Calbeck

bobhhh

Calbeck
You want to make the accusation, you get to back it up.

I won't do this dance again

If you won't back up your allegations, there's no reason anyone should support your position, let alone me. It becomes a matter of faith, like telling someone you believe in God. That's nice, but I should agree with you for what reasons?

If peace is your real goal, then the only way to foster and negotiate peace is to place yourself in the shoes of your enemy and try to imagine why they might have a logical and defensible reason for their actions

We have, and they don't. I find that most people who make the arguments you are have not actually listened to these people in the first place.

And no, before you say it, I don't get my news from Fox. I prefer source material, not pre-gurgitated network pablum.

That we don't agree is fine by me.

But don't kid yourself, just because I don't feel like repeating myself ad nauseum, doesn't mean I don't have a defensible opinion. You managed to side step some of my points in this thread just like you did in another. I am tired of you restating my opinion in an attempt to distort and thereby nullify it.

I direct anyone who cares to my earlier post.

CharleyHorse
It's something the wife and I debate sometimes, this issue of why the 1960s was the era of the activist generation among U.S. youths and yet today's youths can't even be bothered on the whole to keep abreast of important issues of the day much less get angry about things like an unnecessary war, the wrecking of the U.S. economy or the torture of prisoners of war by the U.S. government.

I grok with your point here about the Draft, but as far as all this imperialism, the problem isn't the youth of today. It's the Baby Boomer generation that grew up and became materialistic--and the older generation that preceded the Boomers.

I think if anyone polled today's youth, specifically, they'd find more dissatisfaction with the system and alarm at the country "moving in the wrong direction" than in any other demographic group.

Boomers are a plague.

bobhhh
Sorry about that, was not my intention to chase you off.

You haven't chased me off, just trying to use wisdom in the most effective use of my time.

Believe me TitanOne, we also discuss the selling out of our nation by the G.W. Bush style Boomers, and by the putatively radical faction of the 1960s activist generation that later became the yuppies of the 1980s . . . and then we take turns puking.

As for today's generation, perhaps they do care, perhaps not. It's hard to tell. But it's fairly easy to notice that they don't actually DO anything to signify their care and outrage. But then again, that MIGHT take away time from their structured activities and or play time and social interactions. Perhaps. Again, it's hard to know for sure with today's youths.

I think that youth care - but they do not feel empowered.

The problem in the US is not that people vote for bad things - it's that most people don't vote.

You can say that people are silly for feeling helpless and for not voting and so on... but it doesnt address the problem, not really.

The truth is, most people in this country feel like the power has all moved into a sort of moneyed, ruling class, and there's not a lot the rest of us can do about, well, anything.

These perceptions matter. And so we need to find ways to change them - and the truths that lie beneath.

StaceyMontgomery
I think that youth care - but they do not feel empowered.

The problem in the US is not that people vote for bad things - it's that most people don't vote.

You can say that people are silly for feeling helpless and for not voting and so on... but it doesnt address the problem, not really.

The truth is, most people in this country feel like the power has all moved into a sort of moneyed, ruling class, and there's not a lot the rest of us can do about, well, anything.

These perceptions matter. And so we need to find ways to change them - and the truths that lie beneath.

I agree with you Stacey. Folks feel like they won't make a difference and so they don't even try. They don't get invigorated by politics and change anymore. Take a look at this picture:



That was Romania is 1989 when the youth of the nation overthrew the oppressive government. They bonded together in groundswell movement and it worked. WE don't even need that much. We just need to remind everybody that we have a permanent hold on the politician's short hairs. If America in general would stand and take what belongs to it we wouldn't have BS shenanigans in government.

imshard
If America in general would stand and take what belongs to it we wouldn't have BS shenanigans in government.

Word.

StaceyMontgomery
I think that youth care - but they do not feel empowered.

The problem in the US is not that people vote for bad things - it's that most people don't vote.

You can say that people are silly for feeling helpless and for not voting and so on... but it doesnt address the problem, not really.

The truth is, most people in this country feel like the power has all moved into a sort of moneyed, ruling class, and there's not a lot the rest of us can do about, well, anything.

That's a realistic assessment of the actual situation.

There is a real world we can affect in cyberspace, on the Internet, but as the corporate world is concerned, as the news media is concerned, and especially as the electoral system is concerned, We the People have no control. The system is set up that way.

That isn't 'conspiracy theory' any more than medieval guilds were conspiracy theory. The first thing ambitious people with money will do is attempt to consolidate
their power by (a) attempting to monopolize it, and (b) attempting to curry favor with the government. This has been going on so long in America, as a natural development, that the system is inaccessible to people who aren't rich and powerful.

As for the political system, both prevailing parties are in control by the aforementioned rich and powerful, and we do not appear to have clean elections. I say "do not appear" because as a peon US citizen, I don't even know who counts the votes, let alone whether they are counted honestly, and with Diebold machines, I'd say the odds of them being counted honestly are extremely low. The machines are designed to be beyond oversight. It is laughable that citizens allow the outrage of untraceable computerized voting at the polling places.

But those who still believe in the system enough to vote do not fret over such things. Because they are hopelessly naive and trust their government.

The youth of America are more cynical than their parents, have less money than anyone else, and, I think, a great deal more realism about the situation.

TitanOne
That isn't 'conspiracy theory' any more than medieval guilds were conspiracy theory. The first thing ambitious people with money will do is attempt to consolidate
their power by (a) attempting to monopolize it, and (b) attempting to curry favor with the government. This has been going on so long in America, as a natural development, that the system is inaccessible to people who aren't rich and powerful.


The youth of America are more cynical than their parents, have less money than anyone else, and, I think, a great deal more realism about the situation.

I agree with you, mostly. I know who counts the votes. I make it my business to know exactly how the voting process functions right down to how they build the voting machines. In fact most voting machines are little different than the computer on your desk. Just sealed in a special box with a funny keyboard or a scanner are the only differences. The information, THE POWER, to control everything is right at your finger tips. Just reach out only a little and you can seize it. ITS NOT HARD! The cynical youth are blind if they believe they have no ability to change. Its not untraceable at all.

In this age you are ignorant only if you choose to be. Whether by choice or apathy. Cynical maybe but not realistic. The belief you can't make a difference, is the main weapon that keeps us in the status quo. The points you listed are only true when you sit back and let them Titan.

imshard
That was Romania is 1989 when the youth of the nation overthrew the oppressive government.

Barely controlled anarchy... They were lucky they still had a country after that. :P

Heh. Revolution isn't something you can EVER rely on. Mob rule is worse than oppressive governments. Romania got off lucky in their little uprising. VERY lucky indeed All due to very special and unique circumstances... The rule in such matters is the end is quite often worse than what they started with, and the actual birthing process is fatal to many.

You can count the calmer movements on your digits... They happen, but they're most notable for the fact they exist at all.

He! You DON'T hold politicians by the short hairs lol!
That's your neighbour's pubes in your hand and yours in his... Because that's who's stability and way of life is threatened by such upheaval. I've known a lot of people from Yugoslavia and they couldn't have cared less about Tito's stooges during the wars... We have more and more Refugees from the wars in Africa living around here now, wars that began as rebellions or failures in the "democratic" process (hur hur hur).

You better hope you watch your government well, keep the systems honest etc. but go through the correct channels always. -_-

Calbeck

bobhhh
I'm sure the terrorists want to enjoy their version of freedom.

Perhaps you might enlighten us by explaining what "version" of freedom the terrorists believe they are fighting for. As in, any particular freedom at all?

So I'm still unsure people, is this "they hate freedom" thing true or not? I think it's propaganda, but obviously not everyone agrees.

The answer all comes down to exactly which "they" you are talking about. Would you care to ask the question more specifically?

StaceyMontgomery
The answer all comes down to exactly which "they" you are talking about. Would you care to ask the question more specifically?

I am referring to President Bush's admonition that all our enemies, the Axis of terror if you will, hate our way of life, they hate freedom. And the converse is implied, that our allies are freedom loving people.

Yeah, it's just empty propaganda, nothing more.

Mostly "they" hate "your" freedom to be able to oppress "them", and "you" will hate "their" freedom to retaliate. lol!
I think that's how usually it works.

People have it backwards with terrorism... At least as it applies to groups and movements and not the stuff states like the UK, USA, Nazi Germany, Argentina, USSR, France, South Africa etc have practised.

Groups adopt terrorist tactics in response to oppression, when terrorism seems to be the only method they have to make a difference. ... asymmetric tactics I suppose: with less sources and man-power they can still have a massive impact by committing more daring and horrible acts which will cause a greater stir, cause fear and get more publicity.

It's not good... Terrorist tactics are HORRIBLE, but all groups that use them aren't... Really, the stories are far too complicated for simple slogans. :(

But if you like:
"The ends don't justify the means."
That applies equally to all sides.

I've given that notion some serious thought. People in the USA (for example) don't always get along. Hell, there's groups of people that out and out hate one another. But you don't see anti-abortion factions blowing themselves up inside a plan parenthood. I think the reason is that no matter what differences you have, you don't go to that extreme because either yourself or others won't allow you to. Basically, we have it too good to screw it up that bad.

In these other nations that deal with suicide bombers on a regular basis, these are people that feel that there is no other way and never had it good. Personally, I can't even fathom speaking to someone like that. How could you have a reasonable discussion with someone that thinks that blowing up people is the way to go?

bobhhh
But don't kid yourself, just because I don't feel like repeating myself ad nauseum, doesn't mean I don't have a defensible opinion.

Making allegations you can't or won't back up isn't defensible at all.

You managed to side step some of my points in this thread just like you did in another. I am tired of you restating my opinion in an attempt to distort and thereby nullify it.

Pot, kettle, black. You started off this thread making allegations and accusations, then when I challenged you to provide hard facts began backing into "grey arguments" where something NOT said became something that WAS said.

I didn't give credence to people who made claims of Clinton dealing dope out of the Mena Arkansas airport, because THEY did the same thing: based their claims on appearances, suggestions, and statements taken out of context, often deliberately.

Why should I accord you or anyone else more leeway?

bobhhh
So I'm still unsure people, is this "they hate freedom" thing true or not? I think it's propaganda, but obviously not everyone agrees.

It has nothing to do with "agreement". The simple facts on the ground are that the insurgents are not fighting for anything that could be potentially termed "freedom".

They have, instead, been primarily targeting civilians with murder squads from Day One...when they launched a mortar attack on the two biggest Shia mosques in Iraq during a high holy day. Even the Lancet claims insurgents have killed twice as many civilians as the Coalition has, and that's the low estimate.

The facts are that the insurgents are primarily Sunni and strongly pro-Hussein. They mainly come from families which held power and control under the Hussein regime. These held monopoly on the political, economic and military systems, monopolies they have now lost with the fall of Hussein. They are bitter, hateful, and dream of once again placing their boots on the necks of the Shia and Kurds.

No, the insurgents aren't fighting for freedom. They're fighting to try and remove freedoms from everyone else.

Calbeck
It has nothing to do with "agreement". The simple facts on the ground are that the insurgents are not fighting for anything that could be potentially termed "freedom".

Your mistake is grouping them all under one banner as "insurgents". That's fair enough for the point of view of an occupying power (any opposition to the occupying power and what its trying to do is "bad" ), but it makes no sense on the ground if you try and understand what those people are doing from their own points of view.

You could turn it around and look at the soldiers the same way. Many Iraqi people would see them, as a group, as simply being there to oppress them, perhaps having hate, contempt and ideology as their main motivating factor. :)

I'm NOT saying that's true, but it's a possible and valid perspective, and that's the trouble with looking at things like this from a "them or us" perspectives. The reality of the situation among your apparently homogeneous "insurgents" is that most violence is sectarian, as well as against elements of the occupation and occupation government.

It's not that they hate anybody's freedoms, rather it's enormously more complicated: You have tribal and religious tensions that run deep and have been exposed by the power vacuum resulting from Saddam's removal and exacerbated by the ineptitude of the occupation force's post war actions.

In the end you have many different acts of terrorism in a barely stable country, between many rival factions, exactly the same as you have in so very many African countries and places like Lebanon in the 80s.

Ha... Hate freedom? Jebus man. If it was that simple there wouldn't be a problem.

ozoneocean

Calbeck
It has nothing to do with "agreement". The simple facts on the ground are that the insurgents are not fighting for anything that could be potentially termed "freedom".

Your mistake is grouping them all under one banner as "insurgents". That's fair enough for the point of view of an occupying power (any opposition to the occupying power and what its trying to do is "bad" ), but it makes no sense on the ground if you try and understand what those people are doing from their own points of view.

You could turn it around and look at the soldiers the same way. Many Iraqi people would see them, as a group, as simply being there to oppress them, perhaps having hate, contempt and ideology as their main motivating factor. :)

I'm NOT saying that's true, but it's a possible and valid perspective, and that's the trouble with looking at things like this from a "them or us" perspectives. The reality of the situation among your apparently homogeneous "insurgents" is that most violence is sectarian, as well as against elements of the occupation and occupation government.

It's not that they hate anybody's freedoms, rather it's enormously more complicated: You have tribal and religious tensions that run deep and have been exposed by the power vacuum resulting from Saddam's removal and exacerbated by the ineptitude of the occupation force's post war actions.

In the end you have many different acts of terrorism in a barely stable country, between many rival factions, exactly the same as you have in so very many African countries and places like Lebanon in the 80s.

Ha... Hate freedom? Jebus man. If it was that simple there wouldn't be a problem.

Word.

ozoneocean
Your mistake is grouping them all under one banner as "insurgents". That's fair enough for the point of view of an occupying power (any opposition to the occupying power and what its trying to do is "bad" )

Your mistake is in presuming that the term "insurgent" is values-based, or that I intend it as such.

You could turn it around and look at the soldiers the same way.

Not from the viewpoint of intellectual integrity. Only if I were to substitute a prejudice in favor of objectivity could I possibly do so.

The reality of the situation among your apparently homogeneous "insurgents" is that most violence is sectarian, as well as against elements of the occupation and occupation government.

I was of this view from the beginning. We are not in disagreement here.

It's not that they hate anybody's freedoms

Actually, it's exactly that. Saying that their motives for opposing the freedom of others stems from long-standing tribal conflicts does not change their goals. Nor does it detract from my original point that Saddam's centralization of economic, political and military power in the Sunni minority is the underlying cause of the Sunni support for Saddam and their subsequent resistance to an Iraqi society which seeks equality between ethnicities.

In the end you have many different acts of terrorism in a barely stable country, between many rival factions, exactly the same as you have in so very many African countries and places like Lebanon in the 80s.

Not at all. For years after the invasion, the only group in Iraq with a majority negative view of the invasion and occupation were the Sunni (over 90%). This was drastically different from the Shia and Kurds, where approval figures were over 60% and 90%, respectively. Shia development of independent militias such as the Madhi Army was a direct reaction to being targeted by Sunni death squads, but even here these only came into being when the Coalition failed to provide the security to prevent Sunni attacks. The Kurds have succeeded in remaining mostly out of it.

This is not therefore a case of everyone already wanting to kill each other in a random and unconnected series of unfortunate incidents, as you seem to be suggesting. This is one ethnicity trying to re-establish itself as dominant, no matter how many people have to die in the process.