General Chat / WWIII

I think I love you Corky (and Nate )

The bottom line is, the US (ESPECIALLY under Bush) has had a history of responding to things in relation to how it threatens the US and not the world. If there is great corruption (Such as Saudi Arabia and Mexico, as Corky mentioned, and many others) but it doesn't have a negative effect on us, we ignore it. But if it is something 1/10th as bad that effects Bush, war. And lots of it.

We should really just learn to mind our own fuckin' business like the Swiss. There's a reason the people of Switzerland don't hate their leaders.

And one more note. This is a damn good debate. I'm impressed.

Edited by eman, 20 July 2006 - 03:14 PM.

It's no different from a Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door and trying to sell you their religion.

But it is different. If you say "No, go away" they will go knock on the next door over, they wont blow your head off.

Who are you and I to decide what is good for the 'women and children', or any person in that, or any country? We believe our Western way of life is the be all, end all solution of which everyone, worldwide will enjoy. It's no different from a Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door and trying to sell you their religion. They obviously believe their way is the correct way to live, but those principles just don't work for you and I. Should our perceptions of 'freedom' and liberties be enforced upon a society who may not want anything to do with our way of life?

I base it on reports from Afghan women about being happy about being allowed to go to universities and stuff.

Yes, you can say there are those who don't like it, and you're probably right. But I meant it as a side comment. It is "good" then. Except that putting adjectives in quotation marks all the time would get pretty "annoying."

Also, I happen to believe that women and children should be allowed freedoms and liberties like getting an education and not being forced to shroud their faces in public should they not want to. Admittedly, that's my personal bias, but that only on a pure technical standpoint. I think we can go a discussion without having to notate our opinions in each and every instance, Nate. Don't take the philosophical argument past its useful parameters.

Clarification: don't be so technical about these things that you're making someone clarify what should be a statement that is accepted as inherently having personal biases.

I think I love you Corky (and Nate )

That's progress. Now we just have to get you to stop sucking on Boss' wood.

Who are you and I to decide what is good for the 'women and children', or any person in that, or any country? We believe our Western way of life is the be all, end all solution of which everyone, worldwide will enjoy. It's no different from a Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door and trying to sell you their religion. They obviously believe their way is the correct way to live, but those principles just don't work for you and I. Should our perceptions of 'freedom' and liberties be enforced upon a society who may not want anything to do with our way of life?

What is good for people is not being coerced and forced to live as others desire them to. Some women choose to wear a traditional Islam attire while others do not. I've seen Muslim women in more traditional attire while their daughter wears contemporary attire. I've even seen the opposite. People can coexist with different opinions. What it really does come down to is "who started it?". If "who started it" is irrelevant than the very idea of a government based on the protection of its citizens' rights is reprehensible.

We should really just learn to mind our own fuckin' business like the Swiss. There's a reason the people of Switzerland don't hate their leaders.

Best thing said in this thread so far.

-ACE

It's a bit easier for the Swiss, however, seeing as how they have few valuable natural resources, banks used heavily by people from every country, and every man over the age of eighteen is armed to be part of the national army should the need ever arise.

I don't think what America is trying to do to the Middle East has priority with forcing or trying to change Middle Easterners' opinions on how to live and think. That's just a byproduct of war, propoganda, and politics. Hell, it's just like the saying, "I like roller coasters." Yeah, I made a topic of roller coasters so that maybe I can talk to someone else about them and have fun about it, but there's always going to be someone out there that says in retorte, "Are you trying to force me to ride roller coasters?" Honestly, I don't know what the "real" plan for the Middle East is, but what I can say is it's not to oppress those people to live and think our way of life.

Those are terrible terrible pictures that no one would ever want to witness. Now where are the pictures of the countless suicide bombings that have happened in public places for the past five years in Israel?

I think you missed my point. I'm not saying Hizbollah is right and Israel is wrong, nor am I saying the opposite. What I'm saying is that these pictures are terrible. And this is what happens when you drop bombs on cities! Everyone needs to see this up close and personal no matter how uncomfortable it makes them. Because when you are responsible for doing this to another human being, I think you need to re-examine what your intentions are. Think about it. This could be your sister, your mother, your son or daughter. No one deserves that. No matter what the reason, this is not justifiable. The suicide bombings are horrible, I agree. And isn't that exactly why we DON'T want to drop bombs on people? Doesn't that make us just as guilty as them?

There's an interesting movie called 'Paradise Now' that I would strongly recommend that deals with the motives of suicide bombers. You can watch it by clicking the link in my signature. It was a theatrical length movie but someone has been nice enough to post it online in the interest of furthering human understanding. Not because understanding suicide bombers excuses their actions, but because it's important to see that these are real people too. They're not monsters. They're mistaken I think, somewhere along the line they've screwed up their priorities to the point where killing has become justified to them, but then can't we say the same of Israel right now? Or America in Iraq? Or Abu-Ghraib? All sorts of screwed up motives going on there and death and torture being justified. But it is not justified (this attack on Lebanon is not justified) and it makes me sick that the US and UK are using their military forces to evacuate their own citizens instead of doing something to actually stop this ridiculousness.

Really think about this. Too often we fall into the trap of analyzing human losses as some kind of abstract cost-benefit analysis. Killing 1000 people by dropping a bomb is somehow a good thing if the other option would supposedly result in even more deaths. But people are not numbers. And you're still killing 1000 people. Take another look at those pictures. Forget about what nationality those corpses are, what color their skin is, what language they speak, what religion they keep. Would you support anyone responsible for causing that?

I think you missed my point. I'm not saying Hizbollah is right and Israel is wrong, nor am I saying the opposite. What I'm saying is that these pictures are terrible. And this is what happens when you drop bombs on cities! Everyone needs to see this up close and personal no matter how uncomfortable it makes them. Because when you are responsible for doing this to another human being, I think you need to re-examine what your intentions are. Think about it. This could be your sister, your mother, your son or daughter. No one deserves that. No matter what the reason, this is not justifiable. The suicide bombings are horrible, I agree. And isn't that exactly why we DON'T want to drop bombs on people? Doesn't that make us just as guilty as them?

There's an interesting movie called 'Paradise Now' that I would strongly recommend that deals with the motives of suicide bombers. You can watch it by clicking the link in my signature. It was a theatrical length movie but someone has been nice enough to post it online in the interest of furthering human understanding. Not because understanding suicide bombers excuses their actions, but because it's important to see that these are real people too. They're not monsters. They're mistaken I think, somewhere along the line they've screwed up their priorities to the point where killing has become justified to them, but then can't we say the same of Israel right now? Or America in Iraq? Or Abu-Ghraib? All sorts of screwed up motives going on there and death and torture being justified. But it is not justified (this attack on Lebanon is not justified) and it makes me sick that the US and UK are using their military forces to evacuate their own citizens instead of doing something to actually stop this ridiculousness.

Really think about this. Too often we fall into the trap of analyzing human losses as some kind of abstract cost-benefit analysis. Killing 1000 people by dropping a bomb is somehow a good thing if the other option would supposedly result in even more deaths. But people are not numbers. And you're still killing 1000 people. Take another look at those pictures. Forget about what nationality those corpses are, what color their skin is, what language they speak, what religion they keep. Would you support anyone responsible for causing that?

Welcome to reality, Ed.

No, it's not pretty. And in an ideal world it wouldn't exist.

However, even if they are just 'mistaken' (as I also believe) the fact remains that if they blow up my people, I'm going to blow up theirs. Such is the nature of war.

Whenever two groups meet with different ways of life, or different ideals, there will be conflict. It's unfortunate, but it's part of the human phenomenon.

I find your last few lines ironic, by the way. You say they are not numbers, but you then proceed to tell us to forget much of what makes them who they are.

The Germans have a saying - "war is shit". It's true. War is the most evil thing that exists on this Earth. But it does exist, and rather than be shocked by its very existence, we move on. There is a certain volume - a certain distance, after which it's much more difficult to feel emotion for these deaths.

"One death is a tragedy - a thousand is a statistic."
Stalin was very perceptive with these words.

-ACE

it's important to see that these are real people too. They're not monsters. They're mistaken I think, somewhere along the line they've screwed up their priorities to the point where killing has become justified to them, but then can't we say the same of Israel right now? Or America in Iraq? Or Abu-Ghraib?

That's a very good line. Somehow, I think if Nate had used that earlier, he might not have gotten such a argumentative response.

However, as Ace said, the world is reality, and reality is grisly. I firmly believe we cannot have a world without conflict. It's not that we need it; we simply cannot esacape it. Not as human beings. It's inherent in us, and the effort to wipe everyone's instincts and recode everyoneto love peace is simply too great (barring some sort of massive 1984esque procedure).

Shit like this is going to happen.



Now, should we give up? No. Obviously, we should try to stop it. But the process will never be pretty, and that's the unfortunate part.

You and I and most of the people here at NE are far more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the world's population. Literally. The rest are ignorant, because they literally don't know better. Terrorists don't know better than to use violence and murder to achieve their means because that's all many were taught from childhood. Turn it around, and many Israelis have been taught to hate Palestinians, and vice versa. Many Americans instantly associate Arabs with terrorists because that's all they've been exposed to, and no one's bothered to show them that terrorists represent only a tiny fraction of Arab interests.

As long as the world remains ignorant, what are ultimately petty conflicts like these will arise. And atrocities associated with any combat, whether it be direct bombing or some of the recent actions U.S. troops undertook in Iraq (the rape of that Iraqi girl and the burning of her and her family, for example), will always arise within such conflicts.

Unfortunately, the world is too big to fix this ignorance problem anytime soon.

Really think about this. Too often we fall into the trap of analyzing human losses as some kind of abstract cost-benefit analysis. Killing 1000 people by dropping a bomb is somehow a good thing if the other option would supposedly result in even more deaths. But people are not numbers. And you're still killing 1000 people. Take another look at those pictures. Forget about what nationality those corpses are, what color their skin is, what language they speak, what religion they keep. Would you support anyone responsible for causing that?

Then what is to be done? There are those who refuse to negotiate. How would you deal with 1,000 people who seek the murder of a thousand each and refuse to negotiate?

Lock them up in a room with Star Jones.







Actually, that's quite cruel and unusual... they don't quite deserve that...

There's always Richard Simmons..

Hezbollah asked for the release of prisoners. Israel refused. Where in that did Israel try and fail to negotiate? I didn't see ANY attempted negotiation.

"the fact remains that if they blow up my people, I'm going to blow up theirs. Such is the nature of war."

Bingo. Such is the nature of war --- if you think an eye for an eye is justice. Here's a little bit of Christianity for you though from an ex-Christian (well, ex-Christian as far as the church, not as far as spiritual belief -- yeah actually that too. I would consider myself more of a gnostic at this point, which used to be considered Christian): eye for an eye was old testament morality. New testament morality is forgiveness, grace. You don't need to pay for your transgressions with death, you are graciously forgiven and instead of breaking the bond between you and God, the bond is strengthened. There are those that interpret Christianity as a metaphorical teaching. What if we're meant to behave the same way to each other. Treat your neighbor as you would yourself. Would you drop a bomb on your family? Forgive and you too will be forgiven. Maybe you believe that's all bullshit. Maybe you believe humans are inherently evil and corrupt and will never change and you have to bomb the people who offend you until they don't exist anymore and call that peace. Neitzsche's "will to power" triumphs over all. But look again at what you said. That doesn't make war inevitable, it makes it a choice. (And Nietzsche was hugely anti-Christian, it's pretty much his defining philosophy -- which is funny company to find yourself in for all the Christian-right which support the actions of Israel in this. I'm not saying that's you, I'm just saying that's a funny connection.)

"Whenever two groups meet with different ways of life, or different ideals, there will be conflict. It's unfortunate, but it's part of the human phenomenon."

There will be conflict, but don't we always look back at history and say "that was unfortunate. it's a pity they couldn't just work that out"? I say that about every single war I've ever read about. Could have been prevented, but wasn't. Well maybe we should take this tactic then: prevent war at all costs. And see how far that strategy takes us. In every school I ever went to there was conflict. Some of those conflicts ended in fights, most didn't. The "real world" is really that on a macro scale. What would it take for you to not start a war? Maybe if you knew your home as going to be bombed? The average American knows their home will not be bombed even if there is a war -- especially one 5000 miles away. The average Palestinian/Israeli knows there's a pretty good chance they're going to be bombed anyway so what have they got to lose? Maybe we should work on fixing that? The great poetic irony is that everyone knows that war is hell and to be avoided at all costs -- after they fought one. Maybe this is one lesson we don't need to learn for ourselves. Take a cue from history on this one and trust every other human being in the history of the world who has fought a war and regretted it.

"I find your last few lines ironic, by the way. You say they are not numbers, but you then proceed to tell us to forget much of what makes them who they are."

Oh but I disagree. None of that makes you who you are. Those are profound influences, sure, but they don't make up what you are. Look at my picture.



I'm white, blonde hair, from California, probably speak English. That's got "WASP" all over it. Do you think based on that you know who I am? I think a lot of the problem is that people think those things represent what they are. They don't. When I get to know a person, those things tend to disappear. What I see instead are things they've said, things they've done, what makes them smile, what makes them sad. Those are the things that make up who you are. Forget about race, gender, nationality, religion, language. None of that defines you. It merely identifies you. And saying that doesn't de-humanize you in any way. It picks you out from everyone else. It makes you a person, not one of the many.

"The Germans have a saying - "war is shit". It's true. War is the most evil thing that exists on this Earth. But it does exist, and rather than be shocked by its very existence, we move on. There is a certain volume - a certain distance, after which it's much more difficult to feel emotion for these deaths.

"One death is a tragedy - a thousand is a statistic."
Stalin was very perceptive with these words."

Right on again. A certain distance at which it is more difficult to feel emotion over these deaths. That my friend is what makes war possible. That is why there's a propaganda campaign to convince you a 'Ty's Pleasure Domer' or a 'jap' or a 'gook' is not a human being, not your neighbor, but some alien. The enemy. Stalin's words are true in a way. In the same way it's true to say "war is inevitable". It's self-fulfilling prophecy. Stalin was a propagandist. A thousand deaths IS NOT static. A thousand deaths is 1000 famalies permanently scarred at the very least. Stalin's words are meant to convince. But they aren't true if we don't let them to be true. I can tell you for certain that 1000 deaths are not static for me. I think that makes me the realist. Experience every single one as if it's the person closest to you in the world. Because that is what it is like for someone else. That is what is actually happening on the other side of the coin. I don't want there to be a distance at which war is acceptable. You need to look it in the face until it makes you so sick you don't want to think about it anymore. And then I say you can call yourself rational.

"However, as Ace said, the world is reality, and reality is grisly. I firmly believe we cannot have a world without conflict. It's not that we need it; we simply cannot esacape it. Not as human beings. It's inherent in us, and the effort to wipe everyone's instincts and recode everyoneto love peace is simply too great (barring some sort of massive 1984esque procedure)."

But you're not wiping everyone's instincts. The key to solving conflict in all forms is listening to what the other person/people have to say and then explaining your side. It is not bombing them off the face of the earth. That doesn't solve conflict. You haven't solved a math equation if you rip up the peice of paper it's written on. Yeah it's a puzzle and it's not easy, but maybe there is a solution? It's hard to say when all we seem to do when we get to a tough problem is rip up the paper and throw it away.

"Now, should we give up? No. Obviously, we should try to stop it. But the process will never be pretty, and that's the unfortunate part."

Isn't that a contradiction? We should try to stop war, but the process will never be pretty? How is contributing to war in any way solving it? Remember the saying "wars are not won or lost, simply postponed for a later date". Maybe thed history of the world is really just one war that keeps going on because no one ever stops it. No one ever finds a real solution to their conflict. Why is it I can live in peace with you and I can't live in peace with someone in Lebanon? Are there reasons? What are those reasons and how do we fix them?

"You and I and most of the people here at NE are far more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the world's population. Literally. The rest are ignorant, because they literally don't know better. Terrorists don't know better than to use violence and murder to achieve their means because that's all many were taught from childhood. Turn it around, and many Israelis have been taught to hate Palestinians, and vice versa. Many Americans instantly associate Arabs with terrorists because that's all they've been exposed to, and no one's bothered to show them that terrorists represent only a tiny fraction of Arab interests."

I keep having conversations with people about how smart "we" are and how ignorant "they" are but you know what? The more of those conversations I have the bigger "we" gets. It turns out a whole lot of people are smart enough to know that war is a bad idea. The only people who don't seem to get it are the ones with enough authority to say "we can accomplish this by sending these people out to die" while sitting in their offices. What if every soldier in the world dropped their weapons, ripped off their uniform and said "this is it. I am an individual. this uniform does not define me. I will not fight for someone elses's idea of "progress". Who's going to do the fighting then? I would never fight in a war because that's what I believe. How could I possibly say that and support someone else fighting in a war? Are there reasons that would make me fight? I suppose there might be. My family and friends are under attack and need to be defended perhaps. But that's certainly not the case here.

"As long as the world remains ignorant, what are ultimately petty conflicts like these will arise. And atrocities associated with any combat, whether it be direct bombing or some of the recent actions U.S. troops undertook in Iraq (the rape of that Iraqi girl and the burning of her and her family, for example), will always arise within such conflicts."

I agree. And that's why I write things like this about how ignorant people are making decisions I don't agree with. I don't excuse them because they are ignorant, but I think we should try to inform them otherwise. Look, what is actually going on here? You've got some already militant Palestinian organizations with a long history of violent conflict with Israel. Probably every single person in Hezbollah knows a friend or family member who was killed or seriously injured in an Israeli attack at some point. You've got Israeli soldiers many of whom grew up in their country knowing an attack could come at any second from any where. Israelis want it to stop once and for all. Palestinians want something to be done about being forced off their land and since they have very little monetary means, certainly far far less than a national economy like Israel, they resort to kidnappings and suicide bombings to get their message across. But if someone actually listened to them in the first place they wouldn't need to blow themselves up to get our attention. And Israel should realize that they're not going to fix the problem by bombing Palestinians until they give up and agree to quietly settle down in peace next door to the country which forced them off their land less than a century ago. Some kind of real solution needs to be made. The whole world is watching. The US and UK are waving their Israel flags like this is the World Cup. Yeah! You can do it Israel! Wipe 'em out! I don't condone that. I don't support that. What I'd like to see is the rest of the world stepping in and helping to mediate the problem, not fueling it by giving Israel more guns and clearing out of the way.

prevent war at all costs

Interesting thing. Ever see a movie called Equilibrium? It's basically an action flick and sorta a "Matrix precursor," but the idea is that in the future, to prevent war, man has outlawed emotion, stating that hate is the cause of war, and to prevent this, emotion is illegal. People take injections to prevent themselves from having emotions. Those caught expressing or showing emotion are put to death.

Obviously, that's a far stretch, but if you say AT ALL COSTS, would you be willing to give up your individuality for it? Because I firmly believe that this is the only real way we can eliminate conflict.



About your Israel vs Palestine thing. True, both sides know people who've been hurt, and there could be stuff accomplished if Israel simply listened to the PLO, but realize that there are Palestinians who will not stop until Israel is destroyed. This isn't speculation, this is fact. For some, the hate burns that deeply. It's an ideological mentality seared into their brains.

So even if Israel made all the concessions it can be expected to reasonably make and return all the land it's taken since it gained its independence, these people will still blow themselves up in Jerusalem and fire missiles into Israel.

So what do you do about that?

(this isn't to favor Israel; it's just to play devil's advocate with the first easy example I could think of)

I keep having conversations with people about how smart "we" are and how ignorant "they" are but you know what? The more of those conversations I have the bigger "we" gets.

Like I said, "we" still represents a small fraction of the population. Say you talk to 10,000 people. That's still merely 0.003% of the population of the United States. You'd need 3 million people in the U.S. to be as selfless as you to even get to 1%. I doubt there are that many people who can think about others that way. Honestly.

We live in a privileged and enlighted society. Consider how many people, just in the United States, still carry racist and bigoted opinions (for example, my father is prejudiced to a degree, and he doesn't even realize how). Consider how many people still buy into the "eye for an eye" mentality. That's a lot. Most people would rather duke it out then talk.

Now apply that to the world. How many people are literally informed enough to make critical decisions about these things? And out of those, how many haven't fallen into a corrupted state that invalidates such knowledge? Not many.

You share a very optimistic outlook, but mine is more cynical in terms of global human culture. So that might be our unbreakable difference point. But I don't think you can say that just because you keep talking to people more and more people who are not ignorant, that it shows the world isn't ignorant after all (that is what you're implying, intentionally or not).

And that's not to mention what would happen once you become directly affected by such chaos. You and I can say how we'd react if our house got bombed or a family member was killed, but until we actually experience it, we cannot accurate predict that. Who knows; say terrorists launched another attack and you had family members or very close friends who were killed. Even you *may* very well alter your views.



That's that. I'll debate some more later. I do enjoy these discussions though.

^^ Thanks, Coaster Ed, for a (imo) really great post on this one......

Can only agree with you and admire how you could word it .....
(Will have to follow another course in English again to be able to formulate my thoughts in this language without needing 3 hours for an answer )

^ And yes, Cork, you are right too: a society that has succeeded in "controlling" - in whatever way- people that far that they would not have these basic/instinctive/"natural" emotions anymore, would certainly eliminate war, but also rip us off of everything that makes us "human"......(for the very good as well as well as for the very bad things)

So I can only hope that by some miracle and free will in future the "Coaster Eds" will get the majority and main influence in this world......knowing very well that my hope will be in vain....

And yes, I also can very easily "think/philosphize" about it from my rather safe chair in Holland....but cannot predict how I would react if my neighbours killed my son (and the ones of many others) not because they hated me personally, but because of their other ideas/hurt feelings...however legitimate these ideas would be/seem...
Once it gets close and really affects your personal life....it's always far less "easy" to to make the "right" decision or the "clean and justified" comment.....

Emergo

Edited by Emergo, 21 July 2006 - 01:40 PM.

I just had a mental image of a world full of CoasterEd's. Like, Eds EVERYWHERE.

It was pretty funny.

Not sure what you mean.... just funny for you....or did it frigthen you then ...?

Edited by Emergo, 21 July 2006 - 02:35 PM.

Just funny. Think literally. Like you walk down the street, and everywhere you see people with this face:



Actually, that's kinda scary looking. I should repost that pic of Ed hugging a coaster support.

Nice face.... no problem facing them so yes a funny imagination....(but in reality/dream everyone having this - or any other - same nice face would of course be frightening, just like people giving themselves injections to forecome any emotions....etc.)

Thanks, sorted out, can go back to the topic...