Posted on 02/04/2004 5:33:51 AM PST by dixiepatriot
Okay. I don't agree with that, but at least its a bright line. And to avoid messy details, I'll give an overview reason why. I think the United States has the best chance of surviving as a free democracy if it is not alone in the world. It makes selfish sense for us to support economic freedome and democracy elsewhere in the world where it is possible and practical to do so. I also think that a long term strategy of ignoring your enemies until they are at your doorstep is militarily, economically, and politically unwise.
National sovereignty is a long standing tradition recognized the world over for many centuries.
Wrongly so, IMHO.
Only in the very modern era have we decided there is a higher global authority
I don't think there is a "higher global authority". Or at least, there shouldn't be. I'm speaking of a moral authority, which is all you have in the absence of a higher legal authority.
Also remember that quite a few Americans at the time of the Nuremberg disagreed with the idea of these trials as it set a precedent and established a global governance that claims authority beyond the nation state thereby eliminating sovereignty. Now if you're against national sovereignty then I question your conservative credentials as conservatives have historically been opposed to global government.
I don't know where you get the idea that I agree with some form of global governance. I never said anything remotely hinting at that. I am proceeding from a far more basic premise -- that nobody has the right to rule anyone else through force. If you're a dictator who has taken power at the point of a gun, then you've got no cause to whine if some third party removes you from power forcibly. And it doesn't matter what the U.N. or anyone else says about it, either.
Just in our own history, the South may (or may not) have been correct regarding the right to secede. But if (and I'm not saying that's the case), the North had invaded solely for the purpose of eliminating slavery, I think such an action would have been morally justified, regardless of whether the South would have been "sovereign" or not.
In anything, that makes me a quintessential non-internationalist, because I don't believe the U.N. or any other "global" organization can or should trump that.
- You do not believe in national sovereignty (not even ours? or only ours?)
- Yet you do not believe in a global governance like the UN to set order.
That means you must want the US to be the dictator of the world. No nation has the right to police its own territory as it sees fit, only as the US sees fit and authorizes.
Since according to you there is a higher moral authority which supersedes national jurisdiction, a US moral authority I ask you how do you determine what is moral? The US has the death penalty codified by law. European nations do not. Are they more moral than us? Should they invade us to stop the death penalty and set up new laws according to their standards? Their view of morality would seem to justify it, no? If you disagree with the Europeans moral views would you resent their meddling in our affairs? Do you suppose others would resent our impositions?
You talked of genocide, how does one determine what that is? Mass murder vs. legal execution. It seems to depend on one's vantage point. What we consider genocide others consider keeping the peace or self defense. Who decides what is what? Solely a US standard? Who in the US decides? Should the president decide and with his sole authority through the war powers act crusade throughout the world dispensing justice? Should congress get back in the act and start declaring wars again? Truman didn't think he'd get a war declaration against N.Korea through congress so he went to the UN for authority to act. President Bush said he would go to war on his own authority to enforce UN resolutions even if the UN didn't want him to. But what if the president sees one action a morally worthy undertaking and the congress disagrees? Who then has the final say on morality? Should we dispose of our governmental checks and balances in favor of a higher authority - like presidential morality? So I guess when we elect a president we now are electing the king of the world. Might makes right, right? We're moral and we're powerful so what we say goes or else, right?
But are our leaders so moral after all? I've tried to point out in my other posts that so far our track record may be activist but it's hardly moral by any objective standard of the word. We turn a blind eye to acts of our allies. We've turned a blind eye to certain obscure conflicts and see only outrage in areas where our business interests could be lucratively enhanced through intervention or where we desire bases to further our projection of power. Not to mention that we have acted with callous disregard to civilian casualties on many occasions and others committed out right mass murder ourselves. Our leaders have a proven history of lying to us and occasionally using human rights as a public relations fig leaf for crass motives (Span Am war, W.W.I for starters).
Again, who decides what is moral? War for us is now partisan politics. Republicans did not support Clinton's actions in the Balkans. An action, by the way which Clinton claimed was a moral fight against genocide. Were Republicans wrong to oppose Clinton? Was Clinton right?(see my last post). Democrats supported war under Clinton but now oppose war when a Republican president is in charge and Republicans who claim we had no business in the Balkans now say that even if there was no threat from Saddam he needed to go any way since he was a bad man (just not so bad in the 1980s when he was our boy). So morality is political after all isn't it? Are politicians, who pander to special interest groups for a living and specialize in telling each group what they want to hear and who take money and return favors for a living, are these politicians the ones you trust to decide what is moral and to lead the country to war accordingly? Remember how Bob Dole was so outspoken for intervention in the Balkans? Did you know that he got a lot of money from Albanian lobbyists? So you can't fall back on the argument that Democrats are evil but you can always trust Republicans.
So how would you decide what is moral and what is not? In the Old Testament entire cites where laid to waste, every living being killed as it was deemed necessary to wipe out your enemy totally so they could not rise again to threaten you. Many in the world still live by that code. Their argument is hard, but logical. It may repulse our sensitivities but there is a logic to their reasoning. Is the Bible wrong? Even if you could decide what is moral how do you decide where to act? I assume you would not have us war against China or Russia would you? There is mass murder going on under the jurisdiction of each of these great nations. Are those poor people there not worth our blood and treasure? Should we only act against small defenseless countries where our casualties would be minimal? If that is the case then your morality is arbitrary, inconsistant and really not morality at all is it?
If the US Armed Froces only acted in strict self defense we all could with a clear conscience support war. One could truly tell the bereaved their loved ones died fighting a good fight. There would be no more Smedley Butler's saying "war is a rackett" with evidence to back it up.
and lastly here's something to think about:
> XJH: I am proceeding from a far more basic premise -- that nobody has the right to rule anyone else through force.
Please note, government is force- all governments. Without force governments have no authority. They set rules, you are forced to comply through fines, imprisonment or death. The police are highered muscle, law enFORCEment officials.
But if we are moral can we force others to comply with our version of morality and still be moral since we used force? Do we monoploize morality and have the exclusive right to use force? Are we by using force delegitamizing our morality? Because by your own standards "nobody has the right to rule anyone else through force."
I'm not sure why its so difficult, but....
The only governments that have any right to legitimacy are those that rule through the consent of the people they govern. Basically, democracies, representative republics, etc. Those governments have claim to "sovereignity" because they are legitimately acting as a proxy for the people they represent. Now obviously, no democracy is perfect, and all governments less so. But ta geenral system that reflects the will of those who care to vote is enough for me.
If some butcher takes power in a country solely through force of arms, he has no right to do so, and no claim to some form of sovereign immunity.
That does not mean that we should ignore other countries' claims to sovereignity as a matter of course, because that's impractical and would lead to perpetual conflict. But if push comes to shove and we have a legitimate self-defense or compelling moral interest to act, the fact that the country is ruled by a thug should throw the "sovereignity" issue right out the window. Saddam had no more "right" to rule Iraq than any other clown who wants to stake a claim. And I don't accept the U.N.'s right to anoint butchers like him as having some kind of legitimacy to maintain power.
I ask you how do you determine what is moral? That doesn't mean that we intervene everywhere something happens that we don't like. We've got to weigh our national interest, the cost/benefit of intervention, the moral issue or issues at stake, etc.
Just to take the easiest example, assume we would have known about the Holocaust as it was occuring. Should we have acted to stop it, or no? To me, the answer is yes. I suppose to most libertarians, the answer is "well, I don't really have the right to do anything, its not my problem, I'm not going to be altruistic about it, it doesn't affect me" bleh bleh bleh. To folks who have that kind of morality, I really can't think of anything I could say to convince them otherwise, so I don't try.
Taking your statements that you believe national sovereignty has limited if not dubious moral and legal status I trust you understand that the precedent our actions set could be "morally" used by others against us someday or used to justify others meddling elsewhere and unravel any semblence of global order.
Since you have not questioned the critique of our actions or our politicians which I laid out I conclude that you accept the case as presented. Therefore I can not help but marvel at your faith in the righteousness of using US power under the guise of a higher moral authority especially in the light that you say we should only act in cases deemed to be in our national interest. I also find it interesting that you believe we have a national interest which is compelling yet deny others a right to national sovereignty if their self interest is in conflict with ours. The concept of the rights of the nation state is rather malleable in your world view to say the least. It presupposes a certain self righteousness which fascinates me considering you seem to accept the depravity of our political class as I spelled out. Indeed you state that concerns of morality and human suffering should be subordinated to national interest. So I still wonder about how you determine what is a vital national interest and who makes that decision. Currently the president has a super constitutional powers above and beyond anything the founders allowed. Do you accept the system we have adopted in modern times of presidential wars or should we return to leaving the war powers with the congress?
Then there is the question of our policy and the use of government forces verses the purpose of government as set up by the founders. Previously I mentioned Washington and Adams for examples of how the founders felt we should exist in and relate to the world. Constitutionally our armed forces were set up expressly for defense. A perfect illustration of the modern view (antithetical to the founders) was seen on Sunday's Meet the Press:
Russert: Biggest issues in the upcoming campaign?
President Bush: Who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place
How do you react to the president's answer? I assume you fully support the notion. If the US has the power and takes it upon itself to use that power to change the world then how does that square with your claim that no government other than a democracy is legitimate? If the US population is only 5% of the world's total and say 40% of our population is eligible to vote and only half of those do and only 51% of those actually selects the president then how does that fraction of the world's population morally, according to your equation, rule the rest of the world which had no say in the selection? So if the US is dictator of the world, dictator by right of the gun and not democratically selected, which you say is illegimate, how then would our power be anything other than tyranny? Furthermore if the president swears to uphold the constitution and then acts in an unconstitutional manner how then does he have moral authority to do anything under the circumstances? And where in the constitution is the president charged with "making the world a better place?" and who defines what a "better place" is?
In your last post you qualified the bit about a higher moral authority that supersedes national sovereignty to not being a universal principle but something subjugated to our national self interest. Well that's what we have been doing right along but it has yet to be defined for what it is. It is not high and noble as typically portrayed. It is base and crass and the higher morality rhetoric it is a whitewash. For the political and corporate class morality is a sales pitch (propaganda) to gather popular support for selfish motivations. For the masses it is medicinal that is it makes them feel good about supporting actions by the government that would be highly immoral and illegal if done by private individuals - murder and theft.
Since our foreign policy is based on conquest and loot I would at least like to see truth in advertising. It's the morally superior whitewash that bugs me. Our wars are always framed around the scenario that we were a peace loving nation minding our own business when all of a sudden we were set upon by the no good bushwhacking forces of evil for no reason other than insane malice. As I tried to point out in my previous posts we have a history of intervention and war for profit.
The consequences of this adventurism has proved to be most detrimental as our unnecessary involment in WWI tragically illustrates. We tipped a balance of power and destroyed a possibility of a negotiated peace thus destroying old Europe, its values and stability resulting in revolution and more war, communism as a governing force, setting the stage for nazism, WWII and the cold war not to mention the mess in the Mid East we are living with to this day. BTW a good summary of the commercial attachments we had to the Allied side while "neutral" and how that brought us into the war can be found here - The United States and WWI.
And our policy in the Mid East since WWII, all centered around dominating the oil resources, has led to some very unpleasant blow back which is jeapordizing our security not enhancing it. Thus our machinations accomplishes the exact opposite of what the government is chartered to do - secure our lives, liberty and property (a summary of our ME policy can be found here - Ancient History: U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly Of Intervention). If the US military is to be the strongarm of private corporations I would like to see our "defense" forces be called mercanaries and the men receive due compensation for their service (paid for by the corporations, not the taxpayers). Let the volunteers know that they aren't enlisting to defend the nation but to expand our power and influence so well connected corporations can cut out the middle man and or knock off the competition. In War is a Racket Smedley Butler mentions how armies and sailors used to get a share in the spoils of war but how governments found a cheaper method to hire the muscle for their strong arm policies:
>"Napoleon once said, 'All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them.'
>So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated.
>In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.
>So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.
It bothers me to see hundreds of thousands of American killed and hundreds of thousands more wounded and families torn apart not to mention millions of foreigners killed or maimed under the guise of self defense and righteousness. And it bothers me that our policies make us more enemies not less, keeps taxes high, causes inflation and greater debt, creates a larger, more powerful and more intrusive centralized government. So in the end what happens to others is not fluffed off as "it doesn't concern me" It is the very real detrimental effects and the potential future risks to the nation that our actions have proven to have that makes the founders concept of foreign policy wise. It's a matter of vital national interest.
That's a bit broad. It has dubious moral and legal status when the nation in question is ruled without the consent of the governed. Just to add, I don't think its the role of the U.S. to correct that lack of representation in every case, either.
I trust you understand that the precedent our actions set could be "morally" used by others against us someday or used to justify others meddling elsewhere and unravel any semblence of global order.
I think those "others" generally act without regard to precedent anyway. Us playing nice isn't going to make other people play nice.
I also find it interesting that you believe we have a national interest which is compelling yet deny others a right to national sovereignty if their self interest is in conflict with ours.
I do not advocate that we freely ignore the concept of national sovereignity as it pertains to other countries. Its one factor to consider in foreign policy decisions that are inherently complex and require the weighing of a great many factors.
The concept of the rights of the nation state is rather malleable in your world view to say the least.
You keep trying to generalize my point to a degree that I don't support. It's almost impossible to outline fully the full concept in anything short of a massive paper, and I don't have any interest in that. But just look at the polar ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, you have a representative democracy that respects human rights and is non-aggressive. I respect their sovereignity. On the other, you have a state ruled by a murderous, unelected tyrant who commits genocide against people within his country, and holds power only because he has military support. I do not believe such an individual should have a recognized moral or legal right to sovereignity. What would be the source of such a right?
It presupposes a certain self righteousness which fascinates me considering you seem to accept the depravity of our political class as I spelled out.
What you term "self-righteousness", I term the ability to make moral choices. Would it be "self-righteousness" to have used force to stop the Holocaust?
Indeed you state that concerns of morality and human suffering should be subordinated to national interest.
To a certain extent, yes. You've got to consider all that stuff together when making decisions. We can't be the world's policeman. On the other hand, there are times when we should get involved.
So I still wonder about how you determine what is a vital national interest and who makes that decision.
Elected representatives. And I don't think they're all corrupt, either. In national security issues, I believe that the majority usually act in accordance with their consciences. It's our job to elect people that will make those tough decisions correctly.
Do you accept the system we have adopted in modern times of presidential wars or should we return to leaving the war powers with the congress?
I'd prefer that Congress have more war powers. The problem is that there inevitably is going to be some degree of a slippery slope. Not every necessary military action will qualify as a "war". For example, current anti-terrorist actions on scales smaller than Iraq and even Afghanistan are necessary, but there really is no way to declare a war because there is no identifiable nation-state to go after.
How do you react to the president's answer? I assume you fully support the notion.
I'm not sure its a "notion". It was an answer to the question of what would be the biggest issue in the campaign. That's a value-neutral determination. I do think that the President's priority generally should not be "making the world a better place", so to the extent you think that's what he was saying, I don't agree with that approach.
So if the US is dictator of the world, dictator by right of the gun and not democratically selected, which you say is illegimate, how then would our power be anything other than tyranny?
You keep ascribing to me positions that I do not hold. Apparently, you see only two options. The U.S. as dictator of the world, or the U.S. as completely isolationist. I don't see the choice as being that stark. I began this discussion by disagreeing with the concept that the U.S. should never send troops overseas. There are times we should. And we shouldn't stay long-term, but resolve whatever concerns brought us there, and then get the hell out.
If you want the easiest example, picture the situation if a couple thousand American tourists were captured by some foreign government and either held for ransom, or murdered, etc. If you have a bright-line policy of no standing army, and never sending troops overseas, those people are completely screwed.
It is not high and noble as typically portrayed. It is base and crass and the higher morality rhetoric it is a whitewash. For the political and corporate class morality is a sales pitch (propaganda) to gather popular support for selfish motivations. For the masses it is medicinal that is it makes them feel good about supporting actions by the government that would be highly immoral and illegal if done by private individuals - murder and theft.
You and I are miles apart here. I'm trying to think of our "base, crass, highly immoral and illegal" actions/motives for being involved in Korea. And maybe Somalia, where all but the most cynical acknowledge that we were just trying to keep people from starving.
Since our foreign policy is based on conquest and loot I would at least like to see truth in advertising.
We're not even close. We've made plenty of mistakes in foreign policy, and some of our motives at various times have not been the best. But your blanket condemnation is a far less accurate generalization than is the one that we've always acted for "good" reasons.
We tipped a balance of power and destroyed a possibility of a negotiated peace thus destroying old Europe, its values and stability resulting in revolution and more war, communism as a governing force, setting the stage for nazism, WWII....
You obviously believe we should have kept at arms length from WWII as well, and remained completely neutral. No 50 destroyers to Britain, no lend-lease, no aid to either side, no participation in the war against the Nazis, no check on Japan, etc. There is no such thing as a just war.
I disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.