Now here is what I would like to see...

You are trying to make the question seem simple, clear-cut, and binary when it is nothing of the sort.

No, I am searching for common ground on which we can open a discussion. Which you don't want to do and more or less have said that MORE BOMBS and LESS FOOD is better. It's just your opinion.

You see, the world is not just as wonderful and fair as I know you would like it to be. You can't just say "less bombs, more food" unless you have a plan to get Al Qaeda to give up their bombs?

Actually, that IS my plan. If America adopted this LESS BOMBS, MORE FOOD policy I think they would stop.

I don't know if you only selectively apply history to make your points, or if you never look to history at all.

I'm not applying history or talking about anything I read. I'm simply picturing myself starving, unemployed, with 1000's of others in the same boat, and lots of guns around. What could possibly go wrong.

One of my favorite points about America's right to bear arms relates to the question: Why do you think no one has successfully invaded and defeated the USA?

Because I can't think of any nation that wants to do that. I can't think of any modern nation other than America that invades and defeats other countries come to think of it. I thought the 2nd amendment was pretty clear that it was created to protect the people from their own government, not king of France. And that it's kind of obsolete since your government has rockets and tanks n' stuff.
 
LESS BOMBS, MORE FOOD = GOOD OR BAD?

A couple of other interesting, historical facts that show just how naieve and simplistic this thought is. One would think that, by the preaching of the Catholic Church, that they could be a place to look and see just how much "less bombs and more food" gets you. And I grew up Catholic, so I know more than just a little about this church.

So, how much has the Catholic Church (admittedly one of the richest religions in the world) done for feeding people, raising them up out of squalor, and teaching them how to be respectable, democratic governments? Let's put it this way...their track record ain't so good. And, in fact, quite a bit of the money that people have contributed to Catholic Churches is now being spent to payoff the victims of the Church's pedophile priests.

Now, let's look at America and our "nasty bombs". Let's see, we bombed the hell out of Germany. And... we dropped two VERY big bombs on Japan. But the short-sightedness of your focus on bombs neglects that it was more than just bombs. It was what came AFTER those places were defeated... not just food, but more! We rebuilt Europe (and forgave massive amounts of debt), and gave similar help to Japan to reintegrate them into the world's community of nations. Gee, last I checked these two countries were not living in squalor, with people starving on every corner.

So you see, if one were ONLY to focus on "food vs. bombs" we see, in the USA and the Catholic Church, two extreme situations in which the track record does not seem to support "less bombs=good, more food=good".

RMT
 
If America adopted this LESS BOMBS, MORE FOOD policy I think they would stop.
Well there you go. I think you have obviously not read what the Islamists teach to their suicide squads in the Madrassas, have you? If you did understand what radical Islamists preach and teach, you would know how silly it is to think they would stop. I think you need to do a lot more studying about the Islamist threat.

No, I am searching for common ground on which we can open a discussion.
I have a hard time finding common ground given that I think your views expressed so far are based on narrow views of the political and social realities in the world. I am trying to give you data to reveal how your opinions seems to neglect entire portions of reality that must be addressed, not ignored as you seem to do.

Which you don't want to do and more or less have said that MORE BOMBS and LESS FOOD is better.
Not at all. If you have been following my argument, you would have noticed that what I am pointing out is that it is not as simplistic as "less bombs, more food". The radical Islamists are NOT starving, poor people. Indeed, they are often funded by very wealthy Muslim people who earn oil revenue in Saudi Arabia. Please try to understand this: Terrorists don't want us to feed them. They want to kill us, and they want to put an end to our way of life.

Just LOOK at what is going on in Iraq. Those insurgent terrorists do NOT want an open democracy. All they want is a society where the group with the ultimate power dictates what EVERYONE does, and of course it should be Islamic Clerics who wield that power, and everyone must worship and obey what Allah says (according to your friendly, neighborhood Imam!)

RMT
 
OK, let me try to find some common ground, and maybe put forward a simple question that is not as tricky as your simple solution:

Question: Who is killing more innocent civilians in Iraq - The Coalition or the Insurgents?

Here's some info to help you answer this question:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/07/iraq.main/index.html

We and our media seem incensed about keeping tallies of how many of our soliders have died since the conflict began. But if we REALLY are worried about "thousands" of civilian casualties, then pray tell WHY we do not have body counts for the number of people killed by insurgent suicide attacks? I'll tell you why: Because THAT body count would show who is killing all the innocent civilians...and it is not the coalition troops!

RMT
 
Well there you go. I think you have obviously not read what the Islamists teach to their suicide squads in the Madrassas, have you?

Uhhhhm, no. No, not really. Can't say that I have. I can't read Arabic.
 
Can't say that I have. I can't read Arabic.
And you don't need to. There are plenty of reputable sources that openly describe what are taught in the radical, extremist Madrassas. Here's some reading material...


http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2004/11/the_madrassas.php

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001120.php

There is an interesting addition at the end of this last link. It speaks of how folks in the South prior to our Civil War sent their children to schools in Germany... and those schools taught similar militancy, which found a "cause for Jihad" in the Cecessionist Southerners.

RMT
 
iunno rainman u seem to be stuck in the past... u cannot look to past events to justify what were doing now, unless it was done under the current administration. which ur examples have not been, who cares what happened in ww2, when it comes to todays politics. Sure u can learn a lot from it, but examples wont cut it, b/c it's a different' time and different place. Policy's of the world evolve and countries evolve... to throw out facts from the past seems ludicrous to me. :/
 
Policy's of the world evolve and countries evolve... to throw out facts from the past seems ludicrous to me.
But don't you understand that this is the entire premise of the famous quote "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it?" That is precisely why I reference the past. The French did not learn from their WWI lesson, and so they repeated it in WWII. The past is replete with people getting complacent, and not calling evil murderers exactly what they are. Complacency is the danger, and no matter how much world policies and countries evolve, complacency will always be a danger.

RMT
 
well said, Ray. there is no question about it, had america failed to come to the aid of europe, during and after wwII the world WOULD be a different place. taking that FACT into consideration, it is difficult to understand WHY more european countries do not support our war on terror. i understand that they might not agree with the way bush had gone about the war but they SHOULD support us. We not only liberated them but we forgave massive debts in order to make their future brighter.

As far as those that say, "don't live in the past" i.e wwII... i say to them that wwII was not that long ago and the world has still not fully recovered from the devestation of nazi germany. there are plenty of people alive today that lived and fought through the war. based on the words of a few of my family members that lived through it, in Italy, I have no doubt that the average person that survived that time period would say "America not only saved its own skin but saved the world." the battle was a collaborative effort but our assistance in the rebuild is second to NONE.

to those in Europe : I ask you to talk to someone that was around during the time when Germany WAS dropping bombs and leveling towns, cities and villages (in YOUR country) MURDERING 1000's of innocent people. Ask them how they felt during that time and how they felt about America.

I wish the usa could feed every mouth on the planet but we can't. the only way to continue to help\feed the 100's of millions of people that the usa DOES help is to keep on making bombs and keep defending those people with the presence of those bombs. I don't feel it is the governments responsibility to feed the world as much as it is to defend it..

Did you hear about the french military? they changed their uniforms to skirts and sneakers so that they can sh*t in their pants and run at the same time. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif
Lets face it, they planted trees along every river bank in their country so that the germans could march in the shade /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

To the French :

Eleven thousand soldiers
lay beneath the dirt and stone,
all buried on a distant land
so far away from home.

For just a strip of dismal beach
they paid a hero's price,
to save a foreign nation
they all made the sacrifice.

And now the shores of Normandy
are lined with blocks of white
Americans who didn't turn
from someone else's plight.

Eleven thousand reasons
for the French to take our side,
but in the moment of our need,
they chose to run and hide.

Chirac said every war means loss,
perhaps for France that's true,
for they've lost every battle
since the days of Waterloo.

Without a soldier worth a damn
to be found in the region,
the French became the only land
to need a Foreign Legion.

You French all say we're arrogant.
Well hell, we've earned the right--
We saved your sorry nation
when you lacked the guts to fight.

But now you've made a big mistake,
and one that you'll regret;
you took sides with our enemies,
and that we won't forget.

It wasn't just our citizens
you spit on when you turned,
but every one of ours who fell
the day the towers burned.

You spit upon our soldiers,
on our pilots and Marines,
and now you'll get a little sense
of just what payback means.

So keep your Paris fashions
and your wine and your champagne,
and find some other market
that will buy your aeroplanes.

And try to find somebody else
to wear your French cologne,
for you're about to find out
what it means to stand alone.

You see, you need us far more
than we ever needed you.
America has better friends
who know how to be true.

I'd rather stand with warriors
who have the will and might,
than huddle in the dark with those
whose only flag is white.

I'll take the Brits, the Aussies,
the Israelis and the rest,
for when it comes to valor
we have seen that they're the best.

We'll count on one another
as we face a moment dire,
while you sit on the sideline
with a sign "friendship for hire."

We'll win this war without you
and we'll total up the cost,
and take it from your foreign aid,
and then you'll feel the loss.

And when your nation starts to fall,
well frenchie, you can spare us,
just call the Germans for a hand,
they know the way to Paris."

that's my 2 cents - 1stBorn
 
1st

well said, Ray. there is no question about it, had america failed to come to the aid of europe, during and after wwII the world WOULD be a different place.

You are free to have that opinion. You said some pretty whack things about the French though. IMO, I owe thanks to Russia most of all. Then the Canadians. I mean that. My teachers explain that you showed up late. And the politics used against the Russians after they saved everyone, man... You guys are just so mean and don't even realize it.
 
I'm jsut saying that america sometimes, ya know kinda bullies other countries...i don't mean like france and the freedom fries thing, in my opnion france deserves it, i mean what the hell are they doing on the security council anyways???
 
Well Newbie, I see you didn't want to try to answer the simple question I put forth. Perhaps because it might make my point about people "America-bashing" while selecively choosing to NOT bash other countries/organizations that have done "bad things"? People get upset when America takes on problems and choose to handle something in our own particular way. But how often do people give America CREDIT for those good (very good) things we do for others in the world?

Inasmuch, I want to call your attention to part of a story on the Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire:

Bush has asked Congress to provide the Palestinian Authority with $350 million in U.S. funds to help rebuild infrastructure damaged or destroyed in the Palestinian territories after four years of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In addition, another $40 million will be "reprogrammed" from money already authorized for a desalination plant and used for immediate assistance in similar infrastructure programs, Rice said.

This from:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/mideast/index.html

Now what do you think the "average American taxpayer" thinks about us just doling out $ to Palestinians just because they are now learning to "make nice"? Beyond this, what OBLIGATION does America have to fund every Tom, Dick, and Harry who can't fend for themselves? The answer, of course, is that we do NOT have an obligation. But we are good people who want to do something for other countries and peoples who are working in the right direction (peace and freedom).

See any talk of bombs in the above quote? And believe me, we extend a LOT of money to many peoples around the world...morseo than your country, that's for sure. But, of course, people just enjoy bashing America for what they think are "wrong" policies, and thus the news almost never covers the stories of how much we already do for people beyond our borders.

Bombs have their place.... in dealing with people who don't "do the right thing" when we give them free food and free money. Sometimes, many people in the world must be treated just like little children...harsh, but it's true. If they can't behave because of the possibility of reward, then they will be punished.

RMT
 
The fact that the suggestion of killing fewer people and feeding more draws so much opposition is maddening.
There is something else that is maddening: The fact that there are people out there who will kill themselves just to be able to kill us, and that there are people who don't "get" this and still want to try to apply our values to get them to change their attitudes. That is maddening. You really need to understand how Madrassas brainwash young people before you will understand that what would work with reasonable people like us will have absolutely no effect on people like that. Solving the problem of terrorism has nothing to do with feeding people.

RMT
 
"get it" as in agree with you right? violence CAUSES more violence. It's not going to fix anything.

Get this

a) peace by non-violent actions
b) peace by violent actions

You choose b, I choose a.
 
rainman i didn't say not to learn from the past, but to live in the past is long. Too many things have changed in just 40 years, that you cannot predict what will happen w/ in the next 40 years. By the rate we have been going i really wouldn't be surprised if we were teleporting aswell as time travelling. But think about it this way, terrorism like time travelling has never happened before on the scale it's happening in the past say 15+ years... how is revisiting the past going to enlighten us on our trip, or extermenation. Sure their can be lessons applied to the situation, but it's a new situation that requires new lessons to be learned, not to read a book and learn old ones. I agree that we are very forgiving people and that we do carry a weight of the world on our shoulders, but we aren't the only ones. And i dunno bout you but i would prefer that we lesson our money on military which went up tons this year, and lessen our international spending, and spend more of that here at home.
 
a) peace by non-violent actions
b) peace by violent actions

You choose b, I choose a.
You still want to make this about what you or I choose, and you have not "gotten" that neither of these matters a bit to terrorists who, BTW, do not even choose peace at all. So, I am still waiting to hear your solution for handling people who do NOT choose peace...who want to destroy our chosen way of life. Please enlighten me to your solution here.

RMT
 
And i dunno bout you but i would prefer that we lesson our money on military which went up tons this year, and lessen our international spending, and spend more of that here at home.
There is a word for this, and it's called an isolationist policy. Not surprising that there have been lessons from history about what happened when we "didn't want to get involved in problems outside our borders". They were called WWI and WWII, and we eventually had to give up our isolationist tendencies, and pay a HUGE price in lives.

I'm not trying to be spiteful, but yet again it seems you have not really understood the lessons of history. If we did what you suggest, history tells us we will only get drawn into a BIGGER conflict where there will be much greater loss of American (and other nationalities) lives.

RMT
 
BTW, do not even choose peace at all. So, I am still waiting to hear your solution for handling people who do NOT choose peace...who want to destroy our chosen way of life. Please enlighten me to your solution here.

I would alter my chosen way of life.

Peace.
 
I would alter my chosen way of life.
Then be prepared to give up your freedom, and submit to murderous tyrants. Oh yes, and BTW, no freedom of Religion. You'd better study up on the Koran, because you'll have to follow the religion that they tell you to follow.

RMT
 
Back
Top