|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 22nd, 2003 10:02 AM | ||
| mburbank | Right now Vince is singing the "Squeezed in the middle" jingle. | |
| Apr 22nd, 2003 09:46 AM | ||
| AChimp |
Menage a trois! 
|
|
| Apr 22nd, 2003 09:29 AM | ||
| mburbank | Great! I'll leave the sliding underneath him to you! | |
| Apr 19th, 2003 10:49 AM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
"Naldo. You will never climb atop Vince " I'll leave the "climbing atop Vince" to you Maxi. |
|
| Apr 19th, 2003 10:33 AM | ||
| The_Rorschach | I'll bar back | |
| Apr 19th, 2003 10:26 AM | ||
| Protoclown | Yeah, but...what are you going to make for the bake sale?? | |
| Apr 19th, 2003 10:22 AM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Just past four in the morning right now, and i"M typing slow, but if I ramble this is why. "Since we just concluded a war in Iraq, which was supposed to be a part of the vague "war on terror," most of my opinions will be influenced by this." The war on terror is media bait, a comfortable lie that keeps the average citizen from questioning the morality of military action. We engineered the Moslem uprising to counter Soviet bids for land -They sough oil reseviours and warm water ports, andthe US decided that by any meas necessary this must not come to pass. I touched on this in another thread moredetail. What we see now are Cold Warrors putting to sleep the rabid dog that they helped create. It can't be muzzled it can;'tbe controlled, extermination is all thats left. Read the link, or what I'm saying won't make any sense. --> http://i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t...ghlight=moslem I oughtto expamd on it. So much more to say, but it doesn't really matter. All sounds like crazy talk. Course, thsi does too. "In my opinion, our foreign policy only looks beyond the end of our noses." Uncontestably true. " Al Qaeda has camps in Afghan istan, so bomb Afghanistan, destroy the institution. Saddam Hussein supposedly presents a security risk to us, so bomb his infrastructure, kill him, his family, and it'll end (a VERY Machiavellian concept, btw)." Fuck, I'm telling you, put it in perspective. Bush the First knew how dangerous the mojahedin and their allies were and wanted to shut them down then in 91 or 96, Having trouble thinking right now. Dates and time it all seems the same. Like that stupid fucking movie, Momento. Shits all backwards. Bush. He jumped at the first excue to go into the Middle East with military aggression. Remember the Kuwait hospitol supposedly sacked by Hussein? His bidding chip for American support for what was otherwise a legitmate Iraqi concern to protect their oil from encroachment by a neighbouring country. . .Anyway. Hospitol. Unsubstantiated. Utterly false. It's all a game, or it was, and now were sweeping the board. Necessary "Never ONCE do I feel that we question the reasoning behind our enemy's motives." Not an enemy, a pawn Kevin. They aren't important enough to understand, because ultimately, their kowledge is based upon half truths weve taught them. "We are NOT like them. We could NEVER be like them." We're worse, because we have to be. Price of freedom is blood. I don't know if you truly fathom how precarious the future of United States as during the Coldwar, but it wasn't a joke. Noone was laughing. "Perhaps if Western literature WAS more common there, maybe riots and violence wouldn't have been the result of a toppled dictatorship." Wouldn't change anything. I see where you're coming from, and yes, we won't know how effective out interference will be for years to come, but ultimately it doesn't matter. War isn't going to end, ever. Were effective short term, and thats the scope of any presidents sight. One term to anothe. Too profitable. War that is |
|
| Apr 19th, 2003 10:02 AM | ||
| mburbank | I'll make some cookies. | |
| Apr 19th, 2003 01:01 AM | ||
| Protoclown |
Re: Alternatives To War Quote:
|
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 10:43 PM | ||
| Miss Modular |
For most countries, war is the last resort. However, I really doubt the motives of our current administration are really sincere, and that they have to have some other motivation. Al Queda needs to be tracked down for sure, but aren't there other ways of going about it? Desperate actions probably need to be taken, but I'm just not sure an all out war is necessary. Other than that, there's nothing I can say that Kevin hasn't said better. |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 05:19 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Since we just concluded a war in Iraq, which was supposed to be a part of the vague "war on terror," most of my opinions will be influenced by this. In my opinion, our foreign policy only looks beyond the end of our noses. Al Qaeda has camps in Afghanistan, so bomb Afghanistan, destroy the institution. Saddam Hussein supposedly presents a security risk to us, so bomb his infrastructure, kill him, his family, and it'll end (a VERY Machiavellian concept, btw). Never ONCE do I feel that we question the reasoning behind our enemy's motives. Because, to do such a thing, would create a degree of relativism, or "moral" equivelence. We are NOT like them. We could NEVER be like them. We don't deal with terrorists (well, unless the price is right maybe), bottom line. To understand the opposition would mean to create a comparative analysis, because that's what humans tend to do. They compare themselves to another, what that person does, and how it conflicts or agrees with their moral behavior. To do this with someone like Saddam Hussein, or even an Osama Bin Laden, would seem completely ridiculous to your "average" American. Does this mean that we should "understand" murderers, and "reach out" to terrorists who kill innocent people? No. But I do however feel that we need to start expanding our options when dealing with things we don't understand, because if we don't, it will only lead to more violence. We can't destroy a government, blow up a camp, kill an "operative," and expect things to stop or go away. Like Chimp said, todays victories can lead to tomorrow's tragedy. Hatred festors, and it doesn't go away with a bomb. It spread to children, into books, and into other governments. Today's Kurdish rebel or Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, now viewed as heroes likened to the American revolutionaries (always our litmus test, appatrently) could be oue enemy in 20 years. Maybe not. Maybe it'll have nothing to do with Islamic extremism, rather, something else, free of religious tainted dogma. But that's not the point. The point is that as long as we view things with two options, kill or do nothing, we will always get sucked into this cycle, IMO. According to many Americans, nothing apparently ever seemed to happen prior to 9/11. If you question some people on the sanctions in Iraq, they say "What about 9/11? You liked it when those planes fklew into the Towers??" With this kind of reasoning, we will get nowhere, and we will certainly continue to be hated in many places throughout the world. So in the case of Iraq, what might've been an alternative? Well, not imposing ten years of sanctions that didn't work on the Iraqi people might've helped. Flooding them with goods and needed materials might've been another. Showing them the America that WE enjoy, rather than the America that they are presented with, might've been an option. Saddam Hussein could barely control his country. This might've/perhaps did result in more oppression, a tighter grip. Would the Iraqi people have accepted this when viewing the alternatives? I don't know. Perhaps if Western literature WAS more common there, maybe riots and violence wouldn't have been the result of a toppled dictatorship. Would Saddam allow the books of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and John Stewart Mill in Iraq? Probably not. But then again, would the Iraqis have stood for that? Would the military? Would even the Royal Guard? Unfortunately, we won't know for many years now whether or not this war was a sucess or not, IMO. Many woul like to say it was, but that's more so out of hopeful ideology and politics that they do so (ie. Vince and Ronnie). Look at the Soviet Union, people are STILL analyzing post-Soviet Russia, evaluating its demise, judging its decisions. We can't look at Iraq now, with the images of flag waving happy Iraqis, and say "SUCCESS!". That's incredibly short sighted, and will be disasterous. We need to look at Iraq 10, 20, 30 years from now, and THEN decide, if it's even then possible. Unfortunately, if 10 years from now Iraqis are poor, suffering, and torn by civil strife over land and lines, most Americans will probanly chastize them, and call them ingrateful for the service we have rendered. Then the cycle of ignorance begins again. Sorry for the rant. 
|
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 04:39 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
I don't see it as a matter of good versus bad, just protecting outr own interests. They aren't fire bombing McDonalds, they aren't boycotting American products, or setting fire to our distrobution warehouses. They are bombing targets of civilian congregation. Their aim doesn't seem to be disrupting American influence, it looks as though they desire only to take American lives. You're right. Terrorists, by and large, don't operate in easily targetable environments. They aren't Cobra, and they don't have a secret mountain fortess. That is why we employ federal agencies, like the Israeli Mossad, the American CIA, and InterPol, and whomever, to root them out of their hiding places. I would prefer more incisive strikes. like when we took out the training camps in Libya a decade ago. Special Forces moving in, finding targets, moving out. . .But the cost of such precision is American lives and since Vietnam that is a politically unacceptable. We can;t just win, we need to win flawlessly. But whether we use the CIA, or USMC, we are still at war, its just being fought in a different fashion. |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 04:38 PM | ||
| AChimp |
Quote:
|
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 04:31 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Yeah, I know, I was just being all flippant and shit. Seriously, though, if you're talking about some very small scale criminal activity by a discreet gang, sure, force can be employed to wipe out, imprison or forcibly disable every criminal in say, a Pirate fleet. But while you might wipe out the Medelin cartel with a private army, I don't think you can do shit about the drug trade. Similarly, If the size of the terrorist group is large enough, and if it's goals and ideals can be passed like the flu, I think your chances of productively dealing with it via warfare approach zero. I can't think of a historical example. Killing bad guys may feel right. It may even be justice if you're very careful you don't kill a lot of folks who happento be standing next to bad guys. But it tends to make more bad guys. |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 04:30 PM | ||
| AChimp |
I think major changes concerning foreign policy have to occur before terrorism stops. I mean, suppose tomorrow we blow up all of Al Qaeda. Do you really think that it will prevent another terrorist organization from developing in a few years? No, it will have only served as a temporary solution. The future terrorist organizations will look at the past actions/mistakes of their predecessors and become even more deadly and stealthier. Nobody starts a terrorist organization just for the hell of it or purely out of a desire to hurt people, despite what it seems the media and certain government officials (*cough!*Bush*cough!*) seem to want you to think. Terrorists are fighting what they perceive to be grave injustices that have been done to them. Have you ever wondered why certain Western countries, while enjoying all the benefits that are currently enjoyed in the U.S., aren't targetted by terrorists? It's because they don't try to help people by covertly controlling them (appointing a leader? Pff. That looks bad no matter what angle you come at if from.) Their foreign policies say "we think you might want to consider this" rather than "do this because we say so." |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 04:24 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Whatever. Yes piracy still exists, but the fashion in which it operates has changed. War is not an ideal solution, it is an expedient one. I'm not saying war will end terrorism, but it will end the lives of terrorists which is exactly what it is meant to do. So long as there is conflict -take any number of examples from North Ireland, religious, political whatever- there will be those willing to strike at the easiest targets. In the context of THIS situation, I believe war is the only alternative left to us. We cannot reason with them, we cannot debate issues, we cannot bribe, barter or negotiate. |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 04:15 PM | ||
| mburbank |
But Piracy still exists, right? And I seriously saw nothing wrong with Mod's ice breaker as far as getting a thread goes. It worked just fine. I think you have hostility issues. Have you tried aroma therapy? |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 04:11 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
If you are going to begin a thread with less have fifty words. Don't fucking bother. I, for one, do not like being a monkey that dances for the pleasure of others. Like some goddamned referee calling fight, and stepping aside. Post a fucking opinion, a stance, back it up, and let the conversation begin well. Christ. You could take lessons from Retro Kat. At least HE gave an opinion when he started his Atheist thread. "Look at the many, many historical examples of war puting an end to terrorsim." Now, the difference between an army and a terrorist band is not one of numbers or financing. Its one of targets. Piracy, one a wide scale, I believe can be interpreted as terrorism. - True, it lacks the political or religious requisite, but fundementally, the operations I will cite have many traits similar to terrorist actions. Non-nationalist individuals striking civilian targets with harmful intent. So, just in US history alone, if my assumptions are acceptable, there is a history of war against such individuals. Barbary Coast Pirates - 1801-1805, 1815 They demanded tribute money, seized ships, and held crews for ransom or sold them into slavery. We ended their little seaborn empire. I'm not entirely sure if slavery is preferably to death, but I think both are equally heinous. Operations Against West Indian Pirates - 1822-1830s Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico; By the early 1820's nearly 3,000 attacks had been made on merchant ships. Financial loss was great; murder and torture was common. -looked for figures, came up empty, my apologies- China Relief Expedition - 1900-1901 This period was known as the Boxer uprising. Certainly this was terrorism as the victims killed by non-combatant Chinese civilians were some two thousand Chinese converts and 250 Missionaries. I don't care to expand upon the last century of history, as it would only be repeating what you all already know. The war is as necessary as it was unavoidable Burbank, and I think you'll agree with me on this. |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 02:29 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
Obviously, military action should be a final alternative. When you bomb the living shit out of a place, it does tend to sour peoples opinion of you. This is a little extra in the pool for the terrorists. However, if you have an international organization that half asses its way through all the other options to the point where the situation is so fucked up, you are only left with violence, then there is a problem. |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 08:58 AM | ||
| mburbank |
SARCASM! SARCASM! Ronnies, right though. There are no solutions to this problem other than war. Look at the many, many historical examples of war puting and end to terrorsim. Naldo. You will never climb atop Vince with teeny little lackluster posts like that. |
|
| Apr 18th, 2003 06:50 AM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun | Try appeasement......that always works. | |
| Apr 18th, 2003 12:43 AM | ||
| Miss Modular |
Alternatives To War Here in this thread we can discuss alternative solutions to fighting terrorism. Any ideas? |
|
