America vs Russia (yet again)?

[Aileron]

The Islamic dynasties were constantly at war. If not over the succession, then because of constant expanions, rebellions, and infighting. The Umayyid Caliphate fought its way in and was conquered out quickly. What's going on right now in Iraq would be considered "peace" by Abbasid standards. They had a Golden Age which lasted during the reign of one Caliph, which by the way started with a war of succession and then sunk back into chaos. The Western Caliphate was constantly at Jihad with Spain. I forget which one was the fourth, but they were probably at war all the time as well. I never learned about the Persians either.

 

 

Your !@#$%^&*essment of Iraq is accurate. If we want to fix this situation into something *proper* where there isn't an -20 divide in wealth based upon ethnicity, it will take a long time. Bush knew this and repeatedly said it will take a long time. People don't listen and expect spectacular progress in a couple years.

 

As such, it will also take a long time before this turns around and hits the terrorists. From the beginning, people always said that it is not enough to simply attack the terrorists, but to attack the root cause of terrorism. The root cause of terrorism is cultural, and thus we need to induce cultural change in order to defeat it. Cultural change takes time. Not time as in two years or four years, time as in twenty years or forty years. Since cultural change is what is needed, Iraq is as good a place as any to start.

[SeVeR]

Greased: You don't seem to understand how America screwed Britain over.

 

At the end of the War the total debts of Britain, the Commonwealth, and the Empire amounted to $30 billion. With the Lend Lease agreement over, John Maynard Keynes brokered a U.S. loan for $3.75 billion; but the U.S. loan required that Sterling be made a fully convertible currency, and the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944/5 established a regime of fixed exchange rates whereby the "value" of the world's major currencies including Sterling were defined in terms of the "new" world currency: the US Dollar, which was itself convertible into gold at $35/ounce.

 

Little by little, countries holding Sterling reserves opted to "cash them in" as Sterling was gradually abandoned as a world trading and reserve currency. This in turn was to cause numerous Sterling crises and devaluations, with their debilitating effect on the British economy and its industries. It would take thirty years and more for Sterling to settle finally into its role as "just another world currency", with the final abolition of exchange controls and liberalization of the financial system in the early 1980s.

 

This is how America permanently deposed Britain as the number one economic power. I don't want to dishonor the brave American soldiers who died in WW2, i do want to dishonor the American economists who made sure the direct currency conversion was part of the deal (source: http://www.libertyandlaw.org/ITBintro.html )

 

NBV: I support an isolationist US foreign policy where non-threats are not attacked. The US invented a threat for Iraq (WMDs) for the purpose of avoiding this traditional isolationist stance. Nazi Germany was of course a threat to America from the very beginning.

Edited June 28, 2007 by SeVeR

[Aileron]

I remember seeing a feature on O'Reilly about a man in the recent wildfire in Florida whose house was the only one on his street that wasn't destroyed. The reason for that is that everyone else on his street had foliage almost all the way up to his house, while this guy had it cleared.

 

Relevancy? Its a good analogy for our current situation. As of 2000 there were several dictatorships seeking WMDs. Yes, they didn't quite have them yet, and yes even if they did they wouldn't have the range to reach us. We had the option to show some foresight and deal with the problem or wait until we are in their sights and then deal with them.

 

We came out of one Cold War twenty years ago. It would be foolish in the extreme to let nations who consider themselves our enemies to build arms so that we can go through the whole thing again.

 

 

 

The US was the only nation that wasn't really threatened by Nazi Germany. Germany's Navy was poor and no period aircraft could fly over an ocean and perform over enemy territory. That is ofcourse prior to nuclear weapons, but according to your logic we should ignore that possibility until they actually have the thing constructed and are waving it above our heads.

 

 

Ask any martial arts master. If you wait for visual evidence of your opponants movement before you react, you won't have enough time. You have to observe them and sense their intentions.

[AstroProdigy]

As such' date=' it will also take a long time before this turns around and hits the terrorists. From the beginning, people always said that it is not enough to simply attack the terrorists, but to attack the root cause of terrorism. The root cause of terrorism is cultural, and thus we need to induce cultural change in order to defeat it. Cultural change takes time. Not time as in two years or four years, time as in twenty years or forty years. Since cultural change is what is needed, Iraq is as good a place as any to start.[/quote']

It will never turn around and hit the terrorists until we get competent leadership. All Bush has done is strengthen the root causes of terrorism. It's not cultural seeing as any society could turn and support terrorists under the right conditions. It has a lot more to do with the situation the group is in and how people feel about what's going on. If they see an occupier who toppled the leader (who was a terror to other groups, but allowed Sunni Arabs to dominate) who protected them and then utterly fail to protect them afterwards then they will fight that occupier. We've managed to convince Sunni Arabs in Iraq that their land and existence is at risk as long as we are there to support other groups against them so of course they attack us. A competent leader would have tried to prevent this from happening, but people voted for Bush instead. There really is no plan or benefit to all the madness in Iraq today. A brilliant leader could salvage the situation especially with the capabilities of the greatest country in the world. Unfortunately we're going to be stuck for another year and a half with the situation getting worse and who knows how bad Bush can mess things up from now till then. I actually have a plan to fix the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but we've already gone too far off topic to mention it here.

Edited June 29, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[manhunt432]

hey 1st of all russia sucks !@#$%^&*. we americans have won every single !@#$%^&*ing war we've been in and russia is good but we will kick there !@#$%^&* so dont worry jon paul is a !@#$%^&*ing dink by da way

[Falcoknight]

Manhunt...wtf?

[Greased_Lightning]

Uhm... Vietnam?

[JDS]

as long as no one hits canada, you guys can fight till you die

[Animate Dreams]

They were more than willing to fight because we offered them nothing and Al Qaeda was able to capitalize on this and incite inter sectarian violence and hatred because BUSH let them. The strong fighter against terrorism that Bush pretends to be actually turns out to be the man who helped the people who attacked us and gave them much more power and prestige than they would have ever had without us. A competent leader would have invaded Afghanistan, not let Rumsfeld withhold the troops on a personal vendeta against Tenet and allow Osama bin Laden to escape and then refocus our efforts towards bringing more support to Al Qaeda rather than rooting them out. Bush is easily one of the weakest presidents in history when it comes to fighting terrorism. He's actually helped terrorists in their cause more than they could have even dreamed of.

 

Go ahead and say it: Bush is a terrorist. See, Bush's administration(the Neocons) have pushed their own image of terrorists. It's basically a picture of an "Islamic extremist". But when you look at what Bush has done and, more importantly, what his administration has done, you see that they have used fear to push their own agenda. That's what truly defines a terrorist. Terrorists incite fear, but not for the sake of fear - they only incite fear so they can USE that fear. Inciting fear is pointless by itself. Terrorists don't necessarily want to scare us - they have their own political agenda, and they believe they will have a better chance at pushing that agenda if they use fear. Whether they have to incite the fear themselves, or not... they really don't care.

 

9/11 was an event meant to scare Americans, primarily. The hope was that, seeing the power of our opponents, we would back off. This was the main goal, but it's probably important to note that the people carrying out the attack thought they would receive some kind of prize in the afterlife, though we obviously don't know for sure their true thoughts and intentions. Now, it's obvious to everyone that Bush used the fear caused by 9/11 to push his own political agenda. Everyone knows Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and everyone knows(or should know) that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other Neocons have been pushing for a war in Iraq since '97 or '98(See PNAC: Project for a New American Century ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ), for the word straight from the Neocons themselves, or Pnac.info ( http://www.pnac.info/ ) for in-depth analyses and discussions of PNAC. I don't endorse the Pnac.info as being official or necessarily even accurate - it is meant to show what some people's opinions are.). This definitely qualifies Bush as a terrorist. This is nothing new to America. It is similar to the way colonial Americans were taught to fear Native Americans(through such methods as scalping - it is now widely known that colonialists started scalping, and blamed the Native Americans for it so other colonialists would see them as savages). After spreading rumors and lies about Native Americans, it was easy to convince the colonialists to attempt genocide. However, you never see those colonialists branded as terrorists.

 

The important difference, and the flaw in the statement I quoted, Astro, is that Bush used the attack for his OWN agenda, and in so doing removed almost every possibility for the terrorists to use the attack to push THEiR agenda. It's almost genius. It's the same basic idea behind turning someone into a Martyr. It's been done many times throughout history. Some rebel group(righteous or otherwise) is given rise by some leader. The opposing force desides to kill the leader. Cut off the head, and the Snake dies. When they're successful, the rebel group uses the emotions stirred up by the act to bring more people to their cause, and embolden those who are a part of the cause. This is such a classic theme throughout history that I don't feel I need to give specific examples and links(though I will, I suppose, if you want them). If you think about it, you'll notice that the rebel group also fits under the definition of terrorist. Depending on the situation, the opposing forces may be terrorists, as well. For example - if they wanted the man who was the leader of the rebel group dead anyway, they can use the fear created just by there being opposition(the new rebel force) to convince people to kill the man.

 

So we can see, terrorism is really just a meaningless label. Manipulate the definition a tiny bit, and you can label even the most righteous of leaders as terrorists. An example for this situation - ancient Rome. Both the Christians and Nero were labeled as terrorists. Of course, this situation is very complex, and any kind of analysis is way beyond the scope of this discussion, but I still believe the example is clear in this case. So basically... you shouldn't try to use the term to label or define anyone. Heck, the term "terrorist" itself is currently being used as a device to incite fear - to be used to push an agenda. So while Bush definitely fits the terrorist moniker - we shouldn't necessarily hold that against him. Unless, of course, you believe Bush is responsible for 9/11 - but that, again, is a different discussion. If you have a problem with Bush, it should be with his agenda, not the way he's pushing it. That he uses the same tactics as those he supposedly fights against is only proof of his dedication to his ideals.

[AstroProdigy]

The important difference' date=' and the flaw in the statement I quoted, Astro, is that Bush used the attack for his OWN agenda, and in so doing removed almost every possibility for the terrorists to use the attack to push THEiR agenda. It's almost genius. It's the same basic idea behind turning someone into a Martyr. It's been done many times throughout history. Some rebel group(righteous or otherwise) is given rise by some leader. The opposing force desides to kill the leader. Cut off the head, and the Snake dies. When they're successful, the rebel group uses the emotions stirred up by the act to bring more people to their cause, and embolden those who are a part of the cause. This is such a classic theme throughout history that I don't feel I need to give specific examples and links(though I will, I suppose, if you want them). If you think about it, you'll notice that the rebel group also fits under the definition of terrorist. Depending on the situation, the opposing forces may be terrorists, as well. For example - if they wanted the man who was the leader of the rebel group dead anyway, they can use the fear created just by there being opposition(the new rebel force) to convince people to kill the man.

 

So we can see, terrorism is really just a meaningless label. Manipulate the definition a tiny bit, and you can label even the most righteous of leaders as terrorists. An example for this situation - ancient Rome. Both the Christians and Nero were labeled as terrorists. Of course, this situation is very complex, and any kind of analysis is way beyond the scope of this discussion, but I still believe the example is clear in this case. So basically... you shouldn't try to use the term to label or define anyone. Heck, the term "terrorist" itself is currently being used as a device to incite fear - to be used to push an agenda. So while Bush definitely fits the terrorist moniker - we shouldn't necessarily hold that against him. Unless, of course, you believe Bush is responsible for 9/11 - but that, again, is a different discussion. If you have a problem with Bush, it should be with his agenda, not the way he's pushing it. That he uses the same tactics as those he supposedly fights against is only proof of his dedication to his ideals.[/quote']

A lot of people still clung to some crazy notion that there is a secret brilliance in the utter failure of Bush's presidency. Al Qaeda isn't stupid. They knew the US would invade after September 11th, but they hoped the new extremist president would go too far and pluck their organization out of obscurity in the weak land locked country with no resources and make them a widely admired organization in the Muslim world, turning as much of the Muslim world as possible against us and Israel. They succeeded. Bush played into their hands VERY well. Now if only we had a competent leader to take away what Bush gave to our enemies. We've managed to topple a secularist government and allow Al Qaeda a nice base of operations in Iraq. We also threaten to topple the secularist Syrian government and further consolidate Al Qaeda's power. We threaten to topple their hated Iranian enemy and topple the protector of Shiites (albeit oppressive to non Shiites). We're destroying the whole old order in the Middle East and in its place allowing hatred and religious extremism to take its place. You have the "brilliant" president to thank for it. Actually your kids and grandkids have him to thank for it since they're the ones who are really going to be feeling the repercussions.

Edited July 3, 2007 by AstroProdigy