For those that think Iran has a right to nuclear energy

[ashurbanipal]

Ok, perhaps we've somehow gotten messages crossed here. I am under the impression that you were advocating a policy of appeasement (the Chamberlain approach), while I was not advocating striking first unless absolutely necessary but rather making every preperation be able to do so and to be prepared to go on the offensive (as did Churchill).

Chamberlain was for giving Germany concessions it was not entitled to. I am for giving the people of the Middle East only what should be theirs by right.

Quite situational, don't you think? A hotheaded kid or neighborhood bully saying that is one thing. A nation that has sponsored terrorist groups aimed at you and now armed with nukes having the avowed national goal of "wiping you off the map" is quite another.

Not necessarily where I grew up. But my point along these lines earlier in the thread is, whereas Iran, Iraq, etc. all make claims that they're going to attack, the U.S. is (so far this decade) the only country that actually does any attacking. Saddam attacked Kuwait, obviously, but there may have been some legitimate reasons for doing so. But that was nearly 15 years ago. Iran, to my knowledge, hasn't attacked anyone for quite a long time.

It doesn't excuse our actions. It doesn't keep us from classifying them as wrong now. But, we should not and cannot go around with those actions now deemed 'bad' through the virtues of 20/20 hindsight, hanging around our necks like anvils, dragging our heads down so that we are unable to lift our eyes to the realities of the current situation. If we made a mistake, and god knows we've made plenty of them, shouldn't we learn from that mistake and go on about our business?

You're treating stuff like our removal of Mossadegh, or Israel's shelling of Palestinian neighborhoods, as some kind of mistake. I would say more or less what you say above to one of my managers that screwed something up occasionally. I wouldn't say that to one of my managers who took a few of their employees out back and shot them. That, to me, is the essential difference that must be addressed.

Isn't that what we've tried to do in the ME? Two or three decades of failed attempts to bring peace thru tolerating failed states, autocratic states, terror-sponsoring states, etc, produced nothing but more and more enmity. Why shouldn't we learn from those mistakes and try promoting democracy for a change?

That's not how I'd characterize our actions in the ME over the last 50 years or so at all.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Exactly. Because we are the most powerful, by far, we are constantly in the spot light. Every error and mistake is layed out for all to criticize. With all of our power and all of our positve efforts around the globe, we are bound to do less than honorable things to protect interests. Diplomacy demands less than honorable events at times. It is easy to critize the lone janitor. We do not have to be the lone janitor, but we largely are. The perfect example of this is Africa. Where is the UN, EU, and all of those European countries that used "Africa" as an alternative place for America to help people besides Iraq? They certainly aren't in Africa with us.

1) If we have to do something dishonorable to protect our interests, maybe we have the wrong interests.

2) The U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on nastiness--far from it. I happen to believe in the notion that the New World Order is being perpetrated as a global crime by the rich on the poor, but I acknowledge that, were the rich and the poor to change places, the formerly poor would screw the rich. The same applies here.

3) That said, I still can't see that as a reason to excuse an evil action.

Hence the "we are addicted to oil and need to get our interests out of the Middle East" speech.

I even think Bush may have thought he was being serious.

Iraq had a multiple of reasons ranging from oil to military strategic location to liberating to getting rid of Saddam.

However, without the one I posted, I don't think we'd have gone. Ergo, if I am right, the other stuff is tangential.

All countries know this, but this does not mean that an Islamic terrorist group won't detonate a nuclear bomb from an Iranian arsenol. Iran wouldn't have to initiate anything. This civilization believes in suicide bombings and murdering innocent people going to market. They pay terrorists to slaughter their own people. Why in hell do you honestly believe that using a nuke to inflict more damage for their "god" is out of the logical box?

I admit this is a point I did not consider. I would have to think that Iran would know that even allowing terrorists to use nukes would be disastrous for it. But Al Qaeda has had access to nukes for some time. If Yosef Bodansky is to be believed (maybe, maybe not), they already have 10 suitcase bombs of British manufacture. He claims at least to know the particulars of how and when they were acquired. Even if he's wrong, it would seem there's plenty of opportunity still to be explored in the former Soviet 'stans.

 

[MSgt]

1) If we have to do something dishonorable to protect our interests, maybe we have the wrong interests.

Well, nice bumper stickeresque moment, but since no one can please all of the people all of the time, we would never have a "right" interest. Our own Civil War was not in the best interest of half our country at the time.

3) That said, I still can't see that as a reason to excuse an evil action.

Nothing excuses an "evil" act. Life is about necessity and sometimes that doesn't offer us with "right" as an option. You keep getting hung up on "right" and "wrong" as the end all defining words of any endeavor. We teach our children right and wrong and they grow up to become aduults in a grey world where most people's ideas of right and wrong do not match ours. To many people out there, killing women and children is as as honorable as killing an American "soldier." To many people, even an eight year old child is evil and is worthy of blowing up.

I even think Bush may have thought he was being serious.

Look it up. There is government funding involved with alternate energy sources. The time will come. Scientist estimate approxamately 200 years left of oil in the ground.

However, without the one I posted, I don't think we'd have gone. Ergo, if I am right, the other stuff is tangential.

Well, the problem with your suggestion is that it is not soley a "Bush" thing. Even President Clinton has documents that called for a future inevitable ousting of Saddam. (Of course, the "Poll Master" left it for a future President to deal with.)

I admit this is a point I did not consider. I would have to think that Iran would know that even allowing terrorists to use nukes would be disastrous for it. But Al Qaeda has had access to nukes for some time. If Yosef Bodansky is to be believed (maybe, maybe not), they already have 10 suitcase bombs of British manufacture. He claims at least to know the particulars of how and when they were acquired. Even if he's wrong, it would seem there's plenty of opportunity still to be explored in the former Soviet 'stans.

How can you say you haven't considered this, when I keep bringing it up? The fear of an Iranian launch is rediculous. This is not what we would see. Sending "martyrs" off to slaughter "infidels, non-believers, and back-slidden Muslims" is a whole other matter than committing national suicide.

If Al-Queda and Bin-Laden had nukes, they would have used them. What better way to bring a victory to "true" (as they percieve it) Islam than to detonate a suitcase in New York for their "god?"

 

[oldreliable67]

Chamberlain was for giving Germany concessions it was not entitled to. I am for giving the people of the Middle East only what should be theirs by right.

Chamberlain did so out of fear of the consequences of not doing so and was taken in by Hitler's false promises. Being 'entitled' or not 'entitled' had absolutely nothing to do with Chamberlain's decisions.

"...what should be theirs by right."??? What could they be more entitled to than self-determination? Are we not promoting exactly that? The old policies of supporting dictators and autocratic governments in the interest of 'stability' and the maintenance of some 'balance of power' didn't work, producing only atmospheres in which terrorists thrived. And now we are paying the price.

Taken as a whole, your rhetoric reminds me very much of Winston Churchill's admonition in 1940, as he was assembling his War Cabinent, "If the present tries to sit in judgment on the past it will lose the future." ("The Second World War, Volume II: Their Finest Hour" , page 10).

You seem convinced that anything we did, any actions that we undertook in the past that now seem misguided, seemed equally misguided at the time those actions were undertaken, but nevertheless were undertaken anyway. That does a disservice to the people who made those decisions. You, we, weren't there. You, we, cannot know the full range of emotions, available facts, influences, etc. that contributed to those decisions. Decisions that seem poorly formed to us today may have seemed the only proper course at the time. (The Boston Red Sox thought they had made a great deal when they traded George Herman Ruth to the hated Yankees.)

You are doing what Churchill warned about, 'sit[ting] in judgment on the past'. In doing so, you are holding hostage to past mistakes any actions or policies that may be beneficial to our future.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Well, nice bumper stickeresque moment, but since no one can please all of the people all of the time, we would never have a "right" interest. Our own Civil War was not in the best interest of half our country at the time.

I don't equate "pleasing everybody" with "right." Actually, I think pleasing everybody is a pretty sure way to avoid what's right in at least half of all cases.

Nothing excuses an "evil" act. Life is about necessity and sometimes that doesn't offer us with "right" as an option.

You've still never answered the question I ask any time you bring up the word "necessity." That question is: necessary to what? You can't mean logical necessity. So you have to mean contingent necessity--i.e. some action "x" is necessary in order to bring about or maintain some circumstance "y". So what is that circumstance you're dancing around?

You keep getting hung up on "right" and "wrong" as the end all defining words of any endeavor. We teach our children right and wrong and they grow up to become aduults in a grey world where most people's ideas of right and wrong do not match ours. To many people out there, killing women and children is as as honorable as killing an American "soldier." To many people, even an eight year old child is evil and is worthy of blowing up.

I don't really approach the problem from a perspective of right and wrong. I approach it from a perspective of honor and dishonor. The difference is that the former includes both intention and result, while the latter includes intention only. Sometimes an honorable person may do something without realizing that the result hurts people.

There's something of a gulf between day-to-day gray areas and outright slaughter of a group of people. Because we may not always be keen enough to navigate the former blamelessly doesn't mean that the latter's dishonorable status is in any way unclear.

The fact that there are different points of view about what is right and what is wrong doesn't mean that they're all equally valid, that they can't be argued, or that the issues are so complex they can't be grasped. Consider again the Nazi death squad example I gave earlier in this thread. In actual point of fact, most members of the Einsatzgruppen believed in the rightness of what they were doing. They killed men, women, and children in a wholesale manner without a whole lot of compunction. But what is clear to us now is that they were acting wrongly. Their actions were predicated on the notions that the Jews were part of an international conspiracy to eliminate the German people and plunge the world into chaos and poverty, and that this intention was somehow passed on in the blood of the Jews so that even children left alive would be a threat.

These ideas are demonstrably false, and were at the time. The German people bought them (those that did, anyway) because they were afraid of the consequences of not buying them. They had seen the economic hardship of the Weimar. They had known the humiliation of defeat in WWI. And they suffered from an older anti-semitism that stems from the idea that the Jews killed their Lord and are therefore worthy of death in perpetuity. And those fears were the result of still more basic fears.

Can we not, however, criticize them? Can we not point out that there was no international conspiracy, ideas like that don't get passed on genetically, and the story of the death of Jesus was largely dramatic storytelling, and that therefore such actions as shooting children in the back of the head for the sake of these beliefs are wrong?

Furthermore, why is it that some people, even some highly decorated S.S. officers, saw through the propaganda and worked to put an end to the genocide? Kurt Gerhardt is the prime example--he initially was with the program, but once he saw an extermination happen, he realized that the people being gassed were not a threat to anybody and that Germany was therefore involved in a huge and falsely-motivated mass murder. He risked his life many times to put a stop to it. Nor was he an isolated incident.

My own experiences tell me that the people who end up behaving honorably when everyone else is going crazy are the people who have the courage to forget their usual self-centeredness and act according to what are usually painfully obvious principles. There was (clearly) quite a lot of hysteria in Nazi Germany, and a lot of fervor whipped up over false cause. But we don't see that this somehow excuses the holocaust or forms a reason to forgive its perpetrators.

Look it up. There is government funding involved with alternate energy sources. The time will come. Scientist estimate approxamately 200 years left of oil in the ground.

Like I said, I think Bush may have even thought he was being serious. I've spent the better part of the last year studying our energy predicament. It's pretty clear to me now that we're up ***** creek without a paddle.

Well, the problem with your suggestion is that it is not soley a "Bush" thing. Even President Clinton has documents that called for a future inevitable ousting of Saddam. (Of course, the "Poll Master" left it for a future President to deal with.)

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that it necessarily was. I think pretty much all Presidents since Eisenhower (well, maybe Kennedy, who was just basically dumb) have been sticking to a long-term plan that has a definite few ends. Clinton's administration was just as bad as Bush's. A little reading on the collapse of the Russian economy or the various East Asian genocides taking place at that time show what a scumbag both he and Gore were. The notion that Clinton planned but did not act doesn't change the fact that Bush did act, though. Nor does it diminish the extent to which he lied and manipulated in order to build a consensus on the issue.

How can you say you haven't considered this, when I keep bringing it up? The fear of an Iranian launch is rediculous. This is not what we would see. Sending "martyrs" off to slaughter "infidels, non-believers, and back-slidden Muslims" is a whole other matter than committing national suicide.

1) Are we discussing terrorists gaining access to nuclear arms against the will of the Iranian government, or at the will of the Iranian government? I thought we were discussing the former, not the latter. The latter is what you've brought up, but I don't see this as any different from Iranians launching a missile--they're aware that no one would let them play that off.

If Al-Queda and Bin-Laden had nukes, they would have used them. What better way to bring a victory to "true" (as they percieve it) Islam than to detonate a suitcase in New York for their "god?"

This begs the question--if a reputable expert on terrorism claims that they do have nukes but have not used them, perhaps the situation is a little more complex than you describe.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Chamberlain did so out of fear of the consequences of not doing so and was taken in by Hitler's false promises. Being 'entitled' or not 'entitled' had absolutely nothing to do with Chamberlain's decisions.

The fact that Chamberlain didn't consider entitlement is precisely the point of difference. He should have, and had he, his actions would have been different.

"...what should be theirs by right."??? What could they be more entitled to than self-determination? Are we not promoting exactly that?

No, of course we aren't. Do you really think that if the new government said to us "OK, thanks, but get the hell out immediately," we'd do that? I think the fact that we're spending so much extra money building 4 permanent bases there speaks to the contrary.

The old policies of supporting dictators and autocratic governments in the interest of 'stability' and the maintenance of some 'balance of power' didn't work, producing only atmospheres in which terrorists thrived. And now we are paying the price.

Yes, this is correct.

Taken as a whole, your rhetoric reminds me very much of Winston Churchill's admonition in 1940, as he was assembling his War Cabinent, "If the present tries to sit in judgment on the past it will lose the future." ("The Second World War, Volume II: Their Finest Hour" , page 10).

And yet, by making that statement, he very much sat in judgement of the past.

You seem convinced that anything we did, any actions that we undertook in the past that now seem misguided, seemed equally misguided at the time those actions were undertaken, but nevertheless were undertaken anyway.

No, I don't believe that, nor have I said anything that should imply that. I do believe that they should have seemed misguided, and probably did to a few people who also probably spoke against them. See my response to GySgt and the holocaust example. A few people were able to see it for what it was--but what was different about them and the other people who just went along with the program of genocide? I believe that the distinction is courage. Some people, a few people, have the courage to look past the fear of the moment to what is really important about life. That is the essence of honor. I don't think it's something that you either have or you don't; I think it's possible to learn it.

That does a disservice to the people who made those decisions. You, we, weren't there. You, we, cannot know the full range of emotions, available facts, influences, etc. that contributed to those decisions. Decisions that seem poorly formed to us today may have seemed the only proper course at the time. (The Boston Red Sox thought they had made a great deal when they traded George Herman Ruth to the hated Yankees.)

I think there is a spectrum of relative size that has to be considered, though. Two points close together on a number line seem like comparable numbers. But the numbers at opposite ends are obviously very distinct. For instance, if someone owes you ten million dollars, and you come to collect and they say "well, I'm short twenty bucks, but I can pay you $9,999,980.00 right now" you probably won't quibble. But if they say "Well, I can pay you twenty bucks right now," you'd be justified in asking just what they're playing at.

Similarly, it's one thing to trade ball players. Monetary interests may be somewhat damaged. You may even lose your job. But hundreds of thousands of people aren't going to lose their homes, their limbs, their lives. Those sorts of decisions ought to be reviewed cautiously before, during, and for many, many years after the fact. Future actions ought to be subject to whatever we learn from those reviews, because the results are often so horrible and so irrevocable that nothing less is demanded.

If we cannot sit in judgement on the past, then Hitler, Pol Pot, the Three Young Turks, Stalin, etc. all get off scott-free. Their actions seemed like good ideas to them at the time, so why shouldn't they? If we cannot sit in judgement on the past, then murderers, rapists, and thieves get off scott-free for the same reason. We weren't in Ted Bundy's shoes when he killed all those women--it does a great disservice to him for us to sit in judgement of him now and say "shame on you, Mr. Bundy, for these crimes" because we can never really appreciate the entirety of his circumstance.

Again, we're not talking about some boardroom mistake here. We're talking about blowing people up, shooting them, burning them, etc. There's a difference.

You are doing what Churchill warned about, 'sit[ting] in judgment on the past'. In doing so, you are holding hostage to past mistakes any actions or policies that may be beneficial to our future.

1) Just because Churchill was a man of some respect doesn't mean he's a complete authority on everything or that he couldn't be wrong here.

2) In any case, I'm not holding hostage anything as far as I can tell. I'm asserting that we did wrong in the past and we haven't changed our ways at all.

 

[MSgt]

You've still never answered the question I ask any time you bring up the word "necessity." That question is: necessary to what? You can't mean logical necessity. So you have to mean contingent necessity--i.e. some action "x" is necessary in order to bring about or maintain some circumstance "y". So what is that circumstance you're dancing around?

I don't dance. I wasn't aware you were asking this.

"Necessity" is doing that which is necessary to secure environment. Much of the Cold War was about keeping Soviet Communist influence out of our side of the world (The Cuban Missile Crisis scared a lot of people). On the other side of the world, we acted wherever a weak country had its hand out and the U.S.S.R. was offering theirs. 65 million dead people from a world war was very fresh in the world's minds. Though loud about it today, even our self-appointed voices of conscience in Europe was silent during those times.

Our environment (and that of all countries in the free world) depends on economic securities as well as personal security. Nations that have economic and trade aggreements between them do not do the things that would make them engage in combat with each other (This is why we want China to continue to become increasingly democratic with free enterprise with us). The future of warfare will reflect this very thing. As more countries become a part of the natural course of proggression and social advancement, militaries will be deployed to defend the economics that secure peace. Our technologies have brought the coutnries around the globe closer together and will continue to do so. Try as they (Middle East) may, there is no more isolation.

You and I do not have a problem with reality. Where we differ is your complaint of it (as if it is going to change) and my acceptance of it. You cannot get away from it no matter where you live. Any country that has an economic stability with another will send their militaries to protect that. Those that don't, rely on America. Talk about us all they want, but if we up and left the entire Middle East, Europe would not know what to do, because their oil stabilities are also being protected. This is why the more countries that choose democracy over oppression, religious theocracy, and dictatorships the more peaceful we will be. Those that are fighting the future and are embracing the past are a threat to global advancement. As long as the world needs the oil of the Middle East, this region must behave and remain stable despite their passed down traditions of bigotry and racisms. This is just the way it is.

 

[oldreliable67]

No, of course we aren't. Do you really think that if the new government said to us "OK, thanks, but get the hell out immediately," we'd do that? I think the fact that we're spending so much extra money building 4 permanent bases there speaks to the contrary.

Actually, I suspect we would do exactly that.

And yet, by making that statement, he very much sat in judgement of the past.

Not hardly. By drawing a line of demarcation between circumstances past and present, he effectively put an end to the squabbling between the Conservative Party, the Labor Party and the other minor parties which enabled the formation of the War Cabinet and enabled the country to move forward. He did not form judgments based on past party affiliations or real or imagined slights or arguments, he chose his War Cabinet based on his perception of ability to perform the task at hand.

No, I don't believe that, nor have I said anything that should imply that. I do believe that they should have seemed misguided

The 'should have' quite effectively proves my point. Furthermore, those two sentences juxtaposed adjacent to one another quite clearly illustrate your position: sitting in judgment on the past; 20/20 hindsight; 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' syndrome.

f we cannot sit in judgement on the past, then Hitler, Pol Pot, the Three Young Turks, Stalin, etc. all get off scott-free.

Reductio ad absurdem. There is quite a large gulf between recognizing the face of evil and being unable to make a reasonable decision today and interact appropriately with the rest of the world today because of past mistakes.

Just because Churchill was a man of some respect doesn't mean he's a complete authority on everything or that he couldn't be wrong here.

Quite true. Churchill himself was always quick to acknowledge his mistakes.

In any case, I'm not holding hostage anything as far as I can tell. I'm asserting that we did wrong in the past and we haven't changed our ways at all.

Fooled me. My impression is that you seem quite tortured by those judgments of our past actions; as a result, you seem quite in favor simply 'dropping out' (to use the '60s phrase) and if at all possible, somehow avoiding the future consequences of living in the US. But, like I said, thats just my impression. Others mileage may vary.

 

[MSgt]

No, of course we aren't. Do you really think that if the new government said to us "OK, thanks, but get the hell out immediately," we'd do that? I think the fact that we're spending so much extra money building 4 permanent bases there speaks to the contrary.

I hadn't realized that this was made public and I don't know where you got the number "4."

The permanent bases you are speaking of are being built for the express use and maintenance of the Iraqi Army. They are being built for them, not us. However, they are strategically located for any future necessity of American involvement in the Middle East.

 

[MSgt]

History Channel right now!!!!

Iran, the next Iraq?

Talking about nukes

 

[ashurbanipal]

I hadn't realized that this was made public and I don't know where you got the number "4."

It wasn't widely released; I imagine most Americans aren't aware of it. There may be more than 4, but I'm aware of at least 4.

The permanent bases you are speaking of are being built for the express use and maintenance of the Iraqi Army. They are being built for them, not us. However, they are strategically located for any future necessity of American involvement in the Middle East.

It's my understanding that we have plans to occupy them permanently (i.e. for at least a decade if not two or three).

 

[ashurbanipal]

"Necessity" is doing that which is necessary to secure environment.

OK, that answers my question more or less. Ultimately, it's about life or death, but also about quality of life. Is this what you're saying? In other words, we do what is necessary to ensure our survival, and to ensure that we have a good quality of life.

As to the first, I have put what I think is a very powerful argument against this line of thinking--which is simply that we all die anyway. No matter what we do, no matter how we may strive, we will all die. Every generation has said that maybe in another century or two someone will figure out how to keep someone bodily alive. And so far that has never happened; cryogenics seems to be the best anyone's found, and it's outside most peoples' means and may be futile anyway.

The question is: in light of this, what becomes truly important? Is it important to preserve life at any cost or are there things that, once done, make life no longer worth living? I believe there are, and killing innocent people is one of them.

As to the second, I agree that we should try to ensure a good quality of life. But I think that violence is only necessary to do this maybe a third as often (or less) as it is actually used.

Our environment (and that of all countries in the free world) depends on economic securities as well as personal security. Nations that have economic and trade aggreements between them do not do the things that would make them engage in combat with each other (This is why we want China to continue to become increasingly democratic with free enterprise with us).

This is generally true though things have become a lot more complicated recently. Iran, for instance, has a large oil agreement with China, as does Venezuela. We have to be careful, then, in our dealings with both countries.

The future of warfare will reflect this very thing. As more countries become a part of the natural course of proggression and social advancement, militaries will be deployed to defend the economics that secure peace. Our technologies have brought the coutnries around the globe closer together and will continue to do so. Try as they (Middle East) may, there is no more isolation.

Actually, globalization will halt very shortly; there's not enough oil to really fuel it. Isolation will become the norm. But that is not (quite) yet; the illusion will persist for another decade or so.

You and I do not have a problem with reality. Where we differ is your complaint of it (as if it is going to change) and my acceptance of it. You cannot get away from it no matter where you live. Any country that has an economic stability with another will send their militaries to protect that.

This is partially true. I think reality is very difficult to change. But if we do not fight for what we believe in, what are we?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Actually, I suspect we would do exactly that.

We shall find out fairly soon, I think. I would say, though, that our presence there and the money we've put into doing it, along with the backstory of the plans of the PNAC, dictate that we would not. On what grounds do you suspect that we would?

Not hardly. By drawing a line of demarcation between circumstances past and present, he effectively put an end to the squabbling between the Conservative Party, the Labor Party and the other minor parties which enabled the formation of the War Cabinet and enabled the country to move forward. He did not form judgments based on past party affiliations or real or imagined slights or arguments, he chose his War Cabinet based on his perception of ability to perform the task at hand.

That wasn't what I meant; Churchill was saying that the past was in the past, and to be forgotten. As such, he was judging it not meaningful for present circumstance. In any case, drawing as specific a conclusion from the remark as you have, you invalidate its application to other circumstance.

The 'should have' quite effectively proves my point. Furthermore, those two sentences juxtaposed adjacent to one another quite clearly illustrate your position: sitting in judgment on the past; 20/20 hindsight; 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' syndrome.

Well, what is your point then?

Reductio ad absurdem. There is quite a large gulf between recognizing the face of evil and being unable to make a reasonable decision today and interact appropriately with the rest of the world today because of past mistakes.

1) I've posted no Reductios. Do you actually know what a Reductio ad Absurdem is? It's a quite distinct type of formal or semi-formal argument. I'd know if I posted one; they usually require deliberate construction.

2) The rest is just confused, or confusing. I've said that we've done horrible things unecessarily, and we continue to do horrible things unecessarily, and we ought to stop doing horrible things unless they are genuinely necessary. Nothing about that says that we should be unable to make decisions, or ought to withdraw from decision-making. Indeed, it proposes a standard for how to make decisions that is simple and clear: refrain from horrible acts unless genuinely necessary. So your point makes no sense to me unless I've not read it right or something.

Fooled me. My impression is that you seem quite tortured by those judgments of our past actions; as a result, you seem quite in favor simply 'dropping out' (to use the '60s phrase) and if at all possible, somehow avoiding the future consequences of living in the US. But, like I said, thats just my impression. Others mileage may vary.

Where did I say we should "drop out?" I said we should stop killing people who don't deserve to die and begin to deal honorably with others. I've asserted we've been doing exactly that in a willful manner--i.e. we've been committing murder. It's not necessary to "drop out" to stop committing murder and begin honorable dealings.

I think dropping out is for the most part a bad idea. It's probably right for a few people, but not very many. In general, I think people ought to "drop in" quite a bit more. Just in my conversations with people in my office, I am often shocked at how completely ignorant people are of what I would consider very basic knowledge. I am equally shocked (increasingly, lately) at the sheer immaturity some people express. These are, in my opinion, the results of "dropping out"--i.e. by ignoring human heritage, ignoring any kind of introspective discipline, ignoring anything but the latest hollywood eye-candy or the latest computer game or the latest sports car. So no, I don't think people in general should "drop out," where that means ignoring either themselves or the world around them, or both.

In general, the stereotypical 60's attitude was plainly dumb--all enthusiasm and no discipline, all ideology and no philosophy, all present and no future.

 

[MSgt]

It wasn't widely released; I imagine most Americans aren't aware of it. There may be more than 4, but I'm aware of at least 4.



It's my understanding that we have plans to occupy them permanently (i.e. for at least a decade if not two or three).

I have never seen this. I have seen the complete opposite. We will occupy them as long as we are in Iraq, but not in a permanent status.

 

[MSgt]

OK, that answers my question more or less. Ultimately, it's about life or death, but also about quality of life. Is this what you're saying? In other words, we do what is necessary to ensure our survival, and to ensure that we have a good quality of life.

As to the first, I have put what I think is a very powerful argument against this line of thinking--which is simply that we all die anyway. No matter what we do, no matter how we may strive, we will all die. Every generation has said that maybe in another century or two someone will figure out how to keep someone bodily alive. And so far that has never happened; cryogenics seems to be the best anyone's found, and it's outside most peoples' means and may be futile anyway.

The question is: in light of this, what becomes truly important? Is it important to preserve life at any cost or are there things that, once done, make life no longer worth living? I believe there are, and killing innocent people is one of them.

You are way to philisophical. Killing innocent people is inavoidable. However, your blame is mostly misdirected. We backed leaders who in turn abused and neglected their own people. For example: in Iran, we backed and built up the Shah and he in turn neglected and impoverished his people. Khomeini led a successful coup and slaughtered all Iranian military leaders that were loyal to the royal family. He also neglected his people into impoverishment and the economy fell apart. Saddam saw a weakness and wanted oil fields, so he attacked in Iran. Khomeini defended and repelled the Iraqi invasion. He then fixed his eyes on an Islamic theology spanning from Iran to Egypt. America armed Saddam enough to balance the playing field. Khomeini employed terrorist tactics (Hezbollah) on oil structures in Saudi, Kuwait, and on ships in the Gulf. America destroyed half of the Iranian Navy in half a day.

We are blamed out of temper tantrums and out of embarrassed sentiments for all that they have done to themselves. And you support this obtuse blame.

As to the second, I agree that we should try to ensure a good quality of life. But I think that violence is only necessary to do this maybe a third as often (or less) as it is actually used.

It is what it is.





*************I'll answer the rest later. I have to leave work and head home.

 

[oldreliable67]

Where did I say we should "drop out?"

I didn't say 'we'. I said 'you' write as if you want to .drop out'.

 

[MSgt]

Actually, globalization will halt very shortly; there's not enough oil to really fuel it. Isolation will become the norm. But that is not (quite) yet; the illusion will persist for another decade or so.

You missed my point. I was referring to communications technology bringing the countries of the world together. Isolation was the norm in the day before television, radio, internet, Sattelites, VTC, etc...

Try as they may, the Middle East can only remain isolated for so long. In some respects, unbiased information is already seepig into the fabrics of Middle Eastern Islam. History has shown the as communication technologies become more advanced and more available, religion as a mundane organizational tool loses it's grip. The powers of Islam know this - hence the bannishment of western music in Iran recently. Creativity and free thought and expression has no place under a brutal religion losing its grip.

 

[akyron]

History Channel right now!!!!

Iran, the next Iraq?

Talking about nukes

Interesting show.


"For over 25 years, "Death to America" has been the rallying cry of the Iranian government, but it’s only recently that the threat has become chillingly real and the Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged as the most clear and present danger to Western security.

This programme will explore the once proud military tradition of Iran, its recent decline in power, and the country’s struggle to gain a place among the world’s super powers.

We will also examine the mounting evidence that suggests Iran is secretly pursuing nuclear weapons."


It was a nice recap but I really did not see much new info we did not already know about.

 

[MSgt]

Interesting show.


"For over 25 years, "Death to America" has been the rallying cry of the Iranian government, but it’s only recently that the threat has become chillingly real and the Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged as the most clear and present danger to Western security.

This programme will explore the once proud military tradition of Iran, its recent decline in power, and the country’s struggle to gain a place among the world’s super powers.

We will also examine the mounting evidence that suggests Iran is secretly pursuing nuclear weapons."


It was a nice recap but I really did not see much new info we did not already know about.

Ahhh, but many do not know.

 

[ashurbanipal]

You are way to philisophical.

I don't buy the notion that somehow philosophy is separate from reality. Philosophy is thinking about reality. Once you understand what philosophy is, you realize no one avoids it. Philosophers sometimes seem a little odd just because they've been trained to do well what everyone else does with varying degrees of success. But most philosophers have plenty of life experience (myself included). Some have been soldiers, some farmers, some businesspeople, and of course some campus geeks.

Killing innocent people is inavoidable.

Once in a certain set of situations, this is true. But those situations are generally avoidable--though sometimes it is not preferable to avoid them. I am asserting that it would have been preferable to avoid some of the situations we're currently in that lead to this, though.

However, your blame is mostly misdirected. We backed leaders who in turn abused and neglected their own people. For example: in Iran, we backed and built up the Shah and he in turn neglected and impoverished his people. Khomeini led a successful coup and slaughtered all Iranian military leaders that were loyal to the royal family. He also neglected his people into impoverishment and the economy fell apart. Saddam saw a weakness and wanted oil fields, so he attacked in Iran. Khomeini defended and repelled the Iraqi invasion. He then fixed his eyes on an Islamic theology spanning from Iran to Egypt. America armed Saddam enough to balance the playing field. Khomeini employed terrorist tactics (Hezbollah) on oil structures in Saudi, Kuwait, and on ships in the Gulf. America destroyed half of the Iranian Navy in half a day.

Well, this isn't complete, is it? We used military force to depose Mossadegh and install the Shah. We trained his SAVAK police in torture, spying, etc. We funded him. We did all this knowing what he would do. And we needed (so we thought) him to do it to keep Iran from making oil contracts with the Soviet Union. He was the sort of guy we wanted there to squash the Iranian people's ability to self-determine. It turns out that they weren't wanting to go communist; they just wanted to incorporate certain socialist ideas into their economy much as we did during the great depression.

We are blamed out of temper tantrums and out of embarrassed sentiments for all that they have done to themselves. And you support this obtuse blame.

I have cataloged the actions that we actually did and likened us to the guy who hires the hit man. I think that's a fair assessment. If you have a reason for believing that, based on our recorded actions, this is not correct, state it. Calling it obtuse doesn't form an argument, though.

It is what it is.

No, it is what we make it. We could have avoided the Iraq war by simply not invading there. The people who commissioned the invasion knew they were doing so based on manipulated evidence. Had they not done those things, quite a few Iraqis might still be alive.

I have never seen this. I have seen the complete opposite. We will occupy them as long as we are in Iraq, but not in a permanent status.

I guess we shall see. I think, based on the geopolitical objectives clearly spelled out in the neocon literature (if so it can be called), we won't be leaving the ME any time soon.

Try as they may, the Middle East can only remain isolated for so long. In some respects, unbiased information is already seepig into the fabrics of Middle Eastern Islam. History has shown the as communication technologies become more advanced and more available, religion as a mundane organizational tool loses it's grip. The powers of Islam know this - hence the bannishment of western music in Iran recently. Creativity and free thought and expression has no place under a brutal religion losing its grip.

You're correct to an extent, but the force of your argument is undermined in a few ways that I think you wrongly do not consider:

1) Islam has a history of being able to adapt to widespread knowledge, whereas Christianity pre-rennaisance did not. The cultural forms that allowed Islam to embrace and maintain the knowledge of the ancient world are still alive and they can go back to them. This is not an unusual occurence within religions in general; Christianity and Confucianism have both done this.

2) Ignoring the injuries one person does to another and blaming conflict on a clash of personalities seems like a cop-out. So, too, does ignoring the injuries one group does to another and blaming current maladjusted relations on a clash of cultures. That's part of the problem, sure, but it's hardly the whole problem.

3) Implicit in your arguments about this so far has been the idea that we have the right to be in that area of the world in order to secure supplies of oil (or for some other cause). I'm not sure I can see why that could be argued.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I didn't say 'we'. I said 'you' write as if you want to drop out'.

I would like to undertake a hermitage at some point, but not a permanent one. In the meantime, I acknowledge that this sort of thing isn't for everyone, so why is it relevant?

 

[MSgt]

1) Islam has a history of being able to adapt to widespread knowledge, whereas Christianity pre-rennaisance did not. The cultural forms that allowed Islam to embrace and maintain the knowledge of the ancient world are still alive and they can go back to them. This is not an unusual occurence within religions in general; Christianity and Confucianism have both done this.

Yes, I know. I have stated as such before. We are starting to re-create the wheel here. In one of the many ironies of history, two great religions have swapped places over the last half millenium, with Christianity breaking free of medieval intellectual and social repression, while the once-effervescent world of Islam has embraced the comforts of shackles and ignorance. Today, at least, the Judeo-Christian world faces forward, while the Islamic world looks backward with longing and wallows in comforting myths. I call it myth, because the Muslim world takes from their honorable and proud history and they have twisted it to fit today's activities (See Cyrus the Great). 1929 was a horrible year for Islam.

2) Ignoring the injuries one person does to another and blaming conflict on a clash of personalities seems like a cop-out. So, too, does ignoring the injuries one group does to another and blaming current maladjusted relations on a clash of cultures. That's part of the problem, sure, but it's hardly the whole problem.

Never stated it was the whole problem. I have stated this as well before and I a have offered up many problems to support the dillema in the Middle East and the state that our nation is in today as compared to what it was 200 years ago. No need to re-invent the wheel. I do it enough with new people, I don't wish to do it with the same people.

3) Implicit in your arguments about this so far has been the idea that we have the right to be in that area of the world in order to secure supplies of oil (or for some other cause). I'm not sure I can see why that could be argued.

I wouldn't call it a "right," however it is a necessity. Governments form business partners, and with the Middle East, we formed partnerships with gangsters long before the greed of lucrative oil made them gangsters. We cannot simply wreck such partnerships and completely destroy oil stability throughout the world for the sake of doing what is "right." The Arab elite must reform and the most we can do is aggressively urge it.

Iran is a totally different story, however, the unifying aspect among them is the religion of Islam. They are withdrawing so deep within a consciousness of hate and blame that is as destructive as it is comforting. Fueling this sentiment is a legion of religious leaders and elite that are perverting their religion, because they are clinging to organization, oppression, and control.

Nukes are not a good idea.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Yes, I know. I have stated as such before. We are starting to re-create the wheel here. In one of the many ironies of history, two great religions have swapped places over the last half millenium, with Christianity breaking free of medieval intellectual and social repression, while the once-effervescent world of Islam has embraced the comforts of shackles and ignorance. Today, at least, the Judeo-Christian world faces forward, while the Islamic world looks backward with longing and wallows in comforting myths. I call it myth, because the Muslim world takes from their honorable and proud history and they have twisted it to fit today's activities (See Cyrus the Great). 1929 was a horrible year for Islam.

But this means that they're not incapable of change in a positive way. That was my point; I don't think we've discussed that idea before. There may be cultural reasons for conflict, but they're hardly permanent or imutable reasons.

Never stated it was the whole problem. I have stated this as well before and I a have offered up many problems to support the dillema in the Middle East and the state that our nation is in today as compared to what it was 200 years ago. No need to re-invent the wheel. I do it enough with new people, I don't wish to do it with the same people.

If you're acknowledging that we would not likely be at war with Islam right now (as we are at this point) were it not for the past actions of the western world, then we're in substantial agreement. Cultural clashes may provide a pretext for any number of misunderstandings or even offense and aggression. But the sorts of things we see now have causes that are only partially rooted in this, and much more rooted in animosity that we've built up. If we would begin to follow a course of being more respectful in our dealings, I think we'd quickly find most of the Islamic world either favoring us or remaining neutral.

To me, the clash of cultures argument shows a) why Islam will fight as one unit rather than as individual states and b) that there's a possibility for an out-of-proportion reaction to anything perceived as a slight.

For instance: It's not well known in the west that you shouldn't compliment someone on their possessions in some cultures in North Africa, because they will feel honor bound to give you whatever you just complimented. The same would be expected of you, and this is often a way to initiate a trade with someone. It's risky business. You may compliment a man on his lapis ring and he may turn around and compliment you on your $10,000 watch. To him, you offering a compliment is your explaining that you're willing to trade anything of yours for what you just complimented. Should you refuse to give up the watch, there will be ill-feelings. Now if he attacks you, I wouldn't say that you deserve it, because you don't. So this would be an example of an out-of-proportion reaction. And I would acknowledge that Islam is particularly prone to this kind of thing.

But suicide bombings, jihad, beheadings, etc. aren't simply an asymmetric reaction to an unintended insult. They're a reaction to genuine injury. So long as you acknowledge that, then we're in substantial agreement.

I wouldn't call it a "right," however it is a necessity. Governments form business partners, and with the Middle East, we formed partnerships with gangsters long before the greed of lucrative oil made them gangsters. We cannot simply wreck such partnerships and completely destroy oil stability throughout the world for the sake of doing what is "right." The Arab elite must reform and the most we can do is aggressively urge it.

Well, we've made the devil's deal on the whole oil issue. At some point, regardless of what we do, the oil economy is going to fail. The only question is when and how. The meta-question, to me, is how we conducted ourselves as well. I know full well what the consequences would be of our pulling out of the middle east. My point would be that those consequences are going to come about anyway, and will get worse the longer we delay. We had an opportunity during the 90's to prepare and to get our monetary policy straight. We didn't do that. Now the choice is conquer or go the way of Zimbabwe.

Iran is a totally different story, however, the unifying aspect among them is the religion of Islam. They are withdrawing so deep within a consciousness of hate and blame that is as destructive as it is comforting. Fueling this sentiment is a legion of religious leaders and elite that are perverting their religion, because they are clinging to organization, oppression, and control.

Nukes are not a good idea.

The possibility of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons against the will of the Iranian government is, as I stated a few posts back, something I had not considered. Now that I have considered it, I think it forms a compelling reason to not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But, this does nothing to soften anything else I've said in this thread, the thrust of which has been that we need to change the way we deal with people.

 

[MSgt]

But this means that they're not incapable of change in a positive way. That was my point; I don't think we've discussed that idea before. There may be cultural reasons for conflict, but they're hardly permanent or imutable reasons.

Right now, they are not capable. They are very lost behind a fog of religious perversions, desperations, and ignorance. Much of this civilization hates us simply because they have been raised within hate and have been instructed to do so. Like I said, in the Middle East the narcotic of choice is "Blame."

If you're acknowledging that we would not likely be at war with Islam right now (as we are at this point) were it not for the past actions of the western world, then we're in substantial agreement. Cultural clashes may provide a pretext for any number of misunderstandings or even offense and aggression. But the sorts of things we see now have causes that are only partially rooted in this, and much more rooted in animosity that we've built up. If we would begin to follow a course of being more respectful in our dealings, I think we'd quickly find most of the Islamic world either favoring us or remaining neutral.

We are not at war with Islam. Terrorist are hiding behind this religion and the Middle East has oppressed their people behind this religion. We are not at war because they are Islam. There are Islamic people all over the world that are prospering in their host nations.

The only way today's clash could have been prevented was if the greed of the Arab and Persian elite did not oppress and abuse their own people. The course of progression still demands a stable oil flow. No matter what, our business dealings with this elite had to happen. As far as respect, it is not our place to tell them how to govern their people. However, this didn't stop them from using us as the scapegoat for all that is wrong in their own civilization.

But suicide bombings, jihad, beheadings, etc. aren't simply an asymmetric reaction to an unintended insult. They're a reaction to genuine injury. So long as you acknowledge that, then we're in substantial agreement.

I acknowledge that they have grievances. I do not acknowledge that they are correct with their blame. They blame the easy scapegoat out of jealousy and desperation. We are the infidels, yet our civilization prospers under freedom and technology. They are the "true believers," yet their civilization is failing under oppression and neglect. They hate us for it. The Muslim Brotherhood was created in 1929 and these terror tactics were used in Egypt. This is a culture and not so much that they just simply have "serious" grievances.

Well, we've made the devil's deal on the whole oil issue. At some point, regardless of what we do, the oil economy is going to fail. The only question is when and how. The meta-question, to me, is how we conducted ourselves as well. I know full well what the consequences would be of our pulling out of the middle east. My point would be that those consequences are going to come about anyway, and will get worse the longer we delay. We had an opportunity during the 90's to prepare and to get our monetary policy straight. We didn't do that. Now the choice is conquer or go the way of Zimbabwe.

I assure you that given the choice, we would conquer. This deal could have easily not been made with devils. These devils could have easily taken care of their people, instead of what they did. It wasn't our doing. One of the problems with the Middle East is that they hate each other. No matter who we befriend, we will p*ss off half of the civilization. There is no pleasing these people.

The possibility of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons against the will of the Iranian government is, as I stated a few posts back, something I had not considered. Now that I have considered it, I think it forms a compelling reason to not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But, this does nothing to soften anything else I've said in this thread, the thrust of which has been that we need to change the way we deal with people.

Maybe not even against their will. Given the government of Iran's history for the last twenty years, and especially today, religious zealousy could easliy trump national interests.

We do not deal with people. We deal with governments and as I stated above, in the Middle East, no matter what we do and who we befriend, we will p*ss off half of the civilization. The Sunni and the Shi'ite hate each other. And given the track record of leaderships in the Middle East, whoever we befriend will wind up oppressing and abusing their people, as we are used as the scapegoat, because we "support" him. They seem to hate us, because they are not allowed to slaughter and overthrow each other's governments. It is like being a playground monitor and splitting up the kids in a fight. For the rest of the school year they throw rocks at you, because you won't allow them to tear each other apart.

 

[justone]

Ultimately, it's about life or death, but also about quality of life. Is this what you're saying? In other words, we do what is necessary to ensure our survival, and to ensure that we have a good quality of life.

No. To ensure we preserve our way of life.

As to the first, I have put what I think is a very powerful argument against this line of thinking--which is simply that we all die anyway. No matter what we do, no matter how we may strive, we will all die. Every generation has said that maybe in another century or two someone will figure out how to keep someone bodily alive. And so far that has never happened; cryogenics seems to be the best anyone's found, and it's outside most peoples' means and may be futile anyway.

The question is: in light of this, what becomes truly important? Is it important to preserve life at any cost or are there things that, once done, make life no longer worth living? I believe there are, and killing innocent people is one of them. .

The understanding that we all die, actually does not change importance of preserving life
Both are equal laws of human existence. You cannot give preference to one or put 2 against each other. No light to the next dark question. All I can answer to your context: killing innocent people is not good, and I don’t know who would not agree with me except for your lovely Islamic friends, and psychopaths.

As to the second, I agree that we should try to ensure a good quality of life.

Our quality of life is the freedom not to have quality life if somebody finds it is his/her way of life. I do not fight for quality of life, but for the rights of homeless and hippies. AGAIN: I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM OF EVELASTING PERSUIT OF NEVER ACHIEVED HAPPINESS AS THE BASIC LAW AND NEED OF HUMAN NATURE. If I was looking just for better quality I would be making money at this moment, not typing.

But I think that violence is only necessary to do this maybe a third as often (or less) as it is actually used.

You did not define the nature of violence, but you look at it like it was a bad thing. You cut it in 3 pieces and put a third on your bread. Does it taste better?
My goal is to use as less violence as ever possible. As an illustration: if I have to set off 2 nukes to avoid 10 nukes going off I will not hesitate. SySgt I am sure wants to use as less violence as possible.

Iran, for instance, has a large oil agreement with China, as does Venezuela. We have to be careful, then, in our dealings with both countries.

How careful? Not to bomb them immediately? We don’t so far. It’s all careful so far. Don’t be scared by shadows of your superstitions.