Many have claimed, time and time again, that World War II illustrated that when you let someone get away with invading countries, they are likely to do so again and again, until you stop them - in short, that appeasement never works. This lesson, if true, seems to leave Muslim nations in a tricky situation.
After all, America has now invaded two nations in the Muslim world. It would seem that if nothing is done to stop this, World War II illustrates that America will do it again and again, whenever America feels the need. If Muslim nations like Pakistan appease America, and give America exactly what it wants (such as help fighting terrorists, etc.) then this will only make America MORE agressive towards Muslim nations.
However, the other option seems to be supporting anti-American terrorism, or some other means of preventing America from getting away with its invasions. Is that really something Muslim nations should be doing? Won't it only result in them getting destroyed? After all, Pakistan took the appeasement strategy and lives. Iraq took the opposite strategy, and got invaded.
So, here's the dilemma: Should Muslim nations support appeasement of America, or should they support terrorism and violence against America? Will appeasement only cause America to invade more nations? Has appeasement ever been shown to work? What are Muslim nations to do?
[ March 27, 2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's also difficult to answer. Do you really expect anyone to say, "Yes, well appeasement doesn't ever work, so I support violence against America."?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Much as I may disagree with the Bush administration foreign policies, and much as I may dislike the man himself, I think that comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany is pushing it a little too far.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
If the U.S. were breaking a treaty by building forbidden arms and annexing foreign nations, then the analogy might work. As it is, I think Iraq still fits that profile much, much better (though it, too, is still lacking).
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
Hold on, instead of attacking him, let's try and argue the points. I realize you might hate me for standing (can you stand on the internet?) up for him like this, but he had a question.
The way i read it, it was asking what muslim nations could do to try and stop the attacks from america.
digging_holes: Xaposert has a point comparing the US with Nazi germany. but first let me say this. he never compared us to germany during WWII only that we were abusing our power to attack countries. We as a whole do not hate the Jews. But, we are acting as the Nazi's did, trying to put the whole world up against a certain kind of people and using all the influence we have to do so.
now, for my answer to the question
I beileve that as long as the muslim countries that we attacked need our support to rebuild their country after the war(s), then they need to take on an air of appeasement. The moment that they no longer need our help and can manage on their own, they should say, 'thanks, but no thanks, we can handle it from here on'. They should also keep open trading with the US as to not offend us. becasue if they say that they ccan handle it, and then close off trade with us, we will be offended.
My thoughts, now, rip them apart would you? because what good is a thought if you can;t change it everynow and then?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: But, we are acting as the Nazi's did, trying to put the whole world up against a certain kind of people and using all the influence we have to do so.
Just for clarification, the Nazis did not try to put the world against a certain kind of people, nor did they use influence to try and do it. They were trying to take over the world in order to EXTERMINATE a certain kind of people, and they used tanks and bombs and gas chambers to do so.
Sorry, I still don't see the comparison.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
John, you know I love you to no end, and I agree that Tres's analogy is probably lacking enough (in my opinion, at least, and clearly in yours) so as to become almost entirely irrelevant. However:
quote:Welcome to "Bad Analogy 101," kids! Please welcome "professor" (and I use the term loosely) Tresopax! Ready to learn how to make the crappiest bad analogies?
Really, Tres, if you're going to compare this with a World War to make the Mid-East look like victims to the big, bad US bullying, then use one that would make a better analogy: WWI. Otherwise, you're displaying a horrible education.
I see a lot more attacking Tres here than attacking his argument. You've also (the way I read it) implicitly attacked every other analogy he's ever made, which might be a bit unfair as well.
Ok. Y'all can continue now -- I doubt I'll partake again unless questioned directly.
--Pop
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So, here's the dilemma: Should Muslim nations support appeasement of America, or should they support terrorism and violence against America? Will appeasement only cause America to invade more nations? Has appeasement ever been shown to work? What are Muslim nations to do?
I'm going to ignore the question of whether or not appeasement works. I've gabbed about that enough already . Also ignore the question of whether or not generally cooperating with America would be "appeasement" in this situation.
My statement is this: terrorism is not an effective tactic of changing international relations. It's simply a non-starter, because every nation realizes-at least, America realizes-that to submit to it once does nothing but guarantee its repetition. My question is this: in what measurable way has life for Muslims, Middle-Easterners, or any other group supporting international terrorism been improved by that support? (And no, I'm not at all suggesting Muslims and Arabic people are all terrorist, I phrased the proof specifically because it was the first issue Tresopax made.)
If the answer to that question is anything less than, "In such and such substantial way," then I ask you this, Tresopax: why are you suggesting that terrorists are correct for replacing one ineffective method with another? Aside from the desire to murder Western civilians in large, public spectacle, I don't think you'll be able to find a way in which it is more effective.
(And no, I don't think you condone terrorism or the murder of civilians, I'm just saying your question is loaded to lead to the conclusion that terrorism is more effective and better than 'appeasement', and I'm asking how is it better?)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Now wait a second... this isn't an argument by analogy. I was only refering to WWII because that's the example everyone always gives to back up the claim that appeasement only causes more aggression. I could hardly start a thread about appeasement without mentioning that.
This is just a question of strategy. The argument is this:
1. Supposedly, appeasement always causes more aggression rather than less 2. The muslim world is appeasing the U.S. if they don't retaliate for invasions, and if they instead give America exactly what it demands as a result of the invasions 3. THEREFORE, not retaliating and instead giving America what it demands is only going to cause America to be more aggressive towards the Middle East and invade more Muslim nations
And the question is, is this argument correct, and if not, why not? And if it IS correct, isn't appeasement a bad strategy for Muslim nations if they want less U.S. aggression towards them?
quote:Do you really expect anyone to say, "Yes, well appeasement doesn't ever work, so I support violence against America."?
No, not really.
What I'm really interested in is the REASON they give for claiming this isn't true.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tresopax,
Your stance is based on faulty premises from the get-go. Appeasement does not always result in further aggression. When faced with an enemy who is willing to repeatedly use force, however, it's a safe bet that it will.
Two, America's demands of the 'Muslim World' extend far beyond simply not retaliating. The USA is demanding far more, and not really getting it from the 'Muslim World'.
THEREFORE, since the 'Muslim World' is not giving America what it wants anyway, questions of appeasement are irrelevant.
PS: The 'Muslim World' largely lacks any ability to attack the USA, terrorism or no. It's only a tiny, tiny minority that claims to act on the 'Muslim World's' behalf.
Your question is based in the premise as well (even though it's unstated and perhaps unintentional) that international terrorists have tried other means and failed. What it rather obviously ignores is the fact that international terrorists not only are fighting against America, but for the complete dominance of their way of life.
In other words, there are many other reasons they have for murdering civilians other than unwillingness to submit to America. If there were no America, they would simply be perpetuating murder and tyranny against other innocent people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We've appeased the 'Muslim' world long enough by allowing 'Muslim' leaders to enslave women and minorities.
From one point of view, Tresopax, America is doing precisely what it did in WWII-- freeing repressed populations from tyrannical rule.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:From one point of view, Tresopax, America is doing precisely what it did in WWII-- freeing repressed populations from tyrannical rule.
Hmm.... I think WWII was as much about freeing repressed populations as the U.S. Civil War was. Or the current war in Iraq, for that matter.
It's a convenient excuse in hindsight, but never seems to be a real factor in the original decision.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Appeasement never works in averting someone or something from his or its objectives. If Hitler's enemies had tried appeasement, more of Europe would be his, and more Jews would be dead.
For this arguement to be valid, the US's objectives would have to be conquering the middle east.
Plainly, it is not.
In fact, the best response from the Muslim world, the one that would have crushed public support for the Bush War on Terror is if the leaders of those nations had, starting on the evening of September 11th, publicly and loudly voiced their contempt for the terrorists and their sympathies for the US.
Bush would have had no case for going to war with any of these countries if they had been standing beside him at September 11th memorial events.
That wouldn't have even been appeasement. It would have just been lip service, just an impression of sympathy.
No surrendering of WMDs, no "appeasing" Bush in any of the ways Xap suggests here would have been neccesary. If Bush had brought up invading a nation after the nation had put on such a display he would have, rightly or wrongly, been publically tarred and feathered.
Please do not read the reverse of what I am saying. I am by no means implying that the fact they did not express such solidarity is justification for war.
I am, however, suggesting it would have taken a lot less than fulfilling a laundry list of demands from Bush to keep us off their land--full "appeasement" would have been terrible overkill.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Xaposert, I will try and make this short.
Analogy or no analogy, at least we are not taking over the countries like Nazi Germany. We are giving the country back to it's people. Whether or not anyone likes GWB Jr, this activity is straight forward.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm boggled, ALR-- are you suggesting that America's goal in WWII was NOT to take out the repressive regimes of Italy, Germany, and Japan?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think she's arguing-correctly, unfortunately for my love of my nation-that America wasn't nearly as concerned about fascist oppression before Pearl Harbor than after it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it definitely wasn't. We went to war against Japan because they attacked us, and against Germany and Italy because they threatened us.
The repressiveness of those and other regimes were well known to our government both during the war well before we entered and well before the war even started. It was only when they started attacking others that we attacked them.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
This is how I see it. If a nation is waging an aggressive war against another nation, and its goal is the conquest or destruction of the victim nation, appeasing the aggressive nation with smaller concessions isn't going to make it stop.
That's why you can't appease Hitler, you can't appease extremist Muslim terrorists, and you can't appease John L in a debate. None of them will rest until you are completely, and utterly destroyed, nor will they concede even slightly to forge a compromise. Any concession you make simply furthers your disadvantage in the inevitable struggle for your destruction.
However, the US in this case is not seeking the destruction or conquest of the Muslim world for our own gain. Whether or not you believe that we were the innocent victims, we are certainly only ACTING because we were attacked. Had there been no terrorist attack on September 11, there would be no war on terrorism. We are waging a defensive war to destroy an enemy's ability to continue to make war with us. When they are no longer willing or able to attack us, our war will be over.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
And that is why Rat Named Dog is my favorite poster on this site.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I think she's arguing-correctly, unfortunately for my love of my nation-that America wasn't nearly as concerned about fascist oppression before Pearl Harbor than after it.
Not only that, but as fugu13 pointed out, many of the oppressive practices of Hitler's regime were well-known. But I'll go farther - it's not just that they were ignored. Many of the policies of Hitler's regime were met with approval by many in this country - the treatment of Jews, people with disabilities, gypsies, and other "undesirables."
The moral outrage was adopted after the fact. And then became part of our own fuzzy historical concept of ourselves.
[ March 27, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
All right-- why DID America wage war on three foreign countries, then?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"However, the US in this case is not seeking the destruction or conquest of the Muslim world for our own gain."
Geoff, I'm not sure this is true. Certainly, if you read the PNAC papers released well before 9/11 by members of the current administration, you'll see their arguments for the destruction of Muslim culture for American gain.
[ March 27, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because we were attacked by the Empire of Japan at Pearl Harbor, and that nation was allied to Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. That was the original reason we entered WWII, and in fact there were many people of that time who were insisting on attacking only Japan, winning against only Japan, or attacking Japan first and worrying about Germany later.
We kept up the war for the other reasons than that, and necessary protection from Japan does not solely explain the depth of our committment to victory during and after the war, but we first went to war against Japan, Germany, and Italy because we were attacked by Japan and the other two were its military allies. (Not so much between Italy and Japan, but undeniably Japan and Germany)
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
You can already see this reassignment of intent happening with the current war. My eyes and ears were open a year ago when the reasons for invading Iraq were laid out on the table, and "freeing the poor oppressed Iraqis" was barely a blip on the radar. It was WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, nuclear weapons, biochemical weapons, purchasing Uranium from Africa, blueprints for WMDs, etc. Freeing the Iraqis was, like the Holocaust survivors during WWII, a pleasant side effect.
It was only after it became clear that there were no WMDs that the reason for the war became freeing the Iraqi people.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:That's why you can't appease Hitler, you can't appease extremist Muslim terrorists, and you can't appease John L in a debate. None of them will rest until you are completely, and utterly destroyed, nor will they concede even slightly to forge a compromise. Any concession you make simply furthers your disadvantage in the inevitable struggle for your destruction.
However, the US in this case is not seeking the destruction or conquest of the Muslim world for our own gain. Whether or not you believe that we were the innocent victims, we are certainly only ACTING because we were attacked. Had there been no terrorist attack on September 11, there would be no war on terrorism. We are waging a defensive war to destroy an enemy's ability to continue to make war with us. When they are no longer willing or able to attack us, our war will be over.
Heh. That's cute, Geoff, the way you manage to both demonize and insult both Muslims and John.
Unfortunately, you're, well, rather ridiculous. We're attacking the Muslim world because we were attacked by it? What role did Hussein play, exactly, in the September 11 attacks? Hell, for that matter, has he ever initiated hostilities against the United States?
Of course Bush invaded Iraq for his own gain. Whether you believe that gain is American dominance in a geographically significant country or, more accurately, acquisition of the second largest oil reserves in the world and awards of bloated taxpayer-paid contracts to a closely tied oil company.
We are not engaging a defensive war, at least not in the case of Iraq. Please cut out the bullshit. You could perhaps describe the war against Afghanistan as such, but even that's more accurately described as retaliation against a country guilty of harboring a wanted terrorist. The conquest of Iraq was nothing less than an unwarranted attack on a country that has never initiated hostilities against us, an attack based on false information given the the public through insinuations and lies by Bush about the existence of WMD in Iraq. We can rationalize our conquest there as much as we like -- after all, to bring up Tres' example, even Hitler did rationalize his conquest of Czechslovakia by naming it re-acquisition of Germany's traditionally held lands -- but please don't lie about it.
No matter how amusing it may be to watch you declare the conquest of Iraq a "defensive" war.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
sndrake's got a point. Eugenics was originally an American movement, though its first application through genocide was applied by the Germans. And the Nazi efforts to remove Jews from the world was widely applauded in the US, even as conservatives in the US fought FDR's efforts to sneak arms to Britain through Congressional sanctions.
We don't have a spectacular history of humanism in this country. And admitting that, I think, is far more indicative of loving the US than any flag on a car window or declaration of "patriotism" ever could be.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Daed, I wasn't talking about Iraq. You'll notice that I directed all of my comments toward "extremist Muslim terrorists" and "the war on terrorism" ... ie, our battle with Al Qaeda and its associated organizations. I thought of opening up a parallel discussion of Iraq, but it seemed like an unnecessary diversion from my point.
Of course, since you've decided to read nonexisentent meanings into my post, it may have been necessary after all
One point, though. You write as though you think I am attacking Muslims in general. I hope a rereading of my post will remind you that I am attacking a very specific faction of Muslims who do not represent the culture as a whole.
But on the subject of offensive vs. defensive wars, I'm wondering what exactly is wrong with "demonizing and insulting" (1) organizations intent on murdering large numbers of American civilians in an attempt to destroy our nation's way of life, and (2) debaters who pointlessly berate and vilify individuals who peacefully and harmlessly raise points to stimulate discussion? I'm sure that if anyone in this world is inviting insult and demonization, it's got to be these two
[ March 27, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
For anyone interested in the topic, there was a short discussion on the topics of eugenics, American and Hitler in this thread.
The article that started the discussion is still up on the UK Guardian's website:
[ March 27, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:Heh. That's cute, Geoff, the way you manage to both demonize and insult both Muslims and John.
quote: And on the subject of offensive vs. defensive wars, I'm wondering what exactly is wrong with "demonizing and insulting" (1) organizations intent on murdering large numbers of American civilians in an attempt to destroy our nation's way of life,
Muslim = "organization intent on murdering large numbers of American civilians in an attempt to destroy our nation's way of life"?
And the ad hominem attacks are getting boring, Geoff.
[ March 27, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Kama ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
According to the Bush administration, the attack on Iraq was part of the war on terror.
Re: known atrocities in WW2, Japanese treatment of conquered parts of Asia was well known also. Mass executions, rapes, complete destruction of villages to get rid of dissidents, that sort of thing.
We didn't do a darn thing about it until they attacked us.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Uh, I think Dog's assertion wasn't about Muslims or the Muslim world, Daed.
He DID specify extremist Muslim terrorists, after all.
They're a pretty unappeasable bunch, wouldn't you say?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Kama, when I reread Daedalus's post, I realized that he had cited "Muslims" as the subject of my attack, and not "Al Qaeda", as I had remembered. So you'll note that I added a paragraph to make the distinction clear.
And if you're so tired of ad hominem attacks, why in the world are you defending John of all people? Sometimes I get the impression that if a poster attacks an insults enough people, it suddenly becomes tolerable and to-be-expected. Lalo and John both seem to have nudged themselves into this category. I think we should expect better of our members.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Which includes me, by the way. I had a very cathartic venting of pent-up frustration last week in Slash's thread, and I'm sorry about that. I usually hold myself to a much higher standard of behavior.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I'm not defending John. I don't see any reasons to defend John. If it were anyone else you were so inclined on attacking, I'd say the same thing. It's boring.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I'm just wondering why the thread seems to have gone this way:
John: INSULT! INSULT INSULT! TRES'S POST SUCKS! AWFUL AWFUL! INSULT!
Geoff: [cute little jab at John]
Kama: Geoff, stop making ad hominem attacks! It's boring!
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Why, because I'm hopelessly in love with John and can't stand people making cute little jabs at him.
[ March 27, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Kama ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Hell, for that matter, has he ever initiated hostilities against the United States?
Well, there was that whole assassination attempt. Aiding and abetting the murder of civilians in an allied country.
I'll save you the trouble and just say those things don't count .
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Well, for one thing, asking John to stop is a waste of time, while with you it's not. One of the drawbacks of generally treating people with respect is that people do expect more of you, instead of automatically writing you off as hopeless.
[ March 27, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm on the fence whether or not John is actually intending to be insulting towards Tresopax, his words are, frequently.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Hm, a quick extraction from Daedalus's post about Iraq:
quote:an unwarranted attack on a country that has never initiated hostilities against us
So, do we or do we not honor our alliances? While this wasn't the immediate reason for our invasion, Iraq has launched direct attacks on Israel. I'm sorry, but a nation doesn't get to have a clean diplomatic conscience for merely technially avoiding attacks on America's soil (all of which is located on the other side of the world) while attacking nations that we are sworn to protect.
Iraq has attacked longstanding allies of the United States, and has also attacked nations that we chose to assist after the fact. While you may or may not agree with the notion that this gives us the right to invade Iraq, defending that country as an innocent victim is a pretty untenable position. Doesn't help your case much.
[ March 27, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Ayelar, that's a good point. Still though, as hopeless a case as John may be in his utter unwillingness to critically examine his own behavior, I don't think that means that Hatrack needs to bend over for him, either. This shouldn't be a community where the nastiest behavior lands you on top.
[ March 27, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Oh, believe me, I agree. However, after several attempts to persuade others to see him as the bully I think he is, I've realized it's pointless. Some people will see it as harsh and unwarranted attacks, and some will always defend it as loveable grumpiness. I don't understand it, but I've gotten pretty good at ignoring it.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:Daed, I wasn't talking about Iraq. You'll notice that I directed all of my comments toward "extremist Muslim terrorists" and "the war on terrorism" ... ie, our battle with Al Qaeda and its associated organizations. I thought of opening up a parallel discussion of Iraq, but it seemed like an unnecessary diversion from my point.
Of course, since you've decided to read nonexisentent meanings into my post, it may have been necessary after all
However, the US in this case is not seeking the destruction or conquest of the Muslim world for our own gain. Whether or not you believe that we were the innocent victims, we are certainly only ACTING because we were attacked. Had there been no terrorist attack on September 11, there would be no [b]war on terrorism. We are waging a defensive war to destroy an enemy's ability to continue to make war with us. When they are no longer willing or able to attack us, our war will be over.
Gosh, Geoff. My apologies, but reading that we're attacking the Muslim world only because we were attacked, and there'd be no attack if September 11 never happened, so we need to wage a defensive war against the "enemy" -- a girl can get awful confused figuring out which Muslim world, exactly, you're talking about.
Not to mention, given that Bush and right-wing media sources have constantly and consistently lied about Hussein's associations with bin Laden in order to connect the conquest of Iraq with the war on terrorism, it's tough to tell when people are using the "war on terrorism" to justify attacks on Hussein or bin Laden.
A war which is, let's face it, utter bullshit. There won't be any shortages of enemies for the US in the future. If we do manage to get the Muslim world to like us by killing everyone in it who fights us, we still have virtually all of Asia to contend with. We're not loved by the Americas, and even Europe is quickly losing its status as a steadfast ally. If we should manage to lose Al-Queda as an enemy, there'll be North Korea. Virtually any other given Arabian country. Northern and central African countries. And always, the great bug-a-boo of China looming in the background as the next USSR.
Instead of naming this a war on terrorism, why not name it what it is? A war against Al-Queda. It'd be so much easier to not confuse us poor citizens -- though, admittedly, it'll be harder to lie about connections between blood enemies like Hussein and bin Laden if we're not allowed to give vague labels to states of emergency.
quote:And on the subject of offensive vs. defensive wars, I'm wondering what exactly is wrong with "demonizing and insulting" (1) organizations intent on murdering large numbers of American civilians in an attempt to destroy our nation's way of life, and (2) debaters who pointlessly berate and vilify individuals who peacefully and harmlessly raise devil's-advocate points to stimulate discussion?
There's always a problem if you feel you're incapable of sufficiently arguing against something without demonizing or insulting it. John can and does occasionally go overboard with his posts -- so do I, and, if you'll think back to the recent past, so do you. Yet somehow I doubt you'd appreciate being demonized and insulted -- would you, you evil mindless lockstep clone bent on following Bush in the ways of Satan so you can suppress homosexuals, murder liberals, and keep women in the Christian equivalent of the burka, the apron?
As far as your criticism of Al-Queda goes -- do you really think you need to demonize them in order to justify an attack against them? I seem to recall your father writing a book about the importance of loving those who would be your enemies.
Writing that "None of them will rest until you are completely, and utterly destroyed, nor will they concede even slightly to forge a compromise. Any concession you make simply furthers your disadvantage in the inevitable struggle for your destruction" doesn't exactly give me a whole bunch of confidence in you ability to understand that Muslims are just like anyone else, and that they're not bent on our destruction. The very few religious sects that are bent on the destruction will fade from existence rather quickly without popular support -- the same way anti-Semitism has largely died out thanks to leaps in civil rights over the course of the past century. Granted, there are still groups out there like the KKK or extremist Southern Baptists that hate Jews, blacks, and homosexuals, but they're not representative of the whole of their race or religion or country, nor do they wield as much political power as they once did. While, admittedly, they wield far too much power for my tastes, there are remarkably few lynchings anymore.
Instead, if we don't like a black person, we send him to prison.
But that's just my bitterness showing through. Point is, while there'll always be jackasses bent on hating a target -- be that target the US, Arabs, Jews, or homosexuals -- I have faith in your ability to debate their virtues without resorting to idiotic demonization like citing their need to utterly destroy Americans and our way of life. Heh. Christ.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Point is, while there'll always be jackasses bent on hating a target...
And the irony train keeps on rolling Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And incidentally, Ed, you've gone out of your way to construe a meaning in Geoff's posts that simply isn't there. Just because he doesn't have a caveat for every time he says something like "Muslim World" doesn't mean he thinks anything about ALL Muslims.
It's pretty clear that he was referring to Muslims who engage in international terrorism.
quote:There's always a problem if you feel you're incapable of sufficiently arguing against something without demonizing or insulting it. John can and does occasionally go overboard with his posts -- so do I, and, if you'll think back to the recent past, so do you. Yet somehow I doubt you'd appreciate being demonized and insulted -- would you, you evil mindless lockstep clone bent on following Bush in the ways of Satan so you can suppress homosexuals, murder liberals, and keep women in the Christian equivalent of the burka, the apron?
Here's the thing: I think you're using terms like that for effect, but frequently you don't, they're honest-to-God insults. Geoff went overboard once. You, though? You've got pretty much one setting and stick to it.
Or are you going to deny again you don't consistently insult and patronize conservatives, Republicans, and Christians?
[ March 27, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Daed, now I think I understand where your misunderstanding lies. You said:
quote:The very few religious sects that are bent on the destruction will fade from existence rather quickly without popular support ...
Okay, so we do both recognize that there ARE Muslim extremist sects and organization who ARE bent on our utter destruction. And that these organizations include Al Qaeda, which (at least initially) has been our primary focus in the war on terrorism.
These groups are the ones that I feel free to attack, insult, and compare to Hitler. Not Islam in general.
I think our problem here is your misreading of my statement:
quote:However, the US in this case is not seeking the destruction or conquest of the Muslim world for our own gain.
Here, I believe you mistook my meaning, and came away thinking that I believe the U.S. is "seeking the destruction or conquest of the Muslim world", and that I think this is a good thing, because after all, Muslims are all horrible people bent on our destruction.
That isn't what I intended you to read into my post. When I said that the U.S. is NOT seeking the destruction or conquest of the Muslim world, that's what I meant. We're NOT doing that. If we WERE doing that, then Tresopax's analogy would apply, because we would very much resemble Hitler's Germany and its quest to conquer Europe and eliminate the Jews. Instead, I believe that (at least initially) this war has been completely defensive, a response to an attack on our soil, targeting the perpetrators and the governments who support and protect them — not an aggressive conquest.
Again, Iraq is a much more murky question, but that isn't the question I was addressing. Tres asked if Muslim terrorists — the horrific extremists that both you and I recognize — should treat the U.S. the way we, in retrospect, believe we should have treated Hitler. I said no, because we are NOT doing what Hitler did, and we do NOT share Hitler's motivations.
At least, that's the question I believed I was answering. Does that make my intent abundantly clear to you?
[ March 27, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
[edit] Oh, crap, this is the first post on the new page, and it looks like a total non-sequitur Page back, everybody!
[to Daedalus] And then we should address the actual assumptions of your statement about Muslim extremists. You believe that they will just fade away if we do nothing about them? Or if we somehow promote peace and love in a hippy-ish sort of way? Am I reading you right? Because if I remember correctly, it took a horrible, crushing military defeat to stamp out German Naziism ...
[ March 27, 2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Whether you believe that gain is American dominance in a geographically significant country or, more accurately, acquisition of the second largest oil reserves in the world and awards of bloated taxpayer-paid contracts to a closely tied oil company.
Please cut the BS yourself. We are not going to control any oil reserves, and any influence (not dominance) we get in Iraq will be from gratitude (both at the liberation and for leaving when we do).
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"We are not going to control any oil reserves, and any influence (not dominance) we get in Iraq will be from gratitude (both at the liberation and for leaving when we do)."
Since we've already signed the oil contracts over to American companies and are starting contruction on a billion-dollar intelligence headquarters in Baghdad with a completion date of 2006, your sentence reflects more wishful thinking than reality.
------
Geoff, will you concede that at least SOME ranking members of this administration, three years ago, published essays arguing for the subjugation of the Muslim world specifically for American gain?
[ March 27, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Geoff, will you concede that at least SOME ranking members of this administration, three years ago, published essays arguing for the subjugation of the Muslim world specifically for American gain?
I have a problem conceding something I know very little about, beyond your word But I'm also not arguing against it, for the same reason.
quote:The problem with the thread is this:
Okay, John, that's all I wanted. Some amount of reasoning beyond saying "Tres, that's STUPID and HORRIBLE!" Of course, you still repeat the latter sentiment several times, but at least you're attempting to address the topic. I applaud your progress.
And this is another issue where I sort of straddle the fence. I personally am not impressed with the whole "Why aren't we attacking EVERY aggressive or evil regime in the world?" argument. I mean, it should be fairly obvious. We'd lose. We simply can't fight every single atrocious dictator or aggressor in the world. No one can. But now and then, we face a situation where it is entirely within our power to do something about one of them. In those moments, I believe that we are honor-bound to do so, or wear the blood of their victims on our own hands.
Iraq, for me, was mostly palatable because we fell short the first time. We promised freedom to the Iraqi people, and then failed to deliver on it. I got the sense that we were finishing up an unfinished war, not picking an entirely new one.
And I can see it as a useful strategic move in the war on terrorism, not to wipe out a specific threat, but rather to establish an ally and a base of operations within the terrorists' own territory, and to prove that we are no longer treating our enemies with kid gloves. On a larger scale, it's similar to taking over a non-essential enemy fortification because it places you in a better position to attack the essential ones. Is such an attack a waste of time? Not in the grand scheme of things.
But this war was also a diplomatic failure, and the way it was pitched really shot our administration in the foot. It's going to hurt us in a lot of visible ways in the long run, and the advantages of it won't get nearly the same level of attention. That sucks, and it could have been handled a lot better.
Anyway, John, that's kind of a digression. My main point is that you and I are largely on the same side here. I just prefer to be on a side that isn't so quick to jump down its opponents' throats.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:I'm not jumping down anyone's throat, Geoff. I'm saying this entire freaking thread was stupid from the get go.
Heh heh. Wow. And those two things are different ... exactly how?
I mean, when I criticized a post of yours in one of the gay marriage threads, you became terribly offended, and decided that I had labeled you the ENEMY of RELIGION!! [dum dum DUUUUUM!] and had to apologize immediately, or you would take your ball and go home.
And yet, you feel absolutely free to level much more emphatic, insulting criticisms at other people, and expect them to take it in stride.
If you were nearly as thick-skinned and tolerant as you expect your opponents to be, then perhaps your position would make some sense. But as things stand, your behavior only makes you appear oversensitive, self-absorbed, and blinded by infatuation with the superiority of your own opinions.
But I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your behavior. So you have no business getting offended
[ March 27, 2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
You know, when someone starts a stupid thread, I usually ignore it, or simply offer a short, reasoned response that makes my opinion known without starting a flame war.
This normally-unassailable position is tarnished at the moment by my recent outburst over Goodbye threads and I'm Oh So Sad threads, but you'll notice that I kept that outburst confined to a single thread reserved for them, and still never felt the need to post attacks within the offending threads.
I'm just saying that the weaknesses you perceive in Tres's analogy do not automatically justify your flaming response. There are many, many other ways you could have handled the situation that would have worked out much better for you in the end.
Personally, I've begun to seriously regret my own recent outburst. It was nice to be able to vent my feelings on the matter, but the damage I suffered to my reputation as a result has been painful. Don't expect me to make a similar mistake again.
And don't expect me to be more tolarant of your self-righteous flame wars, either. I've been in your position now, and it's a really stupid place to be. You can get a lot more done by earning people's respect than by shooting them down.
[ March 27, 2004, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So mockingly calling Tresopax a professor and insulting his education is not an attack on Tresopax?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Of course I could never make you a project, John. How could I, when in your world, you are so unreachably beyond critique? I'm not asking you to stop posting. I'm asking you to stop treating people I care about with contempt. And I think I'm within my rights to do so.
If you find it insulting that someone would presume to criticize your offensive behavior, then I'm afraid you must be a nobler creature than I. Personally, I'm glad people shared their honest reactions to my own outburst, so I could apologize and correct myself. Accepting the consequences of your behavior is part of being an adult member of society. If you'd like to be able to say and do whatever you want, without dealing with the inconvenience of affecting or offending other people, I'm sure I can find you a lovely playpen.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Crap, I said something snarky, but John pre-empted me with something nice Snarkiness deleted.
[ March 27, 2004, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
What's up with all the post deletions?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
[sigh] Oh, brother. Now look at the thread. Continuity all shot to hell. Great.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
rock on, dogbreath!
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Hm. Hard to tell exactly what John L means by deleting all of his posts. Is it, "That's it! I've tolerated you mortals' criticism long enough! I shall strip your world of my glory and abandon you to eke out a survival without the warmth of constant beratement!" Or is it something more like, "Man, I've really ticked some people off. Let's just pretend this didn't happen." Or is it "Heh heh, this'll show 'em. I'll jack up the thread and make them all look like idiots!" Or maybe it's like, "Waaa! I'm mad! I'm taking my posts and going home!" Or perhaps something like, "I don't like all this attention. [hides]"
Perhaps we'll never know.
[ March 28, 2004, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
rat-breath,
who's john? jon-boy? I see a few of his posts about.
Sorry for butting in. Just wondering what's going on.
thanks,
fallow
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Heh heh. Cute.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Nobody calls me cute and gets away with it!
*delivers swift kick to rat's preferred nether regions*
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Okay, this is a weird bait-and-switch if I ever saw one. John L vanishes, and fallow steps in to take his place Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
It looks like, with the exception of two posts, John L has deleted everything he said, anywhere, for the past three days. Wow.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
rat-breath, dog-fart,
fallow is fallow, was flish, is mike T.
No bait 'n' switch from moi. I'd hate to think of anyone posting under my monikers for the sheer humiliation it might cause them.
salivate on!
fallow
PS. Cut the aetheist crap. yer making us look bad.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Okay, I think I'm trapped in some kind of surreal nightmare. Would someone else post something, please?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
no problem . . . I have no idea what's up with "fallow".
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
ruh?
Rat/Dog, I was making a goof at trying to intervene in a convo that was going badways "Perhaps we'll never know type personal digs" That's all.
fallow
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Well, this thread has certainly gone a weird route since it's appearance on the board this morning....
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
"Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy"
Alice'n'Denver
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Yeah, this is definitely like something out of Ingmar Bergman. Or Ingrid Bergman. Somebody Swedish.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
did someone ask for a chef?
*clasps hands together with glee*
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The problem with all these arguments in favor of appeasing America is that they all depend on the notion that America only has good intentions. While I'm sure it is easy for US to have faith in that assumption, being Americans, it's important to remember that polls in many of these Muslim nations show that vast majorities trust Osama bin Laden more than America is trusted. You can't very well expect them to base their strategy towards the U.S. on a faith that we are just out to be nice, when it is most clear that very few in that portion of the world have such a faith in us.
I suspect if some Middle Eastern individual tried to argue that they "it's okay to appease America, because they aren't out to do bad stuff like Hitler did", he'd get laughed out of the discussion and called naive - just as those who claim appeasement can work with terrorists get immediately rejected here in America.
This is the problem with our strategy: It is built on the assumption that if we be aggressive towards Muslim nations then they will appease us and give us what we want. We would not respond like that if we were in their shoes - so why do we expect them to?
quote:However, the US in this case is not seeking the destruction or conquest of the Muslim world for our own gain. Whether or not you believe that we were the innocent victims, we are certainly only ACTING because we were attacked. Had there been no terrorist attack on September 11, there would be no war on terrorism. We are waging a defensive war to destroy an enemy's ability to continue to make war with us. When they are no longer willing or able to attack us, our war will be over.
Are you suggesting that it might be okay to appease an enemy if they are only out to defend themselves? This would be a stark contrast to claims in previous threads that seemed to suggest appeasement always fails, and that Hitler somehow showed that to be universally true.
And what does this mean if it were to turn out that the terrorists' intent was only to defend themselves? What if the terrorists think THEIR war is a defensive war? Would what you are saying imply that appeasement could work with them, just as it might work with us?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
xapospert,
I think we live in a luxury that encourages callousness on a level that we often aren't aware of.
fallow
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Wow, this thread is really hard to read.
John's done this before. I think the first time I actually felt sort of bad about it. But he'll come back eventually, and stay until the big bad meanies at Hatrack point out that he's being a jerk again.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Tres, how much money has the US gotten from the invasion of Iraq? From Afghanistan? How much will we get in, say, the next ten years?
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
It's not the US who has benefited monetarily from this war, Storm. It's Bushs' cronies who have recieved contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq after we destroyed it. And the likelihood of the the US(by which I mean the average citizen, not the top .01% of the pop.) benefiting from that money is slim.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Give me some kind of figure, a link or two if possible. How much have these companies benefited so far? How much do they stand to benefit?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I have no idea how much money we'll get, but even if the figure is zero it won't change the fact that most people in the Middle East don't trust us in the way folks on this thread seem to expect them to.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: This is the problem with our strategy: It is built on the assumption that if we be aggressive towards Muslim nations then they will appease us and give us what we want. We would not respond like that if we were in their shoes - so why do we expect them to?
Because the ends are different, and right now they have no choice, and because we have ceased being aggressive. We don't seek to appease the terrorists because we know it's fruitless. I think it is possible to win people, a country, over by showing that it is in their best interest to do so edit: and that we are open to working with them rather than against them.
I don't know if I expect them to welcome us with open arms right now because it is not clear exactly what we're after, but I think if we remain in Iraq for a few years and Iraq becomes anything like democratic and prosperous and secure and happy, we won't need to say anything. Talk is cheap.
Tres, did you know that shortly after we invaded Iraq, there was a sympathetic uprising in Iran in the hopes that we would aid the rebellion there? What of Libya? If we were to have sent armed forces there to help the people when they were being attacked, wouldn't the people have been happy because the ENDS of sending troops to their country would have been an increase in peace and prosperity?
[ March 28, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What I don't understand is how we are supposed to appease the terrorists? Lie down and die? Convert to their idea of Islam? All the extreme terrorists want is conquest.
One could say, they want the U.S. to get out of the Middle East. However, it was the terrorists that brought us in the Middle East to begin with. It is true that we entered the Middle East during the first Iraq war without a direct threat to the U.S. However, we didn't force ourselves into the nations other than Iraq, as other Muslim Nations let us in -- some joining us. And, at the time, we left Iraq at the Muslim's bidding and stayed in Saudi Arabia with that nation's permission. We have also, interestingly enough, left Saudi Arabia at their bidding.
Another "appease" stratagy would be to no longer have any oil business between us and the Muslim Nations. Considering that the U.S. is the major buyer of oil from them, that would harm both the U.S. and the Muslim nations we buy oil from. As has been stated by some Muslim nations we have done just that with -- it is similar to an act of war! They need us as much as we need them. Besides, if the U.S. is so evil for getting oil from them, then why aren't other nations that surely buy the oil not also of equal condemnation?
As for how the Muslims could appease the United States? Easy. Stop threatning the U.S. and its Allies, particularly Israel, with terrorism and violence. If you think that Israel is an enemy, than declair an official war on Israel and fight with real armies and navys. Above all, stop supporting the terrorists and take on more responsibility toward rooting them out of your country.
[ March 28, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
So, just who does make up the Muslim world that Xap speaks of?
Are they all of the nations? All of the Muslim believers? A few select organizations?
I see Muslim nations and believers lining up on three sides in this: some in favor of the US actions, some wholesale against them, and many, very many, quietly taking a neutral stance.
Who are the ones appeasing America, and conversely, who should America be appeasing in your opinion Xap?
And while we're on questions, Xap, what other names do you go by on this forum? I've gotten confused recently with all of the references to different names/etc...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's not a question of appeasing the terrorists. Geoff's partially right from above. Once Hitler and the Nazi party came into power, there was little that could be done to stop them short of using force. World War II was pretty much a necessity.
However, it didn't have to be. There was not inevitibilty, no great big book of History that said that Hitler had to come to power and the Nazis had to rampage around Europe. Situations developed such that this happened. The average German Nazi was little different from you or me. It was their situation that in large part led to their behavior.
People focus on the cowardice of the peopel trying to appease the Nazis, but they forget the guilt motivation. Many of the people trying to appease the Nazis felt that there was some merit to the NAzi claims. They felt that the things done to the German people as a consequence of WWI were unust.
One of the strongest blows against fascism came after the end of WWII in the form of the Marshall Plan, by which we tried to ensure that the European peoples even (or perhaps especially) our former enemies had the groundwork for a prosperous existance. People had realized that people became fascists for reasons, and that one of the main reasons was living in despair inducing conditions.
Just like people became Nazis for reasons, so too do people become terrorists for reasons. This is something we overlook when we demonize them. We don't consider that they are pretty similar people to ourselves. We also don't think that they may have good reasons to be pissed at us or at the world in general.
We also deny that terrorism is about the only strategy that seems to even partially work from these people's perspective. They adopt it in large part because it seems to get them what they want, not because they are just slavering monsters.
We need a new sort of Marshall Plan, not to appease the terrorists, but rather to strike at the conditions that make certain places a breeding ground for terrorists. People who have hope and something to live for don't become suicide bombers. We need to get to them before they adopt terrorism. You're always going to have the power mad and the people consumed by hatred. We'll never be able to kill all of these people off. We need to make it so that no one wants to follow them. THe world would be a much different place if only five Germans showed up for the first Nazi recruiting party while the rest were happy at home with their healthy families.
One of the big obstacles to this is that we benefit from keeping these people's lives crappy. U.S. and British intervention in this area had been geared towards that goal for a long time. We need to acknowledge this and consider whether the benefits we get out of this are worth both the injustice and the possibility that someone's going to soon find a way to take out a large chunk of the east coast.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Agreed 100%.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I take it back. i don't agree 100%. I believe many of the new terrorist recruits are not from the poor, but from the middle class.
I do think that what you say has a lot of merit, though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, Most of the intitial Nazis were from the middle class as well, as were the rebellious Lutherans and Calvinists of the Reformation. The culture of despair doesn't necessaarily mean abject poverty. There's a lot more to it than that.
[ March 28, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But your post read very much like it was talking about those in poverty. if there's more to it, please discuss. I'm just filling in your blanks. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, The culture of despair is a tricky thing and I think I've outgrown my optimism towards posting long psychological explanations. Edit: One might say I despair of it doing any good.
Suffice it to say, the rich kid who feels his life doesn't have any meaning and is afraid of responsibility who tries to hide from these things by joining a cult is suffering from despair, while the peseant woman in cental america who still has a relatively happy outlook after burying her third child isn't. Despair is largely a sickness of meaning and hope.
[ March 28, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K., so you are talking about anomie. What's the answer? I'm very interested in this, myself, as it so happens. I have this romantic vision of taming wildernesses, long sea voyages, and the like, but those don't seem very feasible.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I had the second post (the first post was deleted, so now it looks like I'm responding to nothing, but no matter) on this thread, but the problem still stands.
If we cannot say, yes I support violence against America, because morals and the like prevent us from endorsing terrorist actions, the only other action option is what Tresopax calls appeasement.
Appeasement as I understand it is giving BigBad or IWant a little of what is wanted and hoping that little bit will make BigBad or IWant go away. In this case, with the US not really out for land, what is appeasement? Pretending just a little to lean towards Democracy? Letting some weapons inspectors in to some facilities? I don't see that working. The US will get what it wants in the end.
The last option is cooperation, which, correct me if I'm wrong Tresopax, you seemed to have failed to consider this last option. I think this says something about the relations between the US and the nations that are presently hostile, or our view of many Muslim Nations. Is cooperation so unthinkable as to be almost unmentionable?
If it is clear there is a problem, which there undeniably is, why is it so outrageous to imagine that the US and the countries in question should unite to fight it? I think that once this thought isn't so outrageous that finding an 'appeasement' won't be so difficult or shocking.
[ March 28, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Oman, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kuwait, Yemen, Tunisia, Turkey... regular cooperative partners, even through the current war on Terror. And now even Libya makes overtures to peace.
Being Muslim doesn't make you the good guy or the bad guy.
Perhaps we should look at individual nations rather than lumping them together as the Muslim World. Of course, broad strokes are very easy to paint with...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If that was aimed at me, Sopwith, I appreciate it. I'm going to make some modifications right now.
[ March 28, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Wow I got really confused trying to read this thread. You shouldn't be able to delete your post once someone has posted after you.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think that's an unwritten courtesy rule, Ryan, unfortunately, not everyone adheres.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm all for a new Marshall Plan, focused on the Middle-East.
I think what people are forgetting-or at least not mentioning-is that it's not so simple. What had to happen before the first Marshall Plan happened? Massive, continent-spanning and devastating war in which there was no doubt of the victor.
Suppose we enacted a Marshall Plan now. To whom would the money go for new infrastructure and better education? To whom the equipment and personnel and information? What would we do when, invariably, the scumbags largely in power in the Middle-East (some of them, to my shame, propped up by America) took those things dedicated to the New Marshall Plan, and used them for their own corrupt ends?
Ask them politely not to do that?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Isn't Iraq the New Marshall Plan we are all talking about? Isn't Afganastan the New Marshall Plan just as well? It takes time and money that the American people refuse to give. Japan and Germany weren't rebuilt in a day, or even independantly powerful in a decade.
We are forgetting that the United States IS trying to rebuild nations that were once dictatorships. The problem is in our perception of the Marshall Plan itself. I believe that if the Marshall Plan was to be issued with todays political climate that it would have been called Imperialism. George Marshall, and more particularly Gen. (?) who was in charge would have been called an American Dictator with visions of world domination.
To tell you the honest truth, the way I see it, most Muslims don't want Democracy. They want religious theocracies (some don't, but they are in the minority). I would agree to let them have it if it wasn't for them ALSO wanting the death of the U.S. and Israel; and giving them a nation to run would only increase the likelihood of them gaining the ability.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Nope Teshi, I agree with what you've said. It just seems that sometimes we tend to look at the Muslim world as a cohesive group... it's easier for us to do so, but the political stances of the various Muslim countries are often as varied as those of any other globe spanning group.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The American people are not requesting insufficient funding for rebuilding.
The American people are not trying to hide that fact by only requesting money as part of emergency spending instead of as part of the general budget, even when it is highly predictable.
The American people are not the ones in control of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan are under the control of the Executive branch of the United States Gov't, and if the American people are not aware of funding that is needed, and Congress is not aware of funding that is needed, and if those regions are being criminally neglected and the warlords are essentially taking over it is d*mn well primarily the Executive branch's responsibility!
[ March 29, 2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Marshall Plan wasn't just a vast cash dump. It was a targeted strategy with the goal of building strong economical and social support in these countries. When I speak of a new Marshall Plan, I'm not suggesting that we merely copy what was done before. It's an attitude thing and not a matter of strict policy.
Right now, my impression of American foreign policy is that it disregards the building up of these countries and focuses more on military action and wishing for western democracies to spring up. I honestly don't see a concern with the fundamental social and economic issues nor do I see a consequent plan targetting them.
If I'm wrong, then, hey I'm wrong, and I'm happy that this is what's happening. I wish that someone would do a better job of publicizing that this is our orientation. However, I really don't think that the facts bear this out. I think that the people who are disagreeing with me here that this is actually happening are saying so, not based on any facts, but on a desire to attribute all good things to the current administration.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
MrSquicky,
quote:The Marshall Plan wasn't just a vast cash dump. It was a targeted strategy with the goal of building strong economical and social support in these countries.
I'm not sure if you were speaking to me specifically, but I did mention more than money. And anyway, you haven't answered my question.
With any form of a Marshall Plan in the Middle-East, what do you think America should do when, inevitably, the current largely corrupt Middle-Eastern governments and leaders misuse what you propose be given them?
quote:I think that the people who are disagreeing with me here that this is actually happening are saying so, not based on any facts, but on a desire to attribute all good things to the current administration.
Some of us never said it was actually happening, and are irritated at having it subtly suggested that we're just sticking our heads in the sand and are ditto-heads. For the record, I agree that American foreign policy is a nightmare, far too short-term and economically focused.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, I'm sorry that I annoyed you. If it helps, I didn't intend to say that you were one of these people. I tend not to name names because people can judge for themselves who my criticisms apply to. To be honest, even if I did think this about you, I don't see how it would really affect you, as it would be a result of my misunderstanding your position, and thus not a valid criticism anyway.
As to what I should want to see done, I really don't know. That's a large part of the problem. I have no competence towards foreign relations in Arab countries. It's far beyond my area of expertise. That's why I'm talking about the attitude towards these areas. I would love for somoeone in the government to tell me, based on this prestigous panel of people who have studied the area, what plans they are going to try an enact. However, I get the feeling that the people who are making these decisions know about as much as I do about the important factors in this region.
The only policy that I am sure that I'd like to be announced is that we're going to try to make sure that the oil revenues are going to be turned towards developing an economy in Iraq that could be self-sufficient even without the oil. That we still seem to be fostering a resource-exploitation economy, with the concentration rather than distribution of the profits that this entails, leads me to believe that we are either not thinking about or adverserial to a strong Iraqi economy and middle class.
edit: I really wasn't trying to be dismissive in that first paragraph. That's actually how I feel about it. I no doubt often misunderstand people's positions, so I tend to criticize ways of thinking rather than naming the person themselves. And, if I am mischaracterizing your way of thinking, I do hope that you realize that I'm thus not talking about you. I don't have a problem with people saying somtheing to the point of "But I don't think like that." especially if they then accept that I'm going to try to show why I thought that they did.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Also ignore the question of whether or not generally cooperating with America would be "appeasement" in this situation.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)