Rick Has A Word or two for sceptics.

[TallDave]

When it comes to Iraq, what ever America's intentions may have been, removing Saddam was better than leaving him in place, even at the cost of war.

Saddam can be held responsible for about 2M deaths, with his various wars, civil wars, daily repression, and etc. That's an average of 7,000 a month -- far more than any month of the post-liberation chaos and so-called "civil war." Iraqi deaths have now fallen to about 200-300 a month, which makes them fairly normal for countries in their GDP per capita range.

http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

Meanwhile Iraq's GDP has tripled, supply of electricity, water, and sewage service has doubled, there are one hundred times as many cell phones as pre-war, and the number of cars has probably tripled or more.

Additionally, Iraq now holds elections, allows political parties, allows political speech, allows political demonstrations and has hundreds of independent TV/radio/newspaper media. They have begun to establish independent courts.

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/ ... /index.pdf

I could go on. The genocide of the Marsh Arabs has stopped. Torture (real torture with drills and acid and hot irons, not waterboarding and loud noises) and rape rooms are no long official policy.

Iraq is far, far, far better off today. And yes, that was always the plan. Freedom and prosperity in any country are the result of a lot of hard work.

that makes the rest of the western world look on the US as immature and unsophisticated,

I hate to break this to our non-U.S. friends, but we don't see much reason to worry about what the rest of the world thinks. We've been ably defending the Western world for the last century or so, aided by our immature lack of Europe's sophisticated justifications for Nazism, Fascism and Communism.

People forget we're not only the reason Japan and Germany don't have militaries anymore, but also the only thing that kept Stalin from pouring through the Fulda Gap. Before you criticize our interventions, take a minute to stop and think what the world would look like without them.

[ZenDraken]

We'll never know for sure, and using other cases as comparisons has limitations. But for what it's worth, let's look at what diplomacy has accomplished.

The shining example of the power of diplomacy is, of course, Neville Chamberlain and "Peace in our time!"

Apologies to Godwin...

[chrismb]

Before you criticize our interventions, take a minute to stop and think what the world would look like without them.

Personally, I have no criticism for what the US has done, quite the opposite. In many many ways it is admirable.


It's more about the way that it does it, as well-demonstrated by:

I hate to break this to our non-U.S. friends, but we don't see much reason to worry about what the rest of the world thinks.

As one of my instructors used to say about 'being in command' of an old aircraft, rather than a more passive 'taking control', it's the difference between 'rape' and a good dirty shag; you've got to do it firmly and decisively, but with a delicate touch of thoughtfulness that only comes through showing a little sensitivity, else the old girl will get the impression you're taking advantage and bite back.

[TallDave]

Hey, we went to the UN several times. Turned out lots of people liked Saddam's bribe money more than any arguments we could make.

We'd like to take the rest of the world more seriously, but then they do things like putting Libya and Cuba on the Human Rights Commission and passing nineteen million resolutions condemning Israel for existing. And don't get me started on the rest of the world's strange understanding of the concept of free speech.

Maybe someday they'll get better, but in the meantime: Sorry, world, we're just not that into you.

[ladajo]

And on that thought, you can add also that Lybia (Qadaffi) was motivated by not so much diplomacy as deserved bullying. Google the ship BBC CHINA. BBC CHINA became the proverbial straw the broke the camel's back. It's repercussions are still rippling.
He was backed into a corner and got more worried about losing his legacy than staying his course.

[Aero]

Don't you guys think this discussion should be moved off of the NEWS forum?

[chrismb]

Don't you guys think this discussion should be moved off of the NEWS forum?

Technically, yes, but there again America's foreign policy IS the news, and surely has been only more so since 20010911.

I will conclude by agreeing with all the above points in that America can normally be relied on to do the right thing (though it may not always do the thing right).

[MSimon]

chris,

American foreign policy is often a blunt instrument. You of course have the possibility that America will retreat and then there will be no instrument or maybe a blunter one. Or worse some one with a blunt tool who does not even take your interests to heart.

At the height of the Iraq agitation - pro and con - I often heard the sentiment expressed here that the next time the Euros get in a bind we ought to sit on our hands.

But you lot always have the option of preventing the messes Americans might be interested in or cleaning them up yourselves so we can avoid using our blunt instruments. I don't see that much.

In fact my guess is that because of Euro socialism and unassimilated "immigrants" it will require another of our blunt interventions in the next decade or two. I don't see much anticipatory clean up going on. Although the recent elections in France and Germany are a somewhat hopeful sign.

====

But look at your own history. When "the sun never set" you got criticized for everything - action and inaction. Too gentle and too harsh.

And I will say this: of all the colonial powers the Brits did the most good for those subjected to them. America of course as your unruly child and India who is now learning to walk and soon to run. And you managed to infect China with a few square miles of Hong Kong. Its last governor was brilliant.

And don't forget the Ozzies. The most American part of a shrunken Empire.

[MSimon]

Don't you guys think this discussion should be moved off of the NEWS forum?

Technically, yes, but there again America's foreign policy IS the news, and surely has been only more so since 20010911.

I will conclude by agreeing with all the above points in that America can normally be relied on to do the right thing (though it may not always do the thing right).

Winnie got it right:

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. - Winston Churchill

[MSimon]

chris,

What has happened to Britain that you (generally) are not proud of your colonial history and your work done civilizing the world?

In fact the world might be a better place if we Americans had not been in such an all fired hurry to dismantle the Brit Colonial Empire. Yes. It needed to be done. But it was rushed.

[seedload]

It's more about the way that it does it, as well-demonstrated by:

I hate to break this to our non-U.S. friends, but we don't see much reason to worry about what the rest of the world thinks.

As one of my instructors used to say about 'being in command' of an old aircraft, rather than a more passive 'taking control', it's the difference between 'rape' and a good dirty shag; you've got to do it firmly and decisively, but with a delicate touch of thoughtfulness that only comes through showing a little sensitivity, else the old girl will get the impression you're taking advantage and bite back.

Wait, I am pretty sure that the US is the rapist, but I can't figure out who is the aircraft and who is the old girl. Is Saddam an old girl? Is a starving person opening an American food shipment the aircraft? Who are we raping again? How does Austin Powers play into this? So confusing...

One of the reasons we don't worry to much about what the rest of the world thinks is that the rest of the world seems to have such odd thoughts.

Our current problem is that our President seems to think like the rest of the world. Yesterday restored some confidence in me that we the people are going to do something about that. If we do, the world will again be a better place.

regards

[chrismb]

chris,

What has happened to Britain that you (generally) are not proud of your colonial history and your work done civilizing the world?

A lethargy and self-arrogance appears to have developed at the start of the 20th century. It gave the Russian Communists the perfect environment to overrun the government (subversively and covertly) in the 30's, and the country has had socialist overtones ever since [and is therefore doomed].

In fact the world might be a better place if we Americans had not been in such an all fired hurry to dismantle the Brit Colonial Empire. Yes. It needed to be done. But it was rushed.

I am sure George III must've regretted seeing his colonies break away, largely because, perhaps, through political issues of the time in which the roles of Monarch and Prime Minister were changing and confused and no-one put a coherent taxation policy in place. America ended up getting taxed to breaking point. Yes, you did the right thing, the taxes have just gone up and up here ever since!!!

I am still minded to sell of bits of Britain to the US. Or even, England could become a new State along with N Ireland (we'd sell off Scotland and some of the troublesome bits in the North to the highest European bidder - the Germans, I guess that'd be.) I like the N Irish, a healthily strong willed people, similar to Americans in fact (and their countryside is [not well known to be] amongst the best in Britain for scenic tourism). Of course, that strong will has caused a few, err, let's say 'issues' in the last couple of decades, but that's the way it is and as things seem to be making progress they could do really well now.

[chrismb]

As one of my instructors used to say about 'being in command' of an old aircraft, rather than a more passive 'taking control', it's the difference between 'rape' and a good dirty shag; you've got to do it firmly and decisively, but with a delicate touch of thoughtfulness that only comes through showing a little sensitivity, else the old girl will get the impression you're taking advantage and bite back.

I can't figure out who is the aircraft and who is the old girl. Is Saddam an old girl?

You're reading that waaay too literally.

I'm merely saying that it is often possible to sieze what you want in an assertive manner without necessarily causing the other party to feel too hard done by. There are ways and means to beguile and charm your way into getting others to let you take advantage of them so they don't feel so bad about it!

[MirariNefas]

This "taking advantage" versus "rape" metaphor is making me queasy. The thought of raping the old girl Saddam is even worse.

[seedload]

I'm merely saying that it is often possible to sieze what you want in an assertive manner without necessarily causing the other party to feel too hard done by. There are ways and means to beguile and charm your way into getting others to let you take advantage of them so they don't feel so bad about it!

You are using a rape metaphore to explain that there are ways to "beguile and charm" someone so you can "take advantage of them". Hmmm. Rape by any other name...

-------------------------------------------------

For the record. We didn't rape anyone. Sorry.

We were attacked. We anounced a policy that if you harbor terrorists in your country we will treat you like the terrorists. We asked Afganistan to give up their terrorists. They refused. So, in our defence and according to a very logical announced policy, we fought back against our attackers and their co-conspirators - the Taliban. Then we attacked Iraq because the dictator was evil, because the country was harboring terrorists (again according to our new policy), and because we thought they had WOMD which they refused, against UN resolutions, to allow inspections for. Apparently the "beguiling" used by the UN wasn't working.

So, who were we supposed to trick into allowing our rape (your word)? The evil dictator of Iraq? The evil abusive government of Afganistan? The confused anti-American masses of the UN? None of that would have done anything.

So we acted in our own defense. We have nothing to appologize for. We will act this way again if threatened.

Let the rest of the world busy themselves with beguiling and charming.

regards