Dare I say....

[Tulkas12]

Hateful? Nah, I don't hate them, I just recognize that they certainly wouldn't love us if someone they know/love is in need of a few skin grafts, or a skull graft, if that be the case.

I'm also not idealistic enough to believe that something so bureaucratic as the US government would go out of its way and blow a couple billion dollars on some giant nuptial agreement between two countries to wed them into the holy church of democracy...without any strings attached. Mind you, this country we are talking about, the lucky trophy wife (Iraq in this allegory) didn't even have to bring the whole Al-Qaeda dowry to the table! We just went all the way and got married!

Some honeymoon we are having eh? I wonder if the divorce will get any uglier?

The allegory here is bad, but in response to it, yes it would, for the good of the world. Most especially for the good of the area which in turn is good for our interests. Again I support the Iraq conflict as a long term tactical strategem.

 

[bathsheba666]

"Anyone who disagrees with me has been misled and/or hates the US."

You want to lecture me on rude and condescending?

 

[CaptainF]

If you have the idea that we have done no good at all whatsoever just stop reading this thread. I will not be able to answer you and you respect my answer. Respect seems to be a problem in these forums.

Long-term? We are solving a problem their children would have faced. We are providing the ground work for a nation that will be very wealthy and possibly a gem of the area. We are sparing humanity the very strong possiblity of a real jihad.

Short-term? Infrastructure. Schools. Sewers. Electrical power(though this has been sabotaged cinsistently). Clean water. So on and so forth. Definitely not enough to counter the damage we have done.

Schools? No teachers. Infrastructure? Corruption does have its benefits...

Sewers? Come on man, all these material benefits were there before we had to go and blow them up. So you're saying that we are replacing the crap we already blew up? Well, I guess we are breaking even, if nothing else.

How do you know this nation will be wealthy in the future? Just because we got our fingers in this recipe doesn't mean it'll turn out tasty. Even more laughably, sparing the possibility of jihad? We have given these jihad lightning bolts a rod the size of the Eiffel Tower. And a reason for them to strike it.

 

[Tulkas12]

"Anyone who disagrees with me has been misled and/or hates the US."

You want to lecture me on rude and condescending?

I never said that, please erase this. You said I was nuts in essence, I responded you have to think the US is evil to think that I'm insane.

You should erase this post and move on.

 

[Tulkas12]

Schools? No teachers. Infrastructure? Corruption does have its benefits...

They have teachers. meh. . .cynicism again.

Sewers? Come on man, all these material benefits were there before we had to go and blow them up. So you're saying that we are replacing the crap we already blew up? Well, I guess we are breaking even, if nothing else.

No they actually weren't. Iraq had been continually detiorating since the coming of Saddam. Its infrastructue on the whole had become delapidated. This is fact and not open to specualtion.

How do you know this nation will be wealthy in the future? Just because we got our fingers in this recipe doesn't mean it'll turn out tasty. Even more laughably, sparing the possibility of jihad? We have given these jihad lightning bolts a rod the size of the Eiffel Tower. And a reason for them to strike it.

Its oil reserves, contrary to popular hype, will not be hi-jacked by the US. If it handles it well, it will become very wealthy.

Yes, and this is my main point. We are taking on a situation that had become inevitable. Since the Iranian revolution, radical Islam was spreading and picking up steam. We might have incited it, but we have also shown that it will not be accpeted. If the west fails at following through on what it started by confronting this movement, then you'd be right. I hope against what looks like what will happen, that we will stick it out and make it very clear that this form of radicalism is absolutely unacceptable and will be attacked ruthlessly.

 

[CaptainF]

The allegory here is bad, but in response to it, yes it would, for the good of the world. Most especially for the good of the area which in turn is good for our interests. Again I support the Iraq conflict as a long term tactical strategem.

Whos interests are our interests? I'm sure I won't be any better off because some Iraqis have a puppet government. I'm just a silly kid in backwood Oregon. Why assume that we are here to do good for the rest of the world? No nation, ever in its existence was ever so stupidly altruistic. Imperialism was supposed to be good for the Imperialist interest, which was not for the people of the Imperialist, but rather the Aristocratic Imperial clique.

More over, why would the US government decide to get altruistic about some sandbox in the Middle East, when we aren't even altruistic about public education? Bah, whatever, I guess it was for the WMDs.

 

[Tulkas12]

Whos interests are our interests? I'm sure I won't be any better off because some Iraqis have a puppet government. I'm just a silly kid in backwood Oregon. Why assume that we are here to do good for the rest of the world? No nation, ever in its existence was ever so stupidly altruistic. Imperialism was supposed to be good for the Imperialist interest, which was not for the people of the Imperialist, but rather the Aristocratic Imperial clique.

More over, why would the US government decide to get altruistic about some sandbox in the Middle East, when we aren't even altruistic about public education? Bah, whatever, I guess it was for the WMDs.

Mankinds interests. Altruistic becomes very rational when the world has gotten as small as it has, we have no other option but to at least tame the world. We are at best generations away from this goal. The mid-east is a interesting mix of radicalism adn modernism, it is so interestin that it is dangerous if left alone.

The general malaise of the populace reflects the fact that it won't effect them directly. Huamn nature is uncapable of seeing long term benefits without it being well-educated. This war will continue to be unpopular as a result.

 

[CaptainF]

They have teachers. meh. . .cynicism again.



No they actually weren't. Iraq had been continually detiorating since the coming of Saddam. Its infrastructue on the whole had become delapidated. This is fact and not open to specualtion.



Its oil reserves, contrary to popular hype, will not be hi-jacked by the US. If it handles it well, it will become very wealthy.

Yes, and this is my main point. We are taking on a situation that had become inevitable. Since the Iranian revolution, radical Islam was spreading and picking up steam. We might have incited it, but we have also shown that it will not be accpeted. If the west fails at following through on what it started by confronting this movement, then you'd be right. I hope against what looks like what will happen, that we will stick it out and make it very clear that this form of radicalism is absolutely unacceptable and will be attacked ruthlessly.

Yes, underpaid teachers who are scared out of their minds of a bullet with their name on it. Good for the job performance one would suppose.

Iraq had one of the world's most renowned education systems in the world prior to this. Not to endorse the neanderthalic dictatorship of Hussein, but to be honest, it wasn't all that shoddy, materially speaking.

Lots of countries have lots of oil. Russia? Nigeria? Mexico? Any of them rich? ......*crickets chirping*..... Oil doesn't mean wealth. Ability to get that lots of oil, yes. Too bad the pipes are all strapped with plastic things that go boom boom.

We also made it clear a long time ago that drugs wouldn't be tolerated. Same difference. Heroin isn't out of our veins, Crack isn't out of our lungs, Coke isn't out of our noses. This is setting itself up to be a big broken promise. Just because we won't tolerate something doesn't mean it goes poof. Radical Islam doesn't tolerate us, so when we say we don't tolerate them, they tell us (not very politely) where to put our non-tolerance.

 

[Tulkas12]

Yes, underpaid teachers who are scared out of their minds of a bullet with their name on it. Good for the job performance one would suppose.

Iraq had one of the world's most renowned education systems in the world prior to this. Not to endorse the neanderthalic dictatorship of Hussein, but to be honest, it wasn't all that shoddy, materially speaking.

Lots of countries have lots of oil. Russia? Nigeria? Mexico? Any of them rich? ......*crickets chirping*..... Oil doesn't mean wealth. Ability to get that lots of oil, yes. Too bad the pipes are all strapped with plastic things that go boom boom.

We also made it clear a long time ago that drugs wouldn't be tolerated. Same difference. Heroin isn't out of our veins, Crack isn't out of our lungs, Coke isn't out of our noses. This is setting itself up to be a big broken promise. Just because we won't tolerate something doesn't mean it goes poof. Radical Islam doesn't tolerate us, so when we say we don't tolerate them, they tell us (not very politely) where to put our non-tolerance.

General differnce of veiws. You are equating the war on drugs with the war on radical Islam. . . they are very different.

As for oil rich nations? Yea, you're right, but none of those above mentioned had direct US intervention and world eyes on them. Iraq did have a decent higher education system, and its people were fairly literate. It is because of this that it has such great potential.

The potential is still there for Russia, though it seems to be regressing.

 

[CaptainF]

Mankinds interests. Altruistic becomes very rational when the world has gotten as small as it has, we have no other option but to at least tame the world. We are at best generations away from this goal. The mid-east is a interesting mix of radicalism adn modernism, it is so interestin that it is dangerous if left alone.

The general malaise of the populace reflects the fact that it won't effect them directly. Huamn nature is uncapable of seeing long term benefits without it being well-educated. This war will continue to be unpopular as a result.

Mankinds interests...wow. What does mankind get out of this friend? There is so much wrong with the world that we alone can NEVER squash it all. North Koreans building bombs, shall we invade them too? The day we do that is the day we aren't a superpower any longer. Would that be good for mankind?

What really gets me off is that you say "we" (i'm guessing the United States) must tame the world? I'm sorry, but the parallels that statement can draw with Imperialist thought are too obvious. We are not sacrosanct good pal. Slaves, Native Americans, other such stuff doesn't exactly make us spotless. Why should we assume that we are better than the rest of the world and thus able to wave our giant phallic shaped sword wherever we please?

And now you say that the populace of the US is uneducated because they don't like the war. Well thats good, I guess you are a faithful guy to trust a nation of uneducated brutes to free a country from the shackles of whatever it was. Also interesting that you say that this is human nature, as if to suggest you are above it.

 

[JohnRM]

We might be getting somewhere in the war against fundamentalist Islam?

In the last two weeks we have seen the death of Zarqawi. We have seen Al-Queda back off of a plan to attack NYC subways. It seems our allies in the mid-east have begun to infiltrate these orginizations, and maybe, just maybe, we are getting somewhere.

Now I know most of the people I know are against the Iraq war and our general meddling in the mid-east. I also know most of these people are short-sighted and hated Reagan for getting in the USSR's face as well. I haven't been afan of Bush for awhile, mainly due to domestic sending, but his foreign poilicy has always been fairly solid if not honest imo.

We should stay in Iraq for at least 50 years. We are getting somewhere and better yet we are gaining better intelligence as each year passes by.

Burn and flame me as you like, the only real disagreement is if one sees the exact oppostie version of history. By being there now, we are saving the world the wrath of what would happen if we just stood and waited for these people to get strong.

And all that we had to trade for it was many of our freedoms and privacy, cheaper energy, thousands of lives, a 150% increase in the cost of housing, a nearly 50% increase in the cost of food, and many other things.

Of course, we only had to fight fundamentalist Islam, because, we helped create it and in many cases subverted the will of the people of the Islamic world by installing and supporting brutal dictators.

 

[CaptainF]

General differnce of veiws. You are equating the war on drugs with the war on radical Islam. . . they are very different.

As for oil rich nations? Yea, you're right, but none of those above mentioned had direct US intervention and world eyes on them. Iraq did have a decent higher education system, and its people were fairly literate. It is because of this that it has such great potential.

The potential is still there for Russia, though it seems to be regressing.

Not that different. They are both self defeating wars against an intangible concept.

I still don't see why the U.S. has the magic touch that makes nations rich and terrorists piss themselves. You sound rather machiavellian in that you propose invading a country with a good education system, because it helps their potential? How does that work? We destroy the thing that gets them that potential in the first place? Not really. I doubt that many smart Iraqis would want to stay in the global pothole of a country that Iraq has become.

 

[Tulkas12]

Mankinds interests...wow. What does mankind get out of this friend? There is so much wrong with the world that we alone can NEVER squash it all. North Koreans building bombs, shall we invade them too? The day we do that is the day we aren't a superpower any longer. Would that be good for mankind?

What really gets me off is that you say "we" (i'm guessing the United States) must tame the world? I'm sorry, but the parallels that statement can draw with Imperialist thought are too obvious. We are not sacrosanct good pal. Slaves, Native Americans, other such stuff doesn't exactly make us spotless. Why should we assume that we are better than the rest of the world and thus able to wave our giant phallic shaped sword wherever we please?

And now you say that the populace of the US is uneducated because they don't like the war. Well thats good, I guess you are a faithful guy to trust a nation of uneducated brutes to free a country from the shackles of whatever it was. Also interesting that you say that this is human nature, as if to suggest you are above it.

Sigh, same stuff over and over again.

In each case it is a good idea to take the situation as a whole into account. I won't go into why one wouldn't iunvade N.Korea, there are plenty of reasons why.

We refers to all of us, man. It is certainly Globalist in nature, by no means is it Imperialist, they are of the same strain though. It is my opinion that we (mankind) cannot afford to wait for itself to eradicate all life from earth. Acting as if I'm ignorant of the US's past has nothing to do with this at all, since we doesn't refer to just the US. We are all guilty of a hell of alot if we go back far enough. Our since of brotherhood as a species is what needs to be spread, not neccasarily our system of government.

I am saying it is falling into the trap of not being able to see the forest for the trees. This is totally natural, and is not a fault, if I insinuated ignorance, it is only because it is an aspect of being blind. I am certainly not above it, but I do strive to be above it. We need logic here not crying, whining, rhetoric, or hate. I am mearly one man trying to help others see why some of us believe in this conflict.

 

[Tulkas12]

And all that we had to trade for it was many of our freedoms and privacy, cheaper energy, thousands of lives, a 150% increase in the cost of housing, a nearly 50% increase in the cost of food, and many other things.

These percentages are totally fabricated.
Your freedoms and privacies have not been infringed.

Of course, we only had to fight fundamentalist Islam, because, we helped create it and in many cases subverted the will of the people of the Islamic world by installing and supporting brutal dictators.

Yes we did help create it by fighting the spread of communism in the area. This is in generally true though exaggerated by the left.

 

[Tulkas12]

Not that different. They are both self defeating wars against an intangible concept.

I still don't see why the U.S. has the magic touch that makes nations rich and terrorists piss themselves. You sound rather machiavellian in that you propose invading a country with a good education system, because it helps their potential? How does that work? We destroy the thing that gets them that potential in the first place? Not really. I doubt that many smart Iraqis would want to stay in the global pothole of a country that Iraq has become.

Thats not why I said I support the invasion, my support is for a much more broad reason. Again they are very different, while both are intangible, one seems to be a natural tendency of man, the other is an extreme response that is not natural at all.

The thought process is kind of machiavellian in nature I geuss, though it doesn't fit right in the belief I have. This is about stopping the process of self-destruction by slowly confronting our issues in regions that are potentially very dangerous.

 

[CaptainF]

Sigh, same stuff over and over again.

In each case it is a good idea to take the situation as a whole into account. I won't go into why one wouldn't iunvade N.Korea, there are plenty of reasons why.

We refers to all of us, man. It is certainly Globalist in nature, by no means is it Imperialist, they are of the same strain though. It is my opinion that we (mankind) cannot afford to wait for itself to eradicate all life from earth. Acting as if I'm ignorant of the US's past has nothing to do with this at all, since we doesn't refer to just the US. We are all guilty of a hell of alot if we go back far enough. Our since of brotherhood as a species is what needs to be spread, not neccasarily our system of government.

I am saying it is falling into the trap of not being able to see the forest for the trees. This is totally natural, and is not a fault, if I insinuated ignorance, it is only because it is an aspect of being blind. I am certainly not above it, but I do strive to be above it. We need logic here not crying, whining, rhetoric, or hate. I am mearly one man trying to help others see why some of us believe in this conflict.

Why should we invade North Korea? Lots of reasons why, but lots of dollars why not.

Hold up, we cannot wait for humanity to eliminate itself, so what do you propose doing? Eliminating it now? We've always been on the teetering edge of collapse, probably more so when we were a bunch of nascent hominids scraggling around Eastern Africa some eons ago. Throwing up a facade of brotherhood, at the barrel end of a gun is no way to put the brakes on extinction.

Well, kudos for trying, but i've heard most every argument, not just from you, and they fail to convince. Most of them don't even involve logic anyway.

 

[CaptainF]

Thats not why I said I support the invasion, my support is for a much more broad reason. Again they are very different, while both are intangible, one seems to be a natural tendency of man, the other is an extreme response that is not natural at all.

The thought process is kind of machiavellian in nature I geuss, though it doesn't fit right in the belief I have. This is about stopping the process of self-destruction by slowly confronting our issues in regions that are potentially very dangerous.

Suffice it to say, whatever a man does is whats natural. Reacting to our actions in the middle east by way of perverted religious dogma, natural.

 

[Tulkas12]

Why should we invade North Korea? Lots of reasons why, but lots of dollars why not.

Hold up, we cannot wait for humanity to eliminate itself, so what do you propose doing? Eliminating it now? We've always been on the teetering edge of collapse, probably more so when we were a bunch of nascent hominids scraggling around Eastern Africa some eons ago. Throwing up a facade of brotherhood, at the barrel end of a gun is no way to put the brakes on extinction.

Well, kudos for trying, but i've heard most every argument, not just from you, and they fail to convince. Most of them don't even involve logic anyway.

They fail to convince because you are cynical. You said you were young, I'd attribute your cyncism to that. I was once a cynic. This is logical. Individual cases defy logic, because of the nature of war. Logically we should never get to the point were violence happens. The overall point is very logical, we have bombs that can lay waste to 30 miles diameters. We need to stop pointless fighting that could lead to the use of such weapons. If fighting in the immediacy is what it takes so be it. It has become apparent in the last decade we will be left no choice. Its fight now, or fght later. Do you even know Osama's goals?

 

[Tulkas12]

Suffice it to say, whatever a man does is whats natural. Reacting to our actions in the middle east by way of perverted religious dogma, natural.

You are playing semantics with the definition of natural. Nice. You knew what I'm getting at didn't you? Or did your need to destroy me over-ride your want to think about what was posted?

You don't agree with me, this is fine. You think I'm Machiavellian, fine. You think I'm crazy, fine. You are not the first nor will you be the last.

Btw, one is dangerous to an individual, the other is dangerous to all man-kind. Both could be ended. One would take an iron-fist to eradicate to the point of it not having any ill effects(drugs), the other only need to be calmed to the point that it doesn't have any ill-effects(radicalism). There are many radical christians, yet they do not pose an issue to all of mankind.

 

[CaptainF]

They fail to convince because you are cynical. You said you were young, I'd attribute your cyncism to that. I was once a cynic. This is logical. Individual cases defy logic, because of the nature of war. Logically we should never get to the point were violence happens. The overall point is very logical, we have bombs that can lay waste to 30 miles diameters. We need to stop pointless fighting that could lead to the use of such weapons. If fighting in the immediacy is what it takes so be it. It has become apparent in the last decade we will be left no choice. Its fight now, or fght later. Do you even know Osama's goals?

You are contradicting yourself. According to you, invading a country is logical, but logically things like this should never come to violence?

Yes, i'm young, and yes, i'm probably a bit cynical. But i'm not stupid, and I don't need a condescending attitude to tell me otherwise. I probably have a lot of growing up to do, and who knows? I may well totally change my view over the years. But for now, i'm young, virile, crazy, and knowledgeable of Osama's goals. Like anyone else with half a cortex.