The Iraq War Poll

[DGuller]

It is because they promote values that I think one can make a pretty good argument for that are objectively good. Things like life expectancy, literacy, health, infant mortality, etc., etc. Those are not subjective, unless you want to re-define the definition of "good".

Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures). 

[KRonn]

I call it a Pyrrhic victory as I see it now. Limited victory because of the nature of the society in Iraq which may move towards more of what it had before, or something less democratic over a shorter time frame.  The US spent so much blood and treasure, as well as lessened its already low standing in the region, and increased the divisive political discourse at home. I do feel that the US/Coalition put Iraq on a good path for progress but as I said, they could still deviate so far from that as to make what they have now nearly unrecognizable.

[Viking]

I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

It sure did for a while.  Eventually they did withdraw their soldier, though.

I must point out that we did not have "a" soldier. We had some doctors a few nurses and logistics people.

[grumbler]

Well, if you want to get technical about it, even in the West, the state doesn't hold a complete monopoly on the use of violence.  For example, in most jurisdictions, it's legitimate to use force (violence) to defend yourself from an illegal physical attack.  Of course, yeah, that's not your point.  I do agree that the existance of large private armies murdering people does tend to undermine the working of democracy--but then by that measure, the UK didn't have a democratic, representative government during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland (though AFAIK, the magnitude of the problem wasn't a great).  Still, I would argue that the fact that the situation isn't perfect (and is, in fact, far from perfect) doesn't mean that they don't have a democratic system in place.  I would say that the fact that we are going to withdraw indicates that the Obama administration believes that they will be able to keep a democratic system in place without our military to back them up.

I cannot believe that even you are falling for Raz's trolls. 

You know perfectly well that he doesn't understand his own arguments, and merely tosses out crap he has read elsewhere to bait people like Berkut into responding for a round or two.

If you ignore him, he stops posting after a whine or two about being ignored.

[Neil]

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

Your statement was a blanket thing.  You could insert an 'all other things being equal', and your statement would have a ring of truth, even if it was rather short-sighted.

[grumbler]

We can get lost in all the details, but to a great extent I think we often end up missing the forest for the trees. Iraq is a great example of this. Bush is so hated that it doesn't matter what happens in Iraq, it MUST be seen as a failure.

I don't understand why you are whining about the 3.5% of the people here who rated the war as a failure.  That's 2 members out of 57 who voted.  Ignore 'em.

[grumbler]

Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures). 

At least, the Cuban government wants you to believe it does.  That's not a group famous for honesty and openness.

[DGuller]

I voted for Pyrrhic victory.  We seemed to have accomplished our mission, maybe, but the cost to us was enormous in blood, money, prestige, and diplomatic influence. 

And I don't think anyone really knows what will happen once we actually leave.  I'm still quite pessimistic about the ability of the three feuding factions to hold together long-term without any prodding from external forces.

[DGuller]

Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures). 

At least, the Cuban government wants you to believe it does.  That's not a group famous for honesty and openness.

I can't tell in this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the truth.  Communist countries in general were actually pretty good about spreading literacy or basic medical care.  It's the more advanced stuff that they were hopeless at.

[Habbaku]

If only we had a Cuban poster to tell us how things were over there.   

[grumbler]

I can't tell in this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the truth.  Communist countries in general were actually pretty good about spreading literacy or basic medical care.  It's the more advanced stuff that they were hopeless at.

It wouldn't astonish me; one of the early advantages of prosperity is a healthy diet, and one of the next advantages is an unhealthy diet! 

[Berkut]

If only we had a Cuban poster to tell us how things were over there.  

[Razgovory]

Well, if you want to get technical about it, even in the West, the state doesn't hold a complete monopoly on the use of violence.  For example, in most jurisdictions, it's legitimate to use force (violence) to defend yourself from an illegal physical attack.  Of course, yeah, that's not your point.  I do agree that the existance of large private armies murdering people does tend to undermine the working of democracy--but then by that measure, the UK didn't have a democratic, representative government during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland (though AFAIK, the magnitude of the problem wasn't a great).  Still, I would argue that the fact that the situation isn't perfect (and is, in fact, far from perfect) doesn't mean that they don't have a democratic system in place.  I would say that the fact that we are going to withdraw indicates that the Obama administration believes that they will be able to keep a democratic system in place without our military to back them up.

I cannot believe that even you are falling for Raz's trolls. 

You know perfectly well that he doesn't understand his own arguments, and merely tosses out crap he has read elsewhere to bait people like Berkut into responding for a round or two.

If you ignore him, he stops posting after a whine or two about being ignored.

Please stop trolling.

[Razgovory]

It is because they promote values that I think one can make a pretty good argument for that are objectively good. Things like life expectancy, literacy, health, infant mortality, etc., etc. Those are not subjective, unless you want to re-define the definition of "good".

You can argue that those are subjective measures I suppose, but at that point we have no common grounds for discussion. If your argument is that the things that actually define life are not important to life, then that is just solipsism.

Which nicely illustrates my point - you would rather argue something you don't even agree with (that those things are not good measures) if that is what is necessary to hang onto your ideological perspective.

It is not subjective to say the democracy is better than not democracy based on defined criteria.

Like I've already said, you can attack my position (and I am sure some people would, like religious extremists) on the basis that those criteria are incomplete, ie that the will of god is more important than women's right to an education, hence literacy is not a good measure of overall quality of life, as an example. But that still does not make the obeservation based on the criteria specified subjective. You can measure literacy. You can measure life expectancy.

Do you know what "Objective" actually means?  You can measure life expectancy, true.  But you can't measure "good".  "4 is less then 5" is Objective.  "The man is wearing a hat," is Objective.  "Tod is dead", is Objective.  "4 is better then 5", is Subjective.  "the man is wearing a nice hat", is Subjective.  "Tod is better off dead", is Subjective.

I'm harping on this because it's an annoying trait you have.  You confuse your opinion with something that is objectively true, and consider people who disagree with you irrational tribalists.

[derspiess]

Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures). 

At least, the Cuban government wants you to believe it does.  That's not a group famous for honesty and openness.

Next you'll tell us the Soviets weren't always honest about their statistics