Time to face the music and dance Mark and Headrock

[TOOLE]

one of the things that america was fussing over as saddam having missiles with a range of over 100 miles or so.

*cough*ICBM's*cough*

jesus, i do have a terrible coigh recently, always seems to happen when i'm talking about countries who want everyone to follow the geneva convention when they are not signed up to most of it.........

 

[Buddha 3]

Originally posted by Mark790.06
I think we do know what makes guys like Usama tic, but lets just say that it's a relationship that cannot be built upon. I believe the "why" they hate us is known, it's the "how" to deal with it that we need a better strategy on.

Agreed.

Please feel free to list that "stuff" we knocked down FIRST, and by first I mean not preceeded by them knocking down our "stuff".

I never said that the US started bombing first. What I meant (and failed to get across) is that the avarage Joe Schmoe in Iraq or Afghanistan will not have supported the 9-11 attacks, but they do suffer the repercussions when the US comes and starts bombing things. All they now know is that their son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister was killed when a US bomb fell short of it's target. Very few of these people will sympathise with the US after that, unless there is a very clear positive outcome. A good example is WW2. Targets in my country were bombed repeatedly, and a good number of cities were laid to waste in an attempt to liberate them. Arnhem ands Nijmegen are a good example (albeit that it was the British ho went into Arnhem, the US went into Nijmegen). Despite the destruction of civilian life and property, the result, in the end, was the removal of the German occupational forces and their regime, plus the region was stabilised and peace was brought to Europe. Eventually western Europe became one of the most stable regions in the world, and I doubt it'll be a breeding ground for a new war in many years to come. Unless something similar happens in the middle east, the ousting of Saddam's regime won't be enough. Don't forget that the western Europeans and the Americans were very similar in culture, which can't be said for the US and the Iraqis. Cultural differences pretty much mean that they say "thanks for getting rid of moustache man, but now get the hell out of my country".

So you advocate regime change in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt (more like a regime tweak there), Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and a few other nations whose government controlled media contributes to the anti-western fervor in order to deflect attention from their own corruption?

Never said I advocate anything. Yes things need to change, but not only over there. That is the arrogance of the western "we are right, and they are a bunch of degenerates" attitude. In order to have mutual respect, both sides need to adapt. I don't know what the answers are, but I do know that us saying "ya'll need to change" will only result in more of them flipping the finger and throwing of bombs.

Oh, and North Korea? Please, anybody who thinks that they would ever start a war with the US is an idiot...this ain't the fifties, they ain't got the backing they had back then. They're just doing business, they have no intention of throwing bombs in any direction.

 

[crom-dubh]

OK lets move onto another question.

How do you stabilize an area where nearly every ruler is a bit of a "bad boy"? How do you go about changing a region which for the last 1500 years or so has been full of internal strife. Its the Arab way. Different tribes struggling for power and using brutal tactics to stay in power. In Iraq at the moment , the Kurds are terrorizing Iraqis, throwing them out of their homes. A few years down the line and it could be a complete role reversal as to how it was a year ago. The Kurds are the aggressors and the Iraqis are the helpless refugees.

 

[Jones the Paint Magnet]

It's funny - the exact reverse of the argument could be applied to the Crusades.

Here you have a culture that is literate, sophisticated and scientifically advanced. Then a bunch of thuggish religious psychopaths claims you have defiled their holy grounds and sets about a campaign of slaughter, barbarity and in some cases cannibalism.

How do you fight a group of religious maniacs? You create your own, of course.

Hundreds of years later, we're worried about the Islamic Terrorist who are the idealistic decsendants of those who fought the Crusaders, worried about the WMDs we sold Saddam, worried about the tensions caused by a Middle Eastern State we sanctioned and worried about North Korean nukes created from reactors we sold them.

Anyone see a pattern yet?

 

[crom-dubh]

I agree totally with Jones on that one. The west creates problems all round the world and then when the poo hits the air condtioning nobody wants to share the blame.

 

[Mark790.06]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
I never said that the US started bombing first. What I meant (and failed to get across) is that the avarage Joe Schmoe in Iraq or Afghanistan will not have supported the 9-11 attacks, but they do suffer the repercussions when the US comes and starts bombing things.

Yes they do suffer, and that's the part that is a shame, but allowing terrorists to work, train, and live in their midst doesn't make them wholey innocent either, and we would never know whether the average joe would or wouldn't support 9/11, but it sure seemed that many celebrated it after the fact. And no, I'm not saying that that's reason enough to kill non-combatants in our quest to kill combatants.

Originally posted by Buddha 3
A good example is WW2. Targets in my country were bombed repeatedly, and a good number of cities were laid to waste in an attempt to liberate them. Arnhem ands Nijmegen are a good example (albeit that it was the British ho went into Arnhem, the US went into Nijmegen). Despite the destruction of civilian life and property, the result, in the end, was the removal of the German occupational forces and their regime, plus the region was stabilised and peace was brought to Europe. Eventually western Europe became one of the most stable regions in the world, and I doubt it'll be a breeding ground for a new war in many years to come. Unless something similar happens in the middle east, the ousting of Saddam's regime won't be enough. Don't forget that the western Europeans and the Americans were very similar in culture, which can't be said for the US and the Iraqis. Cultural differences pretty much mean that they say "thanks for getting rid of moustache man, but now get the hell out of my country".

You started with an analogy of allied forces bombing your cities in order to liberate them from an outside invader (Germany), and how no one on the liberation side (Netherlanders) really objected. In Iraq and Afghanistan we have people being liberated from their own homegrown tyrants, and then being occupied by a foreign power. While this situation is better than the alternative in every respect, a sore national pride is to be expected, and taken advantage of by the power hungry. Add to it the bordering nations whose own autocrats cannot tolerate their subjects looking across a border and wondering if what took place their could work here, anti-West propaganda telling anyone who'll listen that every civilian casualty was intentional, that the allied forces want to exterminate the Arab world, and you have a VERY different situation indeed.

Originally posted by Buddha 3
Never said I advocate anything. Yes things need to change, but not only over there. That is the arrogance of the western "we are right, and they are a bunch of degenerates" attitude. In order to have mutual respect, both sides need to adapt. I don't know what the answers are, but I do know that us saying "ya'll need to change" will only result in more of them flipping the finger and throwing of bombs.

A bit of trickery on my part. You said we need to discover and eliminate the problems between us and the Arab/Muslim world, or words to that effect. I maintain that the corrupt governments of the Arab world create this problem (or at least build upon the work of a few crack-pots whose attention would normally be focused on them) in order to deflect attention from their own corruption. Thus a regime change in the countries I have listed would go a long way to eliminating the problems. Of course that's vastly easier said than done, and would not all require a military solution.

Originally posted by Buddha 3
Oh, and North Korea? Please, anybody who thinks that they would ever start a war with the US is an idiot...this ain't the fifties, they ain't got the backing they had back then. They're just doing business, they have no intention of throwing bombs in any direction.

As fate would have it Kim Jong-il is just such an idiot. I think the strategy of a nuke-armed NK (or at least in theory) would be to take us out of the equation (because of the threat of a glow in the dark Tokyo) as their army marches South to Pusan, and of course being careful not to run over the SK students as they protest the US Army presence. Now if one of their missiles could reach LA or San Fran, that would make an even better deterrent.

 

[Mark790.06]

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
It's funny - the exact reverse of the argument could be applied to the Crusades.

Here you have a culture that is literate, sophisticated and scientifically advanced. Then a bunch of thuggish religious psychopaths claims you have defiled their holy grounds and sets about a campaign of slaughter, barbarity and in some cases cannibalism.

How do you fight a group of religious maniacs? You create your own, of course.

Hundreds of years later, we're worried about the Islamic Terrorist who are the idealistic decsendants of those who fought the Crusaders, worried about the WMDs we sold Saddam, worried about the tensions caused by a Middle Eastern State we sanctioned and worried about North Korean nukes created from reactors we sold them.

Anyone see a pattern yet?

Originally posted by crom-dubh
I agree totally with Jones on that one. The west creates problems all round the world and then when the poo hits the air condtioning nobody wants to share the blame.

Alright, let's say 500 years ago our ancestors began a series of events that's lead to where we are now. Someone tell me where the insightful part comes in, or better yet where the solution lies.

 

[TJ Lambini]

Time travel?

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
Oh, and North Korea? Please, anybody who thinks that they would ever start a war with the US is an idiot...this ain't the fifties, they ain't got the backing they had back then. They're just doing business, they have no intention of throwing bombs in any direction.

Hey,I resemble that comment ..But as thier doing business,Santa Bush doesnt seem to be in a very giving mood as he does know whos been naughty or nice...


But anyway,this just gives me a reason to toss insults at you when the North declares war on us when the UN imposes sanctions on it for contunuing to build thier nukes

 

[Jones the Paint Magnet]

Originally posted by Mark790.06
Alright, let's say 500 years ago our ancestors began a series of events that's lead to where we are now. Someone tell me where the insightful part comes in, or better yet where the solution lies.

Well, just off the top of my head, perhaps it would be a good idea to stop selling components of WMDs to every dictator with a cheque book and a grudge against a country we don't like. They might get the impression they have to use them, you know? Training fundamentalists to fight against countries without getting our hands dirty? Not a good idea in retrospect either. Trying to play kingmaker in the middle East and furthering our own interests rather than co-operating with the existing climates? Sounds a bit Sesame Street, but I'd have to ditch that too.

I know the Crusades were a long time ago, but that hasn't been the only attempt at intervention to backfire and bite us in the @ss. They who don't learn from history repeat it, again, and again and again in our case.

Maybe this all stems from a basic intolerance of eachother. Hey! Two paternalist monotheistic religions don't get along! There's a surprise.

Running the risk of inflaming things, lets take your comment: "allowing terrorists to work, train, and live in their midst doesn't make them wholey innocent either". Hate to point this out but we all have terrorists in our midst, but I feel no more personally responsible for those people making Ricin in Manchester than I hold you accountable for funding the IRA. Take Timothy McVeigh - did the USAF carpet bomb his home state to eradicate the terrorist threat? Seems that the only time we haul out the ordnance is when the brown or yellow people start getting beligerent.

"Corrupt arab governments" - if your definition of "corrupt" would include denying 40,000 people their right to vote or lying about fulfilling their election promises, then we both have to look a little closer to home on that score too.

It's an old truth that it's easier to criticise our own faults in others. Sadly our approach to other countries is to deny we're at fualt at all, it's just them to blame and carry on very much as we have been doing for decades. No time machine needed, just a bit of common sense and understanding.

That said, I have to say I don't believe there is a solution. I've not seen a single politician capable of subjugating their own self interest to the welfare of the human race, or even their country in the long term. Until that situation changes, then it's my opinion that as a species, we're comprehensively fcuked. Sleep tight.