User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 110

Thread: 9/11 happened.

  1. #71
    ndovjtjcaqidthi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mooseantlers View Post
    'Kabék
    Quebec > BC

    : )

  2. #72
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    I think that instead of simple rememberance there should be a stock take on whether in the year in question another atrocity like 9/11 has become more or less likely and why.

    I think a lot of the analysis of geopolitics before and since has been pretty poor. The idea that neo-cons either set it up or sought to exploit it to create a sort of manichean culture clash like existed during the cold war with oil tycoon bothering hill bandits is shallow as fuck. It takes no stock of the shift from total to limited warfare, the influence of the rise of China, the struggle with decline of the Russians and the wish for revenge of many within their power structures etc.

    I wish people were smarter.

  3. #73
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think that instead of simple rememberance there should be a stock take on whether in the year in question another atrocity like 9/11 has become more or less likely and why.

    I think a lot of the analysis of geopolitics before and since has been pretty poor. The idea that neo-cons either set it up or sought to exploit it to create a sort of manichean culture clash like existed during the cold war with oil tycoon bothering hill bandits is shallow as fuck. It takes no stock of the shift from total to limited warfare, the influence of the rise of China, the struggle with decline of the Russians and the wish for revenge of many within their power structures etc.

    I wish people were smarter.

  4. #74
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    People just got tired of Iraq because it went on too long and too many Americans ended up dying... just like with Vietnam, which, if you'll notice, didn't cause Americans to renounce wars or foreign interventions.
    Vietnam and Iraq shouldn't be grounds to renounce wars or foreign interventions any more than our WWII, Kosovo, or first Persian Gulf experiences are grounds to support them-each context is unique and specific to itself.

    And frankly, I think rage and overt displays of patriotism are perfectly appropriate and healthy responses to major terrorist attacks by extremist ideological groups (it certainly needs to be balanced with greater caution, but not reflexively avoided as a vulgar act of jingoism), and I view Iraq as a strategic and intelligence failure rather than a moral failure-and people have learned from recent experiences, that's why opposition to involving ourselves in Syria is so strong now.

    Finally, sometimes the timing is just plain inappropriate, like fixating on the unjust internment of Japanese-Americans on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor; we don't want to do anything like that again, but most us would feel a bit offended if confronted with someone focusing on that instead of remembering those who died at Pearl Harbor on the anniversary. If you complained about excessive American responses on the anniversary of the 'mission-accomplished' speech, you could convey the same point without gratuitously insulting anyone's expression of grief or patriotic feelings long since measured with a greater appreciation for the consequences of acting with reckless arrogance.

  5. #75
    Knobgoblin mooseantlers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saudade View Post
    Quebec > BC

    : )
    I'm getting to the age where how full my pockets are matters most and I'm starting to believe you. Should I move, I will never ever be a Habs fan!!


    On topic: 9/11 was bad.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Tell me about the fucking golf shoes!

    "I don't wear a toupee!" Donald Trump

  6. #76
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Vietnam and Iraq shouldn't be grounds to renounce wars or foreign interventions any more than our WWII, Kosovo, or first Persian Gulf experiences are grounds to support them-each context is unique and specific to itself.
    I agree, actually.


    And frankly, I think rage and overt displays of patriotism are perfectly appropriate and healthy responses to major terrorist attacks by extremist ideological groups (it certainly needs to be balanced with greater caution, but not reflexively avoided as a vulgar act of jingoism),
    Perhaps, but I prefer people be honest about their desire for vengeance rather than dressing it up with appeals to "morality", because we're too civilized for vengeance, apparently. Nobody seems to care much now about the "morality" of stopping tyranny, right or left.

    If people thought Syria might have been involved in the Boston bombing, you can bet people would want to invade Syria. That's a no-brainer, I suppose, but with it, you'd hear a lot of talk about the imperative of spreading democracy, creating freedom, replacing burkas with child beauty pagents, etc. I'd rather not hear about the latter stuff.


    and I view Iraq as a strategic and intelligence failure rather than a moral failure-and people have learned from recent experiences, that's why opposition to involving ourselves in Syria is so strong now.
    An overly optimistic assessment. I think we've learned about as much from Iraq as we have from Vietnam in 1977. People's reluctance about Syria just confirms that it was never really about morality. People simply realized that wars can be bloody inconvenient drawn-out things, and that someone they know might even be affected by it. Rather then being cognizant of this beforehand, they simply refused to entertain it as a possibility because it was too much of a downer. And they act shocked and surprised when things didn't turn out like they expected.

    I'm sure we'll all forget about this in a decade or two.

    Finally, sometimes the timing is just plain inappropriate, like fixating on the unjust internment of Japanese-Americans on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor; we don't want to do anything like that again, but most us would feel a bit offended if confronted with someone focusing on that instead of remembering those who died at Pearl Harbor on the anniversary.
    So that kind of thing is politically incorrect and insensitive to people's feelings? Interesting.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  7. #77
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post

    I think a lot of the analysis of geopolitics before and since has been pretty poor. The idea that neo-cons either set it up or sought to exploit it to create a sort of manichean culture clash like existed during the cold war with oil tycoon bothering hill bandits is shallow as fuck. It takes no stock of the shift from total to limited warfare, the influence of the rise of China, the struggle with decline of the Russians and the wish for revenge of many within their power structures etc.

    I wish people were smarter.
    But you call an ace for an ace. Facts are facts. If you follow middle-eastern economics and western foreign policy, you can see the progression from which profit could be made, and how they're both interwined. That isn't a intellectual zeitgeist for leftist ideologues and thinkers. It's an observable process in economics . And if you've read any history, the casus belli based on some violence or sporadic incident, or disagreement, is an old political action, known since alexander the great. There is nothing conspiratorial or strange about it. It's how globalism works. People who espouse manichean worldviews and political ideas, were foreign policy advisors to george w bush government, people like samuel P. huntington and Bernard Lewis. That is also factual. The manichaen view also isn't somehow new either. Being dismissive for the the sake of being dismissive is sort of dumb.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lowtechredneck View Post
    and I view Iraq as a strategic and intelligence failure rather than a moral failure-and people have learned from recent experiences, that's why opposition to involving ourselves in Syria is so strong now.
    Iraq is a giant moral failure, because the USA has not taken any responsibility for removing the instability caused by the war. You can't go into a divided nation like iraq. Which was saturated with politicized secterian issues, due to the baath party. Meanwhile you're backing a wahabi country like saudi-arabia, who has it's own strategic designs. Which is maintaining the hegemony of divisiveness and secterian hierarchy in iraq, by maintaining the hegemony of it's own group. Which of course leads to inflammation of that violence. It's a moral failure, because hundreds of thousands of iraqis got killed, meanwhile george bush sat back and scratched his head, dumb-founded over the death-squads his own allies sent. It's a moral failure because it made millions of iraqis flee their homes, to avoid the post-war violence, which the Nato forces and Bush adminstration couldn't solve. Saying anything else is just denial.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  8. #78
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    But you call an ace for an ace. Facts are facts. If you follow middle-eastern economics and western foreign policy, you can see the progression from which profit could be made, and how they're both interwined. That isn't a intellectual zeitgeist for leftist ideologues and thinkers. It's an observable process in economics . And if you've read any history, the casus belli based on some violence or sporadic incident, or disagreement, is an old political action, known since alexander the great. There is nothing conspiratorial or strange about it. It's how globalism works. People who espouse manichean worldviews and political ideas, were foreign policy advisors to george w bush government, people like samuel P. huntington and Bernard Lewis. That is also factual. The manichaen view also isn't somehow new either. Being dismissive for the the sake of being dismissive is sort of dumb.
    I'm the last person who would be dismissive for the sake of being dismissive, the relationship between any developing world country and the superpower US could be compared to the relationship of devastated former enemy states of Europe at the end of the second war and beginning of the cold war but those states did not become pawns for Anglo-American geo-political power games.

    I can accept that western, and eastern, powers have played with those nations but those nations have permitted it too. Equally I have a problem with "the west" being attacked by terrorists, often being used as proxys by foreign powers and again happy to be used that way, when western powers are democracies, the administrations change, the people change and its like taking a brush which has had its head and shaft replaced a dozen times and suggesting it is the same brush that left the factory. If the domestic populations of "the west" began to believe, exactly as the terrorists do, that their states and their society, despite any changes in administration, is going to be attacked anyway there would be a new militarist and in its own way fundamentalist consensus across the political spectrum. The neo-cons and the terrorists wanted that, since they both want war.

    So if the eastern states and economies want to complain about being made pawns and puppets they've got to change that, they cant use it as an excuse for attacking the west, especially not random western companies and indviduals.

    Honestly its like some sick domestic violence couple, in which the victim loudly complains about it all but staunchly refuses to leave that relationship and bring it to an end.

  9. #79
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm the last person who would be dismissive for the sake of being dismissive, the relationship between any developing world country and the superpower US could be compared to the relationship of devastated former enemy states of Europe at the end of the second war and beginning of the cold war but those states did not become pawns for Anglo-American geo-political power games.

    I can accept that western, and eastern, powers have played with those nations but those nations have permitted it too. Equally I have a problem with "the west" being attacked by terrorists, often being used as proxys by foreign powers and again happy to be used that way, when western powers are democracies, the administrations change, the people change and its like taking a brush which has had its head and shaft replaced a dozen times and suggesting it is the same brush that left the factory. If the domestic populations of "the west" began to believe, exactly as the terrorists do, that their states and their society, despite any changes in administration, is going to be attacked anyway there would be a new militarist and in its own way fundamentalist consensus across the political spectrum. The neo-cons and the terrorists wanted that, since they both want war.

    So if the eastern states and economies want to complain about being made pawns and puppets they've got to change that, they cant use it as an excuse for attacking the west, especially not random western companies and indviduals.

    Honestly its like some sick domestic violence couple, in which the victim loudly complains about it all but staunchly refuses to leave that relationship and bring it to an end.
    There are a few problems with what you're saying. First off the faction responsible for the attacks is a bloc within itself. It's an ideology within itself. Seperate from the domestic masses in the middle-east, they're called salafists, and from what i understand they're largely shunned, save for the enclaves and failed states where their ideological brethrens and cousins have power(Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc). But those people largely represent themselves, rather than the status quo or the masses. Bin laden and his collegues themselves said that they their war wasn't just to re-establish islamic sovereignity in the predominantly muslim countries. But parallel to the neo-cons, they wanted to spread their own political philosphy to the world. They find recuits amongst the disenchanted of client states. The people in the middle-east didn't conspire and plan to attack USA. One anti-western faction within. It would be like China invading france, because some german neo-nazis blew up a chinese building.

    Second, the times when the masses in countries like Iraq and Iran wanted to get rid of anglo-american/western clients, was during examples like Qassim or mossadegh, where their short governance were swiftly overthrown via coups and proxies, like that saddams party or the qajar royalists and the shah. Them getting propped up and keept in place didn't help the situation. To say that they didn't try is and that they permitted it, ignorant to say the least, if anyone here is old enough or meticulous enough, they'd remember the third world movement. There were plenty of assasination plots, rebellions against client states that were dealt with, especially in the case of saddam. When there was a political shift and a change of status quo, the people there of course with their decades of experience living in client states, shifted their stance and political alleigance from countries like america. Todays geopolitical issues are all a result or related to cold war blunders, that's an undeniable fact.

    This begs the question, is system of clientary justified? Do nations whose countries become clients to USA/Russia, have the right to defend their sovereignity and independence? Does the burden of remaining independent and sovereign remain on the nations who're exposed to policies , actions and influences that surpress that? or is the burden on the shoulders of those who perpetuate such policies and influences? Should the power arbitrators of today have the right to do anything, because they're the strongest and can fuck shit up?
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  10. #80
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Perhaps, but I prefer people be honest about their desire for vengeance rather than dressing it up with appeals to "morality", because we're too civilized for vengeance, apparently. Nobody seems to care much now about the "morality" of stopping tyranny, right or left. If people thought Syria might have been involved in the Boston bombing, you can bet people would want to invade Syria. That's a no-brainer, I suppose, but with it, you'd hear a lot of talk about the imperative of spreading democracy, creating freedom, replacing burkas with child beauty pagents, etc. I'd rather not hear about the latter stuff.

    An overly optimistic assessment. I think we've learned about as much from Iraq as we have from Vietnam in 1977. People's reluctance about Syria just confirms that it was never really about morality.

    So that kind of thing is politically incorrect and insensitive to people's feelings? Interesting.
    1.) I'm not convinced its a good thing to dispense with the 'moral' aspect of foreign policy any more than its a good idea to dispense with what used to be known as the Powell Doctrine in favor of idealistic nation-building; its a civilizing factor on realpolitik, and the Democratic Peace is an existent geo-political reality.....the problem is a.) recognizing the costs and risks we can afford to take and b.) recognition for the enabling conditions that make democratization possible, especially under occupation.

    2.) I said that I don't consider Iraq (i.e. forcibly overthrowing a brutal, dangerous, and destabilizing regime and putting a democratic regime in its place) to constitute a moral failure, not that moral concerns regarding human rights and democratization were our motives for action-huge difference. Basically, I'm saying that our actions were not inherently immoral, nor am I convinced that our actions in Iraq were detrimental to the Iraqis in the long run (the Iraqis themselves seem to have decidedly mixed opinions on the subject, and in the future we should keep in mind that other cultures have different priorities than 'live free or die' Americans.....and not so incidentally, such conflicting priorities could have grave consequences).

    3.) Its a question of timing and gratuitousness, not simply avoidance of giving any offence through pointed sarcasm or dark humor.

Similar Threads

  1. What Happens at 100, by Rajah
    By Rajah in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-23-2007, 11:46 AM
  2. So it's actually happening?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 11:07 PM
  3. USA needs another 9/11?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-16-2007, 07:43 AM
  4. What happens to the young artists?
    By raincrow007 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 01:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO