Comments on: More Cognitive Dissonance

More Cognitive Dissonance

nofundy — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:22:18 -0800

To Invade Or Not To Invade?
Many have expressed the sentiment that unilaterally invading other countries can be justified as serving the best interests of its people. We can all agree that brutal dictatorships are a bad thing. What should be done when they are identified? Engagement or invasion? Should cognitive dissonance by our leaders be ignored and/or accepted? Are double standards justified by financial interests? Here is another case where all litmus tests fail.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:36:45 -0800

Invade. Yes... invade.

By: infowar

infowar — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:39:12 -0800

They should be handled on a case by case basis. However, if I was running the show, I'd make sure that no government that repressed its people would get no support other than humanitarian aid. In any event the US is very hypocritical and even a cursory glance at history shows that the US will engage any government if it thinks the (usually economic) interests of the US may benefit. I'm thinking in particular about N Korea and Cuba here where the US says human rights abuses means no business, yet Bush Sr sends a secret envoy to the PRC a week after the Tianamen (sp) massacre.

By: destro

destro — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:40:43 -0800

Just wanted to point out that this article is pretty much just a transcription of the piece on last Sunday's Sixty Minutes.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:40:48 -0800

Isn't an embassy the first step of engagement? Honestly, 500,000 people is a mere blip on the bigger picture of the world. China has had long-standing human rights' issues that has progressively gotten better over time, because of their role in global economics. Wouldn't you think that Equatorial Guinea's oil is actually a way for their people to come out of a repressive regime? Offer the world a reason to pay attention and receive money for the goods at the same time. Obviously the US isn't going to give a shit about you unless you offer something in return. That's not politics, that's humanity. How many of us actually give money to beggars on the street, really? Once in a while, sure...but every time you see a poor person, you don't immediately open your wallet.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:43:12 -0800

BlueTrain: I guess it's like Disraeli said about Britain: No friends, only interests.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:45:49 -0800

Friendship is based on common interests, not random acts of kindness.

By: badstone

badstone — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:51:17 -0800

How many of us actually give money to beggars on the street, really? Once in a while, sure...but every time you see a poor person, you don't immediately open your wallet. On the other hand, I don't pay someone to beat the shit out of beggars and take what little money they have. You need to include that tidbit if you want a complate analogy for US policies.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:52:26 -0800

This is a farce. We don't have the authority to decide, much less invade. As far as I understand it, what happened in Iran was a popular revolution, and resulted in nothing resembling "democracy." Same in North Vietnam. And it remains to be seen whether, after invading, if we can replace the dictator with anything better. Why do you think countries arrive at such dire governance in the first place? Even if we had the ability to decide which dictators needed to go, we don't have the budget to take care of them all around the world, and so we'd wind up taking care of the ones that are in our economic interest. If we really had an interest in deposing oppressive, undemocratic regimes, instead of just a keen interest in stimulating our own economy through warfare, we'd topple the Saudi ruling family immediately.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:23:02 -0800

Honestly, 500,000 people is a mere blip on the bigger picture of the world. Yes, that's how Marx looked at it too. And Mao, who "believed that China would lose less than half its population in a nuclear war, and was therefore not worried." Looking at people as individuals, believing that "taking a single life is like destroying an entire world, and saving a single life is like saving an entire world," is so inefficient. We must at all costs be realistic.

By: muppetboy

muppetboy — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:37:18 -0800

nothing is what it seems.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:37:35 -0800

Invade. Yes... invade. who? and why?

By: strangeleftydoublethink

strangeleftydoublethink — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:50:56 -0800

Invade them all and convert them to Christianity.

By: Perigee

Perigee — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:03:22 -0800

Invade them all, convert them to Christianity, hand choose their form of government, install a lasting military presence, and make them understand at the muzzle of a gun we're only doing it for their own good. "We Offered Them Order!" Oh, and then the citizens of the US should send their Goodwill things overseas to them, to show 'em we're really nice people after all.

By: badstone

badstone — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:05:47 -0800

Let me be the first to welcome our... No, I can't do it... How about: Hooray for the Black Iron Prison!

By: aaronscool

aaronscool — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:08:33 -0800

Yeah but do they got Weapons of Mass destruction? How bout Nuk-yoo-ler Weapons?

By: badstone

badstone — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:14:31 -0800

we'll never know until we invade them, will we? sneaky bastards.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:20:20 -0800

"God wills it!"

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:33:36 -0800

Here is another case where all litmus tests fail. In other words, no single approach is correct for all oppressive governments. In other words, as infowar said, they must be handled on a case-by-case basis. Sounds about right to me.

By: kablam

kablam — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:34:56 -0800

I suggest the matter be handled like a teevee show. Every issue should be resolved in a linear fashion in 50 minutes, with an emotionally gratifying outcome. Next week, everything will be the same as it was at the beginning of this week. Then all we need are a bunch of "A-Team" bullets so nobody gets hurt. Medals all around!

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:38:40 -0800

who? and why? Why, the bad and brutal dictatorships of course.... because they are bad and brutal. What other reason do you need? This IS fun, I should have been playing this game all along. Count me in from now on.

By: Perigee

Perigee — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:54:12 -0800

Oooh! Oooh!! Let me play too! I liked this one best, when they threw it at me: "So, McSweetie - why are you standing up for bad and brutal dictatorships? You some kinda commie bastard? Why do you hate America so much?"

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:17:57 -0800

"So, McSweetie - why are you standing up for bad and brutal dictatorships? You some kinda commie bastard? Why do you hate America so much?" it's our freedoms. I hate them!

By: Perigee

Perigee — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:19:35 -0800

Attaboy - we'll have you pulling the "Right Thinking" lever in no time, m'boy!

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:20:41 -0800

On the other hand, I don't pay someone to beat the shit out of beggars and take what little money they have. But how much of that is attributable to the fact no such service exists? As far as you know.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:22:29 -0800

How about this idea? Rather than debate whether to unilaterally, proactively, illegally attack soveriegn nations, why don't we funnel more spending into our own economy and into becoming more powerful and more self-sufficient, so that we don't need to have dealings with countries who fail to make progress towards democracy? Let's stack the decks in favor of freedom, sit back, and let time and the evolutionary nature of history do the rest. Worked well enough with the Soviet Union...

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:49:13 -0800

no government that repressed its people would get no support other than humanitarian aid. Our invasion, liberation and occupation of Iraq is precisely that: humanitarian. Probably the largest single humantarian aid package in history.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:10:20 -0800

Let's stack the decks in favor of freedom, sit back, and let time and the evolutionary nature of history do the rest. Worked well enough with the Soviet Union... :I Doomsayers continue to predict extended operations, massive casualties, or expansion of operations beyond control of the players, but rarely has the Army entered into an operation without the sincere belief that it would dominate and succeed. Jomini would be proud of this sanguine approach to war. He allowed for a prescription for a winnable war of limited nature. Under the control of skilled commander and a trained staff, Jomini considered war scientifically manageable. '-Scientific Optimism: Jomini and the U.S. Army' Major Gregory R. Ebner The Jomini Factor

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:15:42 -0800

OH, forget the " pardon

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:24:13 -0800

Our invasion, liberation and occupation of Iraq is precisely that: humanitarian. Probably the largest single humantarian aid package in history. OK; that's rubbish. If you're going to count the Iraq war as a humanitarian effort, WWII/the Marshall Plan/the Japanese Occupation was certainly a humanitarian effort as well. And, in real (constant dollar, not to mention the loss of life) terms, it was orders of magnitude larger and more expensive than "our invasion, liberation, and occupation of Iraq". Hell, how about the crusades? The crusaders certainly saw themselves as "liberating" the holy land for Christian pilgrims. Vietnam? (We were "liberating" the South Vietnamese from communism, right?) You'd have to use some pretty twisted logic to argue the operations in Iraq are the largest single anything in history.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:31:40 -0800

You'd have to use some pretty twisted logic to argue the operations in Iraq are the largest single anything in history. Give it some time. Could very well be the "largest intelligence failure that became a reason to go to war in US history". And please don't feed Paris...he's a large part of the reason "right of center" thought is undervalued on this site. His strawmen and crappy logic do not represent Republicans or conservatives.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:03:51 -0800

BlueTrain: the voice of reason. True, $87 billion is a small change in 1945 dollars. My point was actually to piss off all of those left-of-center anti-Bush idiots who congregate on this site....

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:40:22 -0800

Don't feed the bears - they'll get ideas! Meanwhile - Come on now, Foldy....arguing for consistency.......? Don't you know that Richard Perle has determined that " consistency based on moral considerations is the hobgoblin of little foreign policies"?

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:08:53 -0800

My point was actually to piss off all of those left-of-center anti-Bush idiots who congregate on this site.... that's probably not the best perspective to use when choosing your politics, but it does explain a lot.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:06:27 -0800

The Vanishing Case for War By Thomas Powers The invasion and conquest of Iraq by the United States last spring was the result of what is probably the least ambiguous case of the misreading of secret intelligence information in American history. Whether it is even possible that a misreading so profound could yet be in some sense "a mistake" is a question to which I shall return. Going to war was not something we were forced to do and it certainly was not something we were asked to do. It was something we elected to do for reasons that have still not been fully explained.

By: krisjohn

krisjohn — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:14:59 -0800

I'll just say one thing. We don't require the agreement of every gang leader and crime boss before we form a state police department. Why should we require the agreement of every violent dictator before we start bringing democracy and freedom to oppressed nations?

By: ook

ook — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:47:05 -0800

Because we're not the Police Force of Planet Earth; we're just another country. Much as we'd apparently like to think otherwise.

By: ook

ook — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:06:06 -0800

(...and who says we're bringing democracy and freedom? So far all I see us doing is bringing bombs and guns, causing a whole lot of chaos and anger, failing to capture the dictators in question, then crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. You really think that's helpful, either to American interests or to the world in general?)

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:15:03 -0800

Could very well be the "largest intelligence failure that became a reason to go to war in US history". I would disagree with this characterization. It would be more accurately stated as the largest failure to use good intelligence in a responsible manner. Twisting intelligence to suit a political goal is not a failure of intelligence but a failure of its use. Y2karl's link goes into greater detail and is, as are all his links/posts, recommended reading.