|
|
| Author |
Message |
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
 Posted: 07/09/04 - 17:50 Post subject: Concerning War; a short correllation...
|
|
|
(Disclaimer: If your online alias is Confused, Wheresnws, or Phoenix, you may want to skip this, because your attention span will not allow you to read, or even comprehend the whole of it. Be warned.)
Between what's happening now, in the real world, and what happens in the book, "Stone of Tears," by Terry Goodkind.
There is a reference to prophecy and how a "pebble in the pond" can change events and influence the balance of life and death over time. The "pebble" most nearly means an event or person that influences things or people around them, eventually changing the course of events throughout all eternity, stemming from that one, single event.
The particular event in question, or that is referred to in the book by a great wizard prophet named Nathan, is where a leader (any leader) preaches peace, teaching that even self-defense is wrong unless in the most extreme circumstances. It seems to shun violence, which isn't a rueful action in itself, but when faced with the outcome of what may happen if an oncoming threat isn't matched on their own behalf, standing down and not defending yourself can be considered the greater sin. That type of behavior could result in a greater slaughter, which is what we are faced with today with terrorists and Iraq's old regime and it's followers. I have a mind to go the route of peace with these people, and thinking it's possible could be the greatest mistake of judgement I could ever make, or any leader could make for that matter. Or, there is a possibility it could be true. My hopes of it being true are not very high, and so I assume the position of viewing the entire situation objectively, so that I may finally better understand what needs to be done, and that what we are doing is right. Keeping an open mind is vital and important in a times such as these.
The problem most Americans face is that there is too much reason to question our leadership, too much drive to actually do so. Maybe it's something that stems from "Liberal Media" as confused professes, or maybe it's an instillation of ideologies throughout the course of generations that makes us feel that our government is doing the wrong thing, and leads us to believe what the media tells us, makes us feed into the negativity of what war derives. Maybe it's both, and therefore it has been resulting in a seperation of opinion between most Americans. It is what is driving this upcoming election for the most part.. On one hand you have people that believe the promise of peace is the best way to solve the situation, hopeing that in this endeavor the enemy will recognize our willingness to forego using military might to win over the threat, saving thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives. And on the other hand, you have people that believe using our power of force militarily is our only option, as peace has offered us no leverage in the situation.
They are clearly split into black and white, and there is hardly any room left in between. It is such a big deal to have all the information necessary to formulate a truthful and honest opinion about what to do given the current situation, and I just don't see that happening. Which leaves me to my point...
"The particular event in question, or that is referred to in the book by a great wizard named Nathan, is where a leader (any leader) preaches peace, teaching that even self-defense is wrong unless in the most extreme circumstances."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were the circumstances extreme enough to warrant our direct opposition and our forceful push of their regime out of Iraq militarily? Could there have been time to think up other solutions to the problem we have been faced with, since we've come to realize that Saddam and his regime were a threat to the US, to his own country, and to mankind? Is the media, and more to the point, is anyone correct in thinking that there was not enough solid and conclusive evidence of weapons programs in Iraq to warrant our invasion and so called liberation? Was it extreme enough to warrant the inadvertant killing of a number of innocent civilians, for the greater purpose of liberating their country? Could we have taken the time to consider other courses of action?
Or, is the government correct in asserting that our course of action, the course of action we have taken, was the only option available to bring about peace?
They leave us little room to agree with their methods, which is why so many people choose to disagree with the war. People like Confused and Kbarr ridicule people that disagree with war and our administration's decisions, at least on this board, based upon the fact that they (people that disagree with war) do not hold their government to the highest standard. Where we see fault in our government, they see a blatant show of unpatriotic nonsense.. Maybe part of the harsh attitude given to the situation from these people is the burden of holding the wrong opinion, the wrong idea...of just being wrong. Being wrong about deciding we have no other option than to bring war to Iraq and even to innocent people in Iraq, is not something to be taken lightly, and so when people discuss politics, especially now, it turns into a flame war of unholy proportions. Well, at least on this board...
Another way to look at it is why Paco, Confused, and Kbarr...and even that damn h**o Abi.. continually refer to liberals as p*****s. They see that holding the opinion of offering peace until all other options have been exhasperated, as a half-hearted attempt in the wrong direction. It's too easy for anyone to hold an opinion like that in times like this, because it's the "PC" thing to do, and that could be true for most people. But not all. What they fail to realize is that there is undeniable proof that our leadership leaves much to question, clouding our judgement as individuals concercing the war and terrorism, and our thoughts on how it should be handled. We question these decisions, because there is reason to do so, and holding an objective view, while maintaining peace until truly extreme circumstances come about is what a lot of people strive to accomplish. Of course most would consider that foolhardy, and extremely dangerous. And it may be..
So what do you guys think? I already know for the most part, your guys' opinions, but honestly, why have harsh attitudes against people that disagree with you simply because there is a lack of evidence to prove what we are doing is right? There isn't a total lack of evidence, but the evidence provided, moreso than I had ever imagined, has been inconclusive...and the fact that no other course of action was entertained does little help in swaying these objective minds...
In light of that fact, why do you hold such ill-will towards others, simply because they have a different opinion than you do? You all boast that you have more information proving your points, but in the end the core ideals prove to be the basis for your arguments, as none of the evidence supporting both sides can be completely acsertained as of yet.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 18:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 18:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | |
You're so unpredictabley funny! I love your sense of humor!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Owyyn
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2900
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 18:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | Confused wrote: | |
You're so unpredictabley funny! I love your sense of humor! |
Just like Will Ferrel.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
atarom
Dalai Lama of RealPoor
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 16398
Location: 375th st. Y
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 18:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
1234!@!@!!!#$@@ WHOAH!!!
CRAZY DUDEZ!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Domination
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
That was a very good write up Syke - even tho I think it really tells only one side of the story. It is the viewpoint and perspective of the majority of people who disagree with the war.
There is another side to the story tho, this is the side of the United States Government - the most powerful, vulnerable, and prosperous nation in the world. Do you think their side should be heard as well?
In the post, it is somewhat implied that the Bush Administration just up and went to war and this issue has only been going on for a few years. There has been countless attempts to work with the International community to do something about the threat of Iraq, lots of resolutions, lots of bold words that weren't backed up at all when it came to turn. Do you disagree with this? Do you not think that Bush realized that by not passing the buck and carrying out resolution 1441 alone if he had to would completely ruin his political career?
The United States Government acted completely responsible during the entire 11 years that they faced this issue. Three different administrations all handled this issue very well in my opinion.
The reasons we went to war are very blurred nowadays, I see everyone shouting about Weapons of Mass Destruction, brutal dictatorship... blah blah blah.
The reason the Bush administration went to war is simple;
We strongly suspected Saddam had ties to Al-qaeda, possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and would do all in his power to gain vengeance upon us for the first Gulf War. We approached the situation diplomatically at first, for years in the United Nations. Resolutions were passed, and action was promised by the International community if the resolutions were not complied with by the Iraqi Government. They never complied with the U.N. did they? Iraq had pretty much bought out France, Russia and Germany to block the U.N. from enforcing its promises, did they not? Do you disagree? Why else would France (Who sold Iraq 2 nuclear reactors in the past, who gets the majority of their oil from Saddam) block this? Why else would Russia (Who has sold Saddam the majority of its military hardware, and Saddam owed Russia 20 something billion) be against this? These countries both agreed with resolution 1441 no?
I truly believe after 9/11, our government will never wait around 30 years for someone to comply with the international community when it comes to our National Security. Its simply not worked in the past ( Clinton Admin trying to "diplomatically" force Pakistan to go against the Taliban/al-qaeda).
You must remember, if Saddam will pay the family of a Palestinian Suicide bomber 25,000, what do you think he'd pay if someone were to do the same thing in America, the country that showed how truly weak his regime was? 50,000? 200,000?
I don't think liberals are p*****s for being against the war, I think they have lost sight of all the years we did try to get Saddam to comply with the International communities demands. If he didn't have Weapons, why not comply? If it means your utter destruction, why not comply? All he had to do is let the inspectors go everywhere and prove the american pigs wrong and sanctions would have been lifted, he could have carried on doing the things he was doing. He chose self-destruction. He risked his own life and regime on the simple fact that France/Germany/Russia would be able to stop any invasion - He was wrong, No?
In your opinion how long should have we sat around wishing for peace? Another 15 years? 10 years? 5 years?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | Confused wrote: | |
You're so unpredictabley funny! I love your sense of humor! |
Haha, I actually thought that was one of his funnier posts.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | | Syke wrote: | | Confused wrote: | |
You're so unpredictabley funny! I love your sense of humor! |
Haha, I actually thought that was one of his funnier posts. |
Well, ya if you haven't seen the other 2 or 3 times he's used the same post, you would think it's pretty humorous.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | Krumble wrote: | | Syke wrote: | | Confused wrote: | |
You're so unpredictabley funny! I love your sense of humor! |
Haha, I actually thought that was one of his funnier posts. |
Well, ya if you haven't seen the other 2 or 3 times he's used the same post, you would think it's pretty humorous. |
I've used it once, thank you very much.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Abi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 1747
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
Dominion my thoughts and opinions echo yours to the letter. Thank you for posting it first I was not feeling up to writing all of that today!!! he he he ...
One thing.. WHY do I have to be "taht damn h**o abi" .. jeeze!!! do I call you "that damn hetero!"
Oh and btw syke ... SOT was written in 1995  have you read the Naked Empire .. it's a much better correlation of the war we are in now ...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Domination wrote: |
In your opinion how long should have we sat around wishing for peace? Another 15 years? 10 years? 5 years? |
Yes, I agree it was fairly one sided, but that was the side that I picked to represent, simply because there are a few here that admonish others for their opinions on this war and how it should be handled by our current administration. No one really addresses the fact that we all share the same purpose, we just have different thoughts on how it should be accomplished, which is the best way it should be accomplished. But without the proper knowledge, wisdom..any decision you make can end in catastrophe. The people hold the power to vote Bush out of office and in that way they hold the weight of responsibility in what to decide is right..
In my opinion, I don't think we had very much time to consider and execute other options. We weren't left with very much choice, I suppose, but the inconclusive evidence the administration used to help justify our stance in the situation made it so. Like Frax said, hindsight is 20/20, and so now we have to deal with the cards we have been dealt, as we have done so already.
I think there was enough time, to consider and execute other operations to help liberate Iraq and/or quell the threat that seems to be stemming from this problematic area of the world, but the purportedly "false" intel that we've used to help satisfy the basic fulfillments for cause for enforcing war on these people leave much to question about whether our leadership is doing the right thing. Without regard to our past relationship with Iraq, which didn't seem to be so surprisingly serious as it is today, as with the reports of WMD etc, I believe our current administration had options on how to go about avoiding war as a necessary means to quell the issue, with what little time we had.
I'm not 100% sure on if it was or is possible or not, because as I stated before, there is a cloud of disinformation all around that could prove either way to be the right way. The administration is having a real hard time of convincing a LOT of people that what have done is right, and it will inevitabley affect this upcoming election.
But, it is hardly "wishing" for peace to decide on a route other than war. War is a last ditch effort and I'm sure no one wishes it upon anyone else, besides the terrorists themselves.
I believe either way could have ended up in a similar result, the liberation of Iraq and the quelling of the threat of terrorist organizations, but which way is the wiser? Which one of us can really decide which way is right or wrong considering that cloud of disinformation hovering over our heads day in and day out? The only people that really have any sway in those matters are the people directly involved with the war on the leadership level, the people that handle the intel. The people directly involved with foreign relations...
We only get small bits here and there that we can pick apart to decide what to believe, and what not to believe...and instead of trying to share in the uncovering of the truth, most people argue about their ideals and carry harsh tones with each other based upon what they believe, even though in any other circumstance they may get along great.
I guess, in a way, arguments about it lead to the discovery of information, and only an open mind can progress and formulate a final, lasting opinion. But I don't think with a situation as grave as war that people should be arguing frivilously on a message board with each other, throwing manners and reason out the window simply to win an argument. I think a more cooperative approach would be more becoming...but that's just me.
I guess I can give that mode of operation a little credit in one way....this IS realpoor, after all... /shrug
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Abi wrote: |
One thing.. WHY do I have to be "taht damn h**o abi" .. jeeze!!! do I call you "that damn hetero!"
Oh and btw syke ... SOT was written in 1995 have you read the Naked Empire .. it's a much better correlation of the war we are in now ... |
I was just playin abi :p It was in the spirit of RP!
Haven't read the Naked Empire yet, but I just bought it recently. I plan on getting to it very soon. I love that series, although sometimes it drags, it's pretty damn entertaining!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Abi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 1747
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
at the risk of hijaking the thread .. read em all .. they are great 
I think you'll find the Naked Truth interesting .. as with all of his books it can be a tad preachy, but well written and entertaining.
Faith of the Fallen is another of his books with an underlaying political message. That of Socialism doesn't work.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 19:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Abi wrote: | at the risk of hijaking the thread .. read em all .. they are great
I think you'll find the Naked Truth interesting .. as with all of his books it can be a tad preachy, but well written and entertaining.
Faith of the Fallen is another of his books with an underlaying political message. That of Socialism doesn't work. |
*last car on the hijack trian, I promise*
Ya, I can't wait to read the rest. He always does have some great underlying messages using events and characters in his books. The way he integrates a parellel connection with the world in the book, with our world makes it a great read. He does it surprisingly well, while keeping the entertainment value on par with that of Lord of the Rings and other fantasy stuff..
I also liek teh **** scenez :X
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nictathan
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 5531
Location: here... where I am... not with you
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 20:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | Abi wrote: |
One thing.. WHY do I have to be "taht damn h**o abi" .. jeeze!!! do I call you "that damn hetero!"
Oh and btw syke ... SOT was written in 1995 have you read the Naked Empire .. it's a much better correlation of the war we are in now ... |
I was just playin abi :p It was in the spirit of RP!
Haven't read the Naked Empire yet, but I just bought it recently. I plan on getting to it very soon. I love that series, although sometimes it drags, it's pretty damn entertaining! |
Abi, how do you see Naked Empire as a correlation of the war we're in? Just finished it this weekend and I'm really not seeing it, but maybe I'm just looking at it from the wrong angle.
Yes I know, I just helped derail the thread but can use it to put it back on track
Oh and as a side note his books are good, much better now than the early ones. Those I just saw as being an almost Robert Jordan copycat sort of thing. Farmboy with parents who aren't his parents gets a sword from someone of magic and goes on a quest to be a ruler. Hell even the Sisters Of Light and the Sisters of Dark are just women sorceresses from Jordan's book (Sorry their title slips my mind... been way too long since I've read any of those). Now though everything is so much better, can finish one of those monster books in a day and a half pretty easy because they are just so dammed engaging. Then at the end of the paperback version of Naked Truth they throw in the whole preview for the next book and leave you hanging worse than the end of the rest of the books.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 07/09/04 - 21:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
Syke, as usual, you're just ignoring the opposing viewpoint. The original post was good but your answer to Domination was not.
You continually insist that we were not given enough opportunities to resolve this through peaceful means. In effect, we did not do enough to avoid a war. As Domination pointed out, we had ample time. For 10 years we have tried to work this out and failed. In fact, we did worse than fail. Saddam bought the U.N. off, again as Domination pointed out. No matter how much you insist that we did not do enough, it does not change the history of the situation. We have been trying to deal with Saddam peacefully for quite some time and failing.
Before we veer off into a debate on the validity of the evidence in support of going to war, I'll refer you to Andur's post. The article he cited is quite clear about exonerating the administration of falsifying evidence. If there is fault, it lies solely with the intelligence agencies. The administration appears to have acted in good faith in accordance with the information that was provided to them. I know you didn't say anything about the administration yet in this post but it's been a continuing theme of your posts so I want to head that off before it starts.
It comes down to this. Looking back at the decision with new evidence is not a valid method of evaluation. Given the information available and the history of the situation, the decision was made to go to war. That was the right decision. If it turns out that it was based on false information, it was still the right decision because it was based on the best information we had available. Before you ask if we couldn't have waited longer, consider what would have happened if we had waited longer and our information was correct in the first place. Decision-makers don't have the luxury of hindsight to help them with their decisions.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 07/10/04 - 01:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | Syke, as usual, you're just ignoring the opposing viewpoint. The original post was good but your answer to Domination was not.
You continually insist that we were not given enough opportunities to resolve this through peaceful means. In effect, we did not do enough to avoid a war. As Domination pointed out, we had ample time. For 10 years we have tried to work this out and failed. In fact, we did worse than fail. Saddam bought the U.N. off, again as Domination pointed out. No matter how much you insist that we did not do enough, it does not change the history of the situation. We have been trying to deal with Saddam peacefully for quite some time and failing.
Before we veer off into a debate on the validity of the evidence in support of going to war, I'll refer you to Andur's post. The article he cited is quite clear about exonerating the administration of falsifying evidence. If there is fault, it lies solely with the intelligence agencies. The administration appears to have acted in good faith in accordance with the information that was provided to them. I know you didn't say anything about the administration yet in this post but it's been a continuing theme of your posts so I want to head that off before it starts.
It comes down to this. Looking back at the decision with new evidence is not a valid method of evaluation. Given the information available and the history of the situation, the decision was made to go to war. That was the right decision. If it turns out that it was based on false information, it was still the right decision because it was based on the best information we had available. Before you ask if we couldn't have waited longer, consider what would have happened if we had waited longer and our information was correct in the first place. Decision-makers don't have the luxury of hindsight to help them with their decisions. |
I'm w/ nuld on this one.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
