It wasn't only in Haditha...

[Tulkas12]

I just don't see why we need to try to influence so much of the world. Globalization is not good, and neither is us forcing ourselves on other countries.

Do you understand what a hydrogen bomb is? I think its naive to think that some these people are not capable of ending the world. Bush is the least of my concerns regarding this, though hard-core lefties believe otherwise. Globalization is inevitable, we just have to try to make the adjustments as comfortable as possible and so far, people haven't handled it well. A discussion against globalization (though arguments can be made as to how it should be conducted) is illogical and leads to man living in the stone age again. Cave dwelling is not suitable for a species that has so much potential. Racism isn't suitable for such a species either, I hope mankind can get beyond its self-placed obsticles.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Do you understand what a hydrogen bomb is? I think its naive to think that some these people are not capable of ending the world. Bush is the least of my concerns regarding this, though hard-core lefties believe otherwise. Globalization is inevitable, we just have to try to make the adjustments as comfortable as possible and so far, people haven't handled it well. A discussion against globalization (though arguments can be made as to how it should be conducted) is illogical and leads to man living in the stone age again. Cave dwelling is not suitable for a species that has so much potential. Racism isn't suitable for such a species either, I hope mankind can get beyond its self-placed obsticles.

Iraq never had a hydrogen bomb, nor had they attacked the US. Also, anti-globalization doesn't mean return to the stone age, I just think it is a better way to live. And racism isn't suitable, like you said.

 

[Tulkas12]

No, they didn't. Is it so far fetched that countries in the area could develop them. Is it not our responsibilty that as such is possible that we try to guide them in a way that avoids wars of great heroism?

Offer something different than globalism. I still think anything else is naive and sets us up for more massive and ugly wars that have a potential to end all life on earth.

 

[tomsnowman123]

No, they didn't. Is it so far fetched that countries in the area could develop them. Is it not our responsibilty that as such is possible that we try to guide them in a way that avoids wars of great heroism?

So we try to stop war by... going to war? We shouldn't have any responsibility to do anything with a country unless our lives are in direct danger, which they weren't from Iraq. Not only that, but we ignored the UN, and didn't try any negotiating with Iraq, besides give in or we will bomb you. People knew a war was coming beforehand. We jumped the gun to go to war, for causes that are not justified.

 

[Tulkas12]

So we try to stop war by... going to war? We shouldn't have any responsibility to do anything with a country unless our lives are in direct danger, which they weren't from Iraq. Not only that, but we ignored the UN, and didn't try any negotiating with Iraq, besides give in or we will bomb you. People knew a war was coming beforehand. We jumped the gun to go to war, for causes that are not justified.

When I get off work I'll find the UN resolution that ordered the war. We were justified, but this is one we'll have to agree to disagree on though. Our war is alot less bloody then what very well might be if we abstain.

The US is a very globalist country, that shipped sailed along time ago. The west is also very international, and again I do not understand what other options there might be that would get the species to grow up other than globalism.

 

[Tulkas12]

I do want to say that I personally agree with alot of your values for mankind, not all of em but alot. I just don't think that imagining issues are going to go away does the trick. I am a globalist to an extent though, mainly because I see no other way.

Off to work was enjoyable to have civil disussion, thnx townsman.

 

[tomsnowman123]

When I get off work I'll find the UN resolution that ordered the war. We were justified, but this is one we'll have to agree to disagree on though. Our war is alot less bloody then what very well might be if we abstain.

The US is a very globalist country, that shipped sailed along time ago. The west is also very international, and again I do not understand what other options there might be that would get the species to grow up other than globalism.

After failed attempts to get a United Nations Security Council resolution supporting military action against Iraq, the United States unilaterally delivered an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, demanding that Saddam Hussein leave Iraq within 48 hours. On March 18, 2003 the U.S. announced the formation of what it dubbed the "Coalition of the willing". On March 20, 2003 the 2003 Invasion of Iraq began, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, and some partners.

Source

I'm not sure that this war is preventing loss of life, but we will never know.

As for globalism, well, that's kind of a different subject, but I do support eco-villages.

 

[betazed]

Ironically, the Iraq and Afghan campaigns are among the most 'progressive' and 'liberal' ventures the US has ever embarked upon. America has abolished a medieval theocracy and a modern dictatorship, and is trying to replace them with societies which respect the rule of law and individual rights. What's more, the underlying assumption of these ventures is that all men, everywhere, have the ability to form functional, free societies - and that they should be helped to do so whenever possible. This is quintessential liberalism.

Hate repeating a cliché but it is so pertinent that I will anyway. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

Also, are you absolutely sure that the underlying assumption that you mention - "all men, everywhere, have the ability to form functional, free societies" - is correct? After all it took mankind all of its history to form even a semblance of free liberal societies. We have only been able to do something like that in the past century (and only in some places in the world). So why are we so sure that a morass of Iraqis (all of who do not even consider themselves Iraqis) with different ideologies and goals and ambitions will suddenly be able to create a free liberal society? Why are we so sure that they have suddenly caught up with western liberal values? This is even more suspicious because sure as hell a billion plus Chinese and more Africans have not caught up yet. What makes Iraqis different from Chinese?

At best, you can say, that this is a grand experiment (which has never been done and historically there is no precedent that it will succeed). I wish all the good luck to the experimenters but I hope you will understand if I am skeptical of their chances of success and do not hold my breath till they succeed.

 

[Verbose]

Ironically, the Iraq and Afghan campaigns are among the most 'progressive' and 'liberal' ventures the US has ever embarked upon. America has abolished a medieval theocracy and a modern dictatorship, and is trying to replace them with societies which respect the rule of law and individual rights. What's more, the underlying assumption of these ventures is that all men, everywhere, have the ability to form functional, free societies - and that they should be helped to do so whenever possible. This is quintessential liberalism.

You know, in that statement you are extremely close to reformulating things like the French "mission civilisatrice", which justified French imperialism. Or the the kind of ideas that provided the incentive for first the armies of revolutionary France, later Napoleon, to go on the offensive.

Try telling the Spanish, the inventors of guerilla warfare, that the Imperial Eagles were there for their benefit. They might agree the ideals propounded might be fine and dandy, but by all means the French should first vacate their country before they would deliberate on the adoption of said ideals.

It simply isn't a matter either US invades, or no liberalisation.

 

[RedWolf]

It looks as if you're saying that if dead US soldiers is the only thing that will keep the US from going further down the path it has chosen, then so be it.

We can pity the soldiers and their families, acknowledge that they weren't responsible, at fault or in any way bad people, but since it's the US that holds the Stop and Go button here anyway, neither is that our concern as non-US citizens.

Yes, I'd say that accurately sums up my opinion...

 

[RedWolf]

Ironically, the Iraq and Afghan campaigns are among the most 'progressive' and 'liberal' ventures the US has ever embarked upon.

Bashing soemone over the head with a big stick in order to force them to do what you want will never be considered progressive or liberal.

RedWolf, when you hope for the defeat of American forces, you are - by definition - hoping that the other side wins. And the other side, in this case, is made up of tyrants, criminals, and Islamist headchoppers. Let's be crystal clear about this. You're not saying you want the Iraqi government to take over security duties as soon as possible, which would allow the Americans to leave with the safety of Iraq ensured. That would be a progressive attitude, and one I share. You're saying you want America and her allies to lose. You want them driven out before the new Iraqi state can defend itself. You're hoping Iraq will be delivered into decades of sectarian violence and slaughter.

I don't think 'barbarity' quite does your position justice.

The problem of course is the lose lose situation your war has put Iraq in. At this point there are two options - either a anarchy and war (not much different from the current state really) OR a puppet regime installed and defended by the American government in order to ensure western access to middle eastern oil reserves.

I wish that after Saddam was toppled the Iraqi people had of indeed welcomed your forces with flowers... and that you hadn't of imprisoned and tortured innocent Iraqis, or dopped bombs on them or murdered civilians or any number of things that were done to erode any goodwill you might of had... But that didn't happen.. as we predicted. Little good can come out of occupation... this war was no exception. Young kids far from home, dealing with a culture and society they meither ared about or understood... Add to that the instability of the middle east and this result was entirely predictable.

I always laugh when I hear about the "democracy" in afghanistan... It's been over 4 years, yet Karzai - the man chosen by the American government is STILL in power... How is THAT democratic? Smells more like a puppet governent to me.

 

[Tulkas12]

Red Wolf I can feel your seething hatred as you type. Has it occured that maybe if we stick it out with them we might help the whole area out? It might be possible to prevent excess loss of life in situation that was inevitable. Before this war, which would have come at saddams death (and been worse w/o the US there), they had the option of a terrible dictatorship or brutal civil war. There are many Iraqis that are happy that it was done, they hate war, its hard not to hate continous conflict. I would be shocked if they were happy with us atm, we have let this slip out of cotrol because of PC crap.

For every opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion.

 

[RedWolf]

Red Wolf I can feel your seething hatred as you type. Has it occured that maybe if we stick it out with them we might help the whole area out? It might be possible to prevent excess loss of life in situation that was inevitable. Before this war, which would have come at saddams death (and been worse w/o the US there), they had the option of a terrible dictatorship or brutal civil war. There are many Iraqis that are happy that it was done, they hate war, its hard not to hate continous conflict. I would be shocked if they were happy with us atm, we have let this slip out of cotrol because of PC crap.

For every opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion.

You're very perceptive about the hatred. I despise this war and the people that initiated it. (I equally despised Saddam)

I have considered what you ask but simply don't believe it will ever happen. Feedom rarely comes at the barrel of a gun. And even if it does are the people any better off? Does the end justify the means?

 

[Ellipsis Jones]

Also, are you absolutely sure that the underlying assumption that you mention - "all men, everywhere, have the ability to form functional, free societies" - is correct?

No, I'm not sure it's correct. It's definitely up for debate, and your points are all well-taken. I just found it odd that RedWolf would use mocking scare quotes when applying the term "progressive" to this war, because the ideas that animate it - right or wrong - are progressive ideas. It's a project that liberal-minded people should be able to get behind, and many of them do. A great many others have principled objections to it. And then there are those - like RedWolf, if his recent posts are anything to judge by - who lay principle and morality aside while they salivate over the prospect of an American defeat.

At best, you can say, that this is a grand experiment (which has never been done and historically there is no precedent that it will succeed). I wish all the good luck to the experimenters but I hope you will understand if I am skeptical of their chances of success and do not hold my breath till they succeed.

We're basically in agreement here. I think I'm a bit more optimistic about the outcome than you are, but I acknowledge the serious obstacles.

I always laugh when I hear about the "democracy" in afghanistan... It's been over 4 years, yet Karzai - the man chosen by the American government is STILL in power... How is THAT democratic? Smells more like a puppet governent to me.

Oh, quite right. He was merely elected by the citizens of Afghanistan in 2004 - how was THAT democratic? Remember when President Clinton was STILL in power after more than four years? Smelled like a puppet government, it did.

Seriously, what are you on about here?

The problem of course is the lose lose situation your war has put Iraq in. At this point there are two options - either a anarchy and war (not much different from the current state really) OR a puppet regime installed and defended by the American government in order to ensure western access to middle eastern oil reserves.

It says a lot that those are the only two outcomes you can envision. An American loss on the one hand, which you would exult in. And an American supported banana republic on the other, which would be awful, but which would have the undeniable appeal of proving you right! How about a working government freely elected by the Iraqi people? Is that not even a possibility?

Tell her that she voted for a puppet regime:

Tell these gentlemen that the government they elected was actually chosen by the Americans:

What twaddle. If the American government had wanted nothing more than access to oil, it would have joined most of Europe in pressing for an end to sanctions on Saddam's regime and a normalized trading relationship with Iraq. Here is what it would not do:

1) Move thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars worth of material halfway around the world.
2) Mount an invasion that was believed would be very costly in blood and treasure.
3) Do so against an opponent like Saddam, who had a history of destroying oil wells in territory he was about to lose.
4) Spend billions of dollars on reconstruction efforts totally unrelated to the oil industry, solely to better the lives of Iraqis.

But whether or not the invasion was justified is irrelevant now. It happened, and there are bigger issues at stake here than your image of America as the imperialist bully. The question is, what do we want to happen next?

Normal people - including all of the anti-war folks I know - hope for the best. They want to see Iraq take over responsibility for its own security as soon as possible. They want to see the American military leave behind a stable country that is significantly more free and peaceable than it was in April 2003.

You, by your own stunning admission, wish for the opposite: ignominious defeat for America and her allies, and years of blood and fire for the Iraqi people.

Congratulations. You've aligned yourself with the Mujahideen Shura Council.

 

[RedWolf]

And then there are those - like RedWolf, if his recent posts are anything to judge by - who lay principle and morality aside while they salivate over the prospect of an American defeat.

Oh, quite right. He was merely elected by the citizens of Afghanistan in 2004 - how was THAT democratic? Remember when President Clinton was STILL in power after more than four years? Smelled like a puppet government, it did.

It says a lot that those are the only two outcomes you can envision. An American loss on the one hand, which you would exult in. And an American supported banana republic on the other, which would be awful, but which would have the undeniable appeal of proving you right! How about a working government freely elected by the Iraqi people? Is that not even a possibility?

But whether or not the invasion was justified is irrelevant now. It happened, and there are bigger issues at stake here than your image of America as the imperialist bully. The question is, what do we want to happen next?

Normal people - including all of the anti-war folks I know - hope for the best. They want to see Iraq take over responsibility for its own security as soon as possible. They want to see the American military leave behind a stable country that is significantly more free and peaceable than it was in April 2003.

You, by your own stunning admission, wish for the opposite: ignominious defeat for America and her allies, and years of blood and fire for the Iraqi people.

Congratulations. You've aligned yourself with the Mujahideen Shura Council.

Look - I would love nothing more then for the Iraqis to form a free, democratic working society. I truly would - but I don't want a puppet government and I don't want some some third world tin-pot dictatorship (which by the accounts I've read this is exactly what Afghanistan is right now - Until the world put the screws to them they were about to execute a man for converting to Christianity... THATS some freedom indeed)

I hate this war because it was one of opportunity, sold to the public via lies (which few now believe) and propoganda (as all wars are). Nxet time the US government wants to liberate a country.. try selling it to your own people as that - instead of fear mongering and flag waving. See how many buy it.

To believe that a government would spend billions on a war solely for the benefit of "liberating" some people thousands of miles away is naive beyond belief.

I don't believe you can deliver freedom at the barrel of the gun - ignoring the cultural and religious aspects of the society you're invading. I hate the death, the carnage and the absolute callousness I see from the administration and military towards Iraqi civilian deaths. There are probably individual Americans and even US troops who genuinely believe in the "freedom" of Iraqi civilians but I have trouble believing that anybody in power actually cares one iota.

Furthermore I don't believe the end justifies the means - and certainly tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died due to this invasion and subsequent occupation because the liberators had no plan and no clue. This kind of heavy handed "remake the world in the wests image" cannot become the de-facto methodology of instituting political change around the world.

But what's freedom after all? Due to this "war on terror" we've pretty much given up on the concept anyway - both our countries are locking people up indefinitely without charge and without the ability to defend themselves in court or face their accusers... Only some of the most fundamental rights in a free society's legal system have been stomped on in the name of safety...

 

[blackheart]

I just don't see why we need to try to influence so much of the world. Globalization is not good, and neither is us forcing ourselves on other countries.

How is globalization not good, and how is isolationism any better?

Ironically, the Iraq and Afghan campaigns are among the most 'progressive' and 'liberal' ventures the US has ever embarked upon. America has abolished a medieval theocracy and a modern dictatorship, and is trying to replace them with societies which respect the rule of law and individual rights. What's more, the underlying assumption of these ventures is that all men, everywhere, have the ability to form functional, free societies - and that they should be helped to do so whenever possible. This is quintessential liberalism.

Let's cut the moral high ground crap, invading someone on the basis of enriching their lives and whatever is full of hot air. Iraq and Afghanistan's main purpose wasn't about spreading freedom and equality, that was just an afterthought.

 

[Panzeh]

The Middle Eastern culture is one of repression and intolerance. Killing some religious and political leaders there would shake things up and bring about the chaos necessary for freedom, but no one would ever consider that. Culture is not important to me, it might be important to them, but that's what makes them intolerant and repressive. They feel they have a 'culture' they must protect from 'outside ideas'. It's like the people in Saudi Arabia saying 'no, no, we have to reform a little at a time'. If a regime is powerful enough to enforce repressive laws then it is powerful enough to survive a little shaking up.

The problem is that Arab Muslims are cowards, afraid of a little change. They'd rather ban heathens from Mecca than allow everyone their equal rights.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling/cultural bashing. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Verbose]

The Middle Eastern culture is one of repression and intolerance. Killing some religious and political leaders there would shake things up and bring about the chaos necessary for freedom, but no one would ever consider that.

That's because the chances of chaos leading to freedom is infinatley smaller than the that of chaos leading to more chaos. Why doesn't the US invade Mexico and make it a bit more free by making it a bit more chaotic? The US may have kicked that habit in recent years, but they way you're reasoning, I can't see why it shouldn't take it up again.

Culture is not important to me, it might be important to them, but that's what makes them intolerant and repressive. They feel they have a 'culture' they must protect from 'outside ideas'.

Culture is important to you — your own. You just don't notice it because it's second neture to you. If things work different somewhere else you do take notice, and call it culture, making it something They (the aberrant, scary people) have, while We (who are Nice) are just being... normal.

Keep going in this direction and I think I can promise the US will have many years of fighting in the Mid East ahead of it, since if your views are indicative, you won't get what's going on.

As for cultures being intolerant and repressive, Western culture has a record a mile long. And large parts of it due precisley to ideas of somehow nature-given rights to order the wogs about for their own good..

 

[tomsnowman123]

How is globalization not good, and how is isolationism any better?

I think globalization as it stands right now is a bad thing, hopefully it can be changed. Globalization is a process that is controlled by the elite and their imperatives, unrestricted free trade benefits the rich, or those with financial leverage, at the expense of the poor. Globalization globalizes corporations and money, but not people and unions, it also creates credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises.

Just my opinion.

 

[Sidhe]

Forcing freedom on those unwilling to accept it is about as logical as forcing Nazzism on Russia I really don't understand why the world all has to sing to one tune, not in the way America tries to do it, it just has no commons sense inherent in it, and seems to be ultimately self defeating. People should come to a from of government of their own choice, imperialist reworking of countries has never worked and frankly will never work, the choice has to come from the inside not a mandate from a country that little understands the real cultural, religous and political attitudes of the whole region and sometimes it seems has little desire to do so.