That's f-ing right. Not aware of blowbacks, there is always consequences when when trying to reorganize the world. Like Hoffman's character says "we'll see" Meaning that things weren't finished, and he knew it. And that is exactly where the US really messed up in Afghanistan. I'm not saying this movie is right; I'm just glad it was smart enough to acknowledge that point.
share' We'll see ' just means that it's a cyclical world. That's what the entire zen master anecdote was about. Boy get a horse, boy falls off and breaks his leg, boy avoids being sent to war, etc.
So, ' we'll see ' all this blaming Afghansitan for 9/11, it might come up roses for the US next time around.
We'll See.
We didn't *beep* up the endgame. The Afghanis were willing fight to the death for their freedom. We supported them, finally with CW's, Ronald Reagan's and many other's help, with weapons that they used to drive the Soviets out. They got what they wanted, we got what we wanted. End of story.
To think that we could have done more than that is either the height of arrogance, or the depth of ignorance, which ever applies. No offense, but read some history of the region before you pontificate.
There was no reason to think that the Afghans would do anything other than go back to the way things were before (centuries before) the Soviets invaded; tribal warfare over Islam, vendettas and poppy.
What do you think? That a country the size of Texas, with its topography and virtually nonexistant infrastructure and history of warfare could be tamed and democratized by building a few schools? Just what do all you complainers and Monday morning quaterbacks think could have been done to change things in Afghanistan?
BTW, Afghanistan would have had nothing to do with 9-11 if bin Laden had stayed in Sudan, or better yet, had the Clinton Administration had the courage to take him as the Sudanese were begging us to do.
The Taliban never attacked us. They warned bin Laden not to have press conferences or do anything that would result in the "wrath of the US" coming down on them. Once the Saudi and other money started to flow in, however, they began to look the other way.
But to think the Taliban knew about and was in on the 9-11 plot, or that building schools, or anything in Afghanistan, would have prevented 9-11 is ludicrous.
I have to clear something up. The Sudanese didn't beg Clinton to do anything. The Sudanese said they would hand over Bin Laden to a Muslim country willing to take them but not the US. US attempted to put pressure on Saudi Arabia,Egypt,etc to take him but all of them refused. The Sudanese allowed Bin Laden to go to Afghanistan after that failed.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
You dont know the story. The Sudanese wanted to get off the US's state sponsored terror list and offered to set up bin Laden, like they did Carlos the Jackel, if the Americans would take him. Not once, but twice they offered thru a muslim democrat and Clinton supporter, who not only told Sandy Berger, but also told Clinton.
Clinton and Berger refused the offer.
The Sudanese told bin Laden that he was no longer safe in Afghanistan after a failed Saudi assasination attempt, a warning that bin Laden took that to mean that the Sudanese were going to kill him if he didnt leave.
Bin Laden then went to Afghanistan, the Sudanese didnt allow him to go, they were glad to see him and his entourage get outta Khartoom.
Actually thats not true.
Sudan never made an offer to hand Bin Laden to the US. They said they would extradite him to any other countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan to stand trial but they all refused to accept Bin Laden. Even when US constantly put pressure on those countries to accept him. It is confirmed by George Tenet, Richard Clarke and the 9/11 commission that Sudan never offered to hand Bin Laden to the US. Carlos the Jackal was captured in a French deal.Plus he didn't have as much clout,money and support as Bin Laden.
You're blaming Clinton but now we have thousands of troops,special forces,intelligence agencies,drones,etc looking for Bin Laden. And we still can't find the bastard.Even if Bin Laden was killed in the 90's. His second in charge planned 9/11. So it would have still happened.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Actually, it is true.
Sudan made the offer, twice. And twice the Clinton administration ignored it. George Tenet and Richard Clarke werent in on the offer. Monsour Ijaz, the biggest muslim contributor to the Democrats and Clinton campaign was made the offer, twice. And he told Berger and Clinton, both of whom stalled because of the upcoming election.
Who knows what twists and turns would have happened had bin Laden been captured. 9-11 may have still happened because bin Laden wasnt in on the planning, KSM was the architect. But, the Clinton administration blew the chance to take bin Laden, twice. You cant cover that up.
That sounds like conspiracy bs to me. There is no evidence of any of this. There was never an offer to take him.Monsour Ijaz?Isn't he working for Fox News now? He can't prove anything because he is a liar.Why would they stall? They could have done like Reagen did with Iran. They only made an offer to Saudi Arabia with the condition that he wouldn't be brought to trial. So Saudi Arabia rejected the offer.This has been confirmed by numerous people in the administration,Susan Rice,Richard Clarke,George Tenet,Sandy Berger,9/11 commission. So you're saying he just told Berger and Clinton? And that Sudan never contacted any US officials?
Sudan's minister of defense, El Fatih Erwa said he made the offer and doesn't speak about Ijaz. It has been proven to be bs along with Ijaz. I don't like Clinto but I despise conspiracy theories.
There wouldn't be any twists or turns because bin laden would have to be killed. He wouldn't let himself get captured and the men executing the attack would still be in play because of Mohammed Atef.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
You can stay in denial for all I care. Ijaz was offered twice, he notified Clinton and Berger twice who stalled and didn't take the Sudanese offer...twice.
You are obviously ignorant of the situation and let your emotions override your intellect. Tsk. Too bad.
Monsour Ijaz was the single biggest muslim contributor to the Dems in NY and the Clinton campaign.
I don't need denial because there is no proof. You're letting your hate for Clinton get in the way of logic. Monsour Ijaz like anyone else gives money to get something in return like contracts. I learned how politics are played when I worked for the federal government.Have you seen Hillary's Clinton campaign contributors? Who doesn't want to be a part of that powerful political group?You're confusing someone liking you with wanting political/business favors. Join a political campaign and you will find out how its played real quick.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
[deleted]
"no reason to think that the Afghans would do anything other than go back to the way things were before ... tribal warfare over Islam, vendettas and poppy"
not when the USA (and/or elements within it's Imperial state) helps bring down a progressive, democratically elected Afghani government, arms the warlords, backs the radical Islamists over the moderate Sufi and supports, develops and profits from the growth and trade of opium.
US didn't *beep* up the endgame, their endgame was instability in Afghanistan so they could profit from drugs and fossil fuels and build more military bases to expand their imperial strategy..
The notion that US or it's people care (or are educated enough to be able to care), on any level, about Afghani lives is a cruel joke. Charlies War at least illustrated that fact, 'helping the Afghans' was really about the egos of the super-greedy, envisioning themselves as heroic combatants against a mythical Communist threat. All in defence of American freedom to greed...even charlie understood no-one cared for kids and schools.
<<not when the USA (and/or elements within it's Imperial state) helps bring down a progressive, democratically elected Afghani government>>
WRONG.
A Soviet installed dictatorship, dufus.
Imperialism? You cant name a superpower in the history of the world that is less imperialistic than the USA.
WRONG.
A Soviet installed dictatorship, dufus.
Imperialism? You cant name a superpower in the history of the world that is less imperialistic than the USA.
nbjeff, I think you missed the point. The US is not imperialistic. All the wars we fought in the 20th century were against empires.
If the US was truly imperialistic, with our power, it would be no problem. But, we are not. We are also not perfect. But for some to be shocked that the US uses its power to pursue its own interests is childish.
Some saw the Afghans as a way to bleed the Soviets. Some saw beyond that. Bleeding the Soviets was a good thing. Defeating them was better. Helping the Afghans fight for their freedom was also a good thing.
nbjeff, I think you missed the point. The US is not imperialistic. All the wars we fought in the 20th century were against empires.
Bleeding the Soviets was a good thing.
Helping the Afghans fight for their freedom was also a good thing.
You know what nbjeff, you make a lot of assumtions and if you dont stop it you will never understand what is taking place in a conversation.
For example: "So please don't tell me that we are always fighting for other people's freedom" I never said that. Or, "You make it sound as if the Afghans were fighting to create a representative democracy." Nope, I never said that.
The Afghans were fighting for their freedom from the brutal Soviet invaders.
Perhaps your problem is that you don't listen, but are busy figuring out what you are going to say next.
"First of all, killing young people who didnt fkn ask to go to Afghanistan any more than our boys asked to go to Vietnam, IS NEVER A GOOD THING." Just how do you think politics, and its logical extension WAR, are acted out, in a "feather bed"? to quote one of our founding fathers. Very naive of you.
This statement, "I think that true regard for the welfare of the Afghan people would have included an urgent and intense effort to ensure political stability, which is something that, frankly my dear Scarlett, we didn't give a damn about." Besides being emotional and not all that clever, that statement is naive in the extreme. "political stability"? Are you kidding?
Look at the size, topography and infrastructure of Afghanistan and make that statement again with a straight face.
You diatribes are Monday morning quaterbacking with some adolescent moralizing included.
Nope, I never said that.
Just how do you think politics, and its logical extension WAR, are acted out, in a "feather bed"? to quote one of our founding fathers. Very naive of you.
political stability"? Are you kidding
You diatribes are Monday morning quaterbacking with some adolescent moralizing included.
<<By your silence it sounds as if you're tacitly conceding that the US has also quite frequently turned a blind eye toward the causes of people fighting for their freedom>>
Nope, you are wrong AGAIN. I see that you are now victim of your own ego and pontificating just to hear yourself talk.
<<I am sick and tired of chickenhawks and other non-participants in war telling the rest of us what a good thing it is to make other people bleed.>> Awww. Sounds like you are 14 years old and smart enough to see the warts in the world, but not mature enough to understand the world.
And, you are wrong again. War can be, and has often been, a good thing. History is full of examples.
<<By your silence it sounds as if you're tacitly conceding that the US has also quite frequently turned a blind eye toward the causes of people fighting for their freedom>>
Nope, you are wrong AGAIN. I see that you are now victim of your own ego and pontificating just to hear yourself talk.
War can be, and has often been, a good thing. History is full of examples.
So you do deny that the US has sometimes undermined democracy in other countries
countries and that it supported the Indonesian military at a time when it was committing the greatest genocide against a people since Hitler's Holocaust?
Speaking of which, Indonesia's Hitler just died hours ago.
The only times we've done that is when these alleged "democracies" start to lean towards tyranny, or when we think that they are.
If you're referring to Timor, this was a by-product of colonial division between The Netherland and Portugal. In case you didn't notice, East Timor remained a Portuguese colony after the Dutch left Indonesia. The division of Timor did more for Indonesian conquest than anything else.
And in the mentaility of the left, all anti-communists can be compared to Hitler.
Allende is hardly a "democrat", in the sense that he supported democracy. He was a Soviet shill that was engaging in dismantling his opposition. Given time he would have been about as democratic as Sadam, with 99% approval ratings, and getting 99% of the vote every election.
Allende got himself killed by deprivatizing his entire nations industry without actually paying off any of the people that actually owned those industries, foreign of domestic and then parading Castro around for show.
The Cold War was all about opposing not just the Soviets, but Communism in general, and of course we were going to oppose Communists like Allende (and others) even if they were democratically elected.
This "Democracy is a God given right to all people" is garbage and a straight up Bush-ism. Allende, et al were well before this Neocon stupidity became mainstream.
Back when the country and its leadership actually had a clear vision of what we wanted (and end to the Soviet empire and Communist powers) we did what it took, including putting down people like Allende.
Everyone seems to make this association between democratically elected officials and inherent goodness. People have the government they deserve. Hitler was elected to his initial political office based partly on his extreme racist rhetoric. Iraq is installing a Sharia state like Iran and Saudi Arabia with the democracy they were handed, including forcing bhurka's on women, and other institutionalized apartheid against women and non-Muslims. Go democracy. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
During the Cold War we weren't concerned with "freedom" of "the people", especially freedom for people that hate us, and our way of life and vote into power Communist authoritarians like Allende. Hell, they even had elections in the USSR.
No, I think all dictators who murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians can be compared to Hitler, or Stalin for that matter. Why don't you? The shocking thing about many on the political right is their lack of moral outrage when it comes to crimes against humanity committed or abetted by their own side.
You didn't say actually whether is imperialistic or not.
shareI think 1mil for schools in a *beep* up country like Afg. would do a world of difference.
Some people underestimate the power of positive actions.
Considering what those Madrassa's teach, that is unlikely. It most likely would have been a million dumped into teaching children to hate infidels, and that the greatest thing that one can do is die of Allah in Jihad.
Instead of The Taliban, it would have been <insert orthodox anti-western Islamic group here> with American money. If we had actually run the schools, government and media for a 5 or 10 years it would have been a different story.
We didn't invade Japan and then hand cash to Tojo to rebuild it all himself. Doing so wouldn't have been a very successful solution and neither would have been dumping money into the hands of Mujahideen to build "schools".
yes. 1 mil. 1 school. would change everything.
Yo, bartender, Jobu needs a refill.
A US team of determined, smart anti-Soviets organized resistance in Afghanistan for years, bringing the Soviets to their knees, which marked THE END OF SOVIET EXPANSIONISM, perhaps the biggest victory in Western geopolitics since the end of WW2. And it maybe prevented your burger eatin' a**es from being BBQed in a nuclear holocaust.
But then, you guys, yet again, did NOT finish the job, because it didn't involve a "shoot 'em up" strategy. It was too hard. Too difficult intellectually to understand that THERE IS ALWAYS AN AFTERMATH to deal with.
- "Who gives a **** about a school in Pakistan, Charlie?!"
- "... [That's] AFGHANistan [you thick-neck, pink-faced mo**n]..."
Most of those US-backed Afghan fighters didn't make the "US money + arms + training + Muj = R.I.P. Red bastards" equation in their head (there weren't many New York Times subscribers in the rocky desert mountains, underlined Mr. Wilson with great lucidity). They only saw what most of us would have seen if we'd been in their place: a country in shambles, and ex-allies that were too dumb and too cowboyish too help rebuild.
Thirteen years later, this idiotic, puerile and amateurish attitude in foreign affairs bit you in the a**, on 9/11 (YES: it is common science that most terrorists involved in present-day attacks were trained in Afghanistan at one point or another). And it's about to bite the rest of us in the West as well, thanks to your dumba** policy makers.
And what should we say about Karzai, a man who had a long corporate career in the oil business. Enough about the friggin' poppy; your interests were twofold: avoiding being BBQed, and securing an oil passage. In between, human beings were yet again being used as intermediary cannon meat in an imperialist game of arm wrestling.
The most troubling thing is that the mismanagement of Irak is ten times worse...
Uhyuyuyyyy... It's so sad that such a great, powerful nation which shaped the XXth century is now so blind and dangerously incompetent; now our kids will all speak Mandarin, if they're lucky enough not to get blown up in a terrorist attack someday !!
Thank you Uncle Sam !
I'm just so tired of you americans justifying every mean
you have a political system highly suspected of making profit with the deaths of 20000 souls on your own soil
when will you SEE IT!?
I'm just so tired of you americans justifying every mean
you have a political system highly suspected of making profit with the deaths of 20000 souls on your own soil
And I'm tired of you anti-Americans who lie about everything we do.
I'm latinamerican and we have the same kind of political issues (not so long ago our ex president's son was killed because of his father's dirty business and the entire society knew but was taught to let it go) but we do not support it, people here manifest themselves on streets, people don't raise their national flag anymore if something is wrong
Don't tell me you still have doubts about those poor 20000 bastards
Sorry if I my expression wasn't da best, don't want to confront you... just don't understand why don't u WAKE THE *beep* UP?!
I'm latinamerican and we have the same kind of political issues (not so long ago our ex president's son was killed because of his father's dirty business and the entire society knew but was taught to let it go) but we do not support it, people here manifest themselves on streets, people don't raise their national flag anymore if something is wrong
Don't tell me you still have doubts about those poor 20000 bastards
Sorry if I my expression wasn't da best, don't want to confront you... just don't understand why don't u WAKE THE *beep* UP?!
"Are you attacking us on September 11th?
Hummm ok, I'll level down the security for a while and get the champagne to share with the other profitable members of the Carlysle Group".
AND THEN GUESS WHAT? I'll keep telling the society Saddam was the one so we can justify our millions on Irak. Maybe Bin is not even responsible but it doesn't matter. THEY'LL BELIEVE ME, BECAUSE AMERICA IS A GREAT COUNTRY
I didn't say deaths were your fault man...
I was asking to the plural YOU to wake up. It's always easier when you're seeing it from the outside. If you're more than awake good for you.
Sorry if you felt injured, have a good one
Okay, this scenario you describe is all your imagination. NONE of what you're accusing my country of ever happened. As I stated earlier, I AM awake, and so are most Americans. Obviously, you aren't.
It's always easier when you're seeing it from the outside.
Ddey65 - for someone who has lambasted others here for their naiviety you are quite possibly the most niave person I have come across in quite some time. nbjeff has provided you with a lot of very valid points all of which you have blown away in typical conservative fashion, i.e. without proof or supporting logic. When I read you're posts you come across as a red-neck who loves to shoot his gun and shout "Hooah" when the sun goes down. Don't take that as an insult per se, its just the way you put yourself across.
Do a quick search on wikipedia on anti-americanism, PNAC, allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States etc. There certainly are elements to those that are debatable, but it will give you a far better understanding of what nbjeff is talking about if you do read it. Start with these links, but don't be afraid to dig a bit more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire
The US has overthrown democracies in favour of despots on a number of occassions. Your Governments (both Republican and Democrat) are far from the hope of the free world. And while they are not colonialist in nature they are still imperialist (as nbjeff said). PNAC is the most blindingly obvious example of this. I'm not trying to say that any other country is different. To be honest most countries are self-serving. Its the nature of politics. But then most countries don't have the same global impact that the US does. And most don't tout themselves as being the hope of the free world. Its that one thing that gets under peoples skin more than anything. That and the fact that you act like a child as a nation - by which I mean you haven't learned from your parents (Europe) mistakes. You've just learned to disguise them a bit better. At least most European countries have picked up something from the last 100 years and aren't as bad as they had been.
As for war being good, that is an upsettingly simplistic view of war. War is never good. It is at its best the lesser of two evils, e.g. WWII where millions of people lost their lives, certainly not a good thing, but better than the alternative. That is the reality of the modern world. We have to do things that are not "good" to try to ensure the most positive/least negative outcome.
Take a doctor who has to deal with 2 dying patients. If he divides his time equally between the two they both die, if he focuses on one then the other dies but that one lives. If the doctor chose the latter situation do you think he/she would consider it a good thing? Of course not. They would still be gutted at the loss of a patient, but it was the best result they could hope for. Letting that patient die would not be a good thing. It would be nessecary, and there's a world of difference between the two.
PNAC is simply a conseravative think tank, and there is no "American Empire." The notion that my realization of that gives you the impression that I'm some "red-neck who loves to shoot his gun and shout "Hooah" when the sun goes down," is another example of how anti-American propaganda has distorted other people's views of America. And no, we ARE NOT imperialists, but our enemies are. During the cold war and afterwards, communist dictatorships and terrorist groups carried out bloody campaigns to force communist tyranny upon as many people as they can. All we've done was try to prevent that from happening, just as we were doing during the two world wars. The same goes for jihadists who've repeatedly vowed to transform as much of the world as they can, especially the Isalmic world, into one single Islamic nation. And yet, you AND they have the gall to accuse US of being "imperialists?!" Neither nbjeff nor you have any valid points to your accusations!
None other than senior members of your current government were or are members of PNAC. The name is a bit of a giveaway - Project for the New American Century. My view of you as a red-neck has nothing to do with my views on the US. If I'm not mistaken nbjeff is American yes? It is solely my view on you as an individual.
During and after Cold War the US carried out and financed bloody campaigns to serve their own interests too. Communist nations were not alone there. All I've asked you to do is read articles and make up your own mind on them, yet you're too stubborn to even do that. Point me in the drection of material that backs up your point of view and I'll gladly read it. Debate this in a mature and grown-up fashion. I never said their was an "America Empire", that was just the title to an article that would be relevant to this discussion.
At the end of the day all I ask in a debate like this is for people to be open to listening and attempting to understand the other persons view. That does not mean agree with it. I'm open to do that with you, but all you've done so far is basically cover your ears and yelled "It ain't true, it ain't true". Give me something more to work with. Otherwise call it quits because you're obviously more interested in forcing your opinions on others rather than having any form of meaningful discourse. And we all know who that sounds like don't we!?
I've read the articles and others like it, and I know what PNAC is really about, as opposed to what 9/11 conspiracy freaks claim it's about. I also know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source of information, and that while attempting to improve their reputation, they've ended up slashing a lot of articles that they shoudln't have. Maybe nbjeff is an American, but he's against America, which is why I refer to him as an anti-American. He lies for our enemies just as you do.
During and after Cold War the US carried out and financed bloody campaigns to serve their own interests too. Communist nations were not alone there.
I never said their was an "America Empire", that was just the title to an article that would be relevant to this discussion.
At the end of the day all I ask in a debate like this is for people to be open to listening and attempting to understand the other persons view. That does not mean agree with it. I'm open to do that with you, but all you've done so far is basically cover your ears and yelled "It ain't true, it ain't true".
Give me something more to work with. Otherwise call it quits because you're obviously more interested in forcing your opinions on others rather than having any form of meaningful discourse.
I got most of my info on PNAC from their website, not Wikipedia. I just pointed you to Wikipedia to start some form of decent debate. From nbjeffs posts is is not "against America" - whatever that even means. He just doesn't view America as the shining light to the world that some people do. I gathered from his posts that while he loves his country he is not always proud of its politics. The same could be said of me and my native country (Ireland). I love my country, I'm very proud to be Irish, but I can't stand our current Government. No single country is perfect and most have a dirty under-belly. America is no different.
Also, I am not anti-American, the same way I'm not anti-Irish. I have no problem with the US as a nation. Like nbjeff I do have a problem with some of the politics. Just because I question the "higher powers" doesn't make me some form of rampaging terrorist or traitor or anything like that. It just means that I don't blindly follow politicians, which in any country or system is nothing more than common sense.
I'd also like for you to point out my "lies" please. That is one thing I don't take too kindly to, being called a liar. That just seems like another adolescent-like response. I have not resorted to calling you a liar, in fact I have not resorted to insults at all (I did state that the red-neck comment was not intended as an insult, merely as a use of a stereotype to highlight your perceived behaviour).
"The nations that you're thinking of were either being threatend by communist expansion, or nations that we thought were turning towards the communist bloc. And when we did these things it was to repel the communist threat, not simply for the sole purpose of serving our own interests."
Okay so name the countries. And what exactly is wrong with communism? Could you please spell it out? Fair enough I can understand the problem you had with the USSR but that system wasn't really a communist one. It started off as communism, but turned into something very different. Same in China. And why is/was it such a big threat to the world that it meant the US had to install/support tyrant dictators to combat the spread of it?
"The title of that link implied that there was one."
No, the title of the link was the title of an article. It could mean a host of different things. Personally I take it as an article on a conjectural idea. Unless you read the article I don't think you can judge the title - book by its cover and all that.
"No, that's what you think I've been doing. I've not only told you "it ain't true," I've told you why it aint't true."
Until this post all I have seen you do is spout your opinion backed up with no actual data, facts or sources. Just because you say something is so doesn't make it so. The same way you shouldn't take my word for things, I shouldn't take yours.
As for the sources you have given me, while I'd like to read and retort, given that they are books that I would need to get my hands on and read that could take time and I have a sneaking suspicion this thread will be long forgotten by the time I do. Rest assured though I will try and have a look at one or more of those. I'm a big believer in seeking out people with opposing ideas and opinions to myself so that I can try and understand them better and possibly expand my knowledge and horizons using that medium. I am open to changing my stance on any issue given that I don't know everything. Nobody does. And to be close minded to other peoples opinions and sources of information is to limit your own ability to form an accurate view of the world.
And please stop with your "Try seeing the evil of the world for what it is for a change" nonesense. I have already posted that I know how serious the threats you're speaking of are. Only a moron doesn't know that. But stop being so niave as to believe that the US is perfect. Its not. No nation is. Thats not me being anti-American (because then I'd be anti every nation on earth), its just me being realistic. Its a good and healthy thing to question your Government. Something that is sorely missing from Western culture as a whole these days. And in any country where the people do question their Government it rarely translates into a shift in voting patterns. A country that doesn't question its Government is going down a slippery slope and could find themselves being taken advantage of pretty quickly.
I got most of my info on PNAC from their website, not Wikipedia. I just pointed you to Wikipedia to start some form of decent debate.
The same could be said of me and my native country (Ireland). I love my country, I'm very proud to be Irish, but I can't stand our current Government.
No single country is perfect and most have a dirty under-belly. America is no different.
And what exactly is wrong with communism?
Fair enough I can understand the problem you had with the USSR but that system wasn't really a communist one. It started off as communism, but turned into something very different. Same in China. And why is/was it such a big threat to the world that it meant the US had to install/support tyrant dictators to combat the spread of it?
And please stop with your "Try seeing the evil of the world for what it is for a change" nonesense.
I have already posted that I know how serious the threats you're speaking of are. Only a moron doesn't know that. But stop being so niave as to believe that the US is perfect. Its not. No nation is.
I think we're finally getting somewhere here now. To point out I only took Wikipedia as a starting point because it has been written by the likes of you and me and can be a great place to start debate purely because the articles themselves and be questioned and disputed. I don't take everything there as fact, but I like to use it to start to get a feel for a particular topic.
I didn't read that nbjeff thought that the US was the cause of all of the worlds problems. To my reading he just said that the US has caused a number of problems that it is now trying to solve. To be honest most of the issues around the globe stem from Europes imperialism of previous centuries. Take England for example. They are almost solely to blame for the Israeli - Palestinian conflict at the moment. It probably would never have happened had they not promised English Jews a Jewish state in the Palestinian region during WW1. So I really do think, even though the States has done some harm, its a drop in the ocean compared to the previous few hundred years worth of damage done by the big European countries.
That being said it still doesn't excuse some of the things that your politicians have done in your name. And thats what I meant by the US not learning from Europes mistakes. I think most Europeans at this stage in some way bear the scars of the imperialist legacy. Two world wars and plenty of uprisings and rebellions through out the various colonies, the advent of terrorism as a way to remove foreign powers (which is nothing new to a lot of Europe) has meant that we recognise the damage we've done (because we've paid the price) and realise that the US is making some of the same mistakes. In different ways I'll grant you, by supporting local governments that the people don't want. But that is much the same as taking control yourselves. The same type of bitterness festers in those situations.
As for the Irish situation with the North, that is a very different scenario from the problems I was talking about here. There's a good deal of corruption talk abound (again!) and like morons the electorate here keep voting the same crowd in. Very frustrating. The North though is a complicated issue. Ultimately I would love to see the country united. But the problem is that there are so many people up in the North that don't want that. And you can't ignore them. There is no easy solution, but the stats are saying at the moment that the Republican population will overtake the Unionist population is the next couple of generations. So it would seem that it would be inevitable that the island will be made one country at some point in this century. I'm in two minds about whether thats good or bad. The paramilitary organisations there have, over the last number of years, moved into the organised crime arena and they could be a huge problem for us if/when we have to deal with them.
As for my communism question maybe I should have phrased it differently. Communinism as an idea is actually quite a nice one. The problem being that it doesn't account for human nature. So ultimately its an unworkable system. But I'm not sure why the theory of communism is such a threat. For example if a country implemented communism and got it right (not like Russia, China or Chile etc) would that still be a threat to you? I'm not sure that it would. And I'm even less sure that the answer to the problem was ever going to be insert a tyrant to prevent another tyrant.
Similar to Iraq at the moment I don't think the US should get involved in the internal politics of a foreign power. I think you should pull out of Iraq. Not for all the usual reasons that you heare like "It's an illegal war" or "You're only after the oil". I think you should pull out because they are in need of a civil war. As horrible as that kind of thing is its a natural progression. You look at countries that gain their independance and freedom (from an internal tyrant or external oppressor) and they pretty much always go through civil war. You guys had one, we had one here in Ireland. They are a natural political progression in the circumstances. And by preventing it happening all you are doing is building the tension and prolonging the violence. With coalition troops gone the terrorists will run out of reasons to be there. Then the country will descend into a civil war, that eventually they'll come out of and they'll grow from there. Its a painful metamorphasis but also a natural one. And its going to happen when you eventually do leave anyway (IMO).
A point re your "tyranny, poverty and despair" bit - your solution to a supported tyranny, poverty and despair was an unsupported tyranny, poverty and despair in cases. Surely you can see the flaw in that plan? All that does is create resentment towards the US. And you phrase these points as though the US was doing these things for the local peoples benefit. To spare them the greater level of tyranny. Yet the US has made no effort in other parts of the world to do just that. Why the differnce? You have to admit that the reason the US did all of those things was purely out of self interest. Thats all politics is - an expression of self-interest. Thats the same for every country on earth.
And your solution to terrorism leaves a lot to be desired to be fair. Now I will give you the benefit of the doubt, you're new enough to this whole idea of terrorism. I grew up with it in my back yard so have a bit more exposure (although I was never caught in the middle of it thankfully). You wil never beat idealism with weapons. It can't be done. Just like the British were never going to defeat the IRA by force of arms, and just like there will not be an end to the Isreal/Palestinian conflict through force of arms, neither will you beat radical Islam through force of arms. The reason for this is quite simple - they recruit people who are desperate and feel that they have been hard done by by Western powers (the US has come to be the figurehead there given your position as the only global superpower at present). Going in there and killing them isn't going to change that. It will in fact only make it worse. The terrorism aspect is a symptom of a wider problem and tackling that would be like a doctor tackling a runny nose when the patient has the flu. You need to get to the root cause of the problem and tackle that if you ever hope to win this so called War on Terror.
Oh and one last thing, calling it a War on Terror was a really bad move. It gives the likes of Bin Laden a level of legitimacy that he should not be afforded. These people are international criminals, no more, no less. Thats one thing the British did very well in Northern Ireland. They refused to look at the IRA as anything more than criminals and it helped to belittle them as a movement in the eyes of a lot of people. By saying he's just a criminal you're lowering his status. By saying he is an enemy you are at war with gives him a greater status that he can wield amoungst those he wishes to convert.
To be honest most of the issues around the globe stem from Europes imperialism of previous centuries. Take England for example. They are almost solely to blame for the Israeli - Palestinian conflict at the moment. It probably would never have happened had they not promised English Jews a Jewish state in the Palestinian region during WW1.
Similar to Iraq at the moment I don't think the US should get involved in the internal politics of a foreign power. I think you should pull out of Iraq. Not for all the usual reasons that you heare like "It's an illegal war" or "You're only after the oil". I think you should pull out because they are in need of a civil war.
Oh and one last thing, calling it a War on Terror was a really bad move. It gives the likes of Bin Laden a level of legitimacy that he should not be afforded.
Re the conflict in the Middle East, I'm certainly aware of a lot of the underlying factors to the conflict. There was little point in going in to them given the size of the post as it is, it would have gotten out of hand. Basically the Balfour Declaration - used to get the Jewish community in the UK to convince the Jewish community in the US to support the States entry int WW1 - was the thing that caused the creation of the Jewish state. Once it was issued there was huge influx of Jews into the region - even more so during/after WW2 for obvious reasons. The Palestinians (who had been subjugated for so long by differing powers) saw their land being taken from them for good and a new state set up for all these immigrants. Then to make matters worse after the Arab-Isreali war their land was carved up even more. The Muslim Brotherhood link to Nazi Germany is news to me though. Either way they were very late on the scene - only established in 1928, 11 years after the Balfour Declaration.
Re Iraq - I'm not claiming there currently is a civil war taking place, and I do not believe there is. However I do think that when coalition troops leave - and by extension many of the external terrorists - there will be an internal conflict, i.e. a civil war. I don't think anyone can prevent it and I think it truly is a natural political stage in a countries evolution. I don't like it but as I said history is littered with them.
Yes Bin Laden is far worse than a common criminal, but by openly admitting that (and more importantly by your leaders admitting it) you are giving him the power he is looking for right now. When your President (the most powerful man in the world) says in not so many words that he and your country are threatened by this individual and relatively small group of individuals you are giving in a little. Terrorism works best when everyone, including the people at the top, are afraid. To admit that you are is a victory for the terrorists. I've also read some interesting material that states an opinion that Bin Laden has no interest in "destroying the infidels" and that all of this is actually the beginnings of an attempt at him taking the Saudi throne. Not sure how true that is but when I read the articles they didn't seem that far-fetched. If I can find the sites again I'll post the link.
And finally a small comment on McCain - because this had me laughing out loud when I read it. He was quoted as saying that he will "follow [Bin Laden] to the gates of Hell". I find that kind of thing infinitely funny. If I could I'd ask him to prove it! Its one of those classic lines that has absolutely no substance at all. It means nothing. He won't and can't follow anybody to the gates of Hell (if Hell even exists). And even if he could, and did, how would we ever know. So its a promise he can never live up to. Its a sound byte and nothing more. It was almost as funny as Bill Clinton falling asleep (on camera) at that Martin Luther King memorial event. Your political system is a circus that cracks me up every time I watch it. If only ours here wasn't a total sham too!!!!!
Basically the Balfour Declaration - used to get the Jewish community in the UK to convince the Jewish community in the US to support the States entry int WW1 - was the thing that caused the creation of the Jewish state.
Once it was issued there was huge influx of Jews into the region - even more so during/after WW2 for obvious reasons.
The Palestinians (who had been subjugated for so long by differing powers) saw their land being taken from them for good and a new state set up for all these immigrants.
The Muslim Brotherhood link to Nazi Germany is news to me though.
Yes Bin Laden is far worse than a common criminal, but by openly admitting that (and more importantly by your leaders admitting it) you are giving him the power he is looking for right now.
When your President (the most powerful man in the world) says in not so many words that he and your country are threatened by this individual and relatively small group of individuals you are giving in a little.
I've also read some interesting material that states an opinion that Bin Laden has no interest in "destroying the infidels" and that all of this is actually the beginnings of an attempt at him taking the Saudi throne. Not sure how true that is but when I read the articles they didn't seem that far-fetched.
Just as I thought we were getting somewhere we're back to taking my posts out of context. Okay here we go:
1. I never said that the US got involved in WW1 because of the American Jewish community putting pressure on the Government. I just said that the UK made a promise to British Jews in return for support from American Jews. I never said this is what caused the US to go to war. They are very different statements so please stop putting words in my mouth.
2. I can't see how the Muslim Brotherhood were involved in the Nabi Musa Riots of 1920 or the Jaffa Riots of 1921 given that the organisation was only set up in 1928.
3. That tellthechildrenthetruth site seems a little less than reliable to me. I haven't been able to find anything concrete or reasonable to back it up. And I did do a bit of digging. I know that Mohammad Amin al-Husayni did collaborate with the Nazi's but I found no evidence he was part of the Muslim Brotherhood that was set up by Hassan al-Banna.
4. By "power" I don't mean tangible power, I mean power in terms of influence and global stature. By making him so obviously important you're helping to create the larger than life type of image that he wants. I'm not saying he's not a threat and you shouldn't treat him as such. I'm saying you shouldn't make such a public fuss about it. Go after him, but quietly. As I said the US is relatively new to terrorism, you could learn a thing or two from the UK, who've had to deal with it for decades.
5. I didn't say a "small group of individuals". I DID say "a relatively small group of individuals". Again its semantics, but very important semantics none-the-less. Relative to the population of the US? The population of the Western world? That one word makes a huge difference to the statement.
6. The theory on Saudi Arabia is that his "bigotry" against non-Muslims is actually all just a front. The whole "foreign powers on our soil" is just a cover too. All he really wants is power nothing more. I don't know how true the theory is, I just thought it was interesting and worth throwing out there.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I didn't read that nbjeff thought that the US was the cause of all of the worlds problems. To my reading he just said that the US has caused a number of problems that it is now trying to solve. To be honest most of the issues around the globe stem from Europes imperialism of previous centuries
calling it a War on Terror was a really bad move. It gives the likes of Bin Laden a level of legitimacy that he should not be afforded. These people are international criminals, no more, no less
Maybe nbjeff is an American, but he's against America, which is why I refer to him as an anti-American. He lies for our enemies just as you do.
nbjeff - I really enjoyed that post. Like you I find it inexcusable not to question the powers that be. After all they are just human like ourselves. Vunerable to the same flaws we are and the same temptations. Like every job the world over there are going to be decent politicians, crooked politicians, able politicians and inept politicians. Its just the way things are. And given the power that they have all of the temptations that a normal person has to deal with is exponentially larger for the politicians.
They will not be able to keep themselves straight. And just a police force or corporate entity there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that they do not abuse there position. The electorate are the checks and balances for politics. It is up to us to ensure that our representatives are doing their job to the best of their ability. If we don't noone else will. We have a far more important role to play in politics than any politician. They represent us and we decide who they are and what we want them to do.
This idea of backing a side and staying loyal may be all well and good when choosing a sporting team to support, but when that is what drives voters come poll time then democracy is in huge trouble. Here in Ireland we have similar issues in that there are 2 large main parties and many people around the country vote for one over the other because they always have or because their family always has. It has nothing to do with the politics or the issues of the day. That does nothing but damage the democratic system.
It give me great hope to converse with people who genuinely consider these things, put some thought into it. Regardless of whether we agree or not. Most people are too busy saying their side is better than the other and in doing so remove all chance of true democracy. Digging for the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be, and using that truth to decide how to utilise your vote, is exactly how democracy was meant to work. These days many people are far to lazy and/or partisan (in the negative meaning of the word) to put the effort in. They would rather be spoon-fed lies or propaganda (be it FOX News or Michael Moore) and spout the same tired vitriol ad nauseum until it becomes less than meaningless.
Like you I find it inexcusable not to question the powers that be. After all they are just human like ourselves.
there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that they do not abuse there position
Here in Ireland we have similar issues in that there are 2 large main parties and many people around the country vote for one over the other because they always have or because their family always has.
That does nothing but damage the democratic system
Digging for the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be, and using that truth to decide how to utilise your vote, is exactly how democracy was meant to work
These days many people are far to lazy and/or partisan (in the negative meaning of the word) to put the effort in. They would rather be spoon-fed lies or propaganda (be it FOX News or Michael Moore)
I think its dangerous to have a two party system the way you do in the US. We have several political parties than can, to a degree, temper the movements of the big two. However we do suffer some of the problems with corruption that you do. Maybe not to the same degree, but the current ruling party (Fianna Fail) is firmly in the pocket of the building industry - our biggest industry. And like with the US our electorate seem content to just let the corruption continue. Its gotten to the point where it is downright obvious.
We have tribunals set up to investigate allegations of corruption made against our politicians. These tribunals are totally ineffectual, but also very expensive - 1 politician has served jail-time, for contempt of court, in over a decade. Many of us are wholly disillusioned with them and have wanted for years to be rid of them. Our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) is currently being investigated after allegations were made against him. All of a sudden the Government are trying to curtail the powers of the tribunal. They have tried to tell us that these matters are none of our business. And most people are just shrugging their shoulders and carrying on as though it never happened. There is no outrage. Its very much like Musharef in Pakistan - "I don't like the way the judges are taking this so I'll stop them before they get a chance to do damage".
I think this is a fine example of the levels to which Western democracy has sunk. Look at the protests in Pakistan after that judge was fired. Look at Iraqis braving death to vote. Now look at our electorates. We're so fatigued/bored/dis-interested that we're allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of.
I think its dangerous to have a two party system the way you do in the US.
temper the movements of the big two
We have tribunals set up to investigate allegations of corruption made against our politicians. These tribunals are totally ineffectual, but also very expensive - 1 politician has served jail-time, for contempt of court, in over a decade. Many of us are wholly disillusioned with them and have wanted for years to be rid of them. Our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) is currently being investigated after allegations were made against him. All of a sudden the Government are trying to curtail the powers of the tribunal. They have tried to tell us that these matters are none of our business. And most people are just shrugging their shoulders and carrying on as though it never happened. There is no outrage. Its very much like Musharef in Pakistan - "I don't like the way the judges are taking this so I'll stop them before they get a chance to do damage".
Look at the protests in Pakistan after that judge was fired. Look at Iraqis braving death to vote. Now look at our electorates. We're so fatigued/bored/dis-interested that we're allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of.
I suppose our systems are quite different in many ways. Our set-up is very intriguing (at times baffling). We have a very high representiative to constituent ratio (a total of 166 for a population of approx 4.3 million) which is roughly 1 per every 26,000 people, obviously with some representing less than this and some more. In some cases a TD will represent less than 15,000 people. This means that the smaller fringe parties can have a voice without it being too disproportionate.
Our Government hasn't been made up of a single party for nearly 20 years, and some of the best work that has come from our Government has been during that period. The smaller parties can't afford to see their support erode due to close ties with one of the bigger parties (you should have a look at what happened to the PDs in the last election - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Democrats) so tend to maintain their independance, which gives minorities a voice that I feel they don't have in the US at all.
I can imagine there would be huge difficulty though trying to implement that kind of system on as large a scale as the US. It does fit a smaller model better. If the attitude of the electorate were better than I really think that we would have a great system as it is. I think its more of an up-hill struggle in the US as for a lot of people they don't feel like they are represented at all.
I can imagine there would be huge difficulty though trying to implement that kind of system on as large a scale as the US. It does fit a smaller model better
[deleted]
[deleted]
For the truth is, from the very beginning, there have always been two Americas. The America of Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain and the America of Cotton Mather and Father Coughlin. The America of Reason that champions rule of law and human rights and the America of Arrogance that champions Manifest Destiny.
My America has the courage to attack the faux patriotism that is all too often a mask for greed and power-lust. You do not, Ddey. Therefore you are anti-American.
You are against my America, the America that extols traditions of dissent, reason and justice for all,...
The problem is, you confuse the America of FDR, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, and the Bushs, with that of Cotton Mather and Father Coughlin. It's not the same.
The America that you're thinking of denies that our enemies are dangerous, makes false accusations of "imperialism," and tries to pretend that if we just leave them alone everything will be fine despite evidence to the contrary, yet somehow has to nerve to claim that they're more patriotic than those who don't.
yours lives on enemy propaganda that you pretend is Jeffersonian, when in fact it's a form of appeasment.
Of course the world is not the same, but the ideological divide today retains much of the same Reformation vs Enlightenment flavor.
Republicans today are the ones most likely to appeal to bigotry, fear and hate
and to speak the language of religious zealots, with all the attendant dogmatic and messianic references to absolute Good and Evil and making the world safe for America and American values
The moderates and left of center don't like being taken for idiots. They resent US leaders telling them that Saddam was as great a danger as Hitler,
There are many ways to deal with international adversaries and conflicts of interest. Preemptive invasion is not one of them.
Tell me Ddey. Which nation states pose a grave and imminent threat to our national security?
Let's get specific here and apply our ideas to the subject at hand, which is the Soviet Afghan war and the Cold War. And while you're at it, tell me which accounts of the Soviet Afghan war and the Cold War are not enemy propaganda and therefore worthy of my attention. Please list as many as you can.
PNAC is simply a conseravative think tank, and there is no "American Empire
I'm unaware of any think tank which has such a high percentage of its members tied to oil, Israel, and the arms industry.
PNAC is not a think tank but an extreme far-right, extreme rightwing Zionist advocacy group for a unilateral, militaristic American foreign policy. Some of its members, although American, are very active in local Israeli politics.
A couple of them even wrote a policy paper for the Israeli government in which they advocated ditching the Oslo Accords (which successive US govts have determined to be in our national interest) and basically initiating a new Cold War in the Middle East.
It's a dangerous and very influential group consisting of Ford and Reagan era officials and opinionmakers with powerful ties to the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Nope. Not just another think tank, but adventurists who are responsible for the disastrous Bush Doctrine of preeemption.
[deleted]
Oh don't worry, one of my big character flaws is that I can go on and on!!!!
share[deleted]
nm
shareI actually found it unnecessary for this movie to finish on that line. It was spelling out the blatantly obvious. I would have thought leaving it on the zen line where he says "We'll see" before walking off the balcony and out of the party would have been a good place to end the movie.
That last line would have only been of any value to a 10 year old who couldn't understand the plot of the movie.
Although I guess the entire world sees American movies as generally having everything 'spelt out very clearly' for some of the very dumb population.
Oh yeah. And the entire world is just sooooo sophisticated...lol.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think people on the board are associating his quote, with other policies. Hence why the movie ended on the "no one cares about a school in pakistan" scene. The point was the while "we" are quick to fund something like a "war against" with some very big numbers (It started at 5 mil - 1billion) but no one is willing to fund the rebuilding of say, a school in another country.
Especially when schools in America aren't even close to being able to buy new text books for children. Charlie wanted to micro manage a country...thats impossible for hotels let alone an entire nation. It's amazing that he accomplished all that he did, but he realized how awful politics truly are.
I'm not here to post which president had the best policies or anything close to that, I'm just merely stating that Charlie made that statement because its true.
"One gay beer for my friend, because he's gay, and one normal beer for me, because I'm normal."
[deleted]
bump
share