Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Attack Iraq?
Thread: Attack Iraq? This Popular Thread is 107 pages long: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 107 · «PREV / NEXT»
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted September 22, 2002 07:45 AM





What did he have to gain from starting a war when he invaded Kuwait?  What did Hitler have to gain from starting a war?  What did the leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea have to gain from starting the war betwen those two nations?  What did Osama have to gain from starting to fight in the first place?  (remember, he comes from a rich family, he was living in luxury before he decided to take up his little holy war)  What did Saddam have to gain from gassing the Kurds?  Why are you assuming he thinks like somebodies eccentric but harmless grandfather?


EXACTLY!  Lets take our beer googles off and look at this situation with Saddam realistically.  Well stated Bort.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
posted September 22, 2002 08:02 AM

I'm not gonna get and divine, but I'll say this.

We should blow TF out of all the topp guys in iraq.
Give ME the button GD IT!
WTF NOT EH?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted September 22, 2002 08:12 AM
Edited By: dArGOn on 22 Sep 2002

quote:

”There is a word for the way you simplify such a difficult subject: Propaganda.”

Hmmm so somehow to clarify the obvious and to state the factual is propaganda…but to cloud the evident and deny the facts is allegedly a “clear stated objective view”????  The simple (oh there is that nasty word again) essence of  the difference between us is you see it one way and I view it another…to declare another guilty of propaganda is just absurd.  So is everyone you disagree with but a puppet or a proponent of propaganda?

quote:

“Saddam has given in to the US (and UN) demands”

Where on earth would someone come to that conclusion?  Has he surrendered his WMD?  Has he kept his previous promises after promises? Has he allowed unfettered access to inspectors (read up on the alleged “unconditional acceptance of inspectors”…it is anything BUT unconditional …read the verbiage… it is quite clear that he wants the “independence” and “sovereignty” of Iraq as conditions as well as wants only inspections of military sites…so he can conveniently hide his WMD in the basement of a hospital or such).  

quote:
“ And you did not answer my question.”

Which question did I not answer?  I would be glad to answer any. The only question that I remember you asking is “would you like to be bombed”…to which I quite thoroughly replied. There are questions I have asked that I still await a reply.

quote:
“ Would you support the "regime-change", if this had to be done to Americans instead?”

Of course not…we are not in violation of our terms of surrender, we have not killed our own innocent citizens, we have not attacked neighboring countries with no provocation, we are a democracy, we our not starving our citizens, we are not harboring terrorists, our leaders are not dictators, we have a “regime change” every 4-8 years thank you.  No offense but the question is kind of ludicrous.

quote:
“Did you learn from your mistakes?”

Yes we learn from our mistakes.  Do you?  I am sure we will make more mistakes as all humans do.  Do you expect perfection from others?  It is impossible.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lews_Therin
Lews_Therin


Promising
Famous Hero
posted September 22, 2002 08:44 AM
Edited By: Lews_Therin on 22 Sep 2002

Quote:
So is everyone you disagree with but a puppet or a proponent of propaganda?
Not at all, but to allege that people who don´t share your opinion are trusting one of the worst dictators of these days is insulting, simplifying to the extreme, and, as I said before, nothing but propaganda.

Quote:
Where on earth would someone come to that conclusion?
He has given in to the demand to let weapon inspectors in again, so no matter how well or badly that will work out (I´m not optimistic about this either), neither Europe nor the middle east (including Kuwait and the Iraqui opposition, by the way) see any suffiecient legitimation for an attack.

Quote:
The only question that I remember you asking is “would you like to be bombed”…?
That´s interesting because as I said before I never asked this question.

Quote:
Of course not…we are not in violation of our terms of surrender, we have not killed our own innocent citizens, we have not attacked neighboring countries with no provocation, we are a democracy, we our not starving our citizens, we are not harboring terrorists, our leaders are not dictators, we have a “regime change” every 4-8 years thank you.  No offense but the question is kind of ludicrous.”
Okay, but the Iraqui citizens deserve to be punished for living under a dictatorship by having bombs thrown on them. Thanks, that´s what I wanted to hear from you. It´s funny how religious fundamentalists always twists reality until they end up being the good guys.

Quote:
Yes we learn from our mistakes.
The way you justified your countries former support of Saddam and Osama, in the latter case to fight "evil" communism (like you did in Vienam, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilists) speaks for itself.

EDIT: Deleted the W-word.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted September 22, 2002 10:22 AM

quote:
“ people who don’t share your warmonger opinion are trusting one of the worst dictators of these days is insulting”

Warmonger?  Where would you come to that conclusion?  I am not sitting here salivating at the chance for war….war is horrible….just because someone supports a war effort to hopefully alleviate further suffering and death does no make some one a warmonger.  

Trusting one of the worst dictators?  You have me really confused on that one….Bush is a dictator????  What exactly is your definition of dictator?  I would wager it is far from the majority of the worlds definition of a dictator….in our country we hold free elections and have a balance of powers….you might want to read up on USA political system.

quote:
“He has given in to the demand to let weapon inspectors in again, so no matter how well or badly that will work out (I’m not optimistic about this either),
Well I am glad we can finally agree on something regarding lack of optimism about alleged inspections bringing about anything positive in the long run

quote:
“neither Europe nor the middle east (including Kuwait and the Iraqui opposition, by the way) see any suffiecient legitimation for an attack."

1.  Who is to say who will support it as many countries have been changing their minds about Iraq as of late  2.  I believe Britain is part of Europe and Israel is part of Middle east so I don’t think your statement is quite accurate. In Europe  the main strong/vocal opponent of an invasion of Iraq is Germany…which given the desire to be reelected in the current elections only makes sense…most political analysts think that this will change once Germany's political situation is resolved.

quote:
“ but the Iraqui citizens deserve to be punished for living under a dictatorship by having bombs thrown on them.”

I agree…but the war is against Saddam not Iraq….and I think if you were able to poll the Iraqi citizens you would find a majority wanting a regime change very badly….they don’t like to starve…they don’t like to be murdered…they want free speech…and they don’t want to be tortured by an insane dictator.

quote:
"The way you justified your countries former support of Saddam and Osama, in the latter case to fight "evil" communism."

Hmmm before you cast stones you might want to look into the MILLIONS that communist has killed…mostly of their own countrymen.  If that is not evil…well I don’t know what is

quote:
“ (like you did in Vienam, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilists) speaks for itself.)”

I don’t like what happened in Vietnam…but one thing to remember…our help was requested….we didn’t just barge in their on our own accord….we were trying to help people ward off a horrible communist dictatorship….so our motive was good….not that much can be said of all the other countries that sat by and watched freedom loving people being slaughtered and controlled by militant communistic ideology

BTW nice chatting with you Lews on IM.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted September 22, 2002 07:31 PM

Ok time to light the blue touchpaper the dargon

Vietnam? hmmmm I object to that statement that we sat it out and ignored the problem. Part of the vietnam problem stems from the fact that the government of South Vietnam was corrupt and about as democratic and millitant as it's northern neighbour. it's a hard one admitedly, don't misunderstand me the people of the south should have had the right to choosed democracy, but Southern vietnamese democracy was a pretty bad example to show them. I don't think people like the british were sitting by, but rather recognised that communism fighting is a war won by hearts and minds, not guns and napalm. We fought successfully against a similar war in Malasia (note I don't say it's the same, there was some differences), but we did that using a combination of special forces and working to make Democracy a better option.

Just my thoughts anyway.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Thunder
Thunder


Responsible
Famous Hero
posted September 22, 2002 07:57 PM

Few people want to fight just for killing. Even fewer want to fight after it has begun to hurt. Wars would be almost non-existant if the people who decides to start them would be placed into the front line. But no, people let the "wise" deciders tell what they should do and for what to fight and they go killing and get killed like the nice, little sheep they are. If you feel otherwise, well, hands up everyone who wants to join the mayhem.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Flamin8Ball
Flamin8Ball

Tavern Dweller
Die young, stay beautiful.
posted September 22, 2002 10:17 PM

Basically its very hard trying to express an opinion when most the poeple on this board are very patriotic towards the U.S. but you really should all try to look at the situation from the bigger picture- i am not critisising anyone in particular but there seems ot be one person who has an argument to everyones opinion and opinion bashing is worse then not having an opinion.

Chill people...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lews_Therin
Lews_Therin


Promising
Famous Hero
posted September 23, 2002 12:46 AM
Edited By: Lews_Therin on 22 Sep 2002

Dargon, I called Saddam one of the worst dictators of our time ... read it that way again and what I said will make sense . Bush may IMO be the worst elected president of these days (well, second right after Berlusconi I would say), but certainly not a dictator.

Quote:
the main strong/vocal opponent of an invasion of Iraq is Germany…which given the desire to be reelected in the current elections only makes sense…most political analysts think that this will change once Germany's political situation is resolved.
Change ... yes, but not as much as you seem to imply. Let me try to explain the situation in Germany. We have two realistic candidates to become cancellor:

Stoiber (conservative) opposes military actions against the Iraq unless it is clearly supported by the UN.
Schröder (social democrat) opposes military actions against the Iraq even if it is clearly supported by the UN.

It should be added that Stoiber represents the very utmost conservative positions in German politics.
I agree with you that Schröder´s radical anti-interventionistic stance is influenced by the elections, at other times I would have expected him to share Stoiber´s more moderate one. Maybe he will move towards that direction, if he stays cancellor (which will probably happen). But Schröder/Fischer supporting the idea of a US attack, that sounds about as likely to me as Bush supporting the use of sun and wind energy.

Quote:
and I think if you were able to poll the Iraqi citizens you would find a majority wanting a regime change very badly
I agree that a majoritiy would be happy about an end of Saddam´s regime as such, but even the Iraqi opposition is strongly against a war. And you know what opposition means in the Iraq, those people have their heads cut off if they ever get into the hands of Saddam´s police.

Quote:
Hmmm before you cast stones you might want to look into the MILLIONS that communist has killed…mostly of their own countrymen. If that is not evil…well I don’t know what is
For the same reason (and backed by much larger numbers and a much longer time-span of misdeeds) I could as well label christianity "evil". Communism is an ideology that basically has a very humane intention: To create a world without poverty and starvation. Unfortunately it is full of flaws und usually produces most corrupt dictatorships and a disfunctional economy.
In my opinion, such simplyfing and absolute judgements as "communism is evil" are the first step towards atrocities like the ones the US did in Vietnam, or the support of Augusto Pinochet. If your enemy is evil itself, anything can be justified.
In the 21st century, a world leading nation should be more rational and differentiating than that, and not use the language of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. That´s something that I think of, when I say "learn from the past".

Nice chatting with you, too, I wonder what a psychologist would say about the difference between internet forum and instant message discussions .
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bort
bort


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
posted September 23, 2002 03:25 AM
Edited By: bort on 22 Sep 2002

8 Ball -- people can disagree with you without being mindless jingoistic flagwavers.  Also, seeing things from a broader perspective does not mean looking at every view except for what you have labelled as the immovable patriotic view.  Yes, the arab viewpoint needs to be taken into account, yes the European viewpoint needs to be taken into account, and yes the Indian viewpoint needs to be considered as does the Chinese and the Australian and the Southeast Asian.  But a key point that often gets ignored is that the US viewpoint needs to be considered as well.

Edit: on another note, is it just me or is Israel really going overboard this time?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
darkfriend
darkfriend

Tavern Dweller
posted September 23, 2002 04:54 PM

Ugh sorry I'm too lazy to read the posts from the beginning but I just want to say a few things I have in mind....
Ummm...first, what does Bush (Or the US, anything) hope to gain from attacking Iraq?? I really don't understand why he insists on more killings....I mean, what did Iraq do to th US, or to the world??.....Oh no, I'm rambling....What I'm trying to say is....
What makes him, or the US thinks he has the right to judge what's evil and what's not??? (What's evil anyway??). Okay, so Iraq's evil, does that means thousands of its citizens are evil too??.....So to wipe out this 'evil' they're going to bomb the whole country and if some apparently innocent citizens got killed they'll say "That's life", or "It's the good for all"...???? I really, really don't understand......I mean, by doing this, US is making an image of evil of itself........
Just my very very honest thought.....sorry...
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfman
Wolfman


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
posted September 24, 2002 12:02 AM

If the U.S. attacked Iraq, they wouldn't take over the country and add it to the U.S. because that would make the U.S. Imperialistic and that is the last thing the U.S. needs to show the world.

I think the U.N. needs to wake up and get Saddam out of power,  all they need to do is kill Saddam and the new government that Iraq sets up will kill all of the leaders in that political party.

E-mail me if you want a game about Saddam.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Damacon_Ace
Damacon_Ace


Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
posted September 24, 2002 02:04 AM

Whatever it is, Saddam Hussein is still an imperialist, Islamic Extremist dictator. His hatred of America, Britain and Israel is matched by America's hatred of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Now, the UN is keeping an eye on both sides and its allies because the last thing the world needs is a World War 3 based on religious zealots.

It seems that a new holy war is being told up.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Snogard
Snogard


Known Hero
customised
posted September 24, 2002 05:14 AM

Bort:

Thanks for your explanation.  I fully understand your stand and I suppose that is probably the most ?c ?c reasonable (?gjustifiable?h) thing to do.  However, sometimes a ?gjustifiable?h decision may neither be ?ggood?h nor ?gbad?h, and a president is always expected to make a good decision?c    

____________
  Seize The Day.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted September 24, 2002 05:49 AM
Edited By: dArGOn on 25 Sep 2002


Quote
"Ok time to light the blue touchpaper the dargon"

What does that mean?  Seriously is that an British saying?

Quote
¨Vietnam? hmmmm I object to that statement that we sat it out and ignored the problem"

I was not singling Britain out for sure¡Kthey tend to assist as the US does¡KI was trying to make a more general point about those who sit on their thumbs the most and risk nothing.  They do nothing to really help during conflict and can afford the luxury criticizing from the sidelines...it is easy to preach from their towers of indifference and lack of conviction.  No offense...Switzerland is a beautiful country but there constant neutrality really irks me as they grow rich off of their banks.  To not stand against evil is to support it in my opinion.  


Quote
"Basically its very hard trying to express an opinion when most the people on this board are very patriotic towards the U.S"

LOL...just goes to show perspective...I thought it the exact opposite.

Quote
"should all try to look at the situation from the bigger picture"

The big picture...I am fond of that saying in life say when it comes to daily life problems¡K. contentment, anxiety, etc.  But I get irked when someone who disagrees with you assumes that you aren't looking at the big picture just because you come to a different conclusion than them.

quote
"on another note, is it just me or is Israel really going overboard this time?"

I know this is going to shock you..lol...but I don't think they are going too far even if Bush thinks so... I guess it comes down I would want USA to react the same if it was us...and I think it is somewhat hypocritical for us to do what we have been doing in Afghanistan, etc. and deny Israel from doing basically the same thing...protecting themselves and trying to find the terrorists.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted September 24, 2002 05:54 AM
Edited By: dArGOn on 24 Sep 2002

"Dargon, I called Saddam one of the worst dictators of our time"

opps...in today's jargon "my bad"...I thought you were saying Bush was

quote:
"Change ... yes, but not as much as you seem to imply. Let me try to explain the situation in Germany.¨

I know very little about German politics..I was merely saying that at least in the USA it seems most political analyst from both parties think the support from Germany will change...guess we will see.  The main view expressed in our media about Germany is that they are pretty anti any intervention in Iraq at this time...but you live there I am sure you know more.

Quote
"For the same reason (and backed by much larger numbers and a much longer time-span of misdeeds) I could as well label Christianity "evil"¨

Hmmm I could really debate you on that one...I think the evil alleged by Chritianity has almost risen to mythological stature.  By pure numbers of death there really isn't much comparison between communism and alleged believers in Christianity.  Also I think most people who perpetrated these evils (inquisition, etc.) rarely believed in the tenants of Christianity they were using it as a vehicle of their own vanity, power, and domination.  It really gets mired cause there was such an enmeshed relationship between state and religion... I will leave it at that.


Quote
"simplyfing and absolute judgements as "communism is evil" are the first step towards atrocities"

You are right that communism has some good purposes...but its means have typically been domination and control from my understanding.  As far as evil...well that is a difficult one if you separate the political ideology from the supporters.  It is interesting though it pretty much accepted that Reagan's statements and policies had a positive impact to do with the wall falling and communism coming to its knees in USSR...and he was calling it the evil empire.

Quote
"like the ones the US did in Vietnam, or the support of Augusto Pinochet. If your enemy is evil itself, anything can be justified"

That is true...we shouldn't label someone evil to justify inhumane actions... and when you do label it makes inhumane actions more plausible...but sometimes things are just evil no matter how you cut it...like OBL's preaching is just evil through and through...any teaching that tells the followers to intentionally kill innocents is evil.


quote
"a world leading nation should be more rational and differentiating than that, and not use the language of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden"

I think as of late there has been a lot of intellectual writings, especially among the psychological and philosophical thinkers, that thinking in terms of morality (discerning right from wrong, "good and evil", ethical and unethical, etc) is not antiquated and actually needed in today's relativistic society.  Morality has, can, and will be abused...but its necessity for introspection, dialogue, growth, understanding, and decision making should not be underestimated

Quote
"Nice chatting with you, too, I wonder what a psychologist would say about the difference between internet forum and instant message discussions"

Yeah that was very interesting and a learning experience for me...much easier to be abrupt and semi-aggressive in a post than in a pseudo-form of a one on one interaction.  Guess it comes down to that posting seems less personal so it is easier to act in impersonal ways.  Both have their place I guess...but I think I enjoyed the tone of the IM much more

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted September 24, 2002 10:44 AM bonus applied.
Edited By: Romana on 24 Sep 2002

Light the blue touchpaper - It refers to a set of instructions on fireworks. Light.... and step well back. It's used to say you are about to argue with someone!

Hmmmm ok then I'll let you get away with that one But not all neutrals as i'm sure you know sit wars out to avoid taking responsibility. Some simply do not agree with the common stance taken by nations such as Britain and the USA for whatever reason. In the case of switzerland though I would have been quite happy to nuke the country for all that they helped German war criminals in WWII and afterwards.....

On the christianity thing I would counter you by using the same argument. communism for all it's unachievable aims is not evil in itself. The crimes committed and deaths of communism were no more down to the government type than the crusades could be blamed on the bible. I sincerely believe there has yet to be (and will never be) a truly communist government so your argument comes into play here. The crimes were done in the name of communism by dictators and their supporters, not communism itself.

You could just as easily label democracy and capitalism in the same way. Hitler was the democratically elected leader of germany (althought with some help, but germany was a democracy so). Evil things have been done by all types of government.

Communism admitedly does hold as a central belief rule of behalf of the people rather than by the people, but at the same time it holds as a belief many good and decent ideas such as a fair distribution of wealth, health care etc. Indeed it links well with Christianity in it's ideas if it wasn't for it's aethiest outlooks.

It's been warped that's the main problem, but so has every system since the dawn of time. Capitalism is warped into mega corporations exploiting workers and democracy has often lead to dictators, indeed almost as often as communism. It's the people who ruin a country and cause these problems, all the type of government affects is how easy or difficult this warping is. Communism is slightly easier to warp, but that does not mean it is evil


edit by Romana: for the overall discussion
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bort
bort


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
posted September 24, 2002 06:59 PM

Snodgard -- you are absolutely 100% correct.  I know it doesn't seem this way since I have made quite a number of arguments saying that there are conditions that I think an attack on Iraq would be justified, but I am not sold on the idea that it would be the intelligent thing to do.

First off, the supporting terrorism argument seems not to be true.  I say this since, if there was any credible evidence that has Saddam in bed with Al Qaeda, Bush would be bringing it up over and over again and stressing that point rather than using the weapons inspectors argument.  However, the supporting terrorism point seems to have fallen by the wayside, presumably due to a lack of evidence.

I've already said that I don't feel that a unilateral attack on the basis of surrender violation is unjustified.  I feel even more strongly that it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do.  It would 1.  be saying that the US firmly denies the existence of any form of international law with wide ranging implications from the treatment of US prisoners of war(which I admit that Camp X-ray already brings into question) to trade tariffs and even to things like fishing rights  2.  make the viewpoint "oh, well you guys deserved it" more prevalent next time the US is hit with a terrorist attack 3.  be an extraordinarily difficult war to win 4.  even if we did win, the peace following it would be problematic since any government set up would be viewed (correctly) by the rest of the world as illegitamate and so on and so forth.

Now, even Bush manages to build a consensus first in the US and then in the international community that an attack is justified, that still doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.  

First, this war would be a separate war from the "war on terrorism."  (Like I said, the argument no longer seems to be that it's two aspects of the same conflict)  This is an interesting twist on the "two conflict" or "two front war" concept that has been a part of US military planning for awhile, but it does bring up an interesting point.  The US isn't assured of victory in either the "war on terrorism" or a war in Iraq even if it can devote it's entire military and intelligence resources onto just one of the wars.  What are the chances of winning both?  If the war turns sour in Iraq, what does it mean for the war on terrorism?  When Al Qaeda strikes again, what will it mean for the war on Iraq?  There's a consensus point that if a war is started in Iraq, it can't be half assed, it has to be fought with complete devotion -- does the US actually have the capability to do this right now, given that, for instance a large portion of the special forces are currently in Afghanistan?  (and pulling out of Afghanistan isn't really an option, either since that may well allow the Taliban to retake power and then we're right back where we started).

Okay, let's say, somehow we win the war on terrorism tomorrow, I don't know, maybe every single terrorist in the world decides to take up knitting instead or something.  Other hotspots also agree to atleast wait until after Gulf War 2 (G2 - this time, it's personal) is finished (for instance, North Korea and South Korea simply decide to have tea for a little while and the Taliban goes on a trust building retreat to the Swiss Alps).  Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Iran welcome US troops to conveniently located bases.  Even in this case, I'm not sure it's a good idea.  I'm not going to use the no assurance of victory argument here, since I think in this fanciful situation, Saddam would unquestioningly be SOL, but I do want to know exactly what a victory would acheive.  

So we've acheived a glorious victory without any civilians or American soldiers killed and Saddam is toppled.  Using Afghanistan as an example, it seems that, although what looks to be a pretty reasonable interim government can be established following dictatorships, it is also crystal clear that the government is extremely fragile.  Is the US willing to do what it takes to win the Peace after it wins the war?  That means STAYING there for a LONG period of time and providing absolutely immense amounts of aid.  Can the US do this at the same time that it's protecting/aiding the Afghani government?  I'm not sure that the US even has the resources, much less the will.  The US economy is not exactly strong right now.  If the economy fails to recover or even gets worse, how long before politicians start complaining about all that money that's being "flushed down the toilet overseas when we have problems here at home?"  How long before the public agrees?  How long before we partially or fully pull back aid and troops?  How long after that before new dictatorships are in place?  And that's without even taking into account the cost of the war itself, which would be exhorbitant.

Anyway, that's just my way of agreeing with Snodgard's point.  It's sort of like parenting, I guess (I'm not a parent, I'm just trying to extrapolate from what my parents must have gone through).  Let's say you catch your son taking part in an illegal gerbil fighting and gambling ring.  You are perfectly justified to ground him for 12 years and take away his allowance and forbid him from ever setting foot near a gerbil again.  That doesn't mean you should do that since the kid isn't going to think "wow, I really screwed up this time.  I think I'll dedicate my life to charity,"  he's going to think ,"wow, dad's a jackass.  As soon as his backs turned, I'm going and fighting me some gerbils.  Maybe I'll start doing heroin, too."  So, although extreme punishment might be justified, it would not, as the first bush said, "be prudent at this juncture."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Snogard
Snogard


Known Hero
customised
posted September 25, 2002 04:50 AM

Bort:

*taking my hat off*

You?fve said it all, and so much better!  I?fm glad you?fve brought up the issues on the difficulties (impossibilities) for US to concentrate all its resources for a war fight SOLELY with Iraq and some of the ?gforeseeable?h problems after the war (that is if US ?gwon?h the war and ?gwinning?h in its broadest sense).  I like the example you gave about parenting (I?fve been waiting for an example ).  However, things seem to be a bit more complicated.  The problem is US is not the parents, but just another big boy (with senses) in an orphanage.  So how can he help his fat friend to go on diet and stop eating others lunch?  Beating him up sounds like a good option, but maybe that can be left as plan B or C.  I?fm not Bush and I really do not know what he is thinking.  But if I were to assume the better of him, moving troops into a threatening position, and hence making the UN feel the emergency, has been a shrewd move of his.  Why dirty his own hands while he can make use of those of the ?gpoliceman?h?  If only that is what really on his mind... ...  

I have read your post based on the understanding (actually, only my understanding) of the ?gwar on terrorism?h is equivalent to ?gwar on Al Qaeda?h, am I right?  If not, then there maybe some complications as I think that the justifications for US to launch a war on Al Qaeda are not completely applicable to terrorism (in the broadest sense).  I'm not saying that it is not "justifiable" for US to launch a war on terrorism (on the whole) though.
____________
  Seize The Day.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dArGOn
dArGOn


Famous Hero
posted September 25, 2002 06:04 AM

Quote
"communism for all it's unachievable aims is not evil in itself."

I haven't read Marx or Engel’s so I can't speak about the ideology specifically.  Or should I say what they prescribe (or if they prescribe) for implementation of their theory.  I know that ideas can be evil say the idea that whites are the master race….but I don’t have enough information to categorize communistic theory.

I am speaking more of the praxis and the results of communism in general.

What I do think is that in the last century....stack up all the capitalist societies against all the communist societies and they win hands down as far as humane treatment.  There is/was no true freedom in the former USSR, Cuba, China, etc.  Not to mention the historical murder of their own citizens if they disagree with the communist line. I would think those facts alone would make someone seriously suspicious of communism if not even label it evil.  Basically any form of government that controls people like communistic and fascists countries results in awful experiences for its people.

I can't say the big historical examples are necessarily drawn from the communistic ideology...but something must be amiss in that so many countries that have adopted the ideology have become quite brutal.  

Also on the moral point of view...I think an argument can be made that any ideology that refuses basic rights of property and individuality can be deemed immoral/evil (IE Cuba doesn’t even allow for parental rights).  Not only does it not seem to work given human nature...it is also denying what seems to be a fundamental right to keep what you earn....it is basically legalized theft in my opinion.

I think you can generally (I know there are exceptions) judge a tree by the fruit it bears….look at say the USA with the former USSR.  Science, art, education, inventions, creativity etc. all flourish under capitalism but I don’t think the same can be said of communistic countries.  Few if any people were trying to move to the USSR…but many were trying to escape the USSR.

To go back to your analysis of comparing Christianity to Communism….I can say this ….the use of Christianity for ill (inquisition, crusades, witch hunts, etc.) compared with the use of communism for ill (pretty much it’s entire history in USSR, china, Cuba, etc.) is not in the same league.  If you look at what Christians/Christianity has as a whole contributed to the betterment of mankind versus the contributions that communist/communism has contributed to the betterment of mankind…well there again I think their really is no comparison.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This Popular Thread is 107 pages long: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 107 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2586 seconds