While it is true that power has its dark sides, always, let us remind ourselves of the things that are so easily forgotten when critiquing our current hegemon.
It is often forgotten that George Orwells prediction of mankinds future being " a boot stamping on a human face - forever", cane very close to being reality in the 20th century.
While Germany slaughtered millions of her own citizens and Japan raped and pillaged her way through all of Asia all America had to do to stay safe was essentially… nothing.
Yet, this is not what happened. America supported her allies, the free nations of the west as best as she could and without the 100000 trucks or so churned out by American factories and “lent” to the SU the mighty Red Army would have had to get to Berlin on foot.
We all know that they would not have made it.
Blocking Japans access to American controlled influences was not in the best interest of America, after all, Americas business is business.
By denying Japan the resources needed to expand America risked being attacked without having made preparation for war and America of course was attacked.
While still supplying her allies America not only fought and defeated her enemies in the Pacific but also helped defeat one of the most vile regimes in the history of mankind and other than the SU which demanded heavy reparation from their defeated foe, America not only helped her former enemies to get back on their feet economically but also made sure that they were protected from Sowjet aggression by credibly threatening nuclear retaliation should an attempt to expand into Western Europe be made.
The result of this sacrifice was a period of peace, prosperity and scientific progress that will go down as one of the few golden eras mankind experienced and what did America demand in return?
No gold, no tribute and even her declared allies can choose whether they want to join her in battle or not.
Given how the 20th century started, given the threat of liberty being stomped out for centuries and given the real world pretenders to the thrones we should all thank our respective gods for an American century.
[quote]orion wrote:
The American Empire, a force for good
While it is true that power has its dark sides, always, let us remind ourselves of the things that are so easily forgotten when critiquing our current hegemon.
It is often forgotten that George Orwells prediction of mankinds future being " a boot stamping on a human face - forever", cane very close to being reality in the 20th century.
While Germany slaughtered millions of her own citizens and Japan raped and pillaged her way through all of Asia all America had to do to stay safe was essentially… nothing.
Yet, this is not what happened. America supported her allies, the free nations of the west as best as she could and without the 100000 trucks or so churned out by American factories and “lent” to the SU the mighty Red Army would have had to get to Berlin on foot.
We all know that they would not have made it.
Blocking Japans access to American controlled influences was not in the best interest of America, after all, Americas business is business.
By denying Japan the resources needed to expand America risked being attacked without having made preparation for war and America of course was attacked.
While still supplying her allies America not only fought and defeated her enemies in the Pacific but also helped defeat one of the most vile regimes in the history of mankind and other than the SU which demanded heavy reparation from their defeated foe, America not only helped her former enemies to get back on their feet economically but also made sure that they were protected from Sowjet aggression by credibly threatening nuclear retaliation should an attempt to expand into Western Europe be made.
The result of this sacrifice was a period of peace, prosperity and scientific progress that will go down as one of the few golden eras mankind experienced and what did America demand in return?
No gold, no tribute and even her declared allies can choose whether they want to join her in battle or not.
Given how the 20th century started, given the threat of liberty being stomped out for centuries and given the real world pretenders to the thrones we should all thank our respective gods for an American century.
[/quote]
Yeah, but that one is kind of…easy. Go with Iraq. I’m not sure how much time I’ll put into it, but I’ll contribute to the response in opposition to whatever you come up with.
[quote]orion wrote:
Fuck it, anyone give me any topic and I will do the best I can.
Intellectually lazy is what you are.
[/quote]
Make the case for the Iraq war.
/Gets popcorn[/quote]
which one?[/quote]
Hmmm. Let’s go with the present one, though I’m sure you’ll refer back to the prior.[/quote]
Ladies and Gentlemen,
let me first address the first two issues which come up when someone opposes the war against Iraq:
First, that there were no weapons of mass destruction- Admittedly none were found but not only American intelligence but also virtually every other intelligence service thought that he had them.
It seem that he actively worked to maintain that illusion in order to keep rivalrous factions in check and at best you could say that he fooled Western intelligence services, obviously not to his benefit.
However, should we have taken the chance against a man who not only used WMDs not only on his enemies but also on his own civilians?
The second point brought up most often is that “it was all for oil!!!”.
So what if it was?
Saddam already controlled a large portion of the Worlds oil supply, with Kuwait he would have controlled a quarter of it.
Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to give a madman in this volatile part of the world that kind of power?
We know what he did with the comparatively small resources he had, building the fifth largest army of the world, waging war on his neighbors, using weapons that are rightly despised by all of mankind.
Would we have wanted to find out what he planned with that kind of wealth?
Would we have wanted to face the loss of progress, which would inevitably have led to more disease, more ignorance and more suffering, which high oil prices due to a region in turmoil being terrorized by a madman would have caused?
Let us also not forget our hopes, as unwarranted as they may seem now.
Iraq was one of the most secular, egalitarian and richest countries of the region. Women have freedoms there that they do not have throughout this region and since they had them for decades, women in the public live and positions of authority are nothing unusual.
If we were to attempt to help create a free society, a shining city on the hill in this abysmally dark region, what better country could there have been?
And, given that Saddam was an unacceptable risk, what other choice did we have but try?
It is easy to judge in hindsight but some who point fingers now were all for it when it happened and let us not pretend that there were not very good reasons why they were.
[quote]orion wrote:
Fuck it, anyone give me any topic and I will do the best I can.
Intellectually lazy is what you are.
[/quote]
Make the case for the Iraq war.
/Gets popcorn[/quote]
which one?[/quote]
Hmmm. Let’s go with the present one, though I’m sure you’ll refer back to the prior.[/quote]
Ladies and Gentlemen,
let me first address the first two issues which come up when someone opposes the war against Iraq:
First, that there were no weapons of mass destruction- Admittedly none were found but not only American intelligence but also virtually every other intelligence service thought that he had them.
It seem that he actively worked to maintain that illusion in order to keep rivalrous factions in check and at best you could say that he fooled Western intelligence services, obviously not to his benefit.
However, should we have taken the chance against a man who not only used WMDs not only on his enemies but also on his own civilians?
The second point brought up most often is that “it was all for oil!!!”.
So what if it was?
Saddam already controlled a large portion of the Worlds oil supply, with Kuwait he would have controlled a quarter of it.
Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to give a madman in this volatile part of the world that kind of power?
We know what he did with the comparatively small resources he had, building the fifth largest army of the world, waging war on his neighbors, using weapons that are rightly despised by all of mankind.
Would we have wanted to find out what he planned with that kind of wealth?
Would we have wanted to face the loss of progress, which would inevitably have led to more disease, more ignorance and more suffering, which high oil prices due to a region in turmoil being terrorized by a madman would have caused?
Let us also not forget our hopes, as unwarranted as they may seem now.
Iraq was one of the most secular, egalitarian and richest countries of the region. Women have freedoms there that they do not have throughout this region and since they had them for decades, women in the public live and positions of authority are nothing unusual.
If we were to attempt to help create a free society, a shining city on the hill in this abysmally dark region, what better country could there have been?
And, given that Saddam was an unacceptable risk, what other choice did we have but try?
It is easy to judge in hindsight but some who point fingers now were all for it when it happened and let us not pretend that there were not very good reasons why they were. [/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Fuck it, anyone give me any topic and I will do the best I can.
Intellectually lazy is what you are.
[/quote]
Make the case for the Iraq war.
/Gets popcorn[/quote]
which one?[/quote]
Hmmm. Let’s go with the present one, though I’m sure you’ll refer back to the prior.[/quote]
Ladies and Gentlemen,
let me first address the first two issues which come up when someone opposes the war against Iraq:
First, that there were no weapons of mass destruction- Admittedly none were found but not only American intelligence but also virtually every other intelligence service thought that he had them.
It seem that he actively worked to maintain that illusion in order to keep rivalrous factions in check and at best you could say that he fooled Western intelligence services, obviously not to his benefit.
However, should we have taken the chance against a man who not only used WMDs not only on his enemies but also on his own civilians?
The second point brought up most often is that “it was all for oil!!!”.
So what if it was?
Saddam already controlled a large portion of the Worlds oil supply, with Kuwait he would have controlled a quarter of it.
Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to give a madman in this volatile part of the world that kind of power?
We know what he did with the comparatively small resources he had, building the fifth largest army of the world, waging war on his neighbors, using weapons that are rightly despised by all of mankind.
Would we have wanted to find out what he planned with that kind of wealth?
Would we have wanted to face the loss of progress, which would inevitably have led to more disease, more ignorance and more suffering, which high oil prices due to a region in turmoil being terrorized by a madman would have caused?
Let us also not forget our hopes, as unwarranted as they may seem now.
Iraq was one of the most secular, egalitarian and richest countries of the region. Women have freedoms there that they do not have throughout this region and since they had them for decades, women in the public live and positions of authority are nothing unusual.
If we were to attempt to help create a free society, a shining city on the hill in this abysmally dark region, what better country could there have been?
And, given that Saddam was an unacceptable risk, what other choice did we have but try?
It is easy to judge in hindsight but some who point fingers now were all for it when it happened and let us not pretend that there were not very good reasons why they were. [/quote]
Got nothing, you convinced me.
[/quote]
Thats because I took the two strongest points you could have made head on and left them bleeding on the floor while I went on.
In order to do that, you need to know what your opponents strongest points are, be it intellectually or emotionally.
let me first address the first two issues which come up when someone opposes the war against Iraq:
First, that there were no weapons of mass destruction- Admittedly none were found but not only American intelligence but also virtually every other intelligence service thought that he had them.
It seem that he actively worked to maintain that illusion in order to keep rivalrous factions in check and at best you could say that he fooled Western intelligence services, obviously not to his benefit.[/quote]
And? China? N. Korea? The former USSR? Pakistan? The last an ally (if only a rather uncooperative one) so long as islamists don’t seize control. Isn’t the policy with them deterrence and/or diplomacy?
True, he’s used chemical weapons. But, is the method of his killing enough to justify war and it’s aftermath? Obviously there’s a body count to be found the world over. In fact, Saddam’s chemical weapons attacks pale in comparison to the butchers in, say, Sudan. So, the method was enough? I don’t think so. What about his intent? Does anyone believe Saddam would have had us on prayer mats, or dead? He was a regional thug, that’s it.
[quote]The second point brought up most often is that “it was all for oil!!!”.
So what if it was?
Saddam already controlled a large portion of the Worlds oil supply, with Kuwait he would have controlled a quarter of it.
Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to give a madman in this volatile part of the world that kind of power?[/quote]
To give, no? To deny? Not necessarily. I’m sure he wanted to sell that oil just as much as anyone else. As for power? Who exactly do you want in power in the region? The Islamists eagerly snapping up recruits driven into their arms by a foreign, western led, presence?
Us? Indefinitely sinking treasure and blood into a region where the native populace would likely watch a western convoy roll over an IED before cooperating against fellow muslims?
Installed regimes who make deals and negotiate with our enemies, completing the back stabbing once we’re gone? Or, maybe just let the more secular madman, with limited regional ambitions, stay in place. Al Qaeda, and their allies, seemed to respect his…approach. After all, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Can’t turn a blind eye, you say? The Saudis, anyone?
[quote]We know what he did with the comparatively small resources he had, building the fifth largest army of the world, waging war on his neighbors, using weapons that are rightly despised by all of mankind.
Would we have wanted to find out what he planned with that kind of wealth?[/quote]
Hmm, like what, oversee an oppressive regime in the Middle East (even if expanded somewhat beyond his original borders) while living opulently? Sounds like our good friends the Saudis. You know, the guys whose nation exports airplane hijackers/suicide pilots. So, it’s either him, the Iranians, the Islamists, or us. Us, unwanted quests, mired down and hemorrhaging. Pretending we can install long-standing western friendly regimes in a mere dozen or so years.
Right, because the region isn’t in turmoil, and oil is flowing cheap. Filled up the tank lately? Priced food? How about the more direct costs of the war and the continually bloody aftermath? Financially? Politically?
[quote]Iraq was one of the most secular, egalitarian and richest countries of the region. Women have freedoms there that they do not have throughout this region and since they had them for decades, women in the public live and positions of authority are nothing unusual.
If we were to attempt to help create a free society, a shining city on the hill in this abysmally dark region, what better country could there have been?[/quote]
Aye, and now they (women) are left in ditches for showing some ankle, while long-standing Christian communities haven been virtually wiped out. Perhaps they feared Saddam more than us? Surely waterboarding and Gitmo are a light appetizer compared to what Saddam offered on the menu for those upsetting his peace (however it may have been earned).
How about letting Saddam continue doing what we failed to do? That is, keeping Iraq from turning into an Islamist epicenter, keep Sunni and Shia from outright killing each other, provide a foil to Iran, and keeping the fine citizens of Iraq from dumping women and Christians in ditches. Might of freed up resources for, you know, going after those actually involved in the 9-11 attack.
Meh, it’s because they’re brown people. I had to borrow that one from you Orion. I just had to.
Ron Paul is against public education, which gives the poorest of the poor a chance to catch up to the more privileged among us.
He is for repealing Roe vs Wade, denying wymen the right to determine what happens with their own body.
Ron Paul is for denying GLBT the equal rights promised to them by our constitution.
He is for drilling and mining in areas that are now off limits, he is for abolishing the EPA and has repeatedly voiced opinions that made it abundantly clear that he is putting profit before people.
Finally, and this one is really vile, he has repeatedly taken a stance against civil rights legislation, affirmative action and wants to limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education.
While he disguises this and his other stances as a “state rights issue” stance his statements must be seen in the light of his infamous newsletters that were filled with racist rants.
In short, he would dismantle everything that has been achieved when it comes to the empowerment of wymen, gays, lesbians, transgendered and transsexual individuals and finally people of non European descent and/or a history of migration.
What it comes down to is that Ron Paul envisions a world where a small group of white male patriarchs run things and everyone else is sacrificed for the bottom line and while I try not to hate anyone this vision frightens me.
let me first address the first two issues which come up when someone opposes the war against Iraq:
First, that there were no weapons of mass destruction- Admittedly none were found but not only American intelligence but also virtually every other intelligence service thought that he had them.
It seem that he actively worked to maintain that illusion in order to keep rivalrous factions in check and at best you could say that he fooled Western intelligence services, obviously not to his benefit.[/quote]
And? China? N. Korea? The former USSR? Pakistan? The last an ally (if only a rather uncooperative one) so long as islamists don’t seize control. Isn’t the policy with them deterrence and/or diplomacy?
True, he’s used chemical weapons. But, is the method of his killing enough to justify war and it’s aftermath? Obviously there’s a body count to be found the world over. In fact, Saddam’s chemical weapons attacks pale in comparison to the butchers in, say, Sudan. So, the method was enough? I don’t think so. What about his intent? Does anyone believe Saddam would have had us on prayer mats, or dead? He was a regional thug, that’s it.
[quote]The second point brought up most often is that “it was all for oil!!!”.
So what if it was?
Saddam already controlled a large portion of the Worlds oil supply, with Kuwait he would have controlled a quarter of it.
Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to give a madman in this volatile part of the world that kind of power?[/quote]
To give, no? To deny? Not necessarily. I’m sure he wanted to sell that oil just as much as anyone else. As for power? Who exactly do you want in power in the region? The Islamists eagerly snapping up recruits driven into their arms by a foreign, western led, presence?
Us? Indefinitely sinking treasure and blood into a region where the native populace would likely watch a western convoy roll over an IED before cooperating against fellow muslims?
Installed regimes who make deals and negotiate with our enemies, completing the back stabbing once we’re gone? Or, maybe just let the more secular madman, with limited regional ambitions, stay in place. Al Qaeda, and their allies, seemed to respect his…approach. After all, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Can’t turn a blind eye, you say? The Saudis, anyone?
[quote]We know what he did with the comparatively small resources he had, building the fifth largest army of the world, waging war on his neighbors, using weapons that are rightly despised by all of mankind.
Would we have wanted to find out what he planned with that kind of wealth?[/quote]
Hmm, like what, oversee an oppressive regime in the Middle East (even if expanded somewhat beyond his original borders) while living opulently? Sounds like our good friends the Saudis. You know, the guys whose nation exports airplane hijackers/suicide pilots. So, it’s either him, the Iranians, the Islamists, or us. Us, unwanted quests, mired down and hemorrhaging. Pretending we can install long-standing western friendly regimes in a mere dozen or so years.
Right, because the region isn’t in turmoil, and oil is flowing cheap. Filled up the tank lately? Priced food? How about the more direct costs of the war and the continually bloody aftermath? Financially? Politically?
[quote]Iraq was one of the most secular, egalitarian and richest countries of the region. Women have freedoms there that they do not have throughout this region and since they had them for decades, women in the public live and positions of authority are nothing unusual.
If we were to attempt to help create a free society, a shining city on the hill in this abysmally dark region, what better country could there have been?[/quote]
Aye, and now they (women) are left in ditches for showing some ankle, while long-standing Christian communities haven been virtually wiped out. Perhaps they feared Saddam more than us? Surely waterboarding and Gitmo are a light appetizer compared to what Saddam offered on the menu for those upsetting his peace (however it may have been earned).
How about letting Saddam continue doing what we failed to do? That is, keeping Iraq from turning into an Islamist epicenter, keep Sunni and Shia from outright killing each other, provide a foil to Iran, and keeping the fine citizens of Iraq from dumping women and Christians in ditches. Might of freed up resources for, you know, going after those actually involved in the 9-11 attack.
Meh, it’s because they’re brown people. I had to borrow that one from you Orion. I just had to.[/quote]
I do not think that it makes any sense to lump all these countries together. The only one which is up to par with Iraq under Saddam when it comes to insanity is NK and they are off limits precisely because they have the kinds of weapons we prevented Saddam from developing.
It hardly makes sense to let another NK situation develop.
Yes, the method matters.
Not so much when it comes to how exactly he butchered people but because biological and chemical agents are a far bigger threat when it comes to state sponsored terrorist attacks than even the much dreaded nuclear weapons.
Whether it is reasonable that there should be aversions to specific forms of mass murder is up for debate but there is a psychological threshold and this guy has crossed it.
As I said before, that was not the plan. Hindsight is 20-20.
Admittedly the Saudis are a bunch of fuckers, but they are our, stable, fuckers. Mostly. Given our problems in Iraq and conceding one of your points, that is possibly the best we can hope for.
For now.
Yeah well, hindsight and so on…
and - when it comes to stability within Iraq that would probably have been the right approach.
When it comes to stability in the region, and the spice MUST flow, and of course the risk of WMDs proliferating to terrorist Iraqi proxies it was not.
Ultimately the job of the American president is to insure the physical and economic security of Americans and this is why this conflict was resolved the way it was.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Good lol’s and thought provoking posts here. Someone give me one and I’ll do my best to get a response in by late tomorrow night. [/quote]
Darwinism as a political movement to undermine traditional morality and to strengthen the state at the expense of organized religion.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
If you want to give him a challenge I would think religion is the hardest for him
There are logical reasons which he can easily recognize for any war or any politics
If I’ve understood him correctly - religion is just plain irrational[/quote]
Try me.
Religion is actually easy because you are assuming that I am assuming that non religious are more rational than religious ones.
I do not.
If the scientific method is to common sense as the veteran is to a raw recruit than religion is the same for irrational or at least unprovable assumptions.
If we all necessarily must hold beliefs that are beyond verification I prefer the trained professionals to the wishy washy Marxism light amateur approach.