News GWB's War on Terror: A Futile Fight?

[Jonny_trigonometry]

If you believe in the Bible, and that ever since the fall in the garden of eden humans have been in a fallen state, then you probably don't think that you or anyone else but God could change that fact. Being in a fallen state means that humans have the potential to be good or evil, but they can't be completely one or the other because they are both intertwined in each of us. We can't escape terrorism because it resides within us all, and to win a war on terror would mean that the very nature of humanity has changed... So why does GWB choose to use the USA's resources to fight a futile war, that will never end?

 

[Burnsys]

If you believe in the Bible, and that ever since the fall in the garden of eden humans have been in a fallen state, then you probably don't think that you or anyone else but God could change that fact. Being in a fallen state means that humans have the potential to be good or evil, but they can't be completely one or the other because they are both intertwined in each of us. We can't escape terrorism because it resides within us all, and to win a war on terror would mean that the very nature of humanity has changed... So why does GWB choose to use the USA's resources to fight a futile war, that will never end?

Becouse each time he use USA's resources (a tomahawk missile, a hummve, 5000 rounds etc) it means profits for his friens at boing, lookedmartins, NG.. GE etc...

George Orwell, ex-British Military Intelligence Operative, political analyst and writer, in his shocking and increasingly relevant political novel, "1984", revealed the "DICTIONARY OF NEWSPEAK", or (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). On War, it read:

"In accordance with the principles of double-think it does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous."

"The essential fact of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour. The hierarchy of society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance."

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I mean, George W is a christian that beleives in the fall in the garden of eden right? So He must know that a war against the inescapable evil side of human nature can't be won. Why does he continue to dig himself into a deeper hole? Either he doesn't believe in the Bible, or he is incompetent. Please help me out of this fork, because I don't want to believe that the nation is run by a complete moron.

 

[Burnsys]

I mean, George W is a christian that beleives in the fall in the garden of eden right? So He must know that a war against the inescapable evil side of human nature can't be won. Why does he continue to dig himself into a deeper hole? Either he doesn't believe in the Bible, or he is incompetent. Please help me out of this fork, because I don't want to believe that the nation is run by a complete moron.

i don't even think he really believe in the bible... IMHO he use the bible and re religious stuff to gain credibility and support from the big percentage of people who belibe in it...

or may be he hasn't read the part that says: YOU SHALL NOT KILL...

Now if he actualy think he is god's right hand on Earth to figth the "Evil" (i love how he simplify everything with those words...) then he is mentally ill...

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I really like your replies, but I wonder if maybe you don't agree with them. I wonder if maybe you only posted them to appease my frusteration. Your replies sound like nice anecdotes to the problem, but they sound too trivial, like an answer I would make, and I know that I don't know much about politics. Is the problem even valid? Is there another way around it rather than concluding that Bush is simply a stupid little creature? Actually, I think Bush is smart, and I can't understand how a smart man can be confident that a war on terror is what America needs.

Speaking of Orwell, Bush says he's a uniter not a divider... Well I've never seen the nation so divided before in my life, we could practically go into another civil war. He says he's not a flip-flopper, but he flip-flops more than anyone else in politics by the use of semantics. He says there is a social security crisis when at the same time he reforms the estate tax (if he left it alone, it would've payed half of the total social security costs, thus rendering no crisis), and he could have just kept the filthy rich paying 1% more per year and we'd have no worries at all with social security. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. THat is what double speak is all about.

A stupid person can't be capable of being such a hypocrite, this kind of stuff takes a lot of thought and creativity to pull off.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"If you will it, it is no dream." - Theadore Herzl

If you want a social security crisis, you will find a way to make one.

I just can't stop from concluding that Bush is a Machiavellian. Why would he want a crisis anyway? unless he was using it to gain his own footing towards Unknown Secret Agendas (USA).

 

[Burnsys]

"If you will it, it is no dream." - Theadore Herzl

If you want a social security crisis, you will find a way to make one.

I just can't stop from concluding that Bush is a Machiavellian. Why would he want a crisis anyway? unless he was using it to gain his own footing towards Unknown Secret Agendas (USA).

yes sincerely i don't think he is mentally ill nor stupid at all... He know exactly what he does...

About the social security i guess that the agenda is to show that social security does not work so they can privatize it.. Just the way menem (us favorite president) did in the 90' here in argentina with the public water services, oil, comunications and transport services. they destroyed it and then came with the great solution, Privatization... now all this basic services are in the hands of american and european multinational corporations who make profits out of the needs of the whole population and depredate all our natural resourses for export...


-------------------------
"``They're talking about a crisis as if those numbers are real,'' Stiglitz says of the Bush administration. ``They are made- up numbers. Totally artificial.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ayot3tuG3yqQ
-------------------------

Pro privatization of social security:
CATO institute: http://www.socialsecurity.org/
heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/BG1133.cfm

Anti Privatization:
http://userdata.acd.net/demarco.chris/sspriv.htm
http://zfacts.com/p/784.html

 

[BobG]

If you believe in the Bible, and that ever since the fall in the garden of eden humans have been in a fallen state, then you probably don't think that you or anyone else but God could change that fact. Being in a fallen state means that humans have the potential to be good or evil, but they can't be completely one or the other because they are both intertwined in each of us. We can't escape terrorism because it resides within us all, and to win a war on terror would mean that the very nature of humanity has changed... So why does GWB choose to use the USA's resources to fight a futile war, that will never end?

Why did Bush take the case for invading Iraq to the UN unless he was guaranteed approval?

Why did Bush choose to believe the one and only intelligence analysis (CIA) that suggested Iraq might be an imminent WMD threat while military and other intelligence agencies concluded no such imminent threat?

Why did Bush nominate an ambassador to the UN that can't get an endorsement from a Republican controlled commitee?

Bush just isn't very good.

Some people see a President that goes with his gut instinct regardless of reality as a refreshing change from politicians that are so careful to ensure success before they'll risk any public action. Of course, people also like to laugh at people that run into trees.

 

[stoned]

so where is master terrist bin laden hmm? in his fortress maybe ? war on terror, what a joke !

 

[Pengwuino]

Becouse each time he use USA's resources (a tomahawk missile, a hummve, 5000 rounds etc) it means profits for his friens at boing, lookedmartins, NG.. GE etc...

Boing? Lookedmartins? Are you even half familiar with the defense contractors in the US or the weapons used? MIght as well say WW2 was a huge war of profit for the British and Germans with that logic along with every other war in a private industry state.

or may be he hasn't read the part that says: YOU SHALL NOT KILL...

Original Bible doesn't say that, its almost a unannymously agreed fact that the original bible said Murder and murder was defined strictly as a pre-mediated unjustifyable killing. Please read what you complain about first.

And whoever complained about social security not being a crisis, why were democrats demanding "Bush must take care of the social security crisis and handle domestic issues instead of foreign policy" when they were trying to get Kerry elected? Sure there's a crisis when you can use it for political gain but all of a sudden the numbers don't look so bad once Bush decides to do somethinga bot it. Such hypocrisy... and again, as thsi thread shows, more international opinions not based on fact, but on scare tactics and what theyve been brainwashed to believe is true.

 

[Grogs]

I think equating the concept of 'original sin' with terrorism is a pretty big stretch. It doesn't imply evil, just imperfection.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

thats a good point

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Why did Bush take the case for invading Iraq to the UN unless he was guaranteed approval?

Why did Bush choose to believe the one and only intelligence analysis (CIA) that suggested Iraq might be an imminent WMD threat while military and other intelligence agencies concluded no such imminent threat?

Why did Bush nominate an ambassador to the UN that can't get an endorsement from a Republican controlled commitee?

Bush just isn't very good.

Some people see a President that goes with his gut instinct regardless of reality as a refreshing change from politicians that are so careful to ensure success before they'll risk any public action. Of course, people also like to laugh at people that run into trees." - BobG

I can understand this, and I guess he really doesn't mean "war on terror" directly when he says it. I was just using a different definition of terror I guess, as if it's more of a fundamental quality of the mind rather than of a group of people misbehaving. I don't know how I used to define terror before 9-11, because it seems American society has been using a different definition ever since. I got to just change my definition of terror to fit the rest. Ok, all done, no more problems here.

 

[alexandra]

Becouse each time he use USA's resources (a tomahawk missile, a hummve, 5000 rounds etc) it means profits for his friens at boing, lookedmartins, NG.. GE etc...

George Orwell, ex-British Military Intelligence Operative, political analyst and writer, in his shocking and increasingly relevant political novel, "1984", revealed the "DICTIONARY OF NEWSPEAK", or (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). On War, it read:

"In accordance with the principles of double-think it does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous."

"The essential fact of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour. The hierarchy of society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance."

Well, I do not live in the US and I hope people won't mind too much if I comment on this one - my justification for commenting is that the 'war on terror' affects all of us wherever we live, and the government of the country I am living in has sent troops in support of this 'war' (I call it an invasion and a massacre rather than a war, but then I guess this doesn't surprise anyone ).

Anyway, Burnsys, I couldn't agree with you more about both points you raise: firstly, that Orwell's '1984' is an increasingly relevant novel for our times (read it if you haven't, everyone; it's amazing how well it describes much of contemporary life); and secondly that much of the motivation for the current conflicts is economic gain, though I would argue there are important strategic factors involved as well - particularly, I agree with the analsyis that the US administration (note, not the US PEOPLE) wants to be secure a strong presence in that region to pre-empt the strengthening of that newly emerging power bloc, the European Union.

 

[alexandra]

I mean, George W is a christian that beleives in the fall in the garden of eden right? So He must know that a war against the inescapable evil side of human nature can't be won. Why does he continue to dig himself into a deeper hole? Either he doesn't believe in the Bible, or he is incompetent. Please help me out of this fork, because I don't want to believe that the nation is run by a complete moron.

I don't think this has anything at all to do with religion, Jonny. I think it's pretty much as Burnsys wrote. One can be religious when it suits, and one can ignore what the bible says also (when it suits). I don't think its incompetence either. I know GW is presented as incompetent, but this is not a good argument - even if he were incompetent (and I'm not saying that he is), he acts on the advice of many others; he does not make decisions by himself.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

IS that a good thing or a bad thing Alexandra? Is it a virtuous and noble thing to be religious when it suits and not be when it suits? Doesn't your point about Bush only add more evidance that HE is the flip-flopper and not Kerry? Is it a good or a bad thing to let everyone else make descisions for you? If this is the case, our national representative isn't free. He's a consenting slave that speaks of freedom as if he knows what it is. Is this a good or a bad thing? Why must we fight a way on terror in order to be free?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Why must we fight a way on terror in order to be free?"...a war on terror even

 

[Burnsys]

Boing? Lookedmartins? Are you even half familiar with the defense contractors in the US or the weapons used? MIght as well say WW2 was a huge war of profit for the British and Germans with that logic along with every other war in a private industry state.

Yes i am familiar... and i hope you don't use my bad spelling to discredit my points..

Boeing's Profits Skyrocket, Outlook Raised Wednesday, October 27, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136770,00.html
"Our Integrated Defense Systems business again delivered strong revenue growth and outstanding profitability, and made significant progress on key programs," said CEO Harry Stonecipher

Lockheed profits take off
Friday, 25 October, 2002, 14:20 GMT 15:20 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2361539.stm
"US defence giant Lockheed Martin has turned in sharply higher profits, crediting strong sales of fighter jet equipment. "

Profits up at Northrop Grumman
January 28, 2003
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimor...27/daily10.html
"Together with the former TRW defense businesses, which completed one of their most impressive years ever, we are well positioned to benefit from increasing defense budgets and homeland security initiatives," Kresa said

--------------------------

Anyway the big problems came when this contractors (and others) gave millons dolars to bush and kerry campaing.. and when many of the directors of this corporations was working for the pentagon and vice versa,,, and when this contractors make millons in profit from a controversial war.
The largest holding of defence contractors "The carlyle group":
--------------------------------------------
The carlyle group:

BUSH
Former
US President and
Vice President
Former Director
of the CIA
Carlyle Senior Advisor

Carlucci
Former Secretary of Defense
and
Deputy Director
of the CIA
Carlyle Chairman Emeritus

BakerFormer
Secretary of State
and
Sec. of Treasury
Carlyle Senior Counselor

Darman
White House
Budget Advisor
Bush / Clinton
Administrations
Carlyle
Managing Director

Ramos
Former President of the Philippines
Carlyle Asia
Advisory Board

Major
Former Prime Minister of England
Carlyle Europe Chairman

--------------------------------------------
The NYT ran a front-page photo of former President Bush with Saudi King Fahd on a trip to Saudi Arabia as part of his work for the Carlyle Group. The ice-breaking story by Leslie Wayne quoted Charles Lewis: "In a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/politics/05CARL.html

 

[stoned]

Burnsys, i agree with you and would like to add that this whole phony war on terror is just another way to get rich.nothing else I'm sure about it.
they are fooling us not behind our backs like use to be but they are bolder now and do their dirty tricks in front of us because they know that 90 % of westerners and 99.99999% americans are ignorant!(actually americans are beyond ignorant THEY ARE ****ING IDIOTS!)
sorry,

 

[SOS2008]

I mean, George W is a christian that beleives in the fall in the garden of eden right? So He must know that a war against the inescapable evil side of human nature can't be won. Why does he continue to dig himself into a deeper hole? Either he doesn't believe in the Bible, or he is incompetent. Please help me out of this fork, because I don't want to believe that the nation is run by a complete moron.

No doubt it's a combination of things. Maybe Dubya has attention deficit disorder. Maybe that's why he didn't do well in school, and why he doesn't like details, and just wants to operate on faith? Religion provides a quick-fix feeling of purpose and direction for some people.

Also he owes a lot of people from his failed oil days (an embarrassment to him and his family), and I wonder what he plans to do after his presidency? He is very loyal when it comes to family, friends, and those he views as his supporters. This may be endearing to some, and moronic to those who feel a President should put the best interest of the country first.

In reference to the war on terror, there are those in the Bush camp who understand the use of patriotism against an enemy, for example to justify a foreign policy that would otherwise be questioned, and to distract the people from domestic problems. It's been used by many leaders/administrations, referred to as "Rally Around The Flag."

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

If there's one thing I disapprove of in times like these, it's nationalism. I guess a leader can always rely on the idea of safety in numbers. Most Americans are afraid to change their way of life in order to accommodate international peace (or even entertain the thought that America could have bad/unfair foreign policy), so they all gather together in herds to defend their desire to view themselves as good and just. Most Americans haven't given thought to the possibility that we were attacked justly. Most Americans don't give any credibility to the "terrorist perspective", and assume that the problem is with the "terrorists" and not with America. This is the flock in the act of self-glorification. Not ever questioning one's own actions in the wake of negative consequences of those actions is not simply faith, it's rash. American rulers (at least the ones nowadays) will never humble themselves and consider that America was doing unfair things in the past which led to the "terrorists" developing their negative perspective of America. Nationalism only re-inforces faith in one's own country's direction, and has no regard for absolute justice. Cheerleaders will always be in good cheer even if the team sucks. Nationalists are kind of like cheerleaders, they're just there to encourage the team, they never offer any ways that the team can better preform.

 

[alexandra]

IS that a good thing or a bad thing Alexandra? Is it a virtuous and noble thing to be religious when it suits and not be when it suits? Doesn't your point about Bush only add more evidance that HE is the flip-flopper and not Kerry? Is it a good or a bad thing to let everyone else make descisions for you? If this is the case, our national representative isn't free. He's a consenting slave that speaks of freedom as if he knows what it is. Is this a good or a bad thing? Why must we fight a way on terror in order to be free?

Oh, I agree with you - it's definitely a bad thing to be so hypocritical. All I was saying is that this is what Kerry would have done as well - he at no stage campaigned on a platform that opposed the war. So they're as bad as each other, the Republicans and the Democrats.

And I don't in the least agree with the whole 'fight against terror' thing. It's an excuse - just words. Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 (proved fact - the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia), and it had NO weapons of mass destruction (proved fact - moreover, known in advance. The intelligence community is not as incompetent as it is made out to be when it suits those in power to use it as a scapegoat). It was all lies - because the real aims are all about money and power. But they couldn't sell a so-called 'war' to decent American people on that basis. They couldn't say, "Hey, we're going to invade Iraq because of their oil reserves and because that's a strategic region". So they lied the 'Big Lie' (a propaganda tactic discussed extensively by the Nazis), so that ordinary American people would support the war. It was only through lies they could achieve their aims - and they don't mind lying. So that's all I was saying - I wasn't making a value judgement saying any of this was 'good'.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

How come nobody is defending Bush? Am I on the wrong website? I thought this site was all about not letting opinion rule over reason. Help me out people! Why is Bush and his war on terror justified? There's got to be someone who likes the idea of war on terror and can help persuade me that it's a good thing to do. There must be a reason for it because it is occurring...

I know I've got some stubborn opinions, but I've got an open mind.

 

[selfAdjoint]

How come nobody is defending Bush? Am I on the wrong website? I thought this site was all about not letting opinion rule over reason. Help me out people! Why is Bush and his war on terror justified? There's got to be someone who likes the idea of war on terror and can help persuade me that it's a good thing to do. There must be a reason for it because it is occurring...

I know I've got some stubborn opinions, but I've got an open mind.

You can certainly find people who believe the Bush administration's approach to fighting terror was the right way to go, but I don't think that the Bush rationale for Afghanistan, and Iraq, or their plans for Homeland Security ( the three legs of their anti-terror tripod) will stand up to serious scrutiny. They have not eliminated the Taliban, just moved it to Pakistan, where the government is not up to eliminating it. Iraq is rife with ever expanding terrorism. The Homeland Security department achieves the impossible by being more bureaucratic and ineffective than the FBI and the CIA. You really have to squint your eyes to call any of this a success.

 

[Yonoz]

How come nobody is defending Bush? Am I on the wrong website? I thought this site was all about not letting opinion rule over reason. Help me out people! Why is Bush and his war on terror justified? There's got to be someone who likes the idea of war on terror and can help persuade me that it's a good thing to do. There must be a reason for it because it is occurring...

I know I've got some stubborn opinions, but I've got an open mind.

Whilst I'm no expert on terrorism and foreign policy, I guess the best answer I can give you is to try and imagine how you would act if you were in Bush's shoes. I don't judge anyone until I imagine myself in their position.

 

[stoned]

it is easy Yonoz, I guess he must be thinking sometimes " **** ! I killed over hundred people in Texass, who knows how many of them were innocent, and now thousands American soldiers have died in Iraq and hundred of thousands Iraqi civilians because of my lies "

 

[Yonoz]

it is easy Yonoz, I guess he must be thinking sometimes " **** ! I killed over hundred people in Texass, who knows how many of them were innocent, and now thousands American soldiers have died in Iraq and hundred of thousands Iraqi civilians because of my lies "

If you really believe that is what he is thinking you live in a very sad world.
As much as I disagree with a lot he's done, I do not think anyone here has ever been in a position remotely similar to his. He also has an entire administration working with him - do you think they are all evil people just trying to create more deaths and hardship? Have you considered the possibility that they are only trying to do their jobs in the best way they can think of?
You may disagree with them but claiming they take pleasure in creating strife is just infantile.

 

[russ_watters]

How come nobody is defending Bush?

Sorry, I'm outnumbered and have limited time... You'll find that this site leans heavily to the left.

 

[russ_watters]

You can certainly find people who believe the Bush administration's approach to fighting terror was the right way to go, but I don't think that the Bush rationale for Afghanistan, and Iraq, or their plans for Homeland Security ( the three legs of their anti-terror tripod) will stand up to serious scrutiny. They have not eliminated the Taliban, just moved it to Pakistan, where the government is not up to eliminating it. Iraq is rife with ever expanding terrorism. The Homeland Security department achieves the impossible by being more bureaucratic and ineffective than the FBI and the CIA. You really have to squint your eyes to call any of this a success.

I see it just the opposite. "Eliminated" is such a wrong criteria - we haven't "eliminated" the Nazis either, but I'd sure call WWII a success. The Taliban is similarly on the edge of extinction, and Afghanistan is a democracy. If that was the only foreign policy success Bush has, Bush's administration would be considered a foreign policy success. In fact, I think you need to squint your eyes to consider Afghanistan anything but a success.

But I believe that in 20 years, the Middle East is going to be a very different place than it was 3 years ago. And most of the credit will go to Bush. We're already seeing the rumblings of widespread, permanent change: Khaddafi has moderated, Syria pulled out of Lebanon, Pakistan is cooperating with us, and the Arabs and Israelis are doing things toward peace they have never done before.

 

[stoned]

The Taliban is similarly on the edge of extinction, and Afghanistan is a democracy. If that was the only foreign policy success Bush has, Bush's administration would be considered a foreign policy success. In fact, I think you need to squint your eyes to consider Afghanistan anything but a success.

.

This time you must be really kidding or something man ! Karzai government holds power in Afghanistan thanks to foreign troops, if US forces ever leave Afghanistan one thing will happenes immediatelly you would see Karzai hanging from the lamppost, and then back to old Afghanistan way of rule(taliban or whatever)
Afghanistan is the best example of puppet state and puppet ruler.
I think you were thinking about something different when you said Afghanistan is successful. Heroine. because Afghanistan is again on top of exporters of heroine. Success indeed.

 

[russ_watters]

This time you must be really kidding or something man !

Nope. Based on your other posts, stoned, I'm not sure you'd know reality if it hit you over the head with a baseball bat.

heroine

Yeah, I heard the next X-Men movie will star Afghani female superheroes.

 

[Informal Logic]

The Taliban is similarly on the edge of extinction, and Afghanistan is a democracy. If that was the only foreign policy success Bush has, Bush's administration would be considered a foreign policy success. In fact, I think you need to squint your eyes to consider Afghanistan anything but a success.

Terrorists, including the Taliban, are not on the edge of extinction. The joke on the Daily Show this week was how the US keeps capturing the 3rd guy in command. There is always another person in line who will take that place. I believe there was an earlier thread about the war on terror, and discussion on how it could not be fought in conventional ways, and likened to the 'war on drugs' from this perspective.

Here is a recent report about continuing problems with Afghanistan: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7923756/

Production of opium has soared since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, leading to warnings that the former al-Qaida haven is fast turning into a “narco-state” despite the presence of more than 20,000 foreign troops.

Last year, cultivation reached a record 323,700 acres and yielded nearly 90 percent of the world’s supply.

Assuming Afghanistan is now, and will remain a democracy...currently Karzai is critical of US occupation:

...he wants some restrictions on how the U.S. military operates in his country.

“Operations that involve going to people’s homes, that involves knocking on people’s doors, must stop, must not be done without the permission of the Afghan government,” Karzai said.

And at the same time (probably because of aid from the EU and $780 million they are expecting from Washington this year), Karzai is "seen by his critics as an American puppet." Sounds more like a police state with a puppet government than a democracy. And speaking of democracy, you may recall that womens rights also were used as a reason for invading Afghanistan. Perhaps you could provide insight regarding progress on this matter?

But I believe that in 20 years, the Middle East is going to be a very different place than it was 3 years ago. And most of the credit will go to Bush. We're already seeing the rumblings of widespread, permanent change: Khaddafi has moderated, Syria pulled out of Lebanon, Pakistan is cooperating with us, and the Arabs and Israelis are doing things toward peace they have never done before.

The claim I have highlighted has also been discussed before, and it is a claim you cannot substantiate, so why do you make it?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112699/
"My Sharansky - Bush's favorite book doesn't always endorse his policies"

This is the 'neo-neocon' vision, and there are many holes in the concept (though it is nice to see Bush has read a book). Most notable is the premise that democracies will live together peacefully. We can reflect on history, both past and present and see the fallacy in this conclusion. However, this would probably be worthy of a separate thread.

 

[chound]

Last year, cultivation reached a record 323,700 acres and yielded nearly 90 percent of the world’s supply.

If you can get so much info defenitely UN or US would get it so why don't they destroy the fields of heroin?

 

[russ_watters]

Terrorists, including the Taliban, are not on the edge of extinction.

I think you are confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda, and I never claimed that terrorists in general are on the edge of extinciton. My comment was specific: it was about the Taliban only.

And at the same time (probably because of aid from the EU and $780 million they are expecting from Washington this year), Karzai is "seen by his critics as an American puppet." Sounds more like a police state with a puppet government than a democracy.

What's your point? Are you expecting the transition to be instantaneous? "Puppet" or not, its still a huge step in the right direction. See: Germany and Japan for similar examples of US "puppet" regimes.

And speaking of democracy, you may recall that womens rights also were used as a reason for invading Afghanistan. Perhaps you could provide insight regarding progress on this matter?

Is that meant to be a loaded question? Significant progress has been made. Significant work is left to be done. Both should be self-evident.

Assuming Afghanistan is now, and will remain a democracy...currently Karzai is critical of US occupation...

What are you implying?

The claim I have highlighted has also been discussed before, and it is a claim you cannot substantiate, so why do you make it?

A claim regarding something that hasn't happened yet is a prediction. People make predictions all the time - why can't I?

In any case, the main point of the prediciton is to highlight the fallacy of the position you (and others) are presenting: You are implying that since Afghanistan (and Iraq) isn't a perfect, peacful, prosperous democracy right now that that indicates a failure on the part of the Bush administration. That's just absurd.

This is the 'neo-neocon' vision, and there are many holes in the concept (though it is nice to see Bush has read a book). Most notable is the premise that democracies will live together peacefully. We can reflect on history, both past and present and see the fallacy in this conclusion.

Heh - have a look at the past 50 years of Euro-American relations and re-evaluate that premise. The peace and prosperity of the western world in the past 50 years is utterly unprecidented in all of human history. The reason for that is democracy/capitalism.

In fact, here is a simple challenge: can you name for me a time when any two modern (US style) democracies were at war with each other?

 

[Grogs]

If you can get so much info defenitely UN or US would get it so why don't they destroy the fields of heroin?

It depends on who you ask. The conspiracy theorist will tell you that it's because the CIA has a hand in it and takes part of the money earned to fund their operations in other parts of the world. A more reasonable explanation is that it would tear the country apart. If they rioted in the streets because someone allegedly desecrated a copy of the Qur'an, what would happen if you took away the means of support for thousands of Afghan farmers?

 

[Informal Logic]

I think you are confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda, and I never claimed that terrorists in general are on the edge of extinciton. My comment was specific: it was about the Taliban only.

I did clump the Taliban into a generality of terrorism. The Taliban is a radical religious militia like Al Qaeda, but there is probably more parallelism to the insurgents in Iraq. Still, I disagree that any of these groups are on the verge of extinction, including the Taliban.

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Sun May 22, 7:30 AM ET

WASHINGTON - American commanders say the Taliban is a viable resistance force in Afghanistan even three years after the Islamic radicals fell, but the U.S. military's fight to undermine their influence and bring stability is showing signs of progress.

The assessment follows a stretch in which U.S. troops in Afghanistan have been killed at a higher rate than those in Iraq, where there are about eight times as many American soldiers and where the situation is widely perceived as more dangerous.

George Joulwan, a retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander in Europe, said Friday that ultimate success will be determined by economic and political rebuilding, hunting down Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and stamping out narcotrafficking in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050522/ap_on_re_as/us_afghanistan_outlook_3

What's your point? Are you expecting the transition to be instantaneous? "Puppet" or not, its still a huge step in the right direction. See: Germany and Japan for similar examples of US "puppet" regimes. Is that meant to be a loaded question? Significant progress has been made. Significant work is left to be done. Both should be self-evident.

No I do not expect an instantaneous transition (actually a criticism by Sharansky of Bush's expectations). However, democracy must be accomplished by the people of a country, not by a lengthy, police state occupation.

What are you implying? A claim regarding something that hasn't happened yet is a prediction. People make predictions all the time - why can't I?

I do not personally have an issue with this. You are the one who has an issue with members making unsubstantiated claims.

In any case, the main point of the prediciton is to highlight the fallacy of the position you (and others) are presenting: You are implying that since Afghanistan (and Iraq) isn't a perfect, peacful, prosperous democracy right now that that indicates a failure on the part of the Bush administration. That's just absurd.

Assuming a third world country will substitute wheat for opium ('terms of trade') is a leap, but certainly to think their culture will allow women equality is an even greater leap.

Heh - have a look at the past 50 years of Euro-American relations and re-evaluate that premise. The peace and prosperity of the western world in the past 50 years is utterly unprecidented in all of human history. The reason for that is democracy/capitalism.

In fact, here is a simple challenge: can you name for me a time when any two modern (US style) democracies were at war with each other?

So that we will not waste time on this topic, here is a reference: "Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another...or Do They?" http://users.rcn.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm