Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by peeker643 » Thu May 23, 2013 9:51 am
by Cerebral_DownTime » Thu May 23, 2013 10:13 am
by googleeph2 » Thu May 23, 2013 10:20 am
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:People are fucking nuts.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Thu May 23, 2013 10:25 am
by peeker643 » Thu May 23, 2013 10:42 am
by jb » Thu May 23, 2013 11:36 am
by peeker643 » Thu May 23, 2013 11:55 am
jb wrote:That's what a country with no conceil carry laws will get you.http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html
by gotribe31 » Thu May 23, 2013 12:16 pm
by danwismar » Thu May 23, 2013 12:29 pm
by peeker643 » Thu May 23, 2013 1:02 pm
danwismar wrote:Sadly, we may never know what the motive was.
"The only reasons we killed this man ... is because Muslims are dying daily," he said in video aired by CNN affiliate ITN."This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth," he said. "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone."
by gotribe31 » Thu May 23, 2013 1:17 pm
by peeker643 » Thu May 23, 2013 1:22 pm
gotribe31 wrote:When he legally changed his name to Mujaheed, that probably should have been an indication that he wasn't really interested in peaceful discourse.
by danwismar » Thu May 23, 2013 1:45 pm
by jb » Thu May 23, 2013 1:51 pm
danwismar wrote:"When you leave our lands", he said, then we can live in peace...says the Muslim who murdered a British soldier...in England.
by peeker643 » Thu May 23, 2013 2:11 pm
jb wrote:danwismar wrote:"When you leave our lands", he said, then we can live in peace...says the Muslim who murdered a British soldier...in England.Why don't we just make them Cuba?
by danwismar » Thu May 23, 2013 2:14 pm
by gotribe31 » Thu May 23, 2013 2:20 pm
by motherscratcher » Thu May 23, 2013 2:41 pm
danwismar wrote:One reason is that the vacuum created by our absence will allow the flourishing of people who are not content to leave us alone...ever. They (Taliban, AQAP, al Qaeda) would again be plotting to fly airliners into our skyscrapers...or worse.I am no fan of a long-term presence in Afghanistan though. It's been a death trap for everyone who has ever tried to be there, for centuries. And you won't hear me waving the flag for U.S. action in Syria either, where the ant-Assad forces are likely to be equally malign. All we can do, as in Iraq, is try to train political leaders, police and military to run their own country in a civilized, self-governing way, and then let them make the best of it...or not. And the corrupt relationship between us and the Saudis is a bipartisan scandal and an ongoing disgrace. But again, the alternative to our influence there is greater Chinese or Russian influence...either harms our interests.It matters not to the Islamists that the US has intervened on many occasions to rescue Muslims from non-Muslim dictators, or from brutal nominally Muslim dictators...Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan. Call it folly...call it hubris...call it a waste of time...we intervened in good faith...and on the side of innocent Muslim citizens...and we get no credit, let alone thanks. The fantasy is that if we did leave, we could have something resembling peace with them.
by danwismar » Thu May 23, 2013 2:45 pm
by googleeph2 » Thu May 23, 2013 5:08 pm
by jb » Fri May 24, 2013 10:24 am
peeker643 wrote:jb wrote:danwismar wrote:"When you leave our lands", he said, then we can live in peace...says the Muslim who murdered a British soldier...in England.Why don't we just make them Cuba?When you say that, are you asking for us to make England Cuba or Boston Cuba?Or do you believe it all goes away if we simply divest ourselves of any and all intersts in the Middle East and let what happens there happen there?Genuinely asking. I think there's no chance of that working out well but if there is a sliver of a chance it's because the radical muslim groups are so splintered that in many cases their hatred for each other nearly equals their hatred of the west.
by jb » Fri May 24, 2013 10:37 am
danwismar wrote:One reason is that the vacuum created by our absence will allow the flourishing of people who are not content to leave us alone...ever. They (Taliban, AQAP, al Qaeda) would again be plotting to fly airliners into our skyscrapers...or worse.
by googleeph2 » Fri May 24, 2013 12:15 pm
by jb » Fri May 24, 2013 12:30 pm
googleeph2 wrote:jb, interesting takes. Some questions I have (I don't want bad blood either. This isn't as big a thing as Chief Wahoo. j/k)I've always assumed everyone agreed that as long as we are richer than them, they will hate us. Photos of Kate Upton won't foster hope; they'll prove to them we are immoral. Russia saw Western culture and wanted in- much of the Middle East sees it as proof we need to be killed. (Hollywood, they really hate you.) If you think that can be changed, then you cannot rule out an eventual shift toward peaceful self governance. I know the foothold has been slippery, but Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, and other places have had recent moderate periods, no?In the meantime, once they are left alone with their rich ruling class, we'll still be an extension of it, in their eyes. Also, some of those governments will be looking to work with the U.S. on various initiatives and we will be unable to keep saying no- it would be impossible for us to remain firmly isolationist as they are spiraling down the toilet and asking for humatarian help.What happens when the tsunami of refugees begins to flood the West, in earnest? Bringing sharia law with them?And the first thing they'll do won't be turning on themselves, it will be turning on Israel. Selling out such a solid ally is not a good option. It's something a Middle Eastern country would do. And what signal does that send to other allies?And would we just turn a blind eye to their procurement/development/protection of currently held nuclear weaponry? Yikes. Our absence will create an opportunity for others who hate us (eg. in South America) to line up new partnerships. They might even promote war and genocide. Am I off base? Feels like I am just getting started. Appreciate the POV.
by HoodooMan » Fri May 24, 2013 2:03 pm
http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=production Oil and gas production sources and technology has changed drastically since 1973. The major producing regions have seen a sea chyange. Oil is sold as an apolitical global commodity by those who want to make stupid ammounts of money. Oil production is no longer a tool of nationalists or any pan-regional power brokers.
by dmiles » Fri May 24, 2013 3:28 pm
by danwismar » Fri May 24, 2013 4:29 pm
by jb » Fri May 24, 2013 4:30 pm
HoodooMan wrote:http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=production Oil and gas production sources and technology has changed drastically since 1973. The major producing regions have seen a sea chyange. Oil is sold as an apolitical global commodity by those who want to make stupid ammounts of money. Oil production is no longer a tool of nationalists or any pan-regional power brokers.I don't think we're there to make friends who'll sell us their oil. I don't think we're there because we genuinely give two shits about Israel or Kuwaitis or Syrians or anyone else. I think we're there, because (according to the numbers in your link), that's where over 1/3 of the world's oil production is, and our fear is that a (further) destabilized middle east would likely disrupt that production, and with it the world economy.
by jb » Fri May 24, 2013 4:32 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Fri May 24, 2013 5:08 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Fri May 24, 2013 5:09 pm
by danwismar » Sat May 25, 2013 10:06 am
by Cerebral_DownTime » Sat May 25, 2013 6:53 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Sat May 25, 2013 7:00 pm
by British_Pharaoh » Sat May 25, 2013 7:24 pm
by Fire Marshall Bill 2.0 » Sat May 25, 2013 8:42 pm
by FUDU » Sat May 25, 2013 9:49 pm
by pup » Sat May 25, 2013 11:21 pm
by motherscratcher » Sun May 26, 2013 12:22 am
by dmiles » Sun May 26, 2013 2:55 am
by mattvan1 » Sun May 26, 2013 9:37 am
motherscratcher wrote:You guys can bust BPs balls all you want, but there was a lot of truth in there.
by pup » Sun May 26, 2013 10:59 am
mattvan1 wrote:motherscratcher wrote:You guys can bust BPs balls all you want, but there was a lot of truth in there.I read some contrived, albeit well articulated, truths based on a particular POV, but lumping Afganistan and Iraq in the same let's scapegoat the US bucket is simply distorting facts to fit an agenda.
by e0y2e3 » Mon May 27, 2013 9:15 am
by YahooFanChicago » Mon May 27, 2013 10:38 am
by YahooFanChicago » Mon May 27, 2013 10:53 am
by peeker643 » Mon May 27, 2013 11:25 am
by peeker643 » Mon May 27, 2013 12:12 pm
Heart of smugness Unlike Belgium, Britain is still complacently ignoring the gory cruelties of its empireMaria Misra GuardianTuesday July 23, 2002So the Belgians are to return to the Heart of Darkness in an attempt finally to exorcise their imperial demons. Stung by another book cataloguing the violence and misery inflicted by King Leopold's empire on the Congo in the late 19th and early 20th century, the state-funded Royal Museum for Central Africa in Brussels has commissioned a group of historians to pass authoritative judgment on accusations of genocide: forced labour, systematic rape, torture and murder of the Congolese, around 10 million of whom are thought to have died as a consequence. This is not the first time that the Belgian empire has been singled out for censure. Back in the Edwardian era, British humanitarians spilled much ink over its excesses and Conrad's novella was corralled into service to show Leopold's Congo as a sort of horrific "other" to Britain's more uplifting colonialism. Complacency about Britain's imperial record lingers on. In the post-September 11 orgy of self-congratulation about the west's superiority, Blair's former foreign policy guru, Robert Cooper, and a host of journalistic flag-wavers were urging us not to be ashamed of empire. Cooper insisted empire was "as necessary now as it had been in the 19th century". The British empire was, we were assured, a generally well-intentioned attempt to inculcate notions of good government, civilised behaviour and market rationality into less well-favoured societies. Is such a rosy view of British imperialism justified? Many argue that it is. After all, surely the British have less blood on their hands than the French and the Belgians? Wasn't the British addiction to the free market a prophylactic against the horrors of forced labour? And didn't those peculiar class obsessions make them less racist than the rest - silly snobs, but not vicious yobs? And isn't India not only a democracy, but, thanks to the British, one with great railways? Perhaps there is a kernel of truth in some of this, but there's also much wilful smugness. While the complex consequences of colonial economic policy require extended analysis, it is possible to dispel more swiftly the myth that the British Empire, unlike King Leopold's, was innocent of atrocities. It has become a modern orthodoxy that Europe's 20th century was the bloodiest in history and that atrocities must be recorded and remembered by society as a whole. But while a Black Book of Communism has been compiled and everybody is aware of the horrors of nazism, popular historians have been surprisingly uninterested in the dark side of the British Empire. There are exceptions, such as Mike Davis's powerful Late Victorian Holocausts, but much else still lies buried in the academic literature. Davis and others have estimated that there were between 12 and 33 million avoidable deaths by famine in India between 1876 and 1908, produced by a deadly combination of official callousness and free-market ideology. But these were far from being a purely Victorian phenomenon. As late as 1943 around 4 million died in the Bengal famine, largely because of official policy. No one has even attempted to quantify the casualties caused by state-backed forced labour on British-owned mines and plantations in India, Africa and Malaya. But we do know that tens of thousands of often conscripted Africans, Indians and Malays - men, women and children - were either killed or maimed constructing Britain's imperial railways. Also unquantified are the numbers of civilian deaths caused by British aerial bombing and gassing of villages in Sudan, Iraq and Palestine in the 1920 and 1930s. Nor was the supposedly peaceful decolonisation of the British Empire without its gory cruelties. The hurried partition of the Indian subcontinent brought about a million deaths in the ensuing uncontrolled panic and violence. The brutal suppression of the Mau Mau and the detention of thousands of Kenyan peasants in concentration camps are still dimly remembered, as are the Aden killings of the 1960s. But the massacre of communist insurgents by the Scots Guard in Malaya in the 1950s, the decapitation of so-called bandits by the Royal Marine Commandos in Perak and the secret bombing of Malayan villages during the Emergency remain uninvestigated. One might argue that these were simply the unfortunate consequences of the arrival of economic and political modernity. But does change have to come so brutally? There are plenty of examples of wanton British cruelty to chill the blood even of a hardened Belgian. Who, after all, invented the concentration camp but the British? The scandalous conditions in British camps during the Boer war, where thousands of women and children died of disease and malnutrition, are relatively well known. Who now remembers the Indian famine-relief-cum-work camps, where gentlemanly British officials conducted experiments to determine how few calories an Indian coolie could be fed and still perform hard labour? The rations in these camps amounted to less than those at Buchenwald. There is Churchill's assiduous promotion of schemes to cut the costs of imperial defence in India and the Middle East by using aerial bombing, machine gunning and gassing for the control of rebellion, political protest, labour disputes and non-payment of taxes. There is the denial of free food to starving south Asians on the grounds that it would simply hasten a population explosion among India's "feckless poor". There is the extraordinary British justification for bombing Sudanese villages after the first world war: Nuer women were, officials claimed, of less value to their community than cattle or rifles. These facts and figures are not easily culled from textbooks on empire. We don't have a dedicated museum of empire, but our nearest equivalent, the new Imperial War Museum North, would leave the impression that Britain's colonial subjects had been enthusiastic participants in its wartime crusades to rid the world of want and evil. Does it matter that the British are smug about their imperial past, that British atrocities have been airbrushed from history? One can't help thinking that Jack Straw's pious missions to India to broker solutions to the Kashmir crisis might have more credibility if the British had the good grace to apologise for such imperial crimes as the Amritsar massacre. But a more worrying symptom of this rosy glossing of the imperial past is the re-emergence of a sort of sanitised advocacy of imperialism as a viable option in contemporary international relations. The point of cataloguing Britain's imperial crimes is not to trash our forebears, but to remind our rulers that even the best-run empires are cruel and violent, not just the Belgian Congo. Overwhelming power, combined with a sense of boundless superiority, will produce atrocities - even among the well intentioned. Let's not forget that Leopold's central African empire was originally called the International Association for Philanthropy in the Congo.
by mattvan1 » Mon May 27, 2013 12:15 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:I've drafted about 45 uberman is coming things here and erased them all.We just all need to hope that happens.Or we're all dead.Period.
by Orenthal » Mon May 27, 2013 12:32 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Y'all clucked and prattled about how we would bring "democracy" to the middle east after Iraq "The Fall of Tyrants HRMPH!". Well you got it, just didn't plan for them to elect Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, did ya?But hey, the blood and treasure lost was well worth it.
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests