In a legal sense this is not a time of war. Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1941. Therefore any suspensions of domestic civil liberties are uncalled for and under the war powers act the president should not have unlimited military power. Congress has failed in their duty to check the executive branch and has effectively gien the President open ended authority to do whatever he wants.

I do not think this is good, and not just because I disagree with Bush on Iraq.

Wintermute

BlindMan

The Nietschze quote you provided, while not a wholly original sentiment(see Hobbes), accurately describes a large part of human nature, IMO. From where I stand, that passage is being proven correct time after time.

Which brings us back to the original quote of his I used, referring to the attitudes of those who wish to slaughter the detainees at Gitmo, innocent or not. Such an action would only harm America.

You're right of course.

My problem with the man is that he enshrines elements of human nature as a seeming good into themselves, even makes them prescriptive.

The bible, for example is extremely harsh on the topic of human nature (that's probably why bitter, black hearted cynics like me find christianity intuitively sensible). But this observation is intended to show how we might transcend this, rather than being programmatic.

Killing the prisoners is needless and might make things worse. One thing too few people here (or anywhere) are willing to admit though, is that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER.

Until someone invents a time machine and gets up to 88mph the possible outcomes of all our actions are going to remain indeterminate. So killing them isn't a solution, but letting them all go isn't a solution either.

Going to war wasn't a solution in iraq, but not going wasn't a solution either. Actually there really are no solutions, period. Some efforts might result in less bas consequences than others, but that's impossible to know a priori... moreover, people disagree about what's a desirable outcome anyway.

Until someone comes up with a cure for human nature, the world will keep being generally awful despite the best efforts of (sometimes) well intentioned people. All we can do, in my opinion, is to try to do right in the little sphere of the universe that actually considers our existence relevant...

Ultimately it matters a lot more than you were kind to your neighbor than how you felt about atrocities in Iraq or Sudan or whatever, because ultimately none of that was up to you anyway.

That's why these threads (and political discourse generally) can be unfortunate, because people make the choice to be actively mean spirited to the ones they disagree with on the pretext of being righteously indignant about things none of us can influence anyway.

I'm not exempting myself from any of this, I'm afraid.

I do not think this is good, and not just because I disagree with Bush on Iraq.

At the risk of seeming all over the map, I agree. Who else knew that after 9/11 Congress would fall over themselves to enact something like the Patriot Act? Who else knew that said act would form the basis of anti-gov't conspiracy theories not seen since...well...since Clinton. This time the left is on the outs and behavin' like moonbats.

atomsmoosher

Besides, any oilman knows that cheap oil is bad for the oil business.

Exactly. Now can you see how having control over the iraqi oil fields is good for the oil business?

Do you know why diamonds are expensive? It's not because they are rare.

BlindMan

Well done.

atomsmoosher: They hated us before we fought back and they'll hate us no matter what we do.


Fought back? Fought back?
As in, you think you didn't start it?

Man, "ignorant american" is a classic for a reason, huh?

/ignorance is strenght!

Wintermute

I agree somewhat...but the long-haul would've, IMO, led the extremists to Afghanistan, and we'd have the same sort of quagmire over there. The radicals would've not had much farther to go to get there than to get to Iraq, and it would be way harder to fight them in the mountains (as we already know), than it has been in Iraq.

I don't have an answer to that one. Maybe someone does.

bill_01915

Unfortunately, the US being dependant upon oil and having strategic alliances over there (which won't change anytime soon), prevents us from staying out of their politics. Most of the rich and powerful in that part of the world have close American ties, and that means we are looked at as co-conspirators, in nearly all cases where the downtrodden are exploited. The end result is that it is easier (and markedly safer) to oppose America, than to oppose your own leaders who would probably have you killed.

In short, I think it's more like: "Death to America! And also to whomever my country's leader is..."

BlindMan:

All we can do, in my opinion, is to try to do right in the little sphere of the universe that actually considers our existence relevant...

But continuing to make war time and time again isn't right.

That's our big hairy arrogant mistake.

The attitude is that peace and diplomacy is for wusses. Our second big hairy mistake of arrogance.

We've got to change the way we behave, or we're dead in 200 years, or we go full tilt right-wing government.

Simple as that. It's coming. We've still got time to change, and change for the better.

BlindMan
Until someone comes up with a cure for human nature, the world will keep being generally awful despite the best efforts of (sometimes) well intentioned people. All we can do, in my opinion, is to try to do right in the little sphere of the universe that actually considers our existence relevant...

How puzzling. I agree with BlindMan.

Caption from bbc news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/world/155917.stm date 1998.
Muslim activists in Karachi burn an effigy of President Clinton

Bu..bu...but I thought they only hated Bush and the Republicans. It'll be all better if we elect a democrat pussy.

F42

Fought back? Fought back?
As in, you think you didn't start it?

We touched on that earlier. What do you think started it?

atomsmoosher: What do you think started it?

The West.

There was clearly more than just enslaving Africans and killing Indians...

murray208
Exactly. Now can you see how having control over the iraqi oil fields is good for the oil business?

Again, this War for Oil fantasy aside, who does the Iraqi Oil Ministry do most of their business with? (Hint: Sinopec and Lukoil aren't American.)

While I'm sure the American gubment might have influence over the oil ministry, I have yet to see evidence that the Iraqi Oil Ministry is somehow ceding control to American interests.

whidbey

atomsmoosher: You say that as if Oil isn't a legitimate strategic goal.

You don't lie to the American people that the "war" is to liberate an oppressed people when it's clear there are more logistical reasons for the invasion(s).

Actually you do 'lie' to the american people.

For one simple reason:
The american people (as a group) are not smart enough or informed enough or paying enough attention to get strongly motivated to do anything about anything without some readily digestible scary simplistic reason.

Anyway, I think 'lie' is an overstatement.

/Blame television and universal sufferage.

BlindMan:

The american people (as a group) are not smart enough or informed enough or paying enough attention to get strongly motivated to do anything about anything without some readily digestible scary simplistic reason.

He who subscribes, and uses to this patronizing philosophy to his advantage is evil, Blindman.

No two ways about it, and no defenses, apologies, or definitions shall change this simple fact.

whidbey

The West, quite likely?

European Colonialism and 19th C. Crusade Romanticism has a lot to do with this.

Unfortunately, the US being dependant upon oil and having strategic alliances over there (which won't change anytime soon), prevents us from staying out of their politics.

That's why we should have begun an energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil back in the 90s when the economy was strong and oil was cheap. Of course, politicians then were happy to ignore potential future problems in favor of Lewinskigate and other issues of the moment. Politicians today are no better. They oppose any attempt to reduce our demand for oil while using the issue as leverage to undermine environmental protections.

Ummm... Carn...

Now for more flamebait:

1) Just because a person is in Gitmo, doesn't mean they have anything to do with terrorism.

2) Being imprisoned for no reason other than race or nationality could quite easily persuade someone to fight against the country of their captors.

I'd say, once youve been picked up a second time, it's pretty much a sure thing. Our problem is that we're trying to do this whole thing in as polite a manner as possible. It's like a band aid... just rip the sucker off quickly and get it over with, instead of pussy-footing around everyone's oversensitivity.

bill_01915:

That's why we should have begun an energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil back in the 90s when the economy was strong and oil was cheap

But there just wasn't any money in that kind of do-good thinking. Sure oil might have been "cheap," but the money that was stood to be made was staggeringly attractive...

whidbey
atomsmoosher: What do you think started it?

The West.

There was clearly more than just enslaving Africans and killing Indians...


Africans enslaved Africans and Native-American kill Native-American long before European_Americans came to America. Among other things, they hate U.S. policy towards Israel (we were the first to recognize the state of Israel), our military and our culture (the funny thing is, they are basically conservative and hate the heavily-sex oriented movies, fashions and gay support coming out of Hollywood). That's why I don't think it matters which party is in power.

atomsmoosher

It is a fantasy that america went to iraq to take it's oil and sell it. It is a fantasy that america has direct control over the iraqi oil fields. However these facts in themselves do not make 'War for oil' a fantasy.

America now has clout over the iraqi government. I'm sure that it is not afraid to use this clout to protect it's oil interests.

atlanta_ufo:

Africans enslaved Africans and Native-American killed Native-American long before European_Americans came to America.

Doesn't even hold a candle to the genocide the West collectively waged in the last 1000 years against weaker peoples. Not even.

Millions and millions versus thousands.

my wiener wants a nice girl.
/threadjack?

murray208

I don't doubt that we gots clout. It is how we use it. So far, we haven't abused or made signs that we would. I have yet to see that how the oil motive was given more weight than the get Saddam motive. Concerned citizens speak up.

whidbey

BlindMan:

All we can do, in my opinion, is to try to do right in the little sphere of the universe that actually considers our existence relevant...

But continuing to make war time and time again isn't right.

That's our big hairy arrogant mistake.

The attitude is that peace and diplomacy is for wusses. Our second big hairy mistake of arrogance.

We've got to change the way we behave, or we're dead in 200 years, or we go full tilt right-wing government.

Simple as that. It's coming. We've still got time to change, and change for the better.

That's just it...

Neither you or I have made war even once, nevertheless time and time again. I hate to break this to you, but we're dead a lot sooner than 200 years, too. I smoke heavily, because I'm chronically depressed (and because I like it) so I probably have 20 years more, of course I ride motorcycles so odds are it might be a lot less than that. You may eat granola (to invoke the stereotype) so you have maybe 60 years.

You'd be better served to start thinking about your life in terms of your life and not in terms of politics and nations and other things that are at best an intellectual exercise for individuals...

Ultimately it's just not what matters. People lose themselves and kill innocent people because they've long ago given up thinking as individuals and started thinking in terms of their 'state' or their 'race' or whatever. Not to imply that's anything to do with you. I just think individuals really matter a lot more.

But there just wasn't any money in that kind of do-good thinking. Sure oil might have been "cheap," but the money that was stood to be made was staggeringly attractive...

What about money ($300b) and lives (1700) lost in a war in a politically screwed up region we're too dependent on? Politicians are too focussed on getting re-elected to do what might be unpopular now, even if it's in the long term interest of the country in the long run. They let short sighted thinking determine long term policy, for better or worse.

... even if it's in the long term best interest of the country ...

2005-06-15 04:46:07 PM BlindMan

You'd be better served to start thinking about your life in terms of your life and not in terms of politics and nations and other things that are at best an intellectual exercise for individuals...

How utterly defeatist of you, Blindman...

I'm glad every activist that mattered didn't succumb to such comfort-hounding...

whidbey
Doesn't even hold a candle to the genocide the West collectively waged in the last 1000 years against weaker peoples. Not even. Millions and millions versus thousands.

the ottoman empire, stalin, mao, japanese in WW2, the list can go on. history of the world is one of slaughter and the struggle for individual freedom. go to china and goggle freedom and democracy. i work with people from china whose parents went thru the Cultural Revolution. you are bias against the west for whatever reasons which makes you intellectually dishonest.

Good job not responding to the obvious trolling guys...

-IR

bill_01915

But, can you imagine if we had spent billions of Monopoly money (which it was after the .com and semiconductor busts), we'd have not had the surplus, and even more of a headache once 9/11 rolled around. I think it would've been catastrophic if we had lent and given this money out, to have gained little from it as we now know it yields.

I agree, it was nice under Clinton, and I like/d the guy. But, it was a mirage that we were doing so well economically. I know, my friends and myself were almost all laid off from Motorola, AMD, Dell, Compaq, XYX.com, et. all, and it was due to the over-hyped market segment which boosted the economy during those years. Was it Clinton's fault, nope. It was all of our faults for not recognizing that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. And, it turns out it was just that. We put our eggs into one basket, ran with it, and fell flat on our faces.

In hindsight, I don't think we'd be any better off if we had invested monies into anything related to energy that wasn't already being spent, when that wishful money had an expiration date on it. Better to err on the side of caution, and draw plans out over the long haul. Just like right now, as we're doing with alternate fuel vehicles. It's not the answer right now (not even close), but in 10-20 years, it may have a positive outcome.

atlanta_ufo:

you are bias against the west for whatever reasons which makes you intellectually dishonest.

Dude, Western Civilization did the most damage. Hands down.

So Mao and Stalin did some catching up with the rest of the world in terms of evil...

I'd say the numbers are more staggering when you look at the bad behaviors of Europe, England and the United States...

atomsmoosher, The Patriot Act among other things. I wouldn't want Clinton, Kerry or anyone else to have the carte blance Bush has acquired.

Right now there's nothing to keep Iraq and Afghanistan from turning into another Vietnam

atomsmoosher


I don't doubt that we gots clout. It is how we use it. So far, we haven't abused or made signs that we would.

I'm worried that this clout will not be used for ten or fifteen years, after the war is long forgotten. Then it will be far too late for anybody to say anything.

Right now there's nothing to keep Iraq and Afghanistan from turning into another Vietnam

Lack of foliage for one thing. Supply line from N. Vietnam another. Knee jerk comparisons aplenty, though.

Just like right now, as we're doing with alternate fuel vehicles. It's not the answer right now (not even close), but in 10-20 years, it may have a positive outcome.

Had we raised the gas tax a bit when oil was less than $15/barrel we might have discouraged the "bigger is better" gas guzzler craze and encouraged the development of alternative fuel vehicles without putting a serious hurt on the average consumer. We might be less dependent on Saudi Arabia and 10 years closer to "the answer". But, imagine a politician trying to get re-elected if he voted for a tax increase that pushed the price of gas up to $1.50/gal back in 1996.

whidbey
I'd say the numbers are more staggering when you look at the bad behaviors of Europe, England and the United States...

looking at the bigger picture...before the U.S. was founded, much of the world had kings or nobility of some sort ruling them. during WW1 and WW2, much of the European nobility was replaced by democratically elected governements (with much blood-shed), and Japan also became democratic. after the collaspe of the Soviet-bloc and European Colonism in Africa, many of these countries are tried to become a democracy (unfortunately, military coups have put some dictators in power, taking democracy away from the people in these countries). Communism still exists in some countries, like China, North Korea and Cuba, limiting the rights of their peoples (especially the right to complain about their government like we have). Besides the Communist countries, the Middle East is the last area where un-elected leaders still rule over their peoples. So the battle is now there, do the few dictate to the many. since democracy has spread, the incredible world wars of millions dying has not occurred. so say the west was bad, true, but the west also has been the major advocate for freedom...i guess a yang and yang thing...there is a good side to the west and a bad side.

Wow! This whole thread is like a contest to see who can make the most ignorant statements!

Well, at least it is damn entertaining.

I especially enjoy all the argument about "who is responsible" for this or that. Whatever happened to people being responsible for what they choose to do?

"I blame society -- society made me what I am."
"That's bullsh-t. You're a white suburban punk, just like me."

Every answer, and I mean EVERY one of them said they weren't sure about all the stories of WMD... but they'll never forget the Iraqi kids running up to them trying to say 'thank you' in English.... or the Iraqi women running up to them to say hi with a smile and flowers.

That's all well and good, but I still don't think it's worth 1,700 killed and 12,000 wounded US servicemen, and $300b spent.

Here's a side note. The Bush administration and the pentagon have been saying lately that there is evidence Iran is harbouring Al Qaeda members. If that proves to be true and we take that to the UN, how many of our allies would stand by us? How many would remember the WMD debacle and dismiss the claims as us crying wolf as an excuse to invade another oil rich, anti American dictatorship?

In order to avoid all this hoopla in the future we should agree on what to do with battlefield prisoners from now on. The U.S chose option 1. Apparently this was an unpopular choice. It's still not clear to me what options the gitmo opponents would suggest.

1) Treat their wounds and take them prisoner.

2) Summarily execute them.

3) Send them home with stern warning and a frowny face on their report card.

4) Lie down and offer up your neck to be hacked off in honor of Allah.

vegasj, well I'm sure there's a debate there, but my point is that the lessons learned in vietnam have apparently been forgotten. The war powers act was supposed to give the president authority to act immediately but not indefinetly.

I'm just tired of hearing so many things from partiot act to guantanamo to silencing of dissent justified in "a time of war" When congress has NOT declared war on anyone. While undeniably there's shooting and killing going on, we are not legally at war.

I feel it's an important distinction because the precedents cited for some things are Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus od FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans, which occurred under a congressional declaration of war.

The President is overstepping his authority and congress is shirking it's duty.

If anything, the similarity to Vietnam will be when we're forced out of there and the insurgents take over.

The statement "we bit off more than we can chew" comes to mind...

Whidbey, Is it my understanding that you'll be the first person to pop a cork and toast when all the white people and western civ is destroyed? Do I get the impression that you hate anything that has to do with the west, our ideas of freedom and you revile the islamofacists, make excuses for mass murderers and waive a hand in dismissal to totalitarian/dictatorial governmental regimes... AND still try to claim that you hold the higher moral ground?

Stalin would be proud of you. Dust off those jackboots boy and go butcher some evil capitalistic pigs for progress.

Kangaroo_Ralph

Believe_It_Or_Not_I'm_Not_Home: Give me one example, just one, of praise for the insurgents.

Fortunately, I didn't have to look far:

Believe_It_Or_Not_I'm_Not_Home: Actually, no one is saying anything about the submitter, because the headline bashes the insurgents.

Please explain to me how, in your warped mind, my post could possibly be considered "praise for the insurgents." And then show me a post where someone actually praises them. Exactly. There isn't such a post.

uselessgit:

Is it my understanding that you'll be the first person to pop a cork and toast when all the white people and western civ is destroyed?

Where the hell do you get that? The topic came up, and I felt it was necessary to bring up some history that often gets forgotten.

AND still try to claim that you hold the higher moral ground?

Hell yeah. I didn't vote for Bush...

Now be a good troll and go back to the Schiavo thread, huh?

BlindMan

BlindMan

I know you're not saying that the 9/11 terrorists were personally targeting the people who were in the Towers. I mean, that would be positively Ward Churchillian of you.

So what are you saying?

Well they seemed like they aimed the planes right at them which is called 'targeting' back where I'm from.

So the terrorists attacked the WTC not because of its economic and cultural significance, but because they didn't like the actual people who would be working inside of them on that day, at that hour. RIIIGHT.

Oh, but maybe you mean they were targeting them because actually they were upset about some abstract conceptual thing associated with america and these people ceased to be people and started being symbols of something or other.

Yeah ok, but actually fark that. No one has the right to make the determination to use someone else's life as a symbolic point without their consent.

"Killing innocent people is wrong." Yes, thanks for the insight there. This is so much of a non sequitur that I can't figure out a way to respond to it.

For example, a lot of posts on fark forums are stupid, and I find that annoying... but if I go out in the street and gun down the first retarded person I see, my action targeting that specific person is not a brave symbolic strike at the concept of 'stupidity' generally.

I don't like brain-dead analogies, but if I go out in the street ... oh whatever. Again, what are you trying to say? peepee mcpoop wrote that we could so some good by examining why the terrorists attacked us, and your response indicated that there was no reason for the attack, as you don't really believe that they attacked the WTC because they didn't like the individual people who died that day. Do you really believe that the argument here is whether terrorism is ok?

CodeBlue
I guess the liberation of women means turning them into whores and single moms like they do in America.

So the alternative is ...

whidbey, you seem profoundly unhappy with the direction the US is taking. What foreign policy stances would you take if in power on (1) North Korea, (2) continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and (3) Darfur?

Not trolling Whidbey, it's just you sound like an appoligist for the wrong people. I don't understand how you liberals can on one hand claim some sort of suppirior position, but shrug off the really rotten creeps of history, and claim with a straight face that the west is WORSE than them. I'm not saying the west and our ideas are perfect, nor are they without their own measure of problems, but given the option between A or B, I'm taking the west and our system. Unfortunately, a "war" tends to polarize the issues so that your beloved "gray area" becomes the DMZ. Sorry, but after listening to several of the reports about the terrorists, reading the articles and their own rehetroic, watching people get butcherd for "God", I can find no other conclusion that these people are a cancer and no more deserving of the right to live than a tumor.