Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) <cedrins@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:04:19 -0800 (PST)
On 12 Janv., 22:35, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here's the note on methodology for the latest poll in Iraq by the same
news organizations --
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=7067400&page=1
It looks like all possible effort was made to make the survey
transparent.
Iraq has held fairly decent elections, so it is easier to gauge
opinion there. It would probably have been best to discuss these wars
separately, since they're so very different.
Yes they are different. The reason they are bundled together is
probably because both wars were initiated by the same person within
the same time period.
There were no ABC/BBC polls back then, but I would say that support
was lower for the Republic of Latvia when it was proclaimed than it
was for the recent invasion of Afghanistan, from what I've read.
This is very strange to hear. As far as I remember at the beginning
of invasion there was virtually no support for it from local
population with the exception of war lords from NA. How could there
be less support for Latvian independence?
The idea of invading Afghanistan came from Bush administration, the
rest is politics.
I don't see what you're trying to say by that.
I don’t think any other countries (incl. UK) would have started this
war without a pressure from US administration.
Politics precede wars
and certainly don't cease during war. Afghanistan didn't even have a
legal government in 2001; more precisely, the government most
countries recognized did not control most of the country -- the
Taliban, which did, was a regime unrecognized by most of the world.
The country had been in a civil war since 1978.
Yes, but this wasn’t the reason for invasion.
Al-Qaeda, its
leadership based in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, attacked the US.
Al-Qaida is not a centralised organisation with structured hierarchy
and headquarters.
The US then issued an ultimatum to the Taliban. The Taliban did not
comply. As I suggested to you before, it's likely that any US
President would have attacked after 9/11; Obama most definitely would
have, and if you think he wouldn't have now that he has escalated the
war, you must be loopy.
Obama is dealing with what he inherited from Bush. I doubt that if he
was a president during 9/11 he would have gone as far as invading a
country that has nothing to do with this particular attack.
In Afghanistan as in Iraq, agreeing or disagreeing with the decision
to invade is one thing; what happened and happens after are another
thing. You can't return to the status quo ante in either case; there
is no Saddam, and I don't think even you would like to see Afghanistan
again under Taliban rule.
Of course I don’t have any sympathy for Taliban. But it shouldn’t be
up to me to decide on who is ruling Afghanistan.
I think France has one of the most hypocritical, selfish foreign
policies on the planet. Consider what it does in its former African
colonies –
France is not perfect, but I think United States is far more selfish
and hypocritical than France.
It's interesting that you concentrate on Western European opinion
(though I would point out that the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy,
Iceland and Norway, all of which contributed troops to the coalition,
are also in Western Europe... and two of those, Iceland and Denmark,
were the most significant countries to the Baltic states in their
early and strong support for the restoration of our independence,
largely for moral reasons).
They contributed because they were “asked” to contribute. Also they
are NATO members, so it is not very easy to say “no”. Strong support
for restoration of Baltic independence is an absolutely different
thing – I can’t see much parallel here.
I don't see any reason to think Western Europe is wiser than Eastern
Europe, where most governments supported the US. In fact, I think it's
quite the opposite.
Overall, WE is more experienced and wise than EE, in my opinion. This
is down to recent history – communist regimes significantly delayed
their development.
As Vaclav Havel said:
"I think it's not by chance that the idea of confronting evil may have
found more support in those countries that have had a recent
experience with totalitarian systems compared with other European
countries that haven't had the same sort of recent experience....The
Czech experience with Munich, with appeasement, with yielding to evil,
with demanding more and more evidence that Hitler was truly evil --
that may be one reason that we look at things differently than some
others....It's a matter of the functioning of the world's immune
system, whether the world can deal with such a case of extreme evil
before it is too late."
I’m not sure that there is such thing “world immune system”. Yes, EE
was affected by both, Nazis and Communists – WE only by Nazis and for
much shorter period of time. But I can’t see how Afghanistan could
possibly attack any of EE countries.
I have a lot more respect for Havel than I do for Major (or Blair, for
that matter).
You're veering into weird conspiracist absurdity with the word
"possibly," as you've done before. What's this "possibly"? Before the
US began bombing, the Taliban said it would be willing to try Bin
Laden in an Islamic court. Once it began bombing, it offered to
discuss handing him over to a third country (but not the US) if the
bombing were to stop.
It is absurdity to expect that Taliban would capture Bin Laden.
I would remind you, too, that the attacks on the US by al-Qaeda did
not begin on 9/11. Bin Laden had already charged for the bloody
attacks on the US embassies in Africa in 1998. Clinton launched a
missile attack on bin Laden's bases in Afghanistan back then.
Somehow that missile attack has missed the target.
If you knowingly harbor a murderer in your house, you're a criminal
and will be treated as such.
That shouldn’t be an excuse for murdering civilians who happened to be
in the wrong place at the wrong time. War brings death and
devastation; this should be very carefully considered before going to
war.
Neither do I think that your obsession with Bush causing these wars is
reasonable. Bin Laden *wanted* and *wants* a war. Saddam, already
responsible for a great deal of war and carnage, could have defused
the situation in the Gulf but didn't.
It is not obsession. Bush has started these two wars. “Bin Laden
manipulated Bush into occupying Afghanistan” is an interesting
concept, but how can you be sure that he still “wants” a war? Is
there any evidence that he is still alive?
Saddam could have defused the invasion if he shown the inspectors his
weapons of mass destruction, but he didn’t have any to show.
Inspectors asked for more time, but Bush wouldn’t have it – he was
already on the war path.
We should indeed get our military forces out as soon as possible --
i.e., when the situation permits.
Vicious circle. Presence of foreign forces encourages resistance.
I think you are very wrong.You do because you disagree with me on this issue. I don't mind, but
those who are in favor of Bush wars are in the minority in today's
Europe.
Popular opinion is fickle. Europe was and maybe still is rather
enthused by Obama, but is pretty deaf to what he says about
Afghanistan. Europe can't provide for its own security.
It depends who is attacking.
Like I said -- I can't predict the future. I can tell you that another
successful major terrorist attack on the US would almost certainly
produce a military response no matter who the US President is.
I’m curious what country would be chosen for attack?
Total breakdown in Pakistan? Iran getting the nukes it so desires?
It is an assumption. There is no evidence that Iran is developing
nuclear weapons, except that Bush told us. He told us that Iraq did,
but no one managed to find them yet.
If
the US stands back in the latter case, what will Israel do? I don't
know.
Ahmadinejad has made that "Israel must be wiped off the map" comment,
but there is no chance that he can make it happen. Instead of being
scared of Iran, Israel should sort out its own problem and let
Palestine go free. What they did to Palestinian civilians in Gaza a
year ago was completely out of order, even Blair and Obama agree with
me on this. In turn, “two states” solution should ease anti-Israeli
sentiments in the region.
He probably is in his own little world, but whether his insanity can
be a good enough excuse for what he did is another question.
I don't think it's insanity. The arguments you make wouldn't fly with
his opposition either, Dmitry -- Hillary Clinton, Obama's Secretary of
State, is not a pacifist (regarding a US response if Iran launched a
nuclear attack on Israel: "we would be able to totally obliterate
them.")
It is true. American nuclear capabilities are far more superior to
imaginary Iranian.
If you read Obama's speech, you must see that your views are
diametrically opposed to his, too.
I agree with Obama on many things, but not on everything.
He probably comes across as a nice fella, but happened to be in a
wrong business. Not long ago I’ve seen BBC documentary about
Ahmadinejad, he came across as a nice chap too.
Bush’s commitment to Eastern Europe seems to me as more artificial
than real. I can’t believe in Bush’s depth – to me, he is a very
shallow individual, I’m sorry.
I'm not sure what the distinction between "artificial" and "real" is.
I don’t believe it is genuine. The commitment was focused on getting
the ex-soviet-bloc on board (i.e. NATO membership). I don’t think
this project was driven by altruism. United States gets countries,
organisations and individuals on board when it suits US
administration. Saddam and Bin Laden were also supported by USA when
it was convenient.
He came to Latvia twice for a reason.
Yes, I remember the stories about snipers on the roofs and the whole
centre blocked off. People weren’t allowed to leave their homes and
businesses were forced to close when he visited. As if Latvia is full
of terrorists who are seeking his death. May be he was scared to be
hit with a flower by a girl?
He worked to expand NATO, and
many Eastern Europeans are delighted that he did. He supported
Georgia.
He supported Saakashvili’s regime, not Georgia. Ordinary Georgians
didn’t get anything from his support. Bush’s support encouraged
Saakashvili’s attempt to seize control of South Ossetia. Saakashvili
thought that he had the West on his side. Few days later Russians were
very keen showing captured US made weapons. Giving warmonger a “gun”
is bad practice…should have learned it from supporting Mujahedeen –
the “gun” can turn against benefactor. What other support did he
give to Georgia?
And he's extremely popular in Albania [grin].
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 TIRANA: Albania will send 85 more
soldiers to Afghanistan after the United States requested
reinforcements as part of its troop surge, Prime Minister Sali Berisha
said Wednesday.
"Albania will increase its contingent in Afghanistan by 85 troops in
order to reinforce its support to the international coalition
following the demand of American authorities," Berisha told reporters.
I agree that there's no parallel -- I'm raising it as a hypothetical
simply because many of your views as I perceive them make you opposed
to practically any intervention anywhere.
I never opposed intervention in Kuwait when it was occupied by
Saddam.
I take a completely
different view. I agree with Obama's speech, essentially:
"Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international
institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought
stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have
made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped
underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of
our citizens and the strength of our arms."
I can’t see how Vietnam War helped to achieve global security, neither
do I see how Iraq and Afghanistan wars helping global security.
There were many factors in the free world's victory over the USSR, but
it would have never have happened without a strong US. Unlike some
here, I'm glad the free world won.
USSR collapsed due to internal developments. The strength of US had
very little to do with this.
Democracy is just a word that has a particular definition, but can be
interpreted differently by different individuals and political
systems. Soviet regime had also claimed to be a democracy (as an
extreme example).
Claiming to be one and being one are very different things. Yes, there
are different kinds of democracies and degrees of democracy. There are
also undemocratic and anti-democratic regimes. I do not think
democracy is just a word.
Democracy is a system of government by the whole population, through
elected representatives. Most of countries today have their
governments elected in one way or another. People voted in Zimbabwe,
Iran etc. Election results are sometimes rigged (It is believed that
Bush was naughty too). Democracy can also be “just a word”, Soviet
regime always claimed to be democratic.
How many did Saddam kill, Dmitry, from Marsh Arabs to Kuwaitis, Kurds
to birds? See the UN resolutions on Iraq that preceded the invasion --
I posted them for you before.
As if I have any sympathy to Saddam Hussein. I’m not questioning the
amount of Saddam’s crimes against humanity, but the legitimacy of US
occupation of Iraq.
See above; the legitimacy of the invasion and of the occupation are
different things. All you seem to offer as a solution is immediate
withdrawal, damn the consequences. The fact that more than forty
countries make an effort in Afghanistan and that Bush is long gone
doesn't seem to matter to you at all.
I think the invasions/occupations should end as soon as possible, but
I don’t offer immediate withdrawal. This is not an overnight
process. My argument is that the lessons should be learned for the
future so such crises do not repeat again. But I understand that
United States is a slow learner and the expectations shouldn’t be
high.
You seem to have considerable difficulty
accepting the fact that Afghanistan was a haven for a group that
attacked the US and still tries to do so today.
International terrorists are trained in many countries including USA
and Britain. Of course the major training grounds are in economically
deprived countries, so should Bush invade all of them? I think you
have a difficulty to see a wider picture, which I find strange (does
make me worry about you). What you are saying is: Saddam was a brutal
dictator and Taliban is an oppressive regime – so it was right to
start wars against these countries. Let’s go for it and invade any
place that violates human rights? Are you capable to operate any
killing equipment? You’ll never ever convince me that you’re able to
bomb villages, Peteris. I can’t imagine that you would be able to
kill a person just because you were told that this is a good cause. I
don’t believe you are that type. Besides, you already said that you
don’t support invasion of Iraq.
I said I did not support the invasion, yes; again, that's different
with regard to views on what to do in its aftermath. Again, Bush is
long gone.
The wider picture? What's yours? Disarm and let the Caliphate take
over? I can't help but think that you labor under the illusion that
there is no evil in the world. Or, perhaps, like "democracy," "evil"
is just a word?
There is evil, but the word can be defined in various ways. Islamists
believe that the West is evil, for example.
As to the supposedly terrible oppression of the occupations -- excuse
me, but both countries have their own governments.
Crimes committed by US and British military personnel (yes, Abu Ghraib
included) are not made up. There is enough evidence of it available.
I'm certainly not denying that crimes have been committed. It's
terrible, and Obama is well aware of the fact that the crimes caused
America's standing in the world to nosedive. Crimes are committed in
every war, though -- and despite Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.
(all far worse than Abu Ghraib by many a magnitude, and I'm not even
going to wander into the Soviet crimes here),
Soviet military did all same things in Afghanistan.
I'm still damn glad that
Nazi Germany and Japan were defeated.
In that war, “evil defeated by evil” worked (with an exception that
one of them kept dominating Eastern Europe for a long time after
victory), but the world moved on since then and the same formula is
very unlikely to be effective. There is no parallel between Nazi
Germany and Afghanistan.
Like I said, I'm not a Dubya fan. I think waterboarding is torture,
I'm not fond of bellicose unilateralism, etc., etc.
Again from Obama's speech: "Where force is necessary, we have a moral
and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of
conduct." Tell me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to believe that
force is ever necessary. That is our fundamental disagreement,
Dmitry.
Sometimes force is necessary in order to stop violence, we are not
living in ideal world. We disagree on where is the line between
“necessary” and “unnecessary”.
If you don't trust surveys at all, you can Google just as well as I
can and find countless interviews and articles showing Kurdish support
for the US. You'll also find opposition, of course (just as you'll
find Stalin's apologists at s.c.b.), but the main thing with Kurds is
that they are rightfully wary of the US. They worry about being
betrayed; they've been horribly betrayed before. And I hate to break
it to you, but a position like yours would be a betrayal.
As far as I know Kurds want independence and they had one, they kicked
Saddam out before Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Now they have very little
chance. I don’t think Kurdish independence is on White House list.
Tribal societies *can* be quite democratic in their way; French
travelers said the same of Chechnya before the Russians took it (I
mean, took it originally). Whether Afghanistan can actually build a
modern nation-state -- I don't know. I hope it can, but it doesn't
look good.
Tribal societies can usually manage themselves OK in one way or
another. The problems often occur when several tribes are
artificially put together in one country. A lot of it is a legacy of
imperialism and colonialism.
Just as there are degrees of democracy, there are degrees of darkness.
I think a lot of good has been done in Afghanistan since the invasion
-- I don't see why you simply discount that.
Yes, good things were also done, but there is much more weight on the
other side of the scale.
India, for instance, is the second largest donor to the country after
the US --
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009/05/the-india-factor-in-afghan...
I think providing electricity, building schools, teaching women how to
grow vegetables, sending young Afghans to Indian universities, etc.
are all great things. And the Taliban's reaction is to do whatever it
can to destroy everything being done.
And please, don't give me your "the Soviets also said that" line.
OK, I’ll give you another line. Mujahedeen movement, which received
$8 billion support from US, did everything to stop equality for women,
education and everything else that we here in the West perceive as a
progress.
Many of the countries in the coalition are exemplary democracies working
with the best of intentions, hoping to improve the lives of Afghans
and actually doing so.
Being a democracy doesn’t mean the license to invade other countries,
even if it is the “greatest democracy in the world” [as you described
USA some time ago].
Obama spoke of "enlightened self-interest"; I
don't think there's anything wrong with self-interest per se,
especially not if it coincides with these sorts of efforts. India
obviously has strategic reasons for doing what it's doing, just as the
US and UK do -- and indeed, as Latvia does. But what we're doing is
good, especially by comparison to the Taliban and what would happen if
we were to simply abandon our allies.
The was an article in Guardian few days ago on this topichttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/india-afghanistan...
War is hell. I'm not a warmonger -- Osama Bin Laden is, and that's
something I don't think you, er, appreciate.
Of course Bin Laden is (or was) one of them. What I disagree is that
the attack, carried out by a group of terrorists, should result in
invading a random country. The nationalities of terrorists were - 12
Saudis, 1 UAE, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese and 4 unknown.
Everybody here (even
Karlamov, khe) would doubtless like to see peace in a beautiful world
lickety-split. We have different views of what that peace should look
like and how to get there.
Yes and it is mainly on how to get there. I hope we all agree that
peace and war are opposites.
I don't think anybody is saintly (esp. not any politician!) and I
don't think any system is perfect. Even the countries I admire the
most are severely flawed. I don't think the levels of consumption in
developed countries are sustainable, I think the US has done a lot of
truly nasty things in addition to the good, etc., etc.
I absolutely agree with this.
Not all peaceniks are saintly, either! You might consider this --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement
Yes, peace can also be “just a word” and Sovok is a very good example..
I basically agree with Obama's speech -- he struck some themes similar
to those I tried to strike in a speech I wrote for VVF. I think it's
incumbent on people who live in and/or grew up in decent societies to
realize how those societies were built, ugliness and all. I see a lot
of gray areas, and the black-and-white was Dubya's biggest flaw in my
eyes. The "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric was
profoundly disturbing. But at the same time, I find the sort of moral
relativism indulged in by some here repugnant; it's quite devious, the
"whataboutery" and the slippery parallels.
Western Europe's peace and security emerged by force of arms. "The
rest is just politics"? Like Obama said, non-violent protest wouldn't
have stopped Hitler's armies. It didn't stop the Chinese in Tienanmen
Square -- nor did it stop the Soviet tanks in Vilnius. You may believe
that leaving everybody alone, caving to Islamists, etc. would bring
about world peace -- I don't.
I don’t believe that war in Afghanistan contributes to peace.
The UN is wonderful for some things, but
it hasn't brought about peace. One of its most effective actions --
the reason there's still a South Korea and not an insane dictatorship
on the entire peninsula -- took place only because the Russians were
boycotting the UN.
No, Dmitry, I don't want to bomb villages. I don't think too many
people are really into that -- it's more a question of "do you *have*
to bomb and how do you do it. There's a reason Serbs felt free to
gather on bridges during the NATO bombing campaign. If you think Osama
Bin Laden would hesitate to bomb a bridge because people were
protesting on it, you're wrong -- it would probably make him *more*
likely to bomb it, even if the people on it were his fellow Muslims.
More notable, more likely to provoke the war he wants.
In my view, Osama Bin Laden is a criminal, but I don’t think this long
war in Afghanistan is an effective method of capturing and bringing
him to justices. An awful lot of people died because of this and he
is still not captured. I also think that it is wrong to assume that
capturing him will somehow stop international terrorism – there many
other “Bin-Ladens”.
As to invading every miserable country that breeds terrorists -- can't
do it. Shouldn't do it, because it would often cause more death and
destruction. And simply breed more terrorists. So one tries to kill as
few people as possible, especially civilians. Do we still commit war
crimes? Yes. Punish them. There are a lot of things in what you call
Bush's wars that are truly horrible. All wars are horrible. That's not
what I'm arguing, though. To quote Obama again: "So yes, the
instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And
yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how
justified, war promises human tragedy."
It's my impression that you don't believe there's such a thing as a
just war. I do. So we have a strong disagreement on principle.
There is nothing wrong in defending yourself from somebody who attacks
you. Our disagreement is on whether invasion of Afghanistan is
qualified for the title of self-defense or not. You think it was
right thing to do and I don’t think it was.
Happy New Year! Sorry for belated response – was extremely busy with
work and didn’t have any chance to read scb.
Vasals!
I won't have any time to respond in the near future. But, as I am sure
you can guess, I strongly disagree with 99,9% of what you say!
Vysu lobu,
/P
.
- References:
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Tadas Blinda
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Dmitry
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Dmitry
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
- Re: Happy New Year!
- From: Dmitry
- Re: Happy New Year!
- Prev by Date: Re: The problem of Baltics.
- Next by Date: The day to remember
- Previous by thread: Re: Happy New Year!
- Next by thread: Re: Happy New Year!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
