Violent Pacifism

[Kirk]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

I've heard that from a ton of Muslims (albeit in regard to the
Nation Of Islam)

We are the infidel to all of them. Re-read Bin Laden's speech ...
he speaks of support of Iraq, and how the U.S. and Isreal are
the devil, and the infidel. We should be punished for the crimes
of those we have elected (ALL of those, this includes Clinton) in
the past 6 generations. In his own words, we have starved the
people of Iraq. Doesn't sound like Bin Laden's interested in thier
overthrow to me!

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Originally posted by Kirk
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

I've heard that from a ton of Muslims (albeit in regard to the
Nation Of Islam)

We are the infidel to all of them. Re-read Bin Laden's speech ...
he speaks of support of Iraq, and how the U.S. and Isreal are
the devil, and the infidel. We should be punished for the crimes
of those we have elected (ALL of those, this includes Clinton) in
the past 6 generations. In his own words, we have starved the
people of Iraq. Doesn't sound like Bin Laden's interested in thier
overthrow to me!

I think we really oughta be careful about the ol' blanket statements of "they all hate us." Many do, sure, but not everyone, and one of the biggest fears of people here in Canada, and elsewhere too, is that a war that the ME perceives as nothing more than an imperialistic invasion WILL CAUSE MORE HATRED. I don't want to look back 20 years from now and go, "oh, S---, that war caused 9/11 part two!" If the war is justifiable, if the US was attacked by Iraq, like in 9/11 where the US was attacked, then everybody'll join the bandwagon, and we did, to attack and eradicate the Taliban regime that sponsored the people who attacked the US. It's that simple. The international system is set up to DEFEND people from AGGRESSION. The way it's being perceived in the ME and many other parts of the world is that the US is the aggressor, and that's a dangerous perception to let fester.

That said, there was also a great line by Jean Chretien, love him or hate him. When the war was still only a thing of debate, he asked something along the lines of "the problem with regime change is, when do you stop?" How many regimes need changing? Who gives anyone the right to interfere in other countries? I know the obvious answers: strength and power, or the injustice of a regime. There hasn't been much of an uprising in Iraq as this war's gone on, not yet anyway. In fact, from the sounds of it on the BBC and CBC and independent news, there's a lot of support for the Iraqis and even for the regime being built up in the region and in the countries as a result of the war (if you want proof, go online to www.thestar.com, and look up their coverage of the war, or to the BBC's webpages). People don't like Saddam, but they don't like being invaded a great deal more than they dislike Saddam.

The US has all the power in the world right now. I'm not a US citizen, I don't vote in the US. So I don't have any say in the US's policies that have the potential to influence me. The Bush administration is bent on reshaping the regimes of states that they either dislike, or that they perceive as a threat. Perhaps this is legit, perhaps not, but the question still remains "When do you stop?" Who's next? Russia? North Korea? No, they can actually hurt the US, they've got Nukes? What about Canada, Mexico, the Latin Americas? The great thing about defensive alliances is that it's pretty easy to see when they should get involved-- when someone attacks the members of the alliance. The problem with this whole proactive approach of the US lately is that now, everyone, even some of the US's oldest allies, are starting to get scared by the possibility that, if they disagree with the US, that they're next. I may dislike some of Chretien's policies, but I'm very loyal to my country and to the government that runs it. I don't want a regime change in Canada, and I would pose to everyone on this site that the Iraqis may have similar feelings about their regime, as repulsive as that may sound. If there is an uprising against Hussein, fine, then I'll eat my words. But if there isn't, and they go right back to a dictatorship once the Anglo-American forces get done in Iraq, or if the citizens of Iraq start fighting back against the US and the UK, what then?

Just posing some questions. Keep it above the belt folks, you know I'm a liberal, and attacking me as such ain't a valid argument. Question what I've said, sure, but be aware that liberal = bleeding heart or stupid. (In the classic sense, liberal ideology was much closer to modern day "conservativism" or Republican party ideas... go look up John Locke and his ilk, and you'll see it's true). If we want to discuss this war, let's do it intelligently. We owe it to each other as fellow martial artists and as fellow human beings to present intelligent views, 'cuz that's how we all get wiser, and how we sharpen our own views: by discussing them intelligently and having to defend them against a worthy opponent (and this is directed to everyone, myself included, I'll try to tone my language down a bit).

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree with much of what you're writing, Ciarloch, though I'm not a liberal.

Just to throw in something new, it might be useful to look at Edward Said's old book, "Orientalism." Among other things, it does a nice job of dealing with this, "all of them," argument...everybody Muslim, everbody in the Middle East, ain't the same...and this us/them logic is part of what got us in this mess to begin with.

As for the point about us non-violent types who study kenpo and wouldn't mind if a Big Bomb landed right on Hussein's head, well, if I contradict myself, then I contradict myself. I quite agree that it's a contradiction...and I ran into a great quote in Samuel Fuller's autobiography this morning...in the 1930s, a friend said, "Anybody who isn't confused isn't thinking straight."

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Elfan]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
If the evidence really does exist that Saddam and his regime assisted the Al-Qaeda folks in doing what they did to us, how can we not retaliate for such an attack?

Agreed the US would then be perfectly justified in attack Sadamn Hussien. However, no administration official has claimed that this is the case so I have to at least have a little faith in my government and belive that they were telling the truth when they said Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks.

What I was getting at is that the administration isn't even claiming that Sadamn was behind the attacks (there was a claim that there was a meeting in Prauge between an Iraqi inteligence oficial and one of the hijackers but this was retracted). Is it *possible* that Iraq and Al-Quada have talked to each other? Yes. When Osama Bin Laden calls for the overthrow of Sadamn Hussien in his latest tape do I think that an alliance between the two is very likely? No.

 

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
I think we really oughta be careful about the ol' blanket statements of "they all hate us."

I just want to say that I really do hate you all. I am just too lazy to do anything about it.
:shrug:

 

[rmcrobertson]

A beautiful statement of a rational politics. And, I mean it....

 

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by Yari
I dont know how it's in the States, but here in Scandinavia (Denmark), we have the problem that there are certain groups that love to infiltrate normal quite demonstrations and start fights or damageing stuff.

It gives the demostration a bad name and doesn't benifite anybody.

And we have to remember that no matter which group people belong to, rotten apples are every were.


/Yari

We have them here too, the official name for these morons is RENT-A-CROWD.

Unfortunately the jail time they should recieve, is never used appropriately.

--Dave

:asian:

 

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
I don't want to look back 20 years from now and go, "oh, S---, that war caused 9/11 part two!"

9/11 part 2 has already happened. It happened when that maggot with the rat infested beard and the tea towel for a hat, got his scumbag cronies in Indonesia to blow up the nightclub frequented by Australians, because of our support for the war on terrorism.

Our country is small, as is our population. But we have some of the best trained troops in the world. I don't like war, no one except these cancerous cells do. But I support our troops, Australian, British and US with every fibre of my being.

I don't get to use this smilie very often.

:soapbox:

--Dave

 

[Disco]

AMEN!..... Brother from down under. We need MORE folks with your line of thinking.

Take care and stay safe........:asian:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
In the first place, our government has provided no evidence whatsoever that ol' Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11. Call me crazy, I like facts--especially because, and I am sorry to say it, but the US has a long sad history of launching into wars with no evidence or faked evidence--there's the Spanish-Am. War, there's Vietnam. You can look it up.

If you find this a defense of a murdering, sadistic, greedy SOB like Hussein, well, I don't. I guess I just like my government to tell me the truth, and to avoid getting soldiers killed unless there's a darn good reason...and maybe there is. But so far, they sure haven't presented one.

Are we really supposed to go around the world and get rid of every tin-pot Hitler? Is that gonna work? What about our record of supporting (Ferdinand Marcos, Somoza, Noriega, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Nguyen Cao Ky, etc. etc. etc.) these guys when it suits our purposes?

Personally, if a 500-lb bomb falls directly onto Hussein, I say it's a good day. "I've got a little list...they never will be missed." But ignoring the history....nope.

I hope to hell I'm wrong.

Here is the truth. The US wants to put in place on top of the 2nd largest proven reserve, a pro-US government. And we want to have a mlilitary stationing area in the heart of the Middle East.

Imagine this: By controlling the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserve, the US can dictate oil prices by turning the spigot in Iraq. Controlling oil prices means controlling Russia, Saudi, Iran and everybody else's livihood. We can also deny Al Qaeda the opportunity to obtain WMD from Saddam. And we demonstrate to the world, especially any nation that wishes America illwill that, with or without the UN, you will suffer the same fate as the Taleban, Bin Laden, and Saddam. Oh, BTW, we get to take credit for freeing the Iraqi people too.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
.....There are far too many people who feel that the Government needs to reveal everything to the public for accountability before they take any action....

Nah.... they just do not understand the greater strategic issue called national interest.

So they are reduced to arguing the peripheral issues that the US used to distract the critics.

Do you really think Chirac is concerned about the Iraqi people? Hell no! He has been trying to prevent America from becoming the world's ultimate superpower. Shroeder is only catering to win the last election which he almost lost. Putin is concerned b/c Russia is the biggest supplier of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq.

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Nah.... they just do not understand the greater strategic issue called national interest.

So they are reduced to arguing the peripheral issues that the US used to distract the critics.

Do you really think Chirac is concerned about the Iraqi people? Hell no! He has been trying to prevent America from becoming the world's ultimate superpower. Shroeder is only catering to win the last election which he almost lost. Putin is concerned b/c Russia is the biggest supplier of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq.

I think you're right on the money with the ulterior motives of many of the EU, but then again, if the US gets the kind of control you've been talking about, JN, I'm scared. I don't want any one nation with that much power. It turns into trouble very quickly once they start abusing it.

 

[Elfan]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Here is the truth. The US wants to put in place on top of the 2nd largest proven reserve, a pro-US government. And we want to have a mlilitary stationing area in the heart of the Middle East.

Imagine this: By controlling the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserve, the US can dictate oil prices by turning the spigot in Iraq. Controlling oil prices means controlling Russia, Saudi, Iran and everybody else's livihood. We can also deny Al Qaeda the opportunity to obtain WMD from Saddam. And we demonstrate to the world, especially any nation that wishes America illwill that, with or without the UN, you will suffer the same fate as the Taleban, Bin Laden, and Saddam. Oh, BTW, we get to take credit for freeing the Iraqi people too.

This is a description of a good thing?

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Elfan
This is a description of a good thing?

It is the coming reality, good or bad.

As far as the national interests of the USA is concerned, it is a good thing. And considering the historical fact that the US is the least tyranical empire, it is a good development for international stability.

Having said that, things have their own ways of fouling up the best laid plan. We shall see.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
I think you're right on the money with the ulterior motives of many of the EU, but then again, if the US gets the kind of control you've been talking about, JN, I'm scared. I don't want any one nation with that much power. It turns into trouble very quickly once they start abusing it.

Nations look after their own self-interests. That is the nature of things. If it makes you feel better, the US is the only empire in history, that has NO design in conquering and annexing new territory.

 

[rmcrobertson]

It is a bad thing. Mainly because I keep giggling whenever I say, "Jawohl, mein Fuhrer."

 

[Elfan]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
It is the coming reality, good or bad.

As far as the national interests of the USA is concerned, it is a good thing. And considering the historical fact that the US is the least tyranical empire, it is a good development for international stability.

Having said that, things have their own ways of fouling up the best laid plan. We shall see.

Just how much did the Germans benifit from Hitler's empire? Or the Russian people from Peter the Great? Greeks from Alexander?Or Rome from Ceasar? Hell the transformation from republic to empire marked the decline of Rome, and that perhaps it the best comparison to modern America. Like Augustus we will cover our building in a marble facade and watch as they rot away inside. Our military power will be unable to obscure that the vaules that make American the idol of the much of the world (and indeed even the people of the Middle East agree with American values) will fade to dust and will be no more.

-----

For an empire that has"NO design in conquering and annexing new territory" it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot bigger over the years.

 

[rmcrobertson]

So if I'm reading correctly--and I am--this thread has argued itself around to the point that those wacky protesters are absolutely right to be protesting.

And spare me the, "human nature and history means it has to be this way argument." I thought the whole idea of martial arts was that you weren't bound to apparent limitations and the dead past.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
So if I'm reading correctly--and I am--this thread has argued itself around to the point that those wacky protesters are absolutely right to be protesting.

You actually feel that way? Those out there, spitting on people,
inciting riots, hitting law enforcement officers, are right?!?

No one argued the right to the 1st amendment at all .. except
when it violates the rights of others.

It always cracks me up when anti war protestors dust off thier
little picket signs to start marching again. There's 2 certainties
that exist once this happens. 1) people will be out there telling
them to shut the hell up. 2) people too goodie goodie to actually
spend time in anti war protest (e.g. t he hollywood crowd) go out
and call those in group number 1 all kinds of names. The most
drastic is "those against the first amendment".

With the exception of MCAS Yuma, AZ, every place I have ever
lived has had the klan marching through downtown mainstreet
in a recruitment rally. In San Antonio, the police keep the public
WAAAAAAAAAY far away. San Antonio is over 50% hispanic, and
there is NO WAY the klan could safely make thier march, unless
the citizens of this town were kept waaaaaaaaaaaaay far away
from them. People from all races show up with thier signs, and
are all basically telling the KKK to "shut the hell up". Yet none
of your little group, Mr McRobertson, and none of the hollywood
"elite" talk about how the poor klan can't protest the way they
want to, and how the blacks, hispanics, asians, and caucasians
are opponents of the first amendment.

One last note. You leftists would have so much more of a voice of
reason if you'd kill Janeane Garofalo. Her idiocy is at record levels.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Elfan
Just how much did the Germans benifit from Hitler's empire? Or the Russian people from Peter the Great? Greeks from Alexander?Or Rome from Ceasar? Hell the transformation from republic to empire marked the decline of Rome, and that perhaps it the best comparison to modern America. Like Augustus we will cover our building in a marble facade and watch as they rot away inside. Our military power will be unable to obscure that the vaules that make American the idol of the much of the world (and indeed even the people of the Middle East agree with American values) will fade to dust and will be no more.

-----

For an empire that has"NO design in conquering and annexing new territory" it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot bigger over the years.

I think you are letting your imagination runs too far there. But that's ok.

Hmmm..... have the US gotten bigger? The last time I checked, we still have only 50 states.....