I read that Reagan via his network sold missles to Iran, at that time on the USA Terror Nation list, and then sent the money from that sale to other terrorists, called The Contras. Of course he called those folk Freedom Fighters.
Who's appetite for insatiable power?
Seee: Administration, Bush, George W.
Surely you're not naive enough to believe that professorial manta and mindless mantra! 
The Bush administration can surely be legitimately criticized for many things. But an insatiable appetite for absolute power Naaaaa!And do you really doubt this will engender more hate and terror?
Hatred by the living and not yet dead, of the innocent living will be increasingly discouraged by increasingly more obvious more rational concerns. Other emotions will be discovered to serve self-interest better.What if this implies recognizing a government hostile to the US? Would you still agree?
Who's appetite for insatiable power?AGAIN, THE FACTS
1. Some people in the world who know each other are murdering other people in the world they don't know by blowing up themselves and others they don't know, or by blowing up only others they don't know.
. These murderers claim that what they do is just either because god told them so, or because a powerful human told them so, or because they hate those they murder.
Seee: Administration, Bush, George W.
The Bush administration has an insatiable appetite for absolute power
And do you really doubt this will engender more hate and terror?
No! I expect it will engender more dead haters. Hatred by the dead of the innocent living isn't knowable! Terrorism performed by the dead will be limited a tad or two!
What if this implies recognizing a government hostile to the US? Would you still agree?
Sure! As long as hostile government doesn't transition to murderous government, what adult would or should care one way or the other?.
The fallacy of the War on Terror is that it will never end.
We will never be able to "eradicate", "destroy", or "eliminate" every last terrorist.
Never.
Let me repeat that, in case it's unclear: It is never going to end.
Like the war on Poverty, and the War on Drugs, eventually our administration will get bored and move on to something else, probably starting another war on another inanimate object (or God forbid, another nation).
It will sooner or later be perceived by potential recruits that joining in organized murder costs too much.
Will mankind continue to be plagued by large numbers of people organized to murder the innocent? Probably not
Fallacious reasoning. Murder brings the thirst for revenge. Killing "terrorists" will lead to the antipathy of those who are ideologically or biologically related to the dead. It engenders a never ending cycle.
This makes you unusual as far as many of those who support violent action. I doubt the Bush Administration shares your interest in merely opposing violence.
Not in my community and the communities to which I have traveled. Your doubts are unfounded. About two-thirds of the US populace wants to violently but quickly end the very real threat of organized terrorism against innocents, and then promptly get our troops back home. If the price of doing that leaves one or many countries not liking the US, we of the two-thirds couldn't care less.Your suggestions are quite useful in that they demonstrate the futility of reactive strategies. Perhaps it is time to concentrate on preventing the conditions that lead to terorism. These would include actual attention paid to human rights/poverty/disease in the developing world.
ican711nm wrote:Repetition of partial truth does not synthesize absolute truth.
I Like that phrase, as it is very applicable to the current administration.
The US is reacting in self defense to those who have and would murder americans. The US did little in its own self defense prior to 9/11. Witness our verbal vacuity after the first World Trade Center attack, or after the Cole attack, etc. Now, the US is saying by its actions that we will not wait until we can negotiate agreement to our own self-defense with those who are financing and otherwise aiding and abetting terrorists (e.g., France, Germany, Russia, etc.). The US will defend itself regardless.
Israel is defending itself against terrorists. Stop the terrorists and Israel will stop defending itself.
One can go all the way back to 1920 and 1921 to find large numbers of Jews in Palestine being murdered by arabs.
Jews first defended themselves in 1929. It appears that it has frequently taken Jews quite awhile before they accept the fact that evil is irredeemable and must be destroyed not mollified sooner rather than later (e.g., the relatively placid march of millions of Jews to their own deaths by the nazis before some finally decided to defend themselves.)
Fallacious reasoning. Murder brings the thirst for revenge. Killing "terrorists" will lead to the antipathy of those who are ideologically or biologically related to the dead. It engenders a never ending cycle.
That didn't happen as a consequence of the US finally deciding in the 1940's to defend itself against shintoist and nazis would be absolute power. Japan and Germany were subsequently conquered, occupied and re-civilized.
On the other hand the USSR dissolved by and of itself when the evils of communist absolute power were finally recognized by its people. They then ceased threatening the US with nuclear war.
This makes you unusual as far as many of those who support violent action. I doubt the Bush Administration shares your interest in merely opposing violence.
Unusual
Your suggestions are quite useful in that they demonstrate the futility of reactive strategies. Perhaps it is time to concentrate on preventing the conditions that lead to terorism. These would include actual attention paid to human rights/poverty/disease in the developing world.
The high price of reactive self-defense is what is actually demonstrated. Better prompt pre-emptive destruction of those who give solid evidence of working to destroy you, then waiting until they make an actual massive attempt to do just that.
Had the US seized bin Laden when it was offered the chance back in the 90s, we would probably have reduced our subsequent pain immeasureably.
Bin Laden announced his intentions in a widely publicised, written and cleric blessed Jihad against americans. He did that two years (it was in 1998) before he murdered almost 3000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C..
The problem you seek to solve may not be solvable for longer than 20 year intervals. It certainly won't be solved by wishful thinking .
I think too many of the human race are cursed with what hopefully is a temporary evil flaw. They covet (i.e., seek to end) the prosperity rather than root for (seek to increase) the prosperity of their poorer, and comparable and richer fellows. This coveting is so intense that many of them will deliberating act contrary to their own true self-interests to accomplish these ends.
Communism was an attempt to solve this problem by eliminating material differences among people. Trouble with that wishful thinking is that a powerful, and therefore not so equal, easily corruptible elite, was required to enforce material equality. We know the rest. Even the first pilgrims abandoned that material equality idea after half of them had died. They decided to distribute to each family what was previously all their collectively owned property. They then knowingly or unknowingly built a prosperous society the way Adam Smith recommended.
My own hypothesis is that increasing the proportion of the population that roots for others is a necessary condition for the human race to survive.
QUESTION
What is the most honorable way to probably accomplish that? It must be done honorably. Absent honor, the human race also will probably not survive.
What is the most honorable way?
The concept of honorable is subjective, so the definition of the concept must be defined, agreed upon and those responsible for carrying out "the most honorable way" must abide by the agreement of the concept, correct?
We agree pistoff wrote:What is the most honorable way?
The concept of honorable is subjective, so the definition of the concept must be defined, agreed upon and those responsible for carrying out "the most honorable way" must abide by the agreement of the concept, correct?
Yes
How's this for a starter
Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
Do to others what you want done to yourself.
Now in my subjective case, if I were to join an organized group to kill innocents (e.g., people not attempting to kill except in self-defense), I'd want to be killed by those innocents. On the other hand, I would hope I'd have the courage and skill to protect innocents from those who would murder them.
The early phase of the effort in Afghanistan could be interpereted this way. The war in Iraq may not.
Efforts by Israel in the occupied territories have little to do with self defence. If they were truly defensive, the attacks that have resulted in large numbers of civillian deaths/injuries would likely have not been undertaken.
One can go back to the 9th century to find large numbers of Jews being murdered by Christians. I don't see the relevence of your statement.
The holocaust does not excuse Israel from perpetrating its own atrocities.
WWII has less than nothing in common with the current "war on terror." A more effective comparison would be the "war on drugs."
So?
I would love to see your sources for this comment. Certainly the US government disagrees with you.
Extending your philosophy, the answer would seem to be: kill everyone who isn't an American. hardly a workable solution.
The answer is kill everyone who is killing or threatening to kill innocent human beings.I agree. But that was not what happened. So....
I recall we were still friends with bin-Laden at the time....
bin Laden recommended in his Jihad proclimation in 1998 that moslems should "kill americans whereever they find them". Hardly the deportment of a friend. In 2000, he found as many americans as he could and killed them on the spot.Nor will it be solved by killing more people and creating more terrorists.
Quote:I think too many of the human race are cursed with what hopefully is a temporary evil flaw. They perniciously covet (i.e., seek to end) the prosperity rather than root for (seek to increase) the prosperity of their poorer, and comparable and richer fellows. This pernicious coveting is so intense that many so afflicted deliberately act contrary to their own true self-interests to accomplish these evil ends.
Again, a wonderful summation of the actions and ideology of the current administration.
What does this have to do with the subject?
Quote:My own hypothesis is that increasing the proportion of the population that roots for others is a necessary condition for the human race to survive.
Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Quote:QUESTION
What is the most honorable way to probably accomplish that? It must be done honorably. Absent honor, the human race also will probably not survive.
Waht do you mean by honour? Honour is often tied to hubris, not the most noble of human emotions. I prefer to sacrifice honour for humaneness.
The early phase of the effort in Afghanistan could be interpereted this way. The war in Iraq may not
I disagree. Saddam financed the palestinian terrorists frequently and publicly. These terorists were not secular baathists. They were Moslem extremists just like bin Laden's terrorists.
Furthermore, solid evidence of Saddam's direct aiding and abetting (e.g., training and financing) of bin Laden's terrorists has been found and widely publicised.
Hopefully, Iran and Syria will follow Libya's approach so we can avoid pre-emptively defending ourselves against their aiding and abetting terrorists.
Efforts by Israel in the occupied territories have little to do with self defence. If they were truly defensive, the attacks that have resulted in large numbers of civillian deaths/injuries would likely have not been undertaken.
Since Clinton's last peace initiative with Arafat and later Bush's peace initiatives, each and every attack by Israel was a response to a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians. "What goes around comes around."
One can go back to the 9th century to find large numbers of Jews being murdered by Christians. I don't see the relevence of your statement.
Modern jewish forebearance and wishful thinking inevitably encouraged their enemies to mass murder them. So relatively recently they finally learned to return to what worked a few thousand years earlier: "an eye for an eye ...". It doesn't end their continuing murder; it merely reduces their rate of being murdered. But that's some improvement.
The holocaust does not excuse Israel from perpetrating its own atrocities.
I agree. But that wasn't my point. I was arguing that forebearance of reaction by the jews led to their mass murder by the nazis. It would have been far more beneficial for them, if the jews made early, massive and frequent self-defence strikes against the nazis.
WWII has less than nothing in common with the current "war on terror." A more effective comparison would be the "war on drugs."
"He who ignores the past is doomed to repeat it."
It has a great deal in common. Violent reaction against the japanese and germans led not to an increase in violence and hatred; it led finally to a decrease in both violence and hatred.
So?
Our defensive build up and resolute resistence to the USSR's quest for increased power led not to more violence; it led to a decrease in violence when the USSR's people decided they had enough of their government's economic experiments.
I would love to see your sources for this comment. Certainly the US government disagrees with you.
As I stated, my sources are my own personal encounters from my own personal travels. I think the US government agrees with me. As soon as Iraq can defend itself against terrorists, the USA will be out of there just like the USA vacated Japan and Germany after their occupations. Blame it on the profit motive. The US will gain far more from a free Iraq than it ever will from an occupied Iraq.
Extending your philosophy, the answer would seem to be: kill everyone who isn't an American. hardly a workable solution.
No
I agree. But that was not what happened. So....
That is an argument for pre-emptive strikes. Pre-emptive action would have worked. Had we pre-emptively seized bin Landen when we had the chance, our problems would either be fewer or delayed. So learn from our experience and not wait to react, but instead pre-emptively strike at terrorists.
I recall we were still friends with bin-Laden at the time....
Wrong
Nor will it be solved by killing more people and creating more terrorists.
In the long run you are probably correct. In the short run it will buy us approximately 20 year intervals of peace.
I think too many of the human race are cursed with what hopefully is a temporary evil flaw. They perniciously covet (i.e., seek to end) the prosperity rather than root for (seek to increase) the prosperity of their poorer, and comparable and richer fellows. This pernicious coveting is so intense that many so afflicted deliberately act contrary to their own true self-interests to accomplish these evil ends.
Again, a wonderful summation of the actions and ideology of the current administration.
No its not [I edited it for clarity]. That's silly. I think it's an accurate summation of the current extremist Moslem mind-set.
What does this have to do with the subject?
It's an example of how not to try to solve the problem of pernicious coveting among too many of the human race.
My own hypothesis is that increasing the proportion of the population that roots for others is a necessary condition for the human race to survive.
Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
If more of us don't root for all of us, then our posterity will be of short duration. The problems of the middle east are the consequences of the promotion of pernicious coveting among the arab young by perniciously covetous terrorist leadership. If that were to continue, the posterity of the arab middle east will be of short duration.
QUESTION
What is the most honorable way to probably accomplish that? It must be done honorably. Absent honor, the human race also will probably not survive.
Waht do you mean by honour? Honour is often tied to hubris, not the most noble of human emotions. I prefer to sacrifice honour for humaneness.
REPEATING
Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
Do to others what you want done to yourself.
In my case, if I were to join an organized group to kill innocents (e.g., people not attempting to kill except in self-defense), I'd want to be killed by those innocents. On the other hand, I would hope I'd have the courage and skill to protect innocents from those who would murder them.
Don't invade other nations under false pretexts and express confusion when the indigenous population attempts to kill you, perhaps?
Somebody light that candle on that dog's back... :wink:
PDiddie wrote:Somebody light that candle on that dog's back... :wink:
That's no candle. That's a rocket engine already lit.
I'm making repeated passes with plenty of excess fuel aboard. :wink:
