ican711nm wrote:
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.
Is that why you have to type certain words in bold? Because I don't get under your skin? If not, then why the feel to have emphasis? Surely you could have typed with normal font. But I digress, I know that curiosity is far more appealing as an excuse than having to have the last word because surely on an internet forum that is all that matters.
ican711nm wrote:
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.
Who cares how many were killed by "Coalition forces" and how many were killed by the "terrorist malignancy". The way I look at it, it's still people dead. One, or a thousand, you still have blood on your hands, but you don't care because these people, to you and Bush, are "collateral". The way I look at it that none of these people would have died to begin with, whether by the hands of the "terrorist malignancy" or "coalition forces" had it not been for America's sloppy foreign policy under Israels mind control. Trying to justify and denigrate the number of civilians killed by coalition forces doesn't change the fact that you have blood on your hands. As far as proving all of this is concerned, we cannot know for certian that "8,000" (such a precise number don't you think?) have been killed by coalition forces. It could very well be 20, 000 and your government will still not tell you the truth.
ican711nm wrote:But you appear unwilling to admit the true murderers of these 30,000 Iraqi civilians.[/color]
I have but two points.
1) Show me absolute and irrefutable evidence that it was the "terrorist malignancy" that killed the exact number of "30,000". You made the claim, now prove it.
2) What difference does it make for it was precisely because of America's imperialistic foreign policy under Israel's mind control that caused this invasion and these deaths.
ican711nm wrote:
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.
What makes you believe you are on the side of good? Again, you have evaded my question. You ask the "terrorists" who are the good guys, they will undoubtedly say they are "good" and pointing to America as "bad". Who is right? Myopia methinks.
ican711nm wrote: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.
What makes you think that these people are "working to mass murder"? What evidence is there to suggest that? If you are going to rely on vague, unsubstantiated and sketchy circumstantial evidence that requires a stretch of an imagination to make use believe that these "terrorists" are out to committ "mass murder" then what's to stop us from believing that the U.S. has engaged and is engaging in mass murder? It can be reasonably argued that the millions of Vietnamese that died was because of America's war and intention killing and destruction of Vietnam. There ya go, mass murder.
Unfortunately for you and Bush, the definition of self-defense is very elastic and you have made it to be whatever it is you want it to be, attacking a nation that posed no threat and had no WMDs and no ties with Al Qaeda, to the point where Collin Powell in front of the UN was made to look like a lying fool. The "bad guys"/"good guys" nonsense is relative and only the belief of weak minds.
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.
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.
You stated that the only two countries we are attempting to control are Iraq and Afghanistan. But whatever happned to democracy, or that we weren't there as occupiers? Truth at last seeps through the text of the fanatic. If you call bombing your way through a country, killing thousands, destroying the economy and infrastructure of a country as "invitation" there is no limit to what sort of exaggerated lies you are willing to believe from your government.
And if these bases are by foreign invitation only, why does the U.S. not allow Japan to build it's own army for self-defense when most of the Japanese reflect in polls that they want America out because America is still occupying Japan believe it or not? And why did America have to oust Saddam particularly at a time when he wanted to convert petrodollars to euros and now the same dilemma is occuring with Iran?
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.
If you are not evading the key question then why did you not answer it? Furthermore, what evidence to you have that these "badguys" are mass-murdering civilians? Furthermore, what more evidence do you want other than the fact that they cleared stated why they are declaring war on America because they perceive America has an interventionist empire that is corroding their life and society? Did you forget all the reasons I listed from the massive interventions, the bombings, America's unconditional support of the dubious ally known as Israel? These are reasons enough, but those who are willing to try so hard to believe in anything will obviously brush these aside.
ican711nm wrote: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.
What is "alleged" about America intervening in the governments of these nations in the Middle East and supporting the authoritarian leaders there? What is "alleged" about America's bombing fetish (since America can no longer fight wars about the only thing it can do is bomb)? What is "alleged" about America's unconditional support for the dubious ally known as Israel? It's not that Bush is guilty of supporting dictators since he certainly supports the authoritarian types in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, because Bush himself is an authoritarian type who believes the Executive branch is all that exists in America. It's that the system itself has created America no matter who is the president to supprot these authoritarian types, support Israel unconditionally, and always intervene in these nations. Bush is as guilty as Clinton, as Reagan, and so on.
ican711nm wrote: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.
What evidence is there that these people are 'mass murdering' anymore than the U.S. is mass murdering? In fact, prior to America's sloppy invasion there was no civil war.
Furthermore, a "democracy" cannot succeed in a society like Iraq, which has thousands of years of history of clans, tribes, blood ties and sects. You forget that democracy is the weakest doctrine of ailing nations. It is overrated and there is no reason why democracy is any better than authoritarianism. In fact, democracy, which is literally the tyranny of the mob, is on par with authoritarianism.
I have outlined all the reason why democracy in Iraq cannot succeed, it's interesting that you have not addressed any of them, and this was many pages back. It was this following response that I wrote which outlines why America will not be successful and why Iraq cannot succeed as a democracy:
I am one of those people that are for pulling out now. America has caused far too much trouble in that region and it's presence is further going to add to the destabilization. "No one predicted this" or "We weren't prepared for this", the administration chants. When were they ready? Whether 9/11 or Katrina I have heard nothing but the same "We weren't ready or expecting this" bromide. America grossly underestimated both the history of the region, the peoples, the religion, the insurgency and did not put enough insight and judgement into its strategy and march to war.
America doesn't hold the cards, and nor does it control the situation anymore. It lost control of that situation a long time ago, when it removed Saddam and created a power vacuum. It's surprising how all this is so simple and not beyond common sense, yet the Washington hawks cannot see this. America doesn't control and hasn't controlled the situation in Iraq since then. It can only respond to events, and that is no recipe for success. Since its topple of Saddam and the power vacuum, things haven't exactly gone the way America predicted, and has been subject to the law of unintended consequences. Who knows what we can expect? No one can predict what will or is going to happen.
Pulling out now, or later, is not going to make a difference in terms of the outcome which is loss. It is a lost cause, mark my words. It is a lost cause 1) militarily 2) politically and 3)financially. The billions that this war costs to an already overstretched America militarily, and a debt-ridden America financially and economically, not to even begin to mention the lives lost on both sides to what was the worst military and political blunder because of Bush's grand visions.
You cannot march into peoples countries and expect to change thousands of years of history, culture, and tradition. You cannot expect them to have some petty elections where people have the illusion of power, and expect a land of clans, tribes, sects and blood ties to be absolved. What Iraq and recent events regarding cartoons, Iran, Hamas, etc., have all shown are two things:
1) First, They have shown that, indeed, America and the West are engaged in a clash of civilizations as Huntington wrote so eloquently in his essay and I urge everyone to read it who has not. http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
This idea that you can imbue your own values and norms upon other cultures and peoples, and expect them to all of a sudden change miracolously, is unfounded. Not all cultures are American or Western cultures. Not all cultures are ready to accept the Western 'values', their ideologies, their institutions, and their ways of life, much less their humor or taste in cartoons, nevermind democracy, which in my opinion is grossly overrated as it is. Not all cultures are ready for democracy, much less secularism, all these values so proudly cherished by the 'progressive West'. These people consider themselves as the 'progressives' in their paradigm. Who is right? Both of them. Who is wrong? None of them.
The Western world may regard religion as mere opinion, or relegated to the dust bin of history, but in other parts of the world, religion is the centerpiece of life and society and has always been so. This is why the West and America is not equipped to deal with the Muslim world.
2) The second thing these recent events and conflicts have shown is that where you have multicultural society, you cannot have it held together by the gluestick of democracy, especially in a region that is not affluent, not fully developed, and doesn't have the standard of living to keep people satisfied and shut up, such as in countries like America where multiculturalism is stil stable for the time being. All societies and governments that become too large and too complex and absorb too many elements, peoples and cultures create the seeds of their own destruction. These work in an entropic fashion. The more complex systems get, the more they move toward disorder. There are too many chaotic variables in Iraq to hold it together. America is simply one variable in the equation toward chaos.
Since it's impossible to have a multicultural society like Iraq held together by a weak thread like democracy, the alternative is either a dictator or breakdown. It takes either an iron fist to rule a vast multucultral country or empire (with Iraq you had Saddam, in an example like the Soviet Union you had Stalin), otherwise they break apart, and decompose. The Soviet Union was an example of an overly large multicultural empire composed of many cultures that eventually brokedown. You cannot control different peoples, cultures, sects, religions and rule them under one banner, which is an important note Huntington also makes. Furthermore, I recommend The Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr.
To quote Kohr:
[quote]There seems to be only one cause behind all forms of social misery: bigness. Oversimplified as this may seem, we shall find the idea more easily acceptable if we consider that bigness, or oversize, is really much more than just a social problem. It appears to be the one and only problem permeating all creation.Whenever something is wrong, something is too big. And if the body of a people becomes diseased with the fever of aggression, brutality, collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental derangement. It is because human beings, so charming as individuals or in small aggregations have been welded onto overconcentrated social units. That is when they begin to slide into uncontrollable catastrophe. Hence it is always bigness, and only bigness, which is the problem of existence. The problem is not to grow but to stop growing; the answer: not union but division.[/quote]
Iraq was initially itself an artificial creation by the British and as such a big and complex society for the many variables it housed. It has never been truly free, and always under the thumb of either a foreign power, or a local dictator. Now that it has been removed, the seeds of division have resurfaced and the question is not if, but when. Cheers.
ican711nm wrote:
Hitler and his gang declared they were going to take over the world: "today Europe, tomorrow the world."
There is no evidence that Hitler ever stated that. Perhaps Allied wartime propaganda, but no direct evidence of Hitler ever stating that, as statement or policy.
ican711nm wrote: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.[/color]
Fanaticisn and blind allegiance to government is only something Germans can do, right? Somehow, you believe you yourself are immune from this, correct? Introspection is not the best trait of Americans. The Germans believed they are the "good guys" doing so many good things and in the name of goodness some had to be killed, no different than you since you believe you are on the side of good, right?
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.
No I am not. If so, then how do I characterize those with whom I disagree? As myopic and naive believers of government wisdom? I ascribe that label to "conservatives" and "liberals" alike, because while they pretend or like to pretend that they are different, they are different sides of an old prostitute. My dislike of conservatives and liberals, Republicons and Demorats is no different. You just feel uneasy that I cannot be placed so easily inside one of your paradigms.
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.
You avoided my point and question. Why do you believe you are the good guy? Do you believe the terrorists are stupid enough to think they are the bad guys? Of course not. Have you seen the documentary on PBS titled "The Insurgency"? The insurgents interviewed clearly stated that they think America is the bad guy. Who is right?
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."
If only America had listened to Washington about foreign entanglements. Woe is America.
ican711nm wrote: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.
However, I wonder if we both agree with this guy:
Quote: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.
[/color]
Unfortunately, democracy, or rather mobacracy, does not listen to those great men and sadly we can only take them as moral views of the way things 'ought' to be, but are not and will never be. As such, faith in any 'system' is misplaced.
................. 
