Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-30 09:27:11

Bryon,

I'm not so sure about that...try telling that to the families of 9-11 victims

I am not trying to trivialize the impact terrorism has had and does have on individuals. I am merely pointing out that as impediment to human progress, it's relatively unimportant. Shaun was speaking in a context suggesting that terrorism is the end all and will ultimately take us out if we don't do something about it.

Even if there was major attacks on the world oil infrastructure, I don't see it as a major problem to be dealt with, at the least it would put us in a position to get ourselves out of this ridiculous oil economy and assess other solutions to the energy problem. Obviously it would put a lot of people out in the short run, but to suggest as if it'd be the end of humanity as we know it is a bit far fetched I think.

Definitely terrorism has an economic impact on the US, and in fact, I think the Iraq war only compounded those problems, because it put us right where they wanted us. There is no real cure for terrorism except leaving people alone, I think. It puts things in to perspective. Especially given that Bush gave in to some of bin Laden's demands (ie, we took our troops out of Saudi Arabia for example). I thought the primary rule of war was never to give in to demands?

BTW, I think bin Laden et al have too much vested interest in Saudi Arabia. They're getting funded via Saudi Arabia still, I very much believe, so they have no motivation to bite the hand that feeds them. And anyway, humans have shown to be quite hypocritical when it comes to money.

U.S. did fall? The European Union? China? Brazil? Or will the world be able to get by just fine without a superpower whatsoever?

Economically speaking, China is in the best situation. I would hope to god that it would be a mix between the EU and China, but also, I don't think that the US would completely fall out of the world view, ever. Even if the worst terrorist things imaginable occured (a nuclear bomb in NYC, for example), the US is still quite a superpower to be dealt with. The point of my comment was that I believe that the playing field will be leveled, and the concept of 'getting along' will be much more pronounced.

Cindy,

So Westerners are the -only- people in the entire scope of human history who have exploited others (whether other humans or resources)?

Oh Cindy, where was that implied?

I would criticize every single society to date. There is no society that currently exists which could, in its entirety, show the blueprint for a society that Shaun suggested (ie, the next level).

Just because a society does great things does not mean that that society is apt to enter a new kind of world where wealth is abundant and so on. It's going to be a struggle, even with all that wealth.

Josh, didn't you say you admired/were interested in ancient Egypt?

Admiring the Egyptians isn't the same as expecting the Egyptian society to have the sociological development to take us to the next level, now is it?

And is the entire Western civilization to be damned and condemned because of the level of exploitation it has had?

I didn't damn or condemn anyone, really. I'm merely not proud of the level of exploitation Western civilization has had, and I hardly see it as some shining light in our future. It'll eventually burn out, especially if Shauns, "plenty for all" is realized. This much is totally obvious to me.

The 'next level' that Shaun was talking about; the "golden age of technological advancement and plenty for all humanity" is going to be a lot different. And it's going to require a huge ammount of debate, because it will break all the rules we're currently used to.

And Shaun, if you think I'm being doomy and gloomy and seeing all the bad in the world, you must not have been reading my pro-tech posts which I've been filling this forum with for years. I'm quite optimistic as to the outcome of the world, I just see it differently. With a change as you suggested (ie, plenty for all), there will have to be a shift in the sociological paradigm of the US, if not most of the world.

BTW, Cindy, I don't understand why you are acting as though criticisms of Western civilization equate siding with third world countries with extremely unusual laws. You have Western democracy.

Palomar · 2003-08-30 10:11:31

BTW, Cindy, I don't understand why you are acting as though criticisms of Western civilization equate siding with third world countries with extremely unusual laws. You have Western democracy.

*It wasn't directed at you. I don't know if you were taking it that way or not (??).

Some of Shaun's statements got me going (obviously); I agree with him (except on the Iraq issue), and expounded on some of his comments and anticipatory statements. Shaun, you cool Aussie, you!

I'm simply hoping to illustrate the differences between nations with Western liberal democracy and nations ruled by fundamentalist religious nuts (among other things).

There -are- issues at stake here, as we both know. But it seems at least one other person who participates here isn't quite "getting it." And I'll leave it at that.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-30 10:47:06

LOL.

Quite the hornets nest this has stirred.

Shaun,

I appreciate your debating tactics here, Clark: Turn the argument around and throw it back, undermine the argument by attempting to cause doubts as to its morality, if possible cause pangs of institutionalised 'white man's guilt' in your opponent.
These are all perfectly acceptable tactics in, say, a highschool polemic meeting and they would no doubt earn you points for your team.

Thank you for the unneccessary compliment. While I do know some of the rules, I never played the game. Perhaps you missed your calling Shaun, you are a fine masterdebater.

While you take the time to comment on my style, you deftly avoid the substance of my questions.

There is so much here, I look forward to responding when life allows. Cheers.

This isn't highschool any more and terrorist attacks are not hypothetical. In the real world, nobody educated takes seriously the argument you make, by implication, that islamic fundamentalism is somehow worthy of comparison with liberal democracy.

What is a 'terroirst' Shaun? Which countries flag do they wave? They are common criminals, nothing more. They have no port of call, they exsist as no solid entity. They number a few thousand. Yet we are led to believe that this small merry band is somehow threatening the foundations of Western Society. A few bankrolling millioanaires vs. the combined GDP of the largest economies on earth. A few people with improvised explosives and light arms vs. tanks and modern airstrikes. But watch out, our way of life is threatened!

I will refer you once more to my original question, where in the Western World has there been a terroist attack after 9/11?

You comment on how a terroist dosen't stop to ask who we support when they shoulder launch a missle. I point out that we are no different, and no better when we drop bombs from 30,000 feet. We make them the 'other', yet when we stop and look, we see that there is no difference between us.
But I must admit, there is one difference, we're not criminals, they are, so who is really worse when they kill an innocent?

I reiterate my point again that we no longer have the luxury of time to debate the finer points of one social system versus another, and in the case of islamic fundamentalism it's a 'no-contest' anyhow.

I'm not surprised. Shaun, I have the utmost respect for your scientific mind. Your thoughts show that influence. You have sized up the problem, looked at the variables, made a hypothesis, determined that it is largely correct, then moved on.

But you've stopped thinking. You are arguing from a decision you have already decided is correct. I might add that if we characterize this conflict as a winner take all, Us, or Them, we have a Thunderdome situation. Two men enter, one man leave.

The islamic fundamentalists want this clash becuase then they are justified in killing us. In a fight to the death, anything goes.

Palomar · 2003-08-30 11:39:33

Clark: "What is a 'terroirst' Shaun?...A few people with improvised explosives and light arms vs. tanks and modern airstrikes. But watch out, our way of life is threatened!

*A few people? You have numbers, statistics? 9/11...right, no threat to our way of life there. Nope. Just a little "calling card" perhaps? A "hey ma, look -- no hands!" prank pulled by a few persons of Arabian origin?

Clark: "I will refer you once more to my original question, where in the Western World has there been a terroist attack after 9/11?"

*Could it be because of heightened security and screening measures? Perhaps if we lowered or halted security and screening measures we'd get hit again?

Clark: "But I must admit, there is one difference, we're not criminals, they are, so who is really worse when they kill an innocent?"

*Unfortunately, innocents are always involved in war. Like the children and babies at the WTC.

Clark: "I'm not surprised. Shaun, I have the utmost respect for your scientific mind. Your thoughts show that influence. You have sized up the problem, looked at the variables, made a hypothesis, determined that it is largely correct, then moved on.

But you've stopped thinking. You are arguing from a decision you have already decided is correct."

*So the mark of sophistication is to be always absolutely undecided? Since when did having an opinion and making a decision become undesirable? I believe it's wrong for newly-delivered mothers to throw their newborns in trash bins because the baby isn't wanted. According to your viewpoint, would it be better for me to vacillate on the matter? "Well, I don't know...well, maybe...yes, perhaps...now I doubt it...but it's wrong to doubt, so..." How moronic that would be. And since when is making a decision "stopping thinking"? Ironically, YOU have decided (gasp) that Shaun has stopped thinking! Apparently our definition of "open-minded" differs. Mature, thinking people -can- arrive at sane, reasoned decisions. And this certainly is a strange debating tactic coming from a guy who just a few months ago seemed decided that going to war with Iraq was justified and needed...if memory serves me correctly!

Clark: "I might add that if we characterize this conflict as a winner take all, Us, or Them, we have a Thunderdome situation. Two men enter, one man leave."

*Here's my view of this: I don't believe that I have a right to start hostilities. However, if someone becomes aggressively hostile toward me, I -do- have a right to defend and preserve my life and my way of living. Do the radical Islamicists feel the same way? Of course they do. That's human nature. But there also comes a time when someone has got to say "enough is enough." When "an eye for an eye" is -the- standard and absolutely ZERO room is made for negotiation, WHAT THEN? Would these people back down if we confessed to wrongs we have done? If we asked their forgiveness? What if they refused apologies? What if their motivation IS attempting to subject others to their religious laws and way of life? Is it okay when THEY do it? And since when is "two wrongs make a right" right, and why?

Clark: "The islamic fundamentalists want this clash becuase then they are justified in killing us. In a fight to the death, anything goes."

*And so we should just allow them to do whatever they want to us, regardless? Just let our guard down and give them the green light to butcher us into oblivion? This is a freight train heading on a crash course...unless both parties can admit to failures, mistakes, and wrongdoing, and come to solutions based on cool-headed reasoning...well, you get the picture.

Like it or not, there are people out there who don't understand the concept of "cool-headed reasoning," logic and the like: They only understand fists and guns. The Israelis were recently actively deconstructing some of its villages and making other reparations/concessions to the Palestinians. Hamas isn't happy with this, no: Back to suicide bombings. As far as Hamas is concerned, Israel's only option is to get each and every last Israeli out of the area or continue the bloodshed and violence.

If, for instance, bin Laden's network has towards us the mentality Hamas has toward the Israelis, what can we do?

And this isn't just about the U.S.A. versus Al-Qaeda and other radical militant Muslim groups, Clark. Once again: Why are they hassling, bombing, and perpetrating violence on the Philippines and other rinky-dink Asian nations? What did THOSE nations ever do to them?

--Cindy

::EDIT:: And what about Middle-Eastern-based groups (religious or secular), and Arab-Americans/Western-born persons of Arab descent who ADMIT the radical militants are a threat that must be dealt with? Well?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-30 20:57:46

Hear hear yet again, Cindy!
I think you've said it all but I must say I've never come across the notion that reaching a decision based on known facts is an indication of the cessation of mental function!! :laugh: [Clark, that is a killer deduction on your part - one of your finest so far!]

As for terrorist attacks on western soil since 9/11, I count Bali. Of the 202 people killed last October, 88 were Australian. They were slaughtered in a nightclub where foreigners were known to gather; largely young fun-loving Australians partying on holiday (vacation, in American lingo). The Balinese people are predominantly hindu, as was all of Indonesia before islam swept into the archipelago many years ago. They are gentle, smiling, tolerant people who have established warm friendships with back-packing young Aussie tourists in recent decades.
To all intents and purposes, as far as I'm concerned that vicious attack may just as well have been staged in a beach suburb of Sydney, Australia.
The words of the poet Rupert Brooke were used to describe parts of Europe where British troops fell in the fierce fighting to liberate Europe from the Nazi yoke. But they could just as easily be applied, with the appropriate alteration, to the brave American soldiers engaged in the same conflict. The words are: ".. there's a corner of some foreign field that is forever England."

I know the circumstances aren't exactly parallel and I know I risk being accused of overdramatisation or some kind of maudlin sentimentality, but in a way I feel the same about that small area of Bali. Whether it occurred, in a technical sense, on Australian soil or not, doesn't seem to matter much. At least, it doesn't to me.

Free Spirit · 2003-08-31 00:38:16

I think it has to be asked what motivates these terrorists to get so angry over America and some of its allies. I doubt if they hate us just for the sake of hating us, I think they hate us because globalization has been forcing them to swallow values they despise. Our economic institutions, i.e. transnational corporations, haven't exactly been kind to a lot of these people either. Biggest and foremost however is America's arrogance in the way it's been carrying out foreign policy which includes subversive and terroristic acts of its own. Look up the overthrow of Allende in Chile and how the CIA helped install the brutal dictator Pinochet in his place, or how the USA has been sponsoring the indiscriminate spraying of agricultural fields in Colombia that frequently wipe out legitimate crops along with illegal ones. Or how the USA actually aided in the rise of the Taliban and Bin Laden in the Soviet-Afghani war, or how it supported the brutal dictator it 'suddenly' came to hate for being a despotic dicator, Saddam Hussein, in the Iraq-Iran conflict. This so-called war on the "Free World" was hardly an unprovoked event.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-31 11:44:19

Careful Free-Spirit, thems anti-American words! :;): :laugh:

Palomar · 2003-08-31 12:16:53

I think it has to be asked what motivates these terrorists to get so angry over America and some of its allies. I doubt if they hate us just for the sake of hating us...Or how the USA actually aided in the rise of the Taliban and Bin Laden in the Soviet-Afghani war, or how it supported the brutal dictator it 'suddenly' came to hate for being a despotic dicator, Saddam Hussein, in the Iraq-Iran conflict. This so-called war on the "Free World" was hardly an unprovoked event.

*Yes, I definitely understand this. I did acknowledge in one of my posts the U.S. interference in Afghanistan in the late 1970s and early 1980s (arming and training Afghanis in the "name of God" to fight the Russians).

Yes, we have definitely created a mess for ourselves and have provoked some deserved hatred.

However, I do believe there is another very strong element at work as well: The clash of ideologies, values. The fact that poor, impoverished, tiny nations (like the Philippines, or Bali) are being subjected to terrorism (are they our "allies"...or perhaps just friendly neutrals?) by Islamic extremists definitely rings an alarm bell in me. Why are the good people of those two little island nations being subject to vicious onslaughts of anti-West aggression? If the Philippines and Bali are sympathetic toward and embracing of Western ideals (I think the Philippines are; I'm not sure about Bali), who are the Islamic extremists to try and bully them into not being that way?

Wrong is wrong, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, America has done wrong. Yes, yes, yes. YES.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-31 17:59:52

Why are the good people of those two little island nations being subject to vicious onslaughts of anti-West aggression?

Answering this does not in any way say that I agree with the justification, but perhaps, just maybe, terrorists and their ilk use America's pro-West aggression as a justification? It has been said as much by these groups.

Wrong is wrong, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Indeed, so perhaps inciting violence against regimes that do the same isn't the answer. Perhaps the answer lies in leaving one another alone.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-31 19:15:08

Josh:-

Perhaps the answer lies in leaving one another alone.

I understand your feelings in this regard, and I daresay Cindy does too, Josh. And I'm sure we would all like to think we could just walk away from this problem and have the terrorists do the same.
This is exactly my point in all these recent exchanges of opinion. I'm trying to tell you that it ain't gonna happen!
The fat's in the fire.
The cat's among the pigeons.
The solid waste has reached the cooling device.

Whatever the reasons behind all this, America's ill-advised foreign policy decisions included, it doesn't matter any more. It's gone beyond that. It's no longer a political debate.
Maybe we shouldn't have put all the deckchairs in a row on the promenade deck, perhaps we should have placed them in cosy groups of, say, 4 or 5 towards the stern of the ship near the recreation area. ... It doesn't matter!! The Titanic still has a big hole in it and it's going to sink. (Or at least it probably will unless we do something about it.) Recriminations, 'I told you so s', and political point-scoring are all futile gestures right now. Though I've noticed that some people are like recorded messages in this regard; as soon as the word 'politics' comes into the conversation, they automatically spout the same lines from that best-seller: "American Crimes through History". All very interesting, but you could do the same for the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, Ancient Rome, the Incas and Aztecs, most of the European medieval monarchies, more recently Spain and Portugal, France, Holland, Belgium and Britain. (So what's new .. ?! )
I believe some of you people have a very limited historical perspective, which is always going to distort your view of everything.

By all means let's discuss how best to neutralise this new enemy of progress but let's not waste our time in apportioning blame. Time enough for that after we've dealt with this far more pressing problem.

Palomar · 2003-08-31 20:11:34

Me: Why are the good people of those two little island nations being subject to vicious onslaughts of anti-West aggression?

Josh: "Answering this does not in any way say that I agree with the justification, but perhaps, just maybe, terrorists and their ilk use America's pro-West aggression as a justification? It has been said as much by these groups."

*I see your point. It reminds me (tiny, personal but fitting anecdote) of Tim, a boy in elementary school who one day ran up to me and kicked me hard -- for no discernible reason. I asked him why he did it. His "reason"? Because I was a friend to Roberta, and was hanging around with her more. He and Roberta didn't get along. According to his mentality, I deserved a good kick usually reserved for her -- because THEY didn't get along. Sounds familiar, but on a much larger scale, huh?

Me: Wrong is wrong regardless of who the perpetrator is, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Josh: Indeed, so perhaps inciting violence against regimes that do the same isn't the answer. Perhaps the answer lies in leaving one another alone.

*I'll say a hearty "amen!" to that. I also wish (as previously stated before) the U.S. had -never- involved itself in the Israel-Palestine mess. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...boy, is that ever a true saying!

But as Shaun rightly points out, the barn door -is- open and the horse -has- bolted. What now? Rhetorical question.

Okay, enough of this headache!

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-31 21:36:53

Shaun, the point in pointing out the atrocities the US has done is to exactly try to resolve the issue. It's not to play the blame game, at all. And that's the problem here, because whenever someone makes note of US atrocities (mainly because the US is always seen as the shining light of hope and liberty and so on- which is true in many instances, but by no means a guarantee for any given situation- again, recall the dictatorships we support), it's automatically assumed that this noting in and of itself is siding with or defending the wrongdoings of others. Hardly!

If two bullies on the playground go about causing trouble, do we say that one bully is more responsible for things than the other, or do we try to resolve the differences the bullies have (and send their asses into group therapy!)?

Tell me what reason anyone would have to be a terrorist if terrorism in and of itself was looked down upon by all? No justifications. None. The only reason terrorism is considered 'okay' by many groups is because there's some sort of justification. I mean, my lord man, Israel bulldozes a few houses, kills a few children, and that creates enough terrorists to go blow up busses and night clubs. No, I'm certainly not saying either action is justified (even though on the face of things, taking out a few terrorist houses may sound reasonable). I'm just saying that, obviously, terrorism begets terrorism. It doesn't matter who calls it what they want to call it (clark might seem to take the extreme position sometimes, but it's obvious to anyone, I would think, that "it's only terrorism when they do it to us").

Terrorism is almost more psychology than it is actually blowing things up. To be a terrorist, you must exploit thoughts in the minds of people (or, likewise, not let it be known that you're involved at all). To be a terrorist you have to think, "is this worth dying for and will other people see it the way I do?" When someone blows up an oil line in Iraq (might I point out that it's near impossible to keep these lines protected without a very massive military presence, so this will continue indefinitely, I guarantee), they have to believe it's worth it and that there are those out there who see the justification; that infidels are trying to take the oil and that the US is controlling everyone and destroying peoples lives. As long as it works, even on a small level, the terrorists 'win.' And it does seem to be working, because some people in Iraq see our presence as though we are invaders, and that they're not going to benefit from the oil and so on and so forth. It's all about propaganda, but on a more psychological level.

Now, for the Iraq situation (we can surmise that all the attacks in Iraq are terrorist, although obviously 'war' would still apply), what's the solution? Something perhaps most people on this forum would not like, especially because the particular organization has been demonized for decades. The UN is the solution. Given that it's, again, about psychology, the best solution is for there to be an active military UN presence in Iraq. The UN was against the war, and the Iraqi people know this. For every terrorist or guerrilla action while the US is going it alone, there is another terrorist or guerrilla born, simply because they would see the justification; that the US isn't there to help, but to plunder; they're merely invaders and infidels. For every terrorist or guerrilla action while the UN is present, there well be less, if any, people doing or feeling the same.

I think the solution to terrorism worldwide is relatively simple. Give the UN more legitimacy (regardless of how we feel about particular nations that belong to the UN, how they vote and how their human rights pan out), and you will clean things up automagically. Open up free trade (no more embargos on people we "don't like"), and the tyrannys will no longer be so, simply because information would seep in and with the wealth people will be able to be more capable of controling aspects of their own lives. (That's the irony of embargos; with embargos you have poor human rights, and with poor human rights, there must be embargos!)

If you can offer a more rational, reasonable, realistic solution, Shaun, I would be perfectly happy to hear it. Let me guess, build a super-military using Chinese people so they can run about arresting every suspected terrorist or something?

Cindy,

But as Shaun rightly points out, the barn door -is- open and the horse -has- bolted. What now? Rhetorical question.

Don't be afraid of terrorism like the media and politicians tell you to, because it's largely a non-issue, and is only being used to score political points with the masses. Terrorism has caused the US to raise its spending to astronomical levels (the effect of 9/11 directly was small compared to the effect of all this extra spending and subsequent warmongering- and I'm not trying to trivialize the losses of our people, but this is true, especially if you take into account all the positive aspects that came out of it- higher productivity, less crime, people working together, and so on- I believe 9/11 brought us together, and I believe that was squandered), and because of the nature of terrorism, it will not have had any effect on our susceptibility. There will always be holes, having libraries remove all books relating to certain things, taking down websites because we're so scared of this unknown threat, and so on, will achieve nothing, except to perhaps show them that we're afraid. Shaun isn't even American and he's showing more fear of terrorism in his post than my own mother (my mother doesn't find terrorism to be a threat, so much "Dubya getting my son killed" to use her words).

If I was President after 9/11, I would've done only a few things, fixed the communication between the CIA and FBI, and made it more difficult for anyone to reach cockpits of planes (an obvious problem that many said needed fixing for a long time). No Department of Homeland Security. No full body searches to get on a plane (the fact that people are more aware now pretty much guarantees that whenever someone attempts to hijack a plane, people will fight back; the solution was psychological, not physical). And no "Patriot" Act.

Whenever someone says, "oh no, the terrorists are going to get me!" the terrorist are 'winning.' Don't let them 'win.' We've let terroism affect us too much as it is.

Free Spirit · 2003-08-31 21:53:53

We haven't learned from history. We keep making the same mistakes (or perhaps they're intentional) over and over again. We solve our problems by stirring up the hornets nest. Does anybody really think that invading Iraq has helped ease the threat of terrorism? I personally do not. I believe Iraq will be a victim of devastating terrorist acts for a very long time and that it will turn into a nerve center for terrorist planning and recruitment. And how do you think the USA and its puppets will solve that mess? They'll get draconian over the people and piss them off even more which will result in even more sympathy for the terrorists' side. It's a no win situation! Maybe I'm getting out of bounds here but I believe G.W. Bush and his fellow neo-con devils will end up being the death of us all if they don't stop invading and threatening to slaughter every country on Earth. How he still manages to pull high ratings in polls is beyond me. Now I'll go outside and count to ten. :angry:

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-01 05:57:52

:laugh: Ha ha !!

O.K. people, it looks like we're all going around in circles again, chasing our tails. (Or at least I think I must be.)
We're probably not all that far away from one another in how we feel about terrorism but our perspectives on its causes and what to do about it are obviously quite different. I think I have precisely no chance at all that some of you might see things as I do, and vice versa!
All part of life's rich tapestry, as they say.
Again, what's new?! :;):

I think I'll go away now and leave America to its slow and painful self-evisceration. I guess that's how all great powers ultimately fall. Such a pity for the world in this case.
Thanks, Cindy and Byron, for your support in some of these discussions. It's certainly comforting to think at least a few of my interpretations of world events make sense to somebody!
And Josh, I honestly hope you're right about terrorism being a tool of the 'ruling class' to keep us peasants mentally occupied while they fleece us at home and plunder the rest of the world. But I think if terrorism ever came calling in your neck of the woods (I mean up close and personal) you might not be quite as blase about it. Oh, and by the way .. I'm not especially scared of terrorism. We Aussies don't scare that easily!!

I'm going back to the non-political stuff, which is what I came here for in the first place.

Palomar · 2003-09-01 07:35:26

Does anybody really think that invading Iraq has helped ease the threat of terrorism? I personally do not. I believe Iraq will be a victim of devastating terrorist acts for a very long time and that it will turn into a nerve center for terrorist planning and recruitment...

*Hi again. I agree with what you say. I didn't vote for Bush, I believe he is a warmongering bastard, and yes -- I also can't understand his high approval rating in the polls!

I am opposed to the war in Iraq -- that entire situation -- and believe it's only about *OIL*. Also, yes -- that it (perpetrating war on Iraq) will only stir up more trouble which will come down on our heads.

I believe Bush used 9/11 as a justification to attack Iraq.

Sorry, but I can't help but get the impression you aren't following my posts closely (not that you have to, of course, tee-hee). My apologies if that impression is incorrect.

I do agree with you on many points.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-01 12:04:09

Shaun,

And Josh, I honestly hope you're right about terrorism being a tool of the 'ruling class' to keep us peasants mentally occupied while they fleece us at home and plunder the rest of the world. But I think if terrorism ever came calling in your neck of the woods (I mean up close and personal) you might not be quite as blase about it.

What the Bush admin would call 'terrorism' killed several people in my brothers convoy, only a few vehicles behind him. I think that's pretty fucking close to home. I'm not niave enough to think that terrorism, however, is a threat to our society. It's an individual threat, it destroys individual lives. And it does it very effectively (generally a 1 to 1 ratio; look at how many people have died in Isreal due to terrorist related activities). Politicians would have you believe that terrorism was the new h-bomb (indeed, you think terrorism is of 'Titanic proportions'), when terrorism is more like localized insurgencies.

You can tell when something is being used as a political tool, when you see ads about it on TV, and when you see our spending going in that direction. Politicians in the US rarely do anything unless there's political gain in doing it (this is not to say at all that what they do is in fact good or necessary or not; that's irrelevant, it's just how things get done here). I mean, c'mon, be realistic here. The Bush admin, for example, blamed Clinton's admin for the lack of security. Is it true? Maybe. But others say that the Clinton admin was strong on security, and that security broke down in the presence of the Bush admin. It goes back and forth, indefinitely. Don't think there's no political gain in talking about the "terrorist threat."

It's unfortunate that you're bowing out; I would've enjoyed seeing your solution to the terrorist problem.

clark · 2003-09-02 09:56:13

Looks like Shaun has taken the high road.

Well, I guess that only leaves the low road for the rest of us...

I stated before, and I will state again, I think we did the right thing for the wrong reasons in Iraq (hey Cindy you reading this?! )

What does that mean though? It means that I think we were right in invading that country to remove a despotic tyrant that bruttaly repressed his people. That reason alone was enough to justify the mamaing and killing of so many innocents in that country.

How can I say that?!

It is becuase the people in Iraq allowed someone like Saddam to get into power, and maintain power, those same innocentes caused ths situation. Now of course, we had our hand in proping him up. We had a hand in creating the situation that led to our eventual invasion- so we shoulder a great deal of the responsiblity. Our hands are not clean, but the fact that we are trying to rectify the situation is progress.

Now, the reason I say we are doing this for the wrong reasons is becuase we say we invaded Iraq, and every other 3rd world nation on the basis of 'security'. It is exactly this same idea that got us into this problem to begin with.

We supported Afghani rebels during the cold war in the name of 'security' (from Communist expansion). We supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war in the name of 'security' (regional stability blah blah blah). We continue to support despotic regimes that oppress their peoples in the name of 'security'.

'Security', in my oh so humble opinion, is preceisly the wrong reason to do something in another country. We get in bed with anyone, regardless of how they act, as long as it furthers our own short sighted 'security' needs.

What we need to all realize is that 'ideology', the support of like beliefs, is the greatest security we can ever have.

Of course there is a darker side to what I am saying though. I am saying it is okay to invade another soverign nation if they kill portions of their citizens. If they repress them.

That means the US could be rightly invaded becuase of our penchant for the death penalty. it means we should invade every back water african country that continues to stone women. Not just those nations that happen to have a strategic or cultural link to western society.

Palomar · 2003-09-02 14:08:41

I stated before, and I will state again, I think we did the right thing for the wrong reasons in Iraq (hey Cindy you reading this?! ).

Big surprise (not)

*I'm here, Clark. Always reading around.

The news link concerns former POW Jessica Lynch to receive 1 million $ for her story. Why does this kind of make me sick? What about the people who rescued her? What about those pesky "trouble spots" in the story line? What about the other soldiers who have been killed in Iraq, and the other former POWs? What about the soldiers still over there?

I'm glad she's okay and back from Iraq (I wish -all- our soldiers were, and that they wouldn't have been made to go to Iraq in the first place), but I believe she's being used by the government as a figure to rally around in support of/justification for the war...

the Shirley Temple of ex-POWs or something...

the darling of the propoganda machine.

I have a problem with ONE person being singled out as THE HERO(ine).

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-02 16:25:51

Clark,

I am saying it is okay to invade another soverign nation if they kill portions of their citizens. If they repress them.

::shakes his head::

Should I even comment? I mean, damn. No, it's not ever good to invade anyone for any reason except for clear acts of mass genocide (basic 'repression' isn't enough, because that's quite subjective). Look at the situation. Why are dictators able to oppress their people? I would think that it's largely because of the wealth concentration, not because of some magical property dictators have. They're just guys with power, that's all.

The real solution to the Iraq 'threat' was to lift the embargo. Better the overall wealth of the society (in a very short period of time, might I add), and you would have influenced them with real democracy. Iraq, now, is a breeding ground for terrorism. It wasn't before. Iraq may be better off now (although it depends on how you look at it, before, while you had a dictator, you still had job security and utilities and so on, whereas now you have a military presence with daily bombings; personally I see no real change, what use is liberty when you're in crappy conditions?).

Cindy,

I agree.

clark · 2003-09-03 06:26:15

Lol.

The real solution to the Iraq 'threat' was to lift the embargo. Better the overall wealth of the society (in a very short period of time, might I add), and you would have influenced them with real democracy.

Oh, you mean like the 30 years prior to the sanctions. Yeah, democracy was right around the corner. Respect of basic human rights was just lying in any number of mass graves that litter the desert...

No, it's not ever good to invade anyone for any reason except for clear acts of mass genocide (basic 'repression' isn't enough, because that's quite subjective).

Why?

Iraq may be better off now (although it depends on how you look at it, before, while you had a dictator, you still had job security and utilities and so on, whereas now you have a military presence with daily bombings; personally I see no real change, what use is liberty when you're in crappy conditions?).

Better peace and security as a slave, held in check by threat of violence and persecution, than an unpredicatable and unforgiving future as a free-person?

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-03 09:03:23

Lol.

I'm glad you thought it was funny, you senseless warmonger. :;):

Oh, you mean like the 30 years prior to the sanctions. Yeah, democracy was right around the corner. Respect of basic human rights was just lying in any number of mass graves that litter the desert...

Iraq has... well... had a relatively large middle class. This is by no means an attempt to defend Iraqs system, because I don't know that much about it and probably wouldn't defend it anyway. This is merely to say that yes, there is evidence that wealth within a society will make that society better, regardless.

Are we to invade Saudi Arabia since we know that they are oppressive to their peoples, too? In fact, they had true contact with bin Laden, and they were the real ones responsible for 9/11. I think we should, just for fun! Don't you? I bet Shaun would. Let's go after everyone who we find oppressive.

Funny how you point out that a person with 9500 a month can't compete with a person who has 950000 a month (something that mere common sense dictates), but you seem to gloss over the similar matter, that poverty is no way to empower people in any situation, "democracy" or not. (People call Cuba a dictatorship, but from personal experience I have found that to be questionable, shall we invade Cuba now?)

Why?

Where is the objective standard for what is repression or not? I think the only standard you can have is whether or not people in a wealthy system will put up with certain behaviors or get the hell out of there or just close themselves off or fight back. When you're in poverty, your choices are obviously limited.

Better peace and security as a slave, held in check by threat of violence and persecution, than an unpredicatable and unforgiving future as a free-person?

No, not better; no different. Don't put words in my mouth clark, you've gotten better at not doing that, but don't start it again. And I wouldn't recommend using buzzwords like "free-person" when clearly in the context of my message, being free is more than just being able to say things you couldn't before. The Iraqi people are still ditacted what they must do by the 'transitional' government. I'm sure that if they vote for a form of communism (perhaps on a basic level like free housing and food, nothing elaborate), the 'transitional' government won't like that.

Recently it was seen that most of the professors and teachers in schools around Baghdad are being kicked out. As one person pointed out, the 'transitional' government is trying to export the intellectuals, so that they can import their own. I wonder if the Iraqi people, if they knew this, would agree with it. I doubt they would. Just beacuse you're an intellectual doesn't mean you sympathize with the former government.

clark · 2003-09-03 09:48:43

I'm glad you thought it was funny, you senseless warmonger.

Hippie.

Are we to invade Saudi Arabia since we know that they are oppressive to their peoples, too?

Yes. Just to cut you off from any future refrences, Yes to any and all examples you care to cite too.

Let's go after everyone who we find oppressive.

Let's go after everyone who is a criminal. A criminal can be defined as someone who athourizes, or carries out, acts of violence against others.

but you seem to gloss over the similar matter, that poverty is no way to empower people in any situation, "democracy" or not.

I agree, poverty does not empower people, but my point was that wealth doesn't neccessarily empower people either.

No, not better; no different. Don't put words in my mouth clark, you've gotten better at not doing that, but don't start it again.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was showing you the difference implied by your statements.

And I wouldn't recommend using buzzwords like "free-person" when clearly in the context of my message, being free is more than just being able to say things you couldn't before.

Free-person, as in free from the threat of violence at the hands of the State or groups.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-03 13:35:37

Hippie.

I always take that as a compliment, for some reason.

Yes. Just to cut you off from any future refrences, Yes to any and all examples you care to cite too.

I have no examples I really care to cite. I wouldn't even want us to invade Saudi Arabia. The point is that I can cite anyone. Shall we invade China next? Obviously you think that's fine and dandy. Maybe if China invaded the US, it'd be justified, too.

Let's go after everyone who is a criminal. A criminal can be defined as someone who athourizes, or carries out, acts of violence against others.

This is a very narrow objective standard, which can't handle scrutiny.

Given that going after someone in and of itself is an act of violence, we wind up in a circular loop, wherein one side attacks the other because they're carrying out violence (that's how they see it, after all), and the other side does exactly the same. A perpetual war, based on some concept that is totally different given a point of view.

You have just justified terrorism.

I agree, poverty does not empower people, but my point was that wealth doesn't neccessarily empower people either.

Certainly not always, but if even a little of that wealth trickles down into the masses, it's going to have a positive net effect. Another thing that would help is information. Back in the Soviet Union, information was so easy to control, these days one has so many sources that they can at least try to take their own stance (granted, it's still possible to pervert it, but it's not as easy as it used to be). Spread these ideas about equality, democracy, etc, and that wealth that does get lose will wind up being used wisely.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was showing you the difference implied by your statements.

There was no difference. You're using "free-people" in a very naive context, I think.

Free-person, as in free from the threat of violence at the hands of the State or groups.

I guess the Iraqi people don't have to worry about troops that kill their civilians, eh? Is that what you're saying? I'm pretty sure the strip searches continue. I'm pretty sure the guns pointed in the face of school children are real free. No threats of violence there at all.

clark · 2003-09-03 14:02:58

I wouldn't even want us to invade Saudi Arabia. The point is that I can cite anyone. Shall we invade China next? Obviously you think that's fine and dandy. Maybe if China invaded the US, it'd be justified, too.

The point is there is a standard. It is a standard that can be applied to all people, all beliefs, and all countries. China, and the rest or the world could be justified in acting against the US considering some of our practices.

Given that going after someone in and of itself is an act of violence, we wind up in a circular loop, wherein one side attacks the other because they're carrying out violence (that's how they see it, after all), and the other side does exactly the same.

Do you consider a policeman acting in his capacity to defend tthe safety of others acting in violence?

I haven't justified terroism, but I can if you want.

Certainly not always, but if even a little of that wealth trickles down into the masses, it's going to have a positive net effect. Another thing that would help is information.

First it was wealth that would bring about freedom. Now you say 'okay, well, maybe not always'. Now you add 'information' as the harbringer of freedom. Where does it end? What does it?

In some circumstances, information can lead to freedom, but not always. Indeed, it can be used to lead people away from freedom- One need only look at North Korea and their "Army first" policy to see what I am talking about.

Is that what you're saying? I'm pretty sure the strip searches continue. I'm pretty sure the guns pointed in the face of school children are real free. No threats of violence there at all.

I'm pretty sure women aren't being tortured and raped by the leaders of the country. I'm pretty sure that people aren't being pulled out of their houses and dumped in a mass grave. I'm pretty sure people aren't being systamatically beaten and humiliated for believing in the wrong version of God.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-03 17:27:44

The point is there is a standard. It is a standard that can be applied to all people, all beliefs, and all countries. China, and the rest or the world could be justified in acting against the US considering some of our practices.

They wouldn't be justified because their point of view is subjective. I'm not convinced that there is some sort of universial objective standard. Your standard relies solely on some universial acceptance of authority. It doesn't work in our current society. It can't work in our current society. And it probably won't work in future societies, because there will always be non-conforming ideologies and beliefs.

Do you consider a policeman acting in his capacity to defend tthe safety of others acting in violence?
I haven't justified terroism, but I can if you want.

A policeman has a magical higher authority that those in society generally respect. You haven't presented such a higher authority here, and even if you did (and were speculating about some magical future), one doesn't exist (so basically your approach is flawed).

The basis of your comments, "criminals are those who exhibit acts of violence" is subjective. What is an act of violence? And why, specifically, is violence (from outside entities whose authority is in question, mind you) accepted as a solution to stop others violence?

I accept that violence is okay to defend ones self. I don't accept that outside entities who aren't affected have some magical authority to defend others via violence. This works because in cases of mass genocide, there is a legitimate argument that says that you're going to be affected. So we're not throwing out humanitarianism, we're saying get your shit together yourself, without giving up our, or suggesting that you give up your, sovereignty.

First it was wealth that would bring about freedom. Now you say 'okay, well, maybe not always'. Now you add 'information' as the harbringer of freedom. Where does it end? What does it?

Oh, no, wealth and information are really all it takes. I should've never suggested wealth was all that was needed (though I feel that with wealth, information is more easily garnered).

Forcing your magical higher authority down peoples throat isn't the way to get them to understand or accept your varient of democracy. Eventually, over time, you'll get them to accept it, but it won't be fun for them.

It's taken the US, what, several hundred years to get it right? And we still have a ways to go. We destroy peoples lives for sharing files for crying out loud.

In some circumstances, information can lead to freedom, but not always. Indeed, it can be used to lead people away from freedom- One need only look at North Korea and their "Army first" policy to see what I am talking about.

Where in North Korea is information not controlled, and where in North Korea is wealth present? You do realize, and I mean, this should be quite obvious, but if information and wealth were available, those who wanted to wouldn't have major problems distributing it.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-08-30 09:27:11

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#77 2003-08-30 10:11:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#78 2003-08-30 10:47:06

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#79 2003-08-30 11:39:33

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#80 2003-08-30 20:57:46

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#81 2003-08-31 00:38:16

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#82 2003-08-31 11:44:19

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#83 2003-08-31 12:16:53

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#84 2003-08-31 17:59:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#85 2003-08-31 19:15:08

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#86 2003-08-31 20:11:34

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#87 2003-08-31 21:36:53

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#88 2003-08-31 21:53:53

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#89 2003-09-01 05:57:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#90 2003-09-01 07:35:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#91 2003-09-01 12:04:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#92 2003-09-02 09:56:13

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#93 2003-09-02 14:08:41

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#94 2003-09-02 16:25:51

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#95 2003-09-03 06:26:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#96 2003-09-03 09:03:23

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#97 2003-09-03 09:48:43

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#98 2003-09-03 13:35:37

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#99 2003-09-03 14:02:58

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#100 2003-09-03 17:27:44

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Board footer