PDA

View Full Version : "all we would need to do is leave people alone"


Vincent
01-31-2010, 02:23 PM
I don't think we would even need to be "nicer" to people. I think the libertarians are just as on the mark when they say that all we would need to do leave people alone.

P.S. - Is it just me, or is this thread way off target now?

I don't want to take the "Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor" thread further off course, so I throw this out for discussion.

On a spectrum of "leave people alone" to "bomb them into submission" and all points in between, what is your solution to dealing with the islamic world and all its stripes? What should our role be in the islamic world? If you were to set an agenda for this situation, what would it be?

MACH1
01-31-2010, 02:54 PM
I'm not the most pc person around. But if I had my way after 9/11, 9/12 would have look a little like this.


http://microscopiq.com/images/mushroom-clown-ps3.jpg

7SteelGal43
01-31-2010, 03:12 PM
We shouldn't have a role in the Islamic world per se'. However, in the interest of protecting America, we should be taking out by any means necessary the TERRORIST EXTREMISTS among them, or any other group. I feel we should in all cases treat someone who means to bomb, attack, or kill by means of a terrorist action as an enemy combatant. Not as a a civilian. No miranda rights. No trial in a NYC courtroom. Period.

Gather intel wherever whenever and from whoever possible. Then take action to thwart further attacks.



LONG LIVE GITMO !



Oh, and as for "all we have to do is leave 'em alone".....yeah, what colors the sky in your world, ricardi ?!!

SteelCityMom
01-31-2010, 04:00 PM
I don't want to take the "Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor" thread further off course, so I throw this out for discussion.

On a spectrum of "leave people alone" to "bomb them into submission" and all points in between, what is your solution to dealing with the islamic world and all its stripes? What should our role be in the islamic world? If you were to set an agenda for this situation, what would it be?

I'm one that agrees with the quote you brought to the thread. We should have taken Switzerlands lead a long damn time ago and just stayed the hell out of other countries business. It's caused a lot more problems than it will ever be worth in the end.

As it stands now, this country is way too deep in the proverbial shit for there to be an easy solution to get out of it. There probably never will be an end to the vicious circle our government has created, at least not in our lifetime. The best I think we can hope for is stopping terrorists (the ones born outside of this country at least) before another 9/11 happens.

Ideally, what I would like to see is:
-Close up the borders and make it extremely difficult to gain citizenship. I have nothing against any nationality, but if you want a secure country you just don't let anyone in willy nilly.
-Mandatory military training. You want other countries to be scared? Arm and train everyone to protect the country.
-Do away with unnecessary gun laws. Of course we don't want felons running around with firearms, but good citizens should be aloud to protect themselves...from foreign and domestic threats. Watch the crime rate and terror attack rate drop way down.
-Have trade only agreements with other countries. We can have some of your stuff, you can have some of our stuff...but outside of that, you keep to yourself and we'll keep to ourselves.

None of this will ever happen of course, because like I said, this country has gone too far at this point...but that's what should have happened 100+ years ago.

Vincent
01-31-2010, 05:07 PM
I've got a range of emotions somewhere between Mach 1 and Mom on this subject. On the one hand incinerating mecca and medina on 9/12 would have been the appropriate response to 9/11. On the other hand, I think I'm like most Americans in that we want to live peacefully and prosperously, and want the same for everyone else. Boiled down to usable terms, that means live and let live but don't @#$% with us. And I think that is our history.

We just wanted to live and prosper but George wouldn't have it so we had to fight. Same in 1812. The Civil War was an internal dispute. Spanish American, eh. Both World Wars we were drawn into. Korea and Viet Nam were containment of the commies. Gulf War I was the result of hussein invading Kuwait. Bosnia, while we had no business being there, was a NATO commitment. Gulf War II is integral to the war on terror. We don't have a history of starting @#$%. We finish it, then leave the theater in much better shape than we found it. And in the cases of all but Viet Nam and GWII we fought a conventional enemy that could be defeated and the landscape rebuilt.

Gen 3, 4, asymmetrical warfare, whatever you want to call it is different. Its like fighting cancer. You can cut out a tumor (Fallujah) but the cancer has already metastasized.

The real problem with the war on terror is that 10% of muslims are islamofascists and have no intention of ever letting this go. They transcend states. They are transparent in the communities they operate from, but are commanded by a relatively sophisticated but decidedly low tech central command structure. And they have sufficiently @#$%ed up public opinion that we can't take appropriate action to end this. Get a load of this - they can behead us, fly our airplanes into our buildings, bomb our embassies, blow up our trains, and commit all manner of unthinkable barbarity, but we aren't allowed to "offend" them. :wtf: :mad: :banging:

How do you fight a war that your leadership won't recognize as the war it is? Ask any islamofascist "Are yinz at war with us?". What do you think the answer would be? Ask our "administration". "Oh, we are in an 'Overseas Contingency Operation'.". http://www.armyg1.army.mil/MilitaryPersonnel/PPG/PPG.pdf http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html Again :wtf: :mad: :banging: Those tools (the "administration", not the Army) are so oblivious to reality that they aren't aware our army isn't up to such nonsense. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/d01198.pdf Or are they?

I will echo Mom's analysis.

As it stands now, this country is way too deep in the proverbial shit for there to be an easy solution to get out of it. There probably never will be an end to the vicious circle our government has created, at least not in our lifetime. The best I think we can hope for is stopping terrorists (the ones born outside of this country at least) before another 9/11 happens.

And further agree that the Swiss model of defense is highly appropriate for these times. http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=751414&postcount=1

SteelCityMom
01-31-2010, 05:26 PM
Love that video Vincent...and to speak a little further on the matter of their national security - not only do they require military training and keeping civilians armed, they also have shelters built into the mountains with years and years of supplies ready to go (all provided by the government). Their highway medians are removable and their highways become emergency airstrips. It is also mandatory that all houses and apartment buildings have fallout shelters built on the property. Many of their bridges, roads, tunnels and railways are wired with explosives as well, but this is an old practice from WWII and the Cold War days (though IMO I see no reason to stop doing it).

They are a country that hasn't seen or been in war for over 100 years, yet they have the capacity to have a large, capable army ready in a very short amount of time. They are also very economically stable. Their country is like a blueprint for domestic success and stability.

ricardisimo
01-31-2010, 06:02 PM
There's a simple solution, which is to listen to what a majority of our own people believe (http://www.cfr.org/publication/20132/ac3.html?breadcrumb=%2Fthinktank%2Fiigg%2Fpop%2Fpu b_list) on this topic and others. Our propaganda tells us that we are a democracy, so this should be natural for us.

Among other things, a clear majority of U.S. citizens support the U.N. - and not the U.S. - taking the lead in peacekeeping and military intervention. A clear majority also support the ICC. I think we'd all be amazed to see just how well behaved our presidents and senators can be if they know they can hang for their actions.

devilsdancefloor
01-31-2010, 07:56 PM
the warrior inside of me says KILL"EM ALL, but the little voice says waiiiiiit not all of these people are the bad guys. But once we find'em carpet bomb with fuel bombs. Plus let the military do their jobs keep washington out of it

Leftoverhard
01-31-2010, 08:23 PM
I think we should bomb everyone until they agree with us and bow to our will. Everyone.

Borski
01-31-2010, 08:30 PM
I think we should bomb everyone until they agree with us and bow to our will. Everyone.

no reason why we shouldn't have conquered Canada and Mexico by now. Come on now! USA USA USA!

:sofunny:

MACH1
01-31-2010, 08:38 PM
I think we should bomb everyone until they agree with us and bow to our will. Everyone.

That or we could just mustard gas our own that don't conform.

Vincent
01-31-2010, 08:39 PM
There's a simple solution, which is to listen to what a majority of our own people believe (http://www.cfr.org/publication/20132/ac3.html?breadcrumb=%2Fthinktank%2Fiigg%2Fpop%2Fpu b_list) on this topic and others.

Being an American, I am viscerally opposed to anything that compromises our sovereignty.

Yeah "evuhbuddy loves the idea of an ICC" but nobody knows what the hell it is...

Four in ten Americans (39%) say they have heard or read about the possibility of forming a permanent International Criminal Court, including 4% who know a lot and 13% who know some. The majority of Americans (61%) report that they have not heard or read anything at all about this initiative. (Roper/ASW) http://www.amicc.org/docs/WICC_USpublicOp.pdf

"I didn't see 'Ghandi' but I loved it" Steve Martin 1986 :rofl:

Our propaganda tells us that we are a democracy, so this should be natural for us.

We are a representative republic. The Framers did it that way because "democracies" have a tendency to run amuck.

Among other things, a clear majority of U.S. citizens support the U.N. - and not the U.S. - taking the lead in peacekeeping and military intervention.

A "majority" voted for bho as well. Public opinion doesn't necessarily serve as an indicator of the best direction we as a nation should go.

I think we should bomb everyone until they agree with us and bow to our will. Everyone.

Yer coming around Lefty. You been doing the breathing exercises? :chuckle:

That or we could just mustard gas our own that don't conform.

Nah. Sarin. I hear the trails are sensational.

smokin3000gt
01-31-2010, 10:16 PM
There's a simple solution, which is to listen to what a majority of our own people believe (http://www.cfr.org/publication/20132/ac3.html?breadcrumb=%2Fthinktank%2Fiigg%2Fpop%2Fpu b_list) on this topic and others. Our propaganda tells us that we are a democracy, so this should be natural for us.

Among other things, a clear majority of U.S. citizens support the U.N. - and not the U.S. - taking the lead in peacekeeping and military intervention. A clear majority also support the ICC. I think we'd all be amazed to see just how well behaved our presidents and senators can be if they know they can hang for their actions.

The last thing I want is a government/president that's afraid to act or a military that second guesses everything. I think we do what we do because we're the USA and because no one else will. That's what makes us, us for better or worse. Think about how much BAD the US has eradicated from this earth. Not to mention it's also in OUR best interest to keep the other countries in check (N Korea, Iran).

GoSlash27
01-31-2010, 11:10 PM
My opinion of our role in the Middle East (because you asked) is none.
We have the means to be self-sufficient without ME oil, although strangely enough the left-Dems seem to prefer the dependence.
We have no obligation to defend Israel, although strangely enough the fundy Republicans seem to think otherwise.

We leave them the heck alone, so long as they are not attacking us. If/ when any nation attacks us, we declare war as the Constitution demands and we destroy their means to wage war. Ruthlessly and relentlessly. If a group attacks us, we focus our efforts on eliminating that groups ability to mount offensive action while being as careful as possible to 1) alienate that group from it's base and 2) eliminating it's ability to mount offensive action.
The bad guys learn real quick to let this sleeping dog lie.

tony hipchest
01-31-2010, 11:25 PM
no nukes. no holy wars.

but manifest destiny, carpe diem, and plenty of daisy cutters and MOAB's.

thats all.

WH
02-01-2010, 08:42 AM
The US could stop giving Israel 7million dollars a day in military aid to make killing Palestinians easier.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

That might keep the Islaamic Terrorists at bay.

Godfather
02-01-2010, 09:20 AM
They are a country that hasn't seen or been in war for over 100 years, yet they have the capacity to have a large, capable army ready in a very short amount of time. They are also very economically stable. Their country is like a blueprint for domestic success and stability.

The only reason they stayed neutral in WW2 is they secretly collaborated with the Nazis. Spineless appeasers. I'll pass on being like them.

Their government is also known for extreme meddling in church affairs. I prefer to live in a free country, but that's just me.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 10:13 AM
this is a good thread......very interesting.

which way do we go.....

the middle east......the great quandry of our time......part of me wants to nuke, part of says thats bad. my friends that have been to both lovely countries want to get out and then nuke.....stay and finish.....get out. all for a myriad of reasons. until we decide to use this countys assets for energy, we are tied to that little piece of Heaven.

debate should be.....are we isolationist like ol georgie w. wanted, or do we "promote" democracy. is it right to promote democracy. worked out well in s korea, japan, and germany. but with germany and japan we had to kick the hell out and conquer to do it right. and japan had to attack us to bother to really get involved, and not just lend lease. the isolationists kept us out of WW1 and WW2 for a long time. should we have stayed out? i mean, technically Japan attacked us, not Germany. technically. in WW1 ( the dumbest war of all time), we only got involved because of politics, money and the changing feeling back home. this was only because G town went all sub crazy and torpedoed everything in sight. we still coulda stayed out.
korea........should we have let sk go down to nk? i mean it was a UN fight. but, if the argument is that most of the country wants the UN to fight...........there track record is very poor. we headed the deals in SK, Bosnia, GW1, etc. the UN never wants to fight or do anything bad to anybody. i mean the Human rights council has how many piss poor countries on it? please. they use us to do any heavy lifting, throw a few hundred troops in here and there and then complain about everything. the UN is useless. great idea (just as the league of nations was), makes everyone feel all warm and fuzzy, but accomplishes nothing it was intended to do. just like the concept of marxism........in utopia great....but goes against human nature, so forever doomed to failure.

what i love...is i used to date an afghani girl who used to live under the russian regime....had friends and family killed by the t-ban. her view.......nuke all of it and start over. i laughed.

WH
02-01-2010, 10:14 AM
The only reason they stayed neutral in WW2 is they secretly collaborated with the Nazis. Spineless appeasers. I'll pass on being like them.

Their government is also known for extreme meddling in church affairs. I prefer to live in a free country, but that's just me.

You live in a free country? That's news to me!

:noidea:

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 10:20 AM
Love that video Vincent...and to speak a little further on the matter of their national security - not only do they require military training and keeping civilians armed, they also have shelters built into the mountains with years and years of supplies ready to go (all provided by the government). Their highway medians are removable and their highways become emergency airstrips. It is also mandatory that all houses and apartment buildings have fallout shelters built on the property. Many of their bridges, roads, tunnels and railways are wired with explosives as well, but this is an old practice from WWII and the Cold War days (though IMO I see no reason to stop doing it).

They are a country that hasn't seen or been in war for over 100 years, yet they have the capacity to have a large, capable army ready in a very short amount of time. They are also very economically stable. Their country is like a blueprint for domestic success and stability.

youve got some good points mom....but a few probs with the swiss scenario. i have a bit of first hand with a country set up like that. S Korea is essentially the same. they have what they call "rock drops" and "side drops" set up on all main MSRs. meaning pre rigged explosives in overpasses and whatnot to blow if NK goes all crazy. plus all men mandatory either go KATUSA or seve in ROCK army for 2 years. those cats are bad ass. the catch is this.......both swiss and SK know they wouldnt last without US support. they count on it. SK direclty and swiss indirectly. plus both countries have way less of population and geography to cover. SK is size of Indiana, and I think, swiss is smaller.

big difference trying to establish the same strategy here. plus making service mandatory would never fly. left and libertarians would kill it due to constitutional freedoms. which is funny cause the left would love to make community service mandatory. go figure. i think the constitutionality of it would be a no go. kinda like making it mandatory to vote. that aint gonna work either. dont get me wrong i would love to see some kind of mandatory service, but the constitutionality of it.......not sure.

Vincent
02-01-2010, 10:49 AM
The only reason they stayed neutral in WW2 is they secretly collaborated with the Nazis. Spineless appeasers. I'll pass on being like them.

The Swiss hated the nazis. The reason the nazis didn't invade is because the Swiss pointed out they'd lose their officer corps in the process.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/halbrook.html

SteelCityMom
02-01-2010, 10:51 AM
youve got some good points mom....but a few probs with the swiss scenario. i have a bit of first hand with a country set up like that. S Korea is essentially the same. they have what they call "rock drops" and "side drops" set up on all main MSRs. meaning pre rigged explosives in overpasses and whatnot to blow if NK goes all crazy. plus all men mandatory either go KATUSA or seve in ROCK army for 2 years. those cats are bad ass. the catch is this.......both swiss and SK know they wouldnt last without US support. they count on it. SK direclty and swiss indirectly. plus both countries have way less of population and geography to cover. SK is size of Indiana, and I think, swiss is smaller.

big difference trying to establish the same strategy here. plus making service mandatory would never fly. left and libertarians would kill it due to constitutional freedoms. which is funny cause the left would love to make community service mandatory. go figure. i think the constitutionality of it would be a no go. kinda like making it mandatory to vote. that aint gonna work either. dont get me wrong i would love to see some kind of mandatory service, but the constitutionality of it.......not sure.

Yes, I know a program like that would never fly in the US now. That's kind of why I said "ideally" and stated that the country is too far gone right now to be brought back. Our government and liberals have concerned themselves completely with what is happening outside of the country instead of trying to fix things within first. It's a terrible cycle and will never get us anywhere.

And yes, while Switzerland is small, they have nearly as many conscript citizens trained in boot camps, armed, and ready to go as the US has active and reserve military personnel. The US obviously has more people who WOULD be fit for military service....but out of over 118 million people, the active and reserve army only consists of 3 million. Can you imagine how much other countries would not F with us if boot camp and keeping yourself armed were mandatory. And beyond that, can you imagine how much the national crime rate would drop if every thug and criminal knew that Janie REALLY does have a gun?

As far as Libertarians being against mandatory military service...yes they, myself included, are. This is not about mandatory military service though. This is about a conscript militia that would be ready to go to defend home soil from foreign (and domestic) attack. They would not be called upon to serve in foreign wars.

SteelCityMom
02-01-2010, 10:52 AM
The Swiss hated the nazis. The reason the nazis didn't invade is because the Swiss pointed out they'd lose their officer corps in the process.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/halbrook.html

Thank you for posting that, I was looking for a bit of info to back up his claim (since he didn't) and couldn't find anything outside of a few random blogs.

SteelCityMom
02-01-2010, 10:55 AM
The only reason they stayed neutral in WW2 is they secretly collaborated with the Nazis. Spineless appeasers. I'll pass on being like them.

Their government is also known for extreme meddling in church affairs. I prefer to live in a free country, but that's just me.

I never said I wanted to have their government. Sorry if I made it sound like that. A direct democracy is definitely NOT the way to go in this country...even though the fact that we are a representative republic gets swept under the rug by most liberals lol.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 11:24 AM
Yes, I know a program like that would never fly in the US now. That's kind of why I said "ideally" and stated that the country is too far gone right now to be brought back. Our government and liberals have concerned themselves completely with what is happening outside of the country instead of trying to fix things within first. It's a terrible cycle and will never get us anywhere.

And yes, while Switzerland is small, they have nearly as many conscript citizens trained in boot camps, armed, and ready to go as the US has active and reserve military personnel. The US obviously has more people who WOULD be fit for military service....but out of over 118 million people, the active and reserve army only consists of 3 million. Can you imagine how much other countries would not F with us if boot camp and keeping yourself armed were mandatory. And beyond that, can you imagine how much the national crime rate would drop if every thug and criminal knew that Janie REALLY does have a gun?

As far as Libertarians being against mandatory military service...yes they, myself included, are. This is not about mandatory military service though. This is about a conscript militia that would be ready to go to defend home soil from foreign (and domestic) attack. They would not be called upon to serve in foreign wars.


good points mom...but like i said SK is kinda the same way.....number of conscripts, military, arms, (except for the mandatory arming).....but they know without our backing, they would be wiped out if NK really wanted to go. swiss would end up being the same way if a major force went in. now it would end up like Iraq after the invasion with insurgents, but there military would be waxed.....kinda like the pols circa WW2.

we have the numbers, and your right about the mandatory service, but you cant make conscription or arms mandatory either. goes against the constitution. plus....nobody messes with us now. not on the homefront. and nobody, prob, ever will. on the homefront. but they will continue to screw with our global interests forever.
your right, you did say ideal. ideals are great, but usually just dreams and unicorns. i wish ideals won out, but thats against human nature also. as far as setting up the conscripts for just homeland defense.....thats been discussed, making the NG be what its supposed to be and putting it under the Dept of homeland defense. i like that idea.

ps. did you see our boys smakc the wings in that shootout yesterday? reminds me of last year....the good ol days.

SteelCityMom
02-01-2010, 11:39 AM
good points mom...but like i said SK is kinda the same way.....number of conscripts, military, arms, (except for the mandatory arming).....but they know without our backing, they would be wiped out if NK really wanted to go. swiss would end up being the same way if a major force went in. now it would end up like Iraq after the invasion with insurgents, but there military would be waxed.....kinda like the pols circa WW2.

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but during WWII, not even the Nazi's wanted to mess with the Swiss, and this was before the US got involved. They attacked the French, the English, the Pols and Russia without a second thought. They figured out that the Swiss would be virtually impossible to get by though. It's a small country, but geographically...they have the perfect setup for defensive strikes.

we have the numbers, and your right about the mandatory service, but you cant make conscription or arms mandatory either. goes against the constitution. plus....nobody messes with us now. not on the homefront. and nobody, prob, ever will. on the homefront. but they will continue to screw with our global interests forever.
your right, you did say ideal. ideals are great, but usually just dreams and unicorns. i wish ideals won out, but thats against human nature also. as far as setting up the conscripts for just homeland defense.....thats been discussed, making the NG be what its supposed to be and putting it under the Dept of homeland defense. i like that idea.

No, I know it's unconstitutional. I just get tired of people droning on about national security and protecting home soil, and then not doing anything about it. I do think most gun laws are unconstitutional as well though, and if they were done away with, most citizens would be armed. I just think anyone who is a true patriot should have some sort of gun training and possibly military training as well. The founding fathers were very much in support of a well organized militia, and that ideal seems to have gone to the way side in the 20th and 21st century.

ps. did you see our boys smakc the wings in that shootout yesterday? reminds me of last year....the good ol days.

Lol, of course I did...watching Kronwall injure himself trying to hit Staal (i think?) made me giggle an evil little giggle.

revefsreleets
02-01-2010, 11:40 AM
First off, this whole utopian "live and let live" nonsense is childishly naive. It's not even worth rehashing.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the whole basis of continued US domination is based on destabilizing enemies. We can actually win wars even if we "lose them" simply by poking around in regions where big blocs of power could form against us. So the notion of "leaving people alone" is basically not only completely at odds with US policy and doctrine, it's also probably the worst and most ignorant action (or lack thereof) we could possible take.

And for anyone who actually thinks there is some emerging power that would "rule" more benignly, please point out which Country that might be...

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 12:14 PM
First off, this whole utopian "live and let live" nonsense is childishly naive. It's not even worth rehashing.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the whole basis of continued US domination is based on destabilizing enemies. We can actually win wars even if we "lose them" simply by poking around in regions where big blocs of power could form against us. So the notion of "leaving people alone" is basically not only completely at odds with US policy and doctrine, it's also probably the worst and most ignorant action (or lack thereof) we could possible take.

And for anyone who actually thinks there is some emerging power that would "rule" more benignly, please point out which Country that might be...

well said....well said. utopian dreams are that....dreams.

what people dont seem to understand is that if we didnt do the destabilization in a lot of instances with different countries...we prob wouldve fought a lot more wars....
cuba wouldve had nukes back in the day....iran wouldve conquered quite a large swath of the ME, all just to mention a few.

now, what gets me is people want us to be isolationists, like we used to be in the past, but that didnt work either. stay out of other peoples business.....until theirs a genocide or other countrys are treating their people badly, but dont do it for our interests or our people. keep our money home to feed and cloth our people.....until their is another country that cant feed or clothe its people.

no perfect world....you do what ya can and make the best decisions as they come

zulater
02-01-2010, 02:15 PM
The only reason they stayed neutral in WW2 is they secretly collaborated with the Nazis. Spineless appeasers. I'll pass on being like them.

Their government is also known for extreme meddling in church affairs. I prefer to live in a free country, but that's just me.

Just grazes the surface, but well said all the same. :thumbsup:

Thank god (or whatever) for the U.S.A. The World would be a lot worse place without American intervention and invention through the years. Yeah we made our share of mistakes, backed the wrong horse more than once no question. But we still get it right most of the time, and generally use our power with compassion and good intent.

Ugly American, out. :wave:

zulater
02-01-2010, 02:16 PM
well said....well said. utopian dreams are that....dreams.

what people dont seem to understand is that if we didnt do the destabilization in a lot of instances with different countries...we prob wouldve fought a lot more wars....
cuba wouldve had nukes back in the day....iran wouldve conquered quite a large swath of the ME, all just to mention a few.

now, what gets me is people want us to be isolationists, like we used to be in the past, but that didnt work either. stay out of other peoples business.....until theirs a genocide or other countrys are treating their people badly, but dont do it for our interests or our people. keep our money home to feed and cloth our people.....until their is another country that cant feed or clothe its people.

no perfect world....you do what ya can and make the best decisions as they come

:thumbsup:

7SteelGal43
02-01-2010, 02:28 PM
The US could stop giving Israel 7million dollars a day in military aid to make killing Palestinians easier.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

That might keep the Islaamic Terrorists at bay.

yeah, it's the Israeli's fault :rolleyes: DAMN THOSE JEWS FOR FIGHTING BACK AGAINST TERRORISTS CAUSING DEATH AND MAYHEM !!!!!!

revefsreleets
02-01-2010, 02:33 PM
well said....well said. utopian dreams are that....dreams.

what people dont seem to understand is that if we didnt do the destabilization in a lot of instances with different countries...we prob wouldve fought a lot more wars....
cuba wouldve had nukes back in the day....iran wouldve conquered quite a large swath of the ME, all just to mention a few.

now, what gets me is people want us to be isolationists, like we used to be in the past, but that didnt work either. stay out of other peoples business.....until theirs a genocide or other countrys are treating their people badly, but dont do it for our interests or our people. keep our money home to feed and cloth our people.....until their is another country that cant feed or clothe its people.

no perfect world....you do what ya can and make the best decisions as they come

In one of these threads, I posted a list of ALL US casualties of war we've sustained since adopting this destabilization policy. Not to cheapen or lessen the losses, but, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, this policy has been very cheap in the cost of human casualties. Fighting sustained large scale Wars against very large and powerful blocs aligned against us would have resulted in exponentially more casualties, not to mention additional trillions spent.

We have money. We have technology. We have a smart policy in place. We have two vast oceans to protect us. We have a navy larger than all the rest of the Worlds navies combined. What we do NOT have is a large population. We cannot expend soldiers, so we adopted a policy that protects our interests, keeps us relatively safe, and keeps the numbers of soldiers we need on the small side.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 04:37 PM
never thought of it quite like that.....as far as why we have the policy that we do.
interesting....well played

Leftoverhard
02-01-2010, 05:02 PM
In one of these threads, I posted a list of ALL US casualties of war we've sustained since adopting this destabilization policy. Not to cheapen or lessen the losses, but, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, this policy has been very cheap in the cost of human casualties.

See, rev - when you say it that way (especially when you leave out all the other casualties) you really do lessen the losses. Literally. You really can't try to qualify a statement like that because the that is the meat of what you are saying.

First off, this whole utopian "live and let live" nonsense is childishly naive. It's not even worth rehashing.

It really bothers me that you call it childish and naive to think that this kind of loss is unacceptable. Talk about unrealistic...It's unrealistic to be so far removed from these deaths that they are just numbers and collateral damage. We are more civilized than that. We are supposed to be better than that. :noidea:

How about *just* Iraq and Afghanistan?

At least 849,845 people have
been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq
since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates.

Most recent update: December 29, 2009.

About 283 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001. More than 121 times as many people have been killed in these wars and occupations than in all terrorist attacks in the world from 1993-2004, accordint to data compiled by the US State Department. (After the 2004 report showed terrorism at an all-time high, numerous experts suggested that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fueling an increase in terrorism, and subsequent State Dept terror tallies have remained classified.)


Casualties in Afghanistan:
Afghan troops killed: 8,587
Afghan troops seriously injured: 25,761
Afghan civilians killed : 8,165
Afghan civilians seriously injured: 14,697
U.S. troops killed: 866
U.S. troops seriously injured: 2,598
Other coalition troops killed: 619
Other coalition troops seriously injured: 1,857
Contractors killed: 75
Contractors seriously injured: 2,428
Journalists killed: 7
Journalists seriously injured: unknown
Total killed in Afghanistan: 18,319
Total injured in Afghanistan: 47,341



Casualties in Iraq:
Iraqi troops killed: 30,000
Iraqi troops seriously injured: 90,000
Iraqi civilians killed: 795,763
Iraqi civilians seriously injured: 1,432,373
U.S. troops killed: 4,371
U.S. troops seriously injured: 31,557
Other coalition troops killed: 318
Other coalition troops seriously injured: 2,290
Contractors killed: 933
Contractors seriously injured: 10,569
Journalists killed :141
Journalists seriously injured: unknown
Total killed in Iraq: 831,526
Total injured in Iraq: 1,566,789


http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html#note

Dino 6 Rings
02-01-2010, 05:28 PM
First

Elect me Supreme Chancellor

Second

I build a fleet of Super Star Destroyers and a Clone Army.

Third

Kill anyone that does not like the idea of me in charge.

Forth

Peace

Easy as Pie.

Actually, I believe that spreading the idea of freedom of democracy is the best coarse of action, create a situation where people want freedoms and break away from their own dictatorships. Also, enact a policy that we as a nation will engage in NO TRADE with any Non-Democracy Country.

No Trade with China, No Trade with Saudi Arabia, No Trade with Iran or Lybia. None. We will not actively thwart them from trading with one another, but we will engage in No Trade with No-Free Nations.

At this point we can still trade with Russia, pretty much all of Europe, plenty of Indonesian Countries, India, Quite a few African nations, as well as some South American countries.

No Trade of any kind with Venezuala, No trade with Cuba.

Nations that have legit elections and Governmental Body Turnover (especially in their highest office) will be on our Trade List, however we will not trade with a single nation that engages in Tyranny and Opression of its own people.

If people in Iran can't get their Diet Cokes, they are going to flip the regime.

Vincent
02-01-2010, 05:55 PM
At least 849,845 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates.

Are you suggesting that we are responsible for all those casualties? Seems to me a huge number have perished to islamoassholes blowing things up, decapitating people, and just being, well, assholes . Who killed the journalists and contractors? Who killed civilians?

I would say from your numbers, we might have had a hand in less than 50,000, and in that I'm counting all the Iraqi soldiers and some civilians. The other 800K belong to the terrorists.

NO TRADE with any Non-Democracy Country.

That would eliminate the US as a trading partner. We are not a democracy. Just saying. Otherwise your plan is inspired genius. And I know a genius when I see one. :wave:

Dino 6 Rings
02-01-2010, 05:59 PM
That would eliminate the US as a trading partner. We are not a democracy. Just saying. Otherwise your plan is inspired genius. And I know a genius when I see one. :wave:

Well saying Democracy is just an easier way of saying Representative Republic. But I know you knew what I meant. And You know I know that you Knew what I meant. and I know you know that I know you knew what I meant.

but for anyone interested in this aspect of the discussion:
http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

WH
02-01-2010, 07:03 PM
yeah, it's the Israeli's fault :rolleyes: DAMN THOSE JEWS FOR FIGHTING BACK AGAINST TERRORISTS CAUSING DEATH AND MAYHEM !!!!!!The Israelis are just as guilty of Death and Mayhem in that part of the world as the Palestinians.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 07:15 PM
i take it your not a big fan of the Jews and their homeland hmmm?

WH
02-01-2010, 07:24 PM
What the hell kind of question is that....

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 07:25 PM
Are you suggesting that we are responsible for all those casualties? Seems to me a huge number have perished to islamoassholes blowing things up, decapitating people, and just being, well, assholes . Who killed the journalists and contractors? Who killed civilians?

I would say from your numbers, we might have had a hand in less than 50,000, and in that I'm counting all the Iraqi soldiers and some civilians. The other 800K belong to the terrorists:

but now your just talking all crazy talk.....or what is know as a discussion in reality.
cant have that, thats bad ju ju. tis much better to let terrorists and their regimes do what they wil without reaction. because, dont ya know, we bomb people willy nilly. ipso facto. we dont have JDAMs or any other pinpoint munitions. we dont go through a million checks just to engage in one artillery mission. we just blast kids, women, dogs, cats.........you know, "spray and pray". we, the U.S. military just "let er fly".

so what should our reaction have been I ask?




we all hope and dream for a perfect world. but to think we can enact one, or ignore enemies and evil is folly.

Vincent
02-01-2010, 07:31 PM
The Israelis are just as guilty of Death and Mayhem in that part of the world as the Palestinians.

I beg to differ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxCzwz7zTco

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAxrg7nMcs4&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b68N_wgoEHA

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 07:36 PM
now vincent, you know better then to refute or argue with facts.

wait for it....wait for it, its coming.

your just going to get all the "israel is the enemy of the world.....theyve killed more innocents....Jews rule the world and corrupt everything....blah, blah, blah"

its coming....just you wait.

Vincent
02-01-2010, 07:47 PM
You can say a lot of things about Jews, as you can about any group of folks. But since Old Testament times, I wouldn't say they would be particularly known for wreaking havoc and mayhem on the world. Quite the opposite is actually the case. Jews have been persecuted without mercy everywhere but in America.

Man are we way off this thread?

I understand the Palestinian perspective. I've known a number of them, albeit they are all Christians. But the neighbors of Israel have been less than accommodating since 1946 to say the least. If I were Israel, I might have reacted even more violently.

ricardisimo
02-01-2010, 08:07 PM
Being an American, I am viscerally opposed to anything that compromises our sovereignty.
What's this "our" business? Like you have any say whatsoever in current U.S. policy? Your sovereignty (and mine, and about 95% of this country) was compromised a long time ago.
Yeah "evuhbuddy loves the idea of an ICC" but nobody knows what the hell it is...

Four in ten Americans (39%) say they have heard or read about the possibility of forming a permanent International Criminal Court, including 4% who know a lot and 13% who know some. The majority of Americans (61%) report that they have not heard or read anything at all about this initiative. (Roper/ASW) http://www.amicc.org/docs/WICC_USpublicOp.pdf
Hmmm... Let's see... "International Criminal Court". It's a court, so they're hearing legal matters there. It's a criminal court, so they're not handling estates or divorces. And it's international, so they must be holding trials on crimes of international scope, such as war crimes. That didn't seem so complicated. Something very close to 100% of the polled group would have been able to conduct a similar calculus as what I just did.

If they were bored and wanted to muse on the topic even further, I'm sure they could extrapolate from the fact that the ICC has not yet issued arrest warrants for George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, that this court's powers are severely limited in scope.
We are a representative republic. The Framers did it that way because "democracies" have a tendency to run amuck.
We are a federal republic on paper, indeed, and not a democracy. We have some limited democratic aspects, namely the House of Representatives. When you think about it, that is one half of one third of our national government. We are about 17% democratic. It's kind of interesting to think about it that way.

As far as democracies running amok, and similar comments further down in this thread... it's pretty sobering to see the visceral hatred for democracy in this country. Few cultures despise democracy quite like ours, but that's what 240 years of non-stop indoctrination will do to you. I'm eager to hear all about these numerous misadventures in democracy throughout world history. Please do give us your list.
A "majority" voted for bho as well. Public opinion doesn't necessarily serve as an indicator of the best direction we as a nation should go.
We don't select our presidents, marketing firms do. And based on his performance concentrating even more wealth into the hands of a very select few at the top, I'd say they chose very wisely... for their purposes.

Furthermore, Democrats and Republicans don't vote for their own candidates, but against the other party's. It's a near-perfect fear system, the likes of which totalitarian regimes around the globe can only dream about.

It's interesting to note that no matter how appallingly bad the decisions from a leadership model, we instinctively know never to question the model itself. Leaders know best, and are to be followed. Some call it patriotism, I call it obedience.

On the other hand, no matter how right the public at large is on any and all matters, we must always bring up the specter of "mob rule" running amok. never mind that "the mob" are absolutely right on the UN, the bank bailouts, the two-party system, Social Security, Iraq, health care, etc., etc.... and conversely, that our leaders are 100% wrong on every single issue always (and by design, I should point out), none of this matters, since we are an exceptionally disciplined culture. "Mein fuhrer..." Oops! I meant to say "My country, right or wrong."

I, for one, agree with that obscure little minority of 60-70% of the populace that thinks diplomacy should be our first, second and third line of defense.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 08:30 PM
but ric, when can you admit when diplomacy doesnt work.....4th time, 5th, 23rd? how deep does it get before we protect our interests and our people. no one, regardless of our personal opinion, goes to war lightly. at least, i sumbit, in a democracy/republic.

we attempted years of diplomacy prior to 1776 and during, before we chose revolution.
we tried diplomacy during the barbary wars.
we tried diplomacy before the war of 1812.
we tried a lot of diplomacy before world war 1, trying to brocker peace between the allies and the entente.
we tried diplomacy up until we were hit at pearl harbor.
we tried diplomacy in Korea, and ended up with only an armistice.
we tried diplomacy before gulf war 1.

so when is enough enough?

tony hipchest
02-01-2010, 08:32 PM
I, for one, agree with that obscure little minority of 60-70% of the populace that thinks diplomacy should be our first, second and third line of defense.

thats because you are the devil. :evil:

It's interesting to note that no matter how appallingly bad the decisions from a leadership model, we instinctively know never to question the model itself. Leaders know best, and are to be followed. Some call it patriotism, I call it obedience.

sorta off topic, but anyone remember when they would line you up at recess in kindergarten or 1st grade and force you to play that game "follow the leader"?

that game sucked. even moreso than "simon says" or the "hokey pokey". :hunch:

"red rover, red rover" was kinda cool because it atleast involved a bit of atheletisizm.

/random thought.

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 08:59 PM
i liked chines freeze tag....dont know why it was chinese, or if its just freeze tag (pc version) now.
we had this one kick ass game....called steal the bacon...played with a bowling pin.
you lined like 10 on one side and 10 on the other. assigned everybody a number. put the pin in the center. number gets called you and your opponent race for the pin, and you have to take back to your side without getting tagged. loved it. we used to shove each other down all the time.

tony hipchest
02-01-2010, 09:02 PM
we had this one kick ass game....called steal the bacon...played with a bowling pin.
you lined like 10 on one side and 10 on the other. assigned everybody a number. put the pin in the center. number gets called you and your opponent race for the pin, and you have to take back to your side without getting tagged. loved it. we used to shove each other down all the time.

we used to play that game!

but since bowling pins were hard to come by, we used the neighborhood midgets. :wink02:

urgle burgle
02-01-2010, 09:12 PM
sweet.....midgets are a lot cooler. we only used them when we played kickball. you can guess what we used the midgets as.

Vincent
02-01-2010, 10:22 PM
Fellas, I think Ric was serious.

tony hipchest
02-01-2010, 10:36 PM
Fellas, I think Ric was serious.

i got that.

we/our children have been/are conditioned to "follow the leader" from the day we/they enter the public school systems.

GBMelBlount
02-01-2010, 11:01 PM
It's interesting to note that no matter how appallingly bad the decisions from a leadership model, we instinctively know never to question the model itself. Leaders know best, and are to be followed. Some call it patriotism, I call it obedience....

I, for one, agree with that obscure little minority of 60-70% of the populace that thinks diplomacy should be our first, second and third line of defense.

So are you (the majority) right or just blindly following the leader?

Your logic is dizzying, friend. :chuckle:

Godfather
02-01-2010, 11:02 PM
i liked chines freeze tag....dont know why it was chinese, or if its just freeze tag (pc version) now.
we had this one kick ass game....called steal the bacon...played with a bowling pin.
you lined like 10 on one side and 10 on the other. assigned everybody a number. put the pin in the center. number gets called you and your opponent race for the pin, and you have to take back to your side without getting tagged. loved it. we used to shove each other down all the time.

I don't remember any name other than freeze tag :dunno:

We had a game called hat fighting. We'd stuff our gloves into our hat and beat on each other with it. The stupid killjoy principal banned the game even though we had a rule against hitting your opponent's face or head.

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 01:53 AM
we attempted years of diplomacy prior to 1776 and during, before we chose revolution.
Great Britain was us at the time, and had as little use for diplomacy as we do now.
we tried diplomacy during the barbary wars.
There was no peculiarly strong interest in diplomacy, and the incident was actually quite warmly welcomed by the likes of Madison as an opportunity for muscle-flexing within view of the European powers.
we tried diplomacy before the war of 1812.
No, we didn't. We eagerly wanted this war, and it was openly promoted as our "second war of independence." It was timed perfectly, as Britain's involvement was half-hearted at best, and it got people's minds off of all sorts of other bad news.
we tried a lot of diplomacy before world war 1, trying to brocker peace between the allies and the entente.
I think you mean between the Central powers and the Entente, and I don't know how Wilson or anyone else could claim impartial diplomacy by the U.S. when he was actively transporting munitions to the British and actively halting food supplies to Germany. This war was also the sort of coming-out party for our country's propaganda industry, which was awkward, not slick at first:
"Crucial to U.S. participation was the sweeping domestic propaganda campaign executed by the Committee on Public Information overseen by George Creel.[83] The campaign included tens of thousands of government-selected community leaders giving brief carefully scripted pro-war speeches at thousands of public gatherings.Ross, pp. 244-6 Along with other branches of government and private vigilante groups like the American Protective League, it also included the general repression and harassment of people either opposed to American entry into the war or of German heritage.[83] Other forms of propaganda included newsreels, photos, large-print posters (designed by several well-known illustrators of the day, including Louis D. Fancher and Henry Reuterdahl), magazine and newspaper articles, etc."
we tried diplomacy up until we were hit at pearl harbor.
We also tried boasting loudly in the newspapers about our shiny, new high-tech bombers, which were capable of making it all the way to Japan and back from their bases in Pearl Harbor, turning Japan's wooden cities to cinders overnight, a claim which, it was reported, delighted FDR. Now, that's diplomacy! I wonder where the Japanese got the idea to bomb the naval station in Hawaii?
we tried diplomacy in Korea, and ended up with only an armistice.
It's funny to consider this diplomacy: the US and USSR divided Korea in two at the Potsdam Conference... without consulting with the Koreans! Two competing superpowers agreed ahead of time to jointly occupy a third nation (against their will), even agreeing on the exact line of demarcation, where the Red Army arrived on schedule, and politely awaited the late arrival of US forces from Japan. That's diplomacy? What planet are we on?
we tried diplomacy before gulf war 1.
Not so much:
"In early July [1990], Iraq complained about Kuwait's behavior, such as not respecting their quota, and openly threatened to take military action. On the 23rd, the CIA reported that Iraq had moved 30,000 troops to the Iraq-Kuwait border, and the U.S. naval fleet in the Persian Gulf was placed on alert. On the 25th, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, an American ambassador, in Baghdad. At that meeting, Glaspie told the Iraqi delegation, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."
That's called giving your former client state the green light. I'm hoping there are better examples of U.S. diplomacy somewhere. How about our involvement in the Good Friday Agreement? It's nowhere near perfect, but it's lowered the violence to a whisper, and allowed adults to dominate the discussion, rather than very poorly-behaved little boys as before.
so when is enough enough?
I don't know. This is just off the top of my head, but how about when your nation is attacked? And when we are attacked, why not actually confront the guilty parties? And if it's a criminal action, why not treat is as such? Investigate it, round them up and lock them away. Just a thought.

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 02:35 AM
but now your just talking all crazy talk.....or what is know as a discussion in reality.
cant have that, thats bad ju ju. tis much better to let terrorists and their regimes do what they wil without reaction. because, dont ya know, we bomb people willy nilly. ipso facto. we dont have JDAMs or any other pinpoint munitions. we dont go through a million checks just to engage in one artillery mission. we just blast kids, women, dogs, cats.........you know, "spray and pray". we, the U.S. military just "let er fly".

so what should our reaction have been I ask?




we all hope and dream for a perfect world. but to think we can enact one, or ignore enemies and evil is folly.

Have any of you even asked yourselves the question of why we are in Iraq?

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 02:56 AM
So are you (the majority) right or just blindly following the leader?

Your logic is dizzying, friend. :chuckle:

Huh? I'm sorry, but either the acid I dropped or the glue I've been sniffing is getting in the way of me understanding your comment. That, or it just doesn't make any sense.

WH
02-02-2010, 03:22 AM
Have any of you even asked yourselves the question of why we are in Iraq?

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/lessthancurt/faret.jpg nnnaaaaaaaaayyyyy

urgle burgle
02-02-2010, 10:04 AM
Have any of you even asked yourselves the question of why we are in Iraq?

yes....continually....prior (i watched everything up until 2003, during, and after), i was privy to things the general puplic didnt know. that was my job for 8 1/2 yrs. i continually look at the whole considering i have problems with all of it. i have had friends lost, wounded, and deeply affected by this conflict (as well as myself) for the remainder of our lives. i just choose to look at the whole picture and not cherry pick things that make my worldview. their are problems with all sides. i used to get very emotional about this topic, being protective, and because it is near and dear to me. but emotions only get in the way. i choose to look at the thought processes that went into decisions, reports from the people on the ground, the total history of the conflict, and base my decisions of of that. i have gotten to the point where i try to leave my emotions at bay. previously i wouldve taken quite a few of your comments as insults and slightly close minded. however, i see that you also feel strongly about this, and have your own viewpoint.

SCSTILLER
02-02-2010, 10:18 AM
Have any of you even asked yourselves the question of why we are in Iraq?

Yep, having been a small part of the war, of course I have. You and your all knowing, all glorious UN failed when it came to Iraq. How many resolutions did the regime of Saddam Hussein break? How many people died when he gassed the Kurds to the north? How many times did he balk at the rules and restrictions that were set in place on him? How many times, and why, did he kick Blind Man Blix and the crew out of Iraq? How well did the oil for food program work? Even if you want to beleive there were no WMD's (which everyone on this board knows that is what you beleive) we had a reason for the invasion based on the broken UN resolutions.

On a side note, how many people were slaughtered, yes slaughtered under Saddam Husseins regime? Also, the majority of Iraqi's wanted us there and appreciated us taking out Saddam. I had my hand shaken numerous times and was thanked numerous times for what we did and are still doing.

urgle burgle
02-02-2010, 10:27 AM
Great Britain was us at the time, and had as little use for diplomacy as we do now.

regardless, diplomacy was tried at great lengths for years to avoid the conflict.There was no peculiarly strong interest in diplomacy, and the incident was actually quite warmly welcomed by the likes of Madison as an opportunity for muscle-flexing within view of the European powers.

however attempts were made, tribute paid to avoid the conflict, and ambassadors sent. jefferson then sent our navy as a show of force and defense.
No, we didn't. We eagerly wanted this war, and it was openly promoted as our "second war of independence." It was timed perfectly, as Britain's involvement was half-hearted at best, and it got people's minds off of all sorts of other bad news.

your view may be that there was no interest....people make comments after the fact to mobilize and rally a country at a time of war. you can choose to feel that we really wanted this conflict, although people making decisions then felt we were at a weakness, but the brits kept taking our ships and forcing our sailors to man british ships. for a war that we wanted we sure got our asses kicked during.


I think you mean between the Central powers and the Entente, and I don't know how Wilson or anyone else could claim impartial diplomacy by the U.S. when he was actively transporting munitions to the British and actively halting food supplies to Germany. This war was also the sort of coming-out party for our country's propaganda industry, which was awkward, not slick at first:

your right. i switched the terms- triple entente vs the central powers. so, for true diplomacy, we have to stop all trade with pre-determined allies? whether you choose to call it impartial diplomacy or diplomacy, it was still diplomacy. and germany did attack first (you can get into the whys and whatnots for what i think is an incredibly stupid war, but thats not the point). We also tried boasting loudly in the newspapers about our shiny, new high-tech bombers, which were capable of making it all the way to Japan and back from their bases in Pearl Harbor, turning Japan's wooden cities to cinders overnight, a claim which, it was reported, delighted FDR. Now, that's diplomacy! I wonder where the Japanese got the idea to bomb the naval station in Hawaii?

so because you make statements to show that a preemptive strike on our homeland, to dissuade such attacks, that negates any diplomacy? then all statements by all parties involved negates all diplomacy and all nations shall live in a constant state of war.
It's funny to consider this diplomacy: the US and USSR divided Korea in two at the Potsdam Conference... without consulting with the Koreans! Two competing superpowers agreed ahead of time to jointly occupy a third nation (against their will), even agreeing on the exact line of demarcation, where the Red Army arrived on schedule, and politely awaited the late arrival of US forces from Japan. That's diplomacy? What planet are we on?

the SK govt, as well as the NK, in reality, were puppet regimes. the couldnt have survived without support from other strong nations. in actuality, it was SK govt that had the least choices, since they were left out of the talks almost completely. you miss out on the preceding back and forth of attempted diplomacy during the war years.

That's called giving your former client state the green light. I'm hoping there are better examples of U.S. diplomacy somewhere. How about our involvement in the Good Friday Agreement? It's nowhere near perfect, but it's lowered the violence to a whisper, and allowed adults to dominate the discussion, rather than very poorly-behaved little boys as before.

you may call it a green light.....many have, thats your choice, but thats prior us going in. what about after the fact, or do we ignore that try at diplomacy? it seems you only choose the forms of diplomacy that you like and approve of. not that there were attempts, regardless of bias, futility, or whatever you percieve.

I don't know. This is just off the top of my head, but how about when your nation is attacked? And when we are attacked, why not actually confront the guilty parties? And if it's a criminal action, why not treat is as such? Investigate it, round them up and lock them away. Just a thought.

we treated terrorism as a crimianl action and all we got were increasing levels of attack. again....and im serious about this...ill ask what your opinion on Japan attacking Pearl Harbor (this to know more of where you are coming from), if we definately knew Pearl was going to be attacke, would we have been in our rights to pre empt that? or would we only have been allowed to more fortify our defenses at Pearl? what about after. were we in the right to go to the point of forcing Japan to surrender, or only taking out a few islands, and constricting their homeland?

urgle burgle
02-02-2010, 10:34 AM
Yep, having been a small part of the war, of course I have. You and your all knowing, all glorious UN failed when it came to Iraq. How many resolutions did the regime of Saddam Hussein break? How many people died when he gassed the Kurds to the north? How many times did he balk at the rules and restrictions that were set in place on him? How many times, and why, did he kick Blind Man Blix and the crew out of Iraq? How well did the oil for food program work? Even if you want to beleive there were no WMD's (which everyone on this board knows that is what you beleive) we had a reason for the invasion based on the broken UN resolutions.

On a side note, how many people were slaughtered, yes slaughtered under Saddam Husseins regime? Also, the majority of Iraqi's wanted us there and appreciated us taking out Saddam. I had my hand shaken numerous times and was thanked numerous times for what we did and are still doing.

you summed it up well. those things seem to not count in this debate. those things didnt happen and are ignored now. because all it ever goes back to is our country is evil, what have we done in the past, how many did this evil Empir kill, we have no right, blah, blah, blah. its always if you made any mistakes in the past, you can now do nothing in the future. all or nothing......just like looking at past presidents.......
this one was evil, this one was good. not looking at the whole thing/president.
he did this right, but did this wrong. he tried here but failed here. no.....he bad....he good. its all a false choices.

revefsreleets
02-02-2010, 11:23 AM
We are in Iraq because our presence there DESTABILIZES any attempt by the Arabs to unite into a large anti-US/Israeli coalition fighting under the banner of Islam.

We are, first and foremost, going to protect our own interests as we are benignly protecting the best interests by proxy of the rest of the World.

Remove us from the equation, and the Middle East would almost surely be parking lot now, and all the petroleum underneath it as well.

As for this:
See, rev - when you say it that way (especially when you leave out all the other casualties) you really do lessen the losses. Literally. You really can't try to qualify a statement like that because the that is the meat of what you are saying.

Quote:
First off, this whole utopian "live and let live" nonsense is childishly naive. It's not even worth rehashing.
It really bothers me that you call it childish and naive to think that this kind of loss is unacceptable. Talk about unrealistic...It's unrealistic to be so far removed from these deaths that they are just numbers and collateral damage. We are more civilized than that. We are supposed to be better than that.

How about *just* Iraq and Afghanistan?

At least 849,845 people have
been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq
since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates.

Most recent update: December 29, 2009.

About 283 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001. More than 121 times as many people have been killed in these wars and occupations than in all terrorist attacks in the world from 1993-2004, accordint to data compiled by the US State Department. (After the 2004 report showed terrorism at an all-time high, numerous experts suggested that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fueling an increase in terrorism, and subsequent State Dept terror tallies have remained classified.)


Casualties in Afghanistan:
Afghan troops killed: 8,587
Afghan troops seriously injured: 25,761
Afghan civilians killed : 8,165
Afghan civilians seriously injured: 14,697
U.S. troops killed: 866
U.S. troops seriously injured: 2,598
Other coalition troops killed: 619
Other coalition troops seriously injured: 1,857
Contractors killed: 75
Contractors seriously injured: 2,428
Journalists killed: 7
Journalists seriously injured: unknown
Total killed in Afghanistan: 18,319
Total injured in Afghanistan: 47,341



Casualties in Iraq:
Iraqi troops killed: 30,000
Iraqi troops seriously injured: 90,000
Iraqi civilians killed: 795,763
Iraqi civilians seriously injured: 1,432,373
U.S. troops killed: 4,371
U.S. troops seriously injured: 31,557
Other coalition troops killed: 318
Other coalition troops seriously injured: 2,290
Contractors killed: 933
Contractors seriously injured: 10,569
Journalists killed :141
Journalists seriously injured: unknown
Total killed in Iraq: 831,526
Total injured in Iraq: 1,566,789


http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html#note

MOST of these numbers are Muslims killing each other. Us being in the region keeps them off balance, keeps them fighting each other, keeps the factions from uniting against us. I could easily envision a united Middle East, probably being led by Turkey, being a serious World Power in 15 years, and while they aren't a direct threat to the US as such (i.e. a threat to "conquer" the US), they are a threat to the whole world simply by their proximity to oil, and they are also a threat to cause very serious long-term damage to US interests in almost every way, INCLUDING the ability to inflict serious casualties in any kind of drawn out large scale conflict.

We lose a few now to save a lot later, and that INCLUDES the populations of middle eastern countries who would die by the tens of millions if they engaged in direct large scale conflict with US interests. It IS childish and naive to think that some kind of pie-in-the-sky dreamworld live and let live policy is possible. It's not. In essence, we sacrifice hundreds of thousands to save tens of millions...that does NOT cheapen the losses, it actually amplifies the importance of them.

Finally, concerning diplomacy, it's completely misrepresenting the US position to say that we do not rely heavily on diplomacy. The US has NEVER failed to use extensive and long-term diplomatic means to solve problems.

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 11:40 AM
we treated terrorism as a crimianl action and all we got were increasing levels of attack. again....and im serious about this...ill ask what your opinion on Japan attacking Pearl Harbor (this to know more of where you are coming from), if we definately knew Pearl was going to be attacke, would we have been in our rights to pre empt that? or would we only have been allowed to more fortify our defenses at Pearl? what about after. were we in the right to go to the point of forcing Japan to surrender, or only taking out a few islands, and constricting their homeland?

To answer your question directly, I think that Japan's attack was not only a war crime, but cowardly as well, no matter what they thought the U.S. was going to do. It was the crime of "aggression", which international law considers the ultimate crime. They had no more right to a "pre-emptive" strike than we would have with advance knowledge.

My only point with regards to our bombers and FDR is that inflammatory language is not diplomacy, in my view. Boasting about how strong you are and how you are going to kick everyone's ass is simply not diplomacy; it's violence, but with words.

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 12:47 PM
Yep, having been a small part of the war, of course I have. You and your all knowing, all glorious UN failed when it came to Iraq. How many resolutions did the regime of Saddam Hussein break? How many people died when he gassed the Kurds to the north? How many times did he balk at the rules and restrictions that were set in place on him? How many times, and why, did he kick Blind Man Blix and the crew out of Iraq? How well did the oil for food program work? Even if you want to beleive there were no WMD's (which everyone on this board knows that is what you beleive) we had a reason for the invasion based on the broken UN resolutions.

On a side note, how many people were slaughtered, yes slaughtered under Saddam Husseins regime? Also, the majority of Iraqi's wanted us there and appreciated us taking out Saddam. I had my hand shaken numerous times and was thanked numerous times for what we did and are still doing.

The only way the U.N. failed was in failing to rubberstamp a U.S. invasion. Blix's crew found all of the WMD that were going to be found. There is ample Western documentation for that; it's not like I'm relying on the Chinese or Martians for my data.

Yes, slaughtered... Slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. He was brutal even before the Iran-Iraq War, which Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239897,00.html) reports claimed as many as a million lives, mostly Iranians. But then he turned his psychopathy towards his own citizenry. The well-documented chemical attacks against the Kurds and others took place from 1983-88. Who could have supported such a monster? Surely it was the Soviets. We are benign in our foreign policy, and diplomatic. We never would have supported such a thing. We certainly would never have provided him with the means to commit these crimes...

MACH1
02-02-2010, 01:34 PM
To answer your question directly, I think that Japan's attack was not only a war crime, but cowardly as well, no matter what they thought the U.S. was going to do. It was the crime of "aggression", which international law considers the ultimate crime. They had no more right to a "pre-emptive" strike than we would have with advance knowledge.

My only point with regards to our bombers and FDR is that inflammatory language is not diplomacy, in my view. Boasting about how strong you are and how you are going to kick everyone's ass is simply not diplomacy; it's violence, but with words.

Wow, just wow. A crime, are you serious? :doh:

It was an Act Of War!

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 01:39 PM
We are in Iraq because our presence there DESTABILIZES any attempt by the Arabs to unite into a large anti-US/Israeli coalition fighting under the banner of Islam.

We are, first and foremost, going to protect our own interests as we are benignly protecting the best interests by proxy of the rest of the World.

Remove us from the equation, and the Middle East would almost surely be parking lot now, and all the petroleum underneath it as well.

As for this:


MOST of these numbers are Muslims killing each other. Us being in the region keeps them off balance, keeps them fighting each other, keeps the factions from uniting against us. I could easily envision a united Middle East, probably being led by Turkey, being a serious World Power in 15 years, and while they aren't a direct threat to the US as such (i.e. a threat to "conquer" the US), they are a threat to the whole world simply by their proximity to oil, and they are also a threat to cause very serious long-term damage to US interests in almost every way, INCLUDING the ability to inflict serious casualties in any kind of drawn out large scale conflict.

We lose a few now to save a lot later, and that INCLUDES the populations of middle eastern countries who would die by the tens of millions if they engaged in direct large scale conflict with US interests. It IS childish and naive to think that some kind of pie-in-the-sky dreamworld live and let live policy is possible. It's not. In essence, we sacrifice hundreds of thousands to save tens of millions...that does NOT cheapen the losses, it actually amplifies the importance of them.

Finally, concerning diplomacy, it's completely misrepresenting the US position to say that we do not rely heavily on diplomacy. The US has NEVER failed to use extensive and long-term diplomatic means to solve problems.

It doesn't matter how these deaths are occurring. It could be 850,000 deaths from choking on pretzels. International law concerning the comportment and responsibilities of occupying armies (to which we are signatories, making it our law as well) is exceptionally clear. What is pertinent is whether the deaths are considered unnecessary. That is, were they occurring five minutes before we invaded, and can we reasonably surmise that they would end five minutes after we left?

The answers are no, and yes. Many would claim "of course they're going to continue to kill each other... it's all they know." All we have to do is look at similar predictions of doom and inevitable slaughter after leaving Vietnam. These crimes never materialized. You and I might agree about the forced collectivizations and the indoctrination that followed, but aside from the obligatory treason trials, the violence stopped. There is no reason to believe that the same would not happen in Iraq, especially if we were to pay reparations to help them rebuild.

Legally and morally speaking, occupying powers bear the responsibility for the well-being of the populace under their control, just as if they had been elected to power. The difference is that they are to make arrangements to leave, post haste. I submit to you that we neither care one wit for the well-being of any Iraqis, nor do we have any intention of ever leaving. If I am correct, we are in gross violation of two basic laws we have sworn to uphold.

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 01:40 PM
Wow, just wow. A crime, are you serious? :doh:

It was an Act Of War!

It was also that, as it turned out. But the heads of Japanese generals and admirals did not roll because of acts of war. They rolled because of war crimes, determined in a court we supervised. We were instrumental in drafting those laws, which were radical in some ways because - as several U.S. generals pointed out - had we lost the war, we would have been on trial for many of the same crimes. Radical, or maybe just hypocritical. I lose track sometimes.

GBMelBlount
02-02-2010, 01:51 PM
I'm sorry, but either the acid I dropped or the glue I've been sniffing is getting in the way of me understanding your comment.

or perhaps both? :chuckle:

revefsreleets
02-02-2010, 02:21 PM
It doesn't matter how these deaths are occurring. It could be 850,000 deaths from choking on pretzels. International law concerning the comportment and responsibilities of occupying armies (to which we are signatories, making it our law as well) is exceptionally clear. What is pertinent is whether the deaths are considered unnecessary. That is, were they occurring five minutes before we invaded, and can we reasonably surmise that they would end five minutes after we left?

The answers are no, and yes. Many would claim "of course they're going to continue to kill each other... it's all they know." All we have to do is look at similar predictions of doom and inevitable slaughter after leaving Vietnam. These crimes never materialized. You and I might agree about the forced collectivizations and the indoctrination that followed, but aside from the obligatory treason trials, the violence stopped. There is no reason to believe that the same would not happen in Iraq, especially if we were to pay reparations to help them rebuild.

Legally and morally speaking, occupying powers bear the responsibility for the well-being of the populace under their control, just as if they had been elected to power. The difference is that they are to make arrangements to leave, post haste. I submit to you that we neither care one wit for the well-being of any Iraqis, nor do we have any intention of ever leaving. If I am correct, we are in gross violation of two basic laws we have sworn to uphold.

I can tell you didn't even read what I wrote.

Our (sound and correct) policy is destabilization. It protects OUR (and, again, by proxy, the Worlds) best interests. If we were to immediately retreat from the Mid East in some kind of weirdo isolationist movement, and left the region to their own devices, quite likely we'd be BACK in 10-15 years in a HUGE way, and tens of millions would die, perhaps hundreds of millions if nukes are unleashed.

We won't allow that, hence the sacrifice of the relative few to save the many over the long haul. And that's about all there is to it. The rest of this is just mental gymnastics, living in the make-believe fairy tale land of what-ifs and maybes....

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 03:08 PM
or perhaps both? :chuckle:

Mayhaps.

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 03:23 PM
I can tell you didn't even read what I wrote.

Our (sound and correct) policy is destabilization. It protects OUR (and, again, by proxy, the Worlds) best interests. If we were to immediately retreat from the Mid East in some kind of weirdo isolationist movement, and left the region to their own devices, quite likely we'd be BACK in 10-15 years in a HUGE way, and tens of millions would die, perhaps hundreds of millions if nukes are unleashed.

We won't allow that, hence the sacrifice of the relative few to save the many over the long haul. And that's about all there is to it. The rest of this is just mental gymnastics, living in the make-believe fairy tale land of what-ifs and maybes....

So, how do you feel about U.S. (and certainly UK) military intelligence assessments that our presence in Afghanistan is empowering the Taliban, our presence in Iraq is only feuling the insurgency, and that both are boosting al Qaeda recruitment and feeding anti-US sentiment around the globe, and most strongly in the Islamic world.

Your argument reminds me of the report that was issued as a result of an official inquiry into the NATO bombing of Sarajevo. Some egghead crunched the numbers, and using new math, was able to determine that even though Serbs atrocities followed rather than preceded the bombing - contrary to most news reports - the bombing was still necessary and justified in order to avert even greater atrocities. Talk about having a disciplined mind; that guy takes the prize.

Similarly, our policy is to destabilize and atomize the Arab world, but instead it is uniting them against us, and violently so. That doesn't matter, though, because they would be even more united, and even more violently so, if we weren't there occupying their country, killing them and torturing them. Gotcha.

I don't even know where to begin with the idea that other nations' interests flow effortlessly from our own. Much, if not most of the world would disagree, as they did before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. But who cares what "people" think? What a joke! We've got leaders who know best. Like Obama, right, revs? He must know what's in your and the world's best interests.

urgle burgle
02-02-2010, 03:55 PM
To answer your question directly, I think that Japan's attack was not only a war crime, but cowardly as well, no matter what they thought the U.S. was going to do. It was the crime of "aggression", which international law considers the ultimate crime. They had no more right to a "pre-emptive" strike than we would have with advance knowledge.

My only point with regards to our bombers and FDR is that inflammatory language is not diplomacy, in my view. Boasting about how strong you are and how you are going to kick everyone's ass is simply not diplomacy; it's violence, but with words.

ok...thank you for answering that...that gives me a little more insight into what/how you think...again, the last part (i feel) was used to dissuade japan from attacking.....sometimes a show or implied threats keep countries (elements) at bay from going through with their plans. the head military mind (not hirohito, cant remember, and dont feel like looking it up right now) tried to tell his leaders they couldnt beat us because of that (among other things), and thats why he went with the attack, with the hope it would decimate our navy and force us into a peace they could benefit from (we had cut off trade they needed for their war in china). he thought that was the only thing they could do if they were going to go to war with us regardless.
now, you also said that if we pre-emptively struck it would be a war crime. so, im assuming, that you think the only right we had was to fortify our defenses at Pearl. not much of a choice.
your assertion that the U.N. knows best....is well.....dont know of a nice way to say it.
in a perfect world, yes, everything would go through them as far as war is concerned. however, they have never shown any ability to stop or prevent such things. this is what happens when you include countries that have no consideration for human rights or anything else. also, ignoring the fact that countries have only (mostly) their own interests in mind. that goes against human nature. the predecssor to the U.N., the League of Nations, was only designed to prevent wars. that didnt work out too well, considering WW2. if they ever showed any ability to do anything they were supposed to do, without utter corruption, and without relying heavily on us, then id give them more of a role. but they havent, in their entire history. so we have to rely on ourselves to do the dirty work. never pretty....never 100% successful. but its our only useable option.

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 04:12 PM
ok...thank you for answering that...that gives me a little more insight into what/how you think...again, the last part (i feel) was used to dissuade japan from attacking.....sometimes a show or implied threats keep countries (elements) at bay from going through with their plans. the head military mind (not hirohito, cant remember, and dont feel like looking it up right now) tried to tell his leaders they couldnt beat us because of that (among other things), and thats why he went with the attack, with the hope it would decimate our navy and force us into a peace they could benefit from (we had cut off trade they needed for their war in china). he thought that was the only thing they could do if they were going to go to war with us regardless.
now, you also said that if we pre-emptively struck it would be a war crime. so, im assuming, that you think the only right we had was to fortify our defenses at Pearl. not much of a choice.
your assertion that the U.N. knows best....is well.....dont know of a nice way to say it.
in a perfect world, yes, everything would go through them as far as war is concerned. however, they have never shown any ability to stop or prevent such things. this is what happens when you include countries that have no consideration for human rights or anything else. also, ignoring the fact that countries have only (mostly) their own interests in mind. that goes against human nature. the predecssor to the U.N., the League of Nations, was only designed to prevent wars. that didnt work out too well, considering WW2. if they ever showed any ability to do anything they were supposed to do, without utter corruption, and without relying heavily on us, then id give them more of a role. but they havent, in their entire history. so we have to rely on ourselves to do the dirty work. never pretty....never 100% successful. but its our only useable option.

Look, it works the same with nations as it does with people. If some guy goes to his neighbor's house and shoots him dead, then claims he had to do it because that guy was going to do the same to him one day... he'd get the chair, quite simply. It's not an acceptable defense, or else the homies in my neighborhood would never be going to jail.

I never said the U.N. knows best. Personally, I happen to think that the U.N. is comprised of a pathetic bunch of cowards whose only purpose is to rubberstamp U.S. foreign and thereby grant legitimacy and intellectual heft to what is just brute imperialism. Oddly enough, Cato Institute illuminati agree with me, in an odd sort of way, only they think that's the proper role for the UN.

What I said was that we are - or should be - bound by our legal agreements with ourselves and with others. Abiding by international laws that prohibit wars of aggression, and allowing and empowering the UN to take the lead in policing crises are part of those agreements. Whatever flaws the world body has - and they are legion - it has a cooling function which is absolutely necessary for peace.

What I also said was that the people at large tend to be right about all sorts of affairs, both foreign and domestic, and that if we were actually a democracy, we'd take our own advice from time-to-time. That's not the same as the UN always being right.

revefsreleets
02-02-2010, 04:23 PM
So, how do you feel about U.S. (and certainly UK) military intelligence assessments that our presence in Afghanistan is empowering the Taliban, our presence in Iraq is only feuling the insurgency, and that both are boosting al Qaeda recruitment and feeding anti-US sentiment around the globe, and most strongly in the Islamic world.

Your argument reminds me of the report that was issued as a result of an official inquiry into the NATO bombing of Sarajevo. Some egghead crunched the numbers, and using new math, was able to determine that even though Serbs atrocities followed rather than preceded the bombing - contrary to most news reports - the bombing was still necessary and justified in order to avert even greater atrocities. Talk about having a disciplined mind; that guy takes the prize.

Similarly, our policy is to destabilize and atomize the Arab world, but instead it is uniting them against us, and violently so. That doesn't matter, though, because they would be even more united, and even more violently so, if we weren't there occupying their country, killing them and torturing them. Gotcha.

I don't even know where to begin with the idea that other nations' interests flow effortlessly from our own. Much, if not most of the world would disagree, as they did before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. But who cares what "people" think? What a joke! We've got leaders who know best. Like Obama, right, revs? He must know what's in your and the world's best interests.

It matters not....you, much like the rest of the World, need not actually UNDERSTAND what's actually going on around you to benefit from it. Your hate and misunderstanding are irrelevant...

If the US adopted an isolationist policy (or even some kind of international laissez faire), we would be hated 10,000X more than we are now, by the way...equally silly and naive notion.

urgle burgle
02-02-2010, 04:38 PM
Look, it works the same with nations as it does with people. If some guy goes to his neighbor's house and shoots him dead, then claims he had to do it because that guy was going to do the same to him one day... he'd get the chair, quite simply. It's not an acceptable defense, or else the homies in my neighborhood would never be going to jail.

I never said the U.N. knows best. Personally, I happen to think that the U.N. is comprised of a pathetic bunch of cowards whose only purpose is to rubberstamp U.S. foreign and thereby grant legitimacy and intellectual heft to what is just brute imperialism. Oddly enough, Cato Institute illuminati agree with me, in an odd sort of way, only they think that's the proper role for the UN.

What I said was that we are - or should be - bound by our legal agreements with ourselves and with others. Abiding by international laws that prohibit wars of aggression, and allowing and empowering the UN to take the lead in policing crises are part of those agreements. Whatever flaws the world body has - and they are legion - it has a cooling function which is absolutely necessary for peace.




What I also said was that the people at large tend to be right about all sorts of affairs, both foreign and domestic, and that if we were actually a democracy, we'd take our own advice from time-to-time. That's not the same as the UN always being right.

so in other words you are against vigilantisim, in a sense. so am i. however on the same point, if there was great proof of said person going to commit a crime against another, then the authorities are supposed to investigate, stop, or provide protection. there supposed to anyway. in addition there is a large difference between one person and a nation of people.
as far as the un being a rubber stamp.....a lot in the past maybe, but not so much now. it is rampant with us hatred. we cant get any forceful sanctions passed, amendments done, or pretty much anything that benefits us at this point. we cant even get them to pay their parking tickets. and unfortuneatly thats true.
yes, we should be bound by our legal agreements made through the un, which most of the time we do, and i dont know of any specific ones off the top of my head that we have violated. however, the un then has to enforce the same thing from the rest of its body. we would let them take the lead more.......but they never do. hell, they wont even get together to stop piracy. but i digress.
i see your points, and i am not disputing most of them. but it just seems that you are only thinking in a perfect world view. but, hey, regardless of our differences, thanks for the conversation.....

Vincent
02-02-2010, 04:59 PM
Legally and morally speaking, occupying powers bear the responsibility for the well-being of the populace under their control, just as if they had been elected to power.

Those laws were agreed to among states with legitimate gubmints. Old school. We are fighting a global gang of thugs that have no regard for any nation, its laws, its citizens or their property. Right or wrong, we removed a tyrant that, if left to his devices, would have continued slaughtering his own people, his neighbors, and would continue his financial and logistical support for said global gang of thugs. In the aftermath of that removal, said thugs worked with saddams fedayeen to create as much chaos, death and mayhem as possible. The carnage was done by the fedayeen, al qaeda, and iranian insurgents - in other words the remnant of one state, its neighboring state, and the non state thugs. How are we responsible for that?

So, how do you feel about U.S. (and certainly UK) military intelligence assessments that our presence in Afghanistan is empowering the Taliban, our presence in Iraq is only fueling the insurgency, and that both are boosting al Qaeda recruitment and feeding anti-US sentiment around the globe, and most strongly in the Islamic world.

I buy the strategery of destabilization and the rational the previous administration put forth that its better to fight them "over there" than in our own streets. And I think the evidence would indicate that our theater commanders understand the enemy they fight and are capable of winning with the requisite support.

I do not think we will sufficiently subdue that enemy to hand those two "countries" over to their native leadership. My hope is that the enemy will push the fight in Afghanistan to the extent we can "take the gloves off" and lay them to waste. And that may be the plan. My concern is the lessons we learned from the sovs. They didn't play by any rules and still had to withdraw. Don't misunderestimate these bastards.

Back to the original point of the thread. How is is possible to ignore this situation? If we were to stand down, the islamofascists would themselves destabilize the region, and ultimately much of the world. That is, of course, their plan. I don't see anybody else stepping up.

silver & black
02-02-2010, 07:04 PM
First off, this whole utopian "live and let live" nonsense is childishly naive. It's not even worth rehashing.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the whole basis of continued US domination is based on destabilizing enemies. We can actually win wars even if we "lose them" simply by poking around in regions where big blocs of power could form against us. So the notion of "leaving people alone" is basically not only completely at odds with US policy and doctrine, it's also probably the worst and most ignorant action (or lack thereof) we could possible take.

And for anyone who actually thinks there is some emerging power that would "rule" more benignly, please point out which Country that might be...

Thank you. :thumbsup:

ricardisimo
02-02-2010, 08:03 PM
It matters not....you, much like the rest of the World, need not actually UNDERSTAND what's actually going on around you to benefit from it. Your hate and misunderstanding are irrelevant...

If the US adopted an isolationist policy (or even some kind of international laissez faire), we would be hated 10,000X more than we are now, by the way...equally silly and naive notion.

Woo hoo! I'm a hater now, and not just a Braintruster! Tony... fire up that keyboard and get a new group going: "The Haters." I'm not quite sure what it is that I hate. I haven't really broken that particular emotion out of mothballs in quite some time, but I'm sure we'll figure out all of the details later.

HometownGal
02-02-2010, 08:41 PM
Gentlemen - if the baiting and flaming don't cease, this thread is going to be locked down and I would hate to do that, as there are members who are debating respectfully.

In other words - KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF.

Thank you.

GBMelBlount
02-02-2010, 10:01 PM
Hometowngal

Gentlemen ..............................this thread is going to be locked down and I would hate to do that, as there are members who are debating respectfully.

Boasting about how strong you are and how you are going to kick everyone's ass is simply not diplomacy; it's violence, but with words.

Good point Hometown gal. With master debaters making clever points like this, it would be a shame to shut down the thread. :chuckle:

"violence, but with words." lol.

devilsdancefloor
02-02-2010, 10:29 PM
First off, this whole utopian "live and let live" nonsense is childishly naive. It's not even worth rehashing.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the whole basis of continued US domination is based on destabilizing enemies. We can actually win wars even if we "lose them" simply by poking around in regions where big blocs of power could form against us. So the notion of "leaving people alone" is basically not only completely at odds with US policy and doctrine, it's also probably the worst and most ignorant action (or lack thereof) we could possible take.

And for anyone who actually thinks there is some emerging power that would "rule" more benignly, please point out which Country that might be...

I do not know for a fact BUT gut feeling from being there done that type of stuff. The reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is to squeeze Iran it also is a nice staging ground. Plus if you think that all the infighting amongst the Islamic communities in the middle east isnt NOT because we are sitting in Iraq you need your head examined. I always thought that the United States was suppose to carry the big stick & if we didnt a lot of people would hate us for doing nothing!

urgle burgle
02-03-2010, 09:46 AM
I do not know for a fact BUT gut feeling from being there done that type of stuff. The reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is to squeeze Iran it also is a nice staging ground. Plus if you think that all the infighting amongst the Islamic communities in the middle east isnt NOT because we are sitting in Iraq you need your head examined. I always thought that the United States was suppose to carry the big stick & if we didnt a lot of people would hate us for doing nothing!

I concur with that thinking......the thing is I understand why where there, I have a general idea in why we went and did what we did. now the question is was that the correct thing to do.....will it eventually work out.....maybe in 20 yrs this will be a different debate.....these arguments are the same and were the same with the implementation of the Marshall plan, the dividing of Germany, the rebuilding of Japan, the division of and rebuilding of the Koreas, so forth and so on.

we went into Afghanistan because of September 11th. if the Taliban had given over OBL, i doubt things would have escalated as they did. some would argue we knew that was going to happen, and used it as an excuse. maybe. we also knew the Taliban were evil (the hardliners and those in control), so we decimated them. then we were left with a rudderless Afghan. the idea, im assuming, is that we went into rebuilding because of the lessons learned from the 80s-90s, a vaccum left after Russia pulled out, and a feeling of being left behind by the U.S.
on to Iraq....the feeling was that to truly overcome Isamofacism, was to establish a democracy (besides Israel) to change the Middle East. where to start? Iraq was mostly secular, hated Saddam, and had good infrastructure. It also had broken UN resolution after resolution, had a decimated (essentially) military, posed a threat (of a kind), and was centered well (geographically). so if your going to start, that would make the most sense.
of course the debate is ongoing as to whether that was a good idea, will it work, is it worth it, so on. of course, if the unthinkable had happened, i.e. Iraq had supported and given weapons to Al Qaeda (or whomever) and we had been attacked again, or if we had only did a skeleton intervention in Iraq, and an attack would have happened......
well then all this debate would be reversed.....

everything is constantly shifting and changing.....i remember when i was at NTC and all we did was fight cold war types of battles. large force on force fights. around the time of 2001, we changed the entire desert and function of NTC within months to a counter insurgency, counter terrorism fight. now the complaints are we arent concerned with large force on force battles.....say fighting Russia, China, Iran.....it truly is funny......except not so much.

Vincent
02-03-2010, 10:33 AM
yeah, it's the Israeli's fault :rolleyes: DAMN THOSE JEWS FOR FIGHTING BACK AGAINST TERRORISTS CAUSING DEATH AND MAYHEM !!!!!!

http://hnn.us/articles/52723.html
8-04-08
How to Get the World To Hate Israel
By Richard L. Cravatts

Mr. Cravatts, PhD, director of Boston University’s Program in Book and Magazine Publishing at the Center for Professional Education, writes frequently on terrorism, higher education, politics, culture, law, marketing, and housing, and is currently writing a book about the world-wide assault on Israel taking place on college campuses.

As part of evaluating the competitive landscape of the popularity of nations, in a process referred to in marketing circles as ‘place branding,’ Israel, to no one’s great surprise, comes up short in brand likeability, ranking last out of 35 nations included in an August 2006 survey conducted by nation branding expert Simon Anholt, even less attractive to respondents than Indonesia, Estonia, and Turkey.

How could this have happened to a country that is the Middle East’s only thriving democracy and enjoys a remarkably robust economy that has spawned some 1000 startup high tech companies, for example, second only to the U.S.? How, in short, would you go about making the world hate Israel?

This is how you would accomplish that objective if you were an enemy of Israel:

Even after 60 years of its existence, you question the fundamental right of Israel to even exist and regularly, though falsely, condemn it for being created “illegally”—through the “theft” of Palestinian lands and property—and thus decide, because of its original sin, it has no “right to exist.” You accuse the government of a “brutal,” illegal “occupation” of Palestinian lands, especially Gaza and the West Bank (but for many, all of Israel), of being a “colonial settler state,” a Zionist “regime” or “project,” a land-hungry nation, a usurper of property that was lived on and owned by a Palestinian “people” “from time immemorial.”

You describe the very existence of the country as being the “greatest threat to world peace,” the core cause of all Muslim anger toward the West, the root of all of the Palestinians’ suffering and economic plight, and describe Israel as a nation that has even been referred to publicly as a “shitty little country” by the French ambassador to Britain.

You make ‘Palestinianism’ into a virtual cult whose members offer a world-wide reverence for the Palestinian cause and repeat without end that their nationalistic striving is inviolable, a basic human right, Of all the 100 million refugees who were dispersed around the globe and were re-assimilated since World War II, you chose only the Palestinians to languish, as if in amber, in barbaric refugee camps where their lives are used as political fodder to denounce the existence of an Israel that supposedly has deprived them of a home.

You have the United Nations set up an agency whose sole function it is to make sure that this one group of refugees in the whole world are coddled, advocated for, and repeat, mantra-like, that a human “right of return” has been sanctified and assured by international law for the Palestinians, giving only this group of refugees a collective, as opposed to individual, right of return—and not only to those refugees who supposedly lived in and left what is now Israel, but all of their descendents, as well.

You use the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council of the United Nations to further demonize and delegitimate Israel, making it a pariah in the world community and issuing an edict that equates Zionism with racism. In 2006-07, if you are the Human Rights Council, you pass one hundred percent of your condemnatory resolutions against Israel.

If you are the autocratic, despotic states of the Arab world, you initiate a prolonged, unceasing propaganda war against Israel and Zionism, in which it is your intention to encourage your citizens, not to question why they live under tyranny and despair under their own corrupt, defective governments, but that their circumstances are bleak because of the success and very existence of Israel. You depict Jews as apes, pigs, and subhuman monsters, and regularly produce Nazi-like propaganda and cartoons in your state-owned media that accuses Jews and Israelis of blood libels, bloodthirstiness, militarism, a desire for world domination, imperialism, and complicity with the U.S. and the West to destroy Islam—all which make Jew-hatred inevitable.

You inculcate Palestinian children, nearly from birth, with seething, blind, unrelenting, and obsessive hatred of Jews and the 'Zionist regime,' so that kindergartners graduate with blood-soaked hands while toting plastic AK 47s and dedicate their lives to jihad, and older children are recruited to hide explosives on their bodies to transform themselves into shahids -- a new generation of kindling for radical Islam's cult of death.

When Israel launches a military strike against nests of terrorists or in response to ceaseless rocket barrages, you term their response “disproportionate,” another escalation in the “cycle of violence,” a violation of human rights, aggressive, militaristic, with Apache gunships “pounding” terrorist neighborhoods.

If you are the Palestinian media, and members of the world media who are either intentionally biased or willing to be duped by anti-Israel propaganda, you repeatedly report on supposed Israeli human rights violations, such as an alleged “massacre of the 21st century,” a horrible war crime and example of “genocide” committed by Israel against Palestinians in the village of Jenin.

You talk about the Israeli security barrier as an “apartheid wall,” and describe it as a massive, soaring, unbroken division through Palestinian neighborhoods and communities, overlooking the fact that the wall is towering and solid concrete only in those regions that have been repeatedly assaulted by terrorism, and that 90 percent of the hundreds of miles of barrier is comprised merely of wire fence.

You use the “apartheid wall” image to create a broader misconception about the Palestinians living under a South African-style apartheid regime, disingenuously equating race restrictions that blacks lived under in Soweto with the open society of Israel in which Israeli Arabs have more rights than in any Arab state and are asked only not to murder Jews in their midst.

On campuses where a coddled and insulated professoriate often express antipathy for the perceived ills of capitalism, the usurpation of “Palestine” by Israel, “land grabs” through occupation, and the denial of the civil and economic rights of the Palestinians, you contend that Israel’s very existence is not at all about self-determination (something you deem appropriate only for the Palestinians) and all about greed, globalism, colonialism, exploitation, and undeserved political and economic might. No longer able to fight apartheid in South Africa, you now try to transmogrify that racist social system onto Israel, holding rallies and encouraging the signing of petitions which call from divestiture from companies doing business in Israel.

You fund Middle Eastern Studies centers on university campuses and use them as anti-Israel, anti-American “think tanks” where scholarship is tainted with ideology and singularly focused on the Palestinian cause. You fund the active and vocal Muslim Students Association on campuses across the country that hold “Israel Apartheid Week” and “Holocaust in the Holy Land” festivals at which propaganda, Jew-hatred, apologies for terrorism, and further demonizing of Israel takes place.

In the Arab world, you play fast and loose with history in your attempt to create a historical narrative conforming to your own political agenda, erasing any link between Palestine and the Jews. Though Jerusalem is mentioned not once in the Koran and over 669 times in the Jewish Bible, you claim that Jerusalem is now the “third holiest site to Muslims,” that, as Yasser Arafat announced at Camp David in 2000, the Temple Mount was never a Jewish site, that Jews now “occupy” Muslim lands, and that the archeological and historical evidence that confirms an uninterrupted 3000-year presence by Jews in the Holy Land is merely a “construct,” yet another lie promulgated by Israeli historians and archeologists as way of erasing and obscuring an Islamic past.

If you are in the traditionally Arabist U.S. State Department, or in the “realist” school of diplomacy, or part of the European Union, and you have an insatiable need for oil, you overlook the tyrannies and unfaithfulness of our Middle Eastern “friends,” and ask nothing of them, but demand that Israel, the only democracy in a sea of despotism, continually prove its loyalty to us and embrace policies that could potentially threaten their own security. You write academic books questioning the strength of the "Israel Lobby," and wonder out loud if Jewish influence and wealth forces us to lose credibility and threaten our national security on behalf of Israel.

You do all of these things, as part of a concerted effort and also as random, independent efforts on the part of Israel’s enemies, and you do it for the 60 years of Israel’s existence, and then you are shocked, shocked, when Israel is shown to rank unfavorably in surveys which measure the public’s perception of nations and how they compare to one another in the world community. But you are pleased, because you know that if Israel cannot be annihilated with armaments and rockets, perhaps you can make it cease to exist simply by making the entire world loathe it for being what it is.

revefsreleets
02-03-2010, 11:01 AM
Woo hoo! I'm a hater now, and not just a Braintruster! Tony... fire up that keyboard and get a new group going: "The Haters." I'm not quite sure what it is that I hate. I haven't really broken that particular emotion out of mothballs in quite some time, but I'm sure we'll figure out all of the details later.
I meant your notion of "World hate".

We are hated now for one reason. If we adopt the ridiculous policy of ignoring the World, or the even WORSE policy of isolationism, we'll be hated exponentially worse, AND risk the very real and true threat of the rest of the World taking a real stab at forming up against us. Then chaos would ensue.

This policy of destabilization was set forth post WWII, and boasts architects from the power circles of Ike, Kennedy, and Nixon all the way up through Reagan. You're welcome to complain about it all you like, but it's not going to change, and thank God for that...

Also, why would I need "My head examined"? I didn't create this policy, nor is it fiction...I'm simply explaining it.

urgle burgle
02-03-2010, 11:07 AM
I meant your notion of "World hate".

We are hated now for one reason. If we adopt the ridiculous policy of ignoring the World, or the even WORSE policy of isolationism, we'll be hated exponentially worse, AND risk the very real and true threat of the rest of the World taking a real stab at forming up against us. Then chaos would ensue.

This policy of destabilization was set forth post WWII, and boasts architects from the power circles of Ike, Kennedy, and Nixon all the way up through Reagan. You're welcome to complain about it all you like, but it's not going to change, and thank God for that...

yepper....and where did we get the idea for interventionsim and destablization....from looking at our total history up into that point....people forget we used to primarily be isolationists......then we got swept into WW1 and 2....

when you argue with isolationists, when you through out "knowing what we know now, should we have intervened in Europle to stop Germany and the accompaning genocide", they usually answer yes. but that goes against being an isolationist.
unless you are of Howard Zinn's rediculous notion that we still should have stayed out, and eventually Germany would have collapsed from internal forces.....of course he never admitted how many lives lost and how many years that would have taken.

revefsreleets
02-03-2010, 11:29 AM
One of the main driving forces behind this policy was post WWII rebuilding. We saw the devastation in Europe, in the Far East, in Russia, etc....they suffered direct damage from invasions, and had to spend a generation and trillions rebuilding. We were, of course, spared that. So we focused on projecting power instead of being defensive, and learned the lessen of maintaining balances of power in other regions. Our Navy is probaly still the single most important element of this policy, with air superiority a close second. Essentially, it's nearly impossible to invade the US, so our strength (which becomes every other Countries weakness) sort of helped shape this policy simply by common sense.

Since only a GREAT concentration of power focused at us could topple the US, create doctrine and policy that make it impossible, or at least extremely difficult for a super-bloc of power to form up against US interests.

ricardisimo
02-04-2010, 01:44 AM
Good point Hometown gal. With master debaters making clever points like this, it would be a shame to shut down the thread. :chuckle:

"violence, but with words." lol.

You mean like "Political correctness is intellectual terrorism"?

ricardisimo
02-04-2010, 02:50 AM
http://hnn.us/articles/52723.html
8-04-08
How to Get the World To Hate Israel
By Richard L. Cravatts

Clearly these enemies of Israel are doing all the wrong things on U.S. campuses and within the U.S. government, because they do none of these things anywhere else in the world, and yet outside of the United States public opinion is overwhelmingly (and I mean well into the 70th, 80th percentile or even higher) of the opinion that Israel is the primary aggressor in the relationship. Even in Israel there is greater freedom within the news media to question US-Israeli policy. Ha'aretz is like some commie-pinko rag compared to the New York Times.

I'd like to see just how many New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune or Washington Post editorials Mr.Cravatts can find condemning Israel. Whatever number he can arrive at (and I'll let him include editorials whose real point is to condemn the Palestinians, but mention Israel's crimes in passing) I can find ten times that from the other side with about three minutes of googling, I'm sure. I don't know what sort of a fantasy land he's living in, where this nation and its government is violently anti-Israel, but he clearly needs to be medicated.

ricardisimo
02-04-2010, 03:08 AM
I concur with that thinking......the thing is I understand why where there, I have a general idea in why we went and did what we did. now the question is was that the correct thing to do.....will it eventually work out.....maybe in 20 yrs this will be a different debate.....these arguments are the same and were the same with the implementation of the Marshall plan, the dividing of Germany, the rebuilding of Japan, the division of and rebuilding of the Koreas, so forth and so on.

we went into Afghanistan because of September 11th. if the Taliban had given over OBL, i doubt things would have escalated as they did. some would argue we knew that was going to happen, and used it as an excuse. maybe. we also knew the Taliban were evil (the hardliners and those in control), so we decimated them. then we were left with a rudderless Afghan. the idea, im assuming, is that we went into rebuilding because of the lessons learned from the 80s-90s, a vaccum left after Russia pulled out, and a feeling of being left behind by the U.S.
on to Iraq....the feeling was that to truly overcome Isamofacism, was to establish a democracy (besides Israel) to change the Middle East. where to start? Iraq was mostly secular, hated Saddam, and had good infrastructure. It also had broken UN resolution after resolution, had a decimated (essentially) military, posed a threat (of a kind), and was centered well (geographically). so if your going to start, that would make the most sense.
of course the debate is ongoing as to whether that was a good idea, will it work, is it worth it, so on. of course, if the unthinkable had happened, i.e. Iraq had supported and given weapons to Al Qaeda (or whomever) and we had been attacked again, or if we had only did a skeleton intervention in Iraq, and an attack would have happened......
well then all this debate would be reversed.....

everything is constantly shifting and changing.....i remember when i was at NTC and all we did was fight cold war types of battles. large force on force fights. around the time of 2001, we changed the entire desert and function of NTC within months to a counter insurgency, counter terrorism fight. now the complaints are we arent concerned with large force on force battles.....say fighting Russia, China, Iran.....it truly is funny......except not so much.

Clearly I'm just not as smart as you guys. It's perfectly clear to you that our foreign policy is:

Machiavellian perfection, doing only wonders for all Americans;
miraculously somehow in everyone else's best interests around the globe as well;
and ultimately benign... if anyone's getting harmed, that certainly wasn't the intent.

Maybe it's the emotional pull of patriotism (just a guess) but why is it so difficult to see that you are in belly of the Empire, that the Empire doesn't care about you, and that it doesn't care about most anyone else either?

ricardisimo
02-04-2010, 03:24 AM
we went into Afghanistan because of September 11th. if the Taliban had given over OBL, i doubt things would have escalated as they did. some would argue we knew that was going to happen, and used it as an excuse. maybe. we also knew the Taliban were evil (the hardliners and those in control), so we decimated them. then we were left with a rudderless Afghan. the idea, im assuming, is that we went into rebuilding because of the lessons learned from the 80s-90s, a vaccum left after Russia pulled out, and a feeling of being left behind by the U.S.

By the way, as long as we're doing Afghan history lessons, at some point you might want to mention that these same Taliban were good buddies of ours not too terribly long ago (but that was clearly all part of our grand scheme concocted by our benevolent and wise leaders, and would never, ever come back to haunt us... just like supporting Saddam was wise and good and benign, and would never bite us in the ass... and just like stepping on Iraqis is a grand idea, blahblahblah).

Also, you should mention that the U.S. government told the Afghan government to hand over bin Laden or else, which is not how extraditions are done. Find me a single case where the U.S. told France, Britain or Russia to hand someone over or face a military invasion, or where another nation demanded the same from the U.S. That fact alone should answer your question as to whether or not this was just an excuse.

Finally, the Afghan government did themselves treat this like any other extradition request, and asked that their legal counsels be allowed to see the evidence against bin Laden. That's what they were supposed to do, and what any nation on the planet would have done. The U.S. media knew what it really was, though: those little creeps were thumbing their nose at us. How dare they!

By the way, I realize I'm now crossing over to the depths of Hades by mentioning this, but so far as I can tell, there really is absolutely no evidence that bin Laden had anything at all to do with 9/11... which might explain why the U.S. government has completely stopped its search for him.

urgle burgle
02-04-2010, 08:32 AM
By the way, as long as we're doing Afghan history lessons, at some point you might want to mention that these same Taliban were good buddies of ours not too terribly long ago (but that was clearly all part of our grand scheme concocted by our benevolent and wise leaders, and would never, ever come back to haunt us... just like supporting Saddam was wise and good and benign, and would never bite us in the ass... and just like stepping on Iraqis is a grand idea, blahblahblah).

Also, you should mention that the U.S. government told the Afghan government to hand over bin Laden or else, which is not how extraditions are done. Find me a single case where the U.S. told France, Britain or Russia to hand someone over or face a military invasion, or where another nation demanded the same from the U.S. That fact alone should answer your question as to whether or not this was just an excuse.

Finally, the Afghan government did themselves treat this like any other extradition request, and asked that their legal counsels be allowed to see the evidence against bin Laden. That's what they were supposed to do, and what any nation on the planet would have done. The U.S. media knew what it really was, though: those little creeps were thumbing their nose at us. How dare they!

By the way, I realize I'm now crossing over to the depths of Hades by mentioning this, but so far as I can tell, there really is absolutely no evidence that bin Laden had anything at all to do with 9/11... which might explain why the U.S. government has completely stopped its search for him.

well ric, as i do appreciate your input, you have done what i have mentioned in the past, that which is the problem with all of these debates/arguments....you glossed over some of the things i mentioned....
i did mention/elude to asking for OBL's extradition...and i did mention/elude to our past actions in Afghanistan. and the Taliban werent our good buddies, if you want to use the term good buddies, which i wouldnt use, it was the Mujahadeen, which some became a forerunner to the Taliban. i said we "went into Afghanistan because of September 11th. if the Taliban had given over OBL, i doubt things would have escalated as they did" and "the idea, im assuming, is that we went into rebuilding because of the lessons learned from the 80s-90s, a vaccum left after Russia pulled out, and a feeling of being left behind by the U.S." i didnt feel like going into minutae to cover the whole history, since, well honestly, i didnt feel like it at the time.
going into how we handled the extradition and all of that, is a different discussion.

now for the whole "obl didnt do 9/11" theory....im going to take a leap here and guess your somewhat of a conspiratorial thinker. i guess if we really need to do all that exercise, i suppose we can, but, in my mind, it is useless. mostly because of how i feel about such thoughts (passionately), of which im sure you do as well, and that conversatin can only get ugly.

but as a touchstone, i will throw out a few links.

http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Osama_bin_Laden
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-two/

as far as continuing to look for obl, i feel we are. it just doesnt make headlines.
we spent a lot of time after 2001 doing that, which doesnt make much sense, if he didnt have anything to do with it. unless you are of the mind we did that just for show....and if that is the case....well then, i cant help you.

have a good one.

Vincent
02-04-2010, 10:42 AM
You mean like "Political correctness is intellectual terrorism"?

In which case the violence is against positions contrary to political correctness. My statement isn't violent. PC is.

Vincent
02-04-2010, 11:04 AM
Clearly these enemies of Israel are doing all the wrong things on U.S. campuses and within the U.S. government, because they do none of these things anywhere else in the world, and yet outside of the United States public opinion is overwhelmingly (and I mean well into the 70th, 80th percentile or even higher) of the opinion that Israel is the primary aggressor in the relationship. Even in Israel there is greater freedom within the news media to question US-Israeli policy. Ha'aretz is like some commie-pinko rag compared to the New York Times.

I'd like to see just how many New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune or Washington Post editorials Mr.Cravatts can find condemning Israel. Whatever number he can arrive at (and I'll let him include editorials whose real point is to condemn the Palestinians, but mention Israel's crimes in passing) I can find ten times that from the other side with about three minutes of googling, I'm sure. I don't know what sort of a fantasy land he's living in, where this nation and its government is violently anti-Israel, but he clearly needs to be medicated.

Hey Ric, did you even read that article?

WTF is there to condemn Israel for? They were "granted" the entire footprint of Israel and Jordan and all that lies therein to establish a "a national home for the Jewish people" in 1920. Since then that grant has been continually whittled down by "peace agreements" with arabs that are never honored. And since then the ROW has aided and abetted the arabs at every turn. The cycle of violence continues to this day and Israel is but 9 miles wide in some places.

The Israel / arab conflict is 100% the result of savagery on the part of the arabs, defense on the part of the Israelis, and meddling in their affairs by the outside. If Israel were the "Zionist imperialists" that arabs claim, she'd control the entire ME. 5 wars prove that point.

I will note here that the arab problem is a muslim problem. Christian Arabs live peacefully with Jews. This saga is 100% on islam. Oh, what a surprise.

revefsreleets
02-04-2010, 11:15 AM
Clearly I'm just not as smart as you guys. It's perfectly clear to you that our foreign is:

Machiavellian perfection, doing only wonders for all Americans;
miraculously somehow in everyone else's best interests around the globe as well;
and ultimately benign... if anyone's getting harmed, that certainly wasn't the intent.

Maybe it's the emotional pull of patriotism (just a guess) but why is it so difficult to see that you are in belly of the Empire, that the Empire doesn't care about you, and that it doesn't care about most anyone else either?

Part of the beauty of this policy is that it needn't be perfect to work.

Since you REFUSE to buy into what's already very successfully been in place for decades, I see no point in any further discourse with you on this topic.

ricardisimo
02-05-2010, 12:18 AM
Just reading through the muck and mire I stopped on this. Uncalled for. :noidea:

Ya think? Part of me thinks it's alright. The term has been so abused of late, that it pretty much means it's opposite. For example:

Uri Avnery was called an anti-Semite, I believe for pointing out the fact that "nowhere are Jews less safe than in Israel today." Evidently, you can be an Israeli Jew serving in the Knesset and still be an anti-Semite. Go figure.

ricardisimo
02-05-2010, 02:47 AM
This is kind of off-topic, but why are so many people concerned that I may have missed some minutiae of their post, or that I didn't read every word of whatever article they posted? I count at least four instances of this within this thread. What gives?

As it is, I'm sure none of you want to hear word-one from me, and believe me, I actually try to keep the verbal diarrhea to a minimum, so... Please don't try to coax even more out of me.

ricardisimo
02-05-2010, 03:33 AM
Hey Ric, did you even read that article?

WTF is there to condemn Israel for? They were "granted" the entire footprint of Israel and Jordan and all that lies therein to establish a "a national home for the Jewish people" in 1920. Since then that grant has been continually whittled down by "peace agreements" with arabs that are never honored. And since then the ROW has aided and abetted the arabs at every turn. The cycle of violence continues to this day and Israel is but 9 miles wide in some places.

The Israel / arab conflict is 100% the result of savagery on the part of the arabs, defense on the part of the Israelis, and meddling in their affairs by the outside. If Israel were the "Zionist imperialists" that arabs claim, she'd control the entire ME. 5 wars prove that point.

I will note here that the arab problem is a muslim problem. Christian Arabs live peacefully with Jews. This saga is 100% on islam. Oh, what a surprise.

Yes I did read it... did it wow me? No. It's all of the standard AIPAC talking points put together.

WTF did Israel do? Well, for starters, their security forces have killed an awful lot of people (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp), including many minors, many who did not take part in the Intifada nor any other hostilities, many by "targeted killings" (what you and I would call assassinations, or murder), and a larger number of innocent people killed in the course of those "targeted killings".

The numbers of victims are skewed against the Palestinians by more or less a factor of 10, which is what happens when one side has the latest US helicopter gunships, tanks and rockets, as well as (illegal) microrockets, and drones, etc.... And the other side has rocks, bricks, sticks - and at the extreme sophisticated end - home made grenade launchers and fertilizer-based suicide bombs.

It was truly very nice of the British to "grant" Palestine to the Zionist settlers, although their generosity would have been more heartfelt and sincere if they had granted Wales or Northern England instead. That didn't happen, for some reason. I can't imagine why.

I find it interesting that, as revs would have it, I'm the racist anti-Semite. And yet I am also apparently the only person here who realizes that Palestinians aren't Arabs. More pointedly, they are Semitic people, as you should know, probably do, and simply don't care. As for their "Arab savagery" (nothing racist about that, I'm sure), Palestinian animosity towards Israeli Jews dates to exactly 1948, and not one day earlier. Having your country taken away will do that.

We haven't gone into ordinary daily life in the Palestinians gulags: farmers forced to ration one day's drinking water for their weekly irrigation needs while Tel Aviv's pools overflow; bi-level markets where it is expected that the Israelis up above will throw their trash and fecal matter onto the Palestinian shops down below; and the draconian policing of border crossings, even for medical supplies and food.

There are good, detailed Israeli sources for some really eye-popping statistics and stories (I cited one above - B'Tselem). You don't have to go to the Muslim world or the U.N. to get your data, as I'm sure you won't. Check it out.

It's all a moot point, of course, because Israel is just one of those topics that one is not allowed to discuss rationally in this country. It's the usual intellectual discipline, but times ten for whatever reason. If China, North Korea or Iran were treating anyone the way Israel treats the Palestinians, we'd be able to see it in crystal clear perfection (and we do... there are numerous examples) and we'd be livid. But it's our number one surrogate, so those special glasses automatically go on. Weird.

ricardisimo
02-05-2010, 04:52 AM
well ric, as i do appreciate your input, you have done what i have mentioned in the past, that which is the problem with all of these debates/arguments....you glossed over some of the things i mentioned....
i did mention/elude to asking for OBL's extradition...and i did mention/elude to our past actions in Afghanistan. and the Taliban werent our good buddies, if you want to use the term good buddies, which i wouldnt use, it was the Mujahadeen, which some became a forerunner to the Taliban. i said we "went into Afghanistan because of September 11th. if the Taliban had given over OBL, i doubt things would have escalated as they did" and "the idea, im assuming, is that we went into rebuilding because of the lessons learned from the 80s-90s, a vaccum left after Russia pulled out, and a feeling of being left behind by the U.S." i didnt feel like going into minutae to cover the whole history, since, well honestly, i didnt feel like it at the time.
going into how we handled the extradition and all of that, is a different discussion.

now for the whole "obl didnt do 9/11" theory....im going to take a leap here and guess your somewhat of a conspiratorial thinker. i guess if we really need to do all that exercise, i suppose we can, but, in my mind, it is useless. mostly because of how i feel about such thoughts (passionately), of which im sure you do as well, and that conversatin can only get ugly.

but as a touchstone, i will throw out a few links.

http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Osama_bin_Laden
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-two/

as far as continuing to look for obl, i feel we are. it just doesnt make headlines.
we spent a lot of time after 2001 doing that, which doesnt make much sense, if he didnt have anything to do with it. unless you are of the mind we did that just for show....and if that is the case....well then, i cant help you.

have a good one.

I guess I should clarify this: I strongly suspect bin Laden was a player in putting the 9/11 hijackers in place, as do most people in the US. Why do I suspect that? I have no idea, other than the fact that his face would pop up on screen immediately after any footage of the planes hitting the WTC. Now, there is at least one truly compelling reason to believe this: he clearly had experience putting this sort of operation together, and that alone sends his name near the top of the list.

Meanwhile, it is just extremely difficult to comprehend why, when his handover by the Afghan government could have been a foregone conclusion, we didn't just make it happen. All we had to do was follow normal extradition protocols and he'd be in custody (or more likely, dead) right now.

Now as far as all of that Tora Bora nonsense, and CIA cover-ups, etc.... whatever. I've gone out of my way to scold 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and will continue to do so. I do find it fascinating to compare the Pearl Harbor investigations with the 9/11 reports. Not the government complicity/conspiracy/cover-up angle, mind you, but the total melt-down, breakdown failures of the government to do even its most basic jobs. The more things change...

Vincent
02-05-2010, 10:47 AM
Yes I did read it... did it wow me? No. It's all of the standard AIPAC talking points put together.

I didn’t post it to “wow” you. And yes, I am aware that "Palestinians” aren’t ethnically “arab”, but are culturally, linguistically, and IMHO opinion, behaviorally “arab” to the extent that they’re muslim. As I said previously, the issue here is islam. For the rest of this, I will stay away from using “Arab” and will instead use “islam” or “muslim”.

Rather than allow this to digress into the pissing contest that “muslim / Israeli” discussions typically become, allow me to focus what I think is the central issue here and with all of islam – behavior. Behavior is really what separates the players in this conflict. islamic behavior toward Jews and Christians descends from their endemic hatred toward them. And I don’t see that hatred being returned. I see bad behavior being addressed in the form of defensive and preemptive action.

Ask yourself some really basic questions about this situation from the standpoint of behavior…

Do the Israelis, as a nation and unprovoked, attack muslims? The muslims have started 5 wars against Israel, and have mounted countless attacks on Israel utilizing militia, terrorists, suicide bombers, intifadas and all manner of atrocious behavior. Do Israelis strap on explosives and blow up muslim busses and cafes?

Do muslim countries welcome Jewish refugees? No. They create them. They also don’t welcome Palestinian refugees, which is a big piece of the problem. The Israelis didn’t create Palestinian refugees. Their muslim handlers did. Any Palestinian can be a full Israeli citizen. prosper, hold office, whatever, as long as they behave. The non-muslim Palestinians behave and live peacefully in Israel.

The Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel. Ahmadineshithead threatens to blow Israel off the map on a daily basis. The Islamic schools teach their kids that Jews and Christians are apes and pigs and that they’re to be persecuted, killed and destroyed. No such rhetoric comes from the other side. Its behavior. The muslim is not willing to live in peace with the Jew. The Jew is.

Here’s a clue for the muslims – stop the bad behavior and respect the rights of Jews to live peacefully in their homeland.

Yes Ric, we are allowed to discuss this rationally in this country, and do.

zulater
02-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Nicely stated vincent.

I'm probably not as informed as I should be on the subject, and probably should leave things for others more well versed to say.

But regardless from my ill informed perspective, when I think of the Palestinians what immediatly comes to mind is victim for hire/ or rent. I see a people that have no real interest in prospering or showing self sufficience, just a people who want to claim perpetual victimhood and allow other Muslim entities to use them to further fan anti semitic causes.

Vincent
02-05-2010, 11:55 AM
...when I think of the Palestinians what immediately comes to mind is victim for hire/ or rent. I see a people that have no real interest in prospering or showing self sufficiency, just a people who want to claim perpetual victim hood and allow other Muslim entities to use them to further fan anti Semitic causes.

Agree on the victim part. But be careful with the "Palestinian" part. Thats where the muslim distinction needs to be made. Thats one of the ironies in this mess. muslims claim they're to be responsible for their brethren but they refuse to accommodate Palestinian muslim refugees.

Back to the thread OP, if "we" were to "leave muslims alone" would they eventually kill each other?

MACH1
02-05-2010, 12:59 PM
I learned something new last night.

Before Iran was Iran it was Persia and during WWII Persia and Germany were tight. They were tight enough that hitler asked them to change their name to Iran,and they did. And the language most spoken in Iran is farsi, the translation of the word iran in farsi is aryan.

And we should leave them alone to get nukes?

Vincent
02-05-2010, 01:39 PM
I learned something new last night.

Before Iran was Iran it was Persia and during WWII Persia and Germany were tight. They were tight enough that hitler asked them to change their name to Iran,and they did. And the language most spoken in Iran is farsi, the translation of the word iran in farsi is aryan.

And we should leave them alone to get nukes?

So much for blond hair and blue eyes. Hitler was such a stitch.

WH
02-05-2010, 04:26 PM
If the US stopped handing Israel weapons, would that make Islaamists hate America any less?

SCSTILLER
02-05-2010, 04:38 PM
If the US stopped handing Israel weapons, would that make Islaamists hate America any less?

Nope!

zulater
02-05-2010, 06:54 PM
If the US stopped handing Israel weapons, would that make Islaamists hate America any less?

No. They hate because it's what they do best, and it relieves them from any accountability for the screwed up state of their affairs.

zulater
02-05-2010, 07:04 PM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bethlehem_exodus_jH6iVNuarsPLBceXPzHO6I

I' don't know if you guys think this article fits in here or not?:noidea:

Anyway I think it has relevance. I just see the whole Muslim world as hypocrites. They demand understanding, sympathy and tolerance, yet never give any themselves.

Vincent
02-05-2010, 08:03 PM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bethlehem_exodus_jH6iVNuarsPLBceXPzHO6I

I' don't know if you guys think this article fits in here or not?:noidea:

Anyway I think it has relevance. I just see the whole Muslim world as hypocrites. They demand understanding, sympathy and tolerance, yet never give any themselves.

That captures the more benign behavior of "the religion of peace" rather well Zu. Thanks for posting.

"Gaza residents can't go to Egypt, either (Cairo's even building a wall to keep them out)". When Israel builds walls around bad behavior It's "Zionist imperialism".

I got yer "religion of peace" right here.. :jerkit:

MACH1
02-05-2010, 08:44 PM
It's kinda hard to trust a religion that denounces alcohol but thinks there's nothing wrong with growing and selling poppies for opium.

Vincent
02-05-2010, 09:01 PM
It's kinda hard to trust a religion that denounces alcohol but thinks there's nothing wrong with growing and selling poppies for opium.

"YOU MIGHT BE A TALIBAN IF..."

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

11. Your cousin is president of the United States

MACH1
02-05-2010, 09:56 PM
:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

urgle burgle
02-06-2010, 10:22 AM
I got yer "religion of peace" right here.. :jerkit:

i know hes not the only one to do the ol' "religion of peace" schtick, but when i lived in AZ, i used to listen to the "nearly famous" Barry Young....he did a "religion of peace update" every morning.....done with the prerequisite "llalalalalalalalalala", beforehand.
good stuff....

Vincent
02-06-2010, 10:58 AM
http://www.truthandgrace.com/Images/muslimhate74.jpg

You'd think that a group of folks who are so "offended" by all things fun would find Gitmo to be a great place to "get away from it all".

urgle burgle
02-06-2010, 11:17 AM
free speech is in the eye of the beholder i suppose...or speaker

urgle burgle
02-06-2010, 11:28 AM
I guess I should clarify this: I strongly suspect bin Laden was a player in putting the 9/11 hijackers in place, as do most people in the US. Why do I suspect that? I have no idea, other than the fact that his face would pop up on screen immediately after any footage of the planes hitting the WTC. Now, there is at least one truly compelling reason to believe this: he clearly had experience putting this sort of operation together, and that alone sends his name near the top of the list.

Meanwhile, it is just extremely difficult to comprehend why, when his handover by the Afghan government could have been a foregone conclusion, we didn't just make it happen. All we had to do was follow normal extradition protocols and he'd be in custody (or more likely, dead) right now.

cool....now we have common ground of sorts...i think he impletmentd it, but we can go tit for tat at another point. as far as the extradition..and i am just guessing...there was a belief (which im sure can be supported, if i decided to search, or if all intel was realeased) that there was no way i hell, the T-ban were going to go for it. almost 3,000 people had just died (freak out in the streets, DOD, intel dept, oval office, etc), and we had missed too many oppertunites to get him. through in the background of the concept it would also meet our interests for a show of force, get rid of a unstable terrorist supporting regime, in the middle of an anti-us, democrat hot bed...thought i would be rather easy to topple, and stabilize....etc. now we can go back and forth if that was the "right" thing to do....i do (to a point).

Now as far as all of that Tora Bora nonsense, and CIA cover-ups, etc.... whatever. I've gone out of my way to scold 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and will continue to do so. I do find it fascinating to compare the Pearl Harbor investigations with the 9/11 reports. Not the government complicity/conspiracy/cover-up angle, mind you, but the total melt-down, breakdown failures of the government to do even its most basic jobs. The more things change...

this, additionally is also good to hear from you ric..(i do apologize for the conspiratorial accusations, most of your posts, til, then, had that feel, so i was trying to cut if off at the head)......but i think this part is your best post as to eluding to how you think. i alos know of the intel let downs of Pear (see Tora, Tora, Tora, for an idea), and the intel lapses pre-9/11 also led up to history repeating....which, i think, really lead us to now. the failures of the past have led to the actions of the future/present. we can go down the road of overeaction, bad moves, bad decisions, should have done this differently, which we should. im just tired of the blame game, and want to avoid past problems in the present.

St33lersguy
02-06-2010, 11:36 AM
nuke the terrorists into submission. If we stop caring about the "political correctness" idiots and just blow them up we should be able to win

urgle burgle
02-06-2010, 11:43 AM
worked in Japan!....oh well

ricardisimo
02-06-2010, 12:29 PM
I learned something new last night.

Before Iran was Iran it was Persia and during WWII Persia and Germany were tight. They were tight enough that hitler asked them to change their name to Iran,and they did. And the language most spoken in Iran is farsi, the translation of the word iran in farsi is aryan.

And we should leave them alone to get nukes?

It's interesting that you should bring up Germany's influence. And where did Israel's leadership learn to do what they do?

MACH1
02-06-2010, 12:34 PM
It's interesting that you should bring up Germany's influence. And where did Israel's leadership learn to do what they do?

In the gas chambers? :noidea:

ricardisimo
02-06-2010, 12:40 PM
I didn’t post it to “wow” you. And yes, I am aware that "Palestinians” aren’t ethnically “arab”, but are culturally, linguistically, and IMHO opinion, behaviorally “arab” to the extent that they’re muslim. As I said previously, the issue here is islam. For the rest of this, I will stay away from using “Arab” and will instead use “islam” or “muslim”.

Rather than allow this to digress into the pissing contest that “muslim / Israeli” discussions typically become, allow me to focus what I think is the central issue here and with all of islam – behavior. Behavior is really what separates the players in this conflict. islamic behavior toward Jews and Christians descends from their endemic hatred toward them. And I don’t see that hatred being returned. I see bad behavior being addressed in the form of defensive and preemptive action.

Ask yourself some really basic questions about this situation from the standpoint of behavior…

Do the Israelis, as a nation and unprovoked, attack muslims? The muslims have started 5 wars against Israel, and have mounted countless attacks on Israel utilizing militia, terrorists, suicide bombers, intifadas and all manner of atrocious behavior. Do Israelis strap on explosives and blow up muslim busses and cafes?

Do muslim countries welcome Jewish refugees? No. They create them. They also don’t welcome Palestinian refugees, which is a big piece of the problem. The Israelis didn’t create Palestinian refugees. Their muslim handlers did. Any Palestinian can be a full Israeli citizen. prosper, hold office, whatever, as long as they behave. The non-muslim Palestinians behave and live peacefully in Israel.

The Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel. Ahmadineshithead threatens to blow Israel off the map on a daily basis. The Islamic schools teach their kids that Jews and Christians are apes and pigs and that they’re to be persecuted, killed and destroyed. No such rhetoric comes from the other side. Its behavior. The muslim is not willing to live in peace with the Jew. The Jew is.

Here’s a clue for the muslims – stop the bad behavior and respect the rights of Jews to live peacefully in their homeland.

Yes Ric, we are allowed to discuss this rationally in this country, and do.

This post and probably the next 15 are perfect examples of why I believe the world has been turned upside-down. Evidently, it's been this way for so long that no one notices.

The West wants peace?

Muslim countries create Jewish refugees?

The Taliban grow heroin?

Islam is somehow less sophisticated than Christianity?

Whatever. Enjoy the Kool-Aid, folks.

ricardisimo
02-06-2010, 12:48 PM
In the gas chambers? :noidea:

That's a good guess. They also learned that if the Germans could do what they did and not get wiped off of the map, than Israel could do the same.

If there were justice in the world, what is now called Israel would be called Palestine, and what is now called Germany would be called Israel.

urgle burgle
02-06-2010, 12:56 PM
in a perfect world...maybe, but then you get into

would spain be called mexico, japan called korea, china called mongolia, japan then becomes china, italy is called england, england called wales/ireland, america called Iriquois nation, germany called france, france called germany, persia called israel, israel called persia, and back again, egypt/syria called israel, italy called egypt, turkey called armenia, etc.

oh well....see ya in the funny papers

Vincent
02-06-2010, 12:58 PM
That's a good guess. They also learned that if the Germans could do what they did and not get wiped off of the map, than Israel could do the same.

If there were justice in the world, what is now called Israel would be called Palestine, and what is now called Germany would be called Israel.

So you're equating Israel's dealings with the Palestinians with nazi atrocities on the Jews?

Vincent
02-06-2010, 01:06 PM
This post and probably the next 15 are perfect examples of why I believe the world has been turned upside-down. Evidently, it's been this way for so long that no one notices.

The West wants peace?

Muslim countries create Jewish refugees?

The Taliban grow heroin?

Islam is somehow less sophisticated than Christianity?

Whatever. Enjoy the Kool-Aid, folks.

:wtf:

Ubuntu Boy. The rubber room is calling out to you .

ricardisimo
02-06-2010, 04:02 PM
in a perfect world...maybe, but then you get into

would spain be called mexico, japan called korea, china called mongolia, japan then becomes china, italy is called england, england called wales/ireland, america called Iriquois nation, germany called france, france called germany, persia called israel, israel called persia, and back again, egypt/syria called israel, italy called egypt, turkey called armenia, etc.

oh well....see ya in the funny papers

Most of those don't apply, and the rest are ancient history. Israel is 60 years old. The refugees are still alive.

Kind of to your point, the idea is the same as with Native Americans, etc.: eventually the Palestinians will all be dead, or at least vastly outnumbered and hopelessly isolated, and it will all be moot. There's no Right-of-Return for the dead.

I'm pretty sure that's the plan.

ricardisimo
02-06-2010, 04:05 PM
So you're equating Israel's dealings with the Palestinians with nazi atrocities on the Jews?

Let's see... an Anti-semitic, militant, ethnologically-based nation that's willing to kill on a mass scale and herd the Semitic enemies of the state into gulags and camps.

Sound familiar?

Vincent
02-06-2010, 04:10 PM
Most of those don't apply, and the rest are ancient history. Israel is 60 years old. The refugees are still alive.

Kind of to your point, the idea is the same as with Native Americans, etc.: eventually the Palestinians will all be dead, or at least vastly outnumbered and hopelessly isolated, and it will all be moot. There's no Right-of-Return for the dead.

I'm pretty sure that's the plan.

So the plan is to attrit down the Palestinians. Is this some sort of karmic retaliation for the holocaust? Will the non-muslim Palestinians be attritted as well?

Let's see... an Anti-semitic, militant, ethnologically-based nation that's willing to kill on a mass scale and herd the Semitic enemies of the state into gulags and camps.

Sound familiar?

Where are your signals beamed in from?

ricardisimo
02-06-2010, 04:26 PM
Nicely stated vincent.

I'm probably not as informed as I should be on the subject, and probably should leave things for others more well versed to say.

But regardless from my ill informed perspective, when I think of the Palestinians what immediatly comes to mind is victim for hire/ or rent. I see a people that have no real interest in prospering or showing self sufficience, just a people who want to claim perpetual victimhood and allow other Muslim entities to use them to further fan anti semitic causes.

Would you feel better about them if they were to get up off of their lazy victim asses and organize themselves into both political and military groups actively seeking to retake the land that they feel was taken from them illegally?

Probably not. They'd just be whiny losers, I suppose. Unless they were fighting against the Russians, Chinese or another one of our ideological enemies... then they'd be "Freedom Fighters".

ricardisimo
02-06-2010, 04:30 PM
Where are your signals beamed in from?

How many times do I have to tell you people? Tralfamadore.

urgle burgle
02-06-2010, 04:33 PM
Most of those don't apply, and the rest are ancient history. Israel is 60 years old. The refugees are still alive.

Kind of to your point, the idea is the same as with Native Americans, etc.: eventually the Palestinians will all be dead, or at least vastly outnumbered and hopelessly isolated, and it will all be moot. There's no Right-of-Return for the dead.

I'm pretty sure that's the plan.

but the concept is still the same....we did this to your people, now we get that, because of it. never ending cycle...any (well a lot anyway) nation, people, state, can say they were occupied, had genocide practiced on them, treated poortly, etc. and ask for the "justice" of land, money, mineral rights, etc.
most of our discussion has been based on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. i dont see anyway of making you see our side, or we seeing yours. at least as far as the totality of it.
i guess the basic argument (broken down) is "do you think that if the Palestinians were given the land they are seeking, would it end strife in the Middle East?"

i would say, most of us dont. for many reasons, all covered here. i wold guess you feel that it would. also covered here. im guessing here. unless this is just an argument for who has the "right" to do what to who in the name of "justice". then, well, it would be easier discussing if worm holes really exist.

Vincent
02-06-2010, 04:38 PM
How many times do I have to tell you people? Tralfamadore.

:drink:

That's a seriously cool av too!

Vincent
02-06-2010, 04:46 PM
"do you think that if the Palestinians were given the land they are seeking, would it end strife in the Middle East?"

No.

Old saying - "Me and my brother are fighting our cousin. Me and my brother and our cousin are fighting our neighbor". Its in the DNA.

And there is nothing Israel could say, do, or give that would end it. The muslims won't let it go until Israel has vanished. Then they'll revert to the old saying.

It won't go that way though. The plains below Megiddo beckon.

urgle burgle
02-06-2010, 05:03 PM
No.

Old saying - "Me and my brother are fighting our cousin. Me and my brother and our cousin are fighting our neighbor". Its in the DNA.

And there is nothing Israel could say, do, or give that would end it. The muslims won't let it go until Israel has vanished. Then they'll revert to the old saying.

It won't go that way though. The plains below Megiddo beckon.

and i completely agree....

Israel has made consessions, repeatedly, and been met with the same. most of the Arab states are in a constant state of war with Israel, and admitted as much. proxy wars are being fought....Israel has been attacked repeatedly by nation states, and proxy terrorist organizations. Arab states refuse to let in Palestinian refugees, which, to me negates, the "land for peace" argument. among other things. the Arab states use the Palestinian issue, and the people, as weapons to beat Isarel over the head with.
the problem rises out of the conceptualization over the Islam religion, as its viewed by a lot of people. a lot, meaning the 10-20 % that belive in the hardline stuff. which equates to quite a few nation states, and millions of people.
now....we get into why this is....many thoughts on that. but i dont want this to get into "whos religion is better" deal. the popular religion of this board, i would guess, is Christianity. now.....and i am a Christian, it has had its bloody past. but, at the present, and i emphasize the present, the religion has learned from its past mistakes and moved into the 21st century. hardliner "Islamists" have not. a lot of history has gone by, and i have no idea when this is going to happen...if ever. i hope so. but until then, what is to be done. our policy makers, it seems, have gone with the "force" idea. meaning, forcing a democracy into that part of the world. will this work? dont know. right thing to do. dont know? only realistic option at this point....i think so.
i think that if Israel, the U.S., and the "powers that be", really thought that giving the Palestinians a homeland....without giving over Jerusalem, then they would have by now. of course, now my head hurts.....

SCSTILLER
02-06-2010, 05:06 PM
Would you feel better about them if they were to get up off of their lazy victim asses and organize themselves into both political and military groups actively seeking to retake the land that they feel was taken from them illegally?
Probably not. They'd just be whiny losers, I suppose. Unless they were fighting against the Russians, Chinese or another one of our ideological enemies... then they'd be "Freedom Fighters".

So, how do you feel about us living in the United States of America then? If you are so worried about other lands having lands so called "stolen" away, what's your opinion here? Oh, I can only imagine the response.

urgle burgle
02-06-2010, 05:11 PM
So, how do you feel about us living in the United States of America then? If you are so worried about other lands having lands so called "stolen" away, what's your opinion here? Oh, I can only imagine the response.


you sure you really want to go here SC....lol
this will be fun.....i just have that feelin'

toyota!!!! well not so much these days, right?

SCSTILLER
02-06-2010, 05:51 PM
you sure you really want to go here SC....lol
this will be fun.....i just have that feelin'

toyota!!!! well not so much these days, right?

I was wondering the same thing after I hit submit reply. You're right, if anything, this will be fun

ricardisimo
04-03-2010, 04:37 AM
Did I drop the ball on this thread?

Hammer67
04-03-2010, 09:14 AM
Sorry I missed this thread, but basically what the original post implies is the "Monroe Doctrine" or isolationism. This was fine for the US up until global communications and economy made it pretty difficult. The only nation I can think of that has successfully followed this path is Switzerland.

The problem here is that if you want to be a global leader, you are looked up to to help solve global issues. And, whether you personally agree with US foreign policy over the last 100 years or not, we have pretty much been the go to country in terms of helping the rest of the world....isolationism, even if it is specifically directed at a group, would fail in this modern era.