"Atom bomb attacks were inevitable"

[Rag-Doll 0]

 

Soubs,

I didn't say thay you were grouping B, H and S together. Okyuki did that and that was what prompted my response. As I say above, I agree that Iraq is pure stupidity. But of course they had a plan to put in place a form of government after they removed Saddam. They held elections and they set up government insitutions. Do you think these ideas only occurred to them after the landed in the country?

 

People view the "bringing democracy" justification as being some sort of alteristic action. But I don't think it is. I think the US (and the rest of the world) couldn't give a shit about how bad a foreign government treats its people. If they do care, it's generally not enough to do actually do anything about it. BUT, secular demoncracies don't usually spawn or support the kind of terrorists the middle east generates (england being something of an excepton). So secularising the middle east, offering alternatives forms of governments to people who have it pretty rough under the current dictatorships and theocracies will go a long way to reducing the breeding ground for islamic terrorism, if not the terrorists themselves. It is in the US (and the rest of the world's) interest to promote a democratic middle east because it helps protect them, the fact that it might improve the lives of the people in the middle east is a nice bonus but hardly a consideration. Just as it is not much of a consideration that the process will involve a lot of death and destruction for these people as the established orders fight back.

 

 

 

[Rag-Doll 0]

 Originally Posted By: Oyuki kigan

Rag-doll,

I was just saying that the methods involved in 'dragging the masses to war' were similar. Claim that we are under attack, that the enemy is evil, and that pacifist actions endanger the country.

I understand now and completely agree with what you're saying.

[bobby12 0]

My point was that people cant seperate idealism from realism.

 

The idealistic say 'war is bad'.

 

The realistic say 'war is bad, but it is inevitable - better to avoid being on the losing side'.

 

Its like the prisoner's dilemma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma#The_classical_prisoner.27s_dilemma

 

I put myself on the side of the realists, which I think is a brave thing to say because it is an unpleasant and unpopular thing to say. But in reality I think all people are realists, when push comes to shove. We are just extremely lucky and can get away with pretending to be idealists all our life.

 

The thought of being in a war is abhorrant to me. That is why I'm glad our soldiers are out there doing it instead of me, protecting me from being *forced* to go to war like the vietnamese etc had to. Westerners like most of us are extremely lucky people because we are not forced to go to war, however understand that this is because of the aggressive nature of our nations. To pay for our luxurious and safe way of life, common people in other countries are being killed.

[Rag-Doll 0]

 Originally Posted By: bobby12

Westerners like most of us are extremely lucky people because we are not forced to go to war, however understand that this is because of the aggressive nature of our nations. To pay for our luxurious and safe way of life, common people in other countries are being killed.

What planet do you live on? Things like democracy, freedom of expression, property law, the rule of law, recognition of things like human rights and a healthy distain for superstition (in all its forms) are what give western countries their prosperity and safety. The only people who share your distorted view of the world are the leaders denying these things to their own people and blaming the Western societies and leftist morons who decry the evils of western society whilst enjoying the very benefits such a society brings.

[Oyuki kigan 0]

actually, i kinda agree with Bobby on this one.

 

the US does not maintain the world's largest military because those things like democracy and stuff said so. I certainly did not vote for that.

 

The US government is pretty aggressive, no one here i think refutes that. Like a junkie, the US needs oil, and to keep control of oil markets (which is NOT the same thing as just buying it from the countries) the US has invaded countries, propped up dictatorships (which has the other purpose of maintaining control over competing interests), and allowed wilderness to be destroyed.

 

I would quote some Chomsky, but i'm not sure if you regard him as a flaming anarchist who distorts everything.

 

 

In a less publicized version of the same thing, there is a war being fought in the Congo right now, driven by control of a precious resource. Its not oil, its a rather rare mineral that in used in manufacturing electronics.

 

So that we can type away on our computers and listen to our i-pods, people are being killed. Or more properly, so people can make money selling us i-pods and computers, people are being killed.

 

 

I do think that many luxuries we enjoy can me made ethically and sustainably. And those that can't, i'm willing to live without.

 

 

 

[samurai 0]

 Originally Posted By: Oyuki kigan

actually, i kinda agree with Bobby on this one.

the US does not maintain the world's largest military because those things like democracy and stuff said so. I certainly did not vote for that.

The US government is pretty aggressive, no one here i think refutes that. Like a junkie, the US needs oil, and to keep control of oil markets (which is NOT the same thing as just buying it from the countries) the US has invaded countries, propped up dictatorships (which has the other purpose of maintaining control over competing interests), and allowed wilderness to be destroyed.

I would quote some Chomsky, but i'm not sure if you regard him as a flaming anarchist who distorts everything.

In a less publicized version of the same thing, there is a war being fought in the Congo right now, driven by control of a precious resource. Its not oil, its a rather rare mineral that in used in manufacturing electronics.

So that we can type away on our computers and listen to our i-pods, people are being killed. Or more properly, so people can make money selling us i-pods and computers, people are being killed.

I do think that many luxuries we enjoy can me made ethically and sustainably. And those that can't, i'm willing to live without.

So... what did you just say? that people are being killed so you can type away on your computer... but you're willing to live without it? Huh?

either I'm misssing the point, or the contradiction is too strong to understand.

[Oyuki kigan 0]

one, the computer i am using was made before this war started.

 

two, no-one who wants to live ethically in this society can without making contradictions. Its almost impossible.

 

Just because i believe in peace, and want to live sustainable does not mean that i can do that 100%. I do not know where everything i use came from, or if all of it was made without exploitation. Chances are it wasn't. This current economic system that we live under does not exactly enfore compassion.

 

i know there are contradictions in how i live. And i am not stoked on them. But i do support any changes for the better.

 

i don't want wars fought so i can listen to mp3s. I don't want the polar bears to die out because of how much fossil fuel i use.

 

So we do what we can.

[Rag-Doll 0]

>So that we can type away on our computers and listen to our i-pods, people are being killed. Or more properly, so people can make money selling us i-pods and computers, people are being killed.

 

This what I'm talking about. They're not being killed for us. They are being killed by people who don't respect human rights, property law etc. If the places involved weren't run by monsters they could develop the resources with greater efficency and generate more wealth than they have any hope of doing under the current situation. But somehow the fact that they don't is our fault. What a load of crap.

 

And to be clear about this, it is not countries like the PRC or Russia or those in the Middle East that are working to improve the situation. It is not they who promote human rights or link aid to good government or implement development programmes. The only reason why most of the humanity aid programmess exist in the world is becaue of the excess wealth created by the western societies.

[daver 0]

rag-doll,

 

until those privileged "western" governments actually implement real corporate accountability legislation, or out right boycott goods from countries with atrocious regimes people will continue to be killed for the low low prices homo consumerous needs to keep the market steadily moving upwards.

 

governments around the world abhorred the regime of nigeria, but had no problems with shell or mobil. now granted they are taking issue with china's financial backing of the sudanese war mongers, but that is real easy to do as we consume and cast away more cell phones then ever before. oyoki, the material is an ore called columbite-tantalite, or coltan for short.

so yes, blood in africa is split on our behave.

 

no matter how much money western nations throw at the developing world, nothing will be accomplished (as it has not for the last thirty years) unless real action is taken to pull the wind from the wings oppressive regimes. be them of the political or market variety.

 

but this is getting off topic a bit, from the original discussion.

 

in my own humble opinion, barring invasion by some tyrannical regime, if war is required to maintain "our" way of life, perhaps our way of life should be re-evaluated.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Granted it's off topic, but it is a more interesting topic.

 

>until those privileged "western" governments actually implement real corporate accountability legislation, or out right boycott goods from countries with atrocious regimes people will continue to be killed for the low low prices homo consumerous needs to keep the market steadily moving upwards.

 

Yes we could do more, a lot more and we're as guilty of the hypocracy as much as anyone but western nations do make an effort to force change. Compare that to the PRC which regards non-interference as a virtue! Unless it perceives some kind of insult in which case it carries on like a pork chop.

 

Our lives aren't made safe and comfortable because poor people are being killed or because western nations are aggressive. Those ideas really are crazy. It's the same old story of the wicked west (the US) being bad and no one else is at all accountable. But when the situation turns ugly all we hear is how the US should be taking the lead to make things right. I take the point that the demand creates the incentive to fight over the supply but it is not automatic that demand causes conflict and in virtually everywhere else in the world it doesn't and where it does, it does so because of a lack of the very things that give us our peace and stength - rule of law, freedom of expression, human rights, property laws etc. So, we don't do much to fix things but we do a bloody lot more than anyone else and our demand would not lead to conflict if ignorance, superstition and poverty and corruption were not already present. People aren't killed so I can have a mobile phone. People are killed so the money I pay goes to one person instead of another. Would they stop killing each other if I stopped buying phones? Stop the money -- stop the wars? If only it were that simple.

[daver 0]

 Originally Posted By: Rag-Doll

Granted it's off topic, but it is a more interesting topic.

i acknowledge that's not much of a reply, but i'm off for dinner. to be continued.

[samurai 0]

I'm not off for dinner... jealous though.

 

I'm rebuilding my computer, ironically. Prepping it for a malicous upgrade into the vortex of Vista. Stupid Microsoft...

 

Stupid Norton, too. I wonder if anyone in India that scored a job when Norton outsourced got killed. They sure as hell helped me out a lot in the past. I don't know how much they are thankful, or regretful, that they have to work for Norton.

[SirJibAlot 0]

I didn't kill anyone today, can I get a cookie?

[daver 0]

 Originally Posted By: samurai

I wonder if anyone in India that scored a job when Norton outsourced got killed. They sure as hell helped me out a lot in the past. I don't know how much they are thankful, or regretful, that they have to work for Norton.

not sure, but i suspect the garment workers, or the ship breakers, or the citizens of bhopal, a significantly larger portion of the 'employed' sector of society are far less enthusiastic about their life of bondage.

[daver 0]

 Originally Posted By: SirJibAlot

I didn't kill anyone today, can I get a cookie?

no, you've already eaten too many.

[bushpig 0]

you'll spoil your appetite for dinner.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

 Originally Posted By: Rag-Doll

If they do care, it's generally not enough to do actually do anything about it. BUT, secular demoncracies don't usually spawn or support the kind of terrorists the middle east generates (england being something of an excepton). So secularising the middle east, offering alternatives forms of governments to people who have it pretty rough under the current dictatorships and theocracies will go a long way to reducing the breeding ground for islamic terrorism, if not the terrorists themselves.

what do you mean by England being the exception?

[bushpig 0]

perhaps referring to the Ireland situation years ago??

[Tubby Beaver 209]

i think what Briain and Australia have done in Iraq is pretty clever on their part. They are in on the act, and as others have pointed out, probably to share in some of the collateral gains, but its America who takes most of the heat. Its always "US forces", or the"US invasion", which I think is clever beacuse the UK and Aus can reap their perceived benefits of being on the winning team without taking as much flak for it. Don't get me wrong, the UK, as has recently been shown, is a hot target for extremists, but still not as much as the US. So its either that Blair and Howard are lap dogs of the US regime or they have cleverly positioned themselves to be protected by allowing Georgie boy and his pack of fools to take all the heat.

[Rag-Doll 0]

The benefit has more to do with what Aust gets from the US because it takes the US's side than what Aust gets from Iraq.

 

TB - regarding england and terrorist comments, I was referring to the July 7 bombers and others of their kind operating or present in england.

[SirJibAlot 0]

 Originally Posted By: daver

 Originally Posted By: SirJibAlot

I didn't kill anyone today, can I get a cookie?

no, you've already eaten too many.

Scarry - you guys know me too well....

[Tubby Beaver 209]

 Originally Posted By: Rag-Doll

The benefit has more to do with what Aust gets from the US because it takes the US's side than what Aust gets from Iraq.

TB - regarding england and terrorist comments, I was referring to the July 7 bombers and others of their kind operating or present in england.

oh, cool. I wondered if you meant with the IRA and shit in the past. But in this respect, the UK hasn't spawned them, they have come from the Middle east. They weren't a product of the UK's secular government.

Thats more what I meant, the benefit from US than from any Iraq benefit

[Rag-Doll 0]

Weren't the july 7 guys locals though? They weren't Iraqi, they were English.

[soubriquet 0]

Yes, they were English. Just like the murthering IRA bstards, responsible for killing 3,000 people.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

IRA weren't english, they were Irish