New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#1 2006-10-03 07:56:37

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

QALAT, Afghanistan  —  U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html
I don't like this idea, of bringing people who should be in jail into government. I don't care if they are popular with some people, all that means to me is that the people with whom they are popular with should be in jail too, because as far as I'm concerned, they are my enemy, they hosted Al Qaeda who attacked my country and my home state with their suicide bombers and the refused to hand over Bin Laden when he was in their possession! As far as I'm concerned they are not forgiven, and the US Army should hunt them all down and all of their supporters down to extinction! I think Senator Bill Frist has lost track of why we are are there. Rebuilding Afghanistan is only a secondary objective in my opinion, the primary objective is to hunt down Al Qaeda and the Taliban, make no compromises with them. None of this compromises with evil. The Tabiban murdered innocent people and oppressed Afghanistan, they should not be allowed back into power because of their violence and their supporters should be expelled from the country. I don't care if no other country will take them, let them swim or float around on boats.

I think including any terrorist group in any form of government is a bad idea, it will only lead to trouble and reduce our effectiveness in fighting terrorism. The President of Iran is also a terrorist, in my opnion, he should have been welcomed to our country with a hail of bullets from the moment he stepped off the plane and I'd tell the UN what it can go do with itsself and it protocol. Terrorists are terrorists, I don't care if they are the leaders of nations, or if they are popular or in government, they are still terrorists, and if we are to win the war on terror, we must not make exceptions. Damn the protocol, damn the international relations, and damn the Muslim world if they support terror. If Islam is a peaceful religion, let them show it by fighting terror, all terror, even against the Jews!

Offline

#2 2006-10-03 10:57:57

C M Edwards
Member
From: Lake Charles LA USA
Registered: 2002-04-29
Posts: 1,011

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Damn the protocol, damn the international relations, and damn the Muslim world if they support terror.

Well, damn if that ain't a simple solution to the whole problem.  Why didn't Senator Frist think of that?


"We go big, or we don't go."  - GCNRevenger

Offline

#3 2006-10-03 11:41:12

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Senator Frisk's priorities are different from mine. My priority is to punish and get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, if Afghanistan is a mess afterwards, too bad! They shouldn't have allowed Al Qaeda to use their country as a staging ground to attack the United States in the first place, and they shouldn't have supported the Taliban to the degree which they did that allowed them to take power and to play host to Al Qaeda in the first place. If there is not peace, if the Afghans suffer, then if they want peace they should stop collectively supporting the Taliban or else we'll punish them for doing so. War is a collective business, it is one society versus another. If their are tribal regions and they hide members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda, then we punish those regions that collectively support those groups. I'm sick and tired of lame old excuses such as "Oh we don't have control over those regions of the country, oh the tribes are not cooperating, some of them sympathize with radical element etc."

We need to apply fuzzy logic here, we need to decide if the local tribes, villiages etc are supporting our efforts to fight the Taliban or are they giving them refuge and hiding members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda. At some point we have to decide whose side the locals are really on. They could not be on our side if the locals are not turning in members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and improvised explosives repeatedly go off in the vicintity of our soldiers and suicide mombers from the local community repeatedly blow themselves up to kill us. This is a war, we don't have the resources to decide individual guilt or innocense. As the weight of evidence accumulates and it becomes increasingly unlikely that the locals are cooperating or doing their part to help fight and root out these terrorists, we must decide on whose side these local communities actually are on. If it seems unlikely that the locals are actually as oblivious of their surroundings and who's in them and doing what, if they are increasingly "incompetent", "unknowledgable" and they continue as a community to protest their innocense and how they are actually on our side, then common sense should prevail, and maybe the lawyer logic should be abandoned for more fuzzy logic. We should ask questions such as does this community as a whole support us or the terrorists, and if we conclude they support the terrorists. Well, I'm not saying we should attack them or kill them, but perhaps we should closely watch them, restrict their movements, or relocate them out of the area and disarm them so they may be more easily guarded. This is war, and the objective is to win, it is not our job to decide guilt or innocense, we must apprehend and kill the Terrorists where ever we find them. If people support the terrorists, we should see to it that they suffer accordingly. If they don't like living in camps, then they should rat out the terrorists, and then we can go after them.

The exact tactics, I am not so sure about. I am sort of squeemish about harming innocent people, but not so much that I'm willing to forfeit the war. Some compromise in our tactics should be worked out, somewhere between criminal proceedings and fighting an all out no holds bar war against them. We afford as many civil rights to individuals as we can, while still bringing the war to a successful conclusion. I don't believe in making peace with terrorists or in allowing them to participate in government, they are criminals and don't belong in government. They have not made peace with us, they have not appologized for their crimes or paid us reparations for damages done and lives lost. I don't think we should sacrifice justice for ourselves so the Afghans can have peace with them. We must be flexible in how we fight them, not inflexible, lawyerly, logic robots, that are incappacitated by our inability to prosecute in sufficient volume to win the war. Wars are sweeping and injust, their are many innocent victims of it, but that does not mean that we should not fight them when they are brought to us and our shores.

The Civil War was won with much injustice to many innocents, but we won that war, and I'm glad we did. So much the better than to lose it and our country.

Offline

#4 2006-10-03 15:39:52

C M Edwards
Member
From: Lake Charles LA USA
Registered: 2002-04-29
Posts: 1,011

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Hmm...

I don't accept your rationale - real societies don't work like that, and claiming otherwise resembles "fuzzy thinking" more than "fuzzy logic". 

However, you do have one very good point.  If peace is to be enforced by military force, then clearly it is as bad to be tepid about keeping the peace as it is to be timid about open warfare. 

A long term solution involving "total peace" could still be realized even if "total war" wasn't.


"We go big, or we don't go."  - GCNRevenger

Offline

#5 2006-10-03 19:46:13

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

The Taliban was a large part of the Afghan government and Osama Bin Laden may not of represented the majority of their views and perhaps few new about his planed attacks on the United States. Reconciliation is sometimes a necessary step for peace. Large parts of the German and Japanese army where forgiven at the end of WWII. I’m not saying the idea is a good idea I am just not certain it is bad.

The Afghan people were not really in a position to oppose the Taliban. They lived largely in poverty, never had the opportunity to vote and were constantly under attack by foreign invaders. Additionally the Taliban was once supported and armed by both the Untied states and Pakistan.

Offline

#6 2006-10-04 00:31:54

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

I don't think the US ever specifically supported the Taliban over the other forces fighting the Soviet Union. Are you saying we were wrong to oppose Soviet Empire building? We gave them weapons so they could fight off the invaders, we respected their culture and their local sensibilities, while the Soviets tried to force them into the mold of the "Soviet Man", and what did we get for all that help? We get stabbed in the back that's what, that makes them even less sympathetic and more evil and ungrateful in my eyes, not less so. The worst villians are the ones who pretend to be your friends.

Alot of places and countries live in poverty, and most of those places don't attack us for no reason as the Afghans did. I do not understand the motivations for the attack on 9/11, most of the liberal rationalizations of the motives of our enemy are very thin and require that I accept their version of reality that the US is an expanding imperialist empire with alot of invisible strings everywhere and our mere act of breathing is exploiting the impoverished, and somehow greedy capitalists in top hats are rubbing their hands together and getting rich from all this poverty. That is a rather "Soviet" explaination, and I don't except it. the best explaination I can think up is that the Taliban are simply stupid to take on a big superpower and to attack it for no reason.

I think the Afghans supported the Taliban. They were fighting each other for years after the Soviets were driven out and suddenly they all spontaneously lay down their arms when these young "johnny come latelys" graduated from their madrassas and invaded Afghanistan from Pakistan, they let these lunatics govern their country and they supported them through their lack of resistance, then some "brilliant fanatic thought it would be a great time to go attack America. In retrospect, I wish we made Afghanistan alot sorrier for messing with us, and that we didn't make targets of our soldiers by trying to rebuild their country. All these attacks against our soldiers seem to indicate to me that we've been much too kind to them, that they don't appreciate our efforts or sacrifice, and maybe next time something like this happens, we should try harder to make them regret it for the sake of future deterrence.

Muslims seem like this, you are either cruel or you are weak, you are never kind, and they repay your kindness with violence. I hope I am wrong, I really do. I would prefer George Bush to be right, that these people only need to be freed from tyranny and to have some democracy, but recent polls state that 6 out of 10 Iraqis want American Soldiers Dead! Maybe the poll is wrong or false, cooked up by a liberal media that wants to undermine support for the war. The assumptions of the Liberals are of course the Iraqis hate us for liberating them, that the Iraqis aren't ready for democracy, that they love their dictators. But if we accept those assumptions, we must also accept then that the people are therefore the enemy, and why should we care what they want?

There are two possible outcomes for this war, either we win and Iraq and Afghanistan become democracies, or we lose and Iraq and Afghanistan become dictatorships and havens supporting terrorism. If the second happens, we can't just leave them alone, can we? For they will continue to attack us. Maybe next time we should make the people, not just their government pay a heavy price for their support of terror. You attack a bear, you get mauled. My estimation of the Islamic world goes down everytime I hear about large numbers of them supporting terror or terrorist attacks against our soldiers. I will want very little to do with them if we lose this war, because I will blame them and their ingratitude. A Muslim who is not ready for democracy is not someone that I'd want in my country or immigrating to my country. If Iraqis and Afghanistanis fail democracy, they should not be allowed to come to the US. If they don't want democracy their, why should they be allowed to come here and enjoy the democracy we have here?

If their is a miscalculation on Bush's part, it is the failure of Islamic people to live up to his expectations of a "religion of peace", their failure to accept democracy and to live in peace with their neighbors. George Bush thought highly of them and had great expectations of their ability to become civilized. The Democrats of course had much lower expectations of them, that they are savages, uncultured, undemocratic, cruel and brutal, totally unreformable and undemocratic and that no effort should be expended to teach them better ways, because such would be totally useless and a waste of our efforts and our soldiers lives.

If the Democrats get their wish and we lose the war, then I as a consequence will want little to do with the Third World, especially the Muslim part of it, because the Democratic stereotype of typical muslims will tend to ring true.

Offline

#7 2006-10-05 05:57:53

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Most people do not appreciate foreigners with guns breaking down their doors- even if the foreigners are doing so in the name of 'freedom'.

You and every red blooded american would be deeply offended and in arms if a foriegn army occupied your soil. I doubt you would greet them and cherish them for long if they stayed around for years while crime and violence escalated around you.

meh.

Offline

#8 2006-10-05 07:25:26

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Most people do not appreciate foreigners with guns breaking down their doors- even if the foreigners are doing so in the name of 'freedom'.

You and every red blooded american would be deeply offended and in arms if a foriegn army occupied your soil. I doubt you would greet them and cherish them for long if they stayed around for years while crime and violence escalated around you.

meh.

It is not US forces that are commiting the crime or escalating the violence. Everytime a muslim blows himself up in the middle of a crowded square, it should be obvious to everybody that it was not a US soldier. The violence and the crime are a characteristic of the muslim community in Iraq, the US army did not cring it with them. Iraqis are by their nature a violent people, we saw how violence they were when they invaded Kuwait, perhaps it was not just their government directing them toward that violence at that time, maybe they just love to kill and maim, that being so, I don't know why they are complaining about violence that is their own community's doing and saying the US caused it all. Do they expect us to put them all in straight jackets?

Offline

#9 2006-10-05 08:09:32

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Um, okay. I think what was previously suspected is glaringly obvious now.

All in favor of slapping the nutter around? Oh for the love god, won't some one tell me to behave...

Offline

#10 2006-10-05 09:07:07

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Ok, maybe its an over-generalization of the Iraqi people, but its very frusterating when they commit the crimes and then blame us for making them commit them. Iraqi society had these problems before we got there. it is not our fault that Sunnis are the minority and they don't like it and so violently resist democracy. Democracy is only fair and just.

I'm not sure I trust the News reports or opinion polls either, it seems the News organizations have a lot of good new to report, but if they did report it, they would boost the chances or republicans, and so they've turned it into the Mark Foley show, even though Mark Foley has resigned, they are saying, the Speaker must have known, because he supposedly prys into every private communication between all Republican congressmen and ex-pages, and if some former aid says he brought this to the attention of the speaker on his word, he could not possibly be lying for political reasons could he? I could also say I saw Bill Clinton in silk stalkings running around butt naked in the streets of Chappaqua, now where's the News Media to report my story? Why don't they take me on my word, that I'm not lying? Is it because it wouldn't suit their political purpose? That the Newsmedia is in fact biased in favor of one political party over another.

Reuters fabricated photos of the Israeli bombings in Lebanon, why couldn't they fabricate an opinion poll which says 6 out of 10 Iraqis want to see US soldiers dead? I think the Media wants to see the US to lose this war so Democrats can get elected, so therefore they'll report and say anything to undermine morale or support for this war, even lie perhaps. The "Get Bush" mentality makes all their reports suspect.

Offline

#11 2006-10-05 10:00:43

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Ok, maybe its an over-generalization of the Iraqi people, but its very frusterating when they commit the crimes and then blame us for making them commit them. Iraqi society had these problems before we got there. it is not our fault that Sunnis are the minority and they don't like it and so violently resist democracy. Democracy is only fair and just.

If democracy is only fair and just then why do we need to force it at the point of a gun? Isn’t that the same as those who call for conversion to a particular belief in god at the point of a sword?

I don’t believe that Iraqi’s blame us for making them commit crimes. Which Iraqi’s are saying that? As for Iraq having these problems prior to our ‘invasion and liberation’ from the hands of a lone despot, it now appears that instead of a lone despot perpetrating rape, pillage, and mass murder- we have nobly replaced the lone despot with an endless number of blood thirsty criminals who rape, pillage and commit mass murder.

A striking success this policy of foreign intervention without just cause or reason!

I'm not sure I trust the News reports or opinion polls either, it seems the News organizations have a lot of good new to report, but if they did report it, they would boost the chances or republicans, and so they've turned it into the Mark Foley show, even though Mark Foley has resigned, they are saying, the Speaker must have known, because he supposedly prys into every private communication between all Republican congressmen and ex-pages, and if some former aid says he brought this to the attention of the speaker on his word, he could not possibly be lying for political reasons could he?

Right. Because young men in America are in the habit of making claims of gay trysts with political leaders with powerful friends for kicks and giggles. And it must be a conspiracy since there are multiple accounts, corroborated by actual evidence of the behavior in question. Yeah, I agree. And you know what, the Moon landing was hoax. See, bet you didn’t know how good Big Media really is.

I could also say I saw Bill Clinton in silk stalkings running around butt naked in the streets of Chappaqua, now where's the News Media to report my story?

Fox.

Why don't they take me on my word, that I'm not lying?

Believe me, Fox will air anything and take you at your word. Hard questions and tough analysis is not usually a top priority.


Is it because it wouldn't suit their political purpose? That the Newsmedia is in fact biased in favor of one political party over another.

And they are doing a bang up job of that, right? I mean, 8 years of Republican control of Congress and the White House is an obvious sign that Big media has an anti Republican agenda and that they control who and how we vote as Americans! I mean, it is plain as day that Big Media is liberally biased and affecting how Americans vote! My GOD!

Reuters fabricated photos of the Israeli bombings in Lebanon, why couldn't they fabricate an opinion poll which says 6 out of 10 Iraqis want to see US soldiers dead? I think the Media wants to see the US to lose this war so Democrats can get elected, so therefore they'll report and say anything to undermine morale or support for this war, even lie perhaps. The "Get Bush" mentality makes all their reports suspect.

Or, perhaps, just for a moment, let us accept that all of these sources, from all over the world, from trusted figures without obvious political agendas, who continually point out the failure that is our Iraq policy, may be right, or may have a point.

Reuters did not fabricate photos- they were duped by a photographer. Big difference.

Americans did not invade Iraq for no reason- they were duped by their leaders. But in the end, in a democracy, we have only ourselves to blame. We get what we’re worth.

Now where is the beer tree-er, vegetable.

Offline

#12 2006-10-05 14:32:28

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

If democracy is only fair and just then why do we need to force it at the point of a gun?

Because others supress it at the point of a sword.
My, your very argumentative today.

I would take it as a given that all societes must run as democracies because all governments must have the public trust, and they spend public funds. That government should govern with the consent of the governed, is a basic principle.

What other government would you propose besides democracy?
If a government isn't a democracy, it is something else - a government that rules by force without the concent of the government. Most Arab governments rule without their publics consent, simply by virtue that they got most of the guns.

I don’t believe that Iraqi’s blame us for making them commit crimes. Which Iraqi’s are saying that? As for Iraq having these problems prior to our ‘invasion and liberation’ from the hands of a lone despot, it now appears that instead of a lone despot perpetrating rape, pillage, and mass murder- we have nobly replaced the lone despot with an endless number of blood thirsty criminals who rape, pillage and commit mass murder.

You know perfectly well that Saddam Hussein didn't rape and murder all these people with his own hands, instead he had his henchmen do his bidding.

So their were alot of people doing rapes and murders under Saddam's direction, but that still makes it alot of rapes and murders. The difference now is that alot of these criminals are either acting on their own or at the behest of a number of armed groups operating in the country. Does it really matter if Saddam's man is your murderer or if its an Al Qaeda man? Also alot of Iraqis asked for our help to over throw Saddam and so we overthrew him.

A striking success this policy of foreign intervention without just cause or reason!

Oh boo hoo! Poor Saddam! Sniff sniff.


And they are doing a bang up job of that, right? I mean, 8 years of Republican control of Congress and the White House is an obvious sign that Big media has an anti Republican agenda and that they control who and how we vote as Americans! I mean, it is plain as day that Big Media is liberally biased and affecting how Americans vote! My GOD!

They are trying, I didn't say they were automatically succeeding. Alot of Americans, just like myself discount what they report. Obviously their intention is to influence the politics of my country on the sly, but to maintain viewership they must at least maintain the appearance of a disinterested News Organization, everytime the give biased coverage they alienate some people, viewership declines and down goes their advertising revenue. They try to operate it as a business most of the time while saving it for crucial moments when it comes time to Bash President Bush and his party, especially just prior to an election. Polls have become notoriously unreliable on the eve of an election. News organizations publish exit polls prior to the closing just so voters of a certain stripe will maybe get discouraged and not bother to vote "as their candidate doesn't stand a chance anyway according to the polls."

Reuters did not fabricate photos- they were duped by a photographer. Big difference.

They were willing dupes, they did not want to know how the photos were obtained, they just liked the bad press it gave the Israelis, and so they ran with it, letting their critics find out they were frauds. Obviously they were more interested inundermining the Israeli war than in being a reputable news organization. If they were interested, they would examine the photos and check their authenticity, that an amature independent blogger found this out and not the proffessionals ar Reuters speaks volumes. Naturally they have independent reporters so that they have a scapegoat and plausible deniablity when their fraud gets found out, but they were more interested in the political damage this may do to the Israelis than in getting their facts straight, and you know what, it worked! The Arabs howled in protest and forced the UN and the USA to pressure the Israelis to withdraw and by the time this fraud was founf out, it was too late. The Arab street believed what it wanted to believe, and "any news report that says the Jews are bad, must be true, right?"

Americans did not invade Iraq for no reason- they were duped by their leaders. But in the end, in a democracy, we have only ourselves to blame. We get what we’re worth.

By Saddam Hussien. Either he tricked us into believing that he had WMD before the fact, or he hid the WMD he had, some in Syria, and some were found in Iraq, but the Liberals by that time were in full "Get Bush" mode, and they wouldn't let little things like 500 barrels of chemical weapons get in their way.

Offline

#13 2006-10-05 14:39:03

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Just as an aside. If you undermine George Bush, you will undermine what ever manned Mars program there is. Democrats will surely go after it just like they went after the Iraq War. the Mars program is closely associated with Bush, His Father pushed it, the Democrats defeated it, George W. Bush revived it and canceled the Shuttle. How much do you want to bet that the Democrats will try to cancel it or defund it, once they get into power? John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson were aberrations, their kind perished at about the time the Democrats switched sides on the Vietnam War.

Offline

#14 2006-10-06 05:56:29

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

I would take it as a given that all societes must run as democracies because all governments must have the public trust, and they spend public funds. That government should govern with the consent of the governed, is a basic principle.

You sound like an Islamic terrorist advocating the need for a theocracy for all. “I would take it as a given that all societies must be governed by Islam because all government must have the blessing of Allah.”
No government exists without the consent of the people. The difference is the number of those who consent. All government rule by force. A government derives its primary power through the monopoly and execution of force. A government cannot share the monopoly of force with any other group or entity without invalidating itself.
You claim you support democracy but when a democracy results in ‘terrorists’ being elected by the will of the general people, you fault the system. Autocrats in the middle east were supported by western powers because they would represent western interests at the exspense of their governed people.
We either support dictators that support us and ignore their people, or we support democracy and take the good with the bad. This expectation that democracy will lead to other people electing individuals that support our interests is asinine.

You know perfectly well that Saddam Hussein didn't rape and murder all these people with his own hands, instead he had his henchmen do his bidding.

So their were alot of people doing rapes and murders under Saddam's direction, but that still makes it alot of rapes and murders. The difference now is that alot of these criminals are either acting on their own or at the behest of a number of armed groups operating in the country. Does it really matter if Saddam's man is your murderer or if its an Al Qaeda man?

My point though is that there is no qualitative difference in the environment after our action. Well, I guess instead of one particular group being brutalized, all groups are being brutalized now. So perhaps in one sense, we have at least brought a certain degree of equality to Iraq- the value of which I leave to you to determine.

Also alot of Iraqis asked for our help to over throw Saddam and so we overthrew him.

Um, when the president tried to justify the war to Congress and the American public, it was about protecting the USA from WMD- not about saving oppressed people everywhere, or in any one place in particular.



They are trying, I didn't say they were automatically succeeding. Alot of Americans, just like myself discount what they report.

So in essence, what you are saying is that a lot of Americans, just like you, believe what they want, regardless of facts, figures, or first hand accounts that differ from what President Bush states in sound bites and election campaign rallies?

By Saddam Hussien. Either he tricked us into believing that he had WMD before the fact, or he hid the WMD he had, some in Syria, and some were found in Iraq, but the Liberals by that time were in full "Get Bush" mode, and they wouldn't let little things like 500 barrels of chemical weapons get in their way.

Right. A third world dictator hid WMD’s from us all in an effort to trick us with the looming threat of invasion hanging over him.

We were told that Iraq had a nuclear program. We were told that Iraq had weapons that could be launched in 20 minutes and reach Europe. We were told that Saddam was buying enriched uranium. We were told that Saddam was supporting terrorists who sought to directly attack the US.

We were lied to in order to justify a pre determined policy that was not necessarily reflective of the will of the people, nor in our best interest. Information to make a sound decision was distorted to meet a desired end, preventing a legitimate discussion of the situation and an agreement of the majority on what proper course should be taken.

This is by and large a subversion of our process of government.

Now I could agree that removing Saddam is a good thing. I could even agree that I would support an invasion for that reason alone. However, that conversation and discussion did not happen. I believe a majority of Americans would not support the invasion of Iraq if the sole rationale was to remove Saddam. You and I can disagree with the majority, but we better damn well respect the majority opinion if it differs from our own when it comes to a matter of employing our armed forces against another nation.

The majority was duped into accepting this war under false pretenses and a legitimate discussion never occurred. A minority view point spun the facts and events to meet a policy goal they new the majority would not accept as is.

That is mine, and many others, basic issue with the current leadership in the Whitehouse.

Offline

#15 2006-10-06 09:15:26

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Quote:
I would take it as a given that all societes must run as democracies because all governments must have the public trust, and they spend public funds. That government should govern with the consent of the governed, is a basic principle. 

You sound like an Islamic terrorist advocating the need for a theocracy for all. “I would take it as a given that all societies must be governed by Islam because all government must have the blessing of Allah.”

If you equate the two, I'm sorry, I do not see Islamic Theocracy and democracy as being equal. One involves the input of the people and the other does not, both spends the peoples money though, so it a way the theocracy is stealing from the public as it spends however the great bearded leader, with the supposed "direct hot line" to God, likes. The great bearded leader makes laws however he pleases and the citizens on the country are basically his servants, the police reenforce this notion. If somebody demands accountability in government the police simply arrest him and chop off his head. Maybe your indifferent to the type of government, but I'm not. You want to serve the Great Bearded Leader? Then go right ahead believing that all forms of government are the same.

You claim you support democracy but when a democracy results in ‘terrorists’ being elected by the will of the general people, you fault the system.

No, I fault the people. I am more sympathetic to people living under terrorists who rule by terror rather than through the consent of the governed, as that makes it the people's fault if they elect a terrorist. If a dictator like Syrias supports terrorism, then I can't blame the Syrian people as they can't help what government they have, but if the Palestinians elect Hamas, then I do blame the Palestinian people because they have an accountable democratically elected government, and the terrorists cannot get in government without the people electing them, so yes, I blame the people, not the system. The system worked as it was supposed to work, its the people who made the wrong decisions with their votes.

Autocrats in the middle east were supported by western powers because they would represent western interests at the exspense of their governed people.

In retrospect, it seems this system was justified when we examine the results of the Palestinian elections. If the people, in general are evil, it is probably better to rule them with an iron fisted moderate dictator than a populist terrorist leader. It can also be argued that nations that have to be ruled this way shouldn't even be free and independent nations and should be ruled over by more moderate nations. If a goup of people who want independence and democracy are also going to support terrorism, perhaps its best if they don't get it.

We either support dictators that support us and ignore their people, or we support democracy and take the good with the bad. This expectation that democracy will lead to other people electing individuals that support our interests is asinine.

As I said, before George W. Bush is an optimist, he wanted to give the Iraqi people, and the Palestinians a chance to prove that they are ready for democracy. The Palestinians are a disapointment, but the only way we could have found out about that is by allowing the Palestinian elections to happen. Since the Palestinian electorate has proved to be evil, I don't see why we should respect their decisions with regards to killing Jews and not retaliate against them for those actions. Democracy makes the people responsible for their governments rather than their governments alone being responsible for their own actions. The moderates in the Palestinian Authority can't help it, as their own people voted them out of office in favor of radical terrorists, and the Palestinian people will have to pay for it too. They are already suffering, and it part due to their own behavior to the Israelis and the Israeli reaction to that behavior. I'm sorry to say, the Palestinians aren't a very enlighted or civilized people. The jury is still out on the Iraqis, I think they deserve a chance to prove that democracy can work in their country, and if it can't lets wait for the results before we pass judgement on them. I really don't trust that poll that said 6 out of 10 Palestinians want to kill Americans, I think it might have been fabricated, lets let the elections decide. If democracy can be made to work in Iraq, that would be to our advantage. If the people elect terrorist leaders, then I would say that democracy is not working, but that hasn't happend yet.

My point though is that there is no qualitative difference in the environment after our action. Well, I guess instead of one particular group being brutalized, all groups are being brutalized now. So perhaps in one sense, we have at least brought a certain degree of equality to Iraq- the value of which I leave to you to determine.

If democracy doesn't work in Iraq, then I think we should treat Iraq as a "black box". If the "black box" misbehaves towards it neighbors, then we bomb the "black box" until it stops. We don't invade or go it, we just drop bombs from out planes and generally ruin their cities, until they stop supporting terror or attacking their neighbors. I figure by then, we gave them their chance to prove that democracy works in their country and if they elected terrorists, there is little else we can do about them other than bomb them. What do you suggest we do with them instead? Give them waht they want perhaps? What if they want Saudi Arabia or for Israel to cease to exist? What if they want to invade Turkey, do we just let them have it, if that is the popular will of the Iraqi people, we can only do one of two things, either we let them have it, or we really let them have it with bombs until they are no longer capable of disrupting the region with their attacks or their terrorism, this is a rather ugly fact. I'd rather give them a chance to prove that they can be a moderate democratic nation first before giving them the "black box" treatment, wouldn't you?

Offline

#16 2006-10-06 11:18:25

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

I think you've said it all.

If they don't behave as we want, or elect who we want, or think what we want- bomb them.

Cheers.

Offline

#17 2006-10-06 12:04:24

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

I'm talking about countries that attack us! Your darn right we're going to bomb them if they attack us. What's your alternate idea, just let them attack us because you feel sorry for them?

I think the right of a country's self-determination stops at the tip of our nose. We don't mind their business so long as they don't mind our, but its our business if they train terrorists to attack us, or invade or undermine their neighbors we don't want undermined. This is not a form of Imperialism. How would you like a country to go on attacking yours and then give an excuse like: "Our government was democratically elected by our people, so we have a right to do anything we please so long as it is the will of our people."?

Besides I gave you a choice, it was either bomb them or let them have what they want, even if its a piece of their neighbor's territory. Now which would you choose, or do you have a third option that you have not mentioned. I really don't want to bomb people, and I don't want to cave to other country's aggression, now which option would you choose? Or would you choose to send our troops right back into Iraq, the place you wanted them out of in the first place?

Offline

#18 2006-10-06 12:09:43

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

How would you like a country to go on attacking yours and then give an excuse like: "Our government was democratically elected by our people, so we have a right to do anything we please so long as it is the will of our people."?

This in effect is the position of the US government, and you.

The US government was democratically elected by the people, so we somehow have a legitiate right to do anything we please so long as it is the will of the people. At least according to the arguments you put forth.

Offline

#19 2006-10-06 12:22:48

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

As the quote goes, “Democracy is the best forum of government except for all the others”. In reality the strength of democracy is not so much that the people are wiser it is it provides a check on power. But in democracy there is still potential for the abuse of power such as, The Terrony of the majority. In democracy intuitions are put in place to help control this problem such as bills of rights and a separate judicial branch. This checks are not always effective.

China I think is an example where dictatorship works well but who will be China’s next leader. For democracy to work it requires and educated electorate. Fortunately in Iraq there are some moderate clerics that might take on this role if Civil war can be adverted. Afghanistan is poor and thus requires a long term commitment to help educate the people and alleviate poverty.

Offline

#20 2006-10-06 13:11:19

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

How would you like a country to go on attacking yours and then give an excuse like: "Our government was democratically elected by our people, so we have a right to do anything we please so long as it is the will of our people."?

This in effect is the position of the US government, and you.

The US government was democratically elected by the people, so we somehow have a legitiate right to do anything we please so long as it is the will of the people. At least according to the arguments you put forth.

In the absense of a world government to rein in terrorists states, we must proceed to rein them in according to our best judgement, and that is all. If you wait for the UN to stop these rogue states, you will wait forever. You still haven't givine me a viable alternative to the choices I have put forth, you've simply dodged the question by asking what right has the US to take its own security into its own hands. If someone is preparing an attack we must stop it before it crosses over into our borders, we also try to defend our citizens abroad where ever we can. if some country is putting us in danger we got to stop them, and we have the power to stop them. I would prefer to live on another planet and not have to deal with this, but we don't. We got a series of unpleasant choices because our enemies present us with these unpleasant choices, and we have to pick from one of these choices including the default choice of doing nothing. Although doing nothing may be a worse choice than being proactive and stopping our enemies before they get a chance to damage us. Do you pretend there is a brilliant solution that will make everyone happy? If so then what is that choice? I am merely stating the obvious choices as I see it, its not that I like any of those choices, the best choice I'd like is for our enemies not to attack us and to get along with us, but that choice is unfortunately theirs and not ours, and they have so far been making the wrong choices and we have to do something about them. If we can't invade and reform them then what? The alternatives are unpleasant, and if we pull out of Iraq before our mission is accomplished, we are left only with those alternatives that I mentioned. If you don't like them, don't blame me! Those are the choices our enemy has given us. Otherwise we can stick it through a little longer in Iraq, and be a little more patient than you have been.

Offline

#21 2006-10-06 13:15:18

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

As the quote goes, “Democracy is the best forum of government except for all the others”. In reality the strength of democracy is not so much that the people are wiser it is it provides a check on power. But in democracy there is still potential for the abuse of power such as, The Terrony of the majority. In democracy intuitions are put in place to help control this problem such as bills of rights and a separate judicial branch. This checks are not always effective.

China I think is an example where dictatorship works well but who will be China’s next leader. For democracy to work it requires and educated electorate. Fortunately in Iraq there are some moderate clerics that might take on this role if Civil war can be adverted. Afghanistan is poor and thus requires a long term commitment to help educate the people and alleviate poverty.

If there is a Civil War, then we should make sure the bad guys lose. Democracy is the rule of the Majority, and the Sunnis are the minority, either they acceed to majority rule or they get out, that is their two choices, any other choice and its not a democracy. I prefer that they try to get along, but if they don't then we defeat them and dump them someplace else.

Offline

#22 2006-10-06 15:56:35

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

As the quote goes, “Democracy is the best forum of government except for all the others”. In reality the strength of democracy is not so much that the people are wiser it is it provides a check on power. But in democracy there is still potential for the abuse of power such as, The Terrony of the majority. In democracy intuitions are put in place to help control this problem such as bills of rights and a separate judicial branch. This checks are not always effective.

China I think is an example where dictatorship works well but who will be China’s next leader. For democracy to work it requires and educated electorate. Fortunately in Iraq there are some moderate clerics that might take on this role if Civil war can be adverted. Afghanistan is poor and thus requires a long term commitment to help educate the people and alleviate poverty.

If there is a Civil War, then we should make sure the bad guys lose. Democracy is the rule of the Majority, and the Sunnis are the minority, either they acceed to majority rule or they get out, that is their two choices, any other choice and its not a democracy. I prefer that they try to get along, but if they don't then we defeat them and dump them someplace else.

Did you really go to war for segregation?

Offline

#23 2006-10-07 09:33:28

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

I don't know what their Civil War is about. At least our Civil War was about something, and you know what, it was alot more "Civil" than this Iraqi thing. I don't really care who wins if its Shiite Vs Sunni, both groups have their bad points. The Shiite Religion is the religion of Ayatollah Khomeni and his stinking Revolution in Iran, and the Sunnis are the Religion of Al Qaeda and the Wahabbis, both have launched attacks against Christians, Jews, and Americans, but we're involved see. We like to be the good guys and rebuild the enemy's country after we've defeated it in battle, it is in the rebuilding that we seem to have trouble with the Iraqis. It seems that collectively they don't want their country rebuilt and that they enjoy killing each other.

What I don't want is for them to think they've defeated us or driven us out. The Kurds are the only decent people their, their the ones who appreciated us. If it were up to me, I'd move all the Kurds out of Turkey and Iran and resettle then in Iraq, and then move all the Sunnis and Shiites into Turkey and Iran to take their place. The Kurds can then rename Iraq Kurdistan and they get all that oil to boot and everyone would be happy. Segregation, it appears, is the only way they can live in peace. The non-Kurdish Iraqi people aren't helping us, some are collaborating with the enemy. I'd be happy to swap all the Turkish Hurds for Iraqi Sunnis and the Turks can deal with them, swap all the Iranian Kurds for Iraqi Shiites and they can live in Iran. The Kurds can live in the former Iraqi's homes, and the former Iraqis can live in the homes of the former Turkish and Iranian Kurds. There were numerous forced resettlements after World War II, swapping of German and Polish homes for example. I feel that after all these years of their unhelpfulness and killing of US soldiers, I feel the Iraqis don't deserve a country, Let the Kurds make it into Kurdistan. If we do that and then get out, then they can't say they've driven us out or they won. We can pack them up and ship the troublemakers out of the country. If the Mountainous borders are too pourous, then we adjust the borders of Iraq so that they are more naturally defensible and then we can build a wall and lay mines, post guards with machineguns to prevent people from sneaking back in, and then make Kurdish the official language of the country so that any that do are clearly marked as foreigners and can't blend in with the population and start an insurgency. George Bush is a soft touch though, so I don't think he would go that far, and that's the problem, without some hard measures the war will go on and on and US soldiers will keep getting killed, and I don't like that. Instead of standing around like dopes and trying to train some retarded Iraqis to be an Army, they should try forced relocation as the solution. People who wreck their own country don't deserve one. My patience is running out with this. I don't like cut and run, and I think the main problem with Iraq is its people. Everybody in the Arab world hates the Kurds, so making Kurdistan out of Iraq makes the perfect revenge, then the Kurd can sell us some oil. Perfect don't you think?

Partly this is an emotional response, but what do you want. Its satisfying to have the solution to all the regions problems, then I can smile knowingly as our politicians bungle along. I suspect the Democrats love to lose wars, the fell in love with the idea ever since they lost Vietnam. I prefer to end the Iraq War differently.

Offline

#24 2006-10-08 18:39:02

dicktice
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2002-11-01
Posts: 1,764

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

I prefer to end the Iraq War differently.

Well, then, why don't you just join up and help make it end the way you want it to?

edited by maxie: corrected the quote tags to show properly

Offline

#25 2006-10-08 23:49:58

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Soldiers don't make policy unless you have a military coup.

I'm happy to say things on the Web, and then when things don't go my way, and they turn out just the way I predicted, I get to say I told you so, then I get the smug satisfaction of knowing I was right and everyone else was wrong. The World is going to do what its going to do, no matter what I say. I figure I can just give it a little nudge every once in a while by presenting an idea, that maybe no one else has thought of. I have no political power, but if an idea is strong enough it just might catch on fire of its own accord. Getting back to the original thread, I think the idea of including terrorists in government is extremely bad. I figure I can use my minute influence and give my opinion that its a bad idea to negotiate with terrorists or give power to them, and then when the liberals don't listen to me, and sit down at the table and negotiate with them anyway and the terrorists betray them, I can say, "I told you so, but you didn't listen to me and now see where it has gotten you." Sometimes I feel like a Cassandra. Right now, what I see is a bunch of Republicans acting like Democrats, because the Polls have got them scared, which is perhaps what the media had in mind. So Mark Foley screws aroundm causes the Democrats to get elected as the media portrays the entire GOP as a bunch of homosexual pediphiles, and since the public doesn't want these Republicans anywhere near their children, they elect the Democrats, and the Democrats defund the War in Iraq, Al Qaeda loudly proclaims this as their victory, they take over Iraq, and then begin a massive assault on Afghanistan, and the Ossama gives credit to Mark Foley, of whom he says, "We're it not for him none of this would be possible." And the Islamic Radicals have victory parades in the streets of Bagdad and they proclaim Mark Foley Day as a national holiday.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB