A Constant and Unending War: The USA vs The World

We sent troops to SouthEast Asia for a police action once, it was called Viet Nam. Some people remember how that turned out.

JN

0 Replies

Lol!!!! Yes - but you dinna use POLICE! (Nor did we - it turned out very badly for us, too - but we got out earlier.)

Seriously, so far the Solomon Islands thing has gone extremely well. Finesse, rather than force, has been used against the anti-government leaders - the main one was persuaded to turn himself in absolutely peacefully.

This is not a political insurgency - more a robber baron type of thing.

It has been fascinating hearing about that BTW - my partner has a journo friend who has just returned from there, and we were regaled with stories about it.

Thing is to get the structure of proper law and government established - and get out. The getting out is the tough bit.

The fella that so successfully led that is likely to be going to Papua - which is likely to be tougher, I think.

0 Replies

Leaving aside the morality and the - frankly terrifying - notion of a US drunk with power and self-importance trying to blunder about as a moral arbiter and enforcer in one - (sadly with such governments as my own current one wandering about as a sort of mini-me companion) - I was surprised by Craven's opinion. Be interesting to hear more...

I had believed your military to be already over-stretched and unhappy? (Not just from news reports, but from accounts by folk in communication with them). And Bush's policies - including the cost of the Iraqi morass - to be sending your deficit sky-high, with likely bad consequences for your economy in the medium term?

This opinion seems to have been expressed by others here - and I have been, myself, wondering if the US's time in the imperial sun (or merciless glare, depending on how you look at it) - was likely to be much shortened by this, compared with more conventional empires, like the Roman, or British, or Austro-Hungarian, for instance?

0 Replies

If anyone here gets the Sundance Channel; they are currently showing a documentary called "Divorce, Iranian Style."

It seems Iranian woman are entitled to divorce, if they can prove their husband is impotent, insane or has married another wife... without the first wive's consent.

When a 16 year old divorce applicant (who was 15 when married off by her father) asked what is the legal age for marriage, the official answered "puberty". When she pressed him for an age, he said "a woman can reach puberty at 9 years and can therefore be legally married at age 9. This girl was a victim of an arranged marriage to a man who said he was 28... but was in reality 36.

This is barbaric, folks... plain and simple. It boils down to State sponsored Rape and Child Molestation. Here, there are 9.5 million little girls, age 14 and under who are worth fighting for. But I'm sure the U.S. would be further demonized if we poked our nose into that, let alone sought to change it. Rolling Eyes

I do not believe a strike on such a regime as this to be pre-emptive. I'd consider it retaliatory on behalf of the victims of these State Sponsored Atrocities. It matters not a wit to me if they've convinced their 9 year old victims that it's just part of their culture. It isn't. It's barbarism, plain and simple.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

When a 16 year old divorce applicant (who was 15 when married off by her father) asked what is the legal age for marriage, the official answered "puberty". When she pressed him for an age, he said "a woman can reach puberty at 9 years and can therefore be legally married at age 9. This girl was a victim of an arranged marriage to a man who said he was 28... but was in reality 36.

This is barbaric, folks... plain and simple. It boils down to State sponsored Rape and Child Molestation. Here, there are 9.5 million little girls, age 14 and under who are worth fighting for. But I'm sure the U.S. would be further demonized if we poked our nose into that, let alone sought to change it.

I do not believe a strike on such a regime as this to be pre-emptive. I'd consider it retaliatory on behalf of the victims of these State Sponsored Atrocities. It matters not a wit to me if they've convinced their 9 year old victims that it's just part of their culture. It isn't. It's barbarism, plain and simple.

I can't agree that this sort of thing could be solved by force. Perhaps that is what is at the center of the whole argument. Should it be changed? Yes. Should the US do something to change it? Yes. Should that something be a military strike? No.

When I was a kid, my older brother took me to the 7-11 to get a slurpy. In the parking lot there was a man beating up his girlfriend. My brother, ever the hero, walked up and slugged the guy. The girlfriend immediately jumped on my brother and started slapping him. That's kind of how I see these kinds of conflicts turning out.

But I don't pretend to know what that other something is that we could do. Just as I don't know what my brother could have done to get the guy to stop beating his girlfriend other than slugging him. But we are supposedly electing smart people to run this country so I'm sure they could figure something out if they really wanted to.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I can't agree that this sort of thing could be solved by force. Perhaps that is what is at the center of the whole argument. Should it be changed? Yes. Should the US do something to change it? Yes. Should that something be a military strike? No.

Yup. I'd say that is precisely the center of the argument.

FreeDuck wrote:

When I was a kid, my older brother took me to the 7-11 to get a slurpy. In the parking lot there was a man beating up his girlfriend. My brother, ever the hero, walked up and slugged the guy. The girlfriend immediately jumped on my brother and started slapping him. That's kind of how I see these kinds of conflicts turning out.

Let's extrapolate. Could we say the "our son-of-a-bitch" response of the girlfriend is on par with the insurgent backlash we face in Iraq? And if so, what does that change? Whether that woman realizes immediately that your brother's deed was a favor or not, has no bearing on the rightness/wrongness of his actions. Many woman figure out they don't deserve to be treated like that after someone like your brother shows them they're worth fighting for. Your brother sounds like a decent man. In spite of his act's seeming fruitlessness, I'd wager women still don't beat in his presence to this day.

Now it's also true that many women have self esteem issues, or have been so emotionally scarred from being treated like garbage that they'll never figure out they need to get out, and stay out of abusive relationships... and consequently many people think actions like your brother's are in vain. Perhaps even a majority would turn the blind eye to her plight in that parking lot, excusing their apathy by stating the obvious dangers... and potential for failure to truly change anything, anyhow, anyway.

I wonder; is that how people see the plight of the suffering masses in oppressed nations? As irrelevant and unworthy of assistance because they don't know any better? I've actually heard the argument that we don't know if ME women disapprove of what amounts to being sold into sexual slavery as children by their fathers. Does it matter if they don't object? Do we need them to tell us they think it's wrong to know it? Should your brother watch women get beaten to death because it's none of his business?

In North Korea, several generations have been taught that Kim and his dad are the greatest leaders the world has ever known. Does the fact that they believe what's been beaten into them make them less worthy of assistance?

When a child is taught something as heinous as 9 year olds should consummate marriage with the child molester who bought them, or take the just beating that defiance affords them, who is responsible? No one, because it's a tradition and therefore okay? Shocked

And if someone is responsible, it's not the business of an outside force, so they shouldn't interfere? Bull ****! Your brother did his duty as a human being at that 7-11, and even if it didn't save that girlfriend, it was still the right thing to do. What effect did it have on you? If more people responded like your brother, is it fair to assume abusers would take notice... and that victims might realize they don't have to suffer such treatment? Perhaps, in retrospect, later that night/week/month/year; your brothers actions snapped that woman out of her confusion and convinced her to fight for her own rights. I'd say you labeled him accurately when you called him a hero... whether you, me, the victim he assisted or anyone in the peanut gallery realizes it. A hero he is... and the world could use more people like him.

FreeDuck wrote:

But I don't pretend to know what that other something is that we could do. Just as I don't know what my brother could have done to get the guy to stop beating his girlfriend other than slugging him. But we are supposedly electing smart people to run this country so I'm sure they could figure something out if they really wanted to.

In absence of that magical something it seems most are content to stand by and watch hundreds of millions of woman get beaten down in that parking lot. In the obvious absence of a more effective solution, I'll continue to advocate the use of your brother's. Idea

0 Replies

My take on the girlfriend was that, messed up as the fight with her boyfriend was, the interference of my brother gave her a reason to join forces with the boyfriend.

But that's just my opinion. If kicking the ass of a child/wife/husband abuser often resulted in less abuse, I might agree with your take. But my take is that it not only doesn't solve the problem, but it often makes it worse. I can imagine that the guy, embarrassed by being beaten by my brother in public, found quick relief by taking it out on the girlfriend.

Nevertheless, I respect the willingness to want to correct wrongs and to stand up for the downtrodden. I just think that in our position we have no credibility to undertake such things.

0 Replies

Most of the down trodden would most likely disagree with your position though.

There will always be some people that become vocal or violent when change comes their way, but for most, change from pain and violence is a welcome thing.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

There will always be some people that become vocal or violent when change comes their way, but for most, change from pain and violence is a welcome thing.

I agree, if that change doesn't come with pain and violence of its own.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

My take on the girlfriend was that, messed up as the fight with her boyfriend was, the interference of my brother gave her a reason to join forces with the boyfriend.

But that's just my opinion. If kicking the ass of a child/wife/husband abuser often resulted in less abuse, I might agree with your take. But my take is that it not only doesn't solve the problem, but it often makes it worse. I can imagine that the guy, embarrassed by being beaten by my brother in public, found quick relief by taking it out on the girlfriend.

With that reasoning in mind, should the police respond to a report of domestic violence? Should a neighbor respond if they don't? Or should they allow the violence to continue, habitually, for fear that interceding may cause a temporary spike? (keep in mind, the extrapolated version doesn't allow for a lot of repeat offenses) (Uday and Qusay won't be kidnapping anymore more victims to rape and kill)

While it's true some victims of domestic violence will seek out a replacement for their abuser if he's taken away... some won't. I vote we give the victims the benefit of the doubt.

FreeDuck wrote:

Nevertheless, I respect the willingness to want to correct wrongs and to stand up for the downtrodden. I just think that in our position we have no credibility to undertake such things.

We're missing a tremendous opportunity to change that in Sudan right now. Sad

Still, 19 murderers on the loose is better than 20, etc.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

With that reasoning in mind, should the police respond to a report of domestic violence? Should a neighbor respond if they don't? Or should they allow the violence to continue, habitually, for fear that interceding may cause a temporary spike? (keep in mind, the extrapolated version doesn't allow for a lot of repeat offenses) (Uday and Qusay won't be kidnapping anymore more victims to rape and kill)

The police, the neighbor, friends, family should all respond to these things. They are the ones with the legitimacy and the first hand knowledge of the people involved needed to have any effect. But you can see how if, say, the FBI or the visitor from out of town got involved they might not have a positive effect on the situation.

Part of helping others is knowing when you can't help them.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If anyone here gets the Sundance Channel; they are currently showing a documentary called "Divorce, Iranian Style."

It seems Iranian woman are entitled to divorce, if they can prove their husband is impotent, insane or has married another wife... without the first wive's consent.

When a 16 year old divorce applicant (who was 15 when married off by her father) asked what is the legal age for marriage, the official answered "puberty". When she pressed him for an age, he said "a woman can reach puberty at 9 years and can therefore be legally married at age 9. This girl was a victim of an arranged marriage to a man who said he was 28... but was in reality 36.

This is barbaric, folks... plain and simple. It boils down to State sponsored Rape and Child Molestation. Here, there are 9.5 million little girls, age 14 and under who are worth fighting for. But I'm sure the U.S. would be further demonized if we poked our nose into that, let alone sought to change it.

I do not believe a strike on such a regime as this to be pre-emptive. I'd consider it retaliatory on behalf of the victims of these State Sponsored Atrocities. It matters not a wit to me if they've convinced their 9 year old victims that it's just part of their culture. It isn't. It's barbarism, plain and simple.

That might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

That might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Ever?

You really need to get out more. :wink: Take comfort in the fact that likeminded people (like FreeDuck's brother) might come to your loved one's aide, with or without your approval.

FreeDuck wrote:

The police, the neighbor, friends, family should all respond to these things. They are the ones with the legitimacy and the first hand knowledge of the people involved needed to have any effect. But you can see how if, say, the FBI or the visitor from out of town got involved they might not have a positive effect on the situation.

Clearly, "The police, the neighbor, friends, family are NOT responding to these things". I cannot agree that that means the visitor from out of town should ignore the barbarism, too.

You summed it up well when you said: "I can't agree that this sort of thing could be solved by force. Perhaps that is what is at the center of the whole argument."

I, on the other hand, understand every one of your arguments against force, but still maintain that it's a better solution than no solution at all. Kim Jong Il has committed democide against between 10% and 20% of his population since Clinton decided the use of force could prove too deadly there. Seemingly absent from consideration by the liberal body-counters are the hundreds of millions of victims cause by apathy and inaction.

FreeDuck wrote:

Part of helping others is knowing when you can't help them.

I recognize, and respect the anti-violent ideals that drive you to make such statements... but I also recognize the horrible consequences of inaction and apathy. The remains of literally millions of North Korean's illustrate the inapplicability of this statement. Each generation there, faces an even harder life than the one before it. Kim is said to be much worse than his father, who was a world-class fiend himself. All indications point to a similar trend in the Hussein lineage in Iraq. We'll never know how many lives our actions may have saved.

0 Replies

I do understand your argument Bill, and can even agree with the need to do something about the situations we're discussing. The question becomes, which things can you do something about, because you can't solve all of the world's problems. You can't right all of the wrongs and you can't save everyone. How do you make the choice between who will be 'saved' and who will be left to their own devices?

But aside from all of this, I don't believe at all, not even a little bit, that our government in it's current incarnation especially, has ever acted out of the noble ideals you put forward. We act first and foremost out of self-interest. Not saying this is right or wrong, only that it's true. If it were otherwise we wouldn't have the gigantic credibility deficit with the rest of the world.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I do understand your argument Bill, and can even agree with the need to do something about the situations we're discussing. The question becomes, which things can you do something about, because you can't solve all of the world's problems. You can't right all of the wrongs and you can't save everyone. How do you make the choice between who will be 'saved' and who will be left to their own devices?

Something Vs. Nothing. Any ideas about an alternate Something? No, we can't save everyone... but we could eliminate State Sponsorship of Atrocities (like selling 9 year olds into sexual slavery for instance) if we really wanted to. We really are that strong. Just as we could really feed the starving masses, if we really wanted to. We really are that rich.

FreeDuck wrote:

But aside from all of this, I don't believe at all, not even a little bit, that our government in it's current incarnation especially, has ever acted out of the noble ideals you put forward. We act first and foremost out of self-interest. Not saying this is right or wrong, only that it's true. If it were otherwise we wouldn't have the gigantic credibility deficit with the rest of the world.

I agree with you, FreeDuck. In some ways I'm hoping Osama is wishing he'd have been more careful what he wished for. By bringing the startling reality of suicide bombing to our doorstep, he may have, incidentally, demonstrated why it may be in our best interest to stop turning the blind eye to the oppressed masses of the world. Suicide bombing, on a massive scale, is a powerful reminder that poor hungry people will always rebel... and provides a very good reason to stop being apathetic about it. I agree with you that no U.S. leader I've ever voted for embraced the ideals I babble about... so I'm left with voting for whoever appears closer and spreading my message to whomever will bother to hear it. Occasionally, someone even agrees... and that's what makes it all worthwhile! :wink:

0 Replies

I see your point, Bill, about Something vs. Nothing. But there are cases where something is not better than nothing. Pouring water on a chemical fire is certainly Something, but in that case certainly Nothing would have been preferable until a better Something could be decided upon.

As for your very noble ideals, there are organizations that are working toward the education of women and girls in third world countries. It has been demonstrated that this is the most effective avenue for social and economic change. I guess maybe that's my Something. But it would be hard for these organizations to work in a war zone.

0 Replies

A current debate along these lines is Iran, some geo-political analysts see that the conservatives have solidified policital control in Iran and "need" to be pushed into a more acceptable (western) status while others advocate that the common people of Iran are moving solidly towards liberal ideals which push the society in both democratic and
economic modernization. Do we use "force" against the conservative government or let the people move the government themselves? The answer to this difficult question seems to be to what degree do "we" want to be in control of the situation in Iran?(or elsewhere for that matter) posters of muslim clerics have been replaced by posters advertising Calvin Klein. Perhaps consumerism is bigger than religion to the masses.(Damn, that sounds like america to me!)

0 Replies

Nothing will certainly hurt this generation.
Something (force) may hurt this generation even more.
So, Force may or may not prove to be a net good for this generation, overall.
What about the next generation? Idea

Let's examine Bush's hard-nosed, idiotic if you prefer, insistence in pounding that square peg into the round hole (democracy in Iraq)...until it fits nicely. Surely we have the muscle to eventually crush the will of the resistance. Self-preservation is an instinct we all share. Next, imagine what happens if Iraq actually succeeds as a democracy for a moment...

It's not like the old days when there was a great debate between American Capitalism and Soviet Socialism. The Soviets made a compelling case for themselves, once upon a time. But the jury is in. Where's the competition now? Almighty God (Allah, Buddha, whatever) Vs. the Almighty Dollar (Euro, Dinar, whatever)? It would appear that the countries A2Kers most admire have this lesson down even better than the good ole US of A, eh? Didn't I hear the ex Canadian Prime Minister joke that no politician who thought the jury was still out on evolution would stand a shot in her country... and would, in fact, be laughed off the stage?

Now it seems to me, that Gods from all over, throughout history, have taken second saddle when they go up against the almighty dollar for any length of time. Who hasn't been tainted by fiscal corruption? People can look down their nose at selfish capitalism all they want but know that you'll never see a suicide bomber stem from this ideal. Religions in this country have survived the paring off of barbaric policies and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't there too. If that seems like overstepping, just look again at the horror of not interfering (9 year old sex slaves for _____'s sake). Quite simply, those who are diametrically opposed to that type of humane evolution and would prefer a fight to the death to preserve the disgusting status quo, must be accommodated before the proverbial corner can be turned. That's the ugly, inescapable truth. If we wait for this to work itself out, countless millions... perhaps even billions will suffer for the delay.

If it's a matter of sooner or later (and, of course, it is):
There's 5 million good reasons to pick sooner in Iraq.
There's 9.5 million good reasons to pick sooner in Iran.
(And that's just counting female good reasons, age 14 and under)
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Ps. In hopes of pre-empting any irrelevant responses: I don't see Uday and Qusay's State Sponsored secular rape and child molestation plus murder as any improvement over Muslim-extremist's rape and child molestation...

0 Replies

This is bloody stupid turn of phrase - it is the business of UNICEF and international law authorities to protect children from such exploition, NOT the USMC!

Just as an aside, minors in the USA can be married too! In New Hampshire you can be married at 13 if you are a female and your parents agree!! Call out the National Guard!

In Utah, the more radical members of the Mormon church are doing EXACTLY what you find so abbhorent - In the US of A, in the the 21st Century. What the f*ck are you going to do? Carpet bomb them!?!

0 Replies

Or bomb US cities - where many a 9 year old sex slave will be found.

Just like in ours, Stilly.

0 Replies

A Constant and Unending War: The USA vs The World

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know