2fast4u said:
for the established taliban regime this goes, but you have to remember how they gained their power in the first place. only people in a country going to vast injustice and wars can be convinced to even be willing adapt such a regime in the first place. (note: if they are willing to keep it how it turned out is a different story). you are only seeing one side of the medal, namely the one in which the u.s. isnt involved. im not saying your part is incorrect, its just not the whole story.
now in this context to go back to our foreign policy thing. this is not insignificant at all. i have listed several items of u.s. actions that strenghtened support for terrorism and have given oppressive regimes a reason for seeing the u.s. as an enemy and id like your opinion on it.
Correct, we assist their enemy in ousting corrupt regimes. No kidding their leaders hate us. So, how do they rally big public support in their favor? Well, they convinced the shoe bomber that the US killed 2 million iraqi children, thats one way to do it. He was ready to give his life for that shit. Imagine how many others they have who would do the same thing?
i know ... so how come you dont support local iraqi opposition and try to gain public support if you are so tempted to get rid of saddam, especially since you had it in your own history to which you always so proudly relate?
This is what I generaly think we should do. Know what this will cause though? More terrorism against the US. In all honesty, I don't think we should go to war over the sole reason that it will cost us money. But we shouldn't support local resistance either, because that will also cost us money, and it will probably fail; we would actualy be better off going to war. Either way, we get more terrorism, even if we leave them alone.
Iraq poses no threat to the US whatsoever, and for the most part, the local resistance against him isn't big enough to make much of a difference. We shouldn't support iraq at all. He can get all of the weapons he wants as far as I am concerned, he wouldn't dare attack the US. He *knows* that it would *fully* justify an action on our part to level his entire military again; only this time go beyond that, level his entire regime. All he would do is just piss us off. Europeans are the ones that he poses a threat to. Saddam could easily pull off another hitler in france from what I am seeing. If we had the support of the possible victim here, then that would be sufficient reason to go to war, but quite simply, we do not, so I say lets see what happens.
So far as eliminating terrorism, if everything that you say is true, then theres only one way that we can completely halt terrorism, and thats if we say "Saddam, we want to be your friend, we're welcoming you back into kuwait, and you can build all of the weapons you want, just don't use them on us. Also, tell your friends in the taliban that they can have afganistan back. And isreal will no longer receive support from us against pallistine, tell them they can go attack the isrealis at will." Is this what you would like us to do?
cmon, dont make me repeat the whole thread, i HAVE said it over and over yet havent seen a single reaction to any of them. you tend to just ignore those points and carry on with other things. besides ... isnt the one wanting the war the one who has to justify it?
EDIT: make that threadS. there are 3 of em.
Ok, you're saying that the US has only "evil" intentions, with that last statement; e.g. your saying that the US only seeks injustice. Please back that up, you haven't said anything about why you think the US is purely evil, all you have mentioned is the mistakes we have made in the past.
i see you are beginning to understand that communists arent evil.
well thats your selective thinking from a capitalist point of view again. communism does not work the way you described it and if you read up on marx you will see that it doesnt. by any chance have you read it at all?
as for the command structure taking over ... russia during lenins times didnt even have a command structure, dunno about vietnam. it was more a democratically organized government, which was later destroyed by stalin yet communism turning into fascism.
I never said communists were evil, in fact my statements have always been in the range of communism being a valid concept. It's just communism can't be applied, its based on an obsolete precept. If you ask me, the assembly line is what makes communism obsolete. Think about it, just about everything we have and use today was made in an assembly line. People who work in assembly lines actualy make decent wages. Yet imagine if they did that without being paid, you think everybody would just want to do that job forever? Assembly line work sucks, it pays good, but it sucks, and NOBODY would want that job forever. Communism makes the opposite assumption, because at the time marx wrote it, things were different. It assumes that everybody will want to do every job, no matter how much it sucks, just out of goodwill. Maybe you can motivate them to do it at first, but it will not last. You know where it goes from there. This is why stalin had to step in to russia. Everybody else was modernizing, where russia was on the verge of collapse. The command economy had to take over in order to
tell people what jobs they would do. If not, the system would have collapsed.
