Rdr4evr

not the first time you've used that line.

Mojo_PeiPei

Self hating Americans are a myth right? Seems we have a decent number here on the board.

Also wouldn't be the first time that you had let the saying ring true.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rdr4evr

Explain to me how opposing war equates to self-hating?

Rekna

I don't think American's hate America (i know i don't). But I do hate our current administration and policy. This country has been hijacked by a radical group of people who are justifying their actions on something that a large part of America base their life on (the bible). Unfortunatly for anyone who knows the bible they know this adminstrations actions are in direct contrast with the bible. Unfortunatly most of the America's who base their life on the bible don't actually read the bible.

Mojo_PeiPei

You are a radical fringe thinking liberal pacifist. You harp on the administration for such and such illegalities, yet it's straight if you let some loon fundamentalists who convene national business to chants of "Death to America" and "Death to the zionists" get nukes. Maybe you don't realize this, but evil exists. If takes people with spines to stand up to said evil, merely wishing for peace and fluffy bunnies and rainbow sunshine won't ever make it a reality. Remember appeasement with Hitler? Nobody had the spine to stand up to him when he violated international law, and look what happened. Here you are conceding nuclear weapons to sociopaths who would kill just as soon as look at you, and there you sit smug and safe in your chair wishing injury and harm to your country and country men because you don't like the administration. War is an ugly reality but it's a necessity because it's obvious that diplomacy will do nothing with these asshats, just like it hasn't done anything in North Korea over the last 11 years.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

Where is any of this coming from? Where does the bible fit into anything happening in the world today? How has this country been hijacked? I'm pretty sure Bush has been legally elected twice, and acted with declarations from Congress. Whatever may or may not be suspect, the bible does not fit in, it's in response to changing geopolitical winds.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

guthmund

I'm just disappointed. We could be so much more to the world, but we choose instead to bomb shit and play with our toys in the sand.

Anyway...

I don't think the current administration gives a great almighty crap if the military is spread too thin or public opinion, at least on this issue, because he believes he's doing what's 'right.' The military was already spread pretty thin in Afghanistan when they decided to enroll us in Nation Building 101 at Iraqi U. Promising us a clean, quick and decisive victory and delivering...well.... We then moved on to posturing towards North Korea despite the difficulties mounting in Iraq. Iran just seems to be the next 'logical' step in the solution. All this despite the poll numbers, public opinion and mounting criticism from fellow politicians, political pundits and what passes for the 'media' these days.

I've watched the news these last few days and all the administration seems to be interested in is dancing around the issue. Deny, deny, deny, but be very vague as to what it is your denying. Watch the language, we can argue semantics and syntax later, which again, seems to be modus operandi.

I expect the vast majority of the Congress to kowtow as it's politcally expedient to maintain the status quo. I also expect a lot of bitching, pissing and moaning from what's left. Nothing substantive. Just enough to make some noise so they can draw a few more cameras their way. I lost my faith in Congress' ability to stand up for anything substantive when in their ambivilence they 'voted' away the War on Terror. So, I expect them to do very little to 'stop' anything other than a repeal of a cost-of-living or salary increase, they we'd hear all holy hell.

Regardless, the question that keeps popping up in my mind is how hard would it be to garner support to get rid of Iran? How many countries out there are scared shitless at the possibility of Iran having nuclear capability?

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Mojo_PeiPei

For the record, Iraq was one of the most successful and decisive military campaigns ever waged, the post war occupation is where all the trouble lays and I don't think anyone said it was going to be all fine and dandy. Also our presence was never a hinderance in Afghanistan, I bet at the peak of troop deployment it was never above the number of troops stationed in korea, it was a limited war.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rdr4evr

Yet Americans are allowed to possess nukes and shove their beliefs unto countries because they abuse their status and feel they have a God given right? And you wonder why they chant "Death to America"? It isn’t too difficult to figure out.

Yes, you are correct, evil exists, and America is no better than Iran, Iraq or N Korea in terms of "evil", as has been proven for the past 50 years. Unfortunately, it's your type of hateful and angry mentality that initiates conflicts which escalates to senseless wars. If only humanity believed in peace and "bunnies and rainbow sunshine’s" rather than destroying our fellow man, we wouldn't be riddled with violence, hatred and death. Maybe instead of focusing massive amounts of time, energy and money on destroying and killing to solve issues, we could use that energy as positive and try and learn how and why we have so much violence in the world, why people or groups possess so much hatred and how can we prevent it. Answering violence with violence will end up with violence. It will continue to be a never ending circle, and this is not a way to solve issues.
If you have a dog that is not behaving properly, do you shoot it in the head or do you train it to learn? We, as humanity, must take it step by step in order to reach our goals, and war is a never ending train ride to nowhere but our own self-destruction.

Unfortunately, you are right, I am more than likely living in a fantasy world in which peace is possible, and in reality, it is an impossibility as long as we have people who believe violence should be solved with more violence. It saddens me to know that our existence will likely cease due to our own greed and hatred. I hope it doesn’t take a humanity-ending massive disaster beyond any control to make us realize killing each other is indeed senseless when viewing the big picture…because unfortunately by then, it would be too late.

EDIT: And I never wished harm to anyone, I simply stated military action will result in nuclear action which is something to be expected.

Mojo_PeiPei

We never signed a treaty saying we wouldn't simple as that. Besides at that we aren't a repressive theocratic regime that knowingly aides and supports terrorism

Pacifism is a disease, it's a weak mentality. First off we are better then Iraq and Iran. How many people have been purposely put to death because they disagree with our leaders? I don't recall us openly and knowingly supporting terrorism such as Hezbollah or Hamas or Al Qaeda. How many people have repressesd? Oh that's right, in the last 5 years we have freed over 50 million people from murderous repressive regimes, motives aside, the numbers don't lie!

And yes it would be nice if everyone thought of fluffy bunny sunshine, but guess what bub, reality dictates that there are some fucked up people in the world who don't. You try tea time with Hitler, I'll just go and drop a boot in his ass ok? What are you going to do when some deranged asshole pulls a strap on you? Put a tulip in the barrel?

The reality us human beings are fucked up creatures, you can work peaceably though, tell me how that works for you.

War and training dogs are different, animals are not cognitive assfucks like us. Evil and war are a reality and part of our nature, that's something you must realize and deal with it.

That's a real tear jerker, but as I've said on the boards before, Idealism has no place in politics, you must realize the reality of the situation. We've been struggling with the same old bullshit since the dawn of time, things aren't going to change anytime soon.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mephisto2

I take umbrage at you stating I have a disease and a weak mind.


Mr Mephisto

Rdr4evr

"Pacifism is a disease, a weak mentality"
"Humans are fucked up"
"Humans are cognitive assfucks"
"same old bullshit since the dawn of time"

Like I said, it's this mentality from which conflict arises. A never ending circle to our own destruction.

Mojo_PeiPei

No conflict doesn't arise from my mentality. I don't go looking to start shit, I'm just not going to get punked if trouble comes finding me. There is a big difference.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rdr4evr

I was speaking in general terms. Sure, if some crazy pulls a strap on you like you stated, you must defend yourself at any cost neccessary, but it is that same mentality in which that same crazy has that makes him pull a strap on you in the first place. This was the point I was trying to make earlier when I stated that we need to focus our resources to discover what leads someone to want to pull a strap on you rather than killing that person to show him and others that killing is wrong.

Mojo_PeiPei

Well if I'm just chillin' minding my business Austrian style, and some fuck comes in annexing unprovoked, or if I'm just walking down the street and some guy pulls his strap, that is not the same mentality. I'm minding my business, he is the crazy asshole who is violent and needs to be put out.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rdr4evr

Yes, but he also has the mentality that humans are fucked up assholes that should be put down. I'm not saying it makes you a demented asshole for defending yourself, I'm simply saying that we need to focus our energy on preventing people from becoming sick fucks who want to harm and kill, and responding with the same actions isn't going to get us anywhere as a people.

Zeld2.0

Well, shit, after all this talk, I remember why its better to just remember why people go to war and not get involved in the talks.

I think the biggest thing to do is take a step back and realize what you are all saying - you all sound crazed.

Zeld2.0

No one is saying its your mentality but I think if you want to react to every comment like that, then yes, people will start thinking of it that way. Chill out - angry minds and reactions create more problems, cooler minds prevail.

Rdr4evr

Which is the very point of been trying to make.

Zeld2.0

I think if everyone sat back, had a beer (getting drunk usually wont help), and just relaxed (I should stop reading politics again), life expectancy and health would go way up

Rdr4evr

That might be the most rational thing I've heard all day...

billege

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index...on?id=55886848


He said it better than I would have. And I agree.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

host

Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft. and Gonzales, have not
exhibited symptoms of sociopathic behavior ? I would not be surprised if many
in the European Union and in Canada, think that they have behaved like
sociopaths. I'm guessing that many members here think that they have.

A convincing argument can be made that the Bushco have fomented war
of aggression, instigated via a carefully crafted campaign of deception.
They planned and ordered the torture and abuse of those captured by
military and civilian intelligence forces under their command. They violated
the Geneva Convention by hiding select captives from the Int. Red Cross.
By your logic, why would it not be appropriate for European or Asian
authorities to use any means necessary to reduce the U.S. nuclear
capability, since it is under the control of sociopaths. Might makes right,
in your world, and in Bush's, too. Lots and lots of people have been, and
will continue to be needlessly maimed and killed until you and Bush wake
the fuck up. You're so myopic, self centered, and quick to choose aggression.
U.S. state sponsered murder doesn't scare the Iraqi resistance, and it
doesn't achieve the intended political or economic result. The initial military
result is reversed over time. You're living in the past and you're fucking up
the world by encouraging and supporting the Bushco.

Mephisto2

Nice article billege. Whilst many will not agree with it, I most certainly do.

I just don't see Iran as such a huge threat. I think it's a phantom.


Mr Mephisto

RangerDick

Stompy, I almost didn't take the bait. I just couldn't resist.

You stated, "I hope America invades, and falls." Stop and think about what you said. If that isn't an anti-American statement, hoping that your country falls (at something that hasn't even happened) than I don't know what is. At least now everyone here knows exactly where you're coming from. Your hatred for America is quite evident.

matthew330

.....enter Pan6467 in all Caps

Yakk

It has been made clear that only way a nation can defend itself against American military aggression is to own nukes and not be afraid to use them.

As such, I now sympasize with nations that wish to work on nuclear programs. In fact, it would probably be wise for current US allies to work on nuclear programs, in case things change.

The exitance of beligerant nations with nuclear weapons is a horrible thing for the world as a whole.

The veto powers can effectivly do no wrong under the UN, unless they don't show up.

Any of the veto powers can veto any and all UN security council votes that call for santions on their own nation.

Law is the application of power. Good law is a good application of power. You are above the law if the law has no power over you.

So long as there is someone above the law, I personally treat the law as if it where any other form of coersion. Not ethically superior to a schoolyard bully.

You draft people who have finished their military service, and only them.

This will cause a future problem (people not wanting to join the military), but it will make certain that most people can believe "oh, it won't happen to US, so that's ok".

Yes, the Iraq war was cheap. More people where murdered in California during the than died in Iraq during this ongoing war and occupation.

Compare Iraq to other wars. WW1 or 2. Civil war. Veitnam. Even Korea. Look at what the economies of other nations do when they go to war.

The Iraq war was cheap. The size of the military budget during the Iraq war wasn't all that much higher than the size of the peacetime US military budget.

Admittedly, 90%+ of casualties where kept alive by the improved emergency medical care, so the death rate in Iraq is much lower than the level of danger would indicate. If this war where to have happened 20 years ago, the same level of damage to soldiers would have caused 2 to 4 times more deaths.

I'm saying that a successful war against Iran would be expensive. You'd have a serious economic impact from fighting it. The USA has the capacity to crush Iran, but it would cost the USA.

And maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the USA could strip Europe and Japan and forces at home, call up all reserves, hire mercinaries in Afghanistan and Iraq, and defeat Iran's military.

Bush won the election, and has stated this clears him of all culpability on Iraq. The US people said 'we saw what you did in Iraq, and approve'.

The current American government doesn't care about international opinion.

/shrug, WW2 and WW3 where profitable for those in control of the American economy. Starting a new one would also be good for them, probably.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

roachboy

the problem is not the reality of any threat posed by iran, but that iran as target fits neatly into the neocon fantasy of themselves as avengers of previous wrongs done to the american hegemon--iran is obviously as big a deal in that world as iraq, but the logic is a bit different: it fits neatly into the question of their favorite phantasm, "islamic fundamentalism" (which you see repeated ad nauseum in the various space within which conervative rationalizations for the actions of a basically pathological administration get deployed).

selling the war to a credulous tv-viewing public would not be as problematic as selling a war unrelated to these already existing terms would be.

thing is that invading iran would be a total disaster.
a much bigger disaster than iraq has so far been.

on the other hand, bush, like his 1920s-1930s ideological predecessors, seems to require constant war to legitimate his policies, and his administration more generally, before the public. this is the other logical space that makes anyone who thinks about it worry a bit that this neocon fantasy may well end up generating alot more deaths for very little reason.

on the other hand:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185205.stm

it appears that the only population on earth that finds this administration to be coherent, its policies admirable, are american conservatives. the only population that finds this policy of absurd war in iraq to be reassuring, and who would potentially welcome an even more idiotic invasion of iran, are american conservatives. it is not in the least surprising to find this same population totally incapable of relativizing its positions--like their boy bush, they appeal to an arbitrary higher authority, one that enables them to imagine 51% is an overwhelming mandate, an affirmation of policy blah blah blah.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

OFKU0

Agreed 100%. I think if people looked which countries had the most to gain from an attack on Iran, the picture would become a lot clearer from a power broker point of view.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

Stompy

It wasn't "bait".

You're over-analyzing, and because of this, you missed my point.

Calm down. Take a step away from the computer... breathe.

You don't need your hand held to understand what I'm trying to say, and if you do, then I don't know what to say. Quit wasting my time and everyone else's. I said what I had to say, it means nothing more, nothing less.

Agree with it, disagree with it, whatever. Just move on with it and quit making mountains out of molehills.

FYI - I'm not a blind patriot, and yes, I hope our govt gets taught a lesson. There's nothing anti-american about it. You're just another one of those typical "if you aren't with us, you're against us" folk. It gets old.

Move on.

__________________
I love lamp.

RangerDick

...dot org?

Rekna

The bible fits directly into all of this. We have a president who believes he was appointed by God. He believe God speaks to him and he is doing God's will with the war on terrror (aka Islam). He has called his war a crusade and he has campaigned on the fact tha t he is a self-avowed christian.

You say pacifism is a disease, then I pray that I am sick. Because if I have this disease then I am one step closer to Jesus. Jesus told us to love our enemy as ourself. He told us to turn the other cheak. When his dicipiles grabbed a sword to defend him he told them stop, those who grab a sword to defend me will loose their life. He then proceeded to heal the soldier who got his ear chopped off. Now you tell me if it sounds like Jesus wanted Christains to wage war on other nations.

Rekna

It should be noted that withdrawing from a treaty is not illegal. Treaties are an agreement between nations in good faith. But at any time any involved in that treaty can decided that treaty is no longer valid and as such do as they please.

Zeld2.0

I think the biggest way to remove the "threat" of Iran is to help their fledling democracy grow and remove the fundamentalist threat that seeks to overthrow it. Imagine that, a democracy there, that ends up friendly or at least neutral to the U.S.? That would be a lot easier and probably smarter than bombs away.

Bodyhammer86

and how do you propose we go about doing this? They hardly have a "fledling democracy" now and their current government is extremely hostile towards us. Their fundamentalist leadership keeps their population held down and there are no resistance groups within the country that we potentially support to overthrow their current government, and even if there were, they would probably be crushed immediately after rising up. Kinda makes it hard to set up a democracy in that kind of environment....

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

dy156

yup.
interesting theory about Bush policy being psychologically driven, and there might be some truth to it. However, it reminds me of all the times that I have agreed with Rush Limbaugh's conclusions, though a very different thought process led me there.

I might get a little preachy here, and feel free to call me judgmental, jingoistic, and full of typical American arrogance, but I doubt you'll change my mind.

I think we were justified in going into Iraq, and I think we would be justified in getting rid of Iran's nukes, for many of the same reasons. If it was the right thing to do then, and we were mistaken, then it is even more right to do so now, when there is even more evidence that the assumptions about nuclear weapons are correct. I don't think Bush totally fits the strong, stalwart, damn-the-opinion-polls-we're-doing everything-we-can-to-win-the-war-on-terror image that some people like to paint of him, or we would be doing something about it. Then again, he might be.

I think it's probable that we have operatives in Iran. In fact, if we do not, the Congress ought to be asking why not. When a nation that is adamantly opposed to the US has WMD, we ought to be able to do something about it. Not only is it in the self-interest of the US, but in the long-run, it would make the world a better place to get rid of a nation such as Iran. In the medium run, it would make the world a safer place to get rid of the nuclear capability of Iran. Yes, in the short run, an attack on Iran would probably not make the world a safer place, and certainly not safer for our troops, but that is America's obligation and price we pay, both for our protection and as the world's leader.


As for the remarks about Jesus and turning the other cheek posted by Rekna:

Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is His. Paul told the people to obey their government, and that it was placed there by God's will. The personal acts of Christians and the behavior of Nations are two very different things. While a Christian myself, I strongly feel that the seperation of Church and State should apply to more aspects of the government than whether there can be nativity scenes in the town square. The disciples practiced what is basically communism, and if people want to act that way, it may even be admirable, but it does not work for governments to adopt those methods. Should the government forgive everyone that commits crimes, as Jesus taught Christians to do? Obviously not. Don't mean to hijack this thread, but I wanted to address that.

alansmithee

That sure worked out well for Neville Chaimberlain.

alansmithee

That line is CLASSIC.

And I agree with most of what Mojo is saying. It would probably be better if people were nice and cuddly and sweet all the time, but it doesn't work in practice. And what ends up happening is you need to balance practicality with idealism. Now I could see how some people think maybe the US is curently too practical, but the mentality of alot of people changed after 9/11. Personally, I think it was a big overreaction, and gave alot more power to terrorists than was necessary. But it isn't hard to see how after being attacked a country would get alot more aggressive, to the point of preemptive strikes. Also, there was this massive military complex sitting around with nothing to do after the cold war. I remember it being a big topic as to what all these agencys would do in a post-cold war world, and what our military's purpose was. Nobody is really asking that now.

The main problem with Iraq was not the war itself, but the occupation afterwards. The US gravely miscalculated in assuming that Iraq would just instantly breathe a sigh of relief, and that the troops could just leave. That obviously wasn't the case, instead what was created was a vacuum that without US presence would allow the same sort of terrorists to come into power that are in Iran or were in Afghanistan. And I think the same misjudgement might be on the horizon for Iran. If we can go in for just a military action, I think it will be a big success. But before that we must make sure that the people are as ready for revolt against the current theocracy as certain people are claiming, or it will be an even greater disaster.

Mojo_PeiPei

I'd be all for Democratic change peaceably in Iran, thing is I don't see it happening. The prime minister seems to be pretty legit, but the Guardian council or whatever has the run. Didn't 2000+ people get blocked from running for office? I'm thinking it's an Iraq thing, they know how false the government is, but what are they going to do about it?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

The quote give to ceaser what is ceaser's and god what is god's is in referal to paying taxes. It occured when some pharasis were trying to trick jesus by getting him to denounce the rome so he would be killed.

Romans teaches us to follow the government but the US is different we as individuals are part of the government. It is our duty to question our governments actions and help direct them to what is best for it. As a christian I feel that I should try to direct the government to behave as Jesus taught us. The reason I feel I can hold this current administration to the bible is because the administration has told everyone how great they are as chirstians. If we had an agnostic president I wouldn't hold him to these standards (though I would still try to get him behave as we have been taught). The president has abused his "religion" to gain support of christains all over by taking advantage of propaganda.