Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Republicans now have full control...
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Sorry, this one I just had to respond to. A couple of points:DiscoStu: when dubya goes around spewing out sounbites like "they hate freedom" ...
Well, I'd have a hard time arguing that they don't given the type of government they hold up as the ideal. Maybe I'm wrong.DiscoStu: Why was the world trade centre destoryed would be a better question. Could it be the exploitionist policies of succesive american administrations, the support for brutal despots and theocracies, hypocritical morals standards and support for israeli expansionisim?
The reason the world trade center (techincally, the world trade centre is in UAE even though we all knew what you meant, I just felt like picking. Sorry
) was attacked is because a group of muslims thought that that is would be a good way to kill the most americans most effectively while at the same time sending some message that they thought needed to be sent. That's the fact. Your answer is speculation. Did american policies of the past or present or both have anything to do with it? Almost certainly. Its unlikely a group of people would randomly decide to do that. Something made them think it would be worth their while. But you just used the question as a method of atacking american politics rather than actually intending to answer your question. Anyway..."If we practice and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world
Well, not if you make it costly enough that the weaker civ loses their will to continue the fight or if there is none of the weaker civ left to fight.The only way to stop terrorisim is through negotiations or removing the root cause of the terrorisim itself. every terorist killed becomes a martyr and 2 more spring up to replace the dead one.
Anyway, here's what I really wanted to say. History shows it doesn't really matter who is right and who is wrong. Right and wrong are usually far less important than winning in the eyes of history. According to polls, the majority of muslims think that bin Laden was, at least in part, justified in attacking the US. Now, whether US policy is tripe and to blame or not, if the terrorist acts continue against the US or other west, people will start to believe the only way for it to end is if: "its either going to be us or them." I know you say that the US should attack the root cause of terrorism, but when an attitude like this is so pervasive in a culture, the easiest thing to do is just to wipe it out. That's the way history works. Action reaction. Push-Pull. Weaker culture attacks stronger culture or stronger culture decides it wants to conquer or somehow views weaker culture as a theat means the weaker culture is exterminated more often than not. Is it right? Is it wrong? Its almost irrelevant to ask the question. It just is.
The most likely outcome from continued, escalated terrorist attacks against the US or other western countries is definitely NOT, the US and the West try harder to understand why they are hated, even if it is justified (which, apparently in most muslim minds, it is). The result will either be that enough of Islamic culture is crushed that the rest lose their will to fight and capitulate, or they fight to the last and the culture is more or less exterminated. Is it right? Is it wrong? It just is. Its happened countless times thoughout history and it would be naive to think that just because we live in a new "PC" world, that human nature is not still the same human nature that has existed for millenia. Self-preservation is still the most dominant instinct, if not for the individual than for the society that individual chooses. Human history shows, when a threat is markedly weaker technologically (as the islamic culture is), and they pose a significant threat to a more powerful culture, the opposition is eliminated until you can assimilate the rest or relegate them to irrelevance.
Now, what do I personally think? Yes the US has gotten in other countries business far too much. Did it justify Sept11? Definitely not. Should the US capitulate and change its policy as a result of Sept11? Not unless they want every other radical group with a cause to use more terrorism as a means to exploit it. Sorry, I guess it is backwards logic and unfortunate, but now that the proverbial die has been cast, there can be no capitulation, only reciprocity, unless you only want to encourage more of that behavior. That's the way human nature works, and as much as we want it to change and think we can change it to something more benevolant, I've come to the conclusion that the underlying violence in man is far too great for us to overcome.
Think about it; when was the last time the world went more than 100 years without a major war? To the best of my knowledge, it was in the Roman world. Why? Because the other cultures knew they would be anhilliated for opposing them. In other words, peace through strength. Does it suck? Yep. Is that the way it is? Yep. Is that the way it will always be? Probably...at least as long as religion exists, or at least as long as more than one religion exists anyway. Why? Cause religion drives deep philosophical differences that many people are willing to fight and die for. But is religion solely to blame? Of course not. Those philosophical differences might just as well exist without deep religious differences (ie. WWII Nazis). Anyway, its all too confusing to be able to make accurate conclusions on the morality of the situation, especially when morality is a culturally and religiously defined manmade concept anyway. Its far easier to just go by history and accurately predict the eventual outcome.
Anyway, that's my 2 pence/cents whatever unit of currency you use. I didn't proofread anything and its really late so forgive the errors that are prolly in it.
0 -
Originally posted by BattleBoar
The reason the world trade center (techincally, the world trade centre is in UAE even though we all knew what you meant, I just felt like picking. Sorry ) was attacked is because a group of muslims thought that that is would be a good way to kill the most americans most effectively while at the same time sending some message that they thought needed to be sent. That's the fact. Your answer is speculation.
AS is yours, unless you actually have a direct line of contact to those who chose the targets in the first place. You can argue that it is more probable, but then you would have to explain the purpose of the attack on the Pentagon. That surely wasnt intended to maximise life-loss.
An equally probable possibility is that it was a strike at symbolic hearts of capitalism. military might, and who-knows-what-else had the third plane not crashed.
I sincerely you're not even remotely suggesting that genocide is a reasonable solution to a problem?
Well, not if you make it costly enough that the weaker civ loses their will to continue the fight or if there is none of the weaker civ left to fight.I know you say that the US should attack the root cause of terrorism, but when an attitude like this is so pervasive in a culture, the easiest thing to do is just to wipe it out. That's the way history works. Action reaction. Push-Pull. Weaker culture attacks stronger culture or stronger culture decides it wants to conquer or somehow views weaker culture as a theat means the weaker culture is exterminated more often than not. Is it right? Is it wrong? Its almost irrelevant to ask the question. It just is.
I see. Because history is a litany of violence, you believe our future must also be doomed to be a litany of violence. Just as well we dont have weapons that are orders of magnitude larger than what our ancestors had. Weapons enough to wipe out life as we know it. I mean - history shows us that powerful civilisations have never held back - never had weapons they refused to use. Guess the inescapable conclusion is that we're all just dead men walking, then, isnt it. I mean, its not bad, its not wrong....it just is.
Or maybe some people have already figured out this inevitable end and decided that its only inevitable if you accept it to be so. It is possible to learn from history. It is possible for man to finally discover what the word "civilisation" really means. Quite frankly, I reject the concept of the inevitability of history repeating itself throughout our future. Technology has changed the rules - its no longer a wheel. We can spiral to destruction following old paths, or we can try to avoid that.Human history shows, when a threat is markedly weaker technologically (as the islamic culture is), and they pose a significant threat to a more powerful culture, the opposition is eliminated until you can assimilate the rest or relegate them to irrelevance.
Can you show one case in history where this has happened? Where there has been a lower level of development coupled with an actual threat to the more developed civilisation? I seriously doubt it. History is littered, however, with examples of the more developed deliberately setting out to subjugate, conquer or destroy those weaker than them.Its far easier to just go by history and accurately predict the eventual outcome.
Really? Well then, define a single religion which has been quashed by the empires you've named?
Alternately, choose an empire which subjugated a religion, only to end up having said religion becoming so significant in the culture that the head of that religion is now in the same city which was once the head of the empire?
jc0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Good call Bonkey! I guess the Pentagon comes under "sending a message"
As for the rest, sure, genocide is a possible solution (see Aztecs, Carthage, Native Americans, Cambodia, etc.), I'm just not saying its a good one or a desirable one....it would almost certainly create bigger problems than the one it solves.
As for the last quote, I think you misunderstood me. My meaning was to say that religion, in many cases, fuels the fires that drive men to fight with conviction, but if you notice, I stated a caveat that this is not always the case.
As for technology changing things, you are right! If this same event had happened with the values that governments subscibed to in ancient times, the middle east would certainly contain a much smaller percentage of the world's population than it currently does, problems created be damned. I'm not saying that technology hasn't changed the rules, but I am saying that the underlying insticts are still the same, and at a certain threshold, so will be the resultant actions taken - at least to a degree.
I think my real point was lost, which was simply that continued attacks will not be met with the reaction of trying to understand the motivations of the terrorists, they will be met with efforts to exterminate more of the terrorists as well as innocent people that happen to be unfortunate enough to be standing around at the time or mistaken for said terrorists until it stops.
And of course, its all my opinion, but then so is pretty much everything else on these boards. I just thought I'd throw mine in the hat.
EDIT:This "your with us or your a terrorist" attitude disguists me. Why has it been allowed to become taboo to question the word of Bush almighty?
Sardonic tone aside, I wasn't aware that it was taboo. In fact, you're doing it right now 0 -
the argument that bombs aren't going to solve the terrorism problem and that only understanding and subsequently addressing the root causes of terrorism will bring about a "secure" world is fine in theory but impossible in reality.
Bin Laden doesn't have any aims that are worth negotiating, he aspires to die a martyr for his view od islam (shame e's proving adept at avoiding this fate so well)
Israel is a permanent thorn in the side of any politically active muslim, and the palestinian cause does resonate with me as a nationalist, but Israel can't cease to exist without WW3 and the complete destruction of the country and its' people. Britian probably couldn't have envisaged the difficulties the state of israel would cause in their rush to redivide the planet post WW2. The two sides are so far apart that I can't see a political solution in my lifetime for the mid east unless israel goes back to the original borders and eats humble pie.
Fuundamentally the west thinks that its' / our way of life is the best ..cola, cars, fries and beer for all !!(yippee) , those of the islamic persuasion with the time and resources to dwell on such lofty matters think a nice islamic world is the best for the planet. And the poor of South America and Africa have a hard enough time jsut staying alive to be too bothered by global politics.
The west has abandoned spirituality in favour of cash and craic, where's the middle ground ?
IMHO of course 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
What I am driving at is that if it is so damned important to the US and the UK that the man be stopped, then surely they can use the means at their disposal to stop him.
To the best of my knowledge, that's what is happening now. Despite rumblings about war, the US & Britain are seeking a UN mandate when everyone knows that they are perfectly capable of prosecuting war, regime change, pretty much whatever they want without so much as a 'by your leave'.
So, if its blatantly untrue that a war would save lives, then one must either question the number of lives that makes up a Mass Destruction (remember, chem/bio weapons dont do material damage), or question exactly how expensive this war is expected to be.
What needs to be understood here is opportunity cost. War can only be justified in my opinion, as the lesser of two evils. If the potential threat of WMD posed by Saddam is substantively greater than projected casualties, then there is a case for that war. Bear in mind that of all nations who have developed WMD in the last 50 years, none have used them aggressively save Iraq. All you need to do is look at hospital files and archive photography from burns units in Iranian hospitals during the 80s. Topical chemical burns, 70%+ in some cases, clearly demonstrate that here is someone capable of using WMD not as a last resort...but to put the icing on the cake of victory. Not to mention his use of these same VX rounds against Kurdish tribal villages in the north of the country.
It's facile to say that the US is fighting this war for oil...personally I highly doubt that to be the case. The reason is simple- the US has a strong and powerful alliance with over half of OPEC's membership. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the two leading oil producers in the region are staunch US allies, so is Venezuela, the largest OPEC producer outside the Gulf- if an invasion of Iraq were to take place, I highly doubt that oil will be at the top of the justification report to Congress. Saddam's forces will certainly be under orders to destroy oil production facilities anyway.
9/11 has brought the potential threat of WMDs being held by rogue states sharply into focus. Saddam is the *only* world leader to use WMD in combat and noncombat engagements since 1945. Israel, India, Pakistan- other permanent members in possession of WMD(2 of them with US help) have shown the responsibility required to control such a dangerous arsenal. All three of these countries in fact have border threats that Iraq does not have. India, Pakistan and Israel have all been in situations where the use of WMD would have been tempting, the only choice, some might say. Yet they held back, and Saddam Hussain used his when neither his power nor Iraq's security was being substantively threatened.
If that doesn't illustrate the threat facing us, I'm not sure what will.
It's not entirely HUMINT based, but there are HUMINT assets on the ground, of that there can be little question. Be they Israeli, British or American- their lives are put at risk by specific sources ad methods being exposed to the public. I have no problem with UN inspectors being given this information- and neither does the US administration- they've agreed to help in this area.This makes the basic assumption that the intelligence is entirely HUMINT based. I find this highly improbable, given the US' and UK's increasing dependance on electronic surveillance.
Of course notAlso, I fail to see how you say that putting an intelligence operations manpower at risk to avert the risk of Mass Destruction is an increased risk. Are you saying that there are more operatives in Iraq than people who would be killed were Saddam to use his weapons? I'm saying that if sources and methods are not revealed in the event of a material breach- we will have war. If sources and methods ARE released and/or leaked- not only will we have war, but an increased risk to HUMINT assets. THAT is what I mean by an increased risk. Either way you have war jc- what is being overlooked is that in the event that weapons are discovered, even should Iraq wish a peaceful resolution and say they want to 'turn those weapons over'- they will never be allowed to. Their weapons declaration stated they had no WMD whatsoever. If such weapons or means to manufacture them are discovered, their obvious intent was to mislead- throwing their credibility further into question should they, AFTER discovery proclaim a change of heart :P
Our governments won't believe them, nor would any right-thinking person. IE- whether or not sources are revealed in the event of material breach, there *will* be war. It's just that in one scenario you have war with HUMINT assets at risk, and in the other you don't. Simple math.
How so? If there is war in Iraq, history shows us that HUMINT have a better chance of survival than in peacetime. The largest intelligence operations in history (in terms of scale) are always conducted during military conflicts. There are many reasons for this, some obvious and some not. So long as their direct source information is not given over to insensitive hands, their existence is at considerably less risk.Besides, even if they dont use the intelligence, and Saddam is found in material breach (or the US go without UN approval), then these HUMINT resources are at risk anyway.
Yes, but it shouldnt ever be enough for the UN, and thats who the US have to convince, and who they are singularly failing to do so. The US are treating the UN exactly like Trailer-Park Joe, and expecting that their word should be enough, and that protecting intelligence resources is more important than supply of evidence.
That's incorrect to the best of my knowledge. From what I understand, Hans Blix requested intelligence information regarding sites, and the US state department promised cooperation in this regard. How is that denying the UN information? I never said we should do that- merely that we should keep it from the public. Dr. Blix will get his intel, and the public won't get access that could threaten future intelligence gathering (be it ELINT or HUMINT).
What the US is doing (along with Britain) is to attempt the acquisition of a mandate with a minimum of concessions from their position. If we consider the UN Charter directly jc, any nation that feels that it is being threatened has the inalienable right to defend itself. Both the US and Britain can simply invoke this clause and proceed without the blessing of the Security Council.If the US cannot lead the weapons inspectors to a smoking gun, then they will not get their mandate to go after Saddam.
If it becomes clear that the UNSC would block the path to decisive action with or without evidence of material breach (as has happened before), then the US and Britain (with a few more nations) will act. As soon as they feel the UNSC is obstructing what they see as a right to defend themselves against a clear threat, they will abandon the UNSC route. The other 13 members clearly sense this, hence their cooperation in drafting a very tough resolution. It won't take much I feel, to convince the UNSC of a material breach, nor would it take long if compliance wasn't forthcoming.
While I believe in the UN very firmly, I am strongly at odds with the idea of a security council getting involved in a dispute between two *member states*. That is not what it was designed for, it was mainly designed to look at internalized conflicts (Cyprus, Rwanda, Congo, etc) The fact that it's failed to look at Chechnya, Northern Ireland, Granada, Tibet- is that the veto power in the hands of permanent members stands in the way of the council's function. I think it neither necessary nor particularly important for military action to be approved by the UNSC. From its original defined role, such disputes are really none of its business- bilateral relations should be resolved bilaterally, there is no need for multilateral haggling. UN weapon inspectors can only work with the full cooperation of the nation they are attempting to inspect.
I don't believe Iraq has been compliant in its weapons declaration. I find it highly unlikely that they have undertaken to destroy the WMD discovered in 1997 themselves- several Iraqi citizens approached in private have admitted to working on weapons programmes, Iranian intelligence has fairly intractable sources which point to WMD development. These are of course things I've read mixed with personal opinion. But whether or not substantial proof is forthcoming, I'd vote yes to a campaign directed at removing Saddam as bloodlessly as humanly possible. The potential risk facing us cannot simply be ignored- the potential for harm is I believe, far greater than the loss of life likely to be sustained in an invasion. A biological attack on a western city would likely cripple it for decades, it would take less than that amount of time to rebuild Iraq with its substantial oil profits, properly directed into public projects rather than the building of extravagant palaces. I think it's worth the price, so do a majority of Iraqis polled, according to a recent NewsWeek survey. If the Iraqi people believe it is, why shouldn't we?
Occy0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement