rheanna
|
|
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on TortureJJGY
interesting interview, and noteworthy that he wouldn't outrightly deny or comment on techniques
suntzu3500
Do you really think the president is kept informed on techniques?
That's like a CEO of an electric company being kept informed on collections procedures and policies. moworks2
No truly religious man would condone murder, torture, and be responsible for the nightmare he's unleashed in iraq and on the iraqi people...never mind all the american lives and the gazillions of dollars he's flushed down the toilet... worst thing that's ever happened to america in my lifetime...what a despicable man... M Chalchihuitlicue
I've been wondering the very same things for a long time now. What scares me more than the fact that he made it into office was that, even after he did all these things, we re-elected him. moworks2
Hi, C. Actually the first time he was put into office by the supreme court after a ton of voter fraud and confusion found in his brother's home state of florida. The second time there were also massive instances of voter fraud and manipulation in ohio. this man has been a fraud from day one. It's amazing that the american public puts up with it. I don't get it. You can't trust the vote in america, the country that screams the loudest about freedom and justice and democracy. America, sadly, is no longer a democracy. It's run by the rich for the rich. The sad call to religion and god by these bastards is appalling. Another thing I don't get is why election day is still in the middle of the week. If politicians really want people to vote why don't they make it over a weekend say, saturday and sunday, so those who want to vote can? What, are they afraid too many people might be able to actually do it?... bush has singlehandedly destroyed any confidence countries around the world had in america, he has created several generations of people who will loathe americans and he is the cause of so much loss and so much suffering to americans, iraqi's, and what about Afghanistan?... bush and his administration have got to be the most incompetent band of murderers ever to run a country...oh, wait, they were smart in filling the pockets of bush's friends and family in the arms and oil business...hmmm M Soulfire
I guess I don't see what's so wrong with George Bush. If it takes torture (remember, we're torturing the terrorists responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people) to prevent the deaths of even more innocent people, why should we not do it? It would be inhumane to allow them to go freely without any sort of punishment.
Bikerman
It's an old and flawed picture of reality. 1) There is nothing inhumane about not torturing people. 2) Torture is widely recognised as a very poor method of gaining information. A subject under torture will inevitably try to tell the torturer what they want to hear. 3) The idea that torture is justified because it saves thousands of lives is a fallacy. There are no cases of this in real life that I am aware of. 4) Very often the people being tortured are either innocent or there is insufficient evidence for a normal trial. 5) The US should not do it because it is illegal, immoral, impractical, ineffective. It merely strengthens resistance to US hegemony and points up the hypocrisy central to the US claims to be acting in defence of democracy and in the cause of truth and freedom. It is also something the US has said it will not do. moworks2
It never ceases to amaze how bush supporters are willing to strut their ignorance before the entire world... Amazing how people who criticize terrorists for their behavior won't criticize george when he behaves just like them...oh yeah, i guess it's because he said he has christ as a mentor...i wonder if christ would ok torture?...i guess so according to george... I guess there's just no talking to people who have no compassion...but let's not ignore the roe v. wade sticker and the compassion that's supposed to signal... thanks chris for some lucidity...living this bush madness is truly a lesson for us all...i wonder if we're learning anything...sadly, i have my doubts... M Moonspider
I agree wholeheartedly on all counts. That is precisely why it is illegal under the U.S. military’s UCMJ.
I don't think there is any evidence of enough fraud to significantly skew the election results in Florida. As for the final outcome, as I recall (I may be wrong) the reason for it going to the Supreme Court is because that is what Democrats wanted. The only other option per the U.S. constitution is for it to go to a vote in the House of Representatives, which at the time would have been a guaranteed Bush victory. The legal system offered Gore a better chance of winning. Personally I would have allowed it to go to the House and politely lost if I’d been Gore for a number of reasons. One, it would have been better for the country than dragging it through that ridiculous drama. Two, that is what is suppose to happen per the constitution (although this Florida thing fell into sort of a grey area). Three, the judicial branch already has too much power IMHO, and that fiasco in 2000 made them appear more than equals to the executive and legislative branches of government. Finally, our country is far too litigious as it is and such behavior by national leaders perpetuates and encourages this. I tire of hearing people make claims of Bush "stealing" the election, of not being really elected because the majority of the Americans did not vote for him, etc. He legally won. End of story. And popular votes do not and will never decide the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. It wasn't even the closest election in U.S. history, certainly not the first time a man lost the popular vote and won the electoral. Heck, there was even one president (John Quincy Adams) who received the fewest popular votes and the fewest electoral and still became president! A brief history: 1824: Andrew Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes, but not enough electoral votes to secure the presidency. The election was tossed to the House of Representatives, who elected John Qunicy Adams, the candidate who came in second in both counts during the general election. 1876: I won’t even go into the details of this mess that directly led to institutional racism in the South up to the Civil Rights Movement! It made the 2000 controversy look like a dispute between 5-year old girls at a pretend tea party. (BTW, Rutherford B. Hayes won without receiving the majority of the popular vote.) 1888: Although he won the popular vote President Cleveland lost his reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison.
Yeah, people are much more likely to vote when they have to take time away from their families, hobbies, recreational activity, etc. rather than time off from work. 
People can vote whenever they want. Many people simply choose not to do so. If you don’t like going to the booth on a Tuesday, send it in the mail early.
That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, of course. However don’t assume that all foreigners share it even if the majority may do. Here is an article I read yesterday in the Arab News by Amir Taheri: What Pelosi Stands For
I’ll hold a séance and let some past incompetent and/or murderous rulers like Hitler, Nero, Pol Pott, Stalin, Commodus, Czar Nicholas II, and some others know that they’re out of the running.
Respectfully, M Bikerman
Hi Moonspider, the problem, of course, is that the political 'imperative' over-rides the military in many cases. In my opinion the military codes and 'norms' are often sensible and grounded in moral and practical terms. The problem with the current 'war on terror' is that the US has allowed the political administration to act against established codes of conduct and practice. I would never suggest that the political administration should not be 'superior' to the military establishment since that implies a militaristic society governed by force. I would, however, point out that when political leaders sanction actions which clearly contravene military codes and practices that there should be an accounting for such actions. Some argue that Rumsfeld has already been judged and held accountable for this in his resignation. I would argue that this is not the case and the guilt for the administration sanctioned torture that occurred, and is still occurring, lies at the top. moworks2
Hey moonspider, I think it's silly to argue about something seven years old. Besides, I'm no lawyer. Deny it if you want but the 2000 election was not a normal election. There were plenty reports afterward that many people in Florida were denied the right to vote, voters were confused about where to go to vote, what precinct, etc. This thanks to politicians and their lawyers trying to stymie voters they thought wouldn't vote in their favor. The same thing happened in Ohio in 2004. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote an excellent article about it for the Rolliing Stone. He also talked about how voting machines are not trustworthy, and the politicians know it. I guess it doesn't bother you that your vote means nothing. So what if you vote. It's who's doing the counting that's important. If you can't trust them then why vote? America, who is trying to champion democracy for the whole world has a voting system that is broken. I don't get where your values are. You live in a country according to laws. You vote for these basic rights. Don't you think this is important? Instead of playing video games with johnny and sally or taking them to Burger King for whoppers on the weekend, why not show them what it means to vote? Why not introduce them to a system you defend and live by? Isn't that worth a few hours on a weekend once every four years? And again, the last election showed just how difficult voting was. There were reports of lines, long lines. I'm not making this up. There were reports of people waiting ten and twelve hours to vote. Many people left without voting. Disgusted. I know when I worked in New York people tried to vote but often were unable to because of work deadlines. What are the politicians afraid of? Ok, I'll give you that. I should have said ...'one of the most incompetent band of murderers'...but what, over three thousand americans are dead, lord knows how many crippled physically and mentally for the rest of their lives...people have lost brothers, sisters, fathers, husbands, wives,...how much suffering is ok with you? And what about the iraqi people? The death is non stop there. Is that all ok with you? How can possibly defend a man responsible for all this besides his hand in torture?... Aahhh, I just checked your profile. You in the military? Is that why you defend him? You also an evangelical?...I've got news for you moonspider, america was sold a bill of goods by this rotten president. They invented or tried to invent proof so they could declare a war. A lot of people are dying for no good reason. A lot of people are suffering and will suffer for the rest of their lives. There's just no excuse for it. It's your choice if you want to remain blind to all the evidence. You live with it. Oh, a few things from the news headlines today on my Excite page when I woke up. "Pope laments slaughter in Iraq." "Pope: 'Nothing positive from Iraq.' I guess the pope doesn't see the point behind bush's war. Hmmm. But, George sure is the businessman. Here's another headline. 'North koreans arm Ethiopians as U.S. Assents.' The arms business is big business. I wonder if Christ, who george is so found of mentioning, would approve? Kind regards... M Moonspider
Once again, I agree. (We don’t always do that! ) I’m afraid that the war (and perhaps fear) has caused too many leaders to turn a blind eye to conduct that they should be deploring. Worse in some cases I fear, leaders promote and support such behavior.
Taking the incidents at Abu Ghraib as an example, I personally feel that not nearly enough punishment was meted out. The heads of many an officer should have rolled. For those at the prison itself, they were at worst complicit in the actions of those enlisted personnel, or at best unaware of their activity. In either case they should have been court-martialed IMHO. To my knowledge only two officers were punished to any degree, a colonel who received NJP (non-judicial punishment) and a brigadier general who was relieved and demoted to colonel. Both of their careers were effectively ended. The brigadier general actually had the gall to protest! As a commanding officer I would have been too ashamed to show my face in public and thanked my lucky stars to be home with my family rather than sitting in a military prison. To Rumsfeld’s credit, he did offer to resign twice (according to him) which President Bush refused to accept (to his and the DOD’s detriment IMHO). I think punishing the SECDEF by any legal means would have been difficult unless there was some paper trail of directives and orders that could be directly related to Abu Ghraib or any other documented cases of torture in the military. However I agree that the leadership climate has made such incidents more likely. And I agree with you Chris, that any U.S. administration should take the high road when it comes to torture for all the reasons you discussed before. We should even avoid grey areas and not quibble over what type of abuse is torture and what is not. That is a very treacherous and slippery path. Respectfully, M Bikerman
There is bound to be a paper trail to the numerous 'extraordinary renditions' carried out by the US however. This is the process where suspects were flown to countries where torture could be carried out. The European parliament confirmed many such cases - Britain was complicit in allowing such flights to use UK airspace and refuelling facilities - but official responses have been muted and press coverage almost non existent.
We are in complete agreement on this and I don't honestly find that too surprising. We have disagreed on issues in the past and no doubt will do so again but my impression is that you have a strong moral/ethical sensibility and I think that you 'speak' honestly and in good faith, even when we disagree. Moonspider
I’m an historian by my first education, so I’ll argue events that happened millennia ago! To me seven years ago is less than a day. Anyway, you broached the subject.
No. But as I pointed out by historical examples, not out of the ordinary either.
A few cases of confusion and people being denied access to polling places does not a conspiracy make. Kennedy article to the contrary, I don’t think there is evidence of nation-wide voter fraud to the extent that a national election can be or has been manipulated. Voting in the United States is much freer and less susceptible to fraud than it was in the 19th Century. That being said, yes the Kennedy article was a good article and he made some pretty compelling arguments, as I recall. I pray that the 2008 presidential election does not follow a similar pattern of the losers crying foul as in 2000 and 2004. The systems (cities and states use different systems since there is no national standard, just as Kennedy spoke of in his Rolling Stone article) are not full-proof and there are flaws. Let’s concentrate on fixing the flaws rather than pointing fingers at one another and concocting grandiose conspiracy theories. However, I see no correction of what I find to be the greatest flaw in our system, the very existence of political parties. I am a registered independent and abhor all political parties. I believe, as George Washington did, that political parties are a detriment to the United States political system and to the country.
I believe that it does.
I do trust them.
Like I said, it has flaws but it is less susceptible to fraud than 19th Century (or even early 20th Century) America. Let’s concentrate on fixing the problems. The problem with political parties is that they often want to fix things to their favor and rather blame each other than the system to score political points. As Washington said, such behavior foments jealousy and animosity. In short, it can tear a country apart.
I don’t recall mentioning how often I vote. But since you brought it up, I vote in every election, which in California can be more than once a year! (For reasons of California politics which is another torrid tale entirely! ) So, yes, I think it very important and act accordingly. I simply said that Americans as a whole choose not to vote and would be even less likely, in my opinion, to vote on a weekend than on a weekday. (Pure supposition on my part.) And if everyone has an attitude that their vote does not count, as you mentioned earlier and which is encouraged by people in both political parties crying fraud and conspiratorial foul every time they lose an election, it is no wonder Americans are disinclined to exercise this right.
“Work deadlines” sound like an excuse to me, but I may be wrong. I don’t know them or their employers so I will not pass judgment. Yes, there were reports of such problems and I do not doubt them. I simply don’t believe there was an all-encompassing conspiracy to thwart the will of the people.
I never wish for anyone to suffer, and in war there is far too much of it. (To paraphrase General Robert E. Lee, it is good that war is so horrible, otherwise we’d grow too fond of it.) However, I do not believe that wars should never be fought. There are things that are worth fighting and dying for in my opinion. There are consequences worse than war. And whereas battles may be decided by the number of casualties, wars are not necessarily so. I supported the invasion of Iraq. And I am not going to hem and haw about my position and claim that I was duped as others have claimed now that all the facts are in. The United States was not alone in its belief regarding Iraq’s WMDs. Other intelligence agencies believed the same. Countries however differed on how to deal with it. That is in the past though and I believe pulling out now will make matters far worse, not better. And I would believe that even if I did not support the initial invasion. International politics is a game of poker sometimes. Hussein was bluffing and the United States called it. He knew what his hand was but no one else did. Sure, there were those that thought he didn’t have WMDs, but they did not know until after the country was conquered. They turned out to be right, but wanted to keep throwing chips on the table rather than going all in and ending the game. (To carry the analogy further, in such a situation one always risks your opponent drawing a valuable hand.) Which is perfectly fine and in hindsight probably would have been better. But that is past and we must deal with the here and now. I don’t mean to and would never minimize the deaths of my countrymen and women in uniform. I know it well and have shed very personal tears for them. However 3,000 in five years is not that many in a war. During the American Civil War, World War I or World War II, that figure could be a few hours (or even minutes) work. I believe we must stay, and thus those deaths and wounds, however painful, are worthy and honorable. And like I said, I honestly believe pulling out now would cause more problems and more suffering than staying , just as Amir Taheri does in the article he wrote in Arab News which I posted earlier. If we don’t finish this war properly, the United States may find itself fighting a much larger war later and 3,000 dead Americans may indeed just be one day’s sacrifice rather than five years.’ Furthermore, Iraq may find itself in a civil war of much larger scale than that tit-for-tat struggle currently being waged. I won’t go further into the war as that is another debate better suited for a different thread.
As I said, I believe matters there would be worse if we pulled out. A sudden power vacuum like that would make the fall of Hussein’s regime pale in comparison. Not only would you have a real civil war, but the active involvement of surrounding nations such as Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has already intimated direct intervention if the U.S. pulls out and Iraqi Sunnis become victimized by the dominant Shiites (supported by Iran).
Yes. Navy (reserves, although there is technically no such thing anymore, just one navy).
I re-read my original post and I don’t think I ever defended him. I objected to the notion that Bush supporters and the GOP somehow fixed the 2000 and 2004 elections. I objected to Gore’s behavior and that of other Democrats in the aftermath. Had their roles been reversed I would have said the exact same things.
I’m a Christian and as such believe in evangelizing. However I assume you speak of “evangelical” in the sense of a political identification.
As I said before and as I recall, there was little conflict in intelligence reports from various national services. Hindsight is always 20/20, to turn the trite phrase. No one knows how things may have turned out had another route been taken. We can only speculate. From our perspective we may think Britain and France would have done well to launch a preemptive attack against Nazi Germany in 1936. Imagine the lives that could have been saved! But had they actually done so. No one would know anything about what never happened. They would only have known the consequences of invading Germany.
I disagree. I believe there is a good reason for it. I think the consequences of failing in Iraq would exceed the costs of pressing forward now. Once again, that is the subject of another much more lengthy debate.
I lament it as well. I did not read the Pope’s address, but from the news articles I read I did not see where he criticized the Bush administration. If I’d been alive in 1863, I would greatly lament the loss of so many Americans in the Civil War, and do so even now. However, the costs of that war were exceeded by the benefits of the results achieved by Union victory. I can mourn the loss of life and still believe in the cause for which they died. As for the headlines, I read the New York Times article and agree with Ambassador Bolton. I would have not allowed the transaction had I been President and strongly disagree with the administration’s decision to allow it. Respectfully, M moworks2
I think it was a lot more than a few cases, entire lists in fact being denied the vote based on articles read and video reports...i guess you can 'believe' what you want... and i absolutely do feel it was an orchestrated effort on the part of some republican politicians to slant the election in their favor both in 2000 and 2004...it doesn't have to be nation wide...a few key states like florida and ohio can do it...i don't think it was 'concocted' at all...this childish argument of losers crying foul is no argument at all...the voting system in america can be manipulated and has been, people living in a supposedly free country, a democracy, have the right to call foul when it is seen... I think the 2008 political election will be just as bad no matter who wins if honesty is found to be lacking...the flaws are now being created by people all too eager to do anything necessary to have 'their side' win... thanks for that text by washington...i'd never seen that...i'd totally agree with that sentiment...i'd also add i feel the same about religion and nationalism...psychological and physical boundries that do nothing to unite humanity...perhaps for some breaking down these walls would be asking too much... based on all the lies I wouldn't trust anything coming out of the bush white house...it seems like every week there's another scandal being reported on...I don't trust them at all...i don't trust the vote in america, i don't trust that it's a 'little' broken...men will go to enormous lengths to gain power, control, wealth...i don't have to tell you that...i guess i don't trust the 'political spirit' to do it fairly...i used to, i think i was just naive... and just so you know, if it was democrats in the white house doing what bush and his administration are doing i'd feel exactly the same...I don't belong to any political party...i think as leaders of a free country where politicians are supposed to be working for the people politicians have a minimum of honesty and decency to uphold and be accountable for...bush and his buddies don't even come close... i also agree with you that now, pulling all the troops suddenly would create even more of a mess than already exists...sadly, when bush was given good advice and asked to wait he didn't... Hans Blix working for the UN found no weapon's...bush was in a rush to attack...he and blair were both behind an effort to furnish 'reason' to start a war...i think it's a sad fact and one that americans and iraqi's are paying for now... don't get me wrong...saddam hussein was an evil man, i don't think that's the question...i think bush has lowered himself far too much to the level of the terrorists, that's all, and that's too much...he has shown time and time again that he isn't a very intelligent man... It always shocks me that people can put a number on life lost and say it's acceptable..."However 3,000 in five years is not that many in a war." I wonder how you'd feel if it was happening in your hometown and to you and your friends and family...I don't wish it on anyone...i just think it's far too easy to talk this way when you aren't on the front lines... and personally, i think all life is precious, human, animal, etc., I think the taking of one life is too much let alone three thousand... I think it's nonsense to suppose that this is acceptable now 'cause down the road it could be even worse...rationalizing violence and the loss of life...no, i just can't agree with this... Attacking iraq was the first mistake...not trying to talk and meet and work things out should have been the course of action...so it takes a few months or years longer than one wants...when do human beings start living peace and stop just talking about it... and showing their ignorance politicians will point to tv and hollywood for the violence in our children...i think they are taught violence by the actions of their parents and the society they live in...i'd love to see adults take responsibility for once... our children see a president hemming and hawing about torture on tv...i don't think this is the right way to show our children the difference between right and wrong behavior...violence is violence...you can play psychological games and call your violence righteous and 'their violence' evil or wrong but in the end it's all violence...definition/rationalization is a human game we fall prey to far too often... and trying to export the american way of life, democracy, whatever you want to call it, to a country/people that are so fundamentally different than you is bound to fail...it is happening right before our eyes... the people i feel sorry for are the men and women in these countries who are intelligent enough for themselves to want freedom...they see through the propaganda of politics and religion and want their freedom...i wish we could help them because they are living in prisons within their own countries...but, dropping bombs is no solution...it aggravates the problem... You know what moonspider, it could be that even if bush had waited for more inspections that an attack would have proven to be inevitable...but it would have been done with international approval or at least, the very least, the international community being heard...we'll never know now... sorry to go on rambling here... kind regards... M Moonspider
If there are cases in which criminal activity can be proven, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Problems with the systems should be corrected so that they cannot be easily exploited. However I am not going to jump to the conclusion that there was a lot of coordinated, illegal activity until I see district attorney offices building cases and prosecuting them. Maybe they have and I simply have not seen them. Perhaps I am wrong. But if there is an absence of legal action taking place I will assume that that means little illegality occurred. The only other option is to assume that the lack of prosecutorial activity in and of itself is evidence of illegal activity and cover-up, which just tends towards conspiracy theories IMHO. Political parties in congress use their power to launch investigations into much more mundane things than that! So unless the Democrats are in on it as well as the Republican conspirators who rigged the elections, I personally don’t think the dots connect that easily.
Anytime. It’s one of my personal favorites.
It is easy to become cynical. I try not to but often fail miserably. I don’t think there will ever be an administration that does not have one scandal or another. In the absence of an outright scandal their political opponents will (and do) create them.
Agreed
I do have friends and family there. My father is currently in Iraq as are friends of mine. I have men who served under me in my previous command as well as my current command doing third and fourth tours since 9/11 in Iraq, Kuwait, Djibouti, and the U.A.E. I try not to let my personal feelings get in the way of my thinking regarding this. If I did I wouldn’t be able to perform my military duties. The last thing I want is someone to get wounded or killed. Furthermore, I don’t want to spend another tour away from my family or have anyone in harm’s way. But I have to look at it objectively and endeavor to do so.
I agree that life is precious. But I also believe that there are things for which it is worth fighting and dying.
As you said:
Given a choice between more people dying in the future and fewer people dying now, I’ll always choose the latter. The problem is that one never knows the future. One can only make educated guesses. And like I said earlier, I believe there are those things worth more than life, ideas such as freedom. Thus, such as in World War II or the War Between the States, war was the right choice (IMO) for the United States, even though not going to war would have meant that literally hundreds of thousands of Americans would not have died in those wars and perhaps tens of millions of Americans would be alive today as their descendants. This could be the subject of a much larger philosophical debate on war, so I’ll resist the temptation to go too far a field.
I agree with you on the torture and on some of the other points. However I obviously disagree with you on the subject of violence if you are claiming that all violence is wrong. If someone is trying to violently harm me or my family (or my country for that matter) I think defending myself or my family (or my country) by violent, even lethal means to be a proper choice of action.
It may fail, sure. But historically it has succeeded (i.e. Japan and Germany). The differences between us and Japan were far greater than those between us and Iraq. However there are a lot of nuances in Iraq, factions battling for control of the country by asymmetrical means, neighboring foreign powers attempting to influence the development of Iraq to their favor, etc. Iraq (in fact the entire Global War on Terror or GWOT), is a fourth generation war (4GW). The only way to lose is to quit. We cannot militarily defeat our enemies, even though we may never lose a battle when forces collide. They cannot militarily win either because they cannot win a single battle let alone conquer us or even territory we choose to contest. 4GW is a war of wills, a war whose primary battlefields are the media, public sentiment, elections, and politics. The military is just the highly visible part. And its primary role is not to fight, but to sway public opinion in local populations through diplomacy, cooperation, health and civil projects, education, etc. An example of a 4GW battle that Al Qaeda won would be the Madrid train bombings. Victory was not measured in the amount of damage or the deaths caused. Victory was measured by the fact that the elections shortly thereafter reflected the will of Al Qaeda. They swayed public opinion in Spain and thereby altered the election. That is how this war will be won or lost. Traditional military victories or defeats are inconsequential. (Vietnam would be a good example, since the United States never lost a single battle but lost the war.) Terrorism is never about destroying or killing. It is just (one of) the means by which an entity can alter the will and therefore the politics of its enemy, which is the objective of fourth generation warfare. In 4GW everyone is fighting for the hearts and minds of citizenry. Sorry for going off on a tangent. I started a thread on 4GW in the philosophy forum but nobody bit.
I can tell you though that dropping bombs is not the only thing we are doing. In fact in all that is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, U.A.E., Philippines, and the other theatres of the Global War o Terror) combat operations are the least significant part. They just get all the press because blowing things up and people dying is more exciting than humanitarian assistance and diplomacy IMHO (I am cynical about the press. )
Nope. But that is the way of all things. Once a decision is made in complex systems, it is impossible to ever know what would have resulted from a different decision. There are too many factors involved. So to say things would have turned out better is just as right (or wrong) as saying things would have turned out worse. One can only speculate based upon available evidence and reasonable suppositions of everyone’s behavior. Had France and England deemed Hitler to be a terrible future threat and therefore invaded and conquered Germany in 1936, would anyone have surmised the possibility of the Holocaust had they not? Would Chamberlain have gone down in history as a tyrant for starting what many may have thought an unnecessary war rather than a Nazi patsy? Would the Soviet Union have lasted longer, shorter, no change? What would have been the development of Eastern Europe? Would there have been a Cold War, or might there have been a full fledged world war (even nuclear?) with the USSR? Would Churchill have been remembered more for the fiasco at Gallipoli in World War I? Would he have even become prime minister? Would Israel have come back into existence in 1948? Would a resurgent Germany have started a third war in the 1960s? Would man have walked on the moon in 1969? Would there have even been a “space race?” Who would have headed the U.S. space program in the 1950s and 60s? When would the atomic bomb have been developed? Would Benny Goodman’s career have lasted into the 1960s and given us more wonderful music? Would Chuck Yeager have been the first man to break the sound barrier? Would there be a Volkswagen Beetle? How would the plot of X-Men and the character of Magneto have developed? Would Eisenhower have ever been president? Would 20th Century Fox have survived without The Sound of Music and The Longest Day, or would they have gone bankrupt? Would NATO have existed? The list goes on and on from the global scale of humanity to the lives of hundreds of millions of individuals, from the monumental to the mundane. Of course, none of that would have (probably) altered the course of events in the Pacific in 1941. The United States would have just had more resources to throw at Japan. On a personal note, without World War II in Europe my wife (as well as one of my best friends) would not exist!
Not a problem. Don’t we all!
Respectfully, M moworks2
just because something can't be proven to be illegal according to the judicial system doesn't mean it was honest...our judicial system is all we have today, that doesn't mean it is just or honest...you know as well as i do that it can be manipulated by lawyers quite easily...we need to be honest with ourselves if we are ever to live in peace, side by side...politicians or the people that work for them and with them, it doesn't matter which party, can easily manipulate a vote by having a voters precinct 'accidentally' changed so that when they get there to vote they can't or by a last minute change in borders that just didn't get out to the voters in time via mail...something like that happened in ohio...that's just one example of a 'possible' slip...something easily manipulated...another from the ohio election, a small town that registered something like three thousand votes with only eight hundred residents...it was something like that...i'd have to go back to the article to find the exact figures...i guess what i'm trying to say is that the fact that no legal action has been taken doesn't mean that people didn't do illegal things to manipulate the vote or start a war...who's at fault?...that's a whole 'nother topic i guess...
What Washington warned against...parties, pitting us against each other, what a waste of time, money, and often lives...
I'm sorry to hear this. It has to be hard, every day. I hope your family comes home to you safe and sound. That's not the same as having an army invade your country, destroy your country, with how many countless innocents killed,...You have chosen to join a military force. You have chosen to fly to another country and possibly kill. I'm happy to be living in a country where there is peace, for the moment at least. Should that change I'd go elsewhere. I'm personally not bound to any country, religion, or political ideology. By paper, yes, but that's the extent of it. I have an american passport. Forgive me for saying so, but I don't see how you could live without your personal feelings. If every one lived their lives with their conscience and hearts, took responsibility, maybe we'd have no more war. I personally couldn't live that way. That's living a contradiction and I think why we see our societies all over the world so confused. It's a reflection of ourselves. I also think it's one reason why people accept the party system. The party system is a reflection of our own inner confusion.
I guess this is where we differ. I won't accept any excuse for violence. I see nothing worth dying for. All the things that are supposedly worth dying for are the illusions created by men. I think it's the result of a sick human brain. National borders, religion, politics, ideology, so called 'holy' land...all created by man...I think people are sick, their brains are not functioning in a normal, healthy way. Our societies are living illusions. Maybe one day we will wake up. I have my doubts.
We differ here too. I don't accept murder, small or large, now or later. Like i said earlier, violence is violence. We can all say no to it, see the madness. You have to look for yourself. I can't rationalize my violence as righteous. Years ago I did. Years ago I thought of myself as an american, a jew, this, that...that's all gone now. Can I say I'm a citizen of the earth, a citizen of the universe and knock down all the psychological and physical boundries we humans create? Freedom can't be given. I don't look upon it as an idea. It is a living thing, something we live, not an idea. Ideas are the past. The past is a dead, memory. Freedom is the living present. I know what you mean. I'm not trying to be coy. The freedom to express ones self in america is different than the reality of expression was say under saddam hussein...in america you can protest and not be killed...well, not usually anyway...Kent state is one example where that's not always true...but that's not personal freedom...the freedom given by a 'State' is with limits...follow the rules and you can do what you want...the prison is there only the boundry is a little bigger...
I understand your thinking and what I'm going to tell you will sound crazy but i'll tell you just the same. I feel like we're all going to die anyway. I feel that I don't want to add to human violence. So, if someone asks me to kill someone or be killed i'd let them kill me. I just couldn't kill someone. We're all just passing through. My heart tells me not to add to the violence if possible. I like this sentiment from an old Neil Young song, "no one wins, it's a war of man". When do we start living peace? When does it become more than talk? At present we don't know what peace is. I feel if it doesn't start today it won't happen. The future is now. I feel if we are violent today we'll be violent tomorrow. We are peaceful today or we aren't. I don't know if that means anything to you. If we are racist today we'll be racist tomorrow. Time is an illusion. The end of our violence or our racism won't come because another twenty four hours has ticked by...
First, I think if Iraq wasn't an oil rich nation bush would never have been in such a rush to attack. I can't really say about your comparison between germany and japan, i don't know. But it's the U.S. that has opened that floodgate by iraq's neighbors. And can you blame Iran. The US backed iraq and saddam hussein in their war against iran. I don't see why anyone would expect friendly gestures from them. Please don't think I'm defending Iran. No way. It's a sick, demented bunch of religious bastards controlling that country. I'm just trying to look at the bigger picture. In fact, when you look at america's history and the role they've played backing one country against another, one regime against another around the world, it is not a rosey picture. Far from it. The fact of the discord among iraqi's of differing sects, kurds, sunni, shiite, etc...man, just more proof for me of the sickness we engender by clinging to the vestiges of religion and tradition, propaganda thousands of years old... Ok, I'm gonna have to come back to this a little later to finish...I've gotta go...later moonspider... kind regards... M moworks2
just because something can't be proven to be illegal according to the judicial system doesn't mean it was honest...our judicial system is all we have today, that doesn't mean it is just or honest...you know as well as i do that it can be manipulated by lawyers quite easily...we need to be honest with ourselves if we are ever to live in peace, side by side...politicians or the people that work for them and with them, it doesn't matter which party, can easily manipulate a vote by having a voters precinct 'accidentally' changed so that when they get there to vote they can't or by a last minute change in borders that just didn't get out to the voters in time via mail...something like that happened in ohio...that's just one example of a 'possible' slip...something easily manipulated...another from the ohio election, a small town that registered something like three thousand votes with only eight hundred residents...it was something like that...i'd have to go back to the article to find the exact figures...i guess what i'm trying to say is that the fact that no legal action has been taken doesn't mean that people didn't do illegal things to manipulate the vote or start a war...who's at fault?...that's a whole 'nother topic i guess...
What Washington warned against...parties, pitting us against each other, what a waste of time, money, and often lives...
I'm sorry to hear this. It has to be hard, every day. I hope your family comes home to you safe and sound. That's not the same as having an army invade your country, destroy your country, with how many countless innocents killed,...You have chosen to join a military force. You have chosen to fly to another country and possibly kill. I'm happy to be living in a country where there is peace, for the moment at least. Should that change I'd go elsewhere. I'm personally not bound to any country, religion, or political ideology. By paper, yes, but that's the extent of it. I have an american passport. Forgive me for saying so, but I don't see how you could live without your personal feelings. If every one lived their lives with their conscience and hearts, took responsibility, maybe we'd have no more war. I personally couldn't live that way. That's living a contradiction and I think why we see our societies all over the world so confused. It's a reflection of ourselves. I also think it's one reason why people accept the party system. The party system is a reflection of our own inner confusion.
I guess this is where we differ. I won't accept any excuse for violence. I see nothing worth dying for. All the things that are supposedly worth dying for are the illusions created by men. I think it's the result of a sick human brain. National borders, religion, politics, ideology, so called 'holy' land...all created by man...I think people are sick, their brains are not functioning in a normal, healthy way. Our societies are living illusions. Maybe one day we will wake up. I have my doubts.
We differ here too. I don't accept murder, small or large, now or later. Like i said earlier, violence is violence. We can all say no to it, see the madness. You have to look for yourself. I can't rationalize my violence as righteous. Years ago I did. Years ago I thought of myself as an american, a jew, this, that...that's all gone now. Can I say I'm a citizen of the earth, a citizen of the universe and knock down all the psychological and physical boundries we humans create? Freedom can't be given. I don't look upon it as an idea. It is a living thing, something we live, not an idea. Ideas are the past. The past is a dead, memory. Freedom is the living present. I know what you mean. I'm not trying to be coy. The freedom to express ones self in america is different than the reality of expression was say under saddam hussein...in america you can protest and not be killed...well, not usually anyway...Kent state is one example where that's not always true...but that's not personal freedom...the freedom given by a 'State' is with limits...follow the rules and you can do what you want...the prison is there only the boundry is a little bigger...
I understand your thinking and what I'm going to tell you will sound crazy but i'll tell you just the same. I feel like we're all going to die anyway. I feel that I don't want to add to human violence. So, if someone asks me to kill someone or be killed i'd let them kill me. I just couldn't kill someone. We're all just passing through. My heart tells me not to add to the violence if possible. I like this sentiment from an old Neil Young song, "no one wins, it's a war of man". When do we start living peace? When does it become more than talk? At present we don't know what peace is. I feel if it doesn't start today it won't happen. The future is now. I feel if we are violent today we'll be violent tomorrow. We are peaceful today or we aren't. I don't know if that means anything to you. If we are racist today we'll be racist tomorrow. Time is an illusion. The end of our violence or our racism won't come because another twenty four hours has ticked by...
First, I think if Iraq wasn't an oil rich nation bush would never have been in such a rush to attack. I can't really say about your comparison between germany and japan, i don't know. But it's the U.S. that has opened that floodgate by iraq's neighbors. And can you blame Iran. The US backed iraq and saddam hussein in their war against iran. I don't see why anyone would expect friendly gestures from them. Please don't think I'm defending Iran. No way. It's a sick, demented bunch of religious bastards controlling that country. I'm just trying to look at the bigger picture. In fact, when you look at america's history and the role they've played backing one country against another, one regime against another around the world, it is not a rosey picture. Far from it. The fact of the discord among iraqi's of differing sects, kurds, sunni, shiite, etc...man, just more proof for me of the sickness we engender by clinging to the vestiges of religion and tradition, propaganda thousands of years old... Ok, I'm gonna have to come back to this a little later to finish...I've gotta go...later moonspider... kind regards... M moworks2
sorry for the double post...frihost was acting kinda weird...where was I?...oh, moonspider, I don't think your analogy about germany and japan is the same...we're talking about a muslim nation here...i think far removed from either of those countries histories...all three, pretty different, but germany perhaps the closest to what became american politics and government and our 'melting pot' type of thinking and behavior...i don't know, i don't have the historical background to say really...
I'm not sure what to say about this either. I mean terrorism has been going on for a long time and it seems it will continue for a long time...seems to me that violence has not proven effective in ending it...it only stimulates it...i think george bush has created several generations of people that will be willing to continue the struggle of these madmen because of his actions...and his stand on torture, behaving like the terrorists in his first strike in iraq, i don't think that helps anyone... and part of what made people vote counter to the government in spain at the time of the train bombings was how the government lied to the country at first saying it was not al qaeda related but from the basque terrorist group in spain...that set up an immediate reaction of distrust of the then current government...it wasn't the will of al qaeda...although here again one can't say with certainty... what i do think is that a lot of spaniards, like american, french, germans, english, etc...were against the war and wanted to US to wait...george bush calling the millions and millions of people protesting against the war a 'focus group' shows how out of touch with reality he is...it also, at least for me, showed how much he and his administration wanted to invade...
Well, the US dropped their bombs and then went in...all the help now is the least that can be done considering the damage the US has caused...and this argument is like the NRA publicity about how pro environment they are, their organization giving dollars to this and that group...please, moonspider...I don't buy this argument at all... I agree about the press...it is no longer what it used to be, a neutral entity reporting facts...like most political parties and their special interest groups there's an agenda for some or maybe most...but I'm still glad for photographers being able to show us some of the reality...again, being skeptical because of recent evidence of tampering with the photos... that said...it's known how much the US goes out of its way to direct the news and photographers...they don't want the average american getting images the way we did during the vietnam war... I was just hoping sanity would prevail before bush ordered the strike on iraq...he chose to start this war...there were options... His response lowered the US to the level of the terrorists and to people like saddam hussein...his approval of torture, jeez, I really find him a despicable human being...I wish him no harm, I just will be happy when he is no longer in office... peace to you moonspider... M [/quote] Moonspider
Where do you currently reside?
I didn’t say I try to live without my feelings, I simply said I endeavor to make decisions objectively regarding the war. Emotions can be a handicap when one needs to think objectively to make correct decisions. Feelings include more than “good” feelings like love and compassion, they also include anger, hatred, revenge, etc. Do you wish people to make decisions based only on how they feel at the moment? The old rule for children to count to ten before saying something is good for adults too – one should take a deep breath before making decisions lest they be purely emotional responses.
Here we are at a fundamental impasse. You do not believe in anything but an absolute pacifism. By your moral code, you’d prefer Nazi Germany to have continued its existence, for that state to murder tens of millions of people in concentration camps rather than lift up arms to stop it. You would have sacrificed China and the Pacific to the Japanese Empire rather than resist them, allowed our Filipino friends to fall under tyranny without so much as a wimper. You’d prefer that blacks in the United States be slaves rather than fight for their freedom. Instead of revolting against the British crown you would have preferred to remain an English subject. By your moral code democracy itself, in fact all of western civilization, may have never existed since you would have found it preferable for the ancient Greeks to lay down in the path of the Persian armies. On a personal note, you’d rather watch your child murdered than lift a violent finger to stop it. Police in your extreme pacifism should not shoot someone to prevent them from murdering or harming others. If a man is roaming around shooting people left and right, you think it wrong for an officer (or anyone for that matter) to shoot the murderer and stop the carnage. You’d prefer they continue on their killing spree rather than use violence to stop it. You say that if war came to your country you would leave. I ask you, why? Why not stay and live under the flag and government of your conquerors? You don’t seem to think that governments matter. You say that “freedom cannot be given.” I don’t see how you can believe that. Cannot slaves be given freedom? Cannot prisoners be granted the same? Freedom is real and tangible. What do you consider “personal freedom?” You talk as if the United States is just another tyrannical regime with a larger fence. Do you want absolute freedom? The freedom to murder, rape, and steal without punishment as well as the freedom to act kindly? A society without laws and boundaries would be chaotic. Those with power and the will to use violence would dominate, as history has shown.
Yet you’d rather live under such a regime than violently resist it. If such a government were capable of conquering the country in which you are living, you’d just pack your bags and leave for some other country, as you said. What would you do once there were no other countries to go to, when every nation was tyranny, when the “freedom” you do not believe is real no longer exists anywhere. You obviously prefer certain governments over others, judging by your summation of Iran’s government. How ironic that you prefer to live in freedom but abhor the means by which it is provided. I don’t know of any people in history who have not had to fight for their freedom. Respectfully, M horseatingweeds
Ha ha
You know you live in a comfortable little world when you can call Bush a murdering criminal….. Anyway, what we are seeing with Bush is a simple exercise in liberty. It is Bush’s job to protect the US citizens. He fails if citizens are killed by terrorist. The same people who call him a criminal for killing and a tyrant for listening to phone conversations accuse him of complacency when US citizens die. For this reason, he will consolidate any and all power available to him in order to take protective measures. It is the responsibility of other mechanism, Judicial, Legislative, free press, citizens, ect. to limit his powers. We are currently readjusting with our new found realization that there is a powerful group of Fascists that will trade their lives to kill every US citizen. Side note: I hate the term “Post 911 World” – it’s not the case. Post 911 understanding of the world maybe. moworks2
Ok moonspider, i just didn't understand or read into what you meant by 'personal feelings'...i thought you meant your personal feelings differed from the government or from orders you're getting from your superiors...i got that wrong... i would agree about counting to ten in tough situations time permitting...i wish bush would have done that before he decided to drop bombs on iraq...sometimes i wonder if he can count to ten... M moworks2
we aren't/weren't talking about events from the past, that's a waste of time, they are done, products of their time...the only thing to be gotten from those horrific wars was that violence doesn't end violence...war isn't an intelligent solution for anything...hitler being able to convince the germans that his 'vision' was normal is just evidence of the sickness that pervades society, how accepting we are of violence,...your examples are just illustrations of mans futility when he turns to war as a solutions... for the rest, like your inferring that i would have liked blacks to remain slaves, man, that's just silly...if it weren't for the violence done to them by whites in europe and america slavery would not have existed...it's our culture/society which ok's this type of behavior, not someone like me saying they prefer that everyone try and get along... and slaves wouldn't need to be given freedom if it wasn't for the violence done to them...they remained free in their thinking lucky for them, they knew the whites were wrong...it's not the blacks that needed help, it was the whites who thought because of money, skin color, society, birth right that somehow this other race of humans was inferior... kind regards... M moworks2
I wonder if you realize how conditioned you are? We are all conditioned by our parents, teachers, religious leaders, politicians, the environment we grow up in, and the culture/society as a whole...I wonder how much you feel it... You work for the army, you're part of the violence...please forgive me for being direct, i don't mean any personal offense but honest, all you've been doing here is defending violence as a solution for violence, defending murder, mutilation, suffering of enormous proportion...knowing you are part of the army I didn't expect anything else...sorry, but you're ideas all fall into line, defending the violence you so readily take part in... I look at freedom as the ability for a man or woman to drop all they've been told, all they've been taught, and think for themselves...it's not an easy task...we are brainwashed from the day we are born... I look at freedom as the ability to question religion, government, teaching...the ability, psychologically, to live not being led but discovering for ones self... I look at freedom as the ability to look at ones self and see how it, the 'I' is conditioned and considers itself all important...and then to abandon it... psychological freedom is the first step, without it all the rest is window dressing... moonspider, you work for and kill for an immoral society...the pattern of society with its so called respectability is the epitome of disorder...look around you...see the violence, the competition, the suffering that's so accepted, almost wished for... freedom is a state of mind...freedom to doubt and to question...not to fall prey to the authority of religion or government or anything...questioning authority is not easy, it means standing alone and most are afraid...they like the herd, they like being part of some bigger entity...freedom means not being afraid to stand alone... and yes, I agree with you 'Those with power and the will to use violence would dominate, as history has shown'...just look what america has done in iraq as one example... I'm not kidding myself, i see the violence all around me...i see how unwilling most are to listen, i see how so many don't even have enough food day to day, medicine, work, let alone the luxury to discuss like this via the internet... but you're just blinded by your conditioning to defend violence, government, religion...if you saw them for what they really are you'd never go near them...that's my feeling...i guess it seems like coming from another planet for you...that's ok... oh, and by the way, i currently live in france... kind regards... M moworks2
honestly don't know what this has to do with anything...people from all parts of the planet see bush for what he is...poor countries, rich, what's the difference?... your post is simplist drivel at best, excuse me for being direct...we live on this planet with lots of other people, i think we should be accountable for our actions and take responsibility... you don't care about anyone but americans?...i don't know...responding to you seems a complete waste of time...live on your planet all by your lonesome...jeez... bush has created whole new generations of people with good cause to hate america and americans...just like america nurtured saddam hussein and osama...there are no innocents playing in this murderous game...you can thank him for the paranoia you'll be living with the rest of your little life... M Moonspider
As an historian, I must disagree with you. IMHO the only reliable indicator of an individual’s or of humanity’s future behavior is past behavior. Thus understanding historical events and behavior are pivotal to individual as well as cultural development. A person or a culture that does not remember and learn from past mistakes is, as the proverb goes, doomed to repeat them. Call me cynical, but I do not expect human behavior to improve any in my lifetime from that of 5,000 years ago, let alone 50 or 5 years ago. I personally don’t think that cynical, just logical and realistic.
Slavery was a pre-existing institution in Africa before Europeans came. Tribes commonly enslaved one another. Europeans and later Americans simply inserted themselves into the trade. This does not justify or excuse European and American behavior. However this notion that Africans (or Native Americans for that matter), lived in harmony with one another and nature until the Europeans came along is just revisionist, idealistic nonsense not in keeping with anthropological and historical studies, (let alone the biological evolution of species). My intent was not to imply that the behavior was the result of an attitude akin to yours. I simply wished to proffer the question of how you would have ended it in the United States since you do not consider warfare a justifiable means.
Of course we are. Like you said we are all products of our environments as well as our biology. What is your point?
I’m a naval officer, not a member of the army, but that is pure semantics. That being said, I don’t revel in violence, I abhor it. I serve and fight if necessary because I am trained to do it and believe it is necessary at times. The very freedom I enjoy, as do Western Europeans as well, was paid for by the blood of many an American and European. The United States would not exist without France’s military support in the 18th Century. American bodies still litter the fields of France, defending her and liberating her people in World War I and World War II. But violence is the last resort for all but the crudest sort of individuals and societies. Forgetting any moral implications (understanding that I do believe that violence can be the moral choice in some situations just as non-violence can be the immoral choice in others) violence, whether individual or war, logically presents too many uncertainties in outcome to be anything other than a last resort. So my question is, and what I tried to convey earlier, is what would you do in the situations I mentioned? For example: You are the president of France. A neighboring country invades France and wishes to set up a totalitarian regime and exterminate any members of French society that threaten its growing dominance. What do you do? As you are walking down a street a strange man grabs your daughter and intends to kidnap her. There is no one else around. Your daughter struggles fervently to escape, hindering the kidnapper’s progress. However she is too small and weak to escape his grasp. What do you do? How would you govern a country? Protect its citizens? Protect its interests? Protect its territory?
I am free to do all those things. Did you ever stop to think that I looked at all that I have known, learned, and experienced in life, all that I have been taught, questioned it all, and came to the conclusions I presented here now? For example, I am the first person in my family to have served in the military since the War Between the States. My opinions may and probably will change regarding some issues in the future. For some they will never change from what I believe now.
I applaud your idealism. However it is not realistic and therefore cannot be used to rule society by any practical means, or for a society of any significant size to function in the world. The only reason you can be idealistic is because you live in a remarkably stable culture, one provided for by the very means you abhor. Very few people in the history of the world can say they’ve enjoyed such luxury. If you were struggling for survival against nature and other humans on a daily basis, you’d have no time for idealism. Humans do not and will never function as you would like for them to do so. I'd love that myself! However it is not realistic. As James Madison said in 1788:
Say what you wish about the United States and Iraq. I am not going to debate that here as there are other forums for that. The U.S. has made mistakes and there are those policies and actions with which I disagree. However the truth is that the United States will voluntarily leave at some point, unlike the myriad of conquerors to flow through Mesopotamia over the millennia. But as I alluded to before, the same military power that you believe is ruining Iraq (is Hussein to be deified into a ruler of the same Eden that once existed in Iraq according to Genesis until the venomous serpent of America came?) repulsed Germany from France twice, liberated the Pacific, defended South Korea from the North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians, preserved the Union and liberated slaves… I know those were all different times. However it was the same military power. Is it always immoral just because it is military power? I ask you once more, how would you have resolved those historical problems? If the U.S. had remained out of World War II, would you be content in the French province of Germania?
I’ve never been forced to do anything (excepting childhood when for good reason we are not given absolute freedom ). I’ve chosen to be where I am today. I’ve been blessed with above average intelligence, a middle-class financial wherewithal that afforded me a deal of freedom, and far more talents than most. I’ve had the opportunity and the absolute freedom (within the law) to be anything (and I mean anything) that I could have wanted, the freedom to think however I so chose. And I consider myself very fortunate to be in the extremely small minority of humans in all of history to be afforded that opportunity.
Respectfully, M horseatingweeds
Hey moonspider, I love reading your posts. For me, you're the only thing making Frihost worth while. moworks2, So you’re concerned with starvation and suffering are you? You know, mean evil murderous Bush, besides getting up in the morning an immediately working on his list of things he can do to kill more brown people, is concerned with maintaining stable oil supply. Does that put a hair in your ideological eye? No blood for oil? What do you think will happen is the oil supply is disrupted? Will America crumble? Likely, America will implement its reserves and own oil supply sparingly. This means expensive oil for American and expensive grocery trips. For the half of the world that gets American farm produce and chicken arms and legs…. Well… NO BLOOD FOR OIL. Right? How about blood for food? Does that fit better in your ideology. How about blood for water in the form of grain? If people like you ran things, and I don’t mean to be blunt or rood, you would have a crap load more pain suffering and starvation around you. People are evil and need to be dealt with by robust systems with redundancies and check / balances. An additional not: You know, the only people that have ever accused me of being unquestioning of my assumptions are unquestioning of their own. Additionally, I do care about non-Americans. In truth, I really don’t like Americans much. They are complacent and self-entitled. Look at Iraq. The US needs to be there for the sake of Iraq and the world. All you hear out of the US is, “How we gona get the troops out… exit strategy and stuff.” Moonspider
Thank you for your vote of confidence! A man who says he doesn't enjoy having his ego stroked is a liar. 
M moworks2
That's because nothing changes and I don't think that's worthwhile. If we keep basing the future on the past as we do it's easy to see why we keep repeating the same mistakess. We keep repeating war over and over. We learn nothing. That old cliche is worth nothing. And yes, change does look bleak, but I think human consciousness is capable of more intelligence than we show today. Following leaders is not going to help us. In fact it hurts us more every day. Politicians have no answers. They create more problems as they go. Looking to others for clarity is a mistake.
You know, I don't know what I would have done. But then like now I would not have contributed to a consciousness which looks at that type of behavior and thinking as ok or normal. It is violent and looking only at that one sees what we are. Change that, see that to end how we cause each other suffering. More war, as the past has shown, does not result in less war. Violence is violence. Physical, verbal, psychological, the resulting suffering is the same.
My point is that we must first fully realize this before any change is possible. Change for the sake of change is your war in iraq to make it a democracy. Don't you see how diffferent the iraqi people are from americans in their conditioning? It's a useless battle. Violence that will end with no good result. The point is it takes intelligence to see our pitfalls. Living conditioned as we are, thinking with brains that are conditioned by our past of tradition, religion, politics, ideology, etc. will only breed more of the same results...confusion, suffering, and people like you thinking and saying it's all acceptable that thousands die, it's an inevitable result of war. The great lack of love and compassion in saying anything like this, in accepting this is a shock to me. I think human beings can live without killing each other over land, over borders, over money and control. Until we all face up to what we are and take responsibility that will never happen. Blaming our violence on fate, the will of the gods, or any other fairy tale people like to site instead of taking responsibility will just bring more of the same. Seeing our conditioning completely is the first step. Ok...more in a bit...kind regards... M moworks2
No one, including me, is denying the past. It was what it was. It's odd that you say violence/war is a last resort but yet you find the war in iraq ok? GWB chose to start that war. It was far from being last resort. And I have my doubts when you say 'non-violence' is a choice. From everything I see about human beings we are violent. We don't know anything else. I'm sorry moonspider but I won't play this game. I'd never be a politician. I'd never want to be a ruler in any country over any people. All one can say is that the response would be based on the conditioned thinking of the individuals consciousness. Of course you would take up arms. A conditioned response from a conditioned brain within a society that has formed you. It's probably too late to change the outcome of responses for the next war. The wheels are already in motion. And your second example about my fictitious daughter is one I will never have to think about. My wife and I decided a long time ago that we didn't want to bring children into this world. Perhaps you can guess why by all I've been saying. I have nothing to protect. I'm not living life like you are I guess.
I thought you said elsewhere that you had family in the armed services. Maybe I got that wrong. I don't feel like opinions and belief are of much value. Look at all the belief in the world. Look at the horrible state our world is in thanks to Belief. Opinion changes like the weather. One day it's all white, next black, next gray. They just aren't things, for me, to base my actions on. Your behavior/talk is what has gone on for centuries. You repeat what you have learned. You repeat the actions of our forefathers. The choices you made are with a conditioned brain. I don't know how anyone who really looks for themselves could have your 'opinions'. Maybe you consider gwb saying you're with us or your against us a choice. That's living in the tiny box we call our culture, our society, our political thinking, etc. If I had children I would never condone them going off to war to fight over people's ideologies or their religious beliefs. I think only people who don't love their children, who have no love, could do that. I'm sorry, I need to break here again...back in a few... M moworks2
Please, no, no ideals, none, it's part of what makes our existence so violent. We don't see ourselves for what we are. We create ideals and try to live up to them killing each other along the way. For example, we have an ideal of non-violence, yet we are violent. We don't know what it means to be non-violent. And I would never propose my way of looking at myself or the world as any kind of system of rule or organization. Hell, just look at all the systems we have now, capitalism, socialism, communism...man, there's tons of ism's and they have given us the horrible mess we see the world in today...I think that's one of the mistakes people make...develop some system by whole peoples to live by, religious, political, they never work...it's just another way to lock our brains down into another one of those small boxes so we don't have to think...so we don't have to take responsibility... And yes, I agree, I have the luxury of living where I do. I have the luxury of being able to talk with you and others like this. Of course if i wasn't surviving I'd be looking for work, food, clothing and not bother with this. For that matter, most of the planet could give a rats ass about all this. They're hungry, sick, without enough food and water. That's our fault. The madison quote is interesting; Today the rich are paying the politicians to keep secure areas of the world, strong armies, so they can live in comfort. And the rich need a workforce to keep the money chain going so there's a whole system of education built for that express reason...the rulers of this planet have selfish goals in mind...what's a few hundred thousand more dead or alive?...Look at what's going on between the palestinians...do you think their leaders give a shit about how many more die because of their beliefs and ideals? I don't think they care at all. I think they care about their power/control and their swiss bank accounts. Same for politicians everywhere. Sure, there are a few who have honest intentions, who aren't living to bolster their own egos. I don't think there are many...no, not many at all. I look at the posturing of the democrats in america...man, you can see how most want to further their careers, keep their fat bank accounts...it's the same here in france...politics and corruption are not separable...but then again, isn't it just a reflection of what humans are, selfish, looking out for number one, when push comes to shove we're all looking out for number one...that big 'I', the 'me' with all it's background of learning from parents and teachers and priests and culture and all the rest...that full consciousness, that confused ball of the me and the mine...society is us, we are society...no?
It's great you feel blessed. It's great to have things and work and live with enough food, medicine, and some extras. It doesn't make me feel any better about all the suffering going on in the world, a lot of it because of the american army or the french or whatever force. One day maybe all armies will be changed so they are helping to get people food they need, helping people construct homes and helping with ways to survive and not knocking things down. It's great you think you're intelligent. You can read and write. You can do work that takes education, skill, and maybe some creativity. I guess I've been talking about a different kind of intelligence. One that isn't based on thought and education. I think intelligence is something that doesn't need to be said, hmm, something that can't be expressed in words. Like love. Love is intelligence. I'm sorry. I'm too tired now to write more. Maybe another time on this. We've come so far afield from that matt lauer video haven't we... kind regards moonspider... M moworks2
honest, i don't want to run anything... M Moonspider
Indeed we have. But such is the nature of conversations. People have a terrible difficulty staying on topic. I can’t even do it when I’m sitting alone in a room talking to myself! The mind wanders…
I think it might be impossible as a species to completely divulge ourselves of our past (both biological and sociological). Perhaps that is your point. I would be interested to know if there is a particular political or social philosophy which you favor in keeping with your core beliefs. I’m especially curious as to your ideas regarding decentralization of authority.
Aside from the infamous title “The War to End All Wars” applied to World War I, I don’t believe a war has been fought with a goal of limiting future wars, as you suggested. One might choose from a list of any number of other reasons, of course. I suppose all wars boil down to one simple objective: to achieve that which cannot be achieved by any other means. This can be offensive in nature (e.g. taking territory from another country or people) or defensive (e.g. preserving one’s freedom or defending territory from an invader). I must disagree when you say that “…the resulting suffering is the same.” For example, take a hypothetical nation conquered and enslaved by a neighboring power without offering any resistance. The conquering power executes large numbers because of ethnicity or political affiliation. Many more are placed in slave labor camps where they live in horrific conditions and die by the tens of thousands. Within a century or two the indigenous population is all but extinct and the descendants of the conquerors multiply throughout their newfound home. Is this suffering the same as it would have been had they fought back? What if they had successfully defended their nation, families, and homes? What if they had fought back yet lost, but through their struggles established themselves as citizens in the nation of their conquerors? What if many fought back as part of a well-planned retreat, delaying the advance of invading forces long enough for thousands of refugees to escape the onrushing horde? Are these all equal outcomes?
First of all, I did not support a war to make Iraq a democracy. Furthermore I thought it poor judgment on the part of the Bush administration to frame it as such. The legal term for invading Iraq, and the reason I supported it (and the reason the U.S. congress approved it) is anticipatory self-defense, otherwise known as a preemptive war. One can look at it from the point of view of Abraham Sofaer’s Four Elements for preemptive justification: 1. The nature and magnitude of the threat involved. After 9/11, many people realized how vulnerable nations were to such attacks, and how much more devastating that might be should WMDs be used. Based on intelligence from around the globe, most agencies concluded Hussein to possess some amount of chemical and/or biological weapons. Should such weapons fall into terrorists hands, they could be turned on the U.S. or her allies in terrorist operations to great effect. To wait and strike only after being attacked presented too great a risk if WMDs were effectively utilized in the attack due to the substantial potential for loss of life. 2. The likelihood that the threat will be realized unless preemptive action is taken. Hussein seemed to express a desire to expand such weapons capabilities. Therefore one could assume, based on his past behavior, intelligence information at the time, and his current belligerence and unwillingness to fully cooperate with international authorities in the matter, that the threat of WMDs in the hands of Hussein which could easily be passed onto sub-national entities hostile to the U.S. and her allies, would come to fruition. 3. The availability and exhaustion of alternatives to using force. Years of sanctions and inspections painted a hazy picture onto what was actually going on and many in intelligence agencies around the world believed Hussein was even cheating and developing WMD stockpiles behind the back of the U.N. 4. Whether using preemptive force is consistent with the terms and purposes of the U.N. Charter and other applicable international agreements. The most difficult of the four with regard to the Iraq invasion, but arguably not an insurmountable obstacle legally. (I’m sure Bikerman and I could argue that one until we were blue in the face. )
(Now I am seriously digressing! Back to topic…) I don’t think I ever said that thousands dying is acceptable in such a blanket, callous manner. However I will concede that death is a byproduct of war and that I believe wars can be morally justifiable. When engaged in war though, one should do (and is legally required to do) all within one’s power to limit the death and suffering of civilians, but even under the best of circumstances and intentions it is inevitable. I don’t believe I lack love and compassion, which you may dispute. To the contrary, most everyone who knows me personally would probably say that I am one of the most compassionate men they know. Love and compassion can even be reasons for going to war, such as to save people from genocide.
Regarding the war, once again, if one believes that the conditions as we knew them in 2003 met the requirements for anticipatory self-defense, then it was a last resort. If you don’t, then no it was not a last resort. I joined the camp of the former. “Non-violence” is always a choice. I will agree that humans are violent, as all animals are. However humans are the only animals with morality and the ability to consciously choose non-violence or violence regardless of instinctive predilection. Thus, unlike other animals we do know something else besides violence. We resolve problems individually and collectively every day without resorting to violence. I don’t think it a game, I am very serious. But I’ll let you cop out of the hypothetical invasion of France using a third-person description of someone else’s thought process. True, I’d probably take up arms because I don’t like the idea of being enslaved and I’d feel that the citizens would sort of expect me as their president to defend them for some silly reason. (I’d defend them out of duty and love, but more on that later.)
I don’t wish to let you off the hook so easily with the second situation though. You may substitute your wife for your daughter and leave all other circumstances the same. What would you do?
I did say that my father is in Iraq, but he is not and never has been a member of the military. He’s a civilian and an automotive mechanic instructor. I disagree with your statement that, “They (opinions and beliefs) just aren’t things, for me, to base my actions on.” Everything that you have said during the course of our conversation forms the basis of a belief system, does it not? You believe violence should never be committed under any circumstances, for example. Is that not a belief upon which your actions would be based? Or were you speaking of organized, communal belief systems? Forgive me if I am jumping to conclusions here, but I feel as if you disparage my opinions and choices as mere conditioning and rote learning simply because they differ from your own. Likewise, one could speculate that a person who believes as you do, if raised in a familial, social and educational environment opposite your current belief system, is simply reactionary and rebellious, making choices and fostering opinions based solely upon the mere fact that it brings them into conflict with all against whom they wish to rebel. One could even speculate that I was raised in a highly liberal, pacifistic environment and likewise rebelled. Finally, one might suppose we both reflect the opinions and choices of our respective upbringings, simply having been conditioned and taught by people on opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum.
You may not wish to call them “ideals” but your opinions, IMHO, are very idealistic. Regarding your second statement, do you not benefit from the French government? Does it not provide transportation and energy supply systems? Does it not provide a police force and fire departments for your protection? Are there not numerous social systems from which French citizens benefit? The list goes on. But how can you say that political entities do not work? Even prehistoric men banded together in tribes and communities because it was to their benefit to do so in many ways, including happiness (we are very social animals after all) and survival. What sort of socio-economic system do you favor?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is our fault, but I do believe we relatively wealthy individuals and nations have an obligation to help those in need.
You’re welcome. Another personal favorite of mine.
There are corrupt politicians and leaders, to be true. There always will be I am afraid, for ne’er shall we be angels. To whom and what were you referring when you spoke of the “rich” and “secure areas of the world?” Anything or anyone specific?
Yes, we are society. But ironically you seem to laud decentralization when in fact coming together as a people to form communities and societies, and yes even collective belief systems, can help us look beyond the needs of ourselves and towards the needs of others. How can we as individuals help the whole? Is that not true? Speaking of U.S. politicians, here in the states I’ve vowed to push for and openly promote a constitutional amendment for term limits on senators and representatives to help stem much of the power, money, and corruption that pools when you have career politicians in office for 20 to 40 years. Plus term limits would keep them in touch with the people whom they represent. (I feel two terms as a senator and six terms as a representative would be appropriate.) But it’ll never happen.
You should take a moment and research what much of the U.S. military is doing in Iraq (most are not in combat operations), Afghanistan, Africa, and the Philippines. Working with communities and providing for their basic needs is one of the most effective means of fighting terrorist organizations. (It is also one of the most effective means for terrorist organizations to gain support.) Did you see the U.S. military effort and relief operations after the tsunami in Southeast Asia? Have you ever seen a Kuwaiti cry and hug an American soldier (or felt it as I have) because of the love and gratitude they have for freeing them from Hussein’s brutal grasp in 1991 and helping them restore their country and homes? (Kuwaitis even have a national holiday for it.) I wish we could do away with militaries altogether and simply have humanitarian teams of doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. I’d lay down my sword today if such an opportunity arose! However it is not realistic.
I’m glad to hear you speak of love and compassion, as you have often. However, I must question if someone who is unwilling to fight for anything or anyone really loves anything or anyone.
You too. Respectfully, M Related topics
|
