Frankenstang65
Founding Member
stock50LX said:
From my response: “A recent BBC poll in Iraq found”….No not FOX news, but it was a nice attempt at a cheap-shot at FOX that is far overused. Like you, I will assume, I get my information from a variety of sources. There were two ABC polls with similar data as well, but I neglected to include them on the basis of redundancy.
stock50LX said:
Clearly this is coming down to a matter of opinion, learned scholars of all stripes and specializations believe that this (US current policy) is the best way to deal with this situation. Granted, there are people like you that are of a different view, and can use what they know to make a case that we are making a mistake. I’ve read a great many scholarly articles from your side truly hoping to understand it. But unfortunately what I must say is that very few of them offer anything but a defeatist attitude, vague and nebulous arguments with little grounding to fact, often obvious partisanship, and never anything that even resembles a practical solution.
stock50LX said:
You are asking me to address a problem that I don’t think exists to any relevant degree, nor have I been able to find more than anecdotal evidence to support it. When you can prove it, and its implications, I’ll address it.
stock50LX said:
You say it is the wrong example of history, but I fail to see how. Then you bring in another way it was used to justify action – namely, to arrest the spread of communism. For one thing, just because it was used as a justification then, does not mean it is not equally applicable now. Secondly, if you are going to suggest that because we failed in VN (using the same justification for war), that we may also fail in the war on terror, then logically you have to assume that VN and the war on terror are similar in context. They are not similar enough for the conclusion to be valid in both cases.
The point is that Munich stands as an example of appeasement, and why it doesn’t always work. If you read the letters, speeches, and training books from these fundamentalist groups the picture becomes pretty clear that nothing short of the West removing all influence from the M.E. will do anything to make them happy. And even if we cater to every demand (which we can’t), how long do you think that would last? It is in this way that Munich serves as a valuable lesson.
stock50LX said:
Oh I think of them as people, just ones who have wholly bought into a belief system based on lies, and the twisting of the Islamic faith. Sure some feel desperate and hopeless, and have legitimate reasons to feel that way (some of the Palestinian bombers, for example…though their methods are still criminal). Others, who are poverty stricken, uneducated, and the like, fall into these extremist groups because they can provide them with a sense of identity, protection, and support. A great percentage of them have little personal grievances with the West that are really justifiable. Instead they are followers of a charismatic figure, with “god on his side”, and believe the lies that they have been taught since birth. People who study deviance are familiar with theories such as differential association, differential opportunity, and strain theory. I think they go along way in explaining what is going on when applied to terrorist groups.
stock50LX said:
Careful reading shows no contradiction. I challenged the implication that the US is not a good example to the world. You suggested that the idea we are a good example in the world is propaganda. I never said that I believe that we are a “city on the hill”. What I did do, is state that “pure propaganda by our government” has little to do with our being viewed as the greatest place on earth to live as evidenced by the 15 million people that moved here from overseas in the 24 years and our VERY generous record of charitable contributions to the poor of this world. You didn’t refute that.
I also never described the US as altruistic or anything like it. There is no contradiction in saying that, ultimately, it is the job of a sovereign state to act in its own interests while also pointing out good things about said state. A state that does not act in its interests ceases to be a viable state. Obviously, the US makes compromises with other nations and this limits the benefits we receive, but there is the benefit of peace and stability. Also, I was mostly referring to vital economic and security threats, and in that case – there is no messing around.
stock50LX said:
We are helping the Iraqi people to build the institutions of democracy now. Now that we are there, I believe it is imperative we do whatever is necessary for as long as necessary leave a place that is functioning. I see your point, and it is something that bothered me to some extent before going in; though I do not see balkanization as forgone conclusion. The cultural challenges are there, and it will take slow deliberate policy making and a genuine attempt in even-handedness to keep the ethnic and religious differences from presenting a larger problem. I am also aware of the history of the region, and I do believe it was a mistake to draw borders without regard to the concept of self-determination. I am optimistic when I see polls (not FOX..lol) showing great support for a democratic government, secular and religious leaders stepping up to bring groups together, and the very public denouncing of violence by the majority of Iraqis – Shiite, Sunni, or Christian.
stock50LX said:
I try to give weight to any argument I hear. It’s not really important who says it, but if what they say is full of fallacy, lacks depth, or is missing its factual foundation it doesn’t matter to me whether they have a GED or PhD. I try hard not to come across as being personal, anyone on here who knows me is aware that if I ask question or pose a challenge it is for the purpose of reaching understanding or clarification. It may seem strange to some, but I genuinely care about political issues and like to challenge and be challenged in-turn. It’s kind of a roundabout Socratic way of eventually reaching something closer to the truth.
With respect to you specifically, I assure you there were no insults taken. I appreciate your responses and point of view.
-Scott
Nice one!!
