Explaining War

[The Ranger]

Also, just to prove a point on how conflicts start, not necessarily wars....

No. 1... I never said I wrote, nor agreed with that article.
No. 2... Because I posted it, I was attacked, sent horrible red karma, and even 1 very nasty PM.
No. 3... On this post, did I ever once advocate this post as a lesson to our young children...


The point is....Diplomacy WORKS if given a chance and all parties respond and accept their differences....

Sust-Man, and Muscle-Geek, you guys have done a wonderful job of explaining your points in solid fashion....Though we all differ, we responded and seen certain points in each other's views on this topic of war and diplomacy....Hat's off to ya both....

Now, *IF*....We had removed SH from power in the mid-80's, or the Gulf War....The person who replaced him was worse, with many known Terror links....Would it be diplomatic to stop at that point, or keep trying until we get what *WE* think is a person who could benefit not only his country, but the world at large??

Just curious guys.....

Ranger

 

[Bikini Mod]

Also, just to prove a point on how conflicts start, not necessarily wars....

No. 1... I never said I wrote, nor agreed with that article.
No. 2... Because I posted it, I was attacked, sent horrible red karma, and even 1 very nasty PM.
No. 3... On this post, did I ever once advocate this post as a lesson to our young children...


The point is....Diplomacy WORKS if given a chance and all parties respond and accept their differences....

Sust-Man, and Muscle-Geek, you guys have done a wonderful job of explaining your points in solid fashion....Though we all differ, we responded and seen certain points in each other's views on this topic of war and diplomacy....Hat's off to ya both....

Now, *IF*....We had removed SH from power in the mid-80's, or the Gulf War....The person who replaced him was worse, with many known Terror links....Would it be diplomatic to stop at that point, or keep trying until we get what *WE* think is a person who could benefit not only his country, but the world at large??

Just curious guys.....

Ranger

No 1. I could clearly read that the article was NOT authored by you. I for one never said or implied in any way, shape, or form that you did.

No 2. I did send you a PM and I don't think it was nasty AT ALL... Only SPOKE TRUTH. Was it harsh perhaps? YES, BUT I SPOKE TRUTH AND WILL NOT WITHDRAW ANY OF IT. (If the nasty PM that you refer to was NOT mine then I will just shut the flock up in regards to your point No. 2 and will only reiterate that I MEANT EVERY WORD OF MY PM TO YOU. I am ASSUMING you meant me as you never PERSONALLY REPLIED.)

No 3. YES YOU MOST CERTAINLY DID IMPLY THAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING THE AUTHOR'S POINT OF VIEW PURELY BECAUSE YOU POSTED IT. If that was NOT your intention.... THEN WHAT EXACTLY WAS YOUR INTENTION WITH YOUR ORIGINAL POST? Did you post it as some sort of mental excercise to provoke those of us that read it to "think" about how we would explain this war to our children? Or perhaps to get us to question our OWN feelings about this war?... Those of us WHO HAVE NO POLITICAL POINTS OF VIEW ONLY THAT WE HATE WAR?!

Please clarify as some of us may have misunderstood your intentions.

And FOR THE RECORD, there is ZERO conflict from me with you about the topic of war or diplomacy. Because of YOUR PERSONAL SACRIFICE I CAN SIT SAFELY AT MY COMPUTER AND TYPE THIS POST WITHOUT FEAR OF MY CHILDREN BEING KILLED BY SNIPER FIRE WHILE PLAYING IN BURNED OUT RUINS. FOR THIS YOU AND ALL THE SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN BEFORE YOU AND NOW HAVE MY UNDYING GRATITUDE. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE I HAVE WITH YOUR POST WAS CLEARLY OUTLINED IN MY VERY PRIVATE PM TO YOU. And as for the OBVIOUS issues I have with your post, I feel that I have sufficiently and clearly addressed them. I stand by every word that I have typed on this thread and in any correspondence that I have EVER had with you....

So, if you want to discuss this privately my ears AND my mind are WIIIIIIIIIIIDE open.

Or you can just do what you have been doing for a looooooong time.

Either way, it's all good Darlin'.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Ranger...

I dont know. Maybe we should have attacked him before? Maybe we could have armed the inspectors with millitary assistance back in 92?

All i know is, what we did in iraq over the past 12 years was horrible. You can say that Saddam did it to his own people.....but we know what kind of man Saddam Was...and we knew what he was doing with the money....yet we still continued the sanctions which in turn killed millions of iraqis, and kept them in a horrible situation.

These civilians that we are trying to "liberate", are the same ones that we screwed over for the past 12 years.

Why don't you blame everyone for that? That was a joint failure on everyone's part. On the UNs part, on the Security council member's parts, and on Saddam's part. Why single out the US? Alot of people were to blame for that situation.

 

[Lao Tzu]

I can not believe that ANY PARENT would explain war to their child LIKE THAT.... Talk about hypocracy! Is the US ALL OVER THE WORLD "KEEPING BAD MEN FROM RAPING, MURDERING, LOOTING, KILLING?!"

You MUST BE JOKING!!!

Well, we did have a hand in giving more political liberty to Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, South Korea & several soviet bloc states after the USSR fell (Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, E. Germany & Mongolia come to mind). Those are just the ones i know of.

take south Korea for instance. If North Korea had overrun it, it would be a poverty ridden shitball with major political repression & a per capita income of $1000 a year. Instead it is relatively free democracy with a per capita income of $20,000 a year thanks to the US stopping a north korean invasion.

If you dont believe me, go to

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/index.htm

and look up these countries, some of them undergo drastic changes towards liberalization after US intervention or after the US helped bankrupt the USSR. Look at what happened to the soviet bloc countries after 1991 in regards to political freedom or civil liberties.

And just what is the criteria that the US uses to decide WHICH BAD MEN NEED TO BE BEATEN DOWN AND WHICH DO NOT? IT COULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE US'S RELATIONSHIP IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL OR NOT AT THE GIVEN TIME WHEN ALL THE LOOTING/RAPING/MURDERING WAS GOING ON..... DOES IT?!

Nope, its selective. But selective morality is better than amorality, or endorsing destructiveness. Would you rather Yugoslavia not go from a repressed dictatorship to a less repressive democracy due to NATO intervention? Look at the differences between E. Germany & W. Germany in regards to political freedom & civil liberties up until the fall of the USSR.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/ethiop.htm

Please spare me the silly story of the teary-eyed parents and child. It makes me sick to my stomach.

I agree, it was a simplistic explanation.

War unfortunately is a necessary evil. As long as there are two people on this planet. If one is an agressive ASSHOLE that will fuck with the other NO MATTER WHAT (you all remember about the concept of "appeasement" - Yea, Hitler was REALLY EASILY satisfied) then there will be war.

Sad, but true.

Thats a very westernized view of war. There are literal race wars & religious wars in africa & the middle east. Wars are fought for all kinds of stupid reasons, not just because a dictator wants to rise to power. We are lucky to live in a society evolved enough to not partake in decade long race wars like Sudan or Kenya. We are lucky to have a culture evolved enough to restrict war from being used for things like that.

We are SUPPOSED TO BE CIVILIZED. But the truth is that WE ARE NOT.

Compared to what?

I think it is better to teach our children the concept of understanding the difference between what we can change and can not change. We need COURAGE, WISDOM and ACCEPTANCE in order to dedipher the difference... not some silly analogy about your next door neighboor beating and killing his wife.

HOW MANY OF YOU RIGHT NOW KNOW FOR A FACT OF ANY OF YOUR FRIENDS THAT IS PUTTING HIS/HER HANDS ON THEIR S/O YET YOU DO FUCKING NOT A GODDAMNED THING!? WHY DO YOU DO NOTHING? BECAUSE THEN IT *MIGHT* FUCK UP YOUR FRIENDSHIP AND HELL, THE FRIENDSHIP WAS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL BEFORE YOU KNEW, RIGHT? FUCK, YOU NEVER SAW HIM OR HER PUT THEIR HANDS ON THEIR S/O RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM DID YOU? SO THEN THAT MUST MEAN THAT IT ISN'T REALLY HAPPENING .... RIGHT?!?!

(I say his or her because believe it or not women can be just as violent and abusive as men and the men are even MORE ashamed than the women to admit it happens.)

Please spare me this nonsense.

I am VERY SUPPORTIVE of your servicemen and women. It is because of them that I can sit here safely and not have to worry about tanks rolling down my street - BUT I also believe that such a story is HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE and HYPOCRITICAL.

Look, even though skepticism is healthy, there is a difference between skepticism & unadulterated cynicism. To claim that no country can possibly do good, ever, no matter what, would be a myth.







I have become everything i hate. When did this happen?

 

[Bikini Mod]

Darlin' I never said that the US never did anyone any good by intervening. The US HAS done it in the past, is doing it now and I am sure will continue to do it in the future. All I am saying is that to paint the US as some sort of "neighbor who is duty-bound" to stand up for ALL that as wrong in the world by ridding the world of "bad neighbors" is simply not accurate.

THE US IS AS SELF-SERVING AS ANY OTHER COUNTRY. Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing? There is no ONE "correct" answer. To sit here and argue politics (which is all propaganda anyway because NONE of us knows "the truth") to JUSTIFY war is PLAIN SILLY.

To say that ALL Iraqis are this way, ALL Americans are that way, ALL French are the third way, etc and so on IS EQUALLY SILLY.

And I believe that my "idea" of war is not westernized at all. REGARDLESS if the war is a race war, religious war, war to gain territory WHATEVER - Person A is an agressive asshole, Person B is not = WAR.

I am not totally cynical. My statements were NOT blanket statements that said ALL "THIS" is BAD or ALL "THAT". I was merely speaking to the article that was originally posted. Being a parent AND a victim of domestic violence I think you can understand WHY I got so pissed as I believe the article was VERY POORLY authored at best and VERY IRRESPONSIBLE at least... and I also feel that the individual ADVOCATED the author's point of view and played a role in the proliferation of such nonsense by posting it here on the WWW. Remember people, the pen is mightier than the sword!

But hey, free speech.

The author had their right to it. The individual that posted it here had his right to free speech. I am only excersizing my right (within the confines of Elite's policies) to EXPRESS MY thoughts and reactions to what I read.

No name-calling, no BS, no flame fest, no disrespect. Stern words? ABSOLUTELY! These are topics that I take VERY SERIOUSLY.

This isn't about right or wrong or even conflict. A little conflict IS a healthy thing. After all, I always said that new ideas are born from conflict..... are they not?

I guess the thing that REALLY set me off were the paralells that the author drew between explaining war to a child and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE....

I ASK AGAIN - HOW MANY OF YOU KNOW PEOPLE OR EVEN REMOTELY SUSPECT THAT A CHILD/A MAN/OR A WOMAN IS THE VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.... YET YOU STAND BY SILENTLY AND DO NOTHING?!?!?!!!! AND EVEN CONTINUE TO CALL THOSE PEOPLE "YOUR FRIEND"?

 

[kronk]

For Ranger

In follow up to the post, these are added at Rangers request.

 

[The Ranger]

To the *State Farm Insurance* tune......

"And like a good neighbor....The USA is there..."

And please notice the Black Berets on those heads....That was back in the day when you earned the right to wear one....<wink>

Heh heh heh

Ranger

Ranger

 

[lil k]

nice pics ranger.....my little fuck buddy....bwbwhahahaha

 

[The Ranger]

Heh heh heh.....YUMMY-LISH-US

How are ya *Sunshine*...??

Ranger

 

[naturally anabolic]

you two need a room....