Alternatives to US global policy (continuation of "lying idiots" thread)

[oxbow3]

This is how people should discuss things, Sitarro. Would you prefer that I attack your character and rant about right wing conspiracies like you? Your emotions often get in the way of making a reasoned decision.

When addressing the War on Iraq as a consequence of 9-11, instead of Bush having lied about the possession of Iraq's WMD capability as the sole motivation behind our Middle East strategy of Islamist containment, refer to how Clinton failed to contain the problem at its earlier stage, doing nothing but lauching a few cruise missiles in the direction of some camps and an even an asparin factory, while two of our embassies were in rubble and a warship attacked.

Notice how you talk about Clinton's attacks against al Qaeda and the war against Iraq in the same sentence. There is no relationship between the 2, comrade. The problem was terrorism, not a contained tyrant. This does not compute.

 

[oxbow3]

Those religious leaders that replaced the Shah, well, they do the same if not more lavish shit. Many Iranians are upset now that they realize they replaced a tyrannical Shah that allowed women, Christians, etc. to have a place in their society with religious radicals that don't.

Read something other than your liberal BS. The Iranians now realize that in many ways, the Shah wasn't so bad!

A pox on both their houses as far as I'm concerned. The corruption of the shah was a major grievance around the time of revolution, just as the corruption of the fundamentalists is now. This is not the main point though; Please don't dwell on it freeandfun

The Shah tried to Westernize Iran much too quickly. The society reacted by putting in people from the far right in his place, the most fundamental elements they could find. Those people screwed them just as much as the monarch because they had the same absolute power over the country as him. The cause of all this social chaos was the CIA helping put in a West friendly monarch.

This is why I mentioned Iran: it is an example of how we don't understand the middle east, and how our actions often just make things worse because of this cultural ignorance. The situation in Iraq right now just confirms this further. We thought we would be hailed as liberators. Instead, most experts say we might have to spend decades in Iraq before the situation is resolved.

 

[oxbow3]

Many Americans are suffering from a cognitive bias known in psychology as the "sunk cost effect."

Not really, because if we pull out now, it would be worse than ever. The effect you describe requires that cost of pullout < cost of sticking it out.

Neither I nor anyone on the left that I know of has ever said we should pull out. This is a straw man argument.

The sunk cost effect theory stands.

 

[Comrade]

No, the people who lived under the Shah and were responsible for the resulting revolution are still in power.

Well sure, but there are also 'The People', including those who are not a ruling Mullah in his old age, who rejected their rule before and still do.

The 8 year war with Iraq completely ruined the country. There are still bomb gutted buildings that were never rebuilt even in the capitol.

No, the country was ruined by the Iran/Iraq war. The coup de grace was delivered by the combined Western and Arab world against Saddam's aggression. That we didn't depose him THEN was the fault of the liberal cant to our domestic polics.

The present President is a moderate but the ideological theocrats are in power a few more years. A year ago, they used massive police force to disrupt student protests in favor of democracy. Democracy cannot happen overnight, despite the wishes of this administration. The people must embrace the civil society and philosophy of democracy first. Otherwise, elections will accomplish little true progress. The young want democracy more than anything though. They are tired of fundamentalism.

Absolutely. But their not going to get it as long as the West follows a 'hands off' approach you propose here.

What is it with you and communism, I never talked about any of this.

Well I don't think you are necessarily a die hard communist, but you swing to the left, don't you?

There is nothing communist about morality, accountability, tolerance or peaceful resolution of conflict. Is this speech canned?

I am not particularly learned on the Cold War.

Then understand our support of the Shah of Iraq was a sideshow to the mortal threat of the expansion of the Soviet Union. The prospect of this country falling to another form of tyranny, only this time in arms and oil negotions with the free worlds mortal enemy, the USSR, came to fruition with the rise of the Islamic Theocracy. Our intention from the beginning to support the Shah was always the lesser of two evils.

Your peception of US support of the Shah is utterly naive. Your proposing we (that being the free World, including Western Europe) could have waltzed in there and enforced Democracy, or retreated from the region and insured Democracy. That's entirely ignorant of the competing pressures from the Soviet Union which indeed establish its role in influencing Iran after that lovely Liberal, President Carter, completely surrendered our interests in the region.

Be careful of the right tho; this administration has acted more communist than the left ever dares.

The PATRIOT act lets federal agents go into your house without ever telling you, or anyone outside of homeland security ever knowing about it. There are scores of legal US residents who are still imprisoned since 9/11 without even being charged. I'm sure you don't care about stuff like this though.

Bingo! I knew I'd catch you repeating the protestors posters again without really understanding how our government works.

CONGRESS PASSED THE PATRIOT ACT, WITH THE NEAR UNAMINOUS CONSENT OF BOTH THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

Honestly, I think your heart is in the right place, oxbow, but you have to stop presenting us these fallacies as your own insights. Everyone here knows enough of our constitutional process to see the error you made above was due to your passion to preach the inane rantings of the left without independent research which might refine your argument.

Is your philosophy is that we have to stay immoral because our enemies do, too?

I didn't say they were more ethical, just smart enough to see that the evidence didn't warrant going into Iraq.

Since you we're alive long enough to understand that every intelligence agency of the world was in doubt over this godlike view of yours a mere years ago, you should keep your day job and leave the fortune telling to the professional gypsies.

Im sure some of the mid-east nations could have given us a heads up on the insurgency factor too if we listened.

Islamic Mullahs to America: "We hate your way of life. We are funding schools to teach the young to destroy you."

World opinion means little. World support is all that matters, as the coalition of the willing shows. The coalition is either not strong enough or doesn't care enough to give more than 1/8 all together towards this cause.

Ahh... but you know that world support against America in Iraq almost entirely dependent on Iran and Syria now, who both see the writing on the wall.

Are you such a defeatest to offer no alternative solution or coherent argument to illustrate that our withdrawal from Iraq would serve either their own people or our own security?

No. I'm saying that if we were looking for a national security risk, there are enough candidates that we did't have to make up stuff to invade Iraq. All the talk of him being so dangerous that it desn't matter if he had WMD's or supported terrorists or not is unfounded. Yet you still persist with no evidence to support this.

Note the PNAC argument made above, which you skipped over without regard or respect.

And how is this simplistic? Stop making excuses and answer the question.

You said:

I wonder if you would be saying such things 2 years ago. If you knew then that Iraq was no imminent threat to us, but that North Korea was fast developing nuclear weapons and Iran was the #1 supporter of terror in the world, would you still have supported invasion? I really hope not. Yet that is what our leaders did.

That presumes the Bush administration lied, people died. That is a talking point of the far left of Democrats in America, including Cynthia Mckinney, Barbara Boxer, and Michael Moore.

I never suggested we pull out.

Then you're just here to criticize and not offer any intelligent alternative.

unoriginality does not equal being wrong. Answer the question.

Bush didn't lie, and you have no proof of it.

 

[Comrade]

Notice how you talk about Clinton's attacks against al Qaeda and the war against Iraq in the same sentence. There is no relationship between the 2, comrade. The problem was terrorism, not a contained tyrant. This does not compute.

If you're aggressive on terrorism, why are you arguing for the legitimacy of the Iranian theocracy which has been a terrorist state since it's ascention to power in the 70's?

 

[Comrade]

Neither I nor anyone on the left that I know of has ever said we should pull out. This is a straw man argument.

The sunk cost effect theory stands.

Many Americans are suffering from a cognitive bias known in psychology as the "sunk cost effect."

For example, when you pre-order a movie ticket, the price of the ticket becomes a sunk cost. Even if you decide that you'd rather not go to the movie, there is no way to get back the money you originally paid and you have a sunk cost on your hands[....]

Economists argue that, if you are rational, you will not take sunk costs into account when making decisions.

oxbow, please run a diagnostic on your logic chip. Your answer does not compute...

 

[Annie]

oxbow, please run a diagnostic on your logic chip. Your answer does not compute...

Oh I missed these!

 

[Said1]

What links? Is there a question that I said I would get back to you on?

Is IAMANUT your friend, and how many little people can we expect to see show up in your defese?

 

[IControlThePast]

I"ll first go through these 1 by 1

My point, "We ordered a coup and put all the support in the area for it after failing to unduly influence the election," which is proven by declassified government documents linked to. Let's see what the credibility of your legacy and debate unlinked page can provide.

"Pinochet and AllendeMore than thirty years after his death, Allende remains a controversial figure. Since his life ended before his presidency, there has been much speculation as to what Chile would have been like had he been able to remain in power."

No point made yet...

"Allende's story is often cited in discussions about whether a "Communist government" has ever been elected in a democratic election. Communist sympathizers say yes, and consider Allende's plurality a mandate for communism. Anti-Communists say no, claiming that Allende went much farther to the left than voters could have expected."

He recieved a plurality of votes and was the rightful leader. Nobody proved otherwise. So what if he went to a different position (yet still democratic) after he was elected, many governments do. Still nothing to reject the government documents. The 2000 election was sketchy, and Bush took positions voters didn't know he would support, yet it wouldn't have been right for France to come over here and create a coup or invade us.

"Allende is seen as a hero to many on the political Left. Some view him as a martyr who died for the cause of socialism. His face has even been stylized and reproduced as a symbol of Marxism, similar to the famous images of Che Guevara. Members of the political Left tend to hold the United States, specifically Henry Kissinger and the CIA, directly responsible for his death, and view him as a victim of American Imperialism."

Nothing here. We may have killed him, but that is irrelevant because we ordered a coup against a Democratically elected candidate who was supported by his countries population and put all the resources there for one after unduly influencing his election. We definately did not support him.

"Members of the political Right, however, tend to view Allende much less favorably. His close relationship with Fidel Castro has led many to accuse him of being a Communist who was destined to eventually transform Chile into a Castro-style dictatorship."

Because saying what someone will be in the future is really sure evidence . It wasn't a Communist Dictatorship when we removed him, still a Democratic country.

"The nature of U.S. involvement in the coup that deposed Allende remains a heated debate topic in the context of U.S. conduct during the Cold War. While there were several coups in Latin America during this period, Allende's downfall remains one of the most controversial. See also: Chilean coup of 1973."

Yes, I believe we were behind several of the others as well, but whether we were behind them is different from whether we supported them.

Now to convince you that we not only did not support but attacked. We order coup and set it all up perfectly. This was the age of communism and we need to take him out so he doesn't become the next Lenin (although he was a Democratically elected one). A coup then removes him and installs a US Friendly government. Do you really think we weren't behind it and would admit it if we did create that coup? Many government documents are still classified. I report, you decide.

Before the coup the CIA also provided funding and ammo to a group to kill the Chief Commander in the Army of Chile, which they successfully did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._I...he_killing_of_the_Chief_Commander_of_the_Army

Colin Powell's rebuttle to "Why are we so superior since we created that coup in Chile" was "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of." That can be found in the article a couple paragraphs below the last Wikipedia one I linked.

 

[IControlThePast]

If we could have influenced events in order to cause a coup of Saddam, Castro, or Kim Il Jong, or every other socialist who promised great things prior to the inevitable lockdown when they seize private property, whether or not they are killed in the process is not part of the moral equation. Their life of tyranny with respect to the oppression of their people negates the need to consider the moral cost of his death.

The last time I checked the moral position was that two wrongs didn't make a right?

No, the terrorists have different ends, and certainly different means.

The ends are looking quite the same. "Establish what we wish where we want." The means are both requiring warfare to do so.

The fact that our miltary is a force for good in the world. The Islamic Extremists goal of destruction, tyranny, and reveling in bloodshed should make it obvious what they intend, for them and us.

Would you like to explain how we have killed 5 times as many Iraqi citizens as were killed in 9/11 where terrorists are not considered civilians? The exact bodycount (everyone brought into a coroner, something that does not happen to many dead) is about 17,000 and the projection study listed about 100,000. Our forces (CIA and the like included) abroad seem to establish and support these regimes that result in blowback. We can't create a monster and not claim our due credit.

I see people like me called Hate America First. In a preemptive counterattack, I am here to try to make the US a better place because I love it so much. The first step is to find things that need to be improved and ways to learn from bad things in the past. I'm not looking for solutions for Democrats and Republicans. Let's leave the whining of "well Carter did this you Democrat" and "Nixon did this you Republican" to a "Whine at Other Parties Mistakes" thread. I don't care who did them, let's find them and fix them.

What your attempting to say is we have no right to defend our interests from them, since we'd have to use real violence to stop them. That seems to scare you?

You have yet to prove what our interests are and how fighting Saddam was the best possible course to defend our interests. Hate does not put an end to Hate and War does not create Peace for those looking for liberty and freedom. Cultural Imperialism combined with providing a good national role model is the best way. The problems in society are partly due to the societal structure itself (ie. people don't rob banks because they are rich). Cultural Imperialism will create a new societal structure. Look what it has done in former strongholds for Islam Indonesia and Malysia. The countries voted against the Religious parties and for fiscal responsibility and less corruption. In other words, they are un-American (just a joke, don't make anything out of it).

So he can establish an Islamic Caliphate, yes. The next natural step would be to wage war on the rest of the world, piece by piece.

There are so many warring factions down there that if Osama is such a good unifier maybe we should let him handle the elections in Iraq before we kill him . Realistically they need enemies to unite against.

No, our attacks have undermined the will and strengh of their numbers and we've seen little of the promises you make on this subject...

I gave my ideas for revisions a little bit up in this post. Do you have any proof that Islamic will is sagging. On this thread I heard the media has whipped them full of morale and now they have lost the will to fight? I can tell you there are quite a few terrorists out there, and many in Africa, which we are not even close to defeating yet.

The idea you want to state is if we run and hide from them, give them what they want (right now, at least), they'll stop hurting us. Just another classical appeasement meme which says that fighting our enemy will only make them stronger. Peace in our time, right?

To Appease--PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

Taken from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=appeasement

We were the agressor because we attacked preeptively and we were the ones making all the threats to Saddam, not the other way around. So, it would have not been appeasement if we didn't attack Iraq militarily. It would have been appeasement if we did not go after Osama. Not only does the first part prevent the Iraq situation from being appeasement, but so does the second part. How would we buy off Saddam, what concessions would have been made, and what principles would we have sacrificed if we used Cultural Imperialism?

Yes, Germany had a problem flighting Communism with military force. However, the USA has mastered it. Reason being we fight to ensure Democracy in place of Communism. Germany did not. Germany could very well have won the war on Russia if they had offered freedom and incorporation for the already oppressed in conquered areas like the Ukraine.

More specifically, socialism (quite different from Communism) took over Germany after Bismark, which Bismark had fought. Do you believe Europe is not Democratic? Some Democratic countries there are socialist. Would you like to explain how we mastered fighting Communism? We were way ahead in the arms race, Vietnam failed, and the only successful way we fought it was by hiring terrorists in Afghanistan, which could hardly be called a solution because look what it has created.

Well sure, but then we'd have to unleash our full arsenal.

How about the soldiers blown up on the side of the road, while transporting toys and school supplies to the children of Iraq. Are they cowards too?

Cowards are people with a weak or ignoble lack of courage. I would say it probably takes some courage to blow yourself up, to run in knowing you will die. Courage and intelligence sometimes are mutually exclusive. Soldiers there are seen as cowards because they hide behind their superior technology refusing (supposedly too afraid) to fight the fair fight. This is the ME perspective on the situation. I see the terrorists and troops in the same boat. I don't see how you can say one group is more cowardly than the other. I don't believe either group is cowardly, but it is easiest to prove they are together by showing if one thing is cowardly than another is as well. The terrorists are simply doing what they can to get by (as are the troops with their superior technology), and if offered technology on par with ours they would accept. In the mean time they are just trying to make do with what they have. I am trying to present a different and foreign moral position contrary to yours so my argument will be unbalanced. I would suggest a top-notch movie for you to watch if you really want to learn about Middle Eastern culture, terrorism, and history is "The Battle of Algiers." It is basically a documentary of the French trying to control the country of Algiers through a time of terrorist bombings. In the mean time would you explain how the terrorists are more cowardly than troops? I am an independent here to be given my righteous conservative education.

 

[freeandfun1]

Just one question.

Why do you ignore the FACT that the foreign insurgents in Iraq have killed more INNOCENT Iraqis than the US has?

 

[Annie]

But he (along with the mujahedin) was a strong ally in the war against the Soviets in the Afghan war of the '80's. He only turned against us after we installed troops and bases in Saudi Arabia following the first Gulf War.

I assure you Palestine is not fluff. It is a longstanding sore point in Mid-East-US relations. Jerusalme is the second holiest place in their minds, and it was taken away without justification or recompense. His support for Iraq may likely be fluff, but not Palestine

Well going back a bit I know, but thought these might be enlightening to you:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232544#post232544

and for those so enamored with the Palestinian arguments and blame Israel:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17009

 

[oxbow3]

Well sure, but there are also 'The People', including those who are not a ruling Mullah in his old age, who rejected their rule before and still do

so? there are people who reject bush and still do.

No, the country was ruined by the Iran/Iraq war. The coup de grace was delivered by the combined Western and Arab world against Saddam's aggression. That we didn't depose him THEN was the fault of the liberal cant to our domestic polics

.

You are talking about Iraq while responding to my comments about Iran. Just like you got Bin Laden and Saddam mixed up.

Absolutely. But their not going to get it as long as the West follows a 'hands off' approach you propose here.

Did you read anything I wrote? its only a matter of time. The more well-intentioned people who think they know what's good for others interfere in their politics, the more support is gained for anti-west fringe elements. If you take away anything, take this from our discussion: you can't force through change on people who don't like or trust you. The more the US interferes, the worse we make things for everyone. Notice how the Iranians agreed to European diplomats requests to disarm their nuclear weapons program while ignoring the US's same demands.

Well I don't think you are necessarily a die hard communist, but you swing to the left, don't you?

You will never understand your political opponents if continue steroetyping them.

Your peception of US support of the Shah is utterly naive. Your proposing we (that being the free World, including Western Europe) could have waltzed in there and enforced Democracy, or retreated from the region and insured Democracy. That's entirely ignorant of the competing pressures from the Soviet Union which indeed establish its role in influencing Iran after that lovely Liberal, President Carter, completely surrendered our interests in the region.

You are saying that the democratic thing to do was to depose the democratic government and impose a puppet monarchy? amazing. I guess the ends justify many immoral things in your world.

CONGRESS PASSED THE PATRIOT ACT, WITH THE NEAR UNAMINOUS CONSENT OF BOTH THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

Who was behind the PATRIOT ACT? Who used the wartime support of both sides to get it passed without fully disclosing its implications? Try reading the PATRIOT act yourself one of these days. Its not a law, but a series of corrections and amend,ments to existing laws. Its impossible for anyone but seasoned lawyers to make sense of what its even saying. And we have the dept. of homeland security to thank for that. I think you are the one who is naive.

Since you we're alive long enough to understand that every intelligence agency of the world was in doubt over this godlike view of yours a mere years ago, you should keep your day job and leave the fortune telling to the professional gypsies.

There may have been doubt, but that is all. There was little to no evidence for WMD's. That's why the rest of the world wasn't behind it. They supported us in Afghanistan, remember? Wake up!

Islamic Mullahs to America: "We hate your way of life. We are funding schools to teach the young to destroy you."

Straw man. The Middle East is not just Iran. It's easy to keep your worldview when you intentionally distort the evidence, no?

Note the PNAC argument made above, which you skipped over without regard or respect.

I don't know what you're talking about. I notice you changed the subject to avoid addressing the issue as well. This is another good way to avoid cognitive dissonance?

Then you're just here to criticize and not offer any intelligent alternative.

I've offered the only sane alternative several times in this thread and its predecessor. You ignored it because it doesn't match up with your manifest destiny-inspired worldview

Bush didn't lie, and you have no proof of it.

To make the case for war, He used nonexistent IAEA reports, intelligence the CIA had debunked as a fraud a year earlier and forged British intelligence documents. He didn't tell the public that the state dept found no evidence of Iraq supporting international terrorism, but the exact opposite. These are just the worst of his and his admin.'s willful deceptions.

This is burnt over territory, go back and read the lying idiots thread and this one, and then tell me he didn't lie.

Notice how you talk about Clinton's attacks against al Qaeda and the war against Iraq in the same sentence. There is no relationship between the 2, comrade. The problem was terrorism, not a contained tyrant. This does not compute

If you're aggressive on terrorism, why are you arguing for the legitimacy of the Iranian theocracy which has been a terrorist state since it's ascention to power in the 70's?

Never did. I argued that it was an overkill reaction to rapid westernization, which was caused by US intervention in the area. I don't care why we originally did it, my point is we screwed ourselves over in the long run.

Again you go after the mote in my eye and ignore the beam in yours by refusing to deal with your own problems with logic.

oxbow, please run a diagnostic on your logic chip. Your answer does not compute...

that's because you're ignoring the alternative. You've been arguing that the we're all doomed if we back down militarily the slightest bit because it will show weakness to the enemy. You don't consider that if the world was united like in afghanistan the war on terror would go better for everyone. Its not my logic chip that needs an overhaul.

Is IAMANUT your friend, and how many little people can we expect to see show up in your defese?

no, and none

 

[Said1]

no, and none

Oh, so the wink and smile smilie WASN"T an open invitation to come here and help you? :happy2:

 

[Annie]

funny in reply to your response to Said, I hear many voices.

 

[Said1]

funny in reply to your response to Said, I hear many voices.

Phew, I thought it was just me!

 

[oxbow3]

Since the new semester starts on Monday, I may not come back for a while. Im going to go enjoy my last weekend as a free man, and Ill be busy with 17 credits a job and my friends afterwards.

I've enjoyed coming here and learning about the thoughts and issues of people so different from me. I hope you have good luck with everything you do.

Remember the words and life of Christ and all the other great teachers. Remember that they rejected the path of death and self-immolation. They were willing to sacrifice their lives in order to save their souls, and perhaps ours.

War begets only war, it seldom results in a lasting peace. This is because of the law of unintended consequences, and the eternal principle that an immoral act cannot be used in the service of a noble cause. I hope each of you finds the peace and joy that is your prerogative, and that you remain well until we meet again.

 

[Annie]

Since the new semester starts on Monday, I may not come back for a while. Im going to go enjoy my last weekend as a free man, and Ill be busy with 17 credits a job and my friends afterwards.

I've enjoyed coming here and learning about the thoughts and issues of people so different from me. I hope you have good luck with everything you do.

Remember the words and life of Christ and all the other great teachers. Remember that they rejected the path of death and self-immolation. They were willing to sacrifice their lives in order to save their souls, and perhaps ours.

War begets only war, it seldom results in a lasting peace. This is because of the law of unintended consequences, and the eternal principle that an immoral act cannot be used in the service of a noble cause. I hope each of you finds the peace and joy that is your prerogative, and that you remain well until we meet again.

Aw C'mon. I teach full time and work on my master's. You didn't respond to my post! Can't handle the heat?

 

[Said1]

Aw C'mon. I teach full time and work on my master's. You didn't respond to my post! Can't handle the heat?

I guess he can't handle being exposed for the shmuck that he is. :2guns:

 

[oxbow3]

Katthianne, your the hardest one here to argue with because all you do is post links. You refuse to do your own arguing. When I have a few hours, I will go through the reams of info you've left me so far to sift through. Until then, take care.