The fundamental POV that I would like to endorse in every person I’m debating with is that moral judgements do not depend on the person(s) who does them, moral judgements should be made based on the act; therefore, if Nazis put in Siemens ovens millions of Jews and that is something henious, then Shock and Awe, though much more sophisticated and fancy, is still henious.

As you see, your Americanism remains intact if you condemn this act, cause it does not depend on the person/country who did it.

You talking about the sunni vs. shia conflic saddam was an integral part of?
Perphaps you shouldnt be supporting somone who thinks they had a solutiion then…

>I guess Gates feels like the Turks invading the North is destabilzing….

Hahahahah. And OUR invasion wasnt? Turkey is 10000% more justified…
Terrorists sheleterd by Iraq’s goverment are DIRECTLY and BLATANLY attacking turkish soil. If terrorists attacking america were taking refuge in mexico how well would you take a european country trying to dictate how our military should respond to them?

>it is probably true from our perspective, but not from the Turkish one.

right….certainly its ridiculout to expect the rest of the world to show us more concern than we show for them, right?

Comment by Chocolate Jesus — February 28, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

Well, I took a shot at it in 63…this situation pre-dates our invasion, pre-dates Saddam….I have no solutions for a centuries old conflict. As far as the hypocrisy index, I guess Gates feels like the Turks invading the North is destabilzing….it is probably true from our perspective, but not from the Turkish one.

republican hipocracy knows NO bounds… has anyone pointed out the irony of Gates insisting on a timeline for Turkish withdrawl while essentially condoning our own indefinite stay there….?

im really curious about whats going on in the other sides minds about this..none of our resident trolls or even the more reasonable folks on the right have tried to address this.. has anyone heard the right wing spin on this? im really really curious.

its really a shame exley doesnt seem to have the courage to speak up and tell us his honest opionion about this issue, it would go a long way toward making him seem to be interested in legitimate debate.. i know redblooded flaghumping trolls like bigfoot couldnt even spell turk3y correctly but id hoped for more from peeps like Exlexlia…

Comment by Keltoi

Heh, heh, heh, you get my vote for funniest post of the day.

And it is ok, but it is tiresome.

Comment by Juan C. — February 28, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

Well, the majority of posters here are US nationals, and one of the things I love about your perspective is that you are not.

That said, US liberals defended Clinton to the hilt on bombing Serbia. Obviously, when we blew up China’s embassy, the Chinese weren’t so hip on that. To say Bush or the US had little to nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union is just historically inaccurate – it is almost to deny that there WAS a Cold War. There was. The USSR lost (though Putin is doing all he can to broker a rematch, I will grant you).

But again, I grant you that I see things from an USAian lense (note I did not say American, how sensitive is that? :) and do not make a huge effort to reflect the viewpoints of the other 180 nationalities of the world unless it is especially germane to the discussion.

You could be the most friendly guy. I didn’t call you names.

I said your posts (not the ones directed at me) showed a lack of insight and were just a piece of propaganda. I mean, saying that the Left cheered the NATO bombings is a display of ignorance of world political spectrum. Saying that Bush I oversaw political events that had nothing to do with US influence for the most part, is a complete jingoistic POV.

And it is ok, but it is tiresome.

Comment by Lefty Patriot — February 28, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

Exactly- and we’re not talking about fringe elements of the Republican party, we’re talking about the very people who shaped our current foreign policy…

well, that’s just ignoring the facts of international diplomatic efforts.

“Yeah, but we both have our extremist elements. You have got Code Pink saying the Marines can’t have a recruiting depot in Berkley…if the whole ideological spectrum were represented as a football with Norman Podehretz on one end and Cindy Sheehan on the other, I say, stay near the stitches!”

another foolish trope. code Pink is not about to invade foreign countries to steal their natural resources; that’s generally a ‘conservative’ move. Conservatism is barbarism in a political guise. Get rid of it, and the world becomes more peaceful, automatically.

Comment by belac — February 28, 2008 @ 4:04 pm

Yeah, but we both have our extremist elements. You have got Code Pink saying the Marines can’t have a recruiting depot in Berkley…if the whole ideological spectrum were represented as a football with Norman Podehretz on one end and Cindy Sheehan on the other, I say, stay near the stitches!

… and yet, while you fight this rearguard action, elements of your side concoct Utopian fantasies like the Project for A New American Century which plunge us further into the muck and mire… I don’t think it’s pie-in-the-sky to hope for an International body that actually had some teeth, indeed I think it’s infinetly more practical than remaking the Middle East according to some “Master Plan” developed by a bunch of chickenhawks with little or no experience in diplomacy and less knowledge of the region… Conservative thinking like that brought us the Sykes Picot Agreement and the current Middle East mess…

Comment by belac — February 28, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

I don’t disagree, but at this point I just don’t think the human race is evolved enough to expect raw power to not figure into the equation anymore. Our goals are in conflict with China’s and Russia’s – essentially, we are still squabbling over resources but the existence of nukes makes us change the way we do it. Then there are the 1 billion Muslims who are held hostage by a radical wing of their religion and are in desperate need of the concept of seperation of church and state. That isn’t going to happen in our lifetime, I fear.

It is better the UN exist than not exist. It is the second attempt at a worldwide peacekeeper. But until all people everywhere renounce violence as a political tool, they are going to continue to be a paper tiger. Someday, SOMEDAY, we might reach Gene Roddenbury’s vision of the Star Trek utopia, and every journey starts with the first step. But at this stage of our history, force still is the coin of the realm.

That belief is what makes me a conservative – the world has always been so. But I also realize that without Progressive idealists, we can never see a better world. The two have to exist in tandem, though; your vision reminds us of what is possible, my view fights a rearguard action against that atavistic forces of our beastial origins. Beam me up when you get there.

Finally we can agree on something, that was a thoughtful post. Where we differ is on your apparent Laissez-faire attitude towards conflict… International pressure does yield results, but the pressure has to be uniformly applied. You can’t play favorites, that’s why the U.N. is the best option at this point- tearing it down for being ‘useless’ is counter-productive. If the United States abided by United Nations resolutions and pressured China and Israel to do the same it would go a long way to convincing other countries that the U.N. has some clout.

In short: ethical test: what if everyone did as I say and do ?

You know, Naomi Wolf’s “The End of America – Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot…?

Comment by Leftside Annie — February 28, 2008 @ 3:10 pm

Ermm….no. What is the date of publication? I’ll go straight to Amazon if it is out of bookstores, I promise, I kinda forgot that whole thing.

Comment by belac — February 28, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

Turkey has invaded northern Iraq multiple times since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, at times in tremendous force commiting outrageous atrocities. This situation has nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq per se.

Can we solve a situation that is at minimum 80 years in the making and arguably centuries old? Well, we are trying to forge some comity between Sunnis and Shias, Israelis and Palestinians, why not this one too?

But a strong international body has never succeeded in brokering such peace deals until the parties themselves are sick of killing each other. N. Ireland got peace for precisely that reason and no other. So long as the Kurds are willing to commit acts of terror inside Turkey, Turkey is going to attack them in their safe havens in Iraq.

We somehow have to get the majority of the Kurds in Iraq to lean on the PKK and get them to knock off the terrorism. But why would they when in their view the Turks are occupying their land? Same deal with the Serbs vis Kosovo and the Palestinians in Gaza.

It is kind of a Dr. Phil approach to diplomacy – “how’s that working for ya?” When the pain becomes too great, the behavior will change. The problem is, when you factor in Jihadi Martydom ideology, the pain NEVER becomes too great because dying is the ultimate reward.

You can look at all these factors and try your best, but the hate is so deep seated it is tough to be optimistic. I won’t blame Obama when he can’t solve it – it is up to the people who live there. We can help, so can the UN, but only if they are willing to take the help.