• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Peacemongering II

Duh.....Of course there are differences. But how do those differences (i.e. ineffective CIA, us being more powerful, etc.) effect us not going to war. You were saying that you could see how we got into WWII, but the same thing couldn't happen today. How do the differences above effect that.

Here is what a bank robber and an islamic extremist have in common: What they both are doing is wrong. It doesn't matter if you are killing for money or religion. And if you are sympathizing or a friend of either one, what you are doing is wrong also. Isn't the get away driver as bad as the robber? The same for the terrorist's friends.

I do think you are understanding what I am trying to say!
 
What about mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters?

Did they choose to have a terrorist?
 
They should have done something along the way. Like say, "hey, Osama, maybe you shouldn't train people to be killers."

If you loved someone, would you let them become an extremist? NO. So, after they have there mind made up, they would probably break off ties with you. What do you think? A mother of a dead religious extremist will want vengence on the USA because we killed her son, not because we are evil?
Get outta here!

And didn't answer my first question.

Plus, I meant to say you DON'T understand what I am saying.
 
You think one day osama said to his mama, "Hey I want to go kill me some infidels."

It probably started, "Hey I have some new ideas about our religion and the poverty we live in and the white devil that doesn't care."

The differences are that effect today:

The CIA told us Al Qaeda and Osama were trying to use planes. The Bush admnistration has conceded at least that much. It was only after we were hit that we froze bin Laden's assets. Make sense? Of course not.

Being a super power we hold a lot money. With money comes power and influence. Unfortunately it comes with arrogance.

Being dependent on oil coupled with buying from Saudi Arabia which means we buy oil from the people that fund terrorism. HMMM.

Do I think a mother of a dead religous extremist will want revenge? If she already hated the US, if she though we were warmongers, which can be quite popular these days, yes. If it did not make her want revenge it would certainly do nothing to take away her hatred.

I think you're trying to say war is alright. If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear it.
 
If the mother of the terrorist hated the US, then she is the enemy too. And I mean "HATE", not dislike. There are a lot of people who dislike us, but that doesn't mean they want us dead.

Differences between 1940 and today? YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM ASKING YOU.

Specifically, if it was December 6, 1942 (the day before the pearl harbor attack); If we had a UN, we were more powerful, we had the CIA, we were more dependant on oil (if that really has anything to do with hitler), etc.. How would those things stop us from getting into war? That is what I asked you earlier, so stop tip toeing around the question

You said that we got into WWII, because it was a different time, and if the same situation happend today, we wouldn't ever go to war.

So, be clear and just answer the question. :2mad:
 
You don't think that's unfair, giving me one day to peacefully prevent pear harbor?

I've been looking and I really can't find anyone who gives a clear reason on why the Japanese entered WWII and bombed Pear Harbor. If you can tell me why, that would help.

I'm really not meaning to tip toe around any question.

I never said we wouldn't go to war if that happened today. Hell, 9/11 what did we do? We went straight to Afghanistan. We have more means today than in 1940 for peaceful solutions.

Hating the US doesn't make you the enemy. It doesn't even make you a terrorist. There are people I hate and I mean HATE. That doesn't mean I want them dead.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I've been looking and I really can't find anyone who gives a clear reason on why the Japanese entered WWII and bombed Pear Harbor. If you can tell me why, that would help.
Click to expand...
Here's my post about it in another thread:
... In 1940, Japan invaded Vietnam (Indochina) with agreement from the French Vichy government and then Japan entered into the axis with Germany and Italy. The U.S. and U.K. responded by creating an oil boycott. The oil shortage and bad diplomacy slid Japan down to the offensive and Japan attacked the Indonesia for oil. Following that, started war with the US and UK in December of 1941.
Click to expand...
 
Alright G.B., I think we are starting to understand each other. Just answer me this: Do you agree with the war in Afghanistan? Or is war never an option, even after we are attacked?

Shuamort,
Okay, so Japan attacked us because we were helping out the allies in some ways. But why did they become so aggresive in the first place is what I believe G.B. is trying to ask. I think they just believed in Destiny and that they should be the most powerful country in the world.
 
About the war on terror:

I believe the most life efficient way to fight the war on terrorism is to gather intelligence on those that are funding terrorism. Simply cutting off bin Laden's assets doesn't stop the other folks supplying with him with financial assistance. His benefactors are filthy rich and are still making money. We know who has money, that's the easy part. It's tracking the flow of money that's tricky. If we cut him off from money he'll come out of the cave on his own, and we'll grab his happy little ass in a much easier fashion.

I think that combined with aid to those areas of Islamo-fascism will produce a great decline in terrorist activity. I think bin Laden has manipulated religion along with the situation of poverty that a majority of his followers find themselves in. If we give aid(by aid I do NOT mean money), I believe he will not find so many followers. I believe he has one many people out of their desparation. They see themselves starving and living in terrible condition and the see us growing obese and worrying about a second car and it's easy to resent us for it.

That aside, the war on terror is a difficult war to fight in any fashion. I do not support the war on terror out of bare principal, but I understand the reasoning behind it. I do NOT, however, understand how it will lead to an ultimate end of terrorism.
 
Ha. :lol:

Use are intelligence to track down the money then find Osama?

If only it was that easy. You act like we aren't trying to do that. Give the us military some credit, it's not like they just shoot misslies at mountains, hoping to hit something.

Give aid, eh?

I think giving the Afghani people democracy is considered aid. People who are able to live free, probably won't be the next terrorists.
 
I don't doubt that our government is indeed looking into what is going on regarding bin Laden's funds. Could they be doing more? I wouldn't know. I have no connections in the intelligence community.

From an outsiders view, like Saudi Arabia (you know, the place where all of the 9/11 terrorists were from), it appears as if the "great satan of the west" is imposing it's culture on to Afghanistan. While the terrorists may not becoming from Afghanistan, it doesn't really matter in terms of what happened on 9/11.
 
Let them think what they want to. It doesn't matter if the people of Afghanistan are happy.

As for trying to find, Osama and his funds? Of course our intelligence is trying their hardest! Usually, people don't work half-ass when it involves a threat as big as bin laden.
 
Saudi Arabia is where all 19 of the hijackers of 9/11 came from. You say, "let them think what they want to?"

I didn't say that the intelligence community was doing a "half assed job." I said they probably were, but I have no way if knowing they were doing all they could. And for that matter, I'm sure no one on this forum does.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Saudi Arabia is where all 19 of the hijackers of 9/11 came from. You say, "let them think what they want to?"

I didn't say that the intelligence community was doing a "half assed job." I said they probably were, but I have no way if knowing they were doing all they could. And for that matter, I'm sure no one on this forum does.
Click to expand...
It is however hard for me believe that in four and a half years we still haven't found one man. How many troups, how many intellgence agents? This is number one enemy isn't he? What's the problem here fellas. We found Saddam, and that didn't even matter so much...
 
sebastiansdreams said:
It is however hard for me believe that in four and a half years we still haven't found one man. How many troups, how many intellgence agents? This is number one enemy isn't he? What's the problem here fellas. We found Saddam, and that didn't even matter so much...
Click to expand...

Same here. He even sends us videos and stuff.

Let's not just talk about 1940, but 1776. We were ruled unfairly and wrong. We were trash to Britian. Guandi. Would you have gone to war in 1776?
 
Mohandas K. Gandhi was born into India at a time when it too was ruled and dominated by the British Empire, just like america is in 1776.

He played an essential role in India's independence from Britian and he and his people did so without using violence. The only violence used in the independence of India was condemned by Gandhi and those cruel acts did little to aid in the independence process. Gandhi would have been at the Boston Tea party. That's the way he would have protested.

After India won it's independence, it stayed that way. After we won ours, using violence and war, we still butted heads with Britian. War of 1812 anyone?

The only lasting peace, I believe, is one attained without bloodshed.

Given, these are two different times and two different places, but I think with perseverance and above all patience, Gandhi's way is never entirely obselete or without it's uses.

I don't doubt that Usama bin Laden is a hard man to track. One man, one million caves. It can't be easy. But the way we are to win a war like the one on terrorism is by winning men away from him. They have to see that we are not "the great satan" bin Ladan has made us to be. I believe that when they see us killing in Iraq, or Afghanistan, they see us on our own kind of Jihad. That is all they have been fed. You think they see it as we do on CNN? You think they see it as of "Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

They have to see us feeding their hungry, clothing their poor. They can not, however, see us killing. We say we are the greatest nation on God's green earth, and they see us killing. What example do they have? These people need a revolution, and if we continue down the path that we have started, I believe the only revolution they will see is one lead by a man like Usama bin Laden.
 
Aww...I don't even know what we are argueing about anymore. We both agree for the most part: Diplomacy + Intelligence= Peace. Where we don't agree is I think there is a time for war and you won't admit that.

Hey, tell me how many nations are now free because of war. Then tell me how many are free because they protested tyranny with non violence (besides India)?

After you do that tell me how many democratic countries have declared war on other democratic countries?
 
pwo said:
Hey, tell me how many nations are now free because of war. Then tell me how many are free because they protested tyranny with non violence (besides India)?
Click to expand...

Tell me how many have truly tried (besides India).

The only other person I know of, and I haven't really done the research, is Martin Luther King's campaign of non violence over Malcom X's we will fight, though these men were not aiming to reform a country.

After you do that tell me how many democratic countries have declared war on other democratic countries?
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell you. I honestly don't feel like google-ing it right now. But I really don't see your point. Let's suppose that the answer to your question is 0. So... we should see to it that all countries are democracies and that any that are not should be invaded and forced into it. Sounds alot like imperialism.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Tell me how many have truly tried (besides India).

The only other person I know of, and I haven't really done the research, is Martin Luther King's campaign of non violence over Malcom X's we will fight, though these men were not aiming to reform a country.



I couldn't tell you. I honestly don't feel like google-ing it right now. But I really don't see your point. Let's suppose that the answer to your question is 0. So... we should see to it that all countries are democracies and that any that are not should be invaded and forced into it. Sounds alot like imperialism.
Click to expand...
I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you're under the impression that the US is above imperialism, you're way wrong. We've been imperialist from the get go. We're just a little more discreat about it. But look at it this way, does the sun ever set on a* United States Embassy?

The other day a lady at work said to me that we really ought to be milking this whole Iraq thing for a lot more than we are. It doesn't really matter how we got in there, but that we are in there now. So why be political about it? Make them pay for the war and take their resources like any other descent conquering nation would have. And she's got a hell of a point. Do you think it is now necessary that Bush attempt to keep face about this whole thing or do you feel like we oughta reap the benefits?

*(oddly as it seems, I really believe that "a" is correct there even though it contradicts the law of "an" before a vowel. Try saying it with "an"... doesn't sound right does it?
 
Last edited:
Dude it's still an. ENGLISH LAW CAN'T BE BROKED.

I have no doubts about American imperialism throughout it's history.

Your second question is a tough one. I don't like the concept of just knocking over a whole governement and making it's people pay for it. If Bush were to do it, I think we know he'd be called a barbarian conqueror or something, and if he doesn't he'll be accused of making us pay for it blah blah blah war sucks and someone's got to deal with it. We started it, so I think we should deal with it.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Make [Iraq] pay for the war and take their resources like any other descent conquering nation would have. And she's got a hell of a point.
Click to expand...
It is a hell of a point unless one examines the facts of the case. Iraq is a heavily indebted nation. What wealth will be produced there already belongs to other countries. We wouldn't be taking it from Iraq as much as we would be taking it from these other countries. Furthermore we would needlessly jeopardize our standing in the world. By 'standing' in this instance, I mean the perception that we are reliable good-faith bargainers. While this may sound like a very ethereal things it actually has very pragmatic effects. Consider that USD$ is based on the full faith and credit of the US. If the US is seen as a welcher and a liar, then the dollar collapses. I hope I don't need to go into why that would be a bad thing.
This is just one single simplified reason why this is an unrealistic and impractical idea.

sebastiansdreams said:
Do you think it is now necessary that Bush attempt to keep face about this whole thing or do you feel like we oughta reap the benefits?
Click to expand...
There's nothing there to be reaped. Iraq is in dire need of a huge influx of capital investment to achieve the stability necessary to start producing enough to fund it's own affairs, let alone the idea of producing extra for the empire . However the investment won't come until it's stable. Joseph Heller would've been proud (and Milo Minder Binder would be richer).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom