"Bring It On"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Jan 13, 2005.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    Link

    Ah yes. The insurgents are getting desperate now.

    The longer an insurgency lasts, the more organized and effective it becomes.
     
  2. jadam macrumors 6502a

    jadam

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
  3. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    What's the best way of screwing them? More troops?
     
  4. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #4
    By taking away their cause. How about we stop supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East in pursuit of oil, thus proving we care more about the people of the region than the resource underneath them?

    Oh, and launching offensives on civilian populations in order to "free" them does nothing to convince them we're looking out for their best interests. All they care about are their bombed-out houses and dead relatives. Wouldn't you?
     
  5. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #5
    So you've stopped driving? Heating the house with solar power now?

    It ain't easy now.
     
  6. 3Memos macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    #6
    Any chance we are the terrorists bombing their country and they are just trying to fight back? There are always two sides of every conflict. As Robert McNamara quoted "reason will not save us"
     
  7. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #7
    Sometimes I do wonder that.
    I don't think that the German people woke up one day in the 1930's and just decided "Hey, you know what? I think we should all become really, really evil." These things happen so that normal people who would never go along with something like that get pulled along by little steps until there is no other path left.
    A foreign army invades your country killing a lot of your people, resisting them with arms doesn't seem that far of a logical stretch, obviously not that I condone that sort of thing in this case particularly but at least it isn't an irrational response to their circumstances. How do you explain what we're doing there? We're not there to defend ourselves, not there for the WMD's, not there for Al Qaida, so what then is worth all the blood and money?
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    This brings up a problem in foreign policy. From a moral standpoint, you wouldn't want to support a repressive regime and you would want to aid the people who are suffering under it. Nevertheless, the reality is that aid to the politically powerless segment of a society cannot compete in terms of influence to military and other kinds of assistance to the politically powerful, however repugnant.

    Since the region has resources that are in fierce demand, that influence is important and fiercely competetive.

    It is curious that Bush's foreign policy (re: neocon) has some glaring weaknesses usually ascribed to liberal policy circles, though the common thread may just be idealism. They are:

    - The naive assumption that the West has an advantage in the Third World because it offers both a more viable model for economic development and a preferable form of government in Democracy, is nonsense, because the Eastern-bloc (or what was) provides a more viable model for political control, which is what the ruling Elites want. The potential interests of the masses are largely irrelevant because the only people's opinions who matter in terms of influence are the ruling elites.

    - Relatedly, The notion that the people would rise up in support of Democracy, either before or after an military intervention, is also ridiculous. Many ME countries are thugocracies, thugs run it and only what they think and feel counts. Since they are invariably more impressed with the Soviet model of Power than the Western one, they are likely to be unconvinced. The people's opinion doesn't matter. After a regime has fallen, conversely, the people are more interested in stability and power-grabbing in the vaccuum than of Democracy, although many may be willing to give it a chance, at least until they realize it will most likely be corrupt, ineffectual and chaotic in practice.

    - Not recognizing the unique make-up of Islamic society and it's potential for altering traditional power-structures (ie elite, merchant,peasant). Subsequently, ignoring or discounting potential spheres-of-influence.

    As for launching offensives on civilian populations, who says that we were doing that for their interests? We are most likely doing it for our own in relation to influencing those in a position of power nearby (neighboring countries) or those likely to attain a position of power in Iraq. It is a profoundly amoral process.

    The strange thing about a country such as ours engaged in such an endeavor is the hypocrisy is demands. In order to even attempt to placate the sensibilities of the voters at home, things must be couched in humanitarian or idealistic terminology, but the real objectives are decidedly strategic, calculated and amoral at best.
     
  9. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #9
    No, nor do I plan to. But just because I choose to drive my car does not mean that my government is obliged to support oppressive regimes with our political clout and military know-how. Any number of alternatives exist, including supporting alternative energy (both in power plants and in cars), or building viable mass-transit, or even just using diplomatic pressure on the offending governments. The problem is, we let them treat us like they have us by the balls. Our government acts as if there is no alternative when there is. It wouldn't be easy, but neither is standing in front of the world with a war based on bald-faced lies with a former ally.
    Not me. And if you and I can see through it, what makes Dubya think the people he's ordering to be bombed can't?
     

Share This Page