What did they do for them?.:[CarelesS]:. wrote:
So True, ALL OF IT. All these damn Arab extremists and anti- americans, should be hit (not killed, just hit hard) america did so much for them and they throw it back at them by killing thousands in the 9/11 attacks, they even use the weapons america gave them to shoot americans. If i was in command i would just bomb them till there is peace.
Search
Search results: 6 found, showing up to 50
It seems that to be human nature to do so. But speaking in abstracts, isn´t the purpose of a nation/society to establish a safe environment to dwell and thrieve. By that I mean, that safety against other nations has to be established and maintained while on the inside laws and courts have to upkeep certain human rights. Thus it's aim is not necessarily to keep gaining control or resources.MephistoJade wrote:
Is gaining control of resources, and thus enriching itself, not the point of a nation?
Yes, indeed. It might seem kinda provocative but it seems that the "enemies" profit from the same conflict in the same way. What could be a better way of recruiting and corrupting new followers for a perversion of islam (or whatever current enemy) than western countries waging war on them. The damage caused by these movements and terrorist organisations gives reason to the people of those western countries to engage other conflicts and/or to pursue the course it is currently on. I refuse to believe there is actually a so-called clash of civilizations/cultures but if anything applies to that term than it´s exactely this phenomenon. As I believe the current western states to be the only party in this vicious cycle to be able to be reasonable and solve this conflict it is up to them to find a solution. I believe also that such a solution has to be made by refraining from war because that is what fuels the conflict in the first place.MephistoJade wrote:
Were the enemies at the time not useful against what we percieved (rightly or wrongly) as a greater threat?
I think that is a very interesing remark. I wonder what the "endgame" implies though. Looking at Empires you mentioned, their fall was IMHO mostly caused by their size. They usually kept exanding their territory and influence until its government and/or society became prone to corruption and either fell apart or were annihilate by their enemies.MephistoJade wrote:
The American way or the highway, again, seems to be the root goal of a nation, if looking at Statecraft, rather than what is publicly acceptable.
The PNAC, while repulsive to me personally, is probably the endgame that every state wants, but cannot achieve.
The French, Germans, British, Americans, Mongols, Romans, Greeks, Persians, and so on have tried it. So far, none have enjoyed success. The US likely will have the same result- wonder who'll be next? Personally, it appears to be China's turn.
Most people see history as something that lies in the past not realizing that current events are part of it. The latest events lead me to the question whether the US is about to reach the final stage of this endgame and if so whether it can be reverted. I think that it´s not too late, though. I also agree that China seems to be next in queue eventhough I think they might not even have started to expand (in whatever way) far enough to collapse again.
Just my two cents.
I don't believe a french or german or other european general would have dared to write such a shallow inanity.sfg-Ice__ wrote:
So a Marine explains the anguish and torment he feels about his job and some non-americans automatically start bashing. If this guy was French or german I wonder what the responce would be?
Well, for some reasons you believe that the whole world is against everything asscoiated with the US. Often arguing that you are hated because you are envied or stuff like that. There may be a lot of places in the world that are less unfortunate but then again there are many that are content and do not lack anything. I would really suggest you stop assuming that everyone just plain and simple hates the US but instead has certain concerns and reasons to call your country's doing and attitude into question.sfg-Ice__ wrote:
GD people or so nationism or what ever the nation version of racism is. Automattically assuming everything associated with a nation is the same thinking that drove Hitler to try to stamp out the entire jewish population. But, nevermind, thats ok.
No clue what GD is supposed to mean, but the word you are looking for is nationalism I guess? Speaking of which, the US nowadays has become quite nationalistic. So nationalistic even that it starts to be scary. I don't get what you mean by "Automatically assuming everytihng...." neither. But speaking of comparison to the Third Reich (and every comparison to that shouldn't be drawn on a whimp) the US has become quite similar in some aspects. There is a lot of nationalism. There's also a lot of Fanatism about the righteousness of your own doing, while trying to impose or even force your "values" upon others and not questioning your own motives. This is the fundaments of fascism. And how history taught us over and over before the danger lies in people not realizing the impact of these circumstances until it is too late. I think that there are certain lessons from mistakes learned, that the US didn't commit yet. Unfortunately I believe you are about to learn that very soon.
The US is doing what YOU think that needs to be done. And the reason why the US went into Iraq was not to free the people there, which btw are far from free either. The lack of power there caused a huge gap, that is prone to be filled by islamic fundamentalists and other lunatics. And that was very predictable.sfg-Ice__ wrote:
The US is doing something that needed to be done. For whatever reasons, the people in IRaq are now free. The horror you see on TV is nothing like the way it was under sadam.
Where was the US in Somalia or in Kongo/Ruanda? First it helps the respective dictators to power which eventually results in them taking over the country as warlords or causing a civil war. After the US received a UN-mandate and sustained some unfortunate losses they back out again. A lot could have done to prevent the genocide and ethnic cleansing but unfortunately there weren't any ressources you were interested in. The losses (and profits) in Iraq on the US side on the other hand have been far greater.
I admire the will of people putting their lifes at stake for what they believe is to be a just cause. I just wished these good people wouldn´t be sent to a war that is far from this cause.
Indeed the US media is spoon-feeding all the war propaganda and some people here seem to be a perfect example of what fruit that yields. Why do you assume that "just now Televison is now allowed to go wherever they want"? The US had a close eye on the "war correspondents" only allowing to be shown what was in favor of the government. The more critical reporters simply got removed from Iraq or denied protection. What you could see on american TV was rather a commercial for the military than objective news. In general it seems that when comparing the media in other countries to the one in the states, almost no relevant information is broadcasted in the US and every bit of information is delievered as if it was directed to imbeciles. I refuse to believe the people in your country are more or less stupid than in other countries, but I believe that you have a big problem of who and what is controlling the media (see Italy or Russia).sfg-Ice__ wrote:
ITs just now Televison is now allowed to go where ever they want. If you want to be spoon fed information from your media please do...when your ready to start understanding what is really going on without all the damn left or right wing versions giving differant spins on crap....then you can start to see th big flick.
I have to agree though, that this left/right wing polarization in the US is quite annoying. The political system there seems pretty much deadlocked to me.
First of all, i would ask you to refrain of calling me peacenik. I don´t like this type of polemiks. Trying to weaken the content of what i express by applying a dismissive label to me doesn´t really show much sign of maturity. I guess that points out why it is mostly impossible to have a decent argument with such fanatics. To the likes of you favouring peace seems to be a sign of weakness nowadays. I think it´s just human rationale. But ethics seems to be the first victim when justifing violence. Why is it so hard for you to reflect about this topic like a half-way educated human being? I´ve been many times to the US and met a lot of nice and decent people. That´s why I have trouble understanding the amount of such immature posts by US-americans.Darth_Fleder wrote:
Over and over, the simple truth has to be explained to you peaceniks. This war in Iraq was not done on a whim or a moments notice. It was preceded by TWELVE years of diplomacy.
So, concerning your simple (and probably overly convenient) truth that you keep explaining to those peaceniks over and over again: Where is your explanation?
The first conflicts had nothing to do with this one. It´s a different context. And FYI, this war was based on mere lies. Where are those weapons of massdestructions that you claim to have proof of? What did Iraq have to do with terrorists or even 911? Those islamic fundamentalists were even unwelcome by Saddam because they wree a threat to his position of power. I know you don´t have any arguments to counter that but will most likely make use of polemiks again and twist my words around by splitting hair or simply insulting me again (You are thinking about it, don't you?). I know the truth hurts.
What part of my opinion was it that you call uninformed again? And where is that lack of understanding of history and humand nature? It seems you are talking rather about yourself than me. Instead of coming aobut with arguments of your own to counter what I said you start to insult me. I take this as a sign that you ran out of those arguments (if you had any to start with). And as fas as my opions being strictly basd on feelings I have to say, that (a) it never hurt to show some signs of compassion and (b) I came up with arguments based on reason and thus don´t seem the accuracy of your claim. Talking of feelings: You haven´t reread your post of being reflecting about YOUR anger that you are expressing here, have you? Talking of reflecting: Isn´t it easy for you to sit back behind your computer and offer your immature opions based strictly on hatred?Darth_Fleder wrote:
It takes more guts to offer up silly or uninformed opinions because they illustrate your lack of understanding of history and human nature. What's easy is to sit back behind your computer and offer up an immature opinions based strictly upon feelings.
lol? I did not mention Bush once. Putting word´s in someones mouth is another proof why it is futile arguing with you. This having been my first post here seems to be surely a weighty argument of yours as well. Is that some sort of "I was first!"-cases?Darth_Fleder wrote:
Isn't this exactly what you are doing when launch into your anit-Bush diatribes and in your first post in this topic?Phalphalak wrote:
So why bother to differentiate and deal with the complexity of a conflict when you can plain and simply unload your hate onto some stereotype villain and even feel good doing so?
I agree, freedom is not free. But IMHO the greatest danger to freedom is bigottry and biased opinions being carried in the mind of people who only want to hear and see what they want because it is most convenient. I wish every problem could be solved by easy means. War is surely the easiest but also cruelest. Latter should make one think twice whether it´s really worth sacrifising young soldiers and innocents lifes - especially because violence tents to no solve the problem but make it worse.
I truely respect the will to fight in order to defend freedom but that doesn´t imply the existance of such a fight that will actually achieve this goal. Also, some people don´t want to see there are other means of fighting than brute force. Sometimes it even seems to take more guts to express aloud your opinon around the type people who would agree with the former letter (fake or not).
We know that war makes rattling good history, while peace is poor reading. So why bother to differentiate and deal with the complexity of a conflict when you can plain and simply unload your hate onto some stereotype villain and even feel good doing so?
I truely respect the will to fight in order to defend freedom but that doesn´t imply the existance of such a fight that will actually achieve this goal. Also, some people don´t want to see there are other means of fighting than brute force. Sometimes it even seems to take more guts to express aloud your opinon around the type people who would agree with the former letter (fake or not).
We know that war makes rattling good history, while peace is poor reading. So why bother to differentiate and deal with the complexity of a conflict when you can plain and simply unload your hate onto some stereotype villain and even feel good doing so?
I am sorry for having read this.
I am sorry for this General being a polemic, uneducated and impudent moron.
I am sorry for this General being a polemic, uneducated and impudent moron.