Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#292319 - 11/01/2007 00:16 Bush address re: Iraq
FireFox31
pooh-bah

Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
Watching Bush's address regarding Iraq right now. He promises to increase the strength of Iraqi army in order to petter protect themselves. How many times have we helped middle eastern countries with military might, only to have it turn on us? Didn't we help Iran during the Gulf War, and now they are the emeny right along side Syria.

Seriously, use American forces to create a ring around the middle east, letting none leave nor enter. Then let them fight it out for eternity, as they have for the duration of human existance. Quit playing at colonization, it's always been a dirty game.
_________________________
-
FireFox31
110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set

Top
#292320 - 11/01/2007 01:12 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: FireFox31]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Quote:
Seriously, use American forces to create a ring around the middle east, letting none leave nor enter.

If you truly are serious about this, I think it's worth considering that we can't even secure Baghdad and Kabul at the same time. What makes you think we could do anything near the magnitude of you're suggesting?

There are no easy solutions. Sending more troops is only a solution to George W. Bush's political problem, not any of the underlying problems over there.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#292321 - 11/01/2007 01:31 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: FireFox31]
mlord
carpal tunnel

Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14484
Loc: Canada
Quote:
helped middle eastern countries with military might


Once, not counting Israel.

Top
#292322 - 11/01/2007 01:56 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: tonyc]
FireFox31
pooh-bah

Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
Not serious at all. Just frustrated with it.
_________________________
-
FireFox31
110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set

Top
#292323 - 11/01/2007 02:50 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: tonyc]
RobotCaleb
pooh-bah

Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
I'm not a big fan of the 'more troops' 'surge' strategy. For various reasons.

Top
#292324 - 11/01/2007 05:36 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: FireFox31]
tanstaafl.
carpal tunnel

Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5543
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
He promises to increase the strength of Iraqi army in order to petter protect themselves.

Seems to me the main thing they need to protect themselves against is... US.

It is small solace to me that even before the first mobilization of US forces began back in 2002--2003, I was telling people "I reserve the right to say in a few years, 'I told you so' ".

Here is something I posted on this bbs more than three years ago, and I was espousing that viewpoint longer ago than that.

President Bush may well go down in history as the man who did more long-term harm to this country than any other President in its history. For sure he damaged us more than Osama Bin Laden ever managed to do.

tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

Top
#292325 - 11/01/2007 14:38 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: RobotCaleb]
bbowman
enthusiast

Registered: 12/05/2002
Posts: 205
Loc: Virginia, USA
The Surge is just a brute force strategy that is used where there is no inteligent strategy. Solving these problems the diplomatic/political way is just way too difficult for this administration. So they are going to try to brute force it. Unfortunately, I think that this is the reason it is getting more difficult.

I know that when someone "brute-forces" me into doing something, I just hate them more and can't wait to see them fall. Such would be the feelings of those who oppose the U.S. now, I suspect.

I think that things will get much worse before they get better.
_________________________
Brent
RioCar MK][a 20GB+80GB
'96 Saab 900s (Not any more)
Still looking for a good way to install in a 2010 BMW 3 series with iDrive/NAV

Top
#292326 - 11/01/2007 15:09 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: bbowman]
JBjorgen
carpal tunnel

Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3583
Loc: Columbus, OH
How do you be diplomatic with a group that believes it's under mandate from deity to destroy you at any cost? Seems like it'd be difficult to find some give and take there.

Is there a diplomatic solution to that?
_________________________
~ John

Top
#292327 - 11/01/2007 16:03 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: JBjorgen]
bbowman
enthusiast

Registered: 12/05/2002
Posts: 205
Loc: Virginia, USA
I don't believe that that is descriptive of the forces going on in Iraq. That is a great description of Al Qaeda, however. I don't know very much about diplomacy with them, which is why I fully supported going into Afganistan.

Iraq, is a different animal altogether. Chaos, civil war between different groups,etc. Most of them just seem to find us irritating and would rather we left. Instead, it is a terrorist breeding ground that creates more bitterness towards the U.S. than much of anything else. I wish I could say peace.
_________________________
Brent
RioCar MK][a 20GB+80GB
'96 Saab 900s (Not any more)
Still looking for a good way to install in a 2010 BMW 3 series with iDrive/NAV

Top
#292328 - 11/01/2007 16:06 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: JBjorgen]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
How do you be diplomatic with a group that believes it's under mandate from deity to destroy you at any cost? Seems like it'd be difficult to find some give and take there.

Is there a diplomatic solution to that?


You're right. And so far, nobody has been able to find any diplomatic approach to the US invasion force, probably...

Wait... you were referring to the US when you talked about the deity and the mandate and all, right? You know, God wanting the US military to destroy all the terrorists?
_________________________
Dave

Top
#292329 - 11/01/2007 16:12 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: bbowman]
bbowman
enthusiast

Registered: 12/05/2002
Posts: 205
Loc: Virginia, USA
If I may spout out a few ideas here, I've been thinking about the whole Iraq thing (like most everybody else) but with respect to Afganistan. It seems that if we stayed the course with Afganistan without ever invading Iraq, we may have had more success with it. Could we have had more success there?

I know that Russia never got very far with them, but would we have been able to convert them to democracy? Imagine a successful democracy right there withought spreading the troops out to Iraq. We had already brought down the Taliban and did some damage to Al Qaeda (the real foe). Perhaps we should have focused more efforts on rebuilding Afganistan instead of leaving it and causing more carnage in Iraq.

Any thoughts?
_________________________
Brent
RioCar MK][a 20GB+80GB
'96 Saab 900s (Not any more)
Still looking for a good way to install in a 2010 BMW 3 series with iDrive/NAV

Top
#292330 - 11/01/2007 16:16 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: bbowman]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Why did we do it? Simple.

T.O.O. - Target Of Opportunity.

We were already in the neighborhood, and after all, Saddam had had it out with Bush's daddy, and hey, what's that black oily stuff? Besides, cruise missiles and bombs can't just sit on the shelf. How will the manufacturers make money if we don't use all those wonderful toys.

Very very sad.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#292331 - 11/01/2007 19:25 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: webroach]
hybrid8
carpal tunnel

Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
It wasn't because the US was already in the area. They planned to attack Iraq before Afghanistan. Seeing at least some reasoning they went with Afghanistan first, but plans to take Iraq were there from the start.

I'd argue that the Iraq objective was there before the September 11th attacks on the trade center. That was the adminstration's opportunity. Sad.
_________________________
Bruno
Twisted Melon : Fine Mac OS Software

Top
#292332 - 11/01/2007 21:14 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: JBjorgen]
visuvius
addict

Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
Quote:
How do you be diplomatic with a group that believes it's under mandate from deity to destroy you at any cost? Seems like it'd be difficult to find some give and take there.


As has been stated by others here, this is just plain wrong as far as Iraq goes. Further, its pretty much wrong as far as the overall muslim idealogy goes and it pisses me off to no end that the media and this administration have done everything in their power to make the American people and seemingly every Christian in the U.S. think that muslims are out to destory them. Have there been a handful of loons that said they want a Caliphate from Indonesia to Madrid? Yes? Just like there are a handful of loons that say they want the U.S. to be a Christian country.

"Under mandate of deity to destroy you at any cost". God damn. Enough is enough. Stop with the overly dramatic bullshit. I know it makes it easier for the administration to justify its foreign policy and I know it makes Christians feel nice and important like there is some holy war they are involved in. There is not. They just want you the F out of their countries, and they want the U.S. to stop blindly supporting Israel. Thats it. They don't hate your freedom. They don't give a shit about your freedom.

BTW, there have been Christians in the Middle East for centuries and they are vastly outnumbered by Muslims. These Christians are also dirt poor and powerless just like their Muslim counterparts. If Muslims were all under mandate from Allah to destroy Christians and nonbelievers at any cost, don't you think that they would have started with the Christians living next door? Do you really think they would start with the rather burly and heavily armed Christians coming from the most powerful military in the world? Or do you think they would start the genocide that you claim they've been mandated to carry out with the Christians living amongst them?

Top
#292333 - 11/01/2007 21:29 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: bbowman]
visuvius
addict

Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
Quote:
I know that Russia never got very far with them, but would we have been able to convert them to democracy?


As an Afghan I can tell you that no, you would not have been able to convert them to Democracy. Afghans will never be able to convert to democracy. Not just Afghanistan, but pretty much all the countries in the middle east are NOT ready for democracy. From cultural mores and attitudes to logistical issues, democracy will just not work there. Especially in Afghanistan.

I don't understand this belief that democracy is the ULTIMATE form of government. Isn't it a little arrogant to think that the way YOU do things is the BEST way to do things. Sure it works for us, but it doesn't work for them. The administration is starting to see that now in Iraq. Guess what? Iraq needed a bastard like Saddam to keep things in line. Did some of the citizens get the shaft? Yes, but there wasn't wholesale slaughter like there is now.

Top
#292334 - 11/01/2007 22:23 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: visuvius]
petteri
addict

Registered: 02/08/2004
Posts: 434
Loc: Helsinki, Finland
Quote:
Did some of the citizens get the shaft? Yes, but there wasn't wholesale slaughter like there is now.


Well, the Kurds might disagree with that statement. The last thing we needed to do, short of not starting the war in the first place, was to remove a total dictator and replace him with nothing.


Edited by petteri (11/01/2007 22:24)

Top
#292335 - 12/01/2007 03:27 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: hybrid8]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
It wasn't because the US was already in the area. They planned to attack Iraq before Afghanistan. Seeing at least some reasoning they went with Afghanistan first, but plans to take Iraq were there from the start.

I'd argue that the Iraq objective was there before the September 11th attacks on the trade center. That was the adminstration's opportunity. Sad.


I have to admit that my post contained more than the US RDA of wry sarcasm.

But there was definitely a core of seriousness as well.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#292336 - 12/01/2007 03:29 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: visuvius]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
Quote:
I know that Russia never got very far with them, but would we have been able to convert them to democracy?


As an Afghan I can tell you that no, you would not have been able to convert them to Democracy. Afghans will never be able to convert to democracy. Not just Afghanistan, but pretty much all the countries in the middle east are NOT ready for democracy. From cultural mores and attitudes to logistical issues, democracy will just not work there. Especially in Afghanistan.

I don't understand this belief that democracy is the ULTIMATE form of government. Isn't it a little arrogant to think that the way YOU do things is the BEST way to do things. Sure it works for us, but it doesn't work for them. The administration is starting to see that now in Iraq. Guess what? Iraq needed a bastard like Saddam to keep things in line. Did some of the citizens get the shaft? Yes, but there wasn't wholesale slaughter like there is now.


Thunderous applause.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#292337 - 12/01/2007 11:30 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: FireFox31]
Redrum
old hand

Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
Quote:

Seriously, use American forces to create a ring around the middle east, letting none leave nor enter. Then let them fight it out for eternity, as they have for the duration of human existance. Quit playing at colonization, it's always been a dirty game.



I picture it more as herding cats. I don’t think more Shepard’s will help.

Top
#292338 - 12/01/2007 13:34 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: visuvius]
bbowman
enthusiast

Registered: 12/05/2002
Posts: 205
Loc: Virginia, USA
Quote:
"I don't understand this belief that democracy is the ULTIMATE form of government. Isn't it a little arrogant to think that the way YOU do things is the BEST way to do things."


I do agree with you, my comment about conversion was a little tongue in cheek. I think that new forms of government (and economics) must be born from a people, not given/imposed on them.

What I wanted to emphasize more with my post was the that the U.S. should have made more effort in an "Act of Goodwill" in helping to rebuild Afghanistan. I think that that type of activity would have done much more good (especially for our reputation) than any military. It seems that it is our capitalistic/controling reputation that does us the most damage there.

Top
#292339 - 12/01/2007 13:55 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: visuvius]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Quote:
As an Afghan I can tell you that no, you would not have been able to convert them to Democracy. Afghans will never be able to convert to democracy. Not just Afghanistan, but pretty much all the countries in the middle east are NOT ready for democracy. From cultural mores and attitudes to logistical issues, democracy will just not work there. Especially in Afghanistan.

As a "rich white american", it tweaks my liberal guilt to say or even agree with something like that, because I do believe that democracies are the best form of government that we've come up with yet (not that it doesn't have its faults), and I don't want to believe that other people are less than we are. Even you say "not ready for democracy" (emphasis mine), implying that they're not sufficiently advanced to use it.

But as an Afghan, you have far more experience with other Afghans than I do. So I have to at least admit that you're more of an expert than I am. But your word just doesn't cut it for me. (No offense intended.) Can you explain why Afghans wouldn't want the ability to help choose their own destiny? Do they want to be lorded over by an authoritarian regime that tells them what to do? I mean, I seem to recall when the Taliban fell that there was a large amount of simple rejoicing, like women deciding not to wear burqas, or at least not such sever ones, men shaving their beards, and so on. It wasn't the hysterical reaction that seems to be so common in those situations, but more a feeling of relief at once again being able to express themselves.

Of course, I'm making a gross generalization in assuming that the Taliban is equivalent to all other non-democratic governments.

But democracy doesn't mean non-authoritarian, either. The Afghans would be able to choose an authoritarian government under a democracy if they wanted to. But they would also have the potential to change that when they outgrew it.

Of course, I'm also making a big assumption that non-democratic means authoritarian. They could have an archo-syndicalist collective.

Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear your opinions on the problems of the adoption of democracy in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#292340 - 12/01/2007 18:33 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: wfaulk]
visuvius
addict

Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
Quote:
...because I do believe that democracies are the best form of government that we've come up with yet (not that it doesn't have its faults)


I tend to agree that Democracy is the best form of government to date.

Having said that, there is one massive issue that is, and sadly always will be an obstruction to democracy in Afghanistan, and the middle east in general: the poison of corruption. Its pretty much evil and a hindrance to any forward progress in the countries of the Middle East. Any democracy pretty much becomes illegitimate when officials and votes are being bought and sold. I realize that its rampant pretty much everywhere, but the effects of corruption are just staggering. You can never truly trust the outcome of any vote -- it is rarely genuine.

Corruption is so inherent in the Middle East that its pretty much just accepted as a part of life. How do you combat that? How do you combat this deep, entrenched history of corruption? Not just in the Middle East, but in most 3rd world countries? I know how you feel when you say, "I don't want to believe that other people are less than we are." Its very commendable and human to hope for the best in people and to give people the benefit of the doubt. But I just can't anymore. There is corruption in Western countries but what makes it so God damn rampant in the Middle East? I don't want to think that we're all just a bunch of shady bastards but, more and more, that’s the direction I'm going. Its incredibly disheartening.

Another reason Afghanistan (and IMO the middle east in general) is not ready for democracy is because of a suspicion and sincere lack of respect for authority, the law and pretty much any governing body. For a form of government to function, the people need to have some level of faith in it. Unfortunately, Afghans are so used to corruption, and have been so disappointed with anyone that has been put in charge of them that they just don’t trust anyone anymore. You think the elected official in Kandahar gives two shits about Abdul Q. Public? Not really.

Yet another reason that Democracy is going to have problems in Afghanistan is because, quite frankly, a lot of the people just don’t have it in them to care at this point. They don’t have the time, patience, or energy to care. For a democracy to function, it needs to have some level of involvement from the populace. In the U.S., most people don’t really care for politics or what’s going on with government, mainly for the same reasons, they don’t have the time, patience or energy after a long days work. I heard a great analogy about people in the U.S. – it’s like a hotel, if the hot towels and pillow mints keep comin’, they are good to go. However, at the end of the day, there are still enough people involved in the democratic process that things move forward.

Regarding this issue, I’m not sure about other countries, but in Afghanistan, everyone is too God damn busy either finding working or working 16 hours a day trying to put food on their tables. They are too busy getting around on their deadly roads, and getting from war torn city to war torn city. Basically, they are too busy dealing with their miserable lives and shitty infrastructure to care. There are too few people willing to deal with all the crap of daily life and then on top of that be involved in the democratic process, i.e., be informed, organize, etc.

Do you know who the Afghans will support, who they’ll get behind? Someone who actually does something for them.

Quote:
Do they want to be lorded over by an authoritarian regime that tells them what to do? I mean, I seem to recall when the Taliban fell that there was a large amount of simple rejoicing, like women deciding not to wear burqas, or at least not such sever ones, men shaving their beards, and so on. It wasn't the hysterical reaction that seems to be so common in those situations, but more a feeling of relief at once again being able to express themselves.


Perfect example. Afghans supported the Taliban because they actually did something for the people. They grew and got powerful so quickly because they affected the lives of ordinary, dirt poor villagers in positive ways. The people immediately saw this and got behind them. The Taliban got rid of gangs of thugs and numerous warlords, the Taliban made what roads there were safe to travel, they put a massive dent in corruption and pretty much eliminated the opium trade. Unfortunately, in exchange for this they wanted adherence to a strict, antiquated and unreasonable form of Islam (a lot of the crappy things they did were, sadly, the effect of the culture, not the religion).

I wonder what it would have been like had the U.S. not invaded after 9/11. How much longer would Afghans have tolerated the Taliban? I know that after they fell, there was rejoicing and the Northern Alliance guys were pleased, but I can’t honestly say that the majority of Afghans were/are happy. No one wants to be lorded over by an authoritarian regime, but there are A LOT of people that still support the Taliban. They support them because, again, they actually performed for Afghanistan and they actually stand for something.

Basically I’m pretty much a pessimist about all of this stuff. People are basically assholes. I’m waiting for the aliens to come and hand out intergalactic justice. Like that one Twilight Zone.

Top
#292341 - 12/01/2007 19:05 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: visuvius]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Thanks. That's pretty insightful.

I want to point out that the subtleties of modern western democracies are probably not that relevant to any democracy that would be formed in Afghanistan. Choices would probably be painted with broad swaths, not idiosyncracies. As such, the level of commitment to learning about candidates is probably reduced significantly. Hell, people in the US vote for parties, not people, if they even put that much thought into it.

I also want to point out that a democratic regime has no more ability to be corrupt than any other regime. Of course, one that is based on an extreme ideology probably has the least likelihood of being corrupt.

But these arguments are still probably irrelevant to the average Afghani. Maybe they should look into anarcho-syndicalism or, hell, feudalism. Something more transparent that takes less effort to comprehend and deal with. At least until they didn't have to worry about where their next meal was coming from.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#292342 - 12/01/2007 21:32 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: visuvius]
bbowman
enthusiast

Registered: 12/05/2002
Posts: 205
Loc: Virginia, USA
They may not have time to support a democracy, but the sure have time to rally in the streets if some cartoonist half the world away draws a cartoon about Mohammad!

With that in mind, it would seem that the religious opiate of the people is still what provides the most power and control. I would venture to say that the most likely way for a democracy to take hold in Afghanistan and similar countries is for the Imans and religious leaders to lead the movement.

I some how doubt that such a thing would ever happen.
_________________________
Brent
RioCar MK][a 20GB+80GB
'96 Saab 900s (Not any more)
Still looking for a good way to install in a 2010 BMW 3 series with iDrive/NAV

Top
#292343 - 12/01/2007 23:25 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: bbowman]
visuvius
addict

Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
Quote:
They may not have time to support a democracy, but the sure have time to rally in the streets if some cartoonist half the world away draws a cartoon about Mohammad!


First let me just say that the muslim response to the cartoons was totally ridiculous. In my opinion, we basically just made our situation worse. One of the best things that the worldwide Muslim community can do is hire a multimillion dollar PR firm.

Having said that, let me say that I don't think the average non-muslim will every truly understand how devoted and important Muhammad (pbuh) is to them. I'm not trying to say that muslims are stronger or more passionate towards their faith than other people, but muslims take it to a whole other level. You just can't compare a cartoon that depicts Mohammad as a child rapist or Mohammad as a mass murderer to Jesus jokes on Saturday Night Live or something.

The size of those protests is also a direct result of people having nothing better to do. When you and most of your buddies aren't working, its pretty easy to take a day from your job search and rally with the other bajillion people that don't have anything to do. Rallying in the streets for a couple days is totally different then being invested in a political process.

When you don't have an income and basically live in a shithole, you're going to get pretty pissed when some asshole living half the world away in a beautifully prosperous country viciously makes fun of the one thing that is still important to you in your life -- your faith.

Finally, believe it or not, I have a feeling that Muslims aren't the only ones that will get this riled up when someone attacks their faith. I think people in the U.S. don't understand because, quite frankly, not very many of us are that religious.

Heres a project: head down to Mexico City and hold a sign or wear a t-shirt depicting the Virgin Mary doing something obscene. Or go into some country village in Poland and depict the Pope as a pedofile. Then start counting the minutes before you get shot in the face.

Top
#292344 - 13/01/2007 14:20 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: visuvius]
mlord
carpal tunnel

Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14484
Loc: Canada
Quote:

Heres a project: head down to Mexico City and hold a sign or wear a t-shirt depicting the Virgin Mary doing something obscene. Or go into some country village in Poland and depict the Pope as a pedofile. Then start counting the minutes before you get shot in the face.


Not the same situation at all. Instead, just post an editorial cartoon to the papers in Holland depicting those scenarios in graphic detail. Then observe that it doesn't cause worldwide rioting.

Cheers

Top
#292345 - 13/01/2007 17:50 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: mlord]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
Quote:

Heres a project: head down to Mexico City and hold a sign or wear a t-shirt depicting the Virgin Mary doing something obscene. Or go into some country village in Poland and depict the Pope as a pedofile. Then start counting the minutes before you get shot in the face.


Not the same situation at all. Instead, just post an editorial cartoon to the papers in Holland depicting those scenarios in graphic detail. Then observe that it doesn't cause worldwide rioting.

Cheers


Agreed. While I tend to agree with visuvius on a lot of points, there is no excuse for the backlash from those cartoons. To use the Muslim's faith as any sort of excuse or justification for that reaction is like trying to excuse the behavior of NAMBLA by saying "you just don't understand how they feel about young boys." I'm obviously not trying to equate NAMBLA and the Muslim faith, simply saying that unacceptable behavior is unacceptable behavior, regardless of the reasons behind it.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#292346 - 13/01/2007 23:02 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: webroach]
FireFox31
pooh-bah

Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
If religion is that important to the Muslim community, then the world needs to know that and respect it. We're a global humanity and will have to start getting along with our "neighbors" all over the world.

The insight from visuvius is exactly what the world needs more of. It helps broaden our understanding and combat "terrorism", the instilling of terror, carried out by both radicals and the American government. (and hey, if we find out that various middle eastern cultures want to battle with each other forever, than we should let them)

Of course, foreign terrorists will need to likewise extend a little understanding toward America, realizing that many of us do not support the democratic missionary work being done in Iraq. And there must be a reason that America supports Israel, but it's surely beyond what the government will let the citizens comprehend.

[edit] Oh, and no level of "broadening our understanding" should try to justify NAMBLA and crap like that. Instead, we should extend the offer to understand that people involved seriously need help with their issues.


Edited by FireFox31 (13/01/2007 23:06)
_________________________
-
FireFox31
110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set

Top
#292347 - 14/01/2007 04:49 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: FireFox31]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
If religion is that important to the Muslim community, then the world needs to know that and respect it. We're a global humanity and will have to start getting along with our "neighbors" all over the world.


Agreed, to an extent. But really, we can't devolve into relativism, where we accept anything that someone believes in. Just because Muslims view religion as "that important" doesn't mean that Danish cartoonists (or Comedy Central) has to follow their rules or wishes. And that failure to follow their rules and wishes is in no way an excuse to carry out acts of violence or terrorism. I say this, of course, with the full understanding that we are not talking about Muslims in general, but rather a hyper-violent hyper-fundamentalist subset of Islam.

Quote:
The insight from visuvius is exactly what the world needs more of. It helps broaden our understanding and combat "terrorism", the instilling of terror, carried out by both radicals and the American government. (and hey, if we find out that various middle eastern cultures want to battle with each other forever, than we should let them)


I couldn't agree more. With, of course, the caveats above.

Quote:
Of course, foreign terrorists will need to likewise extend a little understanding toward America, realizing that many of us do not support the democratic missionary work being done in Iraq. And there must be a reason that America supports Israel, but it's surely beyond what the government will let the citizens comprehend.


In my opinion, Israel is supported because they're a Christian nation (for all intents and purposes) in the Middle East. And I totally understand the rest of the Middle East being royally pissed that we support them. To me, Israel is guilty of just as much terrorism (if not more) than all of radical Islamic splinter groups combined. They just call it "military" instead of "terrorism".

Quote:
[edit] Oh, and no level of "broadening our understanding" should try to justify NAMBLA and crap like that. Instead, we should extend the offer to understand that people involved seriously need help with their issues.


This was exactly my point. Any claim that we need to "broaden our understanding" as to why violence is carried out because of a cartoon is (in my mind) functionally equivalent to trying to understand NAMBLA. Just because the radical sects of Islam want to commit violent acts when their faith is mocked doesn't make it acceptable, and never will. Nor does the fact that NAMBLA members want to have sex with children make their acts acceptable. If we do live in a free world, then Danish cartoonists get to make fun of / mock Mohamed, and the radical Muslims can get pissed about it. But violence and acts of terrorism are not part of the package. If they were, we would get to randomly bomb a peaceful city in the Muslim world every time they say something we don't like.

Eye for an eye and everyone's blind, my friend. People need to just learn to be pissed without resorting to violence.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#292348 - 14/01/2007 07:42 Re: Bush address re: Iraq [Re: visuvius]
tahir
pooh-bah

Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1900
Loc: London
Quote:
As has been stated by others here, this is just plain wrong as far as Iraq goes. Further, its pretty much wrong as far as the overall muslim idealogy goes and it pisses me off to no end that the media and this administration have done everything in their power to make the American people and seemingly every Christian in the U.S. think that muslims are out to destory them. Have there been a handful of loons that said they want a Caliphate from Indonesia to Madrid? Yes? Just like there are a handful of loons that say they want the U.S. to be a Christian country.

"Under mandate of deity to destroy you at any cost". God damn. Enough is enough. Stop with the overly dramatic bullshit. I know it makes it easier for the administration to justify its foreign policy and I know it makes Christians feel nice and important like there is some holy war they are involved in. There is not. They just want you the F out of their countries, and they want the U.S. to stop blindly supporting Israel. Thats it. They don't hate your freedom. They don't give a shit about your freedom.

BTW, there have been Christians in the Middle East for centuries and they are vastly outnumbered by Muslims. These Christians are also dirt poor and powerless just like their Muslim counterparts. If Muslims were all under mandate from Allah to destroy Christians and nonbelievers at any cost, don't you think that they would have started with the Christians living next door? Do you really think they would start with the rather burly and heavily armed Christians coming from the most powerful military in the world? Or do you think they would start the genocide that you claim they've been mandated to carry out with the Christians living amongst them?


Damn, just lost a long post that broadly agreed with that. Yes there are issues that the muslim world needs to address, but I can't see how Iraq is going to resolve them.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >