PDA

View Full Version : A national morality question?


Logical
06-06-2007, 08:55 PM
Why is it alright for the US to send arms to nations and freedom fighters all around the world.

Yet we condemn Iran for sending weapons to Iraq or the Taliban.

I think we as a nation and a people are pretty hypocritical in this regard.

WoodDraw
06-06-2007, 09:26 PM
Because they are using them against us? I may disagree with our actions in Iraq, but I don't want other nations to aid the opposing militaries. The US and Iran don't exist on the same moral level. That might sound like moral relativism crap, but I'm going with it.

The morality of US aid to other countries is a seperate and more complex issue.

Logical
06-06-2007, 10:13 PM
Because they are using them against us? I may disagree with our actions in Iraq, but I don't want other nations to aid the opposing militaries. The US and Iran don't exist on the same moral level. That might sound like moral relativism crap, but I'm going with it.

The morality of US aid to other countries is a seperate and more complex issue.

If you were a Palestinian being oppressed with US military equipment I doubt you would say it is any less relevant.

Der Flöprer
06-06-2007, 10:51 PM
Because they don't believe in Capitalistic socialis.........wait, I mean democracy.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2007, 10:56 PM
Yeah, Jim.....freedom sucks. It's a bad thing, man. We shouldn't help people to pursue freedom. You are right.

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2007, 10:58 PM
If you were a Palestinian being oppressed with US military equipment I doubt you would say it is any less relevant.

Y'see, the problem I have with your premise is just this: Why should the government of the United States, its military and the industries that supply them care what homeless people on the other side of the globe think?

Mr. Laz
06-06-2007, 11:02 PM
Yeah, Jim.....freedom sucks. It's a bad thing, man. We shouldn't help people to pursue freedom. You are right.
ROFL

oh please ..... you still trying to hold to the fact that going to Iraq was a humanitarian move.

what a complete joke ...... you can't even type that with a straight face, can you?

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2007, 11:03 PM
ROFL

oh please ..... you still trying to hold to the fact that going to Iraq was a humanitarian move.

what a complete joke ...... you can't even type that with a straight face, can you?

:spock:

Seek help, dude. Soon.

keg in kc
06-06-2007, 11:10 PM
Why is it alright for the US to send arms to nations and freedom fighters all around the world.You know the lexicon, Jim. When they're with you, guerrillas are "freedom fighters". When they're against you, they're "terrorists". Occasionally the same group or individual can carry both labels, depending on how they fit your political agenda at the time. Saddam's an example of this, and so are the Taliban.

And we are hypocritical, although I'm not sure we're moreso than anyone else throughout recorded history. As is generally the case, we're not in any of these wars for the "liberation" of the locals, we're there because it benefits us, strategically or economically. It's all about American self-interest.

In the end, if it comes down to a choice between American flavored hypocricy or the brand China or Russia would like to spring on the world, I think I prefer ours. I'm probably biased, since, you know, I live here...

I just hope we haven't gone too far into the realm of American Empire at the cost of international goodwill among the billions of people who aren't our direct allies. We have a lot of arrogance, and I'm not sure it's the right way to be. I've never liked the John Wayne "I do what I want, f*ck the rest of you" cowboy attitude.

I'm just a pebble in the pond, however, and not even one of the ripple-generating ones. I just sit in the muck on the bottom.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2007, 11:15 PM
You know the lexicon, Jim. When they're with you, guerrillas are "freedom fighters". When they're against you, they're "terrorists". Occasionally the same group or individual can carry both labels, depending on how they fit your political agenda at the time. Saddam's an example of this, and so are the Taliban.

And we are hypocritical, although I'm not sure we're moreso than anyone else throughout recorded history. As is generally the case, we're not in any of these wars for the "liberation" of the locals, we're there because it benefits us, strategically or economically. It's all about American self-interest.

In the end, if it comes down to a choice between American flavored hypocricy or the brand China or Russia would like to spring on the world, I think I prefer ours. I'm probably biased, since, you know, I live here...

I just hope we haven't gone too far into the realm of American Empire at the cost of international goodwill among the billions of people who aren't our direct allies. We have a lot of arrogance, and I'm not sure it's the right way to be. I've never liked the John Wayne "I do what I want, f*ck the rest of you" cowboy attitude.

...

Amen. :clap:

Mr. Laz
06-06-2007, 11:26 PM
:spock:

Seek help, dude. Soon.
maybe you should seek help for your compulsive lying.

nobody even mentioned this "humanitarian move" until have all the WMD reasons and Al Qaeda connections had fallen through over and over again.

the humanitarian aspect was a side effect ... a political safety net.


lol ... i wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out the people talking humanitarian effort now were many of the same people that said "turn Iraq into a glass parking lot" or "just nuke'em all and let GOD sort him out" etc back when the stuff started.

so please .... while you saying whatever it takes to "win the argument" at least try and pretend to have some kind of sincerity.

Mr. Kotter
06-06-2007, 11:31 PM
maybe you should seek help for your compulsive lying.

nobody even mentioned this "humanitarian move" until have all the WMD reasons and Al Qaeda connections had fallen through over and over again.

the humanitarian aspect was a side effect ... a political safety net.


lol ... i wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out the people talking humanitarian effort now were many of the same people that said "turn Iraq into a glass parking lot" or "just nuke'em all and let GOD sort him out" etc back when the stuff started.

so please .... while you saying whatever it takes to "win the argument" at least try and pretend to have some kind of sincerity.

Dude. WMDs aside, if you don't think at least part of the Calculus of us going in was to spread democracy...plant the seeds--even if it was as a by-product, you are pretty cynical about our country's motives and what we stand for, IMHO. It was "mentioned"--not prominently, but it was. Unless you weren't listening.

I've never, seriously, proposed turning Iraq into a sheet of glass. So I don't know who you are talking about. I am being sincere (responding to you, at least--the sarcasm was directed at Jim.) You seem bent on believing what you want to believe though. Too bad.

Logical
06-07-2007, 12:07 AM
You know the lexicon, Jim. When they're with you, guerrillas are "freedom fighters". When they're against you, they're "terrorists". Occasionally the same group or individual can carry both labels, depending on how they fit your political agenda at the time. Saddam's an example of this, and so are the Taliban.

And we are hypocritical, although I'm not sure we're moreso than anyone else throughout recorded history. As is generally the case, we're not in any of these wars for the "liberation" of the locals, we're there because it benefits us, strategically or economically. It's all about American self-interest.

In the end, if it comes down to a choice between American flavored hypocricy or the brand China or Russia would like to spring on the world, I think I prefer ours. I'm probably biased, since, you know, I live here...

I just hope we haven't gone too far into the realm of American Empire at the cost of international goodwill among the billions of people who aren't our direct allies. We have a lot of arrogance, and I'm not sure it's the right way to be. I've never liked the John Wayne "I do what I want, f*ck the rest of you" cowboy attitude.

I'm just a pebble in the pond, however, and not even one of the ripple-generating ones. I just sit in the muck on the bottom.

Wow it is rare we so completely agree and especially on the part in bold even though that used to be my attitude.

ClevelandBronco
06-07-2007, 12:07 AM
Y'see, the problem I have with your premise is just this: Why should the government of the United States, its military and the industries that supply them care what homeless people on the other side of the globe think?

Don't mind me. I'm having a bad day.

Logical
06-07-2007, 12:38 AM
Don't mind me. I'm having a bad day.

Honestly I was confused by the intent of that post so I did not respond.

ClevelandBronco
06-07-2007, 12:41 AM
Honestly I was confused by the intent of that post so I did not respond.
I appreciate it.

jiveturkey
06-07-2007, 08:21 AM
You know the lexicon, Jim. When they're with you, guerrillas are "freedom fighters". When they're against you, they're "terrorists". Occasionally the same group or individual can carry both labels, depending on how they fit your political agenda at the time. Saddam's an example of this, and so are the Taliban.

And we are hypocritical, although I'm not sure we're moreso than anyone else throughout recorded history. As is generally the case, we're not in any of these wars for the "liberation" of the locals, we're there because it benefits us, strategically or economically. It's all about American self-interest.

In the end, if it comes down to a choice between American flavored hypocricy or the brand China or Russia would like to spring on the world, I think I prefer ours. I'm probably biased, since, you know, I live here...

I just hope we haven't gone too far into the realm of American Empire at the cost of international goodwill among the billions of people who aren't our direct allies. We have a lot of arrogance, and I'm not sure it's the right way to be. I've never liked the John Wayne "I do what I want, f*ck the rest of you" cowboy attitude.

I'm just a pebble in the pond, however, and not even one of the ripple-generating ones. I just sit in the muck on the bottom.Rep for you my good man.

And for the billions who aren't direct allies they will soon become our employees and they will make cheap crap for us to play with. If that doesn't turn them then hope is lost.

Radar Chief
06-07-2007, 08:48 AM
ROFL

oh please ..... you still trying to hold to the fact that going to Iraq was a humanitarian move.

what a complete joke ...... you can't even type that with a straight face, can you?

This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Who's “lying”? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

Radar Chief
06-07-2007, 08:52 AM
maybe you should seek help for your compulsive lying.

nobody even mentioned this "humanitarian move" until have all the WMD reasons and Al Qaeda connections had fallen through over and over again.

the humanitarian aspect was a side effect ... a political safety net.


lol ... i wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out the people talking humanitarian effort now were many of the same people that said "turn Iraq into a glass parking lot" or "just nuke'em all and let GOD sort him out" etc back when the stuff started.

so please .... while you saying whatever it takes to "win the argument" at least try and pretend to have some kind of sincerity.

Jesus Laz, you been living under a rock?
“WMD” munitions have been found, al Qaeda connections have been proven and continue to be solidified.
None of that has “fallen through”. :spock:

the Talking Can
06-07-2007, 09:04 AM
“WMD” munitions have been found, al Qaeda connections have been proven and continue to be solidified.
None of that has “fallen through”. :spock:

wow














just WOW.....you'e that guy

Radar Chief
06-07-2007, 09:23 AM
wow














just WOW.....you'e that guy

Evidence to the contrary? Or am I to assume the best you’ve got is attempts to demagogue away the evidence I’ve posted repeatedly as just stuff posted by “one of those guys”. :shrug:

Logical
06-07-2007, 10:53 AM
If you ever doubted Bush and his advisers were idiots:

Originally Posted by Bush from Oct. ‘02
This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people

Oy vey, it could not get worse.ROFL

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2007, 11:25 AM
Who's “lying”? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

Laz was....he knew it though. He's smarter than he leads us to believe. For him, ideology trumps truth though. :shrug:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-07-2007, 02:36 PM
Jesus Laz, you been living under a rock?
“WMD” munitions have been found, al Qaeda connections have been proven and continue to be solidified.
None of that has “fallen through”. :spock:

ROFL ROFL ROFL

patteeu
06-07-2007, 02:38 PM
maybe you should seek help for your compulsive lying.

nobody even mentioned this "humanitarian move" until have all the WMD reasons and Al Qaeda connections had fallen through over and over again.

the humanitarian aspect was a side effect ... a political safety net.


lol ... i wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out the people talking humanitarian effort now were many of the same people that said "turn Iraq into a glass parking lot" or "just nuke'em all and let GOD sort him out" etc back when the stuff started.

so please .... while you saying whatever it takes to "win the argument" at least try and pretend to have some kind of sincerity.

You are wrong about this. There were certainly people who supported the Iraq invasion for humanitarian reasons. Different people had different reasons. You appear to think that every single supporter of the war supported it for exactly the same reasons. That's not the case even among the advocates for war in the Bush administration.

I forget who said it, but someone from within the administration once said that WMD was the most prominent angle on which the war was sold because it was the lowest common denominator. What he meant by that was that among all the varying reasons that different people had for supporting the war, the one that the most people shared was the WMD rationale. But it was by no means the only rationale at work.

patteeu
06-07-2007, 02:39 PM
Why did America believe it was OK for our military to sink Japanese ships in WWII when we get so uptight about a few islamists blowing a hole in the side of the USS Cole? Can anyone please explain our hypocrisy to me? :deevee: /sarcasm

patteeu
06-07-2007, 02:45 PM
wow














just WOW.....you'e that guy

From which do you get better results, in the sand or up your ass?

go bowe
06-07-2007, 03:39 PM
:spock:

Seek help, dude. Soon.help?

hell, you're the one that needs help...

who don't you just answer his question?

c'mon, you can do it...

go bowe
06-07-2007, 04:08 PM
Laz was....he knew it though. He's smarter than he leads us to believe. For him, ideology trumps truth though. :shrug:it sure seems that way...

are you claiming that all 6 of you never once chose ideology over truth? of course not... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

not even once?

btw, whose truth are we to believe?

go bowe
06-07-2007, 04:14 PM
From which do you get better results, in the sand or up your ass?whoa...

that was a little brutal, but probably correct...

actually, doin' it on a blanket in the sand dunes is a real experience...

nttiawwt

Mr. Kotter
06-07-2007, 04:40 PM
it sure seems that way...

are you claiming that all 6 of you never once chose ideology over truth? of course not... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

not even once?

btw, whose truth are we to believe?
Six of me? You underestimate me.... ;)

As for me? Perhaps. On a rare occasion or two sure. I am, afterall, human....like you and everyone else here (er, eh...well, almost everyone.heh.)

Have a nice day, John. :)

the Talking Can
06-07-2007, 06:14 PM
From which do you get better results, in the sand or up your ass?

....sorry, I just now stopped laughing at his post.....


the distance from Salina to Pluto is less than that between you and reality....not even radar's LSD powered Pacer with tin foil covered bucket seats could get you there...

listening to you two idiots makes it crystal clear to me how those morons in Washington ****ed up Iraq so bad...

ok, I'm going to go read that post again....laughing that hard feels good

the Talking Can
06-07-2007, 06:15 PM
Jesus Laz, you been living under a rock?
“WMD” munitions have been found, al Qaeda connections have been proven and continue to be solidified.
None of that has “fallen through”. :spock:

ROFL
ROFL


yep, still funny....

mlyonsd
06-07-2007, 08:36 PM
Why is it alright for the US to send arms to nations and freedom fighters all around the world.

Yet we condemn Iran for sending weapons to Iraq or the Taliban.

I think we as a nation and a people are pretty hypocritical in this regard.

I think in the end the good people are supposed to stand up and take control of whichever arms they receive.

Logical
06-07-2007, 10:16 PM
I think in the end the good people are supposed to stand up and take control of whichever arms they receive.

I think who are the good people all depends on perspective.

Logical
06-07-2007, 10:17 PM
Why did America believe it was OK for our military to sink Japanese ships in WWII when we get so uptight about a few islamists blowing a hole in the side of the USS Cole? Can anyone please explain our hypocrisy to me? :deevee: /sarcasmThat is not a valid comparison, but yes even that is hypocritical. I was not making a value judgement. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

Calcountry
06-08-2007, 12:57 AM
Why is it alright for the US to send arms to nations and freedom fighters all around the world.

Yet we condemn Iran for sending weapons to Iraq or the Taliban.

I think we as a nation and a people are pretty hypocritical in this regard.I have said this before to other posters, I think Jaz, WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT YOU THINK?

Logical
06-08-2007, 01:02 AM
I have said this before to other posters, I think Jaz, WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT YOU THINK?
Well first of all I am not Jaz. Second of all I did not tell you what I think in that post, I asked questions to make other people think and answer them for themselves.

Radar Chief
06-08-2007, 07:44 AM
I got nothing so I’ll try to paint a happy face on my partisan stupidity with a bunch of ROFL smilies.

FYP. :thumb:

Radar Chief
06-08-2007, 07:47 AM
ROFL
ROFL


yep, still funny....


I can do that too.

ROFL LMAO :LOL:

patteeu
06-08-2007, 08:54 PM
I think who are the good people all depends on perspective.

You leave me wondering which perspective *you* have on this topic.

patteeu
06-08-2007, 08:59 PM
If you were a Palestinian being oppressed with US military equipment I doubt you would say it is any less relevant.

Who cares what a Palestinian would say? Is this the first time the thought ever crossed your mind that our enemies think that God is on their side (so to speak) just like we do? That's always been the case.

go bowe
06-08-2007, 09:44 PM
....sorry, I just now stopped laughing at his post.....


the distance from Salina to Pluto is less than that between you and reality....not even radar's LSD powered Pacer with tin foil covered bucket seats could get you there...

listening to you two idiots makes it crystal clear to me how those morons in Washington ****ed up Iraq so bad...

ok, I'm going to go read that post again....laughing that hard feels goodlsd powered you say?

this thread is worthless without pics...

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:45 PM
You leave me wondering which perspective *you* have on this topic.

I am not making a value judgement in this thread. This is my thread to just muse over questions that cross my mind. The whole Ron Paul thing got me thinking about these things.

go bowe
06-08-2007, 10:19 PM
Who cares what a Palestinian would say? Is this the first time the thought ever crossed your mind that our enemies think that God is on their side (so to speak) just like we do? That's always been the case.who cares about what a palestinian would say?

well, i don't know, depends on what he's saying, i guess...

i actually surf to some of the arab news outlets from time to time to check out the arab pov on current events...

pretty interesting stuff, not nearly as biased as one might imagine...

so i guess i would care in an abstract sort of way...

then there's that whole they're-humans-too thingy...

Logical
06-08-2007, 10:24 PM
who cares about what a palestinian would say?

well, i don't know, depends on what he's saying, i guess...

i actually surf to some of the arab news outlets from time to time to check out the arab pov on current events...

pretty interesting stuff, not nearly as biased as one might imagine...

so i guess i would care in an abstract sort of way...

then there's that whole they're-humans-too thingy...
You must be a terrorist sympathizer!111!!

patteeu
06-08-2007, 11:38 PM
I am not making a value judgement in this thread. This is my thread to just muse over questions that cross my mind. The whole Ron Paul thing got me thinking about these things.

It's disturbing that a grown man who works in the defense industry would have to think about something like this. I would have assumed that you'd have given this kind of thing all the thought required during your young, presumably-more-naive years and that you'd have resolved it in a reasonable fashion by now.

Hmmm. Why is it OK that we arm our allies (and those who are doing our bidding one way or another) while we object to those who arm our enemies? Hmmm. Deep. :rolleyes:

Logical
06-08-2007, 11:46 PM
It's disturbing that a grown man who works in the defense industry would have to think about something like this. I would have assumed that you'd have given this kind of thing all the thought required during your young, presumably-more-naive years and that you'd have resolved it in a reasonable fashion by now.

Hmmm. Why is it OK that we arm our allies (and those who are doing our bidding one way or another) while we object to those who arm our enemies? Hmmm. Deep. :rolleyes:

I don't consider Palestine our cuurent enemy, and countries like Russia and China also arm the countries we consider enemies yet we are building alliances with them.

As to my younger years, I will happily admit the big bucks overshadowed any thoughts along these lines. I have always thought about questions like this just like the way I do not accept the Bible as the truth.

patteeu
06-08-2007, 11:52 PM
who cares about what a palestinian would say?

well, i don't know, depends on what he's saying, i guess...

i actually surf to some of the arab news outlets from time to time to check out the arab pov on current events...

pretty interesting stuff, not nearly as biased as one might imagine...

so i guess i would care in an abstract sort of way...

then there's that whole they're-humans-too thingy...

Well, to be honest, there are times when I'd care what a palestinian would say too. For example, if I was trying to seduce some palestinian hottie, I'd care what she had to say. Or if my doctor was a Palestinian and I went to him to investigate a sharp pain I was having in my spleen area, I'd care what he had to say. But in the context of this thread, I don't care what a palestinian, or an irishman, or a bangledeshi, or a self-hating American, or anyone else who didn't put American interests ahead of the interests of any other group on Earth, has to say.

I think it's great to understand the arab pov on current events though. I see a distinct difference between understanding them (which is what you seem to be doing) and ignoring the differences between our causes to the point that you can't tell which side you're on (which is the line that I fear some are flirting with when they start to come up with questions like this).

patteeu
06-09-2007, 12:04 AM
I don't consider Palestine our cuurent enemy,...

You're on the wrong half of your question here. This would be related to the half where we are arming our allies (e.g. Israel), not the half where bad guys were arming our enemies. In other words, I didn't call the palestinians our enemies, although many of them are, IMO (e.g. their radical activist/terrorist organizations like Hamas).

... and countries like Russia and China also arm the countries we consider enemies yet we are building alliances with them.

Unfortunately, the world is often not a black and white place. We certainly don't appreciate it when Russia and China arm our enemies, but obviously someone has decided that we get more out of building alliances with them despite their transgressions than we'd get out of either fighting them or facing off against them in some kind of cold war.

Logical
06-09-2007, 12:06 AM
...
I think it's great to understand the arab pov on current events though. I see a distinct difference between understanding them (which is what you seem to be doing) and ignoring the differences between our causes to the point that you can't tell which side you're on (which is the line that I fear some are flirting with when they start to come up with questions like this).

In the slight chance I was one of the people you might be referencing, you have my questioning wrong. My questions are based on Ron Paul's assertion that we have to understand why they hate us and stop doing that to stop terrorism. I think to an extent he has a point, we are taking covert actions in Iran and I accept that and think that make sense. But Ron Paul would say we are creating more of our problems, is he right, I am not sure. It is an interesting POV.

Logical
06-09-2007, 12:08 AM
...



Unfortunately, the world is often not a black and white place. We certainly don't appreciate it when Russia and China arm our enemies, but obviously someone has decided that we get more out of building alliances with them despite their transgressions than we'd get out of either fighting them or facing off against them in some kind of cold war.

Or like I said in another post, we only pick on countries we can bully.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 12:22 AM
Or like I said in another post, we only pick on countries we can bully.

Well there's nothing wrong with that. It wouldn't make any sense picking on someone who could kick your ass and you have to have a really good reason to pick on someone who could give you a good beating even if you think you could take him in the end. That's all a part of the calculation.

Of course, I wouldn't go as far out of my way to characterize it in such unflattering terms as you do, but then, I don't have any trouble knowing which side I'm on. :p

Logical
06-09-2007, 12:29 AM
Well there's nothing wrong with that. It wouldn't make any sense picking on someone who could kick your ass and you have to have a really good reason to pick on someone who could give you a good beating even if you think you could take him in the end. That's all a part of the calculation.

Of course, I wouldn't go as far out of my way to characterize it in such unflattering terms as you do, but then, I don't have any trouble knowing which side I'm on. :p

In that case it appears as if maybe we should not have taken on AQ as it appears we cannot beat them without taking a beating ourselves.:p

patteeu
06-09-2007, 12:34 AM
In the slight chance I was one of the people you might be referencing, you have my questioning wrong. My questions are based on Ron Paul's assertion that we have to understand why they hate us and stop doing that to stop terrorism. I think to an extent he has a point, we are taking covert actions in Iran and I accept that and think that make sense. But Ron Paul would say we are creating more of our problems, is he right, I am not sure. It is an interesting POV.

I'll agree with you on that, but here's another thing to consider. Even if our actions are "creating" our current problems, and even if we think that not taking those actions will stop those particular problems, we still have to consider the possibility that even greater problems would be caused by our inaction (or by some alternative action).

Here's an analogy. Chemotherapy can be crudely described as poison that is intended to kill cancer cells faster than it kills your healthy cells. But make no mistake about it, it is doing damage at the same time it is (hopefully) doing good. By taking chemotherapy, you are causing "blowback" against the healthy parts of your body (in the form of nausea, depressed immune system, tissue damage, etc.). This blowback could easily be avoided if the cancer patient would simply not take chemotherapy. Of course, without chemotherapy, the cancer patient faces the even greater negative consequences caused by unchecked growth of their disease.

Logical
06-09-2007, 01:14 AM
I'll agree with you on that, but here's another thing to consider. Even if our actions are "creating" our current problems, and even if we think that not taking those actions will stop those particular problems, we still have to consider the possibility that even greater problems would be caused by our inaction (or by some alternative action).

Here's an analogy. Chemotherapy can be crudely described as poison that is intended to kill cancer cells faster than it kills your healthy cells. But make no mistake about it, it is doing damage at the same time it is (hopefully) doing good. By taking chemotherapy, you are causing "blowback" against the healthy parts of your body (in the form of nausea, depressed immune system, tissue damage, etc.). This blowback could easily be avoided if the cancer patient would simply not take chemotherapy. Of course, without chemotherapy, the cancer patient faces the even greater negative consequences caused by unchecked growth of their disease.

Kind of a discouraging analogy, if you continue Chemotherapy too long you die from the treatment.

Fishpicker
06-09-2007, 01:37 AM
I'll agree with you on that, but here's another thing to consider. Even if our actions are "creating" our current problems, and even if we think that not taking those actions will stop those particular problems, we still have to consider the possibility that even greater problems would be caused by our inaction (or by some alternative action).

so, have we reached the point of no return?

patteeu
06-09-2007, 01:42 AM
Kind of a discouraging analogy, if you continue Chemotherapy too long you die from the treatment.

True, but the point of the analogy is that just because an action has negative consequences (i.e. blowback) doesn't mean it isn't the best approach available. The trick is in continually considering your options and adjusting them to maximize your chances of achieving the most positive outcome possible. All I'm saying is that it's more complex than just determining that our actions have led to blowback and, therefore, deciding that we should reverse or stop taking those actions. The Ron Paul / BEP view of the middle east, as far as I can tell, is to stop chemotherapy altogether to eliminate the blowback effects and assume away the underlying problem of the cancer.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 01:44 AM
so, have we reached the point of no return?

I don't think we can return to a pre-1948 middle east for a do-over if that's what you mean.

go bowe
06-10-2007, 06:17 PM
You know the lexicon, Jim. When they're with you, guerrillas are "freedom fighters". When they're against you, they're "terrorists". Occasionally the same group or individual can carry both labels, depending on how they fit your political agenda at the time. Saddam's an example of this, and so are the Taliban.

And we are hypocritical, although I'm not sure we're moreso than anyone else throughout recorded history. As is generally the case, we're not in any of these wars for the "liberation" of the locals, we're there because it benefits us, strategically or economically. It's all about American self-interest.

In the end, if it comes down to a choice between American flavored hypocricy or the brand China or Russia would like to spring on the world, I think I prefer ours. I'm probably biased, since, you know, I live here...

I just hope we haven't gone too far into the realm of American Empire at the cost of international goodwill among the billions of people who aren't our direct allies. We have a lot of arrogance, and I'm not sure it's the right way to be. I've never liked the John Wayne "I do what I want, f*ck the rest of you" cowboy attitude.

I'm just a pebble in the pond, however, and not even one of the ripple-generating ones. I just sit in the muck on the bottom.muck, huh?

well, save me a chair and i'll join you after awhile...

Logical
06-10-2007, 10:01 PM
muck, huh?

well, save me a chair and i'll join you after awhile...I think most of us are in the muck, but we can all write our representatives and at least express our opinions. One opinion won't change anything, but a chorus of opinions will possibly form lyrics of change. The question is, is it needed?

patteeu
06-10-2007, 10:12 PM
I think most of us are in the muck, but we can all write our representatives and at least express our opinions. One opinion won't change anything, but a chorus of opinions will possibly form lyrics of change. The question is, is it needed?

I'll let you know when it's needed. Right now the problem is the "coolness" factor of the anti-establishment, anti-war lyric. :p

Logical
06-10-2007, 10:24 PM
I'll let you know when it's needed. Right now the problem is the "coolness" factor of the anti-establishment, anti-war lyric. :p

One minor correction, it is an anti-occupation lyric, honestly I don't know of anyone advocating stopping the War on Terror.

patteeu
06-10-2007, 10:50 PM
One minor correction, it is an anti-occupation lyric, honestly I don't know of anyone advocating stopping the War on Terror.

John Edwards said the War on Terror is a bumper sticker not a war, and shockingly, most of the people on stage with him (at the democrat debate) agreed. Hillary was a notable dissenter.

Logical
06-10-2007, 11:17 PM
John Edwards said the War on Terror is a bumper sticker not a war, and shockingly, most of the people on stage with him (at the democrat debate) agreed. Hillary was a notable dissenter.

I don't agree with that position, if you think I come close to agreeing with the Democrats on a ton of different issues you would not be correct.

noa
06-11-2007, 12:29 AM
John Edwards said the War on Terror is a bumper sticker not a war, and shockingly, most of the people on stage with him (at the democrat debate) agreed. Hillary was a notable dissenter.


I think that is a perfectly defensible position. We face the threat of terrorism, and we should take on the terrorists, but we should never be in a War on Terror. What are we going to do? End all terror in the world? That's just ridiculous. We're automatically in a losing war, like the War on Drugs.
The War on Terror is just a catchy phrase. It in no way describes our current military or foreign policy goals. We aren't that concerned with ending terror across the world everywhere in every situation. We're just concerned with protecting America and our allies and interests from attacks, as we should be.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 07:42 AM
I think that is a perfectly defensible position. We face the threat of terrorism, and we should take on the terrorists, but we should never be in a War on Terror. What are we going to do? End all terror in the world? That's just ridiculous. We're automatically in a losing war, like the War on Drugs.
The War on Terror is just a catchy phrase. It in no way describes our current military or foreign policy goals. We aren't that concerned with ending terror across the world everywhere in every situation. We're just concerned with protecting America and our allies and interests from attacks, as we should be.

There is no rule that the label has to perfectly capture the essence of the war. We could call it the War against Bad Breath and it would still be a real war.

The Gulf War was not fought in the Gulf, it was fought in Kuwait and Iraq. Nor was it a storm in the desert, btw.

The War of 1812 was still being fought in 1814.

The War of the Roses wasn't actually a fight between flowers.

I'd be the first to agree that the current war could have a better name because I think we would have been far better off if we'd have clearly identified the specific ideology whose followers we are fighting against, but for people to argue that the War on Terror is not a war simply because the name isn't perfectly descriptive is ludicrous IMO.