Poll

Would You Be Happy If You Were Liberated By Another Nation's Army?

Happy37%37% - 13
Unhappy62%62% - 22
Total: 35
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire
This is a highly hypothetical proposition but it follows on from points raised in defence of the 'liberation' of the Iraqi people. One main defence of the Iraqi campaign is that many Iraqi's are happy that the invasion has resulted in the deposition of their former leader Saddam Hussein, a man who used nefarious means to take and hold onto power and maintained a firm grip on the nation despite huge unpopularity among his people.

Now here's the hypothetical scenario (disregarding the obvious realities that would contradict such a scenario in real life)...

China disapproves of G.W. Bush's controversial election to office, viewing it as a fix on account of the Florida controversy, and campaign on the International scene to highlight Bush's 'undemocratic' actions. Bush goes on to pursue his aggressive foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, launching preemptive wars in the case of the latter (and arguably in the case of the former, though that is a debate for another day). China use this as further proof of the Bush administration's unacceptable behaviour on the international scene and also begin building a case at the UN for some sort of action against the US on account of their support for 'terrorist' groups acting against the Government in countries like Venezuela. Bush's approval rating drops to an all time low of 28% and China continue to claim he is a 'tyrant' that the American people want to be free of, they claim acts such as the Patriot act are efforts on his behalf to tighten his grip on the American people and quell insurrection. Bush begins pursuing a missile defence system that will enable him to strike countries further afield than ever before and China decide enough is enough. They claim that the issue is too urgent to wait for a UN mandate claiming the US could attack China within 45 minutes and launch a huge invasion to liberate the American people of the Bush administration...

...as an American who never asked for the Chinese to intervene how would you feel?
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6955|Global Command
I would stack them like cordwood.

Comparing Bush to Saddam...silly.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6837|'Murka

Since we have a mechanism for getting rid of leaders every four years (or earlier), there would be no need for "liberation". We would liberate ourselves in November.

However, if a cabal claimed dictatorial powers and were unable to be overthrown by the people, can't say I'd have an issue with liberation.

So...throw in a dictatorial regime that can't be replaced by the people's lawful vote that kills its own people by the tens/hundreds of thousands. Then your attempt at an allegory would be more apt.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire

ATG wrote:

I would stack them like cordwood.

Comparing Bush to Saddam...silly.
It is silly, I acknowledge that. It's more the concept of being 'liberated' by an external force when the people of the nation haven't asked for it that I'm getting at... I'm not for one minute claiming that Bush gassed a load of Cajuns down in Louisiana or anything like that!
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire

FEOS wrote:

However, if a cabal claimed dictatorial powers and were unable to be overthrown by the people, can't say I'd have an issue with liberation.
Following on from that hypothetical would you be upset if the liberation incurred the death of possibly 1 million Americans? Would it change your view of the 'liberation'?
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7047|London, England

FEOS wrote:

However, if a cabal claimed dictatorial powers and were unable to be overthrown by the people, can't say I'd have an issue with liberation.
Agreed (and with the rest of your post)
jord
Member
+2,382|7104|The North, beyond the wall.
To "liberate" they'd have to kill our soldiers. Which would make me pissed. That's how I'd feel.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire

Mek-Izzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

However, if a cabal claimed dictatorial powers and were unable to be overthrown by the people, can't say I'd have an issue with liberation.
Agreed (and with the rest of your post)
What then if there was a perception among the general populus that the 'liberating' army were actively trying to assist in the setting up of a Government that would be symapthetic to their own interests and might possibly benefit them in any deals regarding American resources?
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7047|London, England

jord wrote:

To "liberate" they'd have to kill our soldiers. Which would make me pissed. That's how I'd feel.
Not really. A country like the UK. The majority of people wouldn't follow a dictatorship that would require liberation. The queen wouldn't allow it, assuming that somehow they did get power. The UK would basically end up in a civil war. And anyone coming in would be coming in to help the good side. I know which side I'd be fighting for that's for sure.

All the soldiers in the numerous wars (especially WW2) didn't die so that this place would still end up falling to fascism and dictatorship
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7047|London, England

Braddock wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

However, if a cabal claimed dictatorial powers and were unable to be overthrown by the people, can't say I'd have an issue with liberation.
Agreed (and with the rest of your post)
What then if there was a perception among the general populus that the 'liberating' army were actively trying to assist in the setting up of a Government that would be symapthetic to their own interests and might possibly benefit them in any deals regarding American resources?
I'm sure most people would prefer that then being under the rule of a despot. Besides, the general populous - even though I always say this country is full of dumb arses, is still too educated to allow shit like this to happen. Whereas places like Iraq aren't, it's simple really... imo. It all boils down to how intelligent people are.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6837|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

However, if a cabal claimed dictatorial powers and were unable to be overthrown by the people, can't say I'd have an issue with liberation.
Agreed (and with the rest of your post)
What then if there was a perception among the general populus that the 'liberating' army were actively trying to assist in the setting up of a Government that would be symapthetic to their own interests and might possibly benefit them in any deals regarding American resources?
Are they installing a system government that allows the people to choose who their leaders and representatives will be? If so, I'd be better off and have an opportunity to elect people who reflected MY interests.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire

Mek-Izzle wrote:

jord wrote:

To "liberate" they'd have to kill our soldiers. Which would make me pissed. That's how I'd feel.
Not really. A country like the UK. The majority of people wouldn't follow a dictatorship that would require liberation. The queen wouldn't allow it, assuming that somehow they did get power. The UK would basically end up in a civil war. And anyone coming in would be coming in to help the good side. I know which side I'd be fighting for that's for sure.

All the soldiers in the numerous wars (especially WW2) didn't die so that this place would still end up falling to fascism and dictatorship
We're talking in a purely hypothetical scenario I know but you seem to completely assume that a civil war would naturally result in the event of a dictatorship, well why didn't a civil war occur naturally in Iraq? We presume certain things here in the West because we've never experienced them but we can't be sure how differently we would react in such a scenario.

Other people in this thread claim we're too well educated in the West to allow such a situation to take hold. That is quite frankly a little insulting. I would be more inclined to say that the Middle East, with it's potent ingredient of passionate religious beliefs, lends itself more to more extreme forms of Government taking hold, which can then morph into despotic regimes. I look at the US and feel there has been a marked move away from all out democratic freedom to a more controlled and monitored version of 'Western' freedom, the move towards authoritarian rule isn't always a quick one.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:


Agreed (and with the rest of your post)
What then if there was a perception among the general populus that the 'liberating' army were actively trying to assist in the setting up of a Government that would be symapthetic to their own interests and might possibly benefit them in any deals regarding American resources?
Are they installing a system government that allows the people to choose who their leaders and representatives will be? If so, I'd be better off and have an opportunity to elect people who reflected MY interests.
They can elect anyone they like except the Republican party who have been made illegal because of previous links to Bush; the two party system has been changed to multiple parties, often divided along ethnic or regional lines.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6837|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

However, if a cabal claimed dictatorial powers and were unable to be overthrown by the people, can't say I'd have an issue with liberation.
Following on from that hypothetical would you be upset if the liberation incurred the death of possibly 1 million Americans? Would it change your view of the 'liberation'?
Well, if we're following from the Iraq model, the bulk of those Americans would be killed by Mexicans, Canadians, Brits, and others who attempt to fight the Chinese by killing American civilians. I wouldn't be blaming the Chinese...I'd be killing those other bastards.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6837|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:


What then if there was a perception among the general populus that the 'liberating' army were actively trying to assist in the setting up of a Government that would be symapthetic to their own interests and might possibly benefit them in any deals regarding American resources?
Are they installing a system government that allows the people to choose who their leaders and representatives will be? If so, I'd be better off and have an opportunity to elect people who reflected MY interests.
They can elect anyone they like except the Republican party who have been made illegal because of previous links to Bush; the two party system has been changed to multiple parties, often divided along ethnic or regional lines.
Outlawing a political party based on its horrendous actions (ie, National Socialist Party in GE) is not unprecedented. Even if they allowed the Republican party to exist, hardly anyone would vote for them if they somehow managed to overturn the Constitution and rule as a dictatorial cabal that killed hundreds of thousands of my fellow Americans.

We don't have a two party system now. Our system has literally dozens of parties...it's just that only two actually win with any regularity. So that wouldn't be an issue.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6387|Washington DC

FEOS wrote:

Since we have a mechanism for getting rid of leaders every four years (or earlier), there would be no need for "liberation". We would liberate ourselves in November.

However, if a cabal claimed dictatorial powers and were unable to be overthrown by the people, can't say I'd have an issue with liberation.

So...throw in a dictatorial regime that can't be replaced by the people's lawful vote that kills its own people by the tens/hundreds of thousands. Then your attempt at an allegory would be more apt.
edit: With your current scenario, no I would not appreciate them doing that. If somehow a dictator took power, a dictator of the likes of Stalin and Hitler, then yes I'd probably appreciate it.

Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-04-05 09:19:03)

Commie Killer
Member
+192|6813
How about we do a realistic comparison, for a guy that isnt really that bad(even if I dont like him a whole lot), to compare him to Saddam, who has killed 100s of thousands of his own innocent civilians...
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina
Assuming a dictatorship was being toppled, it would logically result in people being grateful for an outside liberating force.  However, people aren't very logical, so this is why Iraq turned out very differently from what the administration expected.  Human nature causes us to place more value in national pride than in actual freedom, and until the warmongers figure that out, all attempts at nation building will fail unless they receive the backing of the majority of the world.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6716|Éire

Commie Killer wrote:

How about we do a realistic comparison, for a guy that isnt really that bad(even if I dont like him a whole lot), to compare him to Saddam, who has killed 100s of thousands of his own innocent civilians...
You're missing the point, what I'm getting at is how an external power might build an opinion, or force an opinion, of a regime or leader. We can see the US doing similar things now with Chavez in Venezuela, Chavez is not popular with everyone but he has been democratically elected and all his changes to constitution and bills have been attempted through the official channels.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7027|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Human nature causes us to place more value in national pride than in actual freedom
I'd say that is very unnatural. What people take pride in is the people who make up that nation. Things like flags and anthems are only representative of that countries common bond to it's brethren. There is a difference between patriotism and blind patriotism. One of them is political, and one of them is a shared inspiration to achieve and advance.

Braddock wrote:

It is silly, I acknowledge that. It's more the concept of being 'liberated' by an external force when the people of the nation haven't asked for it that I'm getting at... I'm not for one minute claiming that Bush gassed a load of Cajuns down in Louisiana or anything like that!
Isn't that the primary contingency here? If I were to live under a brutal dictator who starved his people and murdered at will then yes liberate me. If I lived in a free and prosperous society then of course I would be upset.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
CloakedStarship
Member
+76|6991
Was the 101'st Airborne happy when Patton "liberated" them in Bastogne?

If the Chinese invaded the USA, it would be WWIII, and nobody would be happy.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6837|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

How about we do a realistic comparison, for a guy that isnt really that bad(even if I dont like him a whole lot), to compare him to Saddam, who has killed 100s of thousands of his own innocent civilians...
You're missing the point, what I'm getting at is how an external power might build an opinion, or force an opinion, of a regime or leader. We can see the US doing similar things now with Chavez in Venezuela, Chavez is not popular with everyone but he has been democratically elected and all his changes to constitution and bills have been attempted through the official channels.
Look at the nature of the changes to Venezuela's constitution that Chavez is trying to make. That is the issue with him. Kind of like the world bitching ad nauseum about Bush. He was democratically elected, and all of his policies have been done in accordance with our Constitution and legal system. So I guess you all have to STFU about Bush now, according to your argument.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6837|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

Assuming a dictatorship was being toppled, it would logically result in people being grateful for an outside liberating force.  However, people aren't very logical, so this is why Iraq turned out very differently from what the administration expected.  Human nature causes us to place more value in national pride than in actual freedom, and until the warmongers figure that out, all attempts at nation building will fail unless they receive the backing of the majority of the world.
Without the backing of the nation being built, nation building will fail. The opinion of the outside world is irrelevant.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Assuming a dictatorship was being toppled, it would logically result in people being grateful for an outside liberating force.  However, people aren't very logical, so this is why Iraq turned out very differently from what the administration expected.  Human nature causes us to place more value in national pride than in actual freedom, and until the warmongers figure that out, all attempts at nation building will fail unless they receive the backing of the majority of the world.
Without the backing of the nation being built, nation building will fail. The opinion of the outside world is irrelevant.
Fair point, but if the U.N. unanimously aided us with this occupation via providing us full financial and resource support (like translators and considerably more soldiers), then we'd likely crush the remaining resistance in about a year.  Granted, the support of the actual people of the nation involved certainly speeds things up.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7027|132 and Bush

Braddock wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

How about we do a realistic comparison, for a guy that isnt really that bad(even if I dont like him a whole lot), to compare him to Saddam, who has killed 100s of thousands of his own innocent civilians...
You're missing the point, what I'm getting at is how an external power might build an opinion, or force an opinion, of a regime or leader. We can see the US doing similar things now with Chavez in Venezuela, Chavez is not popular with everyone but he has been democratically elected and all his changes to constitution and bills have been attempted through the official channels.
Chavez spews his delusional paranoid propaganda every day towards the The US government. He is also attempting to sway US and world opinion against the administration. Hostility bequeaths hostility.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard