Wanna win?

Originally posted by LA_Maximus

When someone screams "Ill Kill you" to my home country and we're able to do something about it....maybe we should. Drop some FAE's right in the middle of that crowd and you just killed almost every radical Muslim in that area.....all at once!

Maximu§

shhhhhh,



Thats why the AC-130's are getting..........uh nevermind.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by The Vagabond(and not all of them are white christians either).

btw, Jesus was colorblind.

Just a bit curious, but where in the Bible does it say that or is it supposed to be a joke?

[edit on 15/8/05 by D]

Sometimes I feel like I have fallen asleep only to awaken to a grade b science fiction film. Where do you facsist get your information?

Why do you people think Islam and most of the world hates us? Could it be we support dictators that will let our corporations take there resourses while they suppress the people? Could it be we have placed our troops in what they percieve as there holy lands? Could it be that they are sick of having everything taken from them, that is rightfuly theres?

How about if we try this. We support a government that the people of those lands want. We stop supporting Isreal. We do what is right and get off of the dinosaur tit, and come up with alternative renewable energy. Then and only then the middle east stops being a pawn by the rest of the world. You think we are hated for our freedom? Then why dont they attack the Swiss?

They hate us because through support of dictators, we have drawn first blood. If you and your family were being used up, it resourses being squandered so your children do not have a future by some horrible corporate driven greedy mindless superpower, how would you fight them? Be stupid and fight there military toe to toe? Or try and get there attention, try and make them see the error of there ways?

We are making the world hate us just like the Nazi made the world hate them. Our media is controled by about a dozen corporations that profit from all this bloodshed, and the neo-con dupes have bought it hook line and sinker. I for one am a moderate with leanings toward real conservativism. Smaller government, less taxation, freedom for adults to decide forthemseves what is right and wrong(as long as it does not hurt others) and most of all freedom from a tyrannical government that wants us to give up those freedoms out of fear.

Welcome to the "Brave New World"

Lonegunman, that was quite a outburst. Im sure your Political Science professor would give you an A+ for your thesis, especially when you use catch words like "Faciest's" and "Neo-Con", but you failed to mention "radical Islam" in your rant. I know its easy to blame American foreign policy on all that wrong with the Islamic world, but if you read up on a little history, you'll find that radical Islam has been at war with Christianity long before America's existance.

Max





[edit on 123131p://111 by LA_Maximus]

i think he got his point across outstandingly well, without the need to use the words "radical Islamists"

well said lone gun.....


don't mind the warmongers they are just bored and do not realise that this issue along with many others is part of a greater agenda.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
radical Islam has been at war with Christianity long before America's existance.
[edit on 123131p://111 by LA_Maximus]

And Vice Versa
Oh well if I had my way both would be dead religions.

I have a question for you LoneGunMan, because I'm curious to see if you've considered all of the implications of your views vis a vis "stop supporting Israel".

Suppose for a moment that Israel just woke up one day and said, "I think I'll invade Egypt" and began to do so with great success. Would the United States have a moral obligation to stop them?


Edit to add: I think maybe C0le is sending a message to any conservative parents in the audience- either consciously or unconsciously. The message is that if you let your kids expose themselves to the liberal media and run around doing drugs and all that good stuff that our kids love, you're going to wake up one day and find a gender-neutral hippie where your son used to be, putting up a Richard Simons poster and asking you to let them paint their room pink.

(Before anybody flames me, or accuses me of flaming C0le, I'm simply saying what C0le might have said three days ago for humorous purposes. I am not actually expressing my views)

[edit on 15-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

I know why don't we just make it a whole lot easier. Since terrorists can come from anywhere at anytime without warning or provocation then we should just nuke the entire planet and kill off all of humanity. Then there wouldn't be anymore terrorists.
.:SaRcAsTiC:.

Actually I have a much better idea... How about if we just round up everyone that thinks violence is the answer to our problems and put them in the most desolate place on earth, give them each a 12" hunting knife and whoever is left gets to spend the rest of their life living in solitude to think about why they are wrong.
.eAd SeRiOuS:.

.:Violence is not the answer. Diplomacy between rational people is:.

Originally posted by DjOsiris
.:Violence is not the answer. Diplomacy between rational people is:.

Diplomacy between rational people IS the answer.

The real question is this however: What is the answer when one of the parties isn't rational?

Originally posted by The Vagabond

The real question is this however: What is the answer when one of the parties isn't rational?

If they aren't rational then they would obviously believe that violence is the answer. I direct this to those that think "MAD" and "Necessary war to prevent terrorism" will solve anything because it won't. One would think that after tens of thousands of years that humanity as a whole would finally reach this conclusion. Therefore I point to my origional answer. Round up everyone that thinks fighting is a means to an end, put them in the most desolate place on earth, give them a weapon and let them kill eachother and leave the rest of us alone. I believe this alone would help to solve the overpopulation problem and hence would bring about a new peaceful "New World Order". Then, and only then, we will be left with those who believe that we can work out our differences with dialog diplomacy. Not murder! Either way you look at it, killing another living being regardless of reason is murder. Where is the reason in killing?

Extremists dropping bombs on hundreds or thousands of people just to kill a few other extremists does nothing more than create more extremists inspiring them to kill more of the extremists who drop the bombs on the extremists which then makes the extremist bomb droppers drop more bombs. Do you see how it is a vicious cycle? Please someone explain how this makes any sense? "MaD" is TOTALLY INSANE! Grow up and get some respect for human life or please just stop being born in the first place.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by DjOsiris]

[edit on 15-8-2005 by DjOsiris]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Diplomacy between rational people IS the answer.

The real question is this however: What is the answer when one of the parties isn't rational?

And who determines which party is rational?

Originally posted by DjOsiris
If they aren't rational then they would obviously believe that violence is the answer.

You seem to have misunderstood. What is a rational parties response to an irrational party, in your view? Your answer makes my point for me. You can't negotiate with somebody who is trying to knock your head off- I've tried. There comes a time when all options are exhausted and one must either defend himself or accept a beating.

Round up everyone that thinks fighting is a means to an end, put them in the most desolate place on earth, give them a weapon and let them kill eachother and leave the rest of us alone.

How will you do that without resorting to force? Whoever concieved and whoever executed the idea would also have to remand himself to that desolate place. I'll see you there.

Where is the reason in killing?

The just reason (strictly in theory) for killing is to avoid dying. If a strategic location must be controlled to ensure that irrational aggressors can not bring you harm, that location must be siezed.
If resources must be obtained to faciliate defense or preserve the life and livelihood of a people, those resources must be obtained by whatever means necessary. There are many scenarios in which creativity can yield peaceful access to such needs, which is inherently superior in terms of cost to anyone who values life above material, but when such peaceful options do not exist, then violent means become necessary and are no less justified than an animal killing in competition for food.

That is obviously not the case with all wars, and not even necessarily with this war. This war could have been avoided if the right people had concieved the right ideas at the critical times. At this point however, we're in, lives are lost, and a vital strategic location as well as vital economic resources are in play, and before this regretable battle for them can be ended we must concieve a better way of keeping them in the right hands, whether ours or those of any other power which can be trusted not to wield them as a weapon.


I reitterate in closing that violence is highly disadvantageous in the view of anyone with a decent moral grounding and is generally to be avoided, but not necessarily at all costs. My views on this matter revolve principally around balancing the cost to the benefit, with morality given due weight in that assessment.

Originally posted by quango
And who determines which party is rational?

Me, always, with no exceptions, and I expect a hefty sallary for providing this service.

Short of that, I'd say the question is made problematic because my post was phrased to meet the context of the post I was replying to. Under that context, the non-beligerent party would be the "rational" one, however i do not believe that to be accurate. Basically, I'm in a horrible semantical position because I didn't challenge the phrasing of the question earlier.

To answer your question as directly as possible though, in my view, any party acting in its own best interest is rational, and that doesn't do much to decide who should get what they want and who should be issolated from the rest of humanity.
The better phrasing would have been "what is the answer when only one side has a will to be peaceful".

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I have a question for you LoneGunMan, because I'm curious to see if you've considered all of the implications of your views vis a vis "stop supporting Israel".

Suppose for a moment that Israel just woke up one day and said, "I think I'll invade Egypt" and began to do so with great success. Would the United States have a moral obligation to stop them?


Edit to add: I think maybe C0le is sending a message to any conservative parents in the audience- either consciously or unconsciously. The message is that if you let your kids expose themselves to the liberal media and run around doing drugs and all that good stuff that our kids love, you're going to wake up one day and find a gender-neutral hippie where your son used to be, putting up a Richard Simons poster and asking you to let them paint their room pink.

(Before anybody flames me, or accuses me of flaming C0le, I'm simply saying what C0le might have said three days ago for humorous purposes. I am not actually expressing my views)

[edit on 15-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

I have a question for you Vagabond, ince when has it been our moral obligation to stop any country from invading another. I would say that stopping other countries from invading others is a Liberal value. You are protecting the country from itself, and this is in no way shape or form conservative!!

You Vagabond seem to know the Military quite well, as do I. So here is another question. Is our military more of a defensive military or one used for an offence? You do realize we dont need a large military for defence, we are strategicly positioned that the Navy (bad word for a Marine) and Airforce can thwart any attempts for invasion of the US continent. If we were to have an invasion scenario happen we can put that standing military back in place for a counterstrike.

It is the military industrial complex that wants this miltary built for offence, that we pay for, that if we did not have that expence our people would be so much better off. One of my favorite Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower warned us of this happening, where the military industrial complex starts dictating foriegn and domestic policy.

We need to do whats right for the American people, for corporate America has proven they do not care what happens to us, as long as they can shift the power from us to the next most profitable nation. They my friend have there eye on the next prize, that being China. We still hold the cards and could stop this bleeding of our economy, but we keep waiting and letting them use our military as a corporate ramrod (that the American people foot the bill for) we will be nothing but another former super-power.

I wish America would wake up.

Originally posted by D

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by The Vagabond(and not all of them are white christians either).

btw, Jesus was colorblind.

Just a bit curious, but where in the Bible does it say that or is it supposed to be a joke?

Jesus did not love with respect to color or race....the gift is for all.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus I know its easy to blame American foreign policy on all that wrong with the Islamic world, but if you read up on a little history, you'll find that radical Islam has been at war with Christianity long before America's existance.Max

Yeah, they seem to forget that one. Maybe we should have let the Serbs run loose........

Originally posted by DjOsiris.:Violence is not the answer. Diplomacy between rational people is:.

Well isnt that the truth. What rational man straps on a bomb and wants to kill children?

Sorry for the delay. I had a great reply and an error killed it when i tried to submit earlier.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I have a question for you Vagabond, ince when has it been our moral obligation to stop any country from invading another.

I salute you for giving a response which is consistent with your position. Frankly I was not sure I could count on that.

You Vagabond seem to know the Military quite well, as do I. So here is another question. Is our military more of a defensive military or one used for an offence?

The distinction between offense and defense is semantical at best and utterly fallacious at worst. They are related entities, as virtually any military theorist will assert. Some would go so far as to classify defense as an offensive tactic for controlling tempo and setting traps.
Offense is defense, and defense is offense. A fortress will inevitably be taken by seige if an offensive action is not waged to bring relief. Offensive forces positioned in strategic locations around the world are a vital defensive measure for protecting not only access to America but access to America's economic and diplomatic weaknesses. What happens if Iran takes the UAE and shuts off the oil flow from the gulf, controlling sufficient missiles to keep us away from their coast, and is able to diplomatically prevent Turkey and Pakistan from offering any assisstance?
Defense of these areas is also inherently offensive as it is undermines our aggressors.

You do realize we dont need a large military for defence, we are strategicly positioned that the Navy (bad word for a Marine) and Airforce can thwart any attempts for invasion of the US continent.

What good is an isolated continent cut off from its trading partners? Just because you can keep the enemy outside the gates doesn't mean you're safe- they can lay siege and starve you to death.

We need to do whats right for the American people, for corporate America has proven they do not care what happens to us, as long as they can shift the power from us to the next most profitable nation. They my friend have there eye on the next prize, that being China.

Agreed, but how do we check China? I believe that the key to undermining China is to ally closely with India and open up markets for India in East Africa. We need a strong military with global reach to bring stability to potential partners and protect our investments there so that we can open up new resources to help alternative friends (as opposed to China) stay competitive so that we can enjoy mutually beneficial relationships with powers whos intentions are more honorable than Chinas. We're going to have to step on the toes of China, multinational corporations, and many nations who have a stake in those corporations. We're going to have to be able to go into tough places and carve out a future for ourselves and defend it.

In my opinion, America's survival hinges on control of Iran and Iraq, stability and development (which means political engineering, sometimes by military means) in East Africa, and as a consequence close ties with India and secondarily Russia (on a more uneasy level). We must make a nitche for ourselves in such a world as the technological leaders- the master link in a chain of mutual colonization if you will, whereby our advanced finished goods are traded for more generic Indian finished goods, which creates the budget for resources from Africa which makes the above possible. We have to take China out of the loop and establish fair and mutual relationships, and we're going to have to twist some arms and stare down some rivals to make it happen. We get in OK with India and Russia and we have much less to fear from Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba. Offense is Defense. Defense is offense.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by D

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by The Vagabond(and not all of them are white christians either).

btw, Jesus was colorblind.

Just a bit curious, but where in the Bible does it say that or is it supposed to be a joke?

Jesus did not love with respect to color or race....the gift is for all.

Ah I get it now.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
In my opinion, America's survival hinges on control of Iran and Iraq, stability and development (which means political engineering, sometimes by military means) in East Africa, and as a consequence close ties with India and secondarily Russia (on a more uneasy level). We must make a nitche for ourselves in such a world as the technological leaders- the master link in a chain of mutual colonization if you will, whereby our advanced finished goods are traded for more generic Indian finished goods, which creates the budget for resources from Africa which makes the above possible. We have to take China out of the loop and establish fair and mutual relationships, and we're going to have to twist some arms and stare down some rivals to make it happen. We get in OK with India and Russia and we have much less to fear from Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba. Offense is Defense. Defense is offense.

I agree

Hope this doesnt make you a target in here.........

Originally posted by D


Ah I get it now.

cool......

[edit on 15-8-2005 by edsinger]

Ok, now for a realistic way to win. This, of course, if your definition of winning is what is best for the Iraqi people.

Obviously, US troops are no longer the solution. No matter how noble our goals, we can now only be perceived as a hindrance for a better life for the Iraqi people.

We need other nations help. We need blue helmets. How do we do this? We bribe. We need to divvy up the contracts that supply food, water, electricity, re-building, oil, farming, etc, among countries that will pledge troops. The countries can even justify troops by saying they need to protect their contractors.

Iraq would have security. The foreign troops wouldn't see so much animosity since they aren't US troops.

Of course that will never happen, since money is the motivating factor, not the future of Iraqis.

Originally posted by curmeWe need other nations help. We need blue helmets.

You got to be kidding!


There goes ANY credibility you had with me......I mean the UN could screw up a wet dream....Look at Africa......

Oh man what a joke that was!