Madonna on the Iraq War

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>What exactly is wrong with our foreign policy that is causing terrorists to want to kill us?

Placing military bases in the "holy land".

Exactly what bases are you talking about? The ones in Saudi Arabia are there with Saudi permission. They wanted us to help protect them from the military aggression of some of their surrounding Islamic dictators. They didn't want Sadam to take over Kuwati or their own oil fields. They can kick us out any time they choose. The same is true with Turkey.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You guys who hate the Iraq war are sure good at saying generic stuff, but you just don't seem to have any real workable plan with details.

Ding ding ding....we have a winner. That's what we're trying to say. There's no such thing as a workable detailed plan to fight terrorism. Not one that's going to do any good, anyway. And especially not pre-emptive strikes.

Quote

What exactly is the "support structure" to which you refer, and how would you take it away?

The support structure is everyone in the world who is pissed at the US enough to look the other way when OBL hides in their neighbors house. You take it away by not pissing people off so much that they'd rather shield a terrorist than help the US.

Quote

How would you get those who know where OBL is, to reveal that info?

Don't make them hate us.

Quote

You don't have to get every one. Just enough so that they can't mount any decent operations. And key members in their leadership will take care of most of that.

That's a ridiculous notion and completely wrong. You HAVE to either get ALL of them, or you're not stopping anything. It doesn't take much to drive a truck full of explosives into a building. One person and a truck.

Quote

Ah yes, in other words, surrendure to them, and let them control how Americans live.

Ah yes, the cop out of those who want to live in some superiority bubble claiming that we are never wrong and if we do anything that would make terrorists stop wanting to kill us, no matter if that happens to be the right thing to do anyway, then we must NOT do it, because the terrorists like it.

Doing things specifically because it's the opposite of "what the terrrorists want us to do" is letting them control you. We should do things that are the right thing to do and not worry about if it's pissing off terrorists or not.

Quote

We should immediately outlaw Christianity. Women should be forbidden from getting an education, and should be treated like slaves. Pray to Allah. Relinquish our freedom and prosperity, and let Islamic extremists run our lives. Yeah, then they'll leave us alone, and it will all be worth it.

No, we should stop trying to persecute muslims, we should stop telling other countries how they should run their educational systems, or how much freedom and prosperity they should have, whether they like it or not. We should stop trying to change the lives of the muslim extremists. Let them do their thing and stop interfering and they won't give two shits about us.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>If they weren't fighting back, they would be extinct by now.

Nonsense. That's a wild guess on your part. The Indians and Pakistanis stopped fighting (finally) - are they still around? We stopped fighting in Viet Nam - are the US and the Vietnamese still around? The assumption that you must have war to survive has been proven false time and time again.

So you are staking your reputation on the theory that if the Israelis just throw down their guns and disband their military, that the Islamic militants will then decide to live in peace with them, and everyone will live happily ever after? Fairy Tales exist only in children's books.

The Indians and Pakistanis were on the verge of nuclear war with each other just last year. Have you forgotten already in your zeal to believe the kindness of human nature?

A lot of Vietnamese are dead, because of the North's ambition to take over the South. Just because they didn't massacre all of them, doesn't mean that a whole bunch didn't die.

Those who don't fight for their survival when attacked, die off, or are severely diminished.

The assumption that if you are pacifist, that everyone will leave you alone to live in peace, has been proven false time and time again.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Those who don't fight for their survival when attacked, die off, or are severely diminished.

And this is exactly what is going on in Iraq right now. Love them or hate them, you can't criticize a certain segment of the people in Iraq who are trying to fight off a foreign invading military force who is trying to impose their way of life on the people of Iraq. It works both ways you know.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

I see: you would let the UN control the security of America... Wonderful. The electorate just spoke on what they thought of that idea.

The U.N. doesn't give a shit about the U.S. Let them have their way, and they will suck us dry and feed us to the wolves. And you would let them.

Well - Either be part of the democratic process or not. Not just when it suits. (you asked what I would do!)

An as for foreign policy - changing support for various nations based on reward not whats right is about the bottom of it.

If US foreign policy was so loved - there wouldnt be such a problem - or is it just artistic disagreement to stars-stripes/red and blue that is fuelling the issue?

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[billvon 2,470]

>So you are staking your reputation on the theory that if the Israelis just
> throw down their guns and disband their military, that the Islamic
> militants will then decide to live in peace with them, and everyone will live
> happily ever after?

Of course not! The Israelis have been killing them for decades. It will take decades of de-escalation before either side can throw down their weapons.

>The Indians and Pakistanis were on the verge of nuclear war with each
> other just last year.

As we were with the USSR in the 60's. Who won that war? We both did, by not fighting it. See, we can learn.

>A lot of Vietnamese are dead, because of the North's ambition to take
> over the South. Just because they didn't massacre all of them, doesn't
> mean that a whole bunch didn't die.

Agreed. A whole bunch died in the war. Having another war would kill even more. Hence not having a lot of wars would seem to be a good strategy if your goal is not having lots of people die.

>The assumption that if you are pacifist, that everyone will leave you alone
>to live in peace, has been proven false time and time again.

I'm not a pacifist. I think that a strong armed forces, to deter attacks against the US, is critical. However, the idea that endless war produces peace, and only by killing can we prevent killing, is absurd. Our armed forces should be used to prevent people from attacking the US and going after people who do. They should not be used to try to impose our religion, philosophy and system of government on the rest of the world.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

You don't have to get every one. Just enough so that they can't mount any decent operations. And key members in their leadership will take care of most of that.

And taking them out turns them into a martry for the cause, or even a new prophet! Someone else will then come along and take their place and continue the cause.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Guest]

Quote

>If they weren't fighting back, they would be extinct by now.

Nonsense. That's a wild guess on your part. The Indians and Pakistanis stopped fighting (finally) - are they still around? We stopped fighting in Viet Nam - are the US and the Vietnamese still around? The assumption that you must have war to survive has been proven false time and time again.

I suppose that being invaded by five neighboring countries immediately upon establishment (1948) does tend to color judgement over there.

mh

.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

>What exactly is wrong with our foreign policy that is causing terrorists to want to kill us?

Placing military bases in the "holy land".

Exactly what bases are you talking about? The ones in Saudi Arabia are there with Saudi permission. They wanted us to help protect them from the military aggression of some of their surrounding Islamic dictators. They didn't want Sadam to take over Kuwati or their own oil fields. They can kick us out any time they choose. The same is true with Turkey.

The RIFWs think the Saudis are corrupt and should be overthrown, so that an Islamofascist state can be created there, and everywhere else.

It was the placing of foreign (American) troops over there that really pushed the RIFW/TW's hot-buttons, it's true. Add to the dramatic economic disparity and the hypocrisy of the government (where a starving man in the street gets his hand cut off for stealing a loaf of bread, but crimes comitted by the royal family get swept under the rug), and you've got a recipe for violence.

Since Iraq has been removed as a threat to Saudi Arabia, there is no longer a legitimate justification for our presence - US troops should be removed from Saudi territory - wonder what's taking so long?

Part of the answer is that it's an ugly, uncertain world, and we don't always get to choose who our friends will be, especially where powerful economic interests are concerned.

Europe is every bit as dependent upon Middle Eastern dead dinosaur guts for energy as we are.

It would be interesting to see wht would happen if the US suddenly quit the game, wouldn't it?

mh

.

[Guest]

Quote

I'm not a pacifist. I think that a strong armed forces, to deter attacks against the US, is critical. However, the idea that endless war produces peace, and only by killing can we prevent killing, is absurd. Our armed forces should be used to prevent people from attacking the US and going after people who do. They should not be used to try to impose our religion, philosophy and system of government on the rest of the world.

It worked for the Romans, why not for us? heh - keep the troops out on the frontier, away from the center of power. At least this way there won't be any more incidents like Waco.

And as for "impose our religion, philospohy and system of government on the rest of the world", well hell, the US has historically let other despots alone (or supported them) and is criticized for not doing anything, but when it finally does, it's condemned as interfering with their sovereign rights, yadda-yadda-yadda.

Machiavelli says - When you just can't win any respect, and are going to be criticized and condemned no matter what you do, you might as well act in your own self-interest - to whit: "It is better to be feared than loved".

.

[billvon 2,470]

>It worked for the Romans, why not for us?

Well, they did have a few minor problems towards the end, there.

>And as for "impose our religion, philospohy and system of
> government on the rest of the world", well hell, the US has
> historically let other despots alone (or supported them) and is
> criticized for not doing anything . . .

Of course. Heck, if the US cured AIDS and gave away the vaccine for free, we'd be criticized for trying to influence African elections. You have to do what's right, even if that means accepting some criticism (which there will always be.)

>Machiavelli says - When you just can't win any respect, and are going
> to be criticized and condemned no matter what you do, you might
> as well act in your own self-interest - to whit: "It is better to be
> feared than loved".

Oh, I agree. But Machiavelli's "The Prince" was a manual on how to conquer and hold a state, and how to subjugate the people who live there; be sure that you want that to be your goal before you start using Machiavelli to guide your actions.

[slug 1]

Quote

oh. she's kinda before my time, I guess. I know who she is, tho.

Cher tall rich babe with lots of short jokes about first husband.

R.I.P.

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If ultra successful multi-millionaires are really stupid morons, where does that leave you and me?

Fortunately this is America, where even stupid morons can get rich in the entertainment industry. Income does not necessarily correlate to intelligence.

If you honestly think that Cher or Madonna are "fucking idiots, stupid, or morons", the irony of the statement is lost on you.
Either of them probably make more serious business decisions in a week than most of us will make in a lifetime. It is pretty easy to be jealous of others' success.

Back on thread topic: I don't think the opinion of a celebrity is any more valuable than anyone elses in this area, but I also think she makes some insightful points.

But she doesn't agree with the folks in SC therefor shes...... you know all the bad things. Like the rest of the people that visit SC and don't get with the program man
R.I.P.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm not a pacifist. I think that a strong armed forces, to deter attacks against the US, is critical. However, the idea that endless war produces peace, and only by killing can we prevent killing, is absurd. Our armed forces should be used to prevent people from attacking the US and going after people who do.

So in WWII, you think we should have let the Japs have the Pacific, and let the Nazis have Europe, while we sat back and did nothing?

Killing Nazis is what made Europe free.
Killing Japs is what stopped thousands of episodes like Bataan and the rape of Nanking.

There are evil-doers in the world who don't give a whit about negotiation. When evil-doers are slaughtering their own citizens or their neighbors, the only way to stop them is with force. Neville Chamberlain found out how effective appeasement is. It seems that you haven't learned that lesson yet from history.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

taking them out (the terrorist leaders) turns them into a martry for the cause, or even a new prophet! Someone else will then come along and take their place and continue the cause.

So what do you think our response should be to Osama Bin Ladin? Nothing? Leave him alone and let him be free to continue to plan more attacks, from safe havens, with massive funding?

It seems to me that the current method is best: keeping him on the run and in hiding, with no safe havens, and confiscation of his funds, so that he is unable to mount any terror operations against us.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

taking them out (the terrorist leaders) turns them into a martry for the cause, or even a new prophet! Someone else will then come along and take their place and continue the cause.

So what do you think our response should be to Osama Bin Ladin? Nothing? Leave him alone and let him be free to continue to plan more attacks, from safe havens, with massive funding?

It seems to me that the current method is best: keeping him on the run and in hiding, with no safe havens, and confiscation of his funds, so that he is unable to mount any terror operations against us.

By attacking in a proactive manner you are lending proof to the "America is the great evil" rhetoric, but the reality is that someone like OBL can't be left alone. However, we had a unique situation after 9/11 and could have gone after him and his crew - the world had given us a blank check with the support we had.

Keeping him on the run, and keeping the insurgents on the run has spread us thin. Terrorism camps can now grow in other areas of the world because of how much focus we must now place in Iraq and Afghan. We should have kept our focus on the real threat.

Add to that the large amount of people we have pissed off along the way, the amount of families we have destroyed and we have now become one of the best recruiting tools for the terrorists.

I had a chance to talk to an Iraqi citizen today and told him I needed proof of his High School education. He then informed me that he could never get it to me since the school was destroyed in a bombing run, and then he added in "all in the name of freedom, huh?" There is a good chance this man will not be able to easily get into higher education without proof of his HS completion. His anger and frustration was very evident in his voice.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[JohnRich 4]

"If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you."
- Benjamin Franklin

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

"If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you."
- Benjamin Franklin

I never said inaction was the way to go John. I said we should think outside of the box, and not lead with a gun. Is that really asking too much?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I never said inaction was the way to go John. I said we should think outside of the box, and not lead with a gun. Is that really asking too much?

I've yet to see you state any alternative plan. All I've seen from you is criticism of what we're doing now.

----------------------------

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better persons than himself."
- John Stuart Mills

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I've yet to see you state any alternative plan. All I've seen from you is criticism of what we're doing now.

And I've yet to see from you a real reason on why we are taking the best course of action? I'm sure you can find another quote to not help me understand.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 2,470]

>"If ye love wealth greater than liberty. . .

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
-Wilfred Owen

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.
-Ernest Hemingway

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
-Gandhi

I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.
-George McGovern

An unjust peace is better than a just war.
-Marcus Tullius Cicero

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
-Ronald Reagan

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'"
-Abraham Lincoln

We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk.
-Eleanor Roosevelt

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
-Martin Luther King

[Paulipod 0]

Some nice quotes there Bill...

I wonder if we'll ever use quotes from GWB or Mr Blair in the same way?

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[billvon 2,470]

>I wonder if we'll ever use quotes from GWB or Mr Blair in the same way?

Who knows? Don't misunderestimate them!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. - Ernest Hemingway

Note that he admits that some wars are necessary and justified. To *not* fight some wars would be an even bigger crime.

Quote

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy? - Gandhi

The difference is that if you let the totalitarians rule, death will continue, and the future will be bleak. But if you let liberty win, then the future is a far better life.

As for Ghandi:

"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."
- Mohandas Gandhi

Quote

We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk. - Eleanor Roosevelt

And if the terrorists aren't interested in talking, but only killing, what would Eleanor advise then?

[billvon 2,470]

>Note that he admits that some wars are necessary and justified.
>To *not* fight some wars would be an even bigger crime.

Agreed. The war in Afghanistan would be a good example of a justified war.

>The difference is that if you let the totalitarians rule, death will continue,
> and the future will be bleak. But if you let liberty win, then the future is a
> far better life.

If liberty arrives on the nose of a 1000 pound bomb, the person "liberated" is no better off than a person killed by Hussein - which is Gandhi's point. If we end up killing off (or causing the deaths of) 300,000 Iraqis in the process of 'liberating' them we are worse than Saddam. Let's hope we don't.

>And if the terrorists aren't interested in talking, but only killing, what
>would Eleanor advise then?

I suspect she would say to stop them, not descend to their level. That would be what she referred to by "dying together."