Page 2 of 3

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:55 am
by Sirian
Ford wrote:Both you guys make it sound like nobody but America made any sacrifices, that nobody but Americans died fighting in Europe.
That's a lot of meaning to draw from one little sentence. Are you sure you're reading it right?


Here's a paragraph I wrote as part of a previous post, which got cut on the third pass as I was trimming and reshaping. I figured that this was mostly redundant, widely known, and that I didn't need to say it.
Sirian wrote:Victory in Europe was truly an allied affair, with bombing campaign led by America undermining the industrial capacity of the Nazis: taking out the oil refineries, destroying the factories. Russia did the hard work on the ground and made the staggering sacrifices of men, but I do not believe they could have done it alone. American fliers penetrating into occupied Europe suffered the worst casualty rates of any American units in the war. Russia might have won without D-Day and the second front, but not without the bombing help.
I will carry this further, to try to reassure you.

America could not even have won the Gulf War without cooperation, much less the Cold War. The era of single-nation war victories went out with the nineteenth century. But that was not my point. The issue of moral authority arises from ideas that work vs ideas that fail, when it comes to the most important decisions of war and peace. American successes begin with drawing the correct lessons from World War I in order to design the strategy for what to do in the wake of World War II, and that is where the emergence of American leadership on the world stage properly begins.

So, Ford, where do we go from here? Do I need to spend a few days belaboring to you my understanding of military history and the roles played by each nation in each campaign in each war? Do I need to single out and enumerate your nation's role in the actual fighting, when I was talking about strategy and policy and principle, and the fighting was beside my point? Or can we skip that and move on with the topic?


I clarified my intent. Europe's approaches to both peacekeeping and peacemaking have failed. Since America rose to the fore and assumed the leading role, late in the game with World War II, both peacemaking and peacekeeping have been conducted with much greater success. From the Berlin Airlift to confronting the North Korean aggression, to the Cuban Missile Crisis, to trying to help the fledgling democracy in South Vietnam survive the Communist push, to covertly aiding the Afghans against the Soviet invasion, to deploying medium-ranged nuclear missiles in Western Europe and staring down the Soviets, to kicking Saddam's armies out of Kuwait. At every turn, the American policy has been to confront aggressors before they grow out of hand, to draw a line in the sand and defend it, and this has kept the peace and the prosperity in place for the West for more than half a century.

Now we confront a new threat. What are we going to do about it? Many want us to do nothing, preferring to believe tell themselves that no threat exists. I find that line of thinking dangerous and irresponsible.

Ford wrote:America seems unable to accept any advice from anyone.
Let's flip that around. Suppose I said that, solely on the basis of your nation's disagreement with our move in Iraq, that you are unable to accept advice from America. How would that make you feel?

My point about moral authority is aimed at the very charge you level here. Was I prescient in forwarding a defense before you even got to level the charge? Hardly. When listening to the arguments coming from the rest of the world on this issue, I've been listening to nothing else.
Ford wrote:When so many people in so many countries disagree with the wisdom of an action is there not at least a possibility that they are right.
Is there not at least a possibility that they are wrong?

The numbers have nothing to do with the validity of an idea. I'm a believer in single voices. Even if there were only one person on the planet forwarding an idea, it might be the best one. There's such a thing as "debate in progress". It takes time for ideas to filter through the population. Often it requires testing to establish which ideas work better. I am moved by facts, arguments, reasoning, and as wide a view of a topic as I can obtain. I am not moved by numbers.

History stands on the side of America, in the following essential ways:
* We have the oldest living governing document on the planet: the Constitution of the United States. In this document, we outline the shape of our government and the principles by which we make our decisions.
* Contrary to the view popular in Europe that the Americans are the new kids on the block, we are actually the eldest statesmen when it comes to matters of representative government, democracy, and the principles of freedom.
* America polices its own. We fought a bitter civil war to resolve the few outstanding issues not wholly resolved by our Constitution. We learned the lessons of that conflict so well, we have never come anywhere remotely close to repeating it in the time since. In fact, we have been the most stable nation on the planet since that time. We have also been the most transparent.
* While Europe was embroiling itself in World War I, America was giving birth to universal suffrage.
* While Europe was embracing the principles of Karl Marx, America was inventing flight, mass production, antitrust law, and motion pictures.
* Europe's solutions in the wake of World War I led to even greater misery to follow. America's solutions in the wake of World War II led to unprecedented peace and prosperity for free nations.
* Communist countries warned the world in 1949 about the "American threat" and how our policies would plunge the world into World War III. They were wrong.
* America warned the world about the "Communist threat" and we were right. Korea, the putdown of the Czech Revolution, Tienamen Square, and more examples than I have room to include here.

I do not cite these examples as evidence that we are always right. I do not claim that being right in the past must translate to being right in the present.

The principles that guide European thinking have been discredited by history. Ours have been upheld. See the list above. That is what it shows. Our principles have withstood the test of time. Of course we listen to advice from other countries, other peoples. On the important matters, though, when your advice conflicts with our core values and principles, we trust the lessons that we have drawn from history ahead of your advice and reasoning. Trusting our own judgement in these matters, often in direct defiance of the conventional wisdom held by the rest of the Western world, has worked out for us more often than not.

Ford wrote:When so many people in so many countries disagree with the wisdom of an action is there not at least a possibility that they are right.
When the USA has been right so many times in so many ways on so many occasions, is it not possible that we are right once again?


- Sirian

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:45 am
by woodchip
sheepdog wrote:
Clutch fer crissakes, Syrian is baiting the Canadians. Look at Ford Perfect's first post in this thread and ask yourself why you're buying into Syrian aka Cross me and I'll bury you in pile of purple prose's crap.
What velvet sheathed talons extend from thee
exceeded only by wicked pens
venom that flows hopeful away from me.
:)

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:48 am
by Flabby Chick
Yup! it's wonderful to see Margo back. I still nurse the scars from the time she lambasted me for lurking in the old nubee forum and not joining the "big guys".

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:50 pm
by sheepdog
Flabby Chick wrote:Yup! it's wonderful to see Margo back. I still nurse the scars from the time she lambasted me for lurking in the old nubee forum and not joining the "big guys".
I owe you an apology for that FC. I am sorry.

And I'm happy to see you too. :)
woodchip wrote: What velvet sheathed talons extend from thee
exceeded only by wicked pens
venom that flows hopeful away from me.
:)
Woodchip,
You're so sweet! I am so perverse I really loved that.

Margo

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:38 pm
by Birdseye
Contrary to the view popular in Europe that the Americans are the new kids on the block, we are actually the eldest statesmen when it comes to matters of representative government, democracy, and the principles of freedom.
It's true that we started the modern democratic paradigm (although I think now others are doing it better, partly due to the fact that smaller homogenous nations are easier to control) but much of that was rooted in european thought. Not to mention the idea of representative democracy is not an american invention.
While Europe was embracing the principles of Karl Marx, America was inventing flight, mass production, antitrust law, and motion pictures.
I'm being picky here, but I'd argue that we invented mass production techniques much earlier. While they were perfected in WWI era, the ideas of interchangeable parts and the specialized labor (assembly lines) go back to the civil war era. Eli Whitney while best known for the cotton gin, was employed by the government to try to perfect interchangeability. While British goods were superior, they were far more costly and proved that perfection in mfg is not the dominant paradigm. Born was disposable consumerism ;)
Europe's solutions in the wake of World War I led to even greater misery to follow. America's solutions in the wake of World War II led to unprecedented peace and prosperity for free nations.
Food for thought: The US financed the war debt of Britain and other countries during WWI. A main reason for the reparations (which were the cause of Hitler's rise) being so high was their need to pay off their debt. Germany told its creditors the debts were punitive, way too large. They refused to pay them at first, and then just began printing money to the point of massive hyperinflation.

After WWI The US refused to forgive Britain's (and others) debts, so those countries in turn could not forgive the reperation debt.

If the US had forgiven the European debt, hitler may not (definite MAYBE here, not saying anything for sure) have risen to power.

Not that I really blame the US at all for the rise of Hitler--hindsight really is 20/20. At the time why would citizens of the US want to forgive such a large debt to the europeans? Nobody forsaw Hitler's rise and the complete economic collapse (well, save a few soles, such as Keynes, a brit who not only predicted the collapse, but is now responsible for modern economic paradigms and the success of smoothing the business cycle).

It was after WWII the world collectively realized what punishing another country so harshly was likely to produce. It was with this hindsight that we decided to keep the german economy stable.

Your assertion of us having a superior solution would make sense if we fiercely had proposed the solution we advocated after WWII at the time of post WWI, but we did no such thing. We benefitted with hindsight as did the world.
The principles that guide European thinking have been discredited by history.
I suppose we need some clarification here first. What dates are you referring to? Our own constituion is firmly rooted in european thinking. And, what principles are you specifically referring to?


When the USA has been right so many times in so many ways on so many occasions, is it not possible that we are right once again?
It is certianly possible. But using an argument of being right in the past to prove a present day assertion sews the seeds for failure and a lack of vigilance. Case by case, I prefer.

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:49 pm
by Sirian
Birdseye wrote:Case by case, I prefer.
The only way to do it. However, to judge each case means to examine all relevant information. Fixating on a particular fact to the exclusion of other evidence is dangerous.

Birdseye wrote:smaller homogenous nations are easier to control
You claim this as fact, but President Jefferson held another view. He forwarded it to justify his purchase of the Lousianna territory. I am more persuaded by his arguments on this point than by your assertion.

Birdseye wrote:I'm being picky here, but I'd argue that we invented mass production techniques much earlier.
Valid points, but I think Ford's assembly line made the breakthrough. This is akin to my thinking on the issue of representative government. Europe produced the theories and principles upon which we founded our government, but we assembled the practical application and made it work, breaking through a barrier into levels of success previously unimagined. I'm not denying the origins of the process in either case. Instead I focus on the watershed innovations where applied theory transformed the course of history for all that followed.

The most important wisdom is that which differentiates theory from application. Theories are a dime a dozen. Proven theories are precious metal.

Birdseye wrote:I suppose we need some clarification here first. What dates are you referring to? Our own constituion is firmly rooted in european thinking. And, what principles are you specifically referring to?
Don't pull the quote out of context. Read it as part of the totality, and you will know to which I refer.


- Sirian

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:10 pm
by Birdseye
You claim this as fact, but President Jefferson held another view. He forwarded it to justify his purchase of the Lousianna territory. I am more persuaded by his arguments on this point than by your assertion.
Perhaps you have something I can read which explains it? To me, that is quite counter-intuitive, so I'd be interested in hearing his explanation.

Instead I focus on the watershed innovations where applied theory transformed the course of history for all that followed.
OK, but just be careful with your words. You said invent rather than "breakthrough". I know, I'm being picky ;)
Don't pull the quote out of context. Read it as part of the totality, and you will know to which I refer.
I read it several times before posting that. Please explain.


Anyway, I'm dissapointed you passed over the meat of my last post:
Food for thought: The US financed the war debt of Britain and other countries during WWI. A main reason for the reparations (which were the cause of Hitler's rise) being so high was their need to pay off their debt. Germany told its creditors the debts were punitive, way too large. They refused to pay them at first, and then just began printing money to the point of massive hyperinflation.

After WWI The US refused to forgive Britain's (and others) debts, so those countries in turn could not forgive the reperation debt.

If the US had forgiven the European debt, hitler may not (definite MAYBE here, not saying anything for sure) have risen to power.

Not that I really blame the US at all for the rise of Hitler--hindsight really is 20/20. At the time why would citizens of the US want to forgive such a large debt to the europeans? Nobody forsaw Hitler's rise and the complete economic collapse (well, save a few soles, such as Keynes, a brit who not only predicted the collapse, but is now responsible for modern economic paradigms and the success of smoothing the business cycle).

It was after WWII the world collectively realized what punishing another country so harshly was likely to produce. It was with this hindsight that we decided to keep the german economy stable.

Your assertion of us having a superior solution would make sense if we fiercely had proposed the solution we advocated after WWII at the time of post WWI, but we did no such thing. We benefitted with hindsight as did the world.

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:01 pm
by Ford Prefect
Tyranny:
It's funny that non-Americans mention we "helped" in the invasions in Europe during WWII. You make it sound like we were part of some "supporting" role....
etc.

Maybe it is a reaction to all those Hollywood movies that make it look like Europe was the U.S. vs Germany. :)

Seriously Tyranny, I for one never want to minimize the importance of the U.S. in joining the fight in Europe and even more importantly setting up the Lend Lease agreement which provided Britain and her allies the material to make a stand in the Battle of Britain. Without the U.S. support there is no way Britain would have survived. As I said before I have a 91 year old father who is proud of his service for his country in the war and I am proud of him as well. Soon there will be nothing left of him but a memory and some medals in a case, I guess that makes me a little touchy if I think his effort and the effort of so many that never came home is minimized or forgotten.

I still rankle a bit at the claim of the U.S. "winning" WW1 as Sirian claimed in his first post. That war is very important to Canada for a lot of reasons to do with nationhood so we hear and read a lot about it. It was a stupid, senseless, imperialistic, butchery of young men for years before the U.S. joined. By the time you guys came there were no troops left in Germany to fight. They had been slaughtered in tens of thousands in battles for a few yards of mud and had slaughtered tens of thousands in return.
If you really want to get a sense of what a waste of everything of value that war can be you should read a bit about WW1.

You know I went back to the begining of this thread to find out where to find the Law Professor who made the charge that the Afghan Invasion was illegal but I don't see his name or the name of his college/university. We are a small nation with only about 50 universties in total. I just wondered if he was from any of the larger ones.

Anyway, in pursuit of Sirian's comment
Dismissing those with whom you disagree strongly is not a winning strategy. The better move is engagement. Let the strongest argument prevail. Put each side's logic to the test and see what happens.
I might point you to the works of a Canadian (currently living in London)bona fide expert in the realm of conflict and war; the history of, strategies of and politics of. He has written several books and is internationaly recongnized for his expertise.
I think a good read of some of these articles http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles2004.htm might be bad for your blood pressure but still a good idea.
I'm not sure where I stand on Mr. Dyre's opinions but he certainly has done his home work.
In case you think he is not very interesting
31 October 2004

Bin Laden Speaks (But Not The Truth)

By Gwynne Dyer

Osama bin Laden is a master of the art of public relations, and his
videotaped message on Friday, 29 October, was a little masterpiece of spin
and misdirection. All that nonsense about how he decided to attack the
"towers" of New York when he saw the "towers" of Beirut under attack by the
Israelis and the US Sixth Fleet in 1982, for example.

When Israel invaded Lebanon and the US sent troops to help, Osama
probably didn't like what he saw, but he hadn't even gone to Afghanistan
and become a mujahedin yet. He didn't spend nineteen years planning the
9/11 attacks. And as for telling Americans that they will be safe if only
they stop attacking Arab and Muslim countries -- "Your security does not
lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush, or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own
hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will
have automatically assured its own security" -- it is a cynical lie.

True, it was America's deep military involvement in the Arab world
and its support for tyrannical Arab regimes that made it a target for the
extremists in the first place, but that is thirty years of history that
cannot be undone. The United States has become a tool in the Islamists'
struggle to overthrow those regimes, and there is little it can now do to
escape that role.

The main purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to lure the United States
into military intervention in the Muslim world, in the belief that that
would outrage Muslims and drive them into the arms of the Islamists.
Within the Arab world (where the vast majority of the Islamists live),
their attempted revolutions against regimes they condemn as secular and/or
sold out to the West -- in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria -- had been
stalled for 25 years because they were unable to win enough popular
support. So maybe they could sucker the Americans into creating it for
them.

Mere terrorism never overthrows governments. Terrorism is a useful
device for getting your name and programme before the public in a
dictatorship where you cannot openly advocate your political ideas, but the
end-game of revolution usually requires a million people in the street,
willing to risk their lives to bring the target regime down and put you in
its place. For the Islamists, the million people just won't come out.

Relatively few Arabs are willing to risk death to overthrow the
corrupt, worn-out, sold-out regimes they live under, if what they are going
to get instead is rule by a band of violent religious fanatics who will
just ruin their lives and their economies in a different way. Support for
the Islamists is higher in the Arab world than in other Muslim countries
because the Arabs have had a hard time at the hands of the West (including
Israel) in recent decades, but it probably doesn't get above five or ten
percent even in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

For a quarter-century, the Islamists have been stuck in a bloody
stalemate with the various regimes they seek to overthrow. Osama bin
Laden's claim to fame was his insight that popular support for the
Islamists might finally be boosted up to the level needed for successful
revolutions if they could lure the United States into even deeper military
involvement in the Muslim world -- full-scale invasions, if possible --
that would drive millions of Arabs into the Islamists's arms.

That was what 9/11 was about, and it failed. The United States
immediately invaded Afghanistan, as bin Laden doubtless intended -- but
without the consequences he hoped for. The US invasion was swift,
efficient and cost relatively few lives: probably under 4,000 Afghans
killed, and only a dozen Americans. Nothing like the ten-year guerilla war
generating thousands of images of innocent Muslims suffering under American
firepower that he had hoped for, working from the precedent of the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979-89 where he had made his reputation.

If the United States had not invaded Iraq last year (which bin
Laden could not have foreseen), 9/11 would have been a complete failure.
Even with the horrifying images that Iraq generates and the fury and hatred
that they engender among Muslims elsewhere, there has still not been a
single revolution anywhere in the Arab world: the Islamists still cannot
get the masses out in the streets to overthrow Arab regimes.

That speaks volumes for the moderation and basic common-sense of
the Arab people, and it argues that the Islamists are doomed to remain a
marginal force in Arab politics no matter how many people (local and
foreign) they manage to kill. But they have not given up on their
strategy, which means that bin Laden's promise was a lie. He NEEDS America
to remain militarily entangled in Muslim countries, so he will go on
ordering the attacks that he thinks will produce that result -- insofar as
he is capable of ordering anything at all.

He is probably not able to order very much. Al-Qaeda was never a
real organisation in the traditional sense, more an idea and a blueprint,
and now it scarcely exists at all (though its clones and emulators have
proliferated). All bin Laden can do is go on making his videos and hope
that his ideas and his example will take root in many parts of the Muslim
world. So far, it isn't working.

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:42 am
by llClutchll
Ford Prefect wrote: Maybe it is a reaction to all those Hollywood movies that make it look like Europe was the U.S. vs Germany. :)
Maybe Canada should make a bunch of movies about Australlia vs Germany? :roll:

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:09 am
by Genghis
Actually, when it comes to WWII, I am in awe of the British.

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:31 am
by Ford Prefect
BTW Sirian
Ford wrote:
Both you guys make it sound like nobody but America made any sacrifices, that nobody but Americans died fighting in Europe.


That's a lot of meaning to draw from one little sentence. Are you sure you're reading it right?


Here's a paragraph I wrote as part of a previous post, which got cut on the third pass as I was trimming and reshaping. I figured that this was mostly redundant, widely known, and that I didn't need to say it.

Sirian wrote:
Victory in Europe was truly an allied affair, with bombing campaign led by America undermining the industrial capacity of the Nazis: taking out the oil refineries, destroying the factories. Russia did the hard work on the ground and made the staggering sacrifices of men, but I do not believe they could have done it alone. American fliers penetrating into occupied Europe suffered the worst casualty rates of any American units in the war. Russia might have won without D-Day and the second front, but not without the bombing help.


I will carry this further, to try to reassure you.

America could not even have won the Gulf War without cooperation, much less the Cold War. The era of single-nation war victories went out with the nineteenth century. But that was not my point. The issue of moral authority arises from ideas that work vs ideas that fail, when it comes to the most important decisions of war and peace. American successes begin with drawing the correct lessons from World War I in order to design the strategy for what to do in the wake of World War II, and that is where the emergence of American leadership on the world stage properly begins.
Appology accepted.

llclutchll: Sort of been done. Ever seen Gallipoli?

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:16 am
by llClutchll
Yeah, made by Paramount Studios... you missed the point.

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:22 pm
by Sirian
Birdseye wrote:
Sirian wrote:
Birdseye wrote:smaller homogenous nations are easier to control
You claim this as fact, but President Jefferson held another view. He forwarded it to justify his purchase of the Lousianna territory. I am more persuaded by his arguments on this point than by your assertion.


Perhaps you have something I can read which explains it? To me, that is quite counter-intuitive, so I'd be interested in hearing his explanation.
"I know that the acquisition of Louisiana has been disapproved by some, from a candid apprehension that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle may operate effectively? The larger our association, the less will it be shaken by local passions." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. ME 3:377

"Our present federal limits are not too large for good government, nor will [an] increase of votes in Congress produce any ill effect. On the contrary, it will drown the little divisions at present existing there." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1786. ME 5:259

"I suspect that the doctrine, that small States alone are fitted to be republics, will be exploded by experience, with some other brilliant fallacies accredited by Montesquieu and other political writers. Perhaps it will be found that to obtain a just republic (and it is to secure our just rights that we resort to government at all) it must be so extensive as that local egoisms may never reach its greater part; that on every particular question a majority may be found in its councils free from particular interests and giving, therefore, a uniform prevalence to the principles of justice. The smaller the societies, the more violent and more convulsive their schisms." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois d'Ivernois, 1795. ME 9:299

"The character which our fellow-citizens have displayed... gives us everything to hope for the permanence of our government. Its extent has saved us. While some parts were laboring under the paroxysm of delusion, others retained their senses, and time was thus given to the affected parts to recover their health." --Thomas Jefferson to Gen. James Warren, 1801. ME 10:231

"Montesquieu's doctrine that a republic can be preserved only in a small territory [has been proved a falsehood]. The reverse is the truth. Had our territory been even a third only of what it is we were gone. But while frenzy and delusion like an epidemic gained certain parts, the residue remained sound and untouched, and held on till their brethren could recover from the temporary delusion; and that circumstance has given me great comfort." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Niles, 1801. ME 10:232

"It seems that the smaller the society the bitterer the dissensions into which it breaks... I believe ours is to owe its permanence to its great extent, and the smaller portion comparatively which can ever be convulsed at one time by local passions." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Williams, 1807. ME 11:390

"I see our safety in the extent of our confederacy, and in the probability that in the proportion of that the sound parts will always be sufficient to crush local poisons." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:120

"A government by representation is capable of extension over a greater surface of country than one of any other form." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:491

"Where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business in person, they alone have the right to choose the agents who shall transact it; and... in this way a republican or popular government... may be exercised over any extent of country." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

"Every nation is liable to be under whatever bubble, design, or delusion may puff up in moments when off their guard." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:381

"I have much confidence that we shall proceed successfully for ages to come, and that, contrary to the principle of Montesquieu, it will be seen that the larger the extent of country, the more firm its republican structure, if founded, not on conquest, but in principles of compact and equality." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois de Marbois, 1817. ME 15:130

"My hope of [this country's] duration is built much on the enlargement of the resources of life going hand in hand with the enlargement of territory, and the belief that men are disposed to live honestly if the means of doing so are open to them." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois de Marbois, 1817. ME 15:131


Source:

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (ME)
Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)
20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.

- Sirian

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:50 pm
by Sirian
Ford wrote:I might point you to the works of a Canadian (currently living in London)bona fide expert in the realm of conflict and war; the history of, strategies of and politics of.
The article you posted is thoughtful. I will read some of his writings and get back to you. However, my first glance is not very promising. The next article in line after the one you quoted was disappointing.
Dyer wrote:"Blueland" should join Canada.

It is getting harder and harder for the two tribes of Americans to understand or even tolerate each other.

Opinions on the foreign issues that seemed to dominate the election - the war in Iraq and the "war on terror" - just mapped onto that existing cultural division.

People who go to church regularly and oppose abortion and gay marriage were also far more likely to believe that US troops had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein had somehow sponsored the terrorists of 9/11, so they voted for Mr Bush. People who don't, didn't.

"Irreconcilable" is the word that springs to mind.

Two separate populations have evolved in the United States, and they are increasingly unhappy even about living together.

It is sheer cruelty to force these two populations to go on living together...
The portion in bold is self-congratulatory narcisism. The portion in italic is entirely erroneous. All of it together is either cutting satire or a display of complete lack of comprehension of the American way, our governmental theory, and how our nation actually functions.

I suspect similar errors in how he interprets Bin Laden. Dismissing the Lebanon towers vs Trade towers comparison, for example. The reasoning on that is flimsy, in my view. However, overall, in that article I thought he made some valid points. So out of two samples, one piece of nonsense and one piece of useful analysis. Good enough to check out more. Not sure how much time I will devote to this, but I grant you that the logic and analysis are more advanced than those of the good professor.

I'm sorry I didn't catch the prof's name or his institution -- they were mentioned on the air -- but I didn't originally plan to quote him when I started to watch, and for me, this falls short of a formal research project and standards of sourcing that would be expected there. I hope you understand.


- Sirian

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:28 pm
by Ford Prefect
No problem Sirian I don't think the identity makes any real difference. It was just my curiousity as some Universities have leanings right and left of center.

I am familiar with Mr. Dyer from documentary style television in Canada where he is often an information source. But since I have not read his books I hesitate comment too much on his relevence. As I said though he has done his homework.
The article I posted (I believe it is one of his syndicated columns) look fine to me at first but after reflection I asked myself if he has a conduit into the mind of Bin Laudin? He seems to claim to know what Bin Laudin was expecting from the attack of 9/11. Mr Dyer maybe an expert and is certainly much more knowledgeable on the subject than I but it does seem that he is claiming as knowledge something that can only be opinion.
All of it together is either cutting satire or a display of complete lack of comprehension of the American way, our governmental theory, and how our nation actually functions.
Of what I have heard from him the former is most certainly true. He has a speaking style that tends to raise hackles on those with thin skin.

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:46 pm
by Sirian
Ford wrote:Of what I have heard from him the former is most certainly true.
I suspect there is some of the latter, as well. One would have to be highly irresponsible to forward messages such as "there are two tribes of Americans" and not believe something along those lines. To whatever extent he may believe that, he is lacking insight on the subject.

Birdseye and I have so much more in common as compared to our differences, it's actually scary. :)


- Sirian

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:41 pm
by Sirian
I've taken the time to review Gwynne Dyer's writings, at Ford Prefect's invitation. Ford asserts that the good professor whom I quoted to open the thread is unrepresentative of mainstream Canadian thought, and I accept that. Ford suggests that Mr. Dyer's arguments are much closer to the heart of Canadian logic, and I'm willing to accept that, too. So let's examine Mr. Dyer's recent writings.

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles2004.htm


I'll begin with the article that Ford quoted: "Bin Laden Speaks". The fundamental principle forwarded in this article is Mr. Dyer's interpretation of the aim of the September 11, 2001 attack.
Dyer wrote:The main purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to lure the United States into military intervention in the Muslim world, in the belief that that would outrage Muslims and drive them into the arms of the Islamists.
This view clashes with the following facts:

* Usama Bin Laden personally fought as a mujahadeen in the Afghan war against the Soviets. His own personal vanity works the following logic: the Soviets are the best soldiers in the world, and the mujahadeen defeated them. (Ergo: the mujahadeen are really the best soldiers.)

* Usama Bin Laden developed a warped sense of the American Soldier via the events in Somalia in the mid-90s. He has publicly and repeatedly claimed that American soldiers are cowardly under fire, will avoid close combat at all costs, and will crumple if forcefully confronted.

* Usama Bin Laden expressed belief that the American reaction to 9/11 would be similar in nature to its reaction to earlier al Qaeda actions. We'd bomb al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan from the air, claim victory in the press, and go back to business as usual.

* UBL asserted that even if we did invade, that his forces would be victorious. (See previous points).

Mr. Dyer is coming close to the truth, but he's not quite there. The military intervention was not the key. The attack itself was the key. The ability to strike a successful blow against the scapegoat "great Satan" was to be the rallying cry. The military reaction was a byproduct, in UBL's view, which would not succeed in doing significant harm to al Qaeda. UBL thought his situation to be more secure than it turned out to be. He has escaped capture, but most of his organization has not.

The point of the 9-11 attacks was to VALIDATE the al Qaeda viewpoint. The purpose was to prove Bin Laden's assertion that America is soft and weak and decadent. It proved the opposite, as the American military made short work of Afghanistan, where no other invading power had ever before succeeded. UBL turned out to be wrong on all four counts listed above.

Mr. Dyer sees only part of this. He acknowledges most of the facts involved, yet still manages to draw a fallacious conclusion because of one logical misstep. I pointed it out. Dyer points it out, too, then ignores his own facts in drawing his conclusion.
Dyer wrote:If the United States had not invaded Iraq last year (which bin Laden could not have foreseen), 9/11 would have been a complete failure.
This presumes the accuracy of Dyer's assertion about the purpose of the attack. One faulty step can undo an entire chain of logic. Mr. Dyer is reaching for a way to condemn the Iraq invasion, and in his zeal, he is willing to make leaps of assumption that wither under scrutiny.

* The physical purpose of the 9-11 attack was to kill as many Americans as possible. The attack was successful to a degree that no previous Arab-on-Western terror attack has ever approached. To dismiss the deaths of nearly 3000 Americans as inconsequential "if the United States had not invaded Iraq" is beyond preposterous. I find it irresponsible.

* The strategic purposes of the 9-11 attack were to decapitate American leadership and to give America a black eye on her face to the world, her most important cultural symbols of business, military, and government, as well as to deal major operational blows to our nerve centers. This was a decapitation strike all the way, and it was partially successful in hitting what it aimed to hit. To dismiss as inconsequential the economic consequences of the Trade Towers' destruction (doing a TRILLION dollars worth of damage to the US economy) "if the United States had not invaded Iraq" is ideologically blinded at best.

Mr. Dyer is seeing what he wants to see. He is using a flimsy assertion to prop up a thinly veiled attack on America's invasion of Iraq. He lines up a goodly number of facts, but the presence of facts does not automatically convey legitimacy onto his logic. One must assemble the facts and account for them all in order to draw sustainable conclusions.

There are grains of truth in his argument, which is why it feels persuasive at first glance, but he has forwarded a slanted view. Al Qaeda's aims included stirring up the Muslim Street, building momentum toward revolution that would put Al Qaeda in charge of Islamic countries, even to build a superstate empire centered out of Afghanistan; but that was NOT the end, only the means to an end. The true end was to validate their ideology.

Al Qaeda are true believers. They think they have hit on the best ideas and that their ideas are going to revolutionize the entire world. They truly believe that America is soft, that our values are corrupt and empty, that we are weak and ready for picking, and that only they can pick us, because others are even more weak than we are. Only al Qaeda is strong, in their minds. They beat the best in the world (the Soviets) so how hard can it be to beat America? Their ideas are undergoing some changes right now. They must find ways to rationalize their recent failures, regroup, fall back, and fight on another day. One of their strengths is patience. Another is perseverance.

This is how ideology works: people believe they know best. This is how history works: ideas and ideologies must clash, to see which is truly the stronger. With the cold war behind us, new clashes are emerging.

Now let's move on to more of Mr. Dyer's writings.


- Sirian

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:14 pm
by Sirian
Continuing my analysis of Mr. Dyer's writings. Let's take his most recently posted item, "Waiting for Iraq".

Another attack on American policy in Iraq? All three of Dyer's most recent articles carry the same theme, the same drumbeat. Three articles, three attacks from three different angles on the American policy in Iraq. Is this thread common to all of Dyer's writings?

Dyer wrote:Most Americans don't realise how much the rest of the world opposed their country's invasion of Iraq, because most US mass media shield them from the knowledge. Watching the domestic service of CNN just after the election, I heard three different newsreaders in the same day explain to their American audience that France and Germany had been "cool" to the American attack on Iraq.
Dyer watches a few hours of CNN, then cites that as his only evidence that Americans are shielded from the truth by our media? First, he's mistaken. We know how upset the rest of the world is. Our media talks plenty about demonstrations and anti-Americanism rising all around the world, and our media correctly portrays the Iraqi conflict as the flashpoint for these sentiments rising in Europe and Canada and at the United Nations. Secondly, the ones who are being insulated by their media are those in Europe and Canada.

* Canada has for years banned the FOX News channel. How's that for freedom of speech and the triumph of superior Canadian social values? Image

* The Beeb is funded by the British government but operates autonomously. How many Britains rely on the Beeb as their only major source of news. Does the American point of view get any traction on the Beeb? Mr. Dyer lives in London, so he should know. If the BBC is providing a fair accounting of American points of view, then how does Dyer explain this opening statement?

I'm mindful of Ford's reaction to my argument about American moral authority. Ford singled out one line which, if pulled out of context, can be viewed as entirely false. Dyer has done the same here, taking issue with the understated description of French and German reaction to the Iraq move as "cool". Ford read into one remark the notion that I know nothing at all of World War I and nothing significant about Canada's contributions to the wars I mentioned. Ford read way too much into one line, even though I -was- sloppy with it, and Dyer is doing the same about CNN.

To me, this proves JUST HOW LITTLE EXPOSURE the American point of view is getting in Canada and Europe, even in London, where the British government sided with America on the Iraq move.

* The French and Russian press are state-controlled. We know what that means, don't we?

However, it is convenient to Mr. Dyer's theories to believe that Americans are uninformed. This allows him the comfort of assuming that Americans in general do not disagree with his point of view and his ideology, but that instead we are simply ignorant, kept in the dark, unaware. He had better think again, because he's making the exact same mistakes as al Qaeda has made, drawing flawed conclusions about America based on faulty logic and a misreading of limited facts. America is a much stronger and sturdier and open place than either UBL or Dyer are crediting to us.

Dyer wrote:They weren't "cool" to it; they opposed it utterly. They saw it as an illegal act intended to undermine the entire multilateral system and replace it with a unilateral system in which America is the global policeman -- indeed, the global judge, jury and executioner.
Please observe the following facts:

* President Bush, before his first election, campaigned strongly against the idea of "nation building", vowing that he would take no part in it, that he would lead our country away from it. This policy approach was validated by our electoral process, but only barely. (Bush actually lost the popular vote.) Unless one subscribes to ridiculous conspiracy theories, Bush did not know that 9-11 was coming, and so he could not have planned to put up a front on the nation building issue knowing that events would trigger an opportunity to reverse his position. BUSH HAD NO SECRET AGENDA TO IMPOSE AMERICAN DOMINANCE ON THE WORLD. His original views could fairly be seen as falling on the isolationist side of things. He wanted to take care of American business at home, with an agenda focused mainly on tax cuts, education reform, tort reform, medical reform, etc.

* September 11 changed America. We awoke to the existance of threats we had been ignoring, to our peril. Mr. Dyer's flip assessment of the purpose of the 9-11 attacks is in error, and his analysis of America's purposes in the wake of the attacks is even more in error.

Unilateral system in which America is the global policeman? Try "right of self-defense" instead, Mr. Dyer. We are entitled to protect ourselves from clear and present danger.

IN HIS SPEECH TODAY in Halifax, President Bush noted that Canada (correctly) assessed the Nazi threat while America was hiding its head in the sand. Bush quoted the Canadian Prime Minister of the day, and the quote revolved around the notion that some wars cannot be avoided and are therefore best engaged as soon as possible. Canada was fighting Nazis while America was still on the sidelines. The Prime Minister's words reflected the wisdom of striking at an enemy before he brings destruction to Canadian shores. Canadian folks should take two or three looks at the Bush speech and reflect on its message. We can debate the meanings if you like. Certainly Mr. Dyer could stand to hear that speech. I refer everyone back to the top of this thread, to the Principles and Lessons I posted.


The rest of Mr. Dyer's article builds on the flawed projection of American purpose. He presumes the truth of our ambitions of empire and hegemony, and all that follows is laid upon this faulty foundation. (Don't take my word for it. Follow the link in the previous post and read Mr. Dyer's words for yourself.)

I'm seeing a common thread here. Mr. Dyer leaps to conclusions about the purposes and intents of al Qaeda, then tries to build a logical case on his illogical assumption; the end game is to wag his finger at the Iraq invasion. Mr. Dyer leaps to conclusions about the purposes and intents of the United States in carrying out its foreign policy. He presumes bad faith, yet offers no evidence as to the bad faith that he presumes. What does America have to gain from dominating the rest of the world through military might? Is that actually what we are doing? Show me something more substantial than one man's ideology. What else is Mr. Dyer going to presume? Who else is he going to claim to speak for?

Dyer wrote:That may take more time than is available, for what US public opinion responds to is American casualties.
Based on what evidence?
Dyer wrote:If too many American soldiers get killed in Iraq, then the public will eventually pull the plug on the war, just as they did on Korea in the 1950s, on Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, on the US military intervention in Lebanon in the 1980s, and on Somalia in the 1990s.
Bin Laden believes the same thing. Neither he nor Dyer understand the American people, our values, our character, the depth of our commitment to our principles, the power of our ideas.


I see the problem here, and the problem is ideology. Bin Laden has an ideology of Islamic supremacy, backed by the rather flimsy logical leap of "the Soviets are the best in the world, so if we can beat them, we can beat anybody." Dyer's ideology is similarly narrow-minded. America is not the side in this dispute that has abandoned multilateralism. The UN are the folks who have abandoned their charge, preferring instead to become a body not of action, but of inaction, corrupted by Saddam's oil kickbacks, shaded by appeasement of Arab hatred of Jews, blackened by a subtle but omnipresent antisemitism, chained to ideologies that sit and ignore growing threats, treat dictatorships as morally equal to free societies, and worse. (Libya and Sudan on the Human Rights Committee? Give me a break.)

The USA is still the premiere force in this world for multilateralism. However, we insist on EFFECTIVE multilateral approaches, not the wolf of corruption and greed parading around under the sheepskin of multilateral facade. We reject the notion that twelve YEARS of diplomatic efforts count for nothing. We played diplomatic patty-cake with Saddam, including sanctions that failed to achieve their purposes, weapons inspections that never arrived at definite proof of compliance, limited military strikes by the Clinton administration, seventeen UN resolutions that were ignored, a failed uprising by the Shia that left HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS dead, and Saddam's ongoing violation of his cease fire agreement from 1991.

When is enough enough? The United States has grown disgusted with the do-nothing United Nations and all who insist on continuing to play the same games, starting with the French, who are at center of the Oil For Food scandal.

American policy threatens the multilateral system we have in place, Mr. Dyer? No. UN incompetence and UN corruption undermine the ability of that organization to fulfill the purposes outlined in its charter. If the UN were doing its job effectively, we wouldn't have had to go to war in Iraq with only a handful of allies. The UN security council would have held Saddam's regime to account.


Mr. Dyer is wrong about recent American wars.

UN action in Korea was its finest moment, its first test. It passed, but only barely, and chiefly on the back of American commitment. America, in the wake of World War II, dismantled nearly our entire military machine that we had spent five years assembling. Our fleets were mothballed, our generals complacent about our nuclear capability. Our leaders thought that any future wars would be fought with nukes, and that we had the edge there, so who needs these conventional forces? By the time the North Koreans made their move, the American military was back to a sorry state. It took an historically brilliant maneuver by General MacArthur to salvage our position there and start to drive back the North Koreans. And we beat the tar out of them DESPITE the sorry state of our equipment and units. MacArthur insisted that the Chinese would not attack, but he was mistaken, and it was the error that ended his career. When the Chinese poured across the river and surprised us at Chosin, we nearly lost the war for a second time. We fell back and back and back, then managed to dig in and weather the storm. We eventually pushed even the Chinese back, then accepted a stalemate. That was quite probably for the best, because fighting a war with China in Asia was a dicey proposal at best. America and China got enough taste of what it was like to fight each other directly that neither side has wanted to repeat the experience since then. That is probably the single most important development in world history in the second half of the twentieth century: that America and China fought to a standstill in Korea, then later were able to open mutually respectful and successful diplomatic relations, and to resolve all our disputes since then with talks instead of arms.

Taiwan is the symbol of Chinese-American diplomacy. Both sides understand what is important to the other side and where the lines are drawn, and we are comfortable there. The Taiwanese are not comfortable, but at least they are free in reality, in the ways that count the most.

The chief value of the UN at this point, despite its faults and failures, is the role it plays to China. China was validated by the UN as a major power, given a veto and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council chiefly because of US strategy in formulating the UN. China cares a great deal about the face it presents to the world, and that face is most keenly on display at the United Nations. Having China at the table is so important, that even if the UN achieves nothing else of value, it is still worth keeping around if it serves to smoothe relations between China and everybody else. The UN is much like Taiwan: an imperfect but highly successful solution for dealing with China. Russia is the other major component. The West, led by the USA, conceived the current structure of the UN to contain China and Russia peacefully, to get them to talk rather than to shoot. This has worked out well, except now the French have turned coat and are leading an effort to turn the UN into a means to contain America. This may be the most colossal strategic blunder since the Maginot Line, but at least the French play for keeps. I can respect their ambitions, even when I find them to be high destructive and poorly planned.

Mr. Dyer is wrong about a lot of things. To simplify American public support for wars down to the single issue of casualties is a colossal blunder of logic. American support for wars turns on our perception of our national interests. Americans lost faith in Vietnam because our strategy there was to contain and defend, but NOT to attack and to win. We thought that we could sustain a defensive posture indefinitely and outlast the will of the Viet Cong. We were wrong. When we realized this, we had the choice between even further escalation via invading and occupying the north, or withdrawing. China may not have gone along with our invading the north. We deemed that to be too much of a risk for what was at stake. It wasn't the body count that drove us out. We kicked the living crap out of the North Vietnamese forces over and over and over again, even during Tet, the height of their strategic ascendance. No, it was the size of the gamble and the stakes vs the smallness of the prize that drove us away.

Was it a mistake to engage in that war at all? I can make a case that it was not, but I will admit that conventional wisdom leans the other way. Certainly the issue is arguable at best.

Somalia was more of the same: our people didn't believe in the mission, which was one of defense but not offense. We weren't going in to FIX the problems, but only to sit around as targets and be shot at. Americans will NOT put up with that for long. We've learned our lessons with that.

The only time we pulled out strictly over casualties was in Lebanon. Some believe that was a mistake, while others believe it was a mistake to have gone there in the first place.

And yet again, Dyer presumes to know and understand the purposes of all major players:
Dyer wrote:If the US does not change course, the other great powers will eventually give up on the waiting game and move to counterbalance and contain American power. That would mean alliances, arms build-ups, all the lethal nonsense we thought that we had left behind us. Nobody wants to go down that road, but they inevitably will if US policy doesn't change.
Ford, I daresay this assertion flies in the face of your claim that American military attack on Canada is "just silly". Dyer doesn't seem to think so. He sees American action in Iraq as unprincipled, a mask for ambitions of global military dominance, in the tradition of empire, from Alexander's Macedon to Caesar's Rome to the Khan's Mongolia to Victoria's England to Hitler's Germany to the Soviets. Just one more in a long line of human aggressors come to impose their will on as many as they can, to take from others in predatory fashion rather than to build and create on their own.

Mr. Dyer doesn't seem to know us very well. I think that you know us much better. I think that most Canadians know us better than that.


One can disagree with the American move to invade Iraq on any number of grounds. Certainly, here in the States, the issue is hotly debated and readily debatable. It's a complex matter. Over and over, however, I see Dyer simplifying the issue with erroneous assumptions. He speaks for Bin Laden. He speaks for America. He speaks for all major powers. He must either have telepathy, to see into all these minds, or he has a willingness to overstep the facts to support his ideology.

And you say this is reflective of mainstream Canadian thought on American political matters?


- Sirian

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:29 pm
by Sirian
This is the third installment of my examination of Gwynne Dyer's writings. For now, this will be the final installment. Having looked at the article Ford quoted and the two after it, I'm going to go back to an earlier piece now: "Another Endorsement for Bush", in which Dyer talks about his son's cynical views about President Bush.

Dyer wrote:Russian President Vladimir Putin wants George W. Bush to be reelected, Osama bin Laden undoubtedly wants him to be reelected, and the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council has just endorsed him for reelection...
We're already off on the wrong foot, again. Ford suggested that Dyer would make my blood boil, and he suggested that Dyer has "clearly done his homework". I'm getting a different impression. The more I read of Dyer, the less impressed I am with his writing. This article carries the most egregious example yet. Not only is he speaking again for Bin Laden, but now he presumes to speak for the conservative point of view in America, and he's nowhere near the mark.

Dyer wrote:Many on the American right still believe that the Vietnam war that could have been won if only the spineless traitors of the left had not weakened American "resolve" -- and they say this even though President Richard Nixon, who was elected on a promise to end the Vietnam war and presided over the whole latter phase of it, was a Republican.
I'm sorry, Ford, but this is ridiculous.

I offered my assessment of American involvement in wars in the previous thread. Korea was a victory. We successfully repelled the communist invaders, and today South Korea remains self-governing. Vietnam was a defeat, but not for the reason Dyer claims, the casualties. We lost in Vietnam because we bet on a strategy that did not include capturing and pacifying the territory from which the enemy based its operations.

Keep in mind the lesson of the Maginot Line. What was true from the last war may not hold true for the next one. Time and time again, liberal thinkers have drawn the wrong lessons from twentieth century wars. I'm going to name Dyer as a liberal thinker, for labeling sake. Grant me this label for the sake of argument, please, so that I don't have to repeat a longer explanation over and over.

The liberal mindset predicted that Ronald Reagan would start World War III by drawing a firm line in the sand with the Soviets, including deploying medium range nukes in Europe. They were wrong.

The liberal mindset predicted that Gulf War One would be a Vietnam-style quagmire for the United States, that Saddam's "fourth largest military in the world" would be sending home American body bags by the tens of thousands, and that American resolve would crumble. They were wrong.

The liberal mindset predicted that American action against Serbia over Kosovo, fought entirely from the air, could not be successful. They were wrong.

The liberal mindset predicted that Afghanistan would be a Vietnam-style quagmire for the United States, that no one had ever succeeded in conquering Afghanistan and that we too would fail. They were wrong.

The liberal mindset predicted that if America attacked Iraq, that the oil fields would burn in Iraq as they did in Kuwait, that it would take months (at least) to lay siege to Baghdad, that America would never go in to urban combat or engage on the ground but if they did, we'd be sending home tens of thousands of body bags. They were wrong, wrong, wrong.


Liberals in Europe have made an embarassing habit of underestimating America. Mr. Dyer is clearly from this camp, laying out his bold pronouncements of American catastrophe as if they were gospel. His conviction in his ideology is perhaps laudable, but his logic leaves much to be desired.

Dyer wrote:The war in Iraq is unwinnable for the same reason as the Vietnam war, and all the other wars of the 50s, 60s and 70s in which Western armies tried to beat local resistance movements.
Algeria was about French Imperial power. So was Vietnam. So was the grab for the Suez. America tried to clean up the French mess in Vietnam a decade later and failed, but unlike Algeria, we did not control the entire country. We did not attempt to do so. We were not attempting to control South Vietnam. We were trying to defend it, at the invitation of the locals.

In Korea, the "local" resistance got its @$$ kicked by America. What preserved the North and brought that conflict to stalemate was China's direct intervention. That war became a proxy fight between America and China. Fear of more of the same caused us to hesitate in Vietnam and pull out when it became clear that we could not beat the locals without crossing the line of what China would tolerate on its doorstep.

Mr. Dyer ignores these vital facts. If Iraq were Ukraine, yes, we'd be in trouble. If Iraq were being fed by the Soviets, as we fed Afghanistan against the Soviets, yes, we'd be in trouble. But no, Iraq is only being stirred up by Iran and Syria, and those nations are not Red China, nor are they the Soviet Union. America is NOT afraid of engaging them if push comes to shove.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan has held peaceful elections and is on its road to recovery. The local resistance there is unable to mount any form of coordinated military operation. They are nowhere near being in the league of the Viet Cong. Instead, they are rebels without a clue, hiding out in Waziristan, dreaming and scheming, waiting and hiding, because if they come out, they die.

Note that Dyer ignores the more relevant examples of Serbia and Afghanistan, while citing flimsy logic about older conflicts. He also fails to note the ethnic diversity within Iraq, which differs it from previous wars. Iraq is not a singular culture like Algeria or Vietnam. Iraq is a relic of British imperialism, where three peoples are thrown together inside one border. The Kurds are dramatically pro-American. The Shia are largely indifferent, being untrusting of America because we abandoned them to Saddam's butchery after the failed uprising in 1991, which WE encouraged. Only the Sunni Muslims in Iraq are truly resisting. They control only one part the country, make up only 20% of the total population, and are in danger of being cut out of the newly emerging democratic picture if they decline to embrace reform. Keep in mind, ALL of the oil reserves exist on Kurdish and Shiite land. If the Sunni break away, they will be the poorest of the three peoples, left out of the success that the Shia and Kurds will enjoy. The Sunni have tough choices to make. They can accept a fair share of power and resources, or they can be dealt out of the picture entirely. The days of their domination of the other two ethnicities are gone for good, and they can wake up and smell the democracy, or they can follow their leader Saddam onto the ash heap of history, where failed ideas and failed governments and failed ideologies are discarded.

Dyer wrote:The main concern of [Dyer's son] was that a Kerry election victory, followed by a humiliating scuttle from Iraq and a crash in the US dollar at home, would generate a "Dolchstoss" myth on the American right. He was referring to the alleged "stab in the back" by the German left that was used to explain away Germany's defeat in the First World War. (In fact, the left had loyally supported the war, but had little say in its conduct -- until, after Germany's generals admitted irretrievable military defeat on the Western Front, the government was swiftly handed over to the Social Democrats so they could surrender and take the blame.)

The "Dolchstoss" myth, which denied that it had been a mistake to start the war and blamed Germany's defeat on a failure of will, poisoned all subsequent efforts to create a healthy democratic republic on German soil. No analogy is perfect, but similar myths already exist in US politics. Many on the American right still believe that the Vietnam war that could have been won if only the spineless traitors of the left had not weakened American "resolve" -- and they say this even though President Richard Nixon, who was elected on a promise to end the Vietnam war and presided over the whole latter phase of it, was a Republican. What could they do with a lost war on a Democratic president's watch?
Dyer takes it for granted that his earlier logic is as solid as gospel. We see this over and over in his writings. He guesses at the purpose of the 9-11 attack, guesses at what resides in the minds of American conservatives, guesses at how uninformed the American public may be (on the basis of one evening of watching CNN??)

Dyer's logic is not all bad, but some of it is. Repeatedly, the errors come early in the piece, right up front with his baseline assumptions. Then he builds houses of cards on shaky foundations.


Why should anything this man writes upset me or any other American? There are a lot of people in this world who hold opinions based on incomplete or flawed information. I'm sure his writings do harm to my country, but only where they go unchallenged. I've read about five of his articles and all contain gross and obvious errors. Some are undoubtedly errors made in good faith, as would be errors were I to presume to speak for the Canadian mind or perspective. Some may be hyperbole and spin, sloppy assumptions made for ideological purposes. We see plenty of this in America, too, but our public is wearying of listening to it. We are increasingly innured to it, unimpressed and uncaring. Spin doctors can be ignored. They are only preaching to the choir. One must assemble sound arguments and engage debate in order to change minds.


- Sirian

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:58 pm
by Ford Prefect
Sorry for not following the thread Sirian I saw your name as the last post several times but didn't realize you had added.

Let me comment on your first point about Mr. Dyer's article on the tactics of Al Qaeda and OBL.
You say he is wrong and that OBL did not want to goad America into an attack that would increase the anger in the arab world toward western culture and the U.S. in particular.
Neither you nor Mr. Dyer have a conduit into the mind of OBL. His reasons and tactics are just a matter of conjecture. Given that Mr. Dyer has spent his considerable lifetime in the study of military strategy and tactics as well as political history I see no reason to accept your appraisal of OBL's tactics over his. I don't know that he is right but he is a much more informed source that either of us.

Are Americans ill served by their news sources? In the world outside the U.S. this is thought to be true. Most media analysts find that there is very little international content in American news sources and what there is is edited to fit the American viewpoint.
My own wife lived in the U.S. until we married when she was 30 and moved up here to the West coast of Canada and she now shares this viewpoint. Anecdotal evidence of course but perhaps you need to move to a foriegn country yourself Sirian to find out if it is true. You are inside the fishbowl Sirian and you only know what that water.
Dyer wrote:
That may take more time than is available, for what US public opinion responds to is American casualties.


Based on what evidence?
Were you alive for the Vietnam war Sirian. Mr. Dyer and I were. There is ample evidence in that one event alone.

We played diplomatic patty-cake with Saddam, including sanctions that failed to achieve their purposes, weapons inspections that never arrived at definite proof of compliance, limited military strikes by the Clinton administration, seventeen UN resolutions that were ignored, a failed uprising by the Shia that left HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS dead, and Saddam's ongoing violation of his cease fire agreement from 1991.
And before that, years of support for Iraq and Saddam in his war against Iran including providing him with arms and possibly even the means to produce chemical weapons. Thus assisting in the deaths of millions of Iraqi and Iranians.
Not terribly good moral leadership at that time was there. But now you are to be taken as having nothing but the purest of intentions. The world waits to see.
Taiwan is the symbol of Chinese-American diplomacy. Both sides understand what is important to the other side and where the lines are drawn, and we are comfortable there. The Taiwanese are not comfortable, but at least they are free in reality, in the ways that count the most.
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwyn ... Taiwan.txt

Ford, I daresay this assertion flies in the face of your claim that American military attack on Canada is "just silly". Dyer doesn't seem to think so.
Do you really believe that Dyer thinks there will ever be a military invasion of Canada by U.S.? I see that nowhere in what I have read and I just cannot see a circumstance where that would occur ever. Period.
And you say this is reflective of mainstream Canadian thought on American political matters?
No, I never made that claim. I said that this analyst has a much better pedigree to comment on international issues than an unnamed law professor from an unnamed Canadian University.
I do not think he represents the majority of Canadian thought but rather a large minority. In other words his opinions are not uncommon in Canada.

He is in the market of selling his opinions to newspapers around the world (45 countries it is claimed) in the form of a commetary on international affairs. He has a pedigree of distinction in his field and has several books to his credit on the topic.
He is well respected in Canada and much reviled in the Canada as well. It just depends on the opinions of the viewer.


I will give your third post a read a bit later. Sorry I can't devote all the time I wish to this topic.

BTW Fox news was offered a class two licence in Canada two years ago. This would require that 38% of the programing be Canadian produced or pertaining to Candian issues. There would have been no restriction whatever on the other 62% of the content. Fox chose not to accept this licence for I assume financial reasons. I don't consider this being "banned" with the implication of some kind of censorship. It is simply an attempt to ensure the economic survival of the Canadian news production industry.

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:00 pm
by MehYam
Sirian wrote:Dyer watches a few hours of CNN, then cites that as his only evidence that Americans are shielded from the truth by our media? First, he's mistaken. We know how upset the rest of the world is. Our media talks plenty about demonstrations and anti-Americanism rising all around the world, and our media correctly portrays the Iraqi conflict as the flashpoint for these sentiments rising in Europe and Canada and at the United Nations. Secondly, the ones who are being insulated by their media are those in Europe and Canada.

* Canada has for years banned the FOX News channel. How's that for freedom of speech and the triumph of superior Canadian social values?
The ban was controversial, and has been lifted.

As far as the other points are concerned, people deserve the media they get, because advertisers pay more for what people watch. So how media treats people is a reflection of what people want to see, at least in a free market. My experience is that Canadian media (CBC and CBC radio, for example) tend to offer a more global perspective, and are less sensationalist.

More to the point, however, I'm not sure why you're suddenly so concerned about Canada. There's a tone to your posts that smacks of trying to pick a fight. You seem to like to ridicule things. It's kind of a drag, to be honest.

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:05 pm
by Ford Prefect
Got a chance to come back and read your third post.
By chance I had done some random reading a week or so ago and happened to read this article.
It struck me at the time as very weak. Really just an idea (Bush should have to cope with any negative results from his actions so far.) that was trussed up with some family interaction to try and fill it out a bit.
Seems a lot like a columnist trying to meet a deadline when ideas are short.
In the main I agree with your comments. However the quote about "weakened American resolve...etc." has more to it than you claim if you were there during the debate on the war as it ran it's tragic course. And your claim that the war was lost
We lost in Vietnam because we bet on a strategy that did not include capturing and pacifying the territory from which the enemy based its operations.
is a gross oversimplification. In my opinion there was no strategy that would have resulted in victory.
And I while I agree that
What was true from the last war may not hold true for the next one.

and that the crucial difference in Iraq is the lack of a military power to bankroll the insurgents there is still some comparison to be made both from the American experience in Vietnam and the USSR in Afghanistan with the situation in Iraq. To wit: it appears that the majority of the populace views the invading army as just that. Invaders to be repulsed rather than saviours to be welcomed. In a case like that how can you "win" without becoming the oppressors of the majority?

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:56 pm
by Sirian
Ford wrote:You say he is wrong and that OBL did not want to goad America into an attack that would increase the anger in the arab world toward western culture and the U.S. in particular.
I said that he was wrong, yes, but not wrong in the way that you have reinterpreted. Let's try my actual words.
Sirian wrote:Al Qaeda's aims included stirring up the Muslim Street... but that was NOT the end, only the means to an end.
Ford wrote:I see no reason to accept your appraisal of OBL's tactics over his.
Shall I take this to mean that you agree with Mr. Dyer that the September 11 attacks would have been "a failure" if not for the American choice to invade Iraq?


I explained why the body count was not the factor that caused America to withdraw from Vietnam. You offer nothing in reply. You claim "ample evidence" yet cite none.

You note that Dyer's writings are widely published and claim the fact of publication as a mark of legitimacy, yet in the same message you claim that American publications are slanted and invalid. Now which is it? Does publication convey automatic validity or not?

I cite flaws in the man's thinking, and your best defense of him is to answer with his credentials? The law professor I quoted earlier has credentials, too. He is certified in international law and teaches on the subject in your country. You don't seem to think that his law degree qualifies him to comment on international law, yet you think Dyer's column conveys some sort of magic upon his opinions? People pay for his opinions, therefore they must be valid?

I would prefer to deal directly with the material. If you need more time to answer properly, I'm not in any particular hurry. Depending on the timing of your replies, I too may be too busy to answer immediately. Or we can decide that this exchange will not go any further because we don't value it enough to spend time on it. Better that than quickie answers that will only further misunderstandings.

Ford wrote:Do you really believe that Dyer thinks there will ever be a military invasion of Canada by U.S.?
You're missing the point. Dyer claims that the aim of the US is military domination. He claims that our aim is to destroy multilateral systems and replace them with dictatorship, to impose our will on the world.

I thought that you found this belief to be "just silly". Was I mistaken?

How can it be that you find the idea of invasion preposterous yet embrace the idea that America intends to dictate to the rest of the world and back up its edicts with military might? You can't have it both ways. Either we are bent on domination through the use of force or we are not. In your mind, which is it?

Mr. Dyer not only believes that America intends to become world dictator, but that we pose such a threat that it will become inevitable for all other major powers to unite against us. He says its only a matter of time UNLESS we fail in Iraq and withdraw.

Those are venomous words through and through. Those are enormously insulting and offputting words. I will go as far as to call them hateful words. If I said such things about Canadians, presuming that you are acting from bad faith and intend to abuse the powers at your disposal, how would you respond?


If Dyer is right, then you are wrong. The notion that America would never invade Canada presumes our good faith. Dyer presumes bad faith. It can't be both, Ford. If he's right, then your country is in dire peril, and one way or the other, you will be the first casualties in the coming conflict. If Dyer is right, then another world war is coming -- hot or cold, does it matter? You would have to choose sides. If Dyer is right, you could not choose to side with America and maintain your dignity and principles. Therefore all your bonds with our country would be forfeit, at best, and then if you are not much of a friend to the big evil bully and we really do hold ambitions of world domination, you should expect to be the first target of opportunity.

If Dyer's cyncical ideological view of America is anywhere remotely close to the truth, then the century ahead will be the darkest in human history, because evil America will have to be contained or taken down. Such evil does not blow in the wind. It grows deep in the heart of a nation. Such evil does not arise out of millions of sheep following one charismatic leader. It resides in the values of a people.

If Dyer is wrong about America, then what else might he be wrong about? You think he's right about American media but again you cite no evidence. The fact that I even opened this thread puts the lie to Dyer's claim. Your wife's opinion notwithstanding, the mere fact that I've listened to the arguments of a Canadian professor who claims President Bush is a war criminal shows that I've heard an opposing view. It's far from the only opposing view that I've heard.

If you are going to open from a position of insult to America, we aren't going to go very far here. I have provided evidence in favor of American media, to the tune of a whole list of supporting points. I have provided evidence AGAINST the French, Russian, British and Canadian media.

Rationalize your protectionism all you please. FNC is banned in your country. You want to exercise censorship control over the content to the tune of insisting on dictating the speech content. Those who do not accede to this demand are barred from speaking freely by your own laws. Do you so fear the power of American ideas and ideals that you believe that your own culture and institutions cannot compete? How can you claim to be "smaller but better" and still believe that you need protections like this? If you are better, Canadians will continue to tune in. It is only if American products offer something that yours do not would viewers abandon Canadian news to watch American news. That's the fear, isn't it? Deep down, you BELIEVE that Canadian news and culture must be protected with laws like this or you will find yourselves absorbed into the United States. I'm sure that isn't true, but it is what you fear. Canadian news will dry up and blow away if FOX is allowed to broadcast unaltered in your country?

Does CNN comply with your 38% law? Or were they granted special treatment and allowed to broadcast their content unaltered?
Ford wrote:Fox chose not to accept this licence for I assume financial reasons.
No, it's a matter of principle. Your nation wants to dictate the content of their channel. Sorry, but FNC is a single service, offered as-is. Everywhere that FOX is broadcast, the same content is broadcast, not pandered to local views. You either want FOX to alter its core broadcast to serve your interests, or to offer you a watered down localized version. On those terms, FNC is banned in your country. Yet CNN is not banned, is it? CNN operates the same way. I can tune to CNN and not find 38% Canadian content. Can you explain that one to me?

FOX would rather gain mileage out of making fun of your censorship policies than to comply with them.

Your nation is for legalizing marijuana? Marijuana is an addictive drug. You're all for letting Canadians have what they want, unless what they want is too much of America. Love/hate relationship? Some of your people love America "too much" and the rest of you hate us because of it? Are we supposed to take you seriously with views of this sort? What's next? Video games? No Descent 4 for you! It's not at least 38% Canadian. Image


- Sirian

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:18 pm
by Sirian
Replying to your second reply...
Ford wrote:To wit: it appears that the majority of the populace views the invading army as just that. Invaders to be repulsed rather than saviours to be welcomed. In a case like that how can you "win" without becoming the oppressors of the majority?
We're not there for the oil. Isn't that clear yet?

We're not there to stay. We never wanted to control Iraq. We wanted what we claimed to want: assurances for our security. Saddam's regime refused to offer the necessary assurances. He was cheating on the sanctions against him, and the sanctions were in place to pressure him to comply with obligations demanded from him by the international community.

We have already won. The threat was removed and will not be replaced. The Shia have been freed and they will govern themselves. The only thing they are not allowed to do is to develop WMD's and export terror. The rest is truly up to them.

Now either Iraq will remain intact or it will not. We will "lose" in many senses if it devolves into civil war, but if the people are as united as you claim in wanting us out, they can guarantee that we will go away and not return simply by governing themselves in a half-decently responsible way.

We believe in building a democracy there, but that means a democracy. That means self-government, freedom, elections, and Iraqis ruling Iraq. It does not mean Americans ruling Iraq. The only thing we get to dictate is our own behavior, including the flow of dollars from the American budgetary spigot. Saddam neglected their infrastructure for decades and they could use some help. We'll help them, but it comes at a cost: no exporting terror, no return to despotism, no oppression of minorities or institutional abuse of civil rights, and all Iraqis get a fair representation, with minority populations protected by law and the rule of law. The Canadian Prime Minister has signed on to these goals. He disagreed with the initial choice, but in terms of where we go from here, his policy lines up with ours.

Ford wrote:To wit: it appears that the majority of the populace views the invading army as just that. Invaders to be repulsed rather than saviours to be welcomed. In a case like that how can you "win" without becoming the oppressors of the majority?
If the majority intend to do America direct harm by aligning with al Qaeda and supplying them with weapons, safe haven, support, etc, then yes, by God Himself, we're going to suppress them. Otherwise, no, that's not why we went.

We have already won. The task now is to help the Iraqi people to win as well. Canada seems ready to help with that, and we welcome your assistance.

Ford wrote:Seems a lot like a columnist trying to meet a deadline when ideas are short.
You may be right. Yet those are words he published.

Ford wrote:In my opinion there was no strategy that would have resulted in victory.
That is precisely what I said. We misjudged. We thought we had an avenue to victory but we were wrong. The "protect and defend" policy failed because the convictions of the North were deeper than those in the South. The "invade the North" policy was never an option, because we expected the Chinese to repeat Korea if we went with that move. Too costly, therefore not a path to victory.

However, the reason that was not a path to victory was not because it wouldn't have worked, but because we didn't have enough vital interests at stake to pay that much of a price. We COULD have beaten the North Vietnamese. We could not have beaten China on their doorstep. At best, we could repeat the Korean experience, to fight the Chinese for years and win a stalemate. Stalemate would have preserved the South as free and independent, but we just weren't willing to go that far.

To read from that to the presumption that America is unwilling to take casualties for ANY reason is faulty. Remember World War II, and realize that the same spirit that drove us then was rekindled on 9-11. We respond much more fiercely when our home soil has been effectively threatened.


- Sirian

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:38 pm
by Ford Prefect
We have talked this subject to the point where almost no one else even looks in. :D
What the heck this is my recreation so I feel like stretching it out a little more.

True I did not offer any evidence for my support of Dyer's contention that the daily sight of U.S. casualties on television was one of the major factors that turned U.S. public opinion against the war. I suppose I should research some articles from that era to support the claim but this is not a controversial opinion. The press was not "imbedded" in Vietnam as it is now. Much was made of it at the time along with how the protests that filled the streets were the number one weapon that led to the defeat of the U.S. military.
It was such a common topic that it seemed self evident. It helps a lot if you were there at the time. I recall a photograph in Life magazine of an American G.I. torturing a suspected V.C. captive by simulating drowning, covering the suspect's face with a wet rag and pouring water from a Coke bottle over it. Such uncensored brutality of war was everwhere and it did have an effect on the American public.

You are missing the point on my reference to the military invasion of Canada as "just silly".
It IS a silly notion. The national guard of Texas is better equiped and has more manpower than the armed forces of Canada (this may not be factual but you get my point) Canada could not withstand even a half hearted assault from the U.S. military nor would one ever be nessessary. Your own President just quoted the figures: 80% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. All that would be needed is for the U.S. to close the border to Canadian trade and Canada would be bankrupt in a week. Whatever would a military invasion do besides anger our allies who would be helpless to prevent it?
I do believe
the idea that America intends to dictate to the rest of the world and back up its edicts with military might
I just can't see any eventuality that would require U.S. troops to invade Canadian soil. Iran however has something to worry about.

I will now rationalize my protectionism. And that is what it is, economic protectionism in the field of cultural industries. You bandy the word "banned" around like American broadcasting was reduced to Radio America. There is more American television content availible on my cable network than Canadian. Uncensored, unaltered. Well okay the American commercials are replaced with Canadian commercials IF a Canadian channel is carrying the same program at the same time. ( :roll: I didn't say we lacked regulations) CNN is free to broadcast any item it wishes, it is only bound by the usual "good taste" issues that seem to be more loosely applied in Canada than in the U.S. (In Canada Ms. Jackson's nipple would be very ho-hum.)
Like I said it is all ecomomics.
Did CNN accept the 38% Canadian content. Well you will never know by watching the American version of it will you. The deal covers cable distribution in Canada so the CNN in Canada may vary in content from the content in the U.S. I don't know because I don't watch television news but I know the guy in suspenders is on what seems like 24/7. If a television station broadcasts over the air near the border there is no blocking of signal or any such nonsense so some southern Canadians with antenna have been watching Fox News for years.
Anyway back to the rationalization. Instead of television the clearest example to work with is magazines. Suppose a Canadian magazine must sell it's advertizing at $100 a page to make money in the relatively small Canadian market. An American magazine selling to the same market in the U.S. need only add 10% to it's print run, ship the magazines to Canada and since it has made no investment in content different from it's U.S. run it has no costs except printing and shipping so it can sell it's advertizing for $25 a page.
How long does the Canadian magazine have before it closes it's doors?
Yes I know if the Canadian magazine appeals properly to the Canadian market it will survive by being a better Canadian product. That MIGHT work for Maclean's, our weekly news magazine but Brides monthly has no real difference to sell and so would be toast. And so any American magazine that sells in Canada without a specified minimum of Canadian content is subject to countervailing duties.
Remember this is economic and cultural protectionism with all the attendant evils of all protectionist issues.
Without magazines, music, and television content that is Canadian in origin it is felt that those things that make Canada unique from the U.S. would dissapear and this would lead to cultural, economic and political assimilation by the U.S.
There is not 100% agreement on this issue in Canada but it does have the backing of a solid majority.


The U.S. may have "Already won" in Iraq but there was a lot of claptrap spoken about "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people" and similar justifications for the invasion. You seem to prove the point that the invasion was all about what America wanted and has nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi people". It was your politicians that made that claim and it is your country that is failing to live up to it.
Was Saddam Hussien a sufficient threat to warrant his forcable removal and the resutant deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? You say "YES!". Fine. I don't agree. Fine. Just have your President spare me the hypocritical "Freedom" speeches and admit to the U.S. public that it is all about what the U.S. wants not what the average Iraqi wants.
Shall I take this to mean that you agree with Mr. Dyer that the September 11 attacks would have been "a failure" if not for the American choice to invade Iraq?
No. But you CAN take it that I give more credence to Mr. Dyer's theories than yours. The attacks "succeeded" in their short term goal of wounding America. Was that their only or even their main goal? I will decide for myself when I have some actual evidence not just opposing opinions.

If you have a chance to comment I would be interested on what you think will happen with the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Some points:
-Since Turkey refused to allow U.S. troops to enter Iraq through their territory the Kurds were left to do the work of ousting the Iraqis. This they did with great sucess and now their area is peaceful and economicaly thriving.
-The Kurds have a saying "to be a Kurd is to be betrayed". The English did it and it could be said that the U.S. did it by encouraging them to rise up in the first Gulf war but not supporting them afterward.
-If the Kurds are successful in establishing an independent Kurdistan this will destablize the fragile democracy that is Turkey as they are vehemently opposed to ceding territory to their own Kurdish population.

So:(I am just asking for an opinion I realize you don't set policy)
-Will the new Iraqi government allow a vote of secession in the Kudish north?
-Will the Kurds resist the return of Iraqi control to the point of civil war?
-What do you think will be the position of the U.S. on the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in the north of Iraq?
-If the Kurds carve out an independent Kurdistan from Iraq how will Turkey respond?

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:47 pm
by El Ka Bong
... Oh the happiness of being a "Coddled" Canadian !

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:33 pm
by Ford Prefect
I'd rather be a "cuddled" one. :D

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:33 pm
by Sirian
Ford wrote:The U.S. may have "Already won" in Iraq but there was a lot of claptrap spoken about "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people" and similar justifications for the invasion. You seem to prove the point that the invasion was all about what America wanted and has nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi people". It was your politicians that made that claim and it is your country that is failing to live up to it.
The USA did not go in to free the Iraqi people. We went in to remove a threat to our national security. However, should the Iraqi people be able to institute a fair and representational self-government, we can fairly expect to find a peaceful partner in the future who would be more interested in reaching peaceful accords than in threatening other nations.

The one becomes the avenue to the other. For it was not the Iraqi people who threatened us, but their dictator and his ambitions and policy actions.


The USA has always recognized that we cannot "impose" democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else. What we can do is to remove obstacles that prevent them from doing that on their own, as well as to provide money, security and other assistance, by which they have the opportunity to reform their own societies.

Since we made the decision to take down their existing regime, we have assumed responsibility as an occupying power, by which international law requires certain things from us. We had a duty to the Iraqis to uphold order and security until such time as they could accept back their soveignty. That transfer has already occurred, and now we are there in a role as supporters and assistants on their path to full and stable forms of government of their own choosing.

Stopping the atrocities and removing the despot are part of the picture. They contribute to the worth of the war. Could they justify the war, all on their own? I think so, but that is not how we decided to invade. The chief reason was to remove a threat.

The Shia and Kurds both rose up against Saddam's Sunni regime. Both of those peoples welcomed Saddam's ouster, and both want to govern their own affairs.

To the Kurds, we have said things similar to what we have told the Taiwanese. "Sorry, we cannot openly embrace your right to independence AND also deliver to you an independence in fact. At the moment, other major powers will not abide that. So let us help you to obtain effective independence, while you agree to pay lip service to these other interests. That is the best we can do for you in the current environment."

If the Kurds press too far too fast, they will lose some or most of their gains. The key is that we do not and will not tolerate their oppression. We gain what we can for them, understanding that it will take time for things to change, so that they eventually gain all that should be theirs by right.

This is a practical approach, and some may not agree that it is the best way, but it is better than what they had without our aid.

Listening to you, I am left to wonder if you think in terms of black and white. If we can't deliver the ideal or perfect solution, don't bother to move forward at all? In my experience, waiting for perfection or for guarantees is the same as being stuck and mired down. Perfection is a myth. In the real world, one pursues as much gain as possible, and what is possible depends on the intricacies involved.


As for "failing to live up to it", that's ridiculous. We turned sovereignty in Iraq back to the Iraqis, and there will be elections. If we are asked to leave by legitimate Iraqi authorities, we will do so. Who determines the legitimacy of Iraqi authorities? Well, that's a bit complicated. The ultimate answer is that elections will determine legitimacy, but we had to pacify the country well enough to allow for elections. An interim government was required to receive back sovereignty as soon as viable. Everyone involved understands that as a necessary step in reaching a fully self-determined and legitimate Iraqi government.

We've lived up to our commitments. So I'm left to wonder the heck you are talking about. What commitments do you believe we have abrogated?


- Sirian

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:20 pm
by Sirian
Ford wrote:I do believe... the idea that America intends to dictate to the rest of the world and back up its edicts with military might.
This is "Americans are Nazis" in moderate language, a disconnect in values and beliefs too wide for me to bridge. You could not have insulted me more deeply if you had tried. This ends our conversation.


- Sirian

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:23 pm
by Ford Prefect
Sirian I believe that what you have stated is the actual intentions of the U.S. in Iraq. To remove a percieved threat. The end condition of the Iraqi people was secondary to that aim.
Discounting the U.S. backed war against Iran which killed millions it is possible that Hussien in his tyranny killed fewer Iraqi civilians than this war to oust him.
Like I said that is okay by me IF the President and his staff would drop the "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people" nonsense from their rhetoric and be honest with the public of the U.S. and the world.
The majority of the Iraqi people are Shiite, especialy if you discount the Northern Kurds. Typicaly the Shiite would favor a theocracy such as Iran has in place as it is their firmly held religeous belief that church and state cannot be divided. That leaves a system where Mullahs are in control, contrary to the stated wishes of Pres. Bush. I therfore suspect that the majority of the Iraqi people will not get the kind of government they wish but rather the kind that the U.S. wishes.
In this country that would not be called freedom.

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:23 pm
by Ferno
Why is it that when a non-american mentions 'america', americans think they're talking about 100% of the populace?

You're not giving Ford enough credit Sirian. I doubt Ford is the type of person to lump a whole nation into one small description.

oh and...
SIRIAN wrote:the idea that America intends to dictate to the rest of the world and back up its edicts with military might?
these are your words, not his. I see you tried to pin Ford as anti-american with your deceptive quoting.

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:39 pm
by Pebkac
Ford wrote:Was Saddam Hussien a sufficient threat to warrant his forcable removal and the resutant deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?
I see this question asked so many times and I always wonder if the one who asks it has any clue as to why Hussein's regime was in such weakened, non-threatening condition. When they mention the killing of "tens of thousands" of Iraqi civilians, I wonder if they realize that these numbers pale in comparison with the civilian deaths caused by keeping Hussein in a non-threatening condition. Do they realize that the Muslim "street" was being whipped into a frenzy as Saddam blamed these deaths on the Great Satan? All the while working in tandem with a corrupt United Nations to line his own pockets while his people starved and died. I find it strange that someone so moral and righteous could endorse a neverending program of corruption and death and call that a better solution.
Ford wrote:You say "YES!". Fine. I don't agree. Fine. Just have your President spare me the hypocritical "Freedom" speeches and admit to the U.S. public that it is all about what the U.S. wants not what the average Iraqi wants.
With all due respect to the Iraqi people, what they want is irrelevant. As Sirian mentioned above, this wasn't about them, it was about Hussein. Some people never remember that when Bush took office in 2000 that it was pretty much a commonly held opinion throughout the world that Hussein had WMD. He had never allowed a full and unfettered inspection of his country. He had never provided evidence of the complete destruction of his programs. Then 9/11 happens and people wake up to the fact that this bin Laden guy who declared war on us in the late 90s wasn't kidding. Now we have a global terrorist movement after us with a proven ability to get inside the borders and really ★■◆● ★■◆● up coupled with an aggressive, hostile regime in Iraq that can provide them with some nasty weaponry for sale.
Hypothetical Bush (not real) wrote:"Well, the intelligence community has been saying that Hussein has WMDs for a decade. The UN as well as the intelligence communities of all of our allies, including several in the middle east, believe that he has them. If he has them, he might give them to terrorist organizations, since he is already aiding terrorists financially right now. However, there is a chance that this mountain of evidence is wrong, so I think I'll err on the side of not caution and just assume that all of these intelligence agencies are wrong. If it turns out that the intelligence is correct, the results could be catastrophic, but it's a chance worth not taking. Afterall, the only thing really riding on this is the world's economic system. Nothing major. Pass me a pretzel."
Any leader of any nation who is charged with defending that nation would be derelict in his duties if he made such a decision. As you've already pointed out yourself, Canada's interests are inextricably linked to ours. How could you advocate a position that isn't supported by evidence and flies in the face of world opinion when the consequences of being wrong could mean the end of your country as you know it?

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:09 am
by Birdseye
Ford wrote:
"I do believe... the idea that America intends to dictate to the rest of the world and back up its edicts with military might. "

Sirian Replied with:
"This is "Americans are Nazis" in moderate language, a disconnect in values and beliefs too wide for me to bridge. You could not have insulted me more deeply if you had tried. This ends our conversation."
That's a huge jump--I don't follow it at all. Despite what you tried to pin on me, I don't think (and neither does ford) that we are anything close to the Nazis. But to believe that we, as world military superpower, are not wielding our power for our own gain is downright silly and ignores history.
That's what the superpowers have always done and that's why everyone will always want to be the superpower.

Do you subscribe to a theory that America has now become a mostlyy altruistic nation that does nothing for its own gain? Are you blind to Bush's "our way or the highway" type attitude? We had a long discussion with the UN but our minds were decided--we just went there to get their support and share some of the load. I thought that's what the Hawks were all about in this war--If the rest of the world is wrong about our best interests, we won't listen to them and we will do whatever we need to with our military, screw everyone else.

There are many that would think it be crazy for the superpower to *not* be dictating what it wants.

To be honest, I'm extremely confused as to why you took such offense.

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:36 am
by Ford Prefect
I'm sorry Pebkac but I believe there is more nuclear material and chemical weaponry availible from the break up of the Soviet Union than Saddam Hussein ever had for sale to terrorist organizations.
I am in favor of strong action taken against terrorist organizations located in countries throughout the world and the difficult and complex international cooperation that is required to ferret them out.
I just believe that the war in Iraq is a distraction from those ends and in fact might further the terrorist cause by inflaming the anti-west sentiments of the area.
I believe the war in Iraq serves only the short term goal of the current U.S. administration and not the long term security of the world at large and the U.S. in particular.
I might be wrong but only time will tell. And if I am right (and I am of course not the only one who feels this way or the best spokesman for this position) then a mistake has been made that is much larger than that of leaving a run-of-the-mill middle east despot in power for a few more years.

Sirian you really need to grow some thicker skin. You have mocked my country and my positions throughout your posts, you have accused Canada of censorship and ignorance and then failed to acknowlege my rebuttal, you have accused me of knowing nothing of America and failed to acknowledge my evidence to the contrary, and I have tried to reply with some amount of good humour. You are in fact the one who phrased the question in the manner that offended you. I simply replied, quoting your own question back to you, in the affirmative.

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:13 pm
by Sirian
Birdseye wrote:There are many that would think it be crazy for the superpower to *not* be dictating what it wants.
You among them?

Try rereading the Declaration of Independence, and then try (for the sake of argument) to imagine that you actually believe in its principles.


- Sirian

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:40 pm
by Sirian
Ford wrote:Sirian you really need to grow some thicker skin.
Is that what I should have told you when you took insult at my oversimplified "America won three world wars" remark? Instead of clarifying and trying to work out the unintended misunderstanding, instead of caring about your feelings and your point of view and our relationship, I should have told you to grow a thicker skin? This is the "smaller but better" approach to international relations?


- Sirian

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:10 pm
by Ford Prefect
Touche.
I guess we all have grumpy moments and hot buttons. I am currently using a mixture of aloe vera, vinegar and sea salt daily on all non-decorative skin surfaces. I'll let you know if it works. :D

I make no comparison whatever between territorialy agressive nations, past and present and the modern U.S.
I do think that the U.S. is willing to use military force to "get it's way". As examples we have the current Iraq war for regime change, the invasion of Grenada for regime change of a democratically elected government and the invasion of Panama for regime change and prosecution of Noriega.
Yes these are what you would call defensive events. But they still suit the bill in my mind. Your own posts make clear that you accept that if the U.S. feels it nessessary it will pre-emptively attack nations it sees as a threat.
It is, as always, what constitutes a threat that divides nations.
There is a muslim nation that on September the 11 2001 had several thousands of troops fighting alongside the Taliban against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
This nation was the willing host to Al Qaida training bases until they moved to Afghanistan.
This nation has nuclear weapons, has tested them and has the means to produce more weapons and weapon grade material.
This nation is ruled by a military dictator who's coup ousted a democraticaly elected government and who has used a referendum that was declared fraudulent by international observers to legitimize his dictatorship.
There is a strong chance that this dictator is harbouring Ossama bin Laudin.
So where does Pakistan and Gereral Pervez Musharraf fit in the Axis of Evil. Oh wait he is America's buddy' in the middle east.
Lets sum up: dictator, has weapons of mass destruction, has links to Al Qaida.
Saddam Hussien was ousted for just being suspected of the last two items but Musharraf seems to be a teflon man. For some reason he is not "percieved" as a threat.
To me it makes the decision to go to war against Iraq rather arbitrary.

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:11 pm
by Pebkac
Ford wrote:I'm sorry Pebkac but I believe there is more nuclear material and chemical weaponry available from the break up of the Soviet Union than Saddam Hussein ever had for sale to terrorist organizations.
How many of those former states are headed by madmen who are openly hostile to the United States? Hindsight doesn't work here. When you contrast the Hussein regime with former Soviet satellite states, do you see any differences between them with regard to threat level toward the United States? I'd like you to try and take yourself back to 9/12/01 when you answer that question. You may believe what you believe, but a significant portion of world governments (including yours) disagreed with your assessment of Hussein's weapons capability, and I'd dare say that they had better evidence for their beliefs than you do.
Ford wrote:I am in favor of strong action taken against terrorist organizations located in countries throughout the world and the difficult and complex international cooperation that is required to ferret them out.
Well then, in a battle against fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations, what better place to get the ball rolling than in the Middle East? Even better, in Iraq, where the government openly funds terrorists. I'll never understand how someone can agree that Afghanistan was a problem worth taking care of while a scant (in terms of continents) 1500 miles away, there were no problems at all. Nothing there to worry about except a brutal, terrorist-funding dictator with biological and chemical weapons at his disposal (again, we're back in late 2001).
Ford wrote:I just believe that the war in Iraq is a distraction from those ends and in fact might further the terrorist cause by inflaming the anti-west sentiments of the area.
The war in Iraq puts us right smack in the enemy's back yard. That's a good thing if you're serious about depleting terrorist ranks. As for it inflaming the area, well, where have you been since 1991? I've already touched on this, not going would have meant a continuation of sanctions. Sanctions were like one big terrorist commercial that played non-stop for a DECADE. At WORST, the war in Iraq is equally effective in recruiting terrorists, but at least the war scenario has an ending, sanctions were going to last forever. There was too much slush money to be earned by Kofi and Co. to ever end them.
Ford wrote:I believe the war in Iraq serves only the short term goal of the current U.S. administration and not the long term security of the world at large and the U.S. in particular.
Please explain to me how you arrive at this conclusion. What is this short-term goal you speak of (please don't say oil)? Additionally, how does two free and democratic nations in the Middle East (one on either side of Iran) NOT serve the long-term security of the world at large and the US in particular?
Ford wrote:I might be wrong but only time will tell. And if I am right (and I am of course not the only one who feels this way or the best spokesman for this position) then a mistake has been made that is much larger than that of leaving a run-of-the-mill middle east despot in power for a few more years.
I've already shown how leaving him in power was just as bad if not worse than invading, and you're dreaming if you think he would have only lasted another few years. Saddam was doing just fine under sanctions, last estimates I remember reading were 48 new palaces and $21 billion. Never mind the fact that leaving him in power would have meant MORE misery and death for the Iraqi people than this war has brought them, which is the point that originally brought me into this discussion.

How can a person say that he's opposed to the war due to Iraqi civilian casualties when the status quo he's trying to keep intact is a never-ending policy of sanctions which lead to even MORE dead Iraqi civilians than a war?

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:45 pm
by Ford Prefect
The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in unpaid miltary personel sitting as custodians to thousands of weapons in back water towns and villages all over the former U.S.S.R. states.
This stuff is for sale to the highest bidder, corruption and poverty are rampant.
I am not suggesting that any former soviet state would willingly supply WMD to any terrorist organization. I am suggesting that if a terrorist organization wanted WMD materials then they are availible if you pay the right bribes. The U.S. other NATO countries are scrambling to help Soviet states secure this material but it is a difficult job.

Check my post about Pakistan and tell me why they are the friend of the U.S. and why Iraq had to be punished.

Yes the war in Iraq places your nation right in the back yard of...well actually Saudi Arabia seems to be the hot bed of terrorist funding and home to many of Al Qaida's operatives and you were right there too weren't you? I guess as long as your troops are drawing fire in Iraq extremists won't bother to start operations in foreign lands such as America. Kind of hard on the brave people who serve your nation though.

Short term goal of the current U.S. administration? Keep the Republican party in power. Iraq's role? America seems to need to punish someone for 9/11 and Afghanistan was just not enough. Give the people what they want and look good doing it is what I think Iraq achives as a short term goal.
Unfortunately I don't think they actually had a long term goal in mind when they started the mess.
Two free and democratic nations? You are thinking that Iraq will be free and democratic one day? I think you delude yourself. At least for your lifetime.

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:27 pm
by Pebkac
Ford wrote:The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in unpaid miltary personel sitting as custodians to thousands of weapons in back water towns and villages all over the former U.S.S.R. states.

This stuff is for sale to the highest bidder, corruption and poverty are rampant. I am not suggesting that any former soviet state would willingly supply WMD to any terrorist organization. I am suggesting that if a terrorist organization wanted WMD materials then they are availible if you pay the right bribes. The U.S. other NATO countries are scrambling to help Soviet states secure this material but it is a difficult job.
Yes, I am aware of this. Perhaps there was some scrambling after the fall, but the US and other NATO coutries have spent the last decade working in cooperation with the governments of those nations. We've had feet on the ground inspecting those sites since 1995, so when compared with a situation like that in Iraq (as of intelligence findings in 2001), this does not warrant an invasion of Eastern Europe. If you can provide proof that there is a conspiracy within the governments of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, or Ukraine (the biggies) to deliver nuclear material to a terrorist organization, then I will support regime change in those countries. Until then, that situation is being handled in the best way it can be handled.
Ford wrote:Check my post about Pakistan and tell me why they are the friend of the U.S. and why Iraq had to be punished.
Pakistan is our "friend" like the Mujahadeen were our "friend" in Afghanistan. I agree with you. However, Pakistan hasn't been softened by a decade of sanctions. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has India on its border and an American invasion of Pakistan could possibly motivate India to do something rash like move in on Kashmir. China won't tolerate Indian aggression on their border, so they will move their military assets down to the China-Kashmir border. It only takes one Chinese or Indian soldier to ★■◆● up and fire a shot in the wrong direction and then China is moving across the border, beginning a war with India. If you wish to ease loss of civilian life, this seems a strange way to go about it.
Ford wrote:Yes the war in Iraq places your nation right in the back yard of...well actually Saudi Arabia seems to be the hot bed of terrorist funding and home to many of Al Qaida's operatives and you were right there too weren't you? I guess as long as your troops are drawing fire in Iraq extremists won't bother to start operations in foreign lands such as America. Kind of hard on the brave people who serve your nation though.
Yes, Saudi Arabia, another large nation with a strong military and air force. We'd lose a cooperative government that is assisting the US in the fight against terrorism. A nation that is home to Mecca and Medina, the two holiest sites in all of Islam. As you've pointed out, a nation of citizens who actually WOULD come out in mass to fight us (it's clear now that the Iraqi "resistance" is actually just foreigners and pissed off Sunnis) plus a much larger number of foreign jihadis coming to protect the two holiest sites in their religion.

Again, Saudi Arabia is pretty strong militarily right now, so that would mean a "softening" of targets, which really means several straight months of airstrikes. This would result in a great deal of civilian casualties. Once we went in, we'd face a true resistance, in a much larger country with a much larger fighting force which is much more motivated due to proxmity to landmarks. Again, how is a scenario of invading Saudi Arabia more attractive than Iraq?
Ford wrote:Short term goal of the current U.S. administration? Keep the Republican party in power. Iraq's role? America seems to need to punish someone for 9/11 and Afghanistan was just not enough. Give the people what they want and look good doing it is what I think Iraq achives as a short term goal.
Unfortunately I don't think they actually had a long term goal in mind when they started the mess.
That's the short-term goal? Funny, that's the goal of both the Democratic and Republican parties at all times. They have large committees of people on each side and the realization of that goal is their only job. Democrats will win again when they take national security seriously and stop running vaccuous gasbags like Kerry for President.

As for your comment about the long-term goal. They most certainly had a long-term goal and have verbalized it again and again. Free and democratic nations with free markets and a free populace will NOT provide a good breeding ground for terrorist activities. Iraq's oil reserves give it an even greater leg up on the process. Once the country is truly stable, money is going to gush into their economy. It won't happen over night, but it will happen.
Ford wrote:Two free and democratic nations? You are thinking that Iraq will be free and democratic one day? I think you delude yourself. At least for your lifetime.
I hear this a lot. It is usually not based on any kind of actual analysis of the situation, rather a soft bigotry against the peoples of the Middle East? You seem a decent fellow, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The rebuilding of German and Japanese governments successfully took place within the lifetime of the soldiers who fought that war, why will this one be different?