“The enemy of idealism is zealotry.”
Neil Kinnock quotes (English Politician, b.1942)
Neil Kinnock quotes (English Politician, b.1942)
Hey, I'm not saying I support killing off Muslims... I'm just saying that I've come around to the idea of being interventionist in foreign policy. I'm no longer an isolationist, and I believe a certain amount of meddling is inevitable on our part, because... as Darfur has shown us, if we don't do it... Countries like China and Russia will.Bertster7 wrote:
Well, maybe I'm just being a wishy washy liberal here, but blase advocation of genocide seems like pretty much the most ignorant, inhuman and abhorrent solution you could come up with. It's also quite probably the stupidest, least likely to be remotely effective idea I've ever heard.
What is the threat posed by Islamic extremism? Terrorism, obviously.
Is it not absurdly obvious that even if you were to utterly wipe Islam from the face of the Earth (impossible through military force, even with death camps to round up the Muslims) the (almost certain), associated political backlash, cost and new (most likely more dangerous) waves of terrorism by those who opposed the move, would be far more damaging than Islamic extremism itself.
Even as expensive as Iraq has been for us, I still have to say that I'm glad we have a greater effect on the Middle East than China does. I still support withdrawal from Iraq though, and I believe invading Iraq was still a horrible idea.
OK, it came across as though you were siding with Dersmikner, who a post or two back was advocating nuking them all.Turquoise wrote:
Hey, I'm not saying I support killing off Muslims... I'm just saying that I've come around to the idea of being interventionist in foreign policy. I'm no longer an isolationist, and I believe a certain amount of meddling is inevitable on our part, because... as Darfur has shown us, if we don't do it... Countries like China and Russia will.Bertster7 wrote:
Well, maybe I'm just being a wishy washy liberal here, but blase advocation of genocide seems like pretty much the most ignorant, inhuman and abhorrent solution you could come up with. It's also quite probably the stupidest, least likely to be remotely effective idea I've ever heard.
What is the threat posed by Islamic extremism? Terrorism, obviously.
Is it not absurdly obvious that even if you were to utterly wipe Islam from the face of the Earth (impossible through military force, even with death camps to round up the Muslims) the (almost certain), associated political backlash, cost and new (most likely more dangerous) waves of terrorism by those who opposed the move, would be far more damaging than Islamic extremism itself.
Even as expensive as Iraq has been for us, I still have to say that I'm glad we have a greater effect on the Middle East than China does. I still support withdrawal from Iraq though, and I believe invading Iraq was still a horrible idea.
Intervention in the Middle East is all well and good in theory, it just doesn't work. Not even remotely. It makes stuff far, far worse.
Popular support is the only way to change stuff in the Middle East. Backing POPULAR pro-western leaders in key democratic positions is EXACTLY what the west should be trying to promote. Benazir Bhutto was exactly the sort of catalyst for change the region needed, not that she was without flaws, but she was hugely popular, took the right political line, vehemently opposed extremism and was an excellent public speaker. Domestic change is necessary within these Middle Eastern countries, not direct intervention - especially when those you are trying to win over are in many instances openly hostile to you....
Understood... I honestly don't think Dersmikner advocates killing them all -- he's probably just frustrated with the Islamic World like I am and many others. It's like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You can't really reason with half of these countries, so you just do what you can to keep the mess from spreading. Africa is much of the same.Bertster7 wrote:
OK, it came across as though you were siding with Dersmikner, who a post or two back was advocating nuking them all.
The problem is... Iraq is where WE made the mess. We had no good reason to remove an oppressive, but stable government.
In a way, yes, but again... I'd rather we do it than China.Bertster7 wrote:
Intervention in the Middle East is all well and good in theory, it just doesn't work. Not even remotely. It makes stuff far, far worse.
Pakistan is kind of a lost cause, but I agree with what you are saying overall. We should've stuck to the diplomatic/arms deal approach we had been using for the last few decades. Sure, it would be nice if the arms trade just ended, but we all know that's not gonna happen.Bertster7 wrote:
Popular support is the only way to change stuff in the Middle East. Backing POPULAR pro-western leaders in key democratic positions is EXACTLY what the west should be trying to promote. Benazir Bhutto was exactly the sort of catalyst for change the region needed, not that she was without flaws, but she was hugely popular, took the right political line, vehemently opposed extremism and was an excellent public speaker. Domestic change is necessary within these Middle Eastern countries, not direct intervention - especially when those you are trying to win over are in many instances openly hostile to you....
I guess what I'm trying to say is... I consider it interventionism when we meddle with the affairs of other countries. I don't limit the term to military action. I would agree that direct military involvement should be a last resort, but other forms of intervention are necessary.
That's not really what I'm saying at all.....Turquoise wrote:
Pakistan is kind of a lost cause, but I agree with what you are saying overall. We should've stuck to the diplomatic/arms deal approach we had been using for the last few decades. Sure, it would be nice if the arms trade just ended, but we all know that's not gonna happen.Bertster7 wrote:
Popular support is the only way to change stuff in the Middle East. Backing POPULAR pro-western leaders in key democratic positions is EXACTLY what the west should be trying to promote. Benazir Bhutto was exactly the sort of catalyst for change the region needed, not that she was without flaws, but she was hugely popular, took the right political line, vehemently opposed extremism and was an excellent public speaker. Domestic change is necessary within these Middle Eastern countries, not direct intervention - especially when those you are trying to win over are in many instances openly hostile to you....
I guess what I'm trying to say is... I consider it interventionism when we meddle with the affairs of other countries. I don't limit the term to military action. I would agree that direct military involvement should be a last resort, but other forms of intervention are necessary.
I'm talking about promotion of change from within. Striking a chord with the people through subtle, very loosely associated intermediaries.
True, discretion is the key...
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-27 17:20:27)
Wasn't it the US (and others) who applied pressure to Musharraf to lift the state of Emergency?Musharraf wrote:
“ Today I make this address because our country is at a dangerous juncture, facing a national crisis. Throughout history, nations have often had to make difficult decisions. That time has come now for Pakistan — we have to make important and painful decisions. If these decisions are not made then Pakistan's future is at stake.
Before saying anything further, I promise that the decision I have made is, first of all, for the sake of Pakistan. Pakistan is above all personal interests. The people of Pakistan should agree with me on this.
In the last few months, our situation has changed dramatically. Terrorism and Extremism are rampant. Suicide bombings are widespread. In Karachi, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, fanaticism is now common. Fundamentalist extremists are everywhere. They are not afraid of law-enforcement agencies.
What was confined to the frontier areas, has now extended to many other areas. Extremism has spread even to Islamabad - the heart of Pakistan.
The people are worried. The extremists are trying to take the authority and power of the government into their own hands. They want to impose their outdated religious views upon the people.
In my eyes, this is a direct challenge to Pakistan's future as a moderate nation.
”
/subtle interventionThe United States, which had exerted diplomatic pressure on Musharraf to
refrain from imposing a state of emergency, views Pakistan as a vital ally in global
and regional counterterrorism efforts, and it has provided considerable foreign
assistance to Pakistan since 2001, in part with the goal of facilitating a transition to
democracy in Islamabad.
Have we not learned yet that Democracy can not be forced?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
don't forget the other people who died in the bomb blast. there are people grieving for them too.
Wow.Dersmikner wrote:
You know, I look at it like this: A community in _____ state in _____ country is infected with a terrible virus. Terrible. It's so virulent that it spreads wildly, and is always fatal. Estimates vary, but it's known that between 15 and 50% of the people are infected. The problem is that you can't tell when someone is infected until their fucking head explodes, infecting everyone near them and killing dozens of innocent people. It's the worst disease in human history. Blows The Plague, AIDS, CCHF and Ebola out of the water.
So what are your options?
1. Hope to work on cure and try to make sure it doesn't spread too badly. Of course, you're risking the entire population of the world like that.
2. Quarantine the town and hope nobody gets out. Again, if ANYONE gets out, how can you be sure they aren't infected, and how do you know they won't spread the shit to your neck of the woods? Remember, there's no good test for telling if someone has it before it's too late to keep innocent people from dying.
3. Nuke the fucking place and pray for forgiveness, realizing that you're taking out innocent lives but saving the rest of the world in the process.
I say drop the nuke. It's the best of a bunch of bad alternatives.
You're just as bad as the terrorists.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
That is all just terrible. I feel so bad for the people in these attacks.
Spark, you are correct sir. I have decided to be as bad as the terrorists. Violence can not be overcome with hugs. You can idealize and talk and negotiate all you want, but the truth is that you can't negotiate with those inclined to violence.
Phil Gramm said it best: "I too long for the day when the lion can lie down with the lamb... but when that day comes, I still want to be the lion."
Phil Gramm said it best: "I too long for the day when the lion can lie down with the lamb... but when that day comes, I still want to be the lion."
So... how can you claim to be the leader of the civilized, free and peaceful world if the only way you can defeat terror is via the worst genocide mankind has ever seen? Never mind the obvious point that few people would agree to such a policy, and undertaking this would certainly cause enough problems to cripple the entire political systems of the West and mostly likely lead to global anarchy, and at worst, social failure.Dersmikner wrote:
Spark, you are correct sir. I have decided to be as bad as the terrorists. Violence can not be overcome with hugs. You can idealize and talk and negotiate all you want, but the truth is that you can't negotiate with those inclined to violence.
Phil Gramm said it best: "I too long for the day when the lion can lie down with the lamb... but when that day comes, I still want to be the lion."
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Genocide targeting Islam would be worse than the holocaust (more people would die for an equally deranged reason, therefore = worse). He either isn't considering what he's saying, or he's some sick Hitler wannabe. Either way, he's a complete idiot.Spark wrote:
So... how can you claim to be the leader of the civilized, free and peaceful world if the only way you can defeat terror is via the worst genocide mankind has ever seen? Never mind the obvious point that few people would agree to such a policy, and undertaking this would certainly cause enough problems to cripple the entire political systems of the West and mostly likely lead to global anarchy, and at worst, social failure.Dersmikner wrote:
Spark, you are correct sir. I have decided to be as bad as the terrorists. Violence can not be overcome with hugs. You can idealize and talk and negotiate all you want, but the truth is that you can't negotiate with those inclined to violence.
Phil Gramm said it best: "I too long for the day when the lion can lie down with the lamb... but when that day comes, I still want to be the lion."
Except Jews weren't killing thousands of Germans. Just dropping a nuke is a little on the loony side though.Bertster7 wrote:
Genocide targeting Islam would be worse than the holocaust (more people would die for an equally deranged reason, therefore = worse). He either isn't considering what he's saying, or he's some sick Hitler wannabe. Either way, he's a complete idiot.Spark wrote:
So... how can you claim to be the leader of the civilized, free and peaceful world if the only way you can defeat terror is via the worst genocide mankind has ever seen? Never mind the obvious point that few people would agree to such a policy, and undertaking this would certainly cause enough problems to cripple the entire political systems of the West and mostly likely lead to global anarchy, and at worst, social failure.Dersmikner wrote:
Spark, you are correct sir. I have decided to be as bad as the terrorists. Violence can not be overcome with hugs. You can idealize and talk and negotiate all you want, but the truth is that you can't negotiate with those inclined to violence.
Phil Gramm said it best: "I too long for the day when the lion can lie down with the lamb... but when that day comes, I still want to be the lion."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's not what the Germans thought though.Kmarion wrote:
Except Jews weren't killing thousands of Germans.Bertster7 wrote:
Genocide targeting Islam would be worse than the holocaust (more people would die for an equally deranged reason, therefore = worse). He either isn't considering what he's saying, or he's some sick Hitler wannabe. Either way, he's a complete idiot.Spark wrote:
So... how can you claim to be the leader of the civilized, free and peaceful world if the only way you can defeat terror is via the worst genocide mankind has ever seen? Never mind the obvious point that few people would agree to such a policy, and undertaking this would certainly cause enough problems to cripple the entire political systems of the West and mostly likely lead to global anarchy, and at worst, social failure.
You still read the comics and not the Newspaper?stkhoplite wrote:
AgreedATG wrote:
Why am I not surprised these animals killed her.
Well... I didnt even know who she was
No. They weren't. Does that really make any real difference? It's still genocide for the same reasons, based on propaganda and anti-Islamic rhetoric - which is exactly what the holocaust was (though it was anti-semetic propaganda in that instance). Dropping one nuke only exacerbates the situation, to crush the idea of Islam would take dozens of nukes and a lot of rounding up into camps to effectively implement - I call that being a Hitler wannabe.Kmarion wrote:
Except Jews weren't killing thousands of Germans. Just dropping a nuke is a little on the loony side though.Bertster7 wrote:
Genocide targeting Islam would be worse than the holocaust (more people would die for an equally deranged reason, therefore = worse). He either isn't considering what he's saying, or he's some sick Hitler wannabe. Either way, he's a complete idiot.Spark wrote:
So... how can you claim to be the leader of the civilized, free and peaceful world if the only way you can defeat terror is via the worst genocide mankind has ever seen? Never mind the obvious point that few people would agree to such a policy, and undertaking this would certainly cause enough problems to cripple the entire political systems of the West and mostly likely lead to global anarchy, and at worst, social failure.
Dropping a single nuke on, lets say, Mecca, would probably lead to at least a tenfold increase in terrorism from Islamic extremist sources.
Hillary Clinton has just pledged to bring democracy to pakistan. we're safe now
lolGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Hillary Clinton has just pledged to bring democracy to pakistan. we're safe now
The candidates will use anything to try and get that extra vote...
It does make a difference. It called defense. At least there is some legitimate provocation for his irrational thought. As for the rest of your nuke response, I addressed what I thought about that.Bertster7 wrote:
No. They weren't. Does that really make any real difference? It's still genocide for the same reasons, based on propaganda and anti-Islamic rhetoric - which is exactly what the holocaust was (though it was anti-semetic propaganda in that instance). Dropping one nuke only exacerbates the situation, to crush the idea of Islam would take dozens of nukes and a lot of rounding up into camps to effectively implement - I call that being a Hitler wannabe.Kmarion wrote:
Except Jews weren't killing thousands of Germans. Just dropping a nuke is a little on the loony side though.Bertster7 wrote:
Genocide targeting Islam would be worse than the holocaust (more people would die for an equally deranged reason, therefore = worse). He either isn't considering what he's saying, or he's some sick Hitler wannabe. Either way, he's a complete idiot.
Dropping a single nuke on, lets say, Mecca, would probably lead to at least a tenfold increase in terrorism from Islamic extremist sources.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What a stupid bitch!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Hillary Clinton has just pledged to bring democracy to pakistan. we're safe now
The Pakistanis will love that....
A democratic system put in place by the US - of course, it's the obvious solution. It won't increase anti-American sentiment even further and destabilise the Pakistani government to a degree where terrorists laying their hands on nukes is quite possible.
*Bangs head on table*
It's not called defence.Kmarion wrote:
It does make a difference. It called defense. As for the rest of your nuke response, I addressed what I thought about that.Bertster7 wrote:
No. They weren't. Does that really make any real difference? It's still genocide for the same reasons, based on propaganda and anti-Islamic rhetoric - which is exactly what the holocaust was (though it was anti-semetic propaganda in that instance). Dropping one nuke only exacerbates the situation, to crush the idea of Islam would take dozens of nukes and a lot of rounding up into camps to effectively implement - I call that being a Hitler wannabe.Kmarion wrote:
Except Jews weren't killing thousands of Germans. Just dropping a nuke is a little on the loony side though.
Dropping a single nuke on, lets say, Mecca, would probably lead to at least a tenfold increase in terrorism from Islamic extremist sources.
Defence doesn't apply to genocide. You could apply it to retaliation in many forms but genocide goes way beyond being defence.
Offence, maybe. Offensive, certainly. Not defence.
dont forget the other few hundred thousand people that died around the world yesterday...tthf wrote:
don't forget the other people who died in the bomb blast. there are people grieving for them too.
draft draft draft
stop loss! stop loss! stop loss!