Controlling an unstable region and exploiting its resources is called the spread of civilization.
Controlling an unstable region and exploiting its resources is called the spread of civilization.
Land of the free & home of the brave has become land of decree and home of the slave.
Then you kill those who take their place(s)...btw, if they would leave us alone and play nice in the world sandbox, I'd agree. But, those of us who "have studied history" know that they won't leave anyone alone until every knee bows to allah.2. You'll never be able to "kill 'em all". It's a stupid, sick, childish fantasy. You kill one terrorist, and his son, brother, cousin will take up arms as well. The only solution is to get out of their countries and leave them alone.
Not when they screw with you first. It's called "reimbursement for 'services rendered'".3. And you claim not to support imperialism? "To the victor the spoils" is imperialism.
We don't get our oil from Libya, so I have to agree....why are we there? Why were we in Egypt? Makes no sense to me.4.We are meddling with Libya because western companies have invested a lot of money in the oil industry there, and western governments are protecting that investment.
islam is EVERYONE'S enemy. Open your eyes to reality. Riots in Britain, France, and to a lesser extent, here in the States. They are NOT your friends.5. You can't possibly fight against a global religion with billions of adherents. That would be like fighting the hydra, you cut off one head and two more will spring up. Islam is not your enemy.
Small group? Did you not see the MASSES of "peaceful" muslims rejoicing and dancing in the streets AROUND THE WORLD when the WTC came down? Try again.6. So, an eye for an eye is your solution? You've had one significant terrorist attack ten years ago, by a small group of people. That's totally outbalanced by the enormous financial, technological, and military power of the United States, which can reach into every corner of the globe.
It's called taking responsibility for one's actions. You don't want a kid, don't have sex...simple really. But, your "if it feels good do it" is kinda diametrically opposed to that....7. To me there is a difference between the military blowing up, blinding, or maiming a child with a bomb and a woman freely choosing not to bring an unwanted child into the world. Why are you so anxious for every single child to be born? So you can further flood the jails, so you can send them overseas to be killed in pointless wars?
Bullmuffins. When is the last time a Christian took off someone's head for no other reason than their Holy Book told them to? Don't cite the Inquisition either, because that unholy organization was a bastardization of Christ's words. islam is evil...READ the koran, the surrahs and the haddiths...8. Islam is not a homogenous mass which all acts and thinks exactly the same. The Koran can be interpreted in lots of different ways. There are liberal Muslims, moderate Muslims, fundamental Muslims. I agree that fundamental Islam must be fought against, but so must fundamental Christianity, which is very similar.
If that's what you think, you need to brush up on "what islam really is". It is NOT merely a religion, it is a system of life including governance, judiciary AND religion. It is a theocracy. islam and shari'ah are inseparable9. Again, that's only a tiny minority of Muslims, a lunatic fringe with a literalist approach to interpreting the Koran and hadith. It is not the vast majority of Muslims who just want to get on with living their lives.
Actually, it should read, "We want to withdraw from the Holy Land of the Jewish People".10. ALL of Islamic commentary for the past two decades? Really? Do you know what a vast range of material that encompasses? The stuff I usually hear them say is something along the lines of "we want to remove the infidel crusader from the lands of Islam". Anyway, even if that were true, would the correct response to it be to say exactly the same thing, to escalate the conflict? Do two wrongs make a right?
Get back to us when you live under shari'ah because you didn't have the balls to stand up to them.11. Stop making assumptions about me. I don't have an agenda, just an analysis. And your analysis is this: "They're trying to kill us, so we have to kill them". It's crude, oversimplified fantasising which no doubt makes you feel good but has nothing to do with the real world.
That the world would be a FAR worse place had the USSR not been opposed. SOMETIMES, "the lesser of two evils" is the only choice one has...and many times, the choice made comes back to bite one on the backside.12. Yes I do know why. Because United States foreign policy was based on "my enemy's enemy is my friend", and they're not alone in that. Thus they propped up and supported any disgraceful tinpot dictator who proclaimed himself to be anti-communist. Thus they armed and trained reprehensible guerilla terrorist groups in Latin America, and Islamic extremist nutjobs in Afghanistan. What variables am I leaving out?
You first.13. And how exactly do you "verify their loyalty and history"? How do you finance it? How do you get around the logistics and the morals of rounding up and interring mostly innocent men, women and children in the supposed land of the free? Please come out of fantasy land.
"If the muslims lay down their weapons, there will be peace. If Israel lays down her weapons, she ceases to exist". Tell me that is wrong.
Tell ya what, junior. When these "imaginary jihadists" fly jets into Westminster Abbey, the Eiffel Tower and/or set off a dirty bomb in Frankfurt, Paris and/or London, get back to us. They already took out a subway in ?Madrid?...you think they'll stop there if you don't give in to their demands or if you try to deprive them of shari'ah?14. Your parting shot is insufferably arrogant. To call me a "leftist" is a very good ad hominem way of ignoring all of my points. And as for "a lion's den of my betters", please. I see a group of grown men quaking in fear about imaginary jihadists, and plotting violent revenge fantasies while clinging blindly to gutter patriotism and silly screen-names, a bunch of armchair keyboard warriors. Thank you. Michael
If you do, YOU are the one living in fantasyland.
The welfare of Humanity is always the alibi of Tyrants ~~ Albert Camus
War is not the best way of settling one's differences; it is, however, the only way of preventing their being settled for you ~~ GK Chesterton
The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men ~~ Plato
We are Dyslexia of Grob...Futility is Resistant, Your Ass will be Laminated ~~ Scott C
Libya OTOH is a war for oil. But it was conducted stupidly. We should have backed Momar and helped get at the oil. So, in the end, we backed the wrong side and will probably lose out on the oil too, in our war for oil. DC is incompetent all the way around.
Study history. After firebombing Tokyo and killing over 900,000 Japs we then turned around and atomized them twice only to have them summarily surrender. After that lovely sunset, there were no more terrorists(yes kamikazes were the first ones) left or committed to takes up arms for their brother. Study history.
We agree on at least one part though. I am not an interventionist either. However, when the cost becomes too unbearable then destroy your enemy. I, too, believe in fewer wars, but meaner ones. I want shorter, fewer more devastating wars.
Sorry white boy, but that's your problem with being labeled a word you call 'bad'.
Dude, when even the infrastructure is like Mississippi Burning water fountains, I think they've kind of jumped the shark and have mainstreamed their feelings which are very much out in the open.
We should have kept propping up dictators that were against our primary enemies. Smart. It would have kept us out of wars. Ooooops! Wait a minute. You don't want us propping up dictators to keep us out of wars but you don't want us in wars either! I'm sensing a contradiction.
So, what is it? Wars or no wars with lame, dictator propping foreign policy. Neither is not an option, but I'm sure you'll try.
Do you read current events? Have you read any history of the Ottoman Empire? Have you seen the list of terrorist attacks since Arafat's assumption of power?
Are you on drugs, son?
Hey there tarnishedmike77....send more of your kind with the canned demagoguery and DNC rhetoric. You guys are a lot easier to dismantle than you think you are. Unlike your boards, we don't ban and delete posts of opposing views that are expressed rationally. Been to your kind of boards seen too many opposing voices banned for picking on pet subjects there.
I suggest you take a 2 week vacation in some place like Saudi Arabia or Iraq. You will certainly have a more qualified perspective on the situation there than you do now. I did 3 tours in SWA. I met the people, read their papers, listened to their intel chiefs talk.
Armchair QBs that have an imaginary life on a college campus are more worthless than piss in a urinal.
Last edited by Monarch; 04-21-2011 at 04:27 PM.
Proverbs 13:20 He that walks with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed
Proverbs 27:12 A prudent man foresees evil and takes shelter; the simple continue on and are punished
Hebrews 10:25 Do not abandon our assembly, as is the manner of some, but encourage one another, and so much more as you see the Day that is approaching
There is a huge difference between studying history and actually learning anything. Those who study history context what they studied esoterically and academically, A historian, on the other hand, will look at cause and effect. Alexander Tyler's short essay on the Fall of the Athenian Empire is a great example of the purpose and functions of historians who have really learned something. Imperialism specifically British Imperialism has done the world more good than any other, including Roman imperialism.
Probably the most harsh of imperial oppression was in India by the British. I will only go through two lessons.
There existed a cult of the followers of Kali. They were called The Thugees. This is where we get our word "thug" from. The Thugees practiced the murder of innocents as their religious devotion. The British outlawed the entire cult, hunted down the Thugees and executed them on the spot. I'm sure the Thugs found this oppressive having their religious rights violated like that but the townspeople were definitely grateful. The world was not better off with the Thugees killing whoever they found as devotion to Kali. The world was infintely better off with no Thugees at all. They were at times hunted for sport.
A good time was had by all, except for the Thugs, but that's understandable.
British Imperialism put an end to the horrific cultural practice of Suttee. I know that serious studiers of history know what this is, but for those that don't. It is the practice of dressing a widow as if she were a bride, by her friends and her female relatives. Mother, sister, daughters. Then forcing her to walk or dragging her if she didn't to the center of town where she was burned alive. The British Governor of India at the time put an end to this horror by the simple edict of saying that the next person that forced a woman to Suttee would be burned alive themselves. It only took a couple of times before the Indian village leaders knew he was serious.
HOORAY for IMPERIALISM.
Of countries that lived must better under imperialism than without it, well, lets just say Africa and be done with it. Civilization, the rule of law, infrastructure improvements, advances in medicine have all been spread through imperialism of some kind. Once the imperialistic whites were removed from Africa, the Flower of Rhodesia became the starving poverty stricken Zimbabwe. Without an imperial force, Nigeria is in a religious civil war right now. The colonial government of Somalia left and we have - Somalia. Without an imperial army, we had the Hutu Tutsi war, starving Biafrans and the genocidal war of Rwanda. It's a wonder what's left of the sane people in Africa haven't asked the Boers to come back!
Imperialism is a necessary component of progress. I'm certainly happy that there was an Imperial Rome, an Imperial Britian and if there wasn't an Imperial Spain, we likely wouldn't be here.
If you want to get right down to it. The middle east has been unable to govern itself for thousands of years. It got some semblance of civilization from the Imperial Ottoman Empire in Turkey which exploited, pillaged and whacked some serious booty in the bedoin tribes until they started behaving themselves. That lasted until some of the Ottoman muslims thought that it was a good time to spread Islam by allying with the German (Imperialists too) in 1914 WWI. Other Ottoman muslims thought they would have more butter on Allied bread. By the end of WWI, the Ottoman empire had disintegrated and was formally dead in 1922. That left British Imperialism the sole power in the region but too much of an informal and unserious imperialism permitted the tribes to war, with Britian and each other. Oh boy does that sound familiar! In 1956 Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal that started the British withdrawal, by 1967 it was all over. British imperialism had gone, unfortunately for the occupants, it began a period of endless wars between tribal warlords that exist today. The best thing to bring stability to this unstable part of the world and exploit its necessary natural resources IS a strong and effective imperial overseer. Make it a colony without the ability for independent actions. It would bring peace and prosperity. See, you can't have peace or prosperity without stability. Only India proved capable of governing itself (largely because it adopted the civil, criminal and judicial systerm of England) and even that is under constant muslim harassment.
To hear "I studied history" from someone who has a total absolute lack of knowledge of basic historical facts about imperialism its use, its spread and its necessity tells me one thing about this "study". You really read one book by a leftist professor and never went any further.
Did I scare him off?
I doubt it. Do a google search and you'll see his MO.
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” -- Ayn Rand
You might be a racist if you do not worship Obama!
He's writing for Hallmark Greeting cards it seems.
Good Lord. This reads just like a Jared Loughner soundbite.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)