Constitutional Right to emit radiation?

[Cryozombie]

I am trying to understand your ideology, and I have a specific question. With respect to the amount of hatred that certain radical elements have for the US, especially in the Middle East but also elsewhere in the world, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely radical Islam (at least in the Middle East) demonizing all that is not Islam? Are there other factors involved? Do you believe that the US has ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in these regions involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused these people to resent, or even hate us? Do you believe that the US is mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause these people to hate us? Do you believe that the US has any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means we as a nation give up control of some natural resources that we might have taken for ourselves? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify your beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.

You make an interesting point, and one I cannot completely disagree with, however Can I counter question with the same one, asking if they maybe have done the same?

With respect to the amount of hatred that American supposedly have for Middle Easterners, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely Elietism demonizing all that is Islam? Are there other factors involved? Do you believe that the people there have ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in the west involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused us to resent, or even hate them? Do you believe that they are mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause us to hate/mistrust them? Do you believe that they have any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means they give up some ideals that they feel they have a God Given Duty to? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify YOUR beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.

 

[Flying Crane]

You make an interesting point, and one I cannot completely disagree with, however Can I counter question with the same one, asking if they maybe have done the same?

With respect to the amount of hatred that American supposedly have for Middle Easterners, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely Elietism demonizing all that is Islam? Are there other factors involved? Do you believe that the people there have ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in the west involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused us to resent, or even hate them? Do you believe that they are mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause us to hate/mistrust them? Do you believe that they have any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means they give up some ideals that they feel they have a God Given Duty to? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify YOUR beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.

Fair enough. I think all nations have an obligation to treat other nations with respect, including respecting our differences. I don't think anybody is guilt-free here. I think we have a series of "eye for an eye" events, the latest of which is the US invasion of Iraq as misdirected retaliation for the attacks of 9/11 (At least that is part of the government's story to the public). The attacks of 9/11 were in retaliation for the fact that the US has military bases in some of the holiest regions of the Muslim world, and for the fact that the US abandoned people like Bin Laden after supporting him for years and did not help rebuild the region after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from their lengthy occupation of Afghanistan. Yes, they have struck at us, as we have struck at and manipulated them.

However, I think overall the Western nations, including (but not exclusively) the US, have been in a much stronger position over the decades to manipulate, exploit, control, and push around these other nations, since the US is far far stronger, and has a far far greater rate of natural resources consumption. This has given us the incentive to exert control and pressure on other nations, especially where natural resources like oil are concerned. In the early and mid parts of the 20th centuries, the Western nations, including the US, carved up the Middle East into political entities that were designed to meet our needs, especially with regards to oil. Much of the resentment that people of this region feel toward the US and other Western nations stems from this era, along with the establishment of Israel.

Did these nations or groups ever invade the US? Did they ever manipulate US economy and take US natural resources for their gain? Did they ever set up a puppet government in the US? Did they ever carve up the US and establish new nations designed to fulfill their economic needs? The answer to these questions is "no".

Have they preached hate against the US based on religion? Have they struck at us, and caused injury to members of our population and destruction to our property? yes, but primarily in response to the injuries that we have been doing to them for decades, at least in my opinion.

 

[Cryozombie]

I agree with almost all of that...

I was curious how you felt, as I have been told many times that we are soley responsible and that the way we feel is wrong because its such a small, radical group of them clouding our vision on the whole peoples.

It's good to know where people stand.

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree with almost all of that...

I was curious how you felt, as I have been told many times that we are soley responsible and that the way we feel is wrong because its such a small, radical group of them clouding our vision on the whole peoples.

It's good to know where people stand.

Thank you. I think my main message is that this is a very large, complicated issue and until we are willing to recognize it as such, we will be unable to devise reasonable and effective solutions.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I am trying to understand your ideology, and I have a specific question. With respect to the amount of hatred that certain radical elements have for the US, especially in the Middle East but also elsewhere in the world, to what do you attribute this? Is it purely radical Islam (at least in the Middle East) demonizing all that is not Islam? Are there other factors involved?

I attribute to a desire to pursue what they believe is their god-given mission...i.e. reassert control and dominance over the middle east, and renew Islam's glorious past. As to what they consider their justification, I believe it's rooted in Islams recent history. They were on the march, until they were turned back at the gates of Vienna a little over 4 centuries ago. Since then, they feel that the western world's progress, and their stagnation, is an insult, and a judgement by god that they have not been devoit enough. Islam teaches that there exist only two abodes, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. The US represents the Abode of War, and as the most powerful nation among what they perceive as the west, which is standing in the way of a second golden age of Islam, we are the nation to beat first.

Do you believe that the US has ever in the last 100 years or so, done anything in these regions involving politics, or natural resources, or economics or anything else, that might have caused these people to resent, or even hate us? Do you believe that the US is mostly, or even completely innocent of actions that would cause these people to hate us? Do you believe that the US has any obligation to treat the rest of the world with a sense of global fairness and respect, even if it means we as a nation give up control of some natural resources that we might have taken for ourselves? Is there something else, that I have completely missed? If you could clarify your beliefs with regards to these points, I would appreciate it.

I believe the US just happens to be the flag-bearer of western civilization in the minds of the radical Islamic world right now. Islam has been at nearl constant war with the west for over a thousand years. In 1899 it was the British who were the standard bearers, when they broke the back of an Islamic army an Omdurman, when the radical forces of the Mahdi fought their last battle.

Do I believe the US is innocent of actions that would cause them to hate us? I believe the very question is loaded with a false assumption. The fundamentalists of the Islamic world will hate ANY power that stands in the way of renewing the Islamic empire to it's former glory. That is why bin Laden is called 'the Sheik' by his followers, it is why he sees a new Pan-Islamic caliphate as the future of the Arab world.

Every tin-pot dictator and religious fundamentalist in the middle east has tried to tap in to the Arab desire to see a reemergent Islamic empire, be it secular (in the case of Saddam, the Ba'athists and the other Fascists) or religious (in the case of the Shiite Shah, and the Wahhabist al-Qaeda). You misunderstand....every place that fundamentalist islam touches the non-Islamic world, the result is WAR.

It hurts certain egalitarian principles to even remotely believe that a large minority of the Islamic world will fight ANY and ALL who oppose their ambitions. The US is now the poster child for the western world. Before, they fought the Soviets, then the British and French. It's an age old story. If you believe by playing nice and saying in our own sandbox it will bring peace, your are ignorant of certain historical realities. Paris burned, and Europe hasn't heard the last of this problem.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Fair enough. I think all nations have an obligation to treat other nations with respect, including respecting our differences. I don't think anybody is guilt-free here.

Guilt has very little to do wit it.

I think we have a series of "eye for an eye" events, the latest of which is the US invasion of Iraq as misdirected retaliation for the attacks of 9/11 (At least that is part of the government's story to the public).

Wrong. It is the attempt of some to make a strawman argument, claiming that Iraq was about 9/11. Iraq was a problem LONG BEFORE 9/11. Iraq was invaded because it was time to either put up or shut up and leave on the Saddam problem. The timing was determined by the fact that we either A) Dealt with Saddam at that point, when we had the political capital or B) We let him off the hook, and waited to see what happened.

The attacks of 9/11 were in retaliation for the fact that the US has military bases in some of the holiest regions of the Muslim world, and for the fact that the US abandoned people like Bin Laden after supporting him for years and did not help rebuild the region after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from their lengthy occupation of Afghanistan. Yes, they have struck at us, as we have struck at and manipulated them.

Again, wrong. bin Laden wasn't so much angry about the military bases, the problem is that he sees the US as being responsible for shoring up the House of Saud. Why does bin Laden care? Well, he wants to topple the House of Saud, so that he can install of the seat of a new Pan-Arab Caliphate in Saudi Arabia.

As for the US abandoning bin Laden, that is partially true, however, this is not why bin Laden is angry with the US. Anger has little to do with it. bin Laden, and the other members of al-Qaeda and that whole former segment of the mujahadeen, feel that they, singlehandedly, defeated the Soviet Union. In the minds of the islamic world, the Soviet Union ALWAYS represented the more dangerous of the two super-powers. If they could defeat the Soviet Union, then they could surely defeat the US, which they perceived as a paper-tiger.

The attack of 9/11 was designed to draw the US in to another Afghan quagmire, so that the US could be defeated Soviet style. What happened, however, was not according to bin Laden's plan.

However, I think overall the Western nations, including (but not exclusively) the US, have been in a much stronger position over the decades to manipulate, exploit, control, and push around these other nations, since the US is far far stronger, and has a far far greater rate of natural resources consumption.

Meaning, that the western world has been more successful in gaining and securing influence. That has not always been the case. It was Islam on the march for most of it's history. Suddenly demanding that EVERYONE play nice, will not stop those who desire to expand, from doing so. That we may have lost the will to decide the course of world history, doesn't mean others haven't lost the will to take our place.

This has given us the incentive to exert control and pressure on other nations, especially where natural resources like oil are concerned. In the early and mid parts of the 20th centuries, the Western nations, including the US, carved up the Middle East into political entities that were designed to meet our needs, especially with regards to oil. Much of the resentment that people of this region feel toward the US and other Western nations stems from this era, along with the establishment of Israel.

Before the western countries came, the Ottoman empire was in the decline, and the nations of the middle east were full of semi-nomadic civilizations, with just a few cities. The only reason that oil came in to the equation, was that western countries discovered it, and developed an infrastructure in the middle east to develop it. When it became profitable, the leaders of those nations desired to nationalize it. Of course, they would never have gotten anything out of it, if we had not gone there and found it to begin with. So, what prosperity they have at ALL at this point, is a direct result of western influence. That point always gets ignored.

Did these nations or groups ever invade the US? Did they ever manipulate US economy and take US natural resources for their gain? Did they ever set up a puppet government in the US? Did they ever carve up the US and establish new nations designed to fulfill their economic needs? The answer to these questions is "no".

Again, irrelavent question. They don't see the US as a singular entity, but as a representative of the western world in general. So, it's better to ask the question this way. 'Did these nations or groups ever invade the western world'? Yes, many times. They ruled Spain for centuries, they expanded throughout Europe. It was only after they began falling behind technologically, that the forces of Islam began to receed. They marched to the gates of Vienna, and then began to decline. It wasn't lack of will, it was loss of ability, that resulted in the islamic world's decline. Oil gave them a valuable resource to attempt to recover that lost empire. That you seek to seperate the US from the western world in general is only the desire to, as the Europeans hope to, make this solely about the US. However, history shows that mentality is a HUGE error.

Have they preached hate against the US based on religion? Have they struck at us, and caused injury to members of our population and destruction to our property? yes, but primarily in response to the injuries that we have been doing to them for decades, at least in my opinion.

Primarily in a desire to return to a glorious imperial past. Have you actually listened to bin Laden? He isn't saying 'Allow us to live in peace'. This is the kind of appeasement talke we have seen in the past. The idea that the other side is simply wanting a concession, and that if we give them what they want, they'll put down their arms. Appeasement does not work. The goal of bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and many, many fundamentalist Islamists, as well as Iran (on a Shiite model) is the creation of a Pan-Islamic superstate, stretching across the Islamic world. What's more, al-Qaeda seeks to expand Islamic interests in places where it is developing a large foothold, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, various other Asian nations. The motive to expand the boundaries of this future Pan-Islamic Empire is clear.

The blindness that much of the west has to this, however, is that we've adopted an 'us versus us' mentality, where we think that we are our the only enemies around. We see that in the US. Democrats believe that Republicans are the big threat, and vice-versa. Further, those on the left have embraced the marxist model, where all conflict is as a result of wealth inequality, so they see the Islamic Fundamentalist issue as merely a response to western wealth and imequalities. It blinds them to a wider reality. The world is much more complicated than that.

 

[Flying Crane]

I attribute to a desire to pursue what they believe is their god-given mission...i.e. reassert control and dominance over the middle east, and renew Islam's glorious past. As to what they consider their justification, I believe it's rooted in Islams recent history. They were on the march, until they were turned back at the gates of Vienna a little over 4 centuries ago. Since then, they feel that the western world's progress, and their stagnation, is an insult, and a judgement by god that they have not been devoit enough. Islam teaches that there exist only two abodes, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. The US represents the Abode of War, and as the most powerful nation among what they perceive as the west, which is standing in the way of a second golden age of Islam, we are the nation to beat first.

I believe the US just happens to be the flag-bearer of western civilization in the minds of the radical Islamic world right now. Islam has been at nearl constant war with the west for over a thousand years. In 1899 it was the British who were the standard bearers, when they broke the back of an Islamic army an Omdurman, when the radical forces of the Mahdi fought their last battle.

Do I believe the US is innocent of actions that would cause them to hate us? I believe the very question is loaded with a false assumption. The fundamentalists of the Islamic world will hate ANY power that stands in the way of renewing the Islamic empire to it's former glory. That is why bin Laden is called 'the Sheik' by his followers, it is why he sees a new Pan-Islamic caliphate as the future of the Arab world.

Every tin-pot dictator and religious fundamentalist in the middle east has tried to tap in to the Arab desire to see a reemergent Islamic empire, be it secular (in the case of Saddam, the Ba'athists and the other Fascists) or religious (in the case of the Shiite Shah, and the Wahhabist al-Qaeda). You misunderstand....every place that fundamentalist islam touches the non-Islamic world, the result is WAR.

It hurts certain egalitarian principles to even remotely believe that a large minority of the Islamic world will fight ANY and ALL who oppose their ambitions. The US is now the poster child for the western world. Before, they fought the Soviets, then the British and French. It's an age old story. If you believe by playing nice and saying in our own sandbox it will bring peace, your are ignorant of certain historical realities. Paris burned, and Europe hasn't heard the last of this problem.

You are right: we have very different perspectives on this.

 

[Flying Crane]

Guilt has very little to do wit it.

Wrong. It is the attempt of some to make a strawman argument, claiming that Iraq was about 9/11. Iraq was a problem LONG BEFORE 9/11. Iraq was invaded because it was time to either put up or shut up and leave on the Saddam problem. The timing was determined by the fact that we either A) Dealt with Saddam at that point, when we had the political capital or B) We let him off the hook, and waited to see what happened.

Again, wrong. bin Laden wasn't so much angry about the military bases, the problem is that he sees the US as being responsible for shoring up the House of Saud. Why does bin Laden care? Well, he wants to topple the House of Saud, so that he can install of the seat of a new Pan-Arab Caliphate in Saudi Arabia.

As for the US abandoning bin Laden, that is partially true, however, this is not why bin Laden is angry with the US. Anger has little to do with it. bin Laden, and the other members of al-Qaeda and that whole former segment of the mujahadeen, feel that they, singlehandedly, defeated the Soviet Union. In the minds of the islamic world, the Soviet Union ALWAYS represented the more dangerous of the two super-powers. If they could defeat the Soviet Union, then they could surely defeat the US, which they perceived as a paper-tiger.

The attack of 9/11 was designed to draw the US in to another Afghan quagmire, so that the US could be defeated Soviet style. What happened, however, was not according to bin Laden's plan.

Meaning, that the western world has been more successful in gaining and securing influence. That has not always been the case. It was Islam on the march for most of it's history. Suddenly demanding that EVERYONE play nice, will not stop those who desire to expand, from doing so. That we may have lost the will to decide the course of world history, doesn't mean others haven't lost the will to take our place.

Before the western countries came, the Ottoman empire was in the decline, and the nations of the middle east were full of semi-nomadic civilizations, with just a few cities. The only reason that oil came in to the equation, was that western countries discovered it, and developed an infrastructure in the middle east to develop it. When it became profitable, the leaders of those nations desired to nationalize it. Of course, they would never have gotten anything out of it, if we had not gone there and found it to begin with. So, what prosperity they have at ALL at this point, is a direct result of western influence. That point always gets ignored.

Again, irrelavent question. They don't see the US as a singular entity, but as a representative of the western world in general. So, it's better to ask the question this way. 'Did these nations or groups ever invade the western world'? Yes, many times. They ruled Spain for centuries, they expanded throughout Europe. It was only after they began falling behind technologically, that the forces of Islam began to receed. They marched to the gates of Vienna, and then began to decline. It wasn't lack of will, it was loss of ability, that resulted in the islamic world's decline. Oil gave them a valuable resource to attempt to recover that lost empire. That you seek to seperate the US from the western world in general is only the desire to, as the Europeans hope to, make this solely about the US. However, history shows that mentality is a HUGE error.

Primarily in a desire to return to a glorious imperial past. Have you actually listened to bin Laden? He isn't saying 'Allow us to live in peace'. This is the kind of appeasement talke we have seen in the past. The idea that the other side is simply wanting a concession, and that if we give them what they want, they'll put down their arms. Appeasement does not work. The goal of bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and many, many fundamentalist Islamists, as well as Iran (on a Shiite model) is the creation of a Pan-Islamic superstate, stretching across the Islamic world. What's more, al-Qaeda seeks to expand Islamic interests in places where it is developing a large foothold, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, various other Asian nations. The motive to expand the boundaries of this future Pan-Islamic Empire is clear.

The blindness that much of the west has to this, however, is that we've adopted an 'us versus us' mentality, where we think that we are our the only enemies around. We see that in the US. Democrats believe that Republicans are the big threat, and vice-versa. Further, those on the left have embraced the marxist model, where all conflict is as a result of wealth inequality, so they see the Islamic Fundamentalist issue as merely a response to western wealth and imequalities. It blinds them to a wider reality. The world is much more complicated than that.

So in the larger scope of the issue, do you have any thoughts on how the US should best handle the situation, particularly with regards to the threat from those in the Middle East who wish to do us harm?

 

[sgtmac_46]

So in the larger scope of the issue, do you have any thoughts on how the US should best handle the situation, particularly with regards to the threat from those in the Middle East who wish to do us harm?

1) Support secular (preferably democratic) forces in the middle east.
2) Continue overt and covert actions against terrorist groups
3) Acknowledge that the threat is greater than 'just a few criminals'. That, in reality, it is a large movement.
4) Understand that several governments in the middle east are duplicitous.
5) Do EVERYTHING in our power to prevent development and production of nuclear weapons technology.
6) Covertly support anti-government forces in places like Iran (Yes, Persian, not Arab, but Islamic none-the-less).
8) Spend money to support secular education,more important than ending poverty....it is belief that drives this movement, not poverty.
9) And last but not least, work to end dependency on Arab oil. It is oil revenues that fuel terrorists and despots alike. It wasn't poverty that drives the conflict in the Islamic nations of the middle east, but easy revenue produced without having to modernize in thought and action. Without oil, they'd either be forced to join at least the 20th century, or they'd at least be as harmless as sub-saharan africa. Either way, it isn't poverty and exploitation, but easy revenue.

A few more might come to mind, but these are what pop in my head immediately.

 

[Flying Crane]

1) Support secular (preferably democratic) forces in the middle east.
2) Continue overt and covert actions against terrorist groups
3) Acknowledge that the threat is greater than 'just a few criminals'. That, in reality, it is a large movement.
4) Understand that several governments in the middle east are duplicitous.
5) Do EVERYTHING in our power to prevent development and production of nuclear weapons technology.
6) Covertly support anti-government forces in places like Iran (Yes, Persian, not Arab, but Islamic none-the-less).
8) Spend money to support secular education,more important than ending poverty....it is belief that drives this movement, not poverty.
9) And last but not least, work to end dependency on Arab oil. It is oil revenues that fuel terrorists and despots alike. It wasn't poverty that drives the conflict in the Islamic nations of the middle east, but easy revenue produced without having to modernize in thought and action. Without oil, they'd either be forced to join at least the 20th century, or they'd at least be as harmless as sub-saharan africa. Either way, it isn't poverty and exploitation, but easy revenue.

A few more might come to mind, but these are what pop in my head immediately.

1. OK, by support I would say encourage, not support militarily or thru espionage/CIA activity. When we get involved on that level, I believe it encourages more hatred directed at the US. Those who don't hate us already will begin to.

2. OK, but we are walking a fine line between battling "terrorist" groups and targeting a whole racial group. We need to identify specific individuals and groups who might have a realistic capability of attacking us and direct our efforts against them, without demonizing a whole group who don't pose a threat. This is both within the US borders, and without.

3. The threat is large because in many ways we have added fuel to the fire. I am willing to accept that there are those within Radical Islam who trace their hatred of the West back as far as the Crusades. But Islam itself does not teach violence any more than Christianity does, yet both have been used many times to justify war and many other atrocities. Those who do so are twisting the message of the faith. They are enjoying a level of success and growth in their movement in large part because the West has given them reasons to hate us (see my previous posts). People who otherwise would not join their movement do so out of frustration with our own actions. If we didn't give them such reasons, their movement would be very small and ineffectual.

4. Maybe true, but so is our own government. We cloak the invastion of Iraq with bringing them democracy, when it is really about oil. If they ever succeed in establishing a viable democracy that is a fine afterthought, but it really doesn't matter to our government, as long as we have control of the oil.

5. Agreed, including a real commitment on our part, and the part of our allies, to fully eliminate our own nuclear arsenal. Those in the Middle East shouldn't have them, but neither should we.

6. Not sure I can agree here. This is the kind of meddling in their affairs that adds fuel to the fire and causes Fence Sitters to join the radical elements who hate us. They may well have horrible regimes, but trying to tear it down and rebuild one of our own plan, at the barrel of a gun, will never be accepted by those people. While I hate the Bush administration, I would never support a coalition of Canada, Mexico, France, and Germany if they decided to invade the US, destroy our government and install one that they felt, in their infinite wisdom, was better for us. Nobody here would accept that, and we would all be "insergents" fighting the occupiers.

8. OK but this could be seen as an attack on their religion. Might cause a lot of trouble. I see your point, but I am wondering how it could be successful.

9. Agreed, but perhaps for different reasons. We need to end dependency on a non-renewable resource. Eventually we will use it up. No one knows for sure when, but I suspect it could be sooner than we would like to believe. Also, this is what drives US involvement in the Middle East. End this involvement and develop a new relationship based on respect and trust, and the Radical movements that hate the US will lose their strength.

Thoughts?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I think that if you base all your decisions on not 'offending' anybody you make no decisions. Someone wil always find reason to be offended. I would never elect someone whos platform was all about 'not offending' people. Being in charge means having to make decisions about who the risk of offending is worth it.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think that if you base all your decisions on not 'offending' anybody you make no decisions. Someone wil always find reason to be offended. I would never elect someone whos platform was all about 'not offending' people. Being in charge means having to make decisions about who the risk of offending is worth it.

Showing respect and a sense of fairness in the international community is not the same thing as being afraid of offending anyone. Go back and read some of these posts a little more closely.

 

[Cryozombie]

Showing respect and a sense of fairness in the international community is not the same thing as being afraid of offending anyone. Go back and read some of these posts a little more closely.

I agree with this statement, however I have to point out somtimes this policy can be bad too...

What if The "SgtMacites" who worship the great god Sgtmac and the "flyingcraneites" who worship the great god Flying Crane are at war...

and you, thru a policy of communtity and fairness offer food to the Flyingcraneites beacuse the war has created a famine there... and that makes the Sgtmacites hate you on principle? The only way to ensure somthing like that never happens is a total policy of non-involvement, and suppose you adopt that and the Flyingcraneites decide to hate you because you DIDNT give them food?

Damn... there is just NO way to win.

Oh and BTW, not trying to insult anyone you two are just on opposite sides of the spectrum so I used your names

 

[Flying Crane]

Damn... there is just NO way to win.

This does seem to be a big truth. Appreciate the thought.

 

[Flying Crane]

What if The "SgtMacites" who worship the great god Sgtmac and the "flyingcraneites" who worship the great god Flying Crane are at war...

Wow, I'm a god now. This is much better than getting a lousy old Tenth Degree Grandmaster Professor Soke Black and Red Checkerboard Belt! Thanks, man!

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree with this statement, however I have to point out somtimes this policy can be bad too...

What if The "SgtMacites" who worship the great god Sgtmac and the "flyingcraneites" who worship the great god Flying Crane are at war...

and you, thru a policy of communtity and fairness offer food to the Flyingcraneites beacuse the war has created a famine there... and that makes the Sgtmacites hate you on principle? The only way to ensure somthing like that never happens is a total policy of non-involvement, and suppose you adopt that and the Flyingcraneites decide to hate you because you DIDNT give them food?

Damn... there is just NO way to win.

Oh and BTW, not trying to insult anyone you two are just on opposite sides of the spectrum so I used your names

OK, Good point, politics are always sticky and I clearly don't have all the answers. It can be a difficult dance but we do our best.

But lets apply your example of two antagonists and a third party, to a real example of our own. When the US was preparing to start a war with Iraq, our allies gave us strong criticism and several were strongly against the move. The response of our government was "either you are with us, or you are against us". Essentially, we told our allies that because they disagreed with our intentions, they were now our enemies also.

We should feel lucky that we had such good friends who were willing to stand up and tell us when they thought we were wrong. Those must be very strong friends to do that. Our government might still disagree with them and carry out their plans, but at least respect their right to disagree with us. Much friction occurred between the Pentagon and nations like France and Germany because of the antagonistic position our government took, regarding their objections to our war in Iraq. Instead of respecting their disagreement, we started calling French Fries "Freedom Fries". Silly and pointless, total lack of respect. Sometimes I wonder that we have allies at all.

 

[sgtmac_46]

OK, Good point, politics are always sticky and I clearly don't have all the answers. It can be a difficult dance but we do our best.

But lets apply your example of two antagonists and a third party, to a real example of our own. When the US was preparing to start a war with Iraq, our allies gave us strong criticism and several were strongly against the move. The response of our government was "either you are with us, or you are against us". Essentially, we told our allies that because they disagreed with our intentions, they were now our enemies also.

The 'with us or against us' statement has been taken vastly out of context. That statement was a direct challenge to any regime on the planet that overtly or covertly supported terrorism against the United States. I think it's a valid statement of intent. As for our 'friends' many of them opposed for business reasons. They continued to make billions of the Saddam regime, and more than a couple of them wanted to increase their investments in Saddam's Iraq.

We should feel lucky that we had such good friends who were willing to stand up and tell us when they thought we were wrong. Those must be very strong friends to do that. Our government might still disagree with them and carry out their plans, but at least respect their right to disagree with us. Much friction occurred between the Pentagon and nations like France and Germany because of the antagonistic position our government took, regarding their objections to our war in Iraq. Instead of respecting their disagreement, we started calling French Fries "Freedom Fries". Silly and pointless, total lack of respect. Sometimes I wonder that we have allies at all.

Yes, with friends like those...... France and Germany, along with Russia, had much to gain by maintaining the status quo with Iraq. That they convinced their populations that their reasons for opposing the Iraq war were humanitarian, are an indication of just how right the myth of free European media isn't. Why should we respect a disingenuous disagreement who's REAL basis is continued profit?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The 'with us or against us' statement has been taken vastly out of context.

I think it has been intentionally taken out of context.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think it has been intentionally taken out of context.

Yeah, pretty much.