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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So mockingly calling Tresopax a professor and insulting his education is not an attack on Tresopax?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, this is a weird bait-and-switch if I ever saw one. John L vanishes, and fallow steps in to take his place Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like, with the exception of two posts, John L has deleted everything he said, anywhere, for the past three days. Wow.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I think I'm trapped in some kind of surreal nightmare. Would someone else post something, please?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this thread has certainly gone a weird route since it's appearance on the board this morning....
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, this is definitely like something out of Ingmar Bergman. Or Ingrid Bergman. Somebody Swedish.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
posted
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...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
