Justified war?

[surferarmo]

calling me surferboy, tho i am, really makes your 'lowest common demoninator' arguement much weaker by the way. there is much more to me than riding waves. i spoke with you a while back i think, and if i recall, you were going to surf too, or try it or you are currently surfing.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Of course it can

The motive might have been ideological, but the gain is physical.

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Oil and other petty things, such as trade, or money, or weapons, etc, are merely the objects used to ensure the ideological gains are met ( globalization, because they serve the idea of it), where nothing but a few wield and control the power. Physical gains are only there to feed the ideological gains since mans obsession with power stems from an idea and he fights for that idea, not the other way around.

Anon, right here we both said the same thing. Perhaps I wasnt clear, and there was miscommunication amongst the both of us. The ideology and the physical gain feed off of eachother. The physical ideology is the motive. The physical gain is the goal. What does it matter if the US dominates the global market, (not that it isnt already) and we get nothing physical that can insure physical material weatlh? My point is that, no one fights over an idea alone, the idea itself cannot be grasped; like freedom. I am aware that it is not a tangible or possible state in which anyone or thing could exist. Even without the presence of government there is no complete freedom. There is partial freedom which is defined comparitively. I also never called you a hippy. I never said 'Anon, you are a hippy.' I was referring to other people that speak against the war that have not faced punishment by the government because they may do so in this country, and I appreciate that. I expected that you would understand that. We are engaging in mature intellectual conversation here, and there is no need for name calling by any of us. Conflicting interest is the creation of new frontier yet to be discovered, and I embrace opposing views, and any other intelligent people should do the same.

From what you said it was clear to be that what you stated was wars are not fought over ideologies and instead physical gains, which seemed illogical. Physical gains are there to serve and reinforce every idea, not just political or economic. They reinforce and make so our own dreams and ideas about our lives and selves. They reinforce our ideas of reality haha lets hope so that this isn't a matrix. Everything goes back to the fact that it all stems from our mind. Before there was a chair, there was an idea of a chair in our minds, and from those ideas, spawn our creations, that is why those who seek American Imperialism and hegemony over the world have come up and drawn this ideology of American dominance and thus they create and forment these wars and essentially prove my point that it all stems from the idea. Even culture.

Also, I never said that we, the US, are fighting to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. (I am speaking specifically of Saddam.) I simply meant that it would be an outcome if Saddam was removed.

You didn't mention it but you implied it which means you believe it. The only outcome if one followed the logic was the implication of Iraqi peoples' freedom from Saddams tyranny. A cause, removal of Saddam, would trigger a reaction, freedom for the Iraqis. That is what I thought you meant in essence and that is what your statements about Turks massacring Armenians or anyone else, further supported your statement.

As far as North Korea, the situation is different. Iraq was a definet victory, and we both know that. First of all, the troops morale, and the county's needed a boost. Kind of like the battle that George Washington won against the Hessians. I forgot the name of the battle but you get the point. A victory would embody this win psychology in the minds of the people. North Korea might be next, I dont know, and neither do you. The political situation in that area is also different. They have a lot more troops, a better trained army, and they for certain have weapons of mass destruction. There are many variables in North Korea. Japan, and South Korea might be unwanting victims if we intervene. Also: whose side is China on? An invasion of North Korea could mean the commencment of WWIII. The political situation over there is very touchy and explosive...literally.

This is precisely what I tried to explain but didn't dwell on that North Korea is the actual threat here, not Iraq. No evidence of WMD has yet been found. My other beef is that the motives of the war continually changed throughout the duration and now came to encompass everything they had metnioned all in one nutshell which is a good tactic. North Korea has the will, and the military capabilities to stand up against the U.S. They are well indoctrinated. And yes, it could trigger a war as China is the prime backer and China did aid the Koreans in the Korean War, most notably the battle of Chosin, where about 200,000 or so Chinese troops swarmed about 24k Marines or something like that, my memory is hazy.

I know my history and I know that we sold Hitler his arms, and ammunition. Never the less, he was a tyrant, which you are aware of, and he escaped his xxxx hole situation. And world conquest came so close to reality.

I never said you didn't know your history. You did say that since Germany was a poor nation due to the Versailles and Hitler turned Germany into a superpower and Iraq might have done that too. There are several things wrong with it. When Germany was in a xxxxty state, Hitler was not in power. Saddam is in power and Iraq was already crumbling. And as I mentioned Hitler was allowed to become powerful because a war was needed for the money masters. Hitler was financed by these bankers who most of them were Jewish. Saddam wasn't even allowed to improve his nation as I mentioned because of the bombings, sanctions, etc.

Back to the capatilsm thing. The alphabet soup orgs. are the anti-thesis of capatilsm. My point is it did not substantially help the economy in anyway, and I dont see your point in bringing this issue up.

I don't know we somewhere deviated and got to this but my point wasn't the specifics but the principle of government interference in the U.S. economy, just like they are trying to enforce democracy with a gun. My point is contradictions, which prove the invalidy of believing the things claimed.

I would have appreciated it if you had given some feedback to the questions posed in my post, because I did raise alot of questions, both moral questions about the U.S. and Israel and the motive of this war. I wonder why so many Jews are disproportionately posted in the Bush administration?

[Anonymouse]

As far as me calling you surferboy, haha it was intentional, because yes I knew you surfed and it was just my way of getting back at you to what I thought was an ad homenim. In any event yes I do surf as well and have been for a while now. Hehehe but yea no hard feelings.

[surferarmo]

Anon, I will definetly give you feedback on some the the questions posed.

For now, here is feedback on the question adressed in your last post, asking why I think there are so many Jews in Bush's Cabinet.

Check this out.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 6 — What began today as a hunt for an ancient Jewish text at secret police headquarters here wound up unearthing a trove of Iraqi intelligence documents and maps relating to Israel as well as offers of sales of uranium and other nuclear material to Iraq.

In one huge room in the flooded basement of the building, American soldiers from MET Alpha, the "mobile exploitation team" that has been searching for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq for the past three months, found maps featuring terrorist strikes against Israel dating to 1991. Another map of Israel highlighted what the Iraqis thought were the locations at which their Scud missiles had struck in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. The strikes were designated by yellow-and-red paper flowers placed atop the pinpointed Israeli neighborhoods" (NY Times).

I am just going to be blunt here. To deny the fact that Jews are basically holding America by the balls is a very ignorant stance. Much of our policy concerning the ME is centered around Israelian interests. The clip of the article I quoted above proves just that. One might say that I have made an arguement based on racial discourse; I say that I made an arguement based on minimal observation. Look at the media. The media consists of anything on TV, Movies, News, etc... The media does contain bias. The media consists of a prominant liberal bias, with the exception of Fox with its conservative bias. Either way, there are a lot of jews in the media, and being in that position, one has the power to filter information to their advantage. Basically they are only showing us what interest them, which is Israel, and other jewish affairs. From an earlier post you mentioned that if any politician spke against Israel, his/her political career would be done. It is true. Speaking against Israel is a third rail in politics that no one wants to step on. If someone did openly speak against Israel, the jews in the media would find every way to negatively expose the politician that did so. Politicians being in such a position must be careful and will usually make policy favoring Israel, because the people that truly care about its interest, Jews, control the media and therefore, bring a lot of attention and support for their issues.

What do you think on this matter? If there are other questions of yours that you would like me to address please throw them in and lets discuss.

[TVAdict710]

look what u started flame, another superpost fest.

[Anonymouse]

Anon, I will definetly give you feedback on some the the questions posed.

For now, here is feedback on the question adressed in your last post, asking why I think there are so many Jews in Bush's Cabinet.

Check this out.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 6 — What began today as a hunt for an ancient Jewish text at secret police headquarters here wound up unearthing a trove of Iraqi intelligence documents and maps relating to Israel as well as offers of sales of uranium and other nuclear material to Iraq.

In one huge room in the flooded basement of the building, American soldiers from MET Alpha, the "mobile exploitation team" that has been searching for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq for the past three months, found maps featuring terrorist strikes against Israel dating to 1991. Another map of Israel highlighted what the Iraqis thought were the locations at which their Scud missiles had struck in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. The strikes were designated by yellow-and-red paper flowers placed atop the pinpointed Israeli neighborhoods" (NY Times).

I am just going to be blunt here. To deny the fact that Jews are basically holding America by the balls is a very ignorant stance. Much of our policy concerning the ME is centered around Israelian interests. The clip of the article I quoted above proves just that. One might say that I have made an arguement based on racial discourse; I say that I made an arguement based on minimal observation. Look at the media. The media consists of anything on TV, Movies, News, etc... The media does contain bias. The media consists of a prominant liberal bias, with the exception of Fox with its conservative bias. Either way, there are a lot of jews in the media, and being in that position, one has the power to filter information to their advantage. Basically they are only showing us what interest them, which is Israel, and other jewish affairs. From an earlier post you mentioned that if any politician spke against Israel, his/her political career would be done. It is true. Speaking against Israel is a third rail in politics that no one wants to step on. If someone did openly speak against Israel, the jews in the media would find every way to negatively expose the politician that did so. Politicians being in such a position must be careful and will usually make policy favoring Israel, because the people that truly care about its interest, Jews, control the media and therefore, bring a lot of attention and support for their issues.

What do you think on this matter? If there are other questions of yours that you would like me to address please throw them in and lets discuss.

That is precisely what my whole statement about this war is. This war is meant to serve the Israeli interests. You just admitted this and agreed with me on this, yet somehow earlier you sounded as if this war was for the good of the Iraqi people by getting rid of Saddam.

As I said, it's all in clear print, this war is for Israeli interests. If Israel lobbyists didn't have a stranglehold on American government and Jews didn't manipulate the economy then we wouldn't be in there right now.

I am tired of having to go to wars for parasitic countries like Israel who only butcher Palestinians. You want to see a true war criminal? Look at Sharon. Why aren't we deposing him?

[sSsflamesSs]

look what u started flame, another superpost fest.

Please forgive me. *bites lip* :?

[surferarmo]

I said that an outcome of this war would be the liberation of the Iraqi people. It doesnt help you, me or the the country if the Iraqi people are free, and therefore it is not even a thought on congressional mind. I am quite aware that it wasnt the original purpose, nor a purpose to begin with, but it is still an outcome. It was used primarily to gather support from the soft hearted. I dont know who Sharon is unfortunetly. To be frank, I am tired of their being any war. The human condition, desiring power, will never let life be that way. I agree with you because I agree with the circumstance, so you agree with me in turn. It is true that Israelian lobbyists have taken hold of this country. There is no denying that.

Anyway, you asked how this war was protecting your freedom. Well I heard this quote once, I cant remember it word for word, nor can I remember the author, and the citation will be invalid, but I will paraphrase. They came for the communists and I did nothing, they came for the Homos and I did nothing, they came for the Jews and I did nothing, then they came for me and there was no one left. I believe that the threat of removal of someones political rights somewhere, are a threat to everyones everywhere. North Korea might be a better situation for this arguement that I made, as they are bullying the world right now, but as we mentioned earlier, the situation is different, and can be something bigger than we or the world can bargain for.

[Anonymouse]

If you agree with me that war is a racket, then your argument here that war protects my freedom is invalid.

If you agree there is no such thing as freedom then to state that war protects my freedom is invalid.

Wars are basically created. Nothing "just happens". History is not a fortuitous concourse of events. The War on Terrorism is basically the replacement of the Cold War, to justify more defense spending, more conflicts, more American hegemony globally.

The fact that North Korea is threatening us, leads back to us to begin with. Our presence around the world doing what we want at will is what causes countries like North Korea to do what they do. They don't do it without provocation or cause. For every effect, there exists a cause. On the contrary, after every war more liberties are stripped from the citizens and the constitution is ravaged further. One example is the Homeland Defense beaurocracy, or the Patriot Bill. If you pay attention this is the worst thing if ever to harm our privacies. I don't agree that war protects me. On the contrary, war makes us susceptible to harm and adds more restrictions. North Korea, isn't really bullying the world, thats an overstatement, but they have THREATENED, the United States. In any event they are threatening the US no differently than the U.S. goes around threatening other nations at will.

I can't see how war is freedom. That's an oxymoron much like war is peace, a famous Orwellian newspeak.

But arguing all this is pointless anyway since nothing we really say has any bearing to what really goes on. I'm more aligned with those who adhere to a more conspiratorial world view on things, that things dont just happened are happen for a reason, to benefit a certain idea or cause, profit a certain few, etc. If you are an international banker creating wars is in your best interest since you profit of that.

I don't agree that Iraqi people were really liberated. Replacing one form of tyranny with another doesn't really mean liberation. Even historically, there really is no "liberation" as that implies "freedom" and since we agreed that freedom is just an idea used to rile the masses and cause revolutions and forment wars, then freedom isn't really the issue there. All it does is make the masses believe in something. In reality its replacing one order with another, for example replacing the British crown with an American one, replacing Saddam with America, replacing the Czars with the Bolsheviks. Society cannot exist without order, so there will always be subjugation to some form of government. It's either despotism or anarchy. Whether the despotism is overt or covert is another matter.

[surferarmo]

On the contrary, after every war more liberties are stripped from the citizens and the constitution is ravaged further. One example is the Homeland Defense beaurocracy, or the Patriot Bill

You might argue that this is some part of a conspiracy theory for the government to take away our rights in the name of security. This is precisely the reason for human beings forming the polity in the first place. The social contract theory states that people formed the state willingly under a "social contract." People willingly give up some of their rights to the state so that the state may provide protection, law and other such substances. Protection and national defense is the first duty of the government. And according to this, when you became a citizen of the US, you willingly gave up some of your rights so that you may be protected and have further more extensive security. I think that consipiracy theories are a way to detract people with opposing views from the issue at hand. There is a concrete side to all this, they are taking away some rights to privacy, and that is that. The question is whether or not you agree with that, and if you think it is necessary. I think it is necessary. Obvioulsy you dont. So instead of thinking Bush or anyone else has this grand scheme to take over the internet and watch what we are typing, so that we could all be tagged terrorists, look at the problem with a more practical stance.

I never said they were completely liberated from all forms of rule. If you critically observed my writing, you would have seen that I clearly stated that they were liberated from Saddam. I know this is true because he is dead, and cannot rule over them anymore, simple as that. They are not free, but they have more than they did under the rule of Saddam.

Now you tell me, because freedom doesnt exist like politicians tell us it does, what is it supposed to be called? From a comparative stance, Americans are more free, meaning, we have more choices and opportunities than most other people in most other countries. So I believe that when the Iraqi people were liberated FROM SADDAM, they are more free than they were before. Not to say they are completely free, as we are not completely free, but they are more free. [/quote]