Why do they hate us?

[wim00]

I'm not sure I understand you correctly Hornburger but you seem to be saying that attacking Iraq was a valid response to 9/11? .. but go on and imply that the US shoulders some responsibility for the reasons behind the attack. I could only agree with the latter. The 'encourage them further' argument could also be made by the terrorists claiming that US bombs have killed far more around the world. I think that a more obvious response to this crime would have been more akin to an international police operation ... and for the first week after 9/11 your govt had support from all around the world to do just that. (Everyone was genuinely horrified and wanted to offer support and help to catch the perpetrators). If it took 20 years, justice would be done and the correct people punished. What we see now is more like 'collective punishment' from days gone by. And not even the right people! The truer underlying motives for the current actions are discussed elsewhere.

The US has been damaged politically and economically since invading. Your great grandchildren will be paying financially for this lot. Future generations of Iraqis will suffer horribly.

I totally agree about your poverty statement being at the core of problem. I disagree strongly about our obligations. Not only are we obliged but it is also in our self interest to do so .... remember what creates terrorists. If the current methods of acheiving our aims are not working then we need some new ones. As it stands western aid can easily land the recipient in debt for all time sucking more money out of their country than ever went in. Sometimes it looks a bit like a bait and hook operation.

Maybe its time to change these constitutions in our own self interest and everyone elses too. When will we relinquish short sighted nationalism?

One planet.

 

[wim00]

I do BTW wholeheartedly agree with you Hornblower concerning the question of US support for Israel - it is creating massive tension, and I understand its almost a taboo subject with some in the US.

I think that the action / non-action argument misses the point - its 'right action' that is important, and sometimes yes, that may mean doing nothing. I think we have missed the 'Do no harm' credo by a mile.

 

[Squawker]

Gandhi>Bush said:

So you would tell the already starving children of Darfur, "Not our problem?" We have so much power, and in that power lies the potential to do so much good, yet we would rather flex our military and blow things up and fill coffins and add to the problems of the world. This is where hatred comes from. Our lack of acting, not our excess of it.

It is not the obligation of the of the wealthy countries to undo poverty, but when violence is thrown back at such indifference and arrogance it is unreasonable to grow angry and confused.

It is within the leadership of these countries to provide for their people. It isn’t any accident that the people of Darfur are poor and starving. They have leaders who don’t care, and the peaceful UN hasn’t accomplished anything by talking to them. Change will only come through internal or external revolution, and if the government resists it, lives will be lost. There is seldom a non-violent solution in these situations. The Bush administration has put more pressure on these leaders than anyone in the past, but that won’t result in drastic changes. The leaders have nothing to lose as long as we keep talking about change. If we use sanctions the leadership will say we are the cause of thousands of deaths. The US is damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

 

[Hornburger]

Okay then...I won't debate about the whole violence thing lol

So you would tell the already starving children of Darfur, "Not our problem?" We have so much power, and in that power lies the potential to do so much good, yet we would rather flex our military and blow things up and fill coffins and add to the problems of the world. This is where hatred comes from. Our lack of acting, not our excess of it.

It is not the obligation of the of the wealthy countries to undo poverty, but when violence is thrown back at such indifference and arrogance it is unreasonable to grow angry and confused.

But then what would be the point of organizations like the UN if you want the wealthy nations to take care of the problem? I think that the UN, not the US, is who needs to step up and take care of such problems.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly Hornburger but you seem to be saying that attacking Iraq was a valid response to 9/11? .. but go on and imply that the US shoulders some responsibility for the reasons behind the attack. I could only agree with the latter.

I was talking about attacking Afghanistan...

The 'encourage them further' argument could also be made by the terrorists claiming that US bombs have killed far more around the world.

Yes that is true...I just think one be allowed to defend one's self. It seems only logical to attack back at the terrorists who tried to harm you...and this does not have to be a physical attack...it could be discrediting the ideology through various methods...it could also be a combination of both methods that I think would be most effective...but that's just me...

I think that a more obvious response to this crime would have been more akin to an international police operation ... and for the first week after 9/11 your govt had support from all around the world to do just that. (Everyone was genuinely horrified and wanted to offer support and help to catch the perpetrators). If it took 20 years, justice would be done and the correct people punished. What we see now is more like 'collective punishment' from days gone by. And not even the right people! The truer underlying motives for the current actions are discussed elsewhere.

However...if the U.S. did it themselves, and with the U.N.'s help if they could get it, things would be done smoother because the U.S. would be willing to commit more time and resources to the problem.

The US has been damaged politically and economically since invading. Your great grandchildren will be paying financially for this lot. Future generations of Iraqis will suffer horribly.

Well I'm not big on economics and stuff so I have a question...Wouldn't the war have helped the economy in the long run? I mean yes of course in the short run it would be hurt...but in the long run it might help the economy...The U.S.'s economy is based upon faith in the government. 9/11 was an attack on innocent people, the U.S., and its financial institutions...therefore faith in the government and the ability to protect its people went down...which means the economy would take a hit. But one way to resolve such a recession is a clean, victorious war. I think this is one reason Bush went into Iraq...After 9/11, people wanted to see the U.S. government act...He wanted to show he was acting and protecting his people and building trust in the government...

I totally agree about your poverty statement being at the core of problem. I disagree strongly about our obligations. Not only are we obliged but it is also in our self interest to do so .... remember what creates terrorists. If the current methods of acheiving our aims are not working then we need some new ones. As it stands western aid can easily land the recipient in debt for all time sucking more money out of their country than ever went in. Sometimes it looks a bit like a bait and hook operation.

Yes, that is true...and we are trying to attack that problem as well by trying to discredit radical Islam and building moderate Islam...we do spend alot of money in foreign aid...but I don't know how much of that aid will actually be effective because of how deep the countries are in poverty. Money and food alone will not fix them...they need good, quality leadership to get through it.

Maybe its time to change these constitutions in our own self interest and everyone elses too. When will we relinquish short sighted nationalism?

Well...people are different in different parts of the world and therefore have different needs and ideas...so I don't think a global government and looking out for the global community before the national one would be for the best just because they don't know the people and what they need.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Gandhi>Bush said:
It is within the leadership of these countries to provide for their people. It isn’t any accident that the people of Darfur are poor and starving. They have leaders who don’t care, and the peaceful UN hasn’t accomplished anything by talking to them. Change will only come through internal or external revolution, and if the government resists it, lives will be lost. There is seldom a non-violent solution in these situations. The Bush administration has put more pressure on these leaders than anyone in the past, but that won’t result in drastic changes. The leaders have nothing to lose as long as we keep talking about change. If we use sanctions the leadership will say we are the cause of thousands of deaths. The US is damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

Picture this:

A few thousand peaceful WHITE protesters in Darfur surrounded by news media cameras. Do you think the government would kill them? Hell no. They wouldn't dare.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

But then what would be the point of organizations like the UN if you want the wealthy nations to take care of the problem? I think that the UN, not the US, is who needs to step up and take care of such problems.

The UN is corrupt and stagnant. It is peaceful with inaction. They call that a stance. That's not a stance that's indifference. The UN doesn't even have an army. The US, in my opinion, has the potential to do so much more than the UN(as it is now. If the UN were functioning and possibly, not necessarily, had a military force, it might be worth a damn).

 

[wim00]

Hiya Hornblower - sorry not to devote more time to this as I've been posting mad elsewhere (and having the odd strip torn off me for being 'a bit' disrepectful).

I do think that you are right in saying that the President felt he had to be seen to act decisively - just think he made a bad decision. The Afghan campaign against the Taliban seemed to me to have more merit at the time although all the military actions seem to be making the situation worse.

As for the financial concerns, I'm no expert on them either, but I wouldnt start a war cos I thought I'd be a few dollars heavier in the back pocket. I suspect the average American is going to be considerably worse off as we are talking billions. The very wealthy are going to do very nicely out of it indeed, as of course they always do, which is why I suspect so many of them are fought in the first place.

 

[teacher]

The UN is corrupt and stagnant. It is peaceful with inaction. They call that a stance. That's not a stance that's indifference. The UN doesn't even have an army. The US, in my opinion, has the potential to do so much more than the UN(as it is now. If the UN were functioning and possibly, not necessarily, had a military force, it might be worth a damn).

Well said. Gandhi>Koffe. Though potential is the wrong word since we are doing so much more right now.

 

[Tashah]

shitory

Laughing so hard my sides ache!

Trying to be generous here and attribute *shitory* as a simple typo.

But then again... a Freudian slip is certainly well within the realm of possibility lol.

 

[Hornburger]

The UN is corrupt and stagnant. It is peaceful with inaction. They call that a stance. That's not a stance that's indifference. The UN doesn't even have an army. The US, in my opinion, has the potential to do so much more than the UN(as it is now. If the UN were functioning and possibly, not necessarily, had a military force, it might be worth a damn).

But you also imply the US is corrupt and stagnant as well. It would better to reform the organization that was created to be jus that-the global police force. I don't see how the US could do so much more-the concerns are more world related than US related. The UN, to get that army, just has to have international cooperation. We don't have such cooperation because countries such as France don't step up to the plate nearly as much as the U.S. and such countries. We need more countries to be willing to help-not just one. That would be the most effective.

Hiya Hornblower - sorry not to devote more time to this as I've been posting mad elsewhere (and having the odd strip torn off me for being 'a bit' disrepectful).

I do think that you are right in saying that the President felt he had to be seen to act decisively - just think he made a bad decision. The Afghan campaign against the Taliban seemed to me to have more merit at the time although all the military actions seem to be making the situation worse.

Yeah that is true...But I find it odd that after all this time, we STILL haven't found Osama. Perhaps we have been devoting too much time and effort in Iraq over Afghanistan?

As for the financial concerns, I'm no expert on them either, but I wouldnt start a war cos I thought I'd be a few dollars heavier in the back pocket. I suspect the average American is going to be considerably worse off as we are talking billions. The very wealthy are going to do very nicely out of it indeed, as of course they always do, which is why I suspect so many of them are fought in the first place.

Yeah...I think there were multiple reasons for the start of the war and that was one of them because that is not one reason to start a war, but a secondary one...I won't even pretend to understand the economic situation though lol..

lol, hornblower...I like that name

 

[Rob]

Picture this:

A few thousand peaceful WHITE protesters in Darfur surrounded by news media cameras. Do you think the government would kill them? Hell no. They wouldn't dare.

That is an example of the kind of thing the west should be ebcouraging to opressed populations around the world. Just look at zimbabwe, recently president Mugabe simply buldozed thousands of homes and businesses simply to make the population more easily controlable. he called it a "cleanup operation". Ha has an army armed to the teeth with chinese weapons and war machines, and kills anybody in his way.. and to top it all off, he holds elections which are rigged...looks like Mugabe ******* on the grave of Zimbabwe democracy.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

But you also imply the US is corrupt and stagnant as well.

I didn't mean to imply such a thing. The US is not stagnant it is just indifferenct to many of the problems in other parts of the world. The US is infiniely more powerful than the useless UN.

It would better to reform the organization that was created to be jus that-the global police force. I don't see how the US could do so much more-the concerns are more world related than US related.

You don't see how much more powerful the US is over the UN? World related or not we have the power.

The UN, to get that army, just has to have international cooperation. We don't have such cooperation because countries such as France don't step up to the plate nearly as much as the U.S. and such countries. We need more countries to be willing to help-not just one. That would be the most effective.

It would be but it's not happening is it? So we can just keep talking about how crappy it is not happening or we can say ohh well let's do something about it.

 

[Rob]

I have a question, in view of the iraq war, is it just coincodence that the country just happens to have the second richest oil supply in the world? and what about other oppressed countries such as Iran, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Khazakstan? Why Iraq?

 

[Hornburger]

It would be but it's not happening is it? So we can just keep talking about how crappy it is not happening or we can say ohh well let's do something about it.

How can we know what to do best in places we know nothing about or the situation they are in? It is not our place to decide who is right and who is wrong.

I have a question, in view of the iraq war, is it just coincodence that the country just happens to have the second richest oil supply in the world? and what about other oppressed countries such as Iran, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Khazakstan? Why Iraq?

Oil doesn't have anything to do with it...OPAC would only raise its prices because of the Iraq war...

As for Uzbekistan and Khazakstan...they don't have nukes...well I don't think so anyway...and we never had any brushes with their government.

As for Iran...we were more sure of Iraq having nukes than Iran...which was incorrect intelligence by the CIA...Iraq was the country that kept denying UN inspectors in...

And for North Korea...I think Bush wanted to create a "haven for democracy" in the Middle East. He wanted to discourage radical Islam and promote open-mindedness.

We wanted to finish what we started...and Saddam, not only being a tyrant, proved that he was capable and willing to use force to get his way with other countries and invade them.

Personally, the only valid reason I see for the invasion was nukes.

 

[teacher]

How can we know what to do best in places we know nothing about or the situation they are in? It is not our place to decide who is right and who is wrong.

I have decided men who beat woman with sticks claiming his actions are dictated by Allah are wrong. Black and white.

Free the Arab chicks.

 

[RightinNYC]

Von Klausewitz wrote that responsible of a war is not him who fires the first shot, but him who created a tension that made someone to shot.

Okay, I'll bite. Want to explain how the US was responsible for the tension in Vietnam? Or the tension in Kuwait? Neither of those had anything to do with us.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I have decided men who beat woman with sticks claiming his actions are dictated by Allah are wrong. Black and white.
Free the Arab chicks.

It's well and good that you have that conviction. But that is YOUR conviction. If you really feel the need to change that, then how about you pick up a gun and go tell them that they oughta lay off the women? Why is it the calling of the US to circle the globe turning the world into a democracy? And doing it through force? We as United States(wo)men have enough trouble getting our own act together. We are still constantly in battles over how to arrive at democracy that works. Why is it within our right to bring other countries to our level? Is our ultimate goal a world where every nation has a trillion dollor defeciet and a Bush as president?

 

[Hornburger]

That is a generalization that does not rightly portray Arab men or the Arab culture to its fullest.

 

[Hornburger]

I have decided men who beat woman with sticks claiming his actions are dictated by Allah are wrong. Black and white.
Free the Arab chicks.

This is a generalization that does not accurately or completely portray the true nature, actions, or beliefs of Arab men.

It's well and good that you have that conviction. But that is YOUR conviction. If you really feel the need to change that, then how about you pick up a gun and go tell them that they oughta lay off the women? Why is it the calling of the US to circle the globe turning the world into a democracy? And doing it through force? We as United States(wo)men have enough trouble getting our own act together. We are still constantly in battles over how to arrive at democracy that works. Why is it within our right to bring other countries to our level? Is our ultimate goal a world where every nation has a trillion dollor defeciet and a Bush as president?

I agree. Who said democracy was the best political system in all parts of the globe? Different regions, peoples, and cultures have different needs. Different political systems would be best on how to fulfill these needs accordingly. What this political system would be or how to solve different people's problems would not be best solved by a foreing nation who is completely removed and cares little for the problem.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

How can we know what to do best in places we know nothing about or the situation they are in? It is not our place to decide who is right and who is wrong.

You know what is right and what is wrong. I know what's right as wrong. Just like Saddam Hussein, terrorists, Joseph Stalin, everyone knows right from wrong.

 

[Hornburger]

You know what is right and what is wrong. I know what's right as wrong. Just like Saddam Hussein, terrorists, Joseph Stalin, everyone knows right from wrong.

Although I may not believe it, some may say that Stalin was a great leader of the Soviet Union. You can make the argument that Stalin was the leader who helped bring down Nazi Germany and saved democracy, ironically. You can say that terrorists are a desperate people only trying to help feed their families and make life better for themselves after they were constantly oppressed. The line between right and wrong depends on who you are, it is not as clear cut as it may seem at first.

 

[26 X World Champs]

As for Iran...we were more sure of Iraq having nukes than Iran...which was incorrect intelligence by the CIA...Iraq was the country that kept denying UN inspectors in...

And for North Korea...I think Bush wanted to create a "haven for democracy" in the Middle East. He wanted to discourage radical Islam and promote open-mindedness.

We wanted to finish what we started...and Saddam, not only being a tyrant, proved that he was capable and willing to use force to get his way with other countries and invade them.

Personally, the only valid reason I see for the invasion was nukes.

HUH? Nukes in Iraq? That is why you think we invaded them? That's the reason you believe? YIKES! Please prove this theory to us, please?

FYI - Iran & N. Korea are the two countries that DO have nuclear technology and/or weapons. Iraq never did! Your entire premise for our invasion is totally, and completely wrong, sorry.

Question for you? If you come to believe the truth, that Iraq never had anything nuclear, would you then agree that this war is wrong, that we had no right to invade another country, even a country ruled by a dictator?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Although I may not believe it, some may say that Stalin was a great leader of the Soviet Union. You can make the argument that Stalin was the leader who helped bring down Nazi Germany and saved democracy, ironically. You can say that terrorists are a desperate people only trying to help feed their families and make life better for themselves after they were constantly oppressed. The line between right and wrong depends on who you are, it is not as clear cut as it may seem at first.

Stalin knew what he was doing when he starved the Ukrainians, and when he threw people into the Gulags. The terrorists know what they do when they pick up their rifles and strap bombs to themselves. They may believe the end result to be good, but they know the means to their end are wrong.

 

[Hornburger]

Stalin knew what he was doing when he starved the Ukrainians, and when he threw people into the Gulags. The terrorists know what they do when they pick up their rifles and strap bombs to themselves. They may believe the end result to be good, but they know the means to their end are wrong.

Sometimes you have to do a little evil in order to achieve a greater good.

HUH? Nukes in Iraq? That is why you think we invaded them? That's the reason you believe? YIKES! Please prove this theory to us, please?

There was more than one reason we invaded them...one of them was that we came to believe they had nukes.

FYI - Iran & N. Korea are the two countries that DO have nuclear technology and/or weapons. Iraq never did! Your entire premise for our invasion is totally, and completely wrong, sorry.

I never said they didn't, and I never said Iraq did-I said we THOUGHT Iraq did. There were reasons other than nukes for going into Iraq. Nukes was just one of those reasons.

Question for you? If you come to believe the truth, that Iraq never had anything nuclear, would you then agree that this war is wrong, that we had no right to invade another country, even a country ruled by a dictator?

First of all, I know Iraq never had anything nuclear. At the time we started the war, we thought they did have nuclear weapons. If the CIA did its job right and we were not aware of any nuclear weapons Iraq had, yes, I agree we had no right to invade Iraq.

 

[teacher]

It's well and good that you have that conviction. But that is YOUR conviction. If you really feel the need to change that, then how about you pick up a gun and go tell them that they oughta lay off the women?

Yes it is my conviction. Being honorably discharded from the military it is now others turn. My friends still in theater almost to a man morally agree with their mission. They see women being beaten with sticks. They don't TELL them to lay off. Those men never beat women with sticks again.

Why is it the calling of the US to circle the globe turning the world into a democracy?

Moral obligation.

We are still constantly in battles over how to arrive at democracy that works.

We are not a democracy. Democracy is two terrorists and a US citizen gazing at a Jewish Pizzeria crowded with teens voting on what to do with a bomb.

Why is it within our right to bring other countries to our level?

If the religious conservatives in this country gained so much power to enact laws demanding Conversion to Christianity, attending of services, public execution for adultry, (women only), in other words turn us into a Christian theocracy, then I bet you would thank the first country to invade us and force us back to freedom. Don't think the cry of "but we are a soveriegn nation and you have no right" would posted much on this site.

Is our ultimate goal a world where every nation has a trillion dollor defeciet and a Bush as president?

Now that is just silly. We invade, force freedom upon them, get out of dodge. If then they vote themselves back to a savage, barbaric, intolerant, human rights nightmare then so be it. But they first must have that choice.

Thank God the US media doesn't report the daily atrocities viewed by soldiers on the ground.
Thank God the US media doesn't report what same soldiers do about it.

If you were a soldier in Afghanistan who comes across a man taking food from a child that you had just given to him what would you do?

If you were a man in this country come across two men beating a woman with a stick what would you do?

Moral absolutes? Absolutely.

Free the black tent wearing Arab babes.