Thoughts on how to really defeat terrorism- an essay from the heart

[Kashyapa]

You're wasting your time RandFan, this guy doesnt respond to logic or rational thought.

Well, either that, or I just disagree with you, Tony, and you can't deal with it like an adult. I've backed up my points fairly well (not always, but we're not all perfect), willingly retracted statements that were inaccurate, apologized for occasional emotional moments, and along with others quoted a well-developed and logical area of statistical game theory to back up my points. I hate to toot my own horn, but I think I've been fairly logical and rational in my arguments. Now, you might not agree with them, but you've also been combative and hostile instead of arguing reasonably and gracefully. I don't think that reflects that well on you. I might not argue that well sometimes, but at least I'm reasonably civil and am willing to eat a bit of crow every once in a while.

I'll trim up my occasionally logically sloppy posts if you can argue with me in a reasonable way, ok? And quit this backstabbing.

RandFan- my responses to your questions are on the previous page. Thanks for your thoughts and calling me on my generalizations.

 

[a_unique_person]

How do you know?

Peace will beget peace. Good intentions will beget good intentions.

No it wont. People like me will take advantage of the "peace" and "good intentions". What will you do then?

So how do explain the appearance of earth of the 'civil society', countries where crime and violence are very low. Why not a civil planet.

 

[Kashyapa]

What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

 

[Tony]

RandFan-

1. Read anything any of the founding fathers wrote. You'll find nothing that advocates rampant interference in the politics of other sovreign nations we're not officially at war with.

So your objection is constitutional based?

Read the constitution, you'll find nothing that advocates giving money to soverign nations for AIDS, food, various diseases, and development. I guess you also would be in favor of cutting off the nations that depend on us for such things.

You'll find nothing in the constitution that advocates giving money to any international body. I guess you would favor our departure from the UN.

You'll find nothing that advocates using public money for education, healthcare or welfare. I guess you are against such government programs.


2. Given that many of the regimes on our current ◊◊◊◊ list were originally funded, armed, and installed by the US, it seems likely that our enemy list would be a good deal shorter if we'd had the sense to mind our business.

What regimes?


6. Jimygun said that war would never end. I take that to be a state beyond repair, or something very close to it. I don't think we're at that point yet.

The only way to end war would be to unite humanity in a way that is completly unprecedented and unrealistic in the foreseeable future.


Reporter: "What do you think about Western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?"
Gandhi, chuckling softly: "I think that it would be a good idea."

Alas, Gandi shows himself to be a bigot.

 

[RandFan]

Reporter: "What do you think about Western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?"
Gandhi, chuckling softly: "I think that it would be a good idea."

Thanks for the response. With all due respect I don't agree with much of your analysis but I respect your point of view.

IMO the human experience is complex. Democracy and capitalism though fraught with problems provide the best opportunity for the most people.

The problems of the world are not caused by the United States but are caused by tyrants, dictators and cultures that don't allow for democracy and capitalism. Yes we have instilled a number of these dictators but it is not axiomatic that a better regime would have resulted if we had not intervened.

I do question much of our attempts to mold geopolitics. I think we have made many mistakes but such failures do not prove that success would have been had if America had not engaged in hegemony. Nor does it guarantee that we would not be resented for our success or hated for our politics and used by leaders of other nations as a convenient scape goat for the suffering of citizens abroad.

I'm sure you will think what you want but America is not the source of most of the worlds problems. America, it turns out is the source of much good in the world.

Could we do better? Of course, but we have done a great job. If we handle the peace the way I suspect we will then ultimately the war will have been on balance a very good thing though I'm sure you will have many reasons to believe otherwise.

Please, make your arguments. I will give you the last word. But from me, a man who does not romanticize war but instead understands the cruel and inhumane insanity of military conflict (war is hell), what we did was right. We as a nation should strive for peace but we should be prepared to go to war if deemed necessary. This war was necessary.

We simply have a different vision. I can respect those who disagree with me. I hope that you can respect me.

RandFan.

 

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...You conveniently skipped over my questions about threats and gave me the tired old line about everything being the evil western world's fault.

Is North Korea a military threat to its neighbours and the world? Just answer the question please. Given enough time and resources would Saddam have developed the ability to attack Israel? He said he would. Just answer the question please.

Did the Soviet Union fall because of the good will shown it around the world or did it fall because of the strong military challenge the US presented? Just answer the question please.

You apologize for insulting me then give the explanation that you tend to lash out when confronted with hostility? Isn't that the failing of the western world you so bitterly oppose? Face it, in spite of your ramblings, you are still a human being with the same peculiarities that we all share. It is the nature of man, including yourself, to lash out when confronted. It is the role of society to ensure the protection of its people against those that would lash out.

The world conditions have not changed in 6000 years. It is not the fault of the western powers for today's troubles, any more than it was the fault of the Egyptians, Monguls, Ottomans, or Chinese and Japanese warlords. The fault lies explicitely in the nature of man. As long as that nature is controlled by greed or hatred or desire for power over another person then it is incumbant upon those that can protect others from aggression to do so.

If you think of a way to change the nature of man then let me know. It sure as hell isn't going to change a phycopath's nature if the people around him decide to be his willing victims.

 

[Kashyapa]

1. The constitution is against aggression without cause to any foreign nation, and it is against meddling in the affairs of sovreign nations. It does not prohibit humanitarianism and doing good deeds; in fact it encourages it. I do not favor cutting off the good things that America does- which are many. I simply am in favor of cutting the ill-advised and unwise things that we do. As you can see from some of my posts above, I'm VERY much for a strong UN and other international organizations. Don't twist my words; bad arguing tactic. We are capable of doing both good and bad; I have tirelessly argued for doing only good in the world.

2. Please see response #1 in my reply to RandFan for the list. It's fairly large.

3. Well, yeah, it's unprecedented. Guess we'd better stop searching for a cure for cancer or AIDS, or exploring Mars, and stop trying to develop new technology. After all, they're unprecedented and some might say they're unrealistic in the near future, right? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Where is peace going to take hold if not here, the most powerful nation in the world, whose founding charter and legacy is peace and goodwill? Yeah, world peace isn'tr realistic in the near future. But US peace is. All we have to do is change a few policies, permanently, and we start living the ideals of the constitution. We can't bring about total peace- but we can at least get the ball rolling.

4. Don't forget that Gandhi had just spent half of his lifetime struggling against British greed and colonialism inflicted against his country for 250 years. You'd be a little bitter too, wouldn't you say?

So your objection is constitutional based?

Read the constitution, you'll find nothing that advocates giving money to soverign nations for AIDS, food, various diseases, and development. I guess you also would be in favor of cutting off the nations that depend on us for such things.

You'll find nothing in the constitution that advocates giving money to any international body. I guess you would favor our departure from the UN.

You'll find nothing that advocates using public money for education, healthcare or welfare. I guess you are against such government programs.


2. Given that many of the regimes on our current ◊◊◊◊ list were originally funded, armed, and installed by the US, it seems likely that our enemy list would be a good deal shorter if we'd had the sense to mind our business.

What regimes?


6. Jimygun said that war would never end. I take that to be a state beyond repair, or something very close to it. I don't think we're at that point yet.

The only way to end war would be to unite humanity in a way that is completly unprecedented and unrealistic in the foreseeable future.


Reporter: "What do you think about Western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?"
Gandhi, chuckling softly: "I think that it would be a good idea."

Alas, Gandi shows himself to be a bigot.

 

[Kashyapa]

1. Yes. It's one of the few regimes we didn't start up.
2. Yes. We put him in power, we gave him his WMD, we funded him. He was our tool against Iran when our other tool, the Shah, got the axe by the Allatollahs. So yes, he would have been a threat to Israel. But not if we hadn't allowed him to be.
3. It fell because Mikhail Gorbachev realized the path the world was going down and allowed it to fall. This is not a fact widely realized in the West, but the USSR could have stuck around a lot longer than it did. I suppose one could say that it was because of American military might, but it was the Soviet decision to back down and crumble that ended it.
4. Of course I lash out when confronted with hostility. Probably less than you do, but yes, I do. You mistake my point- I do not argue with war or violence when it is absolutely needed to safeguard the greater good. I supported the war in Kosovo because an entire ethnic group was getting slaughtered. I would have supported WWII. Protection is absolutely logical; defense of your country and citizens against attack is justified. I've never argued with this, and the tit-for-tat game theory strategy that I mentioned specifically allows for this. Interference in other countries' sovreign affairs, pre-emptive attacks, secret proxy wars, and wars that can never be won are not Constitutional, moral, or even logical (see the game theory stuff).
5. Again, I do not argue against rolling over at the first sign of adversity. I advocate speaking softly and carrying a big stick. There's a difference, and I think maybe you're not seeing it. Defense will always be necessary; offense is never necessary.

Kashyapa...You conveniently skipped over my questions about threats and gave me the tired old line about everything being the evil western world's fault.

Is North Korea a military threat to its neighbours and the world? Just answer the question please. Given enough time and resources would Saddam have developed the ability to attack Israel? He said he would. Just answer the question please.

Did the Soviet Union fall because of the good will shown it around the world or did it fall because of the strong military challenge the US presented? Just answer the question please.

You apologize for insulting me then give the explanation that you tend to lash out when confronted with hostility? Isn't that the failing of the western world you so bitterly oppose? Face it, in spite of your ramblings, you are still a human being with the same peculiarities that we all share. It is the nature of man, including yourself, to lash out when confronted. It is the role of society to ensure the protection of its people against those that would lash out.

The world conditions have not changed in 6000 years. It is not the fault of the western powers for today's troubles, any more than it was the fault of the Egyptians, Monguls, Ottomans, or Chinese and Japanese warlords. The fault lies explicitely in the nature of man. As long as that nature is controlled by greed or hatred or desire for power over another person then it is incumbant upon those that can protect others from aggression to do so.

If you think of a way to change the nature of man then let me know. It sure as hell isn't going to change a phycopath's nature if the people around him decide to be his willing victims.

 

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...Here is a site for you to read up on the Buddhist protests of Ngo Dinh Diem....

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNgo.htm

To capsilize... In the early 1960's, Diem had no intentions of allowing a vote for a united Vietnam. Roman Catholics made up only 10% of the population of South Vietnam. They were given special privileged postions. 70% of the population was Buddhist. The French passed laws to discourage its growth.

In 1963 Buddhists assembled to protest the Diem government and were fired on by police. In retaliation for this the Buddhists began a series of demonstrations which led to the June 11, 1963 suicide of Thich Quang Due, a sixty-six year old monk. He sat down on a Saigon street, doused himself with gasoline and burned to death. By August another five monks had burned themselves to death.

These acts were purely political in nature. They were horrific and were used to show how much the Buddhists hated the South Vietnamese government. They were not protesting the war.

edited to add;

The above site is not working on my computer. If you have problems let me know and I will get a better link.

Try www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

 

[jimmygun]

Another quick history lesson...Gorbachev himself stated that the Soviet Union was bancrupt. They had spent so much money on trying to keep up to the arms race with the States that they had nothing left. When Regan announced his Star Wars Initiative it brought home to Gorbachev that they could not maintain their military and its cost any more. He simply allowed what was already dead to crumble to dust.

Perhaps you know more than I about what went on. Would you care to enlighten me about your sources?

 

[Kashyapa]

Thanks for your comments and politeness. We may disagree but I respect your views and your willingness to engage me thoughtfully and rationally.

1. Yes, democracy and capitalism are the best opportunity. I don't argue with that at all. I argue against out of control capitalism, but that's the extent of it. As long as greed is controlled, as it largely is, I have no boggle with either of those things.
2. I think that we should be encouraging democracy in a couple of ways. One would be being a shining example of it in the world, which these days we aren't. I'm speaking for the rest of the world- a significant proportion disapproves of our conduct. Another might be to make the benefits of democracy evident whereever they are- through pouring our immense national wealth into eradicating AIDS in Africa, building schools and universities, endowing scholarships, respecting the world environment, and humanitarian and charitable programs at home. In short, cramming democracy down the world's throat is counterproductive. But if we encourage it, compassionately and with respect and tolerance, we'll reap the rewards, and everyone else will too. Also, since cultures do differ, I wouldn't be opposed to the occasional benevolent constitutional monarchy or what have you. I believe that given enough gentle and encouraging pressure, people will embrace democracy eventually. Again, I think we here in America are too addicted to the quick answer, to hurrying along the process.
3. I suppose there's still a chance. But world opinion is that the US has been far too active in manipulating the affairs of the world. That's why we're the scapegoat and why we're disliked. If we hadn't been doing that, and instead been giving generously of our resources and embodying what we stand for, it seems likely that people would not only respect us more but demand that their own governments do the same.

Fundamentally, I think we agree. War is hell. We need to reserve it for when it is necessary, and use it only when threatened. However, the threat from Iraq was regional at best; he had a rag-tag little country with a decimated economy and an army that we had already mostly blown the crap out of a dozen years ago. Peace was never part of the equation- war with Iraq was Bush's stated intention from the get-go, since before even 9/11. He said, as I've mentioned, "F--k Saddam. We're taking him out," to three senators just after he was elected. The inspectors were not allowed to do their jobs, which they were not given enough time to do, and diplomacy had not run its course. He did not prove that he didn't have WMD, but we didn't and haven't proven that he did have them. We alienated the UN (against the UN Charter, which we signed) and acted pre-emptively, not as a last resort, but as a first option. There was no formal declaration of war, and Congress was whipped into giving up its lawful, Constitutional power to the President. A majority of the population of almost every country in the world is against it.

This all stacks up to make me think that the war in Iraq was not necessary or justified. You disagree, and I respect that wholeheartedly. I'm glad that we were able to do so with goodwill and respect from both sides; it's too bad that jimmygun and tony were unable to do the same. But we agree on a one fundamental thing- that war is hell, and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Thanks for making this a forum of ideas, rather than an argument.

Thanks for the response. With all due respect I don't agree with much of your analysis but I respect your point of view.

IMO the human experience is complex. Democracy and capitalism though fraught with problems provide the best opportunity for the most people.

The problems of the world are not caused by the United States but are caused by tyrants, dictators and cultures that don't allow for democracy and capitalism. Yes we have instilled a number of these dictators but it is not axiomatic that a better regime would have resulted if we had not intervened.

I do question much of our attempts to mold geopolitics. I think we have made many mistakes but such failures do not prove that success would have been had if America had not engaged in hegemony. Nor does it guarantee that we would not be resented for our success or hated for our politics and used by leaders of other nations as a convenient scape goat for the suffering of citizens abroad.

I'm sure you will think what you want but America is not the source of most of the worlds problems. America, it turns out is the source of much good in the world.

Could we do better? Of course, but we have done a great job. If we handle the peace the way I suspect we will then ultimately the war will have been on balance a very good thing though I'm sure you will have many reasons to believe otherwise.

Please, make your arguments. I will give you the last word. But from me, a man who does not romanticize war but instead understands the cruel and inhumane insanity of military conflict (war is hell), what we did was right. We as a nation should strive for peace but we should be prepared to go to war if deemed necessary. This war was necessary.

We simply have a different vision. I can respect those who disagree with me. I hope that you can respect me.

RandFan.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

jimmygun

Did the Soviet Union fall because of the good will shown it around the world or did it fall because of the strong military challenge the US presented? Just answer the question please.

I will answer this question.

USSR did not fall because it lost arms race. In fact, it didn't have to collapse -- losing the arms race would have at most necessitated its loss of the super-power status, not the loss of its regime. It was changed from within and from above, because the leading elite had realized that the current way simply wasn't working. Andropov, who was elected to be GenSec by Politburo, gave a speech in 1982 where he proclaimed the need for economic reform, including experimenting with capitalist components. Gorbachev was Andropov's friend and co-ideologue, and was elected in 1984 in part based on Andropov's recommendations.

Which is to show that Politburo started electing reformers before Reagan launched his StarWars thing (1983). The push for reform came from within, it wasn't forced by economic collapse precipitated by the arms race against USA. USA didn't force the Soviet regime change by out-spending USSR.

If you think of a way to change the nature of man then let me know. It sure as hell isn't going to change a phycopath's nature if the people around him decide to be his willing victims.

Kashyapa's point, I think, is that most "psychopaths" are made rather than born, and adopting a strong-arm stance tends to make more "psychopaths".

I agree. I seee the situation as a Chinese finger-puzzle -- the more force you apply, the faster your fingers are trapped.

 

[Tony]

1. The constitution is against aggression without cause to any foreign nation, and it is against meddling in the affairs of sovreign nations. It does not prohibit humanitarianism and doing good deeds; in fact it encourages it.

"Humanitarianism" and "good deeds" are meddling in the affairs of of soverign nations.

Where does the constitution encourage good deeds? Who decides what a "good deed" is? I think removing saddam hussien from power was a good deed. You would probably disagree.


I do not favor cutting off the good things that America does- which are many. I simply am in favor of cutting the ill-advised and unwise things that we do.

This isnt a perfect world, you have to take the good with the bad.

As you can see from some of my posts above, I'm VERY much for a strong UN and other international organizations.

Handing over US soverignty to any international body is unconstitutional. I guess you are against having a "strong" UN then.


3. Well, yeah, it's unprecedented. Guess we'd better stop searching for a cure for cancer or AIDS, or exploring Mars, and stop trying to develop new technology. After all, they're unprecedented and some might say they're unrealistic in the near future, right? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Where is peace going to take hold if not here, the most powerful nation in the world, whose founding charter and legacy is peace and goodwill?

Strawman.

You think the way to end war is through appeasment.

I think the way to end war is to kill your enemies.

Which method has more success historically?

Yeah, world peace isn'tr realistic in the near future. But US peace is. All we have to do is change a few policies, permanently, and we start living the ideals of the constitution. We can't bring about total peace- but we can at least get the ball rolling.

We dont have US peace already? I didnt know there was civil war in the US.

Ideas of the constitution? LIke isolationism? Is that what you want? Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

Your goal of "total world peace" is not admirable or nobel. It is weak and cowardly, and I have zero respect for people like you. Are you ok to let people live in opression and tyanny just so you can live in a world that fits your false idea of "peace"? Sounds kinda selfish.

Id rather have a world free from tyranny and oppression. Id rather have world freedom. Those are my ideals. Then and only then, can we hope for world peace.

Don't forget that Gandhi had just spent half of his lifetime struggling against British greed and colonialism inflicted against his country for 250 years. You'd be a little bitter too, wouldn't you say?

So you condone his bigotry and hate?


Now since I showed you the courtesy of answering your questions and adreesing your points. I would like it if you would answer mine. I'll make them italic for you.

 

[Kashyapa]

Hmm, interesting. I know that there were several who did it to protest against the Vietnam war (nonpartisan; they merely protested the fact that it was being fought), but that was quite a bit later on, andI didn't know about the ones earlier. Well, you learn something new every day. And yes, that was pretty horrible- I can't think why those monks could have justified that.

Kashyapa...Here is a site for you to read up on the Buddhist protests of Ngo Dinh Diem....

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNgo.htm

To capsilize... In the early 1960's, Diem had no intentions of allowing a vote for a united Vietnam. Roman Catholics made up only 10% of the population of South Vietnam. They were given special privileged postions. 70% of the population was Buddhist. The French passed laws to discourage its growth.

In 1963 Buddhists assembled to protest the Diem government and were fired on by police. In retaliation for this the Buddhists began a series of demonstrations which led to the June 11, 1963 suicide of Thich Quang Due, a sixty-six year old monk. He sat down on a Saigon street, doused himself with gasoline and burned to death. By August another five monks had burned themselves to death.

These acts were purely political in nature. They were horrific and were used to show how much the Buddhists hated the South Vietnamese government. They were not protesting the war.

edited to add;

The above site is not working on my computer. If you have problems let me know and I will get a better link.

Try www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

 

[Kashyapa]

See Victor Danilchenko's quote. He seems much more knowledgable about it.

Another quick history lesson...Gorbachev himself stated that the Soviet Union was bancrupt. They had spent so much money on trying to keep up to the arms race with the States that they had nothing left. When Regan announced his Star Wars Initiative it brought home to Gorbachev that they could not maintain their military and its cost any more. He simply allowed what was already dead to crumble to dust.

Perhaps you know more than I about what went on. Would you care to enlighten me about your sources?

 

[Kashyapa]

1. I guess this is an issue of semantics. I don't see building a school or endowing scholarships in the same light that I see funding a dangerous psychopath's rise to power so that we can use him as a tool against another psychotic. Even if it is meddling, it's at least doing something good, not something bad.

2. When there's a choice between good and bad, I don't have to take bad too. It's not a perfect world, but we have the strength to make a choice.

3. I'm not arguing with you. I'm arguing against making our own enemies. Saddam was our creation. North Korea isn't, and if it makes a hostile move against us, we should promptly act. But, again, as I've said before, I don't advocate appeasement, rolling over, or giving up power. I advocate using it only when it is necessary to ensure our survival. See my reply to RandFan for more details.

4. Historically, those countries adopting the "retaliator" strategy have done the best. Notice that the Roman Empire, which expanded for the same reasons we did (to ensure national security) eventually fell.

5. I don't advocate isolationism. That's not what the Monroe Doctrine is about. I advocate completely engaging the world- in compassion and openness and peace. War should be the last resort, and it hasn't been treated as such by the modern US. Maybe it's hard to believe, but we can create the conditions for national security by means other than lashing out at everything that farts in our general direction. You equate strength with making other countries our prison bitch if they're little enough and uppity enough. (Notice that we've never fought a war with China, who arguably presents a greater threat to our security than the entire Middle East combined. Too big, too nasty.) I equate strength with having the courage and control to take the moral high road and fight only when boxed into a corner. I guess we'll have to disagree with that. But know that I view your ideas as being as weak and ignoble as you do mine.

6. Democracy will arise spontaneously if given the fuel to do so. We were oppressed by the British before we fought our war of independence, oppressed by a regime who imposed its totalitarian will on us. We realized that there was something better and nobler and brought it on ourselves. Totalitarian systems eventually crumble and die- the USSR, the British Empire, the Spanish empire. If a people know that democracy exists, and they are encouraged and supported, and have adequate leaders, democracy arises spontaneously. We don't necessarily have to do anything but provide an example. As I've said, imposed democracy is not democracy. We should fight agressively for democracy- but using democracy and peace, not violence and oppression and violent interference. East Timor is a good example of this. The people made it so, and the international community helped them help themselves.

Look, we're clearly not going to agree. I'm not going to change my views for the same reasons you're not going to change yours. Let's agree to disagree, because we're clearly not going to make any progress.

"Humanitarianism" and "good deeds" are meddling in the affairs of of soverign nations.

Where does the constitution encourage good deeds? Who decides what a "good deed" is? I think removing saddam hussien from power was a good deed. You would probably disagree.


I do not favor cutting off the good things that America does- which are many. I simply am in favor of cutting the ill-advised and unwise things that we do.

This isnt a perfect world, you have to take the good with the bad.

As you can see from some of my posts above, I'm VERY much for a strong UN and other international organizations.

Handing over US soverignty to any international body is unconstitutional. I guess you are against having a "strong" UN then.


3. Well, yeah, it's unprecedented. Guess we'd better stop searching for a cure for cancer or AIDS, or exploring Mars, and stop trying to develop new technology. After all, they're unprecedented and some might say they're unrealistic in the near future, right? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Where is peace going to take hold if not here, the most powerful nation in the world, whose founding charter and legacy is peace and goodwill?

Strawman.

You think the way to end war is through appeasment.

I think the way to end war is to kill your enemies.

Which method has more success historically?

Yeah, world peace isn'tr realistic in the near future. But US peace is. All we have to do is change a few policies, permanently, and we start living the ideals of the constitution. We can't bring about total peace- but we can at least get the ball rolling.

We dont have US peace already? I didnt know there was civil war in the US.

Ideas of the constitution? LIke isolationism? Is that what you want? Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

Your goal of "total world peace" is not admirable or nobel. It is weak and cowardly, and I have zero respect for people like you. Are you ok to let people live in opression and tyanny just so you can live in a world that fits your false idea of "peace"? Sounds kinda selfish.

Id rather have a world free from tyranny and oppression. Id rather have world freedom. Those are my ideals. Then and only then, can we hope for world peace.

Don't forget that Gandhi had just spent half of his lifetime struggling against British greed and colonialism inflicted against his country for 250 years. You'd be a little bitter too, wouldn't you say?

So you condone his bigotry and hate?


Now since I showed you the courtesy of answering your questions and adreesing your points. I would like it if you would answer mine. I'll make them italic for you.

 

[rikzilla]

So when does it end? When does the world become good and happy? When does the war stop? You've got all these great reasons why it works, tell me when to expect some results. I haven't seen any yet, and mankind has been waging war for the last several thousand years with barely a pause. So, all you people who seem to know better, when is it going to end?

Really. Let me know. Is it going to be anytime soon?

This will be my last post. My only real objective in this thread was to vent, and I got to do that. I'm sick of arguing. I just want something better for the world- call me a naive idealist- and I think we should be actively working towards that rather than perpetuating the angst. But whatever. I'm tired of arguing politics and philosophy. The best possible wishes to you all. Live, love and be happy.

So, you want an answer?? Here's mine;

War and strife will end when all world societies and cultures have evolved to the point where they are open and free and respect the basic human rights of individuals. World democracy would be a good first step.

Don't hold your breath! My optomistic prediction for this happy occurance would be sometime in the next 2 or 300 years. But it may take longer!

Don't dispair....Rome wasn't built in a day....and 2 or 300 years is but a moment in the course of human history.

-zilla

 

[Tony]

1. I guess this is an issue of semantics. I don't see building a school or endowing scholarships in the same light that I see funding a dangerous psychopath's rise to power so that we can use him as a tool against another psychotic. Even if it is meddling, it's at least doing something good, not something bad.

Its still meddling and you originally said you were against meddling in the affairs of soveriegn nations.


2. When there's a choice between good and bad, I don't have to take bad too. It's not a perfect world, but we have the strength to make a choice.

Thats the thing, THERE IS NO CHOICE. A lot of times we dont know if an act is "good" or "bad" until it is done and we can anaylize the results.

3. I'm not arguing with you. I'm arguing against making our own enemies. Saddam was our creation. North Korea isn't, and if it makes a hostile move against us, we should promptly act. But, again, as I've said before, I don't advocate appeasement, rolling over, or giving up power. I advocate using it only when it is necessary to ensure our survival. See my reply to RandFan for more details.

Saddam was NOT our creation, and I challange you to provide any reliable evidence that supports your claim that we "created" saddam.

4. Historically, those countries adopting the "retaliator" strategy have done the best. Notice that the Roman Empire, which expanded for the same reasons we did (to ensure national security) eventually fell.

The Roman Empire didnt have modern technology or weapons to secure their survival, we do.

5. I don't advocate isolationism. That's not what the Monroe Doctrine is about. I advocate completely engaging the world- in compassion and openness and peace.

Do you advocate dealing with dictators and despots with peace and compassion? If so, why?


6. Democracy will arise spontaneously if given the fuel to do so.

How do you know?

We were oppressed by the British before we fought our war of independence, oppressed by a regime who imposed its totalitarian will on us. We realized that there was something better and nobler and brought it on ourselves.

Yeah, via war.

Totalitarian systems eventually crumble and die- the USSR, the British Empire, the Spanish empire. If a people know that democracy exists, and they are encouraged and supported, and have adequate leaders, democracy arises spontaneously.

Yeah, and none of those conditions exist in the middle east.

As I've said, imposed democracy is not democracy.

So what? It's still democracy and potentially freedom. It worked in Japan and Germany.

What differance does it make? Does it really matter if democracy is imposed? Why?



We should fight agressively for democracy- but using democracy and peace, not violence and oppression and violent interference.

How do you account for the contradiction in this statement?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

The Roman Empire didnt have modern technology or weapons to secure their survival, we do.

Roman technology and training were as superior to their contemporary enemies' as US technology and training are superior to our enemies'. Rome has iron weapons, body armor, sophisticated siege engines and combat engineering, etc. on the technology side; and they had professional highly disciplied army, experienced leaders, and superb tactical and strategic knowledge on the training side (roman legions beat the living crap out of the hitherto-dominant phalanx). It all availed to naught.

So what? It's still democracy and potentially freedom. It worked in Japan and Germany.

In Germany, the cost of replacing kaiser with a democratic government was the rise of hitler. people wanted an empire, you see.

What differance does it make? Does it really matter if democracy is imposed? Why?

Because an imposed democracy would be a facade. True democracy must start with the people of the culture understanding and wanting a democratic society. You cannot impose that by force.

 

[jimmygun]

Phycopaths are made not born? Please.

Charles Manson used the same arguement in his defense. Society made me, bla bla bla. What a crock.

Did society make Ossama? Is society to blame when he and his deluded henchmen murder three thousand in the WTC?

Are you saying that everytime a mad man does something, instead of trying to make him stop we should blame ourselves for his actions? Good gobbley gook if you happen to be the mad man.

Hitler's plan was to take over the entire world. It was to rid the world of undesirables (meaning everyone but Germans). He was not fighting against the US imperialism or British Empire because of their politics of oppression. He fought to gain control of the world.

Your philosophy simply will not work. It is not able to work as long as mankind's nature is what it is. There will always be people out there that want what you have and are willing to murder to get it.

Get real.