Printable View
No, the constitution states once the government lies to the people, which it did with the false fabrication documents and evidence to make war with iraq. Then they are not going by their agreement it ceases to be a legal government and the people are not obligated to support them in any way whatsoever. The people are constitutionally empowered and mandated to remove a dishonest occupying power from our government.
I am not talking about just three or so other countries. I am talking about more like 150 countries. Each country should do what it deems feasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
As I said earlier, I don't think Iraq's lack of current assets and non-oil resources will prevent its prosperity. I think it will take a while for it to become the kind of country I am talking about, but I don't see anything stopping it from getting there in the next thirty years or so. The U.S. is going to be greatly reducing troop numbers over the next ten or so years.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
This one example will end up speaking volumes, whichever way it goes. If it is a success, that will influence the political attitudes of the surrounding countries, and those are the ones we are the most worried about. I also don't see this as some shot in the dark. It has probability very much on its side, based on the prosperity tendencies that come with freedom and the civil behavior and life fulfullment tendencies that come with prosperity. Pulling a country out of the stone age is the best thing you can do for its future.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
I am so glad to see that somebody on your side of the argument knows what a debate is. This is possibly the most intelligent debate I have had on this issue on the internet, and one of the very few such debates that were intelligent at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
The feeling is mutual. I only hope it's contagious.Quote:
From Universal Mind
I am so glad to see that somebody on your side of the argument knows what a debate is. This is possibly the most intelligent debate I have had on this issue on the internet, and one of the very few such debates that were intelligent at all.
I hope that the cost of the war does not harm the dream of freedom and prosperity. Even assuming that Iraq has a prosperous, democratic future, I can't be sure that it won't arrive after half of their people have died or fled, or their nation torn into separate countries, each vulnerable to the aggression of its neighbors.Quote:
From Universal Mind
This one example will end up speaking volumes, whichever way it goes. If it is a success, that will influence the political attitudes of the surrounding countries, and those are the ones we are the most worried about. I also don't see this as some shot in the dark. It has probability very much on its side, based on the prosperity tendencies that come with freedom and the civil behavior and life fulfullment tendencies that come with prosperity. Pulling a country out of the stone age is the best thing you can do for its future.
When people look back to the French Revolution, they are ambivalent. It was needlessly horrendous, led France to an Imperial nightmare, but now France is one of dozens of prosperous democracies. We all know that democracy has served France well, but we also know that the transition to democracy was an affront to humanity, that people could throw off their shackles only to enjoy the freedom to murder each other.
We believe in the transformative power of democracy, but we must also believe in the injustice of murder. To prevent murder is more important to promoting democracy than destroying tyrants, because murder is the essence of tyranny and the seed of it.
We now must broach the subject of how best to end the relentless violence in Iraq and bring peace. Most important to answering this question is not how much force can be mustered, but how much goodwill can be attained from the Iraqi people and their neighbors. How are we viewed by them? How do they view each other? How can those relationships be improved?
We will be much more appreciated in Iraq by their future generations. Even their present ones will be much more grateful once we end the occupation. The transition to successful democracy is very often a really ugly picture, but it is necessary for the future generations. Those people appreciate the change.
My prediction is that we will have done enough maintenance and killed enough terrorists for the Iraqi military and police to be on the necessary level for Iraqi independence in the next ten or so years, and then we can withdraw at a pretty good rate. Things will begin to get much better after that.
This might make you laugh, but our studdering buffoon of mispronumciation who is now our president is going to be a major hero in Iraq fifty to a hundred years from now and will remain one for the rest of the time Iraq is a country. He will eventually be seen as the man who began the liberation of the Middle East. We are dealing with big time history right now.
This brings up another good point. Most of the soldiers I talk to that have been to Iraq say that the majority of the people over there are very grateful for what we are doing. It has already made their lives better in many ways. Infact, basically the only ones that aren't happy for it, are the ones doing stupid shit like roadside bombs and suicide bombs. So, that's just another reason we need to continue this. He is already a hero to many over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
4/5 iraqis are getting the best of this bs in Iraq. The real victim (aside from the unspoken for dead civillians are the soldiers will to protect freedom being manipulated so a few people can get really rich) is us because it's our money being spent to do what Saddam Hussein was doing for free, the only difference is without him in place all the money is being funneled back into... not our economy to stop enflation ot bring down the price of gas, but international bankers whose money we borrow to push this war with a high interest. What can we say, they paid to put the politicians in office that push this war and use disasters, inefficiency and ignorance to rally support and keep everyone on their side while we just sort of boil without noticing. Our policticians are using this war and dozens of others like it to use our tax money in order to give control of the world to a bunch of business thugs.
This is very interesting. We have the goodwill of the great majority of the Iraqi people, yet progress is excruciatingly slow due to a small, but uncontrolled minority who disrupt and discourage political and structural progress by their attacks. Yet, even though the Iraqis appreciate our effort, polls seem to show that they also favor a withdrawal of U.S. military forces in the near future.
What is the full story behind these conditions? Do the Iraqis feel that the U.S. presence is ineffective? What are the motivations of the violent minority? What can be done to expedite the peacemaking process? Why haven't the Iraqi police yet met minimum standards of competency, despite years in training? Does sectarianism explain much of the difficulty? What can be done to minimize it?
The Iraqis hate the current occupation, and I wouldn't like one either. But their descendents are going to love the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
The violent minority generally despises the idea of democracy, especially considering the "infidel" nature of the U.S., Canada, and Europe. They don't want our way of life to exist in Iraq. Islamofascists despise our MTV way of life. They want a world oppressively run by the Koran, and they think it is literally sacrilegious for Wesern forces to even be in the Middle East at all. We are dealing with large numbers of Islamic versions of Jerry Falwell times a thousand. Their violence is succeeding at scaring the Hell out of the people of Iraq and making progress much slower than otherwise. It discourages people from being on the police and military forces, and it disrupts the citizens' ways of life. The sectarianism also plays a huge role. Islamofascists are fighting against non-Muslims while struggling for power with people who are seen as not being the right kind of Muslim. I don't know what can be done to better what is being done right now. This is going to take time, and unfortunately I don't think there is any way around that.
It seems odd to dismiss the sentiments of those who live in Iraq today. If they hate the occupation, that is part of why the occupation isn't producing more rapid results. If the Iraqis do not believe our forces are effective at protecting them, they will be reluctant to earn the ire of the insurgents and help us, and some would use the occupation as a pretext for bloody attacks on each other and on the U.S.Quote:
From Universal Mind
The Iraqis hate the current occupation, and I wouldn't like one either. But their descendents are going to love the results.
The violent minority generally despises the idea of democracy, especially considering the "infidel" nature of the U.S., Canada, and Europe. They don't want our way of life to exist in Iraq. Islamofascists despise our MTV way of life. They want a world oppressively run by the Koran, and they think it is literally sacrilegious for Wesern forces to even be in the Middle East at all.
...I don't know what can be done to better what is being done right now. This is going to take time, and unfortunately I don't think there is any way around that.
In regard to the motivations of the violent minority, the best statistics show that violence is, by and large, between members of different sects, the Shiites and Sunnis primarily. Maybe this scenario is a more useful estimation of sentiments: the Sunnis perceived a lack of representation in the new government, because the democratic system established rule by the Shiite majority. Fearing abuse of power by the Shiite government, a group of Sunni militants has it as their goal to destroy it and establish a Sunni-ruled Iraq, in which oil profits will be distributed according to their wants. The Shiites have fought back, and when the government could not quell the fighting or broker a compromise, the security situation broke down as both sides resorted to violence to meet their political objectives. Should we try to broker a compromise or to wipe out resistance to the government?
I don't think the Iraqi people support a withdrawal of U.S. troops simply out of contempt, since they are sympathetic to our cause. They may honestly believe that our presence is ineffective, that our thinned-out forces pose little barrier to the sectarian attacks that plague them, instead only serving to inflame regional and sectarian strife. If this is true, what should our strategy be?
It is like holding somebody's hands when they are hanging from the top of a skyscraper. You might be pulling the person up so slowly that it is not noticeable, and the effort might appear futile, yet letting go is not an option because the person would fall to the ground and die. We have about a million monkey wrenches in our operation in Iraq, such as sectarian violence and lack of public enthusiasm, but we have to hold on until the Iraqi forces grow strong enough to hold down the fort themselves. The more their new freedom pays off economically and socially, the more support and the less opposition the new government will have. When it gets strong enough and the opposition gets weak enough, we can be completely finished with our part. There will be a slow withdrawal for a long time before then.
I also think the lack of Sunni representation in the government will eventually change. We had zero black representation in the American government just a few decades ago, and things have come a long way with that because of the roles black people started playing in the job world. They got a late start here because of slavery and the constructive slavery that existed for a long time after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, and we have been gradually seeing the results of their freedom by their increasing successes in the job and political arenas. It will take a lot longer for the Sunni and Shiite differences to settle in terms of government roles, but the results of capitalism will be strong medicine for the situation. The less violent the Sunnis are, the more votes they will get. The more they become cultured and come to understand that, the better off they and the Shiites are going to be.
Maybe it isn't like trying to pull a man from the edge of a cliff. Perhaps, in this case, it is more like watching at the top while the man attempts to climb up to us from the bottom.Quote:
From Universal Mind
It is like holding somebody's hands when they are hanging from the top of a skyscraper. You might be pulling the person up so slowly that it is not noticeable, and the effort might appear futile, yet letting go is not an option because the person would fall to the ground and die. We have about a million monkey wrenches in our operation in Iraq, such as sectarian violence and lack of public enthusiasm, but we have to hold on until the Iraqi forces grow strong enough to hold down the fort themselves. The more their new freedom pays off economically and socially, the more support and the less opposition the new government will have. When it gets strong enough and the opposition gets weak enough, we can be completely finished with our part. There will be a slow withdrawal for a long time before then.
What I am uncertain of is the idea that the U.S. military provides effective security for Iraq. It is known that the military can provide security to specific points in Iraq, but can it provide security to large areas? The Iraqis perceive that the violence is their greatest threat, that the U.S. mission is good, but desire a withdrawal of the U.S. military. This suggests to me that the military is inadequate at providing security to large areas.
Another analogy may be that of a man trying to plug the holes in a leaky dam with his fingers. When large holes open up, his efforts are completely ineffective.
How significant is the military presence in Iraq? In a country of 24 million, we have ~160,000 soldiers, and ~100,000 Iraqi police have been trained. That's around 1 policeman or soldier for every 92 civilians, a high ratio, yet violence has increased dramatically since the invasion toppled Saddam, even as the security forces have become more numerous and more experienced.
If the U.S. military provides little, if any, security in Iraq, is there any reason for them to remain? Is the military presence preventing a more effective strategy?
I think the fact that we have made those specific areas safe is a sign that we can do it to the whole country, or at least get enough of the country there for us to let the Iraqis take full control. The military generally says that things have gotten a lot better over the past few years, and things are definitely better than they were when the mass grave terrorist monsters were in charge of the country.
How large of an army would it take to do it to the whole country? I recall a certain General Shinseki predicting it would take at least 500,000 soldiers over a period of at least a decade. About 20 generals have retired in protest of the war, arguing that Shinseki was right and that the current occupation is ineffective. If that is what it takes to secure Iraq, it will take at least a decade to train enough Iraqi police. At today's pace, around 30% of Iraqis will have died or left the country by then. Saddam would look good compared to that desolation.Quote:
From Universal Mind
I think the fact that we have made those specific areas safe is a sign that we can do it to the whole country, or at least get enough of the country there for us to let the Iraqis take full control. The military generally says that things have gotten a lot better over the past few years, and things are definitely better than they were when the mass grave terrorist monsters were in charge of the country.
The military may not be a reliable source of data regarding progress, either, since they are judging their own performance. Shouldn't we let the Iraqis judge the effectiveness of our presence? They live there and die there, after all. As I have noted, their judgment seems to characterize the current occupation as causing more harm than good.
Assuming that we choose Iraq's future government, then Iraq certainly has a good chance of becoming free and prosperous in the distant future, but what is the route of least pain and suffering? Would it be easier to split Iraq into three separate nations and hope that they eventually reunite? Would withdrawal expedite political reconciliation and compromise? Can neighboring countries be persuaded to help broker such a reconciliation? Can our current strategy even be sustained long enough to produce the results for which it was intended?
Point is, people don't really want the war to end. That would be bad for buisness. We have more civilian contractors than military in Iraq, The green zone is turning into a mini america.
A handful of generals disagree with the war, and I can respect their disagreement because I think they are honest and objective about it, as well as extremely well informed. However, the vast majority of our generals disagree with them. The vast majority of the people in the military say that Iraq is improving greatly with the current 160,000 and that the secure spots they have created are proof of their ability to greatly stabilize the entire country.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
There is a lot of disagreement among the Iraqi citizens. I think the citizen opinions against the occupation are significantly biased by what I know would suck. If I had to drive to the store in a few minutes knowing that I would be driving past desert camo military trucks and check point guards I have to answer to that are from a country far more powerful than mine, I would hate it. I would appreciate the fact that they overthrew my former severely oppressive and genocidal government of international terrorism, but I would hate having my country dominated by them. I would be absolutely sick of it after four years and possibly have some bias in the direction of saying that their mission is done here and that they need to leave. And that is my present self talking. If I were a Muslim who lived under the Hussein regime until four years ago and was taught by my culture that the West is going to Hell and that the West is not to be trusted, my bias would be even stronger. We are dealing with those factors, so I don't think their outlook is a very reliable indicator of truth. But something I do consider is that the Iraqi people will be much more fired up about saving their own country when we do leave. I really wonder what kind of revolutionary mentalities would develop if we suddenly left tomorrow. They don't have a lot of, "Give me liberty or give me death!" minded people there right now, from what I can tell. They have more of a, "The U.S. and Britain are taking care of things for us. I am sick of seeing their trucks and guns," mentality. Our withdrawal might possibly be the best thing for them for that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
In recent years, I believed in splitting Iraq into three separate nations, but I don't now. The split would prevent religious representation diversity in the government. Diversity is what I think is necessary to prevent the new democracy from becoming a theocracy. The split would result in three theocracies. I am a strong believer in keeping religion completely out of government. I don't even like how we have "In God We Trust" on our coins. I think mixing of church and state is extraordinarily dangerous. Keeping religion out of the Iraqi government as much as we can is a very important priority. It is probably even an unstated goal of our government. Bush would never want to admit to our Christian right that it is totally necessary to keep religion out of the government in Iraq, but I think he believes it and is acting accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
Withdrawal would be terrible for the U.S. because it would look like a defeat and inspire the terrorists and neighboring countries to have orgasms and go berzerk on Iraq, but I think it might be the best thing for Iraqi enthusiasm to fight for a free country. Then again, it might be a horrible disaster for both of us. I switch my mind back and forth on that a lot. I know how the people who were behind the American revolution and Constitution thought, and that is not the mentality the people of Iraq generally seem to have right now. But like I said, I think they feel like their body guard that they sort of resent for being dominant over them is doing the work for them. Our withdrawal would definitely take away that outlook. I am just not totally sure what outlook would replace it. It might be a run and cower in the corner mentality. If we can be sure to get them past the point where that would be the general national mentality, then our work is done. At that point, they will be able to greatly expand and exponentially increase the morale of their military. I have a strong belief that we can get to that point and possibly already have.
I haven't read the entire thread yet, just thought I'd mention on the schoolyard analogies. I think analogies do help us understand big situations, thats why children learn morals through fairy tales Xb
but, analogies don't help you understand a situation if you've got it wrong
comparing Al Qaeda to a bully isn't the right way to look at the situation. A bully in the schoolyard is that kid you can't beat becuase he's big and scary. No third world country or any organization is as big and scary as a first world power. There is no bigger bully than the united states - when we want to go into a third world country and tell them what to do, who will stop us? WHO WILL STOP US? or even, who has the power to stop us? To stop this bully, you have to literally gang up against him. Were that big. And were that big bully.
Al Qaeda and others would actually be a scrawny, wimpy kid who got beaten up his entire life, both at home and at school. After years of feeling abused, and BULLIED, this kid became crazy - pyscho - angry and full of teenage angst. While the bully can walk around proudly since no one can beat him in the open, the pyscho kid gets revenge when youre not looking. He lacks muscles and balls. Thus why terrorism uses the power of terror before force.
Is the schoolyard afraid of that weird kid wearing all black? Not yet, he's a wallflower and no one has even noticed him. "whos that kid?" "never noticed him" Thus he plots, a cry of attention and revenge.
Beating up a bully can stop a bully, but only because bullies aren't used to getting hurt, not because the bully is beaten. Pain is simply SHOCKING for a bully. This is expressed in the US with 9-11. Other nations suffer worse, much worse, and constantly. Our small injury was huge in our perspective, because were not the scrawny kid who gets beaten all the time. Beating up the scrawny, emo, pyscho kid stops him temporarily becuase in terms of power he is that much weaker than the big bad bully. Lets face it, the US can nuke the entire middle east if we wanted to.
Losing a fight only empowers the pyscho scrawny kid to come up with more pyschotic ways to get revenge. And what happens? While the bully grows up to be a highschool football star and the prom king, the scrawny kid makes nationwide headlines - for murder.
point is, bullies bully for things they want - gas crises anyone? but they are logical and don't want to be in a fight where they will actually get hurt. the weird emo kid in the corner? no, you see beating him up only pisses him off more, it only makes him more crazy. And where others would logically back out of the fight, he will push foward to the extremes - hitlerish extremes here.
And no mater how many times he loses the fight, you see, he can still gain the satisfaction of knowing he pissed off the bully by forcing the bully to fight him. After all, thats one way the wallflower can get attention. And more, its the satisfaction of knowing he can control the bully.
This gives us a different situation than a mere bully. A bully feels in control through his muscles - the pyscho by forcing you to act in a certain way, and controling your emotions. *who here hates them?? thats what they want* . If you ignore the pyscho kid, he will act, and it will be horrible. And you'll regret for pretending he didn't exist. But if you give too much attention to his cries, he wins. Because by controlling your emotions and how you react to his cries *wasting your day beating him up*, he is controlling you and slowly wearing you thin.
So you can not meet the demands, but neither ignore them. Instead you have to act out differently, in a way he doesn't expect you to act. By acting out in a way he doesn't expect, you show he has no control over you.
Then he loses.
Juroara, bullies are very often beaten up. Bullies take advantage of the fact that people want peace. If we were bullies, the Middle East would be a sheet of glass with oil wells with American flags all over the place. But imagine Al Qaeda being a government that is the world's only superpower. Do you think the United States would even exist? Of course it wouldn't. They are the bullies, and their unrealistic demands go way beyond wanting us to end our necessary presence in the Middle East. Al Qaeda is making lunch money style demands on us that are way the Hell out of line, and they are not victims. They are viciously demanding perpetrators. They are bullies.
So how exactly do you think we should handle Al Qaeda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
you still have a very odd idea of what a bully is :D
if a bully made everyone in the schoolyard non-existent, who would he have to bully? the bully doesn't want to make people non-existent. If he made people non-existent, who could he steal from?? the bully just wants to get his way. Bullies traditionally get beaten up when they are little, but older they are tough and can be the popular kid. After all, in the female world its often a cheerleader who is thought of as being a bully. But thats besides the point of the analogy.
Is america bullying the rest of the world to get its way? yes. America doesn't want war. So what does this bully want? The bully pretends it wants to spread democracy. Really it wants to spread its economy, and its financial power. It wants to get rich and not care to share it. A little third world country out there with an old world economy with valuable resources makes American companies wet their beds. Why? As long as its apart of the old world it can never be apart of the economy, it can never benefit them.
So how does the bully get its way? One, by creating third world countries with modern twists- while this is off topic, there is information showing how we have manipulated the economy of other countries so much - we reaped all their resources, keeping them poor, on-purpose. the bully stealing your lunch money. For example, building a factory in a third world country to get rich - while not offering first world *american* standards in the work area. How is this not bullying? When the american government doesn't care how its own corporations affect the living standards of others across the world? The government doesn't care about the living standards it creates across the world, if it benefits from it.
The other way is to declare a war on communism, as communist countries tend to not take part in our economy.
You have to get out of the schoolyard analogy *a bully's tragic childhood* for a moment and just understand the bully is the one who reaps from others *taking someone elses money*. I mean, this is why third world countries hate us, because we reap what others have sewn. We give them crap for their labor, and crap for their own countries resources which are theirs and worth more than what we give them. Thats being a modern bully.
The bully doesn't care to make people non-existent, or to destroy everyone, the bully doesn't kill. Or else he would have no one to take from, no one to bully. Leave the desire to destroy for the pyscho. His motives aren't about reaping from others, his motives are hate, hatred for others, hatred for people who are different - not selfishness.
As for your last question, I don't think dealing with Al Qaeda even solves anything. Kill him and another steps in his place. We give him too much credit as if he was the devil himself. Hell! Even in christianity the devil isn't the root of all evil - thats giving the devil too much credit. You have to get to the source of this problem, but can America do that?
We can help, but its not up to us. In the end its up to the middle east to become nations that uphold freedom and democracy. Freedom from terrorism, freedom from shitty leaders and freedom from religious war and intolerance. But you can't force freedom, so running in there with guns screaming "be democratic" doesn't work. Those nations have to choose it. All we can do is offer them the tools to develop into nations that embody freedom, and offer protection that they lack. And we can only offer help that they want.
If they want us to leave, we should respect them as a free people, and leave. To not do so and we spread doubt that they are free people with the power to create their own democracy.
Having the mentality that we are at war with terrorism isn't the right mentality to have. Rather we should have the mentality of destroying its roots, removing what fuels it.
Btw, you made a mistake. You said they aren't victims, as if they deserve no compassion. This is false and lack of understanding how complex and terrifying the situation has become. Terrorists are recruiting, and they do so by brainwashing little boys who haven't even reached puberty. Brainwashing is powerful when life has little to offer, Hitler proved that. How long before the boys carry guns?
This also lacks understanding that a lot of 'locals' support terrorists, thus are associated with terrorists. Some of them are even women. Why would women, of all people, support a group who hate women so much? We want to turn these terrorists into monsters and pretend something horrible didn't happen to them. People don't just wake up one morning and decide to hate an entire country.
We need to understand what that something was to prevent terrorism from happening again. Again, I am mostly talking about the delusional followers, not the manipulative leaders. Treating them as monsters who hate for no reason won't help us do that.
You are jumping to conclusions about what America wants. I am an American, and I want to spread democracy and take away the hopelessness at the root of suicide terrorism. Don't assume you know what I want. The fact that people get rich off wars is not evidence that wars are fought just so people can get rich. We are not getting our kicks trying to pick on random people. We are doing about the most important thing we have ever done for ourselves and for the rest of the world. That is not bullying. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is screwing with us in order to gain power for themselves and get other things they want for themselves, such as the venting of the rage and despair that comes with living in backward ass oppressive countries and screwing virgins. As I said earlier, if you want to understand who the good guys in this fight are, imagine Al Qaeda as a government that is the world's only superpower. What do you think would result from that? Do you see the difference?
When I say that Al Qaeda is a bully, I don't mean they fit school yard bully status in every possible parallel. It is an analogy. They initiate conflict to expand their own power and get their way in various areas.
I said that Al Qaeda are not victims of the United States. I didn't mean none of the members have ever been victims of anybody at all. I think you knew that. I have repeatedly talked about their hopelessness and the injustices of their governments and what results from that. It is one of the major reasons I support our policy regarding the Middle East.
And your solution regarding Al Qaeda is to not deal with them at all? Is that the full extent of your proposed solution? You vaguely said something about treating the root of the problem, but you did not suggest anything specific. I have a very specific suggestion. Democratize the countries where the hopelessness breeds the suicide terrorist mentality. I have many other suggestions, and I have discussed them in this thread. What do you suggest, specifically?
Just because you don't bully doesn't mean you speak for your entire country, um. We haven't just occupied countries we spread democracy, too, for one. For two, the democracy we put in place in complete BS. You need to learn some history, so here goes.
Islam used to be one people, nations didn't exist to them. Then the west came and told them they had to have countries, but they were all still Muslims. Understand that tihs gives them a sort of national pride that supercedes nations. The whole system is new to their culture and unnatural and the leaders put in charge by the West are corrupt Kings and dictators that just take what they want and use their country's reserve as personal bank accounts. This kind of wide-spread corruption was not the fault of the Muslims, and as a sidenote infidel is not an arabic word, its english, our ancestors called the muslims that during the crusades.
Okay so there is disconnect between the leaders and the people in the Middle East, all the more reason to bring them democracy, right? But how come our democracy comes in the form of doing exactly what Saddam Hussein did for free, for a few billion of our tax dollars a week? Meanwhile they're implanting as many American owned businesses as possible so their whole economy gets funneled through the same hands ours does, and they rob the fuck out of us, and they'll rob the fuck out of them.
How come, furthermore, we copied their politics when Bush snr visited the Middle East during his term? We started making shady, underhand dealings and occupying territories like Saudi Arabia, pissing people off because guess what, we were bullying. What else are soldiers supposed to do sitting in a dessert guarding oil fields?
And for god sakes at the very least think about energy movement. Even if in 10 years Iraq some how is a flourishing election it cost more money than that country could make this country on an inifinite timeline, and around 400,000 innocent deaths. Why not export that democracy to a country that needs it even more, like fucking Saudi Arabia? You think the leaders of Saudi Arabia don't torture and executes dissidents? Every leader in the Middle East either inherited or stole their title and hardly lives up to it. Hell, every time a country on earth with a pro-US dictator started showing the seeds of democracy, the United States was there to crush it. Saudi Arabia was no exception.
Do you atleast understand the hypocracy in robbing countries like Congo and Nicaragua of their democracy and then imposing it on other countries? Spending trillions of dollars that our plutocracy gets to keep a fat portion of? Fuck, we, as tax payers, pay 30 dollars a screw for the military shit to do stupid stuff so money gets funneled into the hands of just a few assholes that not only use our military to screw the rest of the world over but use our politicians to screw us over with corrupt HMOs and "leave less fortunate children behind" and all sorts of shit.
EDIT: And yes, though I shouldn't be I'll admit you pissed me off with that statement because you won't even pay taxes for another 10 years or so and already you think you know what's right for everyone. A little news flash, you know jack-shit, I know jack-shit, we all know jack-shit. 56 cents out of every dollar the government takes from me goes to bombing children over lies and filth that you eat up like fruit loops.
We went through some of those ideas earlier in the thread. We've left out domestic policy, other foreign policies, and other controversial action to simplify the debate to the policy of the War on Terror, though they are important factors.
One Side:
The War on Terror(War in Iraq) is good because it will result in future democracies. Democracies are good because they result in economic prosperity. Economic prosperity is good because it is the opposite of what fuels terrorism, economic poverty. The destruction of Saddam's regime was good because Saddam posed a plausible threat. The subsequent occupation is good because it is our moral duty to stabilize Iraq and form Iraq's democratic government. It is effective because our objective military, who can be trusted, says it is(with evidence). The cost is lower than the benefits because democracy in Iraq will bring long-term prosperity and peace.
The other side, so far:
The War on Terror(War in Iraq) is well-intentioned, but misguided and ultimately harmful because it brings economic poverty and political chaos, the causes of terrorism. Economic prosperity is possible, but not likely or stable in the future. The distant future is too unpredictable to be a useful benchmark of the War's success. The destruction of Saddam's regime was well-intentioned, but misguided and ultimately harmful because it substituted a tyranny for anarchy and substituted the Iraqi security forces for our own, which were and are woefully ineffective, as I gather from Iraqi opinion(and other evidence). The costs are far greater than the benefits because the invasion guaranteed economic poverty for decades afterwards and the subsequent occupation was a near-complete waste of resources.
We all agree that, for certain countries, invading and installing democracies is not worth it the cost.
Sorry if I misrepresented some of your ideas, Universal Mind. Please correct me if I did.
I said the United States does not bully, and I was talking about our situations in the Middle East specifically. I am one of millions who supports these wars for non-bullying reasons. The Islamofascists of the Middle East have been so out of hand over the years that we have had to do all kinds of things to deal with their governments, and some of the leaders we have put in place have really gone bad. The clusterfuck they insist on having is not easy to deal with. And the fact that there are Christianfascists, something I very much agree with you on, does not excuse the Islamic "Kill the infidels!" mentality, one that is encouraged all over the Koran. See the "Koran promotes justice and equality" thread in Religion/Spirituality for details.
The fact that some of a country's businesses profit from its wars does not mean that is why the war is taking place. Our practices are nothing like Saddam's. If they were, you would be far too terrified to criticize the United States on the internet. And if you had already said what you have said, you would already be dead. That is how Saddam's regime did things.
The reasons for the war add up to a long list that Saudi Arabia does not match. And there have not been 400,000 innocent deaths. There have been about 50,000 civilian deaths, and it is insurgents we are targeting. Insurgents are targetting the innocent. I don't think I've seen you show much passion against them yet. Are you going to?
The "democracies" you say we robbed were not exactly democracies. Nicaragua had serious Cold War ties to the Soviet Union, and we had a Cold War to win, which we did, and you are damn lucky we did.
Where do you get that I won't pay taxes for another ten years? I started paying them 20 years ago. Where do you come up with this stuff? And we don't target children in these wars. We use precision weapons and are the best in the world at minimizing civilian casualties in war. But we do lead the world in the giving of foreign aid. We are responsible for more than half of the feeding of the world's starving children. How much are Iran and Syria responsible for? Go off about them. I want to see this.
If you would ever really think about what we are dealing with and just how difficult the situation is, you might be able to open your mind to the other perspective a little bit. But yes, military screws cost too much.
R.D., you got everything right about my perspective except that it is not just the military talking about stable spots all over Iraq. It is large numbers of Iraqi civilians also. I will say about your perspective that Iraq already had a very severe poverty problem under the Hussein regime, and without our help, that problem would have never had any hope of going away.
The leaders of these countries are the ones causing atrocities, and they are not representatives of the Muslim people. Their corrupt ways have butchered the people and its not the Muslim Terrorists(what you incorrectly refer to as Islamofascists) that are the cause, it's just implemented leaders that were called kings and entitled to lot's of money long ago and whose children are still hanging in the curtails of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
When the United States got involved they only perpetuated the kings' and dictators' brutalistic techniques in order to get some sort of business claim and the entire time it was the people that were the victims. Take it from a muslim perspective and its a story of a bunch of outsiders that gave weapons to all their greedy kings so they could fight the people and blow people up for money. The Soviets started it, granted, but the US found it profitable and ever since they've never really been able to keep their hands out of it. Hell, our politicians are all paid off buy guys that loan us our money through the federal reserve, anyway.
Muslim terrorism came as a result of that.
Wow, where did you get that evidence? Sandino had cold war ties? He virtually ended poverty, illiteracy, and hunger and put a doctor in every location in the pinprick of time he got in office before he was disappeared by people trained at the School of Assassins, now called the School of Americas, which is funded by the United States.Quote:
And out of that came Is
The fact that some of a country's businesses profit from its wars does not mean that is why the war is taking place. Our practices are nothing like Saddam's. If they were, you would be far too terrified to criticize the United States on the internet. And if you had already said what you have said, you would already be dead. That is how Saddam's regime did things.
The reasons for the war add up to a long list that Saudi Arabia does not match. And there have not been 400,000 innocent deaths. There have been about 50,000 civilian deaths, and it is insurgents we are targeting. Insurgents are targetting the innocent. I don't think I've seen you show much passion against them yet. Are you going to?
The "democracies" you say we robbed were not exactly democracies. Nicaragua had serious Cold War ties to the Soviet Union, and we had a Cold War to win, which we did, and you are damn lucky we did.
However, in his valiant effort he pissed of fruit companies because he basically kicked them all out since they were nothing but leeches on the economy. That's why he was assassinated, now give me your cracked out Russian-connection theory.
Sorry I misjudged your age based on your level of maturity.Quote:
Where do you get that I won't pay taxes for another ten years? I started paying them 20 years ago. Where do you come up with this stuff? And we don't target children in these wars. We use precision weapons and are the best in the world at minimizing civilian casualties in war. But we do lead the world in the giving of foreign aid. We are responsible for more than half of the feeding of the world's starving children. How much are Iran and Syria responsible for? Go off about them. I want to see this.
And yeah, missiles coated in depleted uranium is definitely "precision weaponry." You just don't see the pictures because their censored but there are plenty of children dead by US soldiers. How can we say we our promiting democracy with deaths like those on our record?
I'm sorry you can't see that love is the only cure to hate.Quote:
If you would ever really think about what we are dealing with and just how difficult the situation is, you might be able to open your mind to the other perspective a little bit. But yes, military screws cost too much.
You are not America, you are an American, as am I. Two different things. :) As an American, what power do you have over another nation? What power do you have over foreigners and their economy? The sad truth is, it matters very little what an American wants. You could want to give every starving child in the world a kiss and hug, it doesn't matter because as an American you'll probably never have the money or time to do so. So when I was talking about what America wants, as a bully, I was talking about specifically the bullying force and drive behind America that has shaped our foreign policy - our economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I understand why the terrorists were the 'bully', but to say America has never bullied other nations is a lie. America does it all the time. Its manipulative and it even lies to its own people. Spreading democracy were some of those lies. We spread democracy *if you can call it that* only to places that would benefit our economy.
We've virtually assassinated a foreign leader for not wanting to have free trade with us and then made it look like a terrorist act.
Our government is in so much financial dept it kisses ass to corporations, which is why Walmart is still on the corner of our streets while it has clearly violated human rights in other countries.
Its funny to hear it like that juroara, because the US is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. The difference is that in a democracy the majority makes the rules, while in a constitutional republic we follow whats in the constitution.
So in a way you are right, just because you want something doesn't mean you get it. There are nothing in the constitution that says we are allowed to go around the world forcing people to accept democracy. Infact thats one of the big reasons why Ron Paul is against all the wars, because he doesn't believe its constitutional to interfere with other countries domestic policies.