Why does Cardassia feel entitled to Bajor?

[Sindatur]

Cardassia "owned" Bajor for 50 years. Dukhat grew up knowing Bajor was Cardassian property. 50 years is an awful long time to build up an attachment and sense of entitlement to something, and then losing it while it was under his command, that's gotta sting really bad, so, of course, if Bajor "Always was owned by Cardassia", they have every right to it (In Dukhat's and maybe other Cardassians' minds).

Now, sure, if they only had conquered Bajor 3 or 5 years ago, it would seem awfully obsessive, but, after 50 years, and getting run off, that's gotta feel like Cardassian land was stolen/given away to a good percentage of Cardassians.

 

[Sci]

eh? Why is Taiwan the "legitimate government?" Kai-Shek was a corrupt autocrat not a small-d democrat, and the Communists won the Civil War.

Kai-shek's government was legitimate insofar as it was the internationally-recognized government of all of China. Obviously it was illegitimate insofar as it was an unelected autocracy--an illegitimacy it later shared with Mao's government. But the fact that the government of the Republic of China was once the government of all of China is a legitimate point in explaining the unique concerns the People's Republic of China has for Taiwan.

By your argument, if a small band of Confederates from South Carolina had fled the South at the end of the Civil War and set up shop somewhere else, THEY would be the legitimate government of South Carolina, not whatever the Union-imposed state government currently was.

Well, no, because Mao's was the rebellion, not Chang Kai-shek's. Your counterfactual would require the Confederacy to have been the established government, and the Union to have been the rebellion.

your distinctions seem to be kind of arbitrary, as any ones that don't involve democratic legitimacy tend to be. So... Kai-Shek's government was once upon a time generations ago recognized as the legitimate government. That's nice, so what?

I wasn't suggesting that there was a so-what. I was pointing out that it Kai-shek's government had more claim to legitimacy under international law than Mao's, not that it was truly legitimate in a meaningful sense of the term. Is that a meaningful distinction? I dunno. But it at least gives us an insight into why both the PRC and the ROC continue to insist that they are each the only legitimate Chinese government.

As for the Confederacy it WAS an established, functioning government

Which is irrelevant, because your comparison was to a rebellion that becomes the government of the whole country, except for a small portion of the old government which retains control of an island off-shore. Your counterfactual would therefore need either: 1) for the Confederacy to be equated with Mao's government and the Union with Kai-shek's, and for the Union to lose control of the entire country except, say, Long Island; or 2) for the Confederacy to have been the established government of the whole country and for the Union to have been the victorious rebellion.

It's a question of which is the establishment and which is the rebellion. You can't equate the Confederacy with Kai-shek's regime, because Kai-sheck wasn't the rebel, Mao was.

and secession was voted on(sure a third of the people in the South weren't involved in the political process,

First off, secession itself was not directly voted upon in most of the Confederate states. In all but three states, people voted on delegates to special conventions that voted on whether or not to secede; secession was not put up to a direct vote.

Secondly, literally two-thirds of all Southerners were not allowed to vote. Two-thirds. Two-thirds of all Southerners couldn't vote for delegates to the secessionist conventions or in the referendums held on the secessionist conventions in three of the seceding states.

It's not a democracy when two-thirds of all people can't vote, and no vote for secession is legitimate if it excludes two-thirds of the populace.

but if that makes it a sham democracy,

It does.

so does denying women the right to vote in the Union North.)

I completely agree. Between denying women the right to vote and denying blacks the right to vote under Jim Crow, the United States was not a real democracy until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Until then, it was a pseudo-democratic apartheid state.

And... I'm struggling to connect this to the topic. Um, was Cardassia's occupation ever legally recognized by the UFP or other powers in the area?

Probably. The only government of Bajor that existed at the time was a Cardassian puppet government that accepted the Occupation and collaborated with the Cardassians, and the Federation's Prime Directive would likely have prohibited it from getting involved or contesting the legitimacy of the Bajoran government. At best, the Federation may have refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Occupation government but also to intervene in what was clearly a Cardassian-Bajoran issue.

 

[IntrepidMan]

Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't think the United States is an imperial power is deluding themselves. Just ask all those Qatari protestors being killed by American guns.

Consider the fact that the U.S.'s core territories were conquered from their indigenous inhabitants; that it still holds colonial possessions such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.; that it props up numerous governments who obey its whims such as Saudi Arabia, Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship, the Qatari government, etc.; that it has client states like Israel; that it has launched a war of aggression and conquest against Iraq less than ten years ago with the intent of putting in a puppet government that would benefit U.S. business interests; that it routinely violates sovereign states' airspace in the pursuit of a futile effort to kill terrorism itself into defeat; that it maintains a vast planetary network of military bases, whose inhabitants are held immune from the laws of the nominally "sovereign" states in which those bases are located; the list goes on.

Read The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson, or Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, or A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

What really bothers me about this post is the nerve of a Frenchman to accuse the United States of being an imperial power. I mean, you're from France. Are you not aware of your country's history? Everything you accuse the US of doing--conquering indigenous people, propping of puppet states, putting business interests before human rights, maintaining military bases around the world--France is guilty of in spades.

 

[Sci]

Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't think the United States is an imperial power is deluding themselves. Just ask all those Qatari protestors being killed by American guns.

Consider the fact that the U.S.'s core territories were conquered from their indigenous inhabitants; that it still holds colonial possessions such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.; that it props up numerous governments who obey its whims such as Saudi Arabia, Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship, the Qatari government, etc.; that it has client states like Israel; that it has launched a war of aggression and conquest against Iraq less than ten years ago with the intent of putting in a puppet government that would benefit U.S. business interests; that it routinely violates sovereign states' airspace in the pursuit of a futile effort to kill terrorism itself into defeat; that it maintains a vast planetary network of military bases, whose inhabitants are held immune from the laws of the nominally "sovereign" states in which those bases are located; the list goes on.

Read The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson, or Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, or A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

What really bothers me about this post is the nerve of a Frenchman to accuse the United States of being an imperial power.

Dude, I'm an American. I was born and raised in Ohio and live in Washington, D.C. I have the French flag up right now because François Hollande is going to take office as their new President tomorrow, and I wanted to celebrate that. Before that, I had the Welsh flag up; before that, I had the Irish flag up, to celebrate the anniversary of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic, and the Israeli flag (for Israeli Independence Day), and the English flag (for St. George's Day), and the flag of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, to celebrate their victory in recent Burmese elections. Etc.

I like flags, that's all.

ETA:

But even if I were -- so what? It doesn't mean that I'd be wrong, and it doesn't mean that American imperialism doesn't exist or shouldn't be condemned. Just like French imperialism also deserves condemnation. One's nationality does not mean one agrees with one's government when it commits acts of aggression or imperialism. End Edit.

Everything you accuse the US of doing--conquering indigenous people, propping of puppet states, putting business interests before human rights, maintaining military bases around the world--France is guilty of in spades.

I agree completely. Imperialism is imperialism, and deserves to be condemned no matter who does it.

 

[MacLeod]

Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't think the United States is an imperial power is deluding themselves. Just ask all those Qatari protestors being killed by American guns.

Consider the fact that the U.S.'s core territories were conquered from their indigenous inhabitants; that it still holds colonial possessions such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.; that it props up numerous governments who obey its whims such as Saudi Arabia, Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship, the Qatari government, etc.; that it has client states like Israel; that it has launched a war of aggression and conquest against Iraq less than ten years ago with the intent of putting in a puppet government that would benefit U.S. business interests; that it routinely violates sovereign states' airspace in the pursuit of a futile effort to kill terrorism itself into defeat; that it maintains a vast planetary network of military bases, whose inhabitants are held immune from the laws of the nominally "sovereign" states in which those bases are located; the list goes on.

Read The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson, or Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, or A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

What really bothers me about this post is the nerve of a Frenchman to accuse the United States of being an imperial power. I mean, you're from France. Are you not aware of your country's history? Everything you accuse the US of doing--conquering indigenous people, propping of puppet states, putting business interests before human rights, maintaining military bases around the world--France is guilty of in spades.

Don't see what difference were someone aledgedly comes from when it comes to saying that America has engaged in an Imperialistic fashion. The issue would arise if one were deny there country did (when it did) and acuse another one of doing so.

It is not unheard of for some people no matter there nationality (including Americans) to say their country has never engaged in Imperial actions.

 

[IntrepidMan]

^Ok, my mistake. I like flags too.

I do not deny for a minute that what you say about the US is wrong. We are guilty of these things. But as someone who has done a fair amount of traveling, and listened to Europeans and others rant about the "evil American empire," it just infuriates me to hear people speak this way. The US is by no means the only country to act "imperially," and other countries have done far worse in terms of human rights violations, supporting tyrants, etc. US actions get amplified because we are a superpower, but do not pretend for a minute that France or any other country would not act in a similar manner if put in our position.

 

[Sci]

Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't think the United States is an imperial power is deluding themselves. Just ask all those Qatari protestors being killed by American guns.

Consider the fact that the U.S.'s core territories were conquered from their indigenous inhabitants; that it still holds colonial possessions such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.; that it props up numerous governments who obey its whims such as Saudi Arabia, Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship, the Qatari government, etc.; that it has client states like Israel; that it has launched a war of aggression and conquest against Iraq less than ten years ago with the intent of putting in a puppet government that would benefit U.S. business interests; that it routinely violates sovereign states' airspace in the pursuit of a futile effort to kill terrorism itself into defeat; that it maintains a vast planetary network of military bases, whose inhabitants are held immune from the laws of the nominally "sovereign" states in which those bases are located; the list goes on.

Read The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson, or Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, or A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

What really bothers me about this post is the nerve of a Frenchman to accuse the United States of being an imperial power. I mean, you're from France. Are you not aware of your country's history? Everything you accuse the US of doing--conquering indigenous people, propping of puppet states, putting business interests before human rights, maintaining military bases around the world--France is guilty of in spades.

Don't see what difference were someone aledgedly comes from when it comes to saying that America has engaged in an Imperialistic fashion. The issue would arise if one were deny there country did (when it did) and acuse another one of doing so.

Exactly. Being born a Frenchman doesn't mean one bears responsibility for one's ancestors' acts of imperialism and thus may never criticize another culture for embracing imperialism. Being born an American doesn't mean I'm responsible for every act of imperialism in my country's history and may never criticize another culture for embracing imperialism. It's completely possible for a Frenchman to oppose imperialism from abroad and from home, and it's completely possible for an American to do the same.

 

[Sci]

^Ok, my mistake. I like flags too.

I do not deny for a minute that what you say about the US is wrong. We are guilty of these things. But as someone who has done a fair amount of traveling, and listened to Europeans and others rant about the "evil American empire," it just infuriates me to hear people speak this way. The US is by no means the only country to act "imperially," and other countries have done far worse in terms of human rights violations, supporting tyrants, etc. US actions get amplified because we are a superpower, but do not pretend for a minute that France or any other country would not act in a similar manner if put in our position.

I would certainly never claim that France wouldn't behave imperiously -- how could I, given the history of the French empire? I have France's flag up because of President-elect Hollande, not because I have some idealized vision of France.

But by the same time, I don't think we should idolize the United States. And we as Americans have a special obligation to recognize when our own country, nominally founded on opposition to British imperialism, embraces imperialist policies, and to oppose it.

And if we're going to have a discussion about the nature of imperialism -- which is ultimately what the original topic is, a question about why one culture could feel as though it has a right to own and dominate another culture -- then we have to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge how imperialism has influenced our own culture, in order to understand how it can influence other imperialist cultures.

 

[IntrepidMan]

I agree, we certainly should not idolize the United States. Americans should--any many do--talk openly about the dark side of our actions. And I think that ideally, yes, anyone can join in the conversation, regardless of where in the world they are from.

Unfortunately, too many people are so eager to accuse the US of wrongdoing while conveniently overlooking the wrongs that there own governments commit both in the past and present. And too many people are eager to slander the US without acknowledging the great amount of good we have done in the world. Without the US, there would be no Israel or Taiwan, two democracies in parts of the world where democracy is sorely lacking. There would have been no victory for the allies in WW2. Today, there are so many countries and dictators that pose a real threat to world peace (Iran, N. Korea, etc. etc.), and yet the US is singled out as the greatest threat. What it comes down to is, these people are not interested in having an intelligent conversation about US policies. They are merely jealous or resentful of our power while striving to obtain power themselves.

 

[MacLeod]

So you think that the British Empire/Commonwealth & Russian forces wouldn't have won in Europe? What would likely have happened is that the Nazi's would have been replaced by the Russians in Europe. Still a victory just not the best victory for the democracies.

American is far pro-active these days than it was say 90 years ago. Many of it's people then were quite content to sit back and watch as the democracies fell to the dictarship of fascism. Fortunantly people like the US President FDR knew that the US had to do something, lend-lease etc...

Every great power in history be it the Roman's, British or American's etc. recieve a certain amount of backlash about that power and how they use it or don't use it. Do nothing and you get accused of standing by and do nothing, do something and you get accused of being an Imperialistic power.

 

[Sci]

Unfortunately, too many people are so eager to accuse the US of wrongdoing while conveniently overlooking the wrongs that there own governments commit both in the past and present. And too many people are eager to slander the US without acknowledging the great amount of good we have done in the world. Without the US, there would be no Israel or Taiwan, two democracies in parts of the world where democracy is sorely lacking. There would have been no victory for the allies in WW2. Today, there are so many countries and dictators that pose a real threat to world peace (Iran, N. Korea, etc. etc.), and yet the US is singled out as the greatest threat.

Let me put it this way:

I think it's completely fair to say that part of what motivates many people who criticize American imperialism is irrational resentment that the United States is the hegemon and not them.

But by the same token, when we start trying to portray ourselves as the victims and paint other states as pure evil, we're frankly falling into the same imperialist mindset that Cardassia did.

You cite Iran and North Korea as examples of threats to world security. But tell me -- how many countries have Iran and North Korea invaded in the last ten years? How many countries have Iran and North Korea conquered in the last ten years?

Zero.

How many countries has the United States invaded in the past ten years?

Well, hell, we don't even know. The government's been operating these drone programs that involve invading foreign countries in secret and then not telling anyone.

We know we've invaded, at the very least, four countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen. This isn't counting countries like Libya or Somalia, where we also sent forces in support of movements that claimed legitimacy and invited our help. Nor is it counting, say, our involvement in Haiti in 2004, or in the Philippines or Colombia.

Of those, we've outright conquered both Afghanistan and Iraq. And along the way, we got at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed and 12,000 Afghan civilians killed.

Does this necessarily mean that Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and become a regional hegemon? Of course not. Does this mean that the potential threat the North Korean regime poses should be ignored? No.

But neither can I completely blame foreigners for putting us on the list of countries they don't trust, either.

And I think that we have to be really self-critical about these foreign policies, because only by doing so will we really understand why Cardassia felt like it had a right to own Bajor. Because this whole line of thought, that we have a right to be there and do what we want and control other countries in the name of national security -- it's a much more seductive line of thought when it's your own people.

 

[IntrepidMan]

I admire the British for standing up to Hitler, but no, I do not think the allies would have won without the US. But let's not quibble about that--what I am saying is that America has had its good moments too. And you are right, for a long time Americans were content to leave European wars to the Europeans and not get involved. There is still a current of libertarianism/isolationism running through our society.

 

[Sci]

I admire the British for standing up to Hitler, but no, I do not think the allies would have won without the US. But let's not quibble about that--what I am saying is that America has had its good moments too. And you are right, for a long time Americans were content to leave European wars to the Europeans and not get involved. There is still a current of libertarianism/isolationism running through our society.

And that's ultimately the question -- when does the responsible use of military and economic power degenerate into imperialism? How do you find the balance between doing what its right and necessary for all (e.g., fighting the Axis in World War II) vs. doing merely what benefits your own nation in an imperial system (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq)? It is sometimes very easy for one to degenerate into the other.

And it's important not to assume that all non-interventionism is just bad isolationism, just as it's important not to assume that all forms of intervention are justified.

 

[sonak]

Kai-shek's government was legitimate insofar as it was the internationally-recognized government of all of China. Obviously it was illegitimate insofar as it was an unelected autocracy--an illegitimacy it later shared with Mao's government. But the fact that the government of the Republic of China was once the government of all of China is a legitimate point in explaining the unique concerns the People's Republic of China has for Taiwan.

Well, no, because Mao's was the rebellion, not Chang Kai-shek's. Your counterfactual would require the Confederacy to have been the established government, and the Union to have been the rebellion.

your distinctions seem to be kind of arbitrary, as any ones that don't involve democratic legitimacy tend to be. So... Kai-Shek's government was once upon a time generations ago recognized as the legitimate government. That's nice, so what?

I wasn't suggesting that there was a so-what. I was pointing out that it Kai-shek's government had more claim to legitimacy under international law than Mao's, not that it was truly legitimate in a meaningful sense of the term. Is that a meaningful distinction? I dunno. But it at least gives us an insight into why both the PRC and the ROC continue to insist that they are each the only legitimate Chinese government.



Which is irrelevant, because your comparison was to a rebellion that becomes the government of the whole country, except for a small portion of the old government which retains control of an island off-shore. Your counterfactual would therefore need either: 1) for the Confederacy to be equated with Mao's government and the Union with Kai-shek's, and for the Union to lose control of the entire country except, say, Long Island; or 2) for the Confederacy to have been the established government of the whole country and for the Union to have been the victorious rebellion.

It's a question of which is the establishment and which is the rebellion. You can't equate the Confederacy with Kai-shek's regime, because Kai-sheck wasn't the rebel, Mao was.



First off, secession itself was not directly voted upon in most of the Confederate states. In all but three states, people voted on delegates to special conventions that voted on whether or not to secede; secession was not put up to a direct vote.

Secondly, literally two-thirds of all Southerners were not allowed to vote. Two-thirds. Two-thirds of all Southerners couldn't vote for delegates to the secessionist conventions or in the referendums held on the secessionist conventions in three of the seceding states.

It's not a democracy when two-thirds of all people can't vote, and no vote for secession is legitimate if it excludes two-thirds of the populace.



It does.

so does denying women the right to vote in the Union North.)

I completely agree. Between denying women the right to vote and denying blacks the right to vote under Jim Crow, the United States was not a real democracy until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Until then, it was a pseudo-democratic apartheid state.

And... I'm struggling to connect this to the topic. Um, was Cardassia's occupation ever legally recognized by the UFP or other powers in the area?

Probably. The only government of Bajor that existed at the time was a Cardassian puppet government that accepted the Occupation and collaborated with the Cardassians, and the Federation's Prime Directive would likely have prohibited it from getting involved or contesting the legitimacy of the Bajoran government. At best, the Federation may have refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Occupation government but also to intervene in what was clearly a Cardassian-Bajoran issue.

OK fair enough on the analogy point. I should have used the Loyalists holding out somewhere after the Revolutionary War. So fine, consider it done. The Loyalists set up shop somewhere after the Colonies win their independence. Are the Loyalists now the "legitimate government" even if it's the 1830s and the actual US is doing just fine?

As for the secession vote, the U.S. has never been particularly democratic in governance. It's a republic where a tiny minority of representatives vote on issues. Heck, declarations of WAR don't even need popular referendums. What difference does it make if there wasn't a state-wide vote on secession if representatives voted on it?

As to the Federation and the dispute, considering the UFP's history and attitude toward intervention, you're probably right. They likely didn't acknowledge the occupation but didn't do a thing otherwise about it.(As Picard says in "ensign ro," they were "saddened" by it. How nice for them.)

 

[IntrepidMan]

Unfortunately, too many people are so eager to accuse the US of wrongdoing while conveniently overlooking the wrongs that there own governments commit both in the past and present. And too many people are eager to slander the US without acknowledging the great amount of good we have done in the world. Without the US, there would be no Israel or Taiwan, two democracies in parts of the world where democracy is sorely lacking. There would have been no victory for the allies in WW2. Today, there are so many countries and dictators that pose a real threat to world peace (Iran, N. Korea, etc. etc.), and yet the US is singled out as the greatest threat.

Let me put it this way:

I think it's completely fair to say that part of what motivates many people who criticize American imperialism is irrational resentment that the United States is the hegemon and not them.

But by the same token, when we start trying to portray ourselves as the victims and paint other states as pure evil, we're frankly falling into the same imperialist mindset that Cardassia did.

You cite Iran and North Korea as examples of threats to world security. But tell me -- how many countries have Iran and North Korea invaded in the last ten years? How many countries have Iran and North Korea conquered in the last ten years?

Zero.

How many countries has the United States invaded in the past ten years?

Well, hell, we don't even know. The government's been operating these drone programs that involve invading foreign countries in secret and then not telling anyone.

We know we've invaded, at the very least, four countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen. This isn't counting countries like Libya or Somalia, where we also sent forces in support of movements that claimed legitimacy and invited our help. Nor is it counting, say, our involvement in Haiti in 2004, or in the Philippines or Colombia.

Of those, we've outright conquered both Afghanistan and Iraq. And along the way, we got at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed and 12,000 Afghan civilians killed.

Does this necessarily mean that Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and become a regional hegemon? Of course not. Does this mean that the potential threat the North Korean regime poses should be ignored? No.

But neither can I completely blame foreigners for putting us on the list of countries they don't trust, either.

And I think that we have to be really self-critical about these foreign policies, because only by doing so will we really understand why Cardassia felt like it had a right to own Bajor. Because this whole line of thought, that we have a right to be there and do what we want and control other countries in the name of national security -- it's a much more seductive line of thought when it's your own people.

I don't really see how you can claim that we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. Did we send in troops? Yes. Did we try to install democracies or at least a favorable regime? Yes. Did we succeed? Not really, and the last time I checked, we were leaving or preparing to leave. Perhaps we should never have been there in the first place--I think that's definitely true with Iraq. I don't see how we could have avoided it in Afghanistan, given the fact that the Taliban were sheltering Osama. As for Pakistan and Yemen, does sending in drones to kill off terrorists count as an invasion? If you say so.

Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen--you can add Syria to the list--these are countries with governments ranging from inept to odious. In N. Korea and Syria, they are also places where many, many people have died at the hands of the government. These governments may not be a threat to world peace, but they are a threat to there own people, and they should be stopped. Maybe an invasion is the right answer, I don't know. I am not a hawk and I never welcome war. But for us to stand by and do nothing is tantamount to murder.

 

[MacLeod]

I admire the British for standing up to Hitler, but no, I do not think the allies would have won without the US. But let's not quibble about that--what I am saying is that America has had its good moments too. And you are right, for a long time Americans were content to leave European wars to the Europeans and not get involved. There is still a current of libertarianism/isolationism running through our society.

Can I ask why you think the Nazi's would have defeated Russia. Support provided by the North Sea coveys were minimal. The winter of 1941 which stalled the Russian advance would still have happened. Yes perhaps it would have lasted longer, But given the sheer size of Russia and the man power it could bring, the fact that the Nazi's didn't have any heavy bombers to attack the factories located deep in Russian terrority. Would mean that the Russians could keep bringing more and more tanks/planes etc.. Whilst resources avalable to Nazi Germany would continue to dwindle. Their cities/factories being bombed by the RAF.

 

[Sci]

I don't really see how you can claim that we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. Did we send in troops? Yes. Did we try to install democracies or at least a favorable regime? Yes.

I really don't know how else to describe invading a foreign country, overthrowing its government, installing a client government indebted to you for its position, and maintaining your forces within that country long after the old government has fallen.

I mean, if that's not conquest, what is?

Did we succeed? Not really, and the last time I checked, we were leaving or preparing to leave.

Withdrawing doesn't mean that conquest did not occur. The United States withdrew from the Philippines in the late 1940s, but that doesn't mean we didn't conquer them.

Perhaps we should never have been there in the first place--I think that's definitely true with Iraq. I don't see how we could have avoided it in Afghanistan, given the fact that the Taliban were sheltering Osama.

Let me put it this way:

I think the U.S. had the right to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, because the Taliban had been sheltering and assisting al Qaeda. I do not think we had the right to install a client ruler the way we did with Karzai. I do not think we have the right to prop up this corrupt Afghan government we've created. And I do not think we have the right to be there today; our right to be in Afghanistan came with a time limit, and that limit expired when al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan years ago.

As for Pakistan and Yemen, does sending in drones to kill off terrorists count as an invasion?

Of course it does. We're sending in U.S. military forces into their country without their government's permission and in defiance of their people's wishes. And killing God knows how many innocent civilians in the process.

Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen--you can add Syria to the list--these are countries with governments ranging from inept to odious. In N. Korea and Syria, they are also places where many, many people have died at the hands of the government.

Sure. No one's contesting that. But that doesn't mean that our actions towards them give third parties a good reason to trust us.

These governments may not be a threat to world peace, but they are a threat to there own people, and they should be stopped. Maybe an invasion is the right answer, I don't know. I am not a hawk and I never welcome war. But for us to stand by and do nothing is tantamount to murder.

Is it?

Or is it an acknowledgment that we don't have the right to control other countries, and that they have the right to sort out these internal conflicts themselves?

Tell me, how would you have felt if France had decided to end Jim Crow in the United States in, say, the 1930s, by invading the American Southeast?

 

[IntrepidMan]

I admire the British for standing up to Hitler, but no, I do not think the allies would have won without the US. But let's not quibble about that--what I am saying is that America has had its good moments too. And you are right, for a long time Americans were content to leave European wars to the Europeans and not get involved. There is still a current of libertarianism/isolationism running through our society.

Can I ask why you think the Nazi's would have defeated Russia. Support provided by the North Sea coveys were minimal. The winter of 1941 which stalled the Russian advance would still have happened. Yes perhaps it would have lasted longer, But given the sheer size of Russia and the man power it could bring, the fact that the Nazi's didn't have any heavy bombers to attack the factories located deep in Russian terrority. Would mean that the Russians could keep bringing more and more tanks/planes etc.. Whilst resources avalable to Nazi Germany would continue to dwindle. Their cities/factories being bombed by the RAF.

I can't say I like where this is going or see the point of debating this. You seem to be very intent on lessoning the impact the US had on winning the war, which frankly I find offensive. But I am no WW2 scholar, and maybe Russia would have eventually beaten Germany. And then what? You would have suffered under Communism instead of facism. Great.

Sci: You cannot possibly believe that we successfully conquered Afghanistan. We tried, and failed, just as every other invading force in that country has failed. We are not leaving because of a job well done; we are leaving to cut our losses. Open a newspaper--nearly every day there are reports of suicide bombings, assassinations and general terror and mayhem. The government we installed in Kabul is laughingly ineffective outside of the capital and barely controls the capital itself. When you conquer a country, you control it. We do not have control in Afghanistan (or Iraq, for that matter).

 

[Sci]

Sci: You cannot possibly believe that we successfully conquered Afghanistan.

We're running into the question of what constitutes "conquest." Did Nazi Germany not genuinely conquer Norway just because there was a Norwegian resistance movement? Did the numerous rebellions against the Raj mean that the British had not genuinely conquered India? Has Russia not truly conquered Chechnya because of the Chechan war and resistance movements?

If you're saying that a successful conquest requires a lack of natives fighting back, I don't think there's usually a such thing as a "successful" conquest, because conquered peoples almost always fight back in some manner.

I define conquest in much simpler terms: The invading force holds the territory and assumes control of the government. By that standard, yes, we conquered Afghanistan. Afghanistan is in the midst of slipping from our grasp now, but especially for those first few years after we invaded, it was certainly under American control.

We are not leaving because of a job well done; we are leaving to cut our losses. Open a newspaper--nearly every day there are reports of suicide bombings, assassinations and general terror and mayhem.

Sort of like the Cardassian occupation of Bajor?

 

[MacLeod]

You made an asseration that Nazi Germany would have won the war had the US not entered the war. I simply made an argument that it was likely the Nazi's would still have lost. I even said earlier that a Russian defeat of the Nazi's would not have been a good result.

I never once diminished the US contribution to WWII.