possible terrorist attack in London

[Harrison]

It's way too late for isolationism...

If we were to start that it would be worse than playing "world police" or whatever you hippies label it.

[Gidan]

We're not throwing money at terrorism.

So why is it that when in regard to terrorism its not thorwing money at it, but when its about starving people around the world or global warming, it is?

[Gidan]

It's way too late for isolationism...

If we were to start that it would be worse than playing "world police" or whatever you hippies label it.

Its never to late for isolationism, it just needs to be done over time and not all at once.

[Narrock]

How do you propose to stop starvation?

Napalm

[Themosticles]

We're not throwing money at terrorism.

So why is it that when in regard to terrorism its not thorwing money at it, but when its about starving people around the world or global warming, it is?

The difference is we're putting money into an idea, a plan, a strategy that we hope will help fix the problem. Will it work? We can only hope. Now, there have been multiple people in this thread alone that have asked you specifically for an idea to help solve the problem you're complaining about and all you've done for them is pretend that they didn't ask.

No one is saying that your concern isn't valid and no one is saying the problem doesn't need addressing. However, you are failing to lend any reasonable advice on your end, just criticism towards the ideas of others.

That's the difference.

[Tossica]

I guess that's what the fucking G8 was supposed to be all about, no?

[Themosticles]

Let's hope that's what they are discussing. Like I said in an earlier post, I believe the main focus of the talks will remain unchanged.

[Gidan]

I am not arguing that we should put money into terrorism, it is still aproblem that needs to be worked on. However the whole point of this thread started out with the focus of G8 probably going to be terrorism while other major issues were left out. These other issues are things that need to be dealt with.

I personally dont have a clue how to fix the problem, but major issues like that are rarely fixed by the ideas of a single person. I am not an expert on the social and political situations down there. However other people are in a far beter situation to discuss and find ways to help in that and other areas.

What I dont want to see hapen though, it these issues being ignored becasue we are so fixated on terrorism.

[Lyion]

[

Fine, but stupid behaviour risking millions of lives is arguably worse than compromise. North Korea has what, the 4th or 5th largest army in the world, sitting 20 miles from Seoul (well inside artillery range), and having nuclear weapons? What advantage does not negotiating have again? Hellfire, at least the North Koreans sure proved if you want the US to not invade you you really DO need nukes.
.

Again, if you had a whit of understanding about the region you'd understand North Korea is completely reliant on China for aid and survival, and China pulls the strings. Thus it behooves us to negotiate with North Korea, China, and its neighbors together because it puts us in a better position to accomplish things rather than solely dealing with North Korea and it's unstable dictator without the real power pulling the strings.

Almost all senior analysts agree that bilateral negoatiations with North Korea would be a huge, huge mistake.

[Harrison]

Giving your kid a candy bar for stomping his feet and throwing shit isn't effective...neither is it with NK.

I've already been over this in a thread LONG ago when we were talking about NK and their nuclear capabilities.

[Wrath Child]

An estimated 5.5 million people will die of starvation this year, many of them children.

Give them free birth control and abortion. Problem solved. People who can't afford to have children shouldn't have children. If they do, who are we to get in the way of Mother Nature and evolution?

[Phlegm]

Oh, so we should only send aid to...?

Countries that can offer reciprocity in some manner.

By your reasoning, we shouldnt send any aid to Africa to help them since we get nothing from them. While we should send help to the middle east because we get oil from there.

[Wrath Child]

Makes sense to me.

[Arlos]

Blah Blah Blah! Countries don't like the U.S. because of our beliefs, pure and simple. Because of our success. Because of our stigma of arrogance, that is usually misplaced. Because of capitolism. Because of Freedom of Religion.

Denmark supports capitalism. Last I checked they also have freedom of religion. When's the last time someone crashed a hijacked plane into major buildings in Denmark?

Face it, the US has a VERY long history of supporting some seriously repressive dictators, as long as they promised to oppose communists, or support corporate interests. Yes, I know, much of that was the 60s, 70s and 80s, but that doesn't matter, all of that is still fresh in the mind of some people, and show me where we have EVER apologized for it. The US has propped up dictators who oppressed and tortured their people, and were effectively as bad as Saddam. Hell, we supported Saddam as long as he was fighting a war against Iran, despite what we knew he was doing to his people in Iraq at the time. (you can find pictures of current senior administration officials shaking his hand like they were best buddies from back in the Reagan administration.)

Getting over our misplaced arrogance and admitting we were wrong in much of our actions (supporting the Shah, despite his secret police, murders, torturing of dissidents, etc. just to name one) would go a LONG way towards changing things. I am realistic enough to know that that will never happen, however. The other thing we need to look at is our complete blind support of Israel, which we do regardless of the illegality and extremism of some of their actions. Again, given the power of the JDL, among others, a resolution of condemnation of Israel when, say, missile strikes aimed at some Hamas target miss and take out innocent women and children will never happen, regardless of how appropriate such a resolution might be.

The United States cannot be isolationist, given our status and power, but neither does that power give us the right or license to be unilateral in imposing our will upon other nations, and flying in the face of international opinion. At least, not without incurring serious consequences down the line, not least of which is increased terrorism since we give proof to the terrorist propaganda by doing things like randomly arresting innocent people, the cold-blooded killing of a wounded man on film, etc.

As for solving starvation, no, I don't have any instant solutions. If there were easy and instant solutions, they would have been tried already. What can be done when certain areas of the country have been suffering a drought for years on end, meaning no crops or livestock can be raised? Actually being more environmentally conscious, cutting greenhouse emissions and suchlike would certainly help in the long run, but a) we're not even doing that, and b) that doesn't help in the short term.

-Arlos

[mofish]

The Shah is a good example. We strangled democracy in its cradle in Iran because the rightfully elected leader wanted to nationalize Iran's oil companies. We had him overthrown and propped up the Shah's brutal non-democratic government. So, you want to know why there was a revolution in Iran, and why it is so anti-US, look in the mirror.

For people in this country to keep saying that the reason we are targets is because they hate our way of life is naive. It directly has to do with the West's foreign policy in the region, the early colonization, repression, and puppet-mastering that has gone on there for a century now. And Israel.

[xaoshaen]

The Shah is a good example. We strangled democracy in its cradle in Iran because the rightfully elected leader wanted to nationalize Iran's oil companies. We had him overthrown and propped up the Shah's brutal non-democratic government. So, you want to know why there was a revolution in Iran, and why it is so anti-US, look in the mirror.

For people in this country to keep saying that the reason we are targets is because they hate our way of life is naive. It directly has to do with the West's foreign policy in the region, the early colonization, repression, and puppet-mastering that has gone on there for a century now. And Israel.

Thinking that the majority of the anti-American zealots have any grasp of actual American foreign policy is incredibly naive.

[Ganzo]

It's easy to fix terrorism problem: Move all non muslims to the moon, and kill all jews.

[xaoshaen]

Denmark supports capitalism. Last I checked they also have freedom of religion. When's the last time someone crashed a hijacked plane into major buildings in Denmark?

I'm sure you realize how foolish this statement is. I just wanted to draw some attention to it.

Face it, the US has a VERY long history of supporting some seriously repressive dictators, as long as they promised to oppose communists, or support corporate interests. Yes, I know, much of that was the 60s, 70s and 80s, but that doesn't matter, all of that is still fresh in the mind of some people, and show me where we have EVER apologized for it. The US has propped up dictators who oppressed and tortured their people, and were effectively as bad as Saddam.

Welcome to realpolitick. We don't have the luxury of dealing only with the good guys.

Check out the demographics on the individuals performing acts of terrorism against the U.S. sometime.

Hell, we supported Saddam as long as he was fighting a war against Iran, despite what we knew he was doing to his people in Iraq at the time. (you can find pictures of current senior administration officials shaking his hand like they were best buddies from back in the Reagan administration.)

Cause, you know, politicians shaking hands is somehow symbolic of something... anything.

The other thing we need to look at is our complete blind support of Israel, which we do regardless of the illegality and extremism of some of their actions. Again, given the power of the JDL, among others, a resolution of condemnation of Israel when, say, missile strikes aimed at some Hamas target miss and take out innocent women and children will never happen, regardless of how appropriate such a resolution might be.

Complete and blind support of Israel? I think you need to look over actual U.S./Israeli relations sometime. If we're considering condemning a nation for accidentally killing civilians, what should we do with groups that target civilians deliberately?

The United States cannot be isolationist, given our status and power, but neither does that power give us the right or license to be unilateral in imposing our will upon other nations, and flying in the face of international opinion.

Unless, of course, you happen to agree with the actual intervention, in which case it becomes completely acceptable for the U.S. to act unilaterally, regardless of international opinion. *cough*Darfur*cough*

[Lyion]

The Shah is a good example. We strangled democracy in its cradle in Iran because the rightfully elected leader wanted to nationalize Iran's oil companies. We had him overthrown and propped up the Shah's brutal non-democratic government. So, you want to know why there was a revolution in Iran, and why it is so anti-US, look in the mirror.
.

You realize we had nothing to do with the Shah coming to power, right, and that was the result of Russia and Britain deposing his father. Reza Pehlavi, and internal Iranian politics. If you are talking about our moves to save Iran from Russia, I'd say that was prudent.

Even prior to that, the USSR had annexed Tajikistan, which was part of Iran, and still to this day has a large Farsi speaking contingent. The reason the Shah took control was to try and prevent the USSR from completely taking over Iran, and thus a vast portion of the worlds oil. The strategy was wrong, but it worked at the time and prevented the USSR from indeed overrunning them.

The reason the Shah was condemned and outed was not due to Oil Nationalization, but his desire to westernize the country and give greater freedoms to its people. The mullahs and same people who are against women voting and believe solely in spreading Sharia Law are the ones who pushed him out.

In the 60s and 70s Iran had amazing economic growth, had some of the best minds in the world, and a high quality of living. They also had good relations with the West and were thriving in pretty much every way.

Post 79 and the Islamic Revolution, Iran lost its intellectual gains, was plunged into an extended war with Iraq, and its economy was crushed.

The Doctors, Engineers and other professionals who were content in Iran pre 1979 fled en masse.

Iran is not Anti US. Their government is, and the reason they are is it is all they have.
The Shah was no saint, for sure, but ask any Iranian who isn't aligned with the mullahs which regime they'd prefer to have in power, and to a person they'd say the Shah.

[Gidan]

The Shah is a good example. We strangled democracy in its cradle in Iran because the rightfully elected leader wanted to nationalize Iran's oil companies. We had him overthrown and propped up the Shah's brutal non-democratic government. So, you want to know why there was a revolution in Iran, and why it is so anti-US, look in the mirror.

For people in this country to keep saying that the reason we are targets is because they hate our way of life is naive. It directly has to do with the West's foreign policy in the region, the early colonization, repression, and puppet-mastering that has gone on there for a century now. And Israel.

Thinking that the majority of the anti-American zealots have any grasp of actual American foreign policy is incredibly naive.

Your completely right, they dont know our foreign policy, all they can base their ideas on is our actions.

[xaoshaen]

Your completely right, they dont know our foreign policy, all they can base their ideas on is our actions.

Your naivete is incredibly endearing. How do, say, citizens of North Korea learn about American actions?

[Eziekial]

Which, I am sure, they assume is the collective will of our entire nation since the concept of a government taking actions that go against a majority of it's citizens views is alien to them

[Gidan]

Your completely right, they dont know our foreign policy, all they can base their ideas on is our actions.

Your naivete is incredibly endearing. How do, say, citizens of North Korea learn about American actions?

I never said they always get the right message when they hear about our actions. They get whatever is presented to them. I am sure that countries that hate the US put as bad a message into it as possible. Keep in mind the same is done in this country. Not only about foreign movements but about domestic as well.

[xaoshaen]

I never said they always get the right message when they hear about our actions. They get whatever is presented to them. I am sure that countries that hate the US put as bad a message into it as possible. Keep in mind the same is done in this country. Not only about foreign movements but about domestic as well.

And yet, you still said:

Your completely right, they dont know our foreign policy, all they can base their ideas on is our actions

The media situation in the U.S. isn't even remotely comparable to that in North Korea, Iran, or Hussein's Iraq. In the U.S., there's just as often a negative slant on whichever administration is in office as there is a positive. We also have a significant number of alternative media outlets available. We've never had a Pravdaesque monopoly on news. The state-owned media in North Korea don't simply put an anti-US spin on news, they'll blatantly make up anti-US news. In the US, that's an event remarkable for its rarity, like the Bush AWOL story.

[Lyion]

I never said they always get the right message when they hear about our actions. They get whatever is presented to them. I am sure that countries that hate the US put as bad a message into it as possible. Keep in mind the same is done in this country. Not only about foreign movements but about domestic as well.

And yet, you still said:

Your completely right, they dont know our foreign policy, all they can base their ideas on is our actions

The state-owned media in North Korea don't simply put an anti-US spin on news, they'll blatantly make up anti-US news.

Amazingly, that sounds like The Guardian.