RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

captiveplatypus -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 7:23:48 PM)

*flails* I gave you an opening, though!  I was asking for clarificationnnnnnn!

bah *pout*



CrappyDom -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 11:36:07 PM)

Caitlyn,

Can you lay out how you would use nuclear weapons to "fix" the ME problem?

I would love to hear how you think the survivors will react seeing the chared corpses of their loved ones who were killed by America.

How would you react if someone did the same to your loved ones?

How will this make peace again and how is your solution less barbaric than that proposed by Osama? 

I look forward to a constructive dialog parsing out genocide with you.



Dauric -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 12:10:55 AM)

Ultimately, CD, that is exactly what I was saying about not agreeing with caitlyn earlier and why that tactic fails to work for Israel or the US forces in Iraq. Heap on to it the tightly-woven tribal nature of the culture in the middle east and you're not worrying about the immediate families buit the whole extended families looking for vengance for one relative.

I'll admit though, every time I think it's just the leaders that need to be dumped in an old roman arena, I hear an interview with some palastinian on the street saying how he's going to fight for one of these warmongers, or I hear some arab woman saying that it would be nice for her child to follow his talent and passion and be a civil engineer, but how much better it would be for him to blow himself up and become a martyr.

... A woman saying her child should kill himself... Dosen't that violate some inherent, instinctual element of being a mother?

It's travesties instinct, emotion and reason like that that make me pessimistic about the whole middle east. In these moments I often think that the quickest, easiest solution is to invent an electric car (I've ranted about electric cars before) then nuke the entire middle east to carbon-silicate glass. It's cynical, unreasonable and unethical, but sometimes the problems of getting around the cultural brainwashing that leads to the insanities of death seem so insurmountable that dispair of ever seeing anything but violence sets in and one want's to be done with the whole Divine-dammed thing.

Glassing an entire region of the earth won't solve it, isn't a viable option on the physical, cultural, ethical, political, or any other imagineable levels, but there is something terrifyingly appealing about the image of the grand fireworks display.

Mind you, if they had enough nukes I wouldn't put it past the Arab tribes to glass themselves in an effort to martyer their way in to heaven.

Just my $0.02,

Dauric.



philosophy -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 3:26:34 AM)

Caitlyn........i've read your posts on this thread very carefully a couple of times and have come to the conclusion that where you and i disagree is specifically on this point...
"ignore the simple truth that there isn't going to be a peacful solution to this"
 
........i disagree with that statement (and therefore your subsequent argument which stands or falls on it being a true assumption) for the following main reason.
 It seems to me to be a self fulfilling prophecy. Once we believe it to be true it automatically becomes true. History is full of examples where it was true but recent history has thrown up at least two occasions i can think of when it wasn't. Many of us predicted a bloody slaughter in South Africa when apartheid was dismantled, yet it didnt happen. Also the ceasefire in Northern Ireland. (i note with some interest that the Basques are either giving up or considering a permanent ceasefire....perhaps countries with terrorist problems ought to look at this surprising trend...when we negotiate with terrorists they eventually stop being terrorists).
On another thread the truth or otherwise of evolution has been extensively discussed.........it has been argued that by our technology we have removed ourselves from many of the evolutionary pressures that usually affect a species. i would like to suggest that in our inter-personal, international and inter-theology relations we have an opportunity to choose to evolve. We can look to the past and reach for the gun, or look to the future and reach for the phone.

At base, Caitlyn, perhaps i am a ridiculous optimist and you a cynical pessimist, but we are both human. For the record, here and now, i declare that you must not be wiped out by an overwhelming show of force, but instead must be talked with whenever the opportunity occurs.....and in this way, perhaps, in the future we will come to understand and even admire each others philosophy.

Like i said....i am an optimist :)



caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 6:57:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Caitlyn,

Can you lay out how you would use nuclear weapons to "fix" the ME problem?

I would love to hear how you think the survivors will react seeing the chared corpses of their loved ones who were killed by America.

How would you react if someone did the same to your loved ones?

How will this make peace again and how is your solution less barbaric than that proposed by Osama? 

I look forward to a constructive dialog parsing out genocide with you.


Considering that I never said, or suggested that we use nuclear weapons ... I can't answer any of these questions.
 
As a point of fact, the entire point of my post was to deal with this problem BEFORE it escallates to the use of nuclear weapons, thus saving millions of lives.



Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 7:13:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Considering that I never said, or suggested that we use nuclear weapons ... I can't answer any of these questions.
 
As a point of fact, the entire point of my post was to deal with this problem BEFORE it escallates to the use of nuclear weapons, thus saving millions of lives.

So, you have probably made a dozen negative posts since then... all of which are "I'm not saying that".  So, I asked you, right from the start - well what are you saying then?  You have never answered, which would the most productive thing you could do, rather than spend time on denials.  If you say that everyone else is misunderstanding you, then clarify your position.



caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 7:20:15 AM)

I think this post is pretty accurate philosophy ... and I agree that you exactly found the point where we do not agree. Just for the record, I very much hope that you are right and I am wrong, and that a peaceful solution can be found. No sane person would want it any other way.
 
When it becomes a dangerous game, is when we become so blinded my our desire for peace, that we accept:
  • Peace treaties, with no actual peace. As a superpower, we can make this happen ... but to what end? Does anyone really believe that the problem in Lebanon has been solved, because they aren't shooting today?
  • Peace treaties that are being used by one side to build up for war. The Pre-Second World War is the clear example of this.
  • Peace talks, even while thousands are dying, and fighting is escallating. The Balkans is a pretty good example here, in that the Serbs escallated the fighting the moment peace talks started. That's a pretty good indicatiion that they were not serious about peace. The same scenario just happened in Lebanon. The moment cease fire started becoming a reality, Israel went on the offensive to take as much ground as they could. They may not be all that interested in peace.
  • Inventing enemies, like we did in Iraq. In my original post, I mentioned a hard line with out enemies. For all the dozens of posts taken out of context and flat out misquotes, not a single poster explored this point, which shuld have been a very important one.



philosophy -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 7:37:56 AM)

thanks Caitlyn for your measured reply......i would be interested in your response to the two examples i gave of peace being possible despite the historical precedent though.......

i kind of agree with some of the conditions where seeking peace is redundant, but i do have a few queries.....

"Does anyone really believe that the problem in Lebanon has been solved, because they aren't shooting today? "

....... i don't think anyone sensible is saying 'hooray,. no more middle east problem', however i bet there are more than a few families right now on both sides of the border heaving a sigh of relief. Some problems are made of a lot of smaller ones......we deal with them by clearing up the small problems first.....Israel and Hezbollah was a pissing match that needed stopping before any other problems could be addressed.

"Peace treaties that are being used by one side to build up for war. The Pre-Second World War is the clear example of this."
 
i assume you're talking of the pre-ww2 build up of Germany's war machine. However any analysis of this without dealing with the Treaty of Versailles will be incomplete.



"Peace talks, even while thousands are dying, and fighting is escallating...................The moment cease fire started becoming a reality, Israel went on the offensive to take as much ground as they could. They may not be all that interested in peace."
 
quite so.........but a while back you referred to Israel as a major ally in the region. When your ally acts like that shouldn't there be some debate about funding their military machine? Basically, the noises coming from the administration of the US didn't prevent or even censure Isarael for acting in this way. Peace talks do work better when those participating deal in good faith.
 
"Inventing enemies, like we did in Iraq."
 
again this is true, there isn't a lot of point in initiating peace talks between the Fattipuffs and Thinifers for example, because they don't exist.
 
Thing is Caitlyn, peace has to be worked for. Those with influence have to actually act in ways that promote peace. While powerful countries with undoubted influence over barbaric war mongers have a responsibility to use that influence for peace. Syria and Iran undoubtedly need to stop funding Hezbollah, but it is unfair to request that of them while America continues to subsidise the Israeli war machine.
All this may seem out of our hands, but ultimately it comes down to who and what we vote for.
 
 



caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 7:41:32 AM)

So, pointing out that people are asking questions about thing I never said, is a negative post?
 
In your posts #5 you discussed;
  • "wholesale slaughter" (not said by me)
  • "kill them all" (not said by me)
  • "indescriminant killing of Muslims" (not said by me)

Then asked questions based on these statement that I never made. Are you blaming me, because I refuse to answer questions about statement that I never made?
 
In post #9, you asked some real questions, and it seems to me that I have answered them in other posts.



CrappyDom -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 8:05:13 AM)

Caitlyn,

I have found that if people consistently "misread" what I write that perhaps it is my inability to write rather than their inability to read that is the actual problem.

Here is why I assumed you meant using nuclear weapons.

quote:

  In a few years, these groups will have access to nukes. We already have access to nukes.
 
If we wait now, we will be doing this in a few years with nukes in the mix ...


Since by "WE" I assume you mean at least the West if not the US, then the action taken by "THIS" in a conversation involving the use of nuclear weapons would convince most people that you are speaking of we using our nukes on them.

Since you are speaking of being proactive and doing THIS prior to them doing it to us, I think most people would again read this as you proposing us nuking them.

So, what I find useful when I am trying to communicate ideas clearly is to omit pronouns and instead substitute the exact words so that the meaning of things like "this" is clearer.

Of course I am just a high school dropout and might not be educated enough to grasp a high minded concept so forgive me if I am wrong and am instead too dumb to grasp what it is you are speaking of doing.



Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 8:06:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
 Are you blaming me, because I refuse to answer questions about statement that I never made?

Am I speaking Greek to you?  All I said was - instead of wasting a lot of time denying what you didn't mean, clarify what you *did* mean.  Why is that hard to understand?  I am not "blaming" you for anything, just trying to get something useful going here instead of bickering.



CreoleCook -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 8:51:38 AM)

As I sat here, and read through the three pages of concentrated efforts on everybody's part to give their own viewpoints and opinions on this subject matter, I find myself rather confused as to where many of you are going with your posts.  Now before I back up that statement, I want to offer up a few tidbits of knowledge for all reading this post, and about to comment thereon:

Similiar to Christianity, The Islamic faith has over 300 different sects, with only about 50 of them being Muslims, and out of the 50, maybe 6 of them are militant activists.  To group together an entire faith based upon the opinions and ideals of an individual is not only wrong, but disastrous to all parties involved.  You may ask what I meant by similiar to Christianity... well, how about the Irish Republican Army as a shining example of Catholicism at its finest. 

No?  Well, let me ask this then... Does anyone else here think this whole "war on terrorism" bears a striking resemblance to the Crusades?  "Not only are you never going to strike out against me, but I'll make damned sure you can never do it again."   (sheesh, someone give GW a joint, a pizza,and a bottle of tequila, and lock him in a room for a week.)

As for Isreal... well my 2 cents ain't worth the copper it took to make it... I think we should remove the collar from around Isreal's neck, let them do whatever the hell they want to do, since they've been fighting over a fuckin mountain for the past 10,000 years or so.  the hell with allowing them to do what they wanted.... If Isreal quit the table talk, and did what they do best, guess what folks?  No more guns would be coming out of Syria...... ever........again.  Lebanon would be really quiet about right now, cause they don't want to piss off the country that made Iran AND Iraq into a sheet of glass for the next 10,000 years.  And the combustible engine, which has been outdated for the past 40 YEARS will finally die, and we will start living off the natural resources of fuel and energy available to us.

Interesting point here: an engineer in the United States made an engine that ran entirely off water, breaking down and using the Hydrogen as energy, with a byproduct of Oxygen.  It even used silicone as lubricant, not oil.  This engine was first introduced to the Patent's office in 1975.  To this day, it has never been approved for patenting in the United States.  (another interesting sidenote, it was approved for pantent in canada, and this is where the US military gets the engine from, to power their new and improved desert hum-v's.)



Now getting back to the topic at hand... I agree with several statements throughout this menagerie of posts, statements, and cutting remarks, as well as disagree with quite a few of them, also. I'm not going to fingerpoint.  No reason for it.  As for the original post, and the responses received, I'm not impressed, folks.  If the United State's foreign policy is in question, then someone needs to sit down with congress, tell them to open their eyes, and quit trying to blow smoke up the president's ass.  Contrary to popular opinion, folks... the president is a spokesperson, nothing more.  Sure, he can make decisions that will affect the likes of you and me for a very long time... but he cannot dictate, and he needs the approval of congress before he wipes his own ass. (paraphrased, of course.)

I think I've babbled long enough... this should stir the pot a bit...

CC



CrappyDom -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 9:18:07 AM)

quote:

Interesting point here: an engineer in the United States made an engine that ran entirely off water, breaking down and using the Hydrogen as energy, with a byproduct of Oxygen.  It even used silicone as lubricant, not oil.  This engine was first introduced to the Patent's office in 1975.  To this day, it has never been approved for patenting in the United States.  (another interesting sidenote, it was approved for pantent in canada, and this is where the US military gets the engine from, to power their new and improved desert hum-v's.)


Uh I hate to break it to you but that is complete bs...



Dauric -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 9:30:39 AM)

Yeah, breaking down water takes more energy than you get out of recombining it. Laws of thermodynamics strike again. You'd be better off just running the engine straight from the batteries.

$0.02,

Dauric.



caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 9:36:37 AM)

Fair enough. [;)]

Iraq was an enemy we invented out of thin air. We should stop inventing enemies, and concentrate on those that show themselves to be clear enemies.

Iran is a country that supports groups that are willing to lob missiles on our friends, meaning Israel. We can debate this friendship until we are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that they are our friends and that is unlikely to change. The leadership in Iran has made their intentions towards our friend quite clear, as have the groups they support. Iran is also working on a nuclear program. We cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and must ensure that they stop supporting groups bent on the destruction of our friends. If this can be accomplished by peaceful means, that's the obvious choice ...but one way or the other, this needs to be accomplished before this escalates into a nuclear conflict between these two parties.

When I made the statement:
"In a few years, these groups will have access to nukes. We already have access to nukes. If we wait now, we will be doing this in a few years with nukes in the mix ... and a bunch of fucking "experts" will be saying things like, "We should have taken care of this problem back in 2006, and we could have saved millions of lives!"

... perhaps I should have said Israel already has nukes. The point I was making, is that we are already half way towards the unimaginable ... a nuclear conflict in the Middle East.

There is a list of "friendly" countries that have groups within their border that support terror groups. Part of the price of our friendship, perhaps needs to be more active removal of these supporters of terror groups. I do not believe "friends" like Saudi Arabia, are doing all they can to help solve this situation. If they want to be our friend, they should perhaps act like one.

There is a friend in the region that seems overly aggressive towards their neighbors. That friend is Israel. If we took the steps above, Israel could no longer take imperialistic actions and claim they were only defending themselves. If we removed the threat to Israel, we could then have an expectation that they would stop being a threat to others. As it stands now, we are doing nothing to stop these threats ... so we have no leg to stand on. Instead of removing the threat, we are inventing wars with imaginary enemies, and only making matters worse.

That's all for starters. I will leave you with a much paraphrased quote by Marcus Aurelius; "One of the difficult things about being a powerful empire, is that occasionally you are required to act like one."



CreoleCook -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 9:42:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom


Uh I hate to break it to you but that is complete bs...


uh, I hate to break it to you, but living and growing up in South Louisiana, South Mississippi, I happened to both view the engine in question, as well as the engineer who designed it, when he came to the University of New Orleans at the behest of both the science and engineering departments to give a speech and show the students the dynamics of said engineering feat.

CC



CreoleCook -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 9:45:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dauric

Yeah, breaking down water takes more energy than you get out of recombining it. Laws of thermodynamics strike again. You'd be better off just running the engine straight from the batteries.

$0.02,

Dauric.


now that I agree with, and cannot fault the logic, however it has happened, and shall continue to do so, until someone figures out how cold fusion works...

CC



NorthernGent -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 10:30:46 AM)

In response to the original post,

I think the sane minded among us will agree that the actions of our Governments are stirring up a hornets nest which could well turn out to be biting off a lot more than they/we can chew.

The title suggests this is the big picture (D4US, I have read the article so no need to point out where I'm talking shit, I'd be getting away with it if it wasn't for you as no-one else seems to be noticing!).

However, although it is certainly a topic worthy of discussion, this is not the big picture at all - it is merely a consequence of the societies we have created.

The real big picture is understanding how we have come to create societies that turn a blind eye to state terrorism and actively support it by electing these people. The big picture also includes an understanding on how our alternative parties also support these bombing campaigns - basically a vote for either of our two main parties is a vote for slaughter and business interests. What is it about our two societies that condone this and in the main couldn't give a flying one as long as we're alright?

Other areas to understand - is Bush really a change to US foreign policy or is he simply a continuation of the policies of a nation imbued with the principles of self-interest (ditto Blair). As a society, why do we want these people with their policies to govern us? How long has it been going on for and how long will it go on for if we don't do something about it? - this is the big picture that needs addressing through self-examination because we are the ones giving these people the platform to stir up the hornets nest. The answer is to look at ourselves, our life-styles, our values and understand what it is about such foreign policy that is appealing to us as a society. Once we understand there is the possibility we will remove the platform.

Regards



meatcleaver -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 10:36:13 AM)

The problem is that the people who have in the past offered Utopia have always been ten times worse and no doubt the next prophet offering Utopia will be the same. Dogma and ideology are the problems and Utopians usually have that in abundance.



NorthernGent -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/18/2006 10:53:40 AM)

You have a huge issue with ideology as you've mentioned it a couple of times to me on other threads.  I personally wouldn't get to caught up in the tag "ideology". The main thrust of my last post was surrounding values and if your values are predisposed towards internationalism, social justice and humanitarianism then these are the policies that a person will put in to practice if given the chance.


Regards



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875