Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on April 11, 2003, 11:47:23 AM
-
I'm hearing rumblings, and I don't like what I hear.
I was for the Liberation of Iraq, but I sure hope the government is not thinking about doing Syria. We can really end up in a S*itstorm.
Anyone else worried about this?
-
its hard to tell. I thought that if we stormed into Iraq we would piss off more of the Arab world, but other countries didn't come to Iraq's defense. granted, everyone knew that Saddam was a diptoejam. maybe no one would do more than piss and moan if we stomped into Syria.
-
Only time I get worried about my cereal, is when I get close to the bottom of the box and there is no backup to cover it.
-
Might as well take out Syria too. Another moslem dictatorship...who would miss them?
-
I don't know Muck, I've been worried about this for almost a year now. Iraq was a rumbling in its own right. We'll just have to see how far the doctrine that brought us into Iraq can be carried out without the public justifications that paved the way for the action. WMD is certainly a reality for the Axis of Evil, but as bad as Iran, Syria, etc. are, there is no formal 1441 stuff to add legality. It would be a much harder sell. It doesn't mean we won't at least see some testing of the waters.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Only time I get worried about my cereal, is when I get close to the bottom of the box and there is no backup to cover it.
LOL, thought I was the only one.
-
Weird... wasn't Syria part of the Coalition during the 1st Gulf War?
-
hmm Syria is the flip side of Iraq; Syria run by Shiites, tho Sunnis are in the majority. Havent heard as many atrocity stories coming out of Syria, nor WMD allegations either. Very little oil, so not as much money to spend on weapons. I vote no, for now. North Korea, however..... :)
-
Originally posted by Charon
I don't know Muck, I've been worried about this for almost a year now. Iraq was a rumbling in its own right. We'll just have to see how far the doctrine that brought us into Iraq can be carried out without the public justifications that paved the way for the action. WMD is certainly a reality for the Axis of Evil, but as bad as Iran, Syria, etc. are, there is no formal 1441 stuff to add legality. It would be a much harder sell. It doesn't mean we won't at least see some testing of the waters.
Charon
That's my main concern. As far as I know, we have 0 backing on Syria. At least in Iraq we had 1441, and 12 years of Iraqi Violations.
All we have in Syria is the fact that they harbor terrorists. I would think we need to let them try and root out their own house before we would go in. I would need some serious justification before I could support a war wth Syria.
Plus, if we do Syria, we're going to have to do Iran. If we start invading all these countries, we're going to look like an aspiring empire, and not a liberating force.
-
All we have in Syria is the fact that they harbor terrorists
yikes, if that's all it would take to warrant an invasion, then Canada is in deep doo-doo. Canada is considered a main jumping-off point for terrorists slipping into the US
-
To tell the truth, I was more worried about "Short Duck Dong II" in North Korea. With all the crap that came out of his mouth before the war started. I felt it was his best time to hit the border with the south. If ever.
Syria now wants to take it's place as the Big Bad Arab bogeymen. Nasser was first. Then the Shah, Khomeini, Qadhafi, Saddam. You'd might say, They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.
-
I doubt we'll move into Syria until we've shored up Iraq, which probably won't be until after this presidential term is over.
-
TODAYS NEWS
at the request of the US , syria has closed it's border with iraq, alowing only iraqis returing home to iraq to pass.
syria also said if they catch any of saddams gang of 55 , they will arrest them.
-
We've got the troops there already... I absolutely love the preemptive idea. Call it aggression... we are the only world super power... since the beginning of time the most powerful have been able to do what's best for them...now it's our turn.
I don't care who likes us, I don't care about world opinion. Kill any who would aid our enemies. I don't now what the number is, but after we've killed enough, the remaining would be cowed.
Some would argue: but Steve, that will just create more terrorists. Terrorism is here to stay, to one degree or another. Let's start killing all who oppose us, this is our planet to do with what we choose, if we choose.
-
North Korea strikes me as a spoiled child, screaming for the attention of an authority figure.
They are purposely making threatening overtures in an effort to frighten the United States into opening it's wallet.
I do not think any country on Earth would dream of engaging the US, or any of her allies in a Nuclear Exchange.
We're doing the right thing with Korea by letting them talk all they want, and just telling them to deal with the UN as we'll have none of it.
-
shheeya, Steve.. so we pull a page from the Hitler handbook and start jackbooting all over the globe..I'll bet each one of the 187 other countries would ally against us and kick our tulips .
but we have the bomb you say..ya, so do others.
-
Hmmm, Yup. I say we jackboot all over the globe those countries that have willing relationships with terrorists. A world wide conflict is overdue. I'm all for WWIII. Time to kill the bad guys again.
-
Whoa, hold up a minute... Thought we had a list? Syria just can't jump ahead in the line.... Thought the list went like this, France, Germany, North Korea and Canada *and maybe Russia as a 1st Round Draft Choice*.
So Syria is just going to have to wait in line like the rest. USA can't be playing no favorites now.
:D
-
Originally posted by Steve
We've got the troops there already... I absolutely love the preemptive idea. Call it aggression... we are the only world super power... since the beginning of time the most powerful have been able to do what's best for them...now it's our turn.
I don't care who likes us, I don't care about world opinion. Kill any who would aid our enemies. I don't now what the number is, but after we've killed enough, the remaining would be cowed.
Some would argue: but Steve, that will just create more terrorists. Terrorism is here to stay, to one degree or another. Let's start killing all who oppose us, this is our planet to do with what we choose, if we choose.
Steve,
At one time or another, almost every country on Earth was THE super power of it's time. The Egyptians, Greeks, Ottomans, Romans, French, English, Germany, Russia,China, and now the United States.
What do all these "Empires" have in common? They have all fallen.
Now we are the superpower. Abusing our position by arbitrarily attacking foreign nations without just cause or provocation will assure our place with the others...a lost empire.
We have to weild this power reponsibly, so we may maintain our status, and better the world at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Hmmm, Yup. I say we jackboot all over the globe those countries that have willing relationships with terrorists. A world wide conflict is overdue. I'm all for WWIII. Time to kill the bad guys again.
The kicker to all that:
(a) the main foreign economic sponsor of Israeli terrorism tactics against the British during the creation of the Israeli state were Jewish U.S. citizens.
(b) the main foreign economic sponsor of Irish terrorism has been, and still is, Irish U.S. citizens.
I say we invade ourselves and wipe out the economic sponsors of terrorism once and for all!
Meanwhile, I think its time we went into Libya and finished what we started at Tripoli with the US Marines (as memorialized in their anthem).
-
i sure love neverending war, makes great terrible tv!
-
Well as for A and B.. find these guys, root them out, punish them. I mean, you state it as if it's fact, therefore we must know who these folks are right? But sadly, you miss the point entirely with your post. The point of my post is to kill those that pose a threat to us, the U.S..
Let me spell it out for you even more. The large majority of terrorists are militant muslims. I say we start with all the states that sponsor/harbor these men. Hmm let's kill the governments of.. for starters... Syria, Iran, Saudi Ararbia, Yemen, The Sudan..etc. I do not think Germany and France are truly our enemies, although the French just might be foolish enough to step in the way.
Should we swat North Korea? I'm not sure really.. but I think they are more bluster than action.
I'd also like to see us withdraw ALL of our aid to foreign countries that do not join us in the military action. We are feeding millions of people in third world countries that do nothing more than hold their hands out and make babies. Time for them to feed themselves or die. Birth rate/population problem solved. All the money we would save could go to things like education(teachers are grossly underpaid). Where is our biggest drug/violence problem? Answer: innercity where children get little opportunity for education, therefore have little chance for success in life. If we sent our billions of foreign aid money on providing excellent teachers/schools for thes underpriviledged areas, well hell, they wouldn't be underpriviledged anymore. No, it wouldn't be Utopia, but it would be one hell of a lot better.
-
The UN security concil would be total idiots to issue any condemnation from now on that could be interpreted by US as a permission to invade.
Well, maybe they could condemn Israel without fear of it being invaded by us, but we would veto it. US Security Council is defunct for all practical purposes.
miko
-
Well, thanks...I'm not worried about Syria anymore.
I'm worried about whether or not Steve owns a firearm now.:D
-
Muck, it's just the opinion of a lay person buddy. I'm not saying I'm right.. just my view of things. :)
-
You still did'nt answer the question about the gun, Steve.;)
-
hmmm, why do I seem to detect that Steve isnt totally serious :)
-
I own several FA's btw... have one in my vehicle at all times. Yes, I'm conservative, and right wing. I also want to spend our foreign aid money on providing opportunities for the underpriviledged in our country..... am I schitzo? lol.
-
Steve,
You really contradict yourself.
All the money we would save could go to things like education(teachers are grossly underpaid).
If they are doing such a lousy job as you claim, they sound overpaid.
We are feeding millions of people in third world countries that do nothing more than hold their hands out and make babies. Time for them to feed themselves or die.
So you want to cause more of our population to "do nothing more than hold their hands out and make babies"? Better destroy african societies with welfare money rather than ours, don't you think?
miko
-
Maybe you should concentrate on improving the average Iraq's deal right now. That looting and wanton destruction is the Coalition's responsibility and should have been considered before kick-off.
-
We have to weild this power reponsibly, so we may maintain our status, and better the world at the same time.
Well said Muckmaw. I hope there are many more who hold that view in America.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Maybe you should concentrate on improving the average Iraq's deal right now. That looting and wanton destruction is the Coalition's responsibility and should have been considered before kick-off.
True!
need to get Iraq fixed up and on way to a lawful society.
Then go kick the crap out of syria.
-
Rasker, it's extreme but I am serious. I honestly do not believe we should be feeding third world populations when there are so many domestic folks who are not getting the same opportunities that I did. I'm grew up in a nice house in a nice neighborhood, and had access to a good education. I think every single child in the U.S... yes EVERY one... black, yellow, white... green... should have an opportunity to get a quality education. Sure inner city kids can choose to go to school... but is it a quality school with good educators? Is it safe? There are many fine educators out there, but think of the fantastic minds we could attract to be educators if the salary was more commensurate with other professionals. If we turned our foreign aid inward.. EVERY kid that wanted to go to college could go. Many other countries' children get a far better education than does our typical child. As the leading country in the world... this seems Bassackwards. We need to take care of our own people first, IMHO.
-
Miko: "If they are doing such a lousy job as you claim, they sound overpaid. "
As I have stated: "think of the fantastic minds we could attract to be educators if the salary was more commensurate with other professionals."
Miko:"So you want to cause more of our population to "do nothing more than hold their hands out and make babies"? Better destroy african societies with welfare money rather than ours, don't you think? "
I NEVER said anything about welfare... so you can stop right there.
I ONLY mentioned education opportunites.. that's it... nothing more. Get it?
-
"Maybe you should concentrate on improving the average Iraq's deal right now. That looting and wanton destruction is the Coalition's responsibility and should have been considered before kick-off."
How are we responsible for this? Dowding, this is just plain rediculous. The people commiting the looting are responsible.
If the police force in your neighborhood disappears and you go to your neighbor's house and steal his TV, I suppose you are going to blame the police right? lol.
Who says it wasn't considered? Do you know it wasn't? Maybe it was labeled as an unavoidable side effect of curing Iraq of Saddam. Listen Dowding, this is important. The coalition cannot police these people.
The world would jump on our butts for doing it, and the Iraqi's would be up in arms over it. The looting needs to be stopped, but not by coalition forces. An Iraqi police force need to be established so they can police themselves. This cannot be done while there is still a war going on.
-
We've done this sort of thing before.
Why can't we bring in the UN peacekeepers to police the Iraqi's until an infrastructure is set up?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
US Security Council is defunct for all practical purposes.
miko
You just now realizing that? Became the case soon as France said they'd veto anything proposed by the US. Assume you meant UN Security Council.
-
I dunno Muck. I'm guessing that the coalition intends to have the Iraqi's set up a police force ASAP. I think the Iraqi's need to become autonomous right away. Already there are examples of Iraqi's dealing with looters on their own. I mean, this looting has been going on for how long.. a couple/few days? Is this really any length of time in the big picture? I guess I'm not totally sure how we should go about things here.. could be a political mess that is avoidable with the right decisions.
-
AKIron: You just now realizing that? Became the case soon as France said they'd veto anything proposed by the US. Assume you meant UN Security Council.
They most likely did not say just "anything" but "anything concerning the Iraq" - and they had very good idea what we wanted to propose, so even here their "anything" should not be interpreted as anything at all.
I ment more general case that they will not adopt any resolution that could possibly be interpreted by US as an excuse to go kill someone.
Just a legal note. Has nothing to do with my overestimating the role of UN. The country of my birth ignored US when US president was still in his diapers... :)
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I ment more general case that they will not adopt any resolution that could possibly be interpreted by US as an excuse to go kill someone.
I think you're right about the UN being defunct. Your snide remark about the US having "an excuse to go kill someone" is very telling. Seems to me you have much bitterness towards the USA. No one forcin' ya to stay.
-
Dennis Miller said it best; "I went to the UN the other day, picked up the guidebook, and even it didn't have a spine."
-
Originally posted by Steve:
I'm all for WWIII. Time to kill the bad guys again.
Why don't you line up and be the first one killed since you're so in favor of it. Some people just are lacking in brain matter(yes, you).
:mad:
-
AKIron: Your snide remark about the US having "an excuse to go kill someone" is very telling. Seems to me you have much bitterness towards the USA. No one forcin' ya to stay.
I obviously ment US government, but since I was explaining the futire position and point of view of the UN member countries and they see the US government as representing the whole of the US, that's what they will think. Many americans do not make a distinction, so the foreigners are even less likely to do so.
The fact that I quote verbatim what someone else thinks or says is in no way indicative of what I think myself. You are just confusing a messenger with a message - somethng that SH was accused of.
If you care to know, no need to guess. Ask me and I will tell you whatever you want to know about what I think.
I certainly have my issues with US government in general and this administration in particular, but I certainly do not believe that president Bush is just looking for a chance to kill someone.
He is operating withing an existing system and he is misguided or misled in certain matters, imo, but I do not much doubt his morals or personal integrity.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I certainly do not believe that president Bush is just looking for a chance to kill someone.
He is operating withing an existing system and he is misguided or misled in certain matters, imo, but I do not much doubt his morals or personal integrity.
Glad you cleared that up for me. :)
-
You just now realizing that? Became the case soon as France said they'd veto anything proposed by the US. Assume you meant UN Security Council.
You just realizing that? Just check out the number of resolutions vetoed by the US. Especially in conjunction with those concerning Israel.
No-one has vetoed more resolutions than the US.
-
IMHO, We definitely need to shore up Iraq before we decide to launch any other major endeavors in the Middle East, but I am not against that idea eventually. They (Middle Eastern Govt's) need to take this time to either change or stand in line behind Iraq, because it is bound t be where we are headed.
-
2stony: "Why don't you line up and be the first one killed since you're so in favor of it. Some people just are lacking in brain matter(yes, you)."
Awww poor stony, didn't like what I said. Lacking brain matter.. what an ignorant thing to say.
The world is engulfed in conflagration in ever increasing frequency. Fact is stony, that some of the world's problems would be solved should there be a nice big war. You don't have to like it, but save your unimaginative, banal insults for the playground.
Run along and play now, stony.
-
Syria openly supported SH's regiem when we were at war. Syria openly supports terrorist that bomb civilians in Isreal. Seem like they are a good candidate for the next top spot on the names of terror supporting countries to be "regiem changed" and marked of the list in the war on terror.
-
No, I really think some attention should be directed towards Israel and Palestine.
We've made commitments in that area.
War does not solve all problems.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
No, I really think some attention should be directed towards Israel and Palestine.
We've made commitments in that area.
War does not solve all problems.
Palestine should be given a country so that they can be put on the same list as syria, lybia, NK and other terrorist supporting nations....
-
Man, Israel-Palestine....Dowding.. what do ya do about it? I mean... I haven't a clue... the difference is religion primarily, how are you going to ovecome that? Rhetorical really... there doesn't seem to be an answer.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You just realizing that? Just check out the number of resolutions vetoed by the US. Especially in conjunction with those concerning Israel.
No-one has vetoed more resolutions than the US.
I look at it from a purely US perspective. I know it sticks in yer craw but it became defunct as soon as it became no longer useful to the US.
-
Lybia? Isn't that a part of the female anatomy? ;)
Some people seem to be advocating that use of force be the norm, rather than the exception. The price for such a course would be unbearable.
Steve - I'd use overwhelming diplomatic pressure. There has to be a solution - religion can be overcome if the stakes are high enough and the price for non-compliance made clear. I just can't believe that the combined diplomatic skill of those in Washington, London etc can't push forward a solution. You'll never satisfy the extremists - but at the moment the moderates on both sides have been pushed by events towards to extremism. Win the moderates, and the extremists become much more manageable.
AKIron - So the US looks after its own interest. Fine. And you criticise France for doing the same?
-
I think we need to focus on Iraq. We have a LONG way to go before the job is done.
If we are indeed successful in establishing a viable democracy there, the dictators in the area will be too busy internally to export their terrorism to others.
The idea of a free democracy is a far stronger weapon than a BGM109.
-
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
AKIron - So the US looks after its own interest. Fine. And you criticise France for doing the same?
Why not? When a country prospers by refusing to allow the liberation of an oppressed people they deserve criticism. Don't you think?
-
Udie: Syria openly supported SH's regiem when we were at war.
By not preventing some people to travel to Iraq and maybe carry an occasional night vision device or two? But so did we and any other country, except Cuba and North Korea.
Why not? When a country prospers by refusing to allow the liberation of an oppressed people they deserve criticism. Don't you think?
How quickly language changes... Up till a few weeks ago "liberation" was never used by an outsider in the sense of "liberating people form their own government". Overthrow of an oppressive regime or changing the government, ets, but "liberation" always ment presence of an outside force.
miko
-
We've got the troops there already... I absolutely love the preemptive idea. Call it aggression... we are the only world super power... since the beginning of time the most powerful have been able to do what's best for them...now it's our turn.
Hey Steve are you mixing RL with Risiko???:D ;)
-
Originally posted by Steve:
The world is engulfed in conflagration in ever increasing frequency. Fact is stony, that some of the world's problems would be solved should there be a nice big war.
[Skuzzy: If you cannot contribute intelligently, without the abusive name calling, then stop posting]
:rolleyes:
-
Stony, now that you've called me names in at least 2 posts I guess that opens up the door for me. First off, kiss my arse you shallow minded fool. I never mentioned any war similar to what hitler started.. or at least one based on the same reasons. And for your information, love muffin, many of the hawks in the adminstration are pushing for the same idea I am, they want Syria, Saudi, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and a handful of other to have regime changes, and done forcefully. This pretty much would involve most of the relevent forces of the world, one way or another. Hence a world wide conflagration.
Your presumption that I want cleansing is dead on, if you are referring to eliminating terrorists and all countries that knowingly/willingly harbor them. Quit commenting on my posts Stony, unless you have some kind of thought out response. Your knee jerk, canned retorts may sound indignant to you but to me, they read like a person who didn't bother to understand the text they were reading. Go away, or send in one of your parents to discuss this with me, then have them explain it to you.
-
Gscholz, I read that article... very interesting.
Syria supports terrorist regimes, is known to have terrorists within its' borders, and has WMD. Hmmmm I smell the perfect recipe for regime change.
:)
-
i was always pissed when my sister would grab the toy from the cereal first...
So waht i woul ddo ..as soon as my mom wne tshopping..I opend up the Cpat Crunch Berries..poured it itno a bowl ..got the prize...And showed my sister....
She would then pin me down...and would do the old..hanging lougy trick...
when i turned 12..she was 5 years older..i socked her in belly..it all ended aftyer that,,,
Yes..I too am worried about my cereal
Love
BiGB
-
2stony, You need to get off the name calling playground and develop an argument other than the "jack-boot" b.s. THis is America and Steve has a right to an opinion, that at least is not based on name calling like yours... Sheesh... :rolleyes:
-
By the way Steve....Thank you.
-
?
-
LOL!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Lybia? Isn't that a part of the female anatomy? ;)
AKIron - So the US looks after its own interest. Fine. And you criticise France for doing the same?
I have no problem with France looking after it's own interests.
What France has done is meddle with ours. The only interest France was protecting regarding Iraq was it's apparent interest in becoming a roadblock to anything being done to make Iraq comply with it's cease-fire agreements.
-
Originally posted by Steve
hawks in the adminstration are pushing for the same idea I am, they want Syria, Saudi, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and a handful of other to have regime changes, and done forcefully. This pretty much would involve most of the relevent forces of the world, one way or another. Hence a world wide conflagration.
Your presumption that I want cleansing is dead on, if you are referring to eliminating terrorists and all countries that knowingly/willingly harbor them. Quit commenting on my posts Stony, unless you have some kind of thought out response. Your knee jerk, canned retorts may sound indignant to you but to me, they read like a person who didn't bother to understand the text they were reading. Go away, or send in one of your parents to discuss this with me, then have them explain it to you.
I agree with Steve. I want America to take the fight to the one's who openly support terrorism and plot to kill Americans and destroy our country.
If some two bit dictator run ( or similar) state is stupid enough to harbor and support terrorism, they need to be wiped out with the same lack of mercy that they would offer us.
Now is the time to take the fight to our enemies . I believe that what is happening already could be considered WWIII and once again, we didn't start it but we will damn sure finish it.
Now ( or soon) is the logical time to deal with any threats in the middle east. We have all that force there now and you can be sure that we are not going away until we are sure there in no more "work" to be done in the area ........I can pretty much promise you that.
Like it or not, we are not playing games anymore. We have a force on the ground and we have enemies near by.
-
This situation sucks.
-
What France has done is meddle with ours. The only interest France was protecting regarding Iraq was it's apparent interest in becoming a roadblock to anything being done to make Iraq comply with it's cease-fire agreements.
You could definitely argue, and argue convincingly, that the US led move to remove Hussein with force 'meddles' with French interests notably the huge debt owed to them by Iraq. And if you want to take the moral high ground with that particular issue, you would have to ignore the whole history of Iraqi-Western relations since 1918.
Internal politics is dirty. International politics is a drunken tramp who hasn't had a bath in 10 years.
-
I don't know, Steve. It sounds to me like you calling for the 4th Crusade. (Are we up to 4?)
At least, that's how it's going to be interpresting to the entire muslim world. You said something about moderates. Could you imagine how many current moderate Muslims would become extremists if we rolled M1's into Mecca, or Medina?
We had something solid to work with in Iraq, even if many countries did not agree. We had the invasion of Kuwait. We had a ruthless dictator. We had 12 years, 17 resolutions, and 1441. We had just cause.
I think we would need similar cause to go after Syria, and the rest. Whether that incitement be true, or fabricated, we need to do some diplomatic work before we start shooting.
-
Yup, it positivelly reaks. However Syria looks to be a much thougher nut to crack than Iraq ever was.
maybe; say, 5 weeks instead of three?
-
muck... 4th crusade.. maybe. The fact is, as I've said: the vast majority of terrorists are militant muslims coming from muslim countries. I suppose some would like to avoid our problems because it would be racial profiling? It's a damned shame that it is this way, but do you know many other religions that actually pray for the downfall of the U.S.? Ask God to kill all Americans?
Teach their children that killing Americans is a good thing? View people who have committed mass murder by blowing themselves up, as heroes? It may not be politically correct, but it seems to me that there are a lot of muslim nations that harbor these feeling along with their terrorists. I know from experience that the guy that lands the first punch usually wins...it may not be politically correct either, but once you've made a decison that there is going to be a fight.. waiting for the other guy to swing is just plain unwise. I think the U.S. is at that stage. What brought us to this point is now moot, we're in a fight with these nations/terrorists.. we may as well get them first.
-
I'll ask you a question Steve. Once we defeat all these threats (or at least their formal militaries) with our superior firepower -- what do we do then? Will your average Syrian, Libyan, Iranian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Pakistani, Saudi and by that point maybe even Kuwaiti think he is being liberated? These are already relatively free, proud societies -- certainly compared to Iraq.
How many millions of soldiers would we need to commit to a full scale, multi-decade occupation of the Middle East? How much cost in gold and blood? I mean hell, we don't really know if the end game is going to work in Iraq just yet, which represents by far the easiest "democratization" scenario of the bunch. If the end game doesn't work, then all the initial success in the world just doesn't matter.
Personally, I think we need to solve some of the core problems before we work to put a Band-Aid on any more of the symptoms.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Steve
do you know many other religions that actually pray for the downfall of the U.S.? Ask God to kill all Americans?
Teach their children that killing Americans is a good thing? View people who have committed mass murder by blowing themselves up, as heroes?
Shinto, Japan WWII.
Blowing themselves up...Kamikaze.
Remember how fanatical we thought they were? The American Japanese that were put in camps. Don't think it could happen again? This was only 60 years ago.
I don't know what the answer is Steve. If I did, maybe I'd be president. But I do know that what you are proposing is the most frightening scenario possible to me.
We'll see how it plays out.
-
some nations, like syria will not require 'occupation'.
we simply pound their armor and air force out of existence, and go home.
-
Iraq
April 14, 2003
US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict
From Tim Reid in Washington
Bush accuses Damascus of developing chemical weapons
PRESIDENT BUSH yesterday accused Syria of having chemical weapons. In the clearest sign yet that Washington is turning its sights on Damascus’ links to terrorism, two of his most senior Cabinet members also warned the country against harbouring Iraqi officials.
Mr Bush told Syria that it “must co-operate” with Washington as it continues its effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
He also repeated earlier warnings from Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, and Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, that Damascus must not harbour fleeing members of Saddam’s regime.
“We believe there are chemical weapons in Syria,” Mr Bush said. “We expect co-operation and I’m hopeful that we will receive co-operation.”
He did not threaten Syria with military action, but told it, along with Iran and North Korea — who, with Iraq, form his “axis of evil” — that the example of Iraq shows “we’re serious about stopping weapons of mass destruction”.
General Tommy Franks, commander of coalition troops in Iraq, said that it could take a year to search every site in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction might be hidden. He said that up to 3,000 locations are earmarked for visits which are progressing at the rate of five to 15 a day. He added that Syrian fighters had joined Iraqi soldiers to fight inside Iraq.
US Intelligence has given warnings that Damascus has a nascent chemical and biological weapons programme, but the accusation has never before been made publicly by the Bush Administration.
Imad Moustaphi, Syria’s deputy ambassador to the US, denied the claims, calling them “a campaign of disinformation” to distract attention from civil disorder in Iraq.
However the accusation, coming from the President himself, marks a significant increase in Washington’s aggressive rhetoric toward the regime of President Assad.
Mr Rumsfeld, who last month accused Syria of channelling military equipment including night-vision goggles to Iraq, said yesterday: “Being on the terrorist list is not some place I’d want to be. The (Syrian Government is making a lot of bad mistakes, a lot of bad judgment calls, in my view, and they’re associating with the wrong people.”
He added that there was “no question” that some senior Iraqi leaders had fled to Syria.
His comments came as the Pentagon announced that a half-brother of Saddam, Watban Ibrahim Hassan, had been captured in northern Iraq, apparently trying to reach Syria.
Watban, apprehended near the northern city of Mosul, was the “five of spades” in the Americans’ 55-name most wanted list, issued in the form of a deck of cards.
General Franks also said that several senior members of the regime had been captured in western Iraq. Meanwhile Yemen granted political asylum to Mohsen Khalil, Iraq’s permanent ambassador to the Arab League in Cairo.
General Powell also told Syria not to offer shelter to Iraqi officials fleeing Baghdad.
He said: “We think it would be very unwise if suddenly Syria becomes a haven for all these people who should be brought to justice who are trying to get out of Baghdad. Syria has been a concern for a long period of time. We have designated Syria for years as a state sponsor of terrorism.”
The US stance towards Syria has become markedly more aggressive since the start of the Iraqi campaign. Yesterday’s comments were Washington’s latest move to increase the pressure on Damascus, which also gives shelter to the leaders of the Palestinian groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
The rhetoric is part of a new phase of muscular US diplomacy in the region which has been given added force by the demonstration of US military might in Iraq. But the targeting of Damascus has raised fears that Washington plans to turn its attention to a military assault on Syria.
However it is unlikely that the Administration would entertain the idea of another pre-emptive military campaign so soon, particularly with a presidential election next year.
There is also recognition in Washington that military action against Syria, or even the overt threat of it, would confirm fears that the US is intent on subjugating the Arab world.
President Assad has voiced concern that Syria is next on the US “war on terrorism” list.
The White House and the State Department have denied that President Bush plans any more “regime changes” in the region. But Washington hopes to use the leverage gained from its overwhelming military victory to exert uncompromising diplomatic and economic pressure on regimes to change their behaviour.
-
I tell you this truly.. We are nowhere near Syria. And if Syria should provoke us we hit them with our shoes and they will die in the desert. God willing....
-
What do you do if Syria allows Iraqi leadership to hide there and what do you do if Syria has allowed Saddam to hide WMD in Syria?
-
then... buh bye Syrian govt.
-
I wouldnt be too happy if we went after syria right now, its not like the 12 years of circumstances that forced our hand to deal with saddam. I do hope that they got the message and behave... I think our focus now should be in ensuring Iraq is a viable democratic and free state in the next few years and remains so for a long time. We should welcome the iraqis back to the world and hope they set an example for the region. Nothing would make me happier than to see Iraq and also especially Iran return the world with its large number of educated young people who seem to be genuinely interseted in the west and democracy.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I wouldnt be too happy if we went after syria right now, its not like the 12 years of circumstances that forced our hand to deal with saddam. I do hope that they got the message and behave... I think our focus now should be in ensuring Iraq is a viable democratic and free state in the next few years and remains so for a long time. We should welcome the iraqis back to the world and hope they set an example for the region. Nothing would make me happier than to see Iraq and also especially Iran return the world with its large number of educated young people who seem to be genuinely interseted in the west and democracy.
Agreed. You hit the nail on the head. There is still alot to do in Iraq.I think if Iraq begins to prosper(and it will) it can start to change the face of the middle east. People in surrounding countries will want the freedom Iraqi people have and bring the change themselves. There are alot of good people in the middle east who have alot more in common with us than you think.Plus logistics come into play too. Those troops need to be replaced with fresh ones, and alot are looking forward to coming home. AC's need to be serviced, aircraft, tanks, etc. As always, war should be your last option, not your first.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
How quickly language changes... Up till a few weeks ago "liberation" was never used by an outsider in the sense of "liberating people form their own government". Overthrow of an oppressive regime or changing the government, ets, but "liberation" always ment presence of an outside force.
miko
Call it whatever you like. Semantics don't change the fact that the Iraqis are being liberated from an oppresive dictator.
France, along with Germany and Russia, were very happy with the status quo. They stood much to lose with Saddam out of power, unlike the Iraqi people.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
i was always pissed when my sister would grab the toy from the cereal first...
So waht i woul ddo ..as soon as my mom wne tshopping..I opend up the Cpat Crunch Berries..poured it itno a bowl ..got the prize...And showed my sister....
She would then pin me down...and would do the old..hanging lougy trick...
when i turned 12..she was 5 years older..i socked her in belly..it all ended aftyer that,,,
Yes..I too am worried about my cereal
Love
BiGB
Interesting analogy
-
G, he could have exported them there to shield them from inspector's eyes, sir.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You just realizing that? Just check out the number of resolutions vetoed by the US. Especially in conjunction with those concerning Israel.
No-one has vetoed more resolutions than the US.
We do what we feel is best for the US....if that would involve the rest of the world or only us, our focus won't and should not change....you have a problem with this?
Are you implying that we should compromise ourselves in the interest of the global community?
Where you comin from these days Dowding? Please explain yourself.
-
I AM worried about Frosted Mini-Wheats.
I mean, which side of those shows the REAL personality of the Mini-Wheat? Is it that "whole grain goodness" polite smart side or that "sugary coated" grains-just-wanna-have fun side?
..... OH, wait.. you said SYRIA.
NM.
-
Simply pointing out that slamming France for looking after its own interests, while hanging on to some illusion that the US hasn't done the same is a little daft.
You ought to read some of the resolutions the US had vetoed in relation to Israel - they make interesting reading.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Simply pointing out that slamming France for looking after its own interests, while hanging on to some illusion that the US hasn't done the same is a little daft.
You ought to read some of the resolutions the US had vetoed in relation to Israel - they make interesting reading.
Also, bear in mind that a no vote is recorded as a veto if you are a permanent member. One can't neccessarily conclude that a vetoed resolution implies that the resolution had passed previous to the veto.
-
these syrians are hard core you better watch out or glock glock, know what im saying squeak
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/04-14-2003-syria.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Steve
G, he could have exported them there to shield them from inspector's eyes, sir.
Along with half his army.
-
Dowding: here ya go, UN resolutions critical of Israel that have been vetoed by the US:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
At any rate, not pretty reading, really. Notice that Bush Sr. was one of the US representatives putting down the veto :).
Steve, you say let Africans starve; solve overcrowding this way. I sincerely hope that this outlook comes from having lived a sheltered and protected life with little suffering except that which cannot possibly be avoided. Such an attitude bears witness to either great ignorance on the matter at hand or a great lack of humanity.
Perhaps if you first hand experienced a child, victim of the circumstances created by adults around him, slowly withering away, drawing his last breath as you watch, perhaps if you experienced this you'd realize that ethnicity, skin colour or place of origin has little to do with the value of human life. I find it sad to see such an attitude in a human being; that some are üntermenschen not fit to be helped, yet others must be protected against even the slightest threat, even if it means the deaths of millions of innocent people.
A 'nice war would solve everything', you write. This makes me sure that you're not cold blooded and cynically oriented around your own particular group; it is a statement of true ignorance of the facts on this matter. Wars have so far had a very small impact on population growth or lack thereof. Many were killed during WWII, but the baby boom that followed more than made up for the men and women lost during the conflict. War, while sometimes necessary, is by no means an effective way of controlling population growth.
It is not by accident that highly developed industrialized prosperous countries have only a slight or even a negative population growth. We do not need children as a way to secure our old age - and we want the time to pursue happiness so having 10 children is not an option. Fewer children means better care as well, and so on.
As has been pointed out (by Muckmaw) I believe, a quick look at history will show that all great empires have failed and either disappeared or lost their power. Many felt that 'might makes right' and a good deal of great civilizations treated the known world as their playground, to rape, exploit and use as they saw fit. Some of the descendants of those people now live retched lives in squalor and poverty. It seems the civilizations that have survived the passing of times have been the moderate ones - and even those have changed so much as to be utterly unrecognizable compared to their former selves. There aren't many Danes raiding Europe anymore, unless you refer to blonde babes with big tits picking up scores of southern Europeans wherever they go.
The US, too, will come into a decline. Whether the US will be consumed by its enemies or just be slowly overcome by new aspiring superpowers remain to be seen. One thing is true, however; everything must cease.
Steve, I do not mean to throw trash at you as a person; I am not calling you ignorant. I'm saying that your comments are founded in shallow gut-feelings stemming from the life you've lead so far, and that those gut feelings are a long way from close to reality. They sound good when talking to your chaps at the bar or the coworkers over a cup of coffee, but I can ensure you; live with impoverished, starving Africans for three months, and you shall see those comments for what they are. It'll be revealed for you that humanity comes in many different forms and colours, yet it is all the same.
Experience a war first hand - the raping, the atrocities, the barrel of a gun justice, and you will realize that war is neither nice or an effective way to control population.
Gonna get off soap box. You said you were serious about your views, so I thought it best to be serious myself for a bit. Feel what you feel, think what you think. I just have to do what I must do - try to get you to think about the consequences of what you suggest.
In a thousand years, perhaps the mighty Congo Democratic Republic cstarts considering stopping all aid to the impoverished war raged region of the Americas - it is a good idea because then there'd be no babies for them to send food to. Such reversals have happened countless times in history before. ****e dude, those starving people *could have been us*, had we been born to the wrong parents (I still cannot figure out how that physically can be possible, but then again, English is an odd language :)).
Off I go. If possible, I'd like to ask of you to see all people as humans. Given other circumstances, the very people you condemn by not assisting could have been your friends.
I sound like such an idealist heh. But it is much better to be a realistic idealist than a realistic cynic, in terms of life quality :)
-
HAHA,
I love living in the super power.
-
Santa quote:"Steve, you say let Africans starve; solve overcrowding this way. I sincerely hope that this outlook comes from having lived a sheltered and protected life with little suffering except that which cannot possibly be avoided. Such an attitude bears witness to either great ignorance on the matter at hand or a great lack of humanity. "
Yup. let them starve. They keep having these unfortunate kids because they keep getting handouts of food. No more free food, no more starving people, after a few weeks. I'm not ignorant on the matter, I just think it shouldn't be my problem. Call me whatever names you like, I don't want to feed anyone but my own kin, it's not my responsibility. Lack of humanity..that's liberal speak and an attack with no substance. Send your tax dollars to feed third world kids, I'd rather support someone in my own country if I must be taxed for things for charity. There is no point in being benevolent in this world. Look what happend in Mog. Let these animals kill each other off, the strong survive. Our charity has caused an unnatural population growth, with no solution in sight. One day, there will simply be too many people to feed. My views will not be so callous then, you can bet people will feed their own first.
"Perhaps if you first hand experienced a child, victim of the circumstances created by adults around him, slowly withering away, drawing his last breath as you watch, perhaps if you experienced this you'd realize that ethnicity, skin colour or place of origin has little to do with the value of human life... blah blah blah"
More sappy liberal speak with no substance except: you're right about ethnicity... it's moot to me what race these people are, I don't think our country should aid anyone outside our borders that has nothing to offer us in return. The world is becoming over-populated.. again... because of handouts. Let Darwinism run its course, the human race in the blighted areas will be stronger as a result, more self sufficient...not in need of handouts.
" 'nice war would solve everything', you write. This makes me sure that you're not cold blooded and cynically oriented around your own particular group; it is a statement of true ignorance of the facts on this matter. Wars have so far had a very small impact on population growth or lack thereof. Many were killed during WWII, but the baby boom that followed more than made up for the men and women lost during the conflict. War, while sometimes necessary, is by no means an effective way of controlling population growth."
It would be along with the other steps I'v suggested.
"As has been pointed out (by Muckmaw) I believe, a quick look at history will show that all great empires have failed and either disappeared or lost their power....."
Nothing lasts forever, you make no point.
"Steve, I do not mean to throw trash at you as a person; I am not calling you ignorant. I'm saying that your comments are founded in shallow gut-feelings stemming from the life you've lead so far, and that those gut feelings are a long way from close to reality."
Wrong about shallow gut feelings or the life I've led. I could sit on a couch here in Phoenix and collect welfare. I live a comfortable life because I work, no handouts. When I wanted a bigger house, I got a second job for a few months so I could put more loot down.. no handouts. Look, life isn't fair and you need to get over that. I simply don't feel like I should bear the burden for underveloped countries producing children they cannot feed.
"It'll be revealed for you that humanity comes in many different forms and colours, yet it is all the same."
This is the second time you've insinuated my feelings are based on people's ethnicity. That's more liberal tactics and it pisses me off. I didn't say stop helping a particular race(s). I said stop helping everyone. Don't do it again, it's rude and misleading.
"Experience a war first hand..."
It's foolish for you to presume I haven't.
Look, go on about your life being an idealist. I like to think I'm being pragmatic.. perhaps to the detriment to my "humanity".. but I can live with that. A time will come in the future when over-population forces others to think as I do.
-
Alright Steve, lemme start by apologizing for coming off rather high horsey and aggressively. Due to personal experiences it is an area I feel compassionately about and that sometimes manifests itself in the way I express myself. So read the following knowing I mean no insult to you as an individual.
Stevie wrote:
Yup. let them starve. They keep having these unfortunate kids because they keep getting handouts of food. No more free food, no more starving people, after a few weeks. I'm not ignorant on the matter, I just think it shouldn't be my problem. Call me whatever names you like, I don't want to feed anyone but my own kin, it's not my responsibility. Lack of humanity..that's liberal speak and an attack with no substance
They have those 'unfortunate' kids for a reason - to secure themselves when they get old. And because of their poverty, even if they decided to try birth control they wouldn't be able to buy it. So let us take away the last pleasure they have, sex, and see if life becomes better. What I am saying is that your solution is a bit simplistic and causes needless suffering and future problems - also for your own country.
What do you do - send the people a fish, or a fishing net? I advocate the latter. The West has done very, very little in Africa (compared to what we've gotten and what we have). Just getting rid of the loans they have would make a huge difference - some nations spend a large part of their BNP just paying interests on those loans - and western countries can afford letting them go. So I ain't talking free food here - I am talking help to self help. I am talking survival.
You're not my kin, so perhaps if I saw you or your loved ones suffering after a car accident, I should just shrug, walk away and yell 'nature in action, not my problem'. Stupid example, but I bet yer relatives (the ones still alive) would be mighty pissed off at me and might cause me problems later on. Certainly, if I keep on behaving like that, sooner or later I am gonna come across some people who'd want to do harm to me because of my inactivity.
I'm a libertarian, not a liberal. I am also a secular humanist, and that is where me calling it lack of humanity stems from. You deliberately decide to consider some humans nothing more than animals only because of geographical location and dismiss all there, suggesting that they're all lazy people who just want handouts. Or rather, that they've bred too much and therefore, like deer in the woods, need to have their numbers regulated. We've seen that attitude in Europe, and we've seen how many millions of dead it left.
Send your tax dollars to feed third world kids, I'd rather support someone in my own country if I must be taxed for things for charity.
Ah don't worry. The US uses 0.11% of its GNP on foreign aid. Denmark uses ten times that. What you essentially is saying is that you'd rather make sure some drug addict can afford a new pair of Nike sneakers and a joint, rather than helping a family of eight survive for a month. Because that druggie is 'your kin'. Or am I misinterpreting it? I hope somehow that given a choice about how your dollars were spent, you'd opt to put it to use where it does most good. But I shouldn't put myself on a piedestal; I bought pizza yesterday. Could have survived on less and given the rest of the money to charity, but I didn't. Mostly because my government already is forcing me to do charity through taxes.
I do not think of your attitude as cynical or realistic - it's more a dismissal as the whole deal not being in your part of the world and therefore not a problem. It's an inefficient attitude fostered by having lived a comparatively sheltered life, probably in a very homogenous, tight knit community. Come from such an environment myself and it did take some nasty experience before my mind decided to think about this rather nasty topic.
There is no point in being benevolent in this world. Look what happend in Mog. Let these animals kill each other off, the strong survive. Our charity has caused an unnatural population growth, with no solution in sight.
Nah, it isn't our charity that has caused population growth - it is industrialization that has done that. We hoard up much grain in the west- much that ultimately is destroyed - in order to drive up the price. This food would amply feed a good deal of the starving people around the world *while people try to find a solution*. Unfortunately it seems many are apathetic to the sufferings of others, and therefore little gets done. We've done so much before - look at how warn torn Europe was rebuilt - because the drive and need to do so was there. It is doable - what we lack is will.
3000 people killed at 9/11. That's a mere fart in space compared to what happened on a single day when hutu's and tutsi's started the genocide. but what the hell do I care about Americans and Arabs anyway? Let them kill each other.
So why do I care? Easy; self preservation and development. The world is not an isolated place, and the US doesn't live in a bubble. Poverty breeds resentment, resentment breeds hatred. And that hatred is directed at the wealthy and the bullies - primarily US and Europe. Furthermore, Africa is a HUGE potential MARKET that could spur economic growth. In economy you don't have 100 dollars and then if one guy gets more, another gets less. It doesn't work that way, which is why new markets are good things. Stuff like that
One day, there will simply be too many people to feed. My views will not be so callous then, you can bet people will feed their own first.
Yes, but what you're doing is throwing an entire loaf of bread to the dogs because you didn't like the colour of it, despite knowing that there were people (not your kin) standing outside your door that hadn't had a bite to eat for a week. We have enough - more than enough. While corruption must be handled by the Africans themselves, there is ****eloads of things the west can do if it gets out of this pitiful apathetic state it is in.
More sappy liberal speak with no substance except: you're right about ethnicity... it's moot to me what race these people are, I don't think our country should aid anyone outside our borders that has nothing to offer us in return. The world is becoming over-populated.. again... because of handouts. Let Darwinism run its course, the human race in the blighted areas will be stronger as a result, more self sufficient...not in need of handouts.
Just saying that in your little protected world, you have yet to experience something that make you go 'uhhhhhhh'. You have yet to see true suffering and pain. Cannot really say it in another way than that; once you see it, you change. If you don't, then you're one cold mofo (which, I think, is much more comfortable overall, but probably less rewarding too)
Strictly speaking I'd not call it Darwinism. More like a short term situation (in evolutionary terms) that can be fixed or at least handled quite well if there just is a little political will. If just the Christians in the west do what they preach, then that problem would be solved.
It would be along with the other steps I'v suggested.
Population growth control through starvation, you mean? And you do not see this as a method that causes excessive suffering when alternatives are available? China managed, through use of a hard hand, to get its population explosion under semi control. I'd say having just one kid beats having eight and then seeing 'em die because rich people don't consider them really human.
-
Nothing lasts forever, you make no point.
I do, but you fail to grasp it. The US will fail, too. In a few hundred years, your descendants may be on the verge of starvation. Assuming that attitudes such as your own are prevailing, your genetic heritage will end to a large degree. Your blood will die out in a painful and *unnecessary* way. 'It Could Be You' ain't bull****e - I think about that when I see a videotape of a skydiving accident or other such incidents. It takes so little to change or end a life. Can end today.
Am not talking mere starvation though. Just a general lack of care towards your well being; not even expending an ounce of energy, which would be enough to secure your survival. This can happen. I've seen a video of a chap, in the US, who has a heart attack outside a gas station. There are five people around him; they look at him and then walk/drive away. The man died and police tried in vain to track the 5 down. This is what lack of compassion and care brings; it bites itself in the arse.
Wrong about shallow gut feelings or the life I've led. I could sit on a couch here in Phoenix and collect welfare. I live a comfortable life because I work, no handouts. When I wanted a bigger house, I got a second job for a few months so I could put more loot down.. no handouts. Look, life isn't fair and you need to get over that. I simply don't feel like I should bear the burden for underveloped countries producing children they cannot feed.
So you compare having two jobs to living in an area where people die from AIDS, landmines, rebel/government forces, starvation, where NO JOBS ARE TO BE HAD? They live as best they can. But in a war ravaged economy, they cannot just get a second job and then save up some loot. While I commend your attitude and work ethics and while it certainly is much better than the average person, I don't think you can compare your situation to that of desperately poor Africans struggling to find any job that can feed them for a day.
I'll agree with you that the problem primarily is the Africans themselves - corruption and wars and a culture where superstition and ignorance isn't countered by science. But, in order for there to be progress, there are certain things the west needs to do - such as forgetting about loans that never will be paid anyhow. In the end, it'd be better for us. The environment would be better. The economy would thrive on the new markets. There'd be less refugee/immigrants on welfare in northern European countries etc etc.
Ok, you do not feel you should bear the burden for underdeveloped countries producing children they cannot feed. I can respect not so much the view, but you as a person despite holding it :). Just think it is amazingly selfish that is all, primarily because one percent of what you earn a month would be enough to keep a family alive for the same amount of time. OTOH, I do not support the state forcing people to help others (foreign aid) being a libertarian, yet if done as Denmark has done it, it is economically beneficial for the country giving aid. The way Danes have done it means new contracts, markets and the like - promoting our values, goods and products. That's not handouts - that's intelligence in aiding people.
This is the second time you've insinuated my feelings are based on people's ethnicity. That's more liberal tactics and it pisses me off. I didn't say stop helping a particular race(s). I said stop helping everyone. Don't do it again, it's rude and misleading.
Hm, it was based on your choice of words - 'they are not my kin' Will use a dictionary to illustrate:
'Kin' being defined as: 2. Relatives; persons of the same family or race.
Should I read it just as 'they are not my family'? Otherwise it comes off as racial in nature. Dunno if you've heard calls such as 'go back to your kin white/black/yellow/orange/blue boy!' in yer life before, but I have.
It's foolish for you to presume I haven't.
'
Well, I should have been more clear. Experience it as a civilian living in a war torn country without any form of government assistance to help you live. My apologies for being unclear and not really considering the possibility of you participating in the defense of your nation.
War is dangerous enough if you're in comfy clothes, getting food and is armed and supported. It's even worse if you're a civilian. Recent figures shows that by far the vast majority of people who die in modern wars are civilians.
Look, go on about your life being an idealist. I like to think I'm being pragmatic.. perhaps to the detriment to my "humanity".. but I can live with that. A time will come in the future when over-population forces others to think as I do.
I am a pragmatist. I'm a recovering cynic using idealism to somehow bring a shimmer of hope into the world, and as such I am acutely aware that life is not bliss and love and all the other crap we're told to expect. It's mostly pain and struggles, at least for the majority of people, interspersed with moments of joy.
I just do not consider your view as pragmatic It introduces a lot of extra suffering, it is ineffective, it has directly negative consequences for the west (terrorist attacks, environment). It's not a pragmatic view in any way - what it is is a quick glance around the world followed by what Douglas Adams called SEP - Somebody Elses Problem. SEPs are invisible to people. Essentially, it's betting on number one always and closing your eyes, *hoping* that the suffering won't spill over to your soil, yet preparing to go to war if it does. And this is why I so violently oppose the view you hold.
I mean, you seem like a nice guy I would enjoy having this discussion over a few beers with. And I can see where you're coming from - as a libertarian, I am very much against government handouts. Yet views such as the one you have presented are ineffective and reactive, rather than proactive. Why did 9/11 happen in the US and not in, say, Japan? Because of poverty->resentment->anger->hatred->fundamentalism->just cause->empowerment through hitting back. Very roughly speaking. It is no coincidence that the majority of the players involved doing the actual dying were from areas of semi-conflict and poverty or at least strongly influenced by perceived slights/opression. I fear ignoring Africa will create a problem that is many times worse than what we're seeing in the Middle East. And the latter is interesting to us simply because of oil - had there been none, then we'd handle it the same way we now handle the African continent.
Long post. It's now 11:59 AM and I still haven't slept. Bloody insomnia :/
-
In the history of the world, there has never been a nation like the USA.
Predict all you want about our future. It amounts to crap.