#76523
08/01/2002 8:37 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
<no one, not you or anyone, can give any reasons in favour of violence other than 'Look what they've done!>
youth - I doubt you'll find that any that have posted on this thread are 'in favor' of violence. No one jumps up and down with glee thankful that there is bloodshed.
However, unless you are a person who would let someone bang down your door, hold a gun to your head, tell you that he is going to kill you, and you would do nothing to stop him but say 'gee, please don't', then you too would at some point choose violence as a means to save your life. That's what the argument here is - that violence is sometimes necessary.
<By resorting to, or sanctioning violence we all admit defeat.>
I'll admit defeat all day long before I let my family be hurt.
|
|
|
#76524
08/01/2002 10:08 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
THE LAST FLOWER
by James Thurber
World War XII, as everybody knows,
Brought about the collapse of civilization
Towns, cities, and villages disappeared from the earth
All the groves and forests were destroyed
And all the gardens
And all the works of art
Men, women, and children became lower than the lower animals
Discouraged and disillusioned, dogs deserted their
fallen masters
Emboldened by the pitiful condition of the former lords
of the earth, rabbits descended upon them
Books, paintings, and music disappeared from the earth,
and human beings just sat around, doing nothing
Years and years went by
Even the few generals who were left forgot what the
last war had decided
Boys and girls grew up to stare at each other blankly,
for love had passed from the earth
One day a young girl who had never seen a flower
chanced to come upon the last one in the world
She told the other human beings that the last flower
was dying
The only one who paid any attention to her was a young
man she found wandering about
Together the young man and the girl nurtured the flower
and it began to live again
One day a bee visited the flower, and a hummingbird,
Before long there were two flowers, and then four, and then
a great many
Groves and forests flourished again
The young girl began to take an interest in how she
looked
The young man discovered that touching the girl was
pleasurable
Love was reborn into the world
Their children grew up strong and healthy and learned
to laugh and run
Dogs came out of their exile
The young man discovered, by putting one stone upon
another, how to build a shelter
Pretty soon everybody was building shelters
Towns, cities, and villages sprang up
Song came back ino the world
And troubadours and jugglers
And tailors and cobblers
And painters and poets
And sculptors and wheelwrights
And soldiers
And lieutenants and captains
And generals and major generals
And liberators
Some people went one place to live, and some another,
Before long, those who went to live in the valleys
wished they had gone to live in the hills
And those who went to live in the hills wished they had
gone to live in the valleys
The liberators, under the guidance of God, set fire
to the discontent
So presently the world was at war again
This time the destruction was so complete...
That nothing at all was left in the world
Except one man
And one woman
And one flower
(c) 1939 by James Thurber, The Last Flower, A Parable in Pictures; also A Thurber Carnival, book and play
|
|
|
#76525
08/01/2002 10:14 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
Repeated talk alters the substantive threshold in the talkers' minds: as you listen, positions you would never think of adopting become comprehensible to you; the process of reacting to what is said reveals your own assumptions to you
Excellent and timely article, Helen.
Nice one.
|
|
|
#76526
08/01/2002 11:23 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
sometimes, violence might be the best choice you make.. there might be times when countering violence with violence is the choice that you make.. but all to often, i think, the reactions is visceral, and not thought out... and we leave ourselves at the mercy of others...we let their behavior, their violence, provoke a violent response in us.. we let them control our behavior.
Hear, hear.
I'd like to point out to the hawks that our favourite Trojan is not saying violence should always be rejected regardless of context. She's just pointing out that it's a dangerous game that plays right into the hands of an intelligent enemy, and that often owes more to strength of feeling than depth of consideration.
I agree with her strongly on all counts.
|
|
|
#76527
08/06/2002 8:00 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Some of you will know my interest in political economy. The discussion here is of two opposing political doctrines – vengeance (in the guise of “punishment”, i.e. the war on terror, in itself an oxymoron of the first water), and laissez-faire (this too shall pass, just keep yer hair on and yer head down).
The fact is that the world will not side with America’s “next step” in its plan to “crush” terrorism. Tony Blair has made it plain through King Abdullah of Jordan that he completely disagrees with any attack on Iraq.
Most people in the West felt that Afghanistan was fair enough – al-Qaeda was based there, after all – but a protracted series of attacks on countries which have not actually done anything TO America is being seen as simple cultural imperialism. Or perhaps, more sinisterly, it is merely an attempt to exert direct control over a large percentage of the world’s petroleum reserves. Given the tenor of the current US administration, it is hardly beyond belief that this may be a motive.
And why, even not particularly well-educated people are asking, is the US picking on Iraq in particular, anyway? Iraq may be wiping out its citizens using mustard gas and firing squads, but it hardly has that kind of social policy on its own. Whatever, Iraq is no better nor any worse than, say, Iran, Libya, Turkey, Syria or even Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights. Consider Chop-Chop Square in Riyadh. That HAS to be unique in the 21st century, don’t you think? To use, then, a human rights issue as a casus belli against Iraq is coming it just a bit too strong, don’t you think?
Iraq has not, if you consider it, ever directly attacked the US, and neither had Iraq ever directly threatened the US or even what it understood to be US interests. It may be convenient to forget it now, but the US did actually signal to Saddam Hussein – intentionally or not – that it considered Kuwait to be none of its concern. I sincerely doubt if Saddam would have attacked Kuwait if the US had stated unequivocally that it was off-limits. He may be a tyrant, but he’s not a fool, something he’s proved again and again. He would not pick a fight he knew he couldn’t win.
Neither is there any solid evidence to back the US’ assertions that Iraq was “poised” to attack Saudi Arabia, although I wouldn’t have put a little foreign adventure down through the Gulf States past the laddy in Baghdad if he believed the circumstances were right.
If stamping out terrorism is the name of the game, why then, there are plenty of targets much closer to home. Consider Russia, for instance. While the government there may not directly support terrorism, it hardly has a clean bill of health when it comes to enforcement of its own laws. The Russian mafia is in a class of its own and operates virtually unmolested, and that organisation (inasmuch as it can be considered to be one) DOES export terror. Ask the citizens of Budapest who really runs their city. The Chechnya affair is a pretty good example of latterday state terrorism, on a par with the Soviet attack on Afghanistan.
The Sudan will, for a very small fee, provide a base for terror groups. It’s not particularly favoured because even terrorists like to live in a certain amount of safety and comfort, amenities that you have admit that Khartoum is rather sadly lacking. Besides, the government there blows hot and cold on religious extremism and when it blows cold, it ain’t very subtle.
And while you’re at it, why not sort out Muammar Ghaddafi? I mean, he’s been sitting on that Libyan sandpile of his for, what, twenty-five years, providing ready homes for wandering waifs and strays from virtually all of the terrorist groups, money, training bases, arms and ammunition and lots of ideological hatred of the West. Yet these days, he gets the wet bus ticket over the wrist approach. A rollicking good US invasion is probably just what Libya needs today.
Oh, and I keep forgetting: “The Great Satan” has Iran to thank for that lovely soubriquet. Has Iran come back into the fold of just ordinarily deranged countries in the Middle East, or is it still bankrolling terror outside its borders? Hammas and Hizbollah are getting their stash from somewhere.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is that the moment has been lost. The “war on terror” has already run its course. If the US lashes out now, no one will believe that its motives are what the US says they are. I’m not saying that the US won't attack Iraq, but I am suggesting that if it does then (a) it will have precious little support from its western allies and (b) it will make steadfast enemies of even its friend(s) in the Arab world. Not thinking about Saudi Arabia and Jordan or anything, of course.
I also note with interest the about face that the US government has taken on the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Rumsfeld announced tonight (our time) that the occupied territories on the West Bank and Gaza are now “so-called”. I guess that’s true, because the Jews displaced the Palestinians from nearly ALL of Palestine by waging a guerrilla war against them in 1948. Or are we all conveniently forgetting THAT fact as well?
What is terror? What the victor says it is!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#76528
08/06/2002 8:48 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
CK - what you've posted makes a lot of sense. I am a Republican and a supporter of George Bush and the war on terrorism, but I CANNOT understand what the administration is thinking talking outright of an Iraq attack for a month now. Perhaps Jr. is a bit of a loose cowboy after all. Too much time in Texas....
|
|
|
#76529
08/06/2002 9:21 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544 |
I'm with ya, CapK - if the US does go ahead with this fool plan, we're going it alone and it's going to cost us the friendship of many countries allied with us and make enemies of many who are currently willing to tolerate us.
I'd be careful where you post such a list of other good countries for our noble, oil-fattened leaders to target - it'll end up on Bush's desk and one day soon we'll all hear him saying "Captain Kiwi, who is probably on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says we should attack 'Iran, Libya, Turkey, Syria or even Saudi Arabia' and we intend to do so, in that order."
|
|
|
#76530
08/07/2002 2:44 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
This thread illustrates what crucial ends can be effected by the contributors of this board towards finding truth. Semantical examination and dissection as keys to understanding, will, I think, determine our fate in the 21st century. Even so...
In this regard allow me to start with Fishonabike's challenge to the exclusive nature of Western Civilization.
The word-construction "Civilization" denotes a social structure that contributes towards the continuation of mankind as a species. "Civilization" is a good thing if you think that mankind is a good thing.
On the other hand, "Western" Civilization is misnamed, it should be called "Earthen" Civilization, because it is the only game in town.
Today there is no "Eastern" Civilization, as such. There hardly is an "Eastern" Culture, the similarities between the cultures of eastern countries being miniscule today because of the varying amounts of western influence.
But make no mistake, the irrepressible thrust of Western Civilization owes a lions share of its enabling nature to the East, in particular, the middle-eastern gift of Christianity. Without the egalitarian precepts introduced by Christianity, self-government as we know it, could not exist.
Cases in point: If you were a south american indian running butt naked through the jungle, would you be happy being ignorant and quaint, and then die at thirty-five, or would you like the opportunity to be not-so-quaint and live to be a hundred?
Or...would you like to live at the capricious mercy of an government authority without any regress to fairness or justice?
Western Civilization is the only game in town.
|
|
|
#76531
08/07/2002 8:04 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
|
|
|
#76532
08/07/2002 12:40 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Re:-If you were a south american indian running butt naked through the jungle, would you be happy being ignorant and quaint, and then die at thirty-five, or would you like the opportunity to be not-so-quaint and live to be a hundred?
Or...would you like to live at the capricious mercy of an government authority without any regress to fairness or justice?
Well Milo, dearest, lets compare apples to apples..
300-400 years ago, when European civilization met the civilization of south america, they had--an elaborate calendar (inca, aztec and mayan) writing, (mayan) well developed cities with central governments, and monumental architecture. The many system had all land owned by central government..(which was a religious ruler, but since all european kings/queens were "anointed by god" it wasn't all that different.
everybody had to work the land (in reality, "lord" and "bishops" only did a small amount of ritualized work) 1/3 of the crop went to worker, one third to local lord, and 1/3 to "god king" (church) -- doesn't sound great, but lets compare that to serf or indentured workers in europe... fact is, most of the european explorers commented on how healthy and well fed the local populace was..
The biggest gains in life expectantly come from not drugs, or labor saving devises, but from access to clean water. in this respect, western europe really didn't make great strides till mid 1800... Remember Prince Albert died of typhoid, a disease caused by drinking water contaminated by faeces. and there have been out breaks of typhoid is the past 25 years in europe, (ireland, scotland, italy all come to mind) (yes, in south america too, but typhus was an introduced disease, not known before european settlement)
and as for running butt naked, while american native (both north and south american) lacked most domestic animals, they had domesticated some.. in south america the llama, alpaca and relatives provided a ready source of wool, (and meat) and in north america, the hopi's had semi domesticated sheep, (and were weaving before europeans arrived, with looms almost identical to looms used in classical roman times.) and the pacific northwest Indians had developed a breed of dog that was keep for the soft hairs on its underbelly, that were woven. Cotton was domesticate in both China and in the americas and hemp was also used for fiber, and pineaple fronds.
The america were settled later in time than europe, and lacked many of the nature resources that make europe so successful (there are almost no domesticated animals today that originate here in americas,(turkey, guinea pig, llama) but many, many more domesticated and cultivated plants. Maize, (corn) peanuts, potatoes, cocoa (chocolate), tomatoes, chilies (peppers) many hardy varieties of squash, many varieties of beans, pineapples, banana's, all come to mind.
many of these, are extremely nutritious. Potatoes, with just a small amount of milk and greens make a complete diet-- corn and beans also often complete nutritional package.. a diet of peanuts, corn, beans, potatoes, tomatoes, chilies, cocoa, and squash was available year round(ie, the food either keep well, or could be harvested in different seasons), cheap, and offered more variety and nutritious than the common fare of the poor farmers in europe; (grains,{wheat, barley, oats} and vegetables, dairy. (both cultures used fish too, as cheap source of animal protein.)
Corn brews up a nice beer, too, as do other plants, so liquid refreshment was not lacking.
many "staple" diets of europeans today are dependant on american imports. Hungarian paprika is "american" and offers a huge amount of vitamin C year round. "irish" potatoes" are american and saved (and starved) the irish.
as for governments.. again.. most of the gains have been made in the past 100 years -- past 50 in US for many minorities. i don't think the spanish inquisition was a big improvement in the live of most south american natives..
|
|
|
#76533
08/07/2002 2:44 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Or perhaps, more sinisterly, it is merely an attempt to exert direct control over a large percentage of the world’s petroleum reserves.
Yup...unfortunately, just "follow the oil"...that's what it's been about for decades, and has now reached critical crescendo with this current administration. And whether you support Bush or not, you have to admit that broadcasting your war plans for months in advance isn't the stuff that "hands-on" leadership is made of...I thought, at the beginning, that, at least, Dubya had assembled some knowledgeable, savvy, experienced people behind him...but now, like Chemeng, I'm seriously doubting the competence of this administration, and in the face of the current world situation, that's doubly scary. Interior squabbling may be a big part of that (I don't think they planned on Colin Powell exerting his more moderate positions to the degree he is), but it's still no excuse. Cheney is now effectively muted because of his ties to Big Oil and the corporate scandals (and his own shady business dealings). Condoleeza Rice, who weighs-in heavily on foreign policy, is an expert on the old Soviet Union...what's the relevance to what we're facing now?...(and she was also once an oil executive, BTW). And why isn't Bin Laden dead or behind bars, huh? I figured 3 months, tops, once the shooting started over in Afghanistan. But, now, I really believe they're just exploiting this whole horrible situation for the oil interests...how utterly wretched and abysmal. Even Afghanistan ...ENRON and others wanted a pipeline across the east of that country to rich new oil rich fields in the mountains above it, and in order to achieve that deal they needed a stable government in Afghanistan, ANY stable government. And the Taliban decided to stop playing ball, so it was very convenient to install another (and where is Bin Laden?)...Oil Domino #1. And, of course, Saddam's embargo on oil exports from Irag, one of the largest oil reservoirs in the world...Oil Domino #2. And I suspect that Somalia, with their newly discovered oil fields, will be #3. Oil Wars under the mask of September 11th?...it's revolting. Covert special forces can take out Saddam, if it's so crucial...what's the hesitation?...so why is a major war necessary?
|
|
|
#76534
08/07/2002 5:40 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
But make no mistake, the irrepressible thrust of Western Civilization owes a lions share of its enabling nature to the East, in particular, the middle-eastern gift of Christianity. Without the egalitarian precepts introduced by Christianity, self-government as we know it, could not exist.
Ok, two things:
One, the area where Christianity developed is basically in the realm of the western world. Mesopotamia (Iraq, Iran, Israel) is where western "civilization" began way back with the Sumerians. And the whole area was part of the Roman Empire at the time Paul started his merry religion. Eastern civilization refers to the area of China and Japan, not Persia etc.
Two, Christianity as an institution had virtually nothing to do with the development of egalitarian and self-governing principles. Greece, though obviously not a perfect society, was the first attempt at universal input in government. Christianity didn't exactly influence them. Plus, how do Papal bureaucracy and the divine right of kings aid in furthuring egalitarian principles?
|
|
|
#76535
08/07/2002 9:16 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
One, the area where Christianity developed is basically in the realm of the western world. Mesopotamia (Iraq, Iran, Israel) is where western "civilization" began way back with the Sumerians. And the whole area was part of the Roman Empire at the time Paul started his merry religion. Eastern civilization refers to the area of China and Japan, not Persia etc.
Good point, Jazzo. "The Fertile Crescent" has always been regarded as the "Birthplace of Western Civilization," that's Western Civ 101. And it was the Far East that was shut out of our texts and studies so many years...India, China, Japan, Indonesia. Not to say that there doesn't exist a gulf and alienation of culture between the societies of the Middle East and European/American (continental sense) societies (and what about tropical Africa, where do they rate in all of this?). But, yes, the Middle East was always regarded as the Cradle of Civilization, Western Civilization. But, something to consider, is that back when these nomenclatures were developed most folks from a religiously Christian eye regarded the world split into two parts...the Christianized civilization of the West, and the heathens and savages of the "uncivilized" world. So perhaps any vestige of historically known civilization, even BC, was lumped into the category of "Western" by the earliest chroniclers, to discredit the presumption that any non-Christian heathens could be civilized. Was Nebuchadnezzar really Western in his thought and action? I dunno...I just know that's what the books say and support. And what's more, the ancient Sumerians were literate. To accrue other than Western creedence to heathens capable of a written language may have been deemed too drastic a violation of the unfortunate tunnel vision of the time. You should see some of the passages in an 1849 geography textbook that came to me in my one-room schoolhouse...the arrogant and dismissive views of other cultures in Africa, in Asia, and the native peoples of all the Americas from one of the most educated and intellectual minds of that time is nothing short of appalling...it's actually so ridiculous that all you can do is react with a smirk of incredulity at some of the remarks. And this was the 19th century. Imagine the viewpoints at the beginning of the first millennium when the first historical texts were being transcribed during the initial rise of Christianity. Relativism?
BTW, Westerners didn't really know that the distant east had a real history until they began to trade regularly in the Middle Ages (the story, or myth, of Marco Polo). So, while ancient historians knew that India, China, Japan, and Indonesia were there from the tales of infrequent trading forays (and lost sailing ships that occasionally returned, no doubt), the "Mysterious East" was simply dismissed as one big heathen culture with an abundance of riches (spice, gems, carpets) to be exploited...by then an earnest research into the ancient dynasties of China would have seriously sidetracked from the already-imbedded Biblical vision of the world.
|
|
|
#76536
08/08/2002 9:05 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
My response to TEd or whoever above inspired me to try to emulate SatireWire, one of my favouritest sites in the whole wide world ... but it's not for public consumption, really, and if you're easily offended in the political sense, don't bother.
But if you're interested, drop me a PM and I'll send you the link.
I'd also be interested in hosting other people's efforts along the same lines!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#76537
08/08/2002 1:24 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
OK Jazzoctopus, Thing One:
Yes I agree, through Sumer, through the Greeks, through the Romans, through China, through India, and through every other culture that had a horse to ride, came Western Civilization. And after Good King George and the bloody British passed the baton to the Rebels in the States, Western Civilization became essentially "American" Civilization, and that particular brand of civilization is the system of social and economic behavior that will save the world from ruin and squalor in the world of tomorrow.
Today is today, and ancient Sumer is gone and Iran and Iraq are hardly hotbeds of Western Civilization anymore. Get with the program.
Thing Two:
Like Western Civilization, Christianity is a mindset and not the Pope or the Inquisition. In Christianity is found the embodiment of a unique frame of reference toward conduct conducive to civility, i.e. Christian Love. A Love of life and of all mankind, forgiving Love, Love extending even to all enemies. This is the base, and the only, message of Christianity.
Argue and rail against Love if you will, but this message is interwoven into the fabric of advancing Western Civilization. Get on board.
|
|
|
#76538
08/08/2002 2:15 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
<This is the base, and the only, message of Christianity>
Civility and loving of everyone is hardly the ONLY message of Christianity. C'mon milum. Jeez Louise!
How about 'God sent His son to die on the cross for our sins and only through acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ can one obtain eternal life'. I'd say that this is a pretty strong base and message of Christianity.
I don't want to get into a religious discussion, but you WAY undercut Christianity with that statement.
|
|
|
#76539
08/08/2002 2:16 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9 |
of troy says In reply to:
This is interesting..
one of the problems that arises, it how do you deal with violence directed towards your self?
If i chose nonviolence (negotiations, talks, the UN or other routes on a national scale)- and my counterpart chooses violence..what do i do?
Let's take this out of the realm of glittering generalities and get down to specific cases.
There was a recent flame war here. I can't comment on the merits, since I wasn't here. But flame wars usually involve verbal violence.
And it doesn't take much searching to find verbal violence from YOUR mouth, of troy. Yet NOW you say, "the natural reaction is to respond to violence with violence.. but then, I am behaving in a way that i have defined as morally reprehensible.... i am lowering my standards".
Perhaps I'm missing something, so until you have a chance to respond (without violence!) I'll suspend my initial reaction. Which is that for YOU to claim such suppposed "standards" is pious hypocrisy and unmitigated gall.
|
|
|
#76540
08/08/2002 2:22 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
CK:
First: while there are admittedly aspects of vengeance to the current actions of the USA in taking on world terrorism, by far the greatest reason we are going after terrorism is prevention. This worldwide affiliation of terrorists has stated repeatedly that its intentions are to destroy the West. I think it's safe to say that we learned from history that the only way to be safe from bullies like this is to go after them.
And the history I am talking about here might start with the appeasement of Hitler during the 1930s. It's my view that Hitler would have backed down had the UK and France stood up to him. I will grant that the USA bears its share of that onus, since we were at best ambivalent towards the threat he posed. On the other hand, that threat was 3000 miles away and we were in the throes of the Depression. Perhaps understandably, our thoughts were on things closer to home. My view is that the cowardice of Chamberlain (and the ambivalence of the British people, not to put too fine a point on it) and the smug reliance of the French on the Maginot Line in the face of an almost certainty that Hitler would not respect the neutrality of Belgium resulted in the world's reaping the whirlwind of WW II.
Let's try to imagine what would happen if the USA pulled back its troops from around the world and said, "You guys are on your own again" which is what we did after WW I. That single decision of the United States was one of the most disastrous ever taken by a world power, in my opinion. Failing to insist on a just peace with Germany was another, a mistake you will note we did not repeat at the end of the rematch.
First off, Europe's needs for energy would drive a rapprochement with Iraq. Iraq’s main purchasers of oil already include France and Russia, and if the price is right they can sell throughout Europe if given the chance.
Right now Saddam's sales of energy amount to about 3/4s of iraw's capacity, but under the embargoes in place the money for the oil comes in the form of people-related stuff 9butter not guns.) Without these restrictions Saddam would solidify his power base and would have the money to continue his weapons research. Sooner or later (probably sooner) he would have weapons of mass destruction that he not only could but would use against a neighbor. Most likely Israel, but quite possibly Turkey. He would also be tempted to use it against Iran and Saudi Arabia because of continuing ideological differences, Sunni vs. Shia vs. the Wahabbism of Saudi Arabia, etc. And the age-old conflict of Arab vs Persian.
While it's certainly possible he'll have nuclear capability, in all likelihood he will rely on biological warfare. How long would it take bioweapons to spread across the face of Europe if they are unleashed in the Middle East? Days? Weeks? And what defense is there short of totally sealing your borders? Were I Saddam I would unleash my bioweapons through a series of coordinated releases by terrorists whom I have infiltrated into all the countries of the West. On top of causing widespread death and panic, it would be damned difficult to prove Saddam was behind the pandemic.
I submit to you that dealing with Saddam now is far preferable to dealing with him later. And if Tony Chamberlain Blair doesn't have the stones for it, then we will have to go it alone.
God knows I am not a supporter of Shrub, but I do believe that overall the world-view of the USA is preferable to the European (and Arabic) model that is little more than the appeasement of a madman such as Saddam, who is nothing more nor less than a modern-day Hitler.
And certainly there are other states that promote and export terrorism. Terrorists are in general cowards and bullies. If you swat them down while they're relatively weak you can control them. And we have to consider what is the greatest threat. Ghaddafi may be able to blow up the occasional plane or two, but he doesn't have the population resources needed to sustain high levels of threat against the West. On top of that he’s having enough trouble remaining in power that he doesn’t have a lot of personal energy or the resources to take on the west. Also, remember, Libya has only somewhere around 1/5th of the workforce of Iraq according to www.geographic.org.
I was a bit surprised to see your inclusion of Turkey in your list of what I would consider rogue states for lack of a better term. Unlike, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey has a non-sectarian government based on universal suffrage. (Iran's Baath Party is technically not sectarian, but it is predominated by Sunnis, which represent only a minority of Iraq's population.) And the Turks have real elections! Its legal systems are based on a European model as opposed to the sharia that predominate in most of the other countries you mentioned. And while no country (including the USA) is anywhere near close to perfect, I’d rather live in Turkey than any other country on your list.
As you indicated in the preface to your remarks, the choices for the USA are to fight or pull back. If we don’t fight now, we are going to be fighting later. Sort of like what happened in the 1940s, doncha know? Back then, though, as everyone will or should admit, the USA did not bear the brunt of the fighting, at least not in Europe, though the final defeat of Japan in the other hemisphere was pretty much a US operation (not totally, but pretty much.) I think most historians and military types will say that if the USA had stayed out of the Western part of WW II Europe would be a wasteland, possibly a nuclear wasteland, in the aftermath of a final cataclysmic struggle between the monoliths of Nazism and the Russian brand of totalitarianism.
I don’t think even an avowedly neutral USA would let things get so out of hand as that, but as it is we certainly would rather confront evil while it’s local or regional rather than continental. Our actions after WW I were cowardly in my opinion and in retrospect contributed greatly to the conditions that engendered WW II, though of course the overall actions of the Allies in pursuing the unbelievably harsh provisions of the Treaty of Versailles are rather more contributory.
Though not much attention has been paid to it, I believe that Pakistan represents the greatest long-range threat to world peace. The leadership there was so supportive of the Taliban it’s not impossible to think of that “organization” as a de facto part of the Government of Pakistan. Believe it or not, for a considerable period of time in the 1990s, you could place a local call from anywhere in Pakistan to the city of Kandahar, which was the de facto capital of the Taliban movement, and was the home base of Mulla Mohammed Omar. Both Quetta, Pakistan, and Kandahar had the same “area code” 081.
Certainly the Taliban would not have risen to power in Afghanistan without overt and covert support from Pakistan. Probably the majority of the Taliban at least at the cannon fodder level were Pakistani, and definitely most of them had been trained in the conservative madrassas that are ubiquitous in western Pakistan. Western Pakistan is actually ruled at the local level by a series of small emirates who are in cahoots with the transportation mafia that controls almost all of the commerce within Afghanistan. There’s little if any central control from Islamabad. Of course, to make matters even worse, Pakistan possesses atomic weaponry, and they are working valiantly to develop delivery systems that would allow them to flex their muscles in a sphere from Tehran on the west to Bangladesh on the east. That encompasses a big chunk of land and a whole bunch of people. Parenthetically, Osama Bin Laden sent more than a million US dollars during calendar year 1999 to Bangladesh to support the Harkat-ul-Jihad party, which has stated publicly its desire to turn Bangladesh into a Taliban-type Islamic republic.
I’m pretty certain in my mind that the US Government not only recognizes the threat of Pakistan but intends fully to use its bases in Afghanistan to provide support for a movement to gut terrorism from Pakistani territory, which would require the removal of the Army from control of that country. I would expect India to fully support this, of course, and I suspect that China would also, since Pakistan funds the dissenters in China’s only Muslim province, the name of which temporarily escapes me. Zhiou Whuang? Something like that?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the US is trying to export world stability. Certainly, we are doing so because we want trading partners, people to buy the technology and information that we produce, but I firmly believe there's on overarching altruism that much of the world doesn't appreciate. We want all people to have the same rights (and responsibilities) that we enjoy here in the USA. Radical Islam is against stability since such stability prevents them from fulfilling their dreams of a world-wide Islamic state. And that's why they are our enemies. And why they should be your enemies also.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
#76541
08/08/2002 6:29 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Civility and loving of everyone is hardly the ONLY message of Christianity.
C'mon milum. Jeez Louise!
And a very good "Jeez Louise", to you Chemengee,
you good sweet flower of the north, who saw fit to transplant in the rich black earth of the deep deep south and who, therefore, must be very smart, hello.
Now Chemengee as they say, I 'druther drink muddy water and sleep in a hollow log, than buckdance on a neighbor's religion, but this time I didn't buckdance.
O'Blessed Giver of two worthy sons of the worthy south, I was not talking about religion. Religion is another story. I was talking about the simple but powerful message of Jesus Christ as it is incorporated into the dynamic mechanism of what we call Western Civilization.
Now civility, that is something else, Jesus wasn't acting exactly civil when he turned over all the gaming tables and threw the money changers out and such, was he?
|
|
|
#76542
08/08/2002 8:26 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
Now civility, that is something else, Jesus wasn't acting exactly civil when he turned over all the gaming tables and threw the money changers out and such, was he?
Nor here either, really:
(Matthew 10:34) - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."
"prince of peace" my . . .
|
|
|
#76543
08/09/2002 9:11 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
"prince of peace" my . . .
Thank you Jazzo for the three dots. They indicate that you are considerate, and recognize that some folk would be offended if you said "ass".
And what that Matthew wrote about what Jesus said about turning a "daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" is certainly strange. It's sorta like reading the funny papers, sometimes you have to think real hard before you find the meaning.
Peace, fellow Awader.
|
|
|
#76544
08/09/2002 2:30 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
TEd, I'm not denying that there is a real and specific threat out there that needs to be confronted. (namely the disempowering of Al Quada and the apprehension or demise of their leaders, and then some other like groups). But I fear by diluting the specific quest by selfishly and cynically attaching the agenda of the Oil Cartel to it, and making that the secret priority instead of the original goal, the Bushes are igniting a catastrophe beyond the scope of reason. Big Oil and its power has always been what the Bushes were about, and it's their own greedy and foremost agenda beyond any party or national interest. Why do you think Bush, Sr., so cynically left us enmeshed in Somalia when he turned the reins over to Clinton?...because of the new oil reserves discovered in that country. Have we ever gone in to "stabilize" any other African nation when they were hell-bent on slaughtering each other in civil conflict?...no. And I think the new ambivalence by the administration to the capture or death of Bin Laden is a symptom of that. (Unless, knowing the ENRON scandal was about to erupt they let Bin Laden slip away so they had an excuse to keep the war going and cover their butts). But by not focusing all resources on the real threat...the detection, disempowering, and dissolution of the Al Quada terrorist network (with the Bushes so opportunistically finagling the scenario of "response" to fit their self-serving Big Oil agenda), not only do we dilute our focus and render ourselves more vulnerable to future terrorists attacks, but we also spawn a deeper alienation among moderate Arabs and Muslims, and forge a widening gap of hatred instead of working to close it. ("collateral damage" works wonders for spawning new hatred). And you best believe there are already, and have been since before the Gulf War in '92, covert US special forces and agents on the ground in Iraq (many of them US soldiers/agents of Arab-descent who fit right in) with new weapons with accuracies of phenomenal range, just waiting for the "go" to take Saddam out...but they're not going to get that "go" because those in power want this war...just like they wanted it in '92. Why? Who knows? (aside from the obvious, the filling of the coffers of the weapons manufacturers, of course) A friend whose brother who was a Navy Seal knows some folks in the intelligence community, and he was told that before the Gulf War one of these operatives had Saddam in his sights and called in with a plea to take him out...the request was emphatically denied, and what's more...he was told there was a gun trained on him and if he pulled the trigger he was a dead man. They don't want Saddam gone...they want war...it's crazy. And, once more, I ask where is Bin Laden? Diluting our focus from the specific threat is going to cost us, and the world, dearly in the long run.
|
|
|
#76545
08/09/2002 3:21 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
if Tony Chamberlain Blair doesn't have the stones for it, then we will have to go it alone.
....I do believe that overall the world-view of the USA is preferable to the European (and Arabic) model that is little more than the appeasement of a madman such as Saddam
...the US is trying to export world stability....I firmly believe there's on overarching altruism that much of the world doesn't appreciate
If you truly value "Western" democracy, TEd, then you have to accept that the people of Europe - including the UK in this instance - are making their own decision, which their leaders are (more or less) obliged to follow. That decision is quite clearly against war on Saddam at present, and it is very strongly against the US stepping in to "defend our interests" (meaning to defend what it sees as our interests, meaning its interests). This is very straightforward and understandable if you put the boot on the other foot. Would you accept the UK dictating US interests, who your enemies and friends are, what is civilized behaviour, what is fair resistance to oppression and what is terrorism? Would you accept the UK taking its troops into parts of the US, assassinating supposed terrorists and destroying towns it assured you supported terrorist activities? I would hope you would have "the stones" to soundly resist such cultural imperialism [I can't think of a better way of phrasing it] and would make up your own mind about what to do next. True global security is never going to be achieved by anybody pushing their viewpoint whilst dismissing those of other people or countries as irrelevant or somehow unrepresentative. And I say again, the US needs all the friends it can get. And incidentally, I think it's very questionable for you to compare the current situation with the onset of WWII. Saddam isn't poised to invade anywhere - quite the opposite. Comparisons with the Cold War would be more apt, as there was a situation where a dictatorial government, hostile to the West, had definite control over weapons of mass destruction. And wasn't the USSR thought of as the "Eastern Bloc" in those days? Tout ca change again: http://www.sting.com/discography/lyrics/lyrussia.html
|
|
|
#76546
08/09/2002 4:12 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
This has been an interesting discussion to follow, but it has become repetitive. People still occupy their original positions and are just enlarging, very ably, on their arguments. I can’t help reflecting that just because there is a problem that doesn’t mean there is a solution. There are far too many variables in this situation to be able to truly predict the outcome of selecting any of the choices that exist. Just because we hold an opinion strongly doesn’t make it right, it is still only an opinion. However well informed we may think it, it is not fact. Public discussion (not just on AWAD!) can be a very useful way of discovering what the general consensus of the population is, but there is no magic in democracy that makes that consensus correct, although it may become the only choice that will be supported. I am grateful that I don’t have to make a choice – that’s what we elect able politicians for after all. Now that is a worrying thought  .
|
|
|
#76547
08/09/2002 9:11 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
that’s what we elect able politicians for after all
Huh?
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#76548
08/10/2002 12:52 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
>>I am grateful that I don’t have to make a choice – that’s what we elect able politicians for after all. Now that is a worrying thought.
Ah but you do have to make a choice dxb. When you choose your member of parliament or your prime minister (or those Amirican equivalents) you choose the one that more closely reflects your views.
You cannot complain about the way the politicians run things if you do not participate in the procedure. I'm not saying you don't dxb, I'm just making the point that if we don't like what a politician does it is up to us to get him out of there - to make our views heard.
|
|
|
#76549
08/10/2002 5:56 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Well, it's come to this. From an Associated Press article in my local paper today, The Press of Atlantic City, headlined, Bush: I'll attack Iraq in my own good time:
>Bush's comments came as U.S. officials met with Iraqi opposition groups intent on overthrowing Saddam Hussein and amid growing unease from members of Congress about the wisdom of taking military action against Iraq without just cause.
On Thursday, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, cautioned against an unprovoked U.S. attack against Saddam. Sens. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have been among Republicans who have expressed concern.
"My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants," Armey said of the Iraqi president in a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, indicating a crack in Republican support for Bush's push to topple Saddam. "As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him."<
Well, I'd say that with the House Republican leadership, the president's own party, now dissenting on this, it would be, at least, political lunacy, (if not bordering on the dictatorial) to launch an attack. And with such a lack of support at home, any military foray against Iraq would not seem very viable or resolute in the eyes of the world, and much more vulnerable to resistence in the eyes of those who view us as an enemy. And, then, of course, as mentioned before, there is a little matter called the U.S. Constitution. But, then, when did any of this ever stop the Bushes before? You can't stop a clan who has an estimated $400 billion dollars laundered away from the Silverado S&L banking scandal and Iran/Contra dealings, and whose Patriarch once ran the CIA. If they can't buy you then Daddy picks up the phone and makes you "disappear"...like Cliff Baxter, the would-be "John Dean" of ENRON. Anybody getting the picture here, yet?
|
|
|
#76550
08/10/2002 9:29 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Actually, the problem may sort itself out. If I have it right, the US is unable to project anything like the same amount of force in 2002 that it could in 1991. If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#76551
08/10/2002 9:48 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy!
Thank goodness 'tis so!
|
|
|
#76552
08/11/2002 12:19 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
You can't stop a clan who has an estimated $400 billion dollars laundered away from the Silverado S&L banking scandal and Iran/Contra dealings, ~ WhitmanOneil the US is unable to project anything like the same amount of force in 2002 that it could in 1991. If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy! ~ Captial Kiwi Thank goodness 'tis so. ~ Wordwind *********** -  - Rhetoric, ain't it Grand. - - ************
|
|
|
#76553
08/11/2002 5:45 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
> If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy!
And of course, it stops people uttering nasty words like Haliburton. Maybe the near certainty of a truly assinine House after November (for the first time in how long?) is unsettling one or the other of Junior's neurons.
|
|
|
#76554
08/11/2002 2:57 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>But, then, when did any of this ever stop the Bushes before? You can't stop a clan who has an estimated $400 billion dollars laundered away from the Silverado S&L banking scandal and Iran/Contra dealings, and whose Patriarch once ran the CIA. If they can't buy you then Daddy picks up the phone and makes you "disappear"...like Cliff Baxter, the would-be "John Dean" of ENRON. Anybody getting the picture here, yet?
WO'N:
Aw, come on, you don't really believe any of that, do you? if you had said $40 million I might have given some credence to it. But $400 billion? That's a bit too outrageous even for the right wing conspiracy theorists.
And as to the Big Shrub's tenure as head of the CIA -- yep, he was there. And if you go back and look you will see that every prior head of the CIA was a political appointee. DCI's a figurehead who sets overall policy. The real work of the CIA is done by people like me and you. Actually I worked for the CIA for a short time back in the 60s, moving mail from one part of the building to another for a summer. I admit to not knowing a thing about covert ops, but I can tell you that the rank and file employees are nothing more or less than dedicated civil service types doing their jobs. Over 90 precent of the work is analysis, taking this little fact here, putting it with that little newspaper item there, and factoring it in with a little tidbit from a covert operation to arrive at something that might be useful to the policy makers in Congress and the executive branch.
And as to Baxter, why does every suicide in the government attract moths like conspiracy theorists flocking around a pool of blood?
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
#76555
08/11/2002 3:04 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Thanks sjm for your concern for our well-being here in the states. We love our President. He got 50.01% of the vote. How did your elections go over in Akina? - -
|
|
|
#76556
08/11/2002 3:18 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
And as to Baxter, why does every suicide in the government attract moths like conspiracy theorists flocking around a pool of blood?here is something about that... the Sunday NYTimes mag.. The NY times does demand cookies,and registration, and its an 8 page article so i am not going to copy, but it is an interesting artile on conspiracy theory. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/magazine/11COINCIDENCE.html
|
|
|
#76557
08/11/2002 8:05 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
He got 50.01% of the vote.In an alternate universe perhaps, but not on this planet, according to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm, which lists the following: Candidate(Party Label) Popular Vote Total % of Popular Vote
Al Gore (Democrat) 50,999,897 48.38
G. W. Bush (Republican) 50,456,002 47.87 The Electoral college result gave Dubya 50.4655493482309% of the EC votes, so you're 0 for 2 in the matter of factual accuracy.
|
|
|
#76558
08/11/2002 8:21 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
We don't think of US politics as an abstraction, something that we can point fingers at, laugh about and then just move on and forget about. Whatever the US does, right or wrong, tends to get reflected in what happens to us, later if not sooner.
sjm, myself and other thinking people are very much aware that we are stuck with the fact that we have absolutely no say in who gets to be president of the US and yet we, and the rest of the world, are stuck with the consequences of the outcome of the US presidential elections. When that outcome is a Republican president, the rest of us have more to fear than when he's a Democrat, since Democrats typically restrain themselves from foreign adventurism.
If America didn't project its power - both political and military - as if it were the only country in the world, our concern about US presidential elections and about those for the House and the Senate, too, would only be theoretical. Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#76559
08/11/2002 8:58 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273 |
In reply to:
We don't think of US politics as an abstraction, something that we can point fingers at, laugh about and then just move on and forget about. Whatever the US does, right or wrong, tends to get reflected in what happens to us, later if not sooner.
sjm, myself and other thinking people are very much aware that we are stuck with the fact that we have absolutely no say in who gets to be president of the US and yet we, and the rest of the world, are stuck with the consequences of the outcome of the US presidential elections.
Well said. Thank you.
|
|
|
#76560
08/11/2002 10:10 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
In reply to:
we are stuck with the fact that we have absolutely no say in who gets to be president of the US and yet we, and the rest of the world, are stuck with the consequences of the outcome of the US presidential elections.
sometimes we USns feel the same way. 
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
#76561
08/12/2002 12:18 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
He (meaning President Bush) got 50.01% of the vote. ~ milo The Electoral college result gave Dubya (meaning President Bush) 50.4655493482309% of the EC votes, so you're 0 for 2 in the matter of factual accuracy ~ sjm In our Republic ,sjm, territory has rights, and popular vote counts are for quiz shows and crossword puzzles. And for the good of the Republic for which I stand, sjm, I underestimated President Bush's victory margin intentionally, because I did not wish for those loyal Gore supporters, who at heart are really not a bad lot, not to think that it wasn't close. -
|
|
|
#76562
08/12/2002 1:06 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
I underestimated President Bush's victory margin intentionally
--------------------
Main Entry:lie
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lug*, Old English l*ogan to lie
Date:before 12th century
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
