did the end justify the means...

[file cabinet]

privacy concerns.. war on terror.. everything.. did preventing the terrorist attack make a dfference?

[ApeTheDog]

Things sure have gotten safer after bush started his war on terror, haven't they?

[attila_the_hunny]

Things sure have gotten safer after bush started his war on terror, haven't they?

I feel so safe, it's like my country is a security blanket. happppy

[geniusndisguise]

We'll never know.

[file cabinet]

Things sure have gotten safer after bush started his war on terror, haven't they?
what is it Bush should have done?

[file cabinet]

We'll never know.
if the terrorist plot wasn't discovered and a couple thousand died, again, would preventing another tragedy be worth the effort of the American government(and other affiliated) countries?

[ptGatsby]

if the terrorist plot wasn't discovered and a couple thousand died, again, would preventing another tragedy be worth the effort of the American government(and other affiliated) countries?


A better question is... how much of a part of the war in Iraq, Lebanon, and whatever else you can throw in play in the motivation of these kinds of attacks worldwide?

[ApeTheDog]

what is it Bush should have done?

Be less confident that his dumb violent approach to global problem solving was going to work, for a start.

[Zephyrus055]

what is it Bush should have done?
Bush's actions have added fuel to the fire. If he cancelled our national alliance with Israel and discontinued giving it political and financial support, then he would have very easily diminished the demand for terrorism against our country from middle easterners.

Many in the Middle East are just outraged with the west interfearing in their lives, and this gives terrorist organizations demand. They can not exist without demand, and the key to cutting demand is to cut off Israel. But nooo, we won't do that!

Fundamentalist christians...

[geniusndisguise]

This is what I mean. You can say that what Bush has done has made it worse and you can say it has made it better but the truth is we really don't know. Terrorists can use his actions as justification, just as if Bush did nothing people could use his non-action as a reason it continued (if it did). I, personally, find it difficult to speculate on what may have been in any kind of situation because there are too many variables, known and unknown.

[Rhu]

A better question is... how much of a part of the war in Iraq, Lebanon, and whatever else you can throw in play in the motivation of these kinds of attacks worldwide?

That's a social experiment that would require populating another, nearly identical Earth as a control group (henceforth referred to as "Earth B") to properly measure.

I wonder how different the worlds would end up being, essentially halving human society along idealistic lines.

I'd guess that regardless of whoever does better in the short term, the child Earths would end up becomming exactly the same as the other after a few generations.

[INThoughtPolice]

Bush's actions have added fuel to the fire. If he cancelled our national alliance with Israel and discontinued giving it political and financial support, then he would have very easily diminished the demand for terrorism against our country from middle easterners.

Many in the Middle East are just outraged with the west interfearing in their lives, and this gives terrorist organizations demand. They can not exist without demand, and the key to cutting demand is to cut off Israel. But nooo, we won't do that!

Fundamentalist christians...
To predict that cutting off our most valuable democratic ally in the Middle East will cause terrorist groups to cease attacking us demonstrates your ignorance of the goals of these groups. Appeasing the terrorists is not an option.

[Zephyrus055]

To predict that cutting off our most valuable democratic ally in the Middle East will cause terrorist groups to cease attacking us demonstrates your ignorance of the goals of these groups. Appeasing the terrorists is not an option.
I do not care what the goals of madmen are, but I do know that terrorist madmen are in demand because of western involvement in middle eastern affairs.

They may have a set of demands, but in reality they would substantially lose their following if their demands were ever met. They thrive on our ambitions.

Simply put, madmen are ignored when sanemen are able to supply demand, but madmen thrive when sanemen can not.

Who cares about having a democratic ally? Are you intent on spreading democracy, because you hold it to be the best government ever devised? I personally do not want the power of plutocratic oligarchs to expand, and you are demonstrating your own ignorance if you believe that representative democracy is anything but a facade to a defacto plutocratic oligarchy.

Moreover, Israel has no intrinsic right to exist and is expendible. It is in our best interest to cancel our alliance with them.

[MyDogHasFleas]

Bush's actions have added fuel to the fire. If he cancelled our national alliance with Israel and discontinued giving it political and financial support, then he would have very easily diminished the demand for terrorism against our country from middle easterners.


If the senior leadership of the USA (I'm not talking Bush -- this is a long-standing problem spanning many administrations) really believed that they could solve all their problems with the Middle East, terrorism, and oil in one fell swoop, and they would have a close working relationship with the Arab countries like they do with Britain (for example) from now on, if only they tossed Israel under the bus -- don't you think they would have done it by now? This stuff has been going on since the 70s.



Many in the Middle East are just outraged with the west interfearing in their lives, and this gives terrorist organizations demand. They can not exist without demand, and the key to cutting demand is to cut off Israel. But nooo, we won't do that!

Fundamentalist christians...

Do you really think EVERY administration in the last 40 years has been dominated by Fundamentalist Christians? Do you really think Bush's is, for that matter? Or is this just a shallow, mindless conspiracy theory?

Can't you take any guidance from the last 100 years' battles against the forces of totalitarianism and for freedom and democracy? World war I? World war II? The cold war? Now the war against Islamic radicalism? All of these forces are trying to, literally, overrun the West and place it under control of a totalitarian regime (be it Fascism, Communism, or radical Islamic government). Did tossing any of these movements one little country or two stop them? Ref. Poland in WW II, the Eastern Bloc in the Cold War. So what makes you think anything would stop the Islamic radical movement?

Don't be blinded by political spin or dislike of the current Bush administration. We are caught up in nothing less than the next global struggle (it's really World War IV). This will be the second war fought with nukes. Luckily we managed to get out of WW III without a nuclear exchange. I certainly hope that's the case this time. And the next administration and the one after that and the one after that will have to deal with it, too. They won't all be Bush and probably won't all be Republican, either. I just hope we aren't so stupid as to elect an appeaser or someone who buries our heads in the sand hoping the bogeyman will pass us by.

Think about this stuff, please, before you spew out some blindly enraged pap.

[C.J.Woolf]

That's a social experiment that would require populating another, nearly identical Earth as a control group (henceforth referred to as "Earth B") to properly measure.

I wonder how different the worlds would end up being, essentially halving human society along idealistic lines.

I'd guess that regardless of whoever does better in the short term, the child Earths would end up becomming exactly the same as the other after a few generations.
That experiment has already been run several times. Every utopian community started as a little Earth B. Those that survived more than one generation fell apart because the founders' children were more like Earth A people and they weren't as committed to utopian ideals.


Think about this stuff, please, before you spew out some blindly enraged pap.
Must. Not. Laugh!

[Zephyrus055]

If the senior leadership of the USA (I'm not talking Bush -- this is a long-standing problem spanning many administrations) really believed that they could solve all their problems with the Middle East, terrorism, and oil in one fell swoop, and they would have a close working relationship with the Arab countries like they do with Britain (for example) from now on, if only they tossed Israel under the bus -- don't you think they would have done it by now? This stuff has been going on since the 70s.
Aside from the fact that the Bush administration is strategically incompetent, their relationships with the middle east have been generally coercive.

More than likely, the US has continued the British strategy of divide and conquer, with Israel being an essential part of this strategy. Now it's beginning to backfire, and in response to this Bush has increased the nation's coercive presence, adding fuel to the fire of terrorism.



Do you really think EVERY administration in the last 40 years has been dominated by Fundamentalist Christians? Do you really think Bush's is, for that matter? Or is this just a shallow, mindless conspiracy theory?
No. The beliefs of the masses are generally caused, and one way that plutocrats are able to advance their economic interests are by promoting religious fundamentalism.

Authorities cause the ideology of the people; the ideology of the people does not cause their authority. Revolutions are caused by an inability for authority to supply demand, and as long as authority is able to they are free to manipulate the people's thoughts and traditions as they will.


Can't you take any guidance from the last 100 years' battles against the forces of totalitarianism and for freedom and democracy? World war I? World war II? The cold war? Now the war against Islamic radicalism? All of these forces are trying to, literally, overrun the West and place it under control of a totalitarian regime (be it Fascism, Communism, or radical Islamic government). Did tossing any of these movements one little country or two stop them? Ref. Poland in WW II, the Eastern Bloc in the Cold War. So what makes you think anything would stop the Islamic radical movement?
Stop thinking in the context of "us against them; freedom vs totalitarianism" etc. It's only distracting you from observing the world objectively.

Hitler was in demand by his people and his power was strongly secured. Not responding with violence would only encourage him further. The terrorists situation is different, in that they would lose demand and power if we withdrew. My recommendation is a strategic maneuver that lifts our coercive umbrella, facilitating mutual cooperation and reducing resentment. It is not backing down.


Don't be blinded by political spin or dislike of the current Bush administration. We are caught up in nothing less than the next global struggle (it's really World War IV). This will be the second war fought with nukes. Luckily we managed to get out of WW III without a nuclear exchange. I certainly hope that's the case this time. And the next administration and the one after that and the one after that will have to deal with it, too. They won't all be Bush and probably won't all be Republican, either. I just hope we aren't so stupid as to elect an appeaser or someone who buries our heads in the sand hoping the bogeyman will pass us by.
Whatever.


Think about this stuff, please, before you spew out some blindly enraged pap.
Maybe you should read my post before you go off on an emotional tirad.

[ptGatsby]

That's a social experiment that would require populating another, nearly identical Earth as a control group (henceforth referred to as "Earth B") to properly measure.


Which is a good way of excusing anything, I find. A bad choice can always be "well, we'll never know what could of happened".

Every action has tendrils to all sorts of reactions. There is a long history of terrorism and intervention in other country affairs. You could even look at why people claim these are doing these acts.

Anyway, I don't disagree. But there is a certain pattern that has emerged many times before about these kinds of wars.



I'd guess that regardless of whoever does better in the short term, the child Earths would end up becomming exactly the same as the other after a few generations.


No individual action matters? Lets take something big, like the end of WWII. Think that a couple of generations is all it would take to remove an alternate ending (say, no nuclear weapons were dropped...).

I doubt it. Minor choices add up. The world would be entirely different.

Would humans change? Probably not. But I'm not so into 'psychohistory' that I believe a small population like earth couldn't develop in eratic ways.

Hey, speaking of psychohistory...

In any case, I would make the contention that Bush and has administration has escalated this into a war, has created a permanent breeding ground of 4th generation war (which is now eternal until the growing power gap closes) and worked hard to undermine everything the US was created to be.

In short, the past 100 years has seen the destruction of the American dream. It has culminated into the eventual single superpower that we have now... and it will overextend due to the dependence of enemies to maintain order.

In the long run, this will morally bankrupt and cause sufficient economic distortion that when a singular sufficient economic strike hits the country, it will be unable to maintain its dominance. This cannot be timed. The harder it attempts to maintain its order, the worst the distortion (and thusly the less of a shock it would take). As a result the worse the situation will become...

Due to the US being a democracy, order will be enforced by mob rule until such time that the government itself turns inward - this would require the economic shock to be sufficient to no longer be able maintain order via external enemies.

Towards the tail end of this shock, an alternate but equally morally bankrupt system will emerge and the world will generally marginalise the previous power until various competing governments replace the current elitest groups with their own. This would close the power gap distortion and solve the current over-reaching cause.

That's my psychohistory prediction, if you will. Its actually along the lines of one I made about 6 years ago... I guess the point is that the underlying problems cannot be removed. It will happen. The forces that are moving this forward are locked in place. If it was to happen tomorrow or in 25 years, these forces cannot be tempered and slowly drained away.

(Ne Ne crazy prediction power!)

[MyDogHasFleas]

Hitler was in demand by his people and his power was strongly secured. Not responding with violence would only encourage him further. The terrorists situation is different, in that they would lose demand and power if we withdrew. It is simply a strategic maneuver that lifts our coercive umbrella and enables mutual cooperation, reducing resentment.


This is the nub of the disagreement. I think you could not be more wrong. I think that Islamic radicalism comes from where all radicalism comes from -- the unshakeable belief that your system is the only good one, and the desire to impose it on everyone else. What is going to possibly stop Islamic radicals from continuing their push to this end? It certainly won't be just letting them overrun Israel. They think democracy and secular government is the enemy, not Israel. That's just the first target.

[C.J.Woolf]

Some perspective:

The Islamic empire ceased to be an existential threat to the West in 732 when Charles Martel won the battle of Tours. The Ottomans had a go at eastern Europe in the 14-1500s, but they subsided too. Muhammad and the early caliphs took advantage of a great power vacuum (the Byzantines and Sassanid Persians were both weak) to win their empire. The ease of their conquest made Muslims think they were bigger and badder than they really were. Some still suffer from that delusion.

The Islamists are not the Nazis. They have no planes, no tanks, no ships, no nukes (yet). Respond proportionately to the threat, please.

[Zephyrus055]

This is the nub of the disagreement. I think you could not be more wrong. I think that Islamic radicalism comes from where all radicalism comes from -- the unshakeable belief that your system is the only good one, and the desire to impose it on everyone else. What is going to possibly stop Islamic radicals from continuing their push to this end? It certainly won't be just letting them overrun Israel. They think democracy and secular government is the enemy, not Israel. That's just the first target.
Most people seem to have the unshakable belief that their own system is the only good one. Radicalism is relative to the opinions generally held in a society. Radicals by definition want to completely reform society, and this becomes appealing when the current system is unable to supply the demands of government. A radical in one country might be a moderate in another.

Every state has its share of radicals, but they are silenced in a state whose authorities are able to sufficiently supply the demands of government. Islamic radicals will likely have little change in their current goals, but their following will be reduced to a small and insignificant population if they lose their appeal, possibly from a change to more favorable circumstances.

[INThoughtPolice]

This is the nub of the disagreement. I think you could not be more wrong. I think that Islamic radicalism comes from where all radicalism comes from -- the unshakeable belief that your system is the only good one, and the desire to impose it on everyone else. What is going to possibly stop Islamic radicals from continuing their push to this end? It certainly won't be just letting them overrun Israel. They think democracy and secular government is the enemy, not Israel. That's just the first target.
Exactly. We must recognize the desire of Islamic extremists to impose their views on people in democratic secular governments. They believe that you must accept their thinking or die.

Moreover, Israel has no intrinsic right to exist and is expendible. It is in our best interest to cancel our alliance with them.
The Iranian President said the same thing.

Israel provides us with valuable intelligence and they are just as opposed to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. as we are. They do matter.

The United Nations created the Jewish state. You may disagree with that decision (as I do) but you must recognize that Israel exists and is not going anywhere. The time has come to halt the 60 year-old blame game and instead work toward a reasonable solution for long-term peace that satisfies both sides.

[INThoughtPolice]

More than likely, the US has continued the British strategy of divide and conquer, with Israel being an essential part of this strategy. You really believe that the United States wants possesion of Afghanistan and Iraq and it is part of a wider plan to obtain control over the middle east? In case you haven't noticed, it is the citizens of these countries that are electing their leaders now, not Americans. We want out.





It's only distracting you from observing the world objectively.
Is the objective world one in which fundamentalist christians have run our government for the last 50 years? Is the objective world one that believes that the individual is incapable of independent thinking and is controlled by the manipulative authorities? Perhaps you should get off your high horse.



The terrorists situation is different, in that they would lose demand and power if we withdrew. The terrorists wish to eliminate any secular democracy and replace it with an Islamic fascist system of government. You do not understand their goals. Cutting demand? Those that wish to carry out suicide attacks against us are motivated by a desire to elimate us, not our troops or they would select different targets. You are making assumptions again.


It is not backing down.
Keep telling yourself that.

[Zephyrus055]

The Iranian President said the same thing.
So? That's like saying, "Hitler did this so it's wrong." Well, I am sure the Iranian leader also told his wife "I love you."


Israel provides us with valuable intelligence and they are just as opposed to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. as we are. They do matter.

They are only valuable with our ineffective coercive strategies.


The United Nations created the Jewish state. You may disagree with that decision (as I do) but you must recognize that Israel exists and is not going anywhere. The time has come to halt the 60 year-old blame game and instead work toward a reasonable solution for long-term peace that satisfies both sides.
We could try encouraging a mutual peace deal after a change of strategy, and I never said anything about destroying Israel.


You really believe that the United States wants possesion of Afghanistan and Iraq and it is part of a wider plan to obtain control over the middle east? In case you haven't noticed, it is the citizens of these countries that are electing their leaders, not Americans. We want out.
That's not what I meant by divide and conquer. Why maintain an expensive military occupation when you can exploit their resources? What I meant dealt with tactics of dividing the people so they don't fight you but someone else (divide) as you exploit their resources (conquer).


Is the objective world one in which fundamentalist christians have run our government for the last 50 years?
I never said that. But fundamentalist christianity serves authority's interests by pacifying resistance to America's policies in the middle east.
"Yay go get em! Bring Armageddon!"


Is the objective world one that believes that the individual is incapable of independent thinking and is controlled by the manipulative authorities? Perhaps you should get off your high horse.
The individual is capable of thinking, but generally most do little of it. Most allow themselves to be swayed by their authorities.
Listen to the ENTP Henry Ford,
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is why so few engage in it."


The terrorists wish to eliminate any secular democracy and replace it with an Islamic fascist system of government. You do not understand their goals. Cutting demand? Those that wish to carry out suicide attacks against us are motivated by a desire to elimate us, not our troops or they would select different targets. You are making assumptions again.

I think I have enough of an idea of their beliefs that I know it wouldn't look pretty if they came to fruition.

Ideology and government can be reduced to economics. They exist because they have a supplier and thrive when they have a demand. Radicals will probably always exist, but their ideas never come to fruition unless their more moderate competitors are unable to supply demand.

[INThoughtPolice]

So? That's like saying, "Hitler did this so it's wrong." Well, I am sure the Iranian leader also told his wife "I love you."The Iranian President and yourself have similar misguided foreign policy ideas. Quite different from "I love you."



They are only valuable with our ineffective coercive strategies.The correct strategy is to confront radical Islamicism, not appease the terrorists. Israel is a critical ally. I disagree with the current administration's tactics and decision-making but the fascists must be dealt with.


We could try encouraging a mutual peace deal after a change of strategy, and I never said anything about destroying Israel.
Your strategy is appeasement. I know that you don't want Israel destroyed.


That's not what I meant by divide and conquer. Why maintain an expensive military occupation when you can exploit their resources? What I meant dealt with tactics of dividing the people so they don't fight you but someone else (divide) as you exploit their resources (conquer).The national debt is the largest it has ever been as a result of our operations in the middle east. We are spending billions on these countries and using the oil profits to build infrastructure in those countries. Not to mention the human cost. Exploitation? We are losing billions of dollars and thousands of lives!!!



I never said that. But fundamentalist christianity serves authority's interests by pacifying resistance to America's policies in the middle east.
"Yay go get em! Bring Armageddon!"......................................................

They can not exist without demand, and the key to cutting demand is to cut off Israel. But nooo, we won't do that!

Fundamentalist christians...
We haven't "cut off" Israel since it became a state in 1948. By implication you are accusing fundamentalist christians of running our government for 58 years.




The individual is capable of thinking, but generally most do little of it. Most allow themselves to be swayed by their authorities.

Individuals act in self-interest. If the authorities are able to meet their demands then people will allow them to maintain power. Of course there are exceptions.

[mgb]

privacy concerns.. war on terror.. everything.. did preventing the terrorist attack make a dfference?

It's kind of funny. There doesn't have to be an attack anymore for rights to disappear. From that perspective the ends don't really justify the means because it means the terrorists have one. They changed how we view the world and how we live our lives. It's what they wanted to do.

Also funny is reading INThoughPolice's posts. I agree Israel should be a state. I mean, it has been in some way or another for 6000 years. But, they don't have to be the type of state they are. It's not about appeasement but maybe they could try and blend in a little better than they do.

[Zephyrus055]

Well I must respectfully bow out of this debate, because it is clearly not going anywhere. The communication between us is frustrated and we are basically repeating ourselves.


The Iranian President and yourself have similar misguided foreign policy ideas. Quite different from "I love you."


The correct strategy is to confront radical Islamicism, not appease the terrorists. Israel is a critical ally...

[INThoughtPolice]

Well I must respectfully bow out of this debate, because it is clearly not going anywhere. The communication between us is frustrated and we are basically repeating ourselves.
Agreed.

[INThoughtPolice]

But, they don't have to be the type of state they are. It's not about appeasement but maybe they could try and blend in a little better than they do.
lol.

[Magajy]

Exactly. We must recognize the desire of Islamic extremists to impose their views on people in democratic secular governments. They believe that you must accept their thinking or die.

So says Bush, either have democracy or we'll bomb you all.


Israel provides us with valuable intelligence and they are just as opposed to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. as we are. They do matter. Do you know when O bin L started to take his focus off the USSR and towards the US, have a look and you will know why, most people only become your enemies when you chose to make them so. The key word being most, and that is what the Imperator was pointing out to you, there are still Nazis today.


The United Nations created the Jewish state. You may disagree with that decision (as I do) but you must recognize that Israel exists and is not going anywhere. The time has come to halt the 60 year-old blame game and instead work toward a reasonable solution for long-term peace that satisfies both sides.
And how do you achieve that reasonable solution by being on the side of one party to the conflict?

Before you lump me up with *God knows who*, as you did to Impeartor and the Iranian P; let me say the actions of those who kill innocents cannot be justified, be them Bush, O Bin L, Isreal, Hezbollah or who ever.... they all say their system is the best; I am fine as long as you don't bomb/coerce me into it, whatever it may be, democracy included.

[Magajy]

But, they don't have to be the type of state they are. It's not about appeasement but maybe they could try and blend in a little better than they do
lol.
Care to share what you find funny?


I find it similar to a call to Al-Qaida to stop being the type of organisation they are today, and be more constructive, explain to people their views and converns and aim to change what they wish to change via non-violent means, be kind of like tranparency intenational or amnesty international. Would you find that funny?

[mgb]

Care to share what you find funny?


I find it similar to a call to Al-Qaida to stop being the type of organisation they are today, and be more constructive, explain to people their views and converns and aim to change what they wish to change via non-violent means, be kind of like tranparency intenational or amnesty international. Would you find that funny?

I can.

One could quite convincingly argue that without Israel being the state it is, al Qaida wouldn't exist in the form it does.

Also, let's face facts about al Qaida, everything they know they learned from the US government. Their religion might be Islamic Fundamentalist, but their tactics are all CIA. But then so is a great deal of what the Israeli military does, so I guess the two can be easily compared.

But it'd be nice if al Qaida stopped being the same type of organization they are too, you're right. And also, yes that's funny.

[Magajy]

I can.

One could quite convincingly argue that without Israel being the state it is, al Qaida wouldn't exist in the form it does.

Also, let's face facts about al Qaida, everything they know they learned from the US government. Their religion might be Islamic Fundamentalist, but their tactics are all CIA. But then so is a great deal of what the Israeli military does, so I guess the two can be easily compared.

But it'd be nice if al Qaida stopped being the same type of organization they are too, you're right. And also, yes that's funny.Nice to hear you say all that, but you missed out one thing, would it be nice it Isreal also started being a different type of state than it is today?

With you saying all that, where does the US/CIA lie in all this? Would like to know your view.

[mgb]

Nice to hear you say all that, but you missed out one thing, would it be nice it Isreal also started being a different type of state than it is today?

With you saying all that, where does the US/CIA lie in all this? Would like to know your view.

It sure would be nice.

I realize they are in an area where things are pretty hostile. But, they don't really help themselves by being equally to more hostile in return. In fact, given their power in the area it actually makes it a lot worse for themselves.

For example, with no hope of ever having real homes, an economy, anything, "Palestine" is basically a suicide bomber factory for all intensive purposes. Maybe if they had things to live for, opportunities, jobs, a chance at buying a house, all the things people in Europe and North America (for example) take for granted, they'd be less inclined to strap bombs on. And who controls that? The country that built a gigantic wall around them? Who owns most of the territory around them? Yep, Israel.

With no conciliations things enter into a downward spiral.

And on the "You do it to yourself" level, that's a little bit funny.


Oh and the US and the CIA. Well, the US is Israel's number one supporter. So I guess that's where they sit on that. How? Everything. From UN resolutions to guns. You name it. Kind of makes them a bit of a player in the game.

And the CIA, I'd bet dimes to dollars that they help out in Israel when they can, especially given how things operate in the world today. As for al Qaida, if the planes of 9/11 had flown into the Kremlin in the mid 80's, I promise you it would have brought tears of joy into some CIA operative's eye, knowing it was a job well done.

[Magajy]

It sure would be nice.

I realize they are in an area where things are pretty hostile. But, they don't really help themselves by being equally to more hostile in return. In fact, given their power in the area it actually makes it a lot worse for themselves.

For example, with no hope of ever having real homes, an economy, anything, "Palestine" is basically a suicide bomber factory for all intensive purposes. Maybe if they had things to live for, opportunities, jobs, a chance at buying a house, all the things people in Europe and North America (for example) take for granted, they'd be less inclined to strap bombs on. And who controls that? The country that built a gigantic wall around them? Who owns most of the territory around them? Yep, Israel.

With no conciliations things enter into a downward spiral.

And on the "You do it to yourself" level, that's a little bit funny.So the question is, do you really think they like it like that? The definately will like to see things changed.

Isreal might be in a hostile region, if it wasn't created in a hostile way, things might be a little different I suppose.

[mgb]

So the question is, do you really think they like it like that? The definately will like to see things changed.

Isreal might be in a hostile region, if it wasn't created in a hostile way, things might be a little different I suppose.

Do I really think who thinks like what?

[Magajy]

Oh and the US and the CIA. Well, the US is Israel's number one supporter. So I guess that's where they sit on that. How? Everything. From UN resolutions to guns. You name it. Kind of makes them a bit of a player in the game.

And the CIA, I'd bet dimes to dollars that they help out in Israel when they can, especially given how things operate in the world today. As for al Qaida, if the planes of 9/11 had flown into the Kremlin in the mid 80's, I promise you it would have brought tears of joy into some CIA operative's eye, knowing it was a job well done.
So where is all the morality of hope and freedom versus hate and doom? If human life were sacred, is it not of all men?

[Magajy]

Do I really think who thinks like what?

Those that live in the suicide bomber factory, if they had their way, they'll change it to a happy life factory

[mgb]

So where is all the morality of hope and freedom versus hate and doom? If human life were sacred, is it not of all men?

It's in the backsit. Being hit by it's dad for putting it's finger in the proximity of it's sister and making her scream.

Seriously though, did you get that question off of a church sign or something?

[mgb]

Those that live in the suicide bomber factory, if they had their way, they'll change it to a happy life factory

Who wouldn't? I don't think any of them ever said, "I want to live in a refugee camp and squeak by day to day for the rest of my life."

It's pretty normal for humans to want stability and freedom in their lives. Hell, most would be happy with one or the other. Lacking both, they are easy prey for those with political agendas.

[Magajy]

It's in the backsit. Being hit by it's dad for putting it's finger in the proximity of it's sister and making her scream.

Seriously though, did you get that question off of a church sign or something?
Church sign? You are not serious. I never knew morality had a sister, what's her name? May be she could help us understand it.

[MyDogHasFleas]

Most people seem to have the unshakable belief that their own system is the only good one. Radicalism is relative to the opinions generally held in a society. Radicals by definition want to completely reform society, and this becomes appealing when the current system is unable to supply the demands of government. A radical in one country might be a moderate in another.

Every state has its share of radicals, but they are silenced in a state whose authorities are able to sufficiently supply the demands of government. Islamic radicals will likely have little change in their current goals, but their following will be reduced to a small and insignificant population if they lose their appeal, possibly from a change to more favorable circumstances.

yes, moral equivalence and relativism. Sounds good.

Guess what? It ain't true. There is a fundamental difference between a system that explicitly specifies freedom and democracy and does not prescribe the outcome of that process, vs. a system that explicitly specifies the ruling authority for all time, to be defended against any attempt to replace it, and which prescribes the principles and system of government.

An analogy from the technology industry would be if I stood up at a conference and said "Open source software is really the same as proprietary software. It's still people developing software and other people using it. They are equivalent and I can't view one or the other as superior."

Guess what? It ain't true. There is a fundamental difference in these two systems of supplying software for users. You can see the analogy.

Can you see what I'm trying to get at?

[ptGatsby]

Can you see what I'm trying to get at?


We are talking about the same country that overthrows and invades countries in the name of democracy, right? Well, sometimes anyway. Other times they sponsor the local 'freedom fighters' and overthrow democracies they don't like...

I'm pretty sure that 'moral equivalence and relativism' differences starts turning grey when the differences between the system start shrinking.

One is better than the other? Seems like freedom brings the prosperity needed for large scale terrorism... but then maybe it works the other way... Might allows prosperity by exploiting the weaker. *shrug*

[Dom]

privacy concerns.. war on terror.. everything.. did preventing the terrorist attack make a dfference?


ER should the question be past tense???

Lol...

The price of freedom is peace.... the price of peace is freedom, I know which I'd choose......

There is always conflict in the world... I'd rather have freedom thanks...

[INThoughtPolice]

Care to share what you find funny?
Israel is a democracy, Judaism is the dominant religion in that country, and its populace belongs to a different race. Israel is not likely to blend in.

You mistakenly believe me to be supportive of Israel's military strategies in Lebanon. Israel is killing innocent Lebanese and deserves worldwide condemnation for its actions. That said, Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorists that kidnap its soldiers, fire rockets at its citizens, and use suicide bombers to kill its civilians.

[Magajy]

Israel is a democracy, Judaism is the dominant religion in that country, and its populace belongs to a different race. Israel is not likely to blend in.

You mistakenly believe me to be supportive of Israel's military strategies in Lebanon. Israel is killing innocent Lebanese and deserves worldwide condemnation for its actions. That said, Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorists that kidnap its soldiers, fire rockets at its citizens, and use suicide bombers to kill its civilians.
I was hoping something really different will come out of this, but I see now I am wrong. It is the same old spin, Isreal has a right to defend itself from terrorists, and the Palis/Lebaneeses dont(from isreali terror). Isreal can and does kidnap (even Paliamentary members) and thats fine, but anyone else doing it is a terrorist. The hezbollah rockets only started after Isreali bombardment was well underway. So the pretext of stopping rockets is crap. Yeah, suicide bombers sound and are dreadful, but so are the sonic booms of fighter jets and helicopter gunships that target moving vehicles, not to forget targetted assasinations of anyone isreali intellligence thinks should be eliminated, and that is also fine!? Dont know where we are headed.....

We can continue to ignore the facts and continue to deny people their rights, but that will only ensure unending cycles of violence. It seems some people prefer it that way, as long as it isnt them that are dying.:sadbanana:

[MyDogHasFleas]

The question here is: are the two sides equivalent, or is there a fundamental difference?

I've been talking about whether the Western democracies (which includes Israel) are equivalent to non-democratic regimes or not. This is a similar discussion: is Israel's violence equivalent to the Islamic world's or not.

If the two sides are equivalent, the "cycles of violence" worldview prevails. Hezbollah (or Hamas, or ...) is firing rockets (or suicide bombers, or...) BUT look at Israel ... they're taking action too. It's a cycle. Both sides are equivalent.

But, like the previous example, this misses the fundamental point. If the Islamic forces opposing Israel just left Israel alone and did not continue to attack their civilian population, the violence would be over. Israel would exist happily within its borders as a free, democratic state. On the other hand, if Israel leaves the Islamic forces alone, they don't stop. It's been tried, with a number of agreements, changes in Israeli government, peace accords, UN resolutions, etc. etc. etc. The violence continues in spite of this.

The reason this is true? Israel acknowledges the other countries' right to exist on their land surrounding Israel. The others do NOT acknowledge Israel's right to exist on its land. The only "solution" they envision is the destruction of Israel and the re-taking of its land as an Islamic/Palestinian entity.

The "cycle of violence" is not a cycle, it's an engine driven by the forces that wish Israel to be destroyed. If those forces stopped, there would be no cycle.

[MyDogHasFleas]

We are talking about the same country that overthrows and invades countries in the name of democracy, right? Well, sometimes anyway. Other times they sponsor the local 'freedom fighters' and overthrow democracies they don't like...

So, what are we talking about here? Nicaragua and Iran/Contra? Let's get specific. Look, any government the size of the United States is going to have problems and bad, secret stuff. The amazing thing is that, generally, things get revealed and corrected over time. That NEVER happens in a totalitarian regime, until it's overthrown. That said, let's look at the other side. Totalitarian regimes can come into power via elections. That does NOT mean they are "democracies". The difference? It's a one-way street. They will NEVER give up power by democratic processes once they gain power. That's how you tell whether they are democratic or not -- whether there can be a peaceful transition of power.



I'm pretty sure that 'moral equivalence and relativism' differences starts turning grey when the differences between the system start shrinking.

Yes. Nothing is black and white, certainly. But that doesn't mean that everything is grey. Simply saying "I've found a counterexample" in this arena doesn't mean the premise is invalid. This isn't a math proof.



One is better than the other? Seems like freedom brings the prosperity needed for large scale terrorism...


Interesting. I would not so much say "prosperity" in general, but technological advances engendered by democratic systems that have enabled global terrorism outside of national borders to happen. Without advanced communications/networking, and advances in explosives, global terrorism would have a much tougher time getting organized. Thankfully, the governments of countries under attack (mainly Great Britain and the USA) have figured this out, and have invested a lot in counterterrorism activities to thwart this new, asymmetric threat. Case in point: the recent arrests of the airline liquid bomb plotters. The irony you point out is true -- the freedom of democratic entities has allowed the global Islamic radical terrorist movement to happen.



but then maybe it works the other way... Might allows prosperity by exploiting the weaker. *shrug*

I don't think so... that sounds like feudalism with the nobles exploiting the serfs to work the land. Things don't really work that way today. Freedom means (among other things) freedom to choose your employer, or go into business for yourself. This is even happening in China, a non-democratic regime, which is why they are becoming prosperous.

[Magajy]

The question here is: are the two sides equivalent, or is there a fundamental difference? People die, that is the common factor.


I've been talking about whether the Western democracies (which includes Israel) are equivalent to non-democratic regimes or not. This is a similar discussion: is Israel's violence equivalent to the Islamic world's or not.Equality of violence? So there are now different types of violence, good and bad, and maybe some grey ones?


If the two sides are equivalent, the "cycles of violence" worldview prevails. Hezbollah (or Hamas, or ...) is firing rockets (or suicide bombers, or...) BUT look at Israel ... they're taking action too. It's a cycle. Both sides are equivalent.Thought you said not? May be I didn't get your point.


But, like the previous example, this misses the fundamental point. If the Islamic forces opposing Israel just left Israel alone and did not continue to attack their civilian population, the violence would be over. Israel would exist happily within its borders as a free, democratic state. On the other hand, if Israel leaves the Islamic forces alone, they don't stop. It's been tried, with a number of agreements, changes in Israeli government, peace accords, UN resolutions, etc. etc. etc. The violence continues in spite of this. Hehe, always find it funny when people talk of resolutions in this conflict. Suprise, suprise, do you know which party has defied more UN resolutions? Check 242, i think we are now some where around 1701, its been a long time since they started ignoring them.

I am sure if Isreal sat some where in the middle of the pacific ocean not on their lands they wouldn't give a f***. I kick you out of your house and then say "leave me a lone"? Don't think you will.




The reason this is true? Israel acknowledges the other countries' right to exist on their land surrounding Israel. The others do NOT acknowledge Israel's right to exist on its land. The only "solution" they envision is the destruction of Israel and the re-taking of its land as an Islamic/Palestinian entity.On its land that it grabbed. And Isreal does recognise their own right by expanding its settlements which is illegal under international law.


The "cycle of violence" is not a cycle, it's an engine driven by the forces that wish Israel to be destroyed. If those forces stopped, there would be no cycle.Engines are based on cycles you know, Rankine, Carnot etc. It may be an engine but I sure differ with you who's kicking the ignition.

[mgb]

The question here is: are the two sides equivalent, or is there a fundamental difference?

I've been talking about whether the Western democracies (which includes Israel) are equivalent to non-democratic regimes or not. This is a similar discussion: is Israel's violence equivalent to the Islamic world's or not.

If the two sides are equivalent, the "cycles of violence" worldview prevails. Hezbollah (or Hamas, or ...) is firing rockets (or suicide bombers, or...) BUT look at Israel ... they're taking action too. It's a cycle. Both sides are equivalent.

But, like the previous example, this misses the fundamental point. If the Islamic forces opposing Israel just left Israel alone and did not continue to attack their civilian population, the violence would be over. Israel would exist happily within its borders as a free, democratic state. On the other hand, if Israel leaves the Islamic forces alone, they don't stop. It's been tried, with a number of agreements, changes in Israeli government, peace accords, UN resolutions, etc. etc. etc. The violence continues in spite of this.

The reason this is true? Israel acknowledges the other countries' right to exist on their land surrounding Israel. The others do NOT acknowledge Israel's right to exist on its land. The only "solution" they envision is the destruction of Israel and the re-taking of its land as an Islamic/Palestinian entity.

The "cycle of violence" is not a cycle, it's an engine driven by the forces that wish Israel to be destroyed. If those forces stopped, there would be no cycle.

I think the "Israel is a victim" stance you are taking in this post is why there are so many problems in the first place. There will never be an end to these conflicts if Israel doesn't take responsibility for their role in them and make some sort of amends.

[ptGatsby]

So, what are we talking about here? Nicaragua and Iran/Contra?


*shrug* Sure, or you can expand it. Cuba a few times, quite a few more in South America. Hiring ex-Nazis, regardless of crimes. Indonesia... Vietnam, before and after the bay of pigs. Saddam in Iraq. Osama in Afghanistan... Nevermind all the support for the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and such, going back quite a while. Course, we can also ignore the torture research and practices and the like, right? What about assassinations... though I guess that isn't 'illegal' anymore, being 'enemy combatant' or something.

Its not like the Committee on Intelligence reported a congressional report that says that these operations break 'serious laws' around 100,000 times a year. Nor that they have been accused of trafficking drugs to fund them. Four times, along with suppressing the books and reports.

Its like out of a movie, isn't it?

But then again, it comes complete with textbooks - like Nicaragua's.

And again, its not getting out of hand ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64802-2002Jan30?language=printer ) or anything... Its not like they want to bypass all laws and be able to kill whatever they want, whenever they want...



That's how you tell whether they are democratic or not -- whether there can be a peaceful transition of power.


So what? Who cares who is in power? How does changing from one to the other change the hundreds organizations? how does it change everything that I mentioned above?

Democracy is only a word to describe a government system. The effects are what in question. Who cares if power shifts when you go around doing everything that you say you are against?

You are assigning a whole lot of rhetoric to a word. Far as I can tell, this is entirely a propaganda conditioned response. "Democracy means freedom and good and peace and everything nice in the world".

Democracies have caused incredible atrocities and done incredible destabilizing things in this world. A whole lot of dictators in power can be traced back to these 'free' democracies.



Yes. Nothing is black and white, certainly. But that doesn't mean that everything is grey. Simply saying "I've found a counterexample" in this arena doesn't mean the premise is invalid. This isn't a math proof.


What? This is what I hear:

"No evidence to the contrary doesn't change my opinion. After all, democracy is democracy and that makes what they do ok".





Without advanced communications/networking,


US Military.



and advances in explosives,


Military



global terrorism would have a much tougher time getting organized.


There seems to be a pattern here.



Case in point: the recent arrests of the airline liquid bomb plotters. The irony you point out is true -- the freedom of democratic entities has allowed the global Islamic radical terrorist movement to happen.


You mean, caused it to happen. Their leader was created by the US. The systems they brought to project their power was created by the US. The socio-economic effects in the area was created by the US. The Iraq war has caused it to spread. The 'weapons' they used were US airplanes. Their reason for hitting the US was directly targeted at the US (9/11).

Its not ironic. It is the natural backlash from a series of interventions and force projection. Its just continuing on its course. If not 'Islamic (x)', then it would of been something else.

And if you think that this was a success, consider that these were home grown. They only failed because they tried to centralize. How many more are slowly getting changing into what they are... independently.

How long until its buses again. Then nightclubs? Malls?

You can beat the war drums and security bells until all hell breaks loose. But that's all its going to be. A lot of noice heralding a total lack of security and the eventual end of Western civilization. In the future textbooks, it will probably be described as 'a complete change of western ideology, from non-interventionist to empire --- Page 313'.

[INThoughtPolice]

The question here is: are the two sides equivalent, or is there a fundamental difference?

I've been talking about whether the Western democracies (which includes Israel) are equivalent to non-democratic regimes or not. This is a similar discussion: is Israel's violence equivalent to the Islamic world's or not.

If the two sides are equivalent, the "cycles of violence" worldview prevails. Hezbollah (or Hamas, or ...) is firing rockets (or suicide bombers, or...) BUT look at Israel ... they're taking action too. It's a cycle. Both sides are equivalent.

But, like the previous example, this misses the fundamental point. If the Islamic forces opposing Israel just left Israel alone and did not continue to attack their civilian population, the violence would be over. Israel would exist happily within its borders as a free, democratic state. On the other hand, if Israel leaves the Islamic forces alone, they don't stop. It's been tried, with a number of agreements, changes in Israeli government, peace accords, UN resolutions, etc. etc. etc. The violence continues in spite of this.

The reason this is true? Israel acknowledges the other countries' right to exist on their land surrounding Israel. The others do NOT acknowledge Israel's right to exist on its land. The only "solution" they envision is the destruction of Israel and the re-taking of its land as an Islamic/Palestinian entity.

The "cycle of violence" is not a cycle, it's an engine driven by the forces that wish Israel to be destroyed. If those forces stopped, there would be no cycle.
I agree with this.

[Nighthawk]

I am sure if Isreal sat some where in the middle of the pacific ocean not on their lands they wouldn't give a f***.

Ironically ... Adolf Hitler suggested to the League of Nations that they give Madagascar to the Jews as a homeland. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

[INThoughtPolice]

I was hoping something really different will come out of this, but I see now I am wrong. It is the same old spin, Isreal has a right to defend itself from terrorists, and the Palis/Lebaneeses dont(from isreali terror). Isreal can and does kidnap (even Paliamentary members) and thats fine, but anyone else doing it is a terrorist. The hezbollah rockets only started after Isreali bombardment was well underway. So the pretext of stopping rockets is crap. Yeah, suicide bombers sound and are dreadful, but so are the sonic booms of fighter jets and helicopter gunships that target moving vehicles, not to forget targetted assasinations of anyone isreali intellligence thinks should be eliminated, and that is also fine!? Dont know where we are headed.....

We can continue to ignore the facts and continue to deny people their rights, but that will only ensure unending cycles of violence. It seems some people prefer it that way, as long as it isnt them that are dying.:sadbanana:
Take an objective look at the current conflict. Israel is responding to Hezbollah kidnapping two of its soldiers. Israel does not initiate these conflicts and as MyDogHasFleas previously stated it has agreed to peace accords and the terrorist attacks on its citizens continue.

Again, don't infer that I approve of Israel's military strikes in Lebanon. I disagree with their tactics that have led to the killing of so many innocent Lebanese.

[MyDogHasFleas]

(a whole lot of stuff)



Wow, that's really out there. It's actually kind of interesting to me (and maybe a little scary) to see how you think. But I am frankly just puzzled how you get to these conclusions. It just seems to fly so badly in the face of what to me is very obvious reality -- what is good for a people and what is not.

I don't think I really have anything else to say to you. I don't think I'm going to get anything through -- you are quite convinced that I'm a fool and a dupe, it seems.

I really wish we could have a discussion about the fundamentals here... what is good and what is not good as a form of statehood and government... instead of getting bogged down in the spin cycle of historical cant.

This reminds me somewhat of the interview on 60 minutes with the president of Iran tonight. Did you see it? That guy was incredibly convinced of his point of view and incredibly dismissive of any other. He didn't want to have any actual dialog.

[ptGatsby]

Wow, that's really out there.


Way out there? For someone who calls us in world war 4... ah, nevermind.

You are free to point out the mistakes if you want. But it is hard to argue with someone who sees an eternal conflict against all that is good and free in this world.

Less free with each encounter, but... still free! That's what I'm saying. You are slowly becoming your enemy as you stare down at him. The more you emulate him, the closer you become, faster and faster.



It's actually kind of interesting to me (and maybe a little scary) to see how you think.


I'd agree entirely. Reading your posts remind me exactly how bad things really are in the world... and how true peace and prosperity is only an illusion to you, that enemies must be found and can only be destroyed. Only the black and white of us and them can remain, an eternal battle of good and evil.



I really wish we could have a discussion about the fundamentals here...


Define fundamental? Is that someone who sees things in black and white? Who believes in their system as better than everyone elses? Who uses huge emotional content and symbolic stances to convince others? Who ignores any evidence to the contrary?

Do you believe you could never become like they did? In the same environment, its inconcievable? That you are simply a different/superior human to all those terrorists?



what is good and what is not good as a form of statehood and government... instead of getting bogged down in the spin cycle of historical cant.


Might be worth having that in a thread where the topic isn't about "is it worth it?". Historically, no, it has not been worth it. Mostly because, historically, every projection of force has created the same monsters we fight today.

Increased security leades to a need for more security. There is no 'threshold' of acceptable security. Nothing has become more secure after we went to 'war'. No place has stabilized. It has gotten worse, month by month, day by day. It has spread, day by day. The attacks have increased... day by day.

But that just makes it more necessary to push harder. Again. And so it gets worse...



This reminds me somewhat of the interview on 60 minutes with the president of Iran tonight. Did you see it? That guy was incredibly convinced of his point of view and incredibly dismissive of any other. He didn't want to have any actual dialog.


Nope, haven't read it since the large overhaul way back when. And I have very little interest in hearing Iran's leader talk... I might browse his transcripts, but its like listening to our leaders... a whole lot of rhetoric to keep them in power.

[boppa]

Hmm, er, I'm going to wade in here at the risk of getting spat at.

Firstly, Israel is not a true democracy. Definitely not in the sense that the ideal of western democracy is described. That is it does not have a constitution, the governing principles are not secular, nor based on equality, nor able to be modified by public demand, to name a few key principles of democracy that are ignored. And lets not forget that the UN did not have have a full mandate to create Israel, including the fact that Iran was the only Arab state on the special committee.

Secondly, the US cannot disengage from Israel since it is virtually critically economically dependent on Israel due to the wealth and influence American Jews have (particularly in the financial markets, which if hot money were pulled from would cause a critical destabilisation). And also in manufacturing, including not the least of which military products and services provided to Israel.

Another good point made earlier is that Palestine would not be in such dire straits if they could become economically viable, which Israel seems bent on preventing. I'm not anti Israel by any means and can understand where its insecurity comes from. It seems it doesn't do itself any favours either.

It also seems that promoting a single state solution with Israel and Palestine combining to form a secular democracy is what should lead to a more viable future. It would also scare the bejesus out of the dyed in the wool zionists enough to get them to come to the negotiating table with a more concilliatory attitude. Then some sort of UN oversight would assist.

[Magajy]

Hmm, er, I'm going to wade in here at the risk of getting spat at.

Firstly, Israel is not a true democracy. Definitely not in the sense that the ideal of western democracy is described. That is it does not have a constitution, the governing principles are not secular, nor based on equality, nor able to be modified by public demand, to name a few key principles of democracy that are ignored. And lets not forget that the UN did not have have a full mandate to create Israel, including the fact that Iran was the only Arab state on the special committee.

Secondly, the US cannot disengage from Israel since it is virtually critically economically dependent on Israel due to the wealth and influence American Jews have (particularly in the financial markets, which if hot money were pulled from would cause a critical destabilisation). And also in manufacturing, including not the least of which military products and services provided to Israel.

Another good point made earlier is that Palestine would not be in such dire straits if they could become economically viable, which Israel seems bent on preventing. I'm not anti Israel by any means and can understand where its insecurity comes from. It seems it doesn't do itself any favours either.

It also seems that promoting a single state solution with Israel and Palestine combining to form a secular democracy is what should lead to a more viable future. It would also scare the bejesus out of the dyed in the wool zionists enough to get them to come to the negotiating table with a more concilliatory attitude. Then some sort of UN oversight would assist.

Interesting. I like you take at it, seems quite unique, go on please, what do you think the Palis should do?

[Magajy]

Take an objective look at the current conflict. Israel is responding to Hezbollah kidnapping two of its soldiers. Israel does not initiate these conflicts and as MyDogHasFleas previously stated it has agreed to peace accords and the terrorist attacks on its citizens continue. If this is a response to the kidnapping of two soldiers, I wonder what the reponse of the Palis should be for the kidnap of their land. I personally condsider it an excuse at best. This is no way of getting two soldiers back.


Again, don't infer that I approve of Israel's military strikes in Lebanon. I disagree with their tactics that have led to the killing of so many innocent Lebanese.I know you dont.

[Magajy]

Ironically ... Adolf Hitler suggested to the League of Nations that they give Madagascar to the Jews as a homeland. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

And what will happen to the Madagascans? It would just have shifted the crisis to another part of the world, that's all, as I am sure the madgscns will not accept it. if you wan to live in peace, please donot displace your hosts, live with them in peace and be amicable.

[MyDogHasFleas]

Way out there? For someone who calls us in world war 4... ah, nevermind.

You are free to point out the mistakes if you want. But it is hard to argue with someone who sees an eternal conflict against all that is good and free in this world.

Less free with each encounter, but... still free! That's what I'm saying. You are slowly becoming your enemy as you stare down at him. The more you emulate him, the closer you become, faster and faster.

Reading your posts remind me exactly how bad things really are in the world... and how true peace and prosperity is only an illusion to you, that enemies must be found and can only be destroyed. Only the black and white of us and them can remain, an eternal battle of good and evil.

Define fundamental? Is that someone who sees things in black and white? Who believes in their system as better than everyone elses? Who uses huge emotional content and symbolic stances to convince others? Who ignores any evidence to the contrary?

Do you believe you could never become like they did? In the same environment, its inconcievable? That you are simply a different/superior human to all those terrorists?

Might be worth having that in a thread where the topic isn't about "is it worth it?". Historically, no, it has not been worth it. Mostly because, historically, every projection of force has created the same monsters we fight today.

Increased security leades to a need for more security. There is no 'threshold' of acceptable security. Nothing has become more secure after we went to 'war'. No place has stabilized. It has gotten worse, month by month, day by day. It has spread, day by day. The attacks have increased... day by day.

But that just makes it more necessary to push harder. Again. And so it gets worse...


again quite interesting to have this dialog. For new readers here: the above might seem a little disjointed because he was actually fisking my post, but I left off my parts.

So by "fundamental" I mean essentially what's above. And I'd boil your POV down to: wars, i.e. using force against others, is not the right thing to do, because it just inevitably leads to more violence and doesn't solve anything. In fact it's never solved anything. It'd be much better if we worked at coexisting with others peacefully.

There's another theme that I read as follows: we are not really different than those we define as "terrorists" or "enemies". And the more we fight against them, the more we become no better than them, and probably worse, actually.

Fair?

So, I certainly respect this POV. And, (if you'll allow me another plug for freedom), one of the cool things about living in a free country is that you and I can both have these very different POVs and it's OK. I would contrast that with life in North Korea, Iraq under Saddam, and other totalitarian regimes in the past such as the USSR and its satellite states, where you would be imprisoned, tortured and killed for having a heretical POV. Not to mention, of course, the Crusades and the Spanish Inqusition! (just to try to have some balance).

That said, I react to the content as follows: I really hope we get there someday. It'd be really nice not to have to have a defense force, and the will to use it, to protect us against those that would commit acts of war against us. I don't know how this is going to happen, but it probably will someday. After all, we've gotten this far in history, and made life safe and prosperous at some level for many people.

I think the debates are mainly around how fast we should adopt practices that match this utopian vision. You are pushing it much faster than the current administrations of Britain and the USA want to. Everybody says they're for peaceful coexistence. Even the head of Iran said that last night on the 60 minutes interview. The real question is, when is that going to happen? And how?

I am afraid that your reaction to the above might be, "I don't believe the Bush administration wants peace, ever. They are invested in war." If that's the case, we probably don't agree on this basic framework.

I think nations and religions are going to have to give up their prideful and aggressive goals for this to happen. I think the other big part of the debate is, who really has the aggressive and imperialist goals and who doesn't? (This is apart from how we should react to violence.)

I'm just trying, really, to frame the discussion here -- this is helpful to me because I'd like to understand where the various POVs are coming from. I hope this is useful to you too as a framework for discussion.



Nope, haven't read (the interview with Iran's leader) since the large overhaul way back when. And I have very little interest in hearing Iran's leader talk... I might browse his transcripts, but its like listening to our leaders... a whole lot of rhetoric to keep them in power.

What is the "large overhaul" to which you refer?

If you actually listened to the interview I think you'd find it interesting to hear the tones, both of the Iranian leader and the American interviewer (Mike Wallace) who lets him get away with all kinds of shenanigans that he'd never tolerate from an American leader and basically just laughs it off. Very odd, really.

I find this interesting, anyway.

And, to bring this back to INTP: I really try to take a very analytical, objective, INTP-style, non-judgemental view of all this. Are you in the same frame of mind?

[ptGatsby]

Fair?


That's pretty close, yup! I'll leave out what I don't have any real comment on for the sake of space. Obviously we don't agree... you probably see me as an idealist, and I see you as the opposite. We probably aren't that polarized, I find most of the time things go astray early.



I am afraid that your reaction to the above might be, "I don't believe the Bush administration wants peace, ever. They are invested in war." If that's the case, we probably don't agree on this basic framework.


I don't really think much about Bush, I don't see him as a particularly important person in a historical sense. Administration sure, but its an enabler of other parts of the government, not a source of problems in itself. Well, maybe with the exception of Iraq, since that was pretty administration based.

What I would claim is that the US wants to project force in order to create peace. I contend that the projection of force is what causes peace to destabilize (due the nature of a single force projector coming into power, thus creating the grounds for asymmetrical warfare).



I think nations and religions are going to have to give up their prideful and aggressive goals for this to happen. I think the other big part of the debate is, who really has the aggressive and imperialist goals and who doesn't?


Every government has aggressive and imperialist goals. They just change colors. Economics, military, covert, politics/diplomacy, subversion, propaganda... they are all weapons used.

I would contend that the US is no better than any other country; in the current times, it may be among the worst. Mostly, I believe this because of level of international military bases/activities, covert operations, economic clout (ie: aid etc) and selective trade/military support. Further evidence can be found in the budget priorities. It is a war state through and through... at least financially. Perhaps a police state would be closer to the truth... though not as much internally as externally.



I'm just trying, really, to frame the discussion here -- this is helpful to me because I'd like to understand where the various POVs are coming from. I hope this is useful to you too as a framework for discussion.


I'm not sure what we are discussing really! Normally I only contribute where research or clarification is needed. I don't have significantly strong opinion - mostly I'll challenge another.

I feel its critically important to realize that it isn't democracy that creates freedom - its the moral stance and value system that creates the freedom. A democracy that tortures is no different than a republic/dictatorship/totalitarian/whatever state that tortures. Power structures are power structures; the effects must be different in order to show them significantly different.



What is the "large overhaul" to which you refer?


I should of been a bit more specific.

I meant that during 1995+, there was a significant change in editorial oversight. Several controversial pieces were hacked and detained, others were falsified entirely. This manifested itself into the 60 minutes II in 1999. It was renamed just '60 minutes' before coming '60 minutes wednesday'.

Something like that anyway. The quality seemed to drop off very suddenly around this time.



And, to bring this back to INTP: I really try to take a very analytical, objective, INTP-style, non-judgemental view of all this. Are you in the same frame of mind?


Sure, I can do that... just need a bit more structure to work on.

[boppa]

Interesting. I like you take at it, seems quite unique, go on please, what do you think the Palis should do? Er, stop blowing themselves and other people up, would be a good start....It seems to be that Israel has a (justifiable) seige mentality, and continually applies double standards, and Palestine has a (justifiable) victim mentality. This sort of deeply entrenched political mindset tends to take generations to dilute. I doubt they will be able to resolve it themselves. It needs a complete overhaul by an external disinterested body prepared to stay with it for a decade or two.