posted on October 11, 2001 06:32:06 AMFirst, we have to help moderate Arab states, but on the condition that they embrace moderation.
How is that done? First, they seem to be going absolutely ape at any U.S. presence. Second, the one Muslim country we did have a heavy influence on Iran was toppled by the Islamic fundamentalists. Since the US had too much influence over the Shah of Iran the iron fist couldn't be used to stop the revolution. Saudia Arabia needed the U.S. when Saddam was a threat but has to let the U.S. use the bases in Saudia Arabia off the record for fear of upsetting the population.
It seems like a Catch 22 situation any way you turn. How many generations would it take for them to embrace both western technology and moderation. They seem to only be interested in half the package. The Shah of Iran's downfall was pushing western ways on his people in my opinion and the fundamentalist took advantage of their opportunity.
I don't advocate making green glass all over the middle east, but I do support making it very bad on the tourist industry for any country that offers campuses giving out diplomas in terrorism.
posted on October 11, 2001 06:34:04 AMSo to sum it up, godzillatemple, we need bigger bombs?
Nope. Different thread, different topic. As I've said, I'm not a "peacemaker" in the sense that I think we should avoid all military action against the Taliban. In fact, I think we DO need to take military action, and that it should be decisive [hence the need to use bombs that actually accomplish something instead of just leaving strategically placed potholes].
But that's a far cry from saying we should just nuke the entire Middle East or "wipe out their entire civilization" as some people have called for.
You asked for some "answers" and I provided some. I guess rather than address those answers it's easier to simply make snide comments, eh?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 11, 2001 06:35 AM ]
posted on October 11, 2001 06:50:10 AM
There's no point in trying to have serious conversations with fools, Barry; it's a maxim as old as Greek civilization.
posted on October 11, 2001 06:59:44 AM
Godzillatemple,
Actually your posts have provided no answers. Only some cut-n-paste of an article full of hogwash. Perhaps you could post some orginal & independent thoughts?
KRS,
The saying "once a fool, always a fool", seems to be well documented in your posts.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:09:59 AMdeliteful: Actually your posts have provided no answers. Only some cut-n-paste of an article full of hogwash. Perhaps you could post some orginal & independent thoughts?
Well, you've certainly got me there. I don't have a clue how to respond to such a stupid, uninformed statement. Not that I don't know what to say, mind you, but the fact that nothing I say could possibly penetrate makes it all seem pretty pointless. I mean, I could ask you back up your statement that the article is "full of hogwash", or point out all the times I offered original and independent thoughts without quoting somebody else, but what good would it do if you are unwilling or unable to understand?
For once, krs, I have to agree with you. Scary, huh?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
"The Shah of Iran's downfall was pushing western ways on his people in my opinion and the fundamentalist took advantage of their opportunity."
That is so innaccurate as to be ludicrous.
In the first place the people of Iran never forgave the shah for his bloody overthrow done with US support of their national hero, who's name I couldn't begin to spell, in 1953.
The Iranian people did not fight to replace the Shah's regime with the current dictatorship in 1979. They fought to death for freedom and democracy, but the Shah's brutal secret police force, Savak, had already destroyed most of the political
organizations in Iran, including the nationalists. The only viable replacement left to them was the fundamentalist group headed by Khomeni. It was either him or anarchy and he at least offered a government with their interests uppermost, in the beginning.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:17:01 AM
Barry, it's nor by a long shot the first time that you and I have agreed. The truly scary thing is that Twinsoft and I have begun doing that as well.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:17:36 AMgodzillatemple: save your breath, don't bother. It's sort of like that kid in school (& every school has one) that goes around saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
posted on October 11, 2001 07:22:32 AMIn the first place the people of Iran never forgave the shah for his bloody overthrow done with US support of their national hero, who's name I couldn't begin to spell, in 1953.
We screwed up big time in Iran. By doing the same thing we've done other palces. Any time you help place a Dictator in power, sooner or later, the people are going to hate you for it. What we did after WWII in Germany and Japan was MUCH SMARTER.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:23:46 AMbunnicula: Yeah, yeah, I know. It's just that, even though I don't expect everybody to agree with me when I post my admittedly lengthy opinions, I usually assume that people at least understand what I'm saying.
I happen to truly enjoy a good debate, with point and counterpoint. Sometimes I learn things from others, and hopefully sometimes people learn from me. But watching a forum devolve to the level of "am not! are too! neener-neener-neener!" just depresses me.
*sigh*
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 11, 2001 07:25:12 AM
Yes. Particularly Japan as that was our ball alone. Germany was split up like booty, but we didn't really want any of it and stuck around to keep the other kids from fighting.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:28:04 AM
"I could be wrong, but I suspect this whole thread is a bit of a straw man argument to beign with [you know, when you put up an argument that nobody has actually made, and then go about debunking the nonexistent argument]."
Naw, you couldn't be wrong because if you were, then I would have been wrong when I said that on page 1, and that's impossible.
If anyone really wants to try to understand why people who hold a differing view on the wisdom of this war, there are plenty of places, on the 'net, on tv, in magazines and newspapers, to find other viewpoints. They'll run the gamut, you can find an "it's always wrong to kill, even in self-defense" position to "I don't trust this government" position, and everything in between.
People don't seem to want that, though. That the "punch a pacifist in the face repeatedly to 'explain' to him the error in his thinking" is so seemingly popular around the 'net, and has been posted several times in this forum, with approval, and not a word of disapproval, says a lot about us.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:34:43 AM
Maybe it says that the "punch a pacifist in the face" poster is usually more polite to other posters. While the pacifists seem to gang up in little groups and talk at people.
Or maybe that some of us got puched in the face on 9/11 and we don't plan to let ourselves get hit again.
If those "special ops" and "western indocrination programs" work, fine use them. But so far I've seen no proof that either are effective in the Middle East. Jess
posted on October 11, 2001 07:39:01 AM
I think we're eventually going to but you said it yourself in "We screwed up big time in Iran. By doing the same thing we've done other places". The US has been screwing up bigtime around the globe ever since WW2. It's been under various justifications but in all cases it interferes with the development ofsystems of government which are appropriate in the countries that develop them. We don't agree with a philosophy or we have interests in some valuable obtainable in the subject country, but always it's the imposition of our will by subterfuge, coersion, covert activity, or force which takes away the control of the country from those who inhabit it. Where is our right to do that? Are we the only system that could possibly work for them? Or are we simply thieves and murderers on a world scale, armed to the teeth and swinging our weight of the threat of destruction around like a fat bully on the street? There are people in these places who would like a hope of a free will and a life spent in the pursuit of happiness, just like there is here. Is it any wonder that they are driven to fight by whatever means they can against any force which denies that to them? It's exactly what we did here and are so nationally proud of having done.
Response is to microbes, whom I wouldn't mind talking to on the phone sometime so as to be free if inane interference.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:51:13 AM
"Or maybe that some of us got puched in the face on 9/11 and we don't plan to let ourselves get hit again."
And so the response is to punch a fellow citizen, who doesn't agree with you, in the face? As I said, what we, the society 'we,' which this forum is a window into, find funny, is enlightening.
posted on October 11, 2001 07:53:02 AM
We've come full circle here. Now we are back to the 9/11 attack is our fault and those "brave and reasonable" men were simply fighting with the only tools they had.
As long as some continue to blame the victims and praise the criminals, we will never be safe.
posted on October 11, 2001 08:03:28 AMof systems of government which are appropriate in the countries that develop them
I disagree. All philosophies think they're way is best, so I am not sympathetic to undemocratic philosophies, none of which intend to stay put and leave the rest of the world alone any more than we do. We all have visions of conquest and what Utopia might look like.
It is, however, a fact that no two democracies have ever warred to resolve differences or even for the heck of it.
It seems to me therefore that the way to eliminate war entirely is for the world to eventually turn to democracy. Autocratic regimes aren't appropriate for any region. While democracy itself is foreign to the middle eastern tradition, so are nation states which is exactly the form of government in the majority of countries in the region. I'm all for replacing one artificial construction which is warlike and aggressive (oppressive, autocratic nation state dictatorships) with another artificial construction (democracy) which has been demonstrated to be the best hope for world peace.
Saddam Hussein and his poison gas is no more appropriate to the middle east than to any western country. That these people haven't yet tasted of freedom or democracy doesn't mean that it's any less "apropriate". And if it is innapropriate, so are the state borders drawn up by Brits with rulers and maps.
Why not risk replacing one inappropriateness with another, potentially better one? Seems like we did Japan a good turn.
By the way, the Saudis established themselves as rulers of Arabia in the good old fashioned middle eastern way -- they fought and slaughtered their way to power. If that's really "appropriate" because it's "the system that" Arabia "developed" than why is it that the Saudis aren't viewed as legitimate in the eyes of many in the region? Because they sell the black gook to the only people interested in buying it?
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 11, 2001 08:06 AM ]
posted on October 11, 2001 10:01:55 AMThe US has been screwing up bigtime around the globe ever since WW2.
No doubt. Cuba, The Phillipians, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and more I'm not thinking about.
but in all cases it interferes with the development ofsystems of government which are appropriate in the countries that develop them.
The only "appropriate form of government" is some form of Democracy that doesn't interfer with the rights of minorities. A tall order, in most cases.
or force which takes away the control of the country from those who inhabit it. Where is our right to do that?
We don't have that right. The problem is in most all these cases, we got rid of something bad, but didn't help the inhabitaints replace it with something better.
What happens after a war is much more importaint than what happens during the war. I know it sounds weird to say it like that, but in the long run, it is.
Are we the only system that could possibly work for them?
No, but there are other forms of democacy.
is to microbes, whom I wouldn't mind talking to on the phone sometime
posted on October 11, 2001 10:55:19 AMThere are people in these places who would like a hope of a free will and a life spent in the pursuit of happiness, just like there is here.
Isn't this usually the stated objective of US military actions in foreign lands? To restore that hope to people who have fallen under the tyranny of communism, dictators or other oppressive forms of government? I know it's not always the true objective, but if at the same time democracy and free will can be restored to people who have lost it, isn't that a good thing?
Certainly the people of Afghanistan are not free to pursue lives of happiness under the Taliban.
posted on October 11, 2001 11:15:03 AM"Why not risk replacing one inappropriateness with another, potentially better one? Seems like we did Japan a good turn".
Say what? You pick the single regime that we didn't tamper with as an example of the good done by the US? Good, that's umm, kinda' the point.
We gave Japan the ability to reindustrialize and guided the country back to economic viability but they are far from being the democracy you would model them as, James. Also they were making cameras and motorbikes long before the war. But their companies are run by modern day fuedal warlords with cities named for them complete with fiefdoms and indentured paid servants. It works because the people are happy with it.
On the other--why are we needed at all? Because we are impatient with whatever process any country may go through in coming to a system which works for them, conveniently forgetting that our own formation was some 200 years in fermentation and even then suffered a big questioning test not 80 years later. Makes you wonder how in the world we ever did it without US interference doesn't it?
Yes, Spaz, wouldn't it be wonderful but it's not. We aided Afganistan with billions and arms against Russia because it was in our interest to do so, all the while promising better tomorrows. But when Russia bailed so did we bail, and then we gave our support in billions again to the Taliban because they evidently promised to protect our interests there while the popular government did not.
posted on October 11, 2001 12:18:39 PMOn the other--why are we needed at all? Because we are impatient with whatever process any country may go through in coming to a system which works for them, conveniently forgetting that our own formation was some 200 years in fermentation and even then suffered a big questioning test not 80 years later. Makes you wonder how in the world we ever did it without US interference doesn't it?
If it's any comfort, we finally solve this problem in the 23rd century when after a series of wars, nuclear and otherwise, the nations of Earth join together in peaceful coexistence with races from other worlds under the umbrella of the United Federation of Planets, whose Prime Directive is not to interfere in the affairs of any developing culture or society.
posted on October 11, 2001 12:35:59 PMkrs:Say what? You pick the single regime that we didn't tamper with as an example of the good done by the US? Good, that's umm, kinda' the point.
Uh....I think you need to do a bit of reading. The US profoundly changed Japan after the war. We caused a new constitution to go into effect that took away most of the Emperor's power, prohibited them from having a standing army, and guaranteed basic human rights. We introduced universal sufferage to Japan. We broke up power structures by disolving major corporations, we changes their education system to a more western format, and we decentralized their police (which was once a very much feared & despised force in Japan).
posted on October 11, 2001 02:53:17 PMWe "tampered" with Japan in a big way!
We most certainly did. And it's one of the few cases where the "problem" didn't reappear inside of a generation. It required the US occupying the country for a few years after the fighting ended... Are we willing to do that????
posted on October 11, 2001 03:08:11 PM
If we could get in the "way back machine" for just a few years I wonder what we'd do different. Look at the last 3 times our military was called on. Were we wrong to get involved in Kosovo? Were we wrong to send troops into Haiti? Were we wrong to drive Saddam out of Kuwait?
Apparently the answer is yes to some.
What we did in the past and what we do now as far as military involvement are a bit different.
I refuse to believe America is the villain some want me to believe. Maybe I'm blinded by propaganda, and then maybe others are given in to self flagellation and still others are simply baiting.
posted on October 11, 2001 03:08:37 PM
I don't know that we alone should do the occupying. As this problem affects the world at large, the UN should do the occupying.
The reason we were so successful with Japan is that we did *not* seek to destroy that nation. Instead we put into effect a massive campaign of re-education and re-structure. Civil rights, suffrage, and democracy were introduced & thence embraced by the populace.
Everyone focuses on the dropping of the bomb & portraying the US as the bad guys for doing so--and totally ingnore the incredible atrocities the Japanese committed during the war, not just against the US & our Allies but also against China, Korea, the Philippines, etc., etc., etc. etc. If we had taken the road being suggested by some folks today, the US would have totally destroyed Japan because "their mindset is so totally different from ours." Instead, we transformed their populace.
posted on October 11, 2001 03:11:19 PMuaru: I certainly don't see the US as the bad guy in this present conflict. I think we are doing the right thing in fighting back. It is this talk of genocide that really concerns me. I would hope that the character of our nation & its people hasn't deteriorated that level.
