Reply On Racism
Ali Eteraz
Humanitarianism has two parts. DanielH raises them perceptively.
Dean, I think we need to differentiate between two separate arguments: 1) whether we should have gone in the first place and 2) given that we did and are where we are now, what should we do next. Now 2) is very important, because this pertains to what is actually happening in Iraq now. But 1) is far from a useless discussion.
Dean's World always skips prong 1. If they do not skip it, the justification they give to themselves for it are incredibly self-serving. I want to hammer point 1 because I am not willing to concede the point.
The most often invoked justification given by Deaniacs about point 1 is the following: if we didn't go in there, more and more people would have been killed/raped etc.
Kudos to everyone for being such moral and upright people that they want to save all the people in the world being killed by their tyrants. Problem is that your morality is a) myopic, and b) is impractical and undermines the United States' future.
a) Myopia. If removing Saddam satisfies your righteousness, why don't you also agitate to remove, with force, without recourse to international law: the Saudi Regime; the North Korean regime; the Iranian regime; a couple of the central Asian regimes; the Sudanese regime; the regimes in the Congo; and the Cuban regime. If dead people get you so worked up why haven't a single one of you agitated for MILITARY INTERVENTION in any of those countries? Is it because you think that those countries "aren't as bad" as Saddam was? If any of you were consistent, you'd move for an immediate military removal of the Saudi Regime, which has now produced OBL, and 16 of the 19 9/11 bombers, and spreads poisonous Wahhabism in the rest of the world (Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Philipines, Thailand); completely shattering the folksy hippie Islam that predominated in so many parts of the Muslim world until the Saudis came by. Yet none of you agitate for military intervention against Saudi Arabia. Instead, you celebrate President Buffoon despite his incestuous relationships with Saudi Arabia. Man up Deaniacs. Demand military intervention in Saudi Arabia. You don't think there are Rape rooms there? If a woman is raped in Saudi she gets deported. Shias, Christians, Jews can't barely establish centers of worship (in Iraq until the war there were thousands of relatively happy, free practicing Christians/Assyrians). There isn't a single one of you who can make a rational argument for why, given your stance on intervention in Iraq, why Saudi Arabia shouldn't also be invaded. Those who can make one such an irrational argument, unfortunately can only do so on the basis of ignoring point b.
b) Global humanitarianism is impractical and detrimental to the future of the United States. Someone please look up how much of our education funds we slashed in order to fund this war. Those of you who went to public schools, as I did, would be pissed. I think something like 2% of our GDP goes to education. What's the total we've spent on the war so far? A trillion? Let's say we go invade Saudi Arabia or Iran. Can we afford to spend another 2 to 5 trillion? I really doubt it. In the context of the fact that New York is fast losing (has already lost) its economic status in the world, such that 18 of the top 20 IPO's now occurred in London and Hong Kong; and that the US is no longer producing any scientists or engineers compared to India and China, how many trillions can we spend in war without starting to lag behind? I want the US to be the dominant international force (presence) for the rest of existence. This will not happen if we go exhausting ourselves in every Somalia, every Iraq, every Darfur, every Iran, every Pakistan, every Afghanistan. What the hell are we? The world's servants? Eventually the time will come when our all volunteer military would no longer be able to sustain this kind of exhaustive "humanitarianism." Then we'd have to initiate the draft, further taking our capable minds away from their jobs and research and throwing them around the world. I am not interested in the United States becoming the world's janitor just so a bunch of you can feel good about saving some people who are getting raped. I've seen people shot before my eyes in Philly and in Pakistan. People get shot. People live under tyrannies. In 1947 four of my great aunts were forced to jump into wells (where they died) to save themselves from rape. Women get raped. My dear friend's uncle spent three months orally and anally serving the Bangladeshi army so they would not kill him in 1971. Men end up slaves to survive.
You guys think I am being racist for suggesting that we watch our own back first. I say you are being racist for suggesting that the world's oppressed don't have it in themselves to overthrow their tyrants, and to be free. With respect to Iraq, had the Clinton sanctions regime not kicked in, who knows what might have happened. I have seen (and been) one of "those people" whom you are so hell-bent on saving. No thanks for your charity. It is an affront to the dignity of a man aspiring for freedom and opportunity to be so pitied. I am surprised that a bunch of you purported libertarians don't understand that.
If the oppressed third worlder wants to come to you for help, he will do so, and it certainly won't be in the form of an invitation to invade his country. It'll be in the form of request for debt relief (which Deaniacs hypocritically oppose); it'll be in the form of asking for more lenient immigration laws (which Deaniacs hypocritically oppose); it'll be in the form of asking for you to ask Bush to end the obscene subsidies that our farmers get which crush the world's farmers (which I'm sure Deaniacs would also oppose); it'll be in the form of him asking us to make it so that international loans do not come with the absurd attachment that US goods must be given preferential treatment (you get my point).
You guys support none of the *other* policies that indicate to me that you really give a rat's ass about the advancement of the rest of the world. You want America to be on top *and* you want everyone else not to suffer. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. The world is a jungle. Those that do not exhaust themselves win. If you want to start helping the rest of the world, realize that you are undermining America.
without recourse to international law
and had to stop - I'll read further in a moment.
With Iraq, we did have international law on our side as Iraq was in gross violation of the cease fire.
The first war was legally authorized by the UN; ended under a cease-fire (not a peace treaty). The later revisit for authorization to invade was a mere nicety.
Arguably, we could do something similar with North Korea. The argument there, however, is that it's not worth the price of Seoul getting flattened.
That being said, I find the whole myopic argument either incredibly ignorant of first principles of economics (infinite desires, finite resources - so we have to prioritize) or incredibly disingenuous as if you're only referring to cheap talk, there's been plenty of cheap talk by folks on Dean's world agitating for action against of N.K. and Iran and even S.A.
----------------------------------------------
Ali, you plainly blew your DW case the moment everybody first learned that you first tried to make that case with Lady Huffington.
The Croatians have a saying that "the dog doesn't bark for the benefit of the village". Applied here, it means that Huffington runs somebody's political screeds only is they serve her leftist and not-infrequently anti-US causes.
Dean Esmay has his shortcomings. But you can't say doesn't allow folks access to Dean's World for purposes of denouncing what he holds precious. My lengthy and bitter arguments with him over his own religion, in which we still remain friends after we've talked ourselves out, is a good example of the treatment I would get nowhere else. And I'm sure you would not give me posting privileges on your blogsite for purposes of fervently hoping that Israel holds all the local islamic states to thermonucler blackmail. So Dean's World remains something very special on the blogworld.
My judgement is that he plainly has cut you a lot of slack here, all things considered.
Unlike Dean, I don't really believe in this democracy stuff to begin with. And certainly not as they are attempting to apply it to islamic societies.
So I certainly would have approved of the USA send all that armed force into Iraq to grab control of their intact oil fields. And I would not have bothered attempting to change the way of life of the folks who live there.
Frankly, I was just as surprised as most other Americans of the depth of hatred between the Sun'a and Shi'a, and the cleavage-based opportunity this presented both to al-Qaida for the one side and the iranians for the other. So I don't tend to blame the Bush administration too much for not understanding all that in advance.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
They went up. It's called a deficit.
In the context of the fact that New York is fast losing (has already lost) its economic status in the world, such that 18 of the top 20 IPO's now occurred in London and Hong Kong
Great, so you're all for repealing SOX. Me too.
US is no longer producing any scientists or engineers compared to India and China
Actually, China cooks the books on that. They count technicians as engineers. Also it's an open secret in the academic electrical engineering world that papers out of China have a significantly higher rejection rate than from elsewhere because of the low quality of work. I assume similar trends apply in the other fields.
Also what on earth does either of these have to do with humanitarianism? Or is this just an Ali rantfest on all things that bothers Ali?
This will not happen if we go exhausting ourselves in every Somalia, every Iraq, every Darfur, every Iran, every Pakistan, every Afghanistan
So you come around to the Deaniac position which you called myopic within the same post. However, I think we should go after every Afghanistan.
I'll stay out of the racist part as I think that word gets tossed around too lightly (and for other reasons, but like with Iraq, every decision is motivated by multiple reasons).
With respect to Iraq, had the Clinton sanctions regime not kicked in, who knows what might have happened.
That was called a humanitarian disaster as well.
If the oppressed third worlder wants to come to you for help, he will do so, and it certainly won't be in the form of an invitation to invade his country.
Actually sometimes they do. The Kurds wanted us to. The Shiites did during their uprising. I'm pretty certain invading is what's being asked for in Darfur.
It'll be in the form of request for debt relief
Quick: what's the second order effect of wiping loans off the books?
it'll be in the form of asking for you to ask Bush to end the obscene subsidies that our farmers get which crush the world's farmers (which I'm sure Deaniacs would also oppose);
I at least don't oppose ending subsidies. Outside of national defense and the court system, I'm happy if the government did nothing and view ending farm subsidies as a good thing. (disclosure, I'll eventually inherit a farm so this is actually counter my self-interest)
Beyond me, there's even been a frontpage post calling for the end of farm subsidies. I imagine a search through the comments will turn up similar criticisms of them.
Planes which were, incidentally, protecting Kurds and Shi'ites from said guy's brutality.
The Iraq war was about preventing a hostile takeover of ME oil (Hussein's, to clarify). Personally, I don't think it was a good idea. If those who sit on ME oil don't want Hussein owning it, they can prevent that, and I'm not sure buying oil from Hussein would be so much worse than buying it from our good friends the Saudis.
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that after we give in to Third World Guy's request to absolve him of the debt he has been running up, he will be asking us to do it again in, oh, 30 years.
And we will do it.
On and on, and so it goes...
The idea that we save the Third World with handouts and the systematic denial of their responsibility for the mess in which they find themselves is an extremely significant contributor to contemporary Third World misery, in my humble opinion.
Jody already began to address this but I want to go a bit further.
We had a legal right when Saddam broke the Gulf War 1 cease fire agreement. We hand international law on our side when he broke U.N. resolutions. What we didn't have on our side was the willingness of the world to enforce its own laws.
As for helping out other nations... one nation at a time, my friend. But you're not really interested in helping those nations, are you? No, you're trying to prove some asinine point. Well, let's turn it around.
Do you give to charity? Why don't you do more? Do you help in a soup kitchen? Do you volunteer in a homeless shelter? What about educational programs to help homeless get jobs? What about abuse shelters?
You're a hypocrite of the highest order and that the first sentence of your argument ignores readily available facts shows me how much time I'd be wasting reading the rest of your post.
If someone is just going to lie like that, he's not worth talking to.
Here, I'll make a comparable one:
Ali is all for Sharia in the US.
What? It's not true? Neither was your statement, Ali.
Sufficient to say, Azis, you're wrong b/c x, y, and z.
Yeah, why the hell didn't the slaves rise up and overthrow their masters? It would have been much better that they remained slaves until they were willing to free themselves.
Oh, and if you think otherwise, you're a racist.
/sarcasm
There were multiple reasons for deposing Hussein, of which humanitarianism was just one. But I'm pretty sure you knew that, so I don't really know why I am attempting to give an honest reponse to a dishonest argument.
1. I agree that DanielH raises the issue "perceptively": "whether we should have gone in the first place... is far from a useless discussion".
It is indeed important to discuss what other options did we have. Did we have to liberate Kuwait in 1991? Did we have to remove Saddam in 2003? Did we have any other options both times?
Although I suspect that the whole discussion is outdated. I suspect that most people in US already drawn negative conclusions and will oppose any international intervention for a very long time. I remember how Arnold Harris explained why he opposes any US intervention in Darfur. I suspect that majority of Americans feel the same way.
If this is true, any polemics about effects of humanitarian interventions already belong to the past. There might be no public will left to allow repeats of Kuwait and Kosovo interventions. Only intellectuals will continue to argue about such things, clueless as always.
Or maybe we think those policies are wrong-headed and doomed to failure.
Oh, wait, this isn't a debate. It's Ali discussing our character flaws.
My mistake. I'll remain silent while Ali chastises us.
One part was the humanitarian part, which (as Ali notes) applies to all manner of other situations in the world, and all of which we can't fix.
The other was the practical, "what's in it for us" part: the WMDs, the "nipping terrorism in the bud" part, etc., with WMDs playing a central role.
The humanitarian stuff got play, but as a justification, it was more "we may go in" not "we should go in". Because, even back then, there was a recognition that we can't solve the whole world's problems, that we have to be choosy where we intervene. That was where the practical part of the argument took over.
So, when you take us to task, you conveniently skip around. The humanitarian case was important, but it wasn't enough by itself. That's one reason why we're not going into Darfur, for example: the humanitarian case is clear, but the practical side isn't. (Plus, we're a little busy.)
Now, you could argue that we got the practical part wrong. I think that, knowing then what we know now, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
But we didn't know then what we know now. No one did. Hindsight being 20/20, and all that. So, we focus on two things: your prong 2, and how to have better intelligence for next time.
So I agree, in a sense, that we should focus on your prong 1. But the specific kind of analysis you're doing serves no purpose, because it doesn't address the real cause of the Iraq war (intelligence failure).
To be clear: humanitarian intervention may be less important than all those things. So, if you're ignoring what really happened back in 2003, the case makes sense. But the linchpin of the debate in 2003 was the security part. So, by focusing on the humanitarian aspect, you seem to be making the case that security was either irrelevant or way less important.
And I don't think that argument will wash. A lot of our current frustration in Iraq stems from the fact that our main rationale for war fell apart. If we had found a nuke factory and a huge chemical weapons stockpile, I think we'd be a lot more tolerant of the problems we're having now.
Very true, Jeff. I would add the legal side, while you're at it: we had legal authority to go into Iraq, not into other places. I'm not sure where we stand on legal authority with regards to Darfur. My recollection is that, if the situation is declared a genocide by the appropriate persons, that makes a grant not only of authority, but of obligation; but the last I knew, no one official was using the "g" word. There was some speculation that officials were avoiding the "g" word so as to avoid the responsibility.
For example:
#1) I have openly and repeatedly called for the forced military deposing of the regimes in Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Darfur. All within the last few months, and most of it pretty consistently for the last four years. I've called for it in Zimbabwe and several other places besides.
Therefore, you owe me an apology. Or at least an acknowledgement that you're wrong. And I'm certainly not the only one who's advocated these things by the way.
So. That's retraction #1 you owe. Will you issue it?
#2) I have written patiently, and at length, over a period of many years, that I find the Saudi regime despicable and desperately in need of reform, and that the only reason I don't advocate invading that state is because that would immediately be seen as a genuine attack on the Muslim world since we would by implication be taking the ground of Mecca and Medina. So, we just can't afford to do that. We have no choice but to treat the Saudis differently, unfortunately.
So, that's retraction #2 you owe me. Will you issue it?
#3) I don't oppose third world debt relief. In fact I've written before that it's probably a good idea, if we also avoid giving any more loans to corrupt dictatorships. That's retraction #3 you owe me.
#4) I favor immigration reforms and am not opposed to loosening immigration laws. That's retraction #4 you owe me.
#5) I have written multiple times that we need to end U.S. farm subsides. That's retraction #5 you owe me.
Should I keep going? Basically, young man, you're full of shit.
Oh, and by the way, you're still a racist. Your racism is toward Europeans, and toward Americans, primarily. That you also are an American doesn't change that. You've swallowed a bunch of reactionary hateful bullshit.
Also, by the way? Most of the world's oppressed don't have it in them to overthrow their tyrants. Which is why most tyrants get overthrown due to foreign military intervention. Too bad the racist anti-Americanism that obviously soaked into your bones when you were a child has prevented you from seeing this truth.
Tell you what young man: when you issue the retractions and apologies, I'll continue this discussion with you. Otherwise, I think you're far too ignorant and rage-filled and irrational to bother discussing these things with. I mean, I don't even know where to start with the silliness about the military spending ruining our schools, or the assumption that if we invade one oppressive regime we have to invade them all.
Honestly, you really are making no effort at all to understand the other side's arguments. You're just engaging in prejudice and straw men.
Via Instapundit, we have this:
Professor Reynolds is so good, he can fisk a thread he's not even reading...
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.