Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All

Politics International Politics
41

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Heyyyyy!!!

What’s with all this hostile political bullshit.[/quote]
I have no idea why you’ve been writing it.

Oh, you mean like this one?
braden.weblogs.com/military/afghanWedding

[quote=“The Braden Files”]Actually, if the truth be known, we’d been shot at every night for three weeks from those same compounds. There was no mistake and we hit what we aimed at. If the locals insist on
placing their families around the weapons systems they use to shoot at us, then the fault lies with them when family members get hurt. Particularly in light of their expeditious contact with
the media. These people will hurt their own families if it gains them some propaganda. Yes, this is another dirty little war and our media just doesn’t get it.[/quote]
This got a “page B-15” mention in the media a few weeks after the media gave “page A-1, above the fold” publicity to the initial “wedding party” crapola.

But of course MT would never know about that, since he never gets past the comics anyway.

MT probably also didn’t notice these little quips in the AP reports on the “children died, oh my goodness!” stories:
news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& … ren_killed

[quote=“Associated Press”]The children died during a night attack Friday against a complex in Paktia province where a renegade Afghan commander, Mullah Jalani, kept a huge cache of weapons, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty.

Hilferty said U.S. warplanes and troops attacked the compound, setting off secondary explosions.

“We try very hard not to kill anyone. We would prefer to capture the terrorists rather than kill them,” Hilferty said. “But in this incident, if noncombatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences.”

It was unclear if the wall was knocked down by troops searching for weapons or the secondary explosions. Hilferty said it was still too dangerous to search the whole site.

The U.S. military, which launched Dec. 2 what it describes as its biggest operation against militants since the fall of the Taliban two years ago, says it found hidden storage compartments containing hundreds of 107mm rockets, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank and anti-personnel mines and several howitzers at the compound.

“I can’t guarantee that we will not injure more civilians,” Hilferty said. “I wish I could.”[/quote]
(Note: quotes were in the article at the time I saved it; Yahoo reuses URLs for “updated” or general-topic stories, so there is no guarantee the quotes, or even the same story, will be referenced by that URL at a later date.)

Hmm. Tangentially, here’s a fun one:
poy.org/60/10/index.php
Whose fault is this? Personally, I blame Mahatma Gandhi.

42

[quote=“Fred Smith”](Regarding liberals)

43

Vay:

Few quick comments. I suppose there is some romance linked with “frontier” individualism, but unfortunately, there ain’t no more frontier. Does the average American live better with all this industrialization? I would say so. Are they happier? Who can say? Are you? Am I? Blah blah blah.

Second, the moral relativism that I am discussing has to do with the peace protests and the anti-Americanism so prevalent on the Left. If this does not apply to you or certain Leftie acquaintances of yours then disregard the comment. Anyone, however, who cannot see that the average Afghan or Iraqi or German or Pole or Korean or Taiwanese is better off because of American involvement, well, can just find a better alternative to show me. Recognize that “concern” by many posters for any deaths that can be attributed to America is nothing more than moral relativism raised to the nth degree: narcissistic nihilism. I think that we can agree on that.

Third, you too are guilty of a myth here. That conservatives have fought women’s, gay’s or minority rights. Not true. When the rights of the individual came into question, Civil Rights could have only passed with the support of much of the conservative base. The problem that many Lefties did not understand is that once someone was freed from this oppression, the need to continue helping them no longer existed. These excessive welfare programs only fostered dependence. Parents who would never allow their teenagers to come and go as they pleased or have sex or smoke drugs with whomever they wanted, seem to think that welfare is an endless series of excuses absolving the individual of personal responsibility. We conservatives are for Civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights under the context that they are all humans and should be treated as humans first and foremost not as categories requiring “special” rights.

So when I read on a repeated basis these complaints about six children dying in Afghanistan or America this, that or the other, I have to ask the person first, “What is your alternative? What is your solution? How can we do things differently?” Since 90 percent cannot answer, that essentially means that their comment is a nonconstructive one that only has one purpose to bitch about America. Sorry, if I cannot sympathize, empathize with or respect such a view.

Rascal: Get Foreign Policy 101. Read about balancing interests, read about strategic interests. Sudan and Somalia and any of these other places have far greater suffering. I am pointing this out to show posters that if six deaths are a major concern, then millions more should be of even greater concern if your PRIMARY motivation is show concern for the oppressed, etc. American foreign policy is not based on PRIMARILY humanitarian concerns, but also security, political, economic, etc. So for the US government to make policy is based on a bewildering array of factors that I think may be beyond your ability to absorb. Now when we talk about INDIVIDUALS, many of them exhibit moral relativism because of how they pick and choose to show their concern. I have never said my main motivation in life is humanitarian concerns. Others seem to have implied that they are. I am merely calling them on their own stated motivations. Get the difference? So Iraq was strategic, humanitarian, political, economic, etc., the conditions were deemed favorable, the timing was considered right. Can we (US) hope to achieve the same thing in Sudan? How would we get the troops there? How would we supply them? How would we set about to establish a government in a country with even less civil experience than Iraq? Given our other commitments to Taiwan, South Korea and now in Iraq, do we have the troops, money, etc. to be able to take on such a responsibility, especially given that it is not directly vital from a strategic, political or economic point of view. Do you really not see this?

44

All I see from your statement is that humanitarian concerns are not only not on top of the list but right at the bottom.
Never said you claimed they were on top, but that argument was made that each reason on it’s own would justify an invasion, in particular when nuclear program and WMD turned out to be blanks. And many pro-war posters start shouting ‘but see what Saddam did to his people’ when others oppose the war itself and point out the failures in pre-war intellifence - then suddenly it’s all about moral and humanitarian causes. Sorry, but I don’t buy it.

And the argument that you don’t have the resources now doesn’t stick because those conditions in Sudan or anywhere else existed long before the US marched into Iraq.
But if the US does not interfere unless there is a strategic or economical interest involved then it’s logical to conclude that humanitarian concerns don’t matter that much to the US and they are used as an excuse on occasion.

45

The U.S. has been fighting a proxy war against “Islamic Fundamentalism” for years in the Sudan by arming and feeding the SPLA. They had no need to invade. However, the U.S. is guilty by association of perpetuating the misery of the Sudanese in the southern parts of the country by prolonging a needless civil war. In the 80’s the Sudanese government agreed to give the South semi-autonomy and exemption from Sharia Law (the original SPLA demand) on condition of preserving the integrity of Sudan as a unified state but then those lovely kind peace-loving folks from the CIA started shipping in lots of shiny M-16’s and the SPLA demand changed to independence and the dissolotion of the Sudanese state. A million plus more dead, lots more traumatised kiddies with guns and for what? The credit for stopping this slaughter with a recent peace accord should go to Ethiopia not the U.S.

46

Rascal you are deliberately obtuse:

First, all those reasons would JUSTIFY an invasion but that does not mean that an invasion need always take place. Timing and money and North Korea and global warming and the price of donuts at the 711 could all be variables determining WHEN such an action would take place.

Second, YOU have put humanitarian on the bottom of the list. I am merely addressing these things in the order in which they were received. You are desperate to read some hidden motives into the US actions or find fault with them. Why? Does this have anything to do with you or Germany? Have you suffered as a result? Has Germany suffered as a result? Are you paying? Are your soldiers dying? Then why the fuck do you care so much what we do? It’s like a best friend breaking up a friendship because they cannot stop criticizing their friend for buying a new car that the said friend thinks the other friend cannot afford. After trying desperately to talk him/her out of it, the friendship breaks up because the friend finally buys the car?! What the hell is this to you?

Third, you have a short term memory but hey, you are a Leftie. The US was involved in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo (remember?) the Bosnia and Kosovo that the international-law abiding nations could not handle on their own, nor were they primarily concerned about such factors when Russia would have vetoed in the UN. So? Again, where is your point? Why is the US in Liberia now but not Congo? Why Haiti before but not Rwanda? Guess what? There are complicated factors that go into supplying, funding, etc. such missions. It’s not about the need to maintain an easy and patently obvious consistency in foreign policy just to satisfy obsessive complainers like Rascal.

47

Mr. Smith, aren’t you an obsessive apologist for U.S. foreign policy?Your intolerance for opposing views is more than mildly irritating.

48

You know where the ignore button is, don’t you?

49

Sheepshagger:

Well, then where are the points of disagreement? Argue your case. Let me know where I am wrong. Rascal certainly attempts to. I am all ears. But while I will listen, don’t think that I am going to give equal weight to every argument because “everyone has a right to an opinion.” Yes, everyone does, but that does not mean that it is a well-thought out position or an educated view. Seriously, I would be very interested if you have a grounded opinion on this subject.

50

Love to but I don’t have that much time. Also, I am a bit loathe to enter into an argument or a discussion with someone who half way through their response to another poster, partially justifies their position with phrases such as “why the fuck do you care so much what we do”. having read your posts on various subjects over the last few months, you do at times argue very well (the sheer volume of posts leads me to hope that this is how you make your living) but at the end of the day you never concede an argument as you are too firmly entrenched in your views. Should another poster impinge upon your righteous position, you resort to bellicose language. I’ll consider your offer, but in the interim, got to earn some pennies.

51

Sheepshagger:

Rascal and I are old debaters. Please excuse the language if it offends. I guess since we are so used to dealing with each other, I just naturally assumed that Rascal would not be offended by my inclusion of the f word. I certainly did not take other readers into account. Good point. Point taken.

But I still fucking want to know… (just kidding)

52

Funny. But this is an open forum not a private club.

53

Hey guys, your arguing is so yesterday. Today is a new day. Let’s all be thankful for all our blessings, our good health, the roofs over our heads and the lunches we are now eating and not least of all our freedom of expression.

So I want to take this opportunity to say I love you all. . . even you Fred. May you all know peace and tranquility and may you share your benificence with those around you.

Thanks.

:smiley:

54

i take issue with the myth that hippies were non-conformists. seeing as how there were so many of them that they constituted a whole subculture, how individualistic could they have been? they wore the same clothes, had the same hairstyles, preached the same groovy phrases. yay, i’m wearing tie-dye and having casual sex! that makes me better than the conformists! kinda like japanese girls who think if they get really bad tans, dress like cheap whores, and prostitute themselves to salarymen that they’re non-conformist. nope, they just chose to conform to something different. is your conformity better than my conformity?

i’ll edit out my comments that were actually pertinent to the thread and just leave the part about those damn hippies. :stuck_out_tongue:

55

If you are referring to my comment re the ignore button, you have misunderstood the same. You are very welcome to participate in these discussions. But, you indicated that you are annoyed by Fred Smith’s posts. I only wanted to spare you the annoyance caused by viewing Mr. Smith’s posts. But, again, you are welcome to view FS’s posts and to be annoyed, if you like.

56

You mean morally justified or legally justified? If it’s morally I can’t argue of course.
But I didn’t say it has to take place (or should take place), I asked why it did not take place.

Very funny, but NK wasn’t such a big issue until recently, at least it didn’t stop you from invading Iraq. And money - no oil wells in Sudan which would pay for any reconstruction necessary?

Yes, I did because I concluded this due to the lack of any evidence which would show that the US has acted out of humanitarian concerns.

Oh, now I should not or am not allowed to care because I don’t suffer myself?

To put it in your terms: what kind of fucked-up argument is that?

(And no, it has nothing to do with me personally or Germany and I remember to have explained myself before why I am so concerned about the issue.)

How about the friend about to do something wrong and me telling him so. That friend don’t listen, instead threatens me (“You are either with me or against me”). So friend continues with his plans based on weak evidence and ambigious claims. Friend got great visions and knows how to pay for the mess he will cause - but shit, things don’t go as planned. So after friend screws up he asks for help, but demanding it on his terms and conditions while playing the moral game: “If you don’t help me [on my terms] it’s your fault if others suffer.” Then friend further obstructs help and suddenly $$$ matter, not humanitarian concerns.

Ah, the ‘insult-argument’ and lefty-brush …

… followed by the ‘let’s-divert-to-something-else-argument’.

I didn’t complain, I questioned something.

57

[quote=“Flipper”]I take issue with the myth that hippies were non-conformists. seeing as how there were so many of them that they constituted a whole subculture, how individualistic could they have been? they wore the same clothes, had the same hairstyles, preached the same groovy phrases. yay, I’m wearing tie-dye and having casual sex! that makes me better than the conformists! kinda like Japanese girls who think if they get really bad tans, dress like cheap whores, and prostitute themselves to salarymen that they’re non-conformist. nope, they just chose to conform to something different. is your conformity better than my conformity?
[/quote]

Yeah, I realize this and have said as much myself upon occasion. A lot of hippies were just jumping on the bandwagon and availing themselves of the liberties that the mass-movement suddenly offered them. However, you can’t discount the fact that in the context of the society they grew up, they definitely were a counter-culture – at least originally – and that certainly there were some who were genuinely taking steps in new intellectual directions (even if some of those directions may have turned out to be misguided). Also, it’s not totally correct to assume a homogeneity (sp?) to hippy culture. There were various types – hardcore political activists, hipped-out Christians, hedonists, back-to-naturists, Hari Krishnas, you name it. Anyway, my point is simply that it’s unfair to completely dismiss their cultural significance, and it’s an outright lie to impune that they were in any way “unAmerican” simply because they didn’t buy into the prevailing social order.

(To Fred) I realize that some of my statements were sweeping. I get a bit fired up at times… However, I’m sensitive to this “morality” tack of conservative pundits, first of all because I consider myself a fairly moral person and am proud of the ‘moral accomplishments’ of liberals. Also, I just get so pissed off at the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who talk on and on about moral absolutes…when he strikes me so clearly as just the Jimmy Swaggart type who’s probably got a computer full of kiddy porn…

58

[quote]Hundreds of civilian deaths in the US-led invasion of Iraq could have been prevented, says Human Rights Watch.

A new report by the New York-based group, entitled “Off Target”, examines the circumstances in which civilians were killed.

It concludes that many deaths could have been avoided if the US and Britain had abandoned what it calls “two mis-guided military tactics”.

Cluster bombs and attacks on Iraqi leaders are singled out for criticism.

This is a thorough and thought-provoking report from an organisation with a strong track record in analysing civilian casualties in warfare.

Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqi civilians died in this conflict. Human Rights Watch did not set out to provide its own figure but to look at the circumstances in which they died.[/quote]
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 311705.stm

Cluster bombs! Jeezus. Yeah, war is hell. It’s a peacekeeping mission.
:unamused: [/b]

59

[quote=“Alien’s cite”]Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqi civilians died in this conflict. Human Rights Watch did not set out to provide its own figure but to look at the circumstances in which they died.
news.BBC.co.UK/1/hi/world/middle … 311705.stm[/quote]

How much you wanna bet the number of innocents killed unintentionally by the US and coalition forces is MINISCULE compared to the number of innocents killed intentionally by Sadam and his regime?

[quote=“Alien”]Cluster bombs! Jeezus. Yeah, war is hell. It’s a peacekeeping mission.
:unamused: [/b][/quote]

Its a peace-keeping mission now… but when the cluster bombs were being used, it was an invasion.

60

Rascal:

I understand exactly where you are coming from, but I think that while you can have all the opinions you want about the US action in Iraq, you are not entitled to a “say.” See the difference. Besides, do not confuse all of us conservatives. I have said all along that Germany and dissenting nations are not legally obligated to provide anything but then the moral side is another issue. Just as you are emphasizing the “legality” vs “morality” of the invasion. I get that. I just don’t agree and there are many others who do not as well. That is why I support the invasion and do not have a “say” in what Germany and France do, but they can hardly complain now that they are shut out of a portion of the bidding involving US taxdollars.

Second, North Korea has been a problem for a LONG time. This is not a new issue.

Third, since we disagree so intensely, wanna fight about it? haha