PDA

View Full Version : Would the middle east be better off if we were not involved?


JonIrenicus
05-24-2009, 02:19 PM
Or would we be better off?


I know alot of people think I am some nut job who just wants to attack things, but honestly, I am not "happy" about being involved in the middle east.

Just as some think people who condoned the torture of three individuals get some perverse pleasure out of it are guilty of a caricature of the motives of others, so too are they guilty in this case if they think all of us who toe a harder line "enjoy" the involvement in the middle east as some type of exceptional imperial oil grabbing orgy.


If you answer is a no to the above questions, why?

Yes, the same?


For myself, my initial concern was over the second question, are we better off. I did not really care if people in cesspool nations with cesspool beliefs turned out cesspool societies.

My basic reaction, and not at all a noble one, was if you all want to live like that, so be it, not my or our problem. Akin to seeing a drug addict destroying his own life, or a benign tumor, destroying its own native surroundings with cancerous cells, but leaving the neighbors intact.

And then 911 happened and it switched my orientation, my internal calculus, as now it seemed (though it was out there before) that the cesspool, the tumor, was not content to stay in its own zone, but spread out, change from benign to malignant.

And at that point I saw it as in our interest to fight back against it, where effective, and use less blunt tactics where more beneficial.

My answer was yes, we were better off.


Of course some will make the case that we were the instigators in the first place, ok, but I think this response by Hitchens sums up my view perfectly, and it is said so well.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6145040634344456055&ei#59m30s

I'm SO awesome!
05-24-2009, 08:16 PM
no offense but unless you're conservative there's a pretty obvious answer to this.

messwithtexas
05-27-2009, 03:24 PM
I feel dumber after watching that clip. We are not equally responsible for the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq before we invaded as afterwords. He seems to argue that the United States should invade the territory of any government that kills its own people. I'm from Texas, so obviously I oppose that.

Lyle
05-27-2009, 08:09 PM
The State of Texas lawfully executes convicted murderers. Not exactly the same thing as murdering your political opponents or people you just don't fancy.

JonIrenicus
05-27-2009, 09:23 PM
I feel dumber after watching that clip. We are not equally responsible for the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq before we invaded as afterwords. He seems to argue that the United States should invade the territory of any government that kills its own people. I'm from Texas, so obviously I oppose that.

Hitchens simply has more classical "liberal" notions about how to deal with thugs and butchers, at least in terms of where his sympathies lie if not in actual policy in all places for tactical/logistical/other reasons.


While the modern antiwar types seem to have picked up the paleoconservative sentiment of indifference and strong opposition to military interventions.

i.e. we will protest for the "human rights" of others, send money, send diplomats and peace keepers. Anything but actually fight for the rights of others, that, is just too much to bare and sacrifice. Worse, it is actually ethically wrong to do so. Not just wrong tactically or legally, but ethically as well.

That is a more classically conservative position, indifference. That is what has switched.