| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'm no longer in DC, but no, it wasn't near where I used to live either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bucheon Bum wrote: |
He is right you know. Thats the only way we can win in Iraq. On the flipside:
a) that makes us no better than them. So uh, ideologically speaking, we lose. It also ruins our reputation and puts us on a slippery slope to god knows where.
b) assuming, for argument's sake, that both he and I are correct; that is the only way to victory. Would that victory be worth it?? |
I understand the logic of brutality and violence. I was for Fallujah (the second and final siege, not the half-assed first) and all its gory. My problem is these guys are already detained and the military is not even following its own guidelines. I wouldn't argue that following the Geneva Conventions to the letter here is what is necessary.
But as you said, how can we establish democracy when we are beating detained people without even a shred of due process (not even proper battlefield procedures) and then letting them go when we've found out they haven't done anything? It's just exasperating. My uncle seems to buy the Bush line that we have to go in there and just break people, but my understanding of war is that it's a little more complicated than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah. That's the whole thing: how can a country impose its will onto another country? By total destruction and annhiliation, that's the only method. If it isn't, I'd love to hear a historical example. And the only way you can put a democracy in place that way is if you're the one being attacked first (ie Japan and Germany). Otherwise, you have no legitimacy in claiming you're aiding that country and ensuring long-term peace and prosperity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plus in the cases of Germany and Japan. There was probably war exhaustion by the time the US had to administer the region. They were probably glad to see peace by that time, regardless. Its not the same in Iraq, a few more years and the violence may end of its own accord. As exhaustion sets in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right. I read an article one time (forget the source unfortunately) that said complete, all-out war is the road to peace. Not until one side has totally destroyed the other side both mentally and physically can long-term peace occur. Either that or 100% division between the two enemies (such as the two koreas and cyprus), which stops the violence but not the tension.
Why has the Israel-Palestine conflict gone on so long? One reason is neither side has been hit hard enough by the other. Palestinians were free to travel w/in Israel up until a decade or so ago. While such interaction might help moderates find accomadation with one another, it just enflames the extremists. Unfortunately the extremists have a tendency to win in emotional, traumatic conflicts (hamas, hizballah, and sharon being the prime examples). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
