Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are right to a degree, these people want power, but we (the US) have participated in creating the environment for them to flourish. Don’t get me wrong, I do not want them to win, but when this is over (when ever), I want us (the US) to learn something. Maybe then we will not have to fight another war.
We have a great deal to learn...let's hope we are up to that task.
Originally posted by docb77
BS, evil is real. Unless you think that rapists and murderers are just misunderstood.
Actually in the case of murder most western nations no longer take an absolutist view on it any more. While they still agree "killing is wrong" they understand that not every killing is of the same level - thus you have different degrees of murder, mitigating circumstances and so on.
Evil is rarely used in the legal system except by lawyers and media.
Generally after we've been provoked somehow. Symbol my foot! They picked their targets to inflict damage - economic, inspire fear, and kill as many people as they could.
Symbolic and practical - there were other targets that could have inflicted more loss of life, but attacking WTC, the Pentagon both killed and was symbolic.
Beyond that how did Iraq provoke the US?
Are you talking about vietman now? Innocent people shouldn't be hiding in the Jungle with the military now should they?
You are aware that the majority of Vietnam's population "lived" in the jungles aren't you? That that is where their villages and livelihood were? That the Viet Cong hid amongst them, not the other way round.
And besides, why can't they be innocent and hide with the military. That war was wrong, mostly for the Western powers that got involved. The French were terrible masters and the Vietnamese suffered. After WWII Vietnam expected support from the West in getting Independence like many other former colonies were getting. The problem was that they were following the Communists, and thus the West supported the rights of the oppressors here. I mean, what about all the innocents who died in the cities the US bombed? Were they not innocent? What about the people the South Viet puppet regimes killed? I guess where you are going with this is that all Vietnamese people should have left Vietnam to avoid indiscriminate death from both sides of the war.
Yes, Iraq did provoke us. They invaded Kuwait and then through out the cease-fire, Saddam basically stuck his tongue out and said I dare you. If he'd just showed that he'd ended his weapons program the invasion never would have happened.
That, in order, is Gulf War 1 - which the US chose not to pursue when they had the chance. And it turns out Saddam had ended his weapon program. So in essence you are saying the US is allowed to be provoked into war because a nation "stuck its tongue out".
Originally posted by Alliance
Or we can just stop naiton building... 😉
Sometimes to not intervene is the worse scenario.
Though worse than that is to intervene like Bush did.
On the other hand...it's easy to sit back and criticize, to be, as it were, a Monday-morning quarterback. We, as KMC posters, don't have 1/10 the information/big-picture view that those in power do. Perhaps there was no better way to handle this (though, personally, I doubt that). We all sit at our computers typing away like we have all the answers, projecting our hopes, fears and biases. But we need to keep in mind that, not only are there things we don't know, there are aspects to this whole scenario we don't even know we don't know.
What I do know is, with regard to the above, I haven't walked a mile in anyone's moccasins. The final judge will be history.
Originally posted by Mindship
Sometimes to not intervene is the worse scenario.
Though worse than that is to intervene like Bush did.On the other hand...it's easy to sit back and criticize, to be, as it were, a Monday-morning quarterback. We, as KMC posters, don't have 1/10 the information/big-picture view that those in power do. Perhaps there was no better way to handle this (though, personally, I doubt that). We all sit at our computers typing away like we have all the answers, projecting our hopes, fears and biases. But we need to keep in mind that, not only are there things we don't know, there are aspects to this whole scenario we don't even know we don't know.
What I do know is, with regard to the above, I haven't walked a mile in anyone's moccasins. The final judge will be history.
First of all....history is always analyzed backwards...theres nothing you can do about it. The US is a republic, I have a right to disagree with the govenrment. I thought that we should have at least let the inspectors finish before we invaded...reagrdless of whethere there were WMDs or not...Saddamm had no provocation, no reason to use them, no sign of using them. Simple patience would solve your problem, but some people automatically take out rifles as soon as someone mentions 9-11.
And limted information (by force) does not preclude the possibility of analysis. Perhaps you just like to be "told" what happened by those in power and go on your merry way, let history and others clean up the rest.
Originally posted by Alliance
First of all....history is always analyzed backwards...theres nothing you can do about it. The US is a republic, I have a right to disagree with the govenrment. I thought that we should have at least let the inspectors finish before we invaded...reagrdless of whethere there were WMDs or not...Saddamm had no provocation, no reason to use them, no sign of using them. Simple patience would solve your problem, but some people automatically take out rifles as soon as someone mentions 9-11.And limted information (by force) does not preclude the possibility of analysis. Perhaps you just like to be "told" what happened by those in power and go on your merry way, let history and others clean up the rest.
You appear to be making assumptions which you take as fact (eg, that "patience would solve the problem," or that "Saddam had...no reason to use [WMDs]."😉 How do you know these things? Did the NY Times tell you? 😉
We are all free to present our opinions, obviously. But (for better or worse), we are not in the driver's seat and are not privy to the bigger picture.
If history is analyzed backwards, imagine the bias interjected into the interpretation of current events, when emotions are running on high. It may not be perfect, but history--not you nor I nor anyone here or even in the White House or anywhere else--Will Be the final judge. It's a simple matter of perspective, something each of us can appreciate if we look back on our own personal histories, being able to realize things that we simply couldn't see in the moment, when we were younger, because we were In The Moment or not privy to things we discovered later.
Originally posted by Mindship
You appear to be making assumptions which you take as fact (eg, that "patience would solve the problem," or that "Saddam had...no reason to use [WMDs]."😉 How do you know these things? Did the NY Times tell you? 😉We are all free to present our opinions, obviously. But (for better or worse), we are not in the driver's seat and are not privy to the bigger picture.
If history is analyzed backwards, imagine the bias interjected into the interpretation of current events, when emotions are running on high. It may not be perfect, but history--not you nor I nor anyone here or even in the White House or anywhere else--Will Be the final judge. It's a simple matter of perspective, something each of us can appreciate if we look back on our own personal histories, being able to realize things that we simply couldn't see in the moment, when we were younger, because we were In The Moment or not privy to things we discovered later.
Unfortunately, we have to win without the benefit of hindsight.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I agree, and believe we should stop being Israel's babysitter. It's been over 50 years now.
Perhaps a fairer distribution of help in the Middle-east MIGHT help. Israel has more than 100 UN resolutions against it, and no one does anything.
Ignoring the Middle East would be a terrible mistake. Israel does have nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by docb77
That may be their justification, but not the real reason. The real reason is that they hate. They are simply evil.
They hate? They are simply evil?? Woaw. Nothing is THAT simple. We’ll never get around to deal with the conflicts in the Middle East, before we answer the why’s involved here. Yes, the US-governments protection of Israel is a major factor. Israel’s been allowed the worst atrocities without ANY intervention from the outside world.
Originally posted by docb77
Generally after we've been provoked somehow. Symbol my foot! They picked their targets to inflict damage - economic, inspire fear, and kill as many people as they could.
Since 1945 the US-government has intervened in more than 70 countries around the world.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
Or look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events
Provoked?? Yeah, right!
Originally posted by docb77
Thanks for pointing out the exception that proves the rule. Nobody wanted to use the A-bombs. The people who made them were extremely reluctant (no, the government didn't coerce them into it), they did it because they saw how the war was going and knew that if something didn't change it would keep happening for quite a while. Read a Truman biography. The decision to drop the bomb was the hardest decision he ever made.
Yeah yeah… There were negotiations with the Japanese for surrender. A-bomb over Hiroshima. Japan surrendered. So what was the deal with Nagasaki???
Alliance>
The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny that it has a nuclear weapon program, and has an unofficial but rigidly enforced policy of deliberate ambiguity, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East" [1]. Israel is one of three sovereign nation-states not to sign or ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the other two being India and Pakistan.[2]
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Originally posted by The Omega
They hate? They are simply evil?? Woaw. Nothing is THAT simple. We’ll never get around to deal with the conflicts in the Middle East, before we answer the why’s involved here. Yes, the US-governments protection of Israel is a major factor. Israel’s been allowed the worst atrocities without ANY intervention from the outside world.
I admit that "simply" may have been an exaggeration. However you can't deny that people who do the things that they do are in fact evil. No matter what led them to it, it was still their choice. I agree that we need to understand the why. Maybe it would help us in the long run, maybe it wouldn't, but without solving the problem in the short term (ie, winning the war) there won't be a long run to think about.
Originally posted by docb77
I admit that "simply" may have been an exaggeration. However you can't deny that people who do the things that they do are in fact evil. No matter what led them to it, it was still their choice. I agree that we need to understand the why. Maybe it would help us in the long run, maybe it wouldn't, but without solving the problem in the short term (ie, winning the war) there won't be a long run to think about.
I actually think it is the other way round - the short term isn't winning the war. Significant headway has not been made - the US and west are viewed more poorly now then before, terrorists are still being recruited and so on. This shouldn't just be about slashing the weeds, because they leave behinds seeds that will spring up days or years later.
Understanding why it is happening is far more important, so that the very foundations upon which terrorism is based can be destroyed. Effect the ability of terrorist organisations to claim the moral high ground with the dissatisfied and angry people, and you severely limit the ability of a terrorist organisation to operate.
Go in all guns blazing, no matter how good ones intentions are, mistakes will be made. People will suffer, and it will make them angry, and less responsive to reason.
Originally posted by The Omega
Alliance>
The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny that it has a nuclear weapon program, and has an unofficial but rigidly enforced policy of deliberate ambiguity, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East" [1]. Israel is one of three sovereign nation-states not to sign or ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the other two being India and Pakistan.[2]http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Whats better than a little mystery and fear to increase both publicity and power. I saind I didn't know if Isreal had nukes or not...I didnt say they did...I didnt say thy don't. My position still stands and as you pointed out, its the official position of Isreal.
Originally posted by Alliance
I don't know if Israel has nukes, but they are an extremely assy state. The US needs to slap them around a bit.
Originally posted by The Omega
Alliance>
The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny that it has a nuclear weapon program, and has an unofficial but rigidly enforced policy of deliberate ambiguity, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East" [1]. Israel is one of three sovereign nation-states not to sign or ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the other two being India and Pakistan.[2]http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Nukes aside. (Which I'm fairly certain teh US gave them.)
Do you, both of you, believe that the US should support a nation like Israel, regardless of the apparent risks to its own national security and interests? Israel is the 51st American state. There is little that can be said to deny that fact. You don't see too many Starbucks on teh Palestinian side of the border. Do either of you agree that the best thing the US could do is to allow them to fend for themselves? What kind of a nation would Israel be without the US proping it up? Let them do their thing, and if god has their back (which most neocons don't believe, considering how much time he's wasting watching their backs) then the pieces will fall where they may. Let them win, or let them die. But don't kick yourself in the balls over them because of some religious perspective...especially one you pretend doesn't exist.
Actually, if the US were to just leave them alone they'd do just fine. look at the wars they've already had. Severely outnumbered they beat their enemies handily. In one of those wars they did it in just six days.
If the US were to leave them alone, they might actually feel more cornered and that might actually make them more agressive in their responses to the terrorism that plagues them. No more dreams of a palestinian state, no more syria, their arab neighbors would probably be wiped out in the war that would follow. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with them taking care of their own problems, but I'm really not in a hurry to see armageddon. If the US were to stop supplying them, it would only be fair that we not supply their enemies as well.
Originally posted by docb77
I admit that "simply" may have been an exaggeration. However you can't deny that people who do the things that they do are in fact evil. No matter what led them to it, it was still their choice. I agree that we need to understand the why. Maybe it would help us in the long run, maybe it wouldn't, but without solving the problem in the short term (ie, winning the war) there won't be a long run to think about.
Define evil?? I'm very wary of the use of such words, because that's teh first step in propaganda! "They say" "we say"... Fanatics of ALL orientations are dangerous, because they show borderline sociopathic tendencies. You can'r ARGUE with fanatatics, they'll resort to violence if you question their beliefs.
If we do NOT deal with what CREATES the terrorists there will just keep on coming new ones. And no one has yet told me how this "war on terror" is to be won. What would it take to declare victory?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Nukes aside. (Which I'm fairly certain teh US gave them.)Do you, both of you, believe that the US should support a nation like Israel, regardless of the apparent risks to its own national security and interests? Israel is the 51st American state. There is little that can be said to deny that fact. You don't see too many Starbucks on teh Palestinian side of the border. Do either of you agree that the best thing the US could do is to allow them to fend for themselves? What kind of a nation would Israel be without the US proping it up? Let them do their thing, and if god has their back (which most neocons don't believe, considering how much time he's wasting watching their backs) then the pieces will fall where they may. Let them win, or let them die. But don't kick yourself in the balls over them because of some religious perspective...especially one you pretend doesn't exist.
As far as I know the US-administration has continously supported Israel FOR national secuirty and doreign interest reasons (see oil). If the US-government pulled all support to Israel, I fear it would be a slaughter over there. The US-administration should make its support dependent on the creation of a Palestinian state, adherence to human rights, and Israel submitting to the 100+ UN-resolutions against it.
Mindship> Btw: I would REALLY like to know how me saying that China will become a superpower within the next few decades make me anti-USA?
Originally posted by The Omega
[B]Mindship> Btw: I would REALLY like to know how me saying that China will become a superpower within the next few decades make me anti-USA? [/B]
It was in the context of our whole series of posts. Had it been an isolated statement, I could well have come away with a different sense of your position regarding the US.
In fact, initially, I did not entirely disagree with you regarding China. Economically, I would imagine it will become an economic superpower, as, I would think, the European Union.
Originally posted by The Omega
Define evil?? I'm very wary of the use of such words, because that's teh first step in propaganda! "They say" "we say"... Fanatics of ALL orientations are dangerous, because they show borderline sociopathic tendencies. You can'r ARGUE with fanatatics, they'll resort to violence if you question their beliefs.
If we do NOT deal with what CREATES the terrorists there will just keep on coming new ones. And no one has yet told me how this "war on terror" is to be won. What would it take to declare victory?
I agree that there will always be terrorists until we eliminate the causes. But if we don't fight the war now, we won't be around to remedy the root of the beast later. Ideally the present war gets rid of the most intractable of the islamofacists leaving some sort of leadership that we can learn to trust and negociate with. We may not be able to completely rid ourselves of the threat of terrorism with conventional warefare, but without the conventional warfare, we'd be doing too much damage control to think about the ideological warfare.
Originally posted by docb77What war?!? You cannot fight a war on "terror", it's even more nondescript than the war on drugs and the war on poverty. It is just a blanket term to be used when useful.
I agree that there will always be terrorists until we eliminate the causes. But if we don't fight the war now, we won't be around to remedy the root of the beast later. Ideally the present war gets rid of the most intractable of the islamofacists leaving some sort of leadership that we can learn to trust and negociate with. We may not be able to completely rid ourselves of the threat of terrorism with conventional warefare, but without the conventional warfare, we'd be doing too much damage control to think about the ideological warfare.
Where exactly is conventional warfare being used to "fight terror"? Iraq was not associated with Al-Qaeda until after it was invaded. There were no WMDs. There was no legitimacy behind the invasion.
I'm sure "terror" is shaking in it's anthropomorphic stylish-yet-affordable boots.