posted
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?
posted
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."?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
posted
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)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
I'm on the fence whether or not John is actually intending to be insulting towards Tresopax, his words are, frequently.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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).
posted
"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?
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
