airplanes, I believe, was the Argentinian military regime, not the Chileans).
Speaking of Argentina, Maria Anastasia O’Grady of the WSJ notes that, while it is chi-chi to lament the people that were killed under the military regime, it is verboten to talk about the thousands of people that perished at the hands of the leftists. Curious, that. Then, of course, there is Fidel Castro. Estimates of people killed by his regime exceed 125,000 thousand. Where are the laments for these people from the Zachriels of the world.
Maybe 3,000 dead is a tragedy, 125,000 dead is a statistic, and any dead at the hand of the U.S. of A constitutes a war crime.
X-tra X-tra read all about it! (that was for you, suek)
Wakefield’s results could not be replicated, there were problems with his methodology, and the findings were immediately looked on skeptically by his peers.
Indeed, as skeptically as 32,00 scientists whose voices still fall on deaf ears. If there’s citing to be done, just make sure to include all possibilities. Haven’t you ever wondered why the doubters, as to the cause of climate change or whatever they’re calling it this decade never get equal press. I reminded of Russian friends of mine, who used to joke about Pravda (it was anything but).
p.s. That’s not hand waving -I am finger pointing!
Danny Lemieux wrote: So, revere the 2,500 IPCC signers on one hand, dismiss the other 32,000 with the other hand, and voila!…we have consensus.
Zachriel wrote: Because most of the 32,000 are speaking outside their area of expertise, so they are not expressing a professional opinion.
Please forgive my puckishness, Zach, but I set a trap for you into which I knew you could not resist stepping.
As readers of this blog know, from many, many past postings and links (which you were given but which you quite clearly ignored), the IPCC report and list of signatories thereto were largely fraudulent. Some were climate experts whose names were affixed even though they repudiated the report, others were people who had absolutely no expertise in the field and were associated with environmental lobbying groups and had obvious conflicts of interest, others weren’t scientists at all. The head of the IPCC project, Rajenda Pauchary (a railroad engineer…talk about being outside their area of expertise) was exposed as having fraudulently manipulated the data on the report and cashed in on massive consulting “fees” and carbon credits traded through his daughter’s shell company. In addition, many of the organizations cited as supporters of the IPCC report were in totally unrelated fields (American Microbiological Association, for example) or had signed on in express defiance of their memberships wishes (American Chemical Association), or better yet, never even bothered to check with their membership. Many of the citations in the report were also found to be fraudulent and had to be withdrawn, such as claims of Himalayan glaciers melting or Amazon forests drying out. Some of the “scientific data” consisted simply of press releases from environmental groups. The report, in sum, was a total crock.
For you, nonetheless, the report fits your template of the world and therefore deserves to be enshrined in the Temple of Orthodoxy.
With regard to the 32,000 scientists who signed the petition, thousands of those scientists are in climate-related fields. They include leading names in the field of climate science. Others are scientists (like myself), though not active in climate research, are nonetheless very familiar with the scientific method and understand the scientific process (by your own admission, you are not a scientist) and criteria whereupon data is to be collected and analyzed. We also understand the basic processes of physics, chemistry and biology at work. We recognize a scientific pig in the poke when we see it.
Zach, I know that you did not conduct due diligence on the list of signatories. However, this petition did not fit your template. Therefore, it is dismissed with a handwave as “anathema”.
Ymarsakar: Human behavior isn’t called natural phenomena. It’s called human nature. Science has no power over the irrationality of humans.
That’s not precisely correct, but you would have to mention a specific claim.
Zachriel: For instance, if a great mathematical physicist has problem with his plumbing, he calls a plumber.
Ymarsakar: That has nothing to do with anything.
It has to do with reliance on expertise. Every day people get on planes. They don’t know the pilot. They don’t know the mechanic. They don’t know the air traffic controller. But they put their lives into the hands of the people who designed, maintain and fly the plane. They rely upon their expertise. There are good reasons to trust that they will make it to their destination.
Ymarsakar: A supporter of mass murderers like Saddam …
Several times now, you have misrepresented our position. Please read more carefully.
Zachriel: Because most of the 32,000 are speaking outside their area of expertise, so they are not expressing a professional opinion.
Ymarsakar: So is Zach{riel}, but that never stopped him, now did it.
The difference is that the 32,000 are used for an {invalid} appeal to authority, as here:
SADIE: Indeed, as skeptically as 32,00 scientists whose voices still fall on deaf ears.
Sadie
I reminded of Russian friends of mine, who used to joke about Pravda (it was anything but).
As I recall, the old joke was that there was no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia.
Danny Lemieux: IPCC report and list of signatories thereto were largely fraudulent.
The scientific community agrees with most of basic conclusions of the IPCC report, though there were some tantential problems.
Danny Lemieux: The head of the IPCC project, Rajenda Pauchary (a railroad engineer…talk about being outside their area of expertise) was exposed as having fraudulently manipulated the data on the report and cashed in on massive consulting “fees” and carbon credits traded through his daughter’s shell company.
KPMG Audit: “No evidence was found that indicated personal financial benefits accruing to Dr Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest”.
Danny Lemieux: With regard to the 32,000 scientists who signed the petition, thousands of those scientists are in climate-related fields.
There’s no way to tell. It’s just a list of names.
I’m tellin’ ya…
It’s Hal.
Gringo, Yes, there is the joke, but I was literally recalling a conversation with Russians. I don’t think they were aware of the ‘joke’ just the yoke of trying to survive in Russia.
I’m tellin’ ya… It’s Hal.
ROTFLMAO!
I recognize that some terrible things happened during the Pinochet regime. However, the total number of dead from that period was finally estimated to have been less-than 3,000 and many of the reports of mass killings and torture were found to have been grossly exaggerated (dropping prisoners from airplanes, I believe, was the Argentinian military regime, not the Chileans).
The killings were necessary to maintain order and peace. If the US had killed 100 rioters and looters in Iraq in 2003, much of the crime spree, insurgency, and criminal hostage taking for cash would have either been stopped in its tracks or severely delayed.
What the Left likes to do is mess up security and attempt to replace it with “social equality”. Never really works, because the Leftist idea of social equality came about due to Marxist revolutionary rhetoric and planning. It was entirely designed to DISRUPT local status quo relationships, the rule of law, and peace and order. Marxist and Leninist rhetoric on class, cannot create stability. Whereas military order and the rule of law, imposed by the iron fist if necessary, done in Chile and elsewhere WORKS.
But the Left doesn’t really care about law and order for other people. How many serial murderers (Tookie) and child rapists do you see released or given sanction by the Left? And this is America. Imagine what it is like when you apply their dictates in a third or second world. They go wild with the insanity.
Suek, what’s up with Xavier?
Xavier
Ymar
Zach
“The scientific community agrees?” Really, is that the best you can do, Zachriel? It appears, 32,000 members of the scientific community disagree (or whatever percentage of those 32,000 are scientists, anyway).
I must disagree with my friends regarding your citations to authority. If I were in a liberal blog arguing against a room full of people who disagreed with me, I’d back up everything I said with as much authority as I could find, too. I think it is necessary and helpful that you do so here.
You have reverted to the “we” again, which is fine, you get to choose how to refer to yourself, but it does make this sound more like a class project by a group of people. Anyway, it’s one that some of us are growing a bit weary of, but lots of us are enjoying, too. If you are a class project, I’m glad we are a part of it.
DQ – were you taking notes (see post #57) : )
DQ, you have a similar problem with the usage of “we”.
“If I were in a liberal blog arguing against a room full of people who disagreed with me, I’d back up everything I said with as much authority as I could find, too.”
If you were in a liberal blog your comments would have been deleted long ago and you would have been treated to a chorus of people calling you various body parts centered on the mid torso.
“If you are a class project, I’m glad we are a part of it.”
I’m not.
It’s over.
Zachriel, you were a true warrior. I salute you.
Sadie, but of course, where do you think I got the idea?
DQ
Oy (laughing to myself) you answered me in Yiddish. I had no idea you were bi-lingual
Ymarsakar: The killings were necessary to maintain order and peace.
Don Quixote: “The scientific community agrees?”
Yes, there is a strong consensus within the scientific community. The question of anthropogenic climate change is largely settled. The question now concerns effects, and possible results of various humans responses. The very few skeptical scientists in the relevant fields of study have not been able to produce evidence that undermines this conclusion.
Don Quixote: If I were in a liberal blog arguing against a room full of people who disagreed with me, I’d back up everything I said with as much authority as I could find, too.
Appeals to authority can sometimes be convincing, but the evidence is what counts. In the case of climate change, unlike many other sciences, the evidence is not easily understandable by lay audiences as it involves complex modeling. However, no one has been able to produce a climate model that can explain the data without including carbon-forcing. As more data has been collected, and models have improved, scientists have become more convinced of climate change, not less. And they do take serious skeptics seriously.
As an aside to SADIE,
SADIE: one of the many wonderful things about this particularly blog is that we bring, not just our personal knowledge, but a little of the ‘personal’ as well. Bookworm has referred to this blog as a salon.
Our My intention was not to interrupt the friendly interchanges on this blog. Rather, we I stumbled in here, saw a few claims that were unsupportable, and posted a reply. That led to several exchanges.
When we I comment, it is out of respect. In other words, if someone says something on the lines of Pelosi = socialist = communist = fascist, as ridiculous as the claim might be, we I accept that the person is posting it sincerely. Hence, they deserve a reasoned response. Indeed, we I hope that our friends and neighbors will correct us me when we are I am wrong. We I try to learn from our my mistakes, and have acquired quite an education thereby.
SADIE: Bookworm, several threads and too many URL’s ago, asked our new visitor a direct question that went unanswered.
Considering you were complaining about responses and counter-responses to every comment, it’s odd that you are complaining that we missed one. What was the question?
Hmm. Strikeout doesn’t post, though it shows correctly when editing.
It’s not the climate change that is being challenged, Z, it’s the “anthropogenic” part.
What scientists have shown about prehistory indicate that this cycle has occurred before – before humans. It could not have been anthopogenic before because we anthros didn’t exist. In fact I believe it can be shown that the CO2 level has increased _following_ every warming cycle – and we’re still in a warming cycle starting some 800 years ago or so. The most likely cause for the cycles is apparently that big glowing spot in our sky, and our physical relationship to it, defined by miles. We’re in a slightly oval orbit around it, and sometimes get farther away from it – which is theoretically what we’re doing about now – and that means we get colder. Additionally, there’s the little thing about sunspots … and the Maunder Minimum which what apparently the cause of the “little ice age” during the Middle ages, and which we seem to be also beginning now. Sunspot activity has been minimal since about 2006 (I think). We are starting into global _cooling_, it would seem.
So you go ahead and move to Minnesota and get out your swimsuit. I’m headed for Texas (one of these days) and will be prepared with all my woolies. Short growing seasons are going to be a problem, but I guess when about half the population dies off due to not having enough sense to get under cover when the snow starts to fall, we’ll manage.
Of course, if you’re right, half the population will die from starvation or lack of water as well. In any case, it appears that half the world’s population is about to die off. If you’re right, that ought to solve the problem. If I’m right, we’re going to have to find new sources of oil, but it should last longer, giving us time to go all nuclear.
By the way…have your scientists (you know, the 32,000 acceptable ones) ever explained to you why we had at least one Ice Age before, and what caused the warming that ended it? Perhaps they have some records they can supply info from??
suek: It’s not the climate change that is being challenged, Z, it’s the “anthropogenic” part.
Dependson the day of the week.
suek: What scientists have shown about prehistory indicate that this cycle has occurred before – before humans.
Of course it has. Paleoclimatology is an important discipline.
suek: In fact I believe it can be shown that the CO2 level has increased _following_ every warming cycle – …
Yes, that’s a positive feedback mechanism.
suek: In any case, it appears that half the world’s population is about to die off.
Some people might consider that a problem.
suek: … and we’re still in a warming cycle starting some 800 years ago or so.
You’re probably referring to the Medieval Warm Period, which was followed by cooling known as the Little Ice Age.
Those crazy climatologists! It’s just amazing how they figure all this stuff out.
We’re a bit off-topic, by the way. But just to recap, it is quite apparent that the U.S. has a history of domination in Latin America.
Zachriel, to what extent do you believe that “domination” continues today?
Don Quixote: to what extent do you believe that “domination” continues today?
Far less than just years ago. Most Latin American countries have moved to democracy. The biggest problem today is the flow of money and guns due to the drug trade. This can result in the militarization of otherwise stable democracies.
>>Some people might consider that a problem.>>
Well … lets face it. 100% of the population is going to die off. The question is not whether they will or not, the question is a matter of duration.
There are those who prefer to eliminate the unborn, and there are those that choose to eliminate the long ago born, but the fact is, if there’s _any_ reason that the earth will not support the number of the population that inhabits the earth, then the fittest – however the conditions may define the term – will survive. The rest will have a shorter stay than expected.
suek: 100% of the population is going to die off. The question is not whether they will or not, the question is a matter of duration.
Yes, people are mortal. The question was one of early mortality.
suek: The rest will have a shorter stay than expected.
We’re rather fond of the little monkeys. Maybe that’s just us.
Zachriel said:
“In fact I believe it can be shown that the CO2 level has increased _following_ every warming cycle – …
Yes, that’s a positive feedback mechanism. ”
Actually, no. What has been suggested regarding the increase in CO2 levels after a warming cycle is not indicative of positive feedback – what was actually described looked more like a negative feedback cycle with CO2 levels as a trailing indicator.
Zach, was the successful U.S. effort to destabliize the Sandinistas a bad thing? If so, why?
Zachriel said: “Yes, there is a strong consensus within the scientific community. The question of anthropogenic climate change is largely settled.”
As a member of said community (retired physicist) I dispute that statement. It is not settled at all and nevr has been, something that has been becoming more and more apparent as more data are gathered and more facts about the AWG movement become public.
Regarding your comment about models and CO2 forcing: this is common line that has been put out for years, esp by that leading AGW fellow at NASA-Goddard who has been flogging it. Unfortunately, all that means is that he has a bad model. He also claimed he couldn’t get the “proper” results using solar forcing, but that’s also because he has a bad model.
The history of climate models is quite illuminating — the first ones were pure bunk involving things like shallow seas of unifomr temp lacking convection and other non-physical traits, but they produced results that got headlines. The models have evolved of course but they are still to true models as the math does not exist to make a true model. Basically what the AWG proponents do it build a model, and then tweak the thing to get the results that they want. Last I checked, these models still had not been released to be vetted by independant studies.
Further, the hallmarks of AGW have been proven wrong: for just one example, the famous hockey stick graph was purely an artifact of fundamental errors in processing the data — it was demonstrated that the data used could equally well support a decrease and temperature as an increased where the error-bars on the data were correctly considered. I will leave aside all the problems with the various data sets themselves for want of space.
I will also leave aside the various shenigans that AGW researchers have been caught doing with their data. But I will mention the fact that the oceans have been showing a slight cooling trend for as long as we have comprehensive data. It does require anything beyond high-school physics to know that if the oceans are not heating up it is impossible for global temp to be increasing.
You also say:
“Thousands of U.S. dead, tens of thousands wounded. Trillions of dollars. The lack of a significant threat as required as a justification for war. The strained alliances. Most of all, the responsibility for the horrible consequences of the war, including hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.”
Again sorry to fact-check you, but except for the first statement, the remaining are shop-worn talking points long shown to be factually incorrect. Allow me to recap:
The total cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been less than Obama’s failed stimulus spending so far; the Iraq war is in fact the least expensive war in US history.
The “Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis” canard was based on a long-discredited politically motivated study; the real number is about 10x less. That may still be considered too many by some, but against Saddam’s carnage it is in fact close to even. More importantly, the Iraqis themselves approve (though they are wary of the current occupant of a certainly toney WDC address).
Actually quite few of our alliances improved a result of the war. The fact that the MSM declined to report this is did not make it any less the case. Perhaps some of the leaked diplomatic cables would illuminate you in this regard, although you would have to go back further to get a true picture.
I don’t know about you, but I consider a nuclear-armed Iraq under Saddam a serious threat and justification for war, except that we already were at war so that justification is unnecessary; his invasion of Kuwait was the justification.
If “thousands of US dead” for the freedom of Iraq is too heavy a price to pay, what do you say to that fact that statistically, a black male American of service age (18 to 30) stood a greater chance of being killed in WDC, Philadelphia, or Oakland than a US soldier in Iraq, in any phase of that conflict? I think that is a much greater price to pay and I see little or no good coming from it, certainly not liberating 30 million people from a truly horrible regime.
And looking at Iraq today compared to Saddam’s Iraq does not strike me a “horrible consequence” –unless the welfare of the Iraqi people means nothing to you. Perhaps you’d like me to tell the story of the “fermentation” vats and the children’s fingernails?
If you oppose the Iraq War, that is fine. You do not need any reason for that, so it is unnecessary to recycle talking points that have already been demolished — it just makes you look like you are floundering about for a “rational” basis for your personal beliefs and/or trying to score points in debate by advancing arguments that you think those who disagree with you will respond to, but in the end only make you look like a tool (rarely a good thing).
All you need to do is acknowledge — and it doesn’t even matter if you do it only in private — that you prefer leaving in power a sadistic dictator who gassed his own people, used rape as instrument of state policy, built prisons specifically for children, tested chemical weapons on children, had dinner guests beaten to death by his sons, invaded his neighbors, and financed international terrorism when he wasn’t doing really bad things, than to see American military power used to remove him and try to begin to restore the country.
You have every right to that belief. However, I’m afraid I will decline to join you in it or to think well of you for holding it.
The warmer the climate, the greater the biological zone activity, the more exhaled (i.e., emitted) CO2. I’m a biochemist, Owen. Great to have a physicist in the discussion. I was afraid that I would stray into areas well beyond my expertise, with respect to AGW discussions.
As a physicist, perhaps you could explain how man-made global warming translated into Martian global warming as well. Some sort of “forcing” mechanism, no doubt.
Owen: What has been suggested regarding the increase in CO2 levels after a warming cycle is not indicative of positive feedback – what was actually described looked more like a negative feedback cycle with CO2 levels as a trailing indicator.
Most research indicates amplification.
Lorius et al., The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming, Nature 1990.
Callion et al., Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III, Science 2003.
Owen: As a member of said community (retired physicist) I dispute that statement.
Just because a physicist might dispute relativity doesn’t mean there is not a consensus within the physics community. In any case, you should publish your reasoning about climate in the relevant literature. Of course, you know enough to do a literature search to determine whether the issues you raise have already been addressed.
Danny Lemieux: The warmer the climate, the greater the biological zone activity, the more exhaled (i.e., emitted) CO2.
Animals are, in most cases, carbon neutral. However, the warmer the climate, the more carbon tends to be fixed by plants.
Life will evolve to meet any challenges due to climate change.
Charles Martel: was the successful U.S. effort to destabliize the Sandinistas a bad thing? If so, why?
The original question was whether the U.S. was politically dominating its neighbors. It has.
As to your question, the United States has purported to support international laws against undermining sovereign governments, and broke their own laws about supporting the Contras. By their own standard it was wrong. That’s why they tried to keep it secret from the American people.
Was it a bad thing in terms of results?
And I’d be very interested in hearing your thoughts in response to Owen’s excellent analysis of your comments on Iraq. Please don’t nitpick, but answer Owen’s points and the fundamental question — Is Iraq better off with Saddam or without him?
>>Just because a physicist might dispute relativity doesn’t mean there is not a consensus within the physics community.>>
Piffle, we say. Don’t bother us with your silly ideas. We have many others who agree with us.
You have been dismissed.
>>Animals are, in most cases, carbon neutral. However, the warmer the climate, the more carbon tends to be fixed by plants.>>
Ok…I am _not_ a biochemist. In fact, I would prefer to not discuss my “experience” in the biochemical field.
But.
Even I know that all life is “carbon neutral” in that we are in a closed system, and nothing gets in and nothing gets out. Animals are _not_ carbon “neutral” unless you are considering their breakdown after death. During life, all animals exhale CO2. Like _constantly_ … or we’d be rapidly discussing the “breakdown after death” part. Plants use the CO2 exhaled by animals to produce O2, which is required by said living animals. As I said – we’re in a closed system. We’re co-dependent. We _need_ each other!! If we carbon neutral animals didn’t supply CO2, just exactly where would the “more” carbon for plants that you postulate come from??
You know…I’m beginning to think Zach is a plant (non-CO2 neutral) sent to cross examine each of us to determine our qualifications. I get that feeling about our customers sometimes – that some government official has sent them in to see if we’re doing our job. You just get the feeling that _nobody_ could be that ignorant, or that demanding of specifics – so there _must_ be another explanation.
Zach is not a physicist and he isn’t disputing general relativity. The point is, plenty of physicists are paving new ground on new theories. They don’t have to match up with general relativity. In fact, some of the things are attempts to improve upon general relativity.
Consensus just means “conservative”, traditional, and “stuck in the box”. Conservative as Zach defines it in his little Victorian era setup.
Nick pick, nick pick.
Separate out the real argument and you can see Zach try to address a one liner! It’s the show of a… actually, it’s a show of the hour, not a show of a century.
As you can see in 90, Zach doesn’t even have an answer. Not even one validated by his public education. Can you imagine that. Not even public education could give him an easy citation to contest me in this battle. He just folds like a pinata hit by a 200 pound sledge hammer.
Boom. Zach. You went boom. Did you know?
I think Zachriel’s argument – I shouldn’t speak for Them – is concerning a concept called carbon forcing: That there is a feedback look between carbon dioxide presence in the atmosphere and warming, and that they feed each other.
There *is* carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from industrial processes in a technological nation. Cement creation for one. Burning coal, for another. I bet oil refineries do as well.
This is, I believe, the basis of declaring man-made carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” – not what we exhale, but what we produce as a part of our technological processes. One of Z’s links – a professorial study at a university – indicated that beyond the “closed systems” of mammalian respiration and plant photosynthesis, there has been an additional rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere that can ONLY be explained by worldwide technological release of CO2 into the atmosphere. And our economy is by far still the biggest producer of such CO2 emissions.
That’s where the debate lies I think. The debate that, according to all of Z’s links on this topic, is no longer a valid debate and is resolved.
Or CIA involvement in the Chilean coup against the democratically elected government there.
In addition to the Resolution of August 22 1973, here is a telling quote from the Church Report :
Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was.
[see below reference to Church Report]
Under the constitution, it took a two-thirds vote to convict the president of an abuse of power.
Correct. As Unidad Popular had more than a third of the seats in Congress, this path was not feasible.
A “democratically elected” chief executive does not have the right to run roughshod over the laws and Constitution. Allende took this path because he never had the support of the majority- neither in Congress nor among the people. Very few who chant the “democratically elected” mantra about Allende acknowledge this, because in most cases they know nothing more about Chile than the mantras “democratically elected Allende” and “murderous Pinochet.” So it goes, with the one-liner approach to politics and history. I am also amazed how often those two mantras appear as talking points about Chile, as if people are reading from a script.
The Chamber was illegally suggesting a military coup.
Do you have the expertise in Chilean law to make that claim? Interesting that you have no response to the illegal actions of Allende. Both the Chamber of Deputies and the Supreme Court made reference to the illegal actions of Allende and his followers. Read the Resolution to get an idea. If you want specific examples of those illegal actions, as the Resolution mostly speaks in general terms, I can direct you to some readings. Chile was deeply divided, at an impasse, with a President who respected neither the Constitution nor the wishes of the majority. How do you square the circle?
While the Congress voted on the copper nationalization, most of Allende’s nationalizations were by decree. Oh sorry, I thought only dictators operated by decree. Allende’s justification for nationalization by decree was a “decree law” that Colonel Marmaduke Grove issued during a short lived military junta in the 1930s. Interesting that “democratically elected” Allende would justify such nationalizations by citing a “decree law” issued by a military junta.[golpista militar, milico golpista, what have you.]
Is this your idea of the way a “democratically elected” President should operate, to justify his actions by citing a decree issued by a military junta?
Probably an additional reason for the military deciding to have the coup was the aborted naval mutiny in early August. The navy discovered that Carlos Altamirano was the “intellectual author” of the mutiny. Carlos Altamirano was then the Secretary-General of the Socialist Party- Allende’s party. Several days before the coup, Carlos Altamirano publicly proclaimed his role in the naval mutiny. For some odd reason, admirals and generals do no take kindly to mutinies, especially when they are spearheaded by the Secretary-General of a political party. Especially when that is the party of the President.
What shattered democracy in Chile was not the coup, but the blatant disregard that Allende and his followers had for democracy, the law and the Constitution. The military junta simply picked up the pieces. Democracy was already shattered.
The result was a murderous military regime.
The Videla junta in Argentina killed ~30,000 people, about ten times more than the ~3,000 killed by the Pinochet regime in Chile. [4,000/year, versus 200/year.] Yet compared to all the lefty chatter about Pinochet, there is very little said about Videla and his crew. Aparentemente los Argentinos no valen tanto como los Chilenos. [Apparently Argentines are not worth as much as Chileans.] Nor do the lefties say much about the 5 million killed in the Congo civil war.
Regarding 3,000 losing their lives, recall what Communist Party spokesman Voloidia Teitelboim, who resided in Moscow during the Pinochet years, said before the coup about the prospect of civil war in Chile: “it probably would signify immense loss of human lives, between half a million and one million.”
Menos Mal. It could have been worse, a lot worse. There were deep divisions during the Allende years. Families were divided, just as in our Civil War. Salvador Allende was a first cousin first removed to the author Isabel Allende. In her book Paula [page 17] Isabel recounted how Salvador was a father figure to her during her childhood – yet Isabel’s family was divided. That shows how deep the divisions were.
For those who consider Allende to have been committed to democracy, consider these Allende quotes from journalist Georgie Ann Geyer’s autobiography, Buying the Night Flight. [ page 97]
“Would a one-party state be good for Chile?” I asked him. And he answered, thoughtfully but surely, “No…no, not right away. It will take a while.”…..
“If you are elected, will there be elections again?” I asked him. He paused. “You must understand,” he said, carefully but revealingly, “that by the next elections, everything will have changed.”
How many supporters of democracy think a one-party state will be good for a country?
http://books.google.com/books?id=RGju3xLQsh0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=buyng+the+night+flight&sig=ACfU3U1y3SV7vD2TEMDoY7XWLwYySU_W2A#PPA97,M1 Buying the Night Flight, by Georgie Ann Geyer
I highly recommend her chapter on Chile and all of the book, for that matter. I also highly recommend Guerrilla Prince, her book on Castro.
Church Report: COVERT ACTION IN CHILE 1963-1973, Staff Report of the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, UNITED STATES SENATE,December 18, 1975Printed for the use of the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities,U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 63-37
Teitelboim quote: Wall Street Journal, What Really Happened In Chile 30 Years Ago, James R. Whelan, Sept 11,2003 , p A11.
[Book’s software doesn’t like a lot of links]
Don Quixote: Was {Iraq War and Occupation} a bad thing in terms of results?
There is every reason to hope that the Iraqis will forge a better lives for themselves and their children. But that’s not the question to ask. The question to ask is whether there was a better way forward that didn’t require a war, foreign occupation, black prisons, sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and the complete breakdown of order there.
suek: Piffle, we say. Don’t bother us with your silly ideas.
In fact, scientists are very interested in contrary positions, but they have to supported by the evidence. Indeed, scientists live for the opportunity to overturn some fundamental principle or finding.
suek: Even I know that all life is “carbon neutral” in that we are in a closed system, and nothing gets in and nothing gets out.
Carbon neutral refers to atmospheric carbon. Carbon can be sequestered, such as in a peat. Or sequestered carbon can be released, such as the burning of fossil fuel.
suek: Animals are _not_ carbon “neutral” unless you are considering their breakdown after death.
A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and cat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.
Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
progress through the guts of a beggar.
suek: During life, all animals exhale CO2. Like _constantly_ … or we’d be rapidly discussing the “breakdown after death” part. Plants use the CO2 exhaled by animals to produce O2, which is required by said living animals.
Plants take carbon from the atmosphere, animals eat the carbon, burn it and release it back into the atmosphere. Neutral. Assuming the number of plants stays constant, the amount of atmospheric carbon should also remain constant. If you cut down forests, then this releases net carbon. If you burn fossil fuels, or make cement, you are adding net carbon to the atmosphere that was sequester over millions of years.
Mike Devx: That’s where the debate lies I think. The debate that, according to all of Z’s links on this topic, is no longer a valid debate and is resolved.
Good summary. The evidence clearly supports anthropogenic climate change. One can always revisit the debate, but unless there is new evidence, it is unlikely that this conclusion will change. The current scientific question now concerns the effects of climate change, and possible responses.
Gringo: Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile?
Recently declassified documents show that the U.S. was intimately involved in undermining the Chilean government.
Gringo: As Unidad Popular had more than a third of the seats in Congress, this path was not feasible.
And the Democrats held more than a third of the seats when Clinton was impeached and tried, should France have helped the right wing depose the president in order to install a military dictatorship?
Gringo: A “democratically elected” chief executive does not have the right to run roughshod over the laws and Constitution.
No, they don’t. But the people of Chile have the right to determine the best path to democracy without foreign interference.
>>The evidence clearly supports anthropogenic climate change.>>
Not so.
You still have not answered question one: What was the cause of the global warming that resulted in the ending of the original Ice Age?
Zachriel responds to Owen: Just because a physicist might dispute relativity doesn’t mean there is not a consensus within the physics community.
Sorry, Owen. You have been banished from the Temple of Orthodoxy and declared to be “anathema”. Zachriel has proclaimed from the Mount that you are not a “true” scientist.
Owen explains: What has been suggested regarding the increase in CO2 levels after a warming cycle is not indicative of positive feedback – what was actually described looked more like a negative feedback cycle with CO2 levels as a trailing indicator.
Zachriel repliesMost research indicates amplification, and cites:
Lorius et al., The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming, Nature 1990.
Callion et al., Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III, Science 2003.
Zachriel, I think that you have made it clear that you have neither the credentialed education nor the skills to have critically read and analyze the scientific citations that you data-dump upon us. I seriously question whether you get much beyond the titles, much less the abstracts. You clearly convey that, if a title fits within your world template, then it belongs in the Temple of Orthodoxy, if it does not, it is declared anathema.
If you want to be taken seriously, then provide us with a thoughtful analysis not only of your citations but the countervailing points of view. Don’t treat scientific papers as if they were Koranic mantras of faith. It may come as a total shock to you, but “science” always comes with countervailing points.
Zachriel pronounces: “Animals are, in most cases, carbon neutral. However, the warmer the climate, the more carbon tends to be fixed by plants.”
Zach, this is a non-sensical, simplistic statement and I am not even sure that you know what you meant by it. I suspect that you are merely regurgitation that you a prognostication that you uncritically accepted because it sounded good.
Suek writes: Even I know that all life is “carbon neutral” in that we are in a closed system, and nothing gets in and nothing gets out. Animals are _not_ carbon “neutral” unless you are considering their breakdown after death. During life, all animals exhale CO2. Like _constantly_ … or we’d be rapidly discussing the “breakdown after death” part. Plants use the CO2 exhaled by animals to produce O2, which is required by said living animals. As I said – we’re in a closed system. We’re co-dependent. We _need_ each other!! If we carbon neutral animals didn’t supply CO2, just exactly where would the “more” carbon for plants that you postulate come from??
I don’t know Suek, scientist or not, that was a very clear-thinking analysis and presentation of some basic scientific principles that seem to be beyond Zachriel’s ken.
Zachriel follows with, Plants take carbon from the atmosphere, animals eat the carbon, burn it and release it back into the atmosphere. Neutral. Assuming the number of plants stays constant, the amount of atmospheric carbon should also remain constant. If you cut down forests, then this releases net carbon. If you burn fossil fuels, or make cement, you are adding net carbon to the atmosphere that was sequester over millions of years.
Zach, your understanding of carbon cycles needs serious work, but we’ve been over this ground before.
Gringo writes, “A “democratically elected” chief executive does not have the right to run roughshod over the laws and Constitution,” and Zachriel replies,”No, they don’t. But the people of Chile have the right to determine the best path to democracy without foreign interference.”
I suspect that Zach means only “American interference”, not the Cubans and Russians that Allende brought in to help him undermine his country’s government. In Zach’s mind, I suspect, Allende WAS the government, the Supreme Court and Congress were simply obstacles. It is interesting that in the Leftist mind, left-wing caudillos (Castro, Chavez, Zelaya, Allende, Kirchner, Morales, Ortega etc.) are always associated with the “people”, the people that oppose them are always considered tools of the United States.
Yeah…I’m still working on “Animals are carbon neutral”.
Obviously, he’s never had to cook or clean up poop…
Danny Lemieux: You have been banished from the Temple of Orthodoxy and declared to be “anathema”. Zachriel has proclaimed from the Mount that you are not a “true” scientist.
On the contrary, Owen can certainly disagree with relativity and be a physicist, but his single opinion wouldn’t change a claim about the current scientific consensus. To do that, he would have to publish in order to the consensus with the weight of the evidence.
Danny Lemieux: I think that you have made it clear …
The claim was that research supports amplication. For support, we provided cites to reputable journals. In reply, you wave your hands.
Zachriel: Animals are, in most cases, carbon neutral. However, the warmer the climate, the more carbon tends to be fixed by plants.
Danny Lemieux: this is a non-sensical, simplistic statement and I am not even sure that you know what you meant by it.
It’s not that complicated, and we already provided an explanation. Plants harness the energy of the Sun in order to take carbon out the atmosphere and convert it to sugars and other solid compounds. This process is called carbon fixation. Animals and plants use this fixed carbon for energy by burning it into CO2, which is returned to the atmosphere. This process is carbon neutral, that is, there is no net gain or loss of atmospheric carbon.
When plants and animals die, they are decomposed by other organisms, wormsfood. This returns the remaining carbon to the atmosphere. Under some circumstances, the carbon can become sequestered, such as in a peat. Over geological times, a large amount of carbon can be sequestered. Humans have unlocked millions of years of sequestered carbon in a few decades. Hence, atmospheric carbon has increased significantly.
Danny, you might need to charge tuition fees for this “education” you are giving out on the net man.
Gringo, isn’t it interesting and revealing what the Left chooses to focus on for their propaganda grist mill attacks?
It’s almost like they realize that people who can bring law and order to a place, and improve the economy of the people, are the Left’s worst enemies. Especially when the 3,000 dead keep including Leftist wannabe revolutionaries attempting to “destabilize” the regime.
It’s very revealing who they choose to attack. And who they choose to defend. By their enemies and allies you shall know them. By their actions you shall see the truth of their heart: in good or evil.
Zachriel, you said, “There is every reason to hope that the Iraqis will forge a better lives for themselves and their children. But that’s not the question to ask. The question to ask is whether there was a better way forward that didn’t require a war, foreign occupation, black prisons, sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and the complete breakdown of order there.”
You’re right that is the question. Was there? Keep in mind that Saddam was the source of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing. Keep in mind that the “order” that was broken down was the order of the iron fist. Keep in mind that without our intervention Saddam would likely still be in power, the sectarian violence would be far worse than it is today, the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds would likely be complete and the world would be a far dangerous place both within Iraq and without. Maybe there was a better way to accomplish these ends, but you’ve certainly not suggested any and I doubt there is any.
Several people here have pointed out that your opprobrium seems to be reserved for right wing dictators that America supported. You do not discuss far worse dictators that America opposed, and even, as in Iraq, condemn America for liberating a nation from such a dictator. As you’ve said, one standard should apply to all. Why do your comments,and those of the folks on the left generally, so consistently apply a double standard?
Zachriel quoting Gringo quoting the Church report:
Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile?
Zachriel replying to the quote from the Church report:
Recently declassified documents show that the U.S. was intimately involved in undermining the Chilean government.
The document you cite is from 1970, before Allende became President. The 1975 Church Report also made mention of CIA covert actions in 1970, so your find is not big news. I did not previously include the following quote, because the issue at hand was the 1973 coup.
From the Church Report:
United States covert efforts to affect the course of Chilean politics reached a peak in 1970: the CIA was directed to undertake an effort to promote a military coup in Chile to prevent the accession to power of Salvador Allende.
That US covert actions in 1970 were unsuccessful in preventing Allende, who got 36.3% of the vote, from becoming President in 1970, is hardly proof that the CIA was involved in the coup that toppled Allende in 1973. This is especially so since the Church Report states that covert actions peaked in 1970.
Zachriel explains, “It’s not that complicated, and we already provided an explanation. Plants harness the energy of the Sun in order to take carbon out the atmosphere and convert it to sugars and other solid compounds. This process is called carbon fixation. Animals and plants use this fixed carbon for energy by burning it into CO2, which is returned to the atmosphere. This process is carbon neutral, that is, there is no net gain or loss of atmospheric carbon.
When plants and animals die, they are decomposed by other organisms, wormsfood. This returns the remaining carbon to the atmosphere. Under some circumstances, the carbon can become sequestered, such as in a peat. Over geological times, a large amount of carbon can be sequestered. Humans have unlocked millions of years of sequestered carbon in a few decades. Hence, atmospheric carbon has increased significantly.”
Nope! Try again. Actually, a big part of the answer was already given to you in previous responses. You are missing critical pieces.
Gringo:
As Unidad Popular had more than a third of the seats in Congress, this path [impeachment-type process in 1973] was not feasible.
Zachriel in reply to my above statement:
And the Democrats held more than a third of the seats when Clinton was impeached and tried, should France have helped the right wing depose the president in order to install a military dictatorship?
What did the Church Report say? [for about the third time, I bring up this quote.]
Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was.
You have big reading comprehension problems. Or math comprehension problems: 1973 is NOT equal to 1970. [see my comment #121]
Danny Lemieux: Actually, a big part of the answer was already given to you in previous responses.
Your previous comments consists of nothing but strawmen, handwaving and ad hominem. If you have something relevant to add, then please do.
Gringo: The document you cite is from 1970, before Allende became President.
Of course. The memo stated “The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.”
Gringo: You have big reading comprehension problems. Or math comprehension problems: 1973 is NOT equal to 1970.
Yes, the order has to come before the execution. You really don’t think Nixon directed the CIA to unseat Allende in 1970, and then the CIA did nothing about it. You don’t know Nixon.
“It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup… We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implement clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden.”
Boy, the comment section since Zachriel joined have been going fast and furious. Can’t keep up. And the ‘email me if there are any comments to this article’ would pollute my email box.
Book, I’d LOVE it if there were a sidebar offering, something along the lines of:
‘Email me with links to all posts that received comments yesterda’ [GO BUTTON]
and maybe
‘Email me with links to all posts that received comments in the last [ ] days [GO BUTTON]
Where the [ ] is a drop down or text entry box for, maybe, 1..9 days?
And the email response might have for each such blog post:
Bookworm Post: “Obama’s Apparently Obseqious Handshake” has 5 comments for the last 2 day
First comment at 2011/01/22 10:39 am
Last comment at 2012/01/23 2:41 pm
I wrote a program that pulled down Book’s entire page and parsed it for each post entry and the number of N comments. It compared the last such time I’d pulled down the page and listed each post where the number of comments had changed. So I knew which post commentary to visit to read up on who was saying what.
Look’s like I’ll have to go find that old program again! Can’t keep up!
>>he would have to publish in order to the consensus with the weight of the evidence.>>
Bearing in mind, of course, that those who publish don’t do so if the articles submitted are in disagreement with the so called consensus.
That’s a bit like the dog chasing its tail…
Zachriel opines: Your previous comments consists of nothing but strawmen, handwaving and ad hominem. If you have something relevant to add, then please do.
We’ll just have to let the other posters be the judge of that, Zach.
>> Plants harness the energy of the Sun>>
Ahhh. Energy comes from the Sun. Energy in the form of heat.
Are we getting somewhere???
I’m still waiting for an answer to “What caused the global warming that ended the first Ice Age”?
Zachriel: Your previous comments consists of nothing but strawmen, handwaving and ad hominem. If you have something relevant to add, then please do.
Danny Lemieux: We’ll just have to let the other posters be the judge of that
You again failed to add something relevant.
suek: Energy comes from the Sun. Energy in the form of heat.
And your point? The question concerned the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and whether animals were carbon neutral.
suek: “What caused the global warming that ended the first Ice Age”?
The Huronian glaciation? Outgassing from the Earth’s interior is the usual explanation. Greenhouse gases trapped an increased amount of the Sun’s energy, so the Earth’s surface heated in order to return to energy balance. Normally such gases would be absorbed during mineralization, but with the Earth covered in glaciers, it built up in the atmosphere until positive feedback mechanisms took hold.
Mike Devx, get one of numerous kinds of RSS feeders and input the code for this blog into it. You’ll find it on the right side bar if you scroll down far enough. WordPress usually has a set format for RSS feed links.
With it, you’ll be able to read, continuously comments or posts from this website. Without having to click around.
Danny, it’s the last dying cries of those in Last Stand mode.
Thou Shall Not Pass by Authority of Leftist Dogma!
Ymar #131
> Mike Devx, get one of numerous kinds of RSS feeders …
Thanks Ymar. I’ve actually never tried RSS; amazing since I am in the tech industry! An area I’ve fallen down within; just never looked into it! I will definitely use it. Thx again.
Luck with it, Mike. Hope it saves ya big time.
Ymar says “Danny, it’s the last dying cries of those in Last Stand mode.”
Ymar, Zachriel and his/her team have done a capital job of making us articulate and defend our positions. This isn’t about changing Zachriel’s mind (although his/goal is certainly to change ours). The walls to his/her team’s Temple of Orthodoxy are far too reinforced to let in any light, I suspect. There is no more new information or new arguments being offered, just repetitions of old arguments and old citations that he/she never bothered to read.
I think our threads have pretty much run their course. I certainly am way better informed about these topics, thanks to the many contributions of others. So, this has all been very good.
He/She has provided us with unique insight into “their” thinking, however, so for this, too, we must be grateful.
I certainly found the various recap re-interpretations of Iraq and Chile to be good. The non-Leftist variety.
I demand to speak to the Leftist supervisor. At least they will have the authority to make their own propaganda up on their own cognizance.
>>Outgassing from the Earth’s interior is the usual explanation.>>
Is that another way of saying volcanoes??
But my understanding is that volcanoes spew sufficient material in the air to cause maximal cooling due to shielding the earth from the sun’s radiant energy. As in “The year of no summer”. Might the “outgassing” instead have been the cause of the Ice Age??
Zachriel
Yes, the order has to come before the execution. You really don’t think Nixon directed the CIA to unseat Allende in 1970, and then the CIA did nothing about it. You don’t know Nixon.
Again, you show that you have reading comprehension problems. Here is what I wrote:
“….US covert actions in 1970 [to promote a coup] were unsuccessful in preventing Allende, who got 36.3% of the vote, from becoming President in 1970.…”
Unsuccessful covert actions indicate that the CIA did something about Nixon’s directive in 1970. The CIA just wasn’t successful at them. Like I said, reading comprehension issues.
Zachriel quotes President Nixon from the declassified document:
“It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup… We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden.”
The “clandestine and well hidden” and also unsuccessful efforts of the CIA in 1970 to foment a coup in order to stop the accession of Allende to the Presidency, which led to the killing of General Schneider, were discussed in the Church Report in 1975. Mishaps with Viaux? Check. In spite of those so-called “clandestine and well-hidden” efforts, Allende became President, by legislative vote. Were there such “clandestine and well hidden” efforts to foment a coup in 1973, it is absurd to believe that such efforts in 1973 were never discovered while those “clandestine and well hidden” efforts in 1970 were discovered. The Church Report was very thorough.
Gringo to Zachriel , comment #111
If you want specific examples of those illegal actions [of Allende and his followers], as the Resolution mostly speaks in general terms, I can direct you to some readings.
No response.
Gringo to Zachriel , comment #111
How many supporters of democracy think a one-party state will be good for a country? [Georgie Ann Geyer to Allende: Would a one-party state be good for Chile?” I asked him. And he answered, thoughtfully but surely, “No…no, not right away. It will take a while.”…..]
No response.
Gringo to Zachriel , comment #111
Is this your idea of the way a “democratically elected” President [Allende] should operate, to justify his actions by citing a decree issued by a military junta?
No response.
Your links et al have not told me anything I was not already aware of, from my reading the Church Report. I first read the Church Report years ago, in addition to much other material. By contrast, I doubt you had previously known of the Resolution, nor of Carlos Altamirano nor known about Marmaduke Grove, to mention several matters.
There is no point continuing a discussion with someone with such reading comprehension problems etc.
Momios 54%; La Gente 43%
“There is no more new information or new arguments being offered, just repetitions of old arguments and old citations that he/she never bothered to read.”
Danny, thanks. You just articulated something that’s been dancing around the back of my mind. What we’ve been being subjected to here are tiresome, almost robotlike recitations, like what you find in the Qu’ran.
My mother in law (pbuh) would became extremely uncomfortable anytime you introduced information that went beyond her worldview or comfort zone. No matter how kindly you said it, or what pains you went to to explain it, you could see her eyes glaze over and her lips begin invoking the comforting orthodoxies that you had just refudiated.
As the Christians say when confronted with invincible ignorance, “time to shake the dust from your feet and move on.”
It’s like Gringo just used a nuke on a small marmoset trying to hoard food.
Spetacular
Martel, it’s a mental defense mechanism public education has created amongst the newest generations.
It’s to keep them from learning what Danny used the term “anathema” to describe. Non-dogmatic, heresies.
suek: But my understanding is that volcanoes spew sufficient material in the air to cause maximal cooling due to shielding the earth from the sun’s radiant energy. As in “The year of no summer”. Might the “outgassing” instead have been the cause of the Ice Age??
Volcanic ash has a short term cooling effect. A build up of CO2 has a long term warming effect.
The Huronian Glaciation may have been triggered by the Oxygen Catastrophe, which converted the methane in the atmosphere to CO2 and water, with the CO2 being absorbed by mineralization. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth cools, with ice being a positive feedback mechanism, leading to glaciation.
Danny
This isn’t about changing Zachriel’s mind (although his/goal is certainly to change ours).
If Zachriel had read a tenth of what I have read about Chile over the years, he would be 10 times better informed than he is now.
I used to consider Pinochet a villain, and Allende a martyr, until I read thoroughly on the issue of Chile. Both Allende and Pinochet had their good points. Both Allende and Pinochet had their bad points. As administrators,they had decided differences. At the end of Allende’s time in office, he had transformed Chile into a wreck. At the end of Pinochet’s time in office, he turned the country over much improved over what it was on September 10,1973. This should not be seen as support for dictatorships. Castro, Ortega, Chavez and nearly all of the Latin American General-Presidents, have been successful only at keeping in power, not at improving the conditions of their countries. One man does not have a monopoly on competence. To its detriment ,Latin America has long been attracted to the man on horseback who will sweep away all problems and turn things around. To Latin America’s chagrin, the chances of doing that are about 1 in 50, if that.
For those who want more information on Cuba’s presence in Chile during the Allende years- I doubt our friend Z is among them -I leave with two quotes.
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pinochet.htm
One year into Allende’s term, the Cuban Embassy in Santiago had more staff members than Chile’s own foreign ministry. Castro himself made a remarkable month long official visit to Chile in which he toured the country dispensing wisdom. Is it any wonder that Allende’s opponents wondered if he intended to model Chile on the lines of Cuba. …….
And so we return to the paradox of their respective popularities. Pinochet did bad things, left the Chilean economy in a reasonable state and permitted a referendum on his presidency. Castro did bad things, will leave the Cuban economy as a basket case and never – not ever – permitted a referendum on his presidency. Guess who will get the more sympathetic obituaries across the world?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1983/09/the-castro-doctrine-makes-gains
C hile In the early 1970s Cuba provided arms and training for Chile’s Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR During the three-year rule of Salvador Allende, Cubans received a total of 1,386 diplo matic visas and 1,294 official visas to travel to Chile. Mos t of them remained in Chile during this time. At the time of the Sep tember 1973 coup that toppled Allende, nearly 1,000 more Cubans were discovered to have entered the country illegally. Thus, more Cubans went to Chile during this period than to any other country in Latin America.
Castro killed more than Pinochet, yet all we hear from the lefties is “murderous Pinochet.” Chile’s progress in such public health indices as life expectancy and infant mortality during Pinochet’s time in power was superior to Cuba’s performance under Castro, yet all we hear from lefties is “Fidel’s great health care system.” [Go to the ECLA/CEPAL website :Google cepal statistics ]
Gringo: Again, you show that you have reading comprehension problems. Here is what I wrote:
“….US covert actions in 1970 [to promote a coup] were unsuccessful in preventing Allende, who got 36.3% of the vote, from becoming President in 1970.…”
Yes. Bush was a minority vote President too. He didn’t even win a plurality.
Gringo: Unsuccessful covert actions indicate that the CIA did something about Nixon’s directive in 1970. The CIA just wasn’t successful at them.
Yes. And the memo said to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.” In other words, the operation doesn’t stop because Allende assumed power. The memos are quite clear: There was an ongoing effort to undermine the government of Chile.
If your point was that a CIA agent didn’t actually surround the presidential palace, but only kept friendly {wink, wink} contact with the plotters before and after the coup, encouraging them to take action, meanwhile undermining Allende’s government and Chile’s economy, even during the oppression, then sure.
“Dr. Kissinger discussed his desire that the word of encouragement to the Chilean military in recent weeks be kept as secret as possible … The Agency should continue keeping the pressure on every Allende weak spot in sight, now .. and into the future. ”
Gringo: No response.
Because your questions were diversionary. Some people (even on this very forum) think that Obama is part of a socialist plot to undermine the Constitution. Yet, very few would appreciate China conspiring with elements within the government plotting a coup to set up a military dictatorship. Americans would reasonably consider it foreign meddling.
Gringo: There is no point continuing a discussion with someone with such reading comprehension problems etc.
If you read more carefully, you can overcome that problem.
Gringo: I used to consider Pinochet a villain, and Allende a martyr, until I read thoroughly on the issue of Chile.
Yes, Pinochet made the trains run on time. Undoubtedly, he thought he was doing the right thing for his country.
Gringo: Castro killed more than Pinochet, yet all we hear from the lefties is “murderous Pinochet.”
Castro is no George Washington.
But the issue was American domination in Latin America.
Thanks, Charles M and Gringo. I always learn a lot from your posts.
One of the things that I do disagree with you about is Pinochet’s influence on the Chilean economy. Together with the creation of one of the most modern and successful social security models (designed by the U. of Chicago), Pinochet’s economic reforms took Chile out of the 3rd world into a modern world economy.
Bottom line, though, Pinochet distinguished himself by resigning and turning over power to a democratic government.
As far as Castro is concerned, it’s quite simple. When he initiated his revolution, Cuba was the richest country in the Caribbean basin by far. Castro was a failed lawyer (figures). Today, Cuba vies with Haiti as the poorest country in the Caribbean basin, Castro is one of the richest people in the world, and his people are undernourished and enslaved. To the Left, this makes him a hero. Back in our history, we used to call people like this “plantation owners”.
We are running in circles. Zachriel is back to condemning every regime that America supported while not being nearly as harsh on far worse regimes that America did not support. Massive double stand from the advocate of one standard for all. As he points out, the issue (to him and to the left generally) is condemning America for all sins ever committed in history, not condemning oppressive regimes in an even handed manner.
I’m enjoying the discussion and will continue to participate so long as there is anything interesting to say, but, as I said on the last thread I started, I don’t think it will be especially productive to continue to start new threads. Although, Danny, you are far better at this than I am. If you wanted to start a new thread, I’ll bet it would be a good one.
“Yes. Bush was a minority vote President too. He didn’t even win a plurality.” was a complete non-sequitur. Surely, you can do better.
Gringo: Again, you show that you have reading comprehension problems. Here is what I wrote:
“….US covert actions in 1970 [to promote a coup] were unsuccessful in preventing Allende, who got 36.3% of the vote, from becoming President in 1970.…”
Zachriel: Yes. Bush was a minority vote President too. He didn’t even win a plurality.
Don Quixote: a complete non-sequitur.
It’s entirely relevant to Gringo’s implied point about Allende’s minority vote.
Don Quixote: Zachriel is back to condemning every regime that America supported while not being nearly as harsh on far worse regimes that America did not support.
That is incorrect, but remember, the thread was about America’s dominance. Would you rather discuss Soviet dominance? Colonial history? The Mongol Conquests? The Mongols killed a larger proportion of the world’s population than any other conquerors.
Perhaps another time.
You address what you see as an implied point and ignore the explicit point? Uh-huh. Non-sequitur.
The explicit point was made in Gringo’s comment #121: “United States covert efforts to affect the course of Chilean politics reached a peak in 1970: the CIA was directed to undertake an effort to promote a military coup in Chile to prevent the accession to power of Salvador Allende.” If they failed at their peak, it’s ulikely they had much impact a few years later. I don’t think he’s contending Nixon didn’t try, only that he didn’t have much impact. But he know 100 times more than I do so I shouldn’t speak for him.
Of course it’s correct. Just read your own comments. You continue to attack Pinochet and the most you can muster about Castro is that he was no George Washington.
As for what the thread is about, every thread that goes longer than 4 comments takes on a life of its own that may wander far from the original topic. We are well beyond 4 comments and the topic has evolved. There is nothing wrong with that.
Don Quixote: most you can muster about Castro is that he was no George Washington.
It was answered two ways. One, a link to Human Rights Watch detailing Castro’s oppression. And two, by comparison to George Washington. What single act distinguishes Washington as, what George III said, “the greatest man in the world”?
Zachriel, in answer to your question: he resigned.
Zach:
“Just because a physicist might dispute relativity doesn’t mean there is not a consensus within the physics community. In any case, you should publish your reasoning about climate in the relevant literature. Of course, you know enough to do a literature search to determine whether the issues you raise have already been addressed. ”
This is non-nonsequiter. I dispute the statement because I am familiar with the climate science community going back 25 years and I am familiar with what the membership thereof thinks about AWG. And from this knowledge, I know that AWG is not settled science and there has never been a consensus in support of it, and that over the past 5 years, additional findings have severely eroded what confidence there was in AWG theories within that community. Support for AGW is primarily outside the scientific community, as it always has been.
There is howver a great deal of politicking on the subject is it is a major industry — but neither of these can manufacture a consensus where there is not one. Nor can the bald assertion manufacture one, nor does the fact that AWG proponents make great deal of noise make their models anymore sound or any “consensus” stronger.
So just to clarify: what is your educational and professional background? Are you competent to describe in detail and evaluate AGW models? How are you with nonlinear fluid dynamics? Are you a solar astronomer? Have you personally developed atmosphereic models? Please provide these details so we can all evaluate your competence WRT to AGW.
Anyone can use search engines to cherry pick results supporting their ideology. The question is, can you actually sit down with these researchers and discuss their results peer to peer and evaluate them?
If you can, I will be inclined to take your comments seriously. If you can’t, I will not.
Zach said: “Most research indicates amplification.”
Meaning… what? Are you sure you understand the difference between negative and positive feedback and leading and trailing indicators? Of course, you can have amplification with either negative or positive feedback — that is not the issue.
Can you please explain in your own words what the mechanisms are so we can know if you know what you are talking about? If you are just going to parrot the party line, well, we’ve heard that already.
Danny: Last time I checked on the Martian warming question, the blood was high on the walls in that debate. The straightforward answer — that the sun’s output was increasing — does not satisfy the AGW crowd of course.
We know that the sun is a long-period variable but Mars is weird and the possibility of geothermal activity and poorly understood coupling mechanisms certainly exists.
Frankly, I’ve not kept up with the arguements and counterarguements for the past year. But my friend, the planetary scientist (originally at NASA/Ames and now back east) was not impressed.
Final point on the Iraq war (my final point — not an attempt to curtail any discussion):
Zach says somewhere that the real question is: was there as “better” way of depsoing Saddam that did not involve all the “bad” things I thinks happened and that would have been a “debacle” etc. That is a good question. However, the truth that Zach and any one else who wants to debate this in public must face is that what they are in fact doing is engaging in a fun but meaningless parlor game.
Not meaningless because just because the course of history has already been decided, but because the necessary data are not yet in the public domain. No one who publicly debates the war is playing with a full deck and no valid conclusions can be drawn based on the data currently in circulation. (Even Bush’s book does not contain the whole story, for obvious reasons.)
Unless you were there, unless you had all the data and were responsible for the analysis that would send people into harm’s way or not, you are playing a game. It can be fun and enlightening but it has little resemblance to reality.
But by all means, go have fun.
And BTW, the answer to Zach’s question is, for the record: No.
For the record, I thought I would document some examples of Zachriel’s reasoning ability and/or his knowledge about what he writes.
#145 Zachriel quotes Gringo:
Castro killed more than Pinochet, yet all we hear from the lefties is “murderous Pinochet.”
#145 Zachriel in reply to Gringo:
Castro is no George Washington. But the issue was American domination in Latin America.
Who was the first person who brought forth the issue of the 1973 coup in Chile? Zachriel in #14. Who was the first person who applied the word “murderous” to Pinochet and his governing? In comment #67, Zachriel wrote, “The result was a murderous military regime.”
Apparently Zachriel is of the opinion that he has the right to comment on Pinochet, but no one else.
For a number of reasons, Cuba is appropriate to bring into the conversation. As I pointed out in #143, Cuba had a large presence in Allende’s Chile. President Allende’s daughter Beatriz married a Cuban DGI agent, Luis Fernández Oña. The fear that Allende was going to turn Chile into another Cuba was a very strong influence on coup supporters. See what Allende said in #138: that a one-party state would be a good thing for Chile. Cuba is a one-party state.
Throughout the 1980s, Cuba had ~50,000 troops engaged in wars in Africa [0.5% of population]. Cuba first sent 36,000 troops to Angola in 1975. They did not withdraw until 1991, with the loss of the Soviet sugar daddy. This would be the equivalent per capita of ~ 1.5 million US troops engaged in foreign wars at a given time, a figure that we haven’t had for well over a half century [ or 0.5% of population]. No issue with Cuban intervention from Zachriel.
Cuban intervention is very appropriate to this discussion, since a lot of the US support for right-wing dictators in Latin America came about from Cuban support for guerrillas. Cuba supported guerrillas regardless of the kind of government in power. For example, Venezuela was a democracy since 1958, but that didn’t stop Castro from supporting guerrillas in Venezuela. Cuba supported the FARC, but Colombia was a democracy. Bolivia’s 1952 revolution nationalized the 3 big tin mining companies –none of which were American owned- and had agrarian reform, but Cuba supported guerrillas in Bolivia. Wait a minute: I thought that Castro supported agrarian reform and nationalization of big companies. The US supported governments against Cuban-funded guerrillas, regardless of the kind of government in power.
http://www.afrol.com/articles/17553 Cuba in Africa
Further example of Zachriel’s reasoning and knowledge.
Zachriel #98 quotes Don Quixote:
to what extent do you believe that “domination” continues today?
Zachriel in reply to DQ:
Far less than just years ago. Most Latin American countries have moved to democracy. The biggest problem today is the flow of money and guns due to the drug trade. This can result in the militarization of otherwise stable democracies.
Zachriel associates less American “domination” in Latin America with more democracy. Unfortunately for that equation, the least democratic countries in Latin America are also the ones with the least American “dominance” of their respective governments and are the ones that are the most anti-American: Cuba and Venezuela. [At least the governments are anti-American.] Note that Zachriel, for all his concern about democracy and lack of American “domination,” expresses no concern about Venezuela and Cuba. Since the US doesn’t “dominate” them, it’s all to the good.
Owen, in answer to your question, Zach has no scientific credentials he has sought fit to mention here. At most he has a Bachelor’s degree from some liberal arts college.
A further example of Zachriel’s knowledge base, from #23
The Sandinistas overthrew the dictorial Somoza regime in 1979. They instituted a universal literacy campaign as the first step towards elections. The U.S. supported the Contras, a guerrilla group with a pattern of human rights abuses. The Sandinistas won free elections in 1984. They lost the elections in 1987, and gave up power voluntarily to the opposition. They remain a potent political force in Nicaragua today.
Some of what he writes is accurate, such as what happened in 1979. Yes they are a potent – and also anti-democratic force today. His comments on elections and the Contras leave a lot of relevant facts. There is one howler about 1987 elections. There were no elections in 1987. The Sandinistas lost the elections in 1990.
There is no point discussing finer points with someone so ignorant about Nicaragua as to write “They lost the elections in 1987.”
If Zachriel wants to learn more about Nicaragua, if he is not content with his current level of ignorance about Nicaragua, here are some books I have read about Nicaragua. The list is by no means definitive, nor does the list constitute all I have read about Nicaragua. However, it is a start.
Kinzer: Blood of Brothers Bruce Marcus, ed.” Sandinistas Speak Carlos Fonseca Un Nicraguense en Moscu Martin Kriele Nicaragua: America’s Bleeding Heart – Leiken et al, eds. Central American Crisis Reader Humberto Belli: Breaking Faith Jore Alaniz: Nicaragua, una revolucion reaccionaria Robert Czarkowski: De Polonia a Nicaragua Shirley Chisolm Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family Edward Sheean: Agony in the Garden Robert Kagan: Twilight Struggle: American Power and Nicaragua, 1977-1990 Tomas Borge: The Patient Impatience: From Boyhood to Guerrilla: A Personal Narrative of Nicaragua’s Struggle for Liberation Robert Turner Nicaragua Vs. the US: A Look At the Facts Omar Cabezas: Fire From the Mountain
Good website for documenting Cuban intervention in Latin America,if anyone is interested.
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/support.htm
Some people like living in the darkness of ignorance. Keeps them ship shape in the morning and zipping.
Gringo, thanks for the links. I will use them in the future. I don’t think you need to convince us and Zach is gone…smoked!
Danny, FWIW, I was doing it for posterity, so that Zachriel’s ignorant and poorly reasoned utterances will be further exposed, if anyone ever bothers to read this thread.
It is amazing how easy it is to rip Z’s arguments to shreds. Nonetheless, it is better to let the responses marinate a while, because the first response is usually not the best one. That’s why writers rewrite and rewrite.
My roommate in High school (boarding school) my senior year was from Cuba. Her father was a doctor. She (they) were _so_ in favor of Castro because Baptiste was such a tyrant. I’ve often wondered what happened to her and her family. I get updates from my school periodically, but I’ve never seen anything about her.
Her name was Anna Maria Rosario Rodriguez Ramirez. That was her “short” name…the one she used as an “everyday” name. Her full name took about four full lines all the way across one of those old standard school blackboards…
Gringo: There were no elections in 1987. The Sandinistas lost the elections in 1990.
Yes, as was corrected by Charles Martel, above. A new constitution was adopted in 1987, leading to elections, and the Sandinistas peacefully transferred power in 1990 after losing the elections. Today, Daniel Ortega, a member and long-time leader of the Sandinistas, is President.
Your main point seems to be that Allende was undermining constitutional government in Chile. However, overthrowing the constitution and installing a military dictatorship doesn’t seem to address that problem. In any case, the question was one of American dominance in Latin America. Your own position supports the fact of American dominance.
A better argument would be based on Latin America having always been a superpower vacuum, a battleground for colonialism. Spain, France, the U.S. and other powers vied for influence. Someone had to fill the vacuum. The U.S. was closer, it suited their security needs, and they probably did a better job in some respects than other powers would have done.
Zachriel: A strong an prosperous America leading free nations is a good thing. Dominance of one nation by another is undemocratic and inherently unstable. If, as many Americans agree, Washington is detached from the concerns of the people of Aberdeen or Bangor, then why would anyone expect Washington to be able to run the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah.
Following through on this argument about the superpower vacuum, dominance by America could be argued to be the best of the available options, and it took time for representative institutions to develop in Latin America. Of course, colonial powers have always said this. It’s debatable whether many such American actions helped or hindered, but certainly even the worst wars leave some positive vestiges.
“We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world.” — T.E. Lawrence
>>…but certainly even the worst wars leave some positive vestiges.>>
That’s a bit fatuous. Just for grins and giggles, how about WWI. Positive vestiges???
Zachriel: …but certainly even the worst wars leave some positive vestiges.
suek: That’s a bit fatuous.
That doesn’t imply they were worth the cost, just that people build ties even with hated conquerors.
suek: Just for grins and giggles, how about WWI. Positive vestiges???
It accelerated the breakdown of colonial empires. It signaled America’s influence on the world stage, including the promulgation of the idea of a people’s right of self-determination, and the idea of an international community of nations.
Well…
You certainly are an optimist. I’m sure the pony’s in there somewhere.
Suek, some people seem to confuse and conflate “colonialism” with “control”, “domination” and “influence”, in descending order.
The U.S. has certainly been a strange colonial power to third-world. It never expropriated land, raw materials or other assets, it never forced its “colonial holdings” to pay taxes or it never forced its government administration on other countries (other than Spain’s holdings, until the countries were ready for independence…such as Cuba and the Philippines), it never dragooned other countries’ peoples into the U.S. military as cannon fodder.
So unlike Cuba, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Japan…
Funny thing I’ve notice about Europeans, however. They have a very strong tendency to see U.S. foreign affairs from a colonial template, based on their own histories. Thus, when the U.S. went into Iraq it was obviously about “oil”. Obviously to the Europeans, because that was the European experience with colonialism. I’ve noticed that very little is said about “oil” anymore, since the U.S. rebuilt Iraq’s infrastructure and turned it over to the Iraq national government. The Euros, of course, never hear about that and I venture that many of them believe today that Iraq’s oil industry is controlled by the U.S.. Nobody ever told them differently.
Danny Lemieux: The U.S. has certainly been a strange colonial power to third-world. It never expropriated land,
Indian Wars.
Mexican-American War, ”one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.”
Danny Lemieux: raw materials or other assets,
Bananas in Honduras. Sugar in Hawaii. Copper in Chile. New markets for manufactured goods. Neo-colonialists often used corporations and puppet governments to control the means of production. They didn’t have to control them directly.
Suek, some people seem to confuse and conflate “colonialism” with “control”, “domination” and “influence”, in descending order.
For someone that doesn’t understand the group dynamics for ten people, don’t expect them to understand a nation of millions.
Zachriel, one of the things that has always bothered me about the left is its single-minded focus on criticizing every mistake, real or imagined, America ever made. Is America perfect? Of course not. Has America made mistakes? Of course (although I’ll leave the detailed debates to those more equipped than I am to participate). However, is America the best, most just, fairest, most generous, least self-interested world power in the history of the world? My answer — ABSOLUTLY! What is your answer? If you don’t agree, point out a better one and tell me why it’s better. If you do agree, then rather than continuing this obsessive compulsion to point out every thing wrong in the history of America, let’s have a discussion about what we can do in the future to make America and the world better places.
Don Quixote: one of the things that has always bothered me about the left is its single-minded focus on criticizing every mistake, real or imagined, America ever made.
No sense imagining stuff. There’s plenty of real mistakes!
There are a variety of reasons for pointing out mistakes. In order to reform, you have to point to deficiencies. A lot of times, people resist reform saying America is the best there ever was, why complain. So that brings up the past and the long struggle for freedom, which didn’t end with the Declaration of Independence, but started with it.
Another problem is that the U.S. is so very powerful, and its actions often have unintended consequences. Add to that American exceptionalism. So many Americans forget that a merchant in Jingdezhen deserves to have as much a say in her future as anyone else, and that this should be recognized. And when you complain about China, well, their people may take affront as much as you do. After all, they have come a long way already, and have a deep history that deserves respect.
Don Quixote: However, is America the best, most just, fairest, most generous, least self-interested world power in the history of the world?
More than that. Far more. America has been the hope of the world and a beacon of liberty for generations. But America isn’t exceptional by birthright. Claiming exceptionalism is merely sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. Americans have to earn their position of leadership every day. You don’t teach other people about liberty, then expect to bully them around.
Don Quixote: If you do agree, then rather than continuing this obsessive compulsion to point out every thing wrong in the history of America, let’s have a discussion about what we can do in the future to make America and the world better places.
It’s the topic, American Dominance. And when people argue some rather obvious facts, such as that Native Americans got a raw deal, then it’s appropriate to point it out.
I’m delighted you agree, Zachriel! Frankly, I thought you’d duck the question. Heck, you’re 2/3rds of the way to being a conservative and don’t even realize it. Seriously, I suspect most of the rank and file liberals agree with you but the vast majority of the liberal leadership don’t. Or, in any event, they rarely say so. Instead, they harp incessantly on what they see as America’s faults. Certainly, that is true in the educational system and the media, or at least the vast majority of those institutions that the liberals control. We should learn from our mistakes, but the drumbeat of negativism gets a bit hard to put up with at times.
By the way, there are no such things as Native Americans. We are all Native Africans. What you are calling Native Americans are merely the first immigrants. They were utterly defeated in war and, while they were very poorly treated, they were treated better than they often treated each other in war. My personal opinion, which I suspect you will disagree with, is that they should not have been allowed even the slightest measure of sovereignty, and should have been fully assimiliated, which, in the long run would have worked better for them and for everyone else.
The important thing, however, is not what we did to the Indians years ago, but what we do in the world today. You keep saying “it’s the topic.” Well, the topic looked to the present and future, not the past.
DQ, Zach calls himself a conservative, using his own definitions. It’s why you see the Bismarck thing.
Don Quixote: Heck, you’re 2/3rds of the way to being a conservative and don’t even realize it.
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel} calls himself a conservative, using his own definitions.
You mean referring to dictionary definitions, etymology, usage and history. However, the exact meaning of words can vary over time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Don Quixote: What you are calling Native Americans are merely the first immigrants.
Aboriginal or indigenous, however Native Americans is the usual term.
Don Quixote: My personal opinion, which I suspect you will disagree with, is that they should not have been allowed even the slightest measure of sovereignty, and should have been fully assimiliated, which, in the long run would have worked better for them and for everyone else.
Many Native Americans refused to assimilate, subjugation took generations (the Americas are vast) and often required the annihilation of entire peoples. The Spanish enslaved millions and made peasants of millions more. The U.S. pushed aboriginal peoples farther and farther west, making treaties and breaking them, as suited their needs. In the end, cultures mingled, as usually happens. It’s hard to even imagine how much more extreme you would have taken it.
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ “
My experience is that Native Americans prefer just to be called “Indians”.
Fact is, the non-Indian North Americans treated the Indians better than the Indians treated each other. The namesake tribe of my state’s primary source of commerce was slave trading and they kept their women folk in line by cutting off their noses and ears. The Iroquois and Hurons (Wyandott) liked to spit, roast (alive) each others’ children. Cannibalism and genocide were rampant.
The North Americans didn’t annihilate any Indian tribes that I know of. Indians tribes annihilated other Indian tribes all the time, however. Fact is, the Anglo-French migration into North American was pretty much a case of surplus peoples moving into a largely empty land. There really weren’t that many Indians to begin with:a high-end estimate would be the population of Chicago spread out over the entire continent.
What happened was that there was a migration of peoples. It was inevitable and as it happened over and over again throughout human history before the appearance of modern nation states. You can’t judge the past on the standards of the present. Those were harsh times.
We’ve covered the history of the American indians quite extensively on this blog. Sorry you missed it.
P.S. – please don’t link to “Dances with Wolves”.
Danny Lemieux: Fact is, the non-Indian North Americans treated the Indians better than the Indians treated each other.
Some, but not all. Native Americans fought wars, and many were cruel. It’s a family resemblance. Maybe they would have committed genocide on the European settlers, if they could. So you judge your morality against the worst of others?
Danny Lemieux: It was inevitable and as it happened over and over again throughout human history before the appearance of modern nation states. You can’t judge the past on the standards of the present. Those were harsh times.
Yes. We’re just reading *your* words about “full assimiliation”.
Danny, the Left only ever sees migration in two lenses.
1. Enslave the incoming horde via status quo power politicks.
2. Enslave the indigenous population.
Usually, as seen in revolutions in places like Russia or Iran, it is first 2 then 1.
I don’t judge my morality against what others did long ago under circumstances totally alien to my personal experiences.
I certainly do not believe that children bear the sins of their parents.
I do not flagellate myself over the fact that my (and everybody else’s) ancestors were imperfect.
I do not bewail that I live on Earth, not Eden.
In other words, get over it!
No, I judge my morality against the best of others and you have admitted that America is the best of the best among world powers in all of recorded history. But I try to learn from the mistakes of the past, not dwell on them as you do and as the left does.
I was struck by your quote: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ “ That is exactly the way I was suggesting we treat the Indians. Rather than treating them as inferior and placing them on reservations, we should have treated them as equals and assimilated them into America as full Americans. If some of them choose not to assimilate, that’s their choice, as is true of some Jewish, Italian, Dutch, Irish, whatever Americans. No one should be forced to assimilate. But no one should be forced onto a reservation, either.
It’s funny, but I ended with, “The important thing, however, is not what we did to the Indians years ago, but what we do in the world today. You keep saying ‘it’s the topic.’ Well, the topic looked to the resent and future, not the past.” You ignored that part and went right back to dwelling on the mistakes of the past. It does get tiresome. How about looking to the future and discussing what America’s role in the world should be going forward?
Danny Lemieux: It was inevitable and as it happened over and over again throughout human history before the appearance of modern nation states. You can’t judge the past on the standards of the present. Those were harsh times.
Zachriel: Yes. We’re just reading *your* words about “full assimiliation”.
Sorry. Those were Don Quixote’s words, not yours. We apologize for the misattribution.
Don Quixote: Well, the topic looked to the present and future, not the past.
This is what started the thread.
Zachriel: A strong an prosperous America leading free nations is a good thing. Dominance of one nation by another is undemocratic and inherently unstable. If, as many Americans agree, Washington is detached from the concerns of the people of Aberdeen or Bangor, then why would anyone expect Washington to be able to run the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah.
In terms of policy, that means having a due regard for the rights and opinions of other peoples, and to lead by example, not by claim to some sort of Divine Right.
>>due regard>>
How do you define “due regard”?
For example, when my children were young and innocent, I would give their opinions “due regard”, but I still made the decisions. One has to regard opinions in light of the knowledge and experience of the opiner.
Zachriel says:
“Zachriel: A strong an prosperous America leading free nations is a good thing. Dominance of one nation by another is undemocratic and inherently unstable. If, as many Americans agree, Washington is detached from the concerns of the people of Aberdeen or Bangor, then why would anyone expect Washington to be able to run the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah.
In terms of policy, that means having a due regard for the rights and opinions of other peoples, and to lead by example, not by claim to some sort of Divine Right.”
Respectfully, that’s all boilerplate. Nobody could possibly argue for Divine Right or Washington on a long term basis “running the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah” or for not have a “due regard” for others, and nobody is. You are poking at strawmen. My question is what specific actions should the United States take on the world scene. For example, what should the U.S. do in Kandahar and Fallujah and why?
How come Zachriel talks about the US not running things in foreign places, then talks about the US being too blame for the chaos there? If you aren’t running an operation, why do you then receive all the responsibility when things go bad.
You have to be able to think and come up with original ideas to propose a plan, rather than criticize somebody else’s plan.
Zachriel: In terms of policy, that means having a due regard for the rights and opinions of other peoples, and to lead by example, not by claim to some sort of Divine Right.
suek: For example, when my children were young and innocent, I would give their opinions “due regard”, but I still made the decisions. One has to regard opinions in light of the knowledge and experience of the opiner.
So the United States should make unilateral decisions on matters that affect other nations?
Don Quixote: Nobody could possibly argue for Divine Right or Washington on a long term basis “running the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah” or for not have a “due regard” for others, and nobody is.
Right after suek’s remarks that compares the U.S. making decisions for other nations to a parent making decisions for their children.
Don Quixote: For example, what should the U.S. do in Kandahar and Fallujah and why?
Get out as soon as practical, consistent with their obligations as an occupying power.
Should the U.S. make unilateral decisions on matters that affect other nations?
It depends. Almost always, it does.
If our security is in danger, however, forget it! Do what needs to be done!
Do you have some specific examples?
I know it’s a foreign thing to understand Zach. This idea of making your own decisions, by yourself, without 20 other people helping.
Danny Lemieux: Should the U.S. make unilateral decisions on matters that affect other nations?
It depends. Almost always, it does.
If it affects others only incidentally as part of the normal course of business, that’s unavoidable. But if it is a serious matter of concern to other nations, then the other nations should be consulted.
Danny Lemieux: If our security is in danger, however, forget it! Do what needs to be done!
The United States has agreed to certain principles, even in the case of national security. For instance, not torturing captives.
Okay, Zachriel, how about this? If the choice is between losing a war to a modern-day Hitler and torturing captives, do you refuse to torture and see your country go down in flames? Or do you do what needs to be done to preserve your country?
Another question. You know someone will, in the next 24 hours, detonate an atomic bomb in New York killing, oh, say, 10 million people. You know your captive has the information needed to find the bomb and stop it. Do you use whatever means are available to you, including torture if necessary, to obtain that information?
Zachriel: So the United States should make unilateral decisions on matters that affect other nations?
Yes, absolutely. ”Consult” is not the same as “require the approval of”. There are certainly times you simply must go it alone. I am sure there are many cases where we wanted to act unilaterally, but the cost-benefit analysis (geopolitically) indicated more harm than good would occur by the action. There *are* constraints on unilateral action.
I imagine the context of this debate is the Iraq War, and the fact that there was lukewarm support for our actions and in some cases opposition among allies. I myself continue to believe it was a good decision, but a difficult one; certainly not an open and shut case.
Don Quixote: If the choice is between losing a war to a modern-day Hitler and torturing captives, do you refuse to torture and see your country go down in flames? Or do you do what needs to be done to preserve your country?
America faced just such an existential threat, and his name was Hitler. For the most part, the U.S. refrained from torturing prisoners, even though those prisoners may have had actionable intelligence that might have saved the lives of thousands of Americans, and perhaps turned the course of the war. Instead, the U.S. prosecuted those who tortured.
George Washington faced a similar existential threat. If the war had been lost, it would have meant his army destroyed, his country conquered, his lands taken, his family impoverished, and himself hung as a criminal. “Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands.” Washington knew that the future of the country depended as much on values as it did on military victory.
Don Quixote: You know someone will, in the next 24 hours, detonate an atomic bomb in New York killing, oh, say, 10 million people. You know your captive has the information needed to find the bomb and stop it. Do you use whatever means are available to you, including torture if necessary, to obtain that information?
In other words, you seek to justify mundane cruelty with something you saw on TV.
But let’s assume you know somehow that torture and murder of an innocent child will save millions of lives. Is all lost? Does a country have to legalize torture and murder? Does the world have to overlook your crime and undermine the rule of law? No! It just means that if you know that your actions are necessary, then you will do them, then face the legal and moral consequences of your actions. By submitting to the law, you are unholding the rule of law. And if it turns out you were wrong, as is likely, you will be treated as the monster you truly are.
Hitler was not an immediate threat to the U.S. To our allies and our shipping, maybe, but not to our territory. I love your “for the most part” qualification, though. Washington was speaking in general and nobody is suggesting torture just for the fun of it is okay. Who knows what he would have done if the success in the war hung in the balance?
Interesting that you couldn’t come up with an example where a war was lost due to the restraint of the loser, especially when there is an example so readily at hand — Vietnam. Our restraint in that war has hardly made us more highly respected in the international community and our loss in that war hardly served our interests.
I didn’t see the TV show, although I heard second hand there was something like that. It would be surprising if there was not such a show, since it presents an obvious moral dilemma. There is no such thing as “mundane cruelty.”
I am not a monster if I take a life to save millions. I would be a monster to allow millions of real people to die just so I could abide by some abstract, arbitrary moral standard.
The thing is, there is no such thing as a law of war. The only true law of war was summed up by Al Davis, “Just win, baby!” That does not mean it’s okay to do anything you want. Random torture or murder is still torture or murder; it is not excused by war. The killing of 6 million Jews was murder, pure and simple. The Arab targeting of Israeli civilians and use of their own civilians as human shields is not excused (of course, there they have the additional problem that the point of their war, elimination of Israel’s existence, is also improper). These aren’t war crimes; these are crimes, period.
If you insist on a law of war, it would be this: Anything that is necessary to the conduct of the war is legal. To take the example of torture, torture that is necessary to obtain information critical to the war is completely justified. Torture just as, to use your phrase, “mundane cruelty” is not necessary to the war and is a crime. To be sure, there is an element of subjectivity in this, since the victors always get to decide what it was necessary for the defeated to do. But the victors always get to do that anyway.
Zachriel, a friend wrote me this about the killers of Daniel Pearl. What do you think about it?
I cannot, I will not, believe that this war is an ultimate conflict between right and wrong: and although I do not doubt for a moment that we are less horrible than the philosophy and practice of the Jihadists, still I think we are very horrible: and I will not, I must not, accept or express the hysterical patriotic war-moods of these awful days.
DQ: You are slow to anger, which I admire, but I like the grit and stiffness of your resolve once you get going. Thank you for showing up in full power to address the moral preening and vacuity of the Bookworm Room tapeworm.
A brief discourse on the laws of war in play historically and how an alliance functions.
First, alliances are born out of mutual interests and die when there is a competing interest amongst the members. Thus it is not accurate to call France, attempting to help Saddam’s business relationship with France, an ally of the US. There was no mutual interest given that Saddam’s business relationship with France was contradictory with the existence of US regime change policies for Iraq. With the replacement of Chirac, it became less of an issue since Sarkozy wasn’t personally invested in the relationship with Saddam like Chirac was, and because Saddam got himself hanged, thus France had no more reason to invest their interests in opposing Iraq any more. Not even for legacy issues.
Back in the US War of Independence Days, France helped America because it was helping itself. France and the UK were at war often times. Even during peace, they argued and fought over who owned what part of each of the other’s land. By supporting the war in America, France drained Britain of money, resources, and military manpower. It takes a lot of money to deploy forces from Britain to America in those days. Even more to actually fight in America. It’s why they forced garrisoning on the colonists. Because they didn’t want to pay for it themselves. British Parliament would refuse to pay the enormous amount of money it takes to station and feed British Imperial soldiers in the Americas. King George, as a result of war debts Britain incurred, kept taxing the US Colonies like it was the golden goose. Cause Britain was in desperate need of money. France, by keeping the fight alive in America, was getting a lot more bang for their buck than Britain was by continuing the war.
While there can be personal loyalties and friendships between individuals, amongst nations, self-interest is the ruling decree.
On the matter of distribution and control of resources in an alliance, this matter is traditionally handled the same way it is in senior/junior type firms or associations. Basically, you control what the company is doing if you own a majority stock, 51%. Or if you are the senior partner (the individual that invested more, in the past), then you get to make decisions because it’s your money fueling most of the business functions.
A company isn’t run where the owners consult their employees on every major decision that affects the lives of the employees. This isn’t even doable or feasible on a small company basis, let alone a national level. I’m afraid that the Leftist dream of equality tying down the powerful so that the Left can elevate themselves upon the corpses of their foes, is, fortunately, unrealistic.
This division of resources is true in an alliance as well. Remember that an alliance is only born from mutual interests. In order to accomplish a common goal, for the self benefit of each member nation or faction, they pool their resources together and use it for the good of all. However, that doesn’t mean everybody gets a “say” in where the resources go. A nation’s say is relegated to their status, military power, economic power, and the personal charisma/power of their representative leader(s). Looked at microscopically, you can compare it to a rich millionaire that made his bucks through hard work and business savvy, vs the freeloader living in his mansion because the freeloader is related by blood to the millionaire. How much say does the freeloader get in the millionaire’s business, family relationships, house decorations, garden aesthetics, and so forth? Wouldn’t you find it abnormal, unsettling, and unfair for the freeloader to have a greater say than, say, the wife or adult son (that works in the millionaire’s business) of the millionaire? Most people would find something abnormal about it. Yet this is the kind of relationship the Left wishes to foster upon AMerica on the wide stage. I wouldn’t go in for that so easily if I were you. It might make sense if you were a freeloader and you wanted a share of America’s power because that’s the only way you could get it, but it makes zero sense if you are the millionaire in question. It’s not only an inequitable distribution of resources, but it is an inequitable distribution of the power to control the resources.
Traditionally, the faction with the most influence and who has contributed the most to the “pot” of the alliance, gets the most say. Because they have proven that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is on this concept of an “alliance”. Because they have put a lot of money and resources in, they get to control most of where that resource goes into. The other members have a number of reasons why they submit to the decree or requests of the ruling body or nation. For one thing, the other members are weaker in power and thus can only gain greater status and the attainment of their goals by working with the host nation or the nation that provides the predominant amount of economic/military resources. The price for benefiting from the resources of a larger nation is, naturally, for them to not get much of a say in what goes on. Traditionally, the smaller and weaker factions went alone with the primary powers of their alliance. Another reason they do this is because they believe they can trust in the primary power faction’s sense of responsibility and self interest. Since it is their resources and pride on the line, their allies can assume that they will not try to sabotage the alliance or betray their members. This guarantee of security, or assumption of security, is worth the price of submitting to the authority of the powerful when the alternative is to leave and be destroyed or leave and fail in achieving one’s national goals.
America currently occupies a leadership position where America provides more than half the economic funding for many international works while providing more than 90% of all military logistics and manpower requirements. It would be unfair for America, who is taking on a few hundred soldiers from Georgia or Poland for the Iraq mission, to given even 10% control to the French, who not only offered zero support for Iraq, but actively went out of their way to sabotage America’s mission there. It would be unfair and disastrous for America’s actual relationship with their alliance members. To give French even a 10% say, much less a 50% say on whether the invasion happens or not, is to insult the actual allies that bought into the alliance concerning the invasion of Iraq.
No primary power in an alliance can long withstand slighting those who choose to invest in the alliance in favor of those who betray the alliance. The alliance itself will shatter before long from such practices. The reason is simple. Although the primary alliance resource contributor is the leader by warrant of the resources they bring to the table, they are still at the table precisely because they need the help of smaller, weaker, nations. Those nations are providing a valuable contributing factor in the success of the alliance, even though they are small, weak, and don’t bring much. A little bit of resources, however, is still more than nothing (a freeloader). It is precisely because it is in the interests of the ruling power of an alliance to listen to the opinions of weaker members in order to not give offense and to provide the weaker members of an alliance a “buy in” to the common resource pool, that the leader of an alliance cannot give a damn what freeloading members of the alliance “says”. If it was not in the interests of the ruling power of an alliance, then they would simply eject the offending member/faction from the alliance by decree or majority vote.
Historically, of course, what tends to happen is that you get a personality issue. The leader of a ruling faction is obnoxious, traitorous, ambitious, or just too stupid for their own good. Thus even though his faction brings the predominant share of the resources, his personality is so poisonous that it destroys the alliance before it even begins. Or, second worst scenario, his retarded management of the resources wastes not only everybody else’s time and investment, but his own nation’s blood and toil as well. This is a side issue, however, to the concept of proper division of resource control in an alliance.
Short break, hopefully, before I begin on the laws of war discourse.
Clarification on alliances: There are many more variations than I have listed. It’s why I said it was going to be a short brief. Included with the uni pole balance of powers in an alliance, there can be multi poles or factions as well if the resources are about evenly divided between a few specific nations.
While all alliances require negotiation, you don’t often see a weaker member gain a position of authority in an alliance. It is precisely because they are weak that few people in the alliance will not listen to them. The members of an alliance are there to fulfill their national goals. That requires them to devote considerable attention to those who actually contribute or control the resources of the alliance. Negotiation is the process of convincing people that their benefit results from something that also benefits you, and that there is a common, mutual, cooperative way to achieve both goals. This is a lot easier done when you are the one directing the resources of the entire alliance or just a fair share of it.
This is a fundamental concept in diplomacy as well. It is often left unsaid due to shadow plays.
The power of a faction’s negotiation position in an alliance is based upon many things, but I would say predominantly it is based upon fear. The only solid reason why one nation doesn’t use their leadership or dominance to extort resources from the other members of the alliance is because if people get too pissed off, they will leave the table and take whatever they brought with them, with them. On the other hand, fear of leaving and being destroyed by the alliance’s enemies, makes various factions concede to demands by other alliance members that they normally would refuse, if it wasn’t for their fear of being destroyed if left alone. This, however, is a temporary state of affairs, as they can simply join another alliance. Or even the enemy’s alliance, in order to survive.
Mutual interests, self-interest, self-benefit, they all really mean the same thing: Survival. Nations want more power because the powerful are less likely to suffer total annihilation. Nations want food and manpower and other resources because those resources can be used to sustain the life of the nation. Some factions/tribes value honor greater than they value simply surviving in the present. Those kinds of people you can only push so far before they refuse to tolerate the shenanigans of the corrupt and ambitious in an alliance.
On the rules of land warfare.
There have been many customs created during the numerous wars humans have fought over during their existence on this planet we call Earth.
Parley, ransom, good treatment of prisoners of war, truces, cease fires, and so forth are all included in the rules of war, as they were recognized in the past. I say the past because these things are no longer enforced, thus they do not exist as laws. Laws only exist because they are enforced. Something written on paper that says “The King Decrees…..”, when in fact, the King is a village idiot, with no army and is soon to have his head cut off and stuck on a pike for the amusement of the villagers, is probably not really a “law” like other actual, real, laws. Laws have to be enforced, otherwise they are just “requests” for obedience. Nature has laws because nature enforces them with power and death. You can render nature’s laws to be nullified and non-existent if you can, say, nullify gravity, nullify death, nullify a predator’s hunger, or nullify the planet’s rotation. then you can nullify nature’s laws. But to nullify human laws, all you have to do is to get rid of the enforcement clause. Much simpler.
Historically, those who enforced the laws of land warfare were the people fighting the wars. If you mistreated your prisoners, the other side will mistreat your prisoners. Since both sides needed manpower to fight their wars, which were often based upon feudal levies or patents of nobility, “prisoners” were sometimes very important individuals who each side wanted intact because of political sustainment issues. Thus both sides often had reasons to exchange reasons, rather than slaughter them for fun. Since having fun by killing people was outweighed by political forces required to sustain a nation or win a war. This is where ransom came in. Instead of killing prisoners, you capture the important ones and ransom them off to the other side. A perfectly acceptable conduct under previous era codes. Now a days, however, you have criminals and pirates ransoming civilians. Thus ransom is no longer a sub-clause used during war, while achieving greater goals. But in fact, ransom and the cash from it, is the primary goal now a days for many factions, including Somalian pirates.
For a look at a different culture, the Romans often refused the idea of captivity and would suicide before being captured alive. Cleopatra and her lover. Hannibal Barca (not a Roman, though attuned to the honor ideals of times), and various bunch of other people in the Ancient world. So the idea of “accepted” practices, differs from Age to age.
We are in the Age of Information, not the Era of Warring States.
Let’s continue on with parley and truces. Both are where you see the white flag being raised. A parley is a break in the fighting so that the representatives of two sides in a battle can talk to each other without killing each other. A truce is a lull in a battle or war where both sides agree not to fire on the other for a set period of time. this was usually done in order to achieve a goal, such as removing the wounded during a siege or what not. The sieged are under walls, but those sieging must go into the killing fields to retrieve their dead or wounded. A truce then is called. Usually during a parley. And that’s only one of the uses for a parley. The other one is to negotiate surrender terms. Prisoner exchanges. All kinds of stuff, really.
Thus a violation of the parley means that you agree to a parley, but then plan to kill or poison the members of the parley team, which usually consists of either the battle leader or a representative of the leading faction.
This rule is enforced by those fighting. For example, if you break the truce of a white flag during a parley, if you or your forces should be captured, they will not ransom you nor will they imprison you. They’ll execute you, immediately. Thus death was the enforcement clause of the “law” of the white flag. As a result of this, your army may desert you for breaking faith on something that would spell death for them should they lose. Or you may be recalled and suspended from your position as military leader. All kinds of things could result from breaking the law on parleys. The uncertainty inherent in this, was often enough to preclude people taking the risk when the gain was pretty minimal. You would not defeat the army, just kill some leaders. Not usually worth it to some. But when people think they can get away with it… of course they would be tempted. If they were dealing with people like Zach as the enforcers, they would be really really tempted to do it.
“Quarter” is often referred to as accepting surrender from a routed or defeated enemy. Otherwise, the cavalry will just run down all those people fleeing the fields without their weapons (a real rout is where people throw away their weapons in order to run faster). Of course, a person fleeing isn’t accepted as having “surrendered”, but if no quarter is given, then that is all they can do: run. Normally, a medieval army can only suffer 10-20% casualties before they rout. A US Marine hardened defensive position has been known to suffer 99% casualties without breaking, and that was during WWII. Elite medieval units would break at around 50% casualties. This was the line that Napoleon’s Old Guard got hit with when they got slaughtered by a cannon barrage when fighting Wellington and his allied army. Regardless, armies expected to fight another time after a lost battle. Thus there was reason, on both sides, to give quarter and treat prisoners humanely, if not “well” (lap of luxury in Californian jails). Even if an army is defeated, most of it will still be alive, individually.
“No quarter” means that, due to some odd reason in the past, this army is no longer accepting surrenders from defeated foes. This was often used as a deterrence factor for walled cities or fortifications. If the fortifications fall in a city, that city is traditionally considered as having no more defensive measures. If the defenders still choose to resist, that means the invaders will have to spend more blood and time to gain control. In order to preclude this, the rule of “no quarter” given in a city that fails to surrender at the breach of their walls was created. This is something you may be aware of if you know Cromwell’s history, the Lord Protector of England during their little revolution. This rule has two purposes.
1. It prevents the defenders and attackers from losing lives meaninglessly given the outcome of the battle has already been decided.
2. It prevents unauthorized massacres or looting which is pretty common when an attacking army takes major casualties getting inside a city. Their bloodlust is up and controlling them is pretty hard, if not impossible for some commanders. So instead of an unauthorized massacre, you have an authorized massacre. Perfectly systematic and legal, for the times.
A LibProg would say you can’t do that. They, however, had no solutions for controlling an army once it goes wild inside a city.
There is no “one standard” for the rules on land warfare. Whatever customs people come up with, it’s going to be based upon their cultural heritage. Their “tradition” of warfare will decide what “customs” they are accustomed to. Which means if you put two people from foreign cultures in the same war, they will often misinterpret signals and actions as being “illegal” or unfaithful. Leading to blood massacres and so forth. Which leads to more blood feuds and so forth. Cycle of violence. The alliance of the Left have many experts on fomenting class warfare and increasing the divisions between people (such as Native Amerindians and settlers). If you want more cycles of violence, go hire the Left. Hey, just look at Gaza and the West Bank if you want a reference on their work.
For a simple conclusion, the rules of war are only laws when somebody enforces them. They were mostly called rules because back then, nobody could enforce them unilaterally or even uniformly. Those rules of war weren’t intended to help the other side. They were created to help one’s own side. It’s only a modern version that now a days “laws of warfare” are used by Leftist activist groups to hurt the nation they should be loyal to.
I took the time to write that up because I kept waiting for somebody else to mention them, and they never did. *shrugs*
Don Quixote: Hitler was not an immediate threat to the U.S.
In the spring of 1940, Hitler destroyed the French military. By 1942, Hitler’s fascist allies had nearly wiped out the U.S. Pacific fleet. Britain was reeling, and if it fell, it could have meant the loss of the Atlantic. Without shipping lines, the U.S. would not have access to the raw materials necessary to run its war machine. It would have been isolated.
Don Quixote: I love your “for the most part” qualification, though.
The Americans maintained remarkable discipline throughout the war.
Don Quixote: Washington was speaking in general and nobody is suggesting torture just for the fun of it is okay. Who knows what he would have done if the success in the war hung in the balance?
We weren’t discussing torture for fun, but for perceived necessity. And the war was always in the balance. Certainly the lives of his men could hinge on information that might be gleaned from captives.
Don Quixote: Interesting that you couldn’t come up with an example where a war was lost due to the restraint of the loser, especially when there is an example so readily at hand — Vietnam. Our restraint in that war has hardly made us more highly respected in the international community and our loss in that war hardly served our interests.
More bombs dropped on Vietnam than in all of WWII. Two million Vietnamese killed. Neighboring Cambodia destabilized. Villages napalmed or burned to the ground. Entire areas depopulated. And for what? Because the U.S. couldn’t stomach that Ho Chi Minh would have won in the free elections that had been promised. (“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader.” — Eisenhower, Mandate for Change 1963.)
Meanwhile, the fascists lost WWII to a bunch of freedom-lovers.
Don Quixote: I am not a monster if I take a life to save millions.
Read carefully. You might reasonably be considered a monster if you tortured an innocent person because you were wrong about information they had. Whatever happened to due process?
Don Quixote: The thing is, there is no such thing as a law of war. The only true law of war was summed up by Al Davis, “Just win, baby!” That does not mean it’s okay to do anything you want. Random torture or murder is still torture or murder; it is not excused by war.
Then there are laws of war. Torture is not excused by war.
Don Quixote: The killing of 6 million Jews was murder, pure and simple.
But they were traitors, don’t you see. They were undermining the German cause.
Don Quixote: The Arab targeting of Israeli civilians and use of their own civilians as human shields is not excused (of course, there they have the additional problem that the point of their war, elimination of Israel’s existence, is also improper). These aren’t war crimes; these are crimes, period.
They are called war crimes because they are committed as acts of war. But no matter. That’s a quibble without any significance. They are crimes.
Don Quixote: If you insist on a law of war, it would be this: Anything that is necessary to the conduct of the war is legal.
So Saddam was not a war criminal. Everything he did he did to protect the state. He gassed the Kurds to put down their resistance. He tortured people to find traitors. He attacked Iran because they were an enemy of Iraq.
Do American promises mean anything? Are their words just smoke? What happened to American principles and American courage?
Gringo quoting: I cannot, I will not, believe that this war is an ultimate conflict between right and wrong: and although I do not doubt for a moment that we are less horrible than the philosophy and practice of the Jihadists, still I think we are very horrible: and I will not, I must not, accept or express the hysterical patriotic war-moods of these awful days.
Sounds like the poet Arthur Ficke talking about the fascists. If there is any time for patriotic war-moods, the fight against fascism was that time. As for hysterical, fortunately, the U.S. government had built up a great reserve of trust among the American people, and knew how to temper their enthusiasm into a tool for defeating fascism.
Ymarsakar: Thus it is not accurate to call France, attempting to help Saddam’s business relationship with France, an ally of the US.
Like when was the last time the French fought and died alongside Americans?
I’ve always been struck about how easily people on the Left so easily define unelected dictatorships as legitimate representatives of their nations, as long as they mouth the correct platitudes.
I also find it interesting people on the Left give credibility to the views of people from whom knowledge has been withheld as legitimate (with respect to “world opinion polls” and similar nonsense. I suppose that comes with not being able to provide value judgments outside of a political context.
I recall, during my graduate studies, a conversation between two fellow students – a Vietnam veteran and a Vietnamese refugee.
“If you didn’t want communism in Vietnam, why didn’t you fight harder against it?, asked the vet. “Because we didn’t know what communism was,” replied the refugee.
I am also not amazed why how so many people in the U.S. and the world have such a distorted view of what happened in Vietnam, given the success of the Left-wing historic narrative. The U.S. won the war militarily. It lost the war politically.
Interesting re-write of the Vietnam War history, Zach.
Cambodia was de-stabilized by the Vietnam war? I suppose you will say the Khmer Rouge was a response to the American presence in Vietnam like Al-Qaeda was a response to the American presence in Saudi Arabia?
Danny Lemieux (mouthing platitudes): I’ve always been struck about how easily people on the Left so easily define unelected dictatorships as legitimate representatives of their nations, as long as they mouth the correct platitudes.
Danny Lemieux: Cambodia was de-stabilized by the Vietnam war?
The war in itself was destabilizing, with North Vietnam running guns along the border region, but the U.S. bombing campaign in Cambodia widened the war. This pushed North Vietnam to incur deeper into Camboda, and when the U.S. campaign ended after a few weeks, it left a power vacuum that was filled by the insurgency, swollen in its ranks by the displaced. Also, the CIA may have been complicit in the overthrow of the Sihanouk regime in Cambodia, which had been trying to straddle the deep divide between left and right. Today, Sihanouk is known as the King-Father of Cambodia.
That is actually a good point you made, Zach. However, I would argue against any linkage between the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnam war. The Khmer Rouge rose independently of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong communist movements.
I would argue that it was U.S. aid to Cambodia, as a consequence of the Vietnam War, that slowed the Khmer Rouge’s rise to power. It was the U.S. Congress’s betrayal of Cambodia (along with S. Vietnam and Laos) that ensured the Khmer Rouge’s victory.
The Germans put a lot of logistical resources into ferrying those Jews to the slaughter camps.
It was logistics they really should have used for war munitions to the front. Instead of killing the Jews, they should have made them work in factories so that the allies bombing them would kill them. THen get rid of the Jews after they won the war.
The slaughter of Jews was 100% wrong in terms of war necessity. Regardless of what the Nazis said they were, the methods they used were completely inefficient for the purposes of winning the war. It could only be justified based upon the argument that they didn’t care about winning, but cared first about first killing all the Jews. Or they thought they would win if they just killed all the Jews. Or they thought they were destined to win any ways.
Obviously, they got it wrong.
As short as I can make it because I have to get to work.
Yes, Hitler might have been able to isolate America. He was no threat to our existence.
You quoted Washington completely without context as to whether anything important could be gained from the prisoners. Now you assume it. Not persuasive.
The “laws of war” you refer to are not laws, they are unenforceable agreements.
The 6 million Jews were not traitors and Saddam was a common criminal. It’s funny that I pointed out that the victors get to make these decisions and you immediately treated the matter as if the defeated got to make these decisions. Besides, by any objective measure the killing of the Jews and that of the Kurds (which started long before our invasion, of course) were simply crimes. You don’t need “laws of war” or war crime tribunals to determine that.
So your view of Vietnam is that we should have just let communism spread unchecked because the people of Vietnam would have voted for a communist leader who whould have then become a de facto dictator? Okay, I guess we will just have to disagree. But that doesn’t challenge my point that we restrained ourselves, not doing nearly all we could have to win that war. Yes, we did a lot, as you point out. But we didn’t do near what we could have. And, by the way, the North Vietnamese didn’t exactly abide by your “laws of war” did they? You might want to ask John McCain.
My comment about your monster was a bit of a trap. Your answer confirmed my first reading of your original comment that you would find that I’m a monster only if, in 20-20 hindsight, I was wrong. Presumably, by your analysis, if I was right, they the violation of the “laws of war” would be okay.
You say: “Do American promises mean anything? Are their words just smoke? What happened to American principles and American courage?”
No nation will sacrifice its existence to some “law of war” even if it agreed to that “law” and no nation that did so would be respected for doing so. America is a principled nation and, unlike most others who have signed on to your “laws of war” will attempt to abide by them. But, when put to the choice of showing ”courage” by allowing itself to be defeated or breaking its word, it will, and should, break its word.
My experience is that people who take things like “laws of war” serious, usually those on the left, only really apply them to Amierca and her allies (Where are the condemnations when the jihadists chop off heads?, When the Palestinians target innocent civilians and use them as human shields?) and do so believing that “laws of war” are a luxury that they can afford because they still sleep safely in their beds at night. It’s a lot different for those who are putting their lives on the line against an enemy that has no respect at all for you “laws of war.”
Simple question time again — do you really think a nation keeping its word is more important than a nation preserving its existence?
While we are at it, there are laws for individuals as well as nations. Laws against killing for example. If someone breaks into my house and attacks my wife and I kill him, in your view, have I broken those laws? Should I be punished?
One more – does it matter whether the other side is abiding by the “laws”? Are we forced by our honor and courage to continue to fight on an uneven playing field?
>>It takes a lot of money to deploy forces from Britain to America in those days. Even more to actually fight in America.>>
I think of this when I think of China and the possibility of a threat from them. Also, although China is a massive country, and has massive quantities of citizens, the US is pretty darn big as well. It seems to me that it would require more than is humanly possible to accomplish an invasion. That means that to be effective, the “war” against the US _must_ be economic… But then, what is the outcome to be?
Suek, you don’t need to invade a country in order to conquer it, anymore. You just need to destroy its infrastructure, which can be done from afar.
Danny Lemieux: The Khmer Rouge rose independently of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong communist movements.
Yes, but they were strengthed by the anarchy caused when the U.S. made its incursions into Cambodia then abrutly left. That left a vacuum and a lot of angry people whose lives were of little notice to the Americans.
Danny Lemieux: It was the U.S. Congress’s betrayal of Cambodia (along with S. Vietnam and Laos) that ensured the Khmer Rouge’s victory.
Oddly enough, it was the Vietnamese who put an end to the killing there, and the U.N. that pressured the Vietnamese to leave Cambodia.
Ymarsakar: Or they thought they would win if they just killed all the Jews.
They were convinced the Jews were back-stabbers who undermined Germany in WWI, bled them financially during the interregnum, polluted Germany, and were still working for the enemy, international communists and whatnot, during WWII. As such, they would claim necessity.
Ymarsakar:Obviously, they got it wrong.
Most everyone else call it murder.
Zach, I agree with you regarding the role the (North) Vietnamese played in stopping the killing of the Khmer Rouge. The UN had nothing to do with it — the Khmer Rouge had started attacking Vietnam along the border — once the job was done, they had no reason to stay in Cambodia and, in any case, did not have the economic resources to occupy Cambodia.
— Do you mean to suggest that the Khmer Rouge (actively supported by the ChiComs) was not destabilizing the government of Cambodia?
— Was China’s active support of the Khmer Rouge a “legal” or “moral” activity in your view?
Was it, for example, equivalent to your previously stated definition of “neo-colonialism”, whereby the U.S. is guilty of “domination” and “control” of other countries merely by having U.S. companies operating in such countries (the examples you gave were Chiquita in Central America and Anaconda in Chile)?
In regard to the the U.S. invasion and bombing of the Vietnamese in Cambodia: do you mean to say that the North Vietnamese presence in Cambodia at the time was not destabilizing (along the Ho Chi Minh trail and parrot beak, which were scarcely populated areas at the time?) to the Cambodian government until the U.S decided to take them out?
Incidentally, by what international agreement were the N. Vietnamese in Cambodia? I can’t recall.
Don Quixote: You quoted Washington completely without context as to whether anything important could be gained from the prisoners.
Of course soldiers, especially officers, have information that is important to the enemy. Maybe you have to torture a large number of them to get a full picture of the enemy’s activities.
Don Quixote: The “laws of war” you refer to are not laws, they are unenforceable agreements.
Yet, the Americans and their allies called them laws when they put on a big to-do called trials, with witnesses and evidence.
Don Quixote: The 6 million Jews were not traitors and Saddam was a common criminal.
The Nazis certainly thought the Jews were a danger to Germany. Saddam clearly believed he was doing what he had to do.
Don Quixote: So your view of Vietnam is that we should have just let communism spread unchecked because the people of Vietnam would have voted for a communist leader who whould have then become a de facto dictator?
People have to find their own way. The Vietnamese were willing to fight foreign invaders, French, Japanese, French, Americans, China. They saw the U.S. as just another colonial power. There’s no way to fix that with bombs.
Don Quixote: And, by the way, the North Vietnamese didn’t exactly abide by your “laws of war” did they?
Oddly enough, they think they used restraint, considering the U.S. was dropping bombs on villages and killing entire families. They insist they abided by their agreements, and even though they fell far short, they know they should have.
Don Quixote: Presumably, by your analysis, if I was right, they the violation of the “laws of war” would be okay.
Please read it again, in context.
Zachriel: But let’s assume you know somehow that torture and murder of an innocent child will save millions of lives. Is all lost? Does a country have to legalize torture and murder? Does the world have to overlook your crime and undermine the rule of law? No! It just means that if you know that your actions are necessary, then you will do them, then face the legal and moral consequences of your actions. By submitting to the law, you are upholding the rule of law. And if it turns out you were wrong, as is likely, you will be treated as the monster you truly are.
So, it means torture should be against the law. It is against the law. If you determine you must torture someone to prevent a worse evil, then you do what you must, but submit to the law.
Don Quixote: Simple question time again — do you really think a nation keeping its word is more important than a nation preserving its existence?
No reason why you can’t have both. Strong values, liberty and the rule of law, lead to a strong nation.
Don Quixote: If someone breaks into my house and attacks my wife and I kill him, in your view, have I broken those laws?
Of course not. The invader has breached the peace.
But what if you claim your neighbor, whom everybody knows is a crank with a cruel history, is building a bomb to attack your family with, and you call the police. They don’t find anything, and you grow frustrated, so you break down his door. In the commotion, you shoot his wife, kill his dog and set the house on fire. The police arrive and there is no bomb. There never was a bomb.
Don Quixote: One more – does it matter whether the other side is abiding by the “laws”? Are we forced by our honor and courage to continue to fight on an uneven playing field?
Happens every day. A robber grabs a hostage. You could just shoot both of them, but you use restraint. That’s because the law embodies the moral principle.
They were convinced the Jews were back-stabbers who undermined Germany in WWI, bled them financially during the interregnum, polluted Germany, and were still working for the enemy, international communists and whatnot, during WWII. As such, they would claim necessity.
Necessity isn’t about what you claim, Zach. It’s about whether it is actual true. You or the Nazis can claim it is necessary to kill the Jews to win the war all you want. Your arguments don’t actually stand up under a microscope.
If it was as simple as claiming necessity to justify things in war under the rules of war, there wouldn’t be anything called a law in war. You would get what you are familiar with, chaos and ruling through might and victory. While it’s something you are familiar with studying, it’s not the end all or be all of historical fact.
A law is a luxury that exists to replace rule through power alone. Don’t degrade definitions of the law based upon a need to talk about ruling through might alone. That’s not the entire subject matter at hand.
Like when was the last time the French fought and died alongside Americans?
Like I said alliances are based upon mutual interest. Some people in the past claimed the need for blood kinship or sacrifice as a symbol of trust and merging of assets, but those were usually primitives of one sort or another.
Btw, the French don’t send out French men or women to do their fighting. They have something called the Foreign Legion, which they are using in a lot of places, actually.
Danny Lemieux: The UN had nothing to do with {Vietnam vacating Cambodia}.
The U.N. was important to ending the occupation, including resolutions passed against the continuing occupation. There was also an ASEAN embargo, a reduction of Soviet aid, and Gorbachev’s call for free elections. The Vietnamese left peaceably, and the U.N. administered the transitional government.
Danny Lemieux: — Do you mean to suggest that the Khmer Rouge (actively supported by the ChiComs) was not destabilizing the government of Cambodia?
Sure they were. There can be more than one cause.
Danny Lemieux: — Was China’s active support of the Khmer Rouge a “legal” or “moral” activity in your view?
They supported the Khmer Rouge even during the genocide, so they bear responsibility.
Danny Lemieux: Was it, for example, equivalent to your previously stated definition of “neo-colonialism”, whereby the U.S. is guilty of “domination” and “control” of other countries merely by having U.S. companies operating in such countries (the examples you gave were Chiquita in Central America and Anaconda in Chile)?
It wasn’t just having companies, but having the U.S. manipulate foreign governments to allow the corporations free rein. They’re called Banana Republics. The Khmer Rouge was worse than anything the Americans were associated with in Latin America.
Danny Lemieux: In regard to the the U.S. invasion and bombing of the Vietnamese in Cambodia: do you mean to say that the North Vietnamese presence in Cambodia at the time was not destabilizing (along the Ho Chi Minh trail and parrot beak, which were scarcely populated areas at the time?) to the Cambodian government until the U.S decided to take them out?
Sure they were destabilizing. And Cambodia was caught in the middle between the warring factions. The incursion and withdrawal, however, created a power vacuum which was filled by the Khmer Rouge. The tipping point.
Danny Lemieux: Incidentally, by what international agreement were the N. Vietnamese in Cambodia?
None. Vietnam was attacked.
Most everyone else call it murder.
Like I said, I know you have problems comprehending how people can make their own decisions, by themselves, without the help of 20 others, but you should really broaden your horizons on the matter.
Ymarsakar: Necessity isn’t about what you claim, Zach. It’s about whether it is actual true.
The term was “perceived necessity“.
Ymarsakar: You or the Nazis can claim it is necessary to kill the Jews to win the war all you want. Your arguments don’t actually stand up under a microscope.
Criminality has to do with intent.
Ymarsakar: If it was as simple as claiming necessity to justify things in war under the rules of war, there wouldn’t be anything called a law in war.
That’s right! Now you have it. Under international law, torture is illegal regardless of the circumstances. Under international law, indiscriminate killing is illegal, regardless of the circumstances. Every tin-horn dictator claims necessity. But it is not a valid defense.
Zachriel: Like when was the last time the French fought and died alongside Americans?
Did you answer? You said something about the French Legion not being French or something, but it wasn’t clear.
I can offer some insight into the Vietnam that most American never had, gleaned from part of my family’s history in Vietnam during the French colonial era.
To lump the Vietnamese together is nonsensical.
There was never “one Vietnam” – Vietnam was a number of provinces, dominated by the North (Tonkin). The more-agricultural southern Viets (in Cochinchina and Annam) had historically been oppressed by the more-industrial North. However, the industrial North did not have the agricultural resources to feed itself, so it dominated the southern provinces in order to insure access to the Mekong Delta (one of the world’s premier agricultural resources). Wiki to the contrary, northern Viets and southern Viets did not consider themselves “one Vietnam” (and they still dislike each other).
The end of the French occupation and demarcation of Vietnam into North and South simply recognized these differences. To argue that the “North” was somehow legitimate and the “South” was not is ridiculous – you would have to make the same arguments about North and South Korea. Is “South Korea” not a legitimate country?
Northern Vietnam (Tonkin) was never attached by the South Vietnamese. South Vietnam was under attack by indigenous Communists (the Viet Cong, actively supported by Russia and North Vietnam), but even the Viet Cong distrusted the North Vietnamese and did not support integration. After the Viet Cong’s destruction during the Tet Offensive, that became academic, as the North Vietnamese took 100% control of the war effort.
Even today, the southern Viets still call Saigon “Saigon”, express a lot of pro-American sentiments, and don’t like the northerners.
>>You just need to destroy its infrastructure, which can be done from afar.>>
Agreed…but then, what does “conquer” mean, in that sense? I usually consider “conquer” to mean occupation and governing…but that doesn’t seem a probable situation.
So, assuming that the Chinese were to succeed in destroying our infrastructure, what would “conquering” mean? (Ok…and while we’re at it, what do you mean by infrastructure? Economic, physical [roads, bridges, big buildings?]governmental…? Sorry…it seems like the more I think about these things, the more I find that words I use routinely don’t actually have a meaning that’s meaningful!)
Add another log to the fire – What course of action/inaction do we take. While I am posting this, take note that Mo El-Baradei is enroute from Vienna to Egypt. To recall, Mo left Egypt in a failed attempt to be elected several months ago with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Mubarak’s defense minister bids for US backing in Washington
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has sent his defense minister Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi in secret to Washington to ask for US backing for his embattled regime against the street protest movement which gained in violence on its second day, Wednesday, Jan. 26. Washington sources report that in secret meetings, Tantawi warned top US officials that without a crackdown on the protesters, the regime was doomed. The Egyptian army is on emergency standby.
read more: http://www.debka.com/article/20590/
Did you answer?
Answer what. Was that supposed to be a question? You might want to frame questions as actual questions if you want them answered.
Every tin-horn dictator claims necessity. But it is not a valid defense.
Which means you destroyed your own arguments. Yippy doo, huray for you.
You’re using the term “necessity” in the perception context with DQ.
What does that have to do with me again?
Zachriel: Like when was the last time the French fought and died alongside Americans?
Ymarsakar: Answer what. Was that supposed to be a question?
Yes, it was a question.
Zachriel: Every tin-horn dictator claims necessity. But it is not a valid defense.
Ymarsakar: Which means you destroyed your own arguments.
More than likely, you do not understand the argument. Perhaps you could restate it.
Danny Lemieux: The end of the French occupation and demarcation of Vietnam into North and South simply recognized these differences. To argue that the “North” was somehow legitimate and the “South” was not is ridiculous – you would have to make the same arguments about North and South Korea. Is “South Korea” not a legitimate country?
Some good insights in your discussion. But the post-WWII division was the result of events at the end of the war. In Vietnam, the Chinese liberated the north, and the British the south. In Korea, the north was held by the Soviets, and the south was held by the Americans. In Germany, the Soviets the east, the Allies the west.
Don Quixote: Hitler might have been able to isolate America. He was no threat to our existence.
This may be a bit far afield, but in 1942, the situation was not so clear. If America had been isolated by the fall of Britain and the loss of the Pacific, it would have been left without the raw materials it needed to wage war. It would have been reasonable to fear that America would be doomed to eventual strangulation. And this was a significant worry of war planners and of ordinary people. Many people thought fascism was the future.
In any case, the threat was far, far greater in WWII than the modern threat of terrorism. Millions were dying. There is no existential threat against the United States. So claiming that you should use black prisons and torture suspects can’t be founded on this basis. You might balance numbers of victims vs. numbers of victims. Then you may as well torture all criminal suspects. They usually know other criminals.
Zachriel, I must give you credit for trying to answer everyone and remaining civil. As for your comments:
I’ll start toward the end, because that is the most important. I asked you, “do you really think a nation keeping its word is more important than a nation preserving its existence?”
You answered: “No reason why you can’t have both.” That’s a nice, ideal statement, but it is not always true. You can’t always have both. There are times when you have to choose, when the only way to preserve the nation’s existence is to break its word. In those cases, I submit, the nation has a duty to its citizens to preserve itself that far trumps its duty to keep its word. My question still stands and awaits your answer. When you must choose, which do you believe a nation should choose?
“Don Quixote: The “laws of war” you refer to are not laws, they are unenforceable agreements.Yet, the Americans and their allies called them laws when they put on a big to-do called trials, with witnesses and evidence.”
True enough, and it was an unfortunate chioce of words. The trial were about crimes that happened to happen during wars, not war crimes. Anyway, as I’ve mentioned (1) they were crimes by any objective standard, without the need for a “Law” to make them so, and (2) inevitably, the victors get to decide whether the losers acted honorably or committed crimes against humanity.
There is an odd disconnect in your comments. When we are talking about WWII, you say that America was severely threatened even though no American were killed on American soil (Hawaii not being a state at the time), far more than today, (even though today 3,000+ have already been killed on American soil by jihadists), on the basis that we were at risk of being isolated. Yet, when we talk about the efforts to slow the rampant spread of communism in the 50s and 60s, a spread that I believe held at least as great a danger of isolating us, you suddenly shift gears and say “People have to find their own way.” We may just have to disagree on this one, since there is really no right or wrong answer as to how great the threat was, but I view your positions as inconsistent.
When I pointed out that North Vietnam did not abide by your “laws of war” you immediately tried to portray their point of view, as you did with Saddam and Hitler. Apparently, that’s a part of your approach to everything, and there is some value in looking at matters from the perspective of the other side, if you keep your perspective and don’t just excuse the acts of others while condemning far less serious violations by America. [At least, to your credit, you haven't tried to justify the Arabs targeting civilians and using human shields.] Anyway, you also say that North Vietnam knows it should have abided by your “laws of war.” What do you base that on?
Another inconsistency, in my view. You said, “So, it means torture should be against the law. It is against the law. If you determine you must torture someone to prevent a worse evil, then you do what you must, but submit to the law.” What do you mean “submit to the law?” If you are right, is the torture justified? If you believed you were right, but were wrong, is the torture justified? This is why I asked you about the person who breaks into my house and attacks my wife. I asked if I had broken any laws if I killed him. Your answer was ”Of course not.” Why shouldn’t this same standard apply to nations? Even if there is a “law of war” against torture (which I don’t believe, but let’s assume it), the nation that “violates” it to save lives or win a war is in the same position I am when I ”violate” the law against murder by killing the guy to save my wife’s life. If I didn’t commit a crime, the nation didn’t either.
Don Quixote: There are times when you have to choose, when the only way to preserve the nation’s existence is to break its word.
That’s your claim, anyway. There are already exceptions for war for self-defense. These problems were already hashed out when the U.S. made its commitments. Perhaps Americans shouldn’t make commitments they don’t intend to keep.
Don Quixote: In those cases, I submit, the nation has a duty to its citizens to preserve itself that far trumps its duty to keep its word.
Then Saddam didn’t commit a war crime when he preemptively attacked Iran, or when he made war on his own people in order to preserve the state. So what was all that fuss America made about war crimes, and Saddam’s commitments to disarm WMD? Just being pompous or what?
Don Quixote: When you must choose, which do you believe a nation should choose?
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? — Matthew 16.
In any case, this was answered more directly. You lose what you are trying to preserve if you erode the value of your own good word. If you believe that you have to torture innocent children (to take the extreme case), in order to save millions, then you will do so, but should still suffer the punishment. This preserves the rule of law, while accomplishing your aim. And when it is discovered that the children had nothing to tell you and the threat was your own delusion, then perhaps people will take pity on you.
Don Quixote: The trial were about crimes that happened to happen during wars, not war crimes. Anyway, as I’ve mentioned (1) they were crimes by any objective standard, without the need for a “Law” to make them so, and (2) inevitably, the victors get to decide whether the losers acted honorably or committed crimes against humanity.
That’s incorrect. There was a great deal of concern as to whether aggressive war could be considered a crime in-and-of-itself. They claimed national necessity. They claim following orders. In any case, they were indicted, tried and convicted of war crimes. If this wa a farce, just say so. Should they have just been summarily executed? Or let go?
The Nuremberg Trials led to written laws of war. You can’t say these laws don’t exist when they’re written down, signed by leaders of various countries, and ratified by their legislatures, including the U.S. Senate.
Don Quixote: When we are talking about WWII, you say that America was severely threatened even though no American were killed on American soil (Hawaii not being a state at the time),
Don Quixote: When we are talking about WWII, you say that America was severely threatened even though no American were killed on American soil (Hawaii not being a state at the time),
Huh? Hawaii was U.S. territory. It was an act of war. There’s no dispute about that.
Don Quixote: (even though today 3,000+ have already been killed on American soil by jihadists), on the basis that we were at risk of being isolated.
That’s correct. It can be considered an act of war, only it wasn’t a nation state. However, the U.S. has every right to self-defense.
Don Quixote: Yet, when we talk about the efforts to slow the rampant spread of communism in the 50s and 60s, a spread that I believe held at least as great a danger of isolating us, you suddenly shift gears and say “People have to find their own way.”
You know, that’s the deal. You have to present an alternative vision that wins hearts and minds. That’s how the Cold War was won. It wasn’t won in Vietnam. To the Vietnamese, the U.S. was just another in a long line of colonial powers. It wasn’t about spreading communism over the globe. They even went to war with China, another of those colonial powers they’ve fought over the centuries.
Don Quixote: Anyway, you also say that North Vietnam knows it should have abided by your “laws of war.” What do you base that on?
Because when they are reminded of their war crimes, they deny them and claim that they abided by the Geneva Conventions. We know this isn’t true. One day, they will have to face the fact. But sometimes, people don’t want to peer at the truth. If you remind them, they think you are living in the past, dwelling on the bad instead of the good, being unpatriotic, overemphasizing a few incidents while ignoring much worse crimes (My Lai and a hundred others). *Just like you are.* But they’ve taught their children humanity.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
Don Quixote: What do you mean “submit to the law?”
It means the rule of law must be upheld. That’s the commitment the U.S. has made.
Don Quixote: If you are right, is the torture justified?
If you could eternally torture an innocent child to save the lives of humanity… It’s a false dilemma.
Don Quixote: This is why I asked you about the person who breaks into my house and attacks my wife. I asked if I had broken any laws if I killed him. Your answer was ”Of course not.” Why shouldn’t this same standard apply to nations?
It does. Nations have a right to self-defense.
Don Quixote: Even if there is a “law of war” against torture (which I don’t believe, but let’s assume it),
United Nations Convention Against Torture
Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitition
Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
18 U.S.C. § 2340
Don Quixote: the nation that “violates” it to save lives or win a war is in the same position I am when I ”violate” the law against murder by killing the guy to save my wife’s life. If I didn’t commit a crime, the nation didn’t either.
You have a right to kill a home invader who is threatening your family, just as a nation has a right to defend itself militarily from an invasion. You are not allowed to tie up the invader and torture him because you suspect he has accomplices. You would rightly be prosecuted.
No time this morning, Zachriel, but I’ll try to get to you tonight. I suspect it may be hopeless, though. Our views of reality are just too different.
Yes, it was a question.
Doesn’t exist from here.
More than likely, you do not understand the argument. Perhaps you could restate it.
I doubt you can understand one argument, let alone the same argument restated.
DQ, I thought it was your policy not to deal with walls of words. Did you change that?
Ymarsakar: Which means you destroyed your own arguments.
Zachriel: More than likely, you do not understand the argument. Perhaps you could restate it.
Ymarsakar: I doubt you can understand one argument, let alone the same argument restated.
The request was to restate the argument you thought destroyed.
Easily done in this case.
Your problem is that you tried to turn gold into water. The transmutation didn’t quite take.
As a result of this, this is basically the entire argument, summed up, that you had before. In far less time and space.
Zach:[Dictators claim necessity when it isn't necessary, thus when you claim necessity, it isn't necessary]
Me: The moment you started on about the Nazis being wrong, you wiped yourself out. That’s because there are cases where killing a population, Jews or not, is necessary to achieve victory in a war. But those circumstances are not something you are aware of nor is it something your education covered. So you cover what it means to be wrong, which you are so that fits. But you have no grasp over when it becomes a necessity in warfare to do such.
You have a perception of necessity that there is only such a thing as “perceived necessity” rather than the counter part existing, actual necessity. You are entirely wrong on that matter.
I just knew you couldn’t resist quibbling over Hawaii. Obviously, by “American soil” I meant the United States, not the United States plus territories.
I see you had no authorities for your North Vietnamese comment. It was just your opinion as, I suppose, is your opinion that “they’ve taught their children humanity” whatever that means.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” is a nice platitude, anyway. I hope you’re right.
I know there are conventions and that we’ve signed on to them. They are even useful, to the extent that everyone actually abides by them. But, just like there are times when violating the letter of the domestic law against murder by killing someone is not murder (the home-invader attacking my wife), there are times when violating these “laws of war” is not a violation at all. My main problems with calling them “laws” are that (1) they are unenforceable and (2) they are a mirage, in that no government that gives a darn about its people will lose a war rather than breaking the “laws.” Nations can agree to them all they want, but, when push comes to shove, no nation will lose a war rather than violate them. Reality will always trump wide-eyed idealism. Sorry if you don’t think that’s the way things should be; that’s the way things are.
We have been going in circles for a while now. Let’s see if I can get us off of the merry-go-round by summarizing our positions, at least as to torture. You take the position that there is a “law of war” against torture. I point out that there are times in war when torture is completely justified. You respond with what I guess is a reductio ad absurdum attempt, by arguing that if torture is ever justified, then other breaches of the “laws of war” such as Hitler’s and Saddam’s genocides, must also be okay, just because they say so. I must admit I don’t follow this logic at all. Just because some acts which you consider breaches are justified, it does not follow that they all are. I’ve pointed out repeatedly that some acts are objectively crimes (Hitler’s and Saddam’s genocides) while others aren’t (torture to save millions of lives). I’ve also pointed out that the victors unavoidably get to make these types of judgments. You have not an answered either of these points, but have returned again and again to your arguments that if one is okay then all must be okay.
I don’t see how we bridge this divide. Any ideas?
Don Quixote: But, just like there are times when violating the letter of the domestic law against murder by killing someone is not murder (the home-invader attacking my wife), there are times when violating these “laws of war” is not a violation at all.
Killing a home invader threatening your family is not against the letter of domestic law. Nor is a nation defending itself against aggression against international law. This has been pointed out several times now. What you are trying to justify is tying up the invader and torturing him to find out if he has accomplices, something which is against the law.
Don Quixote: My main problems with calling them “laws” are that (1) they are unenforceable and (2) they are a mirage, in that no government that gives a darn about its people will lose a war rather than breaking the “laws.” Nations can agree to them all they want, but, when push comes to shove, no nation will lose a war rather than violate them.
So all the harumphing in Nuremberg was just air, the trials were just posturing, and the punishments mere revenge. And the solemn word of the U.S. is only meaningful when it’s easy, but not when it’s hard.
Don Quixote: You take the position that there is a “law of war” against torture.
Nations say there is a law, and that they will punish perpetrators under their own laws.
Don Quixote: I point out that there are times in war when torture is completely justified.
You pointed only to hypotheticals. Torture is always justifiable in war under your standard. Torture enough soldiers, and you are bound to find actionable intelligence. And certainly there is reason enough to suspect that an officer might know something.
Don Quixote: You respond with what I guess is a reductio ad absurdum attempt, by arguing that if torture is ever justified, then other breaches of the “laws of war” such as Hitler’s and Saddam’s genocides, must also be okay, just because they say so.
Oh? Is there an international law against genocide, or is that a matter of national preference?
Don Quixote: I’ve pointed out repeatedly that some acts are objectively crimes (Hitler’s and Saddam’s genocides)
They are? Whose law are you talking about? Everything the Nazis did, they did “legally” under German law.
Saddam ruthlessly waged war against civilian populations in revolt. He considered these justifiable for the security of the state. Hiter also justified his actions as necessary for the security of the state. It doesn’t matter, though, because according to you, there is no legitimate tribunal in which to make that argument.
Don Quixote: while others aren’t (torture to save millions of lives).
No, you made that part up. And presumably that excuses the United States torturing captives in the so-called War on Terror. Yet for all that, there is no existential threat to the U.S., and bin Laden is still on the loose. Something is wrong with the equation.
Ymarsakar: You have a perception of necessity that there is only such a thing as “perceived necessity” rather than the counter part existing, actual necessity.
Um, we’re obviously aware of the distinction as we used the modifier “perceived”.
Zachriel, I’m afraid we are done. You still claim that because I say something is sometimes justified, I must be saying it is always justified, which completely distorts my position. You still refuse to acknowledge that there is any objective measure by which an action can be judged right or wrong or that, by any objective measure what Hitler and Saddam did was wrong. It was wrong, and would have been wrong if there had been no international law at all and if there was/is no proper forum to declare it was. That does not mean that every breach of what you call the “laws of war” is wrong. Sometimes does not me every time, in either direction. The world is not nearly that simplistic. If you can’t agree to that simple premise, then further discussion is pointless. It’s been an interesting discussion, though, and thank you for keeping it civil.
Don Quixote: “In those cases, I submit, the nation has a duty to its citizens to preserve itself that far trumps its duty to keep its word.” Zach responds: “Then Saddam didn’t commit a war crime when he preemptively attacked Iran, or when he made war on his own people in order to preserve the state.”
I find it it interesting how Leftists so easily conflate dictators with their nation “State”, as if the truly represented their peoples (Castro, Saddam). Dictators supported by the U.S. (like Mubarak), however, are stooges and obviously not representative of their peoples. Saddam did not attack Iran to preserve his “State”.
Zach says with respect to the Germans at the Nuremberg Trials: That’s incorrect. There was a great deal of concern as to whether aggressive war could be considered a crime in-and-of-itself. They claimed national necessity. They claim following orders. In any case, they were indicted, tried and convicted of war crimes.
They, the German defendants, claimed a lot of things. Just claiming it didn’t make it so.
Zach says, “To the Vietnamese, the U.S. was just another in a long line of colonial powers. It wasn’t about spreading communism over the globe.”
Here’s a good example of Zach’s “conflation of convenience”. Obviously, not “all” Vietnamese thought so, or there wouldn’t have been war between North and Viet Cong versus the South. The U.S. wasn’t fighting on its own.
Many, many South Vietnamese saw the North as a historical colonial power…and do so to this day, apparently.
Zach claims: “Saddam ruthlessly waged war against civilian populations in revolt. He considered these justifiable for the security of the state. Hiter also justified his actions as necessary for the security of the state.”
It is interesting to me how the Left can hide behind legalistic language when it is convenient and with no sense of moral direction. In their relativist world, there is no right or wrong outside of the context of political objectives (a very Marxist concept). Thus, if Saddam or Hitler claimed that the brutalization of their people were justified to protect the State, the Leftist is unable to make a moral distinction and Saddam and Hitler must be taken at their word as long as it advances the Leftist ideology.
Unfortunately, many of the people that make such arguments today were raised on a “Howard Zinn” view of history, wherein Zinn (a Communist) actively promoted the idea that all history was subjective and narratives thereof should be manipulated to lead students thereof toward desired ideological conclusions. I think we see this at work here.
As regular posters to this blog know, I conflate “Communist” with “Nazi”: same thugs, different gang colors.
DQ posits: But, just like there are times when violating the letter of the domestic law against murder by killing someone is not murder (the home-invader attacking my wife), there are times when violating these “laws of war” is not a violation at all.
The Geneva Conventions are supposed to apply only when the other side is a signatory to the conventions. We can argue back and forth forever whether waterboarding or blasting rap music to prisoners constitutes torture, but the fact is that Al Qaeda-in-Iraq was made up largely of “foreign fighters” who did not fall under the conventions.
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to a Ramzi Yousef, Al-Awlaki or Khalid Sheik Mohammed or any other Al Qaeda operative imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
Don Quixote: I’m afraid we are done.
Perhaps. But you’ve never presented a consistent case. Even if we put aside American promises to the contrary, we don’t know when you would sanction torture or how. While not every soldier will have valuable information, you can certainly glean useful intelligence by abusing every soldier (esp. officers) that you capture, drawing a picture of the enemy’s military disposition, for instance. Or a child, to force her to inform on their father. Sure, sometimes the father will be innocent, but overall, you are bound to be able to collect some useful intelligence. Root out the traitors! End the war sooner! Save lives!
Who decides who gets tortured? What about insurrection? Do you torture citizens? Do you need a warrant? But it’s a national emergency! Surely we can trust the government to only torture people who deserve torturing.
In fact, the very strength of modern civilization comes from its values. Weaken that, the foundation weakens, and you lose the very thing you are trying to save. Think how many Germans surrendered to the Americans in WWII simply because they knew they would be treated humanely, and how many people in the world have looked to America as a beacon of hope because they were willing to fight and die for their ideals.
Don Quixote: You still refuse to acknowledge that there is any objective measure by which an action can be judged right or wrong or that, by any objective measure what Hitler and Saddam did was wrong.
Right and wrong are not based on objectivity (objectivity has to do with methods and determinations independent of personal feelings and individual minds). Values of right and wrong can, however, be shared. We can agree that what Hitler and Saddam did was wrong.
Don Quixote: It was wrong, and would have been wrong if there had been no international law at all and if there was/is no proper forum to declare it was.
We agree they were wrong, whether or not there is a prevailing legal authority.
Don Quixote: That does not mean that every breach of what you call the “laws of war” is wrong.
Every breach of law undermines the rule of law, but this might be weighted against whatever other good is being accomplished. Of course, you could always take the course of action, and then submit to the rule of law anyway.
King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 1963.
Don Quixote: I’ve pointed out repeatedly that some acts are objectively crimes (Hitler’s and Saddam’s genocides)
The question is whether they are prosecutable acts. So, whose law are you talking about? Everything the Nazis did, they did “legally” under German law. If you mean victor’s justice, well, that was the Nazis defense. Again, were the Allies just pontificating at Nuremberg to cover their revenge-lust?
Danny Lemieux: I find it it interesting how Leftists so easily conflate dictators with their nation “State”, as if the truly represented their peoples (Castro, Saddam).
We find it interesting how some people label other people in order to make off-hand remarks. Dictators are not representative governments, nonetheless, they do constitute a state.
Danny Lemieux: Saddam did not attack Iran to preserve his “State”.
Saddam considered Revolutionary Iran to be a dangerous threat to Iraq. International law, however, precludes breaking the peace based on some future threat.
Danny Lemieux: They, the German defendants, claimed a lot of things. Just claiming it didn’t make it so.
Yes, they did. But you didn’t answer why their arguments were not exculpatory.
Danny Lemieux: Obviously, not “all” Vietnamese thought so, or there wouldn’t have been war between North and Viet Cong versus the South. The U.S. wasn’t fighting on its own.
The domino theory is no longer considered credible. The people in Vietnam were not fighting for anything other than their own country’s future.
Danny Lemieux: It is interesting to me how the Left can hide behind legalistic language when it is convenient and with no sense of moral direction.
It’s is interesting how some people can avoid an argument in order to make off-hand remarks. These were important issues at Nuremberg.
Danny Lemieux: Thus, if Saddam or Hitler claimed that the brutalization of their people were justified to protect the State, the Leftist is unable to make a moral distinction and Saddam and Hitler must be taken at their word as long as it advances the Leftist ideology.
Of course, that is simply false. Most people on the left condemn Hitler and Saddam.
Danny Lemieux: As regular posters to this blog know, I conflate “Communist” with “Nazi”: same thugs, different gang colors.
Though both communists and fascists are extremists who believed that the ends justified the means, they are not the same ideology.
Danny Lemieux: The Geneva Conventions are supposed to apply only when the other side is a signatory to the conventions.
There are a number of Conventions and other agreements that are binding regardless of the adversary, including the humane treatment of prisoners, not excepting criminals, who have the right to due process.
Danny Lemieux: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to a Ramzi Yousef, Al-Awlaki or Khalid Sheik Mohammed or any other Al Qaeda operative imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
The Convention on Torture and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights always apply.
Just so folks know, I’ve taken my discussion with Zachriel private. It is not productive to continue it here. I will be interested to see if he responds privately. Danny, Zachriel and anyone else who want to continue here is, of course, welcome to do so.
>>It is not productive to continue it here.>>
That’s a fact.
>>I will be interested to see if he responds privately. >>
I’m guessing not. He has no interest in discussion, and only wants a forum where he can spout his talking points to show us all how wrong we are. Never mind the underlying basic premises. Either he has none, or at least none he wishes to disclose.
Can’t resist, so one last time into the breach…
Danny Lemieux: “Obviously, not “all” Vietnamese thought so, or there wouldn’t have been war between North and Viet Cong versus the South. The U.S. wasn’t fighting on its own.”
Zachriel’s response: “The domino theory is no longer considered credible. The people in Vietnam were not fighting for anything other than their own country’s future.”
Not only a non-sequitur, but a false statement of fact.
Zach promotes the classic Leftist re-write of history: “Though both communists and fascists are extremists who believed that the ends justified the means, they are not the same ideology.”
Stalin’s Communism and Hitler’s National Socialism were as different from each other ideologically as Stalin’s, Castro’s, Kim Il Sung’s “Juche”, Enver Hoxha’s, Pol Pot’s, Mao Tse Tung’s or Tito’s socialist ideologies differed between each other. The roots all extend through Marx and Engles to Rousseau.
Same thugs, different gang colors!
I’m with DQ on this, though: this thread is so over.
I had my fill.
Wise man say, “Do not continue talking to wall after putting so many holes through it.”
Zachriel: The domino theory is no longer considered credible. The people in Vietnam were not fighting for anything other than their own country’s future.”
Danny Lemieux: Not only a non-sequitur, but a false statement of fact.
Simply waving your hands does not constitute an argument. The domino theory predicted that if Vietnam fell to the communists, then the rest of Southeast Asia would fall, and they would be on the Rio Grande. But that’s not what happened. Each country had its own interests and problems with development. Furthermore, there really was no entity of “world communism”, but many different entities. In fact, Vietnam invaded neighboring communist Cambodia, and was itself invaded by communist China.
Danny Lemieux: Stalin’s Communism and Hitler’s National Socialism were as different from each other ideologically as Stalin’s, Castro’s, Kim Il Sung’s “Juche”, Enver Hoxha’s, Pol Pot’s, Mao Tse Tung’s or Tito’s socialist ideologies differed between each other.
And yet the vast majority of historians reject your position. Have you ever considered why?
Don Quixote: Just so folks know, I’ve taken my discussion with Zachriel private.
The whole point of commenting on blogs it to make one’s views known and to let them be scrutinized by others. There’s no reason to suppose a private discussion will be more productive, but we will be happy to respond to your email.
Zach, not to beat a dead horse, but…
Lee Kuan Yew, former Prime Minister of Singapore, is considered one of the great wise men of Asia. Howard Zinn isn’t.
From Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs:
”Although American intervention failed in Vietnam, it bought time for the rest of Southeast Asia. In 1965, when the US military moved massively into South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines faced internal threats from armed communist insurgents and the communist underground was still active in Singapore. Indonesia, in the throes of a failed communist coup, was waging konfrontasi, an undeclared war against Singapore. The Philippines was claiming Sabah in East Malaysia. Standards of living were low and economic growth slow. America’s action enabled non-communist Southeast Asia to put their own houses in order. By 1975 (when the Vietnam war ended) they were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had there been no US intervention, the will of these countries to resist them would have melted and Southeast Asia would have most likely gone communist. The prosperous emerging market economies of Asean ( Association of Southeast Asian Nations) were nurtured during the Vietnam War years.”
As far as “the vast majority of historians” are concerned. I haven’t polled them, you haven’t polled them. Most historians in academia are on the Left. You like to run with herds (it’s that Zachriel’s Temple of Orthodoxy thing). By contrast, we like to think for ourselves.
Danny: I think the maybe the proper metaphor here might be milking a dead horse.
I do have to commend Zach[s]‘ stamina and his civil tone, and I think the execise about could be pretty useful. It would be instructive to take this thread and after weeding out the clearly irrelevant bits create a dialog along the lines of Plato’s dialogues. It would make a nice little short course.
Or maybe someone could turn this thread into one of those txt-to-move clips! It would about 4 hours long though. (Wouldn’t be hard to do — we could just put Zach on a loop. OK, that was unfair, I admit it. Think I’ll go stand in the corner now.)
BTW: When I’m done standing in the corner, anyone want to debate the 7 Years War? That is after all, the root of Americam Dominance. Or did that get covered elsewhere while I was off making donuts?
Um, we’re obviously aware of the distinction as we used the modifier “perceived”.
That’s part of why I said you destroyed your own argument. By simply admitting that it was dictators that were wrong, you opened up the possibility that there was a “right” way to claim necessity. Since you hadn’t yet proved that our claims lacked sufficient justification to be considered “right way to claim necessity”, you opened the path to your own defeat.
And when you say you are aware of the distinct, you seal the deal, so to speak. So of course the Nazi priority on the Jews was wrong. It was the opposite of being necessary for winning the war, it was counter-productive. Which means, if American wants to win wars, it needs to do productive things in the war. All the stuff you talk about in Vietnam and the War on Islamic terrorists? Those are counter-productive things. You have yet to convince many of us why they should be considered “productive” and “necessary” things to do for the benefit of America or the indigenous population.
That is the issue. You claim it as fact that this is “True”, but premises are only true if you assume they are true. We do not make such assumptions without a convincing argument first. It’s not a “premise” that the Vietnamese were bombed because America didn’t like electing Ho Chi Min. That’s just your argument, which you must argue. Rather than assume, like a premise.
Also, as a general comment, nations don’t have such things as honor or duty or things that only belong to individuals.
People who try to rely upon a “nation’s honor” rather than realizing that honor and promises only exist with the people that have them, usually end up in a shallow grave on the world geo-political stage sooner, rather than later.
I add this because I don’t think DQ or Danny has yet mentioned this particular distinction. Which I believe is a fundamental and axiomatic distinction. To not recognize it as being true, would change the face of geo-political negotiations, diplomacy, and foreign policy.
While there are many things I would like to address concerning what Zach, Danny, or DQ wrote up. My time is limited and thus I chose to pare it down to something chewable.
Owen…I know you will be shocked to hear this, but we did devote a fair amount of time to the Seven Years War (French & Indian War) on this blog a while back. We mentioned that this first “global war” was started by an American Indian in the presence of George Washington.
We cover quite a bit of ground in the Bookworm room. It’s always interesting.
Have any of you ever played whack-a-mole?
If so, have you noticed that, once you get into a rhythm, it is very hard to stop whacking?
Lord help me!
Danny: Shocked? Shocked, I say! (although he didn’t). Nope not at all, just sorry I missed it. That was probably pre-Zach then I take it?
I love whack-a-mole. I have never been anywhere where you can play it that players and spectators weren’t having a laugh-out-loud good time.
I grew up without whack-a-mole — always felt deprived by that. (I first learned about it from a Dave Barry column.) Gotta make up lost time…
That was probably pre-Zach then I take it?
Yes, it’s known in the medical books as prezachulation !
Headline from the February 7, 2011 New York Times:
LANGUAGE POLICE CLOSING IN ON “SADIE,” SAY THEY HAVE HER PUNNED DOWN IN A RIGHT-WING BLOG ROOM
SADIE:
[I'm working on my posy-literare skills]
Ok, Charles, that’s not p[h]unny.
Just a Saturday night version of whack-a-mole
Wasn’t whack a mole unionized so that you couldn’t play for more than X hours or the union moles would go on strike?
My first whack-a-mole experience was at Pier 39 in San Francisco, near Fisherman’s Wharf. Frisco being a leftist town, the moles attacked my wife, calling her “bitch” and “whore,” and sneering that she’s probably an ill-educated pro-lifer who thinks she can “see San Francisco from her wndow.”
They also questioned whether my son, Nottrig, was really ours or belonged to our neighborhood GOP teen slut who, undoubtedly, now runs around counseling abstinence.
Otherwise, for a bunch of unionized mammals, they were pretty well behaved.
Ymarsakar: You have a perception of necessity that there is only such a thing as “perceived necessity” rather than the counter part existing, actual necessity.
Zachriel: Um, we’re obviously aware of the distinction as we used the modifier “perceived”.
Ymarsakar: That’s part of why I said you destroyed your own argument.
Try to be consistent — or at least read your own comments. You had said our position was that there is only “perceived necessity” and not “actual necessity”. But that’s obviously not correct. It’s not so much that you can’t properly restate our position, but that you can’t seem to see such obvious contradictions in your own statements.
Ymarsakar: By simply admitting that it was dictators that were wrong, you opened up the possibility that there was a “right” way to claim necessity.
To take an extreme case, it is wrong to systematically exterminate an entire people. The difference is that you make an exception for necessity.
Ymarsakar: So of course the Nazi priority on the Jews was wrong.
Yes. They claimed it was necessary, but it wasn’t. They were mistaken.
Ymarsakar: It’s not a “premise” that the Vietnamese were bombed because America didn’t like electing Ho Chi Min.
“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader.” — Eisenhower, Mandate for Change 1963.
The nationwide vote was never held, however, there was an election in South Vietnam. The U.S. backed Ngo Dinh Diem won 98% of the vote, with 133% support in Saigon.
Ymarsakar: You have a perception of necessity that there is only such a thing as “perceived necessity” rather than the counter part existing, actual necessity.
Zachriel: Um, we’re obviously aware of the distinction as we used the modifier “perceived”.
Ymarsakar: That’s part of why I said you destroyed your own argument.
Try to be consistent — or at least read your own comments. You had said our position was that there is only “perceived necessity” and not “actual necessity”. But that’s obviously not correct. It’s not so much that you can’t properly restate our position, but that you can’t seem to see such obvious contradictions in your own statements.
Ymarsakar: By simply admitting that it was dictators that were wrong, you opened up the possibility that there was a “right” way to claim necessity.
Of course one can argue necessity. To take an extreme case, it is wrong to systematically exterminate an entire people. The difference is that you make an exception for necessity.
Ymarsakar: So of course the Nazi priority on the Jews was wrong.
Yes. They claimed it was necessary, but it wasn’t. They were mistaken.
Ymarsakar: It’s not a “premise” that the Vietnamese were bombed because America didn’t like electing Ho Chi Min.
“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader.” — Eisenhower, Mandate for Change 1963.
The nationwide vote was never held, however, there was an election in South Vietnam. The U.S. backed Ngo Dinh Diem won 98% of the vote, with 133% support in Saigon.
But that’s obviously not correct. It’s not so much that you can’t properly restate our position, but that you can’t seem to see such obvious contradictions in your own statements.
Until you address DQ’s issue on when or where you think it would be necessary to do such things as torture, my claim stands as is.
Ymarsakar: Until you address DQ’s issue on when or where you think it would be necessary to do such things as torture, my claim stands as is.
What claim? That there is no such thing as real necessity? That obviously misrepresents our view. The question is whether particular acts are necessary, or ever necessary. This is your original statement:
Ymarsakar: That’s because there are cases where killing a population, Jews or not, is necessary to achieve victory in a war… You have a perception of necessity that there is only such a thing as “perceived necessity” rather than the counter part existing, actual necessity. You are entirely wrong on that matter.
It’s certainly possible to *imagine* a situation where killing every last enemy is actually necessary. That is Hitler’s argument. The Jews were a cancer, and they had to kill every last cancer cell to eliminate the disease. Is that your position? Most people don’t believe it is ever necessary to commit genocide, that those who think otherwise are deluded and hateful, and that it is always morally reprehensible. Sometimes, doing the right thing can be painful, though. It might mean prolonging a war, or struggling through the complexities of an ambiguous peace.