|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 13, 2014 11:45 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:45, 13 Oct 2014.
|
kayna said:
A good philosophical question, and I agree with that statement. But you're assuming the US has the world's best intentions at heart.
Not the case. Not the case at all.
No, I don't. I don't asume for a second that the US seeks intervention on behalf of human rights, but if a side-effect (intended or not) of the US's actions is enforcemnet of human rights and an increase in liberty, then I will support such action.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:16 AM |
|
Edited by kayna at 00:18, 14 Oct 2014.
|
xerox said:
No, I don't. I don't asume for a second that the US seeks intervention on behalf of human rights, but if a side-effect (intended or not) of the US's actions is enforcemnet of human rights and an increase in liberty, then I will support such action.
Well, that is a good answer. I think. But let's delve deeper in our philosophical question, yes?
Let's take a sample of our long list of pros for going to war just and immoral ones merged together.
- To liberate Muslim women
- To give more liberties to people oppressed by the Islam religion.
- To make sure they remain poorer for a longer time, for better economic deals and trades
- To reduce the sheer amount of Muslims on the planet ( Let's admit, they re a staggering amount now )
- To prevent them from uniting
Now, you see, when I take "To liberate Muslim women", then "To keep them in poverty", and compile those two pros together, in my head at least, it just doesnt work! Illogical error, my stupid brain says. It's like trying to smash two north pole magnets together, it just doesn't work. F---- magnets, how do they work?!?
However, what I can see is a facade and a core. Someone can be good inside and outside, same for bad, but what about our two nuances?
Tell me, if you picture someone that is evil inside, but good outside, what do you see? And when you picture someone that is good inside, but evil outside, what do you see? I can easily picture someone, or an organisation-government-whatever that is evil at the core with a good facade, but the reverse is rather hard. Is is possible, but it would require an in depth study of what the US army is really doing, which we can't, because it's classified, because people like Bradley Manning are extremely rare. It's why, when I meet people or organisations that do both good and evil actions, I tend to classify them as evil to the core with a bullsnow good facade.
In fact, the only "proof" the US gave the world in the past 15 years was like a dozen of satellite pictures of two or three mobile homes with odd metal like circles in them. Might have been some good old moonshine set up for all we know.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:18 AM |
|
|
The only con I see is that civilians will inevitably die. But the casualties may become even higher if IS is allowed to persist.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:21 AM |
|
|
|
Is that all? Meh. I'll assume you are dodging my post. If it is your wish I will not insist.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:22 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
kayna said:
A good philosophical question, and I agree with that statement. But you're assuming the US has the world's best intentions at heart.
Not the case. Not the case at all.
No, I don't. I don't asume for a second that the US seeks intervention on behalf of human rights, but if a side-effect (intended or not) of the US's actions is enforcemnet of human rights and an increase in liberty, then I will support such action.
And have you ever seen that happen in the Middle East, no.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:27 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 00:29, 14 Oct 2014.
|
x2. it has to be profitable. you don't see the u.s. military trying to "fix" africa, do you?
of course, you don't see anything about ANY military going into africa. 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:29 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:30, 14 Oct 2014.
|
artu said:
xerox said:
kayna said:
A good philosophical question, and I agree with that statement. But you're assuming the US has the world's best intentions at heart.
Not the case. Not the case at all.
No, I don't. I don't asume for a second that the US seeks intervention on behalf of human rights, but if a side-effect (intended or not) of the US's actions is enforcemnet of human rights and an increase in liberty, then I will support such action.
And have you ever seen that happen in the Middle East, no.
if americans voted for republicans then troops would have stayed in Iraq and maybe it would have been a better country today
afghanistan seems to be progressing well
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:30 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
if americans voted for republicans then troops would have stayed in Iraq and maybe it would have been a better country today
lol, no.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:34 AM |
|
|
|
It could have been relatively more secure, not better. And for... what, 3 more years, 10 years? You can not produce social progress simply by keeping troops over people's head and babysitting them all the time.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:37 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:38, 14 Oct 2014.
|
No, there are internal political problems in Iraq which would have been there no matter if the American troops stayed or not. What I'm pretty confident in, is that IS could have been stopped from the very start, had the troops stayed in Iraq. The state would not have met its disintegration.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:45 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:27, 14 Oct 2014.
|
IS is mainly the result of two things.
1- After US overthrew Saddam, the Sunnis lost the political power to Shiites and they didn't like that.
2- Turkey supported, financed and armed the militants fighting against Asad, the government didn't expect them to turn this fanatical.
Basically, this monster has two Dr. Frankensteins and one of them is the United States, so what you say doesn't make sense.
America did not conquer Iraq, it's an invasion, they will have to leave at some point, what you suggest is a palliative precaution, not a solution.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:46 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
No, there are internal political problems in Iraq which would have been there no matter if the American troops stayed or not. What I'm pretty confident in, is that IS could have been stopped from the very start, had the troops stayed in Iraq. The state would not have met its disintegration.
isis never would have became, if saddam had been allowed to stay put. i say, leave it to that country's people to handle their own business. if other people have to get involved, it's already too late. then, foreign interests can be allowed to exploit an issue.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:50 AM |
|
|
I've heard that Bradley Manning had no trouble accessing the information he gave us. If that's true, then perhaps the US government was looking for a excuse to pull out of there. Perhaps they purposefully let that information unsecured and waited until someone like Bradley Manning posted it. 8 years of war or so is a long time, after all. Long enough to test new technology, dump millions of tons of irradiated metal, destroy enough important buildings to throw them back in the stone age, etc etc etc etc...
Just a conspiracy theory of mine. It's still ok to have conspiracy theories about wars and other important events, yes? I hope so. God.
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:52 AM |
|
|
It would not be such a problem now if the US had invaded Syria in the early stages of the revoution. Sure repalcing a dictator with another dictator is not worth it but atleast the syrian people would have been spared a lot of suffering and death while the new dictator settled in, a process taking several years, with the added bonus that the military presence in the region would have kept iraq in check better. Weakening the shia syria would weaken the shia leadership in iran as well and the overwhelming majority of the middle east would have been in sunni hands, thus allowing a better chance for a real arabic alliance instead of the shia-sunni seperation we have now.
Ofcoure Al-kaida would still be active in the region instead of IS today but one enemy is still better than two.
But all this couldn't happen becouse the US/UK public has had enough of the never ending wars and the massive pile of debt it caused. Russia vetoing any action in the UN was the final kick in the balls to the region.
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 12:58 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:03, 14 Oct 2014.
|
artu said:
IS is mainly the result of two things.
1- After US overthrew Saddam, the Sunnis lost the political power to Shiites and they didn't like that.
2- Turkey supported, financed and armed the militants fighting against Assad, the government didn't expect them to turn this fanatical.
Basically, this monster has two Dr. Frankensteins and one of them is the United States, so what you say doesn't make sense.
America did not conquer Iraq, it's an invasion, they will have to leave at some point, what you suggest is a palliative precaution, not a solution.
How does it not make sense?
I wholeheartily support the Iraqi War, but I wish that the American troops would have stayed there for decades instead of a few years. Just compare that to South Korea or Germany. The US has had a long-term committment to those countries. In the 2008, John McCain was completely right in arguing that the US could be in Iraq for the next 50 to 100 years.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:06 AM |
|
|
|
I'll be lying if I tell you I know much about Korea. (Do you?) But Germany is in no way an example. Germany had the institutional background and social history that allowed it to make such a shift and they most probably would have anyway without US staying there. US didnt keep there to teach Germans how to be democratic and respect individual rights.
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:09 AM |
|
Edited by fuChris at 01:10, 14 Oct 2014.
|
No the US stayed there to spread their capitalist dream. It's easier to control people who own the media then a country itself.
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:12 AM |
|
|
And they should have stayed to spread capitalist dreams in Iraq too.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:19 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:21, 14 Oct 2014.
|
|
Yes, Xerox, that's how capitalism develops and flourishes, spreading "the dream" with military invasion. Why expect everything from US, why don't you support an invasion by Sweden itself and enlist while you're at it?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:27 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:32, 14 Oct 2014.
|
I don't think Western NGOs and such should be underestimated. Look at Ukraine. The US has done a lot of lobbying/"strategic communication" there.
1. I actively support Sweden engaging in military interventions abroad.
2. I've been thinking about this because a guy in the military said that you get to lay down in a ditch and spoon with like 30 guys at the same time there.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
