Frank Krygowski

wrote:

Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski


wrote:


Well, since the current rationalization for our $100 billion adventure
is that Saddam was evil, somebody needs to explain how we decide exactly
which evil dictators are evil enough to justify invasion.

Apparently, not everyone on the "evil dictator" list qualifies. And not
every terribly repressive country gets invaded.

Some of the repressive countries just serve as sources for inexpensive
bike frames. Others serve as sources for oil. Others, with no major
resources to sell us, go completely unnoticed.


Leaving aside your unsupported hyperbole describing the Saudi Crown Prince
as
"one of the world's worst dictators"...

Try googling dictators, or worst dictators, or similar topics. His name
will come up. I've seen it in several such lists.

---snip---

I've done that, Frank. Try reading the resulting links instead of relying on a
mere list. The Human Rights Watch for one has called him an oppressive dictator
and I won't argue that he's not. I will point out though that the actions that
they point to when they apply that label are censorship of the press and
establishing a de facto state religion. Neither is something I would support or
even live peacably under but neither are they mass murder and genocide so your
characterization of him as "one of the world's worst dictators" remains
unsupported hyperbole.


Absent truly evil acts like genocide, we haven't the right to interfere
with
other nations' internal affairs through military force...

Sorry for interrupting, but you know as well as I that genocide has NOT
been a criterion. We've ignored genocide quite nicely. And if you ask
most Native Americans, they'd say we did worse than ignore it.

... *unless* those nations'
activities pose a threat to our own nation's security either militarily or
economically.

I'd hope you'd want to rephrase that. Because, as it reads, if Saudi
Arabia decided they wouldn't sell us any more oil (yes, far fetched),
that would pose a threat to our nation's security "economically." Your
statement would justify an invasion in that case. Surely you don't mean
that.

---snip---

Why would I rephrase it? If such a thing took place and there was no way for
this nation to continue to exist- the truest definition of national security-
then it most certainly *would* justify an invasion IMO.

Also, from what I understand, it was a similar action on our part -
cutting off oil, hurting Japan's security both militarily and
economically - that triggered the Pearl Harbor attack. Most people in
America think that attack was not justified.

---snip---

Your understanding is flawed. When the US refused to sell Japan oil, rubber,
and other materials we didn't threaten their national security. True, we
disrupted plans by some in that nation to continue to build and use a war
machine designed to annex neighboring nations through brute force but that's
not the same thing now is it?

As you well know the decision to use or not use military force in
either type of offending nation- truly evil regimes or those that pose a
threat
to us- is now and has always been a matter of weighing the possible
consequences of such action or inaction.

Or rather, the consequences of one action versus another.

Which brings us back to the fact that damned near the entire world
thought that applying just enough pressure on Iraq to continue UN
inspections was a suitable action. Damned near the entire world thought
at the time that it was a better action than the one we performed,
considering the possible consequences.

And even more of the world thinks so now.

---snip---

On the one hand you speak of world opinion as if opinion in itself were a
consequence and OTOH you say that in the opinion of "damned near the entire
world" the risk of the action wasn't worth the possible consequences. Is world
opinion a consequence or not? I'd say it's not. It's a global case of, "Okay,
that's what you *think*. Now what are you going to *do*?", with the usual
answer- not a damned thing.

I don't doubt your intelligence but your overly-simplistic
request for a 'formula' for those decisions certainly leads me to question
your
sincerity.

And I don't doubt your intelligence, which is why I'm sure you
recognized that as a rhetorical device.

The world isn't black and white and you darn well know that.

The guy who said "You're either with us or against us" (I think that's a
direct quote) doesn't seem to think so. Perhaps you should write him a
letter. If he could learn to perceive shades of grey, he might be
better at his job.

I'll make you a deal, Frank. I'll write him that letter if you'll explain why
you can use rhetoric but no one else is allowed. (See your own comments above
about "formula for decisions to use military force")

Regards,
Bob Hunt