WWIII and how we avoid it [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

narc

09-27-2006, 10:20 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">TheMojoPin wrote: <hr color="cococo" align="left">It seems like what the so-called Islamo-fascists want is to force WWIII between themselves and the West.<hr color="cococo" align="left">How would they do that?And how exactly would it be a "world war" and between whom?I'm not saying further conflict isn't going to happen...but "wold wars" don't just happen out of nowhere.<hr color="cococo" align="left">

I was thinking something along the lines of a huge, concerted attack in the U.S., England, France, Germany etc. Or just Iran declaring war on and trying to annex Iraq. Or anyone nuking Israel. 
And I think if we went the secular route, that would only make them angrier. I think they think we're already too much that way even though we're not.

Doctor Manhattan

09-27-2006, 10:21 AM

narc wrote: And don't say get Bush out of office, because we all know that that's not really going to help. Didn't they just report that the "war on terror" is worse because of Bush's leadership? I think it may help when Bush leaves office.

UnknownPD

09-27-2006, 10:23 AM

It's already begun...

TheMojoPin

09-27-2006, 10:25 AM

narc wrote: TheMojoPin wrote:  It seems like what the so-called Islamo-fascists want is to force WWIII between themselves and the West.  How would they do that?And how exactly would it be a "world war" and between whom?I'm not saying further conflict isn't going to happen...but "wold wars" don't just happen out of nowhere. I was thinking something along the lines of a huge, concerted attack in the U.S., England, France, Germany etc. Or just Iran declaring war on and trying to annex Iraq. Or anyone nuking Israel. And I think if we went the secular route, that would only make them angrier. I think they think we're already too much that way even though we're not. Huge, concentrated attack by who?

narc

09-27-2006, 10:25 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">Doctor Manhattan wrote: narc wrote: And don't say get Bush out of office, because we all know that that's not really going to help. Didn't they just report that the "war on terror" is worse because of Bush's leadership? I think it may help when Bush leaves office.<hr color="cococo" align="left">
Possibly, but that has only to do with the execution of the war and as an exacerbating factor. I don't think it's a root cause. They hated us that passionately long before Bush came into office, and they'll hate us that passionately long after he leaves.

narc

09-27-2006, 10:27 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">TheMojoPin wrote: narc wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: It seems like what the so-called Islamo-fascists want is to force WWIII between themselves and the West. How would they do that?And how exactly would it be a "world war" and between whom?I'm not saying further conflict isn't going to happen...but "wold wars" don't just happen out of nowhere. I was thinking something along the lines of a huge, concerted attack in the U.S., England, France, Germany etc. Or just Iran declaring war on and trying to annex Iraq. Or anyone nuking Israel. And I think if we went the secular route, that would only make them angrier. I think they think we're already too much that way even though we're not. Huge, concentrated attack by who?<hr color="cococo" align="left">

I was thinking either Al-Qaeda or by someone working for Syria or Iran. Or some sort of undrafted terror free agent.

Furtherman

09-27-2006, 10:30 AM

narc wrote:  Possibly, but that has only to do with the execution of the war and as an exacerbating factor. I don't think it's a root cause. They hated us that passionately long before Bush came into office, and they'll hate us that passionately long after he leaves. But it will be a step in the right direction.  It doesn't matter which party is in charge come three January's from now, the fact that the man who thought god wanted him to become president will be gone will help initally.  It's up the next administration to start fixing everything he's screwed up.

TheMojoPin

09-27-2006, 10:30 AM

narc wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: narc wrote: TheMojoPin wrote:  It seems like what the so-called Islamo-fascists want is to force WWIII between themselves and the West.  How would they do that?And how exactly would it be a "world war" and between whom?I'm not saying further conflict isn't going to happen...but "wold wars" don't just happen out of nowhere. I was thinking something along the lines of a huge, concerted attack in the U.S., England, France, Germany etc. Or just Iran declaring war on and trying to annex Iraq. Or anyone nuking Israel. And I think if we went the secular route, that would only make them angrier. I think they think we're already too much that way even though we're not. Huge, concentrated attack by who? I was thinking either Al-Qaeda or by someone working for Syria or Iran. Or some sort of undrafted terror free agent. I still am baffled as to how that could possibly lead to a "world war."  How big is this "huge, concentrated attacker?"  I don't see how the numbers even come close to making any sense.

narc

09-27-2006, 10:34 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">TheMojoPin wrote: narc wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: narc wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: It seems like what the so-called Islamo-fascists want is to force WWIII between themselves and the West. How would they do that?And how exactly would it be a "world war" and between whom?I'm not saying further conflict isn't going to happen...but "wold wars" don't just happen out of nowhere. I was thinking something along the lines of a huge, concerted attack in the U.S., England, France, Germany etc. Or just Iran declaring war on and trying to annex Iraq. Or anyone nuking Israel. And I think if we went the secular route, that would only make them angrier. I think they think we're already too much that way even though we're not. Huge, concentrated attack by who? I was thinking either Al-Qaeda or by someone working for Syria or Iran. Or some sort of undrafted terror free agent. I still am baffled as to how that could possibly lead to a "world war." How big is this "huge, concentrated attacker?" I don't see how the numbers even come close to making any sense.<hr color="cococo" align="left">

I'm thinking something akin to 9/11 happening again in the U.S., with something equally as big and scary happening in each of the countries I mentioned either simultaneously or near simultaneously. Lots of people in each of those countries dead. The rest terrified/angry/grieving. Al-Qaeda taking responsibility.

Mike Teacher

09-27-2006, 11:16 AM

Well the worst case scenario post WW2 to the dissolution of the USSR was the standard mass exchange of nukes between the US and and the Red Menace, and then the nuclear club grew to include the brits, french, india, israel, china, pakistan, etc. Now I'm sure I'm missing a nuke country or two, but thats still a small club, and the weird thing is I dont study enough history to answer the Q: Has the dissolution of the USSR made the odds of a wayward nuke by some rogue group/sect/cult sold by some starving/broke but nuke holding X-istan better or worse?History/Political peeps step up, I only study how the bombs work.So, pissing off enough of said countries above might result in Sarah Conner's vision of Judgement Day, sans Skynet. But I have absolutely no idea how each of these is doing in relation to other. I always thought, and did think, one day the Israeli's just might just say 'fuck this holding back shit' and send some off, esp. during Gulf 1 when Saddam was chucking Scuds their way, but they sat tight, at least nuke wise.=Conventional? Yow; clueless. Both previous World Wars, def the second, were catalyzed by the slowness of transfer of information. The technology was still lo-tech enough that a huge armada of ships a few hundred miles away was only detectable by visual, plane/sub recon or the most ancient proto-radar, no satellites, no instant calls across the planet, no internet, no CNN, so it unfolded in a completely different fashion then anything could today, which is the long way of say I also cant envision a big multi-nation build up to war, but it's happened.

phixion

09-27-2006, 12:12 PM

the muslim world is far too busy fighting themselves to ever unite and fight us. the day they ever bring back the caliph and i hope to god he is a progressive example of most muslims and not an extremist. but if he isnt then we should be scared but until that day i choose to hold out for hope. and just in case i say we make buddy buddy with india a billion people in our pocket never hurts.and mike i cant see how the dissolving of soviet russia could in any way help control/track nuclear weapons. i mean throw in poor desperate poeple and nuclear weapons and the result is never good.

reeshy

09-27-2006, 12:14 PM

Mojo is right.....bring back the Soviet Union!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yerdaddy

10-06-2006, 10:42 AM

The US government claims that al-Qaeda and other anti-US terror organizations include a few thousand people. When that number hits the hundreds of thousands of people then you and the president can start talking about "Islamo-fascism" as though the goals of that number of people is even relevant to dealing with them. Until then, it's just a scare tactic/diversion from a monumentally failed strategy to defeat them.I will say this about what is becoming more and more a clash of civilizations: given the small percent of the Muslim world that is involved in anti-American/western actions, it cannot be a clash of civilizations unless WE make it so! We treat them as if they aren't even fucking human. We chose a war that would kill tens of thousands, (at least), of Iraqis based on lies. We, as a nation, care nothing about the rights, lives, or even humanity of Iraqis or Muslims. That's what our policies demonstrate. That's how they are increasngly seen in the Middle East. We are driving the clash of civilizations at this point.

BLZBUBBA

10-06-2006, 11:52 AM

#1 First and most importantly...We need to make sure all the old nukes in former Soviet states are accounted for and (or) destroyed. We need to do this whatever the cost. Immediately.And we need to have a coherent and fair middle east (foreign) policy.  Saddam's our friend.  No...now he isn't?  It seems as though everything is just great as long as it works out for us.  Saudis are swell folks?  Yeah right.  If we continue to support regimes that are oppressive then what can we expect?  Do I side with terrorists?  No.  Hell no.  But when some Palestinian kid looks up at an American made Israeli helicopter that's firing American-made missiles into his village it can't help but make that kid hate us.  Add this onto Israel taking Arab land and on and on.  How about Israel cutting off the Arab's water supply? It is the desert.   And then shooting at those trying to turn it back on.  Israel?  Reasonable?  Just look at the flag.  STAR OF DAVID.  Maybe I'm wrong but that says JEWS ONLY to me.  Try to change the stars on our flag to STARS OF DAVID and see how that works out.  How about all the spying they've been caught at in our own halls of government?  I have nothing against Jews but Israel is a whole different story.  And where did all this Israel love come from?  Guilt over the holocaust?  What?  It's gotten to the point where we're almost blinded by our love for Israel.  That's never healthy.  If we keep supporting oppressive governments then we're going to keep getting something in return.  Be it planes into buildings,  bombs,  whatever.  Just hope it never gets to the point that it's nukes.  See #1 above.  In other words.  I'm a pessimist.  I think we're probably going to keep supporting oppressive regimes (Saddam the exception) and we need to make sure we keep nukes out of the hands of the oppressed.  Or out of the hands of those that would use them in the name of the oppressed.

johnniewalker

10-06-2006, 12:37 PM

BLZBUBBA wrote: #1 First and most importantly...We need to make sure all the old nukes in former Soviet states are accounted for and (or) destroyed. We need to do this whatever the cost. Immediately.And we need to have a coherent and fair middle east (foreign) policy. Saddam's our friend. No...now he isn't? It seems as though everything is just great as long as it works out for us. Saudis are swell folks? Yeah right. If we continue to support regimes that are oppressive then what can we expect? Do I side with terrorists? No. Hell no. But when some Palestinian kid looks up at an American made Israeli helicopter that's firing American-made missiles into his village it can't help but make that kid hate us. Add this onto Israel taking Arab land and on and on. How about Israel cutting off the Arab's water supply? It is the desert. And then shooting at those trying to turn it back on. Israel? Reasonable? Just look at the flag. STAR OF DAVID. Maybe I'm wrong but that says JEWS ONLY to me. Try to change the stars on our flag to STARS OF DAVID and see how that works out. How about all the spying they've been caught at in our own halls of government? I have nothing against Jews but Israel is a whole different story. And where did all this Israel love come from? Guilt over the holocaust? What? It's gotten to the point where we're almost blinded by our love for Israel. That's never healthy. If we keep supporting oppressive governments then we're going to keep getting something in return. Be it planes into buildings, bombs, whatever. Just hope it never gets to the point that it's nukes. See #1 above. In other words. I'm a pessimist. I think we're probably going to keep supporting oppressive regimes (Saddam the exception) and we need to make sure we keep nukes out of the hands of the oppressed. Or out of the hands of those that would use them in the name of the oppressed.  Theirs love for Israel b/c their one of our strongest allies and have been for quite some time.  It would be much easier to let our relations lessen with them and see how long they last, but that would be a catastrophic failure in how are allies perceive us and this crazy idea of the U.N.   Don't act like the wrongs aren't at least close to even on both sides.  Avowedly attacking innocent people is and always has been one of the world's most brutal crimes.  How about the kid that has to see parts of members of his society blown up?  It goes both ways, state sponsored military action and state sponsored terrorism with Hamas.  Giving up on Israel is far from the answer.

phixion

10-06-2006, 12:59 PM

hey since we are talking WW3 can i get into japan? they are gonna throw out the constitution and write a new one that allows an army, and with that allowing japanese research into nukes. and considering the nuclear power plants and japanese tech, arent they just a revision away from being a nuclear power? i think theonly reason they havent done it already is there own experiences, but time will heal that woundnow apply that to Korean relations. south korea isnt very happy with japan never has been, ill bet my balls to a barn dance that if it wasnt for american occupation south korea would have already voted to join n korea, if only to deomnstrate 'korean power' i mean i hear that the south korean are sort of proud that up north they are close to a bomb. and the way that america has beena cting has turned the younger korean generation very anti american. and what will happen once this new generation throws out thier fathers who fought with americans? will they vote to form one korea again this time communist? and what will that do for us? the cease fire will end so that the never ending war starts back up?so i believe within 10 years korea will be one nuclear power, japan will react by becoming anuclear power in their own right, and china makes three oriental nuclear powers india and pakistan add 2 more to asian mix, you can include iran if you want but they are just now starting korea is planning on testing not building their weapons.its sad that mutally assured destruction is the only thing that can save the world. narc tear some holes in my theory please

ChrisTheCop

10-06-2006, 01:19 PM

Every president in my lifetime has been despised, called the worst president ever, while in office. Then suddenly, when someone new gets in, the old guy wasnt so bad.Remember how embarrased we were about the Clinton impeachment? Of course we dont! He's a great humanitarian these days. Remember what a mess Carter made out of the 70's? Of course not, he's buliding houses for poor people! Remember how dopey Reagan was? or how wimpy George Bush 41 was?  No...theyre (dead) and humanitarians now.Come March 2009, we'll all be missing GWB. We'e a forgetful, forgiving lot. Thats us. But THEY  remember how much they hate us every day since day one (whenever that was). Their hate grows daily, and is occasionally fueled by our own in-fighting. THEY will always hate US. and lets remember U are part of us. ...oh...ummm...i have no solution to the WWIII thing, We're all gonna die.

phixion

10-06-2006, 01:52 PM

saying im going to miss bush is like me saying i wish i was alive for nixon. make no mistake bush is not truman. we will not hate him while we have him and then miss him when he's gone. bush is andrew johnson, we didnt like him when we had him and we wont like him when he's gone.

narc

10-06-2006, 02:26 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: The US government claims that al-Qaeda and other anti-US terror organizations include a few thousand people. When that number hits the hundreds of thousands of people then you and the president can start talking about "Islamo-fascism" as though the goals of that number of people is even relevant to dealing with them. Until then, it's just a scare tactic/diversion from a monumentally failed strategy to defeat them.I will say this about what is becoming more and more a clash of civilizations: given the small percent of the Muslim world that is involved in anti-American/western actions, it cannot be a clash of civilizations unless WE make it so! We treat them as if they aren't even fucking human. We chose a war that would kill tens of thousands, (at least), of Iraqis based on lies. We, as a nation, care nothing about the rights, lives, or even humanity of Iraqis or Muslims. That's what our policies demonstrate. That's how they are increasngly seen in the Middle East. We are driving the clash of civilizations at this point.  I disagree, but only slightly. I don't think many people here want it to be a clash of civilizations. I think there are certainly a few crazies on both sides who want that, but I think their crazies are doing a better job than our crazies of making that a reality. I also think you're belittling their threat just a bit. I'd include the entirety of the governments of Syria and Iran among the crazies who'd like a clash of civilization (Syria to a lesser extent). And I definitely think that THEY possess the power to provoke a response from us that would cause something like that.

narc

10-06-2006, 02:39 PM

phixion wrote: hey since we are talking WW3 can i get into japan? they are gonna throw out the constitution and write a new one that allows an army, and with that allowing japanese research into nukes. and considering the nuclear power plants and japanese tech, arent they just a revision away from being a nuclear power? i think theonly reason they havent done it already is there own experiences, but time will heal that woundnow apply that to Korean relations. south korea isnt very happy with japan never has been, ill bet my balls to a barn dance that if it wasnt for american occupation south korea would have already voted to join n korea, if only to deomnstrate 'korean power' i mean i hear that the south korean are sort of proud that up north they are close to a bomb. and the way that america has beena cting has turned the younger korean generation very anti american. and what will happen once this new generation throws out thier fathers who fought with americans? will they vote to form one korea again this time communist? and what will that do for us? the cease fire will end so that the never ending war starts back up?so i believe within 10 years korea will be one nuclear power, japan will react by becoming anuclear power in their own right, and china makes three oriental nuclear powers india and pakistan add 2 more to asian mix, you can include iran if you want but they are just now starting korea is planning on testing not building their weapons.its sad that mutally assured destruction is the only thing that can save the world. narc tear some holes in my theory please   I can't tear any, although I'm more scared and knowledgable about the Korean situation. The younger generation has no appreciation of the hell they'd be living in right now if the North had won that war, and of the fact that the US and other countries who fought them saved them from that. I understand wanting to reunify, but there's no doubt that North Korea at the moment would only accept it on their terms. I've heard that on college campuses in South Korea the sentiment is "How bad could the North be?"  I just read a first hand account written by someone who was a prisoner in a concentration camp in North Korea after his family were devout communists who never tried anything. It showed just how horrifyingly cruel and twisted that regime is, and things have only gotten worse since the events in the book took place because he was there before the famine. I'd like to think that South Korea wouldn't basically sell itself into slavery (or worse) just because of some sort of misplaced irrational fear of Japan. But stupider and worse things have happened in history. And I think it's a little unfair to compare Johnson and Bush. Johnson never won an election and Bush has won two. He barely made it onto the VP ticket. Bush has never delivered an inauguration speech while being embarrassingly drunk. Bush isn't completely irrelevant because Congress hates him and his agenda, like Johnson was. And Bush has gone to some of the best schools in the country (albeit because his dad was a rich and powerful guy) while Johnson was completely uneducated and grew up dirt poor before he went into politics. Oddly enough, Johnson was pretty faithful to what Lincoln was planning on doing in his second term, and yet Lincoln is one of the most beloved Presidents of all time. It'd be interesting if it would have stayed that way had he lived to serve out his second term.

epo

10-06-2006, 03:03 PM

ChrisTheCop wrote: Every president in my lifetime has been despised, called the worst president ever, while in office. Then suddenly, when someone new gets in, the old guy wasnt so bad.Remember how embarrased we were about the Clinton impeachment? Of course we dont! He's a great humanitarian these days. Remember what a mess Carter made out of the 70's? Of course not, he's buliding houses for poor people! Remember how dopey Reagan was? or how wimpy George Bush 41 was?  No...theyre (dead) and humanitarians now.Come March 2009, we'll all be missing GWB. We'e a forgetful, forgiving lot. A problem with your premise:Clinton & Carter did humanitarian work after their respective presidencies.  In fact quite a bit of it.Reagan didn't do shit.  Bush Sr. did commercials and high money speeches.  And more of our problems today have Reagan's earmarkings all over them than I'd like to admit.  (Afghanistan, Iraq, our education system, etc.).  Honestly besides smiling alot, he was a fucking trainwreck.

TheQuestion

10-07-2006, 04:41 AM

suggums

10-07-2006, 05:06 AM

i call advanced power armor!<img width="256" height="250" border="0" src="http://stella-orbis.bass-ackwards.net/images/powerarmor01.jpg" />

Yerdaddy

10-07-2006, 06:19 AM

narc wrote:I don't think many people here want it to be a clash of civilizations. Everyone who calls this World War III, ie. many of the Fox News pundits like O'Riely and Coulter, who do; their fan base; the Christian right; the entire "nuke their ass and take their gas" crowd; the hardcore liberal crazies who blame America for every evil - real or imagined; polititicians - like the entire Bush administration - who engage in policies and messages, (like "axis of evil" and "Islamo-facism"), for the sake of winning domestic political support while ignoring the effects of these polices and messages on the lives and perceptions of the Muslim world. All of these segments of society are working towards making this a clash of civilization. Whether they knowingly want a clash or simply seek us to engage in the clash they see as occuring already is irrelevant. Their world views and agendas are diverse, but their effect on US actions are significant and causing us to drive this into a clash of civilizations. More simply, most Iraq and Middle East experts concluded that the Iraq war would be percieved as an attack on Muslims by Muslims, and thus increase the perception amongst them that the "war on terror" was a war on Islam. This warning was dismissed by the majority of people who supported the war at the time it was launched. Most people who supported the war in Iraq contributed to the clash of civilizations. Regardless of their resons for doing so. The fact is, we - the richest, most powerful nation in the history of mankind - know fuck-all about the people we are in a conflict with. In 2002, before the Iraq war and after the Afghanistan war National Geographic tested [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/templates/question_1.html] people from 18 to 25 years old in industrialized nations, and threw in Mexico for shits and giggles, on their simple geography knowledge. Overall, we beat only Mexico, and on the question, "find the United States on a map" Mexicans beat us. Only 17% of Americans could find Afghanistan on the map at a time when we were occupying it. We are the only global superpower, acting unilaterally to enforce our will on the world, and thus have no excuse for being so willfully stupid about the world we impose on.This ignorance makes us especially pliable to the peddling of stupid ideas and hatred, which has come to dominate our political culture. Demonizing Arabs and Muslims is completely legitimate on Fox News, talk radio, most political websites - including this one - and right-wing propaganda publications today. Batant lies and misinformation is rarely condemned. Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim racism is the last acceptible form of racism today. All this ignores the fact that the fight against Islamic extremism is a fight within Islam - between the moderates and extremists. Read the key judgements recently released in the National Intelligence Estimate [www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf] and you can't deny that the US intelligence community sees the vast majority of the Muslim world as our ally - or potential ally - and a tiny minority our enemy. But the ideas expressed by huge segments of Ameicans about what we should be doing is not a reflection of this reality. It's usually a suggestion of who should we bomb next. These segments of the public have elected the current administration. Bush is seriously considering attacking Iran because it would please his base. It would do multiple times the damage that the Iraq war has done, but his base wants it and he is looking for a way to pull it off. I also think you're belittling their threat just a bit. I'd include the entirety of the governments of Syria and Iran among the crazies who'd like a clash of civilization (Syria to a lesser extent). And I definitely think that THEY possess the power to provoke a response from us that would cause something like that.Let's put i

TheMojoPin

10-07-2006, 07:35 AM

Yerdaddy, you complete me.

phixion

10-07-2006, 08:30 AM

the only reason i compare johnson to bush is this, true republicans dont like him because he hes not a conservative and democrats dont like him cuz hes the anithesis of what they believe in.johnson was the same thing just the reverse, democrats hated him cuz he was against everything they believed in , and republicans hated him cuz he was from the south and he wasnt hard on the southern democrats port war. thats bush he's hated by both sides, and historians are not going to pour over his personal journals and internal letters and decide that in retrospect he was a better than what we thought he was.christhecop made it sound like bush will have a legacy very much like trumans, and im sorry he wont. as a matter of fact looking at it right now id bet bush will be more like taft, adored by his supporters while in office but 2 decades from now we will be ashamed that he couldnt get out of the bathtub. i only hope we have an fdr to follow tafts administration.

Fez4PrezN2008

10-07-2006, 08:35 AM

FUNKMAN

10-07-2006, 08:42 AM

WWIII and how we avoid it skip it and go right to WWIV... if we keep doing that we could cut the amount of our wars in half

BLZBUBBA

10-07-2006, 09:08 AM

I'm not talking about abandoning Israel.  But I am talking about holding their feet to the fire.  Just the same as we're holding Arab feet to the fire.  You can talk about Israel's right to exist and how they're our ally but I would suggest you really look at the Arab's side of that mess.  I've read some stuff Arabs have written on how Israel operates and it's sickening.  And it's just as sickening as a lot of the terrorist acts.  No.  Actually some of it's worse.  It's worse because they're supposed to be the beacon of democracy and fairness.  Tell that to those families who were forced at gunpoint to remain in their houses while Israeli forces blew them up.  Unit 101 was under the command of Ariel Sharon?  Hmmm.  That name sounds familiar.  And the actions at Qibya sound familiar as well.  Blowing up houses with families inside?  Sounds like terrorism to me.  (Avi Shlaim THE IRON WALL...Israel and the Arab World).  After reading that book I'm about as far as giving Israel a blank check to do what they want as one can get.Try this.  Try looking at things from the perspective of your "enemy".  It's not an original idea.  I learned that lesson from watching a doc...THE FOG OF WAR.  It's all about former Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara and the lessons he learned.  He suggests rules a country should consider before going to war.  One of those rules was looking at things from your enemy's perspective. Sounds simple but we rarely do so.  And doing so could have prevented Vietnam.

mdr55

10-07-2006, 10:39 AM

Just watch Battlestar Galactica.

narc

10-07-2006, 12:14 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]narc wrote:I don't think many people here want it to be a clash of civilizations. Everyone who calls this World War III, ie. many of the Fox News pundits like O'Riely and Coulter, who do; their fan base; the Christian right; the entire "nuke their ass and take their gas" crowd; the hardcore liberal crazies who blame America for every evil - real or imagined; polititicians - like the entire Bush administration - who engage in policies and messages, (like "axis of evil" and "Islamo-facism"), for the sake of winning domestic political support while ignoring the effects of these polices and messages on the lives and perceptions of the Muslim world. All of these segments of society are working towards making this a clash of civilization. Whether they knowingly want a clash or simply seek us to engage in the clash they see as occuring already is irrelevant. Their world views and agendas are diverse, but their effect on US actions are significant and causing us to drive this into a clash of civilizations. I still don't think that's many people, and they're certainly growing less powerful by the day. More simply, most Iraq and Middle East experts concluded that the Iraq war would be percieved as an attack on Muslims by Muslims, and thus increase the perception amongst them that the "war on terror" was a war on Islam. This warning was dismissed by the majority of people who supported the war at the time it was launched. Most people who supported the war in Iraq contributed to the clash of civilizations. Regardless of their resons for doing so. The fact is, we - the richest, most powerful nation in the history of mankind - know fuck-all about the people we are in a conflict with. In 2002, before the Iraq war and after the Afghanistan war National Geographic tested [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/templates/question_1.html] people from 18 to 25 years old in industrialized nations, and threw in Mexico for shits and giggles, on their simple geography knowledge. Overall, we beat only Mexico, and on the question, "find the United States on a map" Mexicans beat us. Only 17% of Americans could find Afghanistan on the map at a time when we were occupying it. We are the only global superpower, acting unilaterally to enforce our will on the world, and thus have no excuse for being so willfully stupid about the world we impose on. That's true, but you know why? We don't teach geography, or at least teach it well, in this country anymore because it's not viewed as important. I don't think it's a calculated anti-the rest of the world thing. We're always told doomsday things for example about how backwards American schoolchildren are. But they've funneled so much money into the sciences and other things that are viewed as "important" because they're useful to the government and personally to people because they can make more money that way. So do I wish we knew more about the rest of the world? Sure. Is it vital that we do? Not as much as other disciplines. As long as we have some people that do know about the rest of the world. And American universities are among the very best in the world, so much so that other people want to come here. ANd when they do, they're frequently behind the curve, whereas when Americans go to European universities, they're frequently at the top of the pack. So I don't buy the Americans are dumb argument. Maybe willfully culturally insensitive and ignorant, yes, but not dumb. And here's the other thing. I can locate most other countries on a map(although Africa's always a tough one). Does it mean I give two fucks about their culture? Absolutely not. Nothing personal, really. I just don't care because I do

ChrisTheCop

10-07-2006, 09:06 PM

TheMojoPin

10-08-2006, 04:50 AM

Not everyone is "forgiven."  Nobody's a fan of Nixon.

Yerdaddy

10-08-2006, 06:08 AM

ChrisTheCop wrote: And yes, those who hate us now, will hate us then. For the same reason they do today.Because we are The United States of America.This is absolutely not true. And yet this commonly-held opinion is a huge part of OUR problem. How hard is it to accept that these are thinking feeling human beings we are talking about. They form opinions based on actual input of information, not some animal instinct. Therefore, Muslim opinions about the US are constantly changing based on our actions as well as the anti-American propaganda I assume people refer to when they form these opinions. The fact is that there is anti-American propaganda here, but it's nothing like you expect it to be. Some of you remember this - it's the only piece of anti-American propaganda I've seen the government allow here in the second most conservative Muslim country. There is also propaganda in the press and mosques, but those expressions are monitored and several newspapers and hundreds of mosques have been shut down for anti-western propaganda. Most ME countries have variations of the same policies.People here hold their opinions largely based on the facts as they appear from their own perspective: ie. an Arab/Muslim perspective, not an American perspective. Perhaps most Americans still believe that the Iraq war was launched with the best intentions of the Bush administration? Perhaps this is true despite all reasonable rationales for the war being proved to be untrue or spurious at best? Well, strangely enough, like the populations of all but two countries in the world, Muslims believe the war was launched by the US for its own self-interests and without regard for the lives of the Iraqi people. Hell, I believe this and I can't stand Islam. Add to this Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Haditha, the 12 years of sanctions on the Iraqi people, the lack of resources leading to the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan now, support for authoritarian regimes across the ME, support for extremists in Afghanistan in the 80s, unquestioned absolute support for Israel against the Palestinians, overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran and installation of the Shah, and more shit that I'd list if I had the time, and I think there's plenty of justification for Muslims hating the US. And yet most of them don't. Sure, most of them hate the US government, but don't hate the American people. I've been given more free shit the last year and a half in Yemen by broke-ass Yemenis that I don't even know than by strangers my whole life in the States. These are generous and kind people. They are also crazy-ass petty people that shit on each other every chance they get, look to religion to understand everything, will do something wrong any time they think they can get away with it,  etc. etc. But they don't have a natural hate for us. From their perspective we've earned it. And, by the same token, they love us and want to go to America. Every Arab knows someone in the States and knows that there are 10 million Muslims there (actually between 7 and 10, but they all think 10), and that American Muslims live freely, if occasionally harrassed by bigots. Point is: ME opinions of the US are not absolute. Even extremists' views are shaped by events. Every survey of this place shows constant change in attitudes based on current circumstances. Pre- and post-Iraq war opinions of us are miles apart on most subjects. [See Brookings Institute for tons of ME polling data.] The fact is, these people are not nearly as simple and stupid as this "they hate us and there's nothing we can do about it" statement gives them credit for.  appreciate the comments, narc. I'll get to them tomorrow as I'm getting kicked out of the internet cafe for Iftar: where Yemenis give me free food for Ramadan.

phixion

10-09-2006, 06:53 AM

Phixion, I never mentioned Truman in my post (?). And no, he wasnt one of the presidents in my lifetime! Anywho, I merely predicted that much like we've forgiven Carter for his awful presidency, and Clinton for his, etc etc,  Bush also will be forgiven. And the next guy will be the guy to gripe about and to be the butt of tv pundits jokes. the idea that a president is disliked during his presidency but adored by historians is no more personified than truman. he became president in the wake of fdr and he just wasnt the same man. the american people never really embraced him , thats why the photo of truman holdin up the newspaper headlined 'dewey defeats truman' is so famous. no one thought he had a chance. it took him cursing out an art critic who insulted his duaghter to win the 48 election. thats the correlation i was making. u didnt mention him by name but this idea of forgiving presidents is one that was trumans legacy.and historian havent forgiven carter, they just dont blame him, alot of the crap that occurred during his presidency wasnt his fault, he just was president at a very bad time. no one has ever said carter was a good president, just not as bad as some people have made him out to be. and clinton? we adored clinton the american people loved that man. he started out shakey sure, but those four middle years of his presidency was damn near a pax americana. the economy was great when he president, and we werent involved and serious military actions, we loved clinton when we had him. bush wont be forgiven. do conservatives forgive fdr? do liberals forgive reagan? bush's legacy is iraq. if miraculously he's right and this war changes the world forever in a good way then yes your right bush will be forgiven. but if this war doesnt hit a u turn soon, if we keep marching down this unwavering road, then no bush will never be forgiven, if we are forced to reinstitute a draft like we would be forced to if the cease fire at the DMZ ends, then bush will have the premature title of worst president of the century.