Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Synikul What do you think is happening in the middle east? I'm 37, and my entire life nothing but chaos and death has come out of the middle east. We haven't ever dealt with it firmly, and we coddled kings and dictators to keep the oil flowing. Even Reagan, a president I respect more than any other in my lifetime, took the same approach. It doesn't work. It never worked, and now Bush is trying to take care of the problem. The UN is just a roadblock to any kind of decisive action. They sit around and think they're doing something just by talking and talking and talking, while the problems never get solved.
The Iraq war is not about oil, though that will be a nice side benefit. It's about changing the culture of the entire region, and it's working. That's why the UN "diplomats" are against it. Qutar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia have started holding elections. Suadi Arabia is even starting to consider something closer to equal rights for women. Libya gave up their weapons programs and invited the inspectors in, giving them unhindered access, unlike what the UN let Saddam get away with. Suicide bombings are down in Israel. Europe started leaning on Iran about their nuke program. The anti-government groups inside Iran are getting stronger. Syria is walking on eggshells because they're scared to death that they're next. Iraq is a terrorist magnet which allows our military to kill them there.
All this is a direct result of Bush not putting up with the bullshit anymore and taking drastic steps in the middle east to change things, which the UN opposed. |
I wasn't talking about being firm or being smiley. I was talking about forming into gangs and fighting for your corner. You seemed to be saying that this was right even when the other gang may be perfectly reasonable and blameless. My position is that the default should be to be on good terms with everyone, and when other parties start to cause trouble then you reconsider that position in relation to that party. That doesn't mean holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of terrorists, or their supporters, within its borders. After all, if that was the case then the US would be primarily reponsible for the civilians that the IRA killed in the last three decades, mostly funded by American benefactors. Would that be fair?
The point is that the response must be measured and properly targeted, and calculated to achieve results rather than to exact revenge. It may so happen that you get revenge as well, but it is a poor motive on its own.
'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask,
Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No.
Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matterof fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.'
'The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions.'
David Hume
Linear Mode
Latest Threads
