Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Peter





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 29
Reputation: 13.4

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Winston.

Also this needs to be a learning process. America is losing power in the world by launching these battles. Remember that human beings live in Iran. Canada has blood ties with Iran, Israel and Lebanon. We need to keep this in mind when we talk about Canada's view towards these issues and how we can work with Americans to shape their views in our interest.
The vast majority of individuals do not want to be part of a nuclear war because they care about earth. Yes, Iranian people are like this too, duh!

The vast majority of world leaders do not want to participate in a nuclear war because they are instantly dethroning themselves.

The nuclear danger is this: A leader with the power to launch a nuclear weapon, a "good" reason, willingness to sacrifice his power in exchange for a position in heaven/paradise.

This makes Bush, Hezbollah, Khomeini, Ehud Olmert dangerous. All these people need is a good reason. Ahmedinajad is not the leader of the Iranian Army and Kim Jong-il knows there is no heaven.

We need to realize that the world is operating network of different world views. India and China support Iran, the US supports Israel and Saudi Arabia. We need to scrutinze the issues behind these world views when they result in proactive war.

The War on Afganistan was reactive and so are the battles that Israel partakes in. The Iraq war, the Iran-Iraq war, the Kuwait war were all agressions by the US.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay ....

Bush and Olmert dangerous, Ahmedinajad and Kim aren't? The oppressed peoples of Iran and North Korea can only dream of the peril we're subject to in western nations... :roll:

Forgive the sarcasm, but are you implying that religious belief = greater likeliness to use WMDs? It's clear that you're not a religious person, neither am I, but that assertion is simply rediculous.

Edit:

Two other points I'm not getting - I seem to recall that the Americans fought the Kuwait war only after Iraq invaded Kuwait - surely that's a reactive war as I think you're defining them.

And secondly, I may be ignorant on this point, but how is India supporting Iran over any western nation?
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The War on Afganistan was reactive and so are the battles that Israel partakes in. The Iraq war, the Iran-Iraq war, the Kuwait war were all agressions by the US.


:lol: bad bad USA. This was the most hilarious stuff I have ever heard in ages

Kuwait was occupied by Iraq, liberated by a US led force in 1991. Iraq invaded Iran in September of 1980 and Iraq was liberated by US led coalition in 2003.

I dont see any US aggressiveness in these matters.
Peter





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 29
Reputation: 13.4

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Winston2004 wrote:
Quote:
The War on Afganistan was reactive and so are the battles that Israel partakes in. The Iraq war, the Iran-Iraq war, the Kuwait war were all agressions by the US.


:lol: bad bad USA. This was the most hilarious stuff I have ever heard in ages

Kuwait was occupied by Iraq, liberated by a US led force in 1991. Iraq invaded Iran in September of 1980 and Iraq was liberated by US led coalition in 2003.

I dont see any US aggressiveness in these matters.


The USA persauded Saddam to attack Iran after the revolution. Saddam could not beat Iran without US support. Saddam asked for US permission before reclaiming Kuwait. Once Saddam wanted to attack Saudi Arabia then the US proactively took the war to Kuwait, result liberation of Kuwait and stalemate on Iraqi land. The US would not launch a war to defend Kuwait, same way they did not launch a war to defend Lebanon. They just didn't want Saddam controling Saudi oil. Because of the size of the reserves.

When was Iraq liberated? Take a survey of women's rights in Iraq. Take a look at the situation, there is no peace.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When was Iraq liberated? Take a survey of women's rights in Iraq. Take a look at the situation, there is no peace.


See, Ive got a few problems there. One, liberation and peace have never been the same thing - China, Cuba, North Korea, the old USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Japan ... etc. were or are very stabe and 'peaceful' internally. They were or are also the least-free places on Earth.

I'm not saying it's all good in Iraq - in some ways its worse, others better - but millions of people now at least have a choice in the direction there country goes.

Speaking of women's rights, how well do you suppose Shiite women and Kurdish women were treated under Sadaam? How about the women relatives of failed Olympic teams or people persecuted for 'political crimes'? How about the hundreds of women debased by Saddams sons?
Peter





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 29
Reputation: 13.4

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Okay ....

Bush and Olmert dangerous, Ahmedinajad and Kim aren't? The oppressed peoples of Iran and North Korea can only dream of the peril we're subject to in western nations... :roll:

Forgive the sarcasm, but are you implying that religious belief = greater likeliness to use WMDs? It's clear that you're not a religious person, neither am I, but that assertion is simply rediculous.

I'm not implying that it is true. Read Sam Harris's book "End of Faith". He has a chapter on what is a belief and how humans form beliefs and deal with them. If you believe that something good will happen to you after you commit an act of genocide or suicide you are much more likely to commit that act, can I appeal to your common sense here?

Hitler had a belief that what he was doing was the fate of the German people. This was a dangerous belief. Muslim suicide bombers believe they are going to get a lot of sex action and pampering in heaven, this is a dangerous belief. Bush has said that he is acting on God's will to attack people in the middle east, this is a dangerous belief. I've seen American political talk shows after 9/11 where people were taken seriously when their ideas were to drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, that is a dangerous belief. George Bush is just religious enough that if someone told him his salvation depended on dropping a nuclear bomb on evil he may consider it. Think about it.

Quote:

Edit:

Two other points I'm not getting - I seem to recall that the Americans fought the Kuwait war only after Iraq invaded Kuwait - surely that's a reactive war as I think you're defining them.

Point taken and addressed in post above.
Quote:


And secondly, I may be ignorant on this point, but how is India supporting Iran over any western nation?

India buys Oil from Iran, like how US buys oil from Saudi Arabia, that a vote of support.

If you knew anything about Iranian politics you would know Ahmedinajad is not in control of the Army. The Ayatollah (Supreme Leader) is. Not the President. Iran doesn't have a real democracy like America. Kim is NOT dangerous (to those people outside of NK). He's been there for quite some time, there's peace right now between China, NK, SK and Japan right now.

Let's get a grip on reality here. Bush has lead what he even describes as a proactive war. That's a war that the US starts. Normally the citizens of a country that declares war don't label themselves and their leaders as the evil enemy. If you consider all life valuable Bush has declared wars which have killed more people than Ahmedinajad. Olmert is a danger to Iran. They may drop a nuclear bomb there. I doubt if they would do it to Lebanon or Palestine because of the proximaty. But don't you think people worry about that?

Pakistan is a far larger nuclear threat than Iran. The people of Pakistan heavily support fundamentalist Islam whereas their is a large majority of people in Iran which do not support fundamentalist Islam. They didn't practise that way before the revolution.
Peter





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 29
Reputation: 13.4

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Quote:
When was Iraq liberated? Take a survey of women's rights in Iraq. Take a look at the situation, there is no peace.


See, Ive got a few problems there. One, liberation and peace have never been the same thing - China, Cuba, North Korea, the old USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Japan ... etc. were or are very stabe and 'peaceful' internally. They were or are also the least-free places on Earth.

I did not mean to imply peace=liberty. I meant you cannot have liberty if their is no peace.
Quote:

I'm not saying it's all good in Iraq - in some ways its worse, others better - but millions of people now at least have a choice in the direction there country goes.

Iraq does not have a stable proper functioning democracy which is required to actually have a situation where the people are directing the direction of their country. Right now it's brokering with powerful people. The Iraq government is still under occupation, they are not in full control. Let's not exaggerate the quality of their liberty. Are they free like in America? Switzerland? Netherlands?
Quote:

Speaking of women's rights, how well do you suppose Shiite women and Kurdish women were treated under Sadaam? How about the women relatives of failed Olympic teams or people persecuted for 'political crimes'? How about the hundreds of women debased by Saddams sons?

I know you are referring to specific crimes committed by Saddams dictatorship. However women had the right to drive, to work, to go to school without a hijab on. Now in the south the Shiite religious leaders are taking away women's rights. And guess what those religious people commit rapes too, it was common under the Taliban's religious regime. I'm not going to excuse crimes Saddam committed but I wouldn't take them out of context. When soldiers are allowed to act in such a way women are raped a lot. Canadian's do it, Americans do it, Israeli's do it, Iranian's do it, Iraqi's do it. You give people guns and authority they are going to rape. It's human nature. Saddam is not a dirty hand type of guy, he has people for that. Same way any leader does. Bush and his administration have committed a lot of white coller crimes, as well as leading a government who tortures in Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan.

I'm not also impressed with the liberties that Americans have lost at the hands of their government, as if terrorism is so magnificient a threat that we need to reduce our liberties. That's ridiculous!
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter,

I'm disagreeing with most of what you're saying, but enjoying the discussion. I think this will be my last response for tonight, however :)

Quote:
I did not mean to imply peace=liberty. I meant you cannot have liberty if their is no peace.


Thanks for the clarification. However, I would contend that gaining and maintaining liberty almost always involves some struggle - Canada is one of very few nations in the entire world that was not birthed in battle. We've had our fair share of violence in the name of liberation - recall Louis Riel.

Even then, many would argue it was our participation in WWI that won us true nationhood, and we went to battle again in WWII and liberated many countries from the tyrannical rule of the Nazi regime - including Germany. The US did the same with Japan.

It's taken a very long time (decades) for those particular countries to turn from maturing democracies (like Iraq and Afstan) into 'fully matured' ones.

I'm afraid my time runs short - I'll address other points later.
Peter





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 29
Reputation: 13.4

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm up, so another from me. I'm enjoying the discussion too.

I agree with what you've said in your last post. I agree that it was Just to fight in WW2. And we did good work in rebuilding Germany and Japan.

Iran is arguably a "maturing" democracy. It's kind of like the US 150 years ago, where you had to be a "good protestant" to become president. And women were respected but didn't really have any rights. Most of the population (the youth) don't like the current regime. If we wait 10 years there will be 35 year olds who dislike the Islamic Republic and begin to shift the country into the Iranian Republic, a US friendly place. We need to use the most sophisticated forward thinking when we deal with war. America resisted going into ww2, they didn't jump at the chance.

Going around the world threatening war is not an effective method to spread democracy. America has had spies in many countries for years, we (they) could sponsor local democrats under the table, to help them topple regimes. They can make deals with these people that they have to setup free market democracies. This type of covert operations have been used by Israel before for other projects. It's an intelligent way to conduct a war for peoples minds. That's how you stop terrorism, you create a place where people trust the police and where they don't see the army very often.

George Bush's (Sharansky: Case for Democracy) goals to spread democracy but his methods have proven uneffective. And will get worse if they attack Iran. How do you think that will make Pakestan feel? Maybe they'll be next. Then they may as well go for Saudi then Egypt gets worried.

How about this. Sponsor moderate people in Egypt, in Iran, and look for the in Saudi Arabia and give them money to sponsor their political agendas. Hand out cash to Lebanese democrats, so they can rebuild their houses faster than the people who get cash from Hezbollah. Those are more cash effective solutions.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter wrote:
When was Iraq liberated? Take a survey of women's rights in Iraq. Take a look at the situation, there is no peace.


So you think the people of Iraq would want Saddam back???

They might say that because they hate the USA but they wouldn't. Things are better now.
Peter





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 29
Reputation: 13.4

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Peter wrote:
When was Iraq liberated? Take a survey of women's rights in Iraq. Take a look at the situation, there is no peace.


So you think the people of Iraq would want Saddam back???

They might say that because they hate the USA but they wouldn't. Things are better now.


Things are NOT better now. That's fact.
And asking if they want Saddam back is a little simplistic. It's more like ask them if they wish the war never started and they will say yes.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter wrote:
Craig wrote:
Peter wrote:
When was Iraq liberated? Take a survey of women's rights in Iraq. Take a look at the situation, there is no peace.


So you think the people of Iraq would want Saddam back???

They might say that because they hate the USA but they wouldn't. Things are better now.


Things are NOT better now. That's fact.
And asking if they want Saddam back is a little simplistic. It's more like ask them if they wish the war never started and they will say yes.


The Shia are the majority and they were oppressed under Saddam. The majority are glad Saddam is gone. Besides, the problems they face now are due largely to foreign terrorists. The Americans are spending hundreds of billions to HELP them. Place the blame in the correct location.

I mean, for most Germans, things were pretty decent under Hitler (not the jewish ones mind you). 20 million people died in the process of removing Hitler. Was that a mistake too?
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I mean, for most Germans, things were pretty decent under Hitler (not the jewish ones mind you). 20 million people died in the process of removing Hitler. Was that a mistake too?
No country went to war to defend Jews or other minorities, or to stop Hitler from being repressive or dictatorial. They went to war because Hitler invaded Poland (or because Germany actually declared war on them). The purpose was to stop a particular type of aggression, not for some liberal concept of freedom or anything like that.
Peter





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 29
Reputation: 13.4

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Quote:
I mean, for most Germans, things were pretty decent under Hitler (not the jewish ones mind you). 20 million people died in the process of removing Hitler. Was that a mistake too?
No country went to war to defend Jews or other minorities, or to stop Hitler from being repressive or dictatorial. They went to war because Hitler invaded Poland (or because Germany actually declared war on them). The purpose was to stop a particular type of aggression, not for some liberal concept of freedom or anything like that.


Well said.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, I took a lot longer AFK than I figured. Anyways, Peter, I think I'm generally in agreement with you regarding the need for more democratization in these countries - I would argue however, the Bushs' policies have been sucessful, given we now have two 'fledgling' democracies where before there were none. I'm not saying we should engage in further invasions - the western world's militaries probably need to double in size to support something like that.

Regarding this:

Quote:
When soldiers are allowed to act in such a way women are raped a lot. Canadian's do it, Americans do it, Israeli's do it, Iranian's do it, Iraqi's do it. You give people guns and authority they are going to rape.


That's blatantly untrue. Even assuming all of the allegation against US troops in Iraq are true, less that 1% of 1% of them have committed violent crimes against civilians. In a war zone, no less. You won't find numbers like that among the civilian population of any country on the planet.. In Western nations at least, there are no more peaceful, law-abiding, and disciplined people than their soliders.

It happens, and its sensationalized when it does, but it is VERY infrequent.


On the danger of beliefs, I'd consider Ahmedinajad's belief that Israel must be wiped off the map very dangerous.... I've no doubt that the Ayatollah shares similar beliefs, and I don't think the mullahs are any more thoughtful or less crazy than Ahmedinajad. As others have mentioned, even if they don't use it themselves, they could quite concievably pass one off to even more unstable, nonstate actors.

As for Iran being a fledgling democracy ... I think its missing some basic freedoms and voting options necessary for that designation. Plus, what little progress they've made in past decades has been undone during Amadinajad's rule. Hopefully things will change.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Should American troops turn to Iran in six months?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB