9/11 Mathematics - Page 3

Lachean · 06-26-08, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

Its more a question of jurisdiction than rights. I do believe all have the right to a fair trial. I do not believe the US civilian court system has the jurisdiction in the case of foreign enemy combatants.

So should enemy combatants be tried in their own courts?

Honestly, I smell cognitive dissonance.

WI Crippler · 06-26-08, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

So should enemy combatants be tried in their own courts?

Honestly, I smell cognitive dissonance.

Either military courts or international courts depending on their actions. If they are captured on the field of battle, they should be tried by military courts. If they are captured elsewhere by say Interpol or some such agency, it should be handled by an international court. Our judicial branch is not set up to act on behalf of the United States, as it relates to foreign matters. That is the arena of the executive branch exclusively. Just like Senators and Representatives should not be able to meet with foreign leaders without the consent of the executive branch, the judicial branch should not have the authority to rule on international matters in domestic courts.

nkgupta80 · 06-27-08, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

No, liberty and freedom were not the impetus for the entrance of the US into WWII. Had it been, we would have seen US forces in Europe earlier, and our Naval Fleet would have been halfway across the Pacific when Japan took over Indo-China, and joined Italy and Germany as Axis powers. Instead of swift military reaction, we placed an oil embargo on Japan and slept our fleet in the warm Hawaiin waters, where they were ultimatley destroyed. It was our laisse-faire policy that even allowed these situations in the Pacific and Europe to manifest to the levels they did. And it was our "stability in the middle east at all costs" policy that has allowed for religious fanatics to have safe havens to plot their terrorist acts, and disenfranchised youth populations to recruit from. Had we, after the Cold War, taken the opportunity to engage in trying to spread the virtue of freedom and liberty, instead of just being happy with simply stopping communism, then prehaps we combat terrorism at its roots, rather than paying it scant attention up until 9/11. And this attitude of Americans being unwilling to sacrifice on behalf of anybody else was noticed in large by OBL after Somalia. Hell, Dick Cheney's own comments about going after Saddam in the Gulf War speaks volumes to the oppressed populace of Iraq, and the American attitude of being unwilling to seek change for the better. " How many American deaths is it worth to take down Saddam Hussein, and the answer is not very many" What does that statement say to the Iraqi people, living under Saddams oppression? It tells them, and the rest of the arab community, that America is willing to look past the transgressions of dictators, so long as it either benefits us and/or you do not violate the borders of our allies. It tells the people, that they do not matter and this is where the disenfranchisement against America begins. That attitude absolutely had/has to change, if we are to honestly believe in the ideals of liberty and freedom.

To your second point, I stated that I approve of all solutions to promote the spreading of liberty and freedom around the world. This does not always have to be military in nature, but at times it may require it. Also, an amazing amount of infrastructure in Iraq was preserved. We did not wipe Iraq off the map, even though it is certainley within our capability to do so. Yes, some infrastructure was destroyed/damaged, but that is going to happen in war, especially in one where the enemy hides within the civilian infrastructures to begin with. I would say the infrastructure in Iraq, while damamged, was not made irreperable to the point that it encouraged violence against us. In fact, I would figure that now, most infrastructure damamge is caused by terrorists, and not US forces.

terrorist violence should have been taken into account when thinking of going into war. If I could think of terrorist violence as a major problem before the war started, I'm sure the policy makers could too...

also, our involvment in the middle east during the cold-war was to curb the USSR from gaining control but again not for liberty/freedom, but geopolitical reasons which included control of oil. I am not saying that we should have stayed out, but that the people of the middle-east got caught in the middle of all this and kinda screwed. All cause they live in a place that has oil.

As for your point on what impression America would make, we've been in a delicate poltiical situation with the Middle East. Like I said, our direct involvement there was in fact for our own benefits. However, when we wave the flag of freedom, it sends a double standard. This double standard is what fanatical leaders exploit, and while the average muslim in the mid-east may despise religious fanatics, they cannot argue against the double-standard. This is why all our policies there will always be suspect of some ulterior motive, cause historically,thats what the people of the mid-east have faced (Europe before the US).

DeeJayH · 06-27-08, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

also, our involvment in the middle east during the cold-war was to curb the USSR from gaining control but again not for liberty/freedom, but geopolitical reasons which included control of oil. I am not saying that we should have stayed out, but that the people of the middle-east got caught in the middle of all this and kinda screwed. All cause they live in a place that has oil.

its our fault they didnt make money off the oil to make their countries better???

nkgupta80 · 06-27-08, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeJayH

its our fault they didnt make money off the oil to make their countries better???

no, i just said they got screwed. The middle-east governments did make money. thye just happened to be corrupt governments that tended to not spent on their poeople. So in between a power conflict, stuck with corrupt governments, the mid-east people got screwed...

DeeJayH · 06-27-08, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

no, i just said they got screwed. The middle-east governments did make money. thye just happened to be corrupt governments that tended to not spent on their poeople. So in between a power conflict, stuck with corrupt governments, the mid-east people got screwed...

by their governments
yet we are to blame
bleed em dry of oil and let them return to the dark ages

nkgupta80 · 06-27-08, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeJayH

by their governments
yet we are to blame
bleed em dry of oil and let them return to the dark ages

in some ways yes we are to blame, considering we supported a lot of those regimes. From our perspective its for the greater good (fight against the USSR). But if you look at it from the perspective of the average middle-eastern civilian, they got the short end of the stick. A smart very objective civilian would blame the situation and suckiness of it. But if you were a civilian living under one of those governments, living a less than prosperous life, its only human to blame someone. They blame their government and the people who support it. Its very easy for religious fanatics to turn this sentiment into something that we warrant unjustified.

WI Crippler · 06-27-08, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

terrorist violence should have been taken into account when thinking of going into war. If I could think of terrorist violence as a major problem before the war started, I'm sure the policy makers could too...

also, our involvment in the middle east during the cold-war was to curb the USSR from gaining control but again not for liberty/freedom, but geopolitical reasons which included control of oil. I am not saying that we should have stayed out, but that the people of the middle-east got caught in the middle of all this and kinda screwed. All cause they live in a place that has oil.

As for your point on what impression America would make, we've been in a delicate poltiical situation with the Middle East. Like I said, our direct involvement there was in fact for our own benefits. However, when we wave the flag of freedom, it sends a double standard. This double standard is what fanatical leaders exploit, and while the average muslim in the mid-east may despise religious fanatics, they cannot argue against the double-standard. This is why all our policies there will always be suspect of some ulterior motive, cause historically,thats what the people of the mid-east have faced (Europe before the US).

I agree, and thats why I think we should take the direction I have laid out, western civilization and other democracies supporting and encouraging liberty no matter what the cost. Because I feel the end benefit of free societies worldwide surpasses the benefits of ignoring humanitarian crisis unless it benefits us.

nkgupta80 · 06-28-08, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

I agree, and thats why I think we should take the direction I have laid out, western civilization and other democracies supporting and encouraging liberty no matter what the cost. Because I feel the end benefit of free societies worldwide surpasses the benefits of ignoring humanitarian crisis unless it benefits us.

Actually I'd argue the cost does matter, so spreading "liberty and freedom at whatever cost" is impractical. I feel the Iraq War was impractical, and America could have spent money on better things than promoting liberty and freedom in Iraq. Anyways, the direction of the world is towards globalism and the rapid spread of people and ideas. This kind of force (although not as short-term as say a war), is much more powerful, and will be the ultimate driver of change in places like Iran, China, and even North Korea.

Of course people at this point in time will be living a bad life, but thats the way the world is...what we should be doing is helping support globalism through better economic and political policies.

WI Crippler · 06-28-08, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

Actually I'd argue the cost does matter, so spreading "liberty and freedom at whatever cost" is impractical. I feel the Iraq War was impractical, and America could have spent money on better things than promoting liberty and freedom in Iraq. Anyways, the direction of the world is towards globalism and the rapid spread of people and ideas. This kind of force (although not as short-term as say a war), is much more powerful, and will be the ultimate driver of change in places like Iran, China, and even North Korea.

Of course people at this point in time will be living a bad life, but thats the way the world is...what we should be doing is helping support globalism through better economic and political policies.

But you have to ask yourself, if not for 9/11, would we really even be doing anything differently than we had been in the years past? That was the action that spurred us into being proactive, rather than reactive, which is a policy I can agree with.

Anyway, I do agree that globalism is coming down the pipe. But I still think globalism is posible without countries having to give up their national identity or culture. Hopefully we see a gloablism that showcases democracy and individual human rights, instead of a globalism that enslaves people to their governments.