Author Topic: Terrorist convicted - the left cries  (Read 43330 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Celest

  • Unwashed Apprentice
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2007, 05:13:26 AM »
I didnt say Reagan was responsable for Iran. I said that we, the US, was responsable for the rise of the Islamic republic of Iran. I'd suggest looking up Operation Ajax which is part of the events, carried out by the CIA and MI6 that led to the mullahs getting directly involved in the politics in Iran. It was a case where we forced the destruction of a democratic government in Iran. Before all of that, the Shah, the 'ruler' of Iran was content with letting the people choose how the government was ran via elections. After these events, the Shah took direct control of the government and actively suppressed all political parties and gatherings, to the point where the people gathered in the only place the Shah refused to suppress.. the mosques. This is why one of the most popular people in Iran was the PM that was removed by the Shah, dispite his 'pro western' leaning and his ardent support for democracy.

Also, al-Quada wouldnt have been nearly as strong had we not pumped them full of training, arms and money(the CIA is on record as saying Osama Bin Ladin was one of their biggest customers when it comes to buying arms back in the 80s).  Were they around before Reagan got involved? Yes. Were they anywhere near the group they ended up being before? Not a chance.

Hoopy Frood

  • Señor Vorpal Kickasso
  • Administrator
  • Unwashed Villager
  • ******
  • Posts: 1616
  • Fnord!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2007, 05:50:49 PM »
I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened.

That has to be the most unintentionally funny thing I think you've ever written on the debate board (and that's saying a lot). It's damn near sigworthy. In fact, I think I'll use it.

You seem to miss the point I've made on multiple occasions that the reason we should not be involved in the Middle East is that we have no fucking clue the culture we're dealing with. Have you ever sat down and talked with an Arab? Have you ever gone outside your political circle? Just like the neocons who run this country, you sit and decide what policies we should be employing, but you admit that you have very little knowledge of the people you sit in judgement of.

To give you an idea of my background in this, my cubicle mate is a Palestinian Muslim. My girlfriend's ancestry on her father's side is Syrian Orthodox (i.e. Christian Arab). The Arabs don't hate our freedoms (contrary to the tired neocon idea), they hate the fact that the West keeps fucking around in their lands. Arabs are clannish. They always have been. What we in the west don't understand is religion is more than a belief system to them. It is an identity. All Christian Arabs are considered to be in the same clan. Although they share common ancestry with the Islamic Arabs, because they are a different religion, they are no longer "family". The Islamic Arabs feel the same way about the Christians and toward themselves (Islam being much more prevalent in that area, genetic relations also figure into the clan divisions). This is also part of the reason there is friction between the various religions. It's not merely the belief system, it's the fact that anytime there have been clans thrown into the same area, there tends to be friction. (Need I bring up the whole Anglos vs. Saxons vs. Britons thing? Or the various wars between the Scottish clans?) So we go sticking our nose in their business, and we have no right in their minds to do so, since we don't even have established family roots there. This is how clans in human history have always acted. This is something the neocons can't get through their Pliocenic skulls.

The Persians resent us for the similar reasons (though, on the whole, the Persians are a lot more "open" toward us since they aren't nearly as "clannish"). We destroyed their Democratically elected government to put the Shah back in power. Here we are, bastion of Democracy, destroying it when it suits are needs. But of course, all the resentment in the middle east happens because we're a free society and people hate freedom. The natural state of man is to be oppressed. Clearly that's why they all dislike us. Damn us and our freedoms.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 05:52:32 PM by Hoopy Frood »
All right, I’ve been thinking, when life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade! Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man whose gonna burn your house down – with the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!

Brugdor

  • Unwashed Addict
  • ******
  • Posts: 2198
  • Khazad ai-menu!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2007, 06:29:27 PM »
I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened.

That has to be the most unintentionally funny thing I think you've ever written on the debate board (and that's saying a lot). It's damn near sigworthy. In fact, I think I'll use it.

You seem to miss the point I've made on multiple occasions that the reason we should not be involved in the Middle East is that we have no fucking clue the culture we're dealing with. Have you ever sat down and talked with an Arab? Have you ever gone outside your political circle? Just like the neocons who run this country, you sit and decide what policies we should be employing, but you admit that you have very little knowledge of the people you sit in judgement of.

That actually isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't know the particulars of every situation where we intervened in the region. I mean we're going back to the 50s and 60s here and I'm not going to claim I know why we did what we did back then.

But nice try anyway.
"When planning a new picture we don't think of grown ups and we don't think of children but just of that fine, clean, unspoiled spot down deep in every one of us that maybe the world has made us forget and that maybe our pictures can help recall." - Walt Disney

Hoopy Frood

  • Señor Vorpal Kickasso
  • Administrator
  • Unwashed Villager
  • ******
  • Posts: 1616
  • Fnord!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2007, 06:59:32 PM »
That actually isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't know the particulars of every situation where we intervened in the region. I mean we're going back to the 50s and 60s here and I'm not going to claim I know why we did what we did back then.

But nice try anyway.

Yeah, but our reasons for messing around these days are no better than they were back then.

Fuck Israel. It was a nation formed because everyone felt guilty for the holocaust, but no one wanted to take in the Jewish refugees that had been displaced because of it. The U.S. didn't, the Europeans didn't, the Soviet Union didn't, and Germany was really in no position at the time to do so. So we decided to plop down a new nation in land that they really didn't have any rights to. Israel benefits way more from us than we do from them. It's been one-sided all throughout history. But the Zionists have a lot of pull and lobbying power in the U.S., and when you combine that with the Fundamentalists idea that Israel is needed to bring about the rapture, we will never have intelligent foreign policy as far as that's concerned.

It's no secret Hussein was pursuing WMD's. However, he didn't have them. His underlings were just as corrupt as he was and were skimming money. Besides, although an asshole, Hussein wasn't stupid. He would never have used them on any of the U.S. interests. He wanted to scare Iran. Just as India (our ally) wanted to scare Pakistan, and that's why they got them, in spite of acquiring them illegally. And France got them as well in violation of many international treaties, but we didn't invade them.

Oh, but it wasn't the WMD's it was Hussein's abuses of power that justify us going in. I find it amusing that the Neocons trot this out as a reason because it holds less water than the WMD argument. There are many tyrants that should be deposed under that logic. Why not take out Mugabe? Why not take out Kim? Why not invade Iran? (Oh, wait, there are people pushing for that already.)

Our reasons for being involved over there are just as bad as they always have been. And we procede to make the same mistakes over and over over. Even children are smart enough to know that when they touch the hot burner on the stove and develop a blister that touching it again would be a bad idea. Why can't politicians figure it out?
All right, I’ve been thinking, when life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade! Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man whose gonna burn your house down – with the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!

Celest

  • Unwashed Apprentice
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #49 on: August 21, 2007, 05:03:35 AM »
I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened.

That has to be the most unintentionally funny thing I think you've ever written on the debate board (and that's saying a lot). It's damn near sigworthy. In fact, I think I'll use it.

You seem to miss the point I've made on multiple occasions that the reason we should not be involved in the Middle East is that we have no fucking clue the culture we're dealing with. Have you ever sat down and talked with an Arab? Have you ever gone outside your political circle? Just like the neocons who run this country, you sit and decide what policies we should be employing, but you admit that you have very little knowledge of the people you sit in judgement of.

That actually isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't know the particulars of every situation where we intervened in the region. I mean we're going back to the 50s and 60s here and I'm not going to claim I know why we did what we did back then.

But nice try anyway.

Well, to me, that goes back to learning from History. There's a very good saying about what happens when you dont.

If you are going to make policy or atleast pass judgement on parts of a situation, then atleast take the time to study what you are talking about to make sure that you have a leg to stand on.

Brugdor

  • Unwashed Addict
  • ******
  • Posts: 2198
  • Khazad ai-menu!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2007, 05:57:59 AM »
I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened.

That has to be the most unintentionally funny thing I think you've ever written on the debate board (and that's saying a lot). It's damn near sigworthy. In fact, I think I'll use it.

You seem to miss the point I've made on multiple occasions that the reason we should not be involved in the Middle East is that we have no fucking clue the culture we're dealing with. Have you ever sat down and talked with an Arab? Have you ever gone outside your political circle? Just like the neocons who run this country, you sit and decide what policies we should be employing, but you admit that you have very little knowledge of the people you sit in judgement of.

That actually isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't know the particulars of every situation where we intervened in the region. I mean we're going back to the 50s and 60s here and I'm not going to claim I know why we did what we did back then.

But nice try anyway.

Well, to me, that goes back to learning from History. There's a very good saying about what happens when you dont.

If you are going to make policy or atleast pass judgement on parts of a situation, then atleast take the time to study what you are talking about to make sure that you have a leg to stand on.

Oh please. All you know is the consequences of what we did and I'm sure they are a slanted version from wherever you found them. You don't know why we stepped into those situations and why, even though there were bad results on one side, things may have been worse had we never done anything. You automatically assume that our interference in a situation is bad. That's not always the case and I'd remind you how keen the left has been to say we should have stepped in in other recent problem areas (Somalia, Sudan, etc).
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 05:59:32 AM by Brugdor »
"When planning a new picture we don't think of grown ups and we don't think of children but just of that fine, clean, unspoiled spot down deep in every one of us that maybe the world has made us forget and that maybe our pictures can help recall." - Walt Disney

Celest

  • Unwashed Apprentice
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2007, 06:21:50 AM »
Oh, take Iran for example. The reason we stepped in there was because Iran nationalized their oil. That was the entire reason we destroyed their democracy.

Why did we go to Afghanistan and put so much effort into helping al Quada? Oh, that's right, because they were fighting the USSR.. the same reason we backed many 'bad people' in the past that we had to go back and 'deal with' later.


Do I have all the super top secret documents in the government? Nope. I wont claim that I know everything about a subject but overall there is more then enough information out there on these events to get a good idea of why we were doing what we were doing.

Anyways, where did I suggest we 'do nothing'? At no point did I say 'do nothing' nor that we should have 'done nothing'. My entire point is that we need to realise that our actions have consaquences and that we should actually consider the likely consaquences of our actions and choose our course based on what will be the more favourable reaction.

Should we have faught against the USSR? Yes. Should we have done so by backing brutal dictators(Ngo Dinh Diem and Saddam Hussain) and actively help a group recruit radical muslems, provide them with funding and arms and training without alot of insight into the workings of the group outside of 'they are fighting the USSR'? It's not a problem of 'should we do something' but one of 'we should do it, but let's look at what option will be best in the long run'.

Brugdor

  • Unwashed Addict
  • ******
  • Posts: 2198
  • Khazad ai-menu!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2007, 06:27:38 AM »
Oh, take Iran for example. The reason we stepped in there was because Iran nationalized their oil. That was the entire reason we destroyed their democracy.

Why did we go to Afghanistan and put so much effort into helping al Quada? Oh, that's right, because they were fighting the USSR.. the same reason we backed many 'bad people' in the past that we had to go back and 'deal with' later.


Do I have all the super top secret documents in the government? Nope. I wont claim that I know everything about a subject but overall there is more then enough information out there on these events to get a good idea of why we were doing what we were doing.

Anyways, where did I suggest we 'do nothing'? At no point did I say 'do nothing' nor that we should have 'done nothing'. My entire point is that we need to realise that our actions have consaquences and that we should actually consider the likely consaquences of our actions and choose our course based on what will be the more favourable reaction.

Should we have faught against the USSR? Yes. Should we have done so by backing brutal dictators(Ngo Dinh Diem and Saddam Hussain) and actively help a group recruit radical muslems, provide them with funding and arms and training without alot of insight into the workings of the group outside of 'they are fighting the USSR'? It's not a problem of 'should we do something' but one of 'we should do it, but let's look at what option will be best in the long run'.

Luckily neither you nor I was ever put in the position of having to decide if supporting a terrorist group to keep communism from gaining a foothold in the Middle East was our only option. I know that I wouldn't have wanted to make such a decision and there is a point where we have to let the people we elected to make such decisions make them. And no, that doesn't mean we trust them without question. It means that we have to at least trust that our leadership will make the best decision they can given the information available. We certainly don't have access to as much of it as they do.
"When planning a new picture we don't think of grown ups and we don't think of children but just of that fine, clean, unspoiled spot down deep in every one of us that maybe the world has made us forget and that maybe our pictures can help recall." - Walt Disney

Celest

  • Unwashed Apprentice
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2007, 06:36:55 AM »
Oh, and just to save you a trip for Operation Ajax, while there's more info out there, Wiki has a consolidation of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax



Anyways, yes, Im glad that I dont have to be put in that position but I dont think it's too much to ask that there be a consideration for more then just the 'immediate' situation.

Deal with the immediate situation but dont do so at the cost of the future. There have been alot of things that we, as a nation, had no business doing that has cost us alot of problems. I fail to see how it is too much to ask for people to actually think ahead instead of bullheadedly rushing right at what's infront of them. That is the major problem with the 'neo-con' mindset. It's one in which we should 'flex our muscle' and force our ways now, reguardless of the rammifications of the future. That's why we are still cleaning up Reagans mess. That's why we will be cleaning up W Bush's mess for decades to come. I just wish that the GOP wasnt so succeptable to the usurption of their core ideals.. then we wouldnt be dealing with these psuedo conservative 'ideals' that is nothing more then Liberalism for those who dont agree with Democratic liberalism(well, actually taking the worst parts of conservatism and combining them with the worst parts of liberalism).

We supposedly look towards the future when we dont do things like negotiate with the terrorists. I just wish we actually applied that in our policies.. which definatly hasnt been done here(Bush's 'If you arnt with us, you're against us' statements and his rush to war, the world be damned attitude for example). Would it solve all of our problems? No but we would create alot less of our own problems, much like we have done with our current situation.. the situations that happened under Reagan and throughout the Cold War where we backed people, not because they were worthy of our support.. but simply because they were fighting the USSR.

On the note of communism, it was doomed to failure anyways.. and while Reagan did speed it's fall by ~10 years, the system itself is fundamentally flawed in that it cannot support the amount of military might it requires on it's non capitalistic systems. That's why you see China taking a more hybrid approuch with more open, capitalistic like economic policies combined with communistic social policies.

Hoopy Frood

  • Señor Vorpal Kickasso
  • Administrator
  • Unwashed Villager
  • ******
  • Posts: 1616
  • Fnord!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #54 on: August 21, 2007, 01:47:19 PM »
It means that we have to at least trust that our leadership will make the best decision they can given the information available. We certainly don't have access to as much of it as they do.

Because, of course, politicians never let their personal biases color their judgment.
All right, I’ve been thinking, when life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade! Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man whose gonna burn your house down – with the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!

Brugdor

  • Unwashed Addict
  • ******
  • Posts: 2198
  • Khazad ai-menu!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #55 on: August 21, 2007, 06:40:30 PM »
It means that we have to at least trust that our leadership will make the best decision they can given the information available. We certainly don't have access to as much of it as they do.

Because, of course, politicians never let their personal biases color their judgment.

I never said that either but nice second troll attempt.
"When planning a new picture we don't think of grown ups and we don't think of children but just of that fine, clean, unspoiled spot down deep in every one of us that maybe the world has made us forget and that maybe our pictures can help recall." - Walt Disney

Night Owl

  • Unwashed Journeyman
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Unwashed Film Critic
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #56 on: August 21, 2007, 06:46:30 PM »

Our reasons for being involved over there are just as bad as they always have been. And we procede to make the same mistakes over and over over. Even children are smart enough to know that when they touch the hot burner on the stove and develop a blister that touching it again would be a bad idea. Why can't politicians figure it out?

Because everything is for the short term. When Bush got elected, he cared about one thing - getting re-elected (to be fair, any politician feels this way.) Every decision made weighs this goal. Now that Bush is a lame duck, every decision made takes into account the effect of keeping the party in power.  

It should be no surprise - we live in a country where almost nobody saves for tomorrow, and spends more than they make today. Stupid, short term thinking.

Hoopy Frood

  • Señor Vorpal Kickasso
  • Administrator
  • Unwashed Villager
  • ******
  • Posts: 1616
  • Fnord!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #57 on: August 21, 2007, 09:42:31 PM »
It means that we have to at least trust that our leadership will make the best decision they can given the information available. We certainly don't have access to as much of it as they do.

Because, of course, politicians never let their personal biases color their judgment.

I never said that either but nice second troll attempt.

Fine. Than why should we trust them? Why shold we not hold their feet to the flames and make them justify every decision they make?

Why should we allow them to go to war on evidence that is far from clear cut?
All right, I’ve been thinking, when life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade! Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man whose gonna burn your house down – with the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!

Hoopy Frood

  • Señor Vorpal Kickasso
  • Administrator
  • Unwashed Villager
  • ******
  • Posts: 1616
  • Fnord!
    • View Profile
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #58 on: August 23, 2007, 07:43:12 PM »

Fine. Then why should we trust them? Why shold we not hold their feet to the flames and make them justify every decision they make?

Why should we allow them to go to war on evidence that is far from clear cut?

I'm still waiting on an answer to these.
All right, I’ve been thinking, when life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade! Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man whose gonna burn your house down – with the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!

Starseeker

  • Wasteland Denizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • Unwashed Doc, Back from Alpha Centuri
    • View Profile
    • Blog
Re: Terrorist convicted - the left cries
« Reply #59 on: August 23, 2007, 08:12:13 PM »
I justify it by the fact that we agreed that we would hold our troops to those standards.


To me, we have two choices:

1) Follow our agreements(including geneva which explicitly states at the begining of each convention that if only one side of a conflict is a signatory of the conventions, they are still responsable for following the provisions laid out by it). Ignoring it like as has been done only hurts us in the long run on the international stage.

2) Withdraw from the conventions and our international agreements and give up the privlages that we garner from being signatories and then do whatever we want to who we want.


Im sorry, but I come from a line of people who still beleive that if you give your word on something, then you follow through with it. It's the mindset that you are promoting that has so many people across the world so pissed off at our country.

Otherwise, you are just like China. 

For some reason, that reminds me of the movie Jerry Mcquire.  I was heartbroken for the guy when he said(to the dad of the kid who is dumping him as an agent because he dislikes blacks)something like, "Remember, our words/handshakes are stronger than any Oak?"

Oh, yeah, they have Oak in China, it's called painted plywood. 
Starseeker, signing off.

Life is short, Fall in Love, Maiden.