|
I'll clarify myself, I'm guilty of saying too litttle about too many diffrent things at once.
The cereral shit - Its an old dramatic line/analogy used in foreign policy classes, maybe not yours, but definitely more then a few of mine. Basically the premise is this, you take any normal person on the street who has a definite hatred of war or foreign policy or feels that "we" as in America, interferes too much. Then you show that same person the coorsponding chain of events that it takes to get a seemingly simple item in a store. Most people on the street in America are guilty of one important thing, thinking that we have everything. In reality we have made ourselves extremely dependent on the rest of the world, almost to our detriment. That understood and said, most things you take for granted only exist because of the supposedly "interference" we demonstrate. Even without that "interference", you might still have the item, but the cost would difinitely be diffrent.
The right thing tagline - Again this is rhetoric commonly used by the ant-war demonstrators, "It's Not Right". Except maybe a few hardliners in the Us government or south, I doubt a single person in America could truly justify our war in Iraq as the "right thing". But again, its extremely hard to justify alot of wars, as the "right thing". Anytime you kill someone, its becomes increasing hard to call it "right". Heck even our terrorist friends realize this complex problem, thus they make sure to turn it into a religious overtone, kill and go to heaven.
The right thing usually is hard to substantiate, in the case of this, the right thing from your mother's standpoint would be you don't fight in Iraq because you might die, from the previous poster standpoint it would be don't have the war because the money would be better spent on healthcare in the country. The right thing from my standpoint, is to create a infulential state out of Iraq that has strong ties with the US, japanification as its been referred to. Its a long process and I'll definitely be in my 40s when I see the process working, but I know that even if we become reliantly on a new form of fuel, we still have to put stability in the region in the form of a country with the desire and backing to acutally make a diffrence.
Hypothetically if we as a country manage to miraculous somehow become dependent on a new form of fuel, do you honestly believe the rest of the world will just skip the fossil fuel cycle, because we are not using it anymore?
Throughtout history human rights beliefs have been proven and accepted not because they were "right" but because for a society to function economically you need them in place. At present time however the majority of countries in the middle east have discovered a amazingly simple way to bypass this normal evolution of soceity. They don't need to have an economy driven by internal forces, so their populations can suffer any sort of inhumane treatment, because it never affects their economy.
We as the "higher evolved countries" of the world, a term which is grossly mislabled, drive their economies from our own demands for a commoditiy they have in excess. In short if we continue doing nothing, we will stunt their natrual political and human rights evolution internally because the governments of the countries have no real reason to listen to their populations, the population for the most part in these countries does not have a direct impact anymore on the financial stability of the country. the sad thing is, its been going on for so long already, that the majority of the populations in these countries have already given up and accepted their position. Basically the old internet phrase, in soviet russia applies. Instead of their countries/governments existing for the people, the people exist for the government.
The "me" stuff - My whole premise with this is rather simple. I'll admit that, but its got a point which you are missing and in the case of kioto I think, they even totally read it the wrong way somehow. If I can exist in my present form, having no issue with your religion, no issue with the way you live your life. Then why can you not perform and reach the same state of existance? Its not a matter of not caring as much a matter of acceptance. Muslim, Buddahism, Christianity, etc are all religious doctrines. Democracy, Socialism, Islam are all political doctrines to a degree. I do not believe for a second that a single person in France is thinking abouit my well being here in Orlando, FL. So the fact that I do not spend my time worrying about their well being, should not classify me as uneducated, uncaring or disgruntled. Its just a state of fact, pretending we all should be caring about each other and our plights is not realistic. Governments are formed for that reason, let them do their job, albeit most of the time they fail, but when was the last time you came up with some way to help every single person in the US/Britian/France/Germany etc without pissing someone off?
Inability to Act, Lying government - If anyone has ever played the game civilization, you can see something that reflects my next point. A simplied version but still somewhat similar. Democracy in the terms of foreign policy has a fatal flaw with respect to ability to enact on a concept. For us to demonstrate any form of response, it must be backed by our people for the most part. The bad part about this concept is that it works great in an educated soceity that understands the complex web of globalism, in terms that a war here will affect not only this outcome, but this outcome and by secondary measures this outcome as well. Most people on the street don't care for that part of politics, its the now and here they are concerned with. Sometimes measures must be used to gather/rally a democratic country for a reponse that is correct, but may not be socially acceptable at the moment. We as a nation have done this a few times already, one such time was Pearl Harbor. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but anybody familiar with the events can tell you, its suspicious that every important non-immediately replaceable ship in our pacific fleet was given orders prior to the attack. It was a concept known to the Germans at the time, who have it on the record, the day it was revealed to them what the japanese had done, the german representive was ordered to kill the japanese representive at the table. And did so. Germany, namely Hitler understood the concept of the inability to act within a democracy. And knew that it would have taken far longer for us to enter the war, if we were not atacked at pearl harbor, most likely giving him a definitive edge in the coming months.
This is the same flaw used now against us by terrorist organizations. Killing one american solider has a greater impact then killing an entire battalion. The reason is simple, if you can create public favor toward no war in America, it makes expotentially harder to continue a war politically. There is only so many ways you can "trick" the public into believing they need a particular solution, before you lose their confidence.
Do we need a war in Iraq? I say yes we do. For the reason you were told on the news by the president? No, he lied, if you didn't realize he was lying, then you deserve to believe the lie. For reasons I outlined and many more that have far reaching conclusions in respect to regional stability, global balance. Yes. To think we are only fighting in Iraq for oil is grossly misleading, to think we are only fighting for the Iraqi people, is also misleading. You have to realize there is alot more to gain and have at stake, then just oil and human rights.
_________________
Warlock's are not OP, maybe if you stopped running around like frightened little girls you'd be able to beat me...
|
Login
