The problem is that you neocon imperialists defined the wrong "area." Iraq wasn't a threatening "area" for us.
The problem is that you neocon imperialists defined the wrong "area." Iraq wasn't a threatening "area" for us.
I believe it was, as is NK, Iran, Syria, and to a lesser degree Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and a few others. Overly partisan people who have their tiny brains wrapped into nothing but anti-Bush rhetoric cannot grasp the wide scope and historical implications of what's happening and where it's leading. Your political party masters have you tunnel-visioned on nothing but AlQaeda... but it's like staring at one rotting stump while the whole forest rages around you in fire. It's the old way of thinking, where we launch a couple cruise missles at those directly responsible and blow the roof off an aspirin factory and kill a few laborers, but hey at least we did something to show them didn't we! My friend, since my brief time on these message boards you have spectacularly failed to demonstrate any capability to see the larger global context of how things are and where the US is leading it.
I believe it's really quite simple: Our current crisis is the natural outcome of the supreme emergence of American power and a predictable outlash from those who fear a secular "empire" based on freedom. Many of the zealots will fight to the death, but in the end we will prevail because our ideas are better and our ideas will slowly take hold in their own lands.
I'm painting with broad strokes here, but I'll bet you $20 that you be reading my words here today in the history books of the future.
I believe it's really quite simple: Our current crisis is the natural outcome of the supreme emergence of American power and a predictable outlash from those who fear a secular "empire" based on freedom. Many of the zealots will fight to the death, but in the end we will prevail because our ideas are better and our ideas will slowly take hold in their own lands.
I'm painting with broad strokes here, but I'll bet you $20 that you be reading my words here today in the history books of the future.
I think we have a more urgent crisis...
Did you guys check out the link miketheidiot posted? That is some scary stuff, not sure how much to believe... I don't know about a global apocalypse, but I think the energy crisis is a reality. The Bush administration knows it too, and that is why we invaded Iraq. It wasn't about culture or ideals, it was about oil. Think about it, our entire economy is dependent on oil, and a dictator like Saddam was controlling it.
I would agree oil was a reason, although I don't think it was the main reason and I do believe it's a legitimate reason.
It's too bad that the majority of liberals are afraid to commit to one idea being better than another. They're so afraid to label anything "right" or "wrong". When it comes to social issues, all I hear is, "Who are you to decide for others?" And that message overlaps to their foreign policy.
Are you sure you're not complaining about people who can actually see color as opposed to simply black and white. I think you may just like the simple when the truth is more complex. Wishy washy and morally ambiguous start to appear when one tries to follow ideas beyond ones intellectual level, no?
There is right, and there is wrong, and shades of gray has nothing to do with either. Shades of gray means we see the whole picture, with details, in context... but right and wrong still exist. I think people use "shades of gray" as a smoke screen and fallacious argument against those with strong convictions.
I know i have been skeptical of cwjerome, but let me clarify that I am much more skeptical of his perspective of the world than I am of his fundamental beliefs (democracy and capitalism). "Labeling right and wrong", "who are you to decide for others"... Those are questions of fundamental beliefs. I am questioning cwjerome's perspective of
how effective America is "exporting" those beliefs, and whether the country is even a good example of democracy at all!!
Now by your last comment, I assume you mean to say that liberals have an indecisive and weak foreign policy. (I know Bush is trying to pin that one on Kerry and i think it's working.) Let me articulate what he coudn't - Yes, it is important to have clear, defined, fundamental ideas. However it is much easier to have a position and a purpose than to go about spreading it in a correct and just manner. That is why you should constantly scrutinize your approach and your methods, rather than your beliefs. Take Lenin for example - he was a great thinker, student, and philosopher in his younger years. He truly wanted what was best for his country and attempted to achieve that by applying his grand ideas. But the turmoil after the revolution was too much for him to handle, and he ended up compromising his beliefs in order to maintain control.
Bottom line: I am a believer in democracy and i love freedom, but I think our country is moving farther and farther from that every day.
I would disagree. I believe that our constant inteference in other countries' national affairs is what drives much of this resentment. In fact, I'm a bit puzzled as to how you reach the conclusion that Islamic culture leads to natural "hatred" of our American ideals. Why is it wrong for a group of people to want to live under an Islamic state as opposed to one shaped by American ideals? Shouldn't people have the right to choose their own way of life?
I don't see our country becoming the sole power in the world, I think in the future countries will become much more interdepndent, and it will be difficult for any one country to truly take the "crown" of being the most dominant. The EU has just begun a monetary union, and I wouldn't be surprised if this economic integration leads to a stronger political body in the years to come. The same could be said about many East asian countries who are slowly gaining importance in the world. Sure, we can steamroll over weak countries in the Middle East, Africa, and even South America, but "Planet America?" I'm not sure I would be as optimistic.
I simply balk at the arrogance of some individuals who think they can judge an entire race/people/religion and try to toss them all under some simple evaluation of "right" or "wrong". Especially when the people who pass down these judgments have absolutely no idea of the context in which these people live, their values, etc. Sorry, but watching CNN/Fox/etc. from your living room doesn't even give you an inkling of an idea. I don't presume to totally understand the lives of people halfway around the world, I find it amusing to see people who believe they can.
CWR, people should have a right to live as they wish, and this is normally done in a democratic type of country where people are free to pursue their own interests (religion, etc). But when the power structure violates human rights and oppresses the people it's not a legitimate government and can claim no "rights". Whether or not the US decides to intervene into such a situation depends on the situation and our interests. You should ask yourself your own question: Shouldn't people have the right to choose their own way of life? Could they in Iraq? Afghanistan? Iran? NK? Can people in America? Aren't we trying to do that in other areas now?
The world is becoming smaller and more interdependent, and part of this is both a cause and effect of American "Imperialism". I'm not saying America is going to rule. I'm saying the American culture and values will "rule". The French leader is aware of this prospect... President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday of a "catastrophe" for global diversity if the United States' cultural hegemony goes unchallenged. Speaking at a French cultural center in Hanoi ahead of Friday's opening of a summit of European and Asian leaders, Chirac said France was right to stand up for cultural and linguistic diversity. The outspoken French president warned that the world's different cultures could be "choked" by US values. This, he said, would lead to a "general world sub-culture" based around the English language, which would be "a real ecological catastrophe". Citing Hollywood's stranglehold over the film industry as an example, Chirac stressed that only with government assistance could countries maintain their cultural heritage.
In the big scheme of things, France isn't all that different from the US... and look at his reaction. Can you imagine what the radical Islamic extremists think? Can you imagine how threatened they are? You don't have to imagine- look at what they say. Look at what they do.
The world is becoming smaller and more interdependent, and part of this is both a cause and effect of American "Imperialism". I'm not saying America is going to rule. I'm saying the American culture and values will "rule". The French leader is aware of this prospect... President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday of a "catastrophe" for global diversity if the United States' cultural hegemony goes unchallenged. Speaking at a French cultural center in Hanoi ahead of Friday's opening of a summit of European and Asian leaders, Chirac said France was right to stand up for cultural and linguistic diversity. The outspoken French president warned that the world's different cultures could be "choked" by US values. This, he said, would lead to a "general world sub-culture" based around the English language, which would be "a real ecological catastrophe". Citing Hollywood's stranglehold over the film industry as an example, Chirac stressed that only with government assistance could countries maintain their cultural heritage.
In the big scheme of things, France isn't all that different from the US... and look at his reaction. Can you imagine what the radical Islamic extremists think? Can you imagine how threatened they are? You don't have to imagine- look at what they say. Look at what they do.
I got this from a friend and don't know for sure who authored it, but it seems to compliment your post:
I don't think I am breaking any rules by using it.
The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.
Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
I see. The Jihadi Domino Theory. How novel.
I see. The Jihadi Domino Theory. How novel.
The real antagonist to US imperialism is US ideals. (See my sig) The day the US defeats "the Jihadis" and assume World Hegemony is the day the US' ideals die (if they haven't already).
"White man's burden" eh, cwjerome? I think you and condor give our government too much credit for their noble desire to spread American ideals. Let me say again, if you haven't read the thread about the oil crisis, read it. Take the whole "end-of-the-world" part with a grain of salt, but realize that our economy is extremely dependent on foreign oil and that most of it comes from the middle east.
"But i thought we were at war with Iraq to fight terrorism?!?!"
Puh-leeease... First of all, Iraq was said to have been a dire threat to America, and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. How convienient that 9/11 was still on everyone's minds and the Bush administration allowed a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam to be implied. Now here we are at the end of the war - no WMDs, no Osama Bin Laden, not even a solid connection to terrorism.
"So why Iraq? I mean, these terrorists have more connections to Saudi Arabia..."
Nah, the US is buddy-buddy with the royal family. Not even the neocons would go so low as to backstab their oil provider.
"Well, uh... the world is better off without Saddam anyway."
Yeah, even though he was effectively contained, the world is safer. More importantly, the whole region is more stable without that lunatic in power. What's that mean? No more threat to the other countries (remember Kuwait), to the production of oil, that's what.
"So it's all good, right? A hated dictator is removed, and we further secured a source of oil."
Not quite... We got a bunch of impoverished, pissed-off-angry arabs, and they will just gobble up whatever words extremists like Osama Bin Laden say, they'll take it hook line and sinker. So yeah, it was convienient for us to remove a hated dictator and protect our economic interests. But you know what? It's even more convenient for the terrorists that we invaded, killed people, and levelled half their cities. Now we're the easy scape-goat for every damn thing that goes wrong over there!! And how easy is it to hate Americans? Every family drives around in 2 or 3 gas-guzzling SUVs, we pay 10 dollars for movie tickets to see "Jackass", and half our college students can devote themselves entirely to getting drunk and getting laid. Damn, if you lived in the middle east, tell me you wouldn't hate Americans too.
"But cwjerome said it was a war of cultures and ideals!"
C'mon now... We, who live comfortable lives can afford to have ideals, and philosophies. Look, if you're poor and oppressed, you're pissed cause of that, not cause you think your "philosophy" is at risk. Bin Laden's gonna make his war about "ideals" like Bush made the war about WMDs.
So basically, if you think America's foreign policy is more about ideals and freedom than money and oil, you are dead wrong.
"But i thought we were at war with Iraq to fight terrorism?!?!"
Puh-leeease... First of all, Iraq was said to have been a dire threat to America, and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. How convienient that 9/11 was still on everyone's minds and the Bush administration allowed a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam to be implied. Now here we are at the end of the war - no WMDs, no Osama Bin Laden, not even a solid connection to terrorism.
"So why Iraq? I mean, these terrorists have more connections to Saudi Arabia..."
Nah, the US is buddy-buddy with the royal family. Not even the neocons would go so low as to backstab their oil provider.
"Well, uh... the world is better off without Saddam anyway."
Yeah, even though he was effectively contained, the world is safer. More importantly, the whole region is more stable without that lunatic in power. What's that mean? No more threat to the other countries (remember Kuwait), to the production of oil, that's what.
"So it's all good, right? A hated dictator is removed, and we further secured a source of oil."
Not quite... We got a bunch of impoverished, pissed-off-angry arabs, and they will just gobble up whatever words extremists like Osama Bin Laden say, they'll take it hook line and sinker. So yeah, it was convienient for us to remove a hated dictator and protect our economic interests. But you know what? It's even more convenient for the terrorists that we invaded, killed people, and levelled half their cities. Now we're the easy scape-goat for every damn thing that goes wrong over there!! And how easy is it to hate Americans? Every family drives around in 2 or 3 gas-guzzling SUVs, we pay 10 dollars for movie tickets to see "Jackass", and half our college students can devote themselves entirely to getting drunk and getting laid. Damn, if you lived in the middle east, tell me you wouldn't hate Americans too.
"But cwjerome said it was a war of cultures and ideals!"
C'mon now... We, who live comfortable lives can afford to have ideals, and philosophies. Look, if you're poor and oppressed, you're pissed cause of that, not cause you think your "philosophy" is at risk. Bin Laden's gonna make his war about "ideals" like Bush made the war about WMDs.
So basically, if you think America's foreign policy is more about ideals and freedom than money and oil, you are dead wrong.
No, not white man's burden. America's burden as the dominant world power. We can drift, play same same diplomatic games, and close our eyes as the menace festers and gets stronger, bolder, and more ruthless. But I think 9/11 was the start wake-up call that a lot of people like me have learned from, and I know that we are catching it early enough to head off global disaster. We must be strong and realistic... harsh, but what we face is immeasurably harsher. We cannot take the same road we took in the 1930s because the stakes are just too high.
We took action in Iraq because it was a gathering threat and a terrorist enabler, and I for one am no longer willing to risk catastrophe on the broken promises of a madman. I'm glad we did and we have an opportunity to fundamentally change the Middle East. Many people will take a superficial approach, saying 100% of our resources should be to get OBL, as if killing him would end the threat of international terrorism and states that support them. Unfortunately the stories -lies- passed down generations from fathers to sons would still occur. The vicious interpretation of history and their religion would still be taught. Repression, intolerance, racism, violence, and corrupt power hungry leaders will still be the norm.
Flawlssdistortn, I think your perspective is wrong. What you want us to do is what we did pre-9/11. Tip toe around and play the PC sham, trying not to anger a violent, hateful culture. Appeasement. We can pretend we weren't called the Great Satan in 1979, we can pretend this isn't a culture war, we can pretend that promoters of primitive and barbaric ideas hate our ideas and feel threatened by them, we can pretend they aren't corrupt propagandists, brainwashing people into their hateful ways, we can pretend they haven't been organizing and plotting death and destruction for 40+ years, we can go back to pretending all this and that we can just sit down a negotiate with them. Or, we can look at their words, look at their actions and take it seriously finally.
Acting like we have to be careful because we might enrage these radicals will not protect us or change their ways. The reality is, they are already enraged, fed lies and deep hate going back 100s of years. It's a perverted religious war, and they are doing exactly what they believe: Face the antithesis of their belief system, kill the infidals and spread their brand of Islam. There are billions of people who are very poor and they don't all hate us or become raving murderers. It is about culture, religion, and ideals. These are people who are fanatical, not because of their living conditions, but because of their beliefs.
In 1991, it was about protecting the free flow of oil... which is a perfectly reasonable reason to do what we did in my opinion. Today however, it is much much more than that. 9/11 showed us we need to take threats seriously, go on the offensive, and start shaping this world into a place that's safer and better. The power of our ideas and principle are strong and they're changing the world. But the radical Islamic extremists aren't happy with this, and their doing everything they can to stop the march to Planet America. They thought the power of our ideas were strong, and took the fight another step... now they are learning the power of our military and resources.
We took action in Iraq because it was a gathering threat and a terrorist enabler, and I for one am no longer willing to risk catastrophe on the broken promises of a madman. I'm glad we did and we have an opportunity to fundamentally change the Middle East. Many people will take a superficial approach, saying 100% of our resources should be to get OBL, as if killing him would end the threat of international terrorism and states that support them. Unfortunately the stories -lies- passed down generations from fathers to sons would still occur. The vicious interpretation of history and their religion would still be taught. Repression, intolerance, racism, violence, and corrupt power hungry leaders will still be the norm.
Flawlssdistortn, I think your perspective is wrong. What you want us to do is what we did pre-9/11. Tip toe around and play the PC sham, trying not to anger a violent, hateful culture. Appeasement. We can pretend we weren't called the Great Satan in 1979, we can pretend this isn't a culture war, we can pretend that promoters of primitive and barbaric ideas hate our ideas and feel threatened by them, we can pretend they aren't corrupt propagandists, brainwashing people into their hateful ways, we can pretend they haven't been organizing and plotting death and destruction for 40+ years, we can go back to pretending all this and that we can just sit down a negotiate with them. Or, we can look at their words, look at their actions and take it seriously finally.
Acting like we have to be careful because we might enrage these radicals will not protect us or change their ways. The reality is, they are already enraged, fed lies and deep hate going back 100s of years. It's a perverted religious war, and they are doing exactly what they believe: Face the antithesis of their belief system, kill the infidals and spread their brand of Islam. There are billions of people who are very poor and they don't all hate us or become raving murderers. It is about culture, religion, and ideals. These are people who are fanatical, not because of their living conditions, but because of their beliefs.
In 1991, it was about protecting the free flow of oil... which is a perfectly reasonable reason to do what we did in my opinion. Today however, it is much much more than that. 9/11 showed us we need to take threats seriously, go on the offensive, and start shaping this world into a place that's safer and better. The power of our ideas and principle are strong and they're changing the world. But the radical Islamic extremists aren't happy with this, and their doing everything they can to stop the march to Planet America. They thought the power of our ideas were strong, and took the fight another step... now they are learning the power of our military and resources.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
look, if you're gonna quote something that takes up half the page, please contribute more than slinging a label. Now come one guys, me and cwjerome are the only ones carrying this thread. You "platinum" and "diamond" and "been here since '97" members haven't said much at all. I know you have more to say than that. Btw, I'll post later, I'm watchin the Packers game 
bthorny: The term neocon means nothing to me... I don't know what it means and I don't care. I do know what a fascist is, but I cannot see how my words would constitute fascism. Anyone reading my posts can see I believe in democracy, individual rights, and freedom. I don't see how you'd think I was militaristic or racist. Maybe you can explain.
To summarize my position, I believe Western Civilization has pulled man up and the world has been slowly assimilating it's ideals. The winds of WC blow from America, and this makes us a target to those that oppose Western universals like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With the demise of the cold war, a new enemy has made himself known, and as they are losing in the marketplace of ideas, these purveyors of hate and violence have taken it to the battlefield... waging a war for decades that we have just now decided to properly respond to.
My argument is wide in scope and long term in sequence. Generally speaking, Planet America is inevitable, and our current "war on terror" is probably the last great ideological battle on this road.
To summarize my position, I believe Western Civilization has pulled man up and the world has been slowly assimilating it's ideals. The winds of WC blow from America, and this makes us a target to those that oppose Western universals like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With the demise of the cold war, a new enemy has made himself known, and as they are losing in the marketplace of ideas, these purveyors of hate and violence have taken it to the battlefield... waging a war for decades that we have just now decided to properly respond to.
My argument is wide in scope and long term in sequence. Generally speaking, Planet America is inevitable, and our current "war on terror" is probably the last great ideological battle on this road.
Well, I'm going to tell you.
Neoconservative
What's so funny is that the uninformed kids on AT use it to insult all conservatives. They lump all non-liberals together, and throw at them this "neocon" term, as if it means "ultra" or "whacko" or "fanatical" conservative.
Ozoned, I hear you... but I disagree. I could imagine a lesser president not making the hard but necessary choices Bush did after 9/11. I would have actually liked to have been more forceful, and I'm a little disappointed Bush has not lived up to his initial rhetoric after 9/11, but it's in the right direction.
As far as Kerry goes, his past doesn't inspire confidence in me. I think he's been about as anti-military, anti-CIA, and anti-intelligence as any member of the Senate in the last 20 years. He was a nuclear freeze apologist, and has continually been on the wrong side of history during his career in the Senate. And finally, I think he's too internationalist and would sacrifice security in the name of political expediency. In other words, I'm not sure he has the balls for the tough job ahead. But this isn't about Bush or Kerry... it's about the long term shift in this world and the conflicts that we face because of it. I believe this is the challenge of our times and my generation's calling.
Rob: well, whatever... I don't have much use for the label. But for the record, that definition sounds a little like Ronald Reagan.
As far as Kerry goes, his past doesn't inspire confidence in me. I think he's been about as anti-military, anti-CIA, and anti-intelligence as any member of the Senate in the last 20 years. He was a nuclear freeze apologist, and has continually been on the wrong side of history during his career in the Senate. And finally, I think he's too internationalist and would sacrifice security in the name of political expediency. In other words, I'm not sure he has the balls for the tough job ahead. But this isn't about Bush or Kerry... it's about the long term shift in this world and the conflicts that we face because of it. I believe this is the challenge of our times and my generation's calling.
Rob: well, whatever... I don't have much use for the label. But for the record, that definition sounds a little like Ronald Reagan.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter