81 replies to this topic

[Anti-Am]

Time to let the middle east sort out its own problems and fight its own civil wars. I dont really care about that place or the people that live there... If I thought 5 dollars could fix all the problems in the middle east Id buy a burger with it instead.

Totally agree.

[dre]

A lot of people, including women and children are dying. Are you suggesting they should just continue to be killed until someone you approve of comes along to save them?

A lot of women and children are dying everywhere. If we jerk at the knees and spend billions of dollars every time we see some unpleasant images from someone elses civil war we wont last.

And if you are really worried about women and children are dying you could prevent 1000 times as much death for a fraction of the cost by spending that money on aid. Iv seen estimates that we could literally end world hunger for less than 50 billion dollars per year.

Let Syria have its civil war... Such conflicts are ugly and they might hurt your feelings and make you all emotional inside, but these things just happen, unfortunately... Many countries have had civil wars and internal conflicts. Just gotta let them play out.

For god sakes stop pretending that all this military interventionalism has anything at all to do with women or children dying. It causes MORE women and children to die not less.

[dre]

So since you don't approve of America's motives, what DO you suggest?

I would take the money that might be wasted on wrong-headed world policing, and use it build a bridge here in Canada, or refurbish an aging nuclear plant, or upgrade telecommunications infrastructure, or pay down some debt, and use it to help us deal with the huge impending cost of caring for an aging population, or improve our education system, or spend it on things like stem cell research or nano technology research.

[bleeding heart]

we are stupid enough to believe what various dissidents tell us... Or we just find it politically convenient to believe it.

I personally believe it is more #2 than #1.

The idea that we are "good guys" fooled into violence by crafty third-worlders....seems a little...over the line, you might say.

I think a good deal of public support is generated honestly...from the lies. Yes, certainly.

But listening to Colin Powell recently on "The Daily Show" blaming his self-evident descent into lies and bone-deep trickery at the UN on intelligence agencies--and on Congress! (an easy target) was fascinating. He knew he was lying. Cheney knew it. Wolfowitz knew it. Blair knew it. Bush...probably knew it.

Chretien knew it. The East European "coalition of the willing" (all going in direct opposition to the will of their peoples) knew it was garbage. Knew it full well.

The (distinct global minority) of the civilians in the world who supported the war...yes, they presumably genuinely believed the lies.

At heart, they're Romantics.

Edited by bleeding heart, 13 June 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[GostHacked]

For god sakes stop pretending that all this military interventionalism has anything at all to do with women or children dying. It causes MORE women and children to die not less.

We know that if there was a civil war in Canada we'd be pretty pissed if there was unwanted outside interference. UN resolution to support the rebels, no fly zone, sanctions ect ect.

[GostHacked]

At heart, they're Romantics.

I don't think romantics would be a term I would use to describe those people.

[dre]

I personally believe it is more #2 than #1.

The idea that we are "good guys" fooled into violence by crafty third-worlders....seems a little...over the line, you might say.

I think a good deal of public support is generated honestly...from the lies. Yes, certainly.

But listening to Colin Powell recently on "The Daily Show" blaming his self-evident descent into lies and bone-deep trickery at the UN on intelligence agencies--and on Congress! (an easy target) was fascinating to watch. He knew he was lying. Cheney knew it. Wolfowitz knew it. Blair knew it. bush..probbaly knew it.

Chretien knew it. The East European "coalition of the willing" (all going in direct opposition to the will of their peoples) knew it was garbage.

The (distinct global minority) of the civilians in the world who supported the war...yes, they presumably genuinely believed the lies.

At heart, they're Romantics.

Yeah the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand why people see some of the grotesque imagery from various conflict zones and jerk at the knees, and support attempts to rectify these issues at ANY COST. You kinda gotta love em for it the problem is theyre thinking with their hearts and not their brains.

If "women and children death reduction" is in fact something we want to spend money on, then we should spend that money where we get the most "women and children death reduction" for our buck. And military interventionalism in almost all cases gets you the very worst bank for your buck and in most cases in fact increases the ammount of "women and children dying".

[bleeding heart]

I don't think romantics would be a term I would use to describe those people.

Maybe not, but I'm a generous sort.

[bleeding heart]

And military interventionalism in almost all cases gets you the very worst bank for your buck and in most cases in fact increases the ammount of "women and children dying".

There are no doubt exceptions...but you're right. We see it again and again.

That's why the "why don't you support the Iraqis' liberation from Saddam?" rhetoricians have slinked away on that particular argument.

[dre]

I don't think romantics would be a term I would use to describe those people.

I actually think most of them are good folks! How can it not pull at a persons heart strings to see this kind of suffering? Its a natural reaction: "OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"

Edited by dre, 13 June 2012 - 01:31 PM.

[Manny]

So since you don't approve of America's motives, what DO you suggest?

A lot of people, including women and children are dying. Are you suggesting they should just continue to be killed until someone you approve of comes along to save them?

You realize that in order for you to take your moral high ground innocents must die?

I know, I know! How about we send in a coalition and bomb the hell out of anybody that moves. But we're not purposely killing civilians, we'll be saving them from the bad guys.

So what if 1000x more people get killed than would have otherwise, if we'da left it alone. At least they died for a good cause, and they'll finally be free...

[Manny]

If we jerk at the knees and spend billions of dollars every time we see some unpleasant images from someone elses civil war we wont last.

That's right because, dare I say it, dare I say it... NO!
Let someone else say it.

[bleeding heart]

I know, I know! How about we send in a coalition and bomb the hell out of anybody that moves. But we're not purposely killing civilians, we'll be saving them from the bad guys.

So what if 1000x more people get killed than would have otherwise, if we'da left it alone. At least they died for a good cause, and they'll finally be free...

Exactly. These "humanitarians" sometimes get a bit confused, as when their humanitarianism gets politicized beyond recognition.

[Manny]

But listening to Colin Powell recently on "The Daily Show" blaming his self-evident descent into lies and bone-deep trickery at the UN on intelligence agencies--and on Congress! (an easy target) was fascinating. He knew he was lying. Cheney knew it. Wolfowitz knew it. Blair knew it. Bush...probably knew it.

And his problem is he continues to lie about it. He has convinced himself that it was still for the greater good, that the Iraqis are better off now than they would have been. he qualifies it by stating that Saddam would have eventually acquired weapons of mass destruction.

He does not say how that would happen, since the truth is that the United States provided Saddam with the technology for chemical warfare, and allowed him to use it against others. the reason he had it was thanks to them. I would like to see Powells response to that accusation. <squirm> <deflect>

[bleeding heart]

And his problem is he continues to lie about it. He has convinced himself that it was still for the greater good, that the Iraqis are better off now than they would have been. he qualifies it by stating that Saddam would have eventually acquired weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, well...if the choice is between his assertions, and admitting that he's a war criminal...why, that ain't no choice at all!