Interesting points, undecided. "Wouldn't it have been better for the US to use Turkey, or Lebanon as a example of democracy?" There are some aspects of the PNAC agenda that I like: The mideast does sorely need true democracy, but it's the means so many of us beg to differ with the Busheviks on. I was appreciative when Bush criticized Syria's lording it over Lebanon. We have got to return to true diplomacy to make any headway, and there is a great deal of receptivity to more moderate, progressive visions for the future- Look at what is happening in Iran. Obviously the US can decisively strengthen democracy, security, and stability in ways that the Arab world can share credit in- But instead we're learning a bitter lesson that gunboat diplomacy and gunpoint coercion will only bring tyrrany, terrorism, conflict, and resentment.
hypewaders I don't like PNAC at all, mainly because it is not the place of any nation to decide the fate of another. The pre-emptive option has weakened some states, like Libya. But Libya has been gravitating towards the west for a long time now anyways. PNAC is only strengthening the hawks in Tehran or Pyongyang. Can we really blame those states for being scared? Democracy can only flourish if it is homegrown. If it takes a civil war to do it, then so be it. But at the end of the day it will work, because the ppl on the home country willed it. Some places in the ME can't have democracy with her current borders, and demographic issues. Also many countries in the region would prefer that certain states have strong stable un-democratic leadership. Does anyone really want to see a democratic Saudi Arabia? Surely US policy doesn't, and frankly neither do I. But if the Saudi ppl will it, then so be it. We cannot forget that the ME was democratizing back in the 50's in Iran, but that was crushed by the Imperial claims of the British and the new power the US. The US should use it's powers to persuade not to maim.
"Some places in the ME can't have democracy with her current borders" Another very important and problematic aspect of the Bushevik crusade's proclaimed goals. "The US should use it's powers to persuade not to maim." I hope we in the USA also reach the understanding in time, that diplomatic persuasion increases our power and prosperity, while colonialesque aggression will fritter it away to the point where, like "Great" Britain, we will find ourselves someone else's poodle.
will fritter it away to the point where, like "Great" Britain, we will find ourselves someone else's poodle. Well I don't see that happening, the US won't become someone's poodle, she will always be a relatively powerful state. Surely the hegemonic cries from China are increasing, but Beijing doesn't really care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and so she shouldn't. India will also become a very important player, and her proximity to the ME is also important. I predict that we will have a nuclear Iran, I already believe that she may have bought a nuke from NK, and that's why she is so wiling to have her nuclear sites looked into. We already have a nuclear North Korea, a possible nuclear Saudi Arabia, and increasing proliferation in China. PNAC doctrine is one of the reasons for this, but surely not the only one. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the US wasn't a power, because who be the counter weight to the other power? China will be a larger power then the US, but the US is the more experienced power. I wonder how the US or the UK or Poland would feel when China begins her "PNAC." Another very important and problematic aspect of the Bushevik crusade's proclaimed goals. Indeed that is a issue that can only be resolved through civil war, or a international meeting alas the treaty of Versailles.
Why you are a fool: You apparently actually believe things like this: /A "really big catastrophe" is obviously not what we need for world harmony, Okay, not that I want it that way, but flat stating it as "obviously not what we need" is simply uhm, well indicative of a self-involved habit of ignoring anything but your own retarded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for us. Have you considered that people might not agree? I mean, I don't think anyone would agree "hey let's have an asteroid crash into the plant" but you can't say that it wouldn't significantly increase global harmony unless you're as I mentioned, indulgin gin "a self-involved habit of ingoring anything but your own retraded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for US. /but The War on Terror draws us in that direction. Then you are fool enough to make a blind conjecture and follow up on it as if we should just all assume you're correct. You don't even notice yourself doing this. This drives me insane and you repeat and repeat and repeat it, pretending that you didn't do it. YOU JUST DID. ASSUMING THAT IT IS DRAWING US IN THAT DIRECTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IS PART OF WHAT IS IN QUESTION HERE. You'd think me intimidated eh? Yes, I suppose I'm intimidated by those who would present such arguments as rational, since you are a danger to me as you would promote you would have your insane bullshit overtake weaker minds. It's insidious. /Those inciting the WoT are endeavoring to bring about a clash of civilizations. SAME THING HYPE. YOu make a massive assumption, assume that everyone should just buy it and then wonder why i don't want to debate with you about it. THIS IS NOT RATIONAL BEHAVIOR, yet in the interest of your own mental stabilty, you'll be forced to claim that it is. /What I'm trying to bring together through this thread is that such a clash will benefit none of us *sigh*. This is insane. You would conclude that since I mention "certain cultures are mutually exclusive" than I am racist or bigoted, when I'm merely TALKING ABOUT RACISM AND BIGOTRY. It has existed since long before my birth, but by acknowleding it's existence, that must mean I endorse it. YOU SIMPLETON IDEOLOG. ARGH. I'm just sick knowing how you're going to twist this all into a defense of your position rather than understanding that I'm not saying this to appear superior, or to win, or for any other reason that it's goddamn true. you don't see that you just made like three baseless assumptoins in a row, passed them off to yourself as obvious, expeceted everyone here to agree, and then drew some idealistic conclusion from it? CULTURE CLASH IS THOUSAND OF YEARS OLD YOU IDIOT. Yet you act as if it's something new that the evil conservatives are using as a secret weapon to foil the plans of the all that is pure and good with the world. SAD Hype, very sad. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you used your intellect to actually THINK, rather than defend your ideology. Maybe you could even question your ideology? Who's crazy now eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /and those of us who are sincere need to recognize the deception and resist it. you are ensconced in a web of lies you tell yourself and then you pretend you know something. it's simply flabbergasting.
"you just made like three baseless [assumptions] in a row" OK, I'll try and give them some basis, and if I'm missing the point please straighten me out. "flat stating it as "obviously not what we need" is simply uhm, well indicative of a self-involved habit of ignoring anything but your own retarded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for us. Have you considered that people might not agree? I mean, I don't think anyone would agree "hey let's have an asteroid crash into the plant" but you can't say that it wouldn't significantly increase global harmony unless you're as I mentioned, indulgin gin "a self-involved habit of ingoring anything but your own retraded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for US." If I follow the above as you intended, you are critiquing my opinion "catastrophe is not conducive to harmony" as pretentious and baseless assumption. I'll concede on pretentiousness, since it doesn't matter anyway. Let's move on to baseless, where I have not been clear, or haven't sufficiently substantiated or qualified. The War on Terror experience we are all sharing is an example of catastrophe undermining harmony. Without projecting into the future, and without delving into blame, the course of events of the past 2 years has been catastrophic, and has caused discord between the USA and the rest of the world, most specifically the Arab world. If you wish, I will elaborate, but I expect we can agree that this is clear. Looking ahead, it is reasonable to expect that further catastrophe, or escalation of this confrontation will bring increased discord, or bring the opposite of harmony. I realize that this part is less acceptable to you: Nobody is going to cry "Uncle" at American use of force in this region of the world; rather, popular resentment to forced American presence will continue to increase. There is ample contemporary evidence for this, as well as overwhelming historical precedent. I will elaborate on this, if you wish, and if you are contending that history and current events indicate that American force is going to have the desired effect of furthering harmony, stability, prosperity, democracy, profit, US national interest, or any desireable outcome you would like to raise for our examination, well, I'll be happy to address any specific points you have. "...conjecture [that the War on Terror draws us in that direction] and follow up on it as if we should just all assume you're correct." I don't want you to assume. Neither do I understand what you are charging that I am unreasonably assuming. Please point out specifically where I am going wrong. I may be using too much shorthand when I say "Those inciting the WoT are endeavoring to bring about a clash of civilizations". Al-Qaeda is one group inciting this conflict, and they specifically announced in multiple written and audio manifestos from 9-11 onward that their goal is to draw the United States into full-scale war in the mideast, and in those same communications depicted the anticipated conflict as a war between Islam (Al-Qaeda's fundamentalist version) and Western culture, most specifically the USA. If you would like me to look up specific statements for you, just ask and I will do so. On the other side of the battle lines, it is not necessary to dig very deep behind America's present foreign policy thrust to find powerful people who publicly hold their own extremist views regarding both the correct political and religious destiny of the mideast, and also America's authority in implementing historic change by force. Again, I will verifiably substantiate that these people exist in power in the present US government if you want me to do that. What I was stating with perhaps too many leaps of argument is that this War on Terror is being incited by reactionaries on both sides. "YOu make a massive assumption, assume that everyone should just buy it and then wonder why i don't want to debate with you about it." I am not demanding that you just buy it: Show me exactly where I am going wrong. [The War on Terror] will benefit none of us. There is nothing to be gained in its methods for either side. Everyday people in Milwaukee and Medina are not sufficiently invested in this culture clash to see it through the level of devastation it will inevitably bring, to the conclusive advantage of either side. Eventually the wheels will fall off the political wagons of the reactionaries, with their objectives unfulfilled. This is not a baseless premise. Al-Qaeda, and other contemporary revolutionary terrorist organizations (that are primarily using Islam, and secondarily socioeconomic disaffection as a vehicle) are not in the majority anywhere. "Neoconservatives" with an agenda for forceful change in the mideast (who are primarily using nationalist insecurity as a vehicle, and judeochristianity secondarily), are not in the majority anywhere, including the USA. Although greater numbers of combattants and weaponry can be introduced on both sides, and devastation can exponentially increase, economics and the exhaustion of popular zeal will take effect long before either side gains meaningful advantage. In the interdependent times we live in, this is the geopolitical equivalent of Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction. A worrisome contingency is that should Israel become involved in an escalation, there could be a nuclear resemblance to MAD. "CULTURE CLASH IS THOUSAND OF YEARS OLD..." So is tribal warfare. So are stone tools. There is much precedent for reactionary gavernmental hijacking. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they fail. I realize that I am offering for your consideration something extremely pretentious, and that it upsets you: I am asserting that I understand the world better than the men in power both in my country, and in Al-Qaeda. I will be in your debt if you will explain to me where my reasoning is flawed, and the epithets are entertaining, too (though they don't really strengthen your argument). So don't hold back Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And sincerely, from the bottom of my arrogant know-it-all heart: Thanks for participating.
*sigh* I'll send you an invoice for hours Well Hype you might be insane but at least you seem mature, I can appreciate that. I could defend myself with a long drawn out blah blah but I'll suffice it to say it's simply a matter of style and I find mine to be a currently somewhat effective work in progress. Further, I don't stifle my emotions. I just deal with them on the spot. It's not very pretty sometimes, but it works for me. /OK, I'll try and give them some basis, and if I'm missing the point please straighten me out. :argh: I can't promise I'll have the patience but I'll try. "flat stating it as "obviously not what we need" is simply uhm, well indicative of a self-involved habit of ignoring anything but your own retarded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for us. Have you considered that people might not agree? I mean, I don't think anyone would agree "hey let's have an asteroid crash into the plant" but you can't say that it wouldn't significantly increase global harmony unless you're as I mentioned, indulgin gin "a self-involved habit of ingoring anything but your own retraded notion of reality and what YOU think is good for US." /If I follow the above as you intended, you are critiquing my opinion "catastrophe is not conducive to harmony" as pretentious and baseless assumption. while i think you are pretentious, i was not arguing that point no. i was arguing that your statement does not stand without assuming that "harmony isn't increased due to catastophe" - to which events like last summers' blackout and 9/11 are direct contradictions, as both at least temporarily brought folks together. further, you .... wait. try this: why should I believe you? You sate: "A "really big catastrophe" is obviously not what we need for world harmony". As if it is indisputable and then use it as a basis for your second assumption. If you draw a conclusion from stacked assumptions, and then make assumptions based on that conclusion, do you know what that is? Yes, a baseless assumptoin. Can you see how this correlates to your statements? Please note, I just picked out the first paragraph my eyes settled on in your post to pick apart. From what I remember, your posts to me in this forum have been filled with this type of nonsense, hence my reluctance to indulge in this conversation. /'I'll concede on pretentiousness, since it doesn't matter anyway. Let's move on to baseless, where I have not been clear, or haven't sufficiently substantiated or qualified. I think I just demonstrated what I'm about to further demonstrate. /The War on Terror experience we are all sharing is an example of catastrophe undermining harmony. Is this a thesis statement or should I just buy it per this claim? /Without projecting into the future This is ridiculous. Politics is about attempting to control the future. /, and without delving into blame, the course of events of the past 2 years has been catastrophic can you see here how this line is nothign but conjecture and assumptions? catastrophic? can you hear yourself? 'catastrphic' is wholly opinion based on your ideology. you simply expect me not to question it? but dude every single little thing you say? all of it the same way it's just too much to deal with. it's like goddamn quicksand man all of it based on opinions planted between assumptions, stringing them together in to chains of utter nonsense - extensions of presumption. i start questioning a piece and all the other pieces beg questioning and each as I get to it, just crumbles in my hands and I'm left wondering how it got there to begin with, confronted with another and on and on. damn dude. you're keeeling me. LOL. /and has caused discord between the USA and the rest of the world, most specifically the Arab world. more of exact same. can you point out the problem? /If you wish, I will elaborate I might if I didn't expect more of the same, which is seemingly inevitable. ,/ but I expect we can agree that this is clear. what you just said or what you are about to say? are you serious? you think I agree with your opinionated statement of your opinion based on the opinion you just stated about something you assumed that our opinions should be the same about? ARGH. Holy cow man how does anything make sense to you? /Looking ahead, it is reasonable to expect that further catastrophe, or escalation of this confrontation will bring increased discord, or bring the opposite of harmony. WHAT? LOL I just burst a vessel damnit. Lemme translate: "If you ate a chunk of that steamy pile I just squeezed out for you then you're really gonna get all up on this." ICK. man I just need to copy and paste "more of same, see what you did? I have to explain it all to you?" dude, I don't have time to explain it all to you. it'd take me forever. question yourself goddamnit. /I realize that this part is less acceptable to you: Alex, what is 'understatement'? /Nobody is going to cry "Uncle" at American use of force in this region of the world; Exactly why a reasonable alternative is to cull the herd. /rather, popular resentment to forced American presence will continue to increase. ACK DUDE. WHAT? I can't breath in here dude. Gimme some air! ARGH! I don't even know what to say to this besides: BULLSHIT! YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YOU JUST THINK YOU DO!!!!!!!! It's possible, but it's dependent on a number of contributing factors you fool! Say for instance the soliders saved the lives of your family and stopped a guy from beating you, gave you food and water and encouraged you to start a business, gave you startup fund for doing so and helped you fill out the @(*@(* paperwork hype!!!!! Do you think that you'd hate the "forced occupation" you fool! ACK YOU DON'T EVEN THINK! YOU ASSUME EVERYTHING!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /There is ample contemporary evidence for this, as well as overwhelming historical precedent. I will elaborate on this, if you wish, oh please spare me. i want nothign to do with your spin on all that. dealing with this is difficult enough. /and if you are contending that history and current events indicate that American force is going to have the desired effect of furthering harmony, stability, prosperity, democracy, profit, US national interest, or any desireable outcome you would like to raise for our examination, well, I'll be happy to address any specific points you have. but hype, you do not know the long term effects. you do not really know the short term effects. i think you draw a seemingly endless string of assumptions from whatever it is you think you know and by the time you end up making a statement, you are really only stating "i know what's best damnit, see, look at all these here assumptions I've based on some stuff that may not even really apply and then I make more assumptions based on it, it's fun, listen to it!" cut that out damnit. "...conjecture [that the War on Terror draws us in that direction] and follow up on it as if we should just all assume you're correct." /I don't want you to assume. oh but you must, because finding conclusions based on assumptions which are based on other assumption (none of which stand on their own) is basically like doing a jedi hand sweep in front of my face and saying "these are the conclusions you're looking for". sure it's a cool trick but goddamnit man after the 2202349th time it gets old! /Neither do I understand what you are charging that I am unreasonably assuming. I'm thinking at this point you at least see what I am trying to say. I doubt you're buying it though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /Please point out specifically where I am going wrong. I've attempted to repeatedly at this point. THis post is out of control in length - yet another reason I was reluctant to indulge you, as I expected this. /I may be using too much shorthand when I say "Those inciting the WoT are endeavoring to bring about a clash of civilizations". Yeah I'd say just a smidge. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /Al-Qaeda is one group inciting this conflict, and they specifically announced in multiple written and audio manifestos from 9-11 onward that their goal is to draw the United States into full-scale war in the mideast and? ,/ and in those same communications depicted the anticipated conflict as a war between Islam (Al-Qaeda's fundamentalist version) and Western culture, most specifically the USA. and? /If you would like me to look up specific statements for you, just ask and I will do so. I'll take your word for it as that is only an assumptoin one deep and it sounds plausible to me. /On the other side of the battle lines, it is not necessary to dig very deep behind America's present foreign policy thrust to find powerful people who publicly hold their own extremist views regarding both the correct political and religious destiny of the mideast how is this relevant? is the policy racist? do you just paint it that way because you suspect it? can you tell the difference? what i know of the policy is not at all racist. which people do you refer to? what place do they have in writing the policies? are you sure they're that way? again, does the policy reflect it? are you sure? i suppose I should just assume this is right? i'd have to in order for your other points to be valid right? /, and also America's authority in implementing historic change by force. SO this is change by force eh? Wouldn't that imply we were forcing the result of the change? Certainly we're strongly encouraging a democracy, possibly to a complete failure, but we are giving it to them to do with what they like. Sure I'll guess we'll be there behind to scenes to try to stabalize things, but.. argh. this is freakin hopeless. you see, contrary to popular opinion, history doesn't always repeat itself and further and more importantly, this is yet another in a sea of presumptions. what is good? is it good that people don't have to worry about sadam's folks murdering them for voicing their opinions? is is good that they won't be abducted and tortured, what about that the sanctions will be lifted? what about that they will have a new start? now I'm not presuming you'll buy any of those things, but they are all of similar merit to your assertions - little. /Again, I will verifiably substantiate that these people exist in power in the present US government if you want me to do that. You know what, I don't care if the president is a KKK member if the bastard doesn't let it effect him on the job. What good is done buy your substantiation? Racist dickweeds are a part of life. Show us anyway though so we can have something to look at. I'd like to know how you know they are racists, how you know it shows in their professionalism and what you consider to be racist in the first place. /What I was stating with perhaps too many leaps of argument is that this War on Terror is being incited by reactionaries on both sides. MUCK! Yes, way way way way too many leaps of argument and yet another to boot! I have shown you in other threads (a while back) why you are wrong. Bah, you are sort of right but it is inconsequential. Don't you see as long as there are asses in arabia that would plot to destroy the west, the west has little choice but to deter this, and the west will always be evil in the eyes of some from the middle east, as it is apparently easy to interpret from the qu'ran that "if you are muslim you're infidel' and 'kill the damn infidels'. Obviously not everyone interprets it that way, but as long as some DO, this is gonna be a problem dig? YOU CAN'T STOP THEM FROM THINKING IT HYPE. THEY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK, THEY DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT YOUR OLIVE BRANCH. They are on a mission from allah and as long as there exists someone to convince them that allah wishes them to kill americans, they will seek to do it. it's the nature of the beast as it is, and it's slow damned changing. the only way it to deter, monitor, blah blah jeez I can't believe you don't get this. I can hear you now "but but but no no see, it's because people think that that it's that way and if we could just get everyone to love everyone then we wouldn't hate anyone and man that would kick ass!" I'm SO down with that except for the whole part where it's stupid to think of it as a realistic possibility, given that mind control is still a little out of reach as far as I know. *sigh* "YOu make a massive assumption, assume that everyone should just buy it and then wonder why i don't want to debate with you about it." /I am not demanding that you just buy it: Show me exactly where I am going wrong. I suppose you don't see it yet? /[The War on Terror] will benefit none of us. HOW DO YOU KNOW? PRESUMPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /There is nothing to be gained in its methods for either side. HOW DO YOU KNOW? PRESUMPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /Everyday people in Milwaukee and Medina are not sufficiently invested in this culture clash to see it through the level of devastation it will inevitably bring, to the conclusive advantage of either side. ARRGH HYPE?!?!?!!? HOW DO YOU KNOW???!?!??!!??! PRESUMPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE TALKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!! BASELESS SHIT!!!!!!! LOL. Holy shit man, you must gain sanity! /Eventually the wheels will fall off the political wagons of the reactionaries, with their objectives unfulfilled. WHo are you the dali goddamn llama or some shit dude? You're just preaching ideology like it's a freakin given! WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? /This is not a baseless premise. ROFLMAO. Dude, are you sure you would recognize one if you saw it? If you did would you consider yourself racist? LOL. /Al-Qaeda, and other contemporary revolutionary terrorist organizations (that are primarily using Islam, and secondarily socioeconomic disaffection as a vehicle) are not in the majority anywhere. what does that have to do with anything hype? that is not at all important! they exist, they have power and influence, they are intent on one thing! JIHAD!!!!!!! We kill them or they kill us. It's not a "oh but" situation, it's that they are already plotting to kill us you freakin sand head hider! /"Neoconservatives" with an agenda for forceful change in the mideast (who are primarily using nationalist insecurity as a vehicle HOW DO YOU KNOW? PRESUMPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MORE OF SAME!! ALL PRESUMPTION AND NO SUBSTANCE. This is supportive of further presumption and supported by previous presumtion, rendering it entirely vacuous. Can you see why? What are you talking about dude? I intentionally ignore the rest of that paragraph as I think I'm already way over three hours into this, you bastard, and I didn't notice I'd missed this paragraph until going back through to add slashes. "CULTURE CLASH IS THOUSAND OF YEARS OLD..." /So is tribal warfare. So are stone tools. There is much precedent for reactionary gavernmental hijacking. DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU JUST DID. You changed the scenario drastically by your choice of words to describe it by saying "reactionary governmental hijacking". AGAIN? YOU do this over and over and over. BAH! /Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they fail. I... gawd dude I swear. /I realize that I am offering for your consideration something extremely pretentious, and that it upsets you: it's because you are not stupid, yet you lack the self-awareness or shit I don't know what you lack but you are smart yet you are insane and that makes you kind of dangerous in the voting booth and in your influence on those who would suckle from your argumentative teat. LOL. hehe, i like that one. /I am asserting that I understand the world better than the men in power both in my country, and in Al-Qaeda. Yeah you are, and I don't think you do - not at all, as you are apparently insane. /I will be in your debt if you will explain to me where my reasoning is flawed, Well I have time and time again I'd think, but I doubt you'll agree. I suppose all in all that's kind of amusing so what the hell eh? Okay then. /and the epithets are entertaining, too *kowtow* /(though they don't really strengthen your argument). yeah I'm aware. they do spice it up a bit though, which is simply more entertaining and more visceral to me. /So don't hold back Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hehe, thank for the advice brother. /And sincerely, from the bottom of my arrogant know-it-all heart: /Thanks for participating. I am compelled by my function to do so at this time. I wonder if it will change.
Since you're pointing out that first I went off the road of reason at "harmony isn't increased due to catastophe" I'll pick it up there. Wes refuted me thusly: "- to which events like last summers' blackout and 9/11 are direct contradictions, as both at least temporarily brought folks together. further, [you state]:"A "really big catastrophe" is obviously not what we need for world harmony"As if it is indisputable and then use it as a basis for your second assumption... The blackouts you injected have not been shown to be acts of terrorism. Neither were they comparably catastrophic. I could digress into how that episode and its aftermath illustrated American paranoia re: terrorism, but it would be best for the sake of laying bare my previous unfounded assumptions to stick to what has already been raised. That 9/11 temporarily brought Americans together, and also inspired worldwide sympathy and solidarity with America, certainly does not disqualify it as a catastrophe. I think we got thus far without disagreement or baseless assumption: 9/11 = catastrophe. From that point on I got lost, and should have made certain I was thereafter not talking about any catastrophe, but specifically about man-made ones. Except in common events when critical aid is available but selectively applied internationally, natural disasters do not cause the discord, the loss of harmony that I am trying to point out. I do not mean to use the word "harmony" in some mystical sense: I mean it in the sense of the basic functioning of society on the interdependent local, national, and international levels. Harmony: an individual going about his/her normal day. Discord: that same individual being denied all normality due to trauma and upheaval. 9/11 and it's aftermath are disrupting the lives of millions. In order to dispute this, you have to provide an alternate interpretation: You could argue for example that 9/11 was a rallying point, and the battle cry that arose joined Americans and 60+ allies in a decisive initiative (which it is not) that will reduce the threat of terrorism in the following ways: The War on Terror is taking the fight to the enemy, and reducing terrorists in number (but this is untrue). The War on Terror is bringing democracy to the mideast that will "drain the swamp" of terror-breeeding fundamentalist regimes and factions (but it is not). The War on Terror is impressing on any would-be terrorists that America will not be manipulated as terrorists intend (but it is). In order to dispute my contention that the 9/11 experience, and the subsequent response of American leadership, are not agents of positive change for anyone concerned, give me reasons, or specifically address the evidence I present in my argument. I am asserting that the "War on Terror" is catastrophic for America, because it is counterproductive. I am providing the following evidence to back that up: We are behaving exactly as the 9/11 attack was designed to incite us to behave- Al-Qaeda tipped its hand about this in its own rhetoric, which is public record. Revealing their objectives and methods was, like the attacks, intentionally brazen and confident. If you study the fundamental evolution and theory of terrorism and assymetrical warfare, the objective is to induce a stronger opponent into logistical, political,and ultimately ethical overextension. The ethical aspect is extremely important to note, because regardless of a stronger and let's agree more just or ethical participant's initial standing, if the more powerful entity can be induced to act sufficiently heavy-handedly and unpopularly, then the terrorist organization benefits, because the presence and actions of the militarily superior power are more apparent and offensive to the affected populations than the terrorists. This does not give terrorist total victory however, because in the wake of the conflict they must still consolidate power by reverting to more conventional methods, or just perpetuate chaos. The terrorists we must fight (but in smarter ways) are more complex than just evil demons of chaos: They have specific objectives we must understand in order to deal with their challenge. Terrorism is a very effective method if a militarily superior can be induced to respond impulsively, without balancing force with understanding. Force becomes rapidly counterproducttive to a power that acts without understanding of the political situation where violent force is applied. The veiled agendas of the War on Terror, on both ends of the conflict, are currently that of reactionary minorities- Al-Qaeda and the Neoconservatives do not represent majority Arab and American interests respectively. When the popular majority recognizes this, in whatever stage of conflict and catastrophe they find themselves, the war will unwind, and the world can get back to dealing with the same problems predating and exacerbated by the conflict. In the end, the Arab world is not going to return to the fabled Ummah, or Islamic Empire. I'll leave that unsubstantiated, because I know this does not bother you. In the end, the United States is not going to be allowed to form any new iteration of global empire, regardless of our motives: We are losing our mandate as world policeman, and once that is sufficiently eroded, we effectively become a very vulnerable rogue state due to the nature of our globalized economy. Along with America's difficulty in understanding the world, there is a growing international distrust of us because we are not forthcoming with the world about what we're doing, and we frequently change visible leadership and popular agendas. I know that is a big pill to swallow, but the US is trending toward a mode of national vigilantism that is going to be met with multidimensional and multidirectional resistance, from states, non-states, former friends, foes, all using myriad economic and unconventional methods to run us to ground. All that America is accomplishing in the War on Terror is stirring things up for someone else to exploit: Once we get a belly full of assymetrical warfare in the mideast, we won't have any interest in further shaping events there. These roiling clouds of catastrophe have no silver lining for Americans. This is not to say that America is wrong or impotent: This is not to say that we can do nothing. I am offering an assertion and supporting evidence, that we are incorrectly responding to a gigantic problem, and making it worse. We are not creating order in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are causing far more anti- than pro-American sentiment with our present conduct of the War on Terror. We are not engendering goodwill toward ourselves in the larger region, or in the world as a whole. We are not independent of the world around us. We must understand that we did not achieve our world standing by escalating conflicts outside and within our society: We did it by being more productive an innovative than the rest of the world, and there is nothing productive nor innovative about our cruelly-induced national hissy fit.
more lyrics Hi Hype, I did like the Robert Plant lyrics. I hope you are right for things getting better, but here is something for the moment... BATTERY Lashing out the action, returning the reaction weak are ripped and torn away Hypnotizing power, crushing all that cower battery is here to stay Smashing through the boundaries lunacy has found me cannot stop the battery Pounding out aggression turns into obsession cannot kill the battery Cannot kill the family battery is found in me battery ! Crushing all deceivers, mashing non-believers never ending potency Hungry violence seeker, feeding off the weaker breeding on insanity Smashing through the boundaries lunacy has found me cannot stop the battery Pounding out aggression turns into obsession cannot kill the battery Cannot kill the family battery is found in me battery ! Circle of destruction, hammer comes crushing powerhouse of energy Whipping up a fury, dominating flurry we create the battery Smashing through the boundaries lunacy has found me cannot stop the battery Pounding out aggression turns into obsession cannot kill the battery Cannot kill the family battery is found in me battery ! Metallica: Master of puppets / 1986 (Hetfield/Ulrich)
I just gave Battery a listen, too. Definitely part of the soundtrack I expect to look back on all this with someday.
Hi Wes Telling you the truth, I was bored yours and Hypes mambo-jambo rhetorics after one page Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No offence intended Wes: This war is great strategy to get rid off terrorist Hype: This war does generate more terrorist Wes: Well, lets get rid off them too Hype: Yeah, just bomb every fucking country and see where that lead us And so on, and so on... For me this case is very clear...I was on US side at Gulf War 1 and now I´m not. Why ? Read the article at the link. http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc3633.html So you can reasonize the war all day to me and I bet it wont change a thing. I´m waiting America (and those whom feeling opressed = terrorist) to smart up or, hell of a fight to appear. If they are starting to bomb Finland, its a different story then.
From a stragic point of view The sticky flypaper methode has the advantage that terorrists come out to play so you can engage them, however from a tactical point of view you will be squashing flies until the end of days (and receive quit a view stings in the process) until you remove the pile of cowshit that act as breeding grounds for new flies, namely: disrespect and bad foreign policy.... The security measures needed to further limit terrorists in their mobillity and strike potential would severly undermine the freedom of citizens. Are we really waiting for the moment every town/state needs to be turned in to medieval fortresses, surrounded by walls and everybody walking with subcautanious biochips so judge dredd can see on his screen our whereabouts??
Your probably not the only one that disagrees but rather than add to much more drivel, I agree with hype's view of and predictions of the situation.
It's sometimes entertaining for feelings to act out fleeting dramas here, but developing ideas seems a more worthwhile activity than preening egos. We do not get meaningful recognition here for explaining perspectives well: That's far more completely earned in the less anonymous world outside. There's no button to wear for making the most indignant noises in retort. There's no crown for enlisting the largest support group to consolingly mutter "hear, hear". This is by no means a serious business, but when it does have meaning beyond idle entertainment, it is the ideas that make it through the medium and have value, not the ornaments we dress our personalities in. I come here to volley ideas around, to help make sense of things, not to slam you with a proclamation of How It's Going To Be. Sometimes the ball is returned to me well, becoming more refined, and sometimes it comes back a sloppy spitball. The piques and the chuckles are fine, but what really matters are the ideas. When these words we write have disappeared down the archives and into oblivion, when we are all dust, a particle of these competing, evolving ideas, of ways of understanding of what's happening to us will go on into something more immortal and profound, and that's what matters. This particular thread deals with a developing issue that is going to involve the destruction of thousands of lives, and will have increasing impact on every one of us. If I am passionate about a glimpse of an idea that can avoid vast miseries, it does not mean I am feeding on some proprietary superiority in the attempt to explore some more. Defend your War on Terror with valor: Reach for understanding and not recognition. Explain what this expanding, indefinite war is going to accomplish for us all: Specifically how the death, hate, and poverty it's so far generating are going to bring life, understanding, and prosperty. If you can't do that, then you simply have no rational basis for supporting this war as a worthwhile or viable enterprise. Stand and deliver, or cower and pout: Your call.
I have painstakingly shown why everything I ever see you type is nothing more than tripe, Hype... "Stand and deliver, or cower and pout: Your call." You fail to acknowledge it and then "call me out"? We must not be playing the same game, because in terms of debate - I deflated your entire argument by demonstating your humongous flaws in reasoning (mostly stacked assumptions based on ideology, you are a (semi-charismatic) preacher - nothing more). You didn't notice eh? I came out, kicked your ASS and went home and now you stand right back up and start pointing and talking shit again. That's all great and everything, I mean, I'm glad your happy and all but your argument is an emotionally charged vortex of retardation. You don't listen, you preach. You don't think, you spew. You don't debate - you ignore anything that contradicts your emptiness, and then claim superiority. What's worse is that apparently no one else sees it. Maybe it's just me eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you had an argument to debate, that might be something, but I've demonstrated explicitely why you don't. Exactly as I predicted, you cannot acknowledge this or even give serious consideration the perspective which shines light on this fact. Your argument is assumptions stacked a mile high brother. That only works if everyone involved buys them. Oh I see, and that's why people like it. You have idealistic assumptions that ideologs just bite into, whereas I see each, identify it and call you on it, to which you provide more assumptions.... and loop it, and there you have it: Stacked Vacuum. Do you cry when they all die blond? I ask you to stop and question your assumptions. Then question that, and then that.. yes that too. I'm gonna go ahead and be disssapointed that you won't NOW, because I can see you're fully incapable. Have fun with that mess of sick you're wallowing in.
Hype said: You should be careful about your claims of worldwide sympathy and solidarity, for two reasons: 1) Just after 9/11 the US was like some kind of mad dog, totally freaking out and snarling at everyone... no one wanted to say anything that might have offended them, for fear that they might lash out in one way or another. Those fears of US lashing out have since proven to be pretty well-founded. 2) Many countries, like Canada and I believe the UK, had right-wing organizations that used the 9/11 aftermath to pursue their own agendas of greater "investigative" powers for law enforcement, like phone-tapping and surveillance. This misuse of the situation was disguised as support for the US when those organizations were grinding their own axes.
BBH: I'll try and be more careful: There was a period of worldwide horror, condolence, and solidarity with the victims, especially at the WTC and in the aircraft, and to a lesser extent at the Pentagon. There were admittedly also some crowds who performed cheers for the attacks in front of media cameras, but they were certainly not in the majority in the Mideast, nor elsewhere. Yes, there was immediate worry about what form American response would take, but there was also a noteable period of rhetoric and "coalition" coercion, and even some soul-searching in Washington, London, etc before the invasions. The world as a whole was not, and still is not supportive of the terrorist attacks, regardless of how they regarded American unilateralism and recklessness. & Wes, that you have "painstakingly shown why everything [you] ever see you type is nothing more than tripe" is true in the sense that you have registered your discomfort at what I've presented, but that's really about all you've illuminated. In close review of the entire thread, I see no counterpoint. I've explained why the WoT is not working, and you have mostly beaten your chest. "If you had an argument to debate, that might be something, but I've demonstrated explicitely why you don't" Show me where you offered explicit information refuting my argument. Or make a fresh start. "I ask you to stop and question your assumptions" And I already responded. I even helped phrase your argument for you. This is not answering question with question, it is a direct response. Read the thread. "I can see you're fully incapable [of questioning your assumptions"] That is a pathetically lazy way to make an intellectual challenge. I'll take you up on it anyway. Assumption: Invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq have not enhanced the security of the United States. Questioning/Counterpoint of assumption: Au contraire, self, sez I, these operations have increased our security, because we are killing the people who attacked us. OK we're not, and we don't know where they are. So I'll try again: We're getting many terrorists among the people we're killing and detaining: The shoe bomber. Not a combat operation? Hmm. John Walker! Jose Padilla! Zawahiri! Those guys in the Landcruiser in Yemen were bad guys. Al-Qaeda is being crushed I tell you! OK, maybe I'll try again: Eventually, we'll get attrit them enough to make them ineffective, and everyone else will think twice. They'll never take on our armored columns in the streets like those Mogadishu fighters we surrendered the streets to. OK maybe they do. Try again: We've got more resolve this time: This is about 9-11, see? So the outcome will be different. We'll take this as far as Vietman if we have to, 50k dead GIs and 3 million dead Arabs. Arabs aren't tenacious like Vietnamese, who had already been in a war of attrition before we stepped in. Oops, try again: I'm sincerely trying to challenge "my" assumptions, wes. I'm drawing on what you've presented so far, leaving out the personal attacks, of course. Surely you can come up with something better, you're a smart guy!
Just wondering Wes, would you support a bombing campaign against Britain, if there was undeniable evidence that the UK harbors terrorists (which it does?) What if there was info that in Canada that terrorists would be gathering at a remote location in the north, and Canadian officials couldn't get there in time? Would you support a aerial attack on Canada? Just wondering? Would you support a intensive bombing campaign in Michigan where the largest Arab population lives in the US?
