Originally Posted by Splitter (Post 177640)

Very well said, actually, but short sighted.

Why go to war? That's the question it seems. Let us take the current situation in the middle east as an example.

In no particular order;

Oil: The Green Peace brigade (environmentalists if you will) would love a world that needed no carbon based fuels. That is at least a couple decades away (more). Oil is the fuel of the world economy. The world's economy collapses without free flowing, cheap oil. While that would make many of the environmentalists happy (who cares about economic collapse when a tenth of a degree of temperature change is at stake?), the rest of us see the horror of such a collapse.

No entity can be allowed to threaten or control the world's oil supply. By doing so they would control the world economy.

Israel: No matter what one may think about Israel, they are the only ally to the West in the middle east. They are hated by virtually all of their neighbors. But, they will not be abandoned by the West, nor should they be. The West will not allow Israel to be threatened and conquered. For the record, neither will Israel.

Nuclear Proliferation: When countries that actively work to eliminate other countries gain nuclear capability, the risks go sky high. When a country that espouses the destruction of Israel (the West's ally), the US (the lone remaining super power for the time being) and any allies to those countries gets nuclear capability, you have to consider the real possibility that they will use that new found power to bring about the destruction they have wanted.

Radicalism: People LOVE to point to the Crusades as a low point in civilization. Granted. That was 500 and more years ago. Similar motivations are present today, just not in the Christian world.

Moral Relativism: That's their culture, whatever they do is their business. Really? Is that still true when all the other circumstances described above come into play? "But Christians did it, this is no different!". Wrong, this is 500 years later. The world (or much of it) has evolved.

So when to fight? Do we wait until the enemy is on our doorstep? Do we believe and hope that they will never decide to come to our doorstep? Do we let the world economy collapse by giving over control of the world's most needed energy resource?

Leaving the Arab world to their own devices is a recipe for economic disaster, the destruction of Israel, and a guaranty that the "war" will be fought much closer to home in the years to come. Delaying the inevitable makes no sense when the other side can only get stronger and your side can only get weaker.

Is it the entire "people" of the middle east our enemy? Of course not, it is the radicals in charge of nations or in charge of militant organizations. Their numbers are not great but their power is. Do you think we can talk to them and come to an agreement? That is not possible because you (we) do not qualify as friends or even acceptable neighbors to the radicals. And some countries are controlled by radicals.

Ask yourself this: why would Iran want nuclear power (fuel recently supplied by Russia, BTW) when they are sitting on the world's second largest energy supply? It would have made much more economic sense to build refineries instead of reactors.

Answer: To be able to threaten their neighbors AND the larger powers in the world. It really is that simple. The leadership is radical.

Why should we keep nations out of the nuclear family? Is that fair? Why, yes when the new member of the nuclear family will seek to sell radioactive fuel, or nuclear devices, to organizations whose sole purpose for existence is the destruction of infidels. The new member of the nuclear family has continually expressed the desire to destroy other nations through violence.

One atom bomb is enough to ruin your whole day :). Fight them there, or fight them when they attack your allies, or fight them when they are attacking "here". It really is the only choice unless the other side backs down. True? Do you expect the other side to back down? Do you expect them to accept "us" as world neighbors? Or will they do exactly what they have said their objective is?

Fighting for one's home or in a time of famine is about survival. Choosing to fight that battle at an earlier time to avoid those circumstances is intestinal fortitude. That is where we in the West are lacking right now. We would rather trade a few more years of relative peace and comfort for having to fight now. We are putting off the hard choices until tomorrow.

This is exactly where the Untied States was prior to WWII. How the Brits ever forgave us for abandoning them for so long is beyond me. But we were recovering from a depression (familiar?) and pretty comfy here with two huge oceans between us and invasion. The US did not want to go to war in Europe or the Pacific, we wanted to put that off and hope (HAH! Never works) that the situation would work itself out. It wasn't our war until Pearl.

Since then, we learned that the situation does not usually work itself out. Morally and strategically we have been right....tactically, because we do not want to fight dirty and costly wars, our execution has often been abysmal.

That's about the US....where is the rest of the world? WTF are the other countries doing as the sky is falling? Talking? Negotiating? Coming up with sanctions? Really, look at history...how often do those tactics really work?

Fight them on their terms, that's survival. Fight them on your own terms, that's a willingness to sacrifice today to avoid fighting for survival tomorrow.

Splitter

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 177646)

Well, you've shown us where you stand. With the aggressors. With the warmongers. With the people who use imaginary 'weapons of mass destruction' to justify invasions. Above all, with hypocrisy.

Israel, along those who assisted it (principally the US, but also other western countries), is largely responsible for the nuclear arms race in the middle east. Israel has systematically acquired territory from it's neighbours through conquest, and has carried out numerous acts that were they perpetrated by an 'arab' country (not that the Iranians are Arabs) would be classified by many as terrorism. Indeed, if you look beneath the surface propaganda of middle eastern politics, it isn't that unusual to find Israeli involvement in the murkiest places - there is some evidence that they provided Hamas with funds in it's early years, and they were certainly involved with supplying arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. The Israelis certainly worked tirelessly in Lebanon for years stirring up inter-communal conflict. This sort of hogwash might work in US politics, but in much of the rest of the world, it is seen for what it is - a self-serving 'justification' for US aggression in the middle east, based on little more than crude stereotypes, and the profit to be derived from crude oil. The United States (or any outside power) has no more right to 'intervene' in the middle east than Venezuela has to 'intervene' in the US, or Iceland has to invade Sri Lanka. Inventing bogus 'threats' is an old tactic used to justify aggression. If there is a major war in the near future, US foreign policy is more likely than not to be at the root of it - as indeed it was in the case of Iran, where the US-backed Shah's oppressive measures opened the way for the current bunch of loons to seize power.

In any case, If one is going to make bogus comparisons with the 1930s, I'd be careful that others don't decide to do the same, but placing the jackboot under the banner of the Stars and Stripes. I think such comparisons are wrong, not least because the US population isn't as gullible as such comparisons suggest, and shows strong evidence for rejection of such simplistic 'us vs them' propaganda - they are becoming increasingly sceptical about involvement in foreign wars that seem to achieve little except lining the pockets of the arms industry and their associates.

Originally Posted by Splitter (Post 177653)

So can I summarize by saying:

US = evil
Israel = evil.
Middle Eastern Radicals = no real threat (bogus I think you said).
Jackboots = Nazis

Thank you for being honest about your dislike for the USA. I mean that. It is tiresome when people hide behind vague references. I applaud you for being up front about it (though the Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?).

I thank you also for proving my points about moral relativism and complacency. You do not see significant threats in that area of the world. Understood. You would rather we (the present day "allies") not be involved there and let them sort things out. I'm guessing you do think we should talk with them, understand them better, and maybe negotiate solutions to whatever problems may exist.

There is a very good chance your vision will be what happens unless someone (Israel) decides that Iran is too dangerous to have nukes. The US certainly isn't going to do anything about it any time soon. Neither will the UN. Russia will play neutral or back Iran. China will back Iran for now. So chances are, nothing militarily will be done.

When the mushroom cloud from a bomb supplied by Iran, N. Korea, or China is rising over some city in the world, I will be here with the ghost of Neville Chamberlain (I am sure he has figured it out by now) to say "told ya so" lol.

Wait...if it's DC the fallout will probably get me in which case look me up when you get to the other side and we'll have a pint :).

Splitter

Originally Posted by drewpee (Post 177656)

It would be nice to see religion and politics kept out of a forum thats dedicated to an online gaming community that promotes mutual respect, fun and fair play. :(

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 177654)

"The Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?" No. I thought it was irrelevant to an analysis of the current world political situation, which is why I suggested that you should think more before using it, with your 'appeasement' analogies. I haven't called anyone 'evil' either. And where exactly have I come out with 'moral relativism'? Do you actually know what the term means? I have no 'dislike for the USA' - what I dislike is people who take it upon themselves to tell the outside world what the US thinks, while at the same time telling the US population what it ought to think, and then claim to be defending 'freedom' or 'democracy'?

Are 'middle eastern radicals' a threat to world peace? Yes, quite possibly, but so are supporters of US quasi-imperialist tactics, and uncritical supporters of the State of Israel. And the latter have more weapons.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 177664)

I see little point in discussing your last post, Splitter. It makes little sense alongside your previous ones. I'll just leave you with this to think about:

Do you actually think the middle east holds an infinite supply of oil? If not, what are you proposing we do when it runs out? And if we can do whatever is required when it runs out, wouldn't it be better to do it sooner, and thus avoid all the problems of relying on energy sources in politically unstable regions?

(P.S. Drewpee, history never repeats exactly, contrary to what Splitter suggests. Indeed, Marx suggested that history occurs first as tragedy and then as farce. For the sake of humanity, I hope he's right.)