Poll: What do you think about the "war on terror"

How do all you guys feel about this "war" we are having? Personally I think it's dumb, and completely unfounded.

The REAL war on terror (which we are not waging) is needed. What Bush is doing is stupid. It was HIS intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.

The Afghanistan action is an important part of REALLY doing something about terrorism, and as such, I support it. Iraq on the other hand is about enriching the rich and making Daddy Bush feel better. That is a total red herring for the real war on terror.

Amen.

exactly what AJ said, with the only exception being that by putting all the pressure on bush junior, a whole slew of other people get to walk away blame-free which isn't necessarily right.� it takes two to tango, and there's a whole lot of dancing going on in that white house.

we can't necessarily blame him personally for failures leading to the airplane hijacking - there's a whole lotta people involved in that -�but he does make an easy target being one of the most hilariously illiterate figureheads to occupy the throne.� we've fallen far from days of the eloquent speech-writing of abraham lincoln.

what still cracks me up is the fact that we were "combing the desert" (we ain't found siht!) in iraq desperately trying to find some sign of a weapon of mass destruction, all the while north korea was tugging on our dress saying "umm, hi.� we have that stuff ya'll hate.� play with us?" and we're swatting our hand at them saying "not now!"

bloody hilarious.

i sure as hell didn't vote for himthe first time and i'm not going to the second.� not unless the alternative is so horrendously worse that there isn't any choice.

i need to get back to my constitutional studies once again.� something about when the government fails the people it serves, it must be replaced.� muahahah

�-= george =-

Indeed, Rummy and Cheny, and Condi et al are acutally probably MORE to blame than Bushie, but the thing is that he is the President, and the buck stops there. He is responsible ultimately, for all the things that his handlers aides do.

The Afghanistan action is an important part of REALLY doing something about terrorism, and as such, I support it

Have you seen the current state of affairs there? They honestly would have been better off with the Taliban. The "Northern Alliance" (of warlords) controls the country with an iron fist now. One of the only major changes about daily life in the country is a virtual lack of punishment for men who rape women. Women still wear burkas for fear that vigilantes will kill them, the warlords are in constant dispute, and most of the higher-ups still hate each other.

Of course. Did you think that was going to go away? But now they have a pro-western goverment that no longer supports Al Qaida, so yeah, it is much better. And they ARE drafting a constitution and having elections despite all the problems. Yep. Much better.

Oh, and now we have some troops on the ground there so we can make sure there are no more terror training camps that operate with impugnity. VERY much better.

Yes, but that's a result of our nation building crap.

I had few problems with going after the Taliban (other than the fact that it should have been an officially declared war by Congress) or anyone else who actively harbors and gives safe haven to al Qaeda.

Our war on terror should consist of rooting out the leadership and key cells of al Qaeda and if they exist in countries which are actively harboring them, and refuse to give them up or do something about it themselves, then we should declare a state of war exists and go in and do it ourselves and then LEAVE.

Nation building is just bullshit.

Nation building is just bullshit.

Sure is, unless of course, someone else is planning on doing it for you. Like say, if we hadn't done the whole nation building thing with the marshall plan and say, the soviets had decided that it was a good idea to pick up our slack. (which they would have) Then we could have crawled back into our isolationist hole and for a period before, of course, we'd have to deal with the new soviet states of western europe ...

And afghanistan and iraq, we certainly could just leave them and I am sure pakistan and iran would definitely help them pick up the pieces after we leave. Because goodness knows they'd be good enough to stay out of a weak neighbor and just "help them out". Or better yet, just let Iraq degenerate into a civil war when the south decides that it would rather be with people more like itself (iran) and the north decides that an independent kurdistan would be a good idea and man, that would go over great with the turks. Or maybe if we're lucky it will just go slide into a system of feudal warlords like afghanistan.

Of course, I think you'd agree that we wouldn't be in the stupid nation building exercise we're in now if we had stayed out of Iraq since they didn't support Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with Osama and 9/11.

9/11 is all Bush's fault?? What about the two times that Clinton could have gotten Bin Laden but chose not to act? It ain't just this administration that is responsible. Clinton allowed our military and intelligence to atrophy.

Read Al Franken's book. Clinton MODERNIZED our military and had a detailed plan to go after Bin Laden in place which he HANDED to the Bush adminstration. They chose to do nothing about it, thereby allowing 9/11 to happen.

*LOL* Al Franken?!?! You expect AL FRANKEN to be unbiased and a reliable source of factual information?!?!

*falls on the floor laughing*

I expect him to be more reliable and unbiased than you are, that's for sure.

His book is just about that. It has to be carefully researched and corrroborated, or it isn't funny, so yes I believe him. He offers names and dates and sources and proof for all the things he says, and shows how badly the Bush adminstration is lying.

Really? I have a book about all the terrorist related activities prior to June 2001 and many happened during Clinton's administration. (the book's publication was before 9-11) but then since it's a government book (i think) then it shouldn't be believed?

I went to a security meeting two weeks ago and they gave the books out.

Last I checked, Clinton sent a couple of cruise missles Bin Laden's direction. Unfortunately, they didn't hit the Bush administration. And they missed Bin Laden too.

Yes he did. That approach didn't work, which is why he set up a whole plan to capture or kill Bin Laden, but it was ready too late in his administration, so he gave it to Bush, who sat on it.

He launched those cruise missiles to divert attention away from the growing Lewinski scandal. He KNEW that Bin Laden was not there, neither was he in the Afghan camps. Blowing up an asprin factory and one old training camp is not exactly "going after" Bin Laden.

There was one point that Sudan was going to hand Bin Laden over, but Clinton sat on it.

of course, we could always just go back to the idiotic support of radical islamic fundimentalists by our buddy ronald in 80s after the soviet invasion of afghanistan, just like their support of saddam against the iranians ...

Clinton allowed our military and intelligence to atrophy.

I can see why you might be unhappy about the intelligence thing, but I am curious about the military part of this statement. Does it really bother you if (and I say if) clinton let the military atrophy? What would be the purpose of a gigantic military if we weren't doing all these stupid nation building exercises or sticking our noses in other countries where it doesn't belong? If we weren't doing that, would we really need such a large military? And really, what use is the current military hardware we have against enemies that don't use conventional methods? are we going to be able to kill terrorists with cruise missles?

I guess I'm curious about your position since you seem decidedly isolationist and yet you're going to bash clinton about a perceived deterioration of military capability.

I guess I'm curious about your position since you seem decidedly isolationist and yet you're going to bash clinton about a perceived deterioration of military capability.

I'm not isolationist, I'm non-interventionist. I just brought up the fact that our military and intelligence capability eroded under Clinton, not Bush. Alot of people like to bash Bush and forget Clinton's short comings. Truth be told, I don't like either one, but to say that Clinton did not have an indirect hand in 9/11 happening is just wrong.

Now, shifting gears to Happy Starfox Land...

Do we need a military? Yes. Do we need a military capable of being deployed into 140 countries and at least three "hot" combat zones? Hell no. We need two things: A military capable of repelling any threat to our borders, and a trained, armed general citizenry that if our military fails to repell a threat and we get invaded and occupied, the price of such occupation would be very high.

We have nuclear capability. If any beligerent little upstart dictator started making threats or attacking our national interests, we should simply put a big ass bounty on their head payable to anyone, including said dictator's bodyguards.

In the current war on terror, we need intelligence forces and small, rapidly deployable special forces units. And issuing Letters of Marquee and Reprisal wouldn't hurt either.

I'm not isolationist, I just think we should stop sticking our nose in places that are none of our business.

Clinton did not let our military atrophy. Where do you get stuff like that? Who built the US military that help stop ethinic cleansing in Kosovo and toppled the Taliban, and very quickly conqured Iraq with minimal loss of life? It wasn't Bush, all of that military capability is part of CLINTON'S legacy.

Oh I dunno where I get stuff like that, maybe the government's own statistics on the frequency of seasoned high military leaders resigning or retiring under the Clinton administration. Studies showing the effect on moral and military readiness after such things as allowing women to be apart of infantry units. The GAOs own numbers showing while Clinton increased the deployment of our troops by 60%, he also cut funding by 35% and personell by 40%. While some of those cuts were probably necessary, most were not, especially when it lead to some troops living BELOW the poverty level, and a shortage of military equipment and parts forcing some units to canabalize parts to keep their units running.

Now, on the other hand, Bush isn't helping things either with having over 2/3rds of our forces deployed into active combat zones (Afghanistan and Iraq) which breaks the traditional model of having 1/3rd deployed while the other 2/3rds retrain and refit.

I can see I have opened a can of worms, and I love it.� Everybody should care about all of these things....I love you all...right now...

Politics poly=more than one, ticks= blood sucking vermin.

*twiddles thumbs*

*twiddles to keep gella company*

*joins in the twiddling*
*wanders back to lj*

Twiddles thumbs with Gella. If that is the best I can do, I'll take it. ;)

ooooooo.� we're having a 4-way twiddle.��w00t! for more FHDC pr0n.

I don't know about this...you know what they say about mixing politics and twiddling...

*is shocked*

*promptly joins in the twiddling*� :D

I suggest the mad cowboy disease awareness week
::ducks::

3,000 Iraqi civilian casualties, thats our intelligence estimation.� And we dare call them terrorists?� Utter bullshit.� Policemen of the world?� Try L.A.P.D of the world.

*twiddles thumbs louder in an effort not to respond*

Ok, while I oppose the Iraq war, I think you are out of line with that, and since Gella is so politely twiddling her thumbs, I'll take up a bit of the banner for her.

3000 Iraqi civillian casualties, and a lot more military ones. Yes, war is hell. On the other hand, it is NOT accurate to call that terrorism. Those civillians were not targeted. In fact a large effort was made not to hit them. That is not terrorism. It may not be right, but it isn't terrorism. Flying planes into the WTC and killing 3000 civilians... THAT is terrorism.

The flaw lies in connecting Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, and to WMD. It lies in wasting our time and resources in conquering a country that wasn't that much of a threat. It DOESN'T lie in the conduct of the Iraq war. If you had to be attacked by someone you should be so lucky as to be attacked by the US Military. They have fought arguably the world's cleanest war, and regardless of the rightness or wrongness of that war, they have done their best to achieve their objectives with the minimum loss of life. Far from trying to kill all the Iraqis, the US forces have tried to liberate them. George Bush is doing it for pride and financial gain, but you can't fault our millitary. It's not terrorism by a long shot.

I agree.

If we're going to do something completely wrong and idiotic... at least we're doing it well.

:P


And, while that was snarky ... I mean it. If we're going to be doing something we have no right to be doing, the least we can do is minimize casualties.

it's definitely not terrorism, but they could certainly do a better job of reporting it - the Iraqi civilian deaths have mostly gone unreported, while every single US soldier that dies makes the front page of every US newspaper.

of course, that's the fault of the news media, not the Bush administration (at least, I hope the administration isn't behind it - free press and all that)

The flaw lies in connecting Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, and to WMD. It lies in wasting our time and resources in conquering a country that wasn't that much of a threat.

definitely. the American people were misled into supporting what may or may not have been the right action for what were definitely the wrong reasons.

and I think the planners definitely underestimated what would be needed to complete the effort. at this point, we have to wonder if the cost outweighs the potential benefit, which will probably still not be fully realised for several years.

and I think the planners definitely underestimated what would be needed to complete the effort. at this point, we have to wonder if the cost outweighs the potential benefit, which will probably still not be fully realised for several years.

I think they just underestimated the reaction of the average Iraqi citizen to having their country invaded and occupied. I'm sure the vast majority of Iraqis are happy and thankful that we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And I'm also sure the vast majority of Iraqis probably want us to LEAVE now that we have.

it's not just these instances, but the way I see it, we are colonizing the world, destroying all who are not based on capitalism and turning them into complete clones of our own society, I think it is completely out of line.� Although I am a pacifist by heart, and wish not to involve myself in any conflict, sometimes I feel borderline sympathizing with Bin Ladin, if this is what we have become, what is worth defending, there, I said it.

what is worth defending? well, your freedom of speech that allows you to make statements like that, for one thing.

You imply that the US administration are terrorists...but you just said you were a terrorist sympathizer. By your own logic, you should be pleased as punch with your president!

What is not worth defending is our foreign policy that allows us to rule the globe with an iron fist.� Since WWII, we have been the self proclaimed police of the world, destroying all that does�not mimick our own culture.� However, I would like to apologize for certain aspects of my previous posts.� At the time that I wrote these statements, I was distraught concerning personal reasons and said things that did/do not neccessarily reflect my ideas, I am sorry for this, you may choose to accept or not accept my apology, either is understandable as what I said was completely uncalled for.� However, what IS terrorism, I would like everyone's input.� Is it attacking�wsith out declaration of war?��If so, we fit the profile.� If it is attacking civilians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should speak for themselves, 140,000,000 dead compared to 3,000 lost on 9/11.��Does one need 3 stars on his shoulder to wage war?��Is terrorism just a new form of guerilla warfare?� Or something more hanus, I would really love everyone's� opinion.

Um, I think you need to check your figures. There were not 140 million people killed by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. The population of those two cities was barely half a million. Best counts were 140,000 at Hiroshima (both immediate and long-term) and 70,000 at Nagasaki.

I've usually seen 80,000 for Nagasaki, but you are essentially correct. Oh and in reply to Nick, there are a lot of arguments for and against the atomic bombings. I happen to feel that they were wrong, but they were military attacks, not terror attacks. The purpose of them WAS primarily propagand, but the message wasn't "You are evil, so we are going to kill you all" it was "we CAN kill you all, so let's stop the killing now"

actually, if you read the reports at the time, the military assessment of invading the japenese mainland had put the number of US military dead at roughly 250k with up to a million casualities. this was the main reason given for dropping the bombs. that it would essentially give the japenese a very good reason to surrender vs. having to do an invasion.

Right. That is what I said, without mentioning the invasion argument, because I don't buy it. There was no need for an invasion. They had virtually no navy or air force left. They had a huge army and a huge population on a not so big island with no resources and no alies. A naval blockade would have ended the war with virtually no US casualties. Thing is, what it wouldn't have done is send a signal to the Soviets that The US, not Russia would be controling the post war situation in the pacific, and it wouldn't have ended the war so fast, giving the USSR longer to participate and allowing them to build on their claims. Dropping the bomb was a heavily political decision which was sold as a soley strategic one.

Buy it or not it, the argument made for dropping the bombs makes more sense than having a blockade, considering that japan is as big as california (not sure what would constitute a big island in the world of aj.. australia perhaps? putting aside the fact that japan is a set of islands). now, how exactly did you plan on doing this blockade? i am sure it wouldn't take too much effort to show that we didn't have the naval power to enforce such a thing and even if we did, i'm sure that the monitary cost of having such an operation would be incredible, not to mention the stress on the soliders out there whom would have to enforce it probably indefinitely because the emperor wasn't just about to surrender.

but assuming that we did, how long do you think we should have waited in a defacto state of war before we actually went into the mainland? oh wait, the war would just have ended because there was a blockade, silly me. no, even better, we could have just conventionally bombed the hell out of the country, cause that certainly would have incurred less deaths and was oh so effective in bringing the british to their knees. or we could have just left them alone, while blockading them, of course, and waited until they developed the technology to genetically engineer godzilla and have them send him at us.. then what would be be able to do, nothing. Unless my history fails me, the russian navy had very little to do with the pacific campaign so I'm not really sure what claims you're talking about minus a couple of very small islands off the siberian coast (the russian-japanese war was fought pre-WW1).

Bill, they were already beaten. Their industry was in shambles, They don't have domestic sources of fuel. I doubt they could have continued to even feed themselves. It wouldn't have taken much bombing to keep them from rebuilding anything. In due course they would have had to capitulate or starve. Would the war have been longer, sure, and I can understand at the time how they would have seen a couple hundred thousand dead Japanese civilians as no big obstacle to ending the war, but in retrospect I think it was wrong. We should have paid the modest price (again, I don't believe invasion was necessary) and saved those people.

As for the Russians, they declared war against Japan only near the end of the war when Japan was clearly on the ropes. They were looking for whatever they could grab and wanted to be on the winning side. But the US wasn't about to split Asia the way they'd had to split Europe.

So, what you're saying is that it would have been better to starve the population into capitulation? In any light, I find pretty much all the alternatives pretty repugnant, the bombs, invasion of the mainland or a slow (and it would have been slow, esp. if you consider the devotion to the emperor .. enough to have people fly planes filled with explosives into ships) systematic starvation of the population into capitulation. I really think you underestimate what it would have really had taken to get the japenese to surrender, but whatever, you have your opinion, I have mine.

And the only way the russians could have had a split of asia (well, more than they already had) would have been to invade japan, which were we loathe to do or to invade china or the koreas (after first invading china of course) since the only places we only had a foothold were japan and the phillipeans (which were a us protectorate aka colony from the spanish american war). all of those would have been extremely difficult since we spent an awful lot of time and money arming them to resist the japanese.

now, if you're saying we bombed japan to avert a russian invasion of the japanese mainland, perhaps. of course, our navy was quite a bit more powerful than their's and we could have easilly detered them esp. since we had so many ships in the area that would blockade them. although it would have been hard since russia is awfully close to the northern most island. in any light, russia did grab some land they had lost in the russo-japanese war in 1904, some of which is still held in contention today (since we were good enough to give the land to the USSR in the treaty that ended WW2).

whoops, I meant 140,000

whoops, I meant 140,000

Ok, that idea seems a little bit extreme to me. There used to be a theory called the International Communist Conspiracy which was basically the same thing you said except done by Communists. From the viewpoint of today that notion seems very silly, but it was taken quite seriously in the 50s and 60s. Your accusation while containing kernals of truth draws the whole picture into a bit of a distorted paranoid fantasy. The bottom line is this: The moment you find yourself feeling anything even remotly like sympathy for Bin Laden and other kooks like him, it is time to really reasses your thinking, because no matter WHAT the US has done, this guy deserves NO sympathy whatsoever.

I certainly wouldn't give any of them my sympathy, but I think it would be irresponsible of us to not look at the bigger picture and figure out WHY they hate us so much that they're willing to send people in to blow themselves up.

there may be a valid point buried somewhere under all the radical hatred. and if they were communicating that point rationally, instead of murdering innocent people, I'm sure we'd listen, even if, in the end, we disagreed.

but to dismiss them out of hand is dangerous - just because they're terrorists doesn't mean they don't necessarily have a rational basis somewhere for their irrational actions.

> but to dismiss them out of hand is dangerous - just because
> they're terrorists doesn't mean they don't necessarily have a
> rational basis somewhere for their irrational actions.

ah, yes, the "kernel of truth".

We dismiss it out of hand when it comes from radical wingnuts in the guise of terrorism and hate, because, like, they're crazy, and besides we can't reward them for acting utterly outside the bounds of civilized dispute. But we -- Americans -- also dismiss it when it comes from rational parties and sovereign nations who disagree with or feel threatened by US behavior or policy, who would like to solve issues in a way that benefits parties including but not limited to us, and who pay at least lip service to Roberts' Rules of Order. This is what Americans do best - dismiss the rest of the world as irrelevant and anachronistic whenever it presents us with a point of view that does not put us and our interests at the center of the universe.

When we snub the UN that we were instrumental in creating and over which we exercise a disproportionate degree of power; when we ignore the values, concerns, and entreaties of our friends and neighbors and allies; when we treat our trade partners as annoyances whenever they try to make trade beneficial to the citizens of both countries involved instead of just maximizing our own private-corporation profits -- when we do all these things regularly, it is not at all surprising that other people and other political factions, who have no loyalty and no historic amiable relationship with us, might observe all of the above and say "the US respects only two things: money and firepower. So that's what we need to use to get them to acknowledge that a) we exist and b) we don't like what they're doing and we think they ought to knock it off, for their own good as well as for ours."

Not that it works -- bin Laden and his ilk are delusional if they think they've earned sympathy for their positions among Americans or other westerners through their actions. But over the course of the past 50 years or so it seems hardly *less* effective a method of getting our attention or cooperation than the more accepted diplomatic channels.

So the real question would be, when are we going to quit the macho imperialist posturing and acknowledge that this little spherical playground of ours has some people in it who aren't Americans, who have no desire to be Americans, but who -- by grace of their humanity, not their nationality -- have just as much a right to their vision of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as we have to ours? When are we going to realize that our "freedom" stops where its encroachment on their freedom begins -- that robbery, rape, pillage, absconding with national resources and heritages, and installing, propping up or deposing assorted benign or vicious governments is not a defensible method of maintaining or enhancing our own standard of living and cultural comfort zone -- or even of safeguarding that "freedom"? Like, dude, maybe it isn't really just our playground. And maybe they also want some "freedom" -- from us and our global machinations.

Maybe that's what both the radical nutbars who seethe with violent hatred toward us, and the rational people and governments who dearly want to be friends with us, but who find it almost impossible to get us to stop admiring our reflection in their mirror long enough to be aware of their own presence, would like to bang through our thick heads.

*concentrates hard on thumb-twiddling*

There is so much crap in here that I take issue with and I don't even think of myself as a big america supporter.

But hey, for the sake of argument I'll agree with most of what you got here..

what we should immediately do is start making trade deals where other countries benefit more than we do.. like say china where we have a gigantic trade deficit. or europe where again, we have a large trade deficit or perhaps the 3rd world.. where we may or may not have a large trade deficit. but hey, exporting our wealth is really not in the best interests of these countries because desperate poverty isn't really a factor in terrorism at all, its really more because of our dirty country attempting to force the world to be more like us.

really, ideally, we should lower trade traffifs on countries that if we held up trade barriers wouldn't have any access to our market. after that, what we we should do is *not* have any provisions for unionisation or the environment because really those countries should be free from us imposing our incredible vanity; our attempting to push these "freedoms" on them. i mean, who would honestly want our work place regulations?

i agree with you about not intervening in other people's countries. i mean, even though the majority of the world is being crushed under the boot of brutal dictators or awful corrupt "popularly elected" governments, i say let them be free to enjoy their vision of life, liberty and persuit of happiness. at the same time, I think that we should probably close our borders as well, since we wouldn't want to possibly corrupt their vision of life, liberty and persuit of happiness with our own. nor should ever dare attempt to export such freedoms to other countries, as such, i think we should immediately appologize for the setting up of the governments in germany and japan and every other country that has ever been influenced by our incredibly vain attempt to share the ideals that we hold so dear.

while, i'd love to agree with you on bin ladin, i'm afraid he wasn't looking for sympathy in the united states. what he was and is looking for is a clash between the western and muslim worlds. and i seriously doubt that no matter how its presented on the diplomatic stage, nobody in the west is going to willingly subject themselves to strict islamic law or really honestly entertain that even if it were brought up in a less hostile manner. unless of course, you have no issues with women being stoned to death for having children out of wedlock (or lesser crimes against humanity).

i agree with you about not intervening in other people's countries. i mean, even though the majority of the world is being crushed under the boot of brutal dictators or awful corrupt "popularly elected" governments, i say let them be free to enjoy their vision of life, liberty and persuit of happiness. at the same time, I think that we should probably close our borders as well, since we wouldn't want to possibly corrupt their vision of life, liberty and persuit of happiness with our own. nor should ever dare attempt to export such freedoms to other countries, as such, i think we should immediately appologize for the setting up of the governments in germany and japan and every other country that has ever been influenced by our incredibly vain attempt to share the ideals that we hold so dear.

Actually, we would do better to spread our ideals by embracing full free market capitalism. We didn't beat the Soviets so much by outspending them, but by putting a McDonald's in Moscow. :)

Actually, we would do better to spread our ideals by embracing full free market capitalism. We didn't beat the Soviets so much by outspending them, but by putting a McDonald's in Moscow. :)

oh i know a lot of people that would beg to differ with you on that one.. perhaps if i have the time (and still have the book) i could dig out a pretty funny bloom county cartoon about the whole mcdonalds in moscow thing...

but hey, i guess if capitalism helps get the commies out of china, maybe we ought to change our posture with respect to cuba. in other news, i also heard that it is amazingly great at getting rid of athletes foot.

Big old *HUH?* here.

You seem to view trade as a zero-sum game -- screw or be screwed, get the biggest share of the pie because it's a finite pie and there's not enough to go around. In genuine fair trade -- not simply "free trade" -- all parties benefit. Including workers. But US business, and as a consequence US trade policy and regulations, have long been hostile to fair trade.

We're nobly concerned about the environment, and worker rights, and that's the reason we uphold trade barriers? Yeah right. Tell that to all the nations who expected us to agree to the Kyoto Accords. Tell it to the folks who live in the backyard of our domestic refineries. Tell it to US workers at Wal-Mart, or in the Northern Marianas, or to Mexicans who earn next to nothing in US-based maquiladoras under NAFTA.

As for brutal dictators, if we opposed them all with equal diligence I'd make no argument. But usually we like to make friends with them, and prop them up to keep their citizens under control so we can go on merrily doing whatever it is we want. It's only when they don't want to dance to our tune that we decide they have to go.

As for corrupt "popularly elected" governments, pot meet kettle. Much of the world is still laughing over election 2000 here. I don't think we have much moral authority to quibble with election irregularities elsewhere when we inadvertently(?) disenfranchise huge blocs of voters in key districts, are not motivated to figure out a way to re-enfranchise them, so instead rely on a provision that allows the popular vote of 9 people to override that of 80 million plus.

Closing the borders would be ludicrous. As if we want to rival North Korea in isolationism and restricting the exchange of ideas. But engaging with the world does not equate to dominating it. International dialog should be a free exchange of ideas among parties who respect each other as equals, not one based on force or undue influence. Ours is usually force-based -- economic, political, or military force -- and offered with a honkin' big superiority complex.

As for bin Laden, a) we trained him -- another of our alliances of convenience with a pathological, extremist, totalitarian personality. b) I honestly don't know what his motivation is, or was originally. I don't know if he wants an archetypal showdown between Islam and the west, with an eye to replacing western democracies with Islamic states or not, but I somehow never thought to paint this in such Cold War, "we will bury you" terms. I *am* however fairly certain we pissed the hell out of him by stationing troops in the holiest sites of, and interfering in the political affairs of, an Islamic state -- Saudi Arabia. And you're right, there's no chance of diplomacy with him, because he recognizes none of what we consider "war conventions". But how about a few million other Saudis who bitterly resent the House of Saud's control over their country, and its seemingly cozy and mutually-backscratching relationship with us? Don't their resentments count for shit either?

Finally, while few of us in the west want to subject ourselves to the strict Sharia you claim bin Laden wants to export to western, non-Islamic-majority democracies by means of Al Qaeda cells, I would point out that a bunch of Muslim clerics passing a stoning sentence (which was lifted) on Amina Lawal for bearing a child out of wedlock is no more or less barbaric than a jury of his peers sentencing John Allen Muhammad to death in VA, with a teenager in his care (and possibly subject to his indoctrination) looking likely to face the same. And the rest of the western world is in pretty much unanimous agreement on that point. Our taste for legalized capital punishment and scorn for rehabilitation ranks right up there with those fundamentalist Islamic states whose Koran-based legal code permits a death sentence, as does our current Prez's personal zeal. So you could say that in that area we were with the jihad from the beginning, and continue to vote our own mullahs into office.

Woah woah woah. Hang on. There is nobody that I know of more rabidly anti-death penalty than me. BUT, how can you possibly equate a death sentence for the "crime" of bearing a child out of wedlock, with one for multiple aggrivated murder and terrorism?

It is wrong, in my opinion, to execute Muhammad, but it is a heck of a lot MORE wrong to stone an innocent woman to death. Those are NOT equal. When they kill Muhammad, I'm not so much going to be all that sad that he's dead, as that we will hove lowered ourselves to such a barbaric level once again.

exactly.

I'm pretty firmly anti-death penalty myself, but at least the crimes that can carry death are the worst there are. The system's plenty screwed up, and even if it worked, it would still be something to be done away with, but execution for killing someone (or more often, multiple someones) at least makes some amount of sense. It might not be right, but it's not even close to the same thing as a slow, brutal, death for getting pregnant.

That kind of statement was (is) my big problem with a lot of the big anti-war groups (ANSWER especially). Their basic tenant; "we have problems with this war" I tended to agree with, but then someone would give a speech and would make some statement or comparison that was at least bordering on insane. There were (are) pretty good points on both the anti- and pro-war sides, but they both got drowned out in completely over the top rhetoric by the leaders/loudest voices who just seemed to ignore obvious facts and much stronger arguments in favor of what would make the best sound-bite.

Personally, I think the bush administration went about the lead-up to the war horribly, and I have a hard time believing that they were doing it for humanitarian reasons, but there were and are humanitarian reasons and benefits to getting Saddam out of power. It was awful over there, and I don't think anyone can really deny that. I'm still not convinced that the U.S. went about things the right way, but things happened the way they did. If the war was right or wrong can still be debated, but it's happened, and that's academic at this point. If the war was good or bad on the other hand, is still being decided. I don't think that will really be determinable until we see what Iraq is like years down the line.



Ok. I didn't quite mean to put my entire response to this thread in one post, but I think associatively, what can I say? ;-)

well, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

let me illustrate this for you.

a. you can have trade and then force our worker's regulations on the nations that we're trading with.

which *gasp* forces another soverign nation to pick up those extremely vain "freedom" ideals that we seem so willing to force on other nations.

b. you can have trade with another nation and have them either do it or not do it, and not force it on them. and not force our morals, our rules on them.

but you can't have both.

either we're going to force these things on them or we're not. now whether or not we're doing it to benefit big corporations aside, you went through this long winded rant about how we keep stuffing down other countries throats our vision of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, but i guess you only bemoan that when it doesn't fit into your little world view of how things should be run.

and i never said once that trade was a zero-sum game. but to think that free trade, even if it does have a great potential to exploit the populations its supposed to help hasn't actually helped the nations (like mexico and canada int the case of NAFTA) than you're living in a complete fantasy land. the gdp of mexico alone has increased 5x since NAFTA and while there are disasterous effects on the mexican population (oh and note that there is NOTHING stopping mexico from enacting labor laws or more stringent environmental regulations) to think that they'd have better jobs without the incentive of moving ameican capital south of the border (or north) is utter bullshit. but having just spent a fairly long time talking to a real, live, mexican about the effects of nafta and the good an the bad, his general opinion was that it was overall quite good, i guess i'm slightly more inclined to not think completely ill of the deal, even if i believe it should be modified rather radically to incorporate such standards (since I have no problems pushing american ideals to other countries, esp. the good ones that have been hard fought and won). not only that, but if NAFTA was extremely awful to mexico, I am quite sure, being the democratic nation that it is, it would find a way of pulling out. but i guess the government of mexico isn't capable of making that decision for itself?

as for the election of 2000, call me when your oppression reaches that of say, what you'd feel under the taliban. until that point, while our processes may suck and fail on occasion they're still a far cry from being carried off in the middle of the night. its also a far cry from having a civil war every time there is an election dispute.

as far as closing the borders being compared to north korean isolationism, i'll let you have that one since i haven't a clue where you were going with that. my point was that if we brought people here, we'd most certainly corrupt them with our evil (our vision of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness) so maybe it would be better to spare them that kind of coersion.

as far as dialog goes, it should be conducted with equals. unfortunately, this isn't communism and there are haves and have nots. whether by hook or by crook or by the sheer fact that we have this and they don't, there are people who have things and those whom don't. you come and talk to me about equals when the EU ponies up 50% of the troops in peace keeping actions for the UN or 50% of the monies involved in running the UN. heck when they pony up half the troops used in their own defense. besides that, without leverage nothing would change. do you honestly think that the woman wasn't stoned because the nigerian islamic court decided to have a change of heart? no, it was because there was a lot of pressure from the US and the EU and to be honest, it really doesn't do well to piss off people whom can benefit you economically. but hey, thats just wrong, throwing our weight around like that. I know I hate our superiority complex when it concerns tossing our moral views on the laws of some other state, don't you?

As far as bin ladin is concerned, he wants the US not just out of saudi arabia (and I seriously doubt that prince sultan airforce base is in the "holiest site" of islam, unless of course, you consider the entire country of saudi arabia the "holiest site") but out of the entire middle east. As far as the saudis are concerned, they could alway do what we did when we didn't feel the current government was representing us and overthrow it. I assure you the house of Saud is not so large that it couldn't be taken down. Also, you dont' think the Saudis have a TON of leverage against our country, seeing as though its FLOATING on oil? If their government wanted our airforce base out of their country, it'd be gone yesterday. Also,if the government wants to consort with us and that is viewed as being wrong by a majority of their citizens, what exactly are we supposed to do about this? Their resentments count for whatever they're worth in their country, if they're not taken seriously what exactly are we supposed to do about it?

Making the equivalence of the stoning of a woman whom has a child out of wedlock to the deserved death penalty of serial murder and his accomplice is unbelievable. I'd attempt to dissect what could possibly bring you to such a conclusion, but..but... I mean on one hand you have someone make a life choice that doesn't fit with someone else's form of morality and on the other hand you have a SERIAL MURDERER and accomplice who killed at random, without remorse, placing an entire city area in the grips of terror. I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, uh huh. And because the overwhelming majority of americans support the dealth penalty we're the same as islamic fundimentalist states whom support say the beating of women whom go out without a full head-dress.. or better yet, has the audacity to teach them how to read! Yes, I have been enlightened... unbelievable. seriously. and i thought i was left.

> well, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Like, hi. I'm not trying to. I'm trying to say we might take care of properly baking our own cake before we go about quarrelling with everyone else because theirs isn't enough like what ours would be in our ideal fantasies.

> you went through this long winded rant about how we keep stuffing down other countries throats our vision of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, but i guess you only bemoan that when it doesn't fit into your little world view of how things should be run.

No, i bemoan that when we can't seem to consistently honor those ideals ourselves, but pay lip service to them whenever it suits our fancy.

> as for the election of 2000, call me when your oppression reaches that of say, what you'd feel under the taliban. until that point, while our processes may suck and fail on occasion they're still a far cry from being carried off in the middle of the night. its also a far cry from having a civil war every time there is an election dispute.

And it shouldn't have to reach that point before we stop smugly saying "but we're so much better, so you should act like us" and ... oh, I dunno. Maybe try to bake our own cake before telling everyone else how they should bake theirs.

> my point was that if we brought people here, we'd most certainly corrupt them with our evil (our vision of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness) so maybe it would be better to spare them that kind of coersion.

I never said anything anything about it being evil, or corrupting them. Your words, Bill. But just because we think our vision is good certainly doesn't mean that everyone else's is dreadful. And just because we think our "vision" is good ALSO doesn't mean that we've figured out how to implement it to such uniform high standards that we're the authorities who should be obeyed. Making suggestions is one thing. Issuing ultimatums is another altogether.

> as far as dialog goes, it should be conducted with equals. unfortunately, this isn't communism and there are haves and have nots. whether by hook or by crook or by the sheer fact that we have this and they don't, there are people who have things and those whom don't.

And that gives the haves license to boss around or control the have-nots on social issues, environmental issues, and sovereignty issues? I see.

> besides that, without leverage nothing would change.
> do you honestly think that the woman wasn't stoned because the nigerian
> islamic court decided to have a change of heart? no, it was because
> there was a lot of pressure from the US and the EU and to be honest,
> it really doesn't do well to piss off people whom can benefit you
> economically. but hey, thats just wrong, throwing our weight around
> like that. I know I hate our superiority complex when it concerns
> tossing our moral views on the laws of some other state, don't you?

Somehow I think *our* clout was greatly compromised in that issue by our own cloudy moral views on capital punishment. I think the EU and other non-executing nations, and the outcry from nongovernmental citizen groups such as Amnesty International, had a bit more to do with it. And since they make the outcry without prisoners' blood on their hands, at least they're stating their outrage without being hypocrites. But the Nigerians never acknowledged the unjustified brutality of the sentence -- simply procedural flaws in that particular case. Note that our death-row inmates are also given reprieves, or found to have been wrongly convicted. So if procedures can be flawed or unevenly applied, why should life or execution be as much a matter of luck as a prize raffle?

> Also, you dont' think the Saudis have a TON of leverage against our
> country, seeing as though its FLOATING on oil?

No one's making us buy it. Our "royalty" (Bush, Cheney, Exxon-Mobil, etc) have a deal with their royalty that subjugates the autonomy and integrity of both nations to private profit. Unlike Saudi citizens, American citizens *could* do something about it. Instead we accept our energy dependency and our reliance on finite sources as the price of "our way of life", which includes artificially *cheap* fuels.

> Making the equivalence of the stoning of a woman whom has a child out of wedlock to the deserved death penalty of serial murder and his accomplice is unbelievable.

Only if you think the death penalty is ever "deserved", especially for a legal minor such as the "accomplice" you refer to. That is, if you think it's ever justified to premeditatedly destroy something -- an individual's life and potential -- that does not belong to you, and which you have no power to restore should you have cause to reconsider your position or the evidence.

Let me make quite clear, since AJ and Talcott also objected, that I am revolted by the actions of both DC snipers. At the time of their spree I too was terrified -- terrorized, you could say. I travelled to the DC area several times last fall, and I have numerous friends in the area, so no I didn't take the situation lightly. So I don't want them out on any streets anywhere, and until/unless they show marked signs of rehabilitation I would not want them to have more than cursory contact with other prisoners. Nor am I trying to compare or equate gruesome methods of execution elsewhere with the more "sanitized" methods used in the US. (Sorry, "humane" and "civilized" seem an oxymoron when we're talking state-sanctioned revenge killing through, usually, injection of a paralytic drug -- not a painkiller -- followed by an excruciatingly painful substance that is not approved for use in animal euthanasia. http://www.fdp.dk/act/031112_inhumanedrugs.php)

In any case I simply don't think the means -- stoning or hanging or lethal injection -- mitigate or aggravate the end result. I see most things in shades of grey, but death is one of those rare things that is black or white: dead is dead is dead. And calculated, enforced death, whether committed by an individual or a state, is murder. We have no moral authority over Nigeria or any other death-penalty nation on this matter, because we reduce ourselves to the level of murderer -- of children, of the mentally handicapped, of those with poor legal representation, who may or may not be "innocent" -- with appalling regularity. So maybe I should have used as my example the Rosenbergs, or Karla Faye Tucker, or one of the mentally handicapped prisoners who has been executed within the past 5 years. I simply don't see much of a distinction between "not so bad" executions and "violation of human rights" executions. Neither does Amnesty International.

So you don't agree with me on any or all of these points? Fine, we disagree. I do concur that by American standards I'm very far to the left, and will openly criticize this country for what I perceive to be its shortcomings. And yes, because of various asides raised on this thread by both myself and others, some response points have gone pretty far afield of the original topic. That in no way makes my words illogical, a "rant", or even (as I have no doubt Ashcroft sees me) unAmerican. So I just don't fathom the repeated attacks you seem to feel obligated to couch your arguments in.


*shrugs and wanders off to do other things*

Like hi, since you seem to have completely ignored your own hyprocracy in saying that we shouldn't force our beliefs on other countries and then go right ahead and say that we should force our environmental and labor standards on them (i.e. be consistent in our application of forcing our beliefs on them), I don't know what else to debate on that topic. Then you go and endorce europeans being able to force their morality (in the form of not supporting capital punishment) on us. Its all so very odd. But hey, its friday. I even I'll completely ignore the fact that capital punishment and the prison systems are almost entirely state issues and not up to the federal government. la dee dah.

And that gives the haves license to boss around or control the have-nots on social issues, environmental issues, and sovereignty issues? I see.

And how else do you get entrenched dictators to change their ways? oh I know, you send them amensty international reports of their human rights abuses and hope that they'll get the memo. Please. You impose sanctions on them and hopefully the economic pressure will either "convince them" that they're in the wrong or destabilize their foothold such that a hopefully less repressive regime takes over. Or you put a mcdonalds in moscow, create enough commerce that it becomes very much not in their interest to piss off countries that they do a lot of business in/with. But hey, I guess its really wrong of the EU to attempt to make turkey change its laws to be more inline with there human rights provisions prior to considering their entry into the union. How silly to use their economic power (via the carrot and not the stick) to inact reform in that country. They should appologize immediately and let them join the club.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, perhaps some regimes have changed with the "you're a bad bad person" routine.

No one's making us buy it. Our "royalty" (Bush, Cheney, Exxon-Mobil, etc) have a deal with their royalty that subjugates the autonomy and integrity of both nations to private profit. Unlike Saudi citizens, American citizens *could* do something about it. Instead we accept our energy dependency and our reliance on finite sources as the price of "our way of life", which includes artificially *cheap* fuels.

EXACTLY. If you don't want to support our relationship with saudi arabia, don't buy saudi arabian fuel! In fact, lobby YOUR representitives (santorm the moron and specter) to have it labelled or to boycot them. Of course, you might find it quite difficult to find a regime that has oil that doesn't do something awful to its people, but by all means, you can vote with your pocketbook. Buy an hybrid, ride a bike, take public transit, put solar panels on your house. Nobody is forcing you to buy gas. Oh, and it isn't artificially cheap, its artificially expensive, unless of course, you believe that a cartel fixing prices makes things less expensive. But I suppose you're not talking about economics. Besides the fact that you completely sidestepped the issue with our air force base in saudi arabia, if they wanted it removed, it'd be gone. period. i'm still at a loss about the whole.. not using our economic power to make change since you seem to be advocating using it here...

I'm not even going to bother with the whole death penalty thing because really, the only thing the stoning of a mother vs a serial killer and accomplice (who because he was a "minor" couldn't possibly have had any conception that was he was doing was wrong) is that they involved capital punishment, in some form.

It lies in wasting our time and resources in conquering a country that wasn't that much of a threat.

i disagree here. Iraq under Saddam was most certainly a threat...to the Iraqi people, the region, and to all of us, really...regardless of whether or not they had weapons of mass destruction. The regime itself was a weapon of mass destruction...and they most certainly found lots of evidence on that.

One of my favourite writers once said "It is absolutely our place to export freedom...it is our responsibilty." It's true. Even if Iraq did get Americanized, which so many anti-war arguments seem to parrot...it wouldn't be the ideal thing to happen, but i would most certainly rather see a Wal-Mart standing in Iraq than one of Saddam's rape rooms or torture chambers with shredders and meathooks.

There is no question that Saddam was a threat to the Iraqi people (except those who prospered under him) but it is looking less and less like he was a threat to anyone else. Similarly the Bush administration is a threat to all Americans. Not so much a physical threat the way Saddam was in Iraq, but a moral and ethical threat. Believe me, we are moving closer and closer here to seizing people in the middle of the night and locking them up indefinitely.

There is no question that Iraq is better off now, regardless of how many lives were lost in the invasion. People who question that are stupid. But the ends don't always justifiy the means. Just because Iraq is better off now, doesn't mean we were right to invade them under false pretenses.

It is great that we saved them from Saddam, but they weren't asking for that, and I'm not clear at all that they are grateful. Mostly people have the responsibility to overthrow their own dictators. Some help may come from outside, but it shouldn't, as a rule, be done for them. It also certainly shouldn't be done soley as part of the plan by an immoral US administration to try to control the world, for the betterment of the people running that administration, which is what we have here. Yes, Wal Mart is better than the Iraqi secret police, but why is it an either/or choice? And why does our courntry suffer so in the eyes of the whole world if what we are doing is so right? Isn't the concept of right and wrong more or less determined by the general views of the majority of humanity?

Isn't the concept of right and wrong more or less determined by the general views of the majority of humanity?

Absolutely not.

That is all I will say.

*goes back to twiddling thumbs*

I have to second that. Right and wrong are not poll-sensitive.

*twiddling with renewed fervor*

I thought I'd hear from you on that. :) And actually, you are right, it isn't that simple. Sometimes there are more absolutist morals, but I guess what I'm arguing is that absolute morals actually come from consensus of some sort, (although that is just a theory).

I'm not trying to say that if everyone in the world decided tomorrow that genocide was good, then it would be. Clearly not. But what I'm saying is that right and wrong as we have learned them and as we evaluate them ourselves are fairly universal concepts. There are lots of specific exceptions and such, but there is a general consensus and I think that is causal, not just a reaction to some cosmic right that just IS. I'm a humanist, so I don't think these things come from a god or from outside. Morality, while not entirely relative or without an a priori basis, is still a human construct

Moral fundamentals are defined by the nature of the human organism, not by humans as some sort of majority agreed upon whim.

Then why are many Americans so morrally outraged by sex? ;)

You know, I have NO idea, and wonder that same thing myself. That's one thing, along with alcohol and, in the Netherlands, drugs, that Europe has got right.

because North America* was founded largely by christian religious fundamentalists from Europe.


:)

I say North America, but I think it's more so in the states than here.

Perhaps during the first Gulf War the Saddam regime was a threat, I believe it was ranked as 5th or 6th largest (not neccesarilly powerful) militaries in the world, but in the start of the latest Guld War, they served as more of a speedbumb,�not a threat to ourselves, they are only a threat to us now because we made the first aggressive move, and now we are paying in BLOOD!

You are missing Stacey's point. She's not saying he was a military threat of the type he was in 1991. She's saying that his regime was so awful that it was a threat to humankind. Almost a meta-threat if you will. They are not really a threat now. They are a nuisence. They kill off our soldiers here and there, and that is a tragedy for us, but they have absolutely no chance of regaining power unless we let them.

YES we are paying in blood, and it could get much worse. Anyone who didn't think that would happen doesn't think very clearly, or study history much. That is one of the reasons I wasn't in favor of the war in the first place. We don't have a good exit strategy or a good nation building strategy. It is probably going to be a horrible quagmire for us and now there's no way out. THAT we did all of this on false pretenses and that we are now stuck with the bill and the quagmire and the emnity of much of the world, these are the problems that keep me awake.

I'm frankly not worried about how badly we are "oppressing " the Iraqis. They ARE far better off now. There is no serious dispute about that. They are not the victims of our actions, WE are.

I have a question...

Where the hell is Jian during all this war stuff?� Does his PLAY contract forbid him to comment?� Does anyone else think it's weird that he seems to have nothing to say?

Jian NEVER has nothing to say. And yeah, I think a rant on CBC would get him fired pronto. The reason he hasn't said much is that he hasn't been playing, so he lacks his bully pulpit. He does write a column I think, so I'm sure he rants in that. Really the man needs a blog.

someone mail him a live journal code :)

I think a blog is a GREAT idea.

Just to clarify...

I would never expect Jian to comment on the war during an episode of Play, and I can see how that would be inappropriate.� But, I am surprised that he hasn't written a column or two in a newspaper.

Jian�has had progressive guests on Play, such as Michael Moore, and I am grateful for that because I believe that is his way of giving exposure to progressive viewpoints within the confines of his professional situation.

I do miss hearing what he has to say.

about politics is that the first politician who can eliminate the season called "summer" gets my vote!

3 more months of snow!!!!
:)

! Heritic!!!!!

*Kills Nate dead*

Blasphemer!

The Falcon Gods are enraged by Nate. Bloodshed surely shall result. :0

Noooooooooo!� I get enough snow here as it is...this year we had a snow day in April.� APRIL!!!

I agree with nate here.

And if they could find a VP who would promise to get rid of spring too, I'd dedicate my life to getting them elected :-D

You lobby to get rid of spring and I shall whallop you. You'd best not be taking away my only happy season. En garde!

Naw, see, I kinda like spring.
But if we could transition right from that into fall, it would rock.

oh yeah, I'm with you there. skip the 90F+ days coupled with saunalike humidity.

mayhap the Falcon Gods can be appeased with the promise of continued balmy spring thru late July.

Anything to avoid how it usually is at FRFF.

I still don't get why they haven't moved it to the fall... would be SO much nicer.

good point. And cheaper air fare to boot:)