First of all, after we dropped the bombs on Japan, the war ended(with them, at least). We didn’t give a shit about winning ‘hearts and minds’. We helped them rebuild, and 50 years later relations have never been better with the Japanese. Maybe deep down they really hate us, but at least they are good at hiding it.

Secondly(and I got this from Wikipedia, so it may not be true. But what is the truth, really?), in the core Islamic belief system, they are specifically told that it is perfectly in accordance with Allah’s wishes to lie to the infidels. That you can tell a lie to someone as long as in your mind, you are telling God the truth. Play nice with the infidels when in a weakened position, but keep the hate buried deep so that you can turn on them when you have the means. I say ‘core’ belief because a few branches of the faith have specifically stated that they do not follow that. Of course, they could just be lying.

Lastly, we are all living in a historical time in history(what time isn’t?). Change of any type is difficult. The current difficulties are most likely as much to do with issues completely unrelated to current events as not. Whatever the outcome, humans will survive. We aren’t even remotely close to achieving the ultimate potential of the human race, but hardship and strife is absolutely necessary for the continued evolution of our species.

Yes, I am a bit of an Anarchist. But don’t forget that Family is proof of the concept, we just need to learn to extend it further than the people we live in the same home with.

http://splodetv.com/video/taliban-special-forces

I need th music on my ipod

Re: Terrorism
[quote]Jeffrey: “If you truly believe you are at war with “terror” you should at least respect your enemy. It’s quite obvious that most Americans don’t KNOW their enemy…at all, but you should at least respect them, even if you only respect them as a formidable opponent.”[/quote]
Respect? Formidable opponent? I’d assume you’re kidding, but you’ve repeated this stuff so many times, that you probably truly believe it.
What exactly makes someone who can cobble together some explosives and either pack them in a car or wear them as a belt formidable? Any teen can download instructions from the internet, and pushing the detonator doesn’t take much brains either. In the case of those detonating the belt version it rather indicates a lack thereof.
Why should I respect someone who has to affirm his political or religious beliefs by killing innocents. That is simply a testament to their inability to find a peaceable solution.
[quote]Jeffrey: “As well, you call somebody that hijacks a plane….then pilots it into a building killing himself (and many others) a coward?”[/quote]
Yes, I would and without hesitation.
There are those terrorists you mention, who throw away their own lives to become martyrs and kill as many infidels as they can in the process. Is that a brave thing to do?
Bravery is the willingness to act despite the fear, the risk or the perceived danger to oneself. So if you find a bomb and pick it up to carry it as far away form other people knowing full well that you will probably die in the process is brave. (Picking it up and carrying it even if there is noone around to protect would still be brave but also stupid.)
If you hold the firm belief that by killing yourself, you will gain access to a pleasurable afterlife, then there is no risk, no fear, no danger – so why should it be considered a brave act? In fact it could be considered an easy way out to secure said afterlife as opposed to living a life of piety.
Another kind of terrorists are those who recruit and send out the actual bombers. Are those brave? No, there is little risk to their safety as well, and many of them are intelligent enough not to believe the sermons they preach themselves. I guess quite a few of them are in it not for religious reasons at all, but for the power it gives them over their followers.
There is a third group who actually take up weapons and go up against superior forces. They may not fight fair in an open field battle, but to this group I’d be willing to concede a certain amount of bravery.
And then there are the remaining 99,9% of the world’s muslims who abhor terrorism as much as any US citizen does – maybe even more, because more of them have experienced it first hand – and who would be astounded that anyone would respect terrorists.
[quote]Reaper: “I think your whole mindset is based on the untruth that Islamic countries just want to peacefully coexist with America and the rest of the world, and that it is US who keep dragging them into conflict. I can’t stress strongly enough that this is false to the core; they want the free world GONE.”[/quote]
Wrong! Most Islamic countries DO want to coexist peacefully with the US and the rest of the world. Many of them have very good relations with western countries and their relations with the US are currently getting better by the month.

Re: WWII
[quote]Jeffrey: “Ahhh there it is. The ol’ “we saved your ass in WWII” comment. If it wasn’t for Japan’s attack you’d still be hearing about the eventual Allied victory and how America sat on their hands the entire time. You didn’t ‘save’ anyone. You showed up incredibly late and helped speed up the victory.”[/quote]
I’d like to take exception to the notion that America “didn’t save anyone.” It is true that the allies would probably have won in Europe eventually even without the intervention of the US. No one can say for certain, because it didn’t happen, but a few plausible scenarios would be that either the war could have gone on long enough for Hitler (or more level-headed advisors) to negotiate a cease-fire or the war could have ended by Stalin reaching the river Rhine, maybe taking a bit of France for good measure.
In the pacific there was no power to halt the advance of Japan except for the US. Australia had no military to speak of, the British simply hadn’t enough troops to send to their colonies in India, Russia had no way of bringing enough troops and materiel across Siberia and most other nations were already beaten by the time the US entered the war.
Oh, and I’m not simply some patriotic American, who holds up the flag, but someone who would probably have grown up under a swastika or on the other side of the iron curtain had it not been for the intervention of the US.

Re: US as World Police
[quote]Jeffrey: “Why do you think that it is the duty of the US to police the world? Nobody asked you to do this and frankly, nobody really likes the piss poor job you’re doing at it. So just kick back, put your feet up…and let some other nations give it a go. The world doesn’t depend on the US to keep everyone in line.”[/quote]
Oh but it does. When was the last time any other nation acted without the US taking the initiative? Thinking back it was probably back in 1939 when Britain and France decided that Hitler invading Poland was finally the last straw. By then he had annexed Austria invaded Czechoslovakia and installed a fascist regime in Spain.
Some people complain that the US only intervenes when its interests are somehow affected… Well yes, but then [I]it is not the duty[/I] of the US to police the world. I am glad that America sometimes takes the responsibility upon itself though, for apparently humanity as a whole is not yet fit to exist without a police force, and the UN does not seem to be capable of carrying out the duty that should be theirs.

Re: Nuclear Proliferation
[quote]Jeffrey: “The only reason the US is all miffed at other countries getting “the bomb” is because you’re on everyone’s short list. If you were a well liked nation you wouldn’t be bothered so much by it. I don’t think North Korea will lob any nukes at my country… so I don’t really care if they have them.”[/quote]
What kind of attitude is that? I don’t care if they nuke you, just as long as they don’t nuke me? The country I live in is about the last western country any nation state would shoot nukes at. It doesn’t matter, because people are going to die no matter where the nuke is dropped. Besides terrorists don’t care about diplomatic relations. They’ll gladly nuke your country too given the oportunity.

Re: Miscellaneous
[quote]Reaper: “We’ve seen what happens when militarily aggressive dictatorships are left to their own devices. Otto Von Bismark and Hitler and, what the heck, Hirohito are prime examples of this.”[/quote]
Whoa… naming Bismarck, Hitler and Hirohito in one breath is quite audacious. I suggest you brush up your reading on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck before doing so again.
Bismarck was one of the greatest statesmen of the 19th century. He was a stabilizing factor on European politics for over 30 years, managing to maintain peaceful relations with all European nations (except for France). Without his travails WWI might have started a few decades early.
He also implemented some of the first social security legislations worldwide, including Health, Insurance, Accident Insurance as well as Old Age and Disability Insurance.

[quote]Reaper: “America is the freest country in the world; that is the only indisputable fact.”[/quote]
Be very careful when using superlatives.
America may be a free country, but in some respects it is way behind several European nations.

[quote]Two Cents: “It was good for us to develop, settle and own this land, we had the drive and power to do it, so we did, simple. Sorry about the Native Indians, but that is the way the ball bounces, Native Indians had tribes which swept thru to rule then ebb as well.”[/quote]
So Might makes Right? You were stronger, so it was OK for you to make war on them and take their land? You really think, granting lots of privileges to descendants many generations removed from those that were actually wronged will make a difference?
Of course nobody who is alive today is actually responsible for what happened, but in the same vein, nobody who is alive today has any right to claim to be personally affected by what happened 200 years ago. Many families have lost everything and regained much several times over in this time, so sitting around in a reservation moping is not the thing to do.

Shame how it was overlooked by so many others.

It will always be easier to be in ‘the system’ where your actions, decisions, desires and thoughts are made for you
After all one wouldn’t want to be denounced as a supporter of violence or terror now would they?

Wake up, wake up, WAKE UP!

Immediately talking of ‘war’ and the kicker was this…
“Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter.”

This is begining to sound like the typical American reaction, if you don’t agree with the group…you must be on the side of the enemy.
“You’re either with us, or you’re with them.” Sounds like even back then this idiotic logic was used.
——————————————————-
Jeffrey93 you draw upon the exact quote that stuck out to me in that whole story!
“Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter.”

Shame how it was overlooked by so many others.

It will always be easier to be in ‘the system’ where your actions, decisions, desires and thoughts are made for you
After all one wouldn’t want to be denounced as a supporter of violence or terror now would they?

Wake up, wake up, WAKE UP!

And they were not the only neutral country in Europe.

Still trying to recover from its Civil War, Spain sat out. So did Portugal, for similar reasons. Even though their island possessions in the Atlantic (the Canary Is., the Azores, Madiera) would have made for nice bases. Sweden stayed out as well; so did Turkey. Ireland was equally divided between hatred of Germany and hatred of England; so they stayed on the sidelines.

Of course, all neutrals titled one way or another as the fortunes of war shifted.

After the war, Ireland’s PM Eamon de Valera read a letter from a Capt. Henry Harrison in a parliamentary debate over Ireland’s not joining the moral crusade against Nazism. It summed up the attitude of the neutrals perfectly:

Other countries had remained neutral “when Denmark and Norway, Holland and Belgium, Yugoslavia and Greece were in turn ravaged and enslaved.” These countries – the United States and the Soviet Union – “fought because they had to, because they were attacked. Little Ireland was not attacked. That is the difference. That is the sole difference. For there is nothing more certain than that Ireland would have fought back if she had been attacked.”

(“The Neutrals” by Denis J. Fodor, Time-Life Books, 1982)