A hug, iphones and jiu jitsu for world peace.. I love it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Elliott
Printable View
A hug, iphones and jiu jitsu for world peace.. I love it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Elliott
Well, Im glad we sorted that out then. Only took five pages. Dont know what all the fuss was about.
Interesting. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by John Roderick
1) But, there are excessive links with many trading countries. The US currently funds the Taliban through money to Pakistan. The US funded a fully supported Saddam during the 80s, and they gave him the biological weapons they knew he had, and gave him more support after he committed horrible acts. During those times, could Turkey, Russia or Iran use that as an excuse to not only invade US interests abroad, but the vast array of countries that traded with the US? Remember, it is indisputable that the US funded problematic countries, and the links are clearly there.
Remember the Iran contra affair?? The only difference is Bush Sr, saw things differently than Reagan.
And as stated above, there are stronger links between Pakistan, an ally, and the Tiliban, than there are between Iraq and Afganistan. Why don't we invade Pakistan? This whole idea that magnifies 'links' to justify wars is bullshit created by politicians to sell the wars to the American people (they have people on pay rolls whose job it is to think about how to do this). :(
If we were to go on the idea that focuses on 'links' between hostile regimes and the other countries that fund them, we would be at war with half the western hemisphere before we even get to the middle east. It is because the general public doesn't know any better that when media says, "such and such is linked to such and such", they believe that no other problematic link exist, but those type of money trails are all over the place.
2) The following is a very shorthanded general sense.
The idea to educate another country has its problems. It can sometimes implicitly communicate that they are lessor than us, and that is not always the case. It has been a fact throughout history that the more powerful country can reshape other peoples of varying smaller cultures, and they do for no other reason, ultimately, than to create safety for its own (the bigger power's) citizens, by taking away perceptual power away from the conquered peoples.
Cultural practices are like a language. You only master them over time, and they communicate (implicitly) your command of that culture. Think about going to the 'hood', and trying to make life. The problem is you would need to spend extra energy on cocking your ears and eyes, just to survive, while the master of that 'language' will perpetually have you in a vulnerable state, and it'll be too easy to either catch you off balance, or take away your balance (kind of like how Jiu Jitsu is a language). :) Rigan Machado once said, the ground is an ocean, I am the shark, and you can't swim. All languages, whether linguistic, symbolic, or gestural are like this.
Once someone gives up their customs and ways for a dominating country, they lose tremendous power over their own personal experiences and, more crucially, the interpretation of those experiences. This is why when Japan invaded Korea, they forbid Koreans to speak their language -- it gave the invaders colossal, monumental power over their captive -- and all great invaders, who are students of history, know and deploy this strategy (remember, we are going beyond linguistic language, and into symbolic and gestural language)
A culture, or you could describe it as a social synergy, takes years of intimate relations, relations within one's social setting, for one to fully absorb the subtle, nuanced, intricate manners and rules (which include agreeing with the environment's subjective moral base).
In other words, to share a worldview with people within your physical proximity is a phenomenology that comes from within. There are internal reasons why we 'agree' wit one's social setting. This aspiration to 'agree' with those close to us is fueled by our nurturing instinct -- to maintain social relations with others whom are important to us (of course it takes a secondary thought to 'disagree' (deviate), and we do so after we consider the dangers of diverting from a common line of thought. We've all said, "fuck this shit", and we proceed to disagree with someone, which we know might lead to an argument, or a lost friend -- which is why some people don't argue politics).
We 'agree' for no other reason than we share a social space, and less conflict is the easiest way to do so. Those that don't follow the 'rules' are either physically banished (jailed for breaking laws), or ideologically banished (anything from being a nerd, uncool, or you say in a crowd of progressives that you don't like gay people, or that you like to rip off your friends).
Back to the topic. When you say educate, are you speaking of an education from within the community, or from without? This is huge.
In the colonial days, the conquerors set up generals to oversee the parts of Africa that they colonized. Over many years, this installed a mindset of inferiority for the colonized peoples. They colonized people started to aspire to be like the European in manners and class structure, and this is what is at issue with the middle east, but in a more subtle, ideological manner.
Anyone who has studies political history knows of this danger, and this is what people of conquered countries resist. It is not the loss of their culture that they find scary, because no culture lasts forever, and cultures are always changing. We can see this easily if we compare 1920, or 1960s America to today. Or 1950s Bollywood to Bollywood currently, or even China in the 1980s to the present day China.
The thing they resist most, and rightfully so, is another culture telling them, even sometimes demanding (and sometime mere military presence indicates this) that they must change to *our* way of life. Instinctively they know this sets up a relationship where they are no longer masters of their world or their house, but a total stranger will have symbolic power over them, and in that metaphoric type of cultural language, it will give us (the west) the advantage over them, where we will teach them the 'only' ways of life. They will be lost for a while, as strangers in their own home, obediently asking the 'master' (a outside culture) if this way or that way is the right way to do so (analogy). If I were that culture, this would sounds scary to me.
And that's what war has always been about -- to get to the basics of things, the best way to protect our boarders is if the whole world was as one family, one culture without cultural and/or lifestyle disagreements. This is what the left and right fight about. This is why communism was such a threat. I mean, think about it. Just let them (the communists) live they way they want, right? Nope, it's like a disease, if it exists, it can spread, so we must wipe it out. And this is what G.W. Bush meant when he wants to spread democracy around the world.
The only problem is that with the world and its diverse population, don't want to rely on strangers to break them down and rebuild them, which means they *will* be inferior in the process. They, reverting to an instinctive sense of survival, want to be the master of their own house. They don't want you to tell them how their house should function.
And that instinctive trait creates huge problems for cultural progression, and for cultural reshaping.
This is one of the many reasons why the war was/is such as struggle, and the middle east resists the US presence.
Sorry for being so long winded. :(
First - I have a headache from reading so much :)
Second: I wanna comment on one point - you are 100% correct with the "educate" comment. Much like early settlers did with the Native Americans. They used terms like "civilize" them...which implies they are not civilized. They coined the term "savage" when talking about them...this all to support their thought of being superior. One look into anciet Native American culture shows this attitude to be far from correct. The early Native Americans were very sophisticated and cultured...hell, Ben Franklin stole democracy and its idea from them...so this type of rhetoric has always been used to paint our enemies (percevied or real) in a negative light in order to justify their poor treatment...
It doesn't mean a thing to me. My best friend will be deployed to Iraq in February. He's training for it right now.
Tell him to be safe....Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiCuellar
Now, that is scary chit! Not just the prison industrial complex and the idea of the scary 'other', whether it be cultural, or juvenile, or just for strategic control of society -- making people more afraid of being locked up by swelling prison ranks so they (citizens) stay within the law, it is all just rule by fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Green
But, what more scary are the special interests that fund radical, bias media outlets, those that skew the truth for political gain. It's a clash between media ethics and the first amendment, the right to lie. Where the first amendment, whether a lie or truth, wins every time. Of course it's a slippery slope when it comes to slander, but when a news outlet specifically calls a section of its programming 'opinion' (under the disguise of news), all is fair game.
And about the mosque, I feel that before sept 11, no worries, after sept 11, big problems. One thing is for sure, we can no longer say, "they hate us for our freedoms". :(
I guess you can call me a republican...well, more independent conservative and I have proudly served since 1997.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Blankenship
i hear they are looking for over 8000 people to hire for private security firms for iraq..so its not tat safe yet
No it didn't. What saved the economy were the austerity measures (i.e. rationing) and shift towards saving among families. Also, American people bought up huge portions of government debt instead of having it monetized by the Fed or selling it to the chinese.Quote:
The idea that war stimulates the economy started with WWII, because at that time, it did.
No we don't. Just because digits are showing up on computers doesn't mean that there is any value there. Shit, I have a scanner and a color printer... I could be the federal government and the Federal Reserve combined.Quote:
I deal with GOV contracts and money everyday....we have the bank roll...trust me.
Agreed. People tend towards peace (at least on a large scale). Governments are inherently violent and war bound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Elliott
Republicans hold a large majority in the armed services, with 57% of active military personnel and 66% of officers identified as Republican in 2003.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Blankenship
Best I could find on short notice. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Cook
http://thoriumpentoxide.blogspot.com/
Nobel Prize economist: "Finally, I want to turn to the macro-economic costs. First, I want to dispel a widespread misconception that wars are good for the economy—a misconception that arose from the role that World War II played in helping the US emerge from the Great Depression. "
My big issue w the mosque is that through history the Muslim culture has always built a mosque on land they have concured. So what message does that send, allowing it to happen near the site of the 911 attacks? Passes me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian "ifreez" Freemantle
An unimaginable amount of seriously fucked up stuff has been done by various groups of Christians yet we dont consider Christianity as a whole to be bad.
People argue that there are some nasty things in the Koran. The same can be said of the Bible. The bulk of Muslims dont take the Koran 100% literally, just as the bulk of Christians dont stone people on a regular basis.
Marginal, religious nutcases are the problem. Not Islam, or any religion as a whole. If you vilify Islam as a whole instead of being more selective you play right into extremists hands.
Iv lived next door to a Mosque for two years. Never bothered me once. Iv lived next door to a Church for six weeks and the bloody organ practices are driving me mental.
agree. Extremeism is the key. I don't have any issue w a mosque or Islam. At its root, Islam is a very accepting religion. The guy running the mosque I'm ny was quoted as saying the US got what it deserved on 911. So the issue is what that mosque represents in that spot n what the motivation is. I lost family in 911 n friends n soldiers fighting in oef oif. I don't think the debate is over a mosque in general, its that mosque n what it says to those who go to that site to pay homage to their loved ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Elliott
I don't disagree that every religion has its war n destruction n its extremeism....but a mosque near the 911 site is more symbolic of concurring a country then freedom of religion. We got what we deserved?? Really??
Do innocent people get killed in war, yes. We spend millions to build weapons in order to avoid that. We run campaigns to move civilians before we bomb an area. We go thru an approval process before those engagements. We get killed n shot from mosques n schools in the middle east because we aren't allowed to shoot at them n they know it.
They targeted a building w civilians women n children w a plane full of civilians. That's the difference. Mosques are great if religion is your thing.....that particular mosque n that guy....fuck them both
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Green
I'm not so sure dude, they've been building mosques in America for a long time now, and after 9/11 too. Why is one more in New York evidence to them that they've conquered us?
Ian, Kevin, et al;
To clarify a couple of my comments: first, I am well aware that our government has had and continues to have, many "shadow" or behind the scenes deals with other countries and what that influence is. The irony of supplanting a current regime, only to go to war with our "puppet" ruler at a later date is not lost on me. The U.S. and other countries throughout history have done the same thing. To generalize it as only the U.S. is inaccurate. I'm not saying what the U.S. has done is right, but let's not blind ourselves to the fact this has been going on throughout history. My point with what I stated was to say that there are direct correlations between Afghanistan and Iraq regarding terrorism. That's not to say that there isn't in Pakistan, Iran, or other countries. Unfortunatly, with "politics", it's often thought that the "lesser of two evils (a paraphrase, I don't mean to insinuate that another country is "evil") " or "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" are good alternatives in politics. It is what it is, it's not always right, and it's not perfect. So, please: don't just assume I'm a blind American Patriot or unaware. In a forum such as this, and especially in writing, it's often difficult to be as succinct as one would like, or get an accurate account. I'm aware that all of our friends here from other countries have a decidedly different perspective than we may.
Regarding the education: I'm well aware of the fallacy of thinking that we need to educate others to our way of thinking. Throughout history, whether with the colonization of America, the Conquest of South America, colonization of India, etc; it has been the hubris of the west (i.e: colonizing Europeans) to think that we have to bring "savages" around to our way of thinking. Before I continue, I'd like to point out that archeological and anthropological evidence is now showing that, essentially, there are NO indigenous peoples. Everyone migrated from somewhere. Having said that, all I meant was that in any country, in any system of government, ALL people have a right to learn to read. To learn arithmetic. To learn their countries history. To have a solid infrastructure. Clean water. Food. A safe place to call home. We could certainly have helped, and the coalition, the U.S., Europe, ANY country associated with the efforts in Iraq and the Middle East, have certainly failed the people of Iraq by not doing a proper job and having a plan for helping them to rebuild their country. Is it so wrong to help them build schools or hospitals? That was more of my point. Additionally, by not having access to the outside world in an open manner, not having good information or education, it will be very difficult to change their view of the west and the U.S. in particular. The doctrines they follow are old and constantly reinforced (yes, much like the west's propaganda and media misinformation).
Lastly, I have many friends and family from abroad. From diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds: Poland, Germany, Portugal, India, The Filipines, The U.K. Very diverse points of view. Things are changing quite quickly in India for example as they quickly are becoming technological epicenters of the world. Much of their cultural and world view is evolving quickly for example.
It's all part of growth and change. We as a culture, should certainly do more to assist in the infrastructure rebuild of Iraq.
In closing: I'm sorry for placing so many diverse ideas in one post. Stream of thought first thing in the morning with office chaos around me. However, I'm very pleased with the intelligent and insightful discourse of this thread. This is what gets ideas moving.
In any muslim conflict they have built a mosque on concured land...its proximity to the 911 site, coincidence? No...Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Tabeling
Look up what the guy who put in for the spot said about us and the 911 attackes...terrorism is very symbolic bro. Thats why they picked that building in the first place. Mass casualties and it represented the Western Cultures ideology of capitilism. Mosques on concured land is standard - of all the places in the world why would this guy need to put it there??
like I said, its not about mosques its about that mosque in that spot...whats the point?
Oh, and regarding the Mosque in NYC: I am not opposed to the building of a Mosque, and I'm not that familiar with the rules governing locations of Mosques in the Muslim faith. I will say this: it is a right under the constitution to have freedom of religion and the builder if they follow the law and rules of the NY building code, can build where they wish. However, I think in the eyes of the U.S. public, its more a matter of good taste. I don't think it's in good taste to build it there. To me, it would be like building a church or American Embassy right on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Not wrong per se, just not in good taste.
exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by John Roderick
In that case fuckem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Green
I think a mosque there is not actually that bad an idea if the motivation is reconciliation. The more that can be done for to send a "cool with Islam, not cool with terrorists" message the better. Less people lining up to shoot at you that way.
Build a mosque there, just do it for the right reasons. The majority of Muslims are still peace loving people and I feel very sorry for them at times. Invite a part of the Islamic community with passive views to build a Mosque there and send a clear message that the fight is with Islamic terrorist groups, not with Islam. Anything that makes a recruiters job harder is good defence.
So much anti Islamic sentiment finds its way into the media. Every time some idiot on TV goes "kill em all" it plays straight into the hands of the enemy. Your pretty much signing on as an enemy recruiter.
Couldnt agree more....its about taste, motivation and the message it sends. Maybe Ill apply for a spot to build an anti-terrorism education annex right next door... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Elliott
Ryan, I would say they try to control and plan rather than liberate, which is at the core of armed conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Cook
Victor: Your History degree is no good here!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Tabeling
Just Kidding...good point...u r the man
Sometimes, Im reminded of Full Metal Jacket. "Inside every gook, is an American trying to get out". There really isnt. My girlfriend is Chinese. If there was an American in there, I would have found it by now.
You are a sick son of a bitch! But I LOVE IT!!! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Elliott
Good point. I too think it is about taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Roderick
But, look at this. There are Christian churches in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because that it the forgiving nature of Christianity, of which Islam came from.
And a very common religion in Japan, apparently, is Shinto. And there is a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor.
But, dig this. The bigger issue that makes me more sure this whole controversy is just stubborn politics, designed only to get people mad, is that on 911, they attacked the pentagon too. And apparently, there is already a mosque there.
Guys, please don't get duped by these politicians who only want to get you angry for no other purpose than to make the other side look bad. :(
Furthermore, me thinks that for one to say that Islam is connected to 9/11, is like saying Christianity is connected to the Oklahoma City bombings.
For me its not the politicians...its personal. Its about the timing of it. The guy who is runnging the mosque, his comments and the opening date...SEPT 11 2011! Come on man...there is no need for thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Ian "ifreez" Freemantle
I wasn't really talking about intent. Just saying that, in the end, the final option for the government to do what it wants is to use violence. Government is inherently violent. Also, any executive/president/emporer (or whatever else) has a ton of incentive to start/participate in war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Tabeling
I hear thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Cook
Nagasaki also had the biggest Catholic community in Japan prior to the dropping of the bomb, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian "ifreez" Freemantle
you're gonna be a history teacher, huh :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Tabeling
I'm full of shit like this!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Green
no...your just full of shit in general.. :) Kidding, Kidding...dont forget to come by and get your coat man...its getting cold out. When you coming back up to train?Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Tabeling