Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "U.S.-Iran tensions may trigger war" (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: "U.S.-Iran tensions may trigger war"
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, I understand your point. I would rather say that there is ignorance borne of prejudice, and the reverse, at work on both sides. If I merely stop after saying their culture intrinsically supports those actions while giving ourselves superior motives and methods to explain our own actions, then there is no hope but to imprison or otherwise subjugate their population to keep them from acting out on those "natural urges", or if those things fail to simply eliminate them.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While what you say is true, Dave, that there is ignorance born of prejudice on both sides. There are two things you are not taking into account. 1, that there is MORE prejudice on one side than the other. 2, that we don't make decisions based on how the other side sees us.

This is about how WE perceive militant Islam. This is about what WE need to do about militant Islam. And part of the problem of how we see them is how they see us: the Great Satan, needing to be destroyed; apes and pigs. If we judges ourselves by their eyes, we'd have to destroy ourselves.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and this is where I agree with Red's last post. In order to survive the current situation, we are going to have to make a lot of terrorists, _and their meme's,_ dead. And the only way to kill those memes is to kill those who carry them and refuse to let them go.

You see, it's a funny thing. Where Christianity carries the meme "be good to each other," Islam carries a meme that says "be good to each other, except the infidel." Worse still, written in the Quran are other memes stating how it's OK to kill and subjegate the non-believer.

Those memes MUST DIE. There is no room in a cooperative society for such thinking, and, as long as they're thunk, there's WILL be trouble. So, either Islam rids itself of those thoughts, or we're forced to rid them ourselves.

I don't like it anymore than anyone else does, but as long as they think that they're the only ones that can "play ball" we've got no choice but to force them to share the field.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1, that there is MORE prejudice on one side than the other. 2, that we don't make decisions based on how the other side sees us.
Ed, thanks for so completely making my point for me. I'm sure you feel bad about what mayhem you endorse our soldiers to do or would commit with your own bare hands against them, but like a friend of mine likes to say, "they needed killing". Just a thought that you can kill a meme without killing its host.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave?

When I say something like "Those memes MUST DIE," how is it you conclude that I'm saying we MUST kill everyone that holds them?

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...the only way to kill those memes is to kill those who carry them and refuse to let them go.
I read that you said that you would kill those who refuse to let go of the "memes" (whichever ones they are). My view is that it shouldn't be necessary, but you would have to radically change your sense of who those people are and how they think in order to see that. That might require a memectomy.
quote:
There is no room in a cooperative society for such thinking, and, as long as they're thunk, there's WILL be trouble. So, either Islam rids itself of those thoughts, or we're forced to rid them ourselves.
That's a very tall order, especially if you try to beat it out of them. How well has that worked so far?

[Edited to add: Ed, to clarify our terms, I don't attribute "memes" to individuals, but as the word is defined, to a culture. Rooting an evil meme from a culture means killing those who only think it, not just those who are thinking it at the time they kill us. A lot of people who would never think of doing such a horrible things would fall under your knife. How far are you willing to go?]

[ February 17, 2007, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
Dave?

When I say something like "Those memes MUST DIE," how is it you conclude that I'm saying we MUST kill everyone that holds them?

And if Dave thought you were an atheist, would he have lept to the same dark conclusion about what you meant? [Frown]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I don't understand what you mean??? Are you responding to Ed's misunderstanding of what I said or to my followup response to his question?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Love to get a response that explains what you mean, because from the look of it, I'm pretty sure it was something I would object and respond to [Frown] , only I don't know what it was! If it helps you, I don't care what religious view Ed holds and whatever it might be never crossed my mind, since I at least have been talking about ethnocentrism, culture and war. Go back a few posts and see where Red brought it up, I responded, Ed responded to me, etc. If war happens, it will be our country vs theirs, so your, my or Ed's individual religious views shouldn't be part of the equation.

[ February 17, 2007, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As Ed holds no religious views, it isn't part of the equation. [Smile] Ed is an agnostic.

Now, I need to make a clarifying point: while memes are held culturally, a culture is comprised of individuals, so you can't separate the two.

The point that is critical to my position is that, as I said, certain specific memes in the Islamic culture HAVE TO die, or they will continue to use them to kill us. This does not mean that all who hold those memes must die.

Memes, themselves, live or die based on their usefulness. If a culture sees a meme as beneficial to them, it thrives. If it is seen as dangerous to them, it dives. The best way to kill that meme is, therefore, to prove that it is useless.

In a culture that believes that it can advance its needs through suicide bombing and jihad, the best way to destroy those memes is ensure the bomber and jihadi gain nothing for their sacrifice. Failing that, the memes will survive. Since individuals all share the memes of their society, there will always be a subset of those willing enough to act on them. It becomes necessary, therefore, to destroy that subset in order to demonstrate the futility of their actions.

You are very correct in saying that you can kill a meme without killing its host, however, when that meme espouses jihad, you have NO CHOICE but to kill the host to prove the meme's futility. This isn't our choosing, Dave, it's there's. They are the one's setting the rules for this game.

So, let's be clear here. I'm not "advocating mayhem," they are. I merely support a policy that would demonstrate the futility of their actions, thereby killing their memes. And since those which we label "terrorists" are the most likely to carry out those actions, I can easily say something like "we are going to have to make a lot of terrorists, and their meme's, dead" and still not be referring to their entire culture. Terrorists are a subset of that culture, and terrorists are the one's carrying this battle to us.

So, once again, those memes MUST die and if that means killing a few of those who desire to make us dead through the actions their memes dictate, then so be it.

Back to the reason I interjected, there are MORE prejudices on one side than the other, and it isn't ours. You condemn us for not being more understanding and, yet, let the terrorists off the hook for memes like "kill an infidel ape for Allah" and "you'll ensure a place for yourself in paradise if you kill the infidel pigs."

If those ain't prejudice, then I don't know what is.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As Ed holds no religious views, it isn't part of the equation."

That's why I said "If he thought"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You are very correct in saying that you can kill a meme without killing its host, however, when that meme espouses jihad, you have NO CHOICE but to kill the host to prove the meme's futility. This isn't our choosing, Dave, it's there's. They are the one's setting the rules for this game."

Yes, but you and others aren't paying close enough attention to those rules that they set. There *is* another way besides killing the hosts, but it violates some of our minor rules. Ridicule. There's a reason they put the fatwa out on Rushdie. They fear ridicule worse than death. Their theology teaches that humilliation and pervasive ridicule actually disproves any sort of connection to the divine. That's why they say that the crucifixion and the "born in a manger" story is blasphemous (disrespectful to the prophet Issa).

A sustained campaign aimed at humilliating and ridiculing terrorists as hirabis could prove extremely effective, particularly if the campaign combined the pagent of "investigative journalism," distribution on the scale of "radio free Europe" except using TV and internet as well as Radio, and actual military and intelligence resources.

[ February 18, 2007, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete
A counter media policy presented from our multiculturalist viewpoint might work. Considering that we freely allow Islam in our own culture, I wonder what could be done with the issue that in much of the middle east, you cannot freely espouse any religion but Islam.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And in case you missed it Iran's government announced yesterday that the issue of nuclear programs run by Iran are not up for negotiation.

So anyway...

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not excluding propoganda, Pete, but even propoganda, alone, will not end the killing. Propoganda is words, killing is action and actions always speak louder than words. Ultimately, the only way those specific memes will die is when they are seen as futile.

Let's play a new game of "Paper, Rock, Scissors" only we'll call it "Propoganda, War, Diplomacy." [Smile] I think you know the rules: Propoganda trumps Diplomacy, War smashes Propoganda and Diplomacy prevents/ends War." [Smile]

By attacking us, they've declared "War!" Of which, propoganda is a part. Will propoganda alone end it? Or will it be war AND diplomacy that does?

Just some thoughts...


@ Redskullvw

That's another one of them there memes that's gonna have to die. Fortunately, killing individuals who hold those memes, isn't, necessarily, the option. Propoganda does work better there.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And in case you missed it Iran's government announced yesterday that the issue of nuclear programs run by Iran are not up for negotiation.

So anyway...

Red, that's not news, of course, but a regularly repeated reminder that nothing has changed on either side of the discussion.

The NY Times had a number of interesting and relevant articles and opinion pieces in yesterday's paper. One of the them pointed out how the war in Iraq has created both a vacuum in the regional power equilibrium and the concomitant need for some credible holder of power to rise. In other words, the US created the current threat that Iran represents. Our continued interference and poorly managed efforts in the affairs of the region make Iran an inevitability. That's not to say that Iran wasn't a potential threat before, but that we've accelerated and heightened their rise.

The counter-process might also defuse the situation, where a reduction in the level of our interference (less strident support for Israel, softening of our harsh opposition to Israel's foes, ending our occupation of Iraq...) might weaken Iran.

[Edited to add: I should clarify that I'm interpreting and expanding on the implications of the article. The article didn't go to the conclusions that I drew.]

[ February 19, 2007, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In other words, the US created the current threat that Iran represents.
Very true. However, the whole Iran and nukes thingie has been going on for a lot longer than our time in Iraq.

quote:
Our continued interference and poorly managed efforts in the affairs of the region make Iran an inevitability.
All the more reason for us to do a better job and see this through rather than abandoning Iraq to chaos.

quote:
That's not to say that Iran wasn't a potential threat before, but that we've accelerated and heightened their rise.
Blaming us for this makes about as much sense as blaming the homeowner for leaving his house unlocked and allowing himself to be robbed. While the homeowner deserves the blame for not protecting his house, nobody put a gun to the robber's head and made him go in. What of the robbers responsibilities in this matter?

quote:
The counter-process might also defuse the situation, where a reduction in the level of our interference (less strident support for Israel, softening of our harsh opposition to Israel's foes, _ending our occupation of Iraq_...) might weaken Iran.
Unlocking all the doors and opening all the windows will not make a robber less likely to enter your house. Even a fully locked house will not deter a robber if they are determined enough.

Once again, you toss ALL the responsibility on us. What about the softening of their position towards the existence of Israel? What about them removing their declarations of destruction? Why is it we that must bend when it is THEY who shout the worst rhetoric?

Remember, many of us here feel that war is coming. Not 'cause we don't like the Iranian's (or any other Muslim) but because they won't end their calls for destruction. And, yet you conclude that WE need to soften our stance?

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another metaphor [Smile] ? Lock your doors and windows, work with the police department to understand crime patterns in your area, volunteer with local social organizations to help alleviate the underlying root causes of crime, and recognize that your responsibilities to your community don't stop at the perimeter of your property. I could go on, but...
quote:
Once again, you toss ALL the responsibility on us...
You're reading it too narrowly. I'm not absolving Iran or militant Muslims or anybody else of their responsibilities. Why can't we talk about getting our own house in order without always bringing up the fact that, hey, they started it, it's not our fault? It's a broken situation that will take time and considerable effort on all sides to resolve.
quote:
Remember, many of us here feel that war is coming.
Maybe so, but if we haven't tried everything reasonable to prevent it, it will be our fault if it comes to pass, too. You're shouting down other people's ideas and suggestions that might avoid it and haven't raised any of your own.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Would you mind naming one thing we've done, Ev, that rises to the justification of 9/11? Just ONE thing. That's all I ask.
I'll give your two from their perspective:

Baywatch

and

Britney Spears

Edit to add:

Keep in mind, you are dealing with radical religious extremists. The vast majority of which think Burkhas should be the norm for women and anything less than that is simply scandalous.

Basically they make your prototypical bible thumping evangelical hardliner in the the United States seem exceedingly liberal. And they're not big fans of either one of those product lines either.

Rewind 6/7 years ago, and good luck clicking through channels on your TV and not running into one of those two items. Regardless of what part of the planet you happen to be in.

But then, I guess many people like to turn blind eyes on a lot of things. While it wasn't a predominately muslim nation, or even a muslim location I'm citing. I still think the experience rings true for a very large number of Muslims around the world:

While visiting Thailand in 2000 I went on a tour that took my tour group out to visit a number of Budhist Temples. At several of them, we were somewhat surprised to see local children on the temple grounds with their boom box playing, listening and dancing to the music of Britney Spears. I have little reason to belive this experience is unique to Thailand, as I can cite anecdotal ecidence in line with that experience in a number of other places I have been.

How do you get your children to continue to practice the "old ways" you, yourself adhere to?

How do you keep your chidlren from being taken in by the slick, glossy, and alluring cultural currents that the Unites States(c/o Hollywood) has running virtually everywhere throughout the world?

THEN add in all the other things the United States Government itself has done in the name of preserving its "national interests" abroad, and tell me what you are going to come up with.

[ February 19, 2007, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: TheDeamon ]

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not one thing you list, Daemon, justifies the killing of 2,000 innocent civilians. That was my whole point. There is nothing any one can cite, not one single incident, or collection of incidents that is, tit for tat, equal.


@ DaveS:
quote:
Another metaphor [Smile] ? Lock your doors and windows, work with the police department to understand crime patterns in your area, volunteer with local social organizations to help alleviate the underlying root causes of crime, and recognize that your responsibilities to your community don't stop at the perimeter of your property. I could go on, but...
There you go again, tightening up that Gordian knot (tm).

If I came up to you one day, and said, "Dave, I'm gonna break into your house, steal your stuff, and set it on fire and there's nothing you can do about it," how much "examining of root causes" and social work are gonna stop me if I'm that determined?

As to callin' the cops? We are the freakin' cops! [Smile] The world might have turned to the U.N. first, but who actually did the dirty work? Gulf War I? Us. Kosovo? Us. And if and when Iran nukes Israel, or Hezballah overthrows Lebanon, guess who's gonna do the dirty work then? It won't be the U.N.... So, when it comes time to take care of our own concerns, such as with Iraq? We turn to ourselves? Well, duh!

[Thwack goes that knot, again]

quote:
You're reading it too narrowly. I'm not absolving Iran or militant Muslims or anybody else of their responsibilities. Why can't we talk about getting our own house in order without always bringing up the fact that, hey, they started it, it's not our fault? It's a broken situation that will take time and considerable effort on all sides to resolve.
No, you placing heavy emphasis on us for protecting our own interests, and less emphasis on them for exploiting those interests. We are trying to create stability, they are attempting to destroy that very same stability. And we're the one's that need to "do it right?" Gimme a break, Dave. [Smile]

quote:
Maybe so, but if we haven't tried everything reasonable to prevent it, it will be our fault if it comes to pass, too. You're shouting down other people's ideas and suggestions that might avoid it and haven't raised any of your own.
And this is like declaring that you haven't played every possible move in a chess game when the game's still goin'. Why don't you wait till we actuall have had time to try everything reasonable before declaring that we haven't?

quote:
You're shouting down other people's ideas and suggestions that might avoid it and haven't raised any of your own.
No, I'm recognizing a fact. A fact that you so wantonly brushed aside. This one specifically, raised by Redskullvw: "And in case you missed it Iran's government announced yesterday that the issue of nuclear programs run by Iran are not up for negotiation."

A statement, which amounts to "I'm gonna break into your house, steal your stuff, and set it on fire and there's nothing you can do about it." Good luck with solving those root causes and crime patterns. While you're busy with those, I'll be busy ransacking your house, lookin' for them matches.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well now Iran is being reasonable.

Massive war games, and the Iranian President stating that Iran will give up its enrichment process when the west does.

Iran isn't some crazed government without means. Iran is a government with extremely different priorities and goals compared to its neighbors. When Iran says regime change in Israel, Iran means elimination of Israel. When they say they have every right to nuclear programs, they mean it. When they directly support regional and international terrorists they mean it.

A bus bombing by an almost unknown group on a Revoltionary Guard bus doesn't mean that Iran is on a brink of democratic reform and sudden human rights flowering.

Unlike North Korea, Iran does not have a leash connecting it to its fundamental patron. Iran is essentially the biggest dog on the Middle East and Near East block. And Iran is officially trying to enforce that fact.

Any ideas?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
Not one thing you list, Daemon, justifies the killing of 2,000 innocent civilians. That was my whole point. There is nothing any one can cite, not one single incident, or collection of incidents that is, tit for tat, equal.

Do note the emphasis that was on "their perspective" when I wrote that.

As has already been discussed, Islam has a number of meme's that are still practiced by a number of its adherents that makes violence against the infidel acceptable, particularly if it is "in defense of Islam" or at least for the purpose of furthering it(in their view).

From a cultural perspective, the "old ways" of Islam are being swept away by access to Satelite TV, where males who would have otherwise been tintilated by even a glimpse of a female's ankle are now getting to tune into something (to us) as innocuous as CNN and see "scandalously clad" women reporting on current events. Of course, CNN isn't as bad as it gets. As previously mentioned, they get access to the music videos that the United States (and to an extent, Europe/elsehwhere) produces and other television programming as well, which is where the Britney Spears/Baywatch comment came into play.

Their old ways are under attack, and there are people who are always going to resist change. Some of them are going to be willing to resort to violence to try to stop/reverse the process that is changing their way of life. Right or wrong, that is human nature, nothing more, nothing less.

After all, I always belived that people fought for one of three reasons, mostly in this order:

1) To preserve their own, or their fellows(friends/family), life.
2) To protect their property/livelyhood.
3) To preserve their "way of life."

(Chicken and the Egg time: Aren't those pretty much the same reasons we were giving as to why we're over there, only played on a national/international level? The Taliban harbored people who attacked us, and who had stated their continued desire to do so: #1, 2, and 3. It was claimed that Iraq was hiding a WMD program which if allowed to come to completion would be used to attack the US and/or its allies: #1, 2, and 3)

So we have Hollywood "assaulting" them on item #3. We have the government of the United States supporting policies/taking actions that make them feel threatend in regards to #2.... We could possibly expand #2 to include pratices of US based corportations as well. And we wonder why there are so many educated people out there who are willing to take up arms against the United States of America.

Do keep in mind that the terrorists have no shortage of cannon fodder types running around as well. Areas which are considered terrorist hotbeds/strongholds also typically tend to be areas with very low literacy rates. So ef u cen red thise u must b smrt and shuld b listend 2 bi evrey1.

Add in that even in educated areas, the hardest thing to catch and eliminate is the half-truth and urban-legend because it has some kind of basis in fact(or at least the air of it), and it doesn't take long to weave a tangled of crazy stuff that people will buy into hook line and sinker if nobody gets there to myth-bust in time. (queue long litany of redneck jokes involving how woefully uninformed rednecks are about very basic things for an example of this inside the US)

-----

I think there are people sufficiently skilled in deduction that they can probably continue to reframe the discussion from here.

The "other side" is not working from what we'd consider a "christian inspired background." They are operating from a Koranic background instead. They also hold that Islam is "under attack" by "insidious outside forces." (Though the Jews, followed by the US, seem to be their favorite targets for finger pointing)

Now, if you view yourself as being under attack, and your worldview allows for(or even encourages) the use of violence to solve the matter, but a head on confrontation is going to be a virtually guranteed defeat for you.. What do you do?

I'm generally surprised that people in this forum in particular haven't been a bit more exhaustive in their efforts to "walk in the shoes of their enemy." Than I seem to have seen in here, its like you went halfway, but stopped deciding that halfway was far enough. When it comes to making your "moral decisions" while in their shoes, you stick with own view of things. Rather than trying to fathom a means by which they could rationalize it so they can view their side as the good guys, and your side as being the bad guys.

----

Of course, I guess my take on it is especially unpalatable because if it is correct(I think it is), no change in the policies of the United States Government is going to end the conflict, it may lessen some of the extremes seen, but that is all it is going to do.

Because it still keeps two other American "agitators" out in the field: "Hollywood" (something of a mis-nomer, but it is effectively the "cultural ambasador" of the United States, so I guess "American Culture" could be used in its place.. but Hollywood is a primary agent by which people outside the US get exposed to any portion, however small, of American culture), and the (US based/focused) Multi-national corporations.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Remember this?:

Israel PLans Nuke Strike on Iran

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ TheDeamon

You're not really saying anything that most of us don't already recognize, which is exactly why some of us conclude that war is inevitable.

quote:
Of course, I guess my take on it is especially unpalatable because if it is correct(I think it is), no change in the policies of the United States Government is going to end the conflict, it may lessen some of the extremes seen, but that is all it is going to do.
Only conflict will end the conflict and only by proving to some the futility of those memes they carry. I truly wish it were otherwise. I'll be truly happy to be wrong, but until the facts say that I am, indeed, wrong, we need to study our enemy and be prepared to stop him if and when he does something rash.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're not really saying anything that most of us don't already recognize, which is exactly why some of us conclude that war is inevitable.
And bizarrely, why some of us don't. Cultural clashes can be addressed in lots of ways, only one of which involves killing them for their unfathomable inability to see things as we do.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some believe Iran is so stupid a nation it would invite its annihilation.

"We have a bomb!"

'They have several thousand.'

"I know! But now they have to think twice about messing with us."

'Assuming they think once. You know how stupid those crazy Americans are. Great at technology but otherwise dumb as demented rocks.'

"Precisely why we need a bomb. You know how crazy those stupid Americans are."

'And we're not, eh?'

"Who's side are you on, anyway?"

'Survival.'

Two insane morons: USA and Iran. Nations are INCREDIBLY dumb. Delphi groups notwithstanding, more brains does not mean greater aggregate IQ, but rather, less.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And bizarrely, why some of us don't. Cultural clashes can be addressed in lots of ways, only one of which involves killing them for their unfathomable inability to see things as we do.
True, Dave, but what some of us are trying to get across to you is not that we shouldn't understand those differences. Rather, that we need to be prepared to something more, should understanding fail.

Hence my point about _preparedness._

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like The Deamon's method of examining this from Iran's perspective, but I don't think that our conflict with them is entirely linked to Islam's conflict with modernism.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty guarantees Iran the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, and they believe (not without justification) that that includes uranium enrichment. The rest of the world thinks Russia should enrich uranium for Iran, but Iran would understandably prefer to be able to sustain its energy sector independently. The US would never agree to export its uranium enrichment to, say, Great Britain, and Iran views itself as equal to the US.

We have essentially told Iran that they must submit to our will before we will negotiate with them, and a proud nation will never agree to that. We have rebuffed their offers of negotiation and refused to make overtures of our own. When their president was a moderate, Clinton refused his offer of an exchange of scholars and artists, similar to Fullbright's exchange with Germany after WWII. There is ample evidence that the US is only interested in regime change, not detente.

Redskull cites Iran's wargames as evidence that they're unreasonable, but I think moving additional carrier groups near Iran's water is far more threatening than wargames. If Iran moved its warships near US waters we would view it as a threat -- why wouldn't Iran see it the same way?

Are they unreasonable for calling us the "Great Satan"? Yes, but they view the "Axis of Evil" as similar.

I'm not a fan of Iran's regime for obvious reasons -- their support of terrorism, their disregard for human rights, their aggressive posturing, etc. But, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you interact with the Iran you have, not the Iran you wish you had. If they agreed with us on everything there would be no need to negotiate in the first place.

It may be that sanctioning and threatening Iran are the best way to achieve our goals in the Middle East. But let's not pretend that Iran is irrational or unreasonable for viewing us as hostile and threatening.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rather, that we need to be prepared to something more, should understanding fail.
Ed, I refer you back to your colorful metaphors and the interpretations you've provided. You are way beyond wanting to be prepared should understanding fail. You've already broken into my house, and are looking for a match to burn it down with, remember? It's pretty clear to me that what you're looking for is your gun.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
I'm not excluding propoganda, Pete, but even propoganda, alone, will not end the killing. Propoganda is words, killing is action and actions always speak louder than words.

Yes, but as the terrorists have proved, words combined with actions speak loudest than mere actions.

You ever wonder what happened to Mullah Omar? Why did he suddenly go off camera? [Big Grin] Someone put the fear of ignominious death into him.

In a war like this, better to kill or capture ten people in a way that embarasses the hell out of their relatives, then to kill ten thousand people. Make fools, not martyrs. Sting the bastards.


For example: Create a fake recruiting operation, get some stupid kid ready to commit a suicide attack, give him a dud that knocks him out but doesn't harm anyone. Then have him wake up in a spoof of the afterlife that OBL is preaching. See how long you can string the poor sap along thinking that he's in paradise. Broadcast the whole thing on a channel that can't be blocked. And a dozen other creative ideas just like it.

Don't sully the state's hands doing this sort of stuff. I'm proposing that Congress issue letters of marque and reprisal to US investigative journalists and hollywood producers. Give them a few guidelines to keep them from outright terrorism, torture, and severe harm to innocents, but otherwise give them immunity, and promise them tax-free distribution.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
quote:
You're not really saying anything that most of us don't already recognize, which is exactly why some of us conclude that war is inevitable.
And bizarrely, why some of us don't. Cultural clashes can be addressed in lots of ways, only one of which involves killing them for their unfathomable inability to see things as we do.
I was speaking of a specific group within Islam:

The group that saw nothing wrong with the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001.

For them, there is nothing our government is able to do which would satisfy them. Not only would U.S. Foreign Policy have to go completely isolationist, we'd have to shut down out multi-nationals, and somehow prohibit Holywood(which does most of its production outside US borders already) from putting its merchandise/movies where it could possibly find its way into the Middle East. (Black marketers will make sure that isn't possible)

Basically, its not going to happen.

For that particular, the only thing that is going to work is kill or otherwise neutralize them before they can kill us or otherwise severely disrupt our nations economy(by means of making a major urban area (or areas) of the US a kill zone).

It is a conflict that if handled properly, in particular keeping the more extreme elements in positions where they can't directly disrupt things, it will end with a whimper in 20 to 60 years.

Heck if China is (un)lucky enough to surpass the US and become the worlds largest economy in the next 20 years(and likely begin to become a major cultural center of the world much like the US is now)... It will possibly become more their problem than ours.

Worst case, all the US has to do is work to maintain the status quo between itself and the extremist elements within Islam and make sure they cannot escalate it further. As long as that is accomplished, cultural assimilation will do most the rest of the work and the fight will effectively be over sometime shortly after the middle of this century. (We just have to wait for a lot of the current radicals to die off/realize there is no turning back the clock)

There are things we can do, of a non-military or even law enforcement variety, that could quite possibly speed along the process. But the problem right now is finding the financial and other associated resources needed to pay for it/carry it out, particularly since the military portion is needed and can't simply be cut.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was speaking of a specific group within Islam:

The group that saw nothing wrong with the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001.

That group, presumably, is not Iran, but the terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) that generated the attack, right?

The group that launched 9-11 should be dealt with using "extreme prejudice". I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. If that had been the focus of our response and had been handled in the time immediately after the attack (1-2 years), the ME would not be experiencing some of the turmoil and dysfunction that it is now. We also would have found ourselves in a stronger position to deal with current events if we had responded to and handled earlier events better.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sadly, I have to disagree, since AQ relocated into Waziristan. If we'd pursued them into Waziristan in 2002-3, Musharraf would probably have been toppled, India and Pakistan would have launched nukes at each other, and things would be much uglier than they are now. It's what Bin Laden was trying to get us to do.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't read that that was his objective, though I'm sure that we could have destabilized things pretty badly if we had barged into Pakistan. No reason why we would have had to have done it badly, but that our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't encouraging. John McCain recently dubbed Rumsfeld the worst SecDef in US history. That goes on the shelf next to recent judgments on Bush's handling of foreign affairs.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A bus bombing by an almost unknown group on a Revoltionary Guard bus doesn't mean that Iran is on a brink of democratic reform and sudden human rights flowering.
I don't know who suggested it did.

Iran and the West are under assualt by the same enemy, radical Sunni terrorists.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...and governments in the ME, Africa and Asia are threatened by extreme fundamentalist Shiite groups...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Memes, by the way, are vectored by human minds, and reside in human minds, but they feed elsewhere. They feed on, um, their semantic environment. remove the reason a meme can take hold of our minds, and it dies.

Remember the flat earth, y'all? It helped that old Ptolemyists were replaced by newer generations, but those newer generations weren't Ptolemyists because the meme had been exterminated.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Africa and Asia?

Not so much.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bus bombings... on that note:

Iran Says Bus Bombers Have U.S. Links (not that Alex Jones is the most unbiased source of news, but this is a Reuters article)

It's obvious they would blame us regardless of who is responsible; however, IMO, this is something we could and might perpetrate.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ DaveS:
quote:
Ed, I refer you back to your colorful metaphors and the interpretations you've provided. You are way beyond wanting to be prepared should understanding fail. You've already broken into my house, and are looking for a match to burn it down with, remember? It's pretty clear to me that what you're looking for is your gun.
Right... That's why I use phrases like "IF and when" 'cause I'm definitely lookin' to hurt someone _now._ [Wink]


@ Pete at Home:
quote:
In a war like this, better to kill or capture ten people in a way that embarasses the hell out of their relatives, then to kill ten thousand people. Make fools, not martyrs. Sting the bastards.
Well, I certainly won't disagree with that. In fact, if you recall, when Moussawi was sentenced to life in prison, I was all for letting people stand outside his cell, whispering "looser" all day long. [Wink]

Actually, what you suggest sounds like a great idea for a reality TV show. [Big Grin] I'd certainly watch THAT one.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
stand outside his cell, whispering "looser" all day long.
"I have a gub. Give me all your cash." [Smile] Brings back very fond memories, couldn't resist [Smile]

Jesse: "Not so much"
-- Yes, far from the same threat level, and I shouldn't have introduced it at this point...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1