Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 09:38 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Really? Well what is their cause, Ziggy??? Is it nationalism??? I honestly wish that were the case. Is it "Pan-arabism"??? What is motivating other muslims from Yemen, Syria, and Algeria to leave their homes and go to Iraq???

Heh, I already answered this question, and in the text you quoted! I would argue that their leaderships are equal parts power mad and religiously rabid. See, you bolded the wrong line from my post. You should have bolded "If you're wondering what else there is to blame, try power. Plain and simple. Religion may be a tool, but power is the goal.". Please note I wasn't trying to say that was their ONLY motivation, but simply a part fo the picture.

Excluding the desperate scum who think they see a gravy train to get in on, the foreign fighters are quite clearly there in the name of radical Islam, no doubt about that, but you seem to be unaware or unbelieving of their estimate of being roughly 4 to 10% of the insurgency. Of the local insurgents there are a number of motives from political to personal to religious. As convenient as it is to label the entire situation a religious conflict, it isn't the whole picture. The enemy is only human, after all.


Quote:
Why is it that the insurgents target mosques??? Why, again, is it that these insurgents kill in the name of Allah instead of iraq, or Arabism, or whatever..?

You tell me. I'm all for asking why, but I don't know all the answers. You apparently do though, so please share. Is the answer you're looking for "because they are Islamists"?


Quote:
Really? And who would you kill in these blackops, Ziggy? Would uou just go after people who say they are a part of "Al Qaeda," and call it a day???

Well, my framework would not have entailed troops fighting a groundwar against people who've booby-trapped the ground. It would primarily involve extremely well-funded infiltration of terrorist networks within one's own nation and within ally nations. It would also involve clandestine assassination of those who preach for killing (deliciously ironic, I think) in the name of extremist ideoloogies. For all I know, nationbuilding in Iraq may be a good way to suppress radical Islam. I don't think it is, but I'm not in charge, and so I don't especially care. But it's all speculative at this point because we're already in Iraq.


Quote:
Al Qaeda is a product of the problem. Focusing on "black ops" that would "dismantle terrorist organizations" would be good, but would it end jihadism*, Ziggy?
What would, then?




note to Blanco: i was talking about an alternative to invading Iraq as a method for staging the Global War on Terror, not as a solution to the current Iraq mess, but thanks for caring enough to check the context!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 09:53 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
You can stop with all the asterisks, by the way. I really don't need you to say "I swear I'm not a bigot" every time you say something that seems even a bit bigoted.
Cool, but I really do need you to start using an aestrisks instead then. I DO need you to say you acknowledge the Islamic connection to Al Qaeda, and the Jihadist* terrorists*, or even that Al Qaeda* exist, and that yes we do know who They* are. Fuckit, you should be using an aestrisk at the end of every one of your posts just to remind us that you used Fawaz Gerges as a reference point to define these people. Have you even read a Fawaz Gerges book, or did you just see him on Oprah once?

Anyway, thanks for admitting you're a hypocrite...now just admit you're talking out of your ass*.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 10:00 PM       
Thanks for responding to that point! Actually, I heard him on the Diane Rehm show. He makes a more convincing argument than you do.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 10:32 PM       
Quote:
note to Blanco: i was talking about an alternative to invading Iraq as a method for staging the Global War on Terror, not as a solution to the current Iraq mess, but thanks for caring enough to check the context! Happy
No, it pretty much applies to anywhere our military is hunting these assholes. Just replace "Iraqi" (that I only used once) with whichever country these fucks are operating out of.

If they decide to fortify themselves in a mountain village, we're going to need shit like aerial bombing and artillery to get them out.

So you're 95% black ops for a global campaign is some Jerry Bruckheimer inspired bullshit.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 10:34 PM       
something tells me if i was trying to convince you to believe a bunch of conspiracist, contrarian, anti-american theories which paint al qaeda as nearly fictional, fumbling inept pawns with little influence or capability - i wouldn't have much problem.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 25th, 2006, 10:46 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
You should have bolded "If you're wondering what else there is to blame, try power. Plain and simple. Religion may be a tool, but power is the goal.". Please note I wasn't trying to say that was their ONLY motivation, but simply a part fo the picture.
How bold of you, Ziggy! Next you'll be informing us that this whole thing is about certain people who have a disagreement with other people. Maybe this is all about human beings on the planet Earth.

Could you be a little bit more obtuse, you haven't stripped the discussion of all its value yet!

Quote:
Of the local insurgents there are a number of motives from political to personal to religious. As convenient as it is to label the entire situation a religious conflict, it isn't the whole picture. The enemy is only human, after all.
Sweet Jesus, so is religion, kitten. I mean, it's not like we're saying Allah himself is picking sides here. Everything we're talking about is of human construct, but thanks anyway for the update.

Ziggy, who is arguably the most powerful rebel leader in Iraq? Ziggy, when Zarqawi put together his insurgent group, why did he take on the name "Al Qaeda"??? Ziggy, why is it so important if we hope for peace and stability that we have Grand Ayatollah Sistani on our side???

You can try to strip this conversation of its religious significance all you like, maybe it'll appease the p.c. in you. But you do the entire conversation a disservice in the process.


Quote:
Quote:
Why is it that the insurgents target mosques??? Why, again, is it that these insurgents kill in the name of Allah instead of iraq, or Arabism, or whatever..?

You tell me. I'm all for asking why, but I don't know all the answers. You apparently do though, so please share. Is the answer you're looking for "because they are Islamists"?
A CLASSIC Ziggy argument. "Hey, I don't like what you're saying, but you mst know it all, so whatever."

I've told you what I think, and you disagree. I believe the problem is that Islam has fallen into a regressive rut so to speak, and it has allowed if not fostered the situation we have today. Are there other factors? Sure, but it doesn't change this fundamental problem.

Alternative theories?


Quote:
It would primarily involve extremely well-funded infiltration of terrorist networks within one's own nation and within ally nations. It would also involve clandestine assassination of those who preach for killing (deliciously ironic, I think) in the name of extremist ideoloogies.
Really? So rather than taking ou the regimes that finance terrorism, you'd assassinate the extremists who preach hate on the streets of London??? How would that roll with Tony?


Quote:
Quote:
Al Qaeda is a product of the problem. Focusing on "black ops" that would "dismantle terrorist organizations" would be good, but would it end jihadism*, Ziggy?
What would, then?
What we're doing. I'd like to see more big stick/speak softly stuff involved, and I think we could liberalize Iran in better ways than with bombs. i think another super idea would have been to clean up our mess in Afghanistan (a wise invasion) before we jumped to Iraq (a not so wise invasion).
Reply With Quote
  #32  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 12:19 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
If they decide to fortify themselves in a mountain village, we're going to need shit like aerial bombing and artillery to get them out.

So you're 95% black ops for a global campaign is some Jerry Bruckheimer inspired bullshit.
OK, you seem to be harboring this misconception that I'm talking about sending magic nijas into the mountains to kill the bosses.

Far from it. I'm referring specifically to destroying terror cells in urban enviroments. Please recall the question I was responding to was " what would a war on terror look like to you?" If they wanna hole up in a mountain in BFE, we can leave em be or drop 100 megaton bombs on em. Either would be cheaper than driving tanks and stationing soldiers in Middle Eastern cities. Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 12:26 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.
heh, I guess abc's last post wasn't too far-fetched then, huh?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 12:39 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
How bold of you, Ziggy! Next you'll be informing us that this whole thing is about certain people who have a disagreement with other people. Maybe this is all about human beings on the planet Earth.

Could you be a little bit more obtuse, you haven't stripped the discussion of all its value yet!

You call this abomination of a clusterfuck a 'discussion'? Could YOU be any more obtuse?!

How many fucking times do I have to say that religion IS a PART of the issue, but not the whole of the issue. How does calling for analysis of other factors "strip the discussion of value"?



Quote:
Ziggy, who is arguably the most powerful rebel leader in Iraq? Ziggy, when Zarqawi put together his insurgent group, why did he take on the name "Al Qaeda"??? Ziggy, why is it so important if we hope for peace and stability that we have Grand Ayatollah Sistani on our side???
What is your point?


Quote:
You can try to strip this conversation of its religious significance all you like, maybe it'll appease the p.c. in you. But you do the entire conversation a disservice in the process.
What the fuck are you talking about? I've not once said religion is insignifcant to the issue, retard.


Quote:
A CLASSIC Ziggy argument. "Hey, I don't like what you're saying, but you mst know it all, so whatever."
No, you obnoxious blowhard. That is NOT my argument, but thank you for putting those words in my mouth, they taste like candy! My arguement is that all of that is fucking irrelevant to what I was saying, because establishing a religious context for the conflict IN NO WAY removes ALL OTHER CONTEXTS. Look, I'll shut up if you can answer this one question with anything but an affirmative: Is it possible that religiously similar factions might not share the same goals, and to that end when they look at us, they will not necessarily say the enemy of my enemy is my friend?



Quote:
I've told you what I think, and you disagree. I believe the problem is that Islam has fallen into a regressive rut so to speak, and it has allowed if not fostered the situation we have today. Are there other factors? Sure, but it doesn't change this fundamental problem.

Alternative theories?
I don't entirely disagree, but the issues of poverty, lack of opportunity for self-determination, and good old-fashioned local politics account for a good third of the conflict over there. If tomorrow every man, woman, and child woke up to a vision of God telling them that everything any human ever thought about religion was wrong, there would STILL be fighting over there, if over nothing more than who gets to build their houses where.


Quote:
Really? So rather than taking ou the regimes that finance terrorism, you'd assassinate the extremists who preach hate on the streets of London??? How would that roll with Tony?
Well, Tony would have to be in on it, obviously. Like I said, I don't even like the idea, but I do think it would be more cost-effective. As for regimes that finance terror, again, I do not think tanks and artillery shells are the most cost effective way to deal with them. But it hardly matters what one voter thinks about the spending patterns of the Pentagon, now does it?


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Al Qaeda is a product of the problem. Focusing on "black ops" that would "dismantle terrorist organizations" would be good, but would it end jihadism*, Ziggy?
What would, then?
What we're doing. I'd like to see more big stick/speak softly stuff involved, and I think we could liberalize Iran in better ways than with bombs. i think another super idea would have been to clean up our mess in Afghanistan (a wise invasion) before we jumped to Iraq (a not so wise invasion).
Now why you gotta be a civil and rational in the closer? Now I feel bad for calling you a retard (but not so bad as to edit it! :P)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 12:45 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.
heh, I guess abc's last post wasn't too far-fetched then, huh?
Right, because I'm not at this instant cowering under my bed afraid that Al Qaeda is gonna blow up the USA tomorrow, I'm obvisouly convinced that their existence is a government conspiricy!!

Because it certainly couldn't mean that I just think the amount of money spent on a military campaign against a mountain village would provide more national defense for the buck if spent on domestic counterterrorism efforts!


And now to test a theory!

OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ! OMGWTFBBQ!

(just pretend that said something jihadists about blowing up abortion clinics in the name of the Bush family or whatever it is you feel like I really meant)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 09:08 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
If they decide to fortify themselves in a mountain village, we're going to need shit like aerial bombing and artillery to get them out.

So you're 95% black ops for a global campaign is some Jerry Bruckheimer inspired bullshit.
OK, you seem to be harboring this misconception that I'm talking about sending magic nijas into the mountains to kill the bosses.

No, I think you have a totally unrealistic view of how warfare is conducted.


Quote:
Far from it. I'm referring specifically to destroying terror cells in urban enviroments.
Great that makes two of us.

The problem is a lot of this mission is reactionary. The terrorists have to make the first move. SEALs and Deltas simply can't respond in an adequate fashion.

Quote:
Please recall the question I was responding to was " what would a war on terror look like to you?" If they wanna hole up in a mountain in BFE, we can leave em be or drop 100 megaton bombs on em.
And send in ground troops to confirm the deaths.

Quote:
Either would be cheaper than driving tanks and stationing soldiers in Middle Eastern cities.
So just bomb the ever loving shit out of these places and leave?

Quote:
Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.
short term memory problems?
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 09:34 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Because it certainly couldn't mean that I just think the amount of money spent on a military campaign against a mountain village would provide more national defense for the buck if spent on domestic counterterrorism efforts!

That would have sounded a lot more logical had you not already aligned yourself with the Fawaz Gerges types* that compare counterterrorism to the war on drugs. Furthermore, anything short of putting the ACLU in charge of homeland security would make you feel so uncomfortable, and full of white guilt, we'd have to start arresting Mormons*, and sectioning off Guantanomo by an ethnic qouta. Besides, in the next breath, you're the same guy who reminds us that you can't fight a war against terror when you don't even know who the enemy is. So which is it? Do we survey every Mosque in the country, or do we target the Zarqawi's individually? Which is better for your White* guilt?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 11:07 AM       
Kev;

Anyone who implies I have only insults and no arguments, and then procees to address my arguments for more than a dozen paragraphs has nothing to teach me about 'taking perspective'.

Each of the things you see as name calling, are in fact, assesments of your own arguments via comparison.

When you attempt to delve into the true content of my soul as opposed to what I've actually written, you are pulling an Abcdhsbzx.

When you teeter on the edge of a 'You're with us or your with the terrorists' you are perilously close to Vinthism. Incidentally, that's also the territory you are in when you focus on my name calling, which as I am explaining now is far more than simply name calling. If I said you were 'a la Vinth', a 'cunt', that would be absurd and without content. However, when I say you are-

A tremulous, Victorian, Woman, I am refering to your sense of cultural superiority coupled with a level of anger that rises well above the discussion and reeks of 'How dare You'-ism, a word I have just coined. I could just as well have said you act as if you have the vapors. I am not unfamilliar with the vapors. I get them myself when I contemplate the rape our current administration is making on the constitution. I am not out of sympathy with the vapors, but as one who knows them, you sir, have them.

I shall now return to your lengthy response and see what other tweaks call for response.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 11:09 AM       
Thanks, sweetheart.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 11:22 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
I don't entirely disagree, but the issues of poverty, lack of opportunity for self-determination, and good old-fashioned local politics account for a good third of the conflict over there.
I can agree with this, however it doesn't change the core problem.

Throughout history, any rotten movement or ideology could probably have been linked to economics, poverty, defeat, nationalism, whatever.

We weren't fighting "Germany's national insecurities and growing anti-semitism" during WW II. We were fighting fascism.

Economics, poverty, ignorance, education, corruption, authoritarianism, monarchism, etc. etc.

All of these things I'm willing to concede might play some kind of role in the overall problem. That doesn't however change the fact that many of these things have allowed for, or are otherwise the result of, radical Islamic inculcation.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 11:38 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
OK, you seem to be harboring this misconception that I'm talking about sending magic nijas into the mountains to kill the bosses.

No, I think you have a totally unrealistic view of how warfare is conducted.


Quote:
Far from it. I'm referring specifically to destroying terror cells in urban enviroments.
Great that makes two of us.

The problem is a lot of this mission is reactionary. The terrorists have to make the first move. SEALs and Deltas simply can't respond in an adequate fashion.
Now where did you get the idea that I was talking about SEALs and Deltas? Please refer back to my "i'm not talking about magic ninjas" comment. If any existing government agency would be responsible for this sort of warfare, I would think it would be the CIA, but most likely it would require a new agency.


Quote:
Quote:
Please recall the question I was responding to was " what would a war on terror look like to you?" If they wanna hole up in a mountain in BFE, we can leave em be or drop 100 megaton bombs on em.
And send in ground troops to confirm the deaths.
Is satellite intel insufficient?

Quote:
Quote:
Frankly, I am unterrorized by a bunch of fanatics in a mountain.
short term memory problems?
Have you been cowering under your bed the past 5 years? I've been living my day to day life exactly the same way as I was before September 11, 2001.


ABC, I'm not resonding to your "points", because you are so comfortable redefining my arguments, so you should be perfectly comfortable making up replies for me. Fuck off.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 12:49 PM       
"We could level half the country, that'd probably fix our problems pretty quickly, no!!? "

No. In my opinion, levelling select pieces of the country isn't working either. I believe Iraq, (a sovereign country we no longer occupy, officially) has suggested a timetable for the withdrawl of US troops and Amnesty for insurgents not tied directly to terrorist acts. I haven't had time to read much on what that might mean, but it does suggest there may be alternatives besides our current... lets say semi-traditional involvement, since you seem to think by traditional I mean strictly air war, which, traditionally I don't think we've used against an insurgency. In vietnam for instance (and I mean no comparison at the moment beyond style of fighting) we had troops on the ground, we had a hearts and minds campaign, and understandable difficulty telling who was the enemy and wo wasn't. I hope those sound enough like arguments to you., I shouldn't want to give you the 'out' of claiming all I have to offer are insults, you Wolfawitzawannabee.

"So what would a war on terror look like to you, Max? "
As I've said multiple times, and as you argue against almost immediately, It would look like a very large multinational police effort. It would of course also incorporate economic and political efforst as well. Saudi Arabia might be induced to fund less terrorism, for instance, if we stopped selling them weapons systems and dancing through the flowers holding their hands, etc.

"(which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."

Thank goodness you do not fall pray, as I so often do, of demonising and lumping together political blocks. I shall endeavor to match you and be more charitable when refering to 'conservatives', many of whom are fond of dismantaling our system tri-partite system of government. Oh, damn! I did it again.

" However, the countries that have funded these activities (yes, this includes Saddam's Iraq), as well as the countries that continue to breed intolerance, hatred, sexism, and racism towards Jews, Christians, and the West in general are actually VERY statist, and very traditional."

MMmm. Excellent point. I'm sure this moral, anti-real politic explains our invasion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and why when we discovered who ran the worlds nuclear blackmarket, we demanded his extradition to the Hague. Well, at very least harsh punishment. I mean house arrest. Anyway, Paksitan says he's under house arrest, and why would our allies lie to us? Your... argument, here, Kev, would hold water if it's relationship with our foreign ppolicy were more than coincidental. Are you perhaps suggesting we develop a foriegn policy with these goals? Traditional warfare against states that support terrorsim? Maybe I'm not clear on what it is you're trying to say here.

"But to argue that Iraq had absolutely NO role in the current makeup of the modern Middle East is absurd."

I hate it when I argue things without knowing it. Here's the argument I wanted to make. Since those are NOT the reasons we went to war there what chance do you think we have of making things better with the strategy and leadership that developed the false reason in the first place? And, now that we are in Iraq, do you see this is helping or hindering any chance we might have had or have of working on some of the other countries in the region that had a much larger role in the current make-up of the middle east. I think it's kind of weakened our hand with Iraq.

I feel as if your argument is:

"Yes, I agree, we went with bad reasons and we could have gone to better places, but now we're here lets just keep doing what we're doing and maybe it will morph into a being about good reasons and everybody there will forget about the bad reasons."

I don't favor that course, but I do think it's an arguable way of looking at the situation, and even has laudable, desireable, altruistic goals. I also think it would require a massive commitment and massive sacrafices well beyond anything either party has placed on the table. You say the Bush plan has looked 'pretty clear'. I'd say if his goals for the WOT are anything like yours, they are a muddy disaster. He needs a LOT more money and it can't come from borrowing. He may well need a draft. He needs a fully funded, decent health care system for returning servicemen and women and an agressive anti-corruption campaign so we aren't throwing away the money we have. I don't want the WOT you do Kev, but if Bush does, he's not being very realistic about what it would take.

" To say that this war is just against a few guys in a group called Al Qaeda misses the point and the real problem, and I think this is where we part on the matter. "

I think you are underestimating my view of the problem, but essentially, yes, this is where we part ways. I do not think military force, particularly occupation, addresses the problem of terrorsim in speciffic and rabid fundamentalism in general.

"This isn't two equals having a duel at sunset over a chick. This isn't "wanton". We are fighting people who want to see us destroyed. We are fighting people who want to oppress women, destroy Jews, Christians, and just about anybody else who disagrees with them. "

Yes, but the way we are fighting them is the way Chenney hunts quail.
We spray buckshot and we may well get the evil doer bird or birds, but we get a whole hell of a lot of other quail in the buckshot spray as well. And then those quail get really, really, mad, and the lots of quail who used to be somewhat anti-semitic and made their women quail dress in bags, which is admittedly bad, start to think the martyred evil doer quail made a lot more sense before our clumsy, hamfisted VP started shooting. I do not think this is about two equals. I think it's about one country, one stateless movement and one fuck of a lot of bystanders getting killed by both sides. I'm quite sure it's not a duel. Do you think it's Batman Vs. the Joker, or might your view be nuanced enough that to imply absurd metaphors is insulting. If so, I apologize for the Batman line and the Chenney metaphor. I'd hate to think that just because I disagree with you I'd boil your ideas down to nonsense, like, say, two guys dueling.

"The loss of innocent life is horrible, unfortunate, and sad. The intentional taking of innocent life is barbaric, "

Those are good deffinitions. I agree with both of them. How do you deffine a callous disregard for innocent life? I think a callous disregard of innocent life is a really, really, really big part of war. When a country uses cluster bombs, land mines, white phosphorus, I believe this shows a callous disregard for innocent life, and when a countries citizens don't scream bloody blue murder that also shows a callous disregard for innocent life. The collective screaming of voting american citizens might impact some of these policies. The collective screaming of American voters will probably not influence the practices of beheaders. I'm sorry that comes off as "blame America first" to you. I see it as conservation of screaming.

You call my conservation of screaming 'weak'. Admittedly, a fabulous argument, and is it any wonder I resort to name calling in the face of such erudite reasoning?

"I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer???"

I'm not certain, since I have never lived under either Sadaam or their current straits. It is my opinion from what I've read and thought about, that their lives were not that great in either scenario. I'm sure your certainty that their lives now are three whole question marks better arises from something pure enough that you have no cause to even wonder if we've brought more misery than was there to begin with. If there was only one question mark, it might be something worth at least thinking about, but three? I have obviously come up against a law of physics, one of Rumsfelds 'known knowns'. I can only assume that your certainty at a distance compared to my uncertainty at the same distnce, stems from your superior character.

"I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer??? And all of this never-before-seen stuff, like Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds working in the same room to patch together a republic???"

We are now up to 9 question marks in total, so I must be mad to even question you, but it's in my nature. I would say that since all the things you note took place and continue to take place in the presence of our vigorous military presence, we do not know if this is progress. If something lasting comes out of it in the end, yes. If it can only even struggle along while we surround it with blazing guns, then no, Kevin. In my opinion, that would not be progress, especially concidering the amount of bodies it takes to fuel the experiment. I would say you may be right. But despite your punctuation frenzy!!! I do not cede that as a given!!! And that, too, is where we part ways!!!

"erspective "

You may see it as perspective. I see a certain arrogance there.

"Call me Samuel Huntington, but I think we are on the verge of a great war. "

I think we are too, Samuel, but I think we are there because too many on both sides find that idea engaging, romantic and religous. I think a great war is what the terrorists, the fundamentalists, Jihadist, dead enders, etc. desire most of all, and I think we have agreed to theri playbook since the moment we went to war with a country W wanted to settle scores with instead of pursuing a more thoughtful honest policy. I think there is still time to put there playbook down and spend all our energy finding a way to avoid a great war. In worst case scenarios on either side of this divide; I believe civilzation could almost certainly survive some serious horrors. I do not believe that civilization could withstand another Great War. I hope and pray for a middle way.

"This isn't the same as WW II. Thank God for that. And thank God that President Bush isn't alowing isolationists and political opponents to prevent us from dealing with this threat now rather than later, much like they did to FDR. "

See, that's where I think you're blinded, Kev, by your idea that this is a pre WWII situation. You think we are 'dealing with this threat now'. I think we are throwing money and bodies down a rathole, almost totally ignoring actual homeland security and sticking our heads in the sand over rising sea levels which could make a Billion people refugees. THAT's the kind of shit that can cause Great Wars. I think there may be some ground between being an isolationist and thinking invasions and occupations are swell policy. Are anti-war and isolationist synonamous to you? I always thought there were other ways to work for change in other countries, I didn't realize if I thought all out war was a costly mistake that made me an isolationist.

"So I agree, Bush certainly isn't like FDR. "

Oh, well done sir! I agree , Imperial presidency (which as you know is the thing I find least attractive about FDR and I don't think it was a neccesary component of what made him a good president) is the only arena it's fair to compare them in. I do so wish we had a time machine so the brilliant stategic mind and compassionate social soul could have lead us through our darkest moments.

"YOUR COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH A "VERY REAL ENEMY", MAX!

PERSPECTIVE!"

You have convinced me sir! I still have objections to my countries conduct, but I now see there is no need to mention them, or that if I absolutely feel must, I make very sure there is an equal measure of complaint against our enemies! See you on the other side of IGW, the Inevitable Great War!!!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 26th, 2006, 01:08 PM       
"Blanco, the entire war on terrorism is like an episode of Law & Order. if we busted Bin Laden, the whole thing would fold, and we could move on to the next global problem that has nothing to do with Islam*."

See, THAT's a perfect example of Vinthism, exccept he did it in a far more natural and thus charming fashion.

Step one, adress a comment via a third party who assumedly agrees with you. It shows solidarity on the one hand, and contempt on the other.

Step two, boil your opponents argument down to an oversimplified, risable nugget.

Step two, let the implication lie that there is no ground at all between that obviously ludicrous nugget and your own position.



And Preech, with all do respect, I think your huzzah an freedom of speech and press was el nutso! Each iota of freedom you take from press or people is an iota you add to entrenched powers ability to muzzle it's opponents and work it's will in secrecy. No one of any party or political stripe (even, dare I say it, a liberatarian!) could resist that sort of temptation.

Freedom of speech and press are unwieldy, messy, frequently and easily abused and manipulated but as imperfect as they are they are a potential hedge against tyranny, and the only one I can think of that does not inlcude the use of firepower.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 27th, 2006, 12:52 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
As I've said multiple times, and as you argue against almost immediately, It would look like a very large multinational police effort. It would of course also incorporate economic and political efforst as well. Saudi Arabia might be induced to fund less terrorism, for instance, if we stopped selling them weapons systems and dancing through the flowers holding their hands, etc.
Really? What might compell Saudi Arabia to stop being the largest purveyor of hatred ad intolerance in the world???

I also struggle to see how the selling of weapons systems leads to the direct funding of radical Islamic organizations. I mean, i know you're certainly no relativist, but you'll have to connect the dots on that one for me. As I'm sure you're quick to point out, we're the biggest seller of arms in the world. We sell them to a lot of countries who manage to not finance terrorism, so yeah, clue me in here.



Quote:
"(which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."

Thank goodness you do not fall pray, as I so often do, of demonising and lumping together political blocks.
Cute, let's try to have an honest conversation though and post my full statement, k? Super:

"I think the Bush plan has been pretty clear, and it actually makes more sense than some random WOT that looks more like a "criminal investigation" (which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."

Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
As I've said multiple times, and as you argue against almost immediately, It would look like a very large multinational police effort.
So the next time you're going to accuse me of being too general, try not being so predictable.

And since we're on that topic, let's look at your global Carmen San Diego version of the WOT.

What the hell does a "police effort" look like? Are you on the same page as Ziggy, who seems to think that bumping off random people will stop radial Islam?

okay, so you support economic actions, too. Does that mean sanctions? You do realize that we had sanctions on Iraq for years, and it certainly didn't democratize Iraq. it did however provide Saddam with the means to demonize us and blame all of their suffering on us. Is that how you'd combat Islamic extremism, Max?


Quote:
I'm sure this moral, anti-real politic explains our invasion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and why when we discovered who ran the worlds nuclear blackmarket, we demanded his extradition to the Hague. Well, at very least harsh punishment. I mean house arrest. Anyway, Paksitan says he's under house arrest, and why would our allies lie to us? Your... argument, here, Kev, would hold water if it's relationship with our foreign ppolicy were more than coincidental. Are you perhaps suggesting we develop a foriegn policy with these goals? Traditional warfare against states that support terrorsim? Maybe I'm not clear on what it is you're trying to say here.
No, no, you're absolutely right. We should invade Saudi Arabia, only the site of the most holy religious site in the islamic world. We should also invade pakistan, a nation with a 97% muslim population.

Going after the nations that support terrorism doesn't mean you act retarded. We should be pressing Saudi Arabia harder, which is why I'v frequently said this war can be fought better. That being said, President Bush never said the best solution was to invade every muslim nation. The Saudi regime has made steps in the right direction, but the fact that they still have so far to go only proves how far the Middle East in general has to go.

Women are running for office and voting in Kuwait for the first time ever. Lebanese citizens are demanding that Syrian intervention in their affairs cease. Afghanistan and iraq have held the first democratic elections in the history of their respective nations. I know you can't acknowledge these successes, mainly due to your Bush blinders, but these are monumental things that are directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states.


Quote:
I feel as if your argument is:

"Yes, I agree, we went with bad reasons and we could have gone to better places, but now we're here lets just keep doing what we're doing and maybe it will morph into a being about good reasons and everybody there will forget about the bad reasons."
That isn't quite my argument, which I've stated many times, so no need to repeat myself.

And who said they were bad reasons? The reaons we were provided were erronious, flawed, and poorly gathered. That doesn't mean the "real" reasons we invaded Iraq weren't in our own national interest. maybe that's not "realpolitik" enough for you Mr. Kissinger, but you can make a pretty solid argument both politically and militarily that it made sense to topple Iraq, because they were the weakest of the supposed "axis", and they were presumed to be the Arab nation with the largest middle class. This factors into the development of democracy, which was certainly a consideration in invading them.

Quote:
I'd say if his goals for the WOT are anything like yours, they are a muddy disaster. He needs a LOT more money and it can't come from borrowing. He may well need a draft. He needs a fully funded, decent health care system for returning servicemen and women and an agressive anti-corruption campaign so we aren't throwing away the money we have. I don't want the WOT you do Kev, but if Bush does, he's not being very realistic about what it would take.
Well maybe you can sell me on your "police effort" approach. I'm fairly certain if we just got Bin Laden all of this would end, book 'em, Danno!

A draft isn't necessarily a bad idea. He should roll back his tax cuts and raise taxes, demand some national sacrifice here at home, invest in a broad scientific initiative here at home (call it like a "Manhattan Project") to get us on alternative and renewable fuels by 2025.

Be a little bit bolder, stop being so beholden to energy interests, among other things. But for the love of God, let's hope he doesn't pretend like you that radical islam isn't the real problem we are facing by pretending this is just some "criminal matter."


Quote:
I do not think military force, particularly occupation, addresses the problem of terrorsim in speciffic and rabid fundamentalism in general.
Right, and it's a good thing that's not all we're doing.

it's not quite a "police effort", but it's cose.



Quote:
"I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer???"

I'm not certain, since I have never lived under either Sadaam or their current straits. It is my opinion from what I've read and thought about, that their lives were not that great in either scenario. I'm sure your certainty that their lives now are three whole question marks better arises from something pure enough that you have no cause to even wonder if we've brought more misery than was there to begin with.
No, see I support you holding these doubts. I think you should keep saying it, because it will only sound more and more ridiculous with every passing month and year. i mean, heck, can you really know how bad it was there? You didn't live there, this is all second hand, maybe it was great!

Can you honestly not set your Bush hatred aside for a moment and objectively look at the obvious, exponential improvement in Iraq?

Quote:
I would say that since all the things you note took place and continue to take place in the presence of our vigorous military presence, we do not know if this is progress. If something lasting comes out of it in the end, yes. If it can only even struggle along while we surround it with blazing guns, then no

According to the Brookings Institute:

* Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.

* Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.

* On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts, and was originally expected to be met in 2004.

* The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60%, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40%.

* The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.

* As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.

* Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.

* In May of 2003, Iraqi Security Forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.

* As of January 2006, 64% of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.

* Also as of January 2006, 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

Even if Iraq doesn't become America's 51st state, even if they struggle for another 20 years to build a functioning republic, we will STILL have enacted clear and definite progressive change in Iraq. We removed an evil man from power, one who tortured his people and threatened his bordering neighbors with force.



Quote:
but I think we are there because too many on both sides find that idea engaging, romantic and religous. I think a great war is what the terrorists, the fundamentalists, Jihadist, dead enders, etc. desire most of all, and I think we have agreed to theri playbook since the moment we went to war with a country W wanted to settle scores with instead of pursuing a more thoughtful honest policy.
"HELP ME! I'M MELTING IN MY OWN WHITE, LIBERAL GUILT,AND I CAN'T RESIST MY INITIAL IMPULSE TO ALWAYS BLAME MY OWN COUNTRY FOR EVERYTHING! AHH!!"

Despite all of the talk, radical muslims do NOT want a real war. It's a war, if truly provoked, that I believe would awaken sleeping gians in places like Europe and Asia. Hell, I almost wish it would happen so that we weren't fighting this fight by ourselves.

They was us to retreat from their world, Max. If they could, I have no doubt that they'd wipe us all out with the push of a button. But they can't do it, so the best they can hope for is retreat. They count on folks like you to inflate the power of the insurgency, to blame all innocent life lost on us, and to constantly scream about how our own soldiers are only ruining Iraq.

Japan is going to reduce their troop levels, and other nations have done the same. This is precisely what the extremists want in Iraq, and maybe you can help them get it! Go go go! You're entitled to your free speech, Max!


Quote:
I think we are throwing money and bodies down a rathole, almost totally ignoring actual homeland security and sticking our heads in the sand over rising sea levels which could make a Billion people refugees. THAT's the kind of shit that can cause Great Wars.
Oh sweet Jesus. Max, can your ideal government multi-task? Can they handle fighting a war against our enemies, while also protecting the enviroment? Mine can.

maybe a "police effort" would also stop global warming, I dunno.


Quote:
Are anti-war and isolationist synonamous to you? I always thought there were other ways to work for change in other countries, I didn't realize if I thought all out war was a costly mistake that made me an isolationist.
They are the flipside of the same coin. I mean, why do you think progressive Republicans, old guard republicans, and Left-wing Democrats could both team up against war in the early 20th century?

Retreating from the world has never served us well, Max. We can't afford to do it now.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Old Jun 27th, 2006, 05:57 AM       
I havn't changed my day to day living much since 9/11 but being a New Yorker I'd definately say that a bunch of radicals in a mountain with some bank in their pockets do terrorize me. They did more damage to the country I live in(and more specifically to the state) then any other group or country during my lifetime.



Would this be the same multinational police force stopping drug trafficing, people smuggling, spread child pornography etc. etc. or would this be the one that was suppose to make sure that genocide never happened again?

Bin laden said once that our biggest weakness was never being able to stay the fight since Vietnam.

To be fair to Ziggy. If Clinton followed the plan of selective assassination Bin Laden would of been dead in the 90s. But Clinton's fear of upsetting the Islamic world prevented him from not once not twice but three times passing on the oppurtunity to kill and or capture bin laden. But this is according to the History channel and according to Geggy the History Channel is involved in the 9/11 conspriacy.

Fun Fact: Bush did not cause the world's hatred for America.
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Old Jun 27th, 2006, 06:27 AM       
Is it really so crazy to compare counter terrorism efforts to the wasted money on the war on drugs? I don't think all the money in the world could prevent terrorism on our country. I think the best counter terrorism tactic is just information sharing(and maybe knowing who is entering our country but thats just fantasy thinking) not some simulated anthrax attack where the real conditions of panic and mayhem are not seen or to my knowledge even factored into the pratices.

You spend money to put in metal cockpit doors. They will use another method of terror. I think if we stopped relieveing all our fucking arabic translaters from the military over the 'don't ask don't tell' policy, it would be much more effective agaisnt terrorism than metal cockpit doors.

I know nothing about the guy who orginally made the comparison except from what you guys said in this thread. I do think he is crazy if he inferred al queda was near fictional.

Question: Weren't democrats all about nation building in the 90s?
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Jun 27th, 2006, 10:46 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
And Preech, with all do respect, I think your huzzah an freedom of speech and press was el nutso! Each iota of freedom you take from press or people is an iota you add to entrenched powers ability to muzzle it's opponents and work it's will in secrecy. No one of any party or political stripe (even, dare I say it, a liberatarian!) could resist that sort of temptation.

Freedom of speech and press are unwieldy, messy, frequently and easily abused and manipulated but as imperfect as they are they are a potential hedge against tyranny, and the only one I can think of that does not inlcude the use of firepower.
I'm just jumping on the bandwagon. Individual Freedoms and Liberties are restricted wholesale thanks to war, but God forbid we share the burden with the holy press. They be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, just like Cynthia McKinney. I'm pretty sure some sort of public obligation exists alongside their First Amendment protections, and since part of our public is living and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, I think it's fair to question how well the obligation the press has to serve the public is serving our soldiers.

I doubt seriously the First Amendment was designed to serve as a zone of immunity against sedition. There's a big difference between watchdog and activist, but the First has been abused to the point that, in my humble opinion, the press has frankly become WAY too politically powerful.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old Jun 27th, 2006, 12:05 PM       
Kevin, you are a puzzlement.

"What might compell Saudi Arabia to stop being the largest purveyor of hatred ad intolerance in the world???"

A the dreaded question mark storm, which implies that I have made not just a questionable statement, but one that is mind boggling, unheard of, possibly even outside the laws of space and time. The USA and particularly the Bush presiencies are deeply emeshed with the Saudi Royal family. No conspiracy theory, just bidness. Saudi Arabia obviously values our alliance. Whhile you may find the idea that might give us some leverare debatable, but I hardly think it's outlandish enough to warrant so many question marks. You act as if I said we could reduce their contribution to terrorism by dressing as fish and eating coloring books. eel free to disagreee, but stop slapping your hands against your face like a E-Cauly McKulkin. They LIKE buying our weapons. we make the best ones. They want them. What if we tied the sales of those weapons systems to changes in their text books and support of 'charities'? It might not work, but it could be funny to try. Instead our foreign policy is to pretend the Saudi Royal family has nothing at al to do with state sponsored terrorism. Of course, we could just invade them and introduce democracy. That sometimes works, too.

"Cute, let's try to have an honest conversation though and post my full statement, k? Super:

"I think the Bush plan has been pretty clear, and it actually makes more sense than some random WOT that looks more like a "criminal investigation" (which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."


I'm not sure how posting the full statement changes anything. My objection was to your idea of 'liberals' and the implication that associtting the word 'Liberal' with something somehow automatically discredits it. Something I've noted a lot of 'chowderheads' are fond of doing.

"So the next time you're going to accuse me of being too general, try not being so predictable."

Sorry, I'm not getting you. You said I hadn't answered your question, I pointed out I had. It must be something stylistic your objecting to but I don't follow you.

"And since we're on that topic, let's look at your global Carmen San Diego version of the WOT."

I don't have a global anything, Johnny Condecension. Tell you what, why don't you look at 'your' global Stratego version, 'kay'?

"What the hell does a "police effort" look like? Are you on the same page as Ziggy, who seems to think that bumping off random people will stop radial Islam? "

No, I like his magic Ninja approach. You're right, theres no such thing as a police effort. There's no FBI, there's no CIA, there are no special forces, and if we ever acknowledge international law I'm sure that would vanish as well. That's why when the Libyans destroyed the plane over Lockerbee the only option we had was to invade Libya and introduce Democracy, Just as we did in Somalia after the Cole. Yes, yes, I know they are a mess, you can save up your question marks. What we have now is also a mess and it has a larger body count. IF it all works out in the end and does not lead directly to your Great War, I promise to admit you were right. I don't mind that you think I'm wrong, but I find your insistence that any other line of thought is bizarre to the point of stupification troubling. Such entrenchment in one so young!

"okay, so you support economic actions, too. Does that mean sanctions? You do realize that we had sanctions on Iraq for years, and it certainly didn't democratize Iraq. it did however provide Saddam with the means to demonize us and blame all of their suffering on us. Is that how you'd combat Islamic extremism, Max?"

Yes. Sanctions are horrible, but less horrible than war. AND they contained Iraq pretty well. Do you think sanctions gave the Iraqis more reason to think we were demons than invasion and occupation and Ahbu Garib? No, it did not 'democratize Iraq'. I don't think this has either. I know you think that the act of voting alone is Democracy, but if what you vote for is powerless, paralyzed and unable to function without a foreign army, it isn't democracy. Maybe it will become one, n'shallah. I don't think you can bring people democracy at gun point, I don't think we should be in the forceable distribution of Democracy business, and I don't even think that's what we're doing. At very best it might happen as a bi-product. Going there was a mistake and we are staying there because we cannot figure a way out that the administration can live with. I think you are much closer to the mark talking about preparing for a Great War than when you talk about spreading Democracy. When the great war comes, do we want Democracies in the midle ast who's people might legitimately choose to stand against us?

"We should invade Saudi Arabia, only the site of the most holy religious site in the islamic world. We should also invade pakistan, a nation with a 97% muslim population. "

No, we shouldn't invade and occupy anyone unless their is absolutely no option and if there is absolutely no option we should have an exit strategy.

"President Bush never said the best solution was to invade every muslim nation."

No, he said we should invade Iraq, he said we had no choice, and at best he was totally wrong about why and at worst he was lying. I know we don't have a time machine and we can't undo what we did, but while you say you don't like Bush et al, you think it's good we're their and what we've brought is an unquestionable improvement. Should we only 'improve' the nations we can get away with on account of their lack of holy sites? Personally, I think we've used up all our free invasion cards.

" The Saudi regime has made steps in the right direction, but the fact that they still have so far to go only proves how far the Middle East in general has to go."

And SO... we use sanctions, leverage, and police actions (which we are doing in Iran right now, so don't say there's no such thing). And no, it does not bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. THAT's what the War on Terror looks like to me. Slow, dogged, unsatisfying, sometimes inaffective, not at all sexy country song patriotic. They keep their women in bags, they teeter on the edge of slavery with their guest worker program, they are totally not a democracy, and yet we have decided there are ways to fight terror without invading them. Now I think we should pressure them a lot more, hold them a lot more accountable, but we can do it without invading. I also think we could do it without inviting them to Crawford and Kennybunkport.

"I know you can't acknowledge these successes, mainly due to your Bush blinders, but these are monumental things that are directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states. "

I acknowledge this progress. I think though you absolute certainty that these things are 'directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states. ' while certainly arguable, is something you take as a matter of faith. I would challenge you to support it without saying "Isn't it totally obvious??????"

I'm not going to quote your whole next paragraph in the interests of space, but let me see if I can paraphrase it without sarcasm or jokes. W and company lied to us about the real reason for invading Iraq. The secret reason they chose Iraq was to topple a middle eastern country they thought they could bring democracy to.

Tell me if that's approximately what you are saying, and I'll get my huge bag of question marks ready. I don't want to waste them if that isn't what you are saying.

"Can you honestly not set your Bush hatred aside for a moment and objectively look at the obvious, exponential improvement in Iraq?"

Can you honestly not think anyone could object to the war apart from hating W? Because wether you believe it of me or not, a LOT of people who voted for W and believed in him don't like the war, don't think it's an "obvious, Exponential improvement in Iraq" and if they hate W now, it's because of the war. Fine, Kev, the only reason I disagree with your unasailable, impeccable direct knowledge of truth is my tragic flaw, my SCARY LIBERAL BUSH HATRED. But what about everybody else? I know, a stupid caveman like me, ruled as I am by my primitive passions can't think good, and if I could think good, I would certainly agree with you. But I bet smarterer people with less raging hatreds than mine also might think, possibly, that we have not improved the lives of the Iraqi people. I bet some of them are good folks nd not just blind, liberal, Bush Haters.

All the brookings institute stuff is interesting. Each of those points can be discussed and debated. To me some of those things don't accurately measure much. GDP is up, but what about access to things to buy with your money, and what about prices? Scales of political freedoms are meaningless in the absence of the ability to practice those freedoms. The Iraqi parliment could make Gay Marriage legal. It's a start, but it's paper. I'm not arguing that no good is being done in Iraq and that our soldiers are Orcs. I just think expecting a think tank to tell you what living in Ira is like via statistics only says so much. I think for instance, the cable recently written by our own ambassador is also a valid picture.

"Even if Iraq doesn't become America's 51st state, even if they struggle for another 20 years to build a functioning republic, we will STILL have enacted clear and definite progressive change in Iraq"

How can you possibly know that in twenty years Iraq might not be a democracy (or some other form of decent government) without our intervention? Not every country in human history that has undergone progressive growth required an invasion and occupation.

"We removed an evil man from power, one who tortured his people and threatened his bordering neighbors with force. "

Absolutely. And I hope that the balance in the end is on the side of good. If 20 years from now we have Iraqi democracy, it may well have been worth it. How about if Iraq spirals into civil war, drags neighboring countries in and is ground zero for your Great War? 'Cause that could be the outcome of our actions, too. Bush the edler pointed out a lot of solid reasons for not invading Iraq when he had the chance, and then we had a lot of the world backing us up. Maybe the Father was wrong and the Son was right. But it isn't bizarre to think the reverse. And I hates 'em both, Kev. I hate Barb even more.

""HELP ME! I'M MELTING IN MY OWN WHITE, LIBERAL GUILT,AND I CAN'T RESIST MY INITIAL IMPULSE TO ALWAYS BLAME MY OWN COUNTRY FOR EVERYTHING! AHH!!"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "I'm Kev and I'm so blinded by my own arrogance and superiority that I'm certain anyone who thinks different must be some kind of congenital idiot and if only they would stop taking their stupid liberal pills they have the same opinion as me because MY opinion is the physical truth." Again, my apologies for being such a lesser being. I could ascribe your beliefs to jingoist war lust and race hatred, but I think you're more complex than that. That's why I continue to respect you even when you get the vapors.

"Despite all of the talk, radical muslims do NOT want a real war."

With your superhuman ability to peer directly into the sould of message board posters, political and religous forces and entire countries, it's a wonder the Justice League hasn't invited you to join.

"It's a war, if truly provoked, that I believe would awaken sleeping gians in places like Europe and Asia. Hell, I almost wish it would happen so that we weren't fighting this fight by ourselves. "

Almost, Kev? I'm not a soul peerer, but I'd say you're treating that 'almost' line like a runner itching to steal Second. Tell me, if the Great War comes, will you fight in it, or would you prefer to be one of those guys in suits with other priorities? I myself would really like to see us work harder on NOT having that war. I know, I'm an isolationist and the only way I can prove I'm not is to kill some people.

"They count on folks like you to inflate the power of the insurgency, to blame all innocent life lost on us, and to constantly scream about how our own soldiers are only ruining Iraq. "

OH NO!! I'M IN LEAGUE WITH THE TERRORISTS! I'M THEIR UNWITTING, LIBERAL DUPE!!

I don't know, I think they still count on W more than they count on me. Why, I bet not one single guy was radicalized on account of my quarrel with my countries foreign policy, and I bet our invasion of Iraq created, like, at least five new terrorists. So our foreign policy is at east five times more to blame than me. Just so you know, Kev, I don't think you radicalized anybody either. I disagree with you, but I do not think your view is a product of being duped by the terrorists, or even the administration. I think you have a supple, lovely, atheletic young brain, and while you are somewhat overestimate the truthiness of your own ideas, you came to them all by yourself. I, sadly, am too passionate to do that. Passionate, blind and liberal. Kudos to you sir.

"Japan is going to reduce their troop levels, and other nations have done the same."

I bet it's because all those Nations are blinded by their hatred of Bush. Otherwise they'd be Kevinists.

"This is precisely what the extremists want in Iraq, and maybe you can help them get it! Go go go! You're entitled to your free speech, Max!"

You know, Kev, you've given me pause, there. Maybe we should reaximine our commitment to free speech. It may be that by allowing folks like me that freedom, we are slowing down our distribution of democracy to others. I think we should change it so the constitution says 'you are entitled to freedom of speech as long as Kevin doesn't think it aids terrorists.' That way, maybe people would show their respect for speech by shutting up.

"Max, can your ideal government multi-task? Can they handle fighting a war against our enemies, while also protecting the enviroment? Mine can. "

I don't have an ideal government, and if recent history is any judge the best government I'm going to get is one that sucks somewhat less than this one. Maybe the next administration will be able to multi-task, but this one isn't. You're off in La-La land dreaming about all the good shit we could do if we had a dream government. I'm angry about the things our current government is fucking up, and I think being concerned about those fuck ups could be constructive in getting a better administration.

"maybe a "police effort" would also stop global warming, I dunno."

That's kind of dumb and apropos of nothing. Gee, there, Kev, maybe we could invade global warming and occupy it, a hyuk a hyuck.

"Retreating from the world has never served us well, Max."

So, that's the full range of your politcial thought? Binary politics. Avoiding war = isolationist = retreat, OR enaged = war. Can't your ideal government multi task? Your ideal government has no chance whatsoever of threading the needle, the only way to address the problem of Islamic extremism is to go to war because not going to war is Isolationsim is retreat? I'm praying that whoever sits in the hotseat next can do it. 'Cause I don't think anyone is coming home from the next Great War.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Jun 27th, 2006, 03:03 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
What the hell does a "police effort" look like? Are you on the same page as Ziggy, who seems to think that bumping off random people will stop radial Islam?
That is a gross oversimplification of what I proposed as a theoretical alternative to using the traditional army to "stop radical Islam."

You seem to think highly visible men with guns is the best way to fight this guerilla style fighters. I'm merely suggesting that might not be the case. And it the broader scope of crushing the ideaology behind the enemy fighters, I'm certain our traditional army is not the most effective tool. Maybe it'll get the job done. Going in guns blazing then building forts certainly is the most "American" way to try to get the job done. Maybe it'll even work. That'd be swell, since it's what we're doing.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Old Jun 27th, 2006, 10:06 PM       
The US army made several huge the mistakes, but one of the biggest was the failure to cap off borders. The initial war against Iraq has been over for some time...the current resistance against the US or whatever it is we're seeing now does not represent Iraqi's. I get the feeling that's lost on some of you.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.