For how long will justice be muted? Iraqi war against Kuwait.

ROXRAN,

I really enjoy posts like yours, which offer nothing except what you really know....yourself. Explanation through self anecdotes and lesson's learned through experience is the best we as individuals have to offer each other. I doubly admire your use of no "you shoulds" or "we shoulds" or any other manner of reasoning implying that you know the answer for how others "should" live there life.

thx man!

 

AMEN Jeff! God I never thought I would see the day I would miss the KT and Walt Williams and picks for Raef LaFrentz posts!

 

Jeff: So by those standards, any article from a respected journal which articulates an opinion is "propaganda"?

MRamirez: Thanks. I've cooled down now. I just want to see the Taliban and Al Qaeda defeated.

I'm not sure how extremist that view is, but I stand by that opinion.

I know my opinion has no influence, but I say let Q8 post.

 

Whatever, Jeff. No matter what I say you're going to assume that I'm a racist warmonger. BTW, I wouldn't mind if Mango did help you out on this one, but whatever. I feel that you are too antiwar in this situation and wouldn't mind letting the bad guys keep hitting us, and you feel that I'm a racist warmonger. I know you're wrong about me,and I'm probably wrong about you, but who's listening anymore? Better just to steer clear of it with you.

If you can't let it go then just ban me, because I am not going to suddenly start saying that we should let Saddam do whatever he feels like, the Arabs are our best friends, we need to try Osama in a world court, or anything as absurd as that. But please stop insinuating that I want to nuke the Arabs, destroy Iraq, etc. Do a search, I never said that. Either way, keep it straight, please. Until this episode I've always had alot of respect for you as a straight shooter. Frankly, I've lost alot of respect for several people here, but there's no point in going into that...

 

treeman, I don't see what the big fuss over your posts are about.

I think you may have gone over the line once(maybe I'll search for it tonite), but that doesn't mean everything in your posts are worth discounting(and who hasn't gone over the line every once in a while, esp with reactions to the war?). Personally, I've found your posts quite more informative than a lot of others around here, in regards to the ME situation.

neway, my 2 cents.

 

Neither do I.

I probably have posted a few things that I could have worded better. The truth is that every few months I will get drunk one night and try to post something, and for that I have only myself to blame. Maybe someone should put a breathalyzer on my machine... But that is pretty rare. And as you said, I think that pretty much everyone here has posted a badly worded comment or two...

I am simply tired of being accused of being a racist warmonger. It gets annoying sometimes.

 

If I posted nothing but viewpoints from one side no matter where it came from, you would very likely call it propoganda. It isn't who writes it. It is the constant barrage of articles with the same slant. If all I did was post anti-war articles, it would be propoganda on this board because the totality of the postings would equate to that.

I don't believe that those publications foster propoganda. I believe that they are very likely balanced. I just don't ever see you posting anything from the other side so what you DO post is an attempt to sway people to your belief and your posts reflect that desire. Thus, it is propoganda because, no matter who wrote it, your posting of it to support your belief/viewpoint is biased.

The article isn't propoganda. Neither is the publication. Put all your posts together, however, and THAT is propoganda.

 

You are right that I am anti-war, period. I don't believe in "bad guys" to begin with because the term is far too subjective. We've got plenty of bad guys of our own. I do not believe that further violence will ever solve the problems we face. Violence begats violence. That is simply how I feel.

I don't consider you a racist, but I do think that your views are heavily slanted against Arabs for whatever reason. I don't think you are a warmonger but I do believe that you are in favor of fighting a war that I am not. We disagree. Fine. No big deal.

Ban you? Right. I don't do that unless it is absolutely necessary. We just disagree. Just don't tell me I'm wrong when you don't know the answers either.

Fine, you didn't advocate nuking without cause. However, I personally wouldn't advocate nuking anyone EVER, so even the consideration, for me personally, is over the top. I find the very <i>existence</i> of nuclear weapons to be terrifying and ridiculous. Using them, to me, is like something out of a nighmare.

I am a straight shooter, but I'm not going to say things people always want to hear. This whole series of war threads has bugged the hell out of me from the beginning and this is the end result. I'm tired of being told at every turn that my thoughts are wrong and that, if my opinion was the predominant one, we'd all end up dead or something worse. Unless you are a psychic, you don't know the future, so you don't know what my beliefs would accomplish. Neither do I and I wouldn't presume.

It seems that it is ok to disagree as long as it is innocuous and trivial. If it means something to you, it is just plain wrong. I tend to post more question marks than exclamation points because I want to know what people think. It helps me learn and grow. It gets old when others don't care to do the same.

Those who have been around here a while know it is RARE for me to start calling people out and getting pissed. This whole discussion has absolutely stripped away my patience.

 

Man...every post here is "propaganda" then.

 

Jeff,

I am always open for new information, and if someone presents me with real evidence that I am completely back-assed wrong then I will change my views. You are for the most part correct, however, that my mind's made up on these issues, because I've been studying this crap for years now. The opinions I've formulated are the result of my research thus far, and if someone presents me with a fair amount of evidence to the contrary then I'll change them. Just so you know, though, I did not formulate these opinions on 9/12, they've been building for over 5 years because that is where my own research has led me.

Obviously we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether or not we should fight this war. I'm sure we'll also disagree in the future over how far and to what lands it should be taken. As long as we can be civil about it, that's fine...

Nuclear scenarios are also the stuff of my nightmares, and I hope to whatever God there is that we never have to use them. But my core philosophy is to fight back if attacked... We'll just have to disagree on that.

 

OK, I know there was a lot of good, personal reflection in your post and it is somewhat trivial of me to focus on these few words. However, I found this to be hilarious and indicative of what has made your transition from "ROXRAN, the new super freak guy" to "ROXRAN, the funny, likeable crazy guy."

Also, I heard that Crisco likes to dress squirrels up in pretty dresses and have tea parties with them. They would be much more fun if not for their sharp teeth, eh CK?

 

Thank you crispee .......and rimbaud too (I know a compliment when I see one )

 

I have a lot of trouble believing that. I'm an honors political science major at a school with a reputation for being relatively conservative. But your arguments are pretty bizarre and radical right-wing.

I've interned in congress. I've written a thesis for an ex-nuclear war state dept expert. I've read thousands of pages of Realist theory, Functionalist theory, case histories of 19th and 20th century diplomacy, CIA internal reviews, former classified NSA documents, as well as declassified Soviet/Chinese documents.

I can't find bases for your assertions. Your positions just don't generally occupy a position in the realm of "reasonable debate" in the academic community.

This isn't to say that you're not right. But you're definitely right of anything that's remotely main stream, and hard-line beyond the most adamant Cold Warrior.

I believe there's a "range of debate" in which I understand the arguments of "the other side." I'm not utterly certain I'm right. But radicals on both sides are usually wrong. I don't think your positions, all-in-all, are respectable or legitimate.

Sometimes you seem to imply that you have some kind of insider information. I find this to be, at best, unlikely. And it's what annoys me most about your posts. It endows your rhetoric with a sense of legitimacy that I don't think they should have. People tend to trust authority... and sometimes rightly so. But I think you're using the implication as a rhetorical device that you don't merit. If you were some kind of "ex-official" then I would imagine you'd disclose your position. If you're still in a position "to know," then I think you'd have been cracked down on a while ago.


I know some people who do have "insider info" and they're all quite serious about the possible consequences of disclosing it. They won't do it, for fear of the response.

I could be wrong. Maybe you're Condaleeza Rice herself, and the more moderate exterior (in comparison to you) is nothing but a ruse. But I doubt it.

 

There it goes. Radical right wing racist warmongering...

I must be the only radical right wing extremist in America who is pro-choice. Probably the only one who is pro-affirmative action. Probably the only one who wants to take guns away from a few people, too. Probably the only one who thinks that abolishing federal funding for HHS, education, and the arts is a bad idea, too. Probably the only one who wants to explore and convert to alternative fuels (although I believe that nuclear power is good, so I guess that qualifies me as even more of a nutcase)... I am one strange right wing extremist.



Exactly which of my "views" do you think are so far right of the mainstream? Most in the know are aware that the Arab world does not love us. Most Americans (including our leaders) want us to topple the Taliban and kill Osama (and most realize that an international trial would be a farce). Most want to topple Saddam, too. Most would consider using nukes if we are ever attacked by them.

For someone who's so educated you appear to have missed out on the point of education: to gain wisdom. You haven't even figured out that the peace process won't get anywhere until both the Israelis and the Palestinians have stopped killing each other.

I think you're a little further left from the mainstream than you realize, haven.

 

You obviously haven't read many of my posts. I've actually argued on the Israeli side as well. You see me argue the Palestinian case most here because it's less represented. There's no need for me to argue: "the Palestinians should quit killing, too!" when everyone else is doing this. I'm certainly "left of center," but within the range of scholarly debate. The big question is: if you read 5 years worth of Foreign Affairs, could you find many articles that supported the essence of your arguments. If the answer is yes, then you're in the "reasonable spectrum." If not, you're an extreme radical. I know that's a crude rubric, but probably relatively sound. I agree with far too many articles in Foreign Affairs to be a radically, at least in the geopolitical arena.

Generally, I believe in: the Democratic Peace theory (rapidly gaining prominence over strict Realism), Functionalism (the EU was founded on the intellectual basis of Functionalism), and "soft" Realism, in which I allow for some influence of culture, domestic politics, and personality. I don't think any of this is particularly radical, except perhaps the extent to which I believe in Democratic peace...

I don't know how "right wing" you are generally, but with geopolitics... you're to the right of even the Cold War establishment.

Your obsession with how to deal with the problem is particularly problematic. Your suggestions concerning the use of nuclear weapons was out of bounds. Your threads concerning Iraq have been irrational.

I generally don't respond to your specific posts because, quite frankly, I think you have zero credibility in academic terms.

What you argue isn't "in the literature." The odds that you achieved your perspective from "studying the evidence" is practically nil.

You ignore the geopolitical ramifications of extreme unilateral action. You advocate implicit racist assumptions concerning the value of American and Arab life in your advocation of excessive military engagement. You ignore history in your analysis of conflict. You fail to account for the underlying social phenomena behind the current problems.

You fail to examine alternate solutions with long-term potential for permanent peace. You seem to view the world in terms of raw military muscle, and quite frankly, thinking that way would cost us immensely in the long-run.

A quick comparison, in my mind, would be MacArthur's request to Truman to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. If we had done this, there's a very strong possibility that the Soviet Union would have retaliated in defense of China during that historical period. There's an even stronger possiblity that we would have engaged in a long-term conventional war with China, that, quite frankly, we couldn't have won in Asia.

I don't think you're stupid. Much like Bob Rainey, you seem quite smart. But your perspective seems overly dogmatic and militaristic and you seem to hold certain inherently racist assumptions. Are you explicitly racist? No. But many of your arguments have underling assumptions that can only be asserted through a position of cultural bigotry.

If you wish, we can argue specifically concerning individual policies elsewhere. I'm supposed to be writing a paper right now, and I'm already violating my own rules by making this posts

See, you provoke me. You're to blame if I get a poor grade .

 

Wow... I wish I would have checked the hangout sooner.. nothing like reading a little Pro-palestinian propaganda.

First of all Q8... i pity you.. you accuse everyone of having no empathy for Palestinians while you can't even put yourself in other people's shoes.

I am going to cut to the chase. YOU CALL ISRAEL THE INVADERS AND THE PALESTINIANS THE VICTIMS.. I find this very amusing. Prior to the UN recognition of Israel, there were Jews already living in the country. Your precious Palestinian brothers were busy supporting the Nazi Party(what is funny about this is that Arab Muslim extremists call Israel a Nazi Zionist country). If I had a nickle for every lie that you spew, I would be up there with Bill Gates. Basically, Palestine supported a losing cause, they lost their land(which was a giant desert prior to the arrival of most of the European Jews) but they still had the right to co-exist with Jews.

I believe on another thread you or another pro-palestinian posted that Israel was an imperial expansionist country.. THIS IS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF CRAP. ISRAEL GAVE THE LAND BACK THAT IT WON FROM THE 5 DAY WAR. THEY ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY TO GIVE BACK LAND WON IN A DEFENSIVE WAR.

I do not hate you Q8, you just don't get it. You might think I am biased.. I should be.. I lost 85% of my family in the Holocaust!

Now lets talk about how oppressive Jews are to Palestinians(HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA). If Jews were so oppressive, then why are all arabs allowed to attend Jewish Universities? If Jews were so oppressive, then why dont Palestinians(or druse) have to join the army. btw, the druse proudly serve in the military.

There is a solution.. GET RID OF ISLAMIC JIHAD AND HAMAS... If Arafat would have accepted the peace agreement from Barak, he would have been assassinated. These extremist dont understand that violence doesnt solve anything. I bet you anything that if Sharon offered Arafat the same deal today, he would take it in a second. Instead of being so anti-Israel, you (Q8) should be anti-extremist(unless you are one). This is the only way a Palestine will ever be established.. Jihad is not the answer, unless you want to die.

Stop spreading lies.. the land of Israel(or whatever you want to call it) belongs to all of Humanity and all religions.. and ALL ARE WELCOME.

 

haven:

Foreign Affairs is a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, is it not? You don't think they have an agenda, do you? I don't particularly trust them myself... Although in all fairness Foreign Affairs does have some good stuff. I seriously hope that that's not all you're reading, though.

Cold Warriors? They won the Cold War, didn't they? Peace through strength sure worked in that case, didn't it? I'm guessing you think unilateral disarmament would have worked better against the Soviets? They would have laughed us right off the map.

What suggestions about nuclear use? That I would respond with nuclear weapons if we are ever attacked with nuclear weapons or smallpox? As I said, Slick Willie issued an executive order mandating a nuclear response to a WMD attack (I don't remember the #, I'm sure you can find it). Technically, we're supposed to use one now, but even I wouldn't use one yet. But I'd like to see what everyone thinks of a nuclear response when 3 million Americans die from smallpox, though. (check out the tests they conducted in Oklahoma City - it is shocking)

Ignore the geopolitical ramifications of unilateral action? I am perfectly aware of the ramifications: they will not be fun. But you seem to think that we should not defend ourselves unless the rest of the world says we can. I say to hell with the rest of the world, if someone's shooting at me I'm going to shoot back. I am not going to ask the attacker to pause while I run and ask the UN General Assembley if it's OK for me to shoot back...

I will listen to any serious alternative peaceful solution if one is presented. Serious solutions only. Trying Osama in a world court is absurd, and deserves no contemplation. Lifting the sanctions against Saddam would be counterproductive, to say the least. Negotiating with the Taliban would be absurd as well, as they have never once made any agreements with anyone in good faith. If you come up with a realistic alternative proposal that doesn't include putting either American soldiers or foreign civilians in harms way, I guarantee you I'm all ears.

Are you implying that if I were Truman I would have nuked the Chinese? I would have fired MacArthur, too. Nukes were not appropriate in that conflict, especially considering the probability that the Soviets may have nuked us back on the Chicoms' behalf...

I have already said that I am not a fan of Arab culture. They treat their women like dirt, they have a warlike culture that is pretty much (to this date) incapable of peacefully coexisting with non-Islamic neighbors, and they have absolutely no democratic or populist tradition (but a long history of dictatorships). So I guess that I am a cultural bigot in that case. But where's the racism there? You can keep calling me a racist all you want, and I can keep telling you that I couldn't care less if anyone's an Arab or a muslim. On an individual, personal level they are just normal people, but as a culture they are antagonistic towards the West. How can you deny that if you've studied the situation?

(if you haven't really studied the situation, a good place to start is Jihad v. McWorld, forgot the author, Amazon will have it)

We can go back and forth on this forever, as I see that you're not going to believe a single thing I say. Frankly, I'm really grasping for a reason that I should even continue to attempt to carry on this particular line of dialogue with you. Since nothing I say has any legitemacy in your eyes...

Good luck on your paper.

 

Treeman, if you start bringing up Bildurburgers, the Trilateral Commission, and one world socialst government stuff, I'm going to begin to become really scared of you. I hope this isn't what you're implying...

 

Are you sure about this? If you mean Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 60, I can find no source claiming that said directive mandates a nuclear response. It supposedly (in part) authorizes targeting of the source of a nuclear or other WMD attack, but that's a far cry from an automatic response. Given that the actual text of the directive is classified, it is difficult to say for sure, but a mindless launching of nuclear weapons seems like a bad idea, IMO.