Were these invasions justified?

[Silverhair]

Vietnam attacking Kampuchea (Cambodia) in 1979?

Tanzania attacking Uganda in 1979?

I have chosen those two invasions for because, to the best of my knowledge, there was no US involvement. (I am sure the tinfoil hat crowd can dream up an evil involvement that benifited Poppy.)

In each case the "victim" country was ruled by a murderous dictator that was just plain nuts, and seemed to be intent on killing everybody in his own country. In each case the neighboring country decided that enough was already way too much and that the dictator had to go. The people had to be liberated, and they acted. The killings stopped and the world breathed a sigh of relief, even as they voted in the UN to condemn the invasion.

Of course the principle involved is: Can a gov't of a country be so bad to it's own people that invasion to get rid of that gov't is justified? Even if that gov't poses no threat outside of it's own borders?

I know it is difficult, but try not to think in terms of Iraq as you answer. Yes, having said that is like saying, "Don't think of an elephant." but try not to anyway.

BTW - I think both of those invasions were the right and moral thing to do.

[adwon]

1. One yes, one I don't know

Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia was justified, if you enjoy irony, because they were removing the bastards they'd helped install 6 years earlier. They were cleaning up part of their mess.

Uganda? Don't know much about it, so I can't say.

[adwon]

28. I changed my mind

Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in late 1978 was justified in the result of ousting the Khmer Rouge, but not in the underlying rationale for the war. The purpose of the invasion was to replace the Maoist Khmer Rouge with a pro-Soviet government as part of the maneuvering between the USSR and China. The replacements might have been less loony, but I doubt they were any less repressive.

[Silverhair]

43. But the replacement gov't didn't keep on killing like Pol Pot did.

That is less repressive.

[adwon]

49. Less loony

The executions and mass starvation were a replay of Mao's 'land reform' program in the early 50s and the famines that resulted from the Great Leap Backward. While the Soviet model for communism became less murderous after the death of Stalin, it was no less repressive than Mao's model.

Like I said, I applaud the result, but not the reasoning.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. Today's United States is more analagous to Kampuchea and Uganda

of the late 70s, writ large, as both a destabilizing element in the world and an exponent of mass murder.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Neither of those invasions were for "humanitarian" reasons...

In both instances, the neighboring country invaded because they saw the other as a direct and imminent threat.

And the key thing here is that they were NEIGHBORING countries. Not countries halfway around the world.

Were those invasions "moral"? No. No military action is ever "moral", IMHO. Were they unavoidable and therefore considered the right thing to do? Perhaps.

[UdoKier]

5. And the implication that Pol Pot = Saddam Hussein is ludicrous

Hussein was a small-time thug. Despite the media hype, NO mass graves have been found in Iraq. Pol Pot slaughtered at least a million people. Hussein may have killed a few thousand that Bush sr. goaded into an uprising in 1991, then left out to dry, and he was known to be brutal on dissenters - so there was little dissent.

Iraq was *NOT* in any way the right thing to do. We have taken what was a stable and secular nation and possibly turned it into an Islamic fundamentalist state, and we have STOLEN and privatized their oil industry and given it away. Its reconstruction, which could have been handled by Iraqi firms for just a fraction of the cost, has become a tough for war profiteer hogs like Halliburton & Bechtel to feed at.

Please don't come onto DU trying to justify the Iraq invasion, okay. Just fucking DON'T.

[Silverhair]

7. You are accusing me of something that is not true.

I never equated Pol Pot with Saddam Hussein. In fact, I asked readers to NOT consider Iraq when looking at those two cases.

I was after the abstract principle. You are to one who is leaping to Iraq.

Nor are you in a position to tell me what to post and not post. That is for the moderators.

[UdoKier]

9. The implication is obvious despite your obfuscations.

nt

[Silverhair]

11. Not true.

If you were familiar with the history of my postings, you would know that I am fond of asking questions that challenge absolutist positions.

It is very easy, as poster "spooked911" does in post 4, and Crunchy Frog does in post 8, that a case can be made for removing Pol Pot & Idi Amin but that Iraq failed to meet that test.

You are so wrapped up with Iraq that you see everything through that lense.

[BurtWorm]

24. So which absolutist position are you challenging?

Don't you think the majority of your fellow DUers would approve of whatever it took (within reason) to stop the genocide in Uganda or Cambodia? Or do you think DUers are fans of Pol Pot and Idi Amin?

[Silverhair]

42. There are numerous absolutists around here.

There are some here that are absolute pacifists.

Others will say that a pre-emptive war is never justified.

And some will say that you can only use your military to defend your own nation.

Take a look at some of the thoughful responses that have been posted. Especially Colorado Blue, post 10, and the exchange with Irate Citizen (That is always a thoughful poster.)and wuushew post 17 is a very thoughtful reply. That is the type of discussion that I hoped to stimulate.

So you may stop the knee jerking.

[BurtWorm]

45. There are a number of generalizers and globalizers around here as well.

People who think they can tweak the noses of a lot of strawmen.

[BurtWorm]

20. Yesterday you were trying to tell "us" "we're" against democracies

in the Middle East. Today you're trying to get us to say sometimes invasions of other countries are justified. What are you going to tell us we should do tomorrow, give up Social Security?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

26. Very astute observation

There appears to be a pattern here...I wonder what it is? :freak:

Could it be

[BurtWorm]

27. I think you detected it!

;)

[Colorado Blue]

30. No - wait a second. I think Silverhair is trying to get us to

think about foreign policy - we Democrats don't seem to have a cohesive point of view on some of these issues.

Indeed, we've left the whole foreign policy arena pretty much to the Republicans and their corporate masters - who obviously can't be trusted to be clear-eyed humanitarians. Their job is to make money, and the military-industrial complex feeds off of war. Business and industry have their place in the world but we need to rebalance the equation, I think.

Moreover, some Republican voters seem to have a rascist agenda, which makes THEIR foreign policy ideas suspect from the get-go.

What can we Democrats contribute to the mix? Where DO we stand?

In any case, pundits call the Democrats the party of NO ideas and the Republicans the party of BAD ideas.

So, let's have some ideas.

[BurtWorm]

32. So you think we Democrats should come up with a position on

the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda? That's going to win us votes? Interesting.

[Lone Pawn]

37. Yes, actually.

If we can come up with a clear plan and clear model for foreign policy—one that does not give conflicting results; one that will call Uganda, Afghanistan, and Cambodia justified but Iraq unjustified—then we can start having an actual debate.

[BurtWorm]

39. The Democratic Party is excluded from the debate for that reason?

Not because the Republicans have outmaneuvered them politically?

[Lone Pawn]

48. It's extremely easy for the public to stop paying attention to

"this is bad. Don't support this." repeated ad infinitum when the Republicans have a whole framework of thinking that says "support it. You must support it because you like America, and you like it because we're free, and we are free, and the opposite of freedom is terror, and look at the oppressed people in terrorist countries, and the only way to keep your freedom is to fight terror just like we fought the other bad thing in 1941 and the other bad thing in the Cold War, and we killed that bad thing, and we'll do the same thing, so vote for us and we'll stop this bad thing and support freedom. And then we'll give freedom to the poor oppressed people there too, and they'll like you for it." .

They have a foreign policy theory. The closest thing the Democrats have to a theory is "What they said but we're better," "This was a bad thing," and "War is bad." The first is stupid. If people buy into the Republican theory, they'll vote R. The second is stupider. That's not a theory. It won't say what we'll do next time. The third is worst. That's saying "I will not defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. Because I think defending it is unpleasant."

[Silverhair]

52. No, it is because we are not unified.

We can't debate them when we speak with many voices saying different things. Who are the Democrats? What will they do if X happens? People prefer to vote for certainty over uncertainty.

[BurtWorm]

71. If you prefer certainty over uncertainty, why are you a Democrat?

If you are a Democrat. Assuming you believe the Democrats are the party of uncertainty. You seem to think you're able to ascertain the mind of "people." Is that because you agree with them?

[Colorado Blue]

38. No - I think we should come up with a coherent idea about

foreign policy, about international affairs and our role in the world. This would cover humanitarian crises LIKE those we're discussing, but also of course matters concerning global economics.

Even Kerry, who IMO is a brilliant and experienced man, did not articulate a world-view - in global matters - terribly different from Bush. I think that was a problem in the election. At best he said he had a BETTER plan than Bush, but not a markedly DIFFERENT plan, one which he was able to articulate plainly and with passion.

In both cases, we were led to the inescapable conclusion that global CORPORATIONS were a prime mover and that domestic workers, for example, would just have to deal with it. And our policy on foreign affairs has been inescapably colored by our need for oil. It is hard to escape this conclusion when you see that we are ignoring Darfur, for example, and the whole global community ignored Yugoslavia until it was way too late to save the homes, lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people right next door, in Europe itself.

So, what DO we do, as the poster asked, not in marginal situations, but in clearcut humanitarian disaster areas? These need not necessarily, I would suggest, be areas devastated by war or crazy dictators, but those affected by famine, drought and disease. What about cases in which religion or superstition is keeping huge swathes of the population - the women and children - dominated, poor and at risk?

Our position is strong and clear on domestic issues, both on social issues and on the idea of domestic economic justice and fairness. On international matters, however, I think it's confusing if it exists at all.

Sometimes, I think we are very progressive at home but reactionary on foreign policy issues. We seem to believe that leaving terrible conditions in place is preferable to trying to intervene even in extreme cases of humanitarian disaster.

Back at you!

[Colorado Blue]

40. OK - as Lone Pawn put it - YES also:) nt

[BurtWorm]

44. One view of the world--the GOP view--sees the US as a great noble power

among the savage nations that must makes its own way whether any other nation likes it or not. This is a great selling point for red meat males brought up on dumb action movies.

The other view of the world recognizes that the US must work with allies to accomplish what it cannot do alone. It cannot address every crisis because it has limited resources, but it can unite with other, like-minded nations, to deal with as much as it can. To do this wisely--to know which crises are best to confront NOW and which can be dealt with later (knowing humans are imperfect and may be wrong about both)--requires wise leadership.

The GOP view of the world can only succeed accidentally, because it doesn't care what other nations do or how they react. They may react as "we" want them to, or they may not.

The other view of the world--call it the Democratic view--is the only rational way forward.

[Colorado Blue]

69. Sometimes it seems the GOP view of the world is arrogant,

maybe even racist, even when it claims to mean no harm.

At the very least - for example in Iraq, we see a deep failure of the Administration to take into account the PEOPLE of Iraq. One doesn't sense any appreciation for the language or history or culture of Iraq. DOD in particular completely misunderstood the situation, the deep splits in Iraqi society, let alone the way people would feel when shock and awe was unleashed upon them, unbidden. If nothing else it showed a grave failure of the imagination, of the ability to empathize with the Iraqi citizens.

Why they couldn't understand that people might be angry at having their world shattered, and terrified, is absolutely beyond me.

I believe the Administration was genuinely shocked when the proverbial flowers didn't rain down upon us and a violent insurgency emerged instead.

This is not to say some good might not come of the situation. Indeed, such changes for the best that might occur I believe we should embrace.

Having said that, I propose four things:

1) support for the UN be emphasized as part of our foreign policy. Also we should pay our UN dues. I believe we haven't done so for ages and the money is necessary, for obvious reasons. This, and #2 below, would also spread the responsibility for troops to other nations concerned with peace and human rights - ie, everybody.

2) support for our allies, for the need to work with allies (not ad hoc Coalitions of the More or Less Willing), should be clearly established as a modus operandi

3) A Department of Peace should be established. This would be dedicated to the understanding of our own fellow humans, around the globe. Language and cultural studies would be fostered. This Department would ALWAYS be consulted when matters of international significance are concerned. I'm not sure what the exact charter would be, how much actual power it would have - probably would work with State - but just the existence of such a department would be an admission that we need to increase our understanding of, and respect for, our neighbors on this planet.

This is a very different version of the use of American power and initiative than that proposed by "Pax Americana". Yet it is far truer to the actual meaning of the words - American Peace.

4) The fourth has to do with the structure of our government and will probably need some laws to be passed. This is the need for a shadow cabinet to be established, as within a Parliamentary system.

The Bush Administration, by owning Congress and the Courts, and by the very nature of Bush himself, is shutting out other voices. This is dangerous to the US domestically and to our foreign policy, right now on a very aggressive, very corporation-oriented footing.

It is especially inappropriate since the nation is very divided and the "mandate" appears to have been a mirage. This is an unusual situation but it calls for a remedy, lest the US democracy - and a balanced voice in international policy - head down the tubes.

The sheer possession and exercise of power should NEVER be the goal of a US government, within or without the nation. The government of the United States of America represents the PEOPLE - all the people - of this great land. Therefore, seeking to control everything, especially in a secretive, manipulative manner, is anathema to our tradition.

A shadow cabinet would work WITH the executive branch of the victorious President, but provide a necessary system of checks and balances and also establish a wider base of creative ideas. The world is increasingly complex and every day we become more closely interwoven personally and economically.

A narrow world-view is a dangerous world view, as well as being undemocratic by nature.

What do you think?

[BurtWorm]

70. I agree with just about everything you wrote.

The problem of course is how to sell rationality to a public that has been conditioned to think it wants "strength." It looks like a big problem until you consider how almost evenly divided the electorate is. Half--or nearly half?--the public agrees with us that the US needs to build alliances and learn how to co-lead instead of plowing ahead with an agenda that suits just one small class of elites.

[Colorado Blue]

72. Maybe we should write down these ideas and send them to

Gov. Dean?

[Silverhair]

50. DING! DING! DING! Got it.

We don't have a policy because we don't have clear goals. What are our goals in foriegn policy? Elucidate them clearly as a statement of principles.

We may not like PNAC, but it is a very clear statement of what they intend to accomplish and how to go about it. Once you have a clearly agreed on statement then you can organize everything else around it. So they have a stated goal and a plan.

Remember the "Contract with America" in 94? It unified the Reps so that they were able to run all their campaigns on one set of themes. They kicked our butts that year, and we still haven't recovered.

We don't even have consensus on when force may or may not be used, even as a principle, never mind in specific cases.

If we are going to win elections, we are going to have to hash out those kind of issues, arrive at consensus, get some clearly written goals of what we support and what we oppose.

I attempt to stimulate discussion on those issues. Since I want my posst to be noticed, I am not above using attention attracting titles, like yesterdays.

[Bouncy Ball]

46. Oh I saw this pattern in the first 100 posts.

LONG time ago.

[Silverhair]

47. SOME here are so partisant that they are against any improvement

if by accident, W may profit from it. If you will look in the China/Taiwan thread I also accused some of the posters of cheerleading for China against Taiwan because China and W were on opposite sides.

In that ME thread, I later posted my reasons for believing that democracy will come to the ME. Basically for the same reason the Soviet Empire fell.

But I NEVER accuse all DUers of anything, but I will accuse some of some things.

[BurtWorm]

51. If W thinks something is a good idea, that's a fair indication that it

probably isn't. That doesn't mean that it necessarily is, though, mind you.

You claim to want to have dialogues here outside the norm, which is a fine goal. But are you also interested in thinking outside your own box? For instance, you seem to think Bush really wants democracy in the Middle East. Do you have evidence that that is really what he wants? Does Bush or the Republicans even know what democracy is? If so, why do they keep insisting the US is a "republic not a democracy," as though the two aren't compatible and this is a good thing?

Of course Democrats believe in democracy. But any rational person knows that democracy, by definition, will be different given different populations. Are you (or Bush) prepared for the event of millions of Islamic theocrats voting for Islamic theocratic candidates in the Middle East? If that is the outcome of Middle Eastern democracy, will you be cheering, or will you be wondering why they aren't voting for Wal-Marts in every village?

[Silverhair]

53. I addressed that yesterday.

In my post on the ME, I entered a reply on why I think democracy and peace will come to the ME.

[BurtWorm]

54. On why you think democracy and peace will come to the Middle East?

What do you mean by democracy? You mean pregnant chads and redistricting? Or do you mean "all the votes count."

[Silverhair]

56. You are being silly and needlessly hostile.

Of course I mean genuine transparent elections.

[BurtWorm]

60. Don't pregnant chads and redistricting represent one form of democracy?

This is not a silly question, is it?

[Silverhair]

61. OK, I'll address that.

PG Chads. It is impossible to have a system of voting that is 100% accurate, unless your sample size is extremely small. PG chads, hanging chads, poorly designed ballots, are part of the problems that need to be addressed and solved.

Redistricting: Do you hold to the position that all district lines should be frozen where they are now and NEVER redrawn? If you can be facetious, I can to.

Obviously, populations will shift. It happens. And districts will have to be redrawn. There needs to be a fair bipartisan way to do it. Both sides, Reps & Dems are just as guilty of gerrymandering.

[BurtWorm]

62. My point is that the US needs to get its own house in order

before it thinks it can go foisting "democracy" on other parts of the world. It's easy to applaud movements we see only through the window of our TV screens. But we barely have a handle on the democracy we have here--the corrupt, and ever-corruptible corpse that gave us the Bush family.

Do I want to see democracies spread? Yes I do. And I wish them far better luck than we've had with ours. May the new democracies really reflect the will of the world's peoples. May they not be used to enrich one tiny class and disempower everyone else. May they not result in the rule of a thousand jackasses--and I don't mean the :kick: kind. ;)

[Silverhair]

65. True. We should aid democracy, not ram it down their throats.

Like everything, that is a general statement with the possibility of some exceptions. Japan, Germany, Italy after WWII being examples. Afganistan being a maybe - depends on how it turns out.

My point in yesterdays thread about the ME was NOT that W is right, but that there is a distinct possibility that things may turn out lucky for him and he will get the credit for brilliance instead of stupid luck.

Even if he does get the credit, we must still hope for and support and work for democracy in the ME. Sometimes being progressive means making a sacrifice.

[BurtWorm]

67. But my point remains we must still hope for, support and work

for democracy in the United States of America. Sometimes being a small-d democrat means knowing where your democratic priorities lie.

[Silverhair]

68. I have no problem with also working to improve democracy here. NT

[spooked911]

4. Sure, there is always a case for removal from power of a dangerous leader

Particularly when there is ongoing killing. The question is, how do you do it-- can you minimize bloodshed as much as possible? And then once, you're there, what do you do? Do you really want to help install a true democracy?

I think it is safe to say that the Iraq invasion and aftermath haven't meet these criteria.

[wuushew]

6. The U.S. directly aided the Khmer Rouge...not suprising really

The US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially.

By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support-$85 million from 1980 to 1986-was revealed six years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.

Winer said the information had come from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). When copies of his letter were circulated, the Reagan administration was furious. Then, without adequately explaining why, Winer repudiated the statistics, while not disputing that they had come from the CRS. In a second letter to Noam Chomsky, however, Winer repeated the original charge, which, he confirmed to me, was "absolutely correct."

Washington also backed the Khmer Rouge through the United Nations, which provided Pol Pot's vehicle of return. Although the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in January 1979, when the Vietnamese army drove it out, its representatives continued to occupy Cambodia's UN seat. Their right to do so was defended and promoted by Washington as an extension of the Cold War, as a mechanism for US revenge on Vietnam, and as part of its new alliance with China (Pol Pot's principal underwriter and Vietnam's ancient foe). In 1981, President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot." The US, he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge through Thailand

http://www.users.bigpond.com/nlevine/khmer_alliance.htm

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Don't know enough about Tanzania-Uganda.

As far as Vietnam and Cambodia go, I would say yes. I do believe that stopping genocide is a legitimate justification for invasion.

I do not compare Iraq under Saddam with Cambodia under Pol Pot. There was actual genocide going on in Cambodia. That's something more than simply a "murderous dictator".

[Colorado Blue]

10. This is an interesting question because it brings up an

issue that we liberals have been reluctant to grapple with: that of the use of force, when or whether it is justified.

There was an interesting conversation recently on the I/P thread, in which a well-read contributor made a thoughtful post concerning the nature of the state. In his opinion, the state is a coercive force, existing primarily to centralize power and exert control - potentially violent - even over its own citizens.

IMO, if one espouses this point of view, one can't possibly justify violence, since the use thereof can't possibly be good. Even one's own state is primarily interesting in power over, rather than protection of, its citizens. How, then, can it exert a force for good against or within a foreign state?

If, however, one takes the POV that the state is in fact an instrument of socialization, like your mama, then the possibilities for the state to act in a benevolent manner become more obvious. People are social animals - we cannot live without each other.

The family, tribe, city, religious group or nation-state are all social units, which do have a coercive factor - i.e., they establish and enforce rules or laws that govern behavior. Without those rules - those social contracts between the individual and the group - neither individual nor group can survive. Beyond that, the group - ideally - protects both itself and its members. In the ideal state, rights of the individual are ALWAYS considered while the rights of weakest members of the groups are protected.

It is understood, within this model, that variations exist, between the weak and the strong. The state as protector, respects the individual while seeking to protect the sheep from the wolf. Thus we have established democratic states living by the rule of law: the best compromise we have yet arrived at to protect freedom while also enabling the socialization that allows us to stay alive.

The socialization of people does not stop at borders. Karl Jung and many others, dating back to ancient days, believe that we share a collective mind, that we are linked in dreamstate as surely as a flock of birds responds together to wing of a hawk.

In a world in which people are thus linked, and increasingly unable to ignore one another's cries for help, how CAN one state ignore the suffering people of another?

The hope will be that world organizations like the UN will be able to broker peace, to establish a rule of international law modeled on that of the democratic, law-abiding state. However, in cases where that fails, where diplomatic efforts and negotiations and peace-keeping attempts fail, and people are tortured and dying, then the option of armed intervention must be considered.

Both Uganda and Cambodia were responsible for the torture and murders of COUNTLESS people. Beyond the fact that this kind of conflagration can spread there is the psychological sense that we are all, truly, our brother's keepers. And in this day and age the concept of "neighbor" means little: we are all linked, through air travel, electronic communication, family relations, commercial interaction.

I do not see any way of AVOIDING the occasional intervention.

[Silverhair]

12. A most excellent response.

Indeed, we are all connected, and share a responsibility toward each other.

[Colorado Blue]

13. I do not blame people for abhoring war and violence. But

to witness the agony of Darfur, or in recent films about Rwanda, or the civil war in Sierra Leone -

It goes beyond my ability to write or even to speak.

I will say this: I believe deeply that the UN must be strengthened and a true international consciousness, developed, that will grow beyond borders, religious affiliations, or nationalism. I believe deeply that this concern should extend to the beleaguered plants and animals we are squandering, again to our own ultimate disadvantage.

I worry about this Bolton person, he doesn't seem to represent that spirit at all, but maybe I don't know enough about him.

[Silverhair]

14. I think we need a new United Nations.

The one we have now is flawed. It can't work because most of the countries on the planet are run by genuine dictators who have no interest in goals of law and justice.

[Lone Pawn]

22. 121 electoral democracies out of 194 countries

is not a majority of dictatorships.

[Silverhair]

33. OK. I stand corrected. NT

[Colorado Blue]

41. However - there are large power blocks WITHIN the UN

community, linked by region, political philosophy, religion, so forth. It is not always easy to get a fair and balanced consensus of opinion.

Still, it's the best thing we've got to date, IMO.

[wuushew]

17. I don't believe in using force beyond one's own political representation

the problem with the willingness to liberally use force is that when used in a non-defensive manner the decision to do so is done capriciously and without the consent of the opposing populations.

Also decisions stemming from historical events like invasions, natural disasters or economic conditions will never be up to the preemptive and proactive interference abilities of man. How can the human mind correctly account and comprehend all the possible outcomes of future events, be them in cultural changes, lives lost or economic ramifications? Empires fall naturally, be them both of the malevolent and benevolent type. Perhaps as conservatives feel strongly in non interference in free markets we could adopt and attitude of non-interference in human affairs outside our own political system.

The fact that our foreign policy is deeply corrupted by corporate interests as well as racism and political fickleness go along way to explain the when and where's of American foreign policy involvement from Vietnam, to Somalia to Iraq. Until these uncertainties are more satisfactorily resolved by international law or perhaps an unbiased decision making computer a strong case could be made that the net outcome of events in any given "crisis" would be no worse than if the event had run its natural course.

The few universally shared values of the world community relate to the concept of national sovereignty and the justification in the use of force in repelling a foreign occupier. The U.N. has taken this golden rule in philosophy and law and pledged nations of the world to react to breaches in this shared compact. The collective strength of the world should be more than enough to overpower all but the strongest rouge superpowers. From stability comes peace and this is a desirable thing.

[Colorado Blue]

18. Your points about America's flawed policies are well-taken.

Part of our problem is not our IDEALS - but the fact that corporate interests have such an overwhelming voice in our foreign policy.

Corporations HAVE no ideals, except the bottom line. I believe we must curtail their power. Their economic vigor is vital to the global economy but by no means should they dictate policy.

This is not a new problem. I saw a movie the other night on the tube, called Khartoum. OK, don't laugh, it starred none other than the redoubtable CHARLETON HESTON, as the British General Gordon. So, ok, you're laughing. But listen, he actually LOST in this one:)

It showed scenes, wherein the British PM was trying to balance the poisons inherent in the situation: a Sudanese charismatic, a religious "mahdi", was threatening to beseige and destroy the city of Khartoum and murder its residents, enroute to his destiny in the mosques of Cairo, Arabia and Istanbul. Should Britain intervene? Should the interests of the British government be dictated by soldiers, adventurers, greedy businessmen? How much value should he place on the lives, including Egyptians, Europeans, and Sudanese, of the people in the city? Should he send a REAL army or just make a show for the press?

It really was on point I think, in the sense that it revealed the thoughts of a powerful leader in response to a situation very like the ones described, albeit on a MUCH smaller scale.

In the end, the PM at first sent Gordon, to try and salvage the situation. When that failed, and Gordon refused to abandon the people of Khartoum, he sent an army but ordered it to sit in Cairo. Political games were played, the army was finally sent - but it was much too late. The city was overrun, the inhabits who hadn't sought the protection of the Mahdi were killed, either in the city or fleeing, on the Nile.

[Silverhair]

55. You make a very interesting point. It can be compared to vigilantism.

We don't allow vigilantes because, while at first it may indeed solve some problems, it lowers the barrier until society breaks down.

As the police officer said in the movie, "Death Wish", "We can have people out shooting muggers or they will start blowing away anybody that looks greasy."

Invading a country to correct a problem in that country, even a super bad problem like Cambodia's can lead to international vigilantism.

However, at this time there is no Global Police that handles those problems.

[kk897]

15. A question: could the peoples of those countries have

conceivably revolted and deposed the leaders/regimes themselves?

Maybe this is kind of a stupid question, but what circumstances are needed for a successful revolution? Is it really a well-armed populace? Hmmm...

I never really thought about it this way before. I'd like to say that if a country's government is committing genocide or other large-scale atrocities, the people of that country should rise up and get rid of those in the government. But obviously, resources are needed. Organization is needed. Arms may be needed, if a peaceful resistance wouldn't work. And, in this day and age, media coverage is needed.

Maybe, if the people of that country do not have the resources for a successful revolution, then perhaps some sort of intervention would be necessary. But need it be military? Need it be a full-scale invasion? I have to think there are better ways--or rather, because I'm a pacifist, I have to think there are better ways.

[Silverhair]

16. A modern successful armed revolution needs several things.

1. A refuge. They need a place where they can meet, organize, and train their soldiers. You can't just give a person a gun and expect him to be worth anything in against a the trained army of the gov't. That means that you need a place where the gov't can reach you. In today's terms that will usually mean a neighboring country.

2. A sponsor. War cost money, and lots of it. It is romantic fiction that you can supply your resistance movement from the supplies that you capture from the gov't. Somebody has to be giving you the goodies to fight with.

3. Secure communications. If the gov't has infiltrated your movement, you are doomed.

In modern times it is next to impossible for a people to successfully rebel against a gov't if that gov't has troops that are willing to shed the people's blood.

However, this may be changing. Modern gov'ts also need an educated populace and free communications to have a viable economy. Those two things also work to undercut authoritarian gov'ts. We may soon see an age where gov'ts have to liberalize just to survive. The old dictatorships may die out because they have become dinosaurs. (Hey, I'm an optimist.)

[kk897]

25. thanks for your response, Silverhair.

I guess a spontaneous uprising these days would be doomed to failure... oh, wait... isn't that what happened in Ukraine? Sort of? Although that wasn't a case of a genocidal government with a military willing to kill its own people. And we know the opposition had the backing of the US government.

But in the two test cases, do you believe that the people could not have accomplished a revolution? Do you also think that there was no peaceful way for other countries to intervene on behalf of the people?

[Silverhair]

35. In those situations, none.

However, it has to be the last extreme. Kind of like using deadly force in civilian life - the gravest extreme.

It is interesting that there have been times when rulers have called on their army to put down a spontaneous uprising, and the army protected the citizens. Recent example was the Moscow demonstrations in 91.

[BurtWorm]

19. Are you trying to compare these with the US invasion of Iraq?

Because if you are, there's no comparison. At all.

[Silverhair]

57. See my posts 7, 11, 42 for answeres to that. NT

[Lone Pawn]

21. Certainly they were.

The difference is that those invasions were to put down a regime that was immediately tyrannical and engaged in genocide.

Our invasion of Iraq was to remove a regime that, while repressive, was not significantly worse than any other in the region, and had not engaged in genocide in a decade--and even then with implicit US approval.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

23. If you're trying to justify the invasion of Iraq with these historical

examples, you chose the wrong parallels.

Remember our discussion about education and the ability to think conceptually and critically?

[Silverhair]

58. See my posts 7, 11, 42.

BTW - Are critical reasoning skills to be found ONLY in the liberal arts. I still maintain that the sciences, especially math, absolutely require them, and that success in the business world does too.

And just as you have met business majors who were deficient in English, I have met lib arts majors that were totally lost in elementary science and didn't understand the first thing about business.

[Zorra]

29. So, by the same reasoning, would it be OK for Canada, or China,

to attack the US and liberate us from Bu*h?

".......the principle involved is: Can a gov't of a country be so bad to it's own people that invasion to get rid of that gov't is justified? Even if that gov't poses no threat outside of it's own borders?"

"In each case the neighboring country decided that enough was already way too much and that the dictator had to go. The people had to be liberated, and they acted. The killings stopped and the world breathed a sigh of relief, even as they voted in the UN to condemn the invasion."
:shrug:

With all due respect, IMO, your belief that the reasons for the invasions mentioned in your post are oversimplified and possibly historically inaccurate. For example:

"An invasion by Ugandan troops in Nov. 1978 was followed by a counterattack in Jan. 1979, in which 5,000 Tanzanian troops were joined by 3,000 Ugandan exiles opposed to President Idi Amin. Within a month, full-scale war developed. Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere kept troops in Uganda in open support of former Ugandan president Milton Obote, despite protests from opposition groups, until the national elections in Dec. 1980."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108028.html

Although you asked us to try to not think of Iraq in our responses, it does appear that you were attempting to make a case to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Do you genuinely believe that the reason Bu*h invaded Iraq was simply in order to liberate the people of Iraq, and, if so, why did he, and members of his administration, lie to the people of the world about the WMD on a daily basis, prior to the invasion of Iraq, in order to gain support for the invasion?

It just seems to me that, given the political climate of the world in the 21st century, the stated principles of the PNAC, and the relatively large number of PNAC members in high level positions in the Bu$h administration, that such a belief would be somewhat simplistic.

Here is a link to the PNAC Statement of Principles.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

It seems to me that the main objective of the PNAC is to imperialistically create a US dominated global empire. Would it be acceptable to you if the government of China, (believing that "their way was the right way"), for their own interests but with the stated intention of instituting "communism" rather than "democracy" around the globe, pursued the same theoretical objectives as promoted by the PNAC?

IMO, given the events of the past 4 years, the PNAC agenda seems to be the actual physical objective of the Bu$h administration. If China had invaded Iraq and stated that the invasion was in order to rid the people of a murderous dictator and bring the "freedom of communism" to the people of Iraq, would that be acceptable?

It would not be to me; but it might be to some of the people of China. My point here is: Believing that invading a country in order to institute your own country's political and/or cultural beliefs and ideas in another sovereign nation that has a different cultural and political background, and that is not a discernible imminent threat to your own country's national security, is an extremely insular, narrow, and colonial mindset. (Kind of like, I believe in Jesus, and I know that I am right, so I'm going to force you to believe in Jesus, too. It simply doesn't work).

(I used China as an example only because it is a large, powerful nation like the US, has an imperialistic government, and apparently believes that "their way is the right way". I personally find totalitarian "communism" abhorrent)

Two questions: If your only child were killed in the invasion of Iraq, would you believe that the cost of the loss of your child was worth invading Iraq for? And, given the relatively small number of known oil reserves left on this planet, does it not seem highly possible to you that the primary motivation for the invasion of Iraq by the US was/is an economic motivation?

Under Bu*h, our own country, our own government, has become increasingly less democratic at a very alarming rate. This makes it very difficult for me to believe that he would invade Iraq simply to liberate Iraq with the intention of allowing the people of Iraq to develop a genuine democracy.

At the same time, I wish the best for the Iraqi people, and hope that this mess somehow works out in their best sovereign interests.

[Lone Pawn]

31. Since Bush was sworn in after open elections, and since Bush

is not engaging in genocide of his own people, no comparison exists.

A contested close election is not the same as No Election Whatsoever.

[Zorra]

34. I did not post anything about genocide. Under Bu*h, we are, IMO,

(and I do not think that I am alone in this belief), rapidly approaching a totalitarian dictatorship. Many people, in fact, many governments, as well as the UN, did/do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was/is justifiable, and see Bu*h as an imperialistic warmonger, and a possible threat to their own personal and national security.

Would that be justification for another country to invade the US?

As far as closely contested elections go, I find the one and only thing that I can agree with Josef Stalin on:

"It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes." -- Joseph Stalin

[Lone Pawn]

36. The point is

there is no reason for the international community to believe that America is incapable of self-determination. We are not being oppressed, those who would oppose are not being murdered, and there was recently an open election in which nobody can deny that the President is not massively unpopular--it is not the case where an armed revolt could be organized were Americans not under martial law. Therefore, since Americans are still self-determined, there is no reason for the international community to change our government to grant Americans democracy.

[Zorra]

63. I disagree that Americans are still self-determined, due to the fact that

we vote under circumstances where substantial numbers of people are dissuaded and/or prevented, and have been prevented, from voting by members of the republican party, in order to get their candidate selected to office. For example, approximately 58,000 voters were deliberately deleted from voter roles in Florida prior to the 2000 Presidential Election by the obviously very partisan Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris:

In November the U.S. media, lost in patriotic reverie, dressed up the Florida recount as a victory for President Bush. But however one reads the ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A portion of the list, which was compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can be seen for the first time here; DBT, a company now owned by ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same service. If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1

In the process, however, the list invariably targets a minority population in Florida, where 31 percent of all black men cannot vote because of a ban on felons. In compiling a list by looking at felons from other states, Florida could, in the process, single out citizens who committed felons in other states but, after serving their time or successfully petitioning the courts, had their voting rights returned to them. According to Florida law, felons can vote once their voting rights have been reinstated.

And if this unfairly singled out minorities, it unfairly handicapped Gore: In Florida, 93 percent of African-Americans voted for the vice president.

In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use of the central voter file seemed to vary wildly. Some found the list too unreliable and didn't use it at all. But most counties appear to have used the file as a resource to purge names from their voter rolls, with some counties making little -- or no -- effort at all to alert the "purged" voters. Counties that did their best to vet the file discovered a high level of errors, with as many as 15 percent of names incorrectly identified as felons.

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html

This is just one of the numerous dirty tricks used by the republican party to insure the selection of republican candidates, particularly Bu*h, to office.

These widely assorted problems are well documented and some have been addressed, unsuccessfully, by members of Congress, because republican legislators refuse to address these issues.

Also, approximately one-third of registered voters in the US are forced to vote on electronic voting machines, that are manufactured almost exclusively by companies owned and run members of the republican party, are documentably open to the manipulation of vote count, and produce no verifiable physical evidence to the voter that her/his vote was counted or counted correctly.

So I must disagree with you that we are still self-determined, and that the international community has no reason to believe that Americans are capable of self-determination. Bu*h would not have been selected pResident without the help of the Machiavellian tactics used by republicans in the 2000, and if you ever have the opportunity to discuss the 2000 election, (as I have, at length), you will find that the majority of informed persons in many other countries look at our voting process as a joke, and view the US as nothing more than a very powerful and dangerous "banana republic".

And the international community is, for the most part, not equipped ideologically or militarily to impose their type of political system on others. Few countries, have the desire, ideology, and resources to engage in the overthrow a sovereign nation.

[Silverhair]

59. Good post and good points except for one:

"Although you asked us to try to not think of Iraq in our responses, it does appear that you were attempting to make a case to justify the invasion of Iraq."

That was a knee jerk response.

We need to have some really serious discussions of general issues.

Clearly state, under what conditions we would and would not use force. What general policies are we trying to accomplish in the world?

[Zorra]

66. "Clearly state, under what conditions we would and would not use force".

The conditions under which, IMO, we should use force would be that if there were an imminent threat and a clear and present danger to our nation.

Or, if another sovereign nation, particularly an ally, was under clearly unprovoked, unjustifiable attack by an aggressor nation, with the possible condition that coming to the aid of the nation under attack would not substantially weaken our own capabilities to defend our own borders.

"What general policies are we trying to accomplish in the world?"

It appears to me that the "Bu*h Doctrine" is an agenda of permanent warfare in order to secure multinational corporate profit, security, and global dominance. The actions of our government since Bu*h was first selected to office have been, at best, ludicrous, and highly destructive to our nation on every level, particularly in areas of our civil liberties, our national security, our economy, our national debt, the environment, arrgh, the list goes on and on.

What I personally would like to see our general policies accomplish is the complete elimination of corporate personhood and private special interest interference in our government, a verifiably honest domestic voting process using paper and pen as a balloting system and that eliminates partisan chicanery in fixing or swaying elections, less government/special interest control of the information media, the pursuit and attainment of sustainable world peace through persistent and aggressive rational diplomacy, peaceful international global cooperation between sovereign nations in order to end violence and nuclear proliferation, concentration on improving, preserving, and sustaining our environment, reinstatement and enforcement of lost Constitutional protections with regard to life, liberty, and privacy, affordable health care for everyone, affordable higher education for everyone, a powerful military capable of protecting our national security, etc.

I would, in particular, like to see our resources, manpower,and tax dollars be used to strengthen and improve our own country. We have the resources and ability to make this country a more secure, comfortable, equitable, free, and prosperous nation. Bu*h has pretty much already mortgaged the future of America through unwise economic policy, particularly by squandering our collective national future through the debt that he incurred upon our nation by the highly questionable action of invading and occupying Iraq. A good leaders' primary consideration is the welfare of the people she/he represents. Bu*h has done everything but consider the welfare of the majority of Americans, and our descendants too, for that matter.

So, who profits from this war, and Bu*h's actions? Who profits from this debt? Who collects the monumental interest on this debt?

It is certainly not the majority of Americans. We lose, and our children lose. America is rapidly going "down the tubes", with no indication of any constructive rational policies being implemented to correct the situation.

So, who wins?

We have, IMO, a government that is largely compromised by powerful, privately owned economic special interests, that acts primarily in the interests and service of these private entities, and consequently against the best interests of the American people. This, IMO, is what prevents our nation from instituting rational, constructive agendas that will strengthen and benefit the overwhelming majority of people in America, both internationally and domestically.

"Some people call you the elite. I call you my base. " G.W. Bush

[Colorado Blue]

73. Well said. Corporate personhood is a big part of our

problem and so is that fact that we can't have a progressive foreign policy unless our own democracy is on solid footing.

Should we write up this thread in a summary and send it to the Democratic leaders?

I nominate Silverhair to do the honors:)

[applegrove]

64. The whole world and multilateral institutions were for the undoing of

Saddam Hussein. The multilateral institutions were for targeting dictators when they bashed human rights. This was a liberal idea.

Corporate America & Neocons just stole the role and the idea from Liberals the World over: Roosevelt was one liberal they like to 'make their own'.

Now that the USA is at war in many places... it has not got the time to help the UN on its own missions.

The whole point is to steal the rightful guts and meat out of the UN.. to disable it... so that the spoils of war... including the 'goodwill' for getting rid of tyrants.. goes to the USA.

A corporate idea if ever their was one: goodwill as an asset and something multilateral organizations should not own.

Stealing from liberals... so as to not allow a greater power than 'corporate America'.

[Colorado Blue]

76. That's an interesting way of looking at it. But I doubt if

people are buying the Republicans' way of going about things because their ulterior motives are so nakedly NOT liberal. Rather, they're trying to make things better for their bottom line and that's not the same as trying to help people, which is what we are about.

Having said that, what would you say if part of our (liberal) foreign policy were to encourage local enterprises - not in the sense of globalizing multinationals like Coke - but in the sense of helping people create their OWN enterprises? These could then in turn become part of the global economic fabric, yet maintain the flavor of their creators?

The opposite of this idea is Walmart, which is forcing farmers to produce exactly the same type of fruit, for example, all the same shape, size and color, rather than promoting the idea of individual creativity and diversity.

What do you think? Could this work?

[ArkDem]

74. War is always wrong.

It's harmful to children and other living things.

[amjucsc]

75. Yes, it can be justified...

For example, if it had actually been possible to just go in, get rid of Saddam, and leave with the knowledge that a new Iraqi government would be relatively stable and at least less despotic than the old one, I might have actually been in favor of invading Iraq.

Instead, because we invaded an internally divided country that had no prior experience with anything other than dictatorial government, we've been forced to stay to prop up the governent we've put into place, and gotten ourselves into an ongoing gorilla war as a result. We've also deepened sentiment against the US in a region that is very important to our national interests, and that also incubates terrorists. For these reasons, not because war is intrinsically bad, we shouldn't have invaded.

I don't know much about Uganda. In regards to Cambodia, however, Pol Pot was actively involved in slaughtering his own population, a considerable part of whom were ethnically Vietnamese. For that reason I feel that Vietnam was fully justified in invading.