Printable View
I agree, religion, just like government, is a means to control. If you can't keep the people in check, you can't get the money via "offerings", tything, or taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
Granted I think government and religion also does a lot of GOOD in the world, the power to control people never stays pure very long...
Ok little child go back to class now .. the title of this forum is CHAT, if you want a debate you need to think again, i wouldnt waste my time on you. Now that said, I will not converse with you anymore, so have fun wasting bandwidth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Even though rory's post may lack a bit of nuance, he's not a child (I remember him posting he installs CC TV systems for a living). If you think he's too juvenile to enter your high level debate then ignore him and leave him alone.
I almost sound like a mod now, but I hate how so many WE threads go ugly after a while.
Really, he's an adult? I stand shocked and amazed. I would not call our debate particularly high level, just adult, yet apparently he could not follow it. It's a shame when a good discussion such as the one we have going get derailed by people insistant on name calling. I only refer to him as a child as I was absolutely convinced that that is what he was. I am still not convinced that he isn't. After all, doesn't it strike you as childish that I call him a child, and he responds with "No, you're a child!" (paraphrasing - and punctuating)??? My children do that sort of thing all the time, but I've never known an adult to do it... so you see where I get my asssumption from :)
He also shows an extreme lack of real world knowledge - don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me lacks real world knowledge - there are many people here who argue with me whom I respect. But the "You're not with Bush, therefore you're a terrorist" stance is mind-boggling childish. Again, the sort of logic I would expect from one of my kids, but not from an adult.
Therefore, I think the onus lies on Rory to prove that he is an adult by behaving like one and posting something an adult might say, rather than his little hissy fits.
Of course, I probably could lower myself to his age group and say that I totally pwned him with my responses to his questions on the previous page.... but that would just be chilish, so I won't ;)
Thanks, im not responding to he/she anymore anyway. He/she has too much time on their hands, they are obviously trolling forums with their anti american agenda (see their posts) and have no actual interest in Visual Basic ... What he / she doesnt get, and it is obvious, I am not even an American, actually British (also lived in London during the IRA days), however also lived in the US, and ofcourse where i live now and was born. As for messages I get to the point, forums arent a place for lengthly debates .. Fortunately I dont have to prove anything to a troll so they can say all they want, ive lived in the real world my entire life, been robbed many times, shot at, shot, knifed, ganged, kidnapped at gunpoint on a couple occasions .. the odd machete and axe attacks ... every day i see barefoot kids begging for food right outside the local stores, getting water from dirty pumps on the main road, picking through garbage for food, and ive lived alot of it myself. Also live with bars on the windows and doors, carry a weapon everytime we step outside the house ... and unlike in the first world countries, our government gives absolutely no support, and is full of corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
What does this have to do with anything, well not much, just setting a background, when many of the complainers are living it up in a first world country where they actually are the targets of the terrorists ... whether the "Global war on Terror" is going well or the way it should be, doesnt really matter, noone else has come up with a better idea yet that makes any sense. Also personally I never did like the way the US was cosy to the shin fein supporters, but whether they like it or not, the US and the UK is in it together now in a fight to "try" to stop more terrorist attacks .. not just on their home lands, because when a terrorist blows up a plane or building, innocent people from other countries are normally in those ... so the allies are essentially fighting the war for all of us, and they got MY 100% Support.
Ok rant over, i wont post anymore in this thread.
Can someone delete the last 39 posts? I was almost enjoying this thread up to that point.
A good entrepreneur would have opened a a factory up. I hear kids just love to make name brand sneakers. :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
I couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
It's like that saying about arguing with a fool: he will drag you down to his level, and then beat you. And that's more or less what we're seeing, although no-one has really been beaten yet, and probably never will if we continue down this road.
It's not Bushes fault.. he doesn't know about any of that bad stuff going on until he hears about it on the news ;)
I can't imagine why, you seem like such a nice person. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by rory
Anyway, let's ignore him and get back onto topic.
The US and UK (and other nations) have now committed themselves too far down the wrong path to turn back, so what options are left? Continuing on isn't going to help matters (short of introducing draconian laws).
We cannot pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq without leaving them in a bigger mess than we started with, and we can't remain there without incurring further wrath from the locals and therefore helping the terrorist recruitment drive.
I would suggest splitting it into three nations and leaving them to self rule, but as has been pointed out, the Turks don't really want a Kurdish neighbour on their border, and a dispraportionate amount of the oil wealth is in the south (if I remember correctly). Also, the sunni and sheite nations would be a sitting duck for a fundamentalist regime. But at this stage, maybe that's the best we can hope for?
Sorry you left the thread, I'd like to hear your story. You've posted some original viewpoints before in other threads, but in this one you just went so mean-spirited and vindictive that you must have something else gnawing at you. How could one person be so filled with venom that they would reply with such petty and thoughtless fury to disagreement? What is it that makes you so filled with anger? Do you hate me for having a good life so far? Would you hate me for being opposed to Bush and the GWOT? I believe that the principles of fairness that is the American ideal are worth striving for, and even worth dying for. Therefore, I can't support abandoning them in the form of the Geneva Convention just because they inconvenience a timid person fretting for their life. We have said, "these are the principles of fair and civil treatment that we will live by." Perhaps we can't do it, but let us die trying. Will you hate me and call me a terrorist for that? Will you simply not use my name?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
I often disagree with Demotivator, and I rarely agree with Xanith, but this forum would be a dull place without Xanith, and Demotivator has always spoken with clarity and reason, even when I most strongly disagree with him. But with you, there's more anger than passion, and a bitterness that others have not walked in your shoes. Why is that?
You know, if you'd made some coherent points I probably would have bothered, in the same way that I bothered responding to Xanith's points. As it was, all I saw from you was an outpouring of bile and jingoism. Frankly, I think my response summed up my view of your thoughts rather nicely. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
As for selective enforcement, why would I be singled out for favourable treatment? I tend not to come here now that it's so heavily populated with xenophobes such as yourself, so I don't think they'd be looking to do me any favours.
:lol: You really are a piece of work! Once again you show your juvenile nature by making assumptions. The Xeoroaniar name actually comes from a Sci-Fi book I am writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
How petty...and technically this forum is called WORLD EVENTS ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
Well gentlemen, now that the juvenile has left shall we continue with the topic?
In reply to Ex-FB, I honestly can't see how they can resolve this with all parties happy. The Iraqi people seem to genuinely want Democracy but it could be a while before that becomes a reality. Perhaps instead of the allied forces, a UN peacekeeping force instead? I know it's in reality the same thing but the UN can be seen as impartial whereas the US/UK can be accused of having alterior motives
I certainly wouldn't want to be in Bush's/Blair's shoes right now
Shame rory's gone, without the infighting I would have liked to hear his story, how come he lived in UK, America and now a Country where it seems his personal security is always at risk? Are his views just his own or do the locals around him feels similar?
It always seems to be the UK and USA war on terror, yet many of the other developed countries have managed to avoid the confrontation or atleast stay out of the limelight.
With regard to the Kurd's I saw lastnight on the news (in UK) that a gang of people traffickers had been arrested, they were Turkish Kurds living in England and were taking cash to bring more Turk Kurds into the UK. Apparently they had brought hundreds into the country who then just disapeared into Kurd communities who exist and live off black markets. In their defence they said they were all Kurds who because they had political opinion were being persecuted by the Turks and were in great danger. Apparently they couldnt go through border controls because if any Turkish authorities caught them they may just vanish. How true these stories are I dont know.
makes you wonder though doesn't it?
It's a shame that the very black and white view exists of:
If you're not in complete agreement with George Bush, you must be a terrorist.
I hope it's not a common view in the US, although I fear it is.
No, I think we are just dealing with a very small-minded individual is all
Well it looks like they listened to my advice! Although they used NATO insteadQuote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
On a positive note, the independent monitoring commission in Ireland have just announced they believe the IRA has stopped it's terrorist and criminal activities. The republicans have been declaring they want proper peace talks for some times and now Ian Paisley (Unionist) won't have an excuse to storm away from the table... again.
Cool! That will hopefully help matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I doubt if it would be possible to persuade the UN to take over Iraq after they sidelined them over the invasion. However, I'm also not convinced that this would be an appropriate use of the UN unless the peacekeeping forces where made up mainly of middle-eastern forces (which rules out NATO).
I suspect the biggest step forward will be made when Bush leaves office (This is not a politcal statement - regardless of whether a democrat or republican replaces him), but he is seen as the main agressor, and hopefully once he is out, there is a chance of calming things down.
Of course, he is only one focal point, and now that the hornets nest is stirred up, it will be difficult to control, however improving the lot of the normal Iraqi civilian would probably go a long way to helping matters. I posted a number of years ago, a tale of how we were putting in power generators to power the oil fields (at the US militarys expense I might add) when 95% of Iraqi's had no electricity. This kind of thing is an easy flash point for the Iraqi people, and can only aid our enemies. Try to pretend that it's not about taking their oil at cents on the dollar.
Also, I believe we need to stop ***** footing around with politics. For instance, what the hell is an insurgent? Let's be honest here and call the Iraqi Resistance, the Iraqi Criminal Opportunists and a seperate group who are Iraqi Terrorists by different names. Not everyone who picks up a gun in Iraq is a terrorist, and not everyone who picks up a gun is a freedom fighter. As long as we are deliberatly muddling the terms, it will always appear that the terrorists are garnering popular support. We have a chance to sort out the Iraqi resistance by addressing their concerns (such as not tortuing their people and locking up innocent people, raping and burning families etc. - this should be an easy first step). Stamp out the Iraqi criminal opportunists (by good police work - and fair trials), leaving just the terrorists to deal with. These are a harder nut to crack, and it may take a generation or two to sideline them into unconsequence. But that will be the only way to stop them (IMHO), is to make them irrelevant.
Well, don't let this thread change your mind, by all means, stay away. As for being a xenophobe, I wouldn't consider myself 100% xenophobic, but I admit being pretty close. I'm not sure that that's such a bad thing. Something England and many European countries will eventually figure out.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
The personal attacks in this thread are what is truely childish, by the way, and Rory certainly doesn't hold a monopoly on that.
Ex-FB has made a very good, and relevant point regarding the insurgents in Iraq. The vast majority of the insurgent movement is indeed a criminal enterprise. There have been massive amounts of money given by the MNF in Iraq to rebuild, build new, and employ the masses of unemployed. However, a great deal of that money goes straight to the local Imam and never goes beyond that. The Al Capones of Iraq are the religious leaders. They have great influence over the people that end up picking up an AK instead of going to work. Keeping the violence going keeps them in power, they don't want the insurgency to end, and as long as they can spout their crap 5 times a day to dissaffected people who soak it up, the situtation will not change. There have been many cases where the local Imam was forced out of the picture, either by arrest or fear of arrest that made him take off - and the insurgent activity in his area dropped significantly. Unfortunately, the Iraqi police are so corrupt and divided along ethnic lines, it's not an easy thing to get an Imam arrested, and for appearences sake, they're the ones that should be making the arrests.
I personally don't see any easy or clean answer to the Iraqi insurgency. That said - the situation is not nearly as bad as portrayed in the media. There are many parts of Iraq that are relatively unaffected by the violence seen in and around Baghdad and the relatively low number of hotspots we see over and over on the news. Almost everyone who watches the news can name a few cities in Iraq, and those cities are the ones we hear about over and over. You don't hear about any of the successes, which does not mean they don't exist. Unfortunately, I feel that increased violence is the only way to quell the insurgency. Equally as unfortunate is the political bickering from outside of Iraq as well as internal to Iraq that will keep that from happening. Cleaning out Fallujah using extreme, extreme force is a prime example of what can (and should imo) be done to the hotspots we hear about over and over.
OhhhhKay. (Steps slowly back making no sudden movements)Quote:
As for being a xenophobe, I wouldn't consider myself 100% xenophobic, but I admit being pretty close. I'm not sure that that's such a bad thing.
I'll ammend that to selectively xenophobic. :lol:
Selectivity seems to be a theme around here anyway.
Good post....except for that wacky xenophobe thing. You can't be totally xenophobic and be American, unless you happen to be a tribal member. The rest of us are all mutts and imports.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
However, I think it actually is worse than it's portrayed in the media. A friend of mine just got back from a stint in one of the less violent areas. He's a perceptive and well traveled guy (more well traveled now, of course), and he took loads of photos, mostly documenting the average people, and the infrastructure. The picture he painted is of a country with greater and deeper divisions and problems than we could hope to overcome. Even where open violence is not being practiced, there appears to be a deep rooted balkanization in that nation which will take generations of very complex work to overcome.
Iraq wasn't a country, it's an artificially constructed state, just like Kuwait. The seeds of dissolution are easy to find. The neo-con philosophy was that Iraq was a secular state with a dictator in charge. They believed that we could easily topple this dictator and install a democracy which would be a model that might inspire all of its neighbors. As a long term strategy, I think this is a reasonable theory. I don't like the principle of forcible change on a foreign country, but the general concept was plausible....except that they picked the wrong country. Iraq is not cohesive enough to become the shining exemplar that they wanted. In fact, they could hardly have chosen a worse country.
The principle had theoretical merit, but they tried to implement it in a world where no ideal target existed. Since there wasn't a good target, they convinced themselves that the easy target was actually a good one....and they were wrong. Now we've got the tiger by the tail, and nobody can suggest a good solution to this except to hang on and hope something good happens.
well hopefully now that rory has left we can once again have an adult conversation regarding this general topic.
I am more than a little concerned by how many are willing to give up their lives to kill others for their cause. How can you possibly stop such radicals??
I believe the best way is to remove the rerasons they become radicals in the first place. There will always be nutters that you can never appease but the vast majority of people, of all creeds and cultures, are actually pretty balanced folks with no particular desire to blow themselves, or anyone else, up. However, if they feel they themselves or anything they hold dear (freinds and family, belief systems etc.) are under threat it becomes much easier for the nutters to radicalize them. If, on the other hand, you actually engage meaningfully with their concerns (which is not the same as capitulating to their every whim) it becomes much harder for the nnutters to radicalise them.Quote:
How can you possibly stop such radicals??
To my mind the most effective way of combatting terrorist groups isn't to deny them funds, resources or the ability to operate - you'll never actually succeed in any of these. Rather, it's to deny them sympathy.
keep mentioning my name ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Knew you couldn't stay away.
It's not quite at the same level of childishness I used to get up to here (until I got banned)
I couldn't agree less. If Iraq ends up as a fundamentalist state by anything other than the choice of their own people, then it will all have been for nothing. After all that the Iraqis have been through, both since the war and in the Saddam era before that, we owe them a chance to get on with building their own lives without interference from the rest of us. That means not only the West, but Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda and all the rest of them. Ensuring that is the case is the only way this shambolic episode can end in anything less than absolute failure in all aspects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
This has gone beyond saving face (we've already lost that) or minimising cost (it has already cost tens of thousands of lives of civilians, soldiers and terrorists alike, as well as billions of dollars). We would be illustrating how devoid of responsibility our governments really are if we bailed out now and left Iraq to rot under Ahmadinejad or al-Assad and their theocrats, or Osama and his chums for that matter. We have to take some of the responsibility for the situation as it stands, and thus we have to play our part in fixing it. It is a shame that the efforts of so many are still put to conflict there instead of rebuilding.
I am hopeful that an opportunity can be taken when George Bush and Tony Blair leave office; their every pronouncement is treated with suspicion and hostility both at home and abroad and people will disagree with them seemingly out of principle now, regardless of what that pronouncement is. This makes them the worst possible people to carry out the tasks that lie ahead.
We in the West need to get our reasons straight for our presence in that country, we need to own up to our past mistakes and we need to start believing as nations that we are part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Then we need to demonstrate it to the rest of the world, instead of taking every opportunity to either gain advantage or bungle once again. If we keep going down the road of unilateral action without explanation, without planning and without completion, then this sorry saga will just keep on rolling.
I couldn't agree more with Zaza's view of our moral obligation in Iraq. What worries me most is that I'm not sure our presence is actually doing anything to enable Iraq to move to a meaningful (and I do mean meaningful) democracy any more and I'm prety damn sure it's doing alot to spark more trouble. In which case there is also an argument for a moral case to leave. Trouble is, how the hell do you decide which of those two cases is correct? And if you get it wrong, either by leaving when we should stay or staying when we should leave, the cost is people's lives.
I think I'm still for staying but we need to radically change our approach to dealing with the partys involved. I really don't think we've paid much attention to the views of ordinary Iraqi's except fior the ones who happen to be saying what we want to hear.
It is worth bearing in mind, though, that once our troops leave Iraq there is no way they will be going back, no matter what happens to the country. It simply won't be politically possible, let alone practically possible. So we'd better be prepared for the consequences when we do finally leave, both for ourselves and those who live there.
I for one don't think that the violence would stop if the soldiers left right now. Don't forget, the recent escalation in tension started when a Shia mosque was bombed last year, an act entirely designed to get different factions within Iraq back at the guns.
There are a large number of unemployed, ill-educated young men over there who aren't very happy with their lives and who want a fight. At the moment, they'll have a pop at our soldiers under the banner of "freeing their country from the invaders". If we go, they'll be having a pop at each other under the banner of whichever cleric says what they want to hear. It'll be a hardline Shia government within 6 months.
Is that the outcome we or they really want, for the benefit of having a few months of not hearing "British troops ambushed in Samarra"?
Incidentally, how do you think the message "Keep at it guys and the infidel Westerners will retreat eventually" would go down in the back streets of Damascus / Kabul / Lahore / etc?
This is not to say "We must plough on regardless", but we do need to try to remember who it is that gives a stuff about the fate of the civilians over there and who doesn't, and then start acting like it.
I agree, but NATO could potentially take that responsibilityQuote:
Originally Posted by zaza
By the way, somebody (perhaps Mendhak) said that the subject of this thread made him hungry. Could somebody tell me what a Turkish Bomber is?
patte for canibals? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Actually I kinda agree with both of your posts and Funky Dexters, that it would be a bad move to pull out. But I also think that staying there for no reason at all is also a bad move. This was one of the points raised before the war, once we are involved, how to we leave without leaving behind a blood bath. Well it's too late for that now. So we have to deal with the choices open to us. Is it our responsibility that they are fighting us? Yes, absolutely, it was a stupid, stupid move to go in there and only a complete idiot would not have seen this outcome, but we have done it now, so we have to take responsibility for our actions. Is it our responsibility that they are fighting each other. Partly, but we cannot take 100% blame. We forcebly removed their government and replaced it with an occupying army, which allowed the infighting, but alot of this is ancestral hatred that goes back many years before the west was involved.
This was going to blow one way or another. Now, don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to absolve the West of any blame, just trying to find a solution, and part of that is the realisation that they are not only fighting because of the occupying armies. Having our troops stay there can only inflame the situation, there is no exit strategy by occupying the country. Pulling our troops out will cause a bloodbath, so that is not an exit strategy. We need something else. Independent nations may be the only half way acceptable step that might provide some sort of future stability without mountains of bodies. I'm not sure that it will, but I'm saying that I think it might be the best of a lot of really bad options. But it is still a bad option, but does anyone have any better ideas?
Either way, the US and UK are going to be hated by the middle east for causing this. I doubt if there is anything that we can do within the next generation to make up for the stupidity of Bush and Blair. So we just have to deal with the factors we can change.
This is not about surrendering, as soon as you start talking like that you are limiting your options. This is war, and you cannot throw lives away just so that someone can play political word play. This is about looking at the battlefield and working out what the next step is. Sometimes withdrawl is the smartest move. I mean, really what are we trying to achieve in Iraq? A stable government? A democracy? The first might be obtainable with different states, but not if they remain as they are. There will always be a group of people who feel oppressed and prefer things the way they were. As for democracy, Iraq isn't ready for it, and won't be for another generation at least.
Leaving our troops in there is just purpetuating a bad situation. We can stay there indefinetly fighting this battle. But that's not achieving anything. We need change.
After WWII, the Brits put the Sunni's in charge deliberately, even though they were a minority. Even back then they recognized that a Shiite dominated Iraq would be likely to be an anti-western theocracy.
There's no good way to resolve this, but a democracy may be a bad thing in a land dominated by a group who would be likely side with our enemy.
On the other hand, we built this house, now we'll have to live in it, come what may.
Nevertheless, a middle eastern country is now being ruled by a terrorist group (Hamas) but they have now realised that being in power in a country, means certain responsibilities. Fair enough to them they've accepted that terrorism doesn't work and are now in talks with the international community
It's easy to throw bombs (literal and figurative) when you are the opposition party. Whole different issue when you take over the leadership.