THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ican711nm wrote:

...
The doctrines you imply are incredible:
(1) Leave badguys alone and they will cease to be badguys and leave us alone; and,
(2) Badguys are badguys not by their choice, but by the choices made by their victims.
...

This doctrine is not incredible in the least.
Yes it is!

The only doctrine is to ensure stability by being strong defensively - not by flexing your musles and aggressively attacking non-threatening countries with little to defend themselves from overwhelming technological force of weapons.
A strong defense that does not defend when defense is required, is less useful than the teets on a boar hog.

Iraq only happens to be the most recent example of aggression gone bad by a powerful country attacking a defenseless country; it increased worldwide terrorism.

You don't fight terrorism with bombs; you fight it with worldwide consensus on how to fight terrorism as a world community.
Current worldwide consensus appears to be: do not fight it.

Current ican consensus is worldwide consensus is a bad substitute for rational decision making. The do not fight it doctrine did not work; is not working; and will not work.

Surely, you must have at least one ready example of when this doctrine of yours has worked, else you're smoking rope. If not smoking rope, please describe that example.

The US and Israel never learned that lesson, and it only exacerbates more violence and killings.

All those innocent family members killed by the US have increased terrorists; they will seek revenge against the US and our allies. We only guarantee more of the same.

ican, You think like an arse. Quit phart'n so much!

The more you blow wind, the more it stinks up the thread.

This coment of yours is so obviously a mindless statement that additional comment is unnecessary:

Your commentary is an incredibly incompetent description of what America is. It is an incredibly incompetent description of the reality with which we Americans are actually confronted. It is an incredibly incompetent description of what we Americans must do to effectively cope with that reality.

The United States of America is not an empire now, and it never has been. According to Britannica, we are a country smaller than either Russia, Canada, or China ... even including the few dinky territories we own outside our 50 states plus Washington D.C. Our population is small by comparison with China and India. We control no other countries. The only countries in the world we are attempting to control are Afghanistan and Iraq, and these two we seek to temporarily control as part of a coalition of countries trying to protect ourselves from Terrorist Malignancy. Our troops in other countries are there by invitation. Financially speaking, we owe other countries far more money (that they voluntarily loaned us) than they owe us. We rush to the aid of other countries hit with natural disasters, and are often first arrivals. We donate billions of dollars to rescue people in other countries from desease. We even pay 22% of the cost to finance an organization of nations (i.e., the UN), a large majority of whom repeatedly, falsely accuse us of things we never did or will do.

Al-Qaeda et al (i.e., Terrorist Malignancy) has repeatedly declared war against us Americans. Al-Qaeda et al has been and is making war against us Americans. Al-Qaeda et al has mass murdered thousands of American civilians. Al-Qaeda et al has mass murdered thousands of civilians in other countries. Al-Qaeda et al has repeatedly declared that their objective is to conquer us Americans and the rest of the world as well.

It ought to be obvious that necessary for continuing the mass murder of civilians and for conquering the rest of the world, Al-Qaeda et al must conquer us Americans, because otherwise we Americans will not allow Al-Qaeda et al to conquer us or the rest of the world.

But you want us to bring our military back home, abandon the middle east and its civilians, and gamble that the repeatedly stated goals and objectives of al-Qaeda et al are merely a bluff just to get us out of the middle east?

I think that is at best a mindlessly dumb gamble and at worst an extremely dangerous gamble. It is the kind of gamble that only those who are LIEbrals or the wards of LIEbrals seriously recommend we Americans take. It is the kind of gamble that only those people advocate we take, who cannot muster the courage to face the reality we must actually face to survive.

The doctrines you imply are incredible:
(1) Leave badguys alone and they will cease to be badguys and leave us alone; and,
(2) Badguys are badguys not by their choice, but by the choices made by their victims.

Hell, no truly knowledgeable person even claims either of these doctrines worked for anyone in the history of the human race ... Even Christian believers do not claim these doctrines were advocated, muchless followed, by Jesus Christ. Human history is filled with the deadly consequences of those who adopted these doctrines even for a little while. Does the name Neville Chamberlain ring a bell?

If you want to do something about bad guys, start with Bush and company - the whole kit and caboodle. They're all responsible for the big mess we're in today - all over the world.

Your head is screwed on so tightly, you can't think straight. Our enemy is in Washington DC, not Iraq.

ican, I'm not here to answer your q's. I'm here to make you look ignorant, although you don't need much help from anybody.

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, I'm not here to answer your q's. I'm here to make you look ignorant, although you don't need much help from anybody.

You seem to be having the opposite effect.

If numbers mean anything, more people challenge ican's ridiculous opinion than most others on this thread and elsewhere. That's enough evidence for me!

Anon, All they do is stink up the place. I don't know what wind blew them in, but they're all "chicken hawks." All bluster and no action.

All you righties know to do is use ad hominems. Grow up!

ican, I'm not here to answer your q's. I'm here to make you look ignorant, although you don't need much help from anybody.

ican711nm wrote:

This coment of yours is so obviously a mindless statement that additional comment is unnecessary:

If, as you say, it is so obviously 'mindless' then why did it succeed in getting under your skin, and causing you to respond? I think, deep down, it's more mindful than anything else, and that is what is scary, is it not?
None of your comments get under my skin. What they do instead is increase my curiosity about why you believe what you appear to believe. Your comments up to this point do nothing to relieve my curiosity about why you believe what you appear to believe.

ican711nm wrote:

Your commentary is an incredibly incompetent description of what America is. It is an incredibly incompetent description of the reality with which we Americans are actually confronted. It is an incredibly incompetent description of what we Americans must do to effectively cope with that reality.

...
What do all those thousands of people that have fallen victim to the terror of U.S. bombs and "shock and awe" have to say? What do you think Iraqis have to cope with thanks to America. Should we not feel sorry for them, because of the reality they have to cope with?
Approximately 38,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 1/1/2003. About 30,000 of the 38,000 were murdered by Terrorist Malignancy, that is badguys (i.e., al-Qaeda, Saddamists, et al). The other 8000 civilians killed, were inadvertently killed by Coalition forces, while the Coalition forces were fighting Saddam's troops, removing Saddam's government or killing or capturing Terrorist Malignancy. By the way, almost 90% of these other 8,000 civilians were killed in 2003.

But you appear unwilling to admit the true murderers of these 30,000 Iraqi civilians.

Why is America the only victim?
America is not the only victim. As I have repeatedly stated there are thousands of other civilians that have been murdered by these badguys besides American civilians.

In fact, America is hardly a victim, for it is precisely the reason for the state of the world at the moment. You think you are the good guys? What about the terrorists? They think they are the good guys. Who is right? What do you have to say about this? Can we have both sides as the good guys?
Americans like the people of many other countries perceive those working to mass murder (i.e., intentionally mass kill) them as badguys. Americans like the people of many other countries want to stop these badguys from murdering them. The only way they know how to accomplish this with these badguys is to kill them before they murder us. It's called self-defense.

ican711nm wrote:

The United States of America is not an empire now, and it never has been. According to Britannica, we are a country smaller than either Russia, Canada, or China ... even including the few dinky territories we own outside our 50 states plus Washington D.C. Our population is small by comparison with China and India. We control no other countries. The only countries in the world we are attempting to control are Afghanistan and Iraq (A&I), and these two we seek to temporarily control as part of a coalition of countries trying to protect ourselves from Terrorist Malignancy. Our troops in other countries are there by invitation. Financially speaking, we owe other countries far more money (that they voluntarily loaned us) than they owe us. We rush to the aid of other countries hit with natural disasters, and are often first arrivals. We donate billions of dollars to rescue people in other countries from desease. We even pay 22% of the cost to finance an organization of nations (i.e., the UN), a large majority of whom repeatedly, falsely accuse us of things we never did or will do.

Then why does America need 702 military bases worldwide? If it is not an empire, then why has it behaved like one? Have you seen the list of places America has intervened since 1945?
America does not behave like an empire. Each of these bases, except the ones in A&I, exist with the approval of their host country. Our past interventions are numerous, but we do not reside in any other countries than A&I under the Bush administration.
...
Moreover, have you read "Rogue State" by William Blum?
No!

ican711nm wrote:

Al-Qaeda et al (i.e., Terrorist Malignancy) has repeatedly declared war against us Americans. Al-Qaeda et al has been and is making war against us Americans. Al-Qaeda et al has mass murdered thousands of American civilians. Al-Qaeda et al has mass murdered thousands of civilians in other countries. Al-Qaeda et al has repeatedly declared that their objective is to conquer us Americans and the rest of the world as well.

The key question which you are evading and not asking, similar to Bush, is why they have "declared war"? What is the reason they do not like America?
Neither Bush or I are evading that key question. We don't have to ask that key question because these badguys have stated very clearly in their several fatwahs their key reasons for declaring war. None of these reasons they give for declaring war are sufficient reasons for declaring war and mass murderering civilians.

Could it be because America has been an eternal bully? Could it be that American foreign policy has been hijacked and serves AIPAC and other Israeli interests and because of unconditional American support for Israel? Could it be because America has repeatedly supported crack pot dictators? Could it be that America has occupied and bombed them?
No! It's primarily because we allegedly "occupy their holy places." These other reasons you give are their alleged additional reasons. It's interesting that you bring up their complaint about past US support of dictators. Bush certainly is not guilty of that in A&I.

Moreover, the reason Al Qaeda and bin Laden exist is precisely because of America. They created this "enemy" directly and indirectly.

Directly, America was buddy buddy with bin Laden (as with Saddam), and funded him against the Soviet Union. We also know of Bush's ties to the bin Laden family. And we also know that America funded the Taliban via the CIA and Pakistan to fight the Soviet Union.

Indirectly, America's imperial escapdes have created a reaction. When there is a reaction, there must be a cause, as every cause has an equal and opposite reaction. Every action and choice has unimaginable and unintended consequences that we can never foresee into the future. It is the rule when studying chaos theory, that like a butterfly effect, the choices we make, eventually come back in forms of reactions. The more centralized and powerful systems become, i.e. the American empire, the world through chaos must harmonize itself. The balance cannot be shifted in one angle too much. It must balance itself, and this "Terrorist Malignancy" is America's own reaction, a way of entropic systems moving toward disorder.
I agree with much of that. Now please explain to me why it is in the interest of these badguys (or even compatible with chaos theory) to mass murder Iraqi citizens when not doing so would lead the newly elected government of Iraq (that replaced one of the dictators you alleged they resented) to ask the USA to remove its troops from Iraq.

ican711nm wrote:

It ought to be obvious that necessary for continuing the mass murder of civilians and for conquering the rest of the world, Al-Qaeda et al must conquer us Americans, because otherwise we Americans will not allow Al-Qaeda et al to conquer us or the rest of the world.

But you want us to bring our military back home, abandon the middle east and its civilians, and gamble that the repeatedly stated goals and objectives of al-Qaeda et al are merely a bluff just to get us out of the middle east?

This sort of fanatical, uncontrolled, unrestrained paranoia, panic and fear can only be propped up by government. It is akin to all the nonsense the government propped up about Hitler and Germany and how they are going to "take over the world". That was obviously nonsense and never did the Germans intend to take over the whole world. But government has a strange way of making people believe things, in ways no different than religion.
Hitler and his gang declared they were going to take over the world: "today Europe, tomorrow the world." So we believed them. It was the German people who were made to believe things their Nazi government wanted them to believe -- including but not limited to the alleged righteousness of mass murdering about 10 million civilians.

ican711nm wrote:

I think that is at best a mindlessly dumb gamble and at worst an extremely dangerous gamble. It is the kind of gamble that only those who are LIEbrals or the wards of LIEbrals seriously recommend we Americans take. It is the kind of gamble that only those people advocate we take, who cannot muster the courage to face the reality we must actually face to survive.

I see you have already identifed yourself as a "conservative" since you quickly labelled those that disagree as the "others", as "lieberals".
Yours is a strange logic! I have repeatedly explicitly identified myself as a person who wants the liberty of all innocents throughout the world to be secured. Does that make me a conservative? Does that make me a classic liberal? Does that make me a contemporary libertarian? I don't know and I don't care.

It is precisely this Manichaean way of thinking that creates divisions that are necessary for politics and war. This thinking that anyone who disagrees is a "liberal". I never thought of myself as liberlas, much less a conservative, but I suppose that's a result of me not wanting to restrict myself in any paradigm or ism, thereby creatying a myopic sense of understanding the world.
I agree, and you in particular are especially guilty of that "Manichaean way of thinking that creates divisions that are necessary for politics and war." Carefully re-examine how you characterize those with whom you disagree.

ican711nm wrote:

The doctrines you imply are incredible:
(1) Leave badguys alone and they will cease to be badguys and leave us alone; and,
(2) Badguys are badguys not by their choice, but by the choices made by their victims.

The naivity and childishness that goes with this mentality and thinking is astounding. So here, ican thinks he is favoured by God and he is the "good guy". He and Bush think America is the "good" guys, while the terrorists are the "bad guys". But, ask a terrorist if he is the good guy or the bad guy, he will undoubtedly state he is on the side of good and America is on the side of bad. Who is right? Again, it is this paradox that creates these divisions in the world. These mentalities that create an "us" and "them" mentality.
These doctrines that I consider incredible are the doctrines you imply are your doctrines. If they are not your doctrines, then say so.

ican711nm wrote:

Hell, no truly knowledgeable person even claims either of these doctrines worked for anyone in the history of the human race ... Even Christian believers do not claim these doctrines were advocated, muchless followed, by Jesus Christ. Human history is filled with the deadly consequences of those who adopted these doctrines even for a little while. Does the name Neville Chamberlain ring a bell?

No knowledgeable person ever claims empires can last indefinitely, especially when they have a trade deficit equal to 7% of their GDP financed by none other than the Asian giants China and Japan; a massive government debt in the trillions, constantly and continually rising forcing the stupid government to constantly raise the debt limit, print more money and cause more inflation and devalue the dollor; raising the debt limit which has been raised 4 times already since 2002; a war that is costing billions, further destabilizing the region; a war that America cannot and is not able to fight because a modern nation state equipped with a convential army cannot fight asymmetrical warfare; already having trouble containing Iraq it's trying to pick another fight and be a bully with Iran. My dear, all these are trends are that looking dismal for America. Unless America gradually changes its course, itll be nothing more than another empire that goes down into the dust bin of history.
Except for your claim that America "cannot and is not able to fight" the wars in A&I (we obviously can and are able to fight these wars in A&I, but risk not winning by our current methods), I agree with all the rest in your last comment. Yes, because of all those dumb things (except what I excluded) that you mentioned we are doing, our republic like many of its predecessors will probably go "down into the dust bin of history."

We may both agree with this guy:
[quote]Alexander Tyler writing about the viability of democracy, in “The Cycle of Democracy”, 1778:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

Thomas Paine in "The American Crisis," December, 1776.

A generous parent should have said, 'If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace'; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.