Adventure Game Studio

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/index.html

Ever heard of Inignokt and Err from Aqua Teen Hunger Force? Well, they're terrorists now. Damn this friggin' moronic country...

I don't get it? I mean, were they set up like tiny displays? I'm not following why they thought they were bombs.

I guess I'll have to wear my "Mooninites > You" shirt all week.

The "suspects" speak out at a news conference... and totally make the media look rediculous. I love them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx2ytr2Oyv4

(http://www.getprofane.com/UPYOURS2.jpg)

FUCKIN' ACE.


"Um, thats also not a hair question."

@Evil: apparently, three weeks ago they set up little 1 foot tall by 1 foot wide "lite brites" with light bulbs in the shape of Err flipping people off. They had magnetic backs and thus stuck to metallic surfaces. According to the news report, it was the "batteries and wires" that made them "very sinister in appearance." With that fully explained, you tell me how they were mistaken for bombs.

My guess: profound mental retardation. 

EDIT: Just caught Kevin Pereira's take on this on Attack of the Show... He put it really well when he said "I doubt any terrorists have the sense of humor to use a bomb in the image of a cartoon character flipping us off." Then I was treated to ridiculous televised images of SWAT teams trying to disarm Inignokt.

I'd seen this in the morning news.

It's funny though (well also sad at the same time), I'll say it'll be more logical if they ban all the bomberman games first. :=

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=auRN_ziN1C4A&refer=us

1. They were not charged as terrorists. They are being charged with planting 'hoax devices'. TAnd possibly with disorderly conduct.

2. Anyone who thinks that planting boxes with wires and lights under bridges and at bus and commuter stations is a good idea should be locked up indefinately anyway. Or shot.

3. A lot of taxpayer dollars were wasted to give this stupid corporation publicity.

Quote
Late today, ABC News reported on its Web site that Interference may have asked Berdovsky and Stevens to remain quiet yesterday afternoon as Boston police, aided by federal and state law enforcement, dealt with devices they had discovered under bridges, subway lines and busy intersections. ABC said an e-mail supplied by friends of the two supports the claim.

4. The sheer amount of boxes is mind-boggling:

Similar devices were placed in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Portland, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, Turner said.

Really WTF, as if we don't have enough marketing shoved in our face all day. >:(

It's sad when a country can get this scared over an ad campaign.

If it weren't for all the cheap food, booze, and women... I'd leave.

I love this show. I mean, from what I read, Boston is the only city that had issues. People do shit like this all the time. The only reason it's a big deal is because it's a major corporation and the people of Boston are pretentious.

Good heavens...

Quoteanyone who plants a device ``that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine'' could face 30 months to five years in jail and be fined $5,000.

So a lite brite showing a cartoon character flipping the bird is mistaken, "by experts on the scene," as an "infernal machine?" Makes me feel really comfortable about the "experts" in this country.

Thanks so much, George Dubya, for purposely instilling fear in this country so you can wrap it around your finger. We cringe and cower every time someone spills some baby powder or displays a light-up cartoon character and you get richer and richer thanks to your oil crusades in the Middle East that no one stands up to you about because we are too concerned about Orange Terror Alerts.  Pretty brilliant plan for an imbecile.

IMHO, I'd rather have "ads shoved in my face" for a cartoon that mocks that crap than listen to everything the government tries to pass off as logical for all the stoolies that sit around and listen to it. And, by the way, enough taxpayer dollars go to testing the flow rate of ketchup and the effects of second hand smoke on dogs that "taxpayer dollars" being wasted anywhere doesn't bother me anymore. WHAT THE HELL actually cost the city of Boston $750,000.00 ?!??!!!?!?!??

"I'm an expert."
"Is that a bomb."
"Yeeeesssssss......"
"Okay. Good enough for me. Here's three quarters of a million dollars..."

While I agree about excessive paranoia, it would be pretty stupid to just ignore an unexplained device with wires and stuff placed under a bridge just because it had a cartoon character on it. Don't you think if you wanted to blow up a bridge, you might be able to come up with a disguise like that?

Besides, guerilla marketers are assholes anyway, and if someone is going to get thrown in jail I couldn't think of someone I'd rather choose.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 02/02/2007 05:59:41
While I agree about excessive paranoia, it would be pretty stupid to just ignore an unexplained device with wires and stuff placed under a bridge just because it had a cartoon character on it. Don't you think if you wanted to blow up a bridge, you might be able to come up with a disguise like that?

Did you look at the pictures? It's a circuit board covered in LEDs with some batteries at the bottom. This isn't Alias. It's not a bomb.

Quote
Besides, guerilla marketers are assholes anyway, and if someone is going to get thrown in jail I couldn't think of someone I'd rather choose.

I choose you! :=
How about swindlers? Murderers? &c.

With situations like this I think it's important to try and understand both sides of the issue.  First off, I think that Adult Swim did this with no malice of forethought and merely thought they were doing something cool that would attract geeks and such to their show.  I also see how 'the average joe' could see one of these and think they were potentially dangerous.  Not everyone is well-versed in electronics, Steve.  Far from it, actually.  Just because I have an engineering degree and could more or less look a circuit over and say 'hey, that's pretty neat' doesn't mean the majority of people can do the same, and it's not fair to assume that people will.  I think Adult Swim is largely at fault for putting these devices in what I would label as 'suspicious' locations (under bridges, etc) rather than just in shop windows or at sign posts.  Their approach is what laid the foundation for the whole situation, silly or not.

What if clever terrorists started making bombs that DIDN'T have wires and batteries sticking out? It boggles the mind

Don't be ridiculous GG, everyone knows bombs only explode when they have wires sticking out of them.

Overreacting, refusing to back down, and blaming other people. That's a good way for any government to react, no? ;)

Not everyone has seen this show and altho in highsight we know its an ad campaign, there's no way to tell from the actual devices. Also, when people say terrorism now, they usually mean some middle eastern muslim terrorists - but there have been plenty of domestic ones as well.

If you have various boxes that's giving you the finger with wires sticking out in usually targeted public places, I don't think that taking precautions is overreacting.

Boston is a particularly sensitive city since 9/11. The govt. couldn't have won either way in this, if they hadn't 'overreacted', people would have said 'WELL THEY COULD HAVE BEEN BOMBS OMG DO THEY CARE NOTHING ABOUT US!' and so on. Do something, and you get flak for overreacting. No-win situation.

What is this "wires sticking out" nonsense?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vanderlin/sets/72157594512553078/

Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 02/02/2007 08:43:43
Not everyone is well-versed in electronics, Steve.

That doesn't explain sending in a remote control robot. The police should know better.
http://www.thephoenix.com/article_ektid33016.aspx
By 10am they pretty much knew what was "in" one, and by 1pm they knew it was from an Adult Swim cartoon, yet the scare continued all day.

im just glad i live a nice simple life on a tropical island (opps. didnt mean to rub it in hehehe kidding)

I want terrorist chairs. You just sit on them and they explode you. People in the US will be afraid of chairs forever if this happens like 3 times

QuoteThat doesn't explain sending in a remote control robot. The police should know better.

Well, you seem to be assuming that because the police found one to not be a bomb that they would reason that all of them were not bombs (rather than some being decoys and some being real).  I think the response was a bit over the top, but the people on the street that called these in weren't really the people overreacting if you examine what happened, it was the mayor who went apeshit over everything.  I think it's good that people are conscientious enough to call in things that look suspect, but it then becomes a professional's job to determine if there's anything to it.  It's like a lot of people are saying, the initial response was great because it proved that real crises could be averted, but then the mayor and the attorney general had to get involved and start a pissing match.  I suspect all charges against Turner and the people they hired will collapse under the weight of mayor menino's own stupidity.


Helm, leave it to the Freemasons!

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/DeMoulin_Bros_Exploding_Chair.htm

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Fri 02/02/2007 13:45:18
Boston is a particularly sensitive city since 9/11. The govt. couldn't have won either way in this, if they hadn't 'overreacted', people would have said 'WELL THEY COULD HAVE BEEN BOMBS OMG DO THEY CARE NOTHING ABOUT US!' and so on. Do something, and you get flak for overreacting. No-win situation.

Nobody was suggesting that they not act at all. But this reaction has moral panic written all over it.

Paranoia vs Stupidity (on both sides) vs Fear vs Politics.

It was a marketing stunt, a viral campaign that's backfired. It was meant to get people talking about a show. I've never seen the show, therefore I wouldn't recognize the character depicted in LEDs. But the first thing that popped into my head wouldn't be "Hmm. That's a suspicious looking device."

Face it. An unattended object with a wire and flashing lights, secreted in public places, is going to result in someone thinking its a bomb. The hysteria in the US over this kind of thing, perpetuated by a government who uses the threat of terrorism and the nebulas concept of insidious "outside" forces at work to maim/kill/convert the american public, as a political  platform, has reached breaking point.

And frankly, those two look like a pair of gobshites. A brand of idiot that Adult Swim seems happy to employ.

Quote from: Zooty on Fri 02/02/2007 11:29:13
Don't be ridiculous GG, everyone knows bombs only explode when they have wires sticking out of them.

Unless - of course - Jack Bauer happens to be in the area...

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 02/02/2007 22:12:09
It was a marketing stunt, a viral campaign that's backfired. It was meant to get people talking about a show.

My butthole it's backfired! If anything the news has given it huge publicity and people ARE talking about the show. It doesn't matter if the news surrounding the incident is bad, more people are going to be aware of ATHF's pressence when the film is released due to all this coverage.

If anything, the fake bombing reports are the best thing that's happened to ATHF's publicity.

America is still a young country and we must be learning from all of Europe's mistakes. (They're not free first.)  ;D

...which in turn reminds me entirely too much of the movie "V For Vendetta..."

Quote from: rharpe on Sat 03/02/2007 03:40:40
America is still a young country and we must be learning from all of Europe's mistakes.

What? and you learn by making the same mistakes again? sounds a little thick to me... :)

Quote from: rharpe on Sat 03/02/2007 03:40:40
America is still a young country and we must be learning from all of Europe's mistakes. (They're not free first.)  ;D

You're right! America is still a young country! And you'd think after 500 or so years it'd graduate from diapers to big boy pants, but they just haven't potty trained it enough yet.

By the way, I love your knack for adding something patriotic to a conversation, even though 90 per cent of the time it has no relevance to what anyone is talking about and/or is complete gibberish.

Sure, America is young. That gives "America" every right to do mistakes. This may sound ridiculious to you, but...

America is not making decisions!

It's politicians are making decisions, not America! And these politicians are just the same as in Europe (corrupt, incompetent, ignoring the public will).

Quote from: Akatosh on Sat 03/02/2007 15:16:12
Sure, America is young. That gives "America" every right to do mistakes. This may sound ridiculious to you, but...

America is not making decisions!

It's politicians are making decisions, not America! And these politicians are just the same as in Europe (corrupt, incompetent, ignoring the public will).

Whoa yeah ... you ARE right. My excuses; I didn't mean that Americans are thick (well - SOME are) but the American government makes up for this by being uber-thick. imho.

Quote from: Akatosh on Sat 03/02/2007 15:16:12It's politicians are making decisions, not America!

No doubt. I mean, seriously, what's the point of all those elections?

Absolutely nothing. You try running for some high position. Unless you are A) Rich or famous, and B) a member of some clandestine organization like the Masons or the Skull and Bones, you will never get elected, even if you match all the qualifications and have a hundred and sixty years of significant collegiate experience under your belt. Furthermore, the United States Constitution, (speaking of presidential elections) says that you aren't voting for president... you're voting for an elector to elect the president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

Read the section about faithless electors. Furthermore, who's responsible for the nominations? Surely not you or I. Also note that there are only two parties. This country is one party away from being a dictatorship...

Every government has an agenda that has nothing to do with the people of said government. It's not conspiracy theory, it's simply the way things work. There are three types of people in the US: people who believe this and hate the government, people who believe this but just think it's the way things are and that it doesn't really effect them terribly and therefore are apathetic about it, and people who are uber-patriotic and won't hear a word against their "elected officials." The truth of the matter is, unless you can profit the people in power somehow, you don't matter.

Quote from: esper on Sat 03/02/2007 17:34:00It's not conspiracy theory ...

QuoteUnless you are A) Rich or famous, and B) a member of some clandestine organization like the Masons or the Skull and Bones, you will never get elected, even if you match all the qualifications and have a hundred and sixty years of significant collegiate experience under your belt.

OK.

Actually, I think our government's "hidden agenda" is to hide the fact that we're still secretly governed by the British Crown. That whole Revolutionary War thing was just a big sham to keep us from really try to rebel. As always, we're just slaves to The Man. :P

Come on, everyone join in with me!

"God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen ..."

No, the real hidden agenda is making you feel completely secure in that your government is serving you so you can feel secure in posting things like that.

EDIT: BTW, it's not a conspiracy theory when you can go and check through history and be sure of it. This country was founded by Masons, which is why all the good Christians run around saying "Oh, we're a Christian nation, and this country was founded on Christian principles." And check out how many of the people in power have been members of the Skull and Bones since it's inception in the early 1800's. I'm not saying it's some kind of occult conspiracy, and that they prance around in black robes sacrificing babies and brainwashing interns into having sex with them. The Skull and Bones is simply the Greek society at Yale where all the rich big wigs and their children go...

Come and join the corruption question and answer game!

Q: What do you need to get votes?
A: Public attention.

Q: How do you gather public attention?
A: Promote yourself.

Q: What do you need to promote yourself?
A: Media ads, a team, ...

Q: What do they cost?
A: Money.

Q: Who has money and would be willing to trade it for one or two hundred favors?
A: Rich people, who also have the ability to rip you apart in the media at any time.

So now guess who the politicans really need to please?
A) The people
B) The poor orphan childs who badly need money (and food)
C) The richest people of the country

And with only two political parties, it's no problem for rich people to bribe both of them. Whoever wins, you lose (I don't because I don't live in America. I lose because our politicans try to behave like the american corruptics).

I'm not saying there's no honest politican, but sadly, these don't let themselves get bribed, lack money and therefor public attention. And thus, the votes.

While it's true that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were created largely by Freemasons (Washington, Franklin, the list goes on) they typically fell into the category of Deists or Christians.  Several of them (Franklin is the most notable) went to Freemasonry because at that time the church was strongly opposed to certain forms of science and particularly medical science.  In their masonic groups certain individuals felt they could continue pushing back the frontiers without fear of repercussions from the church.  Skull and Bones is another interesting topic, but everything I have read has shown them to be about making wealthy connections.

Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 02/02/2007 17:39:05
It's like a lot of people are saying, the initial response was great because it proved that real crises could be averted, but then the mayor and the attorney general had to get involved and start a pissing match.Ã, 

Initial response? Didn't it take about 2-3 weeks for people to start calling in and reporting them?

Not that I really oppose anything you said... just trying to make slight point.

Quote from: DGMacphee
You're right! America is still a young country! And you'd think after 500 or so years it'd graduate from diapers to big boy pants, but they just haven't potty trained it enough yet.

Not 500 years. Try (2007 - 1776 = 231 years.)

Quote from: DGMacphee
By the way, I love your knack for adding something patriotic to a conversation, even though 90 per cent of the time it has no relevance to what anyone is talking about and/or is complete gibberish.

Yes, even though my country appears to look evil to the rest of the world, it actually is made up of a lot of good citizens. I am not ashamed. I am very proud to be an American!

Btw, where do you get your numbers? I sense you had difficulties with mathematics and history when you where in school? Are you still in school?! Oops, my mistake.

Quote from: rharpe on Tue 06/02/2007 06:44:49
Not 500 years. Try (2007 - 1776 = 231 years.)

I'm not American but that's just independence day, Columbus arrived in 1492 and settlement began in the years after that, So I'd say DG's numbers were more accurate

Jamestown, the first successful colony, was founded in 1607. That's exactly 400 years. America existed as a body ruled by the colonials but under the crown until the war in 1775, and we adopted the declaration of independence upon our completion of said conflict in 1776. The Constitution was ratified in 1789. Just because we weren't independent from Britain until 1776 doesn't mean we weren't a country in 1607. We didn't magically appear here in 1776, having won the revolution and grown into a fully self-supporting country.

Quote from: rharpe on Tue 06/02/2007 06:44:49

Quote from: DGMacphee
You're right! America is still a young country! And you'd think after 500 or so years it'd graduate from diapers to big boy pants, but they just haven't potty trained it enough yet.

Not 500 years. Try (2007 - 1776 = 231 years.)

See other posters above.

Quote

Quote from: DGMacphee
By the way, I love your knack for adding something patriotic to a conversation, even though 90 per cent of the time it has no relevance to what anyone is talking about and/or is complete gibberish.

Yes, even though my country appears to look evil to the rest of the world, it actually is made up of a lot of good citizens. I am not ashamed. I am very proud to be an American!

Once again, something patriotic that has absolutely nothing to do with the whole Boston bomb scare. I'm guessing if this conversation was about puppies you'd write something like "GOD BLESS THE USA FOR PUPPIES!!1!"

And you do realise no matter how much you tell me you're proud to be an American, I'm still not going to raise my care-factor above "I don't give a crap".

I just couldn't stop thinking, maybe this was their marketing plan. I mean, hey, can't say most people in the country who follow the news wouldn't know about the cartoon now. A way cunning.

anyway, if somewhere people are a fraid of a purse that someone left in a subway, something's terribly wrong. Either in the people who are scared, or those who make bombs to keep people scared. I can say if I found a bag, I'd open it immediately, see if there's a phone or a wallet and take it back, not call the police and spent rest of the year crying and running around in my house. This as in to point out how different it can all be in other countries.

Warning:  off-topic.

QuoteJamestown, the first successful colony

You mentioned the important word here, Esper: colony.  That's all America was until that fateful moment when the colonists declared their sovereignty from England.  You can't really say America as a country existed when it was still a colony, unless you speak in the broadest of terms (America as a continent).

Quote from: DGMacphee
See other posters above.

Cop-out. The Declaration of Independence defined us as a country, not the "white" immigrants that just decided to settle here.

Quote from: DGMacphee
Once again, something patriotic that has absolutely nothing to do with the whole Boston bomb scare. I'm guessing if this conversation was about puppies you'd write something like "GOD BLESS THE USA FOR PUPPIES!!1!"

Esper shows his disgust for a country that I am proud to be apart of. How is this not relevant?

Quote from: DGMacphee
And you do realise no matter how much you tell me you're proud to be an American, I'm still not going to raise my care-factor above "I don't give a crap".

Quote"Respect other people. This goes for old timers and newcomers. People need to earn respect before their opinion can be taken seriously and also should respect many of the people who made the games that built this community. Old timers to the AGS forums also need to respect the opinions new people when they've gained some trust. However, this trust between old people and new people can be taken away if new people abuse the trust of the older folk. Also, we regularly cover topics from the very serious to the very silly, but whatever the issue, if you disagree with someone, calmly explain why you think differently. Name-calling and swearing at people will not be tolerated."[/b]

Key word here, respect.

Quote from: rharpe on Tue 06/02/2007 15:37:46

Quote from: DGMacphee
See other posters above.

Cop-out. The Declaration of Independence defined us as a country, not the "white" immigrants that just decided to settle here.

Okay, so ignore all history that lead to creation the Declaration of Independence. Obviously none of the stuff that happened between 1493 to 1776 had any relevance in shaping that particular document. Gotcha.

Quote

Quote from: DGMacphee
Once again, something patriotic that has absolutely nothing to do with the whole Boston bomb scare. I'm guessing if this conversation was about puppies you'd write something like "GOD BLESS THE USA FOR PUPPIES!!1!"

Esper shows his disgust for a country that I am proud to be apart of. How is this not relevant?

Esper is disgusted for an actual reason. Yours is something that didn't actually have anything to do with what he said. I mean, do you actually read threads like these, or do you just write "GOD BLESS USA" where ever there's some loose connection.

QuoteKey word here, respect.

I respect people and their beliefs. If you think America is awesome, good for you. I got nothing against America and I know a lot of fine people there. But when someone writes gibberish such as "America is still a young country and we must be learning from all of Europe's mistakes. (They're not free first.)" then I calls it like I sees it. Yeah, looks like gibberish. Smells like gibberish. *munch munch* Whoa, it even tastes like gibberish.

-

i agree.
we even give them free stuff too!
:o

I just heard the semi-end result of this on Attack of the Show... Apparently, Turner paid 2 million dollars - one to recoup the 3/4 million dollars Boston shelled out for reasons unknown and another million for all the trouble it caused the city (even though the people who were really troubled by this, such as the people who sat in stopped in traffic all day and couldn't make it to work or the hospital will never see a cent of it). And, the two guys responsible for the Boston thing are still being held pending judgment.

Quote from: DGMacphee
Okay, so ignore all history that lead to creation the Declaration of Independence. Obviously none of the stuff that happened between 1493 to 1776 had any relevance in shaping that particular document. Gotcha.

You must get off this site sometime: Read up my friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)

Quote from: DGMacpheeEsper is disgusted for an actual reason. Yours is something that didn't actually have anything to do with what he said. I mean, do you actually read threads like these, or do you just write "GOD BLESS USA" where ever there's some loose connection.

Like you, I read what I like and respond how I feel about it. That's what the General Discussion area is all about, right?

Quote from: DGMacphee
I respect people and their beliefs. If you think America is awesome, good for you. I got nothing against America and I know a lot of fine people there. But when someone writes gibberish such as "America is still a young country and we must be learning from all of Europe's mistakes. (They're not free first.)" then I calls it like I sees it. Yeah, looks like gibberish. Smells like gibberish. *munch munch* Whoa, it even tastes like gibberish.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts you so much. We ARE a young nation, is this not a true statement? And other European countries HAVE been around much longer, have they not? Yet another true statement.

I sense tension in your gibberish as well! But this is good, because it shows you love your country as much as I love my country. (The way it should be.)  ;)

Quote from: rharpe on Wed 07/02/2007 03:13:35
You must get off this site sometime: Read up my friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)

You know what's crazy? I DID get off this site and visited that exact page before typing my reply. I also checked this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States), especially the part entitled English Colonial America (1493-1776). But according to you, we should ignore this part because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the formation of the Declaration of Independence.

QuoteLike you, I read what I like and respond how I feel about it. That's what the General Discussion area is all about, right?

Great, respond how you feel. Just read the thread first instead of typing your usual "USA A-OK" nonsense. Then respond.

QuoteI'm sorry if the truth hurts you so much.

That's like the most stupidest thing you've said. "The truth hurts so much". What is this? A Few Good Men?

QuoteWe ARE a young nation, is this not a true statement? And other European countries HAVE been around much longer, have they not? Yet another true statement.

I sense tension in your gibberish as well! But this is good, because it shows you love your country as much as I love my country. (The way it should be.)  ;)

Great, but this has nothing, nil, zippo, zilch, nada, and sweet buckleys to do with the Boston Bomb Scare.

Anyway, I've made my point. I'm out of this thread.

Quote from: DGMacpheeYou know what's crazy? I DID get off this site and visited that exact page before typing my reply. I also checked this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States), especially the part entitled English Colonial America (1493-1776). But according to you, we should ignore this part because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the formation of the Declaration of Independence.

The country was not the USA until they declared their independence... that's all I'm trying to say.

Quote from: DGMacphee
Great, respond how you feel. Just read the thread first instead of typing your usual "USA A-OK" nonsense. Then respond.

I suppose the response was more to the title than the contents. And more directed at Esper.

Quote from: DGMacphee
That's like the most stupidest thing you've said. "The truth hurts so much". What is this? A Few Good Men?

That's an American movie!  ;D

Quote from: DGMacphee
Great, but this has nothing, nil, zippo, zilch, nada, and sweet buckleys to do with the Boston Bomb Scare.

Anyway, I've made my point. I'm out of this thread.

Thanks for the discussion, it sure helps me refresh on history. I shall leave now too.

Hey, I love my country.  I know it's not perfect, and we can be a boorish society, but it's home - and I like the fact, that despite it being HARDER these days, you can make a difference - at least in your own life.


Bt

Ok rharpe, you are going to make me bite.

First off, you are displaying the exact behavior of Americans that I have been fighting for years. As of today I've lived 4 years of my life in Europe (3 in Germany and 1 in the UK, although, to be fair, Brits don't think they are a part of Europe :P). I already have 2 strikes against me with many people I meet out in the local economy (military term, when overseas we mean the area outside the base, since on base we still use the USD) just because I'm an American, and worse yet, a soldier. It's one thing to be a patriot and be proud of the country you live in, it's another to push that belief on others, not unlike religion (which we all know you are keen on doing as well).

You don't see me running around spouting America is das Great, All Hail! Because there is no reason to do so.

Right now our country is under a state of paranoia, and deeper than that, a state of non-self blame. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything. The Boston goverment didn't want to say, "Oops, ok, we over-reacted." They say, TURNER BROADCASTING YOU OWE US MONEY. It's your fault we made this mistake. And you two kids that put those LED posters up, well you will go to jail!

Don't try to deny the fact that we are a finger pointing society. Just look at all the parents that blame videogames, and violent television for their childrens problems, yet they never look at themselves for letting their kids HAVE those games, and watch those television shows.

But in the end, ATHF got what they were looking for, even if it may not be the way the origionally thought. They got some publicity, and some people are probably watching the show now that weren't previously. Some people that don't watch Cartoon Network, or surf the internet, but do watch the local news.

Oh, and rharpe, before you try to tell me how I'm a bad American, I'd like to ask you this. How many years have you been serving the US? Willing to lay your life on the line so that other people like you can have their opinions and state them freely, while you yourself cannot fully express your views.

I've been doing that for a decade, I have pride and patriotism, but I also call a spade a spade.

Quote from: Alynn on Wed 07/02/2007 08:54:45
First off, you are displaying the exact behavior of Americans that I have been fighting for years.

And this from a guy who had an army posting in Iraq? No wonder they're having so much trouble out there if the soldiers are fighting the Americans instead of the insurgents... ;)

Quote from: Alynn
Ok rharpe, you are going to make me bite.

Now what did I say?

Quote from: Alynn
First off, you are displaying the exact behavior of Americans that I have been fighting for years.
...It's one thing to be a patriot and be proud of the country you live in, it's another to push that belief on others, not unlike religion (which we all know you are keen on doing as well).

Sorry, I don't mean to push anything on anyone. Just like my patriotism. I feel everyone should be proud of their own country. Am I wrong for saying this?

Quote from: AlynnYou don't see me running around spouting America is das Great, All Hail! Because there is no reason to do so.

I suppose you're right, that is a bit silly.

Quote from: Alynn
Don't try to deny the fact that we are a finger pointing society. Just look at all the parents that blame videogames, and violent television for their childrens problems, yet they never look at themselves for letting their kids HAVE those games, and watch those television shows.

I agree that our society is getting worse when it comes to self responsibility.

Quote from: Alynn
Oh, and rharpe, before you try to tell me how I'm a bad American, I'd like to ask you this. How many years have you been serving the US? Willing to lay your life on the line so that other people like you can have their opinions and state them freely, while you yourself cannot fully express your views.

No , I'm not in the service. And I never have been. When my dad came back from Vietnam, I pretty much knew this wasn't what I wanted to do with my life. My dad was not in combat, but sent letters home to the families of the fallen sons and daughters. Not an easy job. I have the utmost respect of those that provide what freedom we have left today. Many times I must hold back from hugging every man and woman in uniform... because that's what I want to do. I agree, without them, freedom would be an unused english word in todays day and age. 

Quote from: Alynn
I've been doing that for a decade, I have pride and patriotism, but I also call a spade a spade.

Again, thank you for your sacrifice.

Okay, it's extremely difficult for me not to write this, so I will:

explain to me how the US military has after its participation in world war II, ensured the freedom and wellbeing of americans with their military action outside of america (which is where it occurs)

honest question, I'd really like to get an answer

Well, I'd suggest that the naval blockade of Cuba probably was one example. Also: Berlin airlift, evacuation of US citizens from Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Egypt (during Suez crisis), Cyprus, etc.

Quote from: TheVintageDemon on Tue 06/02/2007 17:51:41
One reason why I hate the so-called 'Great' Britannia, because they let anyone in. Even vicious bombers.

Ehm - could be me, but weren't the 20 (alleged) Twin Towers terrraaarrrists American citizens?

This is a boring spiral... It's a bit annoying to see the same old stuff in every thread with the world "USA" in it, no matter if the topic really is about taxes, vaccines, MTV or bright advertisements. Please, do stop.

Why don' t we make a sticky topic? It could start with "The classical 20 anti american arguments" ("America is the capitalist-zionist-imperialist entity, blah, blah...").

Then might come the 20 sentences that the "God bless USA" guys use to reply with (Something quite fscist, like "We saved your ass in Normandie, fucking retarded Europeans!") or something in that direction...

Then a bit that the "Cool americans" use to mention ("We are not Bush, my dad fought against the invassion of Vietnam blah, blah...")

Then the classical reply the most anti-americans die hard people use to say ("But you choose Bush, therefore you all are idiots")

Then we close the topic, and we go on with something NEW.

Thanks.

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 08/02/2007 15:14:00
This is a boring spiral... It's a bit annoying to see the same old stuff in every thread with the world "USA" in it, no matter if the topic really is about taxes, vaccines, MTV or bright advertisements. Please, do stop.

Why don' t we make a sticky topic? It could start with "The classical 20 anti american arguments" ("America is the capitalist-zionist-imperialist entity, blah, blah...").

Then might come the 20 sentences that the "God bless USA" guys use to reply with (Something quite fscist, like "We saved your ass in Normandie, fucking retarded Europeans!") or something in that direction...

Then a bit that the "Cool americans" use to mention ("We are not Bush, my dad fought against the invassion of Vietnam blah, blah...")

Then the classical reply the most anti-americans die hard people use to say ("But you choose Bush, therefore you all are idiots")

Then we close the topic, and we go on with something NEW.

Thanks.

Yes please! ;D

I don't think the Suez Crisis is an example of the US using it's military to ensure the wellbeing of it's citizens.  It wasn't really directly involved with it (Britain, France and Israel were), and can only really be used as an example of looking after oil interests.  Though the Eisenhower Doctrine sprang from this event (any country facing communist threat can rely on US support) it isn't really a good example.

Still, I can't really see how Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq have ensured the wellbeing and freedom of American citizens.  Would anyone like to expand on this?

QuoteOne reason why I hate the so-called 'Great' Britannia, because they let anyone in. Even vicious bombers.

And that is an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

Quote from: miez on Thu 08/02/2007 14:50:59
Ehm - could be me, but weren't the 20 (alleged) Twin Towers terrraaarrrists American citizens?

No, they bloody well weren't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Suspected_hijackers)! And the "(alleged)" is pretty pointless, as there is no serious doubt as to which passengers were responsible.

I can't tell you how pissed off I get when people propagate myths, misconceptions and conspiracy theories without even bothering to look up the simplest facts.

QuoteEhm - could be me, but weren't the 20 (alleged) Twin Towers terrraaarrrists American citizens?

Actually I believe you're probably thinking of the July 7th bombings of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#The_bombers), where the bombers were indeed British Citizens. 

Quote from: Becky on Sun 11/02/2007 16:47:10
Still, I can't really see how Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq have ensured the wellbeing and freedom of American citizens.  Would anyone like to expand on this?

This is something I try to be mindful of when exposed to whatever propaganda I hear surrounding the United States' various military projects. A popular phrase is "support our troops, they provide the freedom you enjoy everyday". That may have been true in earlier wars, but I believe at least right now it isn't something in any amount of jeopardy.  Based on my day to day dealings with people who feel otherwise, I can only assume it is something we are trained to think, that our freedom is in constant danger of being squashed by far-flung enemies.

A former co-worker of mine is a perfect example of this behaviour. One day there was a notice on the bulletin board for a going away party for an employee who was going back into military service, and was shipping out to a base in Turkey. The co-worker in in question decided to show her patriotism by writing "He is going away to defend our country's freedom!!!! :)" beside the gathering details in big swirly, curly handwriting. I was quite close to asking her on specifics, about how she thought him going to Turkey would in any way be defending our freedom, but chose not to out of respect of the man who was leaving, as I really am grateful for what he is up to.

This was not my first run-in with her odd expressions of patriotism. A full year prior I had just come back from my trip to Greece and was telling her about the lack of variety of beer in village we stayed in, most shops having two, sometimes three or four choices, to which she said "Of course!!! If the Greeks aren't going help us in Iraq, we aren't going to distribute our beer there!!"

EDIT- erm, accidentally posted before I finished :P working on it

haha oh man that quote about Greek beer is great.

Thanks for sharing, Disco. I'm still looking forward to a reply by someone who thinks those wars are somehow promoting the freedom of the american people, though.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 11/02/2007 17:24:40

Quote from: miez on Thu 08/02/2007 14:50:59
Ehm - could be me, but weren't the 20 (alleged) Twin Towers terrraaarrrists American citizens?

No, they bloody well weren't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Suspected_hijackers)! And the "(alleged)" is pretty pointless, as there is no serious doubt as to which passengers were responsible.

I can't tell you how pissed off I get when people propagate myths, misconceptions and conspiracy theories without even bothering to look up the simplest facts.

Whoa, keep your pants on! :) I was wrong, and indeed thinking of the London bombers (who WERE British citizens). My bad - sorry.
By the way - the "alleged" is a matter of opinion. You have yours, I have mine.

To be honest, we are more of a global police force now than a military force like we were back in the day. More protecting the interests of the country, or stopping genocide (Kosovo), or taking bad men out of power, or whatever moral high ground the current Commander and Chief wishes to put us on. Right now we seem to be protecting the interests of the US.

However, we do defend American freedoms by just being there. Our military force is in basically a passive mode. Think of it like a locked security door. Most people would just walk on by. Some may even try the handle, find it's locked, and then walk by. But like any locked door, it only really keeps honest people honest. Anyone that really wants to do us harm will try to bust in. When they do, that's when they will find the security system (which constitutes a million men an women holding M-16A2 rifles). So we protect just by being there.

Do I think that the Iraq war is helping American Freedom? Not yet. But I believe it's a step in trying to remove some Anti-Americanism, and Anti-Western sentiment in that area. More of an attempt really. Either way, trying to change that opinion (no I don't mean taking Saddam out of power, I mean winning the hearts and minds of the people, and we are trying, you don't hear about it alot on the news, but humanitarian efforts go on day by day by day there) does protect the country by slowing, or curbing a potential bed of individuals that could wish to do us harm in the future. Could Iran be next? Possibly, North Korea, possibly. I try not to think about what foreign country I may have to spend in combat in again, I like being home with my family.

Many people hate the US Military. Even those within US borders (I'm sure that happens in other countries too, I'm not trying to say that the US is the only place it happens). However, I'd just like to say, never hate your military. We don't decide on our own to go anywhere, all we choose (in the US) is to join or not to join. After that, it's on the government from there.

So please, never hate the troop, we are doing out jobs, fighting so you don't have to. If we (and I mean all militaries that are there to keep their respective countries safe, even if there isn't an immediate threat) weren't there to fight on your behalf, then what happens when a few thousand people show up on your doorsteps with weapons demanding your surrender?

Sorry, I have no issues when people dislike government decisions, I like it in fact that people have, and are allowed to have such thoughts and ideas, but it really bothers me when people blame some 18 year old kid, that maybe just wanted to do something more with his life than his home town situation would allow, for the Iraq war. He didn't make that decision, don't blame him.

*cough* Helm:

Quote from: SSH on Thu 08/02/2007 14:03:46

Quote from: Helm on Thu 08/02/2007 04:57:17
explain to me how the US military has after its participation in world war II, ensured the freedom and wellbeing of americans with their military action outside of america (which is where it occurs)

honest question, I'd really like to get an answer

Well, I'd suggest that the naval blockade of Cuba probably was one example. Also: Berlin airlift, evacuation of US citizens from Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Egypt (during Suez crisis), Cyprus, etc.

Quote from: Alynn on Tue 13/02/2007 08:05:15
Do I think that the Iraq war is helping American Freedom? Not yet. But I believe it's a step in trying to remove some Anti-Americanism, and Anti-Western sentiment in that area.

I wish I could believe that this were actually the case.  No amount of ignorance or optimism I can summon will sway my opinion in this matter.  We were guided there under several false pretenses.  If there is a useful humanitarian effort, it is merely consequential and due in large part to the men and women in uniform and not those above them. 

We've stepped into the country oblivious to the social and political issues of the reason, with our leadership making decisions without even being aware that the Iraqi people weren't all "the same kind o' Muslim".  We're like an uninformed adult stepping into a dispute among neighborhood kids without knowing their individual personalities and history.  Even if we keep the peace by promoting one group over another or getting them to shake hands, the rest of the kids aren't likely to turn away satisfied.

Quote from: TheYak on Tue 13/02/2007 09:35:57
We're like an uninformed adult stepping into a dispute among neighborhood kids without knowing their individual personalities and history.  Even if we keep the peace by promoting one group over another or getting them to shake hands, the rest of the kids aren't likely to turn away satisfied.

So Muslims are like kids and the USA like adults... and then Americans wonder why they are percieved as arrogant!

Seeing how a significative amount of people in Iraq has devoted their lives to put bombs in markets, I would say that, indeed, there is a high percentage of iraquians with a (cruel) childish attitude.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 11:01:26
Seeing how a significative amount of people in Iraq has devoted their lives to put bombs in markets, I would say that, indeed, there is a high percentage of iraquians with a (cruel) childish attitude.

As far as I can tell, there have been about 500 suicide bombers in Iraq since the invasion. Iraq's population is about 28 million. That is 0.002%, not "a high percentage", nor a "significant amout". The highest percentage I have seen is: "According to a recent poll, 47% of the Iraqi population approve of the attacks on Coalition forces, but not of attacks on Iraqi security forces, or civilians"

SSH,

Thing is that, while your math are correct and indeed a 0.002% is not a high percentage, you do need to compair it with a different country... for example the UK. Here in the UK there's been 2 bombings in all? For the past 5-6 years, unless mistaken. But certainly not 500. And the population is about the same. That does give an idea... ;)

But then again I do agree certainly that I hate the notion USA=adults the rest of the world=children/todlers... (On the other hand being the (yet) only super power in the world does come with these "responsibilities").

Of course no one can claim that the US troops attacking Iraq, or Afganistan, or Vietnam, or... are directly saving the US freedom, but since Communism was (and still is) concidered a high threat (as well as chemicals and nuclear arsenal), it is safe to say that attacking a communist nation, or one that (supposedly) has nuclear weapons, or chemical, or whatever does make the world a safer place. (I'm playing the devils advocate here). Thing is, of course, that in most cases there were no threats found, no weapons found, and communism fell either way without the aid of the USA (more or less :-/), not to mention that V. is not a better place as it appears...

Quote from: Becky on Sun 11/02/2007 16:47:10Still, I can't really see how Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq have ensured the wellbeing and freedom of American citizens.  Would anyone like to expand on this?

Vietnam was part of a larger policy of containment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment), the goal of which was to stop the spread of communism. As World War II ended, ideological differences between the USA and the USSR along with the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe led to the development of the domino theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory), which basically said that if communism was left unchecked, it would spread throughout the whole world. As a result, wherever communism seemed to be on the rise, the US would basically support the opposing side. If you really want to put it in it's proper context and feel like reading more, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War).

The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan harbored, supported, and protected the Al-Qaeda organization. In addition to 9/11, Al-Qaeda is also suspected of having planned and carried out numerous other terrorist attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda#Incidents_attributed_to_al-Qaeda), so hopefully it's clear why the US wanted them destroyed. The two groups had a close relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Relationship_with_Osama_bin_Laden), so destroying one basically meant destroying both.

Iraq was alleged to have WMD and links to Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Rationale). Of course, we all know how those claims turned out ....

These are the reasonings behind these events. Whether or not you agree with them is another matter. I would caution that it's pretty easy for us to sit here today with the benefit of hindsight and pass judgement on these events. Most decisions are evaluated simply by whether or not they resulted in success or failure, but I don't think this is the whole story. To really appreciate everything that goes into a decision and determine whether or not it was justified, I think you need to put yourself in the role of the decision-makers and examine why they made these decisions in the first place and why they ended up succeeding or failing. There are lots of lessons to be learned in doing this, one of them being that not everything is as simple and clear-cut as we'd like it to be.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 13/02/2007 10:31:33

Quote from: TheYak on Tue 13/02/2007 09:35:57We're like an uninformed adult stepping into a dispute among neighborhood kids without knowing their individual personalities and history.

So Muslims are like kids and the USA like adults... and then Americans wonder why they are percieved as arrogant!

I don't think that was the point she was trying to make, but whatever.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 13/02/2007 11:21:17

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 11:01:26
Seeing how a significative amount of people in Iraq has devoted their lives to put bombs in markets, I would say that, indeed, there is a high percentage of iraquians with a (cruel) childish attitude.

As far as I can tell, there have been about 500 suicide bombers in Iraq since the invasion. Iraq's population is about 28 million. That is 0.002%, not "a high percentage", nor a "significant amout". The highest percentage I have seen is: "According to a recent poll, 47% of the Iraqi population approve of the attacks on Coalition forces, but not of attacks on Iraqi security forces, or civilians"

Now, count how many americans decided to invade Iraq, and divide it by the population of the USA.

EagerMind, funnily enough I do actually know about the Cold War and the domino theory etc (I am studying modern history and politics at university right now ;)), and yes, I can see what the reasonings are.  But those reasonings do not, to me, demonstrate that the foreign policy decisions of the United States have ensured the freedom of US citizens - especially when the surrounding policies of intelligence surrounding the "War on Terror" have demonstratably stripped away the civil freedoms of US citizens to an almost unconstitutional degree.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 11:36:45
Now, count how many americans decided to invade Iraq, and divide it by the population of the USA.

What percentage of the vote did Bush get in 2004?

Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 13/02/2007 11:34:35

Quote from: SSH on Tue 13/02/2007 10:31:33

Quote from: TheYak on Tue 13/02/2007 09:35:57We're like an uninformed adult stepping into a dispute among neighborhood kids without knowing their individual personalities and history.

So Muslims are like kids and the USA like adults... and then Americans wonder why they are percieved as arrogant!

I don't think that was the point she was trying to make, but whatever.

I never said it was. It's casually making the entire middle east out to be a bunch of children that is so annoying.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 13/02/2007 12:06:48

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 11:36:45
Now, count how many americans decided to invade Iraq, and divide it by the population of the USA.

What percentage of the vote did Bush get in 2004?

So... we move the line, and accept the people "who agrees with..." in the same level of criminality as the responsible?

Ok... What percentage of Iraqians support insurgency killing people?

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 12:10:30

Quote from: SSH on Tue 13/02/2007 12:06:48

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 11:36:45
Now, count how many americans decided to invade Iraq, and divide it by the population of the USA.

What percentage of the vote did Bush get in 2004?

So... we move the line, and accept the people "who agrees with..." in the same level of criminality as the responsible?

You asked: "how many americans decided to invade"... well, ultimately 1: George W. Bush. Which is obviously a pointless question as it simply reflects command structure rather than any morality. I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote
Ok... What percentage of Iraqians support insurgency killing people?

As I said, 47% support anti-coalition violence. Presumably less than that support the violence against Iraqi civilians. So a majority are against any violence. And yet you brand them all kids.

Is it OK if I brand all Madridenos as children because ETA blew up Madrid airport and Al Queda blew up a railway station? What about the anti-fascist resistance in Spain and France in the 1930s and 40s?

What is childish is the reply to the act. There hasn' t been any violent act in reply to the ETA strikes in the Airport terminal, or the "Al-Qaeda" (???) attack on 11-m in Madrid. No, as far as I know, 500 madrileños hasn' t put a bomb belt into his chest, went into Casablanca, and start killing Morroccoans Militars.

On the other hand:
You make this rule of 3:
"51% of the americans voted Bush, so, they are arrogant"

I said: "47% of the iraquians support killing american soldiers, so, they are childish"

Curious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not? I just have said that 500 people killing theirselfs in front of an unique hope of freedom and democracy is childish, mainly because we haven' t seen these attitudes before, when some dictadures felt in some other places (Did Fascists start suicide bombings after the coup d' etat in Spain 1981 failed? Did communist nostalgics start suicide bombings in Russia after the fall of the Communism? And in Serbia? and In Rumania? What about the reaction of the Chinese students after the repression in Tian Anmen? Did they start to bomb China as a "response to the agression"?

I don' t really understand the over-reaction. I don' t really understand why your statement can be allowed and accepted without any complain in this forums (specially from the americans) I really feel sorry for them, they are so unpopular in the World (Blame it to their president) that they have been ideologically anesthetizeds to reply in front of such statements...

Well... I am not anesthetized. Sorry.

Let me tell you something. Iraqians don' t support those "insurgents" to kill civilians... Because that would imply insurgents killing them. That means that Iraquians don' t want to be killed, not that they "don't support violence". The reply to the iraqians to an opportunity of peace has been extremelly idiot. I really hoped (After seeing how they destroyed Saddams statues) that they would going to start a path to peace, as many coutries did, but appartently, they just want to go on in their path to self-destruction.

I really hoped that they could life in peace, but now I really do agree with you, and I want the americans to leave the country. If they want to kill theirselfs, they have my bless. As Helm said once, "let anyone clean their own shit". For me, this countries really deserve their shit.

Excuse me for the angry reply... But your "America is bad" because they voted Bush, and "Iraq is ok" even in 47% of them want terrorist acts, really annoyed me.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 13:34:41
Let me tell you something. Iraqians don' t support those "insurgents" to kill civilians... Because that would imply insurgents killing them. That means that Iraquians don' t want to be killed, not that they "don't support violence". The reply to the iraqians to an opportunity of peace has been extremelly idiot. I really hoped (After seeing how they destroyed Saddams statues) that they would going to start a path to peace, as many coutries did, but appartently, they just want to go on in their path to self-destruction.

I really hoped that they could life in peace, but now I really do agree with you, and I want the americans to leave the country. If they want to kill theirselfs, they have my bless. As Helm said once, "let anyone clean their own shit". For me, this countries really deserve their shit.

QuoteWhat is childish is the reply to the act. There hasn' t been any violent act in reply to the ETA strikes in the Airport terminal, or the "Al-Qaeda" (???) attack on 11-m in Madrid. No, as far as I know, 500 madrileños hasn' t put a bomb belt into his chest, went into Casablanca, and start killing Morroccoans Militars.

Curious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not? I just have said that 500 people killing theirselfs in front of an unique hope of freedom and democracy is childish, mainly because we haven' t seen these attitudes before, when some dictadures felt in some other places (Did Fascists start suicide bombings after the coup d' etat in Spain 1981 failed? Did communist nostalgics start suicide bombings in Russia after the fall of the Communism? And in Serbia? and In Rumania? What about the reaction of the Chinese students after the repression in Tian Anmen? Did they start to bomb China as a "response to the agression"?

The bloodshed in Iraq amounts to (among other things) a civil war. Oh, how childish of the Iraqis to start a civil war! Oh, how quickly we forget! Because it's not like Spain, Ireland, Finland, Russia, and several other European countries fought astonishingly bloody civil wars this last century or anything. And in circumstances that were far more self-inflicted than those Iraqis find themselves in.

History has dealt the Iraqis a bad set of cards, and although they could probably play them better, we shouldn't be so smug just because we're currently sitting on aces.

PS: Besides, your examples aren't very good. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia and the other ex-Soviet states have fought numerous wars, civil wars and insurgencies, most notably in Chechnya. And that war has included suicide attacks and terrorist bombings. My understanding is that Chechnya at its worst was at least as bad as Iraq is. Serbia, of course, is the remainder of Yugoslavia after a decade of civil war and ethnic cleansing. And if you want to talk about China, a better parallel would probably be China about a hundred-hundred and fifty years ago, after the British had (quite deliberately) fucked over the Empire, and the country broke down into small bits of land ruled by squabbling warlords, International "interest zones" functioning as de facto European colonies, and the Manchurian puppet state governed from Tokyo.

SSH, while your reply was noted (and I don't know much about the examples you gave) I had to disregard it to an extent to get this conversation on more important 'wars' and wars. You also ignored Becky where she debunked one of your examples, am I to assume that if I look more into your other examples they'll also be similarly ambiguous or even blatantly wrong?

You have this habit of information sniping, SSH. Posting only when you have something to add (which is good) but without followup or proper discussion over your points. People say a lot to you, and you reply not at all, or reply to only a small piece of what they said, or make a joke. It is difficult to discuss with you because of that reason. Furthermore, on this subject I am looking by answers by other people, american people, who aren't playing devil's advocate but who sincerily believe the US military action is serving their freedom and wellbeing.

So:

Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 13/02/2007 11:34:35
Vietnam was part of a larger policy of containment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment), the goal of which was to stop the spread of communism. As World War II ended, ideological differences between the USA and the USSR along with the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe led to the development of the domino theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory), which basically said that if communism was left unchecked, it would spread throughout the whole world. As a result, wherever communism seemed to be on the rise, the US would basically support the opposing side. If you really want to put it in it's proper context and feel like reading more, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War).

So wait, Wikipedia man, the Vietnam war 'protected' the Americas from an idea, right? That's what you think 'serve our freedom' means. Protection from political ideas the current administration may have considered not to their benefit. Great.

QuoteThe Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan harbored, supported, and protected the Al-Qaeda organization. In addition to 9/11, Al-Qaeda is also suspected of having planned and carried out numerous other terrorist attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda#Incidents_attributed_to_al-Qaeda), so hopefully it's clear why the US wanted them destroyed. The two groups had a close relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Relationship_with_Osama_bin_Laden), so destroying one basically meant destroying both.

So wait, in order to destroy terrorist cells one has to invade a country, right? The tried-and-tested american method of sending in assassins in the night in banana republics hasn't been working this time? I'm sure a Rambo in Afganistan killing Al-Qaeda would make for a few good movies, yes? Hey, wait....

And furthermore, now that the Al Qeada is delt with (oh, wait!) and Osama is dead (what, what?!) the Americas are safer, right? Because terror is fought by ripping off the hydra heads, right? Because nobody, no victims, no families of victims of an unjust invasion into a country are recruited into being terrorists themselves after that, right?

I propose that the war on terror isn't serving the freedom of the american public, it is serving anything but.

QuoteIraq was alleged to have WMD and links to Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Rationale). Of course, we all know how those claims turned out ....

So wait, you're playing devil's advocate too? Argh. I don't want to have an academic discussion on this, I've had enough. I want real, actual americans - like Rharpe - that believe this sort of reasoning and that's why they want to 'hug every american in uniform they see'.

I find it funny how the only way people are willing to have this debate is theoretically, and when it doesn't apply to them. I want to hear some honest I LOVE THE TROOPS THEY KEEP ME FREE opinions here, not just blah blah by people who have no other stake in it than their fondness for going-nowhere-arguing.

QuoteI think you need to put yourself in the role of the decision-makers and examine why they made these decisions in the first place and why they ended up succeeding or failing. There are lots of lessons to be learned in doing this, one of them being that not everything is as simple and clear-cut as we'd like it to be.

Just as long as you don't believe US interventionism serves the freedom of the US public, sure, let's ponder on the finer things all night.

Quote from: Becky on Sun 11/02/2007 16:47:10
I don't think the Suez Crisis is an example of the US using it's military to ensure the wellbeing of it's citizens. 

Sorry, Helm pointed out that I had missed this, and I hand't noticed that part of your message. Sorry, Becky. In Suez, the American military evacuated (some of) their citizens from Egypt. Similarly with many of the other ones I listed: they were mainly or entirely evacuation efforts of US citizens from "troubled" countries. That is an example of the US only protecting its citizens.  While the US didn't get involved in the Egypt vs France/UK dispute, I'd say that was an argument in their favour: all the US military did was ensure the wellbeing of US citizens.

While I understand and agree the general point that US-lead invasions since WWII have done little to protect its citizens (although the Korean War might be arguable), I wouldn't want to be as general as to say that "US foreign military action is all bad since 1945". It's not fair to the US leaders and military who were involved over the past 60 years in doing exactly what Helm implied the US military should be doing: protecting US citizens.

I'm not playing at being a devil's advocate, because the US is not entirely a devil. If you want an analogy, it's like saying that the Volkswagen Beetle was a great car, even though Hitler was a bastard.

Quote from: Alynn on Tue 13/02/2007 08:05:15
Do I think that the Iraq war is helping American Freedom? Not yet. But I believe it's a step in trying to remove some Anti-Americanism, and Anti-Western sentiment in that area. More of an attempt really. Either way, trying to change that opinion (no I don't mean taking Saddam out of power, I mean winning the hearts and minds of the people, and we are trying, you don't hear about it alot on the news, but humanitarian efforts go on day by day by day there) does protect the country by slowing, or curbing a potential bed of individuals that could wish to do us harm in the future. Could Iran be next? Possibly, North Korea, possibly. I try not to think about what foreign country I may have to spend in combat in again, I like being home with my family.

I'm having trouble piecing this together. You say the Iraq war is a step in the right direction of removing Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment in the region. But surveys from the British military in September 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing presence of coalition troops. By these statistics, doesn't that logically mean the very presence of US troops in Iraq is actually generating more Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment?

I'm not critical of the troops, mind you. Troops fight where they're told to. Can't blame them for the decisions of the leaders above them. Following that, I am very critical of foreign policy decisions such as the ones in force now. You have to admit, it's been a huge fuck up that now has no "good" ending despite whatever option is chosen.

As a side note: I also don't think it's a good idea to keep hold of the region for the sake of not letting the terrorist win. All this garbage about certain Democrats, like Obama, wanting to withdraw and thus pleasing the terrorists... I don't think terrorists really give a shit what's happening in Iraq. Let's say the US occupied Iraq prior to 9/11; do you think the terrorists wouldn't have crashed the WTC because of this? I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of terrorists groups act very independently from Iraq. If the War on Terror is a road, then Iraq is basically a detour with no end in sight.

Nacho and SSH: Just to add to your discussion...

SSH:

QuoteYou asked: "how many americans decided to invade"... well, ultimately 1: George W. Bush.

Incorrect, you forgot the Senators and Congressmen who approved the invasion.

Nacho:

QuoteCurious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not?

Because I don't think it's childish to be pissed off with a military force that is occupying your country, has blown up a lot of the region and is responsible for the many civilian deaths. I'm sure if the US was being occupied by another country, they'd be just as pissed. But I do think it's arrogant of the US to say they're stepping into a peace-keeping role for a country they destabilised in the first place.

Nikolas:

QuoteThing is that, while your math are correct and indeed a 0.002% is not a high percentage, you do need to compair it with a different country... for example the UK. Here in the UK there's been 2 bombings in all? For the past 5-6 years, unless mistaken. But certainly not 500. And the population is about the same. That does give an idea...

I don't think that's a good comparison. The UK isn't under military control by another country. And you'll see from other occupations that there is retaliation though not in the form of bombings. Consider the British occupation of Ireland in 1171 by King Henry II. There were several wars and rebellions against the British until the War of Independence (1919-1921). This is pretty much the same as Iraqi insurgents rebelling. And I'm just taking a guess here, but the frequency of attacks by Irish Catholics would have been about the same (or possibly greater) than the number of attacks by Iraqi insurgents. The only difference the the weaponry has changed to something a little more explosive.

So, the moral of the story is if you're going to compare Iraq to another country, compare it to one under a period of occupation. Don't compare it to the UK of today because doing so is meaningless.

---

Okay, on to something new... here's how I'd deal with Iraq: A majority of Iraqis are against the US occupation, right? What I think needs to be done is to withdraw US troops from the area but form a deal with another country for their troops can step in as peacekeepers because, for a start, there's no fucking way the US can fulfill such a role. Basically, they need a good mediating force that can gain the Iraqi's trust. The US can cut back on spending for escalating their military and fund a proxy army in an agreement of bi-lateral control with another country. Maybe keep a minimal amount of US forces as secondary force but have the primary peacekeeping taken over by another country. Plus the US can focus on using the evacuated forces in keeping the homeland safe.

You'd need a country that is not currently an ally of the US in the War on Terror, like France or Germany. A country that will say, "We're not participating in the War on Terror and we had nothing to do with the Iraq War... but we're willing to help rebuild Iraq." That way the insurgents will be less likely to target them. The problem is I doubt you'll find a country that'll lend a hand since the Bush administration has pretty much ruined all diplomatic relations with countries not fighting in the War on Terror. A lot of potential countries would turn their noses up saying, "You want US to risk lives to clean YOUR mess?! Pfft, fat chance!!"

Then again, perhaps it's not too late. Perhaps the US can find a diplomatic ally before things get worse in Iraq. Then again, why would the Bush Administration do such a thing especially when oil prices have been rising steadily over the last four years. Oh wait, I forgot, that's a coincidence and I'm a left-wing hippie freak who believes in crack-pot conspiracy theories.

Anyway, tell me if my Iraqi plan is somewhat workable or not. If you guys think it is, I'll e-mail it to Obama or Clinton or Edwards or Gore if he'll run. Not Biden though because I'll be damned if I'm giving away my plan to a candidate polling at 2 per cent! Although he's got his own plan for Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#The_Biden-Gelb_Plan_for_Iraq) so it doesn't matter. But I think mine is better.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 13:34:41
"51% of the americans voted Bush, so, they are arrogant"

I said: "47% of the iraquians support killing american soldiers, so, they are childish"

Curious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not?

OK, forget Bush, I don't think I said that Bush voters made America arrogant, anyway. How were the French resistance, who probably had more than 47% support of the French, NOT childish?

Quote
I just have said that 500 people killing theirselfs in front of an unique hope of freedom and democracy is childish, mainly because we haven' t seen these attitudes before, when some dictadures felt in some other places. (Did Fascists start suicide bombings after the coup d' etat in Spain 1981 failed? Did communist nostalgics start suicide bombings in Russia after the fall of the Communism? And in Serbia? and In Rumania? What about the reaction of the Chinese students after the repression in Tian Anmen? Did they start to bomb China as a "response to the agression"?

Those are all civil war situations, not a foreign invader. It's a strawman. And why are suicide bombing particularly more childish than other bombings?

Quote
I don' t really understand the over-reaction. I don' t really understand why your statement can be allowed and accepted without any complain in this forums

Who said that no-one can counter my points?

Quote
I really hoped that they could life in peace, but now I really do agree with you, and I want the americans to leave the country. If they want to kill theirselfs, they have my bless. As Helm said once, "let anyone clean their own shit". For me, this countries really deserve their shit.

What about the sh!t that the British  and US left in Iraq by causing and supporting Saddam? Who clears that up?

SSH I understand and agree with your post before the one above.

Dear SSH, the french resistence was born in 1946.

Anyway, if you mean that the US army deserves a revolt as much as the Nazi army did... Well... it' s up to you. Do you really compare the USA with Hitler' s Germany? I know it' s a very popular current in Europe, but I don' t really know your opinion.

I would really liked that the situation got stabilised and that people had peace.

Apparently, some of the auto-named "pacifists" preffer a burning Iraq ensuring them victorious debate moments in the internet and coffee chats. Curious way of pacifism. That reminds me an anecdote that happend the day the war in Iraq ended (The day of the falling Saddam statue). I (the "fascist war-lover")was extremelly happy and I said in my college, loud: "Finally, it has ended". And a "pacifist" replied "No, it hasn' t... There is still some time where the Iraqis will kill those american bastards"

Are you one of those "pacifists"?

Because whereas I know that there are some "muslimophobic fascists" hidden in the amount of people who deffended the war in Iraq as a good choice, I also know that there are some die hard anti americans in your side. It should be great to put the cards on the table, so we can save time.

And really... How can bombing in markets, commisaries, and mosques be a revolt against foreign invaders?

I mean... I had the (mistaken) idea that invassion=deputing Saddam=peace=less death people. From the very start in my posts the idea that some deaths can "save lives". You, as far as I know, allways deffended the idea that "peace is the option, diplomacy is the good choice, flowers in the guns, blah, blah, blah..."

Now you move to "Iraq insurgency" is equal to "French resistance"? Now you mention the resistance against Franco in Spain... Are you moving the line? Are you trying to say that "some violence is good"?

And DG: I can' t really discuss with you, because we are discussing different things.You are saying "pears are green!" and I am saying "appples are red!!!". No matter how many we shout. No one is going to be right. Ã, :)

What I am really talking about is about the bombings in markets, police stations, mosques and civilian neigbourhoods. You are talking about resistance agains an invading country (and I agree, that a certain degree of annoyance is "normal") and the other is to volutarilly start a civil war when you have the first opportunity in decades to have peace.

I think you can agree with me that a civil war between sunnis and chiis is childish. No matter if you say no, and you win some internet debates because that war has been provoqued by the "Yankees". Inside you, I am sure you agree with me. Ã, ;)

QuoteApparently, some of the auto-named "pacifists" preffer a burning Iraq ensuring them victorious debate moments in the internet and coffee chats. Curious way of pacifism. That reminds me an anecdote that happend the day the war in Iraq ended (The day of the falling Saddam statue). I (the "fascist war-lover")was extremelly happy and I said in my college, loud: "Finally, it has ended". And a "pacifist" replied "No, it hasn' t... There is still some time where the Iraqis will kill those american bastards"

At least for one, I am not any sort of pacifist or bleeding-heart humanitarian. A country can be in as much problems as it wants. It should never be enough for another country to step in with their military and say 'now we're going to solve your problem for you!'. EVEN IF THEY DO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, I am against that sort of imperialism. Diplomatic or economic pressure? Yes. Killing children to liberate children? No.

It's not a matter of being left or right, liberal or republican. It's a matter of constitutional right and the whole premise of a sovereign state. A country takes care of its own problems. They can only make it your problems if they go to war with you. Now I know and you know in the end the world doesn't work this way, and countries go to war constantly, form alliances against each other and generally meddle in each others' affairs. But that they do doesn't mean it's okay, and an apologists's 'sigh and realization' oh well, that's how it's going to be is bullshit. We should try more to do as we say rather than aplogize (or even worse, rationalize and moralize) for how we do.

Further in your post you begin building strawmen out of the people that are discussing with you in this thread. You shouldn't care, and shouldn't present the ethics of whomever else you've discussed beforehand in relation to whom you're speaking to in this thread. I think random, wild Ad Hominems will never get you anywhere. And as far as I can remember you arguing politics on this board, it have never gotten you anywhere.

We don't care what sort of people you had discussed with in the past, and what their failings were. We don't care how we might be similar to them. It is simply not pertinent for the purposes of this discussion to liken anyone to anyone in your past. What you are doing is "x person in my past was an idiot, you are like x person, therefore also an idiot!'. You do this CONSTANTLY. You seem to be discussing with 'x persons' through us, not with us.

'Save time'? How about we don't save time.

But Helm, that, preciselly, is what a high amount of people does with me (assuming that I am an "imperialist kid killer") when I talk of Iraq.

So, I guess we have a draw here.

Has anyone done this in this thread?

Furthermore, does this mean if your opposition in an argument falls at a logical fallacy, you're free now to do the same?

Maybe not directly, but in this forums I have the feeling that I am "morally inferior" because I don't hate America more time than any non-masoquist soul can support.

And I don' t own a masoquist soul.

This may be a little off-topic, but... I never got how people could hate a country, anyway. You can hate people, you can hate groups of people, you can hate Jamba (ooooh yeah)... but a country? A country is a mere concept, some lines on a map. This is why you shouldn't say "America is this", "America is that", "America invaded Iraq"...

Fact is, Bush ordered all of this. So George W. Bush is the one to blame. He and his little helpers.

Nacho, I think if you read the posts here, no one hates America, they hate American foreign policy.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 17:26:21
Apparently, some of the auto-named "pacifists" preffer a burning Iraq ensuring them victorious debate moments in the internet and coffee chats. Curious way of pacifism. That reminds me an anecdote that happend the day the war in Iraq ended (The day of the falling Saddam statue). I (the "fascist war-lover")was extremelly happy and I said in my college, loud: "Finally, it has ended". And a "pacifist" replied "No, it hasn' t... There is still some time where the Iraqis will kill those american bastards"

Are you one of those "pacifists"?

Hm, it's interesting that you don't see anything wrong with yourself celebrating how "the war in Iraq ended"...what ended, Nacho? Just because Bush pompously claimed "mission accomplished", didn't mean that anything ended. It's still happening.

You know what, Nacho, you've once again confused your own profound aversion against pacifists (because damn me if you don't take up various personal experiences you've had with pacifists every time debates like these arise) with what could actually pass as a reasonable argument.

Pacifists don't "prefer a burning Iraq" so that they can win debates, and you're being stupid and provokative for saying so. The fact is that Iraq is burning while we speak, we're having a debate about it, and we pacifists are saying war is wrong because it makes stuff burn, countries and puppies and people and such, that's why we think war is inherently wrong, and, seriously Nacho, I don't know what you think about it. The only thing that ever comes clear out of your debate posts is that you don't like pacifists.

Read my post again. I placed the anecdote in the day where the Statue was destroyed. Most people thought the war was ended. If you didn' t, I admire your clarividency, but I don' t have that super powers.

Still, whereas I agree that I have aversion against some "pacifists", some people must consider recognising that they have a simillar degree of aversion towards a country.

And sorry, I won' t be provokative and again.

Ciao.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 19:18:36
Read my post again. I placed the anecdote in the day where the Statue was destroyed. Most people thought the war was ended. If you didn' t, I admire your clarividency, but I don' t have that super powers.

I see that your idea of wars is that they are like computer games, which end after a certain symbolic act, like the capturing of a flag or destroying of a statue, and then everyone is happy and scores are awarded. 
It doesn't take super powers to understand that America's affairs in Iraq would have long-lasting consequences.

Quote from: Becky on Tue 13/02/2007 11:59:24But those reasonings do not, to me, demonstrate that the foreign policy decisions of the United States have ensured the freedom of US citizens - especially when the surrounding policies of intelligence surrounding the "War on Terror" have demonstratably stripped away the civil freedoms of US citizens to an almost unconstitutional degree.

I think I see what you mean. But I think it's difficult to summarily evaluate something like the "War on Terror" because it's really a bunch of relatively distinct policy decisions with a common "theme." I think ultimately you need to look at each decision separately and evaluate their merits.

We invaded Afghanistan to destroy a terrorist organization (and the government that supported it) whose aim was basically to destroy our government and way of life and demonstrated a repeated ability to attack critical parts of our infrastructure. I think this is a fairly clear example of acting to protect our freedom - after all, much of our freedoms are enshrined in our government, our culture, and our way of life. Iraq, on the other hand ... not so much.

I think the domestic security issues that you're talking about is, again, another issue, and one that's raised its head before - the Red Scare in 1917-20, post-WWII McCarthyism, etc. I think it's a constant (and useful) reminder that we're always fighting to keep a balance between how much personal liberty we're willing to sacrifice in exchange for "security." It also goes to show why even in democratic societies we need to fight to exercise and protect our freedoms against those times when the government may step across the line.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 13/02/2007 12:06:48It's casually making the entire middle east out to be a bunch of children that is so annoying.

And I think it's annoying and presumptuous to readily brandish racial stereotypes based on what appears be a deliberate mischaracterization of one person's analogy.

Quote from: Helm on Tue 13/02/2007 16:17:10I am looking by answers by other people, american people, who aren't playing devil's advocate but who sincerily believe the US military action is serving their freedom and wellbeing.

Actually, I was responding specifically to Becky's question, and in such a way that I figured she could gain more information (which it turns out she already had) and make her own decisions. Sorry to have offended in taking this approach.

Quote from: Helm on Tue 13/02/2007 17:45:17
At least for one, I am not any sort of pacifist or bleeding-heart humanitarian. A country can be in as much problems as it wants. It should never be enough for another country to step in with their military and say 'now we're going to solve your problem for you!'. EVEN IF THEY DO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, I am against that sort of imperialism. Diplomatic or economic pressure? Yes. Killing children to liberate children? No.

I, also, am not a pacifist. I would go even further than Helm and say that I think military intervention can be justified in many circumstances. This whole notion of absolute sovereignty is outmoded. If you neighbor hits his kids, you don't say "his house, he can do whatever he wants". In the same way, the community of nations should not let one country do whatever it likes to its citizens. (Of course, it's much more difficult because there's no global enforcer of law and order, so you essentially have to round up a posse and break down the neighbor's door. Still, rough justice can be better than no justice.)

There are many examples of how military intervention has suppressed or ended atrocities, from Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, to NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo, to Great Britain in Liberia. And of course there are examples where they have failed.

As "humanitarian" interventions go, the US invasion of Iraq is a disgrace. Actually helping the Iraqis was at best an afterthought in a war designed with short-sighted American and partisan interests in mind. Almost no thought was put into managing the aftermath (or, more precisely, the thought that had been put into it was overlooked and ignored), and consequently the country broke down into chaos.

I will freely admit that I supported the invasion initially. I thought the Iraqis would be better off under an American-installed government than under Saddam. This was naive, but as non-experts we all know all lot more about the internal strife in Iraq today than we did back in 2003. While I severely underestimated the difficulties of establishing a stable, free Iraq, I also dramatically overestimated the competence of American military and political policy-makers. It had never occurred to me (and it still boggles my mind) that the White House and the Pentagon didn't have a detailed and realistic plan for what to do once they had captured Baghdad, and made preparations just as carefully for the occupation as they did for the invasion. I mean, who does that?! Who thinks "Once we've captured the country everything will be OK. We can just wing it from there"? Unforgivable.

Eagermind, if you can come up with examples of how citizens of any other nation have actually threatened the freedom of the American citizens, maybe people like Helm will take interest in your arguments again.

Of course, those examples must not be disproportionately insignificant compared to how the American state assaults the freedom of its own people, because then the whole case will turn pretty academic.

Like this:
Random middle east citizen's (afghan, iraqi) threat to american citizens = X

Threat generated by the panic, the domestic hunt for terrorists, the fear and sense of insecurity of being a nation in war, the economical consequences of the military operation, the patriot act, etc = Y

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it, if X really outweigh Y. Cause I have this funny feeling that X is like really really tiny in comparison.

Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 13/02/2007 19:42:37
And I think it's annoying and presumptuous to readily brandish racial stereotypes based on what appears be a deliberate mischaracterization of one person's analogy.

And that I appreciate.  I'll even forgive the initial response that reassigned my gender.

SSH, are you ageist? Do you believe adults are somehow better than children?  If you were to skew my analogy in a semi-literal fashion, you could have as readily noted that children are also symbolic of potential, innocence, and -of course- youth (being a younger nation than the US). 

Initially, I thought your response was joking.. maybe it's the avatar that leads me to that as default.  Reading the subsequent replies, I'm disappointed.  An analogy is using two dissimilar things to demonstrate their similarity.  In the case of mine, it was the situation - not the ages involved.  Likewise, I spent the entire post painting the Adults/US as ignorant and arrogant assuming they'd be able to fix a situation without knowing anything about it. 

How did you manage to skim it so shallowly that you only took away a spirit of condescension?  Regarding the conflict, I believe we're on the same side of the metaphorical line in the sand (which does come closer to having a literal counterpart than my analogy). 

I've read a lot about hindsight, and about high-minded ideals.  While it bleeds a little into conspiracy theory territory, the documented doctrines of organizations related to the current administration are at least circumstantial evidence that this conflict was not an act of misunderstanding, but of misleading in order to justify an invasion (referring to the infamous PNAC document).  Regarding hindsight, I was serving at an airstation during September 11th, and while we were standing by shocked by the news broadcasts, every last person in my workcenter was assuming we'd end up going after Saddam - not because we defaulted to assuming he had something to do with it, but because we all felt that our government would want to return and resume what was halted after Desert Storm. 

Regarding American arrogance or blind assumptions that I promote aspects the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, I was proudest of my country when we'd avoided conflict for some time and the perception (at least of the public) was that the only conflicts we'd entered had roots in noble ideals even if they had selfish tangential motivations (i.e. Aiding Kuwait during invasion v. securing oil interests).  At least one could attempt to defend their country in arguments with the "Well, we meant well, even if we probably wouldn't have interfered if it hadn't been that region".  In this conflict, all the justifications and semi-moral reasonings were inserted well after the stages of conflict in order to placate the American people.

The perception that because half the nation supports the conflict & administration (doing some research, I think you'll find the number much lower today) means they believe in a "US knows best" policy is misguided at best.  The portion of the country supporting the conflict is mislead, ignorant of facts, or stupidly trusting due to apathetic patriotism. 

"Support our troops?" Most definitely, for the reasons DG mentioned.  I came very damned close to being retained in the military after my contractual obligation had ended, and I fully realize that I could very well have been over there (unless I'd had the fortitude to risk jail time).  They're doing what they're told, trusting or hoping that their superiors are right, and having faith that they wouldn't be told to do anything intrinsically immoral (whether that faith is religious or patriotic). 

If I were to apply my analogy towards people regularly posting here, I might've previously applied the moniker of "Adult" to SSH as he's got a tendency to shake his head patiently at some of the quibbling of the "Children" here.  Now, once again, I need to adjust my perception of vague on-line identities.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 13/02/2007 19:52:03

... long and interesting post full of valuable points ...

It had never occurred to me (and it still boggles my mind) that the White House and the Pentagon didn't have a detailed and realistic plan for what to do once they had captured Baghdad, and made preparations just as carefully for the occupation as they did for the invasion. I mean, who does that?! Who thinks "Once we've captured the country everything will be OK. We can just wing it from there"? Unforgivable.

Well that I simply do not believe. If you have the resources, the manpower and the logistical know-how to undertake such a vast invasion I simply WILL NOT buy the idea that you haven't planned for what happens after.
Whatever is happening in Iraq at the moment - as chaotic as it may seem - has been foreseen and planned. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 17:26:21
Dear SSH, the french resistence was born in 1946.

Please explain? Who then blew up all those Germans in France before the Normandy invasions?

Quote
Anyway, if you mean that the US army deserves a revolt as much as the Nazi army did... Well... it' s up to you. Do you really compare the USA with Hitler' s Germany?

Now you move to "Iraq insurgency" is equal to "French resistance"? Now you mention the resistance against Franco in Spain... Are you moving the line? Are you trying to say that "some violence is good"?

No, I compared the insurgency in one occupied country with the insurgency in another and said neither were childish. You can pretend I said other things as well if you find it easier to refute things I didn't say than things I did.

Quote
I would really liked that the situation got stabilised and that people had peace.

We agree!

Quote
And really... How can bombing in markets, commisaries, and mosques be a revolt against foreign invaders?

An American expert on suicide combing studied hundreds of bomibngs and spoke to bomber trainers, failed bombers, etc. to try and understand the motiviation, etc. It is a tactical move to try and force and occupying power to leave, he concluded, and not intended as a personal attack on the particular victims. If a parent confiscates a child's doll as a punishment, its not because they hate the doll, but to try and chance the child's behaviour.

Quote
I think you can agree with me that a civil war between sunnis and chiis is childish.

No more than any other war

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 17:51:10
But Helm, that, preciselly, is what a high amount of people does with me (assuming that I am an "imperialist kid killer") when I talk of Iraq.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think you are neither imperialist nor killer and I understand your points. Yes, wild America-bashing is stupid. But you are really bad at arguing, Nacho. Your arguments are full of logical fallacies and I could argue better for your side of things myself. But I still like you!

Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 13/02/2007 19:42:37
And I think it's annoying and presumptuous to readily brandish racial stereotypes based on what appears be a deliberate mischaracterization of one person's analogy.

Who brandished a racial stereotype? Where?

Quote from: TheYak on Tue 13/02/2007 21:40:18
SSH, are you ageist? Do you believe adults are somehow better than children? 

Strawmen. It's not my reaction that is the point, but rather those characterised as children in your analogy. I'm not getting offended on their behalf, I'm just pointing out that some Americans in general and Mr Bush in particular have let slip words like "Crusade" and "Axis of Evil" that have caused huge offence. It was presented in jest, because I know from your previous posts which side of the line in the sand you tend to stand on, but there was a serious point there too: when there is already so much hatred of America in Arab countries, you've got to be very careful not to offend. And invading the whole fucking country is hardly careful.

Quote
How did you manage to skim it so shallowly that you only took away a spirit of condescension?

Well, Nacho seemed to read it the same way...

Quote from: miez on Tue 13/02/2007 22:30:44
Well that I simply do not believe. If you have the resources, the manpower and the logistical know-how to undertake such a vast invasion I simply WILL NOT buy the idea that you haven't planned for what happens after.
Whatever is happening in Iraq at the moment - as chaotic as it may seem - has been foreseen and planned. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

Have you EVER worked for a large company?

Quote from: Andail on Tue 13/02/2007 19:27:53

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 19:18:36
Read my post again. I placed the anecdote in the day where the Statue was destroyed. Most people thought the war was ended. If you didn' t, I admire your clarividency, but I don' t have that super powers.

I see that your idea of wars is that they are like computer games, which end after a certain symbolic act, like the capturing of a flag or destroying of a statue, and then everyone is happy and scores are awarded.Ã, 
It doesn't take super powers to understand that America's affairs in Iraq would have long-lasting consequences.

Who is assuming things now? You seem to be very annoyed when someone says that you are a naive hippy pacifist. But you are doing the same with me assuming that I am a bloody war lover. Cool.

Don' t judge me, please. Don' t call me provokative idiot again. Please... Be a real pacifist for one time.

Who do you think you are, peaceboy? What have you made for "peace"? Post something in the internet? Maybe a sticker in your car? Do you really go to the bed everyday with a smile in your face, thinking "how closer we are to utopia today because of my existence"? Ultra cool.

And then, when a real opportunity for having a "peacefull" attitude comes, you call a person who consider considered you a friend, you call him "provokative idiot". How cool.

A perfect example of what "pacifism" is. Hipocrisy and a constant attack to anything smelling different to the "pacifist" ideology.

Nah... Attacking any of the dozen wars started by communist guerrilla all over the world is not cool. Attacking a conflic started by Islamists is not ok. No NUKES! is cool, but if Iran made them, then they are. Spread the love all over the world! Well... except to America. What if I annoy some of the americans friends I made in mittens? Nah... They won' t feel identifies with what I say against America... They were cool. And real "americans" are not cool. They all know the Americans do not have heart.

Friendship is the most important think in the Universe! Well, expect of that little Spanish who thought that deputing a communist leader in Middle Orient could have been good... We can fry that fascist entity till annoying him enough to leave AGS and leave me the path free for more manifestos!

Well, you know? Congrats. You made it! Bye bye!

Quote from: SSH on Tue 13/02/2007 22:46:01
Strawmen. It's not my reaction that is the point, but rather those characterised as children in your analogy. I'm not getting offended on their behalf, I'm just pointing out that some Americans in general and Mr Bush in particular have let slip words like "Crusade" and "Axis of Evil" that have caused huge offence. It was presented in jest, because I know from your previous posts which side of the line in the sand you tend to stand on, but there was a serious point there too: when there is already so much hatred of America in Arab countries, you've got to be very careful not to offend. And invading the whole fucking country is hardly careful.

Looking back now, it would've perhaps been wiser to add that I was in no away attempting to insinuate that the US knew best or that the Middle East is full of children in need of guidance.  However, I won't pretend that I've got that amount of foresight. 

And Farl...  leaving is anyone's choice, but you're going to leave over forum posts?  Specifically *this* thread?  Why not simply avoid talking politics or religion if that's where you have contention?  I have several friends and family members with whom I won't discuss either. 

This forum, this thread is a general forum of an amateur game-making site.  I don't see why anyone would write thinking that they would change anyone's mind, or even be taken the correct way when writing plain text.  I don't write because I think it's important socially, or because I think my opinions are important enough that they need to be expressed to international strangers.  I do so because it interests me and is often quite educational.  Here's hoping you just mean that you're leaving forum activity. 

Nacho, as SSH said in his post above, you're simply not very good at arguing. I don't know why you keep getting attracted to all these threads, cause you probably don't even like them yourself. You're the kind of person who's better off keeping to non-controversial stuff, being liked and saying nice things.

I think you're being provokative because you put words in my mouth, because you have a very fixed idea about what I'm like, mainly because I sometimes refer to myself as pacifist (by which I simply mean I'm against war. Interestingly, it's a term I've never used outside these forums).

I guess all those preconcieved notions sort of clash with a basic idea that you've had ever since you joined these forums, which is that I'm a nice guy who you'd like to be friends with.
I can understand that that must be a conflict for you.

However, most of your posts that touch subjects which are important to me are full of rubbish, which I have a hard time reading without letting you know about it. Truthfully, I'm tired of reading your posts in threads like this one, Nacho, and I wish you could steer clear from them.

Holy crap...

   I was just stopping by to say I heard the president of Cartoon Network was stepping down as a result of this thing (you know, that Boston thing that seems to have been forgotten here) and found a civil war breaking out... and it seems there's already been one casualty.

  I'm guilty of eagerly waiting for some poor overly-patriotic schmuck to say how the wars are benefitting US and world freedom so I could delight in Helm's subsequent reign of terror, but this is ridiculous. No wonder we're not allowed to diverge from thread topics. We were talking initially about how America's scare tactics to control the population led to the Boston bomb scare over a bunch of light brights, and now someone's left the forums. What the hell?

  I for one blame the United States government...

Quote from: . . . on Tue 13/02/2007 17:26:21
What I am really talking about is about the bombings in markets, police stations, mosques and civilian neigbourhoods. You are talking about resistance agains an invading country (and I agree, that a certain degree of annoyance is "normal") and the other is to volutarilly start a civil war when you have the first opportunity in decades to have peace.

I think you can agree with me that a civil war between sunnis and chiis is childish. No matter if you say no, and you win some internet debates because that war has been provoqued by the "Yankees". Inside you, I am sure you agree with me.  ;)

Not really because the fighting between sunnis and shiites is due to the destablisation of the US. If you're going to call the civil war in Iraq "childish", you might as well call every other civil war in history "childish".

But I still think it's arrogant of the US to say they're going to be peacekeepers for a region they destablised in the first place.

---

By the way, isn't anyone going to comment on my Iraq policy from my previous post?

Quote from: DGMacphee By the way, isn't anyone going to comment on my Iraq policy from my previous post?
quote]

I like it.  The strikes against it you already touched upon though.  How does the US gain an ally for rebuilding when other nations don't want to be associated with the conflict.  Even if they manage to disassociate themselves from it, that doesn't make it any more appealing to place their citizens in harm's way. 

For some time now, Iraq has been able to be referred to as a mistake without losing the agreement of half the country (only 15% or so at the moment).  However, both sides agree that if we were to withdrawl completely at the moment, the Iraqi security forces wouldn't be able to keep things together and all-out civil war would be imminent. 

If the US could figure out a tactful way to announce that we've commited enough resources thus far and its time for the Iraqis to take the reins - thus we're pulling our troops out in X months.  If the UN or a specific nation has a problem with us doing so, they can feel free to contribute numbers to this multi-national rebuilding force. 

Quote from: TheYak on Tue 13/02/2007 21:40:18I'll even forgive the initial response that reassigned my gender.

Sorry.  :-[ Girls calling themselves guys, guys calling themselves girls in their profiles, it's hard to keep it all straight sometimes. :)

Quote from: Andail on Tue 13/02/2007 20:09:50Eagermind, if you can come up with examples of how citizens of any other nation have actually threatened the freedom of the American citizens, maybe people like Helm will take interest in your arguments again.

Why, so I can take part in discussions like this?

QuoteJust as long as you don't believe US interventionism serves the freedom of the US public, sure, let's ponder on the finer things all night.

So it's only ok if we discuss the US and its politics and foreign policies and examine the decision-making behind it as long as we've already established that its aims are ultimately imperialist and not in the interests of serving its people and protecting their freedom? Not really the informed, intelligent kind of debate I'm looking for. You'll forgive me if I decide to take a pass.

You know what? The world isn't as simple as "the American imperialists are out to get you, and its willing citizenry is really just repressed by its government." Frankly, in an age of an unprecedented free exchange and availability of information, I'm shocked that people really believe this. I think all I've tryed to do is point this out without trying to reduce culpability for what we've done or be "apologetic" for the way things have unfolded.

Quote from: esper on Wed 14/02/2007 01:28:32
Ã,  I for one blame the United States government...

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Bt

Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 14/02/2007 04:26:11
Not only do such notions hide the truth of the matter, but it would also mean that I'd have to buy into the idea that my voice, and the voices of all the other Americans that exercise their right to vote, and all the previous generations of Americans going all the way back to those people that fought a revolution and sacrificed their lives to found a nation based on the voice of the people are meaningless, because in the end the government will just do as it pleases. Sorry, I don't believe this, not for one second.

Don't get too sentimental, dude...but if you're so emotionally absorbed by the fate and the history of your grand nation, you should be much more worried than I am. If not for the sake of the stability of the world as we know it, but for America itself. Just refusing to believe things will not help your people to regain control of its constitution.

If I didn't think a great chunk of the Americans are perfectly reasonable and sensible democratic-loving citizens, I wouldn't spend so much time trying to prove my point in threads like this one. So well...good luck :)

Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 14/02/2007 04:26:11
You know what? The world isn't as simple as "the American imperialists are out to get you, and its willing citizenry is really just repressed by its government." Frankly, in an age of an unprecedented free exchange and availability of information, I'm shocked that people really believe this. I think all I've tryed to do is point this out without trying to reduce culpability for what we've done or be "apologetic" for the way things have unfolded.

Thank you EagerMind for putting into words something I have felt for a long time. I'm not American, yet I don't for a second buy into the anti-American rhetoric that seems to be the position a lot of people default to now.

Quote from: Andail on Wed 14/02/2007 08:37:45Don't get too sentimental, dude...but if you're so emotionally absorbed by the fate and the history of your grand nation,

Wha-? Not at all the tone I was trying to take. I just get irritated by people spreading around false information like it's accepted fact.

QuoteSo well...good luck :)

Thanks ... I think. :)

QuoteThis whole notion of absolute sovereignty is outmoded. If you neighbor hits his kids, you don't say "his house, he can do whatever he wants".

I am sorry, Snarky. Greece has fought a bloody war with the Turks, then fought Italians, the Germans and finally had a civil war so we could have this outmodded ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY you speak of, and on which actually, our whole country rests upon. I have such a hard time to not be disgusted by what you just posted, your opinion, as if it's fact. absolute sovereignty is outmoded. Tell that to grandparents of greeks who actually fought in a war for the freedom of the greek citizents, not to kill their neighboring countrys' kids.

QuoteIn the same way, the community of nations should not let one country do whatever it likes to its citizens.

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do you support this demand of yours with any reasoning behind 'hey, get with the times, lol. Your method is outmoded'.

Quote(Of course, it's much more difficult because there's no global enforcer of law and order, so you essentially have to round up a posse and break down the neighbor's door.

How about delicate balance of power and diplomatic pressure ensuring every country gives in a bit on some issues, and gets what they want on other issues, clumpsily but surely making a non-destructive path towards the future of mankind? How about that option? Your idea of a 'posse breaking down the door and killing the neibour's kids' is EXACTLY your countrys method of foreign policy, and it's disgusting and should be fought against.

QuoteStill, rough justice can be better than no justice.

...

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 12:42:40
Your idea of a 'posse breaking down the door and killing the neibour's kids' is EXACTLY your countrys method of foreign policy, and it's disgusting and should be fought against.

To be fair, Helm, I think his idea was to form a posse to STOP the neighbour from hitting his kids, not to kill them...

Is there apparently a way to STOP them from doing it that doesn't involve dead innocent kids? So far, even going back to the Kosovo situation that is now considered a NATO SUCCESS LOL (though is anything but) every military opertation by the US has resulted in dead children. Now, I don't think you can go to war without killing innocents, I'm not saying that's only a US curse (though their military certainly seems very adept at child-killing, starting at Vietnam), so hey, let's not go to war at all, eh?

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 12:42:40
I am sorry, Snarky. Greece has fought a bloody war with the Turks, then fought Italians, the Germans and finally had a civil war so we could have this outmodded ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY you speak of, and on which actually, our whole country rests upon. I have such a hard time to not be disgusted by what you just posted, your opinion, as if it's fact. absolute sovereignty is outmoded. Tell that to grandparents of greeks who actually fought in a war for the freedom of the greek citizents, not to kill their neighboring countrys' kids.

Just to piss you off even more, if the UN had sent in troops to Greece to overthrow the junta, I would probably have supported that, too. (Before my time, though.)

I wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

QuoteWhy? Why? Why? Why? Do you support this demand of yours with any reasoning behind 'hey, get with the times, lol. Your method is outmoded'.

Yes. Our culture has come to believe that there are universal human rights; standards that should apply everywhere. The rights of people come before the rights of nations (if they even have any). Therefore, it is justifiable to violate national sovereignty to uphold human rights. For example to stop genocide. A good example of this is the NATO action against Serbia during the Kosovo war. (And I remember that Greece was one of the few western nations that opposed this action, so I know you may not agree.)

What has nationalism got to show for itself other than a history of wars and a mindset of chauvinism and xenophobia? I am an internationalist. I believe in creating and strenghtening a community of nations, a brotherhood of man that is above borders and state lines. The UN is the best we've got (though the EU is also pretty useful, as well as other forums such as the OSCE), and the UN should have the capability and the will to intervene--with military power if necessary.

Quote

Quote(Of course, it's much more difficult because there's no global enforcer of law and order, so you essentially have to round up a posse and break down the neighbor's door.

How about delicate balance of power and diplomatic pressure ensuring every country gives in a bit on some issues, and gets what they want on other issues, clumpsily but surely making a non-destructive path towards the future of mankind? How about that option? Your idea of a 'posse breaking down the door and killing the neibour's kids' is EXACTLY your countrys method of foreign policy, and it's disgusting and should be fought against.

Killing the neighbor's kids? Where did you get that from?

Obviously, military force should be the last resort, after diplomacy, sanctions and other "soft" options have been tried. Part of what strengthening an international community would mean is to delegitimize a country unilaterally imposing its will upon another, such as the US has an unfortunate habit of doing. (This is a very unpopular opinion in the US, which is as nationalistic as Greece.)

And I don't think you know the first thing about my country's foreign policy. Do you even know where I'm from?

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 13:14:19
Is there apparently a way to STOP them from doing it that doesn't involve dead innocent kids? So far, even going back to the Kosovo situation that is now considered a NATO SUCCESS LOL (though is anything but) every military opertation by the US has resulted in dead children. Now, I don't think you can go to war without killing innocents, I'm not saying that's only a US curse (though their military certainly seems very adept at child-killing, starting at Vietnam), so hey, let's not go to war at all, eh?

Sometimes, it's better to take action, knowing that it's likely you will end up killing dozens or hundreds of kids, than it is to sit idly by and let thousands be massacred. Inaction is also a kind of action, and you have a responsibility for the consequences of that, too.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 14/02/2007 13:28:24
Just to piss you off even more, if the UN had sent in troops to Greece to overthrow the junta, I would probably have supported that, too. (Before my time, though.)

Instead the US directly and indirectly helped the coup happen, and supported the dictatorship for as long as it was in effect. As it had done similarly for a lot of countries with left-leaning powers of influence as very well know. You inconsiderate person. You should be more careful.

QuoteI wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

I am not a nationalist. If you use that term to mean 'person who believes that countries should be sovereign' you inconsiderate person, you should know that a nationalist is one that believes his country to be better than the countries of others. That is something you accuse me of without any grounding. I don't know about your country, but that, in Greece, the insinuation that one is a nationalist, especially when leveled against people of the left (such as I) is an insult. It was uncalled for. You should be more careful. You should be thinking more about how to have a conversation over politics without insulting people, rather than what to tell them to piss them off even more. This isn't a court-room and you're not winning any points by brow-beating your opposition.

QuoteYes. Our culture has come to believe that there are universal human rights; standards that should apply everywhere.

Supporting one unrealistic demand with another. Nice going. 'Our' culture, does not exist. The western world has a lot of different aspects to it and to collapse it all into a coalesched nothing like you do is a huge disservice to the individual nations and their history, politics, ethics and law. EXACTLY because the west isn't one thing, we don't agree. This discussion is proof of the opposite of your bullshit claim. 'Human rights' are just a piece of paper (and leverage) when a country strong-arms its way around based on superior military like the US does. And you have the audacity to talk to me about human rights.

Quote(And I remember that Greece was one of the few western nations that opposed this action, so I know you may not agree.)

Why do you equate me with my country? I do not support PASOK (in power for about 40 years before giving it up for), NEA DIMOKRATIA (currently in power). I am in the left of both.

QuoteWhat has nationalism got to show for itself other than a history of wars and a mindset of chauvinism and xenophobia?

I detest your insinuation that I am a nationalist, or that supporting my country's constitution, for which THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED makes me a xenophobe or a chauvinist.

You talk about being an internationalist... you're using the term as a scapegoat. A true internationalist would be tolerant of other peoples and their ways, even if they go against those 'human rights' you speak of. An 'internationalist' that is only such when and only when everybody else in the world agrees to play along with their own set of arbiterate rules is not anything other than a dictator.

QuoteI am an internationalist.

You say a lot of words.

QuoteI believe in creating and strenghtening a community of nations, a brotherhood of man that is above borders and state lines.

Under whose authority. Who stands to benefit? Geopolitical powerplay isn't a fairy tale. Somebody's doing some convincing and somebody is put in a tight situation. Some nations go to war, people die. The power balance shifts. This is the way it was, this is the way it'll always be. Proof? Since the UN and the EU and NATO have formulated, there have been wars around the world. A lot of them. There will still be wars. I have absolutely no faith in 'a world without borders' and this is why I am interested in the continued survival of my own country and that only. Not because it is better than someone elses, not because it has a right to exist more than any other. But because it is always under threat by the vast, obscene, immoral monstrosity that is the true law of geopolitics: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Don't hide behind your finger, don't say it isn't so. The US isn't persuing a western-world-human-rights agenda, it's persuing a US-POWER agenda. It is clear as day to anyone that can look at the historical facts and is, of course, inclined to speak the truth.

QuoteKilling the neighbor's kids? Where did you get that from?

The facts.

QuoteObviously, military force should be the last resort, after diplomacy, sanctions and other "soft" options have been tried.

Military force should only be used in the defense of the homeland.

Quotewhich is as nationalistic as Greece.

...

QuoteAnd I don't think you know the first thing about my country's foreign policy. Do you even know where I'm from?

Are you a german living in the US? I am talking about the US. And I know enough about the US foreign policy.

QuoteSometimes, it's better to take action, knowing that it's likely you will end up killing dozens or hundreds of kids, than it is to sit idly by and let thousands be massacred. Inaction is also a kind of action, and you have a responsibility for the consequences of that, too.

Who made you god? I totally oppose this ethical viewpoint. Killing is the last resort for those under the threat of death. War is the last resort of the country defending its existence. Anything more than that is moral bankruptcy.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 14/02/2007 13:28:24
[Just to piss you off even more, if the UN had sent in troops to Greece to overthrow the junta, I would probably have supported that, too. (Before my time, though.)

I wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

Errr... the Greeks fighting Italians, Germans and the civil war was all really WWII-related, I'd hardly call that "nationalistic". As for throwing out the Ottomans, they did that about 45 years after the Americans threw out the Brits...

QuoteI wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

Holy shit, I just realized after SSH posted that you effectively said that fighting the Italians and Germans when they invaded Greece in WWII were 'nationalist wars'. Wow. Very well-informed there.

I don't have time right now to reply at length, but I do wish to say that it's ridiculously easy to wind you up, Helm. It's like you have this huge red button marked "Do Not Push!" that will just set you off. While it might be more responsible (though less entertaining) to not deliberately provoke you, you could also try to be less emotional about this political discussion.

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 14:49:54

QuoteI wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

Holy shit, I just realized after SSH posted that you effectively said that fighting the Italians and Germans when they invaded Greece in WWII were 'nationalist wars'. Wow. Very well-informed there.

Actually, you said that:

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 12:42:40
Greece has fought a bloody war with the Turks, then fought Italians, the Germans and finally had a civil war so we could have this outmodded ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY you speak of, and on which actually, our whole country rests upon.

I'll respond in detail later. In the mean time, you might want to look up "nationalism". You can start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) and here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=nationalism).

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 14/02/2007 15:10:53
I'll respond in detail later. In the mean time, you might want to look up "nationalism". You can start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) and here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=nationalism).

Surely if you use the "love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it" definition of nationalism, then EVERY war is nationalistic, so tagging a war as nationalistic is pointless. Of course, since some people mean "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other" by nationalism, then tagging something that meets one definition, and then using another is confusing and potentially offensive.

When it comes to the dangers with having one aggressive military state acting without the support of the global community, attacking and invading other nations as it pleases it, USA constitutes a good example.
This is why I find it strange that people still choose to cling onto the idea that using military force whenever it tickles one's fancy can always be justified. It would be more understandable if USA did not have the history that it now in fact has.

It would be understandable if USA had a history of short, clinically planned military actions, fundamentally supported by the global community as well as their own population.

Tragically, USA has a history of lengthy, ill-planned, non-justified bloodbaths, and since Snarky is such a keen supporter of wikipedia, I'm sure he dig up references there.

Sometimes it feels like people are forgetting the past.

This whole concept of internationalism as presented by Snarky certainly makes me think about the Third Reich. There's no balance of power. I purposely do not find myself inclined to investigate the inner workings of this American system of government, but from school I remember the system of "checks and balances" as they call it responsible for making sure the US government administration stays within the bounds of what is desirous of everyone involved. Why is America the international police force? Because it has the biggest weapons? Certainly not because it stands on the highest moral ground. And yet, there is NO ONE in the international scope who is capable of checking and balancing us. And when they try, we lay them waste. We're still moaning about the dead of 9-11, but we fail to note that we had before and have since caused the exact pain and suffering to others multiple times over. So, our people die and we go to war over it, but we put down the efforts of anyone else who goes to war because their people die? Who gives us the right? God? Is it because George Bush is a male Aryan Christian?

As is evident in the by-now-long-forgotten-by-us Boston incident, the United States government uses fear to control its people. The other tool it uses is patriotism. If you aren't afraid of imminent death at the hands of mad arabian terrorists, you think that the government has your best interests constantly in mind and everything they do is beneficial for you, thus making people stand up for ignorant concepts such as an international community. Goddammit, people don't want to be members of an international community. It's obvious Helm doesn't, so why force it on him? It's obvious I don't, so why force it on me? It's obvious everyone in the Middle East doesn't, so why force it on them? I've been to Kenya, Trinidad and Tobago, and up in the mountains of Mexico where few outsiders have ever been. These people could care less. They just want to be left on their own. They don't want things to change. The Masai thought my laptop was cool, but when the novelty had worn off they went back to trying to get me to drink reindeer blood. They have a way of doing things, and they are fiercely proud of it.

My fiancee is Chinese, from China, and is currently living in Datong city in Shanxi province.  You know what that silly girl told me she was most afraid of when she was here at college in America? She told me she was afraid that tall, bald black men sporting tatoos would gang rape her! She said she had been taught that such things happen all the time in America in her schools. I tried to explain to her that she lives in a Communist country and that was propaganda, but she didn't want to hear otherwise. She's happy just the way she is.

So why do you think internationalism is such a great thing? It sounds like a wonderful dream of a utopian society to some people, but those people need to realize they are not the only bloody people on earth!

America's only goal is the redistribution of wealth. We do NOT live in a country of the people,  by the people, and for the people unless said people are predisposed to be wealthy and can assist those in charge of the government to further their wealth. Everything is about money. This is not so much a country or a government as it is a really big industry, and people who are against it are scabs with kneecaps just waiting to be broken. The only reason we are in Iraq now is for their oil. It's obvious. We claim that intelligence showed they possessed WMD's, but where were they? No, the only real reason we had to invade was to control their oil. People on both sides are dying en masse because George W. Bush is an oil tycoon.

Furthermore, I'm a little tired of this whole lauding the nobility of the US soldiers... I have worked in a large hotel used primarily by soldiers in the second largest military intelligence training facility in the country, and I have seen nothing from these men and women but complete depravity. One of them was passing out pictures of Iraqi soldiers he had shot and killed. I used to hear them tell their war stories, and you could always tell when they were talking about a particularly gruesome battle when they started hooping, hollering, and cheering. I've worked in hotels all across the country, including one famous tourist landmark in Newport, Rhode Island, and I've never.... ever.... EVER had to have so many people removed by the police as at this hotel. I've never seen so many prostitutes go in and out of a hotel. And I have most definitely never heard anyone talk about shooting a ten year old girl in the god damn face with such a tremendous smile. (EDIT: I understand this is unfair to those men and women who, like Snarky or any of us would if we were US soldiers, believe their government is trying to do something good and are honestly, albeit blindly, fighting for freedom)

So this government can sodomize itself furiously without vaseline for all I care, as I'm sure it's soldiers have been doing to pubescent Iraqi girls for some time now.

Very good post, Esper.

And yeah, the trend that most people add the claim "....but don't get me wrong, I still support the troops" is mostly because they want to sooth the people they're debating with, by not breaking the final taboo; to criticise the brave soldier himself.

I personally think you're responsible for your own actions. If you kill a person, don't blame anyone else.
USA does not practise mandatory drafting, and even though poor teenagers might be gullible enough to actually join the army with good intentions, it's still a matter of choice.

Every time you hear an official person, or a talk show host or whoever, condemn the war, or at least mildly question the moral excuse for it, they will always end with "but God bless our troops, they fight for what they think is right, yadyadya.."

So damn tired of it. Most of them are soldiers because they enjoy shooting with big guns.

I think you're confusing sentiments, Andail.  There is a difference between blindly proclaiming that we ought to support our troops, particularly when it's declared as a knee-jerk reaction to some perceived insult or "anti-patriotic" sentiment and supporting individuals that (while you might not agree with their actions) at least seem to be doing the wrong things for the right reasons. Likewise, supporting those who actually think they're doing something to help (and might be accomplishing something) versus those who are bragging about their conquests doesn't seem entirely warmongering. 

I will not blindly support every last troop in Iraq, but I have known several who've gone and returned, or gone and will never return that were good men.  From what I know of their character, they wouldn't have stooped to a default to violence, would protect innocents of the "enemy" side even at the risk of provoking their superiors and lead a perfectly normal and non-depraved life outside of their service. 

The reasons for joining military service are varied.  From having joined, served, and honorably discharged, I can speak from experience on this one.  In an economy that makes it difficult to support one's family, particularly providing health benefits, it made sense to me to join for the sake of my family, particularly during a more peaceful time when the likelihood that I would have to make decisions based upon my morality was minimal.  I'm enough of a non-violent person, that I had difficulty going to practice at the rifle range using silhouetted semi-human-shaped targets - not because the target-shooting wasn't enjoyable, but because I was forced to recall why I was training in the first place. 

On a different note, I'm surprised that more people aren't called out for their questioning of people's patriotism.  It's incredibly hypocritical to proclaim that you're patriotic and that you're also against fanatics (as the patriots would refer to the small percentage of Muslims that are fundamentalist jihadists).  Since patriotism refers to zealously defending one's nation, even at the cost of one's personal interests (i.e. being fanatical themselves) - often even blindly jumping to the defense of it, it disgusts me that it becomes the default verbal position while they condemn Iraqi nationalists in debate yet live their lives in such an apathetic fashion. 

Also, I appreciate Helm's raving response.  There were a couple of declarations of when it was acceptable..  no, necessary to enter military conflict that defined my feelings on the matter more succinctly than I've been able to thus far.  I've realized that it isn't practical to do away with the military and stay out of all conflict, but feel stupid for not having been able to phrase my stance on when it's necessary in so few words.
[edited. My grammar's going to shit]

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 14/02/2007 15:10:53
I don't have time right now to reply at length, but I do wish to say that it's ridiculously easy to wind you up, Helm. It's like you have this huge red button marked "Do Not Push!" that will just set you off. While it might be more responsible (though less entertaining) to not deliberately provoke you, you could also try to be less emotional about this political discussion.

You are ridiculous and I have no further interest in discussing with you. You 'riled me up' so I guess you win the internet! Congratulations. Hopefully the other paticipators in this thread, both vocal and silent have a better understanding of a political argument than your 'American Gladiators' method, and have drawn their own conclusions. I retreat from this thread.

An interesting view on the concept of chain-of-command and the soldier as an individual entity, and not just a drone, is here. (http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2007/02/2707_free_will_.html)

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 20:09:59
You are ridiculous and I have no further interest in discussing with you. You 'riled me up' so I guess you win the internet! Congratulations. Hopefully the other paticipators in this thread, both vocal and silent have a better understanding of a political argument than your 'American Gladiators' method, and have drawn their own conclusions. I retreat from this thread.

::)

Oh chill!

The quality of political debate on forums such as this is incredibly low anyway, and most of the attraction is to observe how "regular people" think as opposed to the experts, intellectuals and other pundits who contribute to political journals. That can be enlightening, but rarely because of the substance of the opinion.

As for the rest, this forum is recreational, and I don't see a problem with getting some entertainment out of the discussion. I will strike a more conciliatory note from now on, though, in case you wish to calm down.

I actually think we agree on the big issues (much as you pooh-pooh human rights, I don't think you actually approve of them being violated), if you would just stop making assumptions about who I am.

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 14:25:14
Instead the US directly and indirectly helped the coup happen, and supported the dictatorship for as long as it was in effect. As it had done similarly for a lot of countries with left-leaning powers of influence as very well know. You inconsiderate person. You should be more careful.

Yeah, the US has done a lot of bad things, and that's definitely one of them. You can add installing of the Shah in Iran. Its meddling in Latin America has been almost universally malign. Absolutely despicable stuff. No argument there.

I still think that a (realistic, well-thought through, last-resort) UN military action to overthrow the junta would have been a good thing.

QuoteI am not a nationalist. If you use that term to mean 'person who believes that countries should be sovereign' you inconsiderate person, you should know that a nationalist is one that believes his country to be better than the countries of others. That is something you accuse me of without any grounding. I don't know about your country, but that, in Greece, the insinuation that one is a nationalist, especially when leveled against people of the left (such as I) is an insult. It was uncalled for. You should be more careful. You should be thinking more about how to have a conversation over politics without insulting people, rather than what to tell them to piss them off even more. This isn't a court-room and you're not winning any points by brow-beating your opposition.

It was not an insult. I am not intimately familiar with political jargon in Greece, but "nationalism" is a well-established term in English that rather accurately labels the views you have argued. Not incidentally, the Greek Revolution is the canonical example of nationalistic political revolt (nationalism later led to the unifications of Italy and Germany, Irish independence, Finnish independence, etc.).

Quote

QuoteYes. Our culture has come to believe that there are universal human rights; standards that should apply everywhere.

Supporting one unrealistic demand with another. Nice going. 'Our' culture, does not exist. The western world has a lot of different aspects to it and to collapse it all into a coalesched nothing like you do is a huge disservice to the individual nations and their history, politics, ethics and law. EXACTLY because the west isn't one thing, we don't agree. This discussion is proof of the opposite of your bullshit claim. 'Human rights' are just a piece of paper (and leverage) when a country strong-arms its way around based on superior military like the US does. And you have the audacity to talk to me about human rights.

I think there certainly is an "our" culture. Not just a western culture, but an emerging global culture. Just because we have disagreements doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm sure you have disagreements with other Greeks, too. Whether you like it or not, the concept of human rights has been adopted by all western nations, and many others, too.

It is not just used to strong-arm nations. In many nations where it is enshrined in law, it provides legal protection (or at least legal recourse) against all kinds of abuses. It is used to prosecute perpetrators of atrocities and war crimes. And it provides the underpinnings for the moral condemnation of outrages such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Whenever someone is being mistreated somewhere, the agreed-upon basis for talking about it is in terms of human rights.

Is it sometimes used as a pretext for military actions that are really motivated by other interests? Of course. But states have always come up with excuses for going to war (the one excuse you are ready to accept, self defense, is one of the most commonly used). In fact, that human rights are seen as a palatable rationale just shows that they are highly respected and considered legitimate.

Quote

Quote(And I remember that Greece was one of the few western nations that opposed this action, so I know you may not agree.)

Why do you equate me with my country? I do not support PASOK (in power for about 40 years before giving it up for), NEA DIMOKRATIA (currently in power). I am in the left of both.

You associated me with the foreign policy of a country that isn't even mine. Besides, in your post right before mine you condemned NATO's Kosovo action, so it wasn't just idle speculation on my part.

Quote

QuoteWhat has nationalism got to show for itself other than a history of wars and a mindset of chauvinism and xenophobia?

I detest your insinuation that I am a nationalist, or that supporting my country's constitution, for which THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED makes me a xenophobe or a chauvinist.

Nationalism is the accurate term for your political philosophy. The word has attracted a secondary meaning of belief in national supremacy. Why? Because historically, nationalism has often been associated with chauvinism. Now, it is my belief that this is no coincidence, that the philosophy of national sovereignty above all, when it is implemented, promotes a jingoistic mindset.

That is not to say that I believe you personally hold those attitudes. I just think that your political ideas are flawed because they lead to a situation where such prejudices will dominate. (Just as I would argue with an idealistic, utopian socialist that her principles were flawed because they would lead to totalitarianism, even if she did not approve of tyranny herself.)

QuoteYou talk about being an internationalist... you're using the term as a scapegoat. A true internationalist would be tolerant of other peoples and their ways, even if they go against those 'human rights' you speak of. An 'internationalist' that is only such when and only when everybody else in the world agrees to play along with their own set of arbiterate rules is not anything other than a dictator.

As an internationalist, I believe it is better for the world to exist as a single community, which rules for acceptable and unacceptable behavior of its members (individual states), rather than each country looking out only for themselves, letting others fend for themselves and act however they like as long as they are not themselves directly affected. Just as it is better for people to live in an organized society than in a state of anarchy where it is every man for himself.

I think that community is just starting to take shape. The UN, as I mentioned, is an important expression of that. The unilateral US action in Iraq was not really a move in that direction (which was one of my main reservations before the invasion), but by backfiring so spectacularly it may actually have pushed us further towards that.

In some ways, the current situation can be compared to the period in the US known as "the Wild West", when settlers were moving into the American interior and to the west coast. At first, these people had little in terms of organized communities. Each man had to protect himself and his family from native Americans, gangsters, con-men and usurers. Survival was often a matter of kill-or-be-killed, and had little to do with justice. If someone didn't bother you, it was none of your business what he might have done to someone else. That's what the world used to be like on the nation-state level until recently.

These people did the best they could, however. They banded together, and towns and groups of farms tried to create some semblance of civilization. They appointed sheriffs, and sometimes they would form a posse (or a lynch mob). Was this perfect? Absolutely not. Due process was a matter of luck at best. Most were deeply racist and often suspicious of outsiders. Corruption and gaming the system was rife.

Within a relatively short time, though, the West was not so Wild any more. The makeshift communities had done one thing: they had provided a measure of security, enough for a real modern society to take hold. Law and order followed. Still not perfect, of course (and it sucked for the native Americans), but better than the state of nature "red in tooth and claw" it had started out as? Most definitely.

I hope and think the world is following that same path. Human rights will be a part of the foundation for the international society to follow: part of what makes each state and each individual feel secure enough to afford their neighbors the same rights.

Quote

QuoteI believe in creating and strenghtening a community of nations, a brotherhood of man that is above borders and state lines.

Under whose authority. Who stands to benefit? Geopolitical powerplay isn't a fairy tale. Somebody's doing some convincing and somebody is put in a tight situation. Some nations go to war, people die. The power balance shifts. This is the way it was, this is the way it'll always be. Proof? Since the UN and the EU and NATO have formulated, there have been wars around the world. A lot of them. There will still be wars. I have absolutely no faith in 'a world without borders' and this is why I am interested in the continued survival of my own country and that only. Not because it is better than someone elses, not because it has a right to exist more than any other. But because it is always under threat by the vast, obscene, immoral monstrosity that is the true law of geopolitics: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Don't hide behind your finger, don't say it isn't so. The US isn't persuing a western-world-human-rights agenda, it's persuing a US-POWER agenda. It is clear as day to anyone that can look at the historical facts and is, of course, inclined to speak the truth.

Although recent history can look pretty bleak, a longer historical view reveals that people are probably better off now than they have ever been in the past. Of course, Europe in particular has seen an unprecedented degree of peace since WWII. It is at least frequently argued that the EU has been a contributing factor to this stability. (I have no idea whether they're right or not.)

Part of what a global community would do is to protect the weak from the abuses of the mighty. Much like a state (that respects human rights) does within its borders. Sure, the little guy still gets screwed by the big guy (as you say, this is the way of the world, and will probably always be so), but within limits. You're not at the complete mercy of everyone who comes by who could take you in a fight.

Having an interest in the continued survival of your own country and that only (aka "nationalism") is kind of like supporting your neighborhood gang because they protect you against the other gangs around you, and because you're lucky enough that your particular gang hasn't raped anyone lately. Instead, maybe it would be better to curb the power of the gangs, have them all police each other so that none of them can make any mischief.

Yes, part of why I believe in a stronger international community is that it would decrease America's ability to act unilaterally, without "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Still, I would argue that while American actions abroad have sometimes been loathsome, they have at other times been laudable, and that if you look at the history of Great Powers, the US is better than most. Part of the reason for that, I think, is that the US has (occasionally) realized that it is in its own interests to help others. (The obvious and familiar examples are the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan.)

Quote

QuoteAnd I don't think you know the first thing about my country's foreign policy. Do you even know where I'm from?

Are you a german living in the US? I am talking about the US. And I know enough about the US foreign policy.

Norwegian, but close enough. And US foreign policy is a reliable cause of frustration and anger for me.

Quote

QuoteSometimes, it's better to take action, knowing that it's likely you will end up killing dozens or hundreds of kids, than it is to sit idly by and let thousands be massacred. Inaction is also a kind of action, and you have a responsibility for the consequences of that, too.

Who made you god? I totally oppose this ethical viewpoint. Killing is the last resort for those under the threat of death. War is the last resort of the country defending its existence. Anything more than that is moral bankruptcy.

So then you are willing to stand idly by as innocents are hacked to death by government-sponsored millitias in some foreign country? As minority groups are forced out of their homes and sent on death marches? As political dissenters are slaughtered in the streets or "disappeared" down into torture chambers?

I can not accept that, and I'm willing to support the use of force to stop it. Yes, that requires me to take moral responsibility for the victims of that action. But your stance requires you to take moral responsibility for the victims of the inaction. I would find that a far heavier burden.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 13/02/2007 16:35:35

Quote from: Alynn on Tue 13/02/2007 08:05:15
Do I think that the Iraq war is helping American Freedom? Not yet. But I believe it's a step in trying to remove some Anti-Americanism, and Anti-Western sentiment in that area. More of an attempt really. Either way, trying to change that opinion (no I don't mean taking Saddam out of power, I mean winning the hearts and minds of the people, and we are trying, you don't hear about it alot on the news, but humanitarian efforts go on day by day by day there) does protect the country by slowing, or curbing a potential bed of individuals that could wish to do us harm in the future. Could Iran be next? Possibly, North Korea, possibly. I try not to think about what foreign country I may have to spend in combat in again, I like being home with my family.

I'm having trouble piecing this together. You say the Iraq war is a step in the right direction of removing Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment in the region. But surveys from the British military in September 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing presence of coalition troops. By these statistics, doesn't that logically mean the very presence of US troops in Iraq is actually generating more Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment?

I'm not critical of the troops, mind you. Troops fight where they're told to. Can't blame them for the decisions of the leaders above them. Following that, I am very critical of foreign policy decisions such as the ones in force now. You have to admit, it's been a huge fuck up that now has no "good" ending despite whatever option is chosen.

As a side note: I also don't think it's a good idea to keep hold of the region for the sake of not letting the terrorist win. All this garbage about certain Democrats, like Obama, wanting to withdraw and thus pleasing the terrorists... I don't think terrorists really give a shit what's happening in Iraq. Let's say the US occupied Iraq prior to 9/11; do you think the terrorists wouldn't have crashed the WTC because of this? I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of terrorists groups act very independently from Iraq. If the War on Terror is a road, then Iraq is basically a detour with no end in sight.

Yeah this is late, but I just happened to read this post.

Anyway, yes, the Iraqi people want us out... I don't have exact figures, but last I heard most polls the majority of US people wanted us out... Well why aren't we out? Two words... The Governments.

The Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave (to my knowledge), and Bush doesn't want us to leave. Therefore, the troops are staying. End of Line (Tron reference, not arrogance).

No, I don't beleive that had the US invaded before September 11th that the attack would have ceased, in fact, it may have been accelerated.

This isn't a short term change. We are talking over 10-20 years. While working with the Iraqi's that worked for us, they are just normal people, and they learned about us the way we learned about them, by deeds and actions. They were just good guys. Doing what they could to support their families, many of them from our work force left when the Iraqi army was formed to join it, one told me on his last day of work that it was because he saw how proud we were of our country, and he wanted to be proud of his.

Iraq doesn't have much, it's a dirty, dusty dingy country, there are dumps everywhere, and people live in those dumps. Some spend their entire existance rooting through trash. People don't have much to look forward to, or live for, after quite a few years of that I'm sure I'd have some background hatered. So when someone comes along that can convince you to direct that hatred toward a source of your misfortune (even if that source has nothing to do with your misfortune) using your ignorance of that source to convince you to kill them.

For those 35 people that worked for us, they aren't ignorant of the US, at least, of the small group of a couple hundred soldiers that they talked to and worked with on a daily basis. Anti US propaganda is less likely to work on someone that is more informed of who the US people are.


Now as far as keeping a hold on a region to not let the terrorists win... Thats just Bush BS. More shit to feed the non thinking Reps. Terrorism is an idea, not a country, and the unfortunate side effect of this whole thing is that Bush set a presidence on invading countries that harbor terrorists. This, honestly, scares me to death, because I could really see this type of situation (if it happens, with Dems pretty much guaranteed to take the office come next year it seems that there will be an exit plan within the next 4 years) escalating into the third world war.

All in all, I'm what I call an internalist. Personally, if I were president, unless it directly impacts my people of my country, I'll just leave it alone, perhaps at best make a statement. We have too many broke things within our own borders that need that money that is right now being sent for boots and bullets in the desert. The moral high ground global police force thing needs to stop, instead, lets fix the education system, the healthcare system, etc.

Quote from: Alynn on Thu 15/02/2007 08:21:17
All in all, I'm what I call an internalist. Personally, if I were president, unless it directly impacts my people of my country, I'll just leave it alone, perhaps at best make a statement. We have too many broke things within our own borders that need that money that is right now being sent for boots and bullets in the desert. The moral high ground global police force thing needs to stop, instead, lets fix the education system, the healthcare system, etc.

Exactly! But this is what most people fail to understand because it's been covered by everything else outside the US, that involves the US. Everybody is talking about Iraq and everything else, but no one seems to be talking about Boston anymore. Heck this thread started about Boston goverment stupidity and ended discussing (once again) foreign US policy, for which to be frank 99% of the members here (including me) have no clue actually.

There are two issues that I've been thinking after snarkys' long post (regarding the Junda actually), so here they are:

It appears that US/NATO/Europe did nothing in the case of Junta, don't know if it's good or bad, per se, but my fear is what would've come afterwards, had the US came in. You see taking down Junta is not a bad thing, not at all, but afterwards leaving Karamanlis (for example), or Papandreou (who was anti-american) out, and choosing a lovely royal maybe, or at least american controled goverment would not be very nice.

And that's the problem in all the prementioned cases, Iraq etc... The US comes in, does everything nice and good, and then stays "to secure that everything will flow nicely". :-\ But, to do that it makes sure that "the goverment is not influenced by anyone (except the west *ahem*)"... And so on...

I don't think that Hussein coming down is a bad thing, but the US staying there, it is!

Second thing I've been thinking is how come exactly US did not came after Junta, or the former president of Syria (a *tyran* for 30 something years), or Hussein for 20 years now, but came after Milochevich, almost immediately (few years that is), and Hussein now, and Vietnam pretty soon after... Where is the line where a tyran needs overthrowing as fast as possible, and another doesn't matter if he stays there for ever?

Now I'm not implying at all that there are are motives to the US foreign policy. What I'm saying (becasue I realised that it was not clear fro mthe above paragraph at all), is that some countries have actually benefited from the presence of tyrans.  Syria being one, Iraq being one, not Vietnam, not former Yogoslavia, etc. Note that I'm talking about countries, meaning that I'm not talking about the citizens, but the country as a country. (don't know how else to say this really).

Oh, btw, troops are following orders, that's a fact for me. And the army does make you... some kind of monster, like the ones esper describes... (Not that being so brutal will come down to "I was following orders", but being there it comes down to exactly that).

Snarky, it seems you have composed an extremely extensive post that only focuses on one idea, on one "vision". It would be interesting if you could touch upon the means of pursuing that sort of global ideal community, because, even though you're primarily a private insultant, I think you make many good points.

I agree with you (and would go farther than Helm in that respect) that it's not morally injustifiable to apply pressure on a certain state to change the direction of its political "course" so to speak, as long as it's not carried out unilaterally, but with the support of e.g. UN and globally agreed upon documents, like the charter for human rights.

My fundament in this case is that this cannot be obtained by external brute force. Not by military action. Not ever. Violent uprisers maybe, but not an invading force.
You mentioned how the invasion of Iraq backfired in a way that almost benefited the UN, simply because it became blatant what a bad decision it was. Well, to many of us it was blatant even before it happened. It shouldn't have had to happen. We have a history to lean on, we have the Vietnam, we have South America, we already know what's working and what's not.

My horror scenario is that USA starts bombing Iran now as well. My girlfriend has friends and family still left in Iran. In Iran people are enlightened and educated, the underground culture scene is vibrant and groundbreaking, people are hospitable and relatively western-friendly. Persians are not Arabs, they have less reason to be pissed off at westernes, and if you would travel there people would invite you for dinner. Persians always invite you for dinner.
So far.

Unfortunately, the people have still not managed to rise up against their leaders, the revolution is still to take place. The president of Iran is a psycho, a warmongering chauvinist who keeps challenging USA and UN mostly because he has some sort of illusions of grandeur.
What the global community can do, is to pour money into the oppositional movements in Iran, they can reach the young people via the internet, they can strengthen the democratical network, maybe even help installing political figures and pay their campaigns (and this figure should not be installed to serve the economical purposes of USA, as has always been the case before). Apply pressure, but not with bombs.

Now, in the end the revolution in Iran may turn out bloody. Trust me, I may sometimes refer to myself as pacifist, but I'm also a keen enthusiast of student revolts, and I know that in the end, a leader may have to be thwarted violently.
But it must be Iran's own revolution, and it must be allowed to take time. It must not be americans bomb, it must be Persian sticks and stones and banners and slogans.

The moment the first american (or Israeli) bomb drops on the soil of Iran, a certain percentage of its people will start to support their president instead, and a certain percentage will start to grow hostile and suspicious towards USA and in extension the global community.

Of course, all this applies to Iraq as well, only in Iraq it's too late now.

Quote from: Andail on Thu 15/02/2007 11:12:04
You mentioned how the invasion of Iraq backfired in a way that almost benefited the UN, simply because it became blatant what a bad decision it was. Well, to many of us it was blatant even before it happened. It shouldn't have had to happen. We have a history to lean on, we have the Vietnam, we have South America, we already know what's working and what's not.

Well, to be fair to the USA, I can see how the Afghan invasion (which was multilateral: most troops were Afghan Northern Alliance in fact, supported by UN resolutions and less dodgy than the Iraq invasion in most people's eyes, IMHO) had convinced it that it would have not much insurgency and post-invasion trouble. The insurgency in Afghanistan only really took off after the Iraq invasion, although there had been a few signs in January 2003.

Of course, they failed to appreciate:

1. The Ba'athists might be ready for insurgency faster than the Taliban
2. Many probably saw Afghanistan as a direct revenge for 9/11 and to some extent "fair enough". Iraq was nowhere near "fair" in anyone excpet the most hawkish's eyes.
3. Iraq was unilateral, rather than multilateral
amongst other things...

And of course, I'm just talking about the practicalities of post-invasion here, rather than any ethical basis of the invasion.

Quote from: Andail on Thu 15/02/2007 11:12:04
My fundament in this case is that this cannot be obtained by external brute force. Not by military action. Not ever. Violent uprisers maybe, but not an invading force.
You mentioned how the invasion of Iraq backfired in a way that almost benefited the UN, simply because it became blatant what a bad decision it was. Well, to many of us it was blatant even before it happened. It shouldn't have had to happen. We have a history to lean on, we have the Vietnam, we have South America, we already know what's working and what's not.

Well, the point I made earlier is that military intervention has worked in the past. I brought up Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, the NATO campaigns in the former Yugoslavia, and the British intervention in Liberia. As SSH points out, Afghanistan looked reasonably successful for a while, too. (I'm not sure whether the current setbacks were inevitable or are due to mismanagement. Probably a combination.)

And of course, in the back of our minds is always Rwanda and Bosnia, where slowness or failure to act allowed horrible things to happen. The same thing is happening in Darfur right now. Janjaweed killers are committing genocide against the people there, with the support and help of the military. The government sits in Khartoum and refuses any attempt to stop it, or to help the victims, on the basis of "national sovereignty". So nothing happens, and the massacres go on. Yeah, excuse me if I don't rank respect for national sovereignty very high on my list of priorities.

A string of recent successes with using military force to end wars and atrocities, and shame over the failures in Rwanda and Bosnia, caused some of us to put too much faith in the ability of an army to solve problems as big as Iraq. The debacle there is a gruesome reminder of the limitations of force. For example, although I'm disgusted with the world's failure to do something about Darfur, I wouldn't recommend just sending in troops to impose peace against the government's will. The genocide is all tied up with Sudans multiple ongoing civil wars and its brewing wars with its neighbors. Taking sides in all those conflicts is not going to do anyone credit. But: Putting an essentially unlimited amount of pressure on Khartoum to force them to accept peace keeping troops; that's probably a much better idea.

I think in a close-up perspective, there have been military interventions that have been successful, yes.
To create long-term stability, you need to make the world used to solving matters diplomatically. The recent intermezzos have increased the tension in the world again; USA is producing weapons like never before and their defense budget is astronomical. Israel makes ambiguous allusions towards nuclear weapons, Korea as well as Iran are directly challenging USA with threats about WMD's.

USA has lost its role as a nonpartial mediator. The world is getting even more polarized; middle-east versus the west. Terrorists thrive. You can be as sceptical as you want about this dystopian scenario (and claim that it's better now than in the middle ages or whatever) but I think you must agree that USA once had a really really good chance of becoming a true role model, the perfect mediator, but that chance is lost, and it will take ages to mend that reputation.

One way to lower the tension between A and B is if A takes advantage of the forces and movements that already exist inside B, and applies pressure with pr and money and good examples.

And then again, sure, in a few isolated occassions of on-going and immediate genocide, a well-planned and multi-laterally founded intervention can be justified.

Quote from: Alynn on Thu 15/02/2007 08:21:17

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 13/02/2007 16:35:35
I'm having trouble piecing this together. You say the Iraq war is a step in the right direction of removing Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment in the region. But surveys from the British military in September 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing presence of coalition troops. By these statistics, doesn't that logically mean the very presence of US troops in Iraq is actually generating more Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment?

Yeah this is late, but I just happened to read this post.

Anyway, yes, the Iraqi people want us out... I don't have exact figures, but last I heard most polls the majority of US people wanted us out... Well why aren't we out? Two words... The Governments.

The Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave (to my knowledge), and Bush doesn't want us to leave. Therefore, the troops are staying. End of Line (Tron reference, not arrogance).

Understandibly, but you do realise that the same purpose for fighting the war (to stop Anti-American sentiment in the region) is actually doing the opposite (creating more Anti-American sentiment)? That's was more my point, the hypocrisy of the purpose.

QuoteNo, I don't beleive that had the US invaded before September 11th that the attack would have ceased, in fact, it may have been accelerated.

Thanks for answering this, though I should mention that the comments about linking the Democrats with the terrorists was me going off on a tangent and wasn't specifically aimed at you.

Honestly though, what invasion/occupation is looked on favorably at the time? This is one of those situations where we don't have the luxury of hindsight. This is something that will only have a full effect impact in a decade or two, when people will have hindsight.

Quote from: Alynn on Fri 16/02/2007 05:55:05
Honestly though, what invasion/occupation is looked on favorably at the time? This is one of those situations where we don't have the luxury of hindsight. This is something that will only have a full effect impact in a decade or two, when people will have hindsight.

Are you kidding me??

Dude, at the time (I'm talking March 2003) the Bush Administration had a 70 per cent plus  approval rating. (http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm)

Likewise, most polls of that time indicated a 70 per cent plus favourability rating for Iraq War. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

I think that's a fairly good indicator of invasion/occupation being looked on as favorably at the time.

And if you really want to talk hindsight, look at the public response during the Iraq War compared to now. In fact, speaking of hindsight, four years ago Cheney was saying the US would be greeted as liberators. Bullshit!

I mean, c'mon, you gotta be kidding me with this "hindsight" nonsense.

Next stop...IRAN! Thank you, Elizabeth Cheney et al.

I hear this is what the Japanese Army look like
(http://www.japanhero.com/Graphics/Sentai/goranger%20movie2/goranger_movie-4%20(L).jpg)
(http://www.japanhero.com/Graphics/Sentai/jetman/jetman8%20(L).jpg)

They look out for freedom as well, which is good but they do it with style and don't go on some long emotional speech about it. But the yellow man does like curry rice which always good to know. I doubt this army knows or cares for the true age of the USA or for any of the other americas' sequels.