Thread: When do wars end? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030201
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
There was some talk of the Syrian war dragging itself to a conclusion recently, yet still the agony goes on. Many are understandably sceptical that any meaningful end is in sight. Every man and his dog have involved themselves in what could have been a short lived internal uprising.
Forgive the council of despair but I do wonder if there is any real point in praying for peace in the Middle East. Sometimes, and in some places, attitudes and acceptance of violence is just so deep rooted nothing in the world seems capable of shifting it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There was some talk of the Syrian war dragging itself to a conclusion recently, yet still the agony goes on. Many are understandably sceptical that any meaningful end is in sight. Every man and his dog have involved themselves in what could have been a short lived internal uprising.
Forgive the council of despair but I do wonder if there is any real point in praying for peace in the Middle East. Sometimes, and in some places, attitudes and acceptance of violence is just so deep rooted nothing in the world seems capable of shifting it.
My view is different, but rooted in the same despair and unending agony you mention.
Many governments and quasi-governmental factions are involved in Syria. It is all but impossible to determine what is right and wrong.
Then you mention "nothing in the World seems capable of shifting it" and I think that is key. That is the very reason we should pray for peace, not just in Syria, but everywhere. The World and man's agencies can very rarely do more than suppress war. To bring lasting peace needs God.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Sometimes, and in some places, attitudes and acceptance of violence is just so deep rooted nothing in the world seems capable of shifting it.
That was my attitude too, until recently.
It has always seemed to me that the seemingly interminable conflicts in the Middle East, one following another, were a product of a mindset that legitimizes revenge and makes peace impossible.
But then I read Stephen Prothero's 2016 "Why Liberals Win the Culture Wars".
It completely changed my perspective. I realized that what has been going on in the Middle East is not just a product of their own mindset, but a symptom of a much larger struggle.
The larger struggle is about the decline of Islam in the face of encroaching Western values. The West has long been a potent threat to Islamic culture and values in every sense of the word. Whether secular or religious, Western interests are constantly manipulating them financially, militarily, and most importantly, in terms of values.
It seems obvious to me that in the long run Islam will struggle to flourish in liberal, democratic, well educated, and affluent societies. It is broken down by western influences that are, by Islamic (and Christian) standards, immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic.
This naturally makes the religious authorities angry.
Prothero's book points out that the dynamic that ensues in this situation is that conservative forces go to war against these liberalizing elements. Conservative forces are enraged at the immorality of whatever the new trends are, whether local or imported, and they do whatever is necessary to stop them.
Unfortunately, Prothero points out, the conservative case against liberal transgressions cannot gain traction until the changes are dramatic enough to be perceived as a threat by substantial numbers of people. By that point, he argues, it is too late.
So conservatives launch the wars, but in the end they are unable to stop the overwhelming forces of cultural change. These changes, in turn, are driven by the liberalizing forces inherent in technology, education, and globalization.
Tragically, the victims of these wars are not those from whom the liberal threats originate. Instead the violence and anger are directed mainly at local elements within a culture that seem to be the agents or the vanguard of these changes.
This doesn't mean that wars in the Middle East will never end. It just means that Islam is a potent, organized force that will not stop resisting any time soon.
Fortunately, most parts of the world assimilate these kinds of changes much more easily. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is broken down by western influences that are, by Islamic (and Christian) standards, immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic.
....
Fortunately, most parts of the world assimilate these kinds of changes much more easily.
I assume that's an ironic
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is broken down by western influences that are, by Islamic (and Christian) standards, immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic.
....
Fortunately, most parts of the world assimilate these kinds of changes much more easily.
I assume that's an ironic
Not entirely ironic.
Every culture is different and everyone has their own unique perspective. Some cultures seem to have a greater ability to roll with the punches that the West delivers, and not be too bothered by it.
Of course there is give and take everywhere.
Globalization is seen as a threat by many in the West, just as Westernization can be seen as a threat elsewhere. Hence Donald Trump.
But to plenty of people worldwide globalization is perceived as a good thing.
So the are not so ironic. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Every culture is different and everyone has their own unique perspective. Some cultures seem to have a greater ability to roll with the punches that the West delivers, and not be too bothered by it.
You mean we accept standards which are "immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic" and aren't too bothered. I'm not sure that is "fortunate"!
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
You mean we accept standards which are "immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic" and aren't too bothered. I'm not sure that is "fortunate"!
Good point!
But I'm thinking of their ability to minimize the aspects of Western culture that have those qualities, and benefit from its more positive aspects.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I'm thinking of their ability to minimize the aspects of Western culture that have those qualities, and benefit from its more positive aspects.
An old trade unionist saying - "chains of silk have replaced chains of iron".
But getting back to the OP, are the conflicts between shia and sunni a reworking of the European religious wars?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Freddy, would that I could be as optimistic as Mr Prothero. He assumes two things:-
1. That progress always goes forward, and
2. That what he describes as progress, is.
I don't see any reason to have confidence in either of those views, yet alone both of them.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But getting back to the OP, are the conflicts between shia and sunni a reworking of the European religious wars?
I don't think so. I think they are merely about regional dominance.
As I see it, though, the stakes are heightened by the threat that they both perceive in Westernization.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Freddy, would that I could be as optimistic as Mr Prothero. He assumes two things:-
1. That progress always goes forward, and
2. That what he describes as progress, is.
I don't see any reason to have confidence in either of those views, yet alone both of them.
I agree that those are his assumptions. I also agree with your doubts about them.
In general I would say that I side with the conservatives.
In the long run, though, I do see globalization as a good thing.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But getting back to the OP, are the conflicts between shia and sunni a reworking of the European religious wars?
I recall this coming up in a similar debate some time ago, once it had become clear the harvest of Arab Spring was turning out to be grim one.
It was concluded that there were indeed comparisons between the Reformation and the situation which had developed at the heart of Islam. Something, if true, does not bode well for any kind of speedy resolution.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Keeping the Middle East unstable is probably our leaders' plans. Part of the current version of the Great Game. War and threat of terror keeps the people in our western countries supporting things as they are, with all the inequality, corruption and self serving monied classes. Keeps western nations' populace voting for morally deficient devils, and keeps Russia supporting Putin. With all the other countries needing to not look threatening or they are bombed, invaded or having a staged coup.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
No prophet, I sometimes think I am too cynical, but that's a depth of cynicism that verges on conspiracy theory and that even I have never plumbed.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
When lust stops deluding us that we have something to gain by them. Ultimately when we realise that even winning 'justly' isn't worth the cost in what it does to us, what it makes us.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
No prophet, I sometimes think I am too cynical, but that's a depth of cynicism that verges on conspiracy theory and that even I have never plumbed.
I agree. Is a conspiracy necessary? It is always easy to see that some people gain from any disaster but that is quite different from assuming they deliberately encouraged it.
It isn't as though getting people to fight wars seems very difficult - it's stopping them which is difficult.
In wars whose participants see them as having some transcendental significance - Islamic, Christian, marxist, fascist - there seems much less reason to stop. How much are you prepared to suffer (and inflict) to save people from Hell, create an true Aryan race, establish an eternal caliphate or the dictatorship of the proletariat? Whereas if you just want their wealth, don't fight a war which destroys it.
1 Kings 3:16-28 seems relevant in a backhanded sort of way.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
In wars whose participants see them as having some transcendental significance - Islamic, Christian, marxist, fascist - there seems much less reason to stop. How much are you prepared to suffer (and inflict) to save people from Hell, create an true Aryan race, establish an eternal caliphate or the dictatorship of the proletariat? Whereas if you just want their wealth, don't fight a war which destroys it.
My view also.
So I would think that the answer is the long process that combats these kinds of narrow views.
Education, the internet, social media, and travel expose people to a variety of viewpoints, making it harder to enforce extreme views on the majority. A political process leading to a free press does even more.
In turn, a successful economy usually works to bring about these kinds of changes.
This says to me that what free nations can do to encourage these changes is broker peace and help create successful economies.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
No prophet, I sometimes think I am too cynical, but that's a depth of cynicism that verges on conspiracy theory and that even I have never plumbed.
I got it from STRATFOR, which is a group which advises strategic policies to gov't. In a book I had to stop reading which was subtitled 'the next 100 years' . It doesn't seem to be about conspiracy as much as economic dominance. Though perhaps we'd have to ask Blair and Bush to know for sure.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It doesn't seem to be about conspiracy as much as economic dominance.
It is not hard to accept that fears of economic dominance could be a major driver of conflict.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
A lucrative arms trade to the Middle East and the continuation of conflict in selected theatres do tend to look like not-so-strange bedfellows from certain angles
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A lucrative arms trade to the Middle East and the continuation of conflict in selected theatres do tend to look like not-so-strange bedfellows from certain angles
I actually think it is more the trade than the arms. But it could also be that supplying expensive weapons only encourages them.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
if you just want their wealth, don't fight a war which destroys it.
That same sort of logic would suggest that if what you want is to be seen as a strong but benevolent ruler and live well off the taxes that people willingly pay, then causing civilian casualties and driving people to emigrate is counter-productive...
Doesn't seem to work like that in practice.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That same sort of logic would suggest that if what you want is to be seen as a strong but benevolent ruler and live well off the taxes that people willingly pay, then causing civilian casualties and driving people to emigrate is counter-productive...
Doesn't seem to work like that in practice. [/QB]
The reasons rulers start wars aren't necessarily the reasons they use to persuade their people to fight in them - or the reasons that opposition becomes rebellion.
In Northen Ireland a reason commonly given for continuing fighting was that it would mean those who had already been killed had died for nothing .... so we have to kill a few more.
But you're right - logic often hasn't much to do with it.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The best example of the non logic of war was on the Western Front in Christmas 1914. In order to stamp out fraternisation between opposing sides officers were told to fire their pistols at individuals loitering in no-man's-land. High Command on both sides promised harsh consequences to anyone initiating unofficial truces in the future.
The official Truce, and end of the Great War came after nearly four more terrible years , with the Front only having moved a few bitter and blood-soaked miles.
The point being that wars only end when the Powers that be decide they are to end. The ordinary person can wring his or her hands but the history of warfare says it will be to little avail.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I've read that both high commands organized massive artillery barrages on each others opposite front lines to obliterate the 'fraternisers' = brothers.
It gets worse in the WWII Western Desert Campaign. No firing was allowed at tea time and you could nick each others stuff, but if you nicked too much, complaints would be made and it had to be handed back.
But when the whistle blew, all bets were off. We LOVE it.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The trigger for the Syrian civil war was actually a severe drought which hit the growing areas. The Assad government refused to provide relief for the growers and they rebelled.
You might say the war was because of climate change.
Granted there were other factors that contributed to the conflagration.
When do wars end? I would argue we are still fighting the American Civil War here in the states and that started over 150 years ago.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...War and threat of terror keeps the people in our western countries supporting things as they are, with all the inequality, corruption and self serving monied classes. Keeps western nations' populace voting for morally deficient devils, and keeps Russia supporting Putin....
This is classical politcal science as taught to me in university - a leader who fears internal resistance to the leadership makes sure to create an external enemy, and almost always the people will support the leader and oppose the enemy even if they dislike the leader they believe the anti-"enemy" propaganda and dislike the "enemy" more.
Bush Jr is said to have openly strategized to have a war going before end of first term because Americans historically re-elect a president during wars, and ditch him after a war ends, so he needs an ongoing war to dramatically improve re-election probability.
Classic teaching. Widespread practice because the primary goal of almost any ruler (including modern elected legislators) is to retain their power and position, to not be licked out. Nothing new or conspiratorial about distracting the internal restless with an external suppose threat.
Hasn't every American President in recent history started or continued a war?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...War and threat of terror keeps the people in our western countries supporting things as they are, with all the inequality, corruption and self serving monied classes. Keeps western nations' populace voting for morally deficient devils, and keeps Russia supporting Putin....
This is classical politcal science as taught to me in university - a leader who fears internal resistance to the leadership makes sure to create an external enemy, and almost always the people will support the leader and oppose the enemy even if they dislike the leader they believe the anti-"enemy" propaganda and dislike the "enemy" more.
Bush Jr is said to have openly strategized to have a war going before end of first term because Americans historically re-elect a president during wars, and ditch him after a war ends, so he needs an ongoing war to dramatically improve re-election probability.
Classic teaching. Widespread practice because the primary goal of almost any ruler (including modern elected legislators) is to retain their power and position, to not be licked out. Nothing new or conspiratorial about distracting the internal restless with an external suppose threat.
Hasn't every American President in recent history started or continued a war?
Define started. The Vietnam War, for example, is generally regarded as being a mistake but it's not as if the North Vietnamese would have let the government of South Vietnam get on with it, had the Americans not gotten involved. Likewise, the US got involved in Korea when the North invaded the South. Gulf War 1 kicked off when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I'm not an unqualified admirer of US foreign policy by any means but it's a mistake to assume that the conflicts they did get involved with were just peaceful places going about their day to day business until the US Army rocked up and started shooting the place up.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The Vietnam War, for example, is generally regarded as being a mistake but it's not as if the North Vietnamese would have let the government of South Vietnam get on with it, had the Americans not gotten involved. Likewise, the US got involved in Korea when the North invaded the South. Gulf War 1 kicked off when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
Yes, these kinds of decisions are incredibly difficult to make, and there are enormous pressures on leaders both in favor and opposed to involvement.
After the fact we can make judgments as to whether involvement was a good idea, but even then it is not always clear.
What would have happened if the U.N. had not involved itself in Korea? Would all of Korea currently be like North Korea? If so the U.N. did a very good thing.
What would have happened if the U.S. had not gotten into Viet Nam? Clearly the North would have taken over, but would that have been a bad thing? Would communist regimes have closed off all of Southeast Asia to the West, threatening Australia, and causing great suffering, as was feared? We will never know.
Communism is no longer a threat. But is that because it died a natural death or because the West vigorously resisted it. Who knows?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Vietnam may be a complicated one. Probably the error was in 1945/6 when the French took it over again versus independence. The ignoring of the constitution they developed, which looks a lot like the American constitution, is also a factor.
We had the understanding that the Americans had supported the French and clearly staked out the position against Vietnamese controlling their own country. This certainly turned them away from trusting America. Then the other cold war powers manipulated things more in their own interests. It starts to look like there is little to choose from between France, America, China, USSR. They were all manipulative jerks.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not an unqualified admirer of US foreign policy by any means but it's a mistake to assume that the conflicts they did get involved with were just peaceful places going about their day to day business until the US Army rocked up and started shooting the place up.
I like to believe that aswell on a fair day.
But where the 2nd Iraq war is concerned I'm afraid footage pre-March 03, of palm trees swaying gently in the the breeze and a place looking relatively clean and tidy, compared with that now of a wide area badly war torn, is something that will haunt the US for a very long time.
Wars are always concluded one way or another, even if it takes 100 years, and the the initial estimate invariably becomes a pinprick against the eventual overall cost.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not an unqualified admirer of US foreign policy by any means but it's a mistake to assume that the conflicts they did get involved with were just peaceful places going about their day to day business until the US Army rocked up and started shooting the place up.
I like to believe that aswell on a fair day.
But where the 2nd Iraq war is concerned I'm afraid footage pre-March 03, of palm trees swaying gently in the the breeze and a place looking relatively clean and tidy, compared with that now of a wide area badly war torn, is something that will haunt the US for a very long time.
Wars are always concluded one way or another, even if it takes 100 years, and the the initial estimate invariably becomes a pinprick against the eventual overall cost.
I thought at the time that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake but the alternatives were regime change, or leaving Saddam in charge, with all that entailed, hemmed in by intermittent air strikes and with the population suffering under the sanctions regime, or Bush doing a Nixon goes to China and making a deal whereby Saddam joined the WAT, in exchange for certain verifiable assurances about WMD on his part and a shit load of cash on ours. I think that options 2 and 3 would have been less bad but they still would have been pretty fucking awful. There wasn't a good option on the table.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?
Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?
Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?
If you really can't see why there might have been honourable reasons for wanting to overthrow the Iraqi government in 2003 or obvious and salient differences between the political system that pertains in the UK and Canada, on the one hand, and in Iraq under Saddam, on the other then you are clearly not paying attention.
If Blair et. al. had been right and we could have gone into Iraq, overthrown the government with minimal casualties and installed a working representative democracy of course it would have been the right thing to do. The Saddam regime was based on murder and torture. It's all very well being high minded about this sort of thing, but it wouldn't be your door being knocked on at one in the morning or your wife or daughter being gang-raped by the secret police. The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?
Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?
Nicely done.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.
You have answered it haven't you? Supporting friend Saddam to war with evil Iran was a good option too. So was funding Islamists to fight the Soviets. Because bush league countries need to hear freedom ringing and blair loudly out.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?
Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?
If you really can't see why there might have been honourable reasons for wanting to overthrow the Iraqi government in 2003 or obvious and salient differences between the political system that pertains in the UK and Canada, on the one hand, and in Iraq under Saddam, on the other then you are clearly not paying attention.
If Blair et. al. had been right and we could have gone into Iraq, overthrown the government with minimal casualties and installed a working representative democracy of course it would have been the right thing to do. The Saddam regime was based on murder and torture. It's all very well being high minded about this sort of thing, but it wouldn't be your door being knocked on at one in the morning or your wife or daughter being gang-raped by the secret police. The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.
Those are the honourable reasons Jesus would have used? For that chock full of goodness, wholesome, just, war?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?
Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?
If you really can't see why there might have been honourable reasons for wanting to overthrow the Iraqi government in 2003 or obvious and salient differences between the political system that pertains in the UK and Canada, on the one hand, and in Iraq under Saddam, on the other then you are clearly not paying attention.
If Blair et. al. had been right and we could have gone into Iraq, overthrown the government with minimal casualties and installed a working representative democracy of course it would have been the right thing to do. The Saddam regime was based on murder and torture. It's all very well being high minded about this sort of thing, but it wouldn't be your door being knocked on at one in the morning or your wife or daughter being gang-raped by the secret police. The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.
Those are the honourable reasons Jesus would have used? For that chock full of goodness, wholesome, just, war?
Unlike you, Martin, I don't have a direct channel to our Lord and Saviour's views on these matters. I merely point out, and I repeat this for the hard of reading, WHILST I DID NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003, I acknowledge that there were costs to leaving Saddam in place and those costs would have been borne by people who are not me. If I had thought that there were a way of alleviating those costs by military intervention, without the subsequent costs, also borne by Iraqis, then I would have supported it.
When somebody can put forward a reason for thinking that leaving Saddam in situ indefinitely was a good thing which would have gladdened our Lord and Saviour and, presumably, His Blessed Mother, I would be delighted to hear it. Until then I will continue to insist that the options available to Western policy makers in 2003 were a choice of evils and my objections to the invasion was that it was not the lesser evil, rather than it was a failure to embrace the good option, from which only good could have followed.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?
Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?
If you really can't see why there might have been honourable reasons for wanting to overthrow the Iraqi government in 2003 or obvious and salient differences between the political system that pertains in the UK and Canada, on the one hand, and in Iraq under Saddam, on the other then you are clearly not paying attention.
If Blair et. al. had been right and we could have gone into Iraq, overthrown the government with minimal casualties and installed a working representative democracy of course it would have been the right thing to do. The Saddam regime was based on murder and torture. It's all very well being high minded about this sort of thing, but it wouldn't be your door being knocked on at one in the morning or your wife or daughter being gang-raped by the secret police. The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.
Those are the honourable reasons Jesus would have used? For that chock full of goodness, wholesome, just, war?
Unlike you, Martin, I don't have a direct channel to our Lord and Saviour's views on these matters. I merely point out, and I repeat this for the hard of reading, WHILST I DID NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003, I acknowledge that there were costs to leaving Saddam in place and those costs would have been borne by people who are not me. If I had thought that there were a way of alleviating those costs by military intervention, without the subsequent costs, also borne by Iraqis, then I would have supported it.
When somebody can put forward a reason for thinking that leaving Saddam in situ indefinitely was a good thing which would have gladdened our Lord and Saviour and, presumably, His Blessed Mother, I would be delighted to hear it. Until then I will continue to insist that the options available to Western policy makers in 2003 were a choice of evils and my objections to the invasion was that it was not the lesser evil, rather than it was a failure to embrace the good option, from which only good could have followed.
Why don't you? And I DID.
Posted by Jude (# 3033) on
:
Two weeks from some time, as my grandfather, a POW in WWII, used to say.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Why don't you?
Do Christians not face moral dilemmas?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye. Whether to face Christ or not. I lose sight of Him all the time.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I merely point out, and I repeat this for the hard of reading, WHILST I DID NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003, I acknowledge that there were costs to leaving Saddam in place and those costs would have been borne by people who are not me. If I had thought that there were a way of alleviating those costs by military intervention, without the subsequent costs, also borne by Iraqis, then I would have supported it.
When somebody can put forward a reason for thinking that leaving Saddam in situ indefinitely was a good thing which would have gladdened our Lord and Saviour and, presumably, His Blessed Mother, I would be delighted to hear it. Until then I will continue to insist that the options available to Western policy makers in 2003 were a choice of evils and my objections to the invasion was that it was not the lesser evil, rather than it was a failure to embrace the good option, from which only good could have followed.
Apparently the choices were originally of America's creation 2003 New York Times article
The regime they overthrew was the regime they sponsored.
This article suggests that the USA is continually perversely involved in fighting what they sponsor. quote:
The U.S. can, with ever-decreasing credibility, pretend to stand as a beacon of freedom and liberty, arming revolutionaries and destabilizing governments that displease it, while arming allies of the country in revolution, which in turn assist that country. So this “war on terror” never ends, and neither do the abundant profits from war-making.
Now the internet does contain conspiracy theories of all kinds, but this one seems to be gaining more currency. But then so is Donald Trumpf
[changed your curly bracket into a square one]
[ 02. September 2016, 05:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I'm pretty sure the options available to western policy makers in 2003 didn't include "hop into the TARDIS and explain to Ronald Reagan the shortcomings of his decisions in the 1980s before he made them".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Despite everything since, I always liked old Ronald. He kept a picture on his desk of a mutilated Palestinian girl to look at when he spoke to Begin, Shamir, Peres, Shamir.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
The endearing Reagan story I recall was that during his first term he refused to master the codes for setting off The Big One on the grounds that it would be immoral to do so. The trouble is that I can't remember where I read it and can't find it anywhere else, so I suspect it is false.
But if it was true, it would have been bloody magnificent.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
It is now day three of the cease fire that has been arranged by the US and Russia. Humanitarian aid lorries are now beginning to move into the besieged cities.
Of course, both sides are saying the other side is violating the cease fire agreement.
If it can hold for four more days, do you think it will result in a longer term solution?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
If it can hold for four more days, do you think it will result in a longer term solution?
One can but hope Gramps
There is a remote possibility that the longer the cease fire lasts the more Syria's regular combatants might think, hey this not killing and injuring each other isn't such a bad thing when you get used to it.
I don't anticipate much breath being held over that one. Syria still has a ruling force which is looking to defeat the rebels, even if that regime could be toppled you'll likely end up with another Libya
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0