america's worst disaster in recent history

mudsling3 said:

You can take your Faith back to your synagogue or wherever it belongs.

Click to expand...

I don't like this type of insults (and I would feel the same if you used mosque, church in that place).

I'm decidedly agnostic (thinking organized religions of all creeds are the root of much evil in the world), so I'm afraid my "faith" lies purely in the fact that man is a warlike critter. I believe the radical muslim culture (as opposed to main-stream muslim teachings) lends itself to and emphasizes a war-like approach. The whole doctrine is "us versus them", which I believe is in place because it's an excellent way to recruit, rally and control a population. Just as 9-11 solidified the US populace for a few years, "us versus the infidels" has solidified a portion of the muslim population for 2000+ years.

Take a look at the whole Israel/Palestine mess. Regardless of which side of the debate you land on, it's safe to say that nobody can reasonably expect peace in the region. Those folks have been killing each other for thousands of years and that will not be changing any time soon. Both sides have committed enough atrocities thru the years that some brokered piece of paper signed by a handful of politicians (assuming we ever got that far, which would be a surprise to me) will not magically make the nutcases forget and play nice. That's not to say it's not worth a try, but to place one's safety purely in the political process is naive and dangerous.

When a pivotal plank of a culture is the elimination of another culture (see Iran, see Saddam, see ultra-conservative Israeli factions, see the PLO, see Nazi Germany, and if you're Michael Moore see Dubya), violence WILL follow. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Now, there's decent folk like Corwin that think man has the capacity to be a decent critter and that peace is a reasonable goal. I respect folks like that (and even bear a little jealousy), but that ain't me. I'm decent enough to take the first punch, but after that I'm going to beat the bahjeezuz out of you. I've domesticated, but at my core I'm still a violent critter, just like every other animal on this planet.

I suppose the thing that really makes me angry when this issue rears up is that the folks that are screaming about the "unjust war" are the exact same folks that were screaming that Dubya "let 9-11 happen". Either you want someone to take action and you accept the consequences or you want someone to turn the other cheek and you accept those consequences. You simply cannot have it both ways. Similarly, it's always harder to take action than to sit back and bitch about the actions taken, particularly when the vast majority think that bitching doesn't obligate you to offer a better strategy (and "leave Iraq" is not a strategy for keeping the world safe, even if it's possibly a component of such a strategy).

Danicek said:

I don't like this type of insults (and I would feel the same if you used mosque, church in that place).

Click to expand...

My statement is all inclusive and you can substitute anything you want. I just happen to pick the head of an unholy trinity… mother and her two daughter-in-laws. But that’s besides the point I was making: Anyone places his faith on the government and those big bosses behind it is a little... Yeah, I am sure that they wiped off those tears then went to a mall and did some shopping.

I must be one of the blind, stupid materialists then, cuz I can't figure out what in the heck you're trying to say in that post, mudsling3.

Me neither!! The difficulty for me, is walking the tightrope between being an idealist and a realist!! I know my history, heck I have an honours degree in it, and I've studied church history in great depth, not only Christian (Caths vs Prots in particular), but that of other faiths. I want to believe that we can all live together in harmony; we do it easily on a small scale in many of our local communities. I've had very close friends who were Jews, Atheists, Hindu, etc, even Catholics!! Why then can't the World as a whole manage to do it? After all, we're just people; we're really all the same in everything that matters.

However, I'm realist enough to learn the lessons of history that there will always be people who want to destroy, who want to tear down, who see everyone who is different ffrom them in anyway, as an enemy!! My problem here, is that I just don't understand that thinking; it's outside my comprehension. I LIKE people of all cultures and I enjoy learning from them; it enriches my life. Why can't others do the same?

mudsling3 said:

My statement is all inclusive and you can substitute anything you want. I just happen to pick the head of an unholy trinity… mother and her two daughter-in-laws. But that’s besides the point I was making: Anyone places his faith on the government and those big bosses behind it is a little... Yeah, I am sure that they wiped off those tears then went to a mall and did some shopping.

Click to expand...

That's particulary interesting. Now, you may try to explain what you are trying to explain. Why were you mixing synagogue in that argument if you were trying to say that noone should place it's faith into the government bosses? This last post of yours seems to indicate that you don't believe they are honest in what they do that they are hypocrites. So what was the sinagugue insult up there? Or are you part of that hilarious group that is preaching about the "seek a Jew behind everything"?

Corwin said:

Me neither!! The difficulty for me, is walking the tightrope between being an idealist and a realist!!....

However, I'm realist enough to learn the lessons of history that there will always be people who want to destroy, who want to tear down, who see everyone who is different ffrom them in anyway, as an enemy!! My problem here, is that I just don't understand that thinking; it's outside my comprehension. I LIKE people of all cultures and I enjoy learning from them; it enriches my life. Why can't others do the same?

Click to expand...

Maybe because secure and rational people who have the ability to think for themselves instead of swallow whole a lot of propaganda are few and far between? Most people seem to need the support of the hive mind to feel secure.

People are routinely pitted against each other by those who seek power. People living in a state of fear are far easier to control. Demagogues and profit seekers play on the fear of the unknown, or play to their audience's vanity--"Only you are pure. The others are all corrupt."

No one's better at this than the media, as Geist pointed out in another thread. It tells us who to admire and who to look down upon so we don't have to worry about any painful personal moral dilemmas. What we're hearing from many people like mudsling3 is the result of exposure to this; a mix of inexperience and flattered vanity.

A wonderful example of the confusion of motives in the media is Al Gore, the man who" invented the internet," passing himself off as a scientific clearinghouse on global climate change, playing on people's guilt while spending over $30,000.00 a year on utility bills for his Tennesee mansion. (I'm not arguing the pros and cons of any actual global warming that might be going on, btw, just saying who in their right mind would appoint Al Gore to be an authority on living a simple, energy-conscious lifestyle. )

But I digress.

I agree with Corwin. Every culture and every human being is unique and has something to offer. If the species is going to survive, sooner or later a greater level of tolerance and understanding has got to happen.

Jealousy is a great motivator, and there will always be "haves" and "have nots" in the world, even if it's just on a relative scale. Particularly these days when people think they're entitled to things (and the USA might be the biggest offender on that front), you'll always hit the convergence of a "have not" that also favors violent responses.

dteowner said:

"us versus the infidels" has solidified a portion of the muslim population for 2000+ years.

Click to expand...

Your math is a little off.

dteowner, you don't have to jump infront of every flying bullet. If you read my first post, I just suggested that a few can always capitalized on misfortune of the mass. Since Corwin and others have elaborated so well, I don't have anything more to add. I did slip in my opinion of organized religions to further emphersis my suspicion of those in power...jews or not

Personally, I think that "worst disaster" and 9/11 are terms that don't go hand in hand very well at all. 9/11 was a disaster for roughly 3000 folks and their families but for "America" as a country, it was like hitting the jackpot. What more could you ask for than to be a nation that stands above all law (even above the self-made ones)?
The USA was a super power on paper before the events of 9/11 but 9/11 allowed them to show the world what exactly being a "super power" means in practice. That must have been and -despite the small difficulties along the way- probably still is a dream come true for the powers that be.

Also, the invasion of Iraq will pay off long term. I believe that you have to think about this stuff on a larger, longer term scale. The invasion of Iraq is like killing two (or more) birds with one stone.
There is the issue of creating a buffer zone between Iran and Israel and generally providing protection for Israel which is surrounded by aggressive Muslim nations.
Then there is the issue of easier access to Iran and Syria, countries that are arch enemies of the US and are likely to become a problem in the near, mid-term future.
There's also the issue of the proximity to Afghanistan. Just look at a map of the region. Controlling Iraq and Afghanistan and thus "sandwiching" Iran is strategically important.
Same goes for exercising a certain level of control over Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan (who got nukes).
Next, there is also the issue of oil but not on a short term basis as some people might think. I strongly believe that the plan is to be right there or at least nearby when oil becomes a scarce resource in 70, 100 or 150 years (no one really knows, right?) so establishing a presence in the region now makes sense in that regard. The US and its economy rely very much on a steady stream of oil from the Arabian peninsula.
And finally there is the political issue of converting a Muslim nation over to democracy (or at least something vaguely resembling democracy like Turkey) which could set an example for other nations in the region. This will only succeed if Iraq becomes a healthy and wealthy state so that other Muslim nations will want to follow their shining example (long way to go obviously).
That's a very risky experiment that the US have started there in my opinion. Pulling out now is the worst that the US could do. They've made the mess and now they need to clean it up. Kinda like Gordon Freeman .

So in summary, I do believe that the US has only profited from 9/11. The country is now able to exercise an unmatched level of control over its own citizens, foreign citizens and over whole nations in the mid East. What more could the political leaders of the US ask for? 9/11 has opened the gates to their dream world.

Moriendor, you are definitely a pragmatist!

abbaon said:

Your math is a little off.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. True, the Muslim religion hasn't been around that long so technically 2000+ years is inaccurate, but I would offer that the folks that would eventually become "Arab Muslims" have been banding together to repel outside invaders since the days of Greek and Roman dominance.

@Moriendor- Even as a Dubya defender, I think you might be giving him and his cronies a little too much credit for forethought. Right, wrong, or indifferent, you certainly make a compelling case.

@mudsling- No harm done. I'm used to carrying the flag and falling on the grenades around here. Dubya's policies are not terribly popular, particularly in a forum with a large European contingent. I think Dubya has flubbed a few things, but I feel much better with our nation doing something rather than sitting back waiting for the next attack.

If you understand the difference between the terms 'Arabs', 'Muslims', 'Arab Muslims', and 'the folks that would eventually become "Arab Muslims"', then you have no excuse for using them interchangeably.

I probably don't understand the true finer points of the terms, but either way it was sloppy--guilty as charged. My apologies.

The problem with language, is that we frequently use (and confuse) the same terms to mean different things. I remember when German and Nazi were synonymus (sp?). Now, no-one would confuse the two. I think the media has done a 'wonderful' job of confusing terms like Arab and Muslim as well. It's so much easier to 'keep things simple' for the poor, mindless plebs!!

Well, just my 2 cents on the whole 9/11 thing. As someone said, it was an act commited by "a group of people that fanatically hated the United States." How that justifies to invade to countries is beyond my understanding. The aftermath of 9/11 is a sad play that the American Government should be ashamed of (and believe me - I'm not anti-American, I love America for many reasons, but these were terrible acts). We should not forget that both wars cost the lives (and limbs) of many people that were not involved in the acts of 9/11. And they will continue to cost lives when most Americans have forgotten that these wars happened, thanks to cluster bombs, and all that crap that is still lying around in these countries.
No doubt, the Taliban, as well as Saddam Hussein and his Bath party were terrible regimes, but one should not forget who established them in the first place. It is aslo very questionable if these countries were actual threads to the US.
The fact that the American Government again and again tried to link Saddam Hussein to Al Quaida (a connection that is totally off since Saddam was a worldly leader), and the justification that the Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (although the U.N. clearly said that it has none) makes you curious what was really motivating the American government. Personally, I would be very surprised if it were not economical reasons.
Ironically, the U.S. government started the war by linking Iraq to Al Quaida, a connection that did not exist, until the U.S. started the war. Cause it is now that members of Al Quaida and other fundamentalist groups are entering Iraq to fight side by side with former Bath party members. Chances are also quite good that Iraq will see a shift back to theocracy over the next few years... maybe not an official one, but tendencies are already obvious.
Anyway, guess 9/11 was America's worst disaster in recent years. Sad that they also made it the world's worst disaster (cause this will sooner or later affect all western countries - if it does not already). It's also sad that America (or better its government) worsened that disaster to a yet uncalculable degree by showing a reaction that was absolutely inappropriate.

I wouldn't say that Afghanistan was inappropriate, but Iraq certainly was. I remember in the months leading up to it thinking that he was taking us on a direct and deliberate course towards invading Iraq on flimsy pretenses at best. Afghanistan was ruled by a group that was essentially a terrorist organization itself. And unfortunately the distraction and negative world impact of Iraq has hurt the efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

So then, Spain' leadership, making such a big deal about not taking part in Iraq, sure made their citizens safe, right? Those train bombs didn't happen because the nutcases were so impressed with the peaceful approach. Could that massive loss of life been prevented had Spain taken a more proactive approach to the problem?

dteowner said:

@Moriendor- Even as a Dubya defender, I think you might be giving him and his cronies a little too much credit for forethought. Right, wrong, or indifferent, you certainly make a compelling case.

Click to expand...

Not GW Bush. Jeb Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and many others. The Wikipedia articles on them and the FNAC are really interesting. Especially Rumsfeld and Cheney are deeply involved in the "history" of the current conflicts with Iraq or North Korea - and have not long ago lead companies with significant business interests in the energy and infrastructure sector especially in high-risk countries.

For certain industries 9/11 was a godsend. The military sector delivers the weapons, the tax payer pays for the war, "infrastructure" rebuilds the country, "energy" signs long-time contracts to secure cheap oil for the USA and the money needed to pay back the depts for the infrastructure contracts.
Brilliant plan. The only thing they didn´t expect was that the war was impossible to win. Now they´re in trouble. Staying there is not good, and pulling out is equally risky.

For the industry nations 9/11 was a huge disaster. It was a signal that we are not invulnerable - and that we´ll never be.
On a global scale, outside the political spectrum, it was insignificant though. A few thousand people dead. Compare this to starvation in Africa, people killed in civil war everyday, the number of people killed by alcohol, tobacco or traffic accidents every year, the flood catastrophy after that earthquake a few years ago.

Reg. "democracy":
It´s not clear that democracy is a viable political system in in that region. Most (all?) countries over there have no experience in democracy yet. Their leaders certainly don´t want democracy. Even the advantages for the people is unclear, and the consequences for the rest of the world even more. What happens if extremists really win an election in a country which has nuclear weapons?