Debate:Right-wing foreign policy

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by TheoryOfPractice.

Part 1

Yeah, those Muslims should be glad we are in their countries, bombing their villages, killing their children, raping their women, torturing their men and supporting their corrupt governments. It's completely unreasonable for them to get pissed off and to find a few of them actually lapse into violence. Totally unreasonable. ^{— Unsigned, by: TheoryOfPractice / talk / contribs} 00:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument is not about the cause, but about the blame. This may be a surprise to many people, but not all Muslims are of the same nationality, and the American ones ought not to sympathize with the enemy in a foreign war. They especially should not get their knickers in a twist on account of actions carried out in retaliation for an attack on American soil, which is what we are doing in Afghanistan. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that American identity/birth/citizenship does not preclude a sense of allegiance to other nations or to other trans-national conceptions of identity--such as, say Islam, let alone radical Islam. Nor does American identity/citizenship necessarily imply approval for the actions of the state (or even the very existence of the American government or state--we can see this kind of discourse on the left as well as the right). Who are you to say who Americans should sympathize with in a foreign war, especially one that many people see as fundamentally unjust, even given the events that led up to that war being started. 9/11 was nearly a decade ago, and I think it's fair to say that there are some important gaps between the war that the US started and the one that it is fighting now. The Times columnist is correct to note that a predictable consequence of a multicultural nation comprised of people from all parts of the world with multiple senses of identity and belonging attacking a part of the world that is often conceived of in terms of its own trans-national senses of identity (the "Muslim world") is that it was bound to really piss of some unhinged people back home who identified with the victimized people. TheoryOfPractice 05:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"American identity/birth/citizenship does not preclude a sense of allegiance to other nations ... or even the very existence of the American government or state..." In the case of citizenship, I beg to differ.

"Nor does American identity/citizenship necessarily imply approval for the actions of the state..." An exception being that one does not sympathize with the enemy at wartime. Acting on such sympathy is treason (U.S. Constitution, article III, section 3).

"Who are you to say who Americans should sympathize with in a foreign war..." An American who does not feel a twinge of shame at calling himself that, for starters.

"...that many people see as fundamentally unjust..." I have no problem with Americans who see the Iraq war this way, it being started on false pretenses (although I would take difference with those who do not support the troops there). As to the Afghanistan war, however, I say that such a position essentially states that the U.S. is not justified in retaliating against the 9/11 attacks.

"The Times columnist is correct to note..." I also think that is correct. My issue is more with the assignment of blame made in the article, that "right-wing foreign policy" is at fault, with less emphasis on the crazy shooter and anyone who encouraged him with the aim of inducing him to mount an attack.

"...piss of [sic] some unhinged people back home who identified with the victimized people." If they sympathize with the enemy they should be drummed out of the army. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"my country right or wrong." gotcha. TheoryOfPractice 14:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And who exactly determines the morals by which a country is judged to be "wrong"? God? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Secular humanism, perhaps? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Secular humanism grounds its entire moral system in human emotions and the experience of the individual. It has no objective basis for judging a country. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout the ICC/World Court or a re-vamped UN where the bad guys don't hold a monopoly on vetoes? TheoryOfPractice 19:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If such a body possessed sufficient authority and proper laws for making such a judgment, there would be no need for war in the first place. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

LX, the "oath of citizenship" is only required of naturalized citizens. The native-born, in case you hadn't noticed, need affirm no such testament. Nor are they required to know anything about their country or how it is governed. Oh, and what acts, exactly, are retaliating against Afghanistan for? In absentia 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Native born citizens are not required by law to take the oath or know anything about civics, but this is not to say that what is sworn to in the oath, as well as knowledge of civics, is not also expected of native-born citizens.

The war in Afghanistan is in retaliation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Expected" is not a very strong argument.

Really? What exactly did Afghanistan do to us on this "9/11" you speak of? If it was "retaliation", it was blind retaliation. In absentia 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that in relation to Afghanistan providing a hidey hole for bin Laden? --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The entire argument concerns what is expected of the U.S. citizen.

The Afghan government provided training grounds for bin Laden prior to the 9/11 attacks, and refused to yield him up afterwards, although openly acknowledging that he was in the country and that his organization was training there. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Random edit point

So seeing as it's no longer the same government and OBL isn't there anymore, why are we still killing Afghans, and possibly about to send more Americans who will in all likelihood kill even more Afghans? Is close to a decade of warfare and thousands of civilian deaths not enough "retaliation"? TheoryOfPractice 00:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is imprudent to leave a job half-done. If we leave, the theocrats get the ascendancy again and everything repeats itself. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? TheoryOfPractice 05:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It happened when the Soviets left, for starters. Also, it is generally recognized that the current government, which is itself theocratic enough to sentence a man to death for apostasy, is not strong enough to stand without U.S. support. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Afghanistan is a shitty country, no one can conquer it, etc. But the 9/11 conspiracy was not made in Afghanistan you moron. It was made in Saudi Arabia. You know, bin Laden's homeland. The place where the 9/11 hijackers came from. Oops, also the place that "moderates" our oil prices. ħuman 05:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ECGreat--we're over there killing civilians to support a murderous theocracy. Tell me again how Muslim-Americans should be expected to unquestioningly support this action. Tell me again how we can't give a giant "what the hell were you expecting" to the neocons/right-wingers who thought that treating a criminal act as a declaration of war between sovereign states was a good idea, as that NYT writer who started us on this discussion suggested? TheoryOfPractice

Human, the Saudi government was willing to work with us, and was not harboring bin Laden or supporting terrorist training camps.

TheoryOfPractice, note that there has been only one theocratic incident on that scale and that the fellow was given due process of law, which allowed him to be released after protests were made; compare with the large numbers of people executed without due process under the Taliban.

"Tell me again how Muslim-Americans should be expected to unquestioningly support this action." Why should the Lutheran-Americans have supported the U.S. against Germany in two world wars? The answer to both questions: Note the latter word in that hyphenated descriptor.

"...treating a criminal act as a declaration of war..." It was a declaration of war. And although I am not denying that it has stirred up radicals, I disagree with the conclusion that we are therefore at fault and should quit fighting. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, LX, you still haven't told me why we attacked Afghanistan. And why we didn't attack S.A., on whose territories our profane bases were the goddamn reason that insane SAian Laden was mad at us. "Declaration of war"? By who, against who? The US sure as hell didn't "declare war". ħuman 06:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the Afgan war was justified and needed. They should of finished the job. Ace^McWicked 06:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Take two: The Afghan government was harboring bin Laden and supporting his training camps. The Saudi government was not. The declaration of war was made before the fact by al-Qaeda, with the admitted support of the Afghan government, against the U.S. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious, LX? No "declaration of war" was made by any party. I think it was Pakistan who were holding ObL, and asked us if we wanted him. Nah, we'd rather fight some wars. Are we next going to justify the war in Iraq with lies? ħuman 06:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Afghan government openly acknowledged that bin Laden was in Afghanistan, and refused to give him up. Bin Laden had previously declared war against the U.S., a position that the Afghan government later threw their weight behind. The Iraq war, as I have said, was started with a lie. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, sorry I beg to differ on several counts, OBL was in Afgh. at some point? He was in Pak. by the time the Bush losers cared. Also, a "person" cannot "declare war" against a country; also also, we did not "declare war" against anyone. Look, I'd love to see us catch OBL and bring him to trial, but the war in Afgh. really has nothing to do with that. It's just a waste of money and life. ħuman 07:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Must I reference this? According to this editorial (not exactly unsympathetic to the Taliban) bin Laden was in Afghanistan while the U.S. was invading in 2001, and the Taliban acknowledged this. Again, we are not there now to catch bin Laden, but to clean up after ourselves. This is why war should not be entered into lightly.

"...a 'person' cannot 'declare war' against a country..." President Bush did. Get the idea? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit break - An interesting take

Recently, as part of my continuing studies, I did a little work on terroism. I was reading quite a bit of text - from Francis Fukuyama to Madeline Albright - and an agreement in thought was reached that Islamic terrorism is not predominatly spured by war and the commiters of terrorist acts are more and more likely to come from Western Nations. the reason being is a deep sense of alienation that a foreign national in a new country can feel. Spurned by western culture that is not understood they turn to their community and find solace in more radical elements. Ace^McWicked 05:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As we have seen, however, these youths' radicalism does comparatively little damage unless they are organized by the more serious fighters grounded in the Islamic world. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While true, the London Bombers were all European in origin (though not descent) and were spured by others within Europe. Ace^McWicked 05:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The hijackers were legal immigrants who had been in the country for many years... sew that together with the Hate the Muslim crap... ħuman 05:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As we have seen, however, these youths' radicalism does comparatively little damage unless they are organized by the more serious fighters grounded in the Islamic world. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LX, you are an obvious anti-semite. ħuman 05:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While true LX - it is the alienation that has spured them on. If western society hadn't been as weird and frightening and they had adapted there would be no need to pal around with the extremists. The foreign policy angle is way simplistic. Ace^McWicked 05:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ECLX, the damage done by Islamic radicalism does comparatively little damage when compared to the damage that's been done by the US to nations like Cambodia, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, to name four relatively-recent cases. If you want to play comparative atrocity, why not rant against the violence done by the side with cruise missiles and B-52s? TheoryOfPractice 05:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly? (Um, what happened to Ace's comment?) ħuman 06:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The nice thing about B-52s - they never miss their target. They drop the bombs, and the bombs always hit the ground. A long way from home, usually. ħuman 06:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) "LX, you are an obvious anti-semite." Excuse me for thinking that we should not take fundamentalist terrorism lying down lest we offend someone, but the anti-Semites are generally accustomed to support the terrorists in this instance...

TheoryOfPractice, next time you attempt a change of subject, try not to break every irony meter in the Second World. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, the 9/11 terrorists weren't even real fundamentalists (look into how they spent their time enjoying "Western" pleasures). "Lying down"? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, so we should attack anyone in sight to make sure we don't get attacked by Timothy McVeigh again? Nuke Ireland! ħuman 06:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"...the 9/11 terrorists weren't even real fundamentalists..." Given the width to which the net of that word is cast here on the Wiki, that does not disqualify them from being fundamentalists; in any event that is a No True Scotsman. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you go after the incredibly light logical fallacy (NTS) and ignore that those bastards lived here for years and drank liquor and consorted with, well, consorts, before taking their shipping and receiving knives on planes to do their dastardly deeds? ħuman 07:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me. These men blew themselves up for the divine cause. They were clearly fundamentalists. Might I suggest that they did the Western Pleasures routine as cover to disguise themselves? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)