[quote]makkun wrote:
The moment you give away your own identity, and replace your own common sense with dogma or political ideology, you open up a wide door to denying your fellow humans the right they have to dissent with you.
[/quote]
You could say that the same thing is happening here with this current administration. You have populations of people only identifying themselves by their political affiliations. As a result, we are becoming more and more divided.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
makkun wrote:
The moment you give away your own identity, and replace your own common sense with dogma or political ideology, you open up a wide door to denying your fellow humans the right they have to dissent with you.
You could say that the same thing is happening here with this current administration. You have populations of people only identifying themselves by their political affiliations. As a result, we are becoming more and more divided.[/quote]
Impossible that I could have had that in mind; must be a pure coincidence… 
Makkun
Did you somehow miss the words Free and Democratic? Most of the wars you listed don’t even come close to both countries being free and democratic.
zeppelin795 wrote:
“What is truly pathetic is how our government lied to Tilghman’s parents. They used his death to help stir the jingoistic pot that many on this forum wallow in. Truly tasteless.”
First of all, at least have the decency to spell the hero’s name right.
Second, how long was it before we suspected it was friendly fire? Less than a week sound about right?
Third, imagine you are the military. Think you’d be in a hurry to disclose this sort of tragedy?
The only problem I have is if the parents weren’t given the details as soon as they were known (or at least reasonably suspected).
zep, I know YOU hide shortcomings in your own life.
I’d have to defer to Hedo or Ranger on this one. I don’t know how long it takes for friendly fire information to climb the chain of command.
JeffR
Makkun,
I’ve read your thoughtful posts in this thread.
I think you labor under some misconceptions.
First of all, as usual, you seem to be insinuating that there are nefarious motives for invading Iraq.
I think you are trying to imply that one of them would be “lack of tolerance” for other cultures or modes of living.
I have to throw the bullshit flag. I think the Americans have gone to extraordinary lengths to respect the Iraqi way of life. That includes religion. Remember when al sadr was hiding out in Mosques? You know damn well that militarily the thing to have done would have been to level those areas and remove that slime forever. Did we? Nope. Reason: Sensitivity.
Name me one other major military power in the history of the world that would have been so careful?
There are plenty of diverse cultures that we are not nearly so concerned with.
Iraq was a center for terrorist training, recruitment, and dissemination. Think about the briefcase. hussein threatened their neighbors (our allies) and the world’s oil supply. They were one of the grossest examples of human rights violators on the planet. They were making a mockery of the “world government.” They were targeting and firing on our planes. Finally, their location makes them ideal for encouraging Democracy in the region.
Second, I smell the loyalty to party clouding our judgement thing.
I want you to give this some especial thought: There are many people who have looked at the exact same information you have, and disagree with your assessment. In fact, there are many of us who cannot think of how W. could have employed any other strategic or tactical decisions without jeopardizing our immediate and future security.
I’m very serious about this. All bullshit aside, I don’t get a kickback from any of this. Implying that I stick to this stance solely out of party loyalty/inability to admit I am wrong, is incorrect.
Each one of us (fickle democrats included) knew that this was a bold move. It was and is fraught with dangers for everyone.
As you can tell, I look to history for examples. Unfortunately, human nature changes very little. Fortunately, the patterns are there as a rough guideline.
Identify the patterns. Think about this threat being left to fester. There were essentially no controls on hussein present from the mid-1990’s to 2003. You’ve read the report. This guy was on his way to reconstituting his offensive arsenal.
That was an unacceptable alternative.
One more thing, the whole “nations disregarding the U.N. thing” has to be exposed.
The u.n. was in bed with the tyrant. It has shown itself both before and after the invasion to be a group of greedy beaurocrats impotent in a crisis. Hypocritical to a tee. We do not trust it’s judgment.
JeffR
The more technologically advanced a nation becomes, the less God is a factor in their lives. Hence Atheism is strongest in the most technologically advanced nations. In my opinion as the world continues into the future God will become less and less relevant in people’s live or simply faith in a higher being will decrease dramaticallly. I don’t think it will die away completely but in the future I can envisage religion being a very private personal thing for a small fraction of the population. Theres no way when we find out more and more about the universe that religion will be such a strong force in the world. The reason religion is such a massive part of the world right now is because the universe and life are mysterious, God helps us explain what cannot be explained. When science can explain it, God becomes less relevant.
JeffR,
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun,
I’ve read your thoughtful posts in this thread.
I think you labor under some misconceptions.
First of all, as usual, you seem to be insinuating that there are nefarious motives for invading Iraq.[/quote]
Nope. That’s not my view.
Another nope. That’s not my view either.
Interesting that you would interpret my post in that way, but it was not what I had in mind.
Rome was quite tolerant when it came to other religions and cultures. Yeah, they fought the Christians, but they regarded them as somewhat subversive. But in general they understood that letting people in the roman provinces govern themselves and embracing their religions worked quite well.
[quote]There are plenty of diverse cultures that we are not nearly so concerned with.
Iraq was a center for terrorist training, recruitment, and dissemination. Think about the briefcase. hussein threatened their neighbors (our allies) and the world’s oil supply. They were one of the grossest examples of human rights violators on the planet. They were making a mockery of the “world government.” They were targeting and firing on our planes. Finally, their location makes them ideal for encouraging Democracy in the region.[/quote]
I understand that this is the current US government’s position. I rather agree with its critics though. But that is not the point of the thread.
Which one? I support the German Green Party, but can’t vote here in the UK, where it would really make a difference. Hence, I think my party-politics don’t really play a role here. And just for the record - to many Europeans, both US parties seem pretty conservative.
That’s plurality. Got no problem with that. Still don’t agree.
Then I’m glad I didn’t say that.
I think what might have brought you towards this conclusion might have been my tongue-in-cheek comment to ProfX. That was clearly pointed at the strong polarisation that he and I seem to perceive within US culture. If that already counts as a party-political attack, then some people are really sensitive.
Including the many who did and do not support the decision. But indeed, we all have to live with the consequences. I retain my right to bitch and moan about a course of action I think was bad.
[quote]As you can tell, I look to history for examples. Unfortunately, human nature changes very little. Fortunately, the patterns are there as a rough guideline.
Identify the patterns. Think about this threat being left to fester. There were essentially no controls on hussein present from the mid-1990’s to 2003. You’ve read the report. This guy was on his way to reconstituting his offensive arsenal.
That was an unacceptable alternative.[/quote]
As I said earlier, I will not delve into the Duelfer-discussion in this thread (and not bring it off-topic). My interpretation has been clarified there, and needs no further repetition, except that I completely disagree with your interpretation of the report.
See http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=625295
I agree.
That is unproven. There were people within the organisation involved - some of which were recently fired from their positions.
I have addressed this issue and agree partly. My explanation for it has been posted earlier.
Makkun
The world is all about hierarchy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
Show me an Iraqi that has taken arms against his former goverment without pay and I will agree with you. Democracy does not mean voter turnout–it mean people rule themselves. Iraq has yet to make one decision outside of U.S. pressure.[/quote]
Remember the terrorists are paid too. They pay the suicide bombers families also.
Sooner or later Iraq will have to stand on it’s own. Hopefully this will be sooner, but it is more important to win than to leave prematurely.
Just remember Iraq has become the main battleground in the War on Terror.
Iraq is where most of the foreign fighters are headed to and where most of the terrorist money is being spent.
Makkun wrote:
“Rome was quite tolerant when it came to other religions and cultures. Yeah, they fought the Christians, but they regarded them as somewhat subversive.”
They were inclusive FOR THEIR TIME. Let’s not downplay the utter butchery they employed against the Jews/Christians: Feeding them to the lions, Pompey burning their temples, Masada, etc…
“But in general they understood that letting people in the roman provinces govern themselves and embracing their religions worked quite well.”
There is definetly truth in that statement.
“Iraq was a center for terrorist training, recruitment, and dissemination. Think about the briefcase. hussein threatened their neighbors (our allies) and the world’s oil supply. They were one of the grossest examples of human rights violators on the planet. They were making a mockery of the “world government.” They were targeting and firing on our planes. Finally, their location makes them ideal for encouraging Democracy in the region.”
You wrote:
I understand that this is the current US government’s position. I rather agree with its critics though. But that is not the point of the thread.
Makkun, did you read the 2002 W. speech I posted? It’s been his position right along.
Second, I smell the loyalty to party clouding our judgement thing.
“Which one? I support the German Green Party, but can’t vote here in the UK, where it would really make a difference. Hence, I think my party-politics don’t really play a role here. And just for the record - to many Europeans, both US parties seem pretty conservative.”
Yes, I have spent some time in Europe and agree with that statement. That is definetly the perception. Not that that is a bad thing!!!
“I want you to give this some especial thought: There are many people who have looked at the exact same information you have, and disagree with your assessment. In fact, there are many of us who cannot think of how W. could have employed any other strategic or tactical decisions without jeopardizing our immediate and future security.”
That’s plurality. Got no problem with that. Still don’t agree.
Fair enough.
“I’m very serious about this. All bullshit aside, I don’t get a kickback from any of this. Implying that I stick to this stance solely out of party loyalty/inability to admit I am wrong, is incorrect.”
Then I’m glad I didn’t say that.
I think what might have brought you towards this conclusion might have been my tongue-in-cheek comment to ProfX. That was clearly pointed at the strong polarisation that he and I seem to perceive within US culture. If that already counts as a party-political attack, then some people are really sensitive.
That was where I got it. I just wanted you to understand that many of us don’t put party before principle. We actually believe in these actions.
“Each one of us (fickle democrats included) knew that this was a bold move. It was and is fraught with dangers for everyone.”
Including the many who did and do not support the decision. But indeed, we all have to live with the consequences. I retain my right to bitch and moan about a course of action I think was bad.
I respect your right. I am paying close attention to each of your posts. We have come to the point where we can disagree without being disagreable. I trully appreciate that.
"As you can tell, I look to history for examples. Unfortunately, human nature changes very little. Fortunately, the patterns are there as a rough guideline.
Identify the patterns. Think about this threat being left to fester. There were essentially no controls on hussein present from the mid-1990’s to 2003. You’ve read the report. This guy was on his way to reconstituting his offensive arsenal.
That was an unacceptable alternative."
As I said earlier, I will not delve into the Duelfer-discussion in this thread (and not bring it off-topic). My interpretation has been clarified there, and needs no further repetition, except that I completely disagree with your interpretation of the report.
See http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=625295 "
I didn’t realize that you completely disagreed with me. Shall we bump the thread?
Pretty compelling stuff there.
One more thing, the whole “nations disregarding the U.N. thing” has to be exposed.
I agree.
The u.n. was in bed with the tyrant.
That is unproven. There were people within the organisation involved - some of which were recently fired from their positions.
That is interesting. I’m surprised that you are witholding complete condemnation. Sounds like the start of a new thread!!!
We need to summarize some very damning information found in Iraq indicting the u.n. representatives and the “international community.”
It has shown itself both before and after the invasion to be a group of greedy beaurocrats impotent in a crisis. Hypocritical to a tee. We do not trust it’s judgment.
I have addressed this issue and agree partly. My explanation for it has been posted earlier.
Good stuff, Makkun.
JeffR
Zap Branigan wrote:
Remember the terrorists are paid too. They pay the suicide bombers families also.
Sooner or later Iraq will have to stand on it’s own. Hopefully this will be sooner, but it is more important to win than to leave prematurely.
Just remember Iraq has become the main battleground in the War on Terror.
Iraq is where most of the foreign fighters are headed to and where most of the terrorist money is being spent.
Good stuff. Get ready for the head in the sands to indict the U.S. for “creating” terrorism in Iraq.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Remember the terrorists are paid too. They pay the suicide bombers families also.
Sooner or later Iraq will have to stand on it’s own. Hopefully this will be sooner, but it is more important to win than to leave prematurely.
Just remember Iraq has become the main battleground in the War on Terror.
Iraq is where most of the foreign fighters are headed to and where most of the terrorist money is being spent.
Good stuff. Get ready for the head in the sands to indict the U.S. for “creating” terrorism in Iraq.
JeffR
[/quote]
Head in the sanders—isn’t that you? In your own post “most of the foreign fighters are headed to…” and “creating terrorism” go togeather don’t they?
Seeing how there was little terrorism there before our pre-planned invasion of Iraq, and now there’s a shitload—so much so they don’t even want to release the terror reports anymore, and a recent report said maybe 25% are from africa and are there to learn terror skills to use against their home governments…gee It kind of seems like we’ve created a terrorist wonderland (not disneyland)! Even the CIA says we’ve created a new afghanistan there! Head in the sand would be lying nitwits like Cheyney saying the insurgency is in its “final throes”—Really, try to believe that he said that, he’ll just lie about anything, and you of course will believe it.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Head in the sanders—isn’t that you? In your own post “most of the foreign fighters are headed to…” and “creating terrorism” go togeather don’t they?
Seeing how there was little terrorism there before our pre-planned invasion of Iraq, and now there’s a shitload—so much so they don’t even want to release the terror reports anymore, and a recent report said maybe 25% are from africa and are there to learn terror skills to use against their home governments…gee It kind of seems like we’ve created a terrorist wonderland (not disneyland)! Even the CIA says we’ve created a new afghanistan there! Head in the sand would be lying nitwits like Cheyney saying the insurgency is in its “final throes”—Really, try to believe that he said that, he’ll just lie about anything, and you of course will believe it.[/quote]
100, are you saying that the insurgency is stronger now than ever or something like that? Because that is what you would have to believe if we “created terrorists” by our just and righteous action in Iraq.
You think that we are in the wrong by the invasion, and that’s okay. But I would like to turn the tables on you for a second here and try to explain to me why we SHOULDN’T have gone in. We had so many, many reasons to intervene in this madman’s plans. He had a laundry list of offenses against humanity. He was dangerous, and corrupted officials at the UN in the OFF program. He didn’t use the money from OFF to feed, clothe, or provide services like medical, electicity, water, and sewage for his people. He let his nation rot while his people starved and drank ditch water so that he could hoard his ill-gotten wealth.
I suppose that you would have wanted the sanctions to continue? The sanctions were the fucking problem! The sanctions did nothing to Saddam personally, they only hurt the people. But this was the high and mighty UN’s idea for controlling Saddam? Starving and giving dysentery to the Iraqi people? What, did the UN think that Saddam would all of a sudden start to give two shits about the people of his country?
Let me tell you something: If psychos from other countries go to Iraq to learn how to terrorize, then we will destroy them, too. I am an American, and we have had enough of this bullshit. If you harbor terrorism, encourage it, or use it, you are slated for destruction. Plain and simple.
Loth, C’mon man read the powerful words for today, there relevent. Before this war that bastard Saddam kept his people in check for the most part.
Now in Iraq just like with the Soviets in Afghanistan you have jihadists from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Africa, Chechnya, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and the list goes on. Streaming to Iraq to kill Americans.
And, what do you think that is for them? It’s front line training the best you can get refine your killing skills. Remember in Afghanistan the Soviets had superior firepower just like we do, but it’s a war of attrition and as long as they have willing recruits streaming in they will keep it going for years.
Unless we are willing to totally and without mercy blast to smithereens certain areas of Iraq and choke them to submission this will go on.
Alot of conservative war supporters keep pointing to Japan and Germany as examples of intervention that had positive results.
Well we dropped two nukes on Japan and bombed Germany into oblivion without mercy. They were both cases of peoples whose wills were completely broken and they knew if they fucked around the almighty pimp hand was going to come down.
Remember Loth, the idealist you also need to be a realist!
And one other thing Loth, I’m not trying to be an ass here, but in all honesty if you are that fired up and are not going to take it from these terrorists, they truly need people who are willing to go over there! Recruiting numbers are down thats not a lie of the liberal satanic media, it’s the truth even the army is saying it!
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
And one other thing Loth, I’m not trying to be an ass here, but in all honesty if you are that fired up and are not going to take it from these terrorists, they truly need people who are willing to go over there! Recruiting numbers are down thats not a lie of the liberal satanic media, it’s the truth even the army is saying it![/quote]
Flat feet, brother. I can’t run for shit. Otherwise, I’d have been in the military a long time ago. I was a national merit scholar in high school, and my dad was friends with the US senators from Florida many moons ago. I could have gone to West Point. 
Nowadays, even though I’m in the best shape of my life, and even if I didn’t have to run for ten miles a day or whatever it is, my sorry thirty-three year old no previous military experience ass would probably be a little on the unwanted side. Does the US military pay child support? Hey, maybe it’s not too late, dammit!! 
Seriously though, Elk, I would love to do more than be a lab tech, but it looks like my fate is to stay in the states whether I like it or not. Oh well. At least I’m making the most of what I’ve got here, right? I’m still living a life of service to those who need me and what I can do to help them.
PS Have you noticed that when we get a really good thread going in the poli forums, one time over the next few days, the “strong words” will reflect something of that thread?
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Loth, C’mon man read the powerful words for today, there relevent. Before this war that bastard Saddam kept his people in check for the most part.[/quote]
Hmmm… he kept them in check with fear, and by controlling their water and electricity supply. So we should have just let him do that? If you check some of the pictures from the links on my “cheestastics” thread, you can see the people gathered around holes they dug in the ground every morning so they could find drinking water for the day. I learned that many of the villages in Iraq hadn’t seen electrical service since the early 90’s. The infrastructure for all services was rotting away under Saddam, because he wouldn’t do anything to help his people. Thank you, UN sanctions.
This is a good point, Elk. They are coming from everywhere, right? But they’re coming into Iraq to die. I fail to see a problem here.
Dude, think about it: the jihadists are going to run out sometime… maybe pretty soon, I don’t know. We are here talking about how it’s our fault that these terrorists are doing this, but what happens when those terrorists actually get into Iraq and realize that the Americans aren’t “conquering” Iraq? What happens when they see that things are better for the Iraqi citizen (water, power, food, making more money, etc., the list goes on) than under Saddam?
“Waitaminute… Iraq is turning out okay. I thought the Americans were over here stealing the oil, raping our women, and flushing the Quran down the toilet. That’s not happening here at all…”
That’s all it’s going to take, I think, Elk. As soon as a batch of terrorists actually stops to think, they’re going to stop. The rest of them are psycho or are criminals anyway, and they’re going to do stupid shit no matter what we do. Remember when Saddam emptied the prisons before he lost power? Yeah, I’d bet we’re still fighting THOSE guys, too.
[quote]Unless we are willing to totally and without mercy blast to smithereens certain areas of Iraq and choke them to submission this will go on.
Alot of conservative war supporters keep pointing to Japan and Germany as examples of intervention that had positive results.
Well we dropped two nukes on Japan and bombed Germany into oblivion without mercy. They were both cases of peoples whose wills were completely broken and they knew if they fucked around the almighty pimp hand was going to come down.
Remember Loth, the idealist you also need to be a realist![/quote]
I know, pal. I’m trying to be realistic, too. I hope that you’re wrong about Iraq needing to be “pimp-handed”. Remember that after WWII there was a Nazi insurgency that lasted for like two years or something. Maybe that’s what’s happening in Iraq, too?
Loth, I understand about your flat feet and I do believe that you are a stand up guy who would be there if able.
In a friendship we must be willing to be honest in our discussion. I didn’t mean to bring it up as a put down, but it is a serious question for me. That certain people that are very pro war are able and don’t go yet they feel like this is such the critical undertaking.
I noticed that about the Strong Word as well, especially today.
Loth, I still think you are being an idealist. Remember, Afghanistan twelve years, I believe the Soviets fought an insurgency. Remember Vietnam first the French then us. We were there from 62 I believe till 75.
When you have a group of people with a radically different philosophy on life and are comitted to not accepting yours unless, like I said you are willing to annihilate them, they will fight on.
Remember this line from Vietnam “We had to destroy the village to save it,”?
Just one last thought… why do the Powerful Words today by Bertrand Russell bring to mind my friend jerffy AKA JeffR?