clyde wrote:Here is an opinion piece worth reading though it is about U.S. politics, the upcoming presidential election and Elizabeth Edwards: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040107D.shtml#
Do no harm,
clyde
off the pigs
.
clyde wrote:Here is an opinion piece worth reading though it is about U.S. politics, the upcoming presidential election and Elizabeth Edwards: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040107D.shtml#
Do no harm,
clyde
Creating enemies and worrying about eliminating them will never make a person wise. People just like to indulge in this kind of crap for entertainment. And a self-righteous kind of entertainment too, which makes it even worse. This type of us/them, good/evil type of thinking is totally unintelligent.Ryan R wrote:If we all adopted your pacifist attitudes, then malign forces like Nepolean, Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden would have spread unchallenged like a mutating tumor. An intelligent man recognizes a cancer, and isnt afraid to eliminate it if circumstances call for such an action.
Matt Gregory wrote:Creating enemies and worrying about eliminating them will never make a person wise. People just like to indulge in this kind of crap for entertainment. And a self-righteous kind of entertainment too, which makes it even worse. This type of us/them, good/evil type of thinking is totally unintelligent.Ryan R wrote:If we all adopted your pacifist attitudes, then malign forces like Nepolean, Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden would have spread unchallenged like a mutating tumor. An intelligent man recognizes a cancer, and isnt afraid to eliminate it if circumstances call for such an action.
That's only what ignorant people think.clyde wrote:Matt;
You wrote,We are all dying and that is not metaphorical.Well, yeah, I'm sure everyone on a sinking ship would want the wisest possible captain, but a sinking ship is still a sinking ship, and no one in their right mind would want to have that job, so what kind of people want it, do you think?
I don't know, but looking at their $100K+ salaries ought to give you a hint.Yet we go to doctors to ‘cure’ our ills. Why bother? And what kind of people are doctors?
This type of argument is totally inane. There's no such thing as an out-of-the-blue event. This is how people cover up the truth, by denying history in order to claim that an attack on them was unprovoked so that politicians can wage war with impunity and collect the auspicious profits that come from war.sschaula wrote:Don't forget that 9-11 happened out of the blue.
It’s not a figment of my imagination, and there is no worrying going on, I’m simply seeing things as they are. The truth is that there are organizations that have publicly stated their objective, which is to bring down western civilizations such as England and the USA through economic collapse, and then replace the existing political governing system with their own interpretation of the Koran.Creating enemies and worrying about eliminating them will never make a person wise. People just like to indulge in this kind of crap for entertainment. And a self-righteous kind of entertainment too, which makes it even worse. This type of us/them, good/evil type of thinking is totally unintelligent.
It's important to be precise about the wording here. It is not the failure of democracy as a whole, but rather a failure of a democracy, specifically the U.S. And what failed here is not democracy per se but the Republic, because that's what we are.It isn’t just George Bush, it is the failure of an entire administration, the failure of democracy as a whole, think of the thousands of people were involved in giving George Bush reliable advice and council. People blame Bush, but he is just the tail of the donkey
No one is creating enemies. The enemies are real. Some of them flew planes into the WTC. A lot of them fight the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the rest have either blown themselves up and killed numerous civilians, or are planning on doing something similar to those three things.Creating enemies and worrying about eliminating them will never make a person wise. People just like to indulge in this kind of crap for entertainment. And a self-righteous kind of entertainment too, which makes it even worse. This type of us/them, good/evil type of thinking is totally unintelligent.
You responded:Don't forget that 9-11 happened out of the blue.
What I wrote should have been read in context. Ryan was arguing that the US's occupation of Iraq has created terrorists. I simply pointed out that there already were terrorists.This type of argument is totally inane. There's no such thing as an out-of-the-blue event. This is how people cover up the truth, by denying history in order to claim that an attack on them was unprovoked so that politicians can wage war with impunity and collect the auspicious profits that come from war.
I agree with you to an extent. But if the profit scheme is covered up by good intentions, that doesn't make the good intentions bad.War has always been fought for profit. There's never been any other reason for it. To think otherwise would be like saying that people in politics have a totally different, non-monetarily driven, nature than other people, but they don't. They're just like everyone else, who are like this: all about covering their own asses and slightly screwing over lots of people in order to make the most money with the least amount of work and hassle. All it takes is enough pressure from their supporters and a politician will basically do anything.
Again, you have a rather oversimplified explanation of military action. Econonic factors always come into question, but that isnt the single motivating factor. For instance: look at the 1991 Iraq war, why did over 30 countries support the US led invasion to drive Saddam out of Kuwait? namely because as humans we are generally disturbed when we observe atrocities happening to innocent people, so we demand action, and our governments act.War has always been fought for profit. There's never been any other reason for it. To think otherwise would be like saying that people in politics have a totally different, non-monetarily driven, nature than other people, but they don't. They're just like everyone else, who are like this: all about covering their own asses and slightly screwing over lots of people in order to make the most money with the least amount of work and hassle. All it takes is enough pressure from their supporters and a politician will basically do anything.
Can you provide some historical evidence for this? My understanding is that it was a relatively bloodless invasion. Kuwait had to invent an atrocity in order to ignite popular US moral indignation. Iraq had as much excuse to invade Kuwait as the US and other nations have had in invading others whose behaviour didn't suit them.Ryan R wrote:Hey Scott, check out this clip, it is from the first Iraq war, when the US led an attack supported by the UN to drive out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait after he begin to murder, rape and plunder the people of the country.
I wonder what would have happened if the world pretended that there were no enemies like Matt suggests, and took no action at all to intervene in Saddam's invasion, what do you think would have happened to the people of Kuwait?
Can you cite some evidence that Iraq had a Kurd-like attitude to the population of Kuwait?Another Darfur? Another Halocaust?
That's true, there are also strategic and political factors. There are almost never humanitarian factors. To think otherwise is to engage in Pollyannaism...Again, you have a rather oversimplified explanation of military action. Econonic factors always come into question, but that isnt the single motivating factor.
Politics. If you're a member of the UN then you have certain obligations; also, if you assist the US in some military activity you get kickbacks. Everyone knows this. Nations are dropping like flies from the current Iraq debacle for more reasons than just the failure of that nifty little venture.For instance: look at the 1991 Iraq war, why did over 30 countries support the US led invasion to drive Saddam out of Kuwait?
I think it would be possible to cite a rather large number of counterexamples to this belief.namely because as humans we are generally disturbed when we observe atrocities happening to innocent people, so we demand action, and our governments act.
That's all well and good in theory, but the practice seems to deny said theory. I guess it depends on how well we culturally, politically or racially identify with the victims of inhumane treatment. Too bad if you're black, impoverished and lacking in plunderable resources...This proves that most humans have a rudimentary sense of the basic human rights that should be protected, and there are instances when rich powerful countries can come to the aid of weaker countries, and this is one of the useful functions of the UN.
There was a boy who had a dog and BINGO was his name-o...I guess it depends on how well we culturally, politically or racially identify with the victims of inhumane treatment. Too bad if you're black, impoverished and lacking in plunderable resources...
The debate about whether it was done by our own government? I'm on the "debunker" side because I don't jump to conclusions. My political stance, and the fact that I don't support terrorism, has nothing to do with that.OK, I now have a much better understanding of why certain people are on the side of 9/11 debate they are on. Mystery resolved.
Overall, Dhodges brought up some valid points regarding the physics of the falling towers, and upon closer analysis, it is difficult to know for certain. However, I will do some more research.
Are you sure? That's an easy thing to say and a hard thing to mean. Personally, I know of very few highly political issues (like 9/11) where my own view isn't at least somewhat affected by my ideological stance. Your claim is that of an intellectual superman. Are you one?Scott wrote:The debate about whether it was done by our own government? I'm on the "debunker" side because I don't jump to conclusions. My political stance, and the fact that I don't support terrorism, has nothing to do with that.
Quote from wikipedia:Can you provide some historical evidence for this? My understanding is that it was a relatively bloodless invasion. Kuwait had to invent an atrocity in order to ignite popular US moral indignation.
I was under the impression that the Iraqi army easily took the Kuwait forces with little resistance, but citizens started to form resistance groups to fight back, but they were murdered, and there families were murdered and so on, to serve as an example.“Resistance within Kuwait was initially sporadic but became increasingly organized during August. However, the resistance or al Muquwama posed little threat to the Iraqis, consisting in the main of poorly armed civilian-led neighbourhood committees.â€
Not without bloodshed.Not much, frankly. Iraq had an historical political/geographical claim over Kuwait that was arguably legitimate. It would simply have become a part of Iraq.
yes, perhaps I jumped the gun on that statement, not the entire population, but perhaps minority groups would have been abused.Can you cite some evidence that Iraq had a Kurd-like attitude to the population of Kuwait?
I'm not sure about that, why do you think the world acted against Hitler? Yes, I know there were political factors, economic factors and all the rest of it. However, moral indignation over the treatment of the Jews, and how he treated the countries after he conquered them was also a factor.There are almost never humanitarian factors. To think otherwise is to engage in Pollyannaism…
Yes, of course. However, these counterexamples have been the source of much debate in recent years, and global awareness on has increased as a result.I think it would be possible to cite a rather large number of counterexamples to this belief.
That is true; it took the world a long time to act against Darfur, but they still eventually acted. In the 1960s, the world would have never come to the aid of Darfur, so there is an increasingly senstivity in our times over acts that violate basic human rights.That's all well and good in theory, but the practice seems to deny said theory. I guess it depends on how well we culturally, politically or racially identify with the victims of inhumane treatment. Too bad if you're black, impoverished and lacking in plunderable resources...
Back then, no one gave a flying fuck about the Jews. Anti-semitism was not limited to Germany, and was common in the US.Ryan R wrote:I'm not sure about that, why do you think the world acted against Hitler? Yes, I know there were political factors, economic factors and all the rest of it. However, moral indignation over the treatment of the Jews, and how he treated the countries after he conquered them was also a factor.
I agree to a point, but here is my interpretation. During the beginning of the war, no one cared about the jews at all, and most countries and peoples simply turned their backs on what was happening in Germany because they didn’t want to know. However, as Germany conquered more of Europe, and more of the world was forced to pay attention to what was going on, attention was focused on how he burned cities to the ground as he conquered, and how he was tortured and murdered the Jews in concentration camps.Back then, no one gave a flying fuck about the Jews. Anti-semitism was not limited to Germany, and was common in the US.
I believe that this mostly happened after the war was already over, and was not a primary cause of any country getting involved. The extent of the concentration camps - especially the "extermination camps" - was not really known until after the war.Ryan R wrote:So perhaps the world’s hatred of the Jews slowly changed into sympathy as they became of aware of the extent and magnitude of the atrocities happening there.
The resistance movement is misspelled, just like in the source they yanked it from. It should be "“Al-Muqawama", which is just the popular term for the armed struggle (militant implementation of Jihad) all Muslims share against perceived oppression and injustice. Perhaps the hundreds of thousand of Palestinians living in Kuwait contained a few Hamas veterans that quickly organized.Ryan R wrote: Quote from wikipedia:
“Resistance within Kuwait was initially sporadic but became increasingly organized during August. However, the resistance or al Muquwama posed little threat to the Iraqis, consisting in the main of poorly armed civilian-led neighbourhood committees.â€
Why do the Kurds need to be under control? I was under the impression that northern Iraq is quite calm compared to the rest of the country. Here is an article outlining how Turkey doesn’t really have the Kurds under control.The big mistake from the West was to ever drop support for Saddam. The world would have been a better place with him owning Kuweit, having the Kurds under control (like Turkey has) and having a counterweight against Islamists around it.
Although I agree with this, I notice that you usually always side with America, you realize that the nation-state as an identity shouldn’t be integrated with your sense of self right? Moreover, sometimes your patriotism distorts your ability to see things as they are.Comparing the US internment camps with the Nazi concentration camps is kinda...stinky. There's no comparison.