Iraq Situation is Bullshit by Succatash

Quote:
Originally posted by -=ZERO=-:
...go whine somewhere else.

For shame, Zero. A forum, by definition, is an opportunity for open discussion. This is a forum! Wasn't it Voltaire who stated, "I may not agree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it"? If you don't like what Tash opines, then read another thread.

As for Tash's opinion...I am as big of a war-monger as the next guy, but I have to agree with Tash. We shouldn't be there. There is nothing to be gained. Iraq has existed for, what? Six thousand years? And they have yet to create a democracy for themselves? Why should they start now? Why should a country that has been around for 200 years (us) tell them how to run the show? What makes us better? This is nothing more than unabashed imperialism (not that I'm against that per se, but lets colonize a county that has more to offer than zealots, sand, and a little oil.)

I say yes to "blood for oil." No to pussyfooting around. Bismark wrote that "The most humane way to wage a war is wage an all out one." So lets stop fucking around, take what we need, and go home. C'mon Georgie, we all know how it looks no matter how you try to sugar coat it. You're only wasting lives. Do what you need to, then get out.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:57 AM

And, what's more! Do you visit a specific friend and say, "I'm only here to discuss Sony Playstation, so let's not stray from topic"? If something doesn't happen with Firefly, we will have discussed everything there is to discuss about Firefly, three times over, then sit at our computers looking at a defunct site because there is nothing more to say.

And what can be said really? We all love Firefly; We all hate fox. Let's try a new topic once in a while until the DVD's come out. Then we will have oodles to talk about, until the movie comes out. For now viva la conversacio'n!

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 3:53 AM

TRAGICSTORY

You know what this situation reminds me of? The play "the mouse that roared." In case you haven't seen it it is about a small country that declares war on the US in order to lose and end up being supported by US aid.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by -=ZERO=-:

As for 'Tash...With all due respect, go whine somewhere else.

With all due respect, kiss my ass. It is my right to say what I wish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:05 AM

HAPLO721

Last I checked, there was no draft in effect, so all the troops in Iraq right now knew they could end up away from home for months or even years at a stretch. Just be glad they're rotating rather than leaving the same people there until the country is back on its feet.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But to go over there, decimate their infrastructure and then just leave those people to their own devices, subject to any number of goon squads as bad or worse than Hussein would be cruel in the extreme.

I agree, the U.S. is responsible for the big mess. What a tragedy. Here is another article about a plan to get Iraqis shot instead of U.S. troops. I love my country.

U.S. Considers Revising Its Role in Iraq
Thu Aug 7,10:07 PM ET
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - With American troops under constant fire in Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the U.S.-led military coalition may want to "stand back a little" and rely more on local forces to maintain security in the country....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030808/ap_on_re_mi
_ea/us_iraq_6

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:43 AM

Why not let the Iranians go in and clean house? They've been chomping at the bit to do that for decades. Arabs would not be pissed off because America was in the middle east; Americans would not be killed; And, Iranians can't really be called moderate, but they, it seem, are the only ones who aren't detonating themselves to kill others.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:00 AM

TZEGHA

Quote:
Originally posted by -=ZERO=-:
Hate to burst your bubble, but ANY recent posts show up on the main page no matter what channel they were posted in. So the peeps that only read the recent posts on the main page have to filter out the shit.

Hate to burst your bubble *g*, but you (general you) can set the bookmark to just the General Firefly discussion, and you (general you) won't even have to look at the OT. Don't even bother with the Start page.

-T -trying to finagle ways to keep the OT polit threads from souring the whole OB to potential brains that I can pick

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:47 AM

HOTFORKAYLEE

Quote:
Originally posted by Tzegha:
That's too bad :(

Why don't you just stay out of the Off-topic folder? I would hate to think that you let the bad vibes of the political threads discourage you from the other Firefly conversation over there -- but then again, I'm one of those naive people who, because of all the threads she has ignored, has avoided all the bad vibes and was unaware that there were any to begin with.

Heres one of my main gripes about the other board, besides the fact that navigation sucks and all the off-topic stuff.

Typical thread on the OB:
Post #1 "Hi, I was thinking about this and.........."

Post #2-52 "Bump"

Post #53 "Ya know, you made a good point but one thing I was thinking..............."

Post #54-66 "Bump"

Post #67 "Bumpity-bump"

Post #68-95 "Bump (hey, my thread is always towards the top!)"

As for the war, like has been said, we are already there and can't just leave now, then anyone who likes us even a little won't anymore. Not to belittle the soldiers over there but they did sign up for the service and it is their job to carry out their duties.

Quote:
"We'll hit them in waves. Try to isolate the ships we need to destroy from the ones who won't fight unless they have to. Then we'll give them a chance to surrender or join up."
"And if they don't?"
"We take them out. Hey, I don't like the idea any more than you do, but either we commit ourselves to this completely or we don't do it. Once we pull the first trigger we can't hesitate to pull the next one, because they sure won't. Now, once we're in, we're in: no surrender, no retreat."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:28 AM

TZEGHA

LOL!

And one of the reasons why I don't bother much with posting over here is:

Post 1: hey, I had this idea . . .

*crickets*

1 month later ...Post 2: sure, I can buy that

*crickets*

*looks around warily to see if anyone has a sense of humor over here*

ETA . . . *crickets*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 2:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AAACK!!!

How did I MISS this lovely thread???

Firefly is political- or didncha notice that politics/ethics are the base of the stories?

But now that I'm here... HELP!!!! It's 5 ayem and my brain has fallen and it can't get up!!

I'm stuck for a word= got a MAJOR case of brain freeze. What is the name of a person who believes that government should disappear and that we should all just progress through individual efforts? I think Wulf is one. This is going to bug me until I either remember it on my own or someone helps me out.

Either way, I'll probably kick myself around the block a few times.

Thank ye!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 2:30 AM

Anarchist. Is that the word?

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 5:48 AM

I suppose anarchy could fit that definition.. but not quite in the manner its supposed to, I believe...

Anyone ever read "V for Vendetta"? Great novel/comic book. Sets forth the difference between Anarchy and Chaos. Usually when anyone mentions "things are in anarchy" they mean Chaos... Anarchy is a locale with no government that actually works... that didn't exist in the comic book either, but hey.. maybe after another 2000 years of evolution and several nuclear winters, we might decide to all get along...

As for the current war... I know who I'm NOT voting for next year... We're in the shit, and we gotta deal the dice till the end. But this had better be the last of it... If suddenly we're dropping bombs on others (N. Korea, Iran, etc) that's when something needs to stop, seriously... Because otherwise, we're going to start setting ourselves up for the axe. Remember why we rebelled to begin with? What the Brits did was nothin compared to how we're pissing the rest of the world off...

ack.. its bedtime...

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 3:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NOW I remember! It's "libertarian". DUH!

But you don't want to know what I think about THAT!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 3:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I noticed a mention of Tribalism in another thread, and consider that many "tribes" were in effect Anarchist in form.

A good example of an Anarchistic Tribe would be the Renshai, from Mickey Zucker Reichart's "Last of the Renshai" series.
(A damned good read, btw)

Government generally is best when it governs least, people are like a handful of sand, hold them gently and you hold most of em, but the harder you squeeze... the more slips right through your fingers.

Come to think of it tho, I don't think I would really want the Renshai hanging in my neighborhood, but their form (or lack) of government worked for them.

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 1:22 AM

"We're in the shit, and we gotta deal the dice till the end. But this had better be the last of it... If suddenly we're dropping bombs on others (N. Korea, Iran, etc) that's when something needs to stop, seriously... "

Look, the war in Iraq cannot be understood isolated all by itself. It has to be understood from the perspective of a war against terrorism. You know, keeping another 9-11 from ever happening again.

This is a war of survival. They hate us. And they think that they can kill us, or rob us or whatever, and we will do nothing to stop them. If we lose, we die. (Or worse, lose our freedoms) We are a walking, talking refutation of their worldview, a blasphemy. No amounts of calm, cool considered discussion is going to change that fact.

We fight, or we die. We fight them in Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, or wherever they are now, or wait for them to come here, and kill us at home.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 6:23 AM

"This is a war of survival. They hate us. "

Class, any opinions as to why they might hate us?

Timmy?

Timmy: "Because over the past century the west has treated them like Shit"

Good job Timmy! You get a cookie!

Seriously, though, the US has had its hand in the cookie jar for way too long in the Middle East. If we were worried about our own safety and of human rights violations, we would have stopped it when it started. But no, we were the ones setting up regimes, and then tearing them apart when the people we set up said they didn't like us. We were the ones who gave people like Saddam and Bin Laden training to kill others. We were the ones who could have said Saddam did bad things in the 80's. We could have stopped Saddam after the first Gulf War, and told him to get his ass outta there.

But we didn't? Why? Because we wanted oil, in whatever means we could. Now, the manipulation of the people has caused resentment to no end of the West and its meddling, and its coming back to bite us. Should we let it happen? No, of course not, but currently our actions of pre-emptive strikes on asprin factories and whatnot are just giving the enemy more fighters to their armies. The US is not invincible. Rome did fall in time. We need to grow up, and let others police the world, rather than putting our name on everything on the planet.

Perhaps using the United Nations as its intended purpose rather than as a US puppet might help things, you think?

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 2:35 AM

I've read several of these, "we've had our hands in their cookie jars" stuff for a while, and sorry it does not wash. It in no way, shape or form justifies the terrorists action. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what you are doing here. Trying to tell me it is okay they killed 3,000 people on 9-11.

No matter how you dress it up, that is what this "root causes" argument is trying to do. Make it okay for mass murder.

Nor is it the truth. bin Laden made a big deal about the Crusades, long before the US was even a pipe dream. The Soviets, French, British, and Germans were all more involved in the middle east than we were. They get a pass while we are the "Great Satan"

No, I ain't buying it. Nor should you.

The real root cause is Levis. And Barbie, and MTV. We are changing their culture and they don't like it. They have a growing population of young folks who find the old ways stifling, repressive, and just not much fun. They look at us and see a land of milk and honey, with DVDs and computers and digital watches, all the stuff that they cannot make, and they want them. Not because we force them to buy, but because they want the products.

Those products are things they do not produce themselves, despite having ample money from their oil sales to build factories and make investments.

But they are Allah's people (or so they claim) How can the West be so superior in terms of military might, technological advancement, political power, economic wealth and cultural attractiveness than these chosen people. We do all that despite the fact that we are a "Godless nation" who does not even have a Sharia based legal system. Muslims here are forced to treat Jews and pagans (like myself) just like other folks. No dhimmitude here.

We are a walking, talking blasphemy to what they have been taught. We are a constant reminder that they are comparitively, a failure on the world stage. At one time the Muslim Empire ruled from China to Europe and Morocco. No more.

That and we support those pesky Jews who have a per capita GDP of about twice what any other Muslim country does, (including and especially Saudi Arabia) despite having NO oil, and only a sliver of land.

No, the things you have cited are merely the excuse, and a pitable one at that. The reason for their hatred is not as nice as you would like to think it is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 3:58 AM

First off: No body ever said a bloody word saying "terrorism and 9-11 are justified" and for you to dare say that is an offense to everyone in this world who suffered on that day. Nothing can ever justify that day, or any other terrorist action.

And if their hatred was based on their economy, then why isn't China, Japan, and every other East Asian culture which wants to throw away its past for "the American God" attacking and trying to blow the US up?

You could say "Its the Muslims" but thats bullshit too. If you hadn't noticed, the majority of the people are quite pacificst. Islam condems killing. Islam is tolerant of other religions. To group "Muslims" as a whole as "violent savages" is a racist comment, because those are the extremists, those who are tired of being manipulated by everyone around them. Not just the US and Europe, but their own rulers and the like. The Arab nations get plenty of money from the oil they sell, but their leaders do not give it to the people. That is where they should focus their anger on.

But they don't. Why? Because foreign invaders keep screwing things up! We are the ones dropping bombs! We are the ones limiting their economies by buying only oil, and no other products! We are the ones placing economic sanctions that limit things like MEDICINE!!!

Venting their anger at us is not the right place, but regardless of it, they are. That does not mean that we are the gods of the world and deserve to blow up who we want to. If you hadn't noticied, we went against the will of the world in attacking Iraq. The rest of the world said give the inspectors more time, and we said "Fuck You."

And you wonder why everyone is turning a blind eye to us when we say "We need help in Iraq, please send your troops and money to support us." Because we started it, and if we don't stop this crap, eventually even our own allies will begin to hate us.

The Muslim Empire once spanned across all of Eurasia. So did Rome, Britain, and the empire of Alexander.

Notice where they are today? If we want to protect our people, we need to stop trying to rule the world, because if we don't, the only people that will care about the US will be the history books after we are gone.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 4:24 AM

You are trying to explain their actions in a form that is to render them sympathic. You are correct, in that nothing justifies or excuses their actions on that day. You found my response offensive. Good. I was attempting to show you exactly how just 'excuses' make me feel.

in other words, that explaination that "America brought it on itself" is, in my opinion far more offense than me pointing out that you were doing just that. It is the equivalent of telling a rape victim they should not have worn such a short skirt.

It is not just economics. It is primarily cultural, of which economics is a reflection. japan and China have shown themselves that they can adapt to modern capitalism (Heck the Chinese Communist Party is even inviting capitalists into its ranks.) Their cultures, as rigid as they have been in the past, are adapting to the changing times.

You are quite right in that most Muslims are not terrorists in any way shape or form. But that is not the issue. The terrorists themselves are claiming to be Muslims. It is the cultural ideology of, in particular, Wahabi Islam that is problematic here.

BTW: Muslim is not a race. Even if I were decrying all Muslims in the bigoted sense you accuse me of, since Islam is not a race, it is not a racist comment.

It is not "foreign invaders" that keep screwing things up and prevent changes in those countries. This is false. We do business with the people in power. If the people in power, who have the oil, do not use their wealth for their people, that is their doing not our. What do you recommend? We overthrow those governments who are wasting their oil wealth on something other than their people? Think hard about this for a second.

But the "foreign invader" is a useful scapegoat. It detracts the populace from the real source of their problem, and toward the US or some othe outside entity. If people are protesting Israel, they are not protesting against the Saud family. If they are rushing off to martyr themselves in Checnya, they are not trying to kill the royal family.

They have NO other products beside oil. There is nothing to buy from them except oil. They have an aggragate GDP, excluding oil, of Portugal. This despite the fact they get billions every year in oil sales. They are the ones not building factories, not starting new businesses, not educating a growing population, not making things other than oil.

Besides which, someone not buying what you are offering to sell is hardly an excuse for mass murder.

(And even the oil is brought out of the ground and transported by foreign labor. We have to go drill the oil, build the pipelines and get it ready to ship.)

You point out that we are the ones dropping bombs, ignoring the context in which those bombs are dropped and the fact that they have no airplanes to even attach bombs to. You are forgetting that 9-11 is what brought about the present campaign in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. We are not blowing up stuff simply because we don't like it. We are blowing up stuff to keep them from killing us. There is a reason and a purpose for choosing this course of action.

Our allies, as well as the rest of the world, can love us or not. Personally I don't care. As long as they don't try to kill us, or help those who would. This is not about empire building, or any other such stuff. We are not Europe. The closest we ever had to an empire was after the Spanish American war when we got the Phillipines, which we gave back to the people, (the process was interrupted by WW2, but as it was already ongoing when the war broke out, we got a lot of help from the Phillipine people.)

Let me say it again. We are not Europe. We are not Great Britian of old, we do not have nor want colonies all over the globe. We don't want to rule the world. We just don't want people to kill us. We don't care if you love us, hate us, or ignore us. Just don't kill us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 5:43 AM

Quote:
We don't care if you love us, hate us, or ignore us. Just don't kill us.

Found that statement interesting,

Quote:
It is not "foreign invaders" that keep screwing things up and prevent changes in those countries. This is false. We do business with the people in power. If the people in power, who have the oil, do not use their wealth for their people, that is their doing not our. What do you recommend? We overthrow those governments who are wasting their oil wealth on something other than their people? Think hard about this for a second.

I would suggest buying oil ( as well as other products ) acceptable, but the question of Military Aid, as well as providing arms involves the US to a degree which limits the peoples ability to rise up and overthrow their own governments.

While one can argue arms may be supplied from other sources, this is like saying why shouldn't I sell drugs, they can buy them somewhere else.

As for providing Military support for Israel, while international law is a joke, it did state that providing arms to one side of a civil war ( that is what I would call the situation ) constitutes an act of war.

Perhaps a complete disengagement from the Middle East, and its political messes is the approach. At least a slashing of Military / Foriegn aid and cutting the sales / giving away of arms.
American credibility is any peace process is next to non existant due to your constantly changing foriegn policy ( General Anthony Zinni )

Why not stay out of it for a while, encourage other to as well. Maybe the internal problems of these countrys are better left to the people living there.

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 10:32 PM

First off, one has to recognize that for a great deal of the post World War 2 period, we were at war. World War 3 was what is commonly called the Cold War, against communism. The Soviets were trying to expand their role in the world, with a ideology dyametrically opposed to ours, (not unlike the present war on terrorism, or World War 4 as it is being called in some circles)

The Soviets wanted us to change to their way of doing things. To give up our freedoms and such. We, a capitalist nation, with free markets and freedom to think, posed a threat, simply by existing to their world view. Marx says we should whither and die out. But we didn't, thus proving Marx wrong and their entire ideology at best erronous.

In the process of containing the Soviets, we had to make arm deals with other regimes. We had to pick sides, and generally, it was a choice between two evils. Totalitarianism of the right, or totalitarianism of the left. (Make no mistake about it, the Soviet system was a totalitarian dictatorship. Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not.)

I don't think that you are correct as to the point of law. I recall we were neutral before Pearl Harbor, yet still supplying arms and material to Britain.

As for Israel, this is not a civil war, at least in the traditional sense. It is a bit complex to go into in a brief post, but you essentially have two sides with mutually incompatable goals. Israel wants to exist. The Palestinians want them not to. There is no middle ground between existence and non-existence.

Perhaps you are right in that internal problems should be handled without our interference. Unfortunately, its really too late for that. The consequences of withdrawl are pretty severe especially if we want to form alliances with anyone else anywhere at any time in the future. Who would trust us to keep our word if we cut and run now?

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 5:41 AM

Some very good points, but I still think some of the principles are flawed,

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
First off, one has to recognize that for a great deal of the post World War 2 period, we were at war. World War 3 was what is commonly called the Cold War, against communism. The Soviets were trying to expand their role in the world, with a ideology dyametrically opposed to ours, (not unlike the present war on terrorism, or World War 4 as it is being called in some circles)

The opposite could also be said, that the U.S. was also trying to expand their influence, against the other. Just a matter of perspective, nothing wrong with it, but I think a point which has to be reconized.

Quote:

The Soviets wanted us to change to their way of doing things. To give up our freedoms and such. We, a capitalist nation, with free markets and freedom to think, posed a threat, simply by existing to their world view. Marx says we should whither and die out. But we didn't, thus proving Marx wrong and their entire ideology at best erronous.

Once again, the opposite also applies. Different areas and countrys have responded quite differently to both systems, Marx envisioned his system for Great Britian, and didn't project it in a country as vast as Russia. Other countrys such as the former Yugoslavia under Tito found a balance with that system. Keeping the peace between ethnic group who despised each other and building an economy which had a higher GNP than any on the Mediterranean including Italy. Look at the chaos once that system was changed

http://www.princeton.edu/~mlane/

Another interesting example is Poland, where after two years of Solidarity, the people re-elected the communists so their social infrastructure would function again.

http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/msg03233.html

Quote:

In the process of containing the Soviets, we had to make arm deals with other regimes. We had to pick sides, and generally, it was a choice between two evils. Totalitarianism of the right, or totalitarianism of the left. (Make no mistake about it, the Soviet system was a totalitarian dictatorship. Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not.)

But if by supporting Batista, or Somozsa, or Pinochet , or Peron, or Suharto, or Diem, etc in harsh regimes does it make the U.S. any better than the Soviets ? particularly in the eyes of the people in those countries ?

Quote:

Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not

or you fight...

Quote:

I don't think that you are correct as to the point of law.

Cannot find an online reference, found it in a book on Eisenhower's reaction to the revolution in Cuba, may be wrong there.

Quote:

I recall we were neutral before Pearl Harbor, yet still supplying arms and material to Britain.

But is that really neutrality ? there was quite a debate at the time

http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/49thparallel/backissues/issue7/aj.HTM

If for example, Syria was sending war material into Iraq during the conflict, would the U.S. have considered them neutral ?

As for Pearl Harbor that raises other questions

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/RD-PEARL.html

Quote:

As for Israel, this is not a civil war, at least in the traditional sense. It is a bit complex to go into in a brief post, but you essentially have two sides with mutually incompatable goals. Israel wants to exist. The Palestinians want them not to. There is no middle ground between existence and non-existence.

This debate has been on for a long time. Does one group have the right to exist at the expense of the other ? By picking a side here, do you not make yourself the enemy of the other ? Israel has had the upper hand compared to its neighbors, does that give them the right to act however they like ?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/09/27/water020927

Neither side is right in this conflict, no easy solution. But one side recieves massive support, Does that seem right to you ?

Quote:

Perhaps you are right in that internal problems should be handled without our interference. Unfortunately, its really too late for that. The consequences of withdrawl are pretty severe especially if we want to form alliances with anyone else anywhere at any time in the future. Who would trust us to keep our word if we cut and run now?

I would suggest few really trust your country to keep its word now anyway, only economic and military pressures keep you at the table in most diplomatic processes. Your alliances are typically cash deals, not ones of ideology so why worry, if you have to deal in the future someone will always go for the dollar. Besides that statement is inconsistant with

Quote:

We just don't want people to kill us. We don't care if you love us, hate us, or ignore us. Just don't kill us.

Should be more like " We want you to do what your told, act like you like it, and shut the hell up "

And what could be more empire building than achieving that?

As for Iraq, I think General Zinni hits it pretty close here

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 7:02 AM

I still think that the two systems are qualitatively different. The choice is either individual freedom, or essentially ownership by the state. I don't have much faith in the moral equivalence arguments, as I don't think they factually represent the context of the times.

And while I am sure that many folks would prefer the Soviets to change their ways and become more like us, again there is a large difference, not only in goals but style. Lets face it, totalitarian dictatorships have to be held together by force. Yes Tito kept the various ethnic groups from fighting each other, but had to do so with an iron fist, which later proved to simply paper over the problems, instead of solved them. It is the employment of force, the extent of government power over everyday life, that makes all the difference between the two systems.

How far were we willing to go in changing the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons kind of screws up the historical "what if" but I think that we would have been quite happy to peacably co-exist, if it were not for the Soviet's attempts to undermine us, and our political system. Run the experiment, and see which system does better. Actually the presence of nuclear weapons force both sides to essentially take that tact, and fight containing actions in far off places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, (as well as much of the rest of the world)

As for the dictators we did side with, it was felt at the times that these were the lesser of two evils. And seeing the death and destruction wrought by communism over the years, taking Cambodia as one extreme example, I still think that it was proved correct. It would have been preferrable if these were all democracies, but in the middle of a war, you don't get ideal situations and have to deal with what is, first, rather than trying to create those situations. You have to put out the fire, before you can rebuild the house.

I think I did not explain myself well enough concerning "either you make your own decisions, or someone else does." There are really only two ways to order an individual's life. Fighting those who run your life for you, is a choice, and your decision.

It really boils down to the difference between persuasion and coercion, again the fundamental difference between capitalism and liberal democracy, and communism. You buy my product or else, I'll go try to sell it to someother guy over there, or find a new line of work or something else. What I won't do is put a gun to your head and force you to buy, or do what I say. Granted, if it is a choice between letting you kill me, or me using force to 'persuade' you not to, I will use force to protect myself. But generally speaking such situations are rather rare in every day life.

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, again this is a complex issue. I have a very viceral dislike for the Palestinians ever since the Achilli Lauro incident, and their further use of voilence against civilians to promote political change is distressing to say the least.

But you bring up a good point. Even prior to our support, or the Soviet support for the state of Israel, that nation had to endure a war on its first day of existence. And they won that war, as well as 4(?) others since, always against numerically superior odds. Considering that the majority of early Israelis were survivors of WW2, this is quite amazing in and of itself.

In combat, the side with the better intelligence on their opponent, a better understanding of their capabilities, logistics, positions, etc, as well as the better understanding of one's own abilities and distribution of forces, generally wins the battle, as well as the war. The old saw is backwards, Right makes Might. The side that has the most accurate model of themselves as well as their opponent, wins. I think the Israeli conflict illustrates this point profusely.

Israel has for at least several years now, shown a willingness to accept a two state solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have shown no such acceptance. It is not a matter of two sides that can't get along, but rather one side willing to get along, and another side blowing up busses and children.

So is it fair to support Israel over the Palestinians? Is it fair to support a democracy over a single party system? If it was wrong to support Batista et.al. because they were thuggish dictators, then it would also be wrong to support Arafat in his bid to drive the Jews into the sea.

I don't think the statements are inconsistent. The Soviets wanted everyone, including us, under their rule. We would prefer to simply live and let live. Life and other folks don't always give us that choice. If someone wants to kill you, whether you want to get along or not, simply is not a viable option.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 8:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
I still think that the two systems are qualitatively different. The choice is either individual freedom, or essentially ownership by the state. I don't have much faith in the moral equivalence arguments, as I don't think they factually represent the context of the times.

Good points, but political systems everywhere have major differences, for reasons due to geography, cultural diversity, etc
Would you also fault semi socialistic systems in say Sweden, Canada, or France as inferior to the one in the U.S. or just different ?

Quote:

And while I am sure that many folks would prefer the Soviets to change their ways and become more like us, again there is a large difference, not only in goals but style. Lets face it, totalitarian dictatorships have to be held together by force. Yes Tito kept the various ethnic groups from fighting each other, but had to do so with an iron fist, which later proved to simply paper over the problems, instead of solved them. It is the employment of force, the extent of government power over everyday life, that makes all the difference between the two systems.

Some situations require extreme solutions, as I think the American occupation in Iraq will prove out. Keeping Sunni / Shia / Kurdish groups from open hostilities will not be easy. It may only result in by providing them a common enemy ( the occupation forces )

Other countries which have used extreme policys to hold things together are Saudi Arabia and Egypt... while these are more aligned to the U.S. are they not deserving of the same criticism

Quote:

How far were we willing to go in changing the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons kind of screws up the historical "what if" but I think that we would have been quite happy to peacably co-exist, if it were not for the Soviet's attempts to undermine us, and our political system. Run the experiment, and see which system does better. Actually the presence of nuclear weapons force both sides to essentially take that tact, and fight containing actions in far off places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, (as well as much of the rest of the world)

What attempts to undermine ? Not quite sure what you mean.

Quote:

As for the dictators we did side with, it was felt at the times that these were the lesser of two evils. And seeing the death and destruction wrought by communism over the years, taking Cambodia as one extreme example, I still think that it was proved correct. It would have been preferrable if these were all democracies, but in the middle of a war, you don't get ideal situations and have to deal with what is, first, rather than trying to create those situations. You have to put out the fire, before you can rebuild the house.

And when elected governments are undermined for dictators which would obey ?

Thinking of Allende in Chile, The 1953 revolution in Iran, East Timor, or with your Cambodia example didn't U.S. action also contribute to the rise of the Khmer Rouge ?

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kh0033)

Quote:

It really boils down to the difference between persuasion and coercion, again the fundamental difference between capitalism and liberal democracy, and communism. You buy my product or else, I'll go try to sell it to someother guy over there, or find a new line of work or something else. What I won't do is put a gun to your head and force you to buy, or do what I say. Granted, if it is a choice between letting you kill me, or me using force to 'persuade' you not to, I will use force to protect myself. But generally speaking such situations are rather rare in every day life.

But should using force to protect yourself, extend to protecting your economic interests in other countrys ? And if so how far can the other side go in order the fight that ?

Quote:

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, again this is a complex issue. I have a very viceral dislike for the Palestinians ever since the Achilli Lauro incident, and their further use of voilence against civilians to promote political change is distressing to say the least.

The biggest problem with the Palestinians is that they are not one group, while this is important to the survivial, it make negotiation difficult. To condemn them all for the actions of Hammas, or the Black Brigade would be like condemning all the Irish for the IRA. Or for that matter, all jews for the actions of Sharons government. One has to also remember, forced relocations, destruction of infrastructure, economic and psychological warfare conducted by Israel greatly affects the civilian population, and further esculates the violence.

Quote:

But you bring up a good point. Even prior to our support, or the Soviet support for the state of Israel, that nation had to endure a war on its first day of existence. And they won that war, as well as 4(?) others since, always against numerically superior odds. Considering that the majority of early Israelis were survivors of WW2, this is quite amazing in and of itself.

In combat, the side with the better intelligence on their opponent, a better understanding of their capabilities, logistics, positions, etc, as well as the better understanding of one's own abilities and distribution of forces, generally wins the battle, as well as the war. The old saw is backwards, Right makes Might. The side that has the most accurate model of themselves as well as their opponent, wins. I think the Israeli conflict illustrates this point profusely.

Logistics won the day, particularly in 1972/73]
I read that the Israeli airforce in particular suffered %185 losses in aircraft, and were only sustained by the transfer of U.S. aircraft.

But, as my point goes That's not neutral

Quote:

Israel has for at least several years now, shown a willingness to accept a two state solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have shown no such acceptance. It is not a matter of two sides that can't get along, but rather one side willing to get along, and another side blowing up busses and children.

Elements of the Palestians have no interest, and I find it hard to be critical of their efforts to crack down on their own extremist groups when the day after the first bombing Israel conducted rocket attacks on the Palistinian police stations.
Or Begin ransoming and murdering captured British troops in the pre Israel days

While agreeing to peace processes in the past, the Israeli government has also acting to undermine to process,

I think both sides need a 2x4 upside the head here.

Quote:

So is it fair to support Israel over the Palestinians? Is it fair to support a democracy over a single party system? If it was wrong to support Batista et.al. because they were thuggish dictators, then it would also be wrong to support Arafat in his bid to drive the Jews into the sea.

Lets view the Palestians as a minority group within Israel then, the U.S. bombed serbia in order the protect Kosovo, despite the KLA was burning houses and conducting their own " terror " operations at the time. Do the palestian people ( the majority who hurt no-one )
deserve less protection ?

Quote:

I don't think the statements are inconsistent. The Soviets wanted everyone, including us, under their rule. We would prefer to simply live and let live. Life and other folks don't always give us that choice. If someone wants to kill you, whether you want to get along or not, simply is not a viable option.

My point being in that by trying to manipalate things in their own favor ( or the favor of their allies ) the U.S. has more or less conducted political/economic warfare upon a great many people, this has caused the deaths of a countless number of people and the misery of countless more. Another option is to quit giving this growing number of people a reason and motivation to come after you. As General Zinni stated in that last article, if done incorrectly Iraq was going to supercharge recruiting for Al Qaeda.
U.S. foriegn policy is only making more and more enemies... at what point does that change. After all, in their view they are the ones acting in self defence.

"my kind of stupid"

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 9:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Drakon, do you read history or do you just make it up as you go along?

Who do you suppose set up the Shah of Iran? (Hint: it wasn't the Iranians!) The Shah's Savak learned torture techniques from the CIA, and then expanded on them in ways that shocked even their teachers. The Shah's repression and corruption eventually brought us the Ayatollah.

Do you happen to remember who supported Saddam in his fight against Iran? Do you happen to know who shipped biowarfare cultures, stainless steel fermenters, chemical weapons raw materials, reactors, "CROP SPRAYING" helicopters, sophisticated computers and software, laser targeting devices, and so forth and so on....

Got a clue as to provided strategic information on troop movements and "ground truth" kill rates for chemical weapons use on Iranian troops and civilians?

OK, how about this- WHO do you suppose provided the Stinger missiles for the Taliban?

Got any idea who set up the Saudi royal family? (Same hint- it wasn't the Saudis!)

So, you seem to think this is all cultural and economic? Nothing to do at all with foreign invaders?

YUH.

I could go on and on with specific examples from countries literally all around the world: Indonesia, the Phillipines, the Congo, Peru... Our "interventions" have ranged from assasination to mass murder using traditional weapons to biowarfare.

I'm going to collapse this argument into something you should think about: The United States has a habit of destroying democracies and setting up dictatorships around the world. (If you want, I'll give you a list of countries we've really scrwed up, you can pick one at random and I'll provide the details. But I'll bet you don't take me up on this offer!

)

The corporations get cheap labor or cheap raw materials. The dictators get a cut of the action. "We" hold the puppet's strings because they require our military assistance. How convenient all around!!

----------------------------
I've read several of these, "we've had our hands in their cookie jars" stuff for a while, and sorry it does not wash. It in no way, shape or form justifies the terrorists action. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what you are doing here. Trying to tell me it is okay they killed 3,000 people on 9-11.

No matter how you dress it up, that is what this "root causes" argument is trying to do. Make it okay for mass murder.
-----------------------

We could do so much good simply by not doing so much bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 11:01 AM

Here's an interesting old thread I found, just before U.S. went to war. It's interesting to see how many people are Pro-War and they thought the operation would be short and shockingly awesome.

"UN Inspectors Told To Leave Iraq Immediately"
March 17, 2003
http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=1701

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 11:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"It's all about the oil" Been saying it since whenever.

But everyone INSISTED it was about WMD. I'll take them at their word. There are now no WMD. Mission accomplished- let's go home.

I'LL SUPPLY THE BEER IF WULF WILL SUPPLY THE TEQUILA!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 12:26 PM

KAYTHRYN

Quote:
Posted by Succatash: Here's an interesting old thread I found, just before U.S. went to war. It's interesting to see how many people are Pro-War and they thought the operation would be short and shockingly awesome.

I think there are still a lot of people who believe that the war has been short and well... not shockingly awesome but something that has done good.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 4:37 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmmm... let's see. We've killed approximately 10,000 Iraqis. Bechtel and Haliburton are making out like bandits. (tsk tsk what am I saying... they ARE bandits!) Aside from losing over 200 soldiers, we're being sucked dry by billions of dollars. The folks in Iraq still don't have water, electricity, medical care, or fuel. That's the downside.

Despite Cheney's and Rumsfeld's best efforts, we still don't have control of Iraqi oil. Bad for our corporations, but good for the people of Iraq.

The upside? Saddam is out of power.

I'm not sure that we can pull off a happy ending. The situation is really weird. The forces of destruction and construction are pretty closely balanced.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 4:52 PM

Quote:

I think there are still a lot of people who believe that the war has been short and well... not shockingly awesome but something that has done good.

But I think the real question is, are those people living in Iraq. If the people their feel it has done good, or the new regime the U.S. is building is a good thing, then things will stand a chance to work. On the other hand, if the people there respond to the U.S. as a foreign interloper or invader then the process is doomed from the start. Did you check out the General Zinni article a few posts back ?

Maybe I'm a pestimist, but I see bad times ahead

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 7, 2003 11:56 AM

Well, all the soldiers who signed up for a free college degree got screwed. If they don't fight, they go to jail.

"Anti-War U.S. Marine Sentenced to Six Months in Jail"
Sun Sep 7, 2:27 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=11&u=/n
m/20030907/ts_nm/crime_marine_dc_5

A military jury found an anti-war U.S. Marine reservist guilty of unauthorized absence and sentenced him to six months in jail for refusing to report to his unit during the Iraq war.

The verdict was less than the desertion charge the U.S. military had sought, which could have put Lance Cpl. Stephen Funk behind bars for a year...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 2:32 AM

Ahh!! How did I ever forget this animation!!!

And now for more political commentary from Mittens and Snowdrop:

http://www.matazone.co.uk/kitty7.html

Enjoy.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 3:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GIno- I guess what you're asking is: Is the presence of the USA military a stablizing or a destabilizing force? If it's a destabilizing force, then the harder we try to "fix" things, the worse things will get.

Sure won't hear bad news from USA media! But lack of good news is just as informative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 4:40 AM

Interesting animation. Sometimes it makes me wonder just what planet some folks are living on these days.

The first and most fundamental civil right there is, is the right not to get blown up. It appears that a lot of folks don't get that. We are still debating whether we are at war or not, even after 2 years since the towers fell.

I don't know about you, but if someone tries to kill you, you got the right to kill them right back. And I see no reason to suspect that the jihadis and Saddam dead enders make any distinction between people who ain't them. Heck New York city and state voted heavily for Gore. It did not stop them from being attacked.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 4:45 AM

The deal was that you sign up for miltary service, meaning going to war if necessary, and then the military fulfills its agreement to fund college.

You break your side of the agreement, then yes, the military will put you in jail. I don't see how the military is doing anything wrong in this case. It was the guy who decided to break his agreement first.

Making voluntary contractual obligation legally binding is a bad idea?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 5:52 AM

"Would you also fault semi socialistic systems in say Sweden, Canada, or France as inferior to the one in the U.S. or just different ?"

I have to say yes. None of these countries seem to be doing as well as the US economically, and that has a large part to do with the socialist systems they have employed. Technically, militarily, or politically, none of these countries are doing as well as the US, despite in the case of France, being far older, Sweden, of having a more culturally homogenous population, and Canada, being so much like America in geography.

Once you control the economy of a population, you control almost every other aspect of the life of the individual. Some ideas work in the real world better than others, and some simply don't work. Centralized economic control does not work nearly as well as individual freedom. It is different, but is not working nearly as good as the US system.

"Other countries which have used extreme policys to hold things together are Saudi Arabia and Egypt... while these are more aligned to the U.S. are they not deserving of the same criticism"

This is more tactical than anything else. We know that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Sauds. But attacking Sauds directly would have turned this into a war on Islam, with all the attendent problems that would cause. Which is why Saddam had to go first. In the case of Saudi Arabia, they, or at least a large portion of the ruling family, are far more deserving of criticism.

"What attempts to undermine ?"

It is not generally considered politically correct to note this, but from the 30's on, Soviets were trying to infiltrate US government, unions and Hollywood, in an attempt to undermine the American political structure and bring about one that more closely resembles the one they had. This has been born out by the release of KGB archives, and the Verona transcripts (of coded messages from the Soviets)

"But should using force to protect yourself, extend to protecting your economic interests in other countrys ? And if so how far can the other side go in order the fight that ?"

Okay, I need to object to the word "should". It refers to some standard to base a judgement on, and not knowing what that standard is, I am not sure what you are getting at here.

In an ideal world, one "should" never have to defend themselves, using force or not. 9-11 "should" never happen, nor dictators like Saddam or the Taliban should never arrise. But they do, and you have to deal with the situation as it is, rather than how you wish it were.

In these cases, like I said before, it comes down to a choice between two evils, and one has to go to the lesser one. Its a catch-22, damned if we protect our economic interests and that means some rather nasty regimes, and damned if we replace those governments. Well, there are none so free as the damned....

As for how far the other side "should" go, well, again, ideally, we should not even be having a war at all. But we are, so should does not play into it. I will say that deliberately targeting civilians is a bad idea. Blowing up the UN mission, who was there only to help the Iraqi people, they "should" not have done that.

It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on the Israeli-Palistinian problem. It is difficult to find out just how much real support Hamas has in the territories, as Arafat's is running a thugocracy and diversity of opinions will get one lynched in the streets. It is the suicide bombers who are in power there, and until they are removed, peace is not going to happen.

For the betterment of both sides, the jihadis are going to have to go away. There has to be a mutually satisfactory solution, which means a two state solution where neither state is blowing up the other one. As long as one side sees their goal as annilating the other, such a solution will not happen.

I will also note that again you have a democracy in a war against a totalitarian regime. And in that case, at first cut, I have to side with the Israelis. More brains on the job and all that.

"Do the palestian people ( the majority who hurt no-one ) deserve less protection ?"

This is a good question, but based on a false premise. Israel is not conducting indiscriminant massacres of Palestinians. It is targeting Hamas in particular, their leadership and the suicide bombings. Lets face it, Israel has the military capabilities to wipe the occupied territories clean of any human. But they don't. They haven't. As bad as it would be for the Palestinians, it would solve the problem once and for all.

The Palestinians have shown the will, but as of yet do not have the means. From what I have seen, I have doubts that if the situation were reversed, the Palestinians would be as merciful.

But lets cut through a lot of this stuff. If their Arab brothers were really interested in the Palestinians, they would have re-integrated them back into their own societies, instead of keeping them constant refugees. Jordan and Egypt would have accepted Israel's offer to return the occupied territories to those nation, instead of keeping them and the people living there in a constant limbo. There is something else going on here.

And I think I know what it is. Totalitarian regimes don't work. They are ineffective at distributing economic benefits to all its people, and this makes folks unhappy. Now, if you are the guy in charge, your choice is to either completely change your regime, in which case, you are out of power, and possibly dead, or you deflect the anger your folks feel toward your regimes toward others. You find a scapegoat. The Palestinians satisfy that role, and the jihadis in Arafat's government seem only too happy to play the role of surrogate against the "true" problem, namely Israel. They get paid well for it.

"My point being in that by trying to manipalate things in their own favor ( or the favor of their allies ) the U.S. has more or less conducted political/economic warfare upon a great many people, this has caused the deaths of a countless number of people and the misery of countless more. Another option is to quit giving this growing number of people a reason and motivation to come after you. As General Zinni stated in that last article, if done incorrectly Iraq was going to supercharge recruiting for Al Qaeda.
U.S. foriegn policy is only making more and more enemies... at what point does that change. After all, in their view they are the ones acting in self defence."

You have me at a disadvantage. Since things happened as they did, things that did not happen, potentialities that would have resulted in more deaths, did not. So I have a tough case to prove here, as to which scenario would have resulted in less deaths.

The reason and motivation is not what we do, but what we are. The what we do, is merely an excuse. We are a free, prosperous, and generally happy people. They are not. They (specifically the jihadis) see us rightly as a blasphemy, as themselves of living according to God's dictates, and we as decedent, Godless kaffir, who are not deserving of the wealth and prosperity that we have earned. We are a walking talking refutation of everything they believe. We are proof positive that they are wrong.

Now, we have no desire to be enslaved, poor or miserable. As long as we are not, we will be a threat to their way of life. Whether it is our intention or not to be a threat, is irrelavant. Objectively, we will always be a threat to dictators and totalitarian regimes. I don't see us changing, of capitulating to their demands, of appeasing their hatred, as a viable option.

So we fight.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 6:16 AM

I do read history, just not the Chomskyite version of it. The half truths and some quite big lies about the past.

There are two central problems with this thesis. First off, that this was different in nature from things that were done by any other nation, such as the Soviets. Or was worse than things any other nation did.

The second is the concept of "group guilt". That the actions of the government of a democracy justifies attacks on the civilians of that government, even if those civilians did not vote for the administration. That the sins of any past administration 'roll over' to the present population. If you have no control over the events, then you cannot be held accountable for the outcome. And if the events happened before you were born, and even if you try to rectify them, too bad.

So even if you were right in your historical analysis, the fundamental structure of your argument is troublesome.

Lets cut through the all the bull and follow your argument out to its logical conclusion. What you are essentially saying is that Al-Qaeda was justified in mudering innocent civilians on 9-11 and the US has no right to self defense. Because of things that were done in the past, in some cases the long distant past, we should simply go off somewhere and die. Sorry, you want to kill me, if you think you have the right to kill me, then I am assuming the right to kill you right back.

And when one looks at what the Taliban did to Afghanistan, it is hard to see these guys as "freedom fighters" That they would do things different, let alone better.

Look, we can go around and around on historical debates till the end of the world. Some will always see the glass as half empty, some will ignore any and all good the US has done. And in the end, none of it means a thing.

Whether we like it or not, we are in a war for survival. And to be frank, none of these excuses really amount to a hill of beans. Bin Ladan does not like the Saud family and thinks he'd make a better defender of Mecca and Medina. Saddam wants to unite first the entire Arab world and then the rest of us, under his thumb. We would prefer things were different, that we were not the scapegoat of all those failed thugocracies. But we are, and that is what we have to deal with.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 6:31 AM

"Maybe I'm a pestimist, but I see bad times ahead"

Its hard not to be, and even tougher to see whom to believe. I have been reading e-mail from our troops on the front lines, (see Sragent Stryker's blog as one example) and they are reporting about 95 percent approval by the Iraqi people. But then an armed guy with a gun is not a good poll taker, especially considering Iraq's recent past.

But I have faith in the selfish desires of human beings. Once the Iraqis see the (selfish) advantages of freedom and liberal democracy (defined by me as majority rule with respect for minority rights, essentially everybody plays by the same rules) see how much happier they can be, how much wealthier they can be without a thugocracy, then things will work out.

I did check out Zinni's article, and he does note the possiblity for disaster. He makes a good point that this could end up a mess. But then again, we could end up with a free, democratic Iraq that leads to democracy throughout the region. A graveyard for all the jihadis in the rest of the world, which would make all of us, American and European, Israeli and Arab, better off.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 8:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"We would prefer things were different, that we were not the scapegoat of all those failed thugocracies. But we are, and that is what we have to deal with"

I'm not trying to justify al Qaida's terrorism, I'm trying to UNjustify ours! (Help! Find me a better word!

)

It seems that every time we mess someone up, we always have a good reason, or at least a good rationalization- it's for peace, or democracy, or anti-communism, or something. Of course, it would never do for our leaders to say that we supported Pinochet because he'd give us "our" copper mines back. So I think many people believe that our motives are purer than al Qaida's, but then why do we almost always wind up on the side of oligarchs and tyrants? Did you know, for instance, that Kissinger vowed to support Suharto just before he (Suharto) massacred 100,000 East Timorese- with American weapons, I might add? Kissinger's only proviso was "Just wait until I leave before you start".

http://www.etan.org/et2002a/february/01-09/09ksngr.htm

There are times it is necessary to go to war. This was not one of those times. Saddam did NOT have WMD. He did NOT pose an imminent threat to either us or his immediate neighbors. He was NOT involved in terrorist acts against the USA. We were NOT "fighting for our survival" when we invaded Iraq, and you can be sure that our fearless leaders really didn't give a cr*p about internal repression- after all, we've set up some of the worst dictaroships in the world!

The big rush to inavde was because France, Germany, and Russia had just signed big contracts with Saddam. Iraq sits on the second-largest oil reserve in the WORLD. The neocons slavered over that, hoping to get a hold of the oil as a springboard to "remake" the Middle East and at the same time displace Saudi Arabia as a driving force in OPEC.

If we were really concerned about Iraqi stabilization, we'd declare victory and go home. Our mere presence seems to be inciting the very actions that we wanted to eliminate. But all of that oil.... sigh.... that's why we're there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:39 AM

SCOTTI

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Great headline today, the US has announced long term plans to rotate U.S. troops each year in Iraq. This sucks, whatever happened to a quick operation and the discovery of weapons? The actions of my country are extremely wrong and personally embarassing to me.

U.S. soldiers are now in rotation for a 2 day vacation at a "Rest Camp in Iraq," meanwhile Georgie just left for his "month long vacation." WTF?

We need to get the hell out of Iraq and bring our soldiers home. I have many friends without Dad's and little babies being born without parents and this is bullshit, no one is protecting me from Freedom, this is just meddling bullshit in other countries and inspiring more terrorism and world wide hatred against the United States FOR NO GOD DAMN GOOD REASON.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030813/ap_on_re_mi
_ea/iraq_us_troops&cid=540&ncid=716

'tash, I've been mostly lurking on here for a while, and only occasionally do I throw my .02 into the pot, but I've just got to respond to this post, especially now that I'm over here.

For those of you that don't know me, I'm a civilian contractor for the military, currently in Kuwait (just down the road from Iraq). I work with soldier every day, and it goes without saying that they would rather be home than here.

But I can also tell you without a doubt that EVERYONE here believes in why they're here. It may have started out as a way to pay for college, or just a way to "see the world", but now that they're here, and they see the way this part of the world lives, they are all doing their jobs, and proud of the jobs they're doing.

In addition to the soldiers, I also deal with the locals. They are still recovering from Saddam's occupation, and are thankful of the job the US is doing for them. You may hear other accounts, and as always: opinions are like assholes...

The topic of whether or not we SHOULD be here is no longer "beating a dead horse"... it's jumping up and down on the greasy spot that USED to be a horse... fact of the matter is we're here, and there's a job to do. There is NO one else in the world that is able and willing to make some changes ... and believe me, the changes needed to be made. I have no doubts that Saddam was perfectly capable of using the biggest weapon he could get his hands on against any target he wanted. Would you have wanted it to get to that point?

==============================================
Mal: You are very much lacking in imagination.
Zoe: I imagine that's so, sir.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:46 AM