Footwedge wrote:
Never said that we didn't. I have simply explained to you the reasons why bin Ladin attacks the West. You act as if I'm sympathizing with him. I find that highly offensive.
I did not say you were sympathizing with bin ladin. If I thought you were I would have said so. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are being a realist as to the actions of the players in the world. Whether you agree or disagree with their actions. I do understand your point in regards to bin ladin. I as you are trying to be a realist when it comes to how the world is run. On some points you and I disagree.
I still do not give two shits what him or his ilk thinks. I don't believe our foreign policy should be affected by what nutbags like him believe.
Footwedge wrote:
What is annoying......thje pro war party members that will never acknowledge any motive at all for these extremists. Well they have motives. And the motives are erroneously castigated by neocons that they hate us for our wealth or our way of life. This thinking is absolute bullshit.
I don't disagree with you 100%. I think the main issue is our support for Israel. If we stood against Israel they would look past any of our perceived shortcomings in their eyes.
As for the issue of wealth there is a natural human flaw to covet the wealth of others and their way of life. This flaw and the jealousy of others course in life is universal. It has been the cause of many wars throughout history. It is used to mold political power in our country. It is also used to mold power in other nations as well. The human flaws of jealousy and covetousness can be quite powerful tools.
Footwedge wrote:
Do we tell Britain, Germany, Japanese or South Koreans how to run their daily operations? Have we ever propped up puppets to siphon oil profits away from their poverty stricken people? Your analogy is flawed.
In the case of Japan and Germany yes we did at on point. That faded away over the years and power was returned to them. One could say that the initial rulers of Germany and Japan were puppets of the US government. In fact I remember during the Iraq war people calling Tony Blair a US puppet. The analogy stands and is not flawed.
On a side note do you not think that our subsidizing of a foreign governments defense provides us a little say in their affairs? Also after 65yrs I think it may be high time we stop the practice of defense subsidies in these nations.
Footwedge wrote:
Yeah...they will shove Isreal into the Red Sea and push their 200 nukes into the water right with them. And I suppose Isreal, who has more UN violations than any other country on the planet is blameless too.
Please the UN is a joke and has little credibility. Israel is not blameless as is no nation on this earth. Including our own. We would make Israel look like a kindergarten playground.
When our out of control spending forces us to abandon our influence around the world, including Israel, you will see those nations that our power held back move on them with aggressive force regardless of how many perceived nukes they posses.
Footwedge wrote:
The topic of Turkey deserves it's own thread. Google Sibel Edmonds and you will find that the alliance with Turkey is fraught with clandestine drug operations between the poppy runners in Afghanistan, the middlemen druggies in Turkey, and our own CIiA. Nothing but more intervention to garnish lucrative contraband money.
Start a thread and prove it. Until then my point stands, an attack on Turkey(a muslim country) by a foreign power is an attack on the US (article 5).
Footwedge wrote:
And one day, these tangling alliances could very well lead to the lightning rod for WW III. Why is it that Japan, Germany, France and Italy remained deathly passive in the war business since the mid late 50's?
Could be. Like I said entangling foreign alliances are a two edged sword. I agree 100% as to the passive motives of Japan, Germany, France, and Italy. The US has yet to feel their pain. Remember though in the case of Japan, Germany, and Italy their pain was brought about by their nations aggressive acts
Footwedge wrote:
No sovereign nation will admit any responsibilty for harming Americans because we have 1500 active nuclear weapons....and...we are the only counbtry on earth that has used them...and used them on civilian populations without a shred of remorse.
I would not say we have not a shred of remorse for our use of nuclear weapons. That is incorrect. I think it is disingenuous to say our leaders were somehow blood thirsty warmongers lusting to unleash nuclear hell.
That decision weighed heavily on the hearts of our leaders of the time. Perhaps you would have been one to opt for the institution of operation downfall. Which would have resulted in 100's of thousands of US casualties with dead over 100 thousand. Add to that millions of Japanese civilian and military casualties with dead in the hundreds of thousands. Let me put it this way I would hate to have lived in Harry Truman's shoes.
I'll source wikipdia but there are far more grim casualties of operation downfall out there. I find the numbers I cited within reason leaning on the conservative side considering the casualty rates of the pacific campaign and the mindset of the Japanese people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
I may not be posting here today as my grandfather fought in the pacific islands and would have had to fight his way through mainland Japan. Hundreds of thousand of Japanese people were spared by the quick and abrupt end by our use of nuclear power.
That being said I despise nuclear weapons. They are a fearsome and horrible power. I wish they did not exist. But unfortunately they exist and the world is a violent place. Even if they did not exist nations would still devise, and continue to do so, efficient ways of killing their fellow man.
