It should be "TURKS", not OTTOMANS

[Swedishguy]

Wotcha, it's getting quite off-topic here!

 

[Abegweit]

And why does America need to 'belligerent' towards the North if it's a peaceful country? Is America 'belligerent' towards China now? And there's no oil in North Korea, AFAIK.

The reason why "America" needs to be belligerent against the north is because without enemies they would have no reason to maintain the enormous armed forces they do. When the Berlin Wall fell, NATO should have been dismantled. Instead it was expanded, which proves that its purpose never was containment of communism. And it is not "America" which needs to be belligerent but rather some powerful special interest groups within the country. Arms suppliers are the obvious example but there many other groups which are part of the unholy alliance. One of the most important groups is the media, as William Randolph Hurst candidly admitted. Rush Limbaugh and a host of others continue this fine tradition. Unsurprisingly, the new member countries of NATO are obliged to spend at least 2% of GDP on arms. Guess where they get them?

As for China, when these groups went flailing around looking for a new enemy after the Wall fell, the "Chicoms" were certainly considered as a possibility. Eventually they settled on the Islamofascists instead. The North Koreans, of course, are just a tiny distraction but they did make manage to make the Axis of Evil list, as if they had the slightest thing in common with Iran and Iraq.

 

[Swedishguy]

Please, nothing more talk about worldcountries, it's derailing the thread!

 

[eric_]

Oh, by the way, aelf, I pretty much reject the concepts of left and right and liberal and conservative in American politics anymore. All have been abused and misused to the point of rendering them meaningless.

So what do you mean when you say you are on the left? Do you mean that in the more traditional sense of a having a socialist leaning?

 

[Swedishguy]

Oh, by the way, aelf, I pretty much reject the concepts of left and right and liberal and conservative in American politics anymore. All have been abused and misused to the point of rendering them meaningless.

So what do you mean when you say you are on the left? Do you mean that in the more traditional sense of a having a socialist leaning?

I want to say one phrase to you: Out with Bush!

Everybody else is off-topic.

 

[eric_]

The North Koreans, of course, are just a tiny distraction but they did make manage to make the Axis of Evil list, as if they had the slightest thing in common with Iran and Iraq.

Heh...true enough.

Our position relative to North Korea definitely seems to more of a carryover from days past than anything else.

Of course, if the Japanese or Chinese economy tanks due to North Korean aggression or threats of aggression, that has huge implications for us.

 

[eric_]

I want to say one phrase to you: Out with Bush!

Too bad you don't live here to help out with that, eh?

 

[Swedishguy]

Too bad I'm only 14, to...

 

[Wodan]

How would you propose dealing with those who are ideologically opposed to you and don't share your belief in nonviolence? Either on an individual/personal level or on a national level? Just curious.

On a personal level, I opt out. I refuse, as far as I can, to take part in the violence. I engage in voluntary relationships with my grocer, my neighbour, my family, my friends. I refuse to engage in politics. Take the Amish as an inspiration for your conduct.

The Amish have a wonderful society which works well in a rural setting with other Amish people. In cities and/or with people of other beliefs, it would be an utter failure.

On a national level, dismantle the armies. They serve no purpose other than to create enemies.

If we could unilaterally dismantle every nation's armies, also cut back militarism in societies which encourage personal ownership of weapons (to prevent a possible citizen army from forming), and also somehow prevent some power (national, commercial, or private) from secretly building arms, then this might work. Unfortunately, I don't think we can do any of those things.

In addition, it's a valid question whether the threat or application of force is a reasonable diplomatic tool. If a dictator is systematically committing genocide on his own people, is another nation justified in invading to stop the atrocities?

Nuclear weapons are useful, as a deterrent.

Interesting. Would you consider a stockpile of other WMDs as a useful deterrent against WMD attacks? Why or why not?

Again, my apologies for picking your brain. Just curious, more than anything else. I promise I won't pounce on anything you say.

It's interesting to note that the only country that avoided the civil strife in Central America in the 70s and 80s was Costa Rica. It doesn't have an army.

What price did they pay for that? I honestly don't know... have never studied that time/locale.

I would, however, find it extremely hard to believe if all the other countries were raping and pillaging each other left and right, but just over the border Costa Rica magically went on their merry way, bright economy shining, and all the people living the high life on the tropical beaches, margaritas in hand. Perhaps they weren't invaded, but certainly there would have been unrest and/or economic implications they had to suffer.

In fact, no nation needs an army any more, other than those which are attacked by major powers, primarily the US, Russia and Israel (as well as nations which the US manages to bully or bribe into joining its wars). It's curious that you don't hear aelf saying that we should "help" Lebanon, Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others. Instead we are supposed to help places which don't need help like Germany, South Korea and Japan. Helping really means meddling in their affairs and creating enemies for them.

Can't speak for aelf. I already said what I think is the reason for bases in Germany, S. Korea, and Japan.

As for Afganistan and Iraq, frankly, I'm just as happy with the way things have turned out. I think the US should have made our point and then gotten out by now, but I realize that's easier said then done.

The reason, of course, is that the purpose of an army is to wage wars. If the American army is to exist, Americans have to find enemies. And they do. As Mad Maddy Albright famously said to Colin Powell, "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it"? Indeed. What is the point? If you stopped using it, people might start preferring butter to guns and life to death.

Clinton largely disbanded the military and installed quite a few civil programs. Once the bureaucrats are in place, it takes a herculean effort to redirect that money and resources, no matter how ineffective or useless the program turns out to be. The superb military you speak of doesn't really exist. You do realize that most of the troops in Iraq, Afganistan, and South Korea are Reserves or Guard units, right?

The purpose of nukes is to prevent other people from using them. They fundamentally are a defensive weapon. Other than that, none of the western countries especially the US need armies. The American founding fathers were right - the purpose of a standing army is tyranny.

I read a couple of books a few years back in an alternate history setting where the South won the US civil war. They ended up in a society where personal arms were carried by everyone, even grandmothers going to the market. There were no police (except private investigators and commercial security guards) and no armies. The author posited that no other nation would ever invade because they would be slaughtered by the civilians because the number of guns per capita was a half dozen or more.

Of course that goes against any kind of a personal/individual pacifism creed, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless.

If a new Hitler appeared, there would be time enough to re-arm.

I have to disagree there. It's far to easy to manufacture and hide extremely powerful weapons.

Now the South Koreans would be crazy to disarm. But I suspect that, without American belligerence against the north, the dynamic would change quite rapidly.

Again, I have to disagree. The S. Korean army outnumbers the north, was stated earlier. If the US military wasn't there, the south would still outnumber the north. It would be implausible for the north to reduce their military.

The biggest issues I--and many other Americans--have with Iraq are:
-The asinine suggestion that it has ANYTHING to do with terrorism. If Bush had said, "we're invading Iraq for strategic purposes, including securing a friendly, oil-rich ally, and setting up staging grounds on both sides of Iran," I still would have disagreed with the wisdom of the Iraq war, but I would have a LOT more respect for the man.

Frankly, I like the response, "Mess with the US in a big way (the way Bin Laden and Afganistan did), we'll invade you AND the country next to you!"

Half facetious, but there's probably some truth there.

There was little sectarian violence in Iraq until the Americans intervened.

Military dictatorship has a firm grasp on the people, like-minded and not. America removes the leadership and does its best to help police the country.

The like-minded citizens (the militarists or fanatics) commit acts of terrorism. They were doing that before, just in other countries than their own.

The not-like minded citizens (of all sorts) include those which are capable of violence but previously were suppressed. Some of them were opposed to the militarist leadership, some were a 3rd party. The opposed will now be committing "sectarian violence" against the like-minded citizens. The 3rd party citizens will be committing violence against both the like-minded and against the American presence.

Frankly I disagree with the thought that dismantling the Hussein presence caused increased violence from the citizenry. Some was there before, just against people in other countries, so this is improved. Some is the result of and a reaction to previous suppression, and should be laid at the feet of the previous leadership (your secret police or military unjustly commit acts against my family, the only thing preventing me from going after you is the continued presence of the secret police -- remove them, and it all changes).

Wodan

 

[Swedishguy]

You like to quote Abegweit, do you?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

@Wodan

You bring up extremely good and well based points. However, in response to your thoughts on Iraq: whether or not good may come from this conflict (and it very well may in years down the road), it was initiated in an illegal manner and against any sort of "democratic" style of doctrine. The sequence of reasoning for the invasion:

1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (although almost all indicators we had said this was incorrect), so in we go!

2. Since 1. is false; now, we went after Saddam's regime because he supported Al Qaida and therefore was indirectly responsible for 9/11! (still no evidence of this, but administration still ran with it)

3. Since 2. is all but completely proven false; we are now in Iraq because of the horrible dictatorship Saddam imposed on his people. Democracy is brought to the Middle East!

4. And finally, we are staying here because the "war on terror" lol is drawn away from US soil and kept contained in Iraq! (YAY safety of the American Citizens! BOO safety of anyone else!)

Just my thoughts...

Oh, and does anyone believe the media is correctly using the word "insurgency" for a people who originated in the very country they are so-called "insurging" in?

EDIT: Post 420

 

[eric_]

Military dictatorship has a firm grasp on the people, like-minded and not. America removes the leadership and does its best to help police the country.

Is that what our generals mean when they say, "Rumsfeld didn't give us nearly enough resources of every kind to get the job done."

We've totally screwed the Iraqi people.

"Frankly, I like the response, "Mess with the US in a big way (the way Bin Laden and Afganistan did), we'll invade you AND the country next to you!"

I'm a touch more cynical. I don't think Iraq had a single little thing to do with bin Laden or Afghanistan, other than rhetorically. Not only that, I think the message sent by invading Iraq is "we're so shortsighted and greedy that we'll inadvertantly bolster bin Laden's recruiting efforts via misguided, failing, aggressive polices."

 

[aelf]

The reason why "America" needs to be belligerent against the north is because without enemies they would have no reason to maintain the enormous armed forces they do.... As for China, when these groups went flailing around looking for a new enemy after the Wall fell, the "Chicoms" were certainly considered as a possibility. Eventually they settled on the Islamofascists instead.

That is just conspiracy theory today. Maybe a few centuries from now, people will know the truth. As it is you can't establish these as facts. The basis of my saying that this might not be true is the fact that some countries have sizeable standing armies despite not having real enemies they need to identify and fight against. And I believe the US wants to cut down the size of its armed forces in favour of more mobile and specialised forces. How does that figure in your worldview?

When the Berlin Wall fell, NATO should have been dismantled. Instead it was expanded, which proves that its purpose never was containment of communism.

Have you ever thought that it was to contain communism but now has a different purpose? And a military alliance is another way to promote good relations and faith between member countries in a world that cannot simply abolish armed forces.

And it is not "America" which needs to be belligerent but rather some powerful special interest groups within the country. Arms suppliers are the obvious example but there many other groups which are part of the unholy alliance. One of the most important groups is the media, as William Randolph Hurst candidly admitted. Rush Limbaugh and a host of others continue this fine tradition. Unsurprisingly, the new member countries of NATO are obliged to spend at least 2% of GDP on arms. Guess where they get them?

I did say that American democracy is partly self-serving. And I kept reiterating that the world is far from perfect. But this does not disprove that a policy of involvement is better than a policy of disengagement. There are things worth defending in this world, and to defend them you must have something concrete like arms.

Look, this debate is good, but it's obviously not going anywhere because we are educated people with strong and different opinions. So there must be a point where it stops, or we're just going to exhaust ourselves throwing facts and arguments at each other.

To summarise my views, I'm not trying to justify all that whatever country has done. I do think that there are many less-than-noble people/parties who are/were in power everywhere. However, I believe that there are things worth defending and fighting for (your family and values are, a bottle of alcohol is not). You may say, correctly or not, that everything that seemed to have been done according to this view so far has been wrong. Nonetheless, withdrawing from everything and choosing to let events in the world take their course in the belief that things would be better will not help. I do not support the US as a rule. I support an organisation like the UN and what it stands for, even if it means intervening in others' affairs to ensure peace. And the UN cannot ensure peace without arms.

Anyway, all our talk will not prove anything. The only way to really prove that one way of thinking is better than the other is if each us put our different set of beliefs into practice on the world stage and see which contributes more to the welfare of humanity. In theory, pacificism is better. But if it fails when it comes to actual implementation, then it cannot be better in the real world.

 

[eric_]

blitz, insurgent is the correct terminology for a native peoples who are fighting against an occupying force.

3. Since 2. is all but completely proven false; we are now in Iraq because of the horrible dictatorship Saddam imposed on his people. Democracy is brought to the Middle East!

Unless, of course, you happen to vote in people we don't like.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^Oh, okay on the insurgent thing... the word sounds like someone surging in (like the occupying force). Thanks for the info, so i don't sound so dumb in the future

 

[Hitti-Litti]

This should be moved to OT. Thread title is about Turks and you are arguing about NATO and US army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Man, who lighted this fire?

 

[eric_]

You're not wrong conceptually, though, blitz. The practice of labelling Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" was certainly dubious, imo.

 

[aelf]

So what do you mean when you say you are on the left? Do you mean that in the more traditional sense of a having a socialist leaning?

If you want to classify my political leaning, I would definitely be a moderate.

 

[eric_]

I was just confused by your answer when I said, "so where are you from, aelf."

You said, "my location is on the left" or something.

I have no need to classify your political leaning. In fact, I try to do that as little as possible. I find it precludes open discussion.

 

[aelf]

I was just confused by your answer when I said, "so where are you from, aelf."

You said, "my location is on the left" or something.

I have no need to classify your political leaning. In fact, I try to do that as little as possible. I find it precludes open discussion.

No, as in where I come from is stated on the left. I don't want to be too explicit in case it comes up in a search when the authorities over here try to check on who has been saying anything about the political situation here It has actually happened to other people before.