honest debate

NCfan

angelica wrote:

I'm not interested in supporting justification for the blindness.

Who's blind?

angelica

NCfan wrote:

I think there is an argement to be made that a lower percentage of Americans are "blind" than any other country. That is your assumption, and its the view from your shoes. Doesn't necessarily make it so.

I would also say that a strong argument could be made that United States has more balance than any other country on the globe.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions and I fully respect them. I can't contribute to their existence, though.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

You're certainly entitled to your opinions and I fully respect them. I can't contribute to their existence, though.

Well there is certainly something to be said for being able to agree to disagree!

angelica

NCfan wrote:

Well there is certainly something to be said for being able to agree to disagree!

For sure! I'm all for problem-solving, friend!

angelica

NCfan wrote:

Who's blind?

Anyone who is ignorant to the base power imbalance issues and seeks to continue perpetuating them to me is blind, at least pertaining to this issue. They are undermining their own selves. This happens worldwide govermentally, and human to human on major levels at all times. It's where we generally are in our evolution as a majority. In this discussion, I'm specifically honing in on the fallacy of American blindness justification as I see it being "blindly" overlooked.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

sponger wrote:

The withdrawal of russian troops left a power vacuum that resulted in the formation of the taliban, and we all know that without the Taliban, al Qaeda would never have gotten the momentum it needed to swing 9/11.

So, in hindsight, the world actually would've been a better place if Russia had stayed in Afghanistan and ensured the continued reign of its marxist government.

And you say we should do what the majority of Iraqis want? What they want is rip each other to pieces, just like the Afghanis did after the Russians left.

You can't just assume things would've been better if Russia stayed, and you can't just assume that Al Qaeda wouldn't have been able to pull of 9/11 if they did stay...we'll never know. The point is, Afghanis wanted them out, and Iraqis want us out.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jlew24asu wrote:

US will not use a nuke unless another governement uses one first. please no WWII reference.

wow. We can reference Saddam using chemical weapons back in the 80's all day long, but not reference the fact that the U.S. is the only country to ever have used a nuclear weapon...for a terrorist attack no less.

jlew24asu

Saturnal wrote:

wow. We can reference Saddam using chemical weapons back in the 80's all day long, but not reference the fact that the U.S. is the only country to ever have used a nuclear weapon...for a terrorist attack no less.

WWII was a different time, different war. you knew that right?

callen

Saturnal wrote:

You can't just assume things would've been better if Russia stayed, and you can't just assume that Al Qaeda wouldn't have been able to pull of 9/11 if they did stay...we'll never know. The point is, Afghanis wanted them out, and Iraqis want us out.

don't want us out..as they know they will be slaughtered. The world is a mean nasty place.....as is the human species.....and the belief in God(s) makes it no better.

jeffbr

Saturnal wrote:

wow. We can reference Saddam using chemical weapons back in the 80's all day long, but not reference the fact that the U.S. is the only country to ever have used a nuclear weapon...for a terrorist attack no less.

It wasn't a terrorist attack. It was a nation's armed forces attacking our country.

Cosmo

Here are the problems as I see them...
First off... America has gotten herself into a really tough situation in the Middle East. We cannot immediately leave, which means we have to stay. So, what do we do while we are there? Going the same course we have for the past 4 years has gotten us here... so, where do we go from here?
I think the first thing we have to do is identify the enemy... exactly who are the ones we are trying to 'Beat', in order to 'Win'?
The idiot, quick answer is 'The insurgents' or 'The Terrorists'. What does that mean... who are these people? Shi'ites? Sunnis? Arabs? Persians? Do we side with one or the other? If so, which one? The one that's in power, The Shi'ites? They are the majority in both population and government. To back them would mean you form an alliance with Al Sadr and the fundamentiists in Iran. Side with the Sunnis... the majority in the region... and you are going against the very institution you bombed and killed to install. And when you do side with one or the other... what is your role? Either side means you are partnered in a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
And still... no one... not the President or his mouthpieces... or anyone here has ever explained what 'The Job' is that we're supposed to do... what 'Victory' means (I know it won't take place in a signing cermony on a battleship, you fucking numbnut)... and how do we get there from here?
I do know this... the insurgency does not have 'Winning' on their minds. The insurgency just needs to survive. They can lose every battle against the far superior forces and if just one of them survives... it's a 'Win', in their minds. To us... a win means more of them killed than more of us and we get to occupy that parcel of land. But, in reality... we go in... kill a bunch of them and only lose one or two of us... go in and occupy the houses on the block for a few hours... then, leave. We call it a 'Win' for our side... but, they return to the houses and plot their next ambush. Militarily, we win every single battle... but, does that mean we win? We did the same thing in Viet Nam... clearing villeges, but not staying which allowed the Viet Cong to re-occupy. We did not lose one military battle in Viet Nam... but, look how that thing panned out. All the Viet Cong had to do was to survive by outlasting us.... the same thing the insurgents have to do.
So... brainstorm you Bush/War supporters. What do we do? Send in 20,000 more troops to do what? The same thing the 140,000 troops have been doing since March of 2003? Do something different? Like What? And the Iraqi Soldiers... 'train' them? To do what? Quit being aligned to their religious sect? How do you do that? What do you do with the Iraqi soldiers and police in the al Sadr militia?
Finally... if none of this is done... are you willing to occupy this country in this manner for the next decade? Two decades? Three? How long is your assessment of this 'Job'. When it's done could mean when all the Arabs are dead... how long is that going to be?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jeffbr wrote:

It wasn't a terrorist attack. It was a nation's armed forces attacking our country.

Terrorism (as defined by the CIA):

"premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets"

"usually intended to influence an audience."

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strictly attacks on civilians (not the Japanese armed forces) to influence their government. That's terrorism.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jlew24asu wrote:

WWII was a different time, different war. you knew that right?

The point is, how can you be so sure the U.S. will not use a nuke for a terrorist attack, when the fact remains that the U.S. is the only country in history to do this? I don't see the reasoning behind saying "the U.S. will only use a nuke in retaliation".

Cosmo

callen wrote:

don't want us out..as they know they will be slaughtered. The world is a mean nasty place.....as is the human species.....and the belief in God(s) makes it no better.

...
How do you know this?
If we leave... it allows them to conduct their ethnic cleansing. I'm guessing that guys like Al Sadr and his puppets in the Iraqi Parliment will ask us to leave... once we have trainned and armed their little militia.
Don't discount guys like Al Sadr. He's not stupid... and he recognizes how stupid we are.

jlew24asu

Saturnal wrote:

The point is, how can you be so sure the U.S. will not use a nuke for a terrorist attack, when the fact remains that the U.S. is the only country in history to do this? I don't see the reasoning behind saying "the U.S. will only use a nuke in retaliation".

use a nuke for a terrorist attack?? the US? what are you talking about? give me an example.

with your reasoning, we would have already used them. my country was attacked in the worst possible way short of being nuked. you remember right? why didnt we drop nukes throughout the middle east?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jlew24asu wrote:

use a nuke for a terrorist attack?? the US? what are you talking about? give me an example.

with your reasoning, we would have already used them. my country was attacked in the worst possible way short of being nuked. you remember right? why didnt we drop nukes throughout the middle east?

I just gave 2 examples...Hiroshima and Nagasaki...you can say those attacks had some merit if you like, but they were clearly terrorist attacks.

And we didn't drop nukes throughout the middle east for one obvious reason: the land is too valuable. We're not over there to defend our country, we're there to gain control on energy exports. If you believe we're there fighting to avenge 9/11, I feel sorry for ya.

jlew24asu

Saturnal wrote:

I just gave 2 examples...Hiroshima and Nagasaki...you can say those attacks had some merit if you like, but they were clearly terrorist attacks.

again, different time, different war give it up already

Saturnal wrote:

And we didn't drop nukes throughout the middle east for one obvious reason: the land is too valuable. We're not over there to defend our country, we're there to gain control on energy exports. If you believe we're there fighting to avenge 9/11, I feel sorry for ya.

afgahistan's land is valuable? how so? why didnt we nuke afgahistan? we surely would have gotten Osama. thats what I was referring to not Iraq. and how would nuking Iraq, specifically baghdad, have any effect on the oil fields?

news flash buddy, we are not there to control energy exports. thats a catchy little thing you people try to pin it on. what are we going to do? build a pipeline from Iraq to California? Iraqs oil, no matter which company is pumping it from the ground, is and always will be controlled by OPEC

lalalalaaaaaaaa

jlew24asu wrote:

again, different time, different war give it up already

I would've given it up, but you asked for examples.

jlew24asu wrote:

afgahistan's land is valuable? how so? why didnt we nuke afgahistan? we surely would have gotten Osama. thats what I was referring to not Iraq. and how would nuking Iraq, specifically baghdad, have any effect on the oil fields?

news flash buddy, we are not there to control energy exports. thats a catchy little thing you people try to pin it on. what are we going to do? build a pipeline from Iraq to California? Iraqs oil, no matter which company is pumping it from the ground, is and always will be controlled by OPEC

Nuking something the size of Afghanistan would have an enormous environmental effect on the entire Middle East...there's no telling how much it could affect the oil reserves....which is exactly why we didn't nuke.

And again, getting Osama has nothing to do with these invasions. And I didn't say we were there to steal oil...that's a common view that many people share, but I don't. I said we're there to gain control over oil exports. That means getting the oil production to run under US firms, under US control. It has nothing to do with increasing imports to the US.

Cosmo

jlew24asu wrote:

...
news flash buddy, we are not there to control energy exports. thats a catchy little thing you people try to pin it on. what are we going to do? build a pipeline from Iraq to California? Iraqs oil, no matter which company is pumping it from the ground, is and always will be controlled by OPEC

...
Who's being naive here?
Do you really believe that the Oil Companies care about your little problems... letting you save a fews cents here and there? Or that your massive government cares about you... the benevolent individuals in your Congress and White House cares about your bills?
OR... are both more concerned about global affairs where nations will be battling for a resource needed to run their industrial complexes and drive their economies.
Influence is power. Control is power. Influence and control over the resources is what oil companies and governments want... or are they more concerned about keeping their profits low so you can idle your F-150 in the McDonalds Drive-thru?

jlew24asu

Saturnal wrote:

I would've given it up, but you asked for examples.

I was asking for future examples of where and when we would use them now since you are concerned about USA's nukes.

Saturnal wrote:

Nuking something the size of Afghanistan would have an enormous environmental effect on the entire Middle East...there's no telling how much it could affect the oil reserves....which is exactly why we didn't nuke.

do you enjoy completely making things up as you go along? nuking Kabul or Kandahar would only have effected those general areas. there are different sizes of nukes that would localize the damage. with your reasoning the entire US would be inhabitable. we tested a shit load of nukes in the desert here, 50 miles from Las Vegas. last I checked vegas is doing fine

Saturnal wrote:

And again, getting Osama has nothing to do with these invasions. And I didn't say we were there to steal oil...that's a common view that many people share, but I don't. I said we're there to gain control over oil exports. That means getting the oil production to run under US firms, under US control. It has nothing to do with increasing imports to the US.

invading Afgahistan had everything to do with getting osama and stopping el queda from having a base of operations. we stopped chasing osama when we went into pakistan. trust me, I'm very pissed about it.

ok on the oil exports. I hear ya