Solidarity and Hate.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 04:07
VIEWED: 9106
PAGE 7 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip...

Don't you have some citations to look up?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:32 PM

Quote:
Our allies still like us. Did you forget about our supporting role in NATO's operations in Lybia?

Oh yes, where we supported a military coup of a torture-happy tyrant by a faction of genocidal nutcases. Yippee. Look, it doesn't really matter what political faction we ever support over there, the violent factions that are useful to us tend to be screwed up beyond measure. It's why we back totalitarian dictators and vote-riggers and all these types then turn on them a few years later to install someone else when they get too full of themselves. The only reason we get involved is because of politics and economic maneuvering. It's why we don't get involved in places like Sudan - although if we did, we'd probably screw that up to. No one in power here really cares about the people over there, and it shows.

Girls were going to school in Afghanistan before we invaded, but the teachers had to operate secretively. I think we should have continued to support that quietly - I'm pretty much going to say that whenever we want to help the middle east, it's probably better to send humanitarian aid instead of guys with guns. In any case, social change wasn't really our priority, and doesn't appear to have been even possible at this time anyway.

Wherever we've gotten involved, things are pretty much the same level of screwed up as the rest of the Middle East, and not even that different from before we got involved, except we killed a lot of people going in. And that means our own people have died for nothing. Things aren't going to change in Afghanistan in TWO YEARS, when we pull out in 2014, I'm not even sure it would change in the next century with or without our help. So yeah, I'm a little pissed off about all this. Accomplished nothing, pointless, a waste, a lie.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip...

Or, as the theatre critic asked, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I'm pretty much going to say that whenever we want to help the middle east, it's probably better to send humanitarian aid instead of guys with guns.

Pro'lly cheaper, too.

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And besides that one little thing, JFK really loved his Dallas trip...

Or, as the theatre critic asked, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Or a reporter asking, "Other than that, how was your cruise, Miss Jessop?"

Probably a bit too obscure. If you don't know the story of Violet Jessop, I strongly suggest you look it up; I promise you'll be amazed. Let's just say that surviving the sinking of the Titanic was only one chapter in her extraordinary life.

James Cameron should make a movie about her, but I don't think anyone would believe it if he did.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Our allies still like us. Did you forget about our supporting role in NATO's operations in Lybia?

Oh yes, where we supported a military coup of a torture-happy tyrant by a faction of genocidal nutcases. Yippee. Look, it doesn't really matter what political faction we ever support over there, the violent factions that are useful to us tend to be screwed up beyond measure. It's why we back totalitarian dictators and vote-riggers and all these types then turn on them a few years later to install someone else when they get too full of themselves. The only reason we get involved is because of politics and economic maneuvering. It's why we don't get involved in places like Sudan - although if we did, we'd probably screw that up to. No one in power here really cares about the people over there, and it shows.

Girls were going to school in Afghanistan before we invaded, but the teachers had to operate secretively. I think we should have continued to support that quietly - I'm pretty much going to say that whenever we want to help the middle east, it's probably better to send humanitarian aid instead of guys with guns. In any case, social change wasn't really our priority, and doesn't appear to have been even possible at this time anyway.

Wherever we've gotten involved, things are pretty much the same level of screwed up as the rest of the Middle East, and not even that different from before we got involved, except we killed a lot of people going in. And that means our own people have died for nothing. Things aren't going to change in Afghanistan in TWO YEARS, when we pull out in 2014, I'm not even sure it would change in the next century with or without our help. So yeah, I'm a little pissed off about all this. Accomplished nothing, pointless, a waste, a lie.

I'm not going to make the argument that we went into Afghanistan to make things better. We went because the people who attacked us on 911 were there. Yes we killed a whole lot of people. The vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us. I will not shed any tears for them. In the end those people being dead, the groups they were a part of being marginalized has made us safer. That is an accomplishment regardless of if you want to see it.

Yes sometimes we support governments that are down right evil. Normally that is to counter some other evil government. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It would be nice not to do those kinds of things, but the hill of moral righteousness is often the hill you die on.

I think some people in power do care. I also think that they understand that sometimes you can't help. Libya was a situation where we could. Should we not have gotten involved as people were being killed by there own government? Sending aid can only do so much.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:16 PM

Quote:
The vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us.

With the forced conscriptions that happen and the way villages swing from side to side in order to survive, the situation is much, much more complicated than that.

By your own logic it's perfectly okay for terrorists to attack us civilians in America, because we pay taxes and therefore support the people that want to kill them. And it's okay for us to attack civilians in Afghanistan, because those civilians give support or are forced to give support to the terrorists we're pursuing.

You don't see kind of a bit of a PROBLEM here? Where exactly does this grudge match end?

Quote:
Should we not have gotten involved as people were being killed by there own government? Sending aid can only do so much.

I'm all for freedom fighters, when they're actually, you know, not evil and for freedom. The problem is, in the middle east it's kind of impossible to tell the two apart going in. That's why I suggest humanitarian aid - it's hard to know who to support when both sides in a conflict seem like they might be bad choices.

And even humanitarian aid is better than nothing for places like Sudan and Syria.

I actually hope the situation in Libya won't turn out so terrible - I suppose the one thing they have going for them is that we didn't occupy them and haven't installed a puppet dictator, which is how we usually get into this stupid cycle of violence everywhere else. But it's probably still going to be a mess.

Quote:
Normally that is to counter some other evil government. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It would be nice not to do those kinds of things, but the hill of moral righteousness is often the hill you die on.

Sometimes the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend, sometimes they're also your enemy, sometimes supporting them means undermining your own goals, which is pretty much exactly what has happened in these last few wars.

So now you're arguing that we should do this, and to hell if it's moral. Countering evil governments with evil governments. What exactly do you intend to accomplish? Why are we even NATION BUILDING if this is the attitude by which we have to approach it?

I mean, damn, this has gone from "ends justify the means" moral relativity into straight on amorality right here. No, I demand a better reason for all this beyond that "necessary evil" is our standard operating procedure because they'll kill us if we don't crush them.

KWICKO

Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

I'm not going to make the argument that we went into Afghanistan to make things better. We went because the people who attacked us on 911 were there. Yes we killed a whole lot of people. The vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us. I will not shed any tears for them. In the end those people being dead, the groups they were a part of being marginalized has made us safer. That is an accomplishment regardless of if you want to see it.

1) You have shown no evidence to support the claim that "the vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us."

2) That said, I can make that exact same claim against the U.S. troops, from the Afghan viewpoint. Yes, they killed a whole lot of American soldiers, but the vast majority of those killed were trying to kill Afghans, and supported those who were doing the killing. From their viewpoint, every American soldier killed makes their country a safer place, and brings them one step closer to driving the occupying oppressors of Imperial America from their land.

Whether you like that or not, you have to admit it's an accomplishment. So was 9/11, when you get right down to it. For a few thousand dollars and the "WMD" which consisted of four box-cutters, al-Qaeda brought the greatest superpower in history to its knees and crippled it economically.

That's not a popular point of view, but it's every bit as valid as yours, and at least as supportable with facts and figures.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
With the forced conscriptions that happen and the way villages swing from side to side in order to survive, the situation is much, much more complicated than that.

How much of that goes on? Any citations?

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:By your own logic it's perfectly okay for terrorists to attack us civilians in America, because we pay taxes and therefore support the people that want to kill them. And it's okay for us to attack civilians in Afghanistan, because those civilians give support or are forced to give support to the terrorists we're pursuing.

You don't see kind of a bit of a PROBLEM here? Where exactly does this grudge match end?

No, because we are not purposely targeting civilians. That is the difference.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I'm all for freedom fighters, when they're actually, you know, not evil and for freedom. The problem is, in the middle east it's kind of impossible to tell the two apart going in. That's why I suggest humanitarian aid - it's hard to know who to support when both sides in a conflict seem like they might be bad choices. And even humanitarian aid is better than nothing for places like Sudan and Syria.

Thing is even sending aid helps one side of the other. That is a huge problem with just sending aid. Much of the time it goes to the fighters and the people it was intended for.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I actually hope the situation in Libya won't turn out so terrible - I suppose the one thing they have going for them is that we didn't occupy them and haven't installed a puppet dictator, which is how we usually get into this stupid cycle of violence everywhere else. But it's probably still going to be a mess.

Uprising of any kind are usually messy.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Sometimes the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend, sometimes they're also your enemy, sometimes supporting them means undermining your own goals, which is pretty much exactly what has happened in these last few wars.

So now you're arguing that we should do this, and to hell if it's moral. Countering evil governments with evil governments. What exactly do you intend to accomplish? Why are we even NATION BUILDING if this is the attitude by which we have to approach it?

Sometimes you’re right. It all depends on who they hate more. In the end using other countries like this can save us time, money and our own people. It helps in keeping those that want to do us harm too weak to really harm us.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I mean, damn, this has gone from "ends justify the means" moral relativity into straight on amorality right here. No, I demand a better reason for all this beyond that "necessary evil" is our standard operating procedure because they'll kill us if we don't crush them.

Sorry, there is none. Sometimes you just have to shoot them before they shoot you.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
1) You have shown no evidence to support the claim that "the vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us."

You're right. The reason for that is there is no good count of the number of insurgence killed. That being said there is also no evidence to say that the number of civilians is higher that the number of civilians killed. Logicly speaking unless one thinks that military is purposly tageting civilians the number of insurgence killing is going to be higher.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
2) That said, I can make that exact same claim against the U.S. troops, from the Afghan viewpoint. Yes, they killed a whole lot of American soldiers, but the vast majority of those killed were trying to kill Afghans, and supported those who were doing the killing. From their viewpoint, every American soldier killed makes their country a safer place, and brings them one step closer to driving the occupying oppressors of Imperial America from their land.

Yes you can. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One difference is that accept for the first few years the majority of civilian casualties have been cause by the insurgance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Whether you like that or not, you have to admit it's an accomplishment. So was 9/11, when you get right down to it. For a few thousand dollars and the "WMD" which consisted of four box-cutters, al-Qaeda brought the greatest superpower in history to its knees and crippled it economically.

That's not a popular point of view, but it's every bit as valid as yours, and at least as supportable with facts and figures.

Of course. Any thinking person has to reallise that from al-Qaeda's point of view 911 was a huge success. It's the singel biggest thing they ever did.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE