From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-18-2008 14:00
Seems like a very disatisfied Feminist, to me.
In any event, her "opinions" are way off base. For someone who is attempting to portray themselves for the "Truth" (note the capital letter here), she sure then goes on to spout out alot of rhetoric against Obama without any reason for it.
This seals the deal, for me
quote:Many of us would say nothing if Obama had the experience as much as Hillary and McCain do, but he does not. He does not have any experience or expertise- at all- for the role he wishes to undertake. If he had the qualifications and experience I would say "Go for it Obama!". The thing is that he has none of the experience or expertise of his competitors- none. Not even close. Not- one- iota. Do you want an amateur running the United States of America?
Aha.
Well, he basically has almost as much as Hillary does, doesn't he (just examining the official length of time in official political office)?
Both are Senators, with roughly the same amount of time served in office.
Or is the author trying to somehow "count" the years that Hillary was the First Lady? I hope not.
To that, one can point to the incredibly impressive campaign that he has run and managed for the last year! I think the "supposed" experience that the author subscribes to Hillary is reflected in the heavily indebted, broken down campaign that Hillary has run and attempted to manage (I would say mismanage). She clearly expected "super tuesday" to be IT and when that turned out to be the opposite, she had absolutely no game plan for afterwards.
That is supposed to be the superior advantage that Hillary has in "experience"?
As for McCain - yes, he definitely has the experience thing sewn up - over both Obama and Hillary.
So what?
I don't think that is going to be of much help this time around, to be honest.
I think that this time around, Americans are seriously poundering the issues that face America right now - the Economy, the WARS, and their own current condition, and are really listening to what is being said, instead of what is attempting to be fed to them, both by all the Candidates and their Propaganda, and the Media (which is running the biggest agenda of them all - sell, sell, SELL! News for the sake of selling more news...create an issue, no matter how silly, insignificant, and blow it up to magnanimous proportions, and then spin it to sell more!).
I think the American people are really doing a good job this time, and are doing their damndest to cut through the smoke and mirrors and see the candidates as they truly are and are making their choices based on that.
Of course, there are some who are blindly following candidate X regardless...but that is to be expected.
And to sum things up, the title itself shows the author's complete bias - Men and Race SUPERIOR to Women!
Absolute fucking rubish!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I can't "stand" people who put "scare quotes" around every other "word" in their "writing." It shows an incredible lack of faith in the power of language.
She also can't write to save her soul. Reading this piece was like falling down a mountain and hitting every jagged rock along the way. Needless to say, I didn't get very far (I read the first two paragraphs and then skimmed the rest).
Is there a word for the practice of judging people based on how well they use language to express their views? Logism (Gr. logos + -ism), maybe? Yeah, that sounds good. I'm Logist.
"Men & Race Superior To Women."
How'd you figure that one out? Did you look at the entire history of the human race or something?
She seems to be suffering from what I see as the principle problem with most self-proclaimed feminists: they use too much sarcasm ? when they constantly yell 'men are superior to women', all a lot of people get from it is a sense that men and women being treated differently is normal. The smart feminist accepts equality and settles for nothing less without the screaming. Words matter, a lot.
I can't even get into these things if the byline indicates a female, they are virtually always clichés.
FWIW I don't have much faith that either Clinton or Obama would do the kinds of things that really need to be done (though I do have faith McCain would do far worse).
I can't "stand" people who put "scare quotes" around every other "word" in their "writing." It shows an incredible lack of faith in the power of language.
It's almost as bad as those who, when speaking, manage to EnUnCiAtE the Capital Letters in their Sentences, or the emphatic writing additions. I imagine she really does say she "speaks" the "Truth".
quote:I take the overcoming process of this life very seriously. Our controversial founders of Ti and Do specified that this world was a training ground for the better life in the next level or telah (the evolutionary level above human). I meditate every day, try to be a humanitarian and custodian of this earth that God and his laboratory created. I try to help my fellow neighbors and cater to my isolation which accompanies my active meditation. I read books on science, religion, politics, conspiracies and UFO phenomenon. I study the Ti and Do tapes, the Bible, the hg book, and CD roms. I have two cats. I am single and plan to stay single. Being a monk requires that he or she erase any family ties, self destructive habits or sexual desires.
McCain may have the experience, but he is also 71 years old and judging from the debates and his record he is lacking sorely in many areas that will be very important in the coming years. Specifically, his foreign policy is detestable and he knows very little about the dynamics of the current conflict the US government has us in, often confusing the very important distinction between Sunnis and Shi'ites. If he gets in, we're never leaving Iraq and it will likely expand to Iran, which would then see us fighting a proxy war against China/Russia and the eventual collapse of the US, etc... On the economic front, he is worse than sophomoric. Aside from that, he has proven time and again he will say whatever he needs to say to get votes. No principles and no integrity whatsoever. I also think he is off his fucking rocker.
Clinton, to me, is like McCain, only with softer rhetoric and boobs. Her polices are the same old shit only with a new paint job. Her alleged qualifications aside, I hope American's simply have had enough of the dual family monarchy that has ruled our country for roughly 28 years. Time for some new blood.
Obama may be our best shot, and if he wraps up the Demoblican nomination, I think he will be our next president. I like about half his proposed policies, but being a small government minded individual, I have major reservations on that front. He is the most likable on foreign policy (with what little we have to go on) and some of his ideas for modernizing the bloated bureaucracy (re: IT upgrades) are very good. That said, I am very skeptical of him and will continue to be because any candidate who has the backing of most of the major corporations who run our media is definitely suspect. Part of me wants to say that if he is the real deal, there will be an assassination attempt before long. In the end though, I would definitely take him above the other two. At the very least, he is seemingly a very good leader and does a hell of a job motivating people, which alone can turn the tide of a nation. For better or worse would remain to be seen.
I really would have liked to see someone elected who would have turned the system totally upside-down, it needs it, which is why I was all for a Ron Paul presidency. Did not agree with the man on a few of his domestic plans, a little overboard, but president's who follow the Constitution don't get very far in that area without the support of the legislative branch, so no worries there. However, his foreign policy was just what we needed and he may have been able to put the brakes on the surveillance/police state that has built up around us over the past decade. We would have definitely seen a restoration of posse comitatus and habeas corpus, two things the Bush admin have stolen from us. He also has more integrity in his little finger than the 3 aforementioned candidates combined. Not well spoken or good looking enough for the celebrity worshiping general public though.
Second choice would have been Kucinich, a little kooky, but I like the man.
In short, I have to agree with reisio:
quote:FWIW I don't have much faith that either Clinton or Obama would do the kinds of things that really need to be done (though I do have faith McCain would do far worse).
All just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Another 4 years, another propaganda induced selection.
quote:Poi: Agreed with WebShaman, although I'm not that optimistic in the US people.
Neither am I.
As far as the article, I didn't read it, I was just looking for an excuse to rant.
Okay - nothing intelligent to add here, but I simply must agree. Even without the frequent and unforgivably inappropriate "quotes" which "show" this "person" to be a "complete twat", the piece seems to be written by a complete twat. My 2p.
This just blows my mind This time around I've got no choice but to support McCain. Ramasax, knowing that McCain has the support of economic gods like Jack Kemp settles any and all concerns I might have had on that. And his grasp of foreign policy is light years beyond Clinton and Obama.
As for the article, it really is pathetic how one can reduce this campaign to gender and race. We have 3 front runners who are all very capable and intelligent contenders. We should be proud that on a side note there is a white male, white female and black male in the mix. And it should remain a side note unless someone can provide evidence to suggest the race or gender issue is getting in the way. This author was just ranting sans substance.
But again, to be clear, that's far from an endorsement, just saying that I think Obama would be the least harmful, and also likely induce the most entertaining and least infuriating political atmosphere.
And I have to disagree with you on the foreign policy superiority. Totally different discussion and likely just a huge difference of opinion on what constitutes a "superior foreign policy" in the first place.
quote:We have 3 front runners who are all very capable and intelligent contenders.
Bah! We are a nation of 300 million, and this is really the best we can muster? Another Clinton, a geriatric, and a junior senator? I'm not buying it.
My last choice for president was not stellar but compared to Al Gore I would make the same choice in a heartbeat. I truly believe that Al Gore would have been far worse, yes you read that right, than George Bush. As far as John Kerry was concerned I would have been less upset had he won because I believe he's a sane individual unlike Mr. Gore.
I most certainly do think voting for Bush was the best choice. I stand by that. It's very easy to criticize Bush's performance but it has to be balanced with what the alternatives would have wrought.
The Iraq war is taking a path very much according to what I had expected and predicted back when we were all having it out 5 or so years ago. At the time I said repeatedly it was going to be messy, mistakes would be made and it would take 5-10 years to finish the job.
WS, you being for Obama strikes me as odd in regards to your hawkish position on Iran. How can you back someone who says he would sit down with their president to talk with *no* preconditions? Perhaps you can help me with that? It's been a while and maybe your views have changed about Iran so forgive me if I need an update on that.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-23-2008 02:35
First of all, thank you for being candid in your reply.
I think Obama makes some very good points in his statement to lead diplomatic discussions with enemies of the US, Bugs. Note that he does not say that this is the only thing that he will do.
I am pretty surprised that you mention this at all. Perhaps you are worried about the no preconditions part?
Opening a dialog without preconditions is a good way to get a two-way channel going. What one does from there is important and telling, not beforehand.
Normally, even enemies communicate with one another, through various channels. It is well documented that the Bush Administration has pretty much ignored most of those channels of communications with Iran - the reason(s) why for this would probably fill a book, and I suppose only Mr. Bush or his Staff could really answer this.
Not that they have a track record of telling the truth.
I do hope you are aware of this.
You know that Nixon decided to communicate with China. Dialog is a very, very important tool, one that should not be underestimated for a number of reasons, both politically and along the lines of national security.
My views about Iran have not changed, not at all.
However, with our troops currently involved in TWO wars that show no sign of abating, I do not think it is wise or prudent to attempt to do anything with Iran militarily right now.
I'm curious what you think the US should do about Iran with the current situation as it is. Are you honestly suggesting to open up a third front, another war, in the Middle East? The Middle East is already very instable due to the two wars currently going on there (not to mention other ongoing conflicts). I don't think it is wise or prudent to throw more gasoline on the fire.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I most certainly do think voting for Bush was the best choice. I stand by that. It's very easy to criticize Bush's performance but it has to be balanced with what the alternatives would have wrought.
Yes. This argument, however, generally circles around how Gore would have dealt with various situations that probably wouldn't have occurred without the Bush administration fucking things up in the first place. Between the complacence (or worse) shown prior to 9/11, the absurdly forced pretenses for going to Iraq, the miserable foreign policy across the board, etc etc etc...
That anyone at this point can try to defend Bush in *any* way is completely dumbfounding to me.
DL, are you saying that the Bush administration was primarily to blame for 9/11? For that matter are you suggesting that America brought that on to itself? The single most defining event for whoever would have won in 2000 was 9/11. I don't think it can be argued that anything done after the 2000
election had anything to do with the attack because that had been planned and was in the works for years prior.
I credit Bush greatly for handling the response to 9/11 very well under the circumstances. And let me add that some of those circumstances to me are the fact that he does have plenty of limitations. But the fact that he was able to take the fight to the enemy and bend over backwards to avoid making it a blanket war against Islam is admirable.
The war was declared on us over 30 years ago but few wanted to address it. This struggle is far greater than one administration, two or even three. The Islamists certainly don't see it as a fight just against Bush but rather a long term effort to overcome.
WS, the reason I mention the Iran angle is because I remembered how important that issue was to you before we took down Hussein. Dealing with our enemies has been done and is being done through alternate channels as you point out. I am plenty aware of that and I think that is the correct approach. However, Obama's plan strikes me as extremely naive in that it seems to ignore the nature of the leadership of Iran. What would he hope to achieve by talking to them? What makes him think that he could do any better than the Europeans who have had open talks with them for years now with nothing to show for it? It's a very bad sign about Obama's understanding and judgement.
Another huge one for me was his comment about invading Pakistan. It blows my mind that someone who touts never having supported the war in Iraq from day one would flippantly propose invading an ally nation. I find this to be extremely worrying and irresponsible.
And for the record, I never favored military action against Iran that was you. I still believe we have a good chance of getting the people of Iran to rise up against their oppressive government. I believe the younger Iranians are rather pro-Western and would love to be free from the current situation if they had enough support. So, no, I do not support military action in this case. I think that should be our last resort. But I must add that they simply cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons so if military action is the only way to achieve that then so be it.
DL, are you saying that the Bush administration was primarily to blame for 9/11?
Primarily? No.
Somewhat? Possibly more than somewhat? Undoubtedly.
quote:
For that matter are you suggesting that America brought that on to itself?
That could be a long and wide ranging discussion. It is not implied in what I said, but I won't give an absolute "no" either.
quote:
The single most defining event for whoever would have won in 2000 was 9/11. I don't think it can be argued that anything done after the 2000
election had anything to do with the attack because that had been planned and was in the works for years prior.
Being in the works, and being allowed to occur are vastly different things...
And while I am not willing to all out blame the US government for what happened, as many people are, there are just way too many things that don't add up leading up to the attacks, and those things point at least to complacence/incompetence and certainly leave the door wide open for plenty more.
quote: Bugimus said:
But the fact that he was able to take the fight to the enemy
He has?!
When?! Where?! To what end?!
The world is still waiting for that feat Bugimus...and will wait in vain.
"Allowed to occur"... wow. That is so close to sounding conspiratorial. I didn't really expect that from you and I'm not quite sure how to respond. I've always respected your clearheadedness and I suppose I would want to see the material that leads you to that opinion before commenting further. (I'm not asking for it in this thread it's already hijacked enough)
Bush has taken the fight away from our soil. It seems pretty straight forward that our soldiers are largely fighting, and prevailing, against those loyal to the radical element of Islam that was behind the many attacks on our citizens and interests over the last few decades. The radical element currently headed up by UBL has been around for a *long* time and that is the true enemy that we face. I'm not sure what you're not seeing regarding this.
You ask when... when we began our offensive in Afghanistan.
You ask where... Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and probably several other areas we're not privy to.
You ask to what end... to make it possible for the people of the ME to enjoy the same freedoms that you and I currently do because I believe it's a basic human right denied to too many for too long. It's time we get back to the idea that *all* human beings deserve to live in free societies with a voice heeded by their governments. This is what the GWOT is supposed to be about. I realize that most people I know have no concept of this, but it is what it is and it has been articulated countless times over the last several years for anyone who actually cared to listen. I also realize that there are those who have taken the time to consider it and have concluded they disagree with the approach. I respect their opinions greatly and praise them for at least taking the time to consider the merits.
quote:Bugs: The war was declared on us over 30 years ago but few wanted to address it. This struggle is far greater than one administration, two or even three. The Islamists certainly don't see it as a fight just against Bush but rather a long term effort to overcome.
While what you say above is true, except using a blanket term "Islamists" to describe those who declared war on us, the United States interceded in that area far before then. The US was primarily a friend of the region before WWII. Missionaries brought modern medicine and education to the region in the 1920's and were welcomed openly. We also provided skilled engineers who helped the ME tap into their vast oil reserves. We were getting along quite well with them.
But something happened post-WWII as the US came into its own and it rose to being a world superpower and realized that the ME was one of the most strategically important areas of the world. The OSS became the CIA and the US intelligence community was truly born. The Anglo-American Petroleum Treaty of 1944, which effectively divided the Middle East's oil between Britain and the US without much consideration for the "brown-skinned" people who inhabited the region. The creation of the state of Israel in 1947 was also a large factor as well, of course. There are many events in this time period which changed our policy in the ME from one of friendly commerce to one of interventionism. And it got worse with the Truman doctrine of bringing "democracy to the world" and the rise of the Cold War.
Our first well-known intervention was in 1953, when the CIA, under Allen Dulles, in conjunction with MI6 was involved in black propaganda campaigns in Iran to ferment the overthrow of their democratically elected president, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Mosaddeq wanted to nationalize Iranian oil, which before this point had primarily been left to the Anglo-Iranian oil company (known as British Petroleum today) to profit on. The Iranians were receiving very little compensation for the oil that was leaving their country, so this nationalistic rise was no surprise. Once Mosaddeq was out of the way, this led to the installation of a dictatorship under the Sha. This oppressive regime would last until 1979 and the Islamic revolution. This was known as Operation Ajax. You might check out the book "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror". It is a very interesting an informative read and I highly recommend it.
And it goes from there, endless interference in their affairs for a period of over 50 years. Our sale of weapons to and support of Israel, our involvement in the Suez Crisis and the 6 Day War, the funding of the Mujihadeen against the Soviets in the late 70's-early 80's, the countless dictators in Arab nations that we supported and still support, our sale of weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, our military presence in Saudi Arabia, etc...
Whether or not you believe these strategic actions to be right or wrong, and I fully admit that one could argue that without them our nation would not have risen to the power on the world stage that it did, the fact is that decades of oppression, experienced by multiple generations, created the atmosphere which gave rise to the brand of Islamic extremism we have today.
So all that being said, the important question is, why did they declare war on us? Islamic extremists are human beings, and human beings have motives for actions they take, and while religion may play a part in the equation, the extremism stems from somewhere else. Any religion will be shaped by the cultural and political environment in which it resides.
Take the IRA. Terrorists, right? Killed innocent civilians, yes? While religious tension played a very large part in that conflict, the driving factor was the occupation and oppression of their people over an extended period of time, thus driving their culture, or parts of it, to gradually take on extremist views. Extremist views led to hatred, then to violence. Was the violence right? No, it is morally detestable to attack innocents, but one cannot ignore the motive of the crime if one wishes to understand the criminal, solve the crime, and bring the criminal to justice.
Do I blame America or American's for 9/11. No, of course not. But you have to take into account that all actions have reactions, the CIA calls it Blowback, and a flawed foreign policy in that region for the purpose of controlling strategic resources (our motive), has been much to blame for spurring that uprising, that effort to overcome.
Terrorism is a tactic used by desperate people, and you cannot wage war on a tactic. There always was terrorism, and there will always be terrorism until humans are able to progress past driving one another to such desperate acts. The GWOT does nothing to help matters, and has only made it worse by driving up recruitment numbers for organizations like Al' Queda as we massacre upwards of a hundred thousand Arabs in a non-proportional response to the acts of a few individuals.
Were the people of the United States treated in the same way by an outside force, family members slaughtered for no apparent reason in a multi-generational timeframe, I have no doubt we would react with the same tactics. Our dominant religion, Christianity, would blend with the extremism much as Islam has. People are people no matter where they live, and people don't like being stepped on.
You cannot expect to stick your arm in a beehive and not get stung. And you cannot expect to change a situation by doing more of what created the situation in the first place. The extremism is a symptom, and like it or not we helped create it. The solution for that region, IMO, is for us to take on a non-interventionist foreign policy, one of commerce and honest diplomacy that could, over time, heal the rift and quell the extremism. If we must spend our tax dollars overseas, let's stop blowing things up for once and try to help people. We are, or were, a nation revered, and to me, looking back, we have wasted our power to do good in the world and we must take off the blinders. We need to listen to our enemies, don't have to agree with them but simply understand the grievances they have.
This would be no easy task, but I see it as the most logical route at this point, because fighting them is only going to make the fight bigger, a perpetual war of attrition that will lead the US into endless debt and eventual decline, which I personally believe we are in the early gestational phases of already. The irony is that the same thing happened to another superpower not long ago. I'm sure you've read all about the decline of the dollar in recent years, going from 98 on the basket index pre 9/11 to it's current level of 71.99. That is a lot of devaluation of our currency in a very short time period, and we are seeing it every time we go shopping or fill up at the gas pump. We will eventually pay very dearly for what we are doing. The same thing happened in the late 70's and into the early 80's as we paid the price for the Vietnam war. Luckily then, we had a large manufacturing base to help us dig out of the hole.
I will not even get into the moral implications of our nation's actions. Unilateral pre-emptive war, torture, mass murder of innocent people. Makes me utterly ill to think about it.
quote:Bugs: The radical element currently headed up by UBL has been around for a *long* time and that is the true enemy that we face.
And this had what to do with Iraq or the Iraqi people? For that matter, this really doesn't concern Iran either, who primarily subscribe to Shia Islam (approx 90%), whereas Al' Queda is Sunni.
quote:to make it possible for the people of the ME to enjoy the same freedoms that you and I currently do because I believe it's a basic human right denied to too many for too long. It's time we get back to the idea that *all* human beings deserve to live in free societies with a voice heeded by their governments.
We could argue this forever and not come to an impasse, so I would ask only one question. Assuming what you say is true and our motive is to bring freedom to the less fortunate, where in the Constitution of the United States is the authority granted to the Federal government to spread democracy around the world? It is not in their mandate. It is not our job to be the "democracy police" of the world, and a people cannot achieve an enlightened society through outside force of arms. If left alone, they would achieve it far quicker.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-24-2008 11:02
Ummm...DL IS being very clear-headed on this, Bugs.
I am totally shocked and surprised that you are not able to, especially since in the past you have demonstrated that you are capable of doing so.
I would hope that you would take his words seriously and look into what he is saying (since you do not seem to believe or put worth in what I say - at least, that is the impression I get).
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
"Conspiracy" is such a dirty word. I prefer to think of it as "our government doing what it always has..."
quote: Bugimus said:
I'm not sure what you're not seeing regarding this.
I'm not seeing actions that this administration has taken that are actually relevant to fighting terrorism!
quote: Bugimus said:
You ask when... when we began our offensive in Afghanistan.
You ask where... Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and probably several other areas we're not privy to.
I don't think I can even muster response to that...
It pains me to be reminded that people actually think of our actions in the middle east as somehow being a 'war on terror'
quote: Bugimus said:
You ask to what end... to make it possible for the people of the ME to enjoy the same freedoms that you and I currently do because I believe it's a basic human right denied to too many for too long. It's time we get back to the idea that *all* human beings deserve to live in free societies with a voice heeded by their governments.
So...you admit in the same post that we're *not* fighting a war on 'terror'? If our goal is set free the oppressed peoples of the world, you know damn well there is a very long list of places we should be 'liberating' that are in far more dire need than the middle east. Our actions don't appear to achieved this in the middle east in any way so far either. Our actions in supposedly trying to achieve this goal have been very decidedly contradictory to the idea of "freedom for all human beings".
So we're clearly not fighting with that goal either.
Of course, when I say 'to what end', I mean... So what are we actually accomplishing?
Not, 'what is the rhetoric passed around about our supposed purpose'. Oh, we're there for "Freedom?"...
First of all I need to say that I've not debated these topics for a few years now since I've been so busy with other things in my life. I've kept up with the information but haven't interacted on this level. So I want to apologize in advance for any steps I take into the ad hominem. Please believe that my goal is free and open debate and not a personal attack against any Asylumite because I regard you all as dear friends.
That being said, I think you're all full of ****!!!
WS, the clearheadedness remark was specifically targeted toward what sounded like dabbling in conspiracy theory and nothing more. That is why I wanted to take a closer look at the material DL would be basing his comments on.
As far as me not believing what you say, I don't think that's really the issue. I doubt you would want me to simply *believe* what you say but rather to be convinced by the weight of your arguments. To be honest I think most of our disagreements are based on our respective and differing world views and not the facts. Perhaps my reply to Ramasax will illustrate that somewhat.
quote: Ramasax said:
So all that being said, the important question is, why did they declare war on us? Islamic extremists are human beings, and human beings have motives for actions they take, and while religion may play a part in the equation, the extremism stems from somewhere else. Any religion will be shaped by the cultural and political environment in which it resides.
I agree with this for the most part. I think it is *critical* that we understand why we were attacked. Only then can we form an appropriate response.
quote: Ramasax said:
The GWOT does nothing to help matters, and has only made it worse by driving up recruitment numbers for organizations like Al' Queda as we massacre upwards of a hundred thousand Arabs in a non-proportional response to the acts of a few individuals.
I very disagree the GWOT does nothing to help. I think just the opposite even going so far as to say it has been long overdue. I think what has been far worse is that we ignored an ever growing threat for decades before taking any action. You point out history going back several decades but unless we understand what's transpired over the last several centuries we won't be able to view this struggle in its entirety.
We tend to think that UBL began this war recently but I think it's more accurate to say he merely sees this as a continuing struggle against infidels and for the establishment of God's will on earth. I actually believe he's sincere when he says this in his letters to us. I think he truly believes in this cause and that it destined to prevail because his god wills it.
I think many of us in the West are trying to understand our enemy as though they subscribed to the same world view we do. They do not. We are either too arrogant or too ignorant to think there are other ways to view reality than from our own cultural programming.
quote: Ramasax said:
Our dominant religion, Christianity, would blend with the extremism much as Islam has. People are people no matter where they live, and people don't like being stepped on.
There is some truth in this. I'm sure factions would crop up that would advocate violence and terrorist tactics. There is a significant difference however in the religions which cannot be ignored. Christianity as well as Judaism have both undergone reformations. Islam never has. It must if there is to be a solution to our current problems.
In Christianity there are scores of admonitions against the murderous methods associated with terrorism. In Islam there are slim to none. This is a major issue in Islam and is in part the reason the teachings coming from so many of the religious leaders is as hate filled as the actions themselves. Remember that UBL actually received permission from his spiritual leader to kill civilians no 9/11. I admire his dedication to his beliefs, I truly do.
I must point out that the struggle against this radical brand of Islam was not only fought by infidels like us but also other Muslims in history. This brand of extremism dates back to the height of the Islamic empire in the 7th century. The Ottomans had to quell these factions on more than one occasion in fact.
I think that's enough for this post. There's so much ground to cover.
It pains me to be reminded that people actually think of our actions in the middle east as somehow being a 'war on terror'
WHY??? I honestly don't understand why you say this. We are fighting with military force elements within the Islamic world that advocate terror. That is what I'm referring to when asked about the military component of the GWOT.
quote: DL-44 said:
So...you admit in the same post that we're *not* fighting a war on 'terror'?
Umm... no. I'm saying that the GWOT is working towards freedoms for oppressed peoples and people who oppose the GWOT don't get it. They are the ones that need to understand why we're fighting.
quote: DL-44 said:
Of course, when I say 'to what end', I mean... So what are we actually accomplishing?
Not, 'what is the rhetoric passed around about our supposed purpose'. Oh, we're there for "Freedom?"...
Yes, of course you're right. I need to explain what and how we are to accomplish the freedom thing.
We are finally addressing the fact that there is an ever growing element within the Islamic world that is threatening our view of freedom and human rights. It is threatening us because it's stated *long term* goal is to dominate the world according to its precepts. This is not unlike other enemies we've faced in the past. There was a reason for the Cold War. We were not willing to let another power on this planet impose a totalitarian utopia on the rest of us so we expended tremendous amounts of blood and treasure to defeat it. Thankfully we stuck with it or we would be in a very worse place right now.
By militarily destroying Al Qaeda and those who enable it this is one way we are fighting against terror. But of course this is only one part of the GWOT. By taking down Saddam Hussein's regime we are trying to build up in its place a stable if not democratic beach head in the ME. If we can succeed in that, and I believe we can, this will be an early step towards a more stable and free region. This is really just a form of the domino effect we feared so much with the Soviet Union.
Ramasax pointed out that the people of the ME are human beings and I believe that all human beings respond ultimately to the idea of living in a free society. I view the GWOT in a much larger context than I think anyone else here is considering. I see this as a struggle that will persist long after we're dead. I see forward to a day when children in the ME will read about how they won their freedoms in history books.
DL, can you please tell me what approach you're favoring? If what I'm describing is so out of sync with your views then please give me an idea what you would like to see so I can better understand this obviously huge disconnect.
quote:Bugs: That being said, I think you're all full of ****!!!
You are certainly entitled to that opinion.
In all honestly, and what is sad to me is that I know you to be an intelligent and clear-headed individual. I know your heart is in the right place and it is my opinion that you are simply being taken for a ride, the same ride that I and many American's were taken on as they awoke to politics and world events following the events of 9/11. I can personally attest that in my pride and ignorance it became more about being right than anything else, and that was so utterly transparent in the threads from 4 years ago. I do not think this is the case with you, you were eons ahead of where I was in your understanding of the historical and psychological elements at play here, which is why I cannot understand at all how you can still be in support of our government's actions in this so-called WOT.
To be honest, I did not think there were many left who did hold this view, but I sometimes fail to recognize that roughly 30% of Americans are still buying it since out of all the people I know IRL, there are only one or two holdouts and I have considered them to be anomalies.
quote:Bugs: I agree with this for the most part. I think it is *critical* that we understand why we were attacked. Only then can we form an appropriate response.
Do we truly understand why we were attacked? I don't think the majority of us entirely grasp what is going on here, or push this aside as a method of rationalization for our actions, which under any other context would be considered imperialistic and just plain wrong. As far as appropriate response, again, more of the same is only making matters worse.
I am simply putting forth the notion, and I am sorry to reiterate here but I see this as key, that the reasons for which we were attacked have less to do with religion -- which is simply part of the human rationalization process -- and a disconnect in world views and more to do with the fact that we have been involved in or directory responsible for the deaths of millions of Arabs and Persians and the oppression of millions of others in that region over the last half a century, and what we have now is the backlash of those who suffered those atrocities using a tactic that people filled with a deep-seeded hatred and desperation use.
I ask you to honestly step back for a few moments and put yourself in the place of those whom we attack. I am not talking about "terrorists" nor extremists here, but the millions of other people our actions affect. What if an outside force invaded us, dropped cluster bombs in your neighborhood, and was ultimately responsible for the death of your wife and children, the destruction of your home, and everything else you hold dear? Furthermore, what if after these bombings you were then told by the attackers that you were being "liberated" and they were bringing "democracy and freedom"? Pretty hypocritical, yeah? What would that "liberation" mean in light of the fact that everything you had to live for had been destroyed? How would you react? Would you become radicalized and would you not over time rationalize to yourself that a reaction to such a perceived injustice was warranted? Now play the same scenario back, but only this time one of your children survives. Would their views likely be even more powerfully extremist than yours?
Perhaps you are different in this respect, and if so you are a stronger person that most, but I can guarantee you that others in your neighborhood would not balk at reacting, many in a violent fashion. And the children that remained whose parents were killed would be raised in an environment that would then hand these hatreds and views off to them. Honestly think about that scenario and know that this has happened to people, individuals and families and communities who love one another, in that region for many years on our dime. The orphans of today will be tomorrow's "terrorists". They are not going to remember the great American soldiers who brought freedom to their land, they are going to remember the American soldiers and munitions that killed their parents, family members and friend and left them afraid, homeless, hungry and alone. They will be shaped by this.
I am sorry to even bring family into this in such a way, but this is what we are dealing with here IMO, more so than any religious or world views. It all comes down to individual people, not groups of people that we can easily label and categorize. Again, I do not condone what those who have attacked us in the past do, nor even think their specific actions or tactics were justified (although there are many who do) but a slice of empathy is required to understand their actions beyond the rhetorical or religious reasons you cite. I would continue to stress that the extremism has very little to do with the religion or the fact that they have never had a reformation type event (there are millions of Muslims worldwide who peacefully coexist with us "infidels"), but ultimately stems from years of perceived oppression and murder by the United States and the western world which brought about extremism and the integration of said religion into that mindset. There are plenty of other western nations that are not attacked, so what makes us the main target of these extremists? We were not always referred to as "The Great Satan" so what brought about this change in perception in the post-WWII Arab world? To me it all boils down to the above.
I tend to hold the view that OBL (if he is still even alive) and others like him are simply using religion as a means to an end. That end is driving out those who would oppress and hold back the Arab peoples of the region. Does their idea of an Arab world ruled by Sharia law seem all that nice? No, but once the reasons for extremism are removed, they would become increasingly irrelevant, and their societies would eventually progress past these things and when they are ready culturally, they will have their freedom. That freedom will not be forced, to try and do so is insane. The religious aspect is also stressed in our media and entertainment endlessly while the facts of our prolonged interventionism in the region are downplayed, if ever brought up at all. The main reasons for the attacks of 9/11, as even documented by the 9/11 commission that Bush fought for 2 years, have nothing to do with religion, but with our interference in the region. Why can you and our president not see this?
From the enemy's own lips: "U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel?s brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq." --OBL
I do understand the historical context I think, and what I primarily see is a people who have known nothing but perpetual fighting, invasion and occupation for over a millennium, one upheaval after another from the original split of Islam up to the present day curse of having the largest oil reserves in the world, and the culture that was born out of this strife knows nothing else. So again, more of the same is not the answer. The healing of the region, on an individual and cultural level, needs to begin sometime, because to me this is the only way things will ever change.
quote:Bugs: Ramasax pointed out that the people of the ME are human beings and I believe that all human beings respond ultimately to the idea of living in a free society.
And just how are we promoting freedom in that region? Through war? Bombing? Torture? Sanctions? Through inflammatory rhetoric which only solidifies the influence that those who would keep he ME in chains have? By supporting the house of Saud? By bringing to power and supporting the Ba'athists in Iraq, the Shah of Iran, Colonel Za'im in Syria? By giving billions to the Mujihideen without thinking through what that would mean in the future. If we truly wanted to bring an "enlightenment" to the region, I can think of a thousand better ways to go about it.
I've always known you to be a person of high integrity and you also have demonstrated a faith that is strong. A faith that says to do no harm, a message of love and peace and forgiveness. So where in that message is the condoning of torture, the bombing of innocent civilians, the illegal invasion of sovereign nations, the undermining of the right of peoples to decide their own path and leaders? And what does any of this have to do with freedom? The ends do not justify the means.
I don't expect you to say "yeah, you guys are right, I have seen the light," but all I am asking for you to do is seriously reconsider your views in an honest fashion, put yourself in the shoes of those you perceive to be the enemy if you really want to understand them. What we have done and are doing is wrong -- morally and ethically by any standards -- and more of the same will perpetuate this division for generations to come. We are laying the groundwork for the history of the 21st century, and from where I am standing, things are looking rather grim, for us most of all. We will fall eventually under the weight of our own imperialistic motives. And when the printing presses that print our fiat dollars stop printing due to hyper-inflationary cascade, look out. Who then will help us in our time of need when our sins are considered?
I've been reading and re-reading your post, Ram. I'm going to do my best to hit each of your key points. It's a very thoughtful post and you bring up a lot of excellent points.
I'm very glad that you recognize that I'm not being taken for a ride but that I've come to these conclusions after careful consideration of what I believe to be the facts. I am always open to reconsidering my opinions but in order for there to be a different outcome I will certainly require very good reason as I'm sure you can agree. It's not like I expect you to just change your opinion overnight either. You say you cannot understand why I still support our actions and I can only try to explain it further.
Do *we* understand why we were attacked? You, me and the rest of *us* disagree on the why. I am comfortable that I understand *enough* of why. In a nutshell, the United States is the biggest thing standing between the Islamists and where they want to be. I think they actually believed we would recoil from the horror of the attack and withdraw enough to allow them to consolidate power into a new caliphate in the ME. I think you echo part of this here:
quote: Ramasax said:
I tend to hold the view that OBL (if he is still even alive) and others like him are simply using religion as a means to an end. That end is driving out those who would oppress and hold back the Arab peoples of the region.
Why do they want this? For all the same reasons anyone in our history has sought world domination so that should come as no surprise. But their motivations have to be understood within the context of their world view and to say that radical Islam's religion is not a major motivating factor really misses the boat. We've got to jettison this idea of religion as some pie-in-the-sky masturbatory exercise and acknowledge its very real and major impact on people's lives and day to day actions. I would ask that you consider the possibility your own discomfort with religion may be shielding you from seeing how important it is to people like UBL.
quote: Ramasax said:
Does their idea of an Arab world ruled by Sharia law seem all that nice? No, but once the reasons for extremism are removed, they would become increasingly irrelevant, and their societies would eventually progress past these things and when they are ready culturally, they will have their freedom. That freedom will not be forced, to try and do so is insane.
Are you saying that freedom comes free of charge? Can you show any time in known history when the freedoms you and I enjoy emerged without significant sacrifice? I'll definitely require several examples of this if I'm to be persuaded on that point.
My read of history shows me that no great strides forward in the cause of freedom came without sacrifice. Even our own civil rights movement begun with millions of dead Americans. Do you know that Lincoln was criticized much as Bush is today for carrying on with the war between the states? But how many people look back and would wish those gains away? I could go on for pages of examples of this.
The idea of imposing freedom on the ME is bold, risky and perhaps insane (see the quote below about it also being arrogant). But it's precisely because of the following sentiment of yours that I believe it's justified and worthwhile:
quote: Ramasax said:
The healing of the region, on an individual and cultural level, needs to begin sometime, because to me this is the only way things will ever change.
You say my heart is in the right place and I believe yours is too. We clearly disagree on how to achieve healing.
I believe that Al Qaeda and most of the regimes and monarchies of the Arab world (including Iran which is non Arab) are not too concerned about oppression of their peoples or the loss of life. As is usually the case with tyrants the people are only good for propping up the regime and not much else. I wanted to cite Charles Krauthammer on the state of the ME ( from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer ):
quote:
He supported the Iraq war on the ?realist" grounds of the strategic threat the Saddam regime posed to the region as UN sanctions were eroding and of his weapons of mass destruction; and on the "idealist" grounds that a self-sustaining democracy in Iraq would be a first step towards changing the poisonous political culture of tyranny, intolerance and religious fanaticism in the Arab world that had incubated the anti-American extremism from which 9/11 emerged.
...and...
On the eve of the invasion, Krauthammer wrote that ?reformation and reconstruction of an alien culture are a daunting task. Risky and, yes, arrogant.? In February 2004, Krauthammer cautioned that "it may yet fail. But we cannot afford not to try. There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It?s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world--oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism.?
...I've simply got to post this now and work on the rest...
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-25-2008 12:50
Bugs.
With all due respect, I have decided not to even attempt to post to your replies in this thread.
All the information that you need is out there (thanks Ram, for posting some of it here). If you truly believe that you are thinking clearly, then you could easily access the information - the internet is an amazing tool in that regards.
I have done this, researched the issues profoundly and deeply.
I do wish to set the record straight on one thing, however.
quote:And for the record, I never favored military action against Iran that was you. I still believe we have a good chance of getting the people of Iran to rise up against their oppressive government. I believe the younger Iranians are rather pro-Western and would love to be free from the current situation if they had enough support. So, no, I do not support military action in this case. I think that should be our last resort. But I must add that they simply cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons so if military action is the only way to achieve that then so be it.
Now, I know that the mists of time tend to obscure a memory of events and things said.
What I posted to this regards is that I did not support the military invasion of Iraq, and that instead (since a military option was being used in the ME) that Iran was a better target (and then NK). I would have preferred that the US took care of Iran instead of the morass that is now Iraq.
I know that you believe that somehow the people of Iran are supposed to "rise up" against their oppressive government, yadda yadda yadda.
It isn't going to happen. That statement from you really reveals how little you know and understand Iran, the people there, and the form of Government that they have. Ram did a very good job of dusting off the history of how Iran came to be how it is, and what sort of involvement the US had there before. I think you remember as well the Hostage Crisis from back in the Carter/Reagan days as well, after the overthrow of the Shah.
The people of Iran have absolutely no reason to like us, Bugs. They have every reason to hate us deeply. For them, we are lots of pretty words, but our actions speak a totally different language. Of course, their government preys on this, and keeps them in a nice, religiously controlled state of mind.
If you have done research on these types of governments, then you will see that historically, the chance of overthrowing one from within is practically zero.
As for Pakistan.
There is a whole lot I could say about this - but again, I get the feeling from you that it will not make any difference whatsoever to what you think - regardless of what information I trod out, dig up, link, etc. I distinctly remember our conversations before back in the Iraq threads, and I did alot of footwork digging up info, links, etc for you.
For the record, Obama is right on the money here. When one is persuing an enemy of the US, one that has struck on our soil, and killed our citizens, I see no reason not to persue the enemy wherever they go. And if you think that Pakistan is a friend of the US, then you truly need to do some research into it!
I then see your remarks posted in this thread, years later.
All that I posted was wasted on you.
So I will refrain from doing so again.
Please, carry on as you all will in this thread. I am bowing out.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
So does that go for the rest of you too? Was it a mistake to think there was still a place for me here?
I can't, of course, speak for anyone else, but I say absolutely not!
This is a very divisive issue being discussed, and there's no way for it not to be. I can't comprehend your views on the subject, honestly...but I have a great respect for you, if not for your views on this - and a great respect for open dialogue regardless.
I'm not sure I can provide the insight you are looking for...at least not easily...as it hits some pretty fundamental precepts which we've covered quite a bit in the past.
So does that go for the rest of you too? Was it a mistake to think there was still a place for me here?
No mistake Bugs, there is a place for you here, I've just passed it, over there, look!
There is nothing more I feel I can add here apart from saying that I find it very interesting listening to everybody's POV on the matter.
Those who look for monsters should look to it that
they do not become monsters. For when you gaze
long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.
Before I get back into things, first, sorry for the delay in responding Bugs, familial obligations. Secondly, I wanted echo what has been said above. This has been an enjoyable conversation. We've had an open dialog, we've all made each other think, and we have planted seeds that may or may not sprout in the future. It does not matter if in the end we come away still in disagreement, we had the conversation, and that will do just fine for me.
And anyways, there is still hope for you yet.
quote:But their motivations have to be understood within the context of their world view and to say that radical Islam's religion is not a major motivating factor really misses the boat. We've got to jettison this idea of religion as some pie-in-the-sky masturbatory exercise and acknowledge its very real and major impact on people's lives and day to day actions. I would ask that you consider the possibility your own discomfort with religion may be shielding you from seeing how important it is to people like UBL.
Sure, religion does have a large impact on people's lives, but without the extremism spawned by oppressive regimes, in this case enabled in large part by outside forces, IMO the religion would progress past this. Again, I believe religions are shaped by the societies and cultures they reside in, and since we have played a large part in trying to shape their society, by proxy and directly, we have played a part in shaping their religion or at least interpretation of it, and the fact that their religion is now used as a tool and justification to attack us.
Extremist religion is a byproduct of extremist views cultivated by prolonged oppression, which is at the very root of it all. Separate the religion from the extremism. Not sure if that makes sense but at the moment I can think of no better/other way to articulate it.
As far as my possible discomfort with religion, well, that is an entirely different and likely equally complex conversation.
quote:Bugs: Are you saying that freedom comes free of charge? Can you show any time in known history when the freedoms you and I enjoy emerged without significant sacrifice? I'll definitely require several examples of this if I'm to be persuaded on that point.
No, I am not saying freedom is free. If it were, it wouldn't be worth having. I can cite no examples of a people achieving a free society without significant sacrifice because there are none that I know of.
However, I cannot cite any examples in history where a people's freedom -- on an individual , a cultural , and a psychological level -- was imposed from the outside, without welcome, through force of arms, either. This is invasion, not liberation, and no matter what label we give it or what rhetoric we wrap it in, the people on the receiving end are going to see it as such. That was the point I was attempting to make above.
"The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within."
I'm sure you recognize that. This is probably one of the most overused quotes ever, but I believe it to be true based on my mental model of history. The spirit of democracy. The fire in a civilization that drives a people to make the necessary sacrifices and achieve eventual autonomy. Individual, cultural, psychological. It is a rare thing that all these elements coalesce at the right time and under the right circumstances. You can install all the "elected" governments you want by force, put in all the voting booths that you want, and show off all the purple fingers you want, but if the fire is not there...
The fire in the Middle East is not there, at least not under the terms in which we are trying to deliver it. If anything, there is an oppositional fire that is growing against an outside invasive force, only the fire is being channeled in the wrong direction to hardline nationalism and to those who would use it for their own ends, religious or otherwise. The more timber you throw at that dynamic, the larger it will get. If we are truly trying to bring freedom and democracy to the region, we are going about it in the wrong way. You cannot force a people to change, but you can talk and trade with them on an equal ground, and over time change will come naturally as a trust is built between our civilizations. As I said above, this would be a long and challenging process, not easy at all, but the alternative of an endless war on terror is going to do long-term harm to all involved parties.
Aside from this, for the record, I believe it to be inaccurate in thinking that we even have the track record for spreading freedom and democracy, that we somehow have a foothold in this area or the moral high-ground as it is often called. That is often how we paint ourselves, but our actions in modern times speak a different language, the language of imperialism. And quite frankly, it seems to me rather hypocritical. As we are claiming to spread freedom around the world we are losing and taking for granted many of these freedoms right here at home. As militarism and ignorant arrogance, coupled with a spoiled consumerism, pervade our culture, our fire is waning.
Lastly, this is all assuming that freedom is some easily definable parameter in the first place, which it is not.
quote:You say my heart is in the right place and I believe yours is too. We clearly disagree on how to achieve healing.
Right, and that really cuts to the crux of it all, doesn't it? We can throw facts and historical examples at each other forever, and still come to different conclusions.
Our disconnect is somewhere deep at the fundamental level. Our houses are built on different foundations and to be honest I am not quite sure what else either of us can say on the matter to rectify the differences. I already feel like I am simply re-articulating the same things over and over. I am sure you feel the same. All I can do now is ask you to consider what I have said and offer more resources for you to explore further. I will of course keep what you have said in mind as well.
If interested in further resources, I would be more than happy to create a package for you consisting of various documentaries and/or create a list of reading materials. I find they are a great jumping off point into many of the issues that we have discussed here. From there you could explore as you will. Let me know.
I don't have time to respond to the topic right at this moment but I do have time to exhale and utter a phew. I think I was reading a bit too much into WS's post and I overreacted. I really appreciate the reassurances from you guys
There are some things happening in my life right now that keep me somewhat on the edge of feeling "ok" within groups and I admit I was being a bit paranoid. But I'm all better now. I'll be back to this discussion very soon.
Extremist religion is a byproduct of extremist views cultivated by prolonged oppression, which is at the very root of it all.
Ok, this is a key statment because it is a foundational concept that you hold not based on facts but rather based on your understanding of how the world works. This really gets down to the question of why people do evil things in the name of religion (or ideologies in general). While I do not deny that oppression over many many years plays its part I do not believe it is at the root of the problem.
Just ask yourself this. If oppression and/or poverty is the root cause of this hatred, why were all of the 9/11 attackers from affluent families and well educated? What motivates suicide bombers from middle-class lifestyles with wives and children at home?
I see these facts and think to myself there has to be a deeper answer to the root of the hatred.
Your point about freedom and democracy not taking root unless it is desired from within is extremely well taken and I agree wholeheartedly with it. I am not willing to accept, however, that the people's of the ME are not ready for it. Forgive me for saying this but to me that position smacks of elitism at best and downright bigotry at worst. (I'm *not* saying you're a bigot!!!) Transforming the ME is not a task that comes without significant risk and uncertainty. I believe the only way we can know is to continue to strive for the ideals as best we can because I believe the radical elements in the region have far too much momentum to be stopped without outside intervention.
As far as an example of imposed freedom, or at least imposed anti-extremism, I would cite Turkey. The radical elements of Islam were simply outlawed by a strong-arm government and now it is one of the only moderate countries in the region. I would consider that approach far from ideal but the results today are clear to see.
quote: Ramasax said:
If anything, there is an oppositional fire that is growing against an outside invasive force
While I certainly agree that the radical elements have used our presence as a successful rallying call I cannot agree that this is true across the board. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the latest happenings in Iraq but there are extremely positive signs of the people working *with* our forces to root out the terrorist elements. Anbar province was the first very significant shift in that direction shortly after the surge was implemented.
We are actually at a turning point in Iraq as much as I know that dismays some of the extreme leftists (not that you're one of those!). And this does not mean by any stretch that this is a permanent trend, of course, but the current situation is really looking good. The Iraqi army is starting to prove they can succeed on their own with US forces acting only as backup. This was evidenced by their recent success in quelling the radical Shiite militias in the South.
All the while people have been talking about all the things we've broken in Iraq they've seemed to forget how broken it was after decades of brutal dictatorship. Also all the while our military has been busy taking down the dictatorship and fighting the terrorists who came in to fill the void, our civilian efforts have been busy building schools, power plants and infrastructure. The hard work of building a relationship between our civilizations is happening right now. It is not a theory but an ongoing reality day in and day out. For every car bomb you see on the news I can point to 5 other successes happening in the neighborhoods of Iraq that will never make the nightly news. These are the kinds of things that will, and are, building trust over many years.
quote: Ramasax said:
Aside from this, for the record, I believe it to be inaccurate in thinking that we even have the track record for spreading freedom and democracy, that we somehow have a foothold in this area or the moral high-ground as it is often called. That is often how we paint ourselves, but our actions in modern times speak a different language, the language of imperialism.
Actually, I didn't say we did have a good track record I think we have a very poor track record in many respects. I believe our history is colored by our unique view of the world as Americans. We tend to believe in "fairness" and "live and let live". So we'll poke our heads in here and there and do a little bit of good or some bad, get tired of the overall mission and bug out. I think our biggest failing is our lack of attention span.
Now the imperialism charge is one that really perplexes me. Instead of me getting all hot under the collar on that, I'm gonna ask you to provide me some examples of our imperialism in the last 60-70 years. I certainly do not think our invasion of Iraq counts by the way. If it were so then all the claims of us only going in just for the oil revenue would have been born out. I'm not claiming our oil interests are not part of the equation but whether you agree with it or not we are in there for largely ideological reasons in an effort to begin a transformation of the ME.
quote: Ramasax said:
Our disconnect is somewhere deep at the fundamental level. Our houses are built on different foundations and to be honest I am not quite sure what else either of us can say on the matter to rectify the differences.
Well said and it actually pleases me to hear you recognize that our differences do come as a result of our different foundational assumptions about life. Ram, I am not here to change you or anyone else here. This has been said countless times over the life of the Asylum and it never wears out: we are here to share our ideas and thoughts with one another. We let the ideas roam freely in our hallways and allow the inmates to decide which ones have the greater merit. What I want most is to be heard and *understood* by my friends here as I try my best to see from their views as well. To me what we do here is a daily example of one of the pillars of our freedom that I know we both cherish.
posted 05-18-2008 13:11
If our goal is set free the oppressed peoples of the world, you know damn well there is a very long list of places we should be 'liberating' that are in far more dire need than the middle east. Our actions don't appear to achieved this in the middle east in any way so far either. Our actions in supposedly trying to achieve this goal have been very decidedly contradictory to the idea of "freedom for all human beings".
