Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Unfortunately, in our real, far-less-than-ideal world, those people are often shoved aside by those willing to win through any means necessary. Coming from a country where Universal Healthcare exists (and private for the most part does not), I have a little experience with the matter. Mainly, it has its ups and downs. When the government is willing to shell out the cash for it, it works, and it works well. When people like Das Harpenfurer (or Sheik Klein, on a provincial scale) get into power, well...

Basically, it requires a government that's more committed to its people than its own possessions. Rare as this is, I doubt I'd want to trade it for a purely private system, what with the horror stories I've heard about it.

Oh, and a side note about adopting 'Socialist' practices: If every single socialist idea was purged from Western Democracy, there would be no such thing as Minimum wage. Or government safety standards for consumer products. Some level of government control must be exercised on an economy to maintain an orderly society. Pure Capitalism would take that out of the equation.

Basically, all first world nations - Including the United States - have some level in socialism to them. It's not a cancer that magically turns normal citizens into Bolshevik Muppets overnight, no matter what numbskulls like Pat Roberts
and Jerry Fallwell might preach.

Leonardo wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Did Doctor Doom have your wife or daughter raped in front of you to get a confession?

Did Doctor Doom punish entire town, sending women and children off to camps and capturing and torturing men as young as 13, because of a failed assassination by just a few men?

Did Doctor Doom have two sons that were frequent rapists and tortured the Latveria Olympic athletes when they came home without the gold? Kicking concrete balls, dragging across gravel and thrown into sewage?

Did Doctor Doom offer his own daughters pardon, but without protection, resulting in their husbands dying in a silly clan fued?

The thing with this is, in Senor Hugo's example, the dictator didn't do any of these things, which is why Hugo said it would work. And it would, if the dictator was truly as Hugo described, and the people loved him/her.

But he was talking about something that does not exist, and thus trivializing the concerned issues that do.

Dictator's aren't nice. Dr. Doom is a fantasy, and bringing him into a serious discussion is madness. Saying not all dictators have to be evil because Dr. Doom wasn't, is like saying, we have to attack the Middle East and Muslims because Saddam and Al Qaeda are like Sauron and the Orcs. It doesn't advance or justify anything. It's a non issue.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Leonardo wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Did Doctor Doom have your wife or daughter raped in front of you to get a confession?

Did Doctor Doom punish entire town, sending women and children off to camps and capturing and torturing men as young as 13, because of a failed assassination by just a few men?

Did Doctor Doom have two sons that were frequent rapists and tortured the Latveria Olympic athletes when they came home without the gold? Kicking concrete balls, dragging across gravel and thrown into sewage?

Did Doctor Doom offer his own daughters pardon, but without protection, resulting in their husbands dying in a silly clan fued?

The thing with this is, in Senor Hugo's example, the dictator didn't do any of these things, which is why Hugo said it would work. And it would, if the dictator was truly as Hugo described, and the people loved him/her.

But he was talking about something that does not exist, and thus trivializing the concerned issues that do.

Dictator's aren't nice. Dr. Doom is a fantasy, and bringing him into a serious discussion is madness. Saying not all dictators have to be evil because Dr. Doom wasn't, is like saying, we have to attack the Middle East and Muslims because Saddam and Al Qaeda are like Sauron and the Orcs. It doesn't advance or justify anything. It's a non issue.

Well see, now we're getting into the whole. "Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or cannot happen."

All dictators even ones called "benevolent" by their supports have done some evil. Like I had stated earlier, there is not one politician, ruler, king or whatever that was liked by every single person.

I brought up Doom for the sole fact that he, even though was a fictional character, was portrayed as a benevolent dictator. I used this as an example to show that a dictatorship could in fact work.

It may trivialize the issue. But then a lot of things may have seemed like they could never happen, stories about space travel were just 'fantasy' till it happened.

Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it can't happen.

The discussion's gotten into a debate over whether systems like dictatorships or communism can, in theory, work. These are questions worth considering, though they're separate from the question of whether attempting to institute a democracy in place of a dictatorship will produce desirable results in practice.

I find the American truism that communism works only on paper a curious one. For a successful example of communist democracy, please look to Kerala in India. For successful examples of socialism, please look to most of Europe. Scandinavia's particularly pleasant.

For dictatorships, on the other hand, I have no ready examples which I would call preferable to a stable democratic system. But such systems come neither cheaply nor easily, nor necessarily at all in the wrong contexts. A strong-man who enforces stability among factions can (and in the case of Iraq, did) provide more security and even freedoms to the general populace than self-proclaimed bringers of democracy who cannot. Is democracy preferable to dictatorship, on paper? Sure. And if ever there were an example of a system that only worked on paper, it's our plans for Iraq.

So, we deposed a dictator. Sounds like a good idea, neh? And it may have been, had we not done so with such dreadful miscomprehension of the people and region that we managed to make the world less safe for both Iraqis and Americans. Maybe, for some reason, you still believe that the war accomplished more good than harm. But even if it did, was it the best possible way in which we could have spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives? Really?

I'd just like to point out (before anyone else does) that the Scandinavian countries do indeed have some problems they possibly wouldn't have if they were less socialist. But, then, the US has problems it possibly wouldn't have if it was more socialist.

You gain some, you lose some, I suppose.

Very true! There's no utopia. Ultimately, I'd argue there's no system that works without flaws or problems. The question is just what degree and what kind of frakked-upness you choose.

The War in Iraq is pretty staggeringly frakked up. More so, even, than Iraq under Saddam. And that takes some serious doing.

Senor Hugo wrote:Well see, now we're getting into the whole. "Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or cannot happen."

All dictators even ones called "benevolent" by their supports have done some evil. Like I had stated earlier, there is not one politician, ruler, king or whatever that was liked by every single person.

I brought up Doom for the sole fact that he, even though was a fictional character, was portrayed as a benevolent dictator. I used this as an example to show that a dictatorship could in fact work.

It may trivialize the issue. But then a lot of things may have seemed like they could never happen, stories about space travel were just 'fantasy' till it happened.

Just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it can't happen.

But I don't see how it could, in fact, work. I mean really, how detailed is it? Does it outline revolutionary new thought? Did scholars all over the world say "Look out Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson. Here come Stan Lee and Jack Kirby."? My point is, it's not thorough enough to warrant an example.

And then I saw this:

Wikipedia wrote:Von Doom also has a council who obey him entirely. In Fantastic Four #536 in 2006, he killed his own Prime Minister for claiming control of Latveria in his absence, and threatened to kill two other ministers if they failed to find the landing spot of Thor's hammer.

Kind of like Saddam taking a gun and shooting for himself members of opposing political parties when he came into power.

Menbailee wrote:The War in Iraq is pretty staggeringly frakked up. More so, even, than Iraq under Saddam. And that takes some serious doing.

This isn't true. I've done two tours there.

The war is amazingly simple, it's just that America has two major problems right now:

1. Politicians who think they are competent enough to run a war over letting generals make the military and political decisions; and

2. A spineless civilian population.

Number one is a symptom of the Truman adminstration when MacArthur was dismissed for criticizing the president. Truman was a moron and because of him we lost the Korean War and it was all pointless. Now here we are half a century later in the exact same situation with North Korea except now we have to maintain a permanent military presence. Good job, Truman.

The second reason is just pathetic. Partly media, but partly because we are a gutless, spineless nation that couldn't wage a war if our life depended on it. We're pathetic in every way. This was a result of Vietnam, a war waged and controlled by politicians. Here we are, the largest and most powerful force in human history and we can't pacify and subjugate a country with the population of Texas? Please. War is war and it's not nice and it never will be and this where the "pathetic and spineless" part starts in.

Think about this:

What if in our initial landings we took 2,000 KIA on the first day? How many of you would have gone ape and started having convulsions over this egregious loss of human life?

What if we had completely leveled Baghdad? Turned into a sea of glass?

These are the realities of war that this nation can't face and this is why America will never win another war. We're pussies, plain and simple.

Want to know the strategy tow in in Iraq? First of all, the Kurds in the north are the only competent ethnic group in Iraq, so give over all valuable state assets to them. This is fine. All the oil is in the north anyways.

The Shi'ites and Sunnies. Either level their cities or simply let them slaughter each other.

Iran is a problem? Nah, they only have one oil refinery in the entire damn country. Blow it the hell up and let them suffer. The country is ripe for revolution anyways and with the recent U.K. hostage crisis the hardliners in Iran scored major points. Take out that refinery and watch the country implode in on itself. Their government isn't popular anyways despite recent events. Just promise the new guys that we'll rebuild their refinery if they agree to work with us.

After that, just force Israel and Palestine into an agreement. Israel has already offered to allow an official independent Palestinian state. A number of times. So do it. The Palestinian leadership is clearly inept. Assassinate them and install someone who is willing to work with us. It's simple.

Kill your enemy, help your friends.

It's interesting to me how Ikavadas and I essentially prove each other's points from our respective perspectives.

Want to know the strategy tow in in Iraq? First of all, the Kurds in the north are the only competent ethnic group in Iraq, so give over all valuable state assets to them. This is fine. All the oil is in the north anyways.

The Shi'ites and Sunnies. Either level their cities or simply let them slaughter each other.

The vast majority of the Iraqi people, the people our supposed purpose in this war is to liberate and bring democracy, become the enemy. Our unwillingness to decimate their population is our weakness. I believe there is a degree of honesty here over what this war is really about, and Ikavadas has spoken truly, I think, that a large proportion of Americans cannot stomach the wholesale slaughter of a foreign people in a mission, not to liberate, but to "pacify and subjugate."

As a side note, I rather like how an ethnic group as a unit can be competent or incompetent. Sort of like those competent Jews and Asians as opposed to those incompetent Black and Hispanic people. Again, honesty. I value it.

From the fact that I clearly argue from a position that values the life of an American and the life of a foreigner equally, I believe I prove Ikavadas correct.

Kill your enemy, help your friends.

Such perfect Easter sentiment!

Quite frankly, lkavadas has it exactly right. At some point we lost our balls and now we have people like Nancy Pelosi who thinks she is the President trying to dictate the war and foreign policy (two things that are not in her job description). Instead we have an incompetent house and senete that can't decide what they want to do (hey, they're dems, no surprise there), and a speaker (the third most powerful person in the country) allowing herself to be paraded around dressed as a personal property.

To top it off, I laugh at the sheer hypocrisy of the liberal left, who cry and scream that "innocent" people are dying needlessly because of our actions (a statement that is simply moronic and untrue), but as soon as we pull out in Iraq the bloodshed will increase, more people will die as the insurgents become emboldened and civil war breaks out, and somehow the left will find this acceptable because it no longer involves us. It makes me sick.

As for Iran, I'm glad the sailors are home safe (and they did the right thing imo) but the Brits should have leveled the oil refinery, bombarded the coast, and blown up the capital, sent them back to the stone age. Someone has to teach these pricks that they're messing with the wrong people. At least Isreal had the balls to threaten war when they're soldiers were killed.

Laying waste to the major cities of every nation that dislikes you would not be such a great idea. Of course you shouldn't simply sit there and not care but if you ruthlessly use overwhelming force to deal with nations a fraction of your size and power when diplomacy (however annoying the situation is) would've done just as well your reputation isn't going to end up stellar. Rightfully so, too.

Killing large amounts of civilians because they have an asshole government is not very acceptable behaviour.

I say send more Israelis to Iraq. The rest of the Middle East should love that. Plus they seem to enjoy leveling and razing peoples homes.
As for civil war, the foreign troops over there is not stopping blood shed or the actions of an underlying civil war. I personally don't think aside from the religious attributes there is enough stability to form proper internal backlash towards on group or another.
It's a pity that they are so driven with malice towards one group of Muslims against another group of the same religion.
Honestly I view the 'War' in Iraq never even was a real war.
It was so one sided and now that the Bathists are no longer in power we are not fighting a state but an idea, and I'm not sure anybody even has a clear picture of what the idea truely represents.
Unless all that think the idea are snuffed that idea will always flourish. The 'insurgents' not only fight the foreign forces that reside in their homeland, but they fight themselves for supremacy.
No matter how long external forces are posted in that land that desires to be a nation, no good will come until those involved with the infighting lay down their arms. And from what I've seen of their past instability in a sense drives their stability. That region of the planet has always been riddled with strife and I don't think anything outside of the desire for peace will change that.

so we should invade Iran becuase a country is holding some of our citizens?

right well, I'm fairly sure the yanks have some british citizens in guantamano, so by that logic, we should be at war with the americans...

how many nationalities are held in guantamano?

Tammuz wrote:so we should invade Iran becuase a country is holding some of our citizens?

right well, I'm fairly sure the yanks have some british citizens in guantamano, so by that logic, we should be at war with the americans...

how many nationalities are held in guantamano?

Yeah, well, if this is the general consensus of the Brits it's no wonder you let Iran illegally and unjustly push you around like whiney little brats. They just declared war and won and you didn't even realize it. Of course, the muslim community has the entire european region in a balls lock, so that's no surprise.

They do?

oh yes pushed around indeed, we've given them lots of er, concessions and stuff to get our guys back...

oh wait no we didn't.

we didn't even kill lots of iranians and a fair amount of british soldiers,and lose our moral highground, to get them home

we did pretty much nothing, except say that this was going a bit far, which got them home, which was alot frikkin cheaper than invading the country, and alot safer.

had we invaded iran, whis would have just got our marines killed,damaged our reputation, and put us much further away from any chance of peace with these muslim countries and would just throw further fuel on the fire.

as hitler and polpot showed admirably, Genocide doesn't pay.

Loki120 wrote:Quite frankly, lkavadas has it exactly right. At some point we lost our balls and now we have people like Nancy Pelosi who thinks she is the President trying to dictate the war and foreign policy (two things that are not in her job description). Instead we have an incompetent house and senete that can't decide what they want to do (hey, they're dems, no surprise there), and a speaker (the third most powerful person in the country) allowing herself to be paraded around dressed as a personal property.

Check the Constitution, and you'll find the power to declare war lies with Congress. Making the President Commander in Chief sets up a deliberate tension among branches of government, a system of checks designed to make going to war difficult. Dictating the war and foreign policy lie no more in the President's job description than in any Senator's. Claiming power of the purse over military conflict is specifically what the framers of the Constitution intended the legislature to do.

Loki120 wrote:To top it off, I laugh at the sheer hypocrisy of the liberal left, who cry and scream that "innocent" people are dying needlessly because of our actions (a statement that is simply moronic and untrue), but as soon as we pull out in Iraq the bloodshed will increase, more people will die as the insurgents become emboldened and civil war breaks out, and somehow the left will find this acceptable because it no longer involves us. It makes me sick.

We want a pullout because our presence hurts instead of helps. At least, the Iraqis believe so, and ultimately, we want to respect their democratic will... right? Periodically, various agencies have conducted surveys, and quite consistently, Iraqis have opined that the overwhelmingly American coalition hurts security. Here's one from the British Ministry of Defence, which contains another interesting tidbit that about half of Iraqis believe attacks against Coalition troops are justified! They want us gone. Loki's right about one thing, though: in an Occupation, no one is innocent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wirq23.xml

Loki120 wrote:As for Iran, I'm glad the sailors are home safe (and they did the right thing imo) but the Brits should have leveled the oil refinery, bombarded the coast, and blown up the capital, sent them back to the stone age. Someone has to teach these pricks that they're messing with the wrong people. At least Isreal had the balls to threaten war when they're soldiers were killed.

An entire city of Muslims is worth the recovery of fifteen British sailors. Thank you for stating your position so clearly.

lkavadas wrote:

Menbailee wrote:The War in Iraq is pretty staggeringly frakked up. More so, even, than Iraq under Saddam. And that takes some serious doing.

This isn't true. I've done two tours there.

The war is amazingly simple, it's just that America has two major problems right now:

1. Politicians who think they are competent enough to run a war over letting generals make the military and political decisions; and

2. A spineless civilian population.

Number one is a symptom of the Truman adminstration when MacArthur was dismissed for criticizing the president. Truman was a moron and because of him we lost the Korean War and it was all pointless. Now here we are half a century later in the exact same situation with North Korea except now we have to maintain a permanent military presence. Good job, Truman.

The second reason is just pathetic. Partly media, but partly because we are a gutless, spineless nation that couldn't wage a war if our life depended on it. We're pathetic in every way. This was a result of Vietnam, a war waged and controlled by politicians. Here we are, the largest and most powerful force in human history and we can't pacify and subjugate a country with the population of Texas? Please. War is war and it's not nice and it never will be and this where the "pathetic and spineless" part starts in.

Think about this:

What if in our initial landings we took 2,000 KIA on the first day? How many of you would have gone ape and started having convulsions over this egregious loss of human life?

What if we had completely leveled Baghdad? Turned into a sea of glass?

These are the realities of war that this nation can't face and this is why America will never win another war. We're pussies, plain and simple.

Want to know the strategy tow in in Iraq? First of all, the Kurds in the north are the only competent ethnic group in Iraq, so give over all valuable state assets to them. This is fine. All the oil is in the north anyways.

The Shi'ites and Sunnies. Either level their cities or simply let them slaughter each other.

Iran is a problem? Nah, they only have one oil refinery in the entire damn country. Blow it the hell up and let them suffer. The country is ripe for revolution anyways and with the recent U.K. hostage crisis the hardliners in Iran scored major points. Take out that refinery and watch the country implode in on itself. Their government isn't popular anyways despite recent events. Just promise the new guys that we'll rebuild their refinery if they agree to work with us.

After that, just force Israel and Palestine into an agreement. Israel has already offered to allow an official independent Palestinian state. A number of times. So do it. The Palestinian leadership is clearly inept. Assassinate them and install someone who is willing to work with us. It's simple.

Kill your enemy, help your friends.

Jesus H. Christ

Tell me if I missed your point, please.


Are you saying we're a nation of pussies because we get upset when we hear about civilians dying? Is that what this boils down to?

"These are the realities of war" is not an acceptable answer. That is the stupidest logic I have ever heard. It means we should be as careful as possible, not worse! We are "spineless" because we hate seeing our own country that gives us the freedom to be "spineless" do horrible things.

You actually have no problem leveling an entire city, even after no doubt seeing two tours worth of human suffering that I can't imagine?

We aren't pussies because we actually give a ****. We are sick and fed up with pointless violence. You know why the hippie movement started? Because we were shown the suffering in vietnam on the news. It shocked us into action. Sure the majority of them were completely retarded, and there is such a thing as a conciencious objector who still helps his country, but the point is, a nation was shocked by the realities it was seeing and did the right thing, not the completedly f-ed up backwards logic thing.

I hate people that don't care about civilian deaths. The scariest part is, I'm sitting here in my comfort and luxury (compared to so much else of the world) and I actually feel sorry for people who lose loved ones and homes and limbs. Meanwhile the person who's been there twice gets angry at us for caring, like our giving a **** is somehow a threat to him and his country. When the US makes war against nations that did not attack us, we are angry. When it responds to an attack that actually does come from a nation, such as Nazi Germany, we are not.

Don't call me spineless and don't call me gutless. Don't call me a pussy, and then start touting your imperialist ****. This country wouldn't be in the hotwater it's in if it wasn't spreading its crap all over the world for 50 years, overthrowing democratically elected people and replacing them with dictators like the Shah. Noriega was a working for us, and we bombed Panama to hell when he did something else. You wonder why terrorists hate us? Because of angry, violent people with backwards logic who have been poking and prodding the rest of the world for 50 years.

Oh yeah, and we created Al-Qaeda when we gave those guys the training they needed to fight off our enemies. Imperialism doesn't work. You are not talking about a war. The last justified war was World War II, and every single other operation we've ever done since has been unnecessary and wrong.

Menbailee wrote:

Loki120 wrote:Quite frankly, lkavadas has it exactly right. At some point we lost our balls and now we have people like Nancy Pelosi who thinks she is the President trying to dictate the war and foreign policy (two things that are not in her job description). Instead we have an incompetent house and senete that can't decide what they want to do (hey, they're dems, no surprise there), and a speaker (the third most powerful person in the country) allowing herself to be paraded around dressed as a personal property.

Check the Constitution, and you'll find the power to declare war lies with Congress. Making the President Commander in Chief sets up a deliberate tension among branches of government, a system of checks designed to make going to war difficult. Dictating the war and foreign policy lie no more in the President's job description than in any Senator's. Claiming power of the purse over military conflict is specifically what the framers of the Constitution intended the legislature to do.

Perhaps you should check it. Yes, the Constitution gives congress the right to declare war, but not how to run it. It's the President's job as to how best to conduct war and run military affairs (hence the title Commander in Chief). Nancy Pelosi and the dems have overstepped their bounds on this one. And they're concessions are hurting troops, not helping them.

An entire city of Muslims is worth the recovery of fifteen British sailors. Thank you for stating your position so clearly.

I may care more about the muslim community if they actually protested the violence being carried out in their name. As is, Iran doesn't care about Americans and Brits then why should I give a flying flig about them? At least the Brits are an ally, so yes, I care about them a bit more than those who illegally kidnapped and unlawfully forced them to confess for crimes they did not commit. Pretty sad when an American cares more about the lives of the soldiers from Britain than their fellow countrymen.

We want a pullout because our presence hurts instead of helps. At least, the Iraqis believe so, and ultimately, we want to respect their democratic will... right? Periodically, various agencies have conducted surveys, and quite consistently, Iraqis have opined that the overwhelmingly American coalition hurts security. Here's one from the British Ministry of Defence, which contains another interesting tidbit that about half of Iraqis believe attacks against Coalition troops are justified! They want us gone. Loki's right about one thing, though: in an Occupation, no one is innocent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wirq23.xml

Congrats, you totally side stepped the issue, typical left arguement. Since you didn't even touch base upon any of my points, then I'll refrain from comment on how absent-minded letting general populance dictate state affairs is (mainly they can't ever make up their mind about any one particular thing - okay I gave you one).

They do?

Isn't it true that it's illegal (or about to be anyway) to say anything bad about Muslims, or even imply that terrorists are muslims? Meanwhile they can say anything they feel like about any other religion or people. Yeah, I'd start expecting to own a Koran or expecting a life of underground worship within the next lifetime.

oh yes pushed around indeed, we've given them lots of er, concessions and stuff to get our guys back...

oh wait no we didn't.

You didn't? No, I guess your "silent protest" was all they needed. You gave them exactly what they wanted, the capability to do this again, and embaressed you on national television. Good job, Blair!

Dark Zarak wrote:
Jesus H. Christ

Tell me if I missed your point, please.

I'd say you missed it by a mile or so off.

Are you saying we're a nation of pussies because we get upset when we hear about civilians dying? Is that what this boils down to?

"These are the realities of war" is not an acceptable answer. That is the stupidest logic I have ever heard. It means we should be as careful as possible, not worse! We are "spineless" because we hate seeing our own country that gives us the freedom to be "spineless" do horrible things.

You actually have no problem leveling an entire city, even after no doubt seeing two tours worth of human suffering that I can't imagine?

Maybe when the enemy starts giving a crap about the civilian population then I'll start having concerns. Our moral high-ground doesn't mean diddly-squat when you're shopping in peace and quite at the mall and some terrorist decides to park a car bomb right outside. It's stupid logic that dictates letting people be slaughtered and not doing anything about it.

We aren't pussies because we actually give a ****. We are sick and fed up with pointless violence. You know why the hippie movement started? Because we were shown the suffering in vietnam on the news. It shocked us into action. Sure the majority of them were completely retarded, and there is such a thing as a conciencious objector who still helps his country, but the point is, a nation was shocked by the realities it was seeing and did the right thing, not the completedly f-ed up backwards logic thing.

I hate people that don't care about civilian deaths. The scariest part is, I'm sitting here in my comfort and luxury (compared to so much else of the world) and I actually feel sorry for people who lose loved ones and homes and limbs. Meanwhile the person who's been there twice gets angry at us for caring, like our giving a **** is somehow a threat to him and his country.

Which was precisely my point. None of you seem to be all that concerned when it will happen after we pull out of Iraq. It's a hypocritical arguement.

When the US makes war against nations that did not attack us, we are angry. When it responds to an attack that actually does come from a nation, such as Nazi Germany, we are not.

Errr, your logic escapes me, and you need to hit a history book again. Germany never attacked the US, Japan did. Using your logic, we should have stopped with Japan, and let the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent jews continue. Good job.

Don't call me spineless and don't call me gutless. Don't call me a pussy, and then start touting your imperialist ****.

I find these arguement laughable. You have no problem reaping the benefits or our so-called imperialism, and then protest your country's actions because it doesn't coincide with your fragile (and quite-frankly flawed) mentalities.

This country wouldn't be in the hotwater it's in if it wasn't spreading its crap all over the world for 50 years, overthrowing democratically elected people and replacing them with dictators like the Shah. Noriega was a working for us, and we bombed Panama to hell when he did something else. You wonder why terrorists hate us? Because of angry, violent people with backwards logic who have been poking and prodding the rest of the world for 50 years.

Iraq had a democratically elected President? I thought those ballets said "Check here if you vote for Saddam, or check here if you want a horrible and violent death.
You want to know why terrorist really hate you? Because 1) you don't believe in their religion and 2) because you live a life of relative luxery which they consider abborent.
Dont' kid yourself, they hate you because you're everything they're not.

Oh yeah, and we created Al-Qaeda when we gave those guys the training they needed to fight off our enemies. Imperialism doesn't work. You are not talking about a war. The last justified war was World War II, and every single other operation we've ever done since has been unnecessary and wrong.

Gee, thank you for clearing that up for me. Whew! You just have it all worked ou, don't you? At least you justified WWII, but then, your logic only justified Japan, we had no business going into Germany.

Loki120 wrote:Isn't it true that it's illegal (or about to be anyway) to say anything bad about Muslims, or even imply that terrorists are muslims? Meanwhile they can say anything they feel like about any other religion or people. Yeah, I'd start expecting to own a Koran or expecting a life of underground worship within the next lifetime.

I'm not sure which country you have in mind, but here in Sweden it's not illegal to criticise religions. It is not illegal to say that some particular criminals belong to any particular religion, either. At most it is irrelevant. What is illegal, however, is hate speech*. Claiming that all who follow Islamic teachings are barbarous and mindless fanatics who seek only to oppress women and murder everyone else is far from mere criticism. There are of course those who are more sensitive than others and there are of course also those who are more insensitive than others.

Islam is only touchier than Christianity because most people who follow it are immigrants, which is a group that already has more than its fair share of problems. The nationalists and outright racists and nazis aren't really helping either.

At least we're not doing as bad as the Danes.


*Unless, apparently, you cite your (mainstream) religion as the source. Like this case, for example. I wonder what would've happened if he had said the same about Moslems instead of homosexuals...

Loki120 wrote:Errr, your logic escapes me, and you need to hit a history book again. Germany never attacked the US, Japan did. Using your logic, we should have stopped with Japan, and let the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent jews continue. Good job.

sigh, now you probably think I don't know my history. Sue me, so I was unclear. Yes Imperial Japan attacked the US. They fall into my arguement as well. I brought up Nazi Germany because they were moving wholesale across Europe and we came to the Allies' aid. I didn't just mean attacks on US soil. That brings up Korea, Vietnam, and both Gulf Wars. I don't know the exact circumstances behind the starts of the first two of those wars, but in the most recent Gulf War, as well as Vietnam, our good intentions were blowing up in our faces and we should have pulled out much much earlier, in both cases.

That's what I was getting at.

I find these arguement laughable. You have no problem reaping the benefits or our so-called imperialism, and then protest your country's actions because it doesn't coincide with your fragile (and quite-frankly flawed) mentalities.

Oh, so my modern life I owe entirely to things like installing Noriega and then killing him along with 3000 others, training contra programs in Nicaragua, giving weapons to our very own current enemies so they could defeat our previous ones? How exactly did these things make life at home any better?

Iraq had a democratically elected President? I thought those ballets said "Check here if you vote for Saddam, or check here if you want a horrible and violent death.

Where did I say Iraq?

I'm talking specifically about Iran, in the 50's. Again it goes back to actions that my country did that have no bearing on my life. In the 50's, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, who was democratically elected by Iran, decided to nationalize an oil company he was sharing with Britain, so we went in and forced him out, and arrested him for treason. Then we put the Shah back in power, who had been in power before WWII. He was in power until 1979.

If that's not imperialism what is? We can't let other countries be. We have our own elections, but we install dictators who do what we want in other countries and use violence when they stop. Oh, and during WWII, Britain and Russia invaded Iran to make sure they didn't go into the Axis powers. Who was in power then? Oh yeah, the Shah. And now they hate us. Go figure.

You want to know why terrorist really hate you? Because 1) you don't believe in their religion and 2) because you live a life of relative luxery which they consider abborent.
Dont' kid yourself, they hate you because you're everything they're not.

And because my country has been prodding their countries for 50 years.

Gee, thank you for clearing that up for me. Whew! You just have it all worked ou, don't you? At least you justified WWII, but then, your logic only justified Japan, we had no business going into Germany.

All you've shown is that I was unclear on a detail.

Loki120 wrote:Instead we have an incompetent house and senete that can't decide what they want to do (hey, they're dems, no surprise there)

Nice going. Way to bring sides into this now. You're only making yourself look even worse by lumping a whole group of people together.

Loki120 wrote:To top it off, I laugh at the sheer hypocrisy of the liberal left, who cry and scream that "innocent" people are dying needlessly because of our actions (a statement that is simply moronic and untrue), but as soon as we pull out in Iraq the bloodshed will increase, more people will die as the insurgents become emboldened and civil war breaks out, and somehow the left will find this acceptable because it no longer involves us. It makes me sick.

"Innocent" people are dying. What's wrong with you? Every little kid and woman and old man is f*cking soldier? Wow, no way. Why aren't you saying "damn, look at all this horrible death? It's a tragedy that we have to stay here even longer, but we do." Instead you're grouping everyone together again. I'd love to see some scientific research that indicates you're evil just because of region you were born in.

And we have to pull out, because we are losing more and more of our own troops. Yes, it will result in more bloodshed, and who ever said we wouldn't care about that? I for one will be upset and angry, and I blame the Bush administration for all of it. It never even should have happened. If there is any way to clean it up, then I say we stay, but if it continues to be a standoff, we have to leave, and no, I don't think that is universally good.

Loki120 wrote:the Brits should have leveled the oil refinery, bombarded the coast, and blown up the capital, sent them back to the stone age. Someone has to teach these pricks that they're messing with the wrong people. At least Isreal had the balls to threaten war when they're soldiers were killed.

Simply pathetic. Are you in the military like your buddy Ikavadas? Have you seen the realities he talks about? Or are you sitting around in the same comfort I am, spewing **** about blowing up cities. Go to Japan and talk about the merits of blowing up whole cities. That makes me sick. Listen to yourself. You sound like a saturday morning cartoon villian.

Just a note on the history--Germany declared war on the U.S. after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as part of an alliance of powers known as the Axis. We did not send troops to stop the murder of Jews and other groups; although it is debated whether we had intelligence on the Holocaust at the time, it was definitely not common knowledge. We sent troops to Europe because Germany not only threatened our allies but had declared war on us. It is on these grounds that World War II has clear justification as a war of self-defense in Zarak's argument. Loki's correction of history is in fact inaccurate, and I am not certain what part of the logic of what constitutes a war justified by self-defense escapes him.

Iraq did not declare war on us, and Saddam had allowed the U.N. weapons inspectors back in after Bush's saber-rattling. Those inspectors were sending back reports before our invasion that our WMD intelligence thus far checked had turned out faulty. By the established criteria of centuries of warfare in the West, the war in Iraq did not constitute a war justifiable as a war of self-defense.

Loki asserted that an American withdrawal from Iraq would result in greater violence, and complained of liberal hypocrisy in decrying the deaths of innocence while calling for a pullout. I presented evidence that Iraqis, the people whose voice should ultimately determine what happens in the own country, believe that American withdrawal, on the contrary, would decrease violence. The Americans have gained a reputation as conquerors rather than as liberators and as people who do not much respect the lives of those they claim to protect, as Ikavadas and Loki have made manifest to us. Much of the violence is thus nationalist in nature.

Loki responded, as far as I can tell, with a critique of the notion that the will of the people should determine the actions of government, on grounds that popular opinion can never make up its mind. The Iraqi will for Americans to depart has remained constant since the invasion, so consistency is not the issue here. I am beginning to feel uncertain what democracy means to Loki.

That uncertainty grows with his argument that Democrats have overstepped their bounds in attempting to have a say in the war. To argue that Congress declares war and that the President then wages it on his terms until such time that he considers the war concluded interprets the Constitution in a creative way indeed. To stop or shape a war through its control of funding is the legislature's job. To suppose it is not grants the President the kind of power which the framers of the Constitution specifically wished to deny any single individual.

Loki120 wrote:
As for Iran, I'm glad the sailors are home safe (and they did the right thing imo) but the Brits should have leveled the oil refinery, bombarded the coast, and blown up the capital, sent them back to the stone age. Someone has to teach these pricks that they're messing with the wrong people. At least Isreal had the balls to threaten war when they're soldiers were killed.

Does anyone here see the irony of one of us Americans criticizing the British for not doing these things when Iranians take hostages?

That brings up Korea, Vietnam, and both Gulf Wars. I don't know the exact circumstances behind the starts of the first two of those wars,

The start of both wars can be found in the end of WWII. After World War II, Japan-occupied Korea was divided by the allies at the 38th parallel with the Japanese in North Korea surrendering to China and Russia, and the Japanese in South Korea surrendering to the Americans.

When China turned Communist in 1949, it began to view South Korea as a potential base that the US could use to invade, and persuaded Josef Stalin to aid them in supporting a North Korean invasion of the South. The invasion started in January of 1950, and would have succeeded were it not for UN intervention. The US did not lose in Korea, the outcome can be best described as a draw (in fact, the war is technically still going on since the peace treaty ending it remains unsigned).

At the end of WWII, a newly liberated France tried to reestablish itself with its former colonies, including Vietnam. Vietnamese rebels, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh fought an eight-year war with the French, finally forcing them to leave in 1954. In the resulting treaty, Vietnam was divided into a northern and southern region. The US first took interest in Vietnam was in the late 1950s when Communist guerillas began a series of terror campaigns to try and bring down the South Vietnamese government. Because of the Communist threat (or what they perceived as a Communist threat), President Eisenhower (and later President Kennedy) pledged to aid South Vietnam by sending Americans as advisors.
After Kennedy was shot and Johnson took over, it became clear that advisors weren't enough and direct intervention with US troops was necessary. Initially, it was hoped that a "police action" would be all that was required, but the first battles in 1965 made it obvious the a full-scale WWII style of commitment was needed (even then, victory was not guaranteed). What got the so-called "hippie movement" underway was not the American atrocities going on down there, but the simple unwillingness of the American people to make that level of commitment. South Vietnam was not worth the sacrifice in their eyes.

Kinda lengthy, I know, but I hope that clears things up.

Loki120 wrote:



Which was precisely my point. None of you seem to be all that concerned when it will happen after we pull out of Iraq. It's a hypocritical arguement.

Last time I checked, massive bloodshed is pretty much inevitable at this point. There's going to be a civil war whether you like it or not. There's nothing hypocritical about cutting your losses.

When the US makes war against nations that did not attack us, we are angry. When it responds to an attack that actually does come from a nation, such as Nazi Germany, we are not.

Errr, your logic escapes me, and you need to hit a history book again. Germany never attacked the US, Japan did. Using your logic, we should have stopped with Japan, and let the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent jews continue. Good job.

Nice strawman ye' have there, but it be no argument.
By his logic, people will not support a war that isn't provoked, and will support one that is. Your assessment is weak, and full of rhetoric.

Don't call me spineless and don't call me gutless. Don't call me a pussy, and then start touting your imperialist ****.

I find these arguement laughable. You have no problem reaping the benefits or our so-called imperialism, and then protest your country's actions because it doesn't coincide with your fragile (and quite-frankly flawed) mentalities.

You can't handle the truth?
Seriously, A Few Good Men aside, what benefit? America can do pretty damn well without Imperialist tendancies. So far, this war has done nothing but bleed your resources and inflate your national debt.

Iraq had a democratically elected President? I thought those ballets said "Check here if you vote for Saddam, or check here if you want a horrible and violent death.
You want to know why terrorist really hate you? Because 1) you don't believe in their religion and 2) because you live a life of relative luxery which they consider abborent.
Dont' kid yourself, they hate you because you're everything they're not.

You're very funny, y'know that? Do you make this stuff up yourself, or do you all just buy it at some local Propaganda barn?

You do realise that Al-Qaeda maintains a large number of 'schools', or Madrasas, in the country of Pakistan, right? There, they take children off the streets, and indoctrinate them in Terrorist dogma. One of the things they teach these kids is that the West is run entirely by Jews. Yup, you heard me right. George Dubya' is a card carrying Zionist.

These particular terrorists (recalling that there are many, MANY, terrorist factions in the world, many of whom have an axe to grind with the states) can't hate America for being 'everything they're not', mostly because they haven't the slightest idea what America is really like.

Oh yeah, and we created Al-Qaeda when we gave those guys the training they needed to fight off our enemies. Imperialism doesn't work. You are not talking about a war. The last justified war was World War II, and every single other operation we've ever done since has been unnecessary and wrong.

Gee, thank you for clearing that up for me. Whew! You just have it all worked ou, don't you? At least you justified WWII, but then, your logic only justified Japan, we had no business going into Germany.

Way to avoid the question. Oops! Only filthy democrats do that. You've been infected!

It was a really brilliant idea, giving modern weapons to an effectively Feudal society and expecting them to do your bidding. And stacking them up to defeat an enemy that you thought was your equal? Sheer genius.

Fact is, you can be as indignant as you want about this. The American Government - and I refer to both sides of it when I say this - has no interest in winning this war, and never did. Ikevadas hit the nail on the head with that one. On the other hand, his solution wouldn't work, due to something DISCHARGE pointed out: America is fighting and IDEA, not a NATION.

You could completely wipe Iraq off the map. You could occupy Iran, squash Syria, and vapourize Jerusalem. It won't make any difference, as you're still not attacking the root causes of the problems. For every insurgent or Al-Qaeda soldier you gun down, they can have five more shipped in from countries around the world to replace him, on the orders of men you've probably never even heard of. Meanwhile, more and more Middle Eastern nations get antsy due to a large foreign millitary presence in their area, and throw their lot in with the devil they know.

From the moment those planes hit the World Trade Center (remember that? That's still the main reason this is going on, right?) this has not been a war for armies. It's been treated like one, of course, because the men in charge refuse to acknowledge any other kind. Rather, this is a war of Intelligence, or at least it would be if the US's most reliable source of info wasn't an Iranian Con-man (look up a guy named Manucher Ghorbanifar some time, if you're interested).

Fact is, the enemy is smarter than you. They make a show of arms on land to hide their real form, and to force you to squander your energy, because they don't care. Sure, American troops kill the occasional 'leader'. Of course, only ever one or so at a time, and - let's face it - how important is a 'leader' who stands around in the open to get shot at?

Anyway, to cut this short (for the moment, as I expect a shitstorm of outraged Rhetoric in about ten seconds) America - as well as many of it's perspective enemies - is being played like a harp from Hell. Has been this entire time. There are essentially three options open to your lot:
A) Just ignore it, and stay on the same course as always until it's too late.
B) Pull back and regroup.
and C) Start figuring out what the HELL is really going on. Infiltrate Al-Qaeda! Assassinate its leaders en-masse! Sabatage those Madrassas! And, for all the Gods' sakes: KILL that idiot Ghorbanifar!