Well look what happened after 9/11..... america went anti arab and gave the green light to the war in iraq..... Al queda did that because of amercia's support of Israel ..... how would you tackle that at source?
Sponsored Links
D
DiscoDancer
You must be young or naive to think it all began with 9/11.
"At the time, President George W Bush gave
an immediate, simple explanation of why the
attacks had been made:
“America was targeted for attack because
we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and
opportunity in the world. And no one will keep
that light from shining.”
(Even) President Bush decided that this was not the time
for complicated details and lengthy explanations.
But he knew that the causes of the attacks were
much more complicated than that."
http://www.911educationprogramme.co...quiry-2/History2_What_caused_911_VersionA.pdf
D
DiscoDancer
Ahh, the question.
Well to quote an old saying:
"If I wanted to get to there, I wouldn't start from here"
Seriously, I hope that I wouldn't have created the situation in the first place. But now we are where we are, I disagree with the attempts to "get us back on the right road". I see us straying even further out of our way.
As I said, enough for now, some reading to do.
Sponsored Links
I will look forward to your political philosophy on the west so we can try and understand if we would be better or worse off in the present, bearing in mind we cannot control our enemies actions. Who's to say that if we had not tried to secure oil supplies and had the power to do so, that we wouldn't be the third world country, ducking for cover from drone strikes from the middle east.
D
Deleted member 63160
And that is what it boils down to. I for one am glad we are not a third world country, yet, and accept that nasty things happen to keep us safe(r).
I don't quite understand what you mean by fighting amongst ourselves, even with the upstart Alex Salmond trying to cause problems north of the border we have not sent an army to quell the situation, we had our civil war and have moved on, the last time I looked we were not fighting in-house.
I personally have never gone out looking for trouble, apart from mod bashing in the 60s, but if someone starts something with me I usually finish it, is that wrong? Or should I just lay down and let them kick the sh it out of me?
I personally have never gone out looking for trouble, apart from mod bashing in the 60s, but if someone starts something with me I usually finish it, is that wrong? Or should I just lay down and let them kick the sh it out of me?
D
DiscoDancer
I'm afraid life is too short and too long for anyone's political philosophy to become defined. I, at least, continually reconsider and refine my views on international events. I try not to allow my cognitive biases to reinforce my views. I try to maintain an open-minded attitude towards the developing situations. I find that discussion assists me in focusing on issues.
This thread was simply about one single aspect, that of "killing off-duty military personnel". I accept that it has evolved into some relative issues. But I do not wish to be drawn into long-winded discussions about international history, in general.
Suffice to say, that historians, in general, realise that Japan entering into the Second World War was an avoidable event. It didn't happen "out-of-the-blue" as our propogandists would have us believe. There was considerable negotiating by the "west" with Japan for Japan to be allowed similar expansionists policies as the "west". Western nations refused to accede to Japan's requests, hence the entry of Japan into the war. They felt that they were left with little option. (The "west" did initially accede to Germany's expansionists policies. Perhaps they chose the wrong 'expansionists policies' to accept and those to deny?)
The reason for the above recollection is to illustrate that when nations, people or communities have to resort to violence, you can bet your bottom dollar that they believe that they have a genuine grievance. To ignore that grievance and react with violent conflict is to entrench and increase those grievances.
It's like trying to defeat a muli-headed, self-replicating monster that feeds on violence, by trying to chop off its head. All you are doing is feeding the monster and nourishing its self-replicating behaviour.
What is really needed is looking for the source of the grievance and dealing with that.
Ahh, the strawman argument. Either we oppress them or allow them to oppress us.
Those are not the only scenarios. I suggest that you reconsider your options.
D
DiscoDancer
So indulge me, Mitch.
Where do you feel more secure, in a land where you don't see a policeman or a soldier from one month to the next, or in a land surrounded by policemen and soldiers? (oops I'd better change that to a "police officer" before some wit suggests that I wouldn't see any policemen in Amazonia, or some critic points out my cognitive biases)
I, for one, feel far safer in a land devoid of soldiers and police officers. It's an indication that they are not required.
Don't forget, it's our glorious leaders, those who perpetuate the conflict, those who react instinctively to violence with violence, who have the round-the-clock security and protection, leaving us, civilians, and placing our military personnel, in the front line.
Pray tell, where is this mythical country with no police and soldiers then? I assume there's no violence, murders, burglaries, crime etc whatsoever there (hence no need for the police etc) There's absolutely no risk of invasion (hence no need for armed forces) I reckon such a place can only exist inside your mind DD
D
DiscoDancer
It was a little tongue-in-cheek. I admit it was taking the extremes. But there are certainly places where you can go for months without seeing a police officer and almost never see a soldier. Yes, the simple reason behind the absence of police is the low crime rate. Perhaps you should get out more.
When did you feel more secure in London, when bobbies had notebooks, truncheons and whistles, or since there are armed police lurking on many street corners?
Or even when the military were turned out at transport links?
The incidences of armed police lurking is not now limited to London. A lot of major cities now have them. Are we any safer? I think not, but that is the perception, caused by the appearance of such surveillance. It may not be the reality.
D
DiscoDancer
Edited: Double post
D
Deleted member 63160
In a land like ours.
D
DiscoDancer
Sorry ajs, I didn't want to respond on Dex's thread 'cos it would be off-topic, but I'll willingly respond here.
You said;
Except I'd already qualified my statement with:
What is it about some posters, they only see what they want to see?
Or do they intentionally try to twist others' comments?
The bits about "perception" and "not reality" should have been sufficient clues.
You said;
I read somewhere on here that that means we are safer
Except I'd already qualified my statement with:
What is it about some posters, they only see what they want to see?
Or do they intentionally try to twist others' comments?
The bits about "perception" and "not reality" should have been sufficient clues.
Sponsored Links