Knowing what you know now would you still support the withdrawal of troops from Iraq
Comments
-
No. The US is a refuge for those suffering people and when "we" back off the ones with power force their ideals on the weak.badbrains said:
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?otter said:Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved?
The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
I found my place......and it's alright0 -
Where you been the last 13 years? Wasn't us forcing "our" ideals on said refuges?otter said:
No. The US is a refuge for those suffering people and when "we" back off the ones with power force their ideals on the weak.badbrains said:
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?otter said:Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved?
The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?0 -
-
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
We're not? Really? You actually believe this?Last-12-Exit said:0 -
http://i1.wp.com/www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/US-war-graph.jpg
It's actually more now0 -
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:0 -
That is very true and to make matters worse, we intentionally carpet bombed civilian populations in North Vietnam (and other places) including hospitals and prohibited North Vietnam from having antibiotics to treat infection. If we want to celebrate our victories we should celebrate the anti-war movement throughout our short history and recognize heroes like Bill Zimmerman who smuggled vials of anti-biotic serum into North Vietnam.rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:
Yeah, sorry Last Exit to disagree so strongly with you on this but we have caused massive amounts of suffering in the world. Others have as well but we have huge amounts of suffering to atone for.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with.BS44325 said:
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:
What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
I don't think it does really matter which side has have the highest death count. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Therefore I strongly believe every act of war is despicable, and costs unnecessary human suffering.
Besides, history is written by the winners of a war, I strongly believe true objective history is a myth, there are always many sides in a conflict. At the moment a conflict is in progress it is almost impossible to see what is happening, but in hindsight it is truly impossible. Every person, has his or her on perspective on matters, when they live through them, let alone if they are not even a witness of them...
Look at the difference in perspective we come up with on this board, most of us never have set foot in Iraq, so all we have to ad are at best second hand opinions.Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee0 -
You're right - this is the whole point. Fuck up the country then leave. When the pattern includes failed, internationally powerless states, we can't maintain altruistic motives. We have to assume that the failed state IS the motive.rgambs said:
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with.BS44325 said:
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:
What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.
People get too caught up in the 'now' crisis (which, more often than not, we had a hand in creating), to realize that there are long term, imperial goals involved. Do people really think the Anglo-American empire has maintained power thru democracy and finance only? or is that just what they want to believe?0 -
That was during a war, or conflict, or police intervention, or whatever you want to call it. Bombs get dropped. So that means the US is responsible for all of the suffering in the world today? If that's the case, Germany caused a good bit, no? Maybe japan? How about England or Iran? Mongolia?rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:0 -
As I stated before... It's not about the body count... I don't think it does really matter which side has have the highest death count. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Therefore I strongly believe every act of war is despicable, and costs unnecessary human suffering. The more war action your country has seen, in history the more blood is on your country's hands. And in the last century the US has been a part in many armed conflicts...Last-12-Exit said:
That was during a war, or conflict, or police intervention, or whatever you want to call it. Bombs get dropped. So that means the US is responsible for all of the suffering in the world today? If that's the case, Germany caused a good bit, no? Maybe japan? How about England or Iran? Mongolia?rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee0 -
So none of those countries listed committed inhumane acts against the human race in the last century? It's just the US?Aafke said:
As I stated before... It's not about the body count... I don't think it does really matter which side has have the highest death count. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Therefore I strongly believe every act of war is despicable, and costs unnecessary human suffering. The more war action your country has seen, in history the more blood is on your country's hands. And in the last century the US has been a part in many armed conflicts...Last-12-Exit said:
That was during a war, or conflict, or police intervention, or whatever you want to call it. Bombs get dropped. So that means the US is responsible for all of the suffering in the world today? If that's the case, Germany caused a good bit, no? Maybe japan? How about England or Iran? Mongolia?rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:
Yes, the US was involved in several wars during the 1900s. But don't forget about the charity this country has doled out over the same time span. And I don't mean bombing a couple try just to rebuild it. It's not tit for tat. It's just absurd to blame the United states for most of the world's pain and suffering.0 -
No, as you can read in my comment, It's not just the US. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Where two countries fight two are to blame... And if charity only is involved after a armed conflict, which I don't say it is! I think it is not as effective as it would be without those armed conflicts.Last-12-Exit said:
So none of those countries listed committed inhumane acts against the human race in the last century? It's just the US?Aafke said:
As I stated before... It's not about the body count... I don't think it does really matter which side has have the highest death count. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Therefore I strongly believe every act of war is despicable, and costs unnecessary human suffering. The more war action your country has seen, in history the more blood is on your country's hands. And in the last century the US has been a part in many armed conflicts...Last-12-Exit said:
That was during a war, or conflict, or police intervention, or whatever you want to call it. Bombs get dropped. So that means the US is responsible for all of the suffering in the world today? If that's the case, Germany caused a good bit, no? Maybe japan? How about England or Iran? Mongolia?rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:
Yes, the US was involved in several wars during the 1900s. But don't forget about the charity this country has doled out over the same time span. And I don't mean bombing a couple try just to rebuild it. It's not tit for tat. It's just absurd to blame the United states for most of the world's pain and suffering.
Besides I don't think the US acts alone in these conflicts, most of the time the entire western society is one way or another involved. As are many other parts of the world. I just think that if western society (not just the US) became less arrogant about there believes to always have the truth on their side, and forcing it on other societies with force. There would be much less need of armed conflicts to be involved in!
There will always be pain and suffering in this world, no one can claim it to be just one countries fault. But I don't think resolving conflicts with arms, contributes to lessen this pain and suffering. You can't bring peace with force and arms!Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee0 -
I think the investments made on a permanent presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany were worth it. I think making a similar investment in Iraq would have been worth it as well. The MIC you are concerned about makes more money during perpetual conflict and not during perpetual peace. If you invest now in securing the peace there will be less spending on conflict in the future.rgambs said:
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with.BS44325 said:
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:
What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.0 -
I believe it. Again without rehashing the decision to invade please consider that to guys like me "the failed state" is absolutely not the motive. The old liberal/JFK foreign poilcy reasserted in GWB's second inaugural truly believes that a long term US presence is a force for good in the region. Certainly a large investment in both lives and dollars are required but with a great long term result in the end. Again look at Germany, Japan, and South Korea where huge economies with great standard of livings now exist. Some of this spread to adjacent countries in eastern europe and asia over the years due to the presence of peace guaranteed by american security. Millions of people in the third world have been lifted out of poverty and squalor because of this. That doesn't mean the US is absolved from actions but on the whole it's presence can be a win-win for all involved.Drowned Out said:
You're right - this is the whole point. Fuck up the country then leave. When the pattern includes failed, internationally powerless states, we can't maintain altruistic motives. We have to assume that the failed state IS the motive.rgambs said:
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with.BS44325 said:
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:
What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.
People get too caught up in the 'now' crisis (which, more often than not, we had a hand in creating), to realize that there are long term, imperial goals involved. Do people really think the Anglo-American empire has maintained power thru democracy and finance only? or is that just what they want to believe?0 -
Purple fingers
I found my place......and it's alright0 -
And that's why there's ALWAYS conflict somewhere.BS44325 said:
I think the investments made on a permanent presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany were worth it. I think making a similar investment in Iraq would have been worth it as well. The MIC you are concerned about makes more money during perpetual conflict and not during perpetual peace. If you invest now in securing the peace there will be less spending on conflict in the future.rgambs said:
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with.BS44325 said:
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.rgambs said:
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...Last-12-Exit said:
What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help