The Middle East Revisted - The Iraqi Insurgency And Iran
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
The Middle East Revisted - The Iraqi Insurgency And Iran
The western world has unwittingly fallen into a wasp nest called the middle-east. And the problem is once you stir up a wasp nest, it is difficult to run home because they are all over your clothes and they’ll follow you back to your house.
This is an exploration why America will never set up a peaceful democracy in Iraq, and actually there presence in the middle-east has only breed thousands and thousands more programmed Jihahists.
America’s decision to enter Iraq has further escalated tensions between other terrorist supporting countries that hate America already such as Iran, Syria and Jordan.
Iran is quite a problem to the western world, they may instigate the next major world conflict.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerrilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells:
1. Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein's former nomenclature, e.g. army or intelligence officers;
2. Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims, who fight for Iraqi self-determination;
3. Anti-Shi'a Sunni Muslims who fight to regain the prestige they held under the previous regime (these three categories are often indistinguishable in practice);
4. Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement, as well as any remnants of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam;
5. Foreign Islamist volunteers, including those often linked to al Qaeda and largely driven by the Sunni Wahabi doctrine (the two preceding categories are often lumped as "Jihadists");
6. Patriotic Communists (who have split from the official Iraqi Communist Party[citation needed]) and other leftists;
7. Militant followers of Shi'a Islamist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
8. Criminal insurgents who are fighting simply for money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it seems to me that the two most violent resistence groups against the western countries is probably the Sunni Minority and a few different terrorists groups that are basically united.
The Sunni Minority resistance is the sole reason why many political critics have claimed that a civil war is happening within Iraq. Here are the reasons for the resistance:
1. The Sunni’s were favored under Saddam’s rule, they had it much easier than the Kurds and the Shia’s so since the new democracy they have lost a considerate amount of power.
2. In the oil rich North, a Kurd minority dominate that region so they have nothing to worry about. In the oil rich south the Shia Majority dominate and because they are the majority they hold the most seats in the government. Now in the Central Oil depleted region the Sunni Minority dominate so they fear that without significant oil resources under their control they are doomed to fall into poverty under the new government.
So for the following reasons the Sunni Minority fuels a huge percentage of the insurgency.
The second major resistence movement are the allied terrorist groups that are brainwashed with anti-west propaganda. Moreover they are programmed to believe that the west's actions are against Allah and therefore they are justified in declaring a Jihad on America.
Middle-East Terrorists are going to be a problem for the rich western countries for many years to come. Terrorist Groups enter Iraq from all the surrounding countries. Syria, Jordan, Iran and Pakistan are supporting thousands and thousands of terrorists.
Iran is one of the most unstable regions in the world. In a recent speech the president declared that the numbers from the Holocaust in WW2 were exaggerated to justify the Jewish occupation of Israel, he also stated that Israel as a nation will be ended very soon.
Here is the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6069456.stm
This is an exploration why America will never set up a peaceful democracy in Iraq, and actually there presence in the middle-east has only breed thousands and thousands more programmed Jihahists.
America’s decision to enter Iraq has further escalated tensions between other terrorist supporting countries that hate America already such as Iran, Syria and Jordan.
Iran is quite a problem to the western world, they may instigate the next major world conflict.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerrilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells:
1. Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein's former nomenclature, e.g. army or intelligence officers;
2. Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims, who fight for Iraqi self-determination;
3. Anti-Shi'a Sunni Muslims who fight to regain the prestige they held under the previous regime (these three categories are often indistinguishable in practice);
4. Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement, as well as any remnants of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam;
5. Foreign Islamist volunteers, including those often linked to al Qaeda and largely driven by the Sunni Wahabi doctrine (the two preceding categories are often lumped as "Jihadists");
6. Patriotic Communists (who have split from the official Iraqi Communist Party[citation needed]) and other leftists;
7. Militant followers of Shi'a Islamist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
8. Criminal insurgents who are fighting simply for money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it seems to me that the two most violent resistence groups against the western countries is probably the Sunni Minority and a few different terrorists groups that are basically united.
The Sunni Minority resistance is the sole reason why many political critics have claimed that a civil war is happening within Iraq. Here are the reasons for the resistance:
1. The Sunni’s were favored under Saddam’s rule, they had it much easier than the Kurds and the Shia’s so since the new democracy they have lost a considerate amount of power.
2. In the oil rich North, a Kurd minority dominate that region so they have nothing to worry about. In the oil rich south the Shia Majority dominate and because they are the majority they hold the most seats in the government. Now in the Central Oil depleted region the Sunni Minority dominate so they fear that without significant oil resources under their control they are doomed to fall into poverty under the new government.
So for the following reasons the Sunni Minority fuels a huge percentage of the insurgency.
The second major resistence movement are the allied terrorist groups that are brainwashed with anti-west propaganda. Moreover they are programmed to believe that the west's actions are against Allah and therefore they are justified in declaring a Jihad on America.
Middle-East Terrorists are going to be a problem for the rich western countries for many years to come. Terrorist Groups enter Iraq from all the surrounding countries. Syria, Jordan, Iran and Pakistan are supporting thousands and thousands of terrorists.
Iran is one of the most unstable regions in the world. In a recent speech the president declared that the numbers from the Holocaust in WW2 were exaggerated to justify the Jewish occupation of Israel, he also stated that Israel as a nation will be ended very soon.
Here is the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6069456.stm
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
millipodium
The US and Britain have already (and always have) been sucking up to the Sunni's, and always will. Why? Because of the largely unexplored desert regions west of Baghdad. These are where the largest pools of crude lie. The sunni clans and sects etc. know thi and why Anbar province is where the major military fights are taking place.
It's gonna devolve into Kurds in the North, Sunni in the Central-West and Shia in the Central-South. All will get a cut of the oil-pie ... after enough of the "middle managers" have been killed off or forced to migrate elsewhere.
Britain (the supreme empire sniffers) and later, the USA (with their Indian forced marches), figured this out with their expansion westward.
600,000 Iraqi children killed since 1991 is mere peanut gallery material. Wait till after the '06 Congressional elections ... the Democrats are just as blood-thirsty as the vampires of Thracia.
You ain't seen nothin' yet :-(
Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971
It's gonna devolve into Kurds in the North, Sunni in the Central-West and Shia in the Central-South. All will get a cut of the oil-pie ... after enough of the "middle managers" have been killed off or forced to migrate elsewhere.
Britain (the supreme empire sniffers) and later, the USA (with their Indian forced marches), figured this out with their expansion westward.
600,000 Iraqi children killed since 1991 is mere peanut gallery material. Wait till after the '06 Congressional elections ... the Democrats are just as blood-thirsty as the vampires of Thracia.
You ain't seen nothin' yet :-(
Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
I read another article highlighting some of the Iranian President’s views and I have concluded that he should not be allowed to be president of a book club, let alone a entire nation.
For example: Since the 1980s, Iranian women have gone from having an average of six children to two children, but the president believes that this change is counterproductive – he goes on to say that western countries are scared that the Iran population could grow and overtake theirs.
what skewed logic this is – measuring progress by population growth. Many other countries are guilty having this exact mindset such as India and South Korea.
Here is the Article: Iran leader backs larger families.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6076652.stm
For example: Since the 1980s, Iranian women have gone from having an average of six children to two children, but the president believes that this change is counterproductive – he goes on to say that western countries are scared that the Iran population could grow and overtake theirs.
what skewed logic this is – measuring progress by population growth. Many other countries are guilty having this exact mindset such as India and South Korea.
Here is the Article: Iran leader backs larger families.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6076652.stm
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Iran's current population is 68,688,433 (July 2006 est.) at 1.648 million sq km (about the size of Alaska)
CIA Factbook, Iran
Western Countires? In the United States alone, the population is 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) spread out over 9,631,420 sq km
(same link, just type in "United States")
They have 23% as many people as the US alone, crammed into an itty-bitty portion of the space. Where would they put a growing population?
CIA Factbook, Iran
Western Countires? In the United States alone, the population is 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) spread out over 9,631,420 sq km
(same link, just type in "United States")
They have 23% as many people as the US alone, crammed into an itty-bitty portion of the space. Where would they put a growing population?
So, Iran has an average 42 persons per square mile, and the U.S. has 31. That's not a big differential (U.S. with 3/4 the density of Iran), or a particularly high density.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Iran's current population is 68,688,433 (July 2006 est.) at 1.648 million sq km (about the size of Alaska)
CIA Factbook, Iran
Western Countires? In the United States alone, the population is 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) spread out over 9,631,420 sq km
(same link, just type in "United States")
Not really. It's 23% of the population "crammed into" around 17% of the land.They have 23% as many people as the US alone, crammed into an itty-bitty portion of the space.
It's like the U.S. with 405 million instead of 300 million. How long do you think it will take for that to actually happen, 30 years? And when it does, will it be crowded full?
In the bomb craters where millions were wiped out by U.S. nukes?Where would they put a growing population?
Good Citizen Carl
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
So are you saying we're doing them a favor? My main point was that it probably makes a much bigger difference to Iranians whether their families have an average of 6 children or 2 children than it does to Americans. In fact, I'm reasonably certain that the average American has no idea, or has even wondered, how many children the average Iranian family has, or used to have.Carl G wrote:In the bomb craters where millions were wiped out by U.S. nukes?
And 17% of the land is much smaller than 100% of America alone, and the remark was that western countries (so we're talking more than just America, but I'm not sure how many countries they were referring to) would be concerned that Iranians would overpopulate and take over. Hardly.
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Carl wrote:
Since the 1960s, the US has lost over 30% of its fertile soil reserves. The US is a disaster if you base your judgments according to sustainable values and not on blind mathematical calculations.
Overpopulated cities are not sustainable, if you can perceive this then you’ll realize that you’re mathematical calculations don’t convey any sort of truth.
Elizabeth wrote:
The ‘City’ as if functions now is a domesticated nursery that allows humanity to blindly self-consume themselves and the planet over time.
Carl, I think I have mentioned this before to you, but you’re mathematical calculations do not demonstrate any sort of understanding of the problem at hand. Our present agricultural methods do not support cities with populations of millions of people, we are destroying our soil reserves faster than it can regenerate.Not really. It's 23% of the population "crammed into" around 17% of the land. It's like the U.S. with 405 million instead of 300 million. How long do you think it will take for that to actually happen, 30 years? And when it does, will it be crowded full?
Since the 1960s, the US has lost over 30% of its fertile soil reserves. The US is a disaster if you base your judgments according to sustainable values and not on blind mathematical calculations.
Overpopulated cities are not sustainable, if you can perceive this then you’ll realize that you’re mathematical calculations don’t convey any sort of truth.
Elizabeth wrote:
Yes, Iran has many overpopulated cities with very little fertile land, the current state of affairs is not the product of a collective intelligent awareness, but like more the product of blind reproducing and ambiguous climbing as a means to accumulate wealth.So are you saying we're doing them a favor? My main point was that it probably makes a much bigger difference to Iranians whether their families have an average of 6 children or 2 children than it does to Americans. In fact, I'm reasonably certain that the average American has no idea, or has even wondered, how many children the average Iranian family has, or used to have.
The ‘City’ as if functions now is a domesticated nursery that allows humanity to blindly self-consume themselves and the planet over time.
No, you haven't mentioned this before to me. My math calcs were designed simply to refute Isabelle's implications that Iran is already dangerously overpopulated, compared to U.S. It is not.Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl wrote:
Carl, I think I have mentioned this before to you, but you’re mathematical calculations do not demonstrate any sort of understanding of the problem at hand.Not really. It's 23% of the population "crammed into" around 17% of the land. It's like the U.S. with 405 million instead of 300 million. How long do you think it will take for that to actually happen, 30 years? And when it does, will it be crowded full?
Uh, yes they do. We are currently supporting scores of cities worldwide with populations of a million or more.Our present agricultural methods do not support cities with populations of millions of people
Agreed, but why pick on Iran. Pick on India, China, and a host of others with faster population growth.We are destroying our soil reserves faster than it can regenerate.
How about you cool your jets, there, nature boy.Since the 1960s, the US has lost over 30% of its fertile soil reserves. The US is a disaster if you base your judgments according to sustainable values and not on blind mathematical calculations.
Overpopulated cities are not sustainable, if you can perceive this then you’ll realize that you’re mathematical calculations don’t convey any sort of truth.
Is that what this topic about, really, sustainable systems? I thought it was about Iranian politics and leadership. You think they are connected because one idiot advocates high population growth. Well, world leaders are all idiots as far as I'm concerned.
And I'm all in favor of sustainable eco-systems. I was a farmer for years. I'm in your camp.
Good Citizen Carl
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
When the Iranian President starts talking family size as a political agenda, yes, sustainability does become an Iranian political issue.Carl G wrote:Is that what this topic about, really, sustainable systems? I thought it was about Iranian politics and leadership.
Carl wrote:
Why pick on Iran? It was the Iranian President who made the comment about wanting to increase population growth. China's doing some pretty inhumane things trying to limit/reduce its population.Agreed, but why pick on Iran. Pick on India, China, and a host of others with faster population growth.
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Carl wrote:
Carl wrote:
Moving the topic along, the reason why countries such as Iran are so unstable is that religion is intertwined with the government/state there so therefore you have most deluded, idiotic people making all the decisions for the country.
Yes, many leaders are idiots, but some are educating themselves. What my argument reveals is that someone who values low populations also values sustainable systems and someone who values a drastic increase in population always has faulty reasoning to justify their view.Is that what this topic about, really, sustainable systems? I thought it was about Iranian politics and leadership. You think they are connected because one idiot advocates high population growth. Well, world leaders are all idiots as far as I'm concerned.
Carl wrote:
oh okay, it must have someone else on here that I repeatedly challenged.And I'm all in favor of sustainable eco-systems. I was a farmer for years. I'm in your camp.
Moving the topic along, the reason why countries such as Iran are so unstable is that religion is intertwined with the government/state there so therefore you have most deluded, idiotic people making all the decisions for the country.
Inevitably, any group of people get the government they deserve. This includes such sufferable situations as Kim Jong Il and Robert Mugabe and all the poor people who suffer under their rule currently. Once a leader dies (and at every moment before), there is opportunity to change, not necessarily directly from the people at that moment, but rather from the closely situated who make up the structural supports of the regime and who themselves usually originate more directly and have ties back to the suffering peoples.
At some point, the ruling elite, on some level, must come into contact with the people they rule. A ruling class is generally not a producing class and, similiar to wealth, products for consumption originate from the people who presumably are the ones sufferring. This is a point of leverage firmly held by the people under rule.
With that premise established (is it?), the implications can be surprising. It again brings into question the idea, as I have stated here before, of "innocent" people. On an individual level, most people are innocent as they suffer, or certainly perceived as such. But collectively, there is some level guilt, even if they are guilty of nonaction or complacency, regardless of capacity for action.
It is paradoxical. Such paradoxes will always arise as long as their is some impetus to place things such as blame or guilt into "proper" categories. But without these labeled categories of guilty or innocent, or who is to blame, there can be no accountability or improvement (if one believes that the best method of improvement is the trial by fire).
Iran's president has passive support of some successfully supporting number of the people in power, as do the clerics who actually make the big decisions. The same holds true of Saddam Hussein in his rein, Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, even George Bush. All have some level of structural and social support, for whatever reason, that maintains them afloat. That support is made real by the institutionalized bureaucracies surrounding the decision makers that follow through with enforcement.
Luckily, America has a vote. And Americans collectively hold some responsibility politically for our current leaders, whether any particular individual cast that vote or not. But without the vote, as we see in many of these despotic situations, we would need to begin the underground movements of Europe and Russia and early America with which we have some experience. This has not happened successfully in North Korea or Iran. When a revolution is fomenting, many will die by the secret police and the not-so-secret police. But a good idea is actually quite easy to propagate. Good ideas are more powerful than fear. It simply has to be understood as a good idea, and that has not yet happened in the worst despotic examples today.
At some point, the ruling elite, on some level, must come into contact with the people they rule. A ruling class is generally not a producing class and, similiar to wealth, products for consumption originate from the people who presumably are the ones sufferring. This is a point of leverage firmly held by the people under rule.
With that premise established (is it?), the implications can be surprising. It again brings into question the idea, as I have stated here before, of "innocent" people. On an individual level, most people are innocent as they suffer, or certainly perceived as such. But collectively, there is some level guilt, even if they are guilty of nonaction or complacency, regardless of capacity for action.
It is paradoxical. Such paradoxes will always arise as long as their is some impetus to place things such as blame or guilt into "proper" categories. But without these labeled categories of guilty or innocent, or who is to blame, there can be no accountability or improvement (if one believes that the best method of improvement is the trial by fire).
Iran's president has passive support of some successfully supporting number of the people in power, as do the clerics who actually make the big decisions. The same holds true of Saddam Hussein in his rein, Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, even George Bush. All have some level of structural and social support, for whatever reason, that maintains them afloat. That support is made real by the institutionalized bureaucracies surrounding the decision makers that follow through with enforcement.
Luckily, America has a vote. And Americans collectively hold some responsibility politically for our current leaders, whether any particular individual cast that vote or not. But without the vote, as we see in many of these despotic situations, we would need to begin the underground movements of Europe and Russia and early America with which we have some experience. This has not happened successfully in North Korea or Iran. When a revolution is fomenting, many will die by the secret police and the not-so-secret police. But a good idea is actually quite easy to propagate. Good ideas are more powerful than fear. It simply has to be understood as a good idea, and that has not yet happened in the worst despotic examples today.
With three carriers moving into the Strait of Hormuz area, things will be rapidly devolving to a new low.
This idea that the middle east is a new learning curve is (purely) bullshit by way of the Brit's and Americans thinking. Tanks, guns, and landmines have been rumbling around since WW2, WW2. So many "unexploded" rounds of various ordnance pollute the landscapes of children's feet.
Hell, come on out to North Dakota and Montana (where I'm currently visiting) for a tour of Little Big Horn and you'll [still] might get lucky and find some old relic of the battle and/or some such relic of past glory.
The earth is chock full of human barbarity and always will be a museum for future space explorers who may happen by ... probably will turn into a Mars with a hellish atmosphere or a runaway Venus ecosystem.
Hopefully, I'll be long gone- not to worry though, the rock badgers will have one last meal when I'm buried out near their colony. Another toxic dump when 6-foot down ... perhaps the girlfriend instead will put me out of my misery earlier, when I'm at the drooling-stage before incoherency sets in :-|
Remember to have a happy life and Do No Harm!! A little Agent Orange or Depleted Uranium usually does the trick... Hahahah
Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971
This idea that the middle east is a new learning curve is (purely) bullshit by way of the Brit's and Americans thinking. Tanks, guns, and landmines have been rumbling around since WW2, WW2. So many "unexploded" rounds of various ordnance pollute the landscapes of children's feet.
Hell, come on out to North Dakota and Montana (where I'm currently visiting) for a tour of Little Big Horn and you'll [still] might get lucky and find some old relic of the battle and/or some such relic of past glory.
The earth is chock full of human barbarity and always will be a museum for future space explorers who may happen by ... probably will turn into a Mars with a hellish atmosphere or a runaway Venus ecosystem.
Hopefully, I'll be long gone- not to worry though, the rock badgers will have one last meal when I'm buried out near their colony. Another toxic dump when 6-foot down ... perhaps the girlfriend instead will put me out of my misery earlier, when I'm at the drooling-stage before incoherency sets in :-|
Remember to have a happy life and Do No Harm!! A little Agent Orange or Depleted Uranium usually does the trick... Hahahah
Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971
I reached a similiar conclusion about the scenario you described. No matter how you slice it, the people, opressed or not, always end up carrying the most responsibility about the direction their society is moving in. It's a result of their own greed and ignorance manifesting in a way that comes back to bite them in the ass. Karma can be a bitch.Tharan wrote:Inevitably, any group of people get the government they deserve. This includes such sufferable situations as Kim Jong Il and Robert Mugabe and all the poor people who suffer under their rule currently. Once a leader dies (and at every moment before), there is opportunity to change, not necessarily directly from the people at that moment, but rather from the closely situated who make up the structural supports of the regime and who themselves usually originate more directly and have ties back to the suffering peoples.
At some point, the ruling elite, on some level, must come into contact with the people they rule. A ruling class is generally not a producing class and, similiar to wealth, products for consumption originate from the people who presumably are the ones sufferring. This is a point of leverage firmly held by the people under rule.
With that premise established (is it?), the implications can be surprising. It again brings into question the idea, as I have stated here before, of "innocent" people. On an individual level, most people are innocent as they suffer, or certainly perceived as such. But collectively, there is some level guilt, even if they are guilty of nonaction or complacency, regardless of capacity for action.
It is paradoxical. Such paradoxes will always arise as long as their is some impetus to place things such as blame or guilt into "proper" categories. But without these labeled categories of guilty or innocent, or who is to blame, there can be no accountability or improvement (if one believes that the best method of improvement is the trial by fire).
Iran's president has passive support of some successfully supporting number of the people in power, as do the clerics who actually make the big decisions. The same holds true of Saddam Hussein in his rein, Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, even George Bush. All have some level of structural and social support, for whatever reason, that maintains them afloat. That support is made real by the institutionalized bureaucracies surrounding the decision makers that follow through with enforcement.
Luckily, America has a vote. And Americans collectively hold some responsibility politically for our current leaders, whether any particular individual cast that vote or not. But without the vote, as we see in many of these despotic situations, we would need to begin the underground movements of Europe and Russia and early America with which we have some experience. This has not happened successfully in North Korea or Iran. When a revolution is fomenting, many will die by the secret police and the not-so-secret police. But a good idea is actually quite easy to propagate. Good ideas are more powerful than fear. It simply has to be understood as a good idea, and that has not yet happened in the worst despotic examples today.
As for the USA's democracy, it is fortunate that we have two opposing parties in a constant tug of war. It keeps things reasonably peaceful for the time being. Unfortunately though, it is a system which wont allow any real progress to be made. Personally I agree more with the ideals of the Republican party, but I believe most of the people within the party have completely lost touch with reality as they drift deeper into their respective corporate and/or religious la-la lands. Therefore I am forced to vote for the democrats because they can at least view the world from a perspective which isn't completely distorted by religion or corporate policy.
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Nick wrote:
So a political philosophy that respects all values even if those values are incorrect is at a advanced intellectual level than a society that violently punishes those who disagree. The USA political system represents a form of intellectual/moral superiority. The USA is politically peaceful and it should remain so because of the intellectual sophistication of their political philosophy. It is quite an achievement compared to most other countries which are centuries behind. – (most middle east states)
Nick wrote:
The main problem I see with America is that it is too liberal, it needs to start refining its laws and regulations to outlaw what is harmful to its citizens. There needs to be a collective health revolution, which has already begun.
As for what is happening in Iraq, I’m starting to see that the USA has good reasons to be in that region. I'm starting to reject the George Bush hate hype. I have researched to discover that Islamic Extremism has been spreading like a disease in the middle-east for the last three decades now. Like a cancer it has spread from the Middle East into northern Africa, Russia, Europe and Indonesia.
And it represents a serious threat to political freedom. Their quest is to destroy all western ideology, which is actually superior to their own irrational views. Moreover these groups are programmed like robots to self-destruct as a means to kill anything 'western'. Half a dozen terrorist plots have already been foiled in the USA, Canada and Britain since the New York attacks in 2001.
So metphorically speaking, when there is a deadly virus in your body, what does your immune system do? It doesn’t hide from the virus and hope for it to go away, it must attack. So the Islamic extremists are at a inferior intelligence than the western military who is attacking them as a desperate attempt to make the entire organism (earth) more stable. Whether it will work, who knows, but I can see why they are justified in being there. They are there for the same reason your immune system is justified for attacking a virus.
However sometimes if the virus(s) are too potent then the host is destroyed. I just wont be one of those 'soldier red blood cells' going head to head with an malfunctioning extremist virus, I'd rather be a brain cell : )
One significant point with USA’s democracy is that their value system is much more sophisticated than many other countries. It is founded in Libertarian political philosophy, which states that all values should be respected, but can be critiqued in open debate until a victor is won. Battles have become intellectual instead of physical and this is a huge step in their political evolution. In some countries such as Iran the state and religion are one so there is no respect for values. This makes any sort of process almost impossible until the entire system is overthrown and replaced. If you don’t agree with the powers at be then they simply murder you and use your corpse as a public example.As for the USA's democracy, it is fortunate that we have two opposing parties in a constant tug of war. It keeps things reasonably peaceful for the time being.
So a political philosophy that respects all values even if those values are incorrect is at a advanced intellectual level than a society that violently punishes those who disagree. The USA political system represents a form of intellectual/moral superiority. The USA is politically peaceful and it should remain so because of the intellectual sophistication of their political philosophy. It is quite an achievement compared to most other countries which are centuries behind. – (most middle east states)
Nick wrote:
I disagree, the USA has made considerable progress if you look at the black liberation movement, the feminist movement, the organic food movement and so on. If you compare this to other nations then the USA is like a utopia.Unfortunately though, it is a system which wont allow any real progress to be made.
The main problem I see with America is that it is too liberal, it needs to start refining its laws and regulations to outlaw what is harmful to its citizens. There needs to be a collective health revolution, which has already begun.
As for what is happening in Iraq, I’m starting to see that the USA has good reasons to be in that region. I'm starting to reject the George Bush hate hype. I have researched to discover that Islamic Extremism has been spreading like a disease in the middle-east for the last three decades now. Like a cancer it has spread from the Middle East into northern Africa, Russia, Europe and Indonesia.
And it represents a serious threat to political freedom. Their quest is to destroy all western ideology, which is actually superior to their own irrational views. Moreover these groups are programmed like robots to self-destruct as a means to kill anything 'western'. Half a dozen terrorist plots have already been foiled in the USA, Canada and Britain since the New York attacks in 2001.
So metphorically speaking, when there is a deadly virus in your body, what does your immune system do? It doesn’t hide from the virus and hope for it to go away, it must attack. So the Islamic extremists are at a inferior intelligence than the western military who is attacking them as a desperate attempt to make the entire organism (earth) more stable. Whether it will work, who knows, but I can see why they are justified in being there. They are there for the same reason your immune system is justified for attacking a virus.
However sometimes if the virus(s) are too potent then the host is destroyed. I just wont be one of those 'soldier red blood cells' going head to head with an malfunctioning extremist virus, I'd rather be a brain cell : )
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Trivia Time: Which one of these children is more likely to cause trouble on the playground?
#1:

#2:

My two cents: China can easily control North Korea’s Kim Jong Ding Dong, but the Iranian president and his whole gang of marry men are a serious threat to western security. They seem to have diabolical hatred for the Jews and the West. Moreover if Iran attacks Israel with great force then other countries will step in, which could nastier than it is now.
Kim Jong Ding Dong on the other hand is just trying to prove to the world that he has a big ding dong. He’s kinda cute isn’t he? I like his shades…
two related vidoes that are funny:
1. Related to Islam Extremism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KBqcOxIzTY
2: Related to Kim Jong Ding Dong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRueOBy7THg
#1:

#2:

My two cents: China can easily control North Korea’s Kim Jong Ding Dong, but the Iranian president and his whole gang of marry men are a serious threat to western security. They seem to have diabolical hatred for the Jews and the West. Moreover if Iran attacks Israel with great force then other countries will step in, which could nastier than it is now.
Kim Jong Ding Dong on the other hand is just trying to prove to the world that he has a big ding dong. He’s kinda cute isn’t he? I like his shades…
two related vidoes that are funny:
1. Related to Islam Extremism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KBqcOxIzTY
2: Related to Kim Jong Ding Dong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRueOBy7THg
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Decisions, decisions. Which adolescent will likely leave longer global ramifications through religious fanaticism or nuclear detonations? My choice: An atomic winter is (slightly) more appealing. You can escape underground this madness (barring one doesn't live in N. Korea).
Solution(for the bully egos): Advise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad there is a contract on every "Zionist". Inform Kim Jong il, he has a contract with Universal Studios. I too like his shades. He was great in "Risky Business".
Solution(for the bully egos): Advise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad there is a contract on every "Zionist". Inform Kim Jong il, he has a contract with Universal Studios. I too like his shades. He was great in "Risky Business".
These are all wonderful things, but unless these efforts are geared towards the elimination of all ignorance they will all be in vain.Ryan Rudolph wrote:I disagree, the USA has made considerable progress if you look at the black liberation movement, the feminist movement, the organic food movement and so on. If you compare this to other nations then the USA is like a utopia.
This relates to why I vote for the democratic party rather than the republican party. While I agree that America is too liberal, it is something we must maintain since we are living in world still filled with ignorance. If we start allowing ignorant politicians to decide how we should live we will end up in a world of shit. In a perfect world what you said would be fine and dandy, but the fact of the matter is that noone in this world can be trusted to govern society except for the enlightened individual. Socrates had something similiar to say about the subject that went something like this, "Only the philosopher is fit to govern men".Ryan Rudolph wrote:The main problem I see with America is that it is too liberal, it needs to start refining its laws and regulations to outlaw what is harmful to its citizens. There needs to be a collective health revolution, which has already begun.
Although Islam is a disease to the intellectual development of mankind, so is Christianity and other forms of religion. The fact that the world leaders overlook this and make Islam the focal point sends up red flags. I believe most of this war is based in special interests, interests such as not having to rely on muslim extremist dictators for our oil, as well as being able to prevent these muslim extremists from turning to terrorism. These interests are reasonable to the extent that they need to be addressed, but not in the fashion it is currently being handled. Running in their with guns blazing by no means has helped the overall "War on Terror", or done anything to ease our dependence on foreign oil. Think about how the Roman Empire tried to destroy Christianity in a similiar fashion. All it ended up doing was empowering the Christian community, which turned it into the most powerful religion in the world. Even the Roman Empire itself was, in time, consumed by the disease of Christianity.Ryan Rudolph wrote:As for what is happening in Iraq, I’m starting to see that the USA has good reasons to be in that region. I'm starting to reject the George Bush hate hype. I have researched to discover that Islamic Extremism has been spreading like a disease in the middle-east for the last three decades now. Like a cancer it has spread from the Middle East into northern Africa, Russia, Europe and Indonesia.
And it represents a serious threat to political freedom. Their quest is to destroy all western ideology, which is actually superior to their own irrational views. Moreover these groups are programmed like robots to self-destruct as a means to kill anything 'western'. Half a dozen terrorist plots have already been foiled in the USA, Canada and Britain since the New York attacks in 2001.
So metphorically speaking, when there is a deadly virus in your body, what does your immune system do? It doesn’t hide from the virus and hope for it to go away, it must attack. So the Islamic extremists are at a inferior intelligence than the western military who is attacking them as a desperate attempt to make the entire organism (earth) more stable. Whether it will work, who knows, but I can see why they are justified in being there. They are there for the same reason your immune system is justified for attacking a virus.
However sometimes if the virus(s) are too potent then the host is destroyed. I just wont be one of those 'soldier red blood cells' going head to head with an malfunctioning extremist virus, I'd rather be a brain cell : )
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:
All the conspiracies about Bush are incorrect, he didn’t plan 9/11, he’s not in it for the money, power, oil and all that. The president has too much nationalistic pride to conspire as a means rip off his own country. He was incredibly upset after the attacks on New York, one could clearly observe in his face that the attack was felt as a personal attack to him.
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:
What do you think would have happened if the world had put up no resistance against Hitler’s ideology? Would we both be currently speaking German with our hair dyed blonde and blue contacts in our eyes?
Yes, but Christianity and other religions are not presently on any global violent crusades that threaten the security of other nations.Although Islam is a disease to the intellectual development of mankind, so is Christianity and other forms of religion.
Nick wrote:
It is not an issue to other world leaders because the members of other religions aren’t blowing themselves up in the name of their god at the moment.The fact that the world leaders overlook this and make Islam the focal point sends up red flags.
Nick wrote:
Oil is an unintentional motivation, I suspect the western nation' s primary motivation is a desperate attempt to create stability in the middle east region as a means to increase stability in their own countries. They are trying to impose democracy on surrounding countries near Iran as a means to maintain awareness of Iran’s actions. The west wants middle-east allies to ensure reliable intelligence within the area. for the last thirty years, hundres of terrorist training organizations have emerged have have begun spreading all over the world.I believe most of this war is based in special interests, interests such as not having to rely on muslim extremist dictators for our oil, as well as being able to prevent these muslim extremists from turning to terrorism.
All the conspiracies about Bush are incorrect, he didn’t plan 9/11, he’s not in it for the money, power, oil and all that. The president has too much nationalistic pride to conspire as a means rip off his own country. He was incredibly upset after the attacks on New York, one could clearly observe in his face that the attack was felt as a personal attack to him.
Nick wrote:
A political leader is put in an irrational position and forced to make irrational choices. Whatever he does to solve the problem will not ultimately solve the problem, but political leaders must take some sort of action. If they take no action, they are damned. If they do take action, they are still damned.These interests are reasonable to the extent that they need to be addressed, but not in the fashion it is currently being handled.
Nick wrote:
I wouldn’t say the American’s ran in with their guns a blazing; they have the most sophisticated military in the world. Most of their strikes on terrorist centers happen at night by smart bombs. I’m not denying the thousands of innocent people that have died, but overall war cannot be helped as long as there are irrational individuals with irrational plans for the world.Running in their with guns blazing by no means has helped the overall "War on Terror", or done anything to ease our dependence on foreign oil.
Nick wrote:
Yes, but if Rome took no action against the Christian disease, they would have been consumed much faster. Moreover Easy conquering gives corrupt leaders confidence. If Rome didn’t put up a fight, perhaps Christianity would have spread into many more areas than it did.Think about how the Roman Empire tried to destroy Christianity in a similiar fashion. All it ended up doing was empowering the Christian community, which turned it into the most powerful religion in the world. Even the Roman Empire itself was, in time, consumed by the disease of Christianity.
What do you think would have happened if the world had put up no resistance against Hitler’s ideology? Would we both be currently speaking German with our hair dyed blonde and blue contacts in our eyes?
They have in the past, and it's inevitable that it will happen again.Ryan Rudolph wrote:Yes, but Christianity and other religions are not presently on any global violent crusades that threaten the security of other nations.
I'd rather not sit around and wait for other religions to jump on the bandwagon.Ryan Rudolph wrote:It is not an issue to other world leaders because the members of other religions aren’t blowing themselves up in the name of their god at the moment.
The western world runs on oil, without it they would be brought to their knees. No way is it an unintentional motivation.Ryan Rudolph wrote:Oil is an unintentional motivation
I'm not doubting his dedication to his country. I just know when a person isn't intelligent and rational enough to properly lead his country.Ryan Rudolph wrote:All the conspiracies about Bush are incorrect, he didn’t plan 9/11, he’s not in it for the money, power, oil and all that. The president has too much nationalistic pride to conspire as a means rip off his own country. He was incredibly upset after the attacks on New York, one could clearly observe in his face that the attack was felt as a personal attack to him.
I'm not in the boat that says to take action just for the sake of taking action. Unless a wise action is being made, no action should be made.Ryan Rudolph wrote:A political leader is put in an irrational position and forced to make irrational choices. Whatever he does to solve the problem will not ultimately solve the problem, but political leaders must take some sort of action. If they take no action, they are damned. If they do take action, they are still damned.
Although I agree that military action needed to be taken, the strategy, or lack there of, was a huge blunder. Even the military admits to using the strategy called "Shock and Awe", which I equate to "guns blazing".Ryan Rudolph wrote:I wouldn’t say the American’s ran in with their guns a blazing; they have the most sophisticated military in the world. Most of their strikes on terrorist centers happen at night by smart bombs. I’m not denying the thousands of innocent people that have died, but overall war cannot be helped as long as there are irrational individuals with irrational plans for the world.
Historically it didn't take very long for Rome to convert to Christianity. Also, Christianity has spread all over the world except in places where other religions were already in place, which is no thanks to Rome.Ryan Rudolph wrote:Yes, but if Rome took no action against the Christian disease, they would have been consumed much faster. Moreover Easy conquering gives corrupt leaders confidence. If Rome didn’t put up a fight, perhaps Christianity would have spread into many more areas than it did.
Hitler created a war machine that was quickly on it's way to controlling all of Europe at a historically unheard of pace. His regime needed to be dealt with in the most extreme measures possible. This type of circumstance is vastly different to the current threat of terrorism and religious extremism we are witnessing.Ryan Rudolph wrote:What do you think would have happened if the world had put up no resistance against Hitler’s ideology? Would we both be currently speaking German with our hair dyed blonde and blue contacts in our eyes?
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote:
How should the Americas of reacted to the New York attacks to have made it a wise action?Unless a wise action is being made, no action should be made.
Nick wrote:
Both are extreme groups trying to spread their ideology across the world. The Nazi army were actually easier to find and battle compared to small groups of extremists that hide and intermingle with everyday citizens.This type of circumstance is vastly different to the current threat of terrorism and religious extremism we are witnessing.
-
millipodium
Here's the real truth on the three main religions. two of them, Islam and Judaism, are based on a totalitarian vision, Caliphate, and Noahide Theocracy, respectively. Christianity is the only one of these three that believes faith is a spiritual matter. Though the Catholic Church became a radicalized killing machine during dark periods of inquisisition, this totalitarian behavior is not scripturally supported as it is in judaism and islam and mostly a result of dealing with the other two Abrahamic faiths, both of which have been turned evil by the writings of the priestly class, The Talmud, and Hadiths. These are faiths perverted by men, and justify the pursuit of temporal coercive domination in the name of their god.Nick Treklis wrote:These are all wonderful things, but unless these efforts are geared towards the elimination of all ignorance they will all be in vain.Ryan Rudolph wrote:I disagree, the USA has made considerable progress if you look at the black liberation movement, the feminist movement, the organic food movement and so on. If you compare this to other nations then the USA is like a utopia.
This relates to why I vote for the democratic party rather than the republican party. While I agree that America is too liberal, it is something we must maintain since we are living in world still filled with ignorance. If we start allowing ignorant politicians to decide how we should live we will end up in a world of shit. In a perfect world what you said would be fine and dandy, but the fact of the matter is that noone in this world can be trusted to govern society except for the enlightened individual. Socrates had something similiar to say about the subject that went something like this, "Only the philosopher is fit to govern men".Ryan Rudolph wrote:The main problem I see with America is that it is too liberal, it needs to start refining its laws and regulations to outlaw what is harmful to its citizens. There needs to be a collective health revolution, which has already begun.
Although Islam is a disease to the intellectual development of mankind, so is Christianity and other forms of religion. The fact that the world leaders overlook this and make Islam the focal point sends up red flags. I believe most of this war is based in special interests, interests such as not having to rely on muslim extremist dictators for our oil, as well as being able to prevent these muslim extremists from turning to terrorism. These interests are reasonable to the extent that they need to be addressed, but not in the fashion it is currently being handled. Running in their with guns blazing by no means has helped the overall "War on Terror", or done anything to ease our dependence on foreign oil. Think about how the Roman Empire tried to destroy Christianity in a similiar fashion. All it ended up doing was empowering the Christian community, which turned it into the most powerful religion in the world. Even the Roman Empire itself was, in time, consumed by the disease of Christianity.Ryan Rudolph wrote:As for what is happening in Iraq, I’m starting to see that the USA has good reasons to be in that region. I'm starting to reject the George Bush hate hype. I have researched to discover that Islamic Extremism has been spreading like a disease in the middle-east for the last three decades now. Like a cancer it has spread from the Middle East into northern Africa, Russia, Europe and Indonesia.
And it represents a serious threat to political freedom. Their quest is to destroy all western ideology, which is actually superior to their own irrational views. Moreover these groups are programmed like robots to self-destruct as a means to kill anything 'western'. Half a dozen terrorist plots have already been foiled in the USA, Canada and Britain since the New York attacks in 2001.
So metphorically speaking, when there is a deadly virus in your body, what does your immune system do? It doesn’t hide from the virus and hope for it to go away, it must attack. So the Islamic extremists are at a inferior intelligence than the western military who is attacking them as a desperate attempt to make the entire organism (earth) more stable. Whether it will work, who knows, but I can see why they are justified in being there. They are there for the same reason your immune system is justified for attacking a virus.
However sometimes if the virus(s) are too potent then the host is destroyed. I just wont be one of those 'soldier red blood cells' going head to head with an malfunctioning extremist virus, I'd rather be a brain cell : )
Jesus is the real deal.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also." John 14:6
Like I said, I believe military action to a certain extent was necessary, but instead of developing an efficient and effective strategy they pointed all fingers at Iraq and attacked them just to save face and do something to ease the emotional distress the USA was facing after the 9/11 attacks. Now we have spent nearly a trillion dollars trying to rebuild a country and establish democracy when most of these people have no idea what democracy is. If anything they view democracy as something that allows their sisters and wives to whore around with no respect for their traditions which have been in place over the past thousand years.Ryan Rudolph wrote:How should the Americas of reacted to the New York attacks to have made it a wise action?
I believe that along with strategic military action, education about democracy and working cohesivly with other world leaders to bring stability to the middle east should have been the focal points in the "War on Terror". Instead the USA isolated itself and wasted billions of dollars on poorly strategized efforts. As an American this disturbs me even more because all the money being spent on Iraq could be used far more effectively here at home. Katrina was a perfect example of how fucked our leadership is. We have dedicated so many of our resources towards rebuilding the entire country of Iraq that we haven't been able to rebuild just one American city. Not to mention that the USA has the highest percentages of poverty, ill health, premature births, and violent crime of any other industrialized nation in the world. Apparantly, as religious as Bush is, he never read the parable in the Bible where Jesus said to first remove the splinter from your own eye so you can properly remove the splinter from your brother's.
Exactly why we shouldn't treat it as such.Ryan Rudolph wrote:Both are extreme groups trying to spread their ideology across the world. The Nazi army were actually easier to find and battle compared to small groups of extremists that hide and intermingle with everyday citizens.
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Nick wrote:
Milli wrote:
Yes, invasion was a tad extreme. I think the future of this type of warfare are small intelligence teams that go into Islamic countries to find out where the headquarters and training camps of the terrorist organizations are, and then they would relay this information back to the military which would dispose of the targets using smart bomb technology.Instead the USA isolated itself and wasted billions of dollars on poorly strategized efforts.
Milli wrote:
Do you believe that Jesus was the only seer? Or do you think their have been other sages such as the Buddha and Lao Tzu?Jesus is the real deal.
-
millipodium
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Nick wrote:
Yes, invasion was a tad extreme. I think the future of this type of warfare are small intelligence teams that go into Islamic countries to find out where the headquarters and training camps of the terrorist organizations are, and then they would relay this information back to the military which would dispose of the targets using smart bomb technology.Instead the USA isolated itself and wasted billions of dollars on poorly strategized efforts.
Milli wrote:
y seer? Or do you think their have been other sages such as the Buddha and Lao Tzu?Jesus is the real deal.
I think there is other wisdom. I actually think buddhism and eastern religions have more merit than the conquer and subdue attitude of both Judaism and Islam.
Do you believe that Jesus was the onl
