The Big Picture: A Guy Named Joe

[Geekeric]

I have a big bag of those old G.I. Joe action figures in my closet and I always looked back on them with fondness. After seeing this episode, I may just re-evaluate how that part of my childhood affected me.
This series is really in the groove, Bob. The last one about DC comics continuity and now this one...you rock!

 

[LandoCristo]

I didn't like this one as much. If I wanted to listen to some guy talk about finding your place in the world, I'd go to church and hear about Jesus.

 

[Therumancer]

Snip

War isn't won through brute force, you must destroy and demonize the central power and appeal to the people. These people aren't Aliens pre-programed to destroy, they're people with a slightly different ideaology than us. As people they have the ability to learn and understand. You can teach them to be tolerant and not listen to those extremist. You can phase out that silent man without destroying him and his culture. As this occurs the Taliban will look less like warriors fighting for their religion and more like a public menace.

I just posted some links in another message in this thread to things like children's shows intended to condition kids to hate and kill Americans and Jews. Where we are trying to teach our kids tolerance, people like you are speaking against warfare, and we have constant rants about discimination against Muslims, they are having their equivilent of Mickey Mouse murdered by Jews to instill hatred in the children from the very beginning.

I'm not speaking against warfare, I'd gladly see any member of the Taliban killed given evidence of their membership. I'm just saying you need to combat propoganda with facts and kindness. We don't need to kill civillians, destroy cultures, or salt lands in order to pacify an area.

Well, where we disagree here is the nature of the enemy being fought. We're not dealing with extremists, as much as what the culture is like in general. We in the US like to think we're dealing with a fringe element because it provides the illusion that we can win without resorting to the kinds of methods I'm talking about, I however have long since come to the conclusion that this is not the case.

Things like "The Taliban" and "Al Queda" come from the culture itself, they are not an exterior force trying to impress themselves on the culture. This is why the people we take out are so quickly replaced. Even if we eliminated either organization we'd achieve nothing as a similar one would simply come into being.

It's sort of like how if the US was invaded, and we had our own insurgents running around screaming "Wolverines" and attacking the invaders, while sneaking people onto boats and planes to attack the homeland of the invaders in retaliation. Even if someone was to wipe these guys out, another group would simply form as long as the American idealogy continued
to exist. The only way to stop it, would be to pretty much wipe out the ideas being fought for.

The culture we are fighting against wants to see the destuction of the Western world, and the development of world-wide islamic theocracy. As long as that ideology exists, and it's held by the majority of people in that region, we're not going to be able to win. The enemies we've labeled now are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The people in the region are NOT clamouring for liberation, or to see a progressive goverment. Heck, when we gave both Iraq and Afghanistan the oppertunity to create new constitutions the first thing they did was define themselves as Islamic goverments (not making that up). Even worse is that we were making a big deal about bringing women's liberation to the region, and it simply put did not happen since the people were not going to willingly sign those kinds of provisions into law. Understand this is a place where a lot of the time our women have to wear robes and masks and have men speak for them, even if they are in charge still. That says a lot about the culture and what it actually stands for.

As I posted in some links a few messages ago, you also have TV shows through The Middle East indoctrinating children to hate Americans and Jews and engage in holy war. That's not a fringe element of extremists, that's the mainstream, this is what they consider so fundemental to their cultural identity that it's what they want their kids to grow up thinking. It's not like muslim parents are trying to block these signals or anything. These networks are not run by groups like The Taliban, or Al Queda, rather this is the work of an overall culture that is conditioning the people so they will lionize such groups, support them, or even seek membership (or to create replacements if they fall).

The problem with these arguements is that before I post such links (not that they are hidden) people generally aren't even aware of that level of propaganda being directed at children by the mainstream. It's seeing things like that, which show how deep the poison runs and what the problem actually is.

Understand we're not dealing with a situation where facts and kindness can work. The nature of the conflict from their end is religious, and a matter of destiny. They are fighting us because it's what they are supposed to do, and no matter how hopeless seeming their victory is pre-ordained. They are just as intelligent and cunning as we are as well, such beliefs do not make them stupid or gullible. Kindness is seen as being tricks, and while they might choose to play along, in the end we are still ultimatly their enemy.

While Islam can be practiced in a perfectly acceptable fashion, where it can exist in peace with other peoples, that's not the case with the cultures in the region.

I only posted a few links but if you do some digging you'll find plenty of clips of their "evil mickey mouse clone" complete with subtitles. Oddly the mainstream media seems to want to ignore it. Shows like that pretty much reinforce what I'm saying, including things like how to react from apparent kindness from the enemy (don't be tricked by the Jews and Americans!), the indoctrination becoming more and more extreme as time goes on. This is why reason cannot be used.

See, I'd agree with you if we hadn't been trying to deal with the region for decades now. It's not like 9/11 happened out of a vaccum and we decided to invade. There is a lot of history here from both ends (I mean there ARE valid points on both sides). Trying more diplomacy and to reason with these guys isn't going to work, all it does is leave us increasingly open and give them more time for conditioning and to prepare.

Understand we tried middle ground solutions for a long time, even Carter's failure (Hostage Rescue) was ultimatly an attempt to deal with a problem without an outright invasion. We tried trusting Saddam as well, and that didn't exactly work out well. While I seem like a monsterous war monger to many, my point is how many times are we going to try reason? Total War is not a nice thing, but I'm tired of the endless problems and being in danger. There is a point where we have to say that we were nice enough to let the cooler heads prevail for a long time, we gave them plenty of chances, now it's time to actually send out the hotheads and maniacs.

A lot of people don't "get" (or like) the analogy, but I see very little reason why we shouldn't deal with this problem like we did the Nazis. Both the Muslim culture and Nazism were huge international movements, with powerful idealogies. We were able to "break" the Nazis and ensure our safety from that front, with the failure of dialogue over a number of decades why shouldn't we engage this enemy the same way? When you have puppets being used to convince children to kill Americans and Jews, and instill a sense of cultural supremacy and destiny in children, despite all the dialogue, what more can actually be said? It's hard to take any arguements for a peaceful resolution seriously when you look at things like that.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Bob I love your shows more and more. I agree, without the manly man stereotype being shoehorned onto guys, more sensitive men can be, well, men. Society still needs time to adjust, but it's getting better

 

[Melkor-III]

Thuremancer, you have quite an interesting mind. Your disgust of hippies, pacifists and inhabitants of the middle-east display a quite fascinating mixture of fundamentalism, value objectivism (but still making statements hinting at value nihilism), conservatism, islamophobia and glorification/justification of mass-murder, while still claiming that the social progression of the later part of the 19th century was for the better.

All these subject cannot be addressed as I lack the obsessive interest or belief that you are ready to change opinion required to formulate a response. I would, however, like to address your historical account of WWII and how extermination was supposedly used to rid the world of fascism.

On numerous occasions, you, stated that Nazism was destroyed by hunting them all down and citing this as an example of how massive, or perhaps even genocidal force, is necessary to destroy an enemy that is not simple soldiers and and leaders, but an ideology integrated into the very nature of a culture. Example:

Groups like "The Volkssturm" and "Hitler Youth" didn't evaporate, we killed them all off. It's just we don't bother to put the pictures of the corpse piles we made and talk about what bastards we were in order to win in our historical records.

To put things into another perspective, I again point to World War II. The Nazis were defeated by demonizing them beyond all reality, and then relentlessly exterminating them, including women and children. It went from a huge, international movement, to a tiny underground fringe after the war. We spent decades hunting down survivors even after the war ended.

My problem with this representation is that it is misleading. The Third Reich was not destroyed in the manner in which you propose. Yes, large potions of the army and especially the SS was either killed in battle or hunted down after the war (but not by death-squads, but by the judicial apparatus of the occupational forces). The civilian Nazis, however, where not killed with the intent of destroying the "infected culture" of a Germany comprising of a majority of Nazis.

Nazi Germany is not an example of cultural genocide through murder and military might. Rather, it is a perfect example of reconciliation and progression. Germany was not destroyed till no Nazis were left in this world, rather Germany was damaged and rebuilt in a new image. By economic assistance, constitutional reform, re-education, and successive lifting of restrictions, Germany was shaped in a way so Nazism would fade from the mind of Germans, not though a bullet between the eyes, but though other means.

In the years following the commencement of occupation, the allies realised that an extermination or even a general imprisonment of all Nazis was impossible without a humanitarian tragedy. For this reason, much of the bureaucracy (comprised of mostly Nazi officials) was left standing. Instead of murder, the allies utilized what is referred to as "Denazification", a process which was not always morally sound but far from the ?killing of women and children" that you speak of.
Following this, Germany was integrated into the broader European community and "the Marshall Plan" secured its reconstruction, thus reducing the resentment that had caused Nazism to rise following WWI. As an important step, the west Germans where allowed membership into NATO, turning foe into friend.

If anything, Nazi Germany teaches us that victory is not achieved by permanently viewing a group as the enemy, but rather to be capable of abandoning hatred. To win hearts and mind and to change people, not to kill them.

Finally, concerning your idea that "Hitler Youth" was not dispelled, but killed. I would like to point out that the Pope, Benedict XVI, was a "Hitler Youth" -- although an unwilling one-- and an infantryman in the German army before his desertion. The people believing in, or associated with, Nazism where not the permanent "them", but became "us". Let that be a lesson while making inaccurate parallels to contemporary conflicts.

 

[MrHero17]

snip

So to break the Muslim culture we should invade Indonesia right?Also you might want to start a thread in politics about this. I think your first post was tangential at best and it's getting more off-topic now, also you'll get more and better responses.

I thought this was a good video for this week, certainly a bit more relevant than the usual.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

This was great episode, in fact some points felt inspiring.

I just thought of something interesting though. You mention each generation's version of G.I. Joe and I though "whats this generation's version?" The first thing that came to mind was military FPS like CoD, and how popular it was for both men and boys. Its like the old G.I. Joe what with being about real life soldiers and special forces except its an interactive game. Maybe thats one of the reasons its so popular.(besides being a great game)

Try not to take most of this seriously. Like I said its just an interesting thought I had.

I'd say you're probably correct in saying that CoD is pretty much the modern version of GI Joe. Modern GI Joe isn't nearly as popular as it used to be, and seems to be completely irrelevant, as pointed out by Bob. Call of Duty (the first modern warfare at least) talks about the plights of the modern soldier, and demonstrates in more than one way that war is still hell. I really do think the mission where you live out the last moments of a dying soldier after the nuclear blast is one of the greatest gaming moments of the decade, just because it perfectly demonstrates our greatest fears in terms of the war on terror from the eyes of those most likely to experience it.

If COD is our GI Joe then thats a bad sign. Works about warfare should be less about the actual fighting and more about the experience of being a soldier. If anything, Band of Brothers should be our GI Joe, as it focused less on actual warfare and focused on the experience of male comradery in the military, the process of trying to find out just why we fight wars, the confusion of trying to make sense of a situation that has none. COD is too busy having us shoot rocket launchers at tanks and killing endless droves of Germans/Japanese/Terrorists/Russians/whatever than actually making any point about the enduring physical and psychological torment of warfare on a personal and human level.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

yo bob...as far as the formation of the patriarchy goes, it is not consistent of old white men on the virtue of them being old white men it is on the virtue of them being ambitious, objectivist, prudes, that built dynastic connections via forms of masonry and basic "who-do-ya-know" company building.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

This was great episode, in fact some points felt inspiring.

I just thought of something interesting though. You mention each generation's version of G.I. Joe and I though "whats this generation's version?" The first thing that came to mind was military FPS like CoD, and how popular it was for both men and boys. Its like the old G.I. Joe what with being about real life soldiers and special forces except its an interactive game. Maybe thats one of the reasons its so popular.(besides being a great game)

Try not to take most of this seriously. Like I said its just an interesting thought I had.

I'd say you're probably correct in saying that CoD is pretty much the modern version of GI Joe. Modern GI Joe isn't nearly as popular as it used to be, and seems to be completely irrelevant, as pointed out by Bob. Call of Duty (the first modern warfare at least) talks about the plights of the modern soldier, and demonstrates in more than one way that war is still hell. I really do think the mission where you live out the last moments of a dying soldier after the nuclear blast is one of the greatest gaming moments of the decade, just because it perfectly demonstrates our greatest fears in terms of the war on terror from the eyes of those most likely to experience it.

If COD is our GI Joe then thats a bad sign. Works about warfare should be less about the actual fighting and more about the experience of being a soldier. If anything, Band of Brothers should be our GI Joe, as it focused less on actual warfare and focused on the experience of male comradery in the military, the process of trying to find out just why we fight wars, the confusion of trying to make sense of a situation that has none. COD is too busy having us shoot rocket launchers at tanks and killing endless droves of Germans/Japanese/Terrorists/Russians/whatever than actually making any point about the enduring physical and psychological torment of warfare on a personal and human level.

What should be and what is are way different. How many kids do you know that go on about Band of Brothers? I haven't even heard people my age talk about that since the time it was still on the air. Besides, while it didn't demonstrate all of those qualities, Call of Duty 4 did a good job of showing the plight of the modern soldier (exaggerated of course, but still). The last two games have been mindless of course, but the franchise as a whole isn't much for morals.

Another thing to note, GI Joe of the last generation didn't have any of those qualities you mentioned. Despite having some good morals and whatnot for children to follow, it had as much to do with soldiers and war as He-Man or the Thundercats.

 

[Dectilon]

How will we handle them? I'll tell you how we'll handle them!

We'll go to forums on the internet and write long rambling posts about how much they suck, while hoping someone else takes care of the actual problem.

 

[philosophicalbastard]

Snip

In your comparison between Nazism and Islam you seem to forget that Islam is a couple hundred year old world-wide religion. When you've completly destroyed all of Islam in the Middle East what do you do about the Muslims in other nations? Do you think they'll understand why you had to wipe out all those other muslims? In order to protect the country you'd need to round up all of them and stick them in some sort of camp, you'd also have to produce anti-Islamic propaganda to make sure the nation doesn't sympathise with them, those that did would have to be taken out. In the end you become a facist state that will piss off most of the world, and will have to be crushed like the Nazis. Ultimatly the Total War method is just bad for everyone.

 

[Therumancer]

Thuremancer, you have quite an interesting mind. Your disgust of hippies, pacifists and inhabitants of the middle-east display a quite fascinating mixture of fundamentalism, value objectivism (but still making statements hinting at value nihilism), conservatism, islamophobia and glorification/justification of mass-murder, while still claiming that the social progression of the later part of the 19th century was for the better.

All these subject cannot be addressed as I lack the obsessive interest or belief that you are ready to change opinion required to formulate a response. I would, however, like to address your historical account of WWII and how extermination was supposedly used to rid the world of fascism.

On numerous occasions, you, stated that Nazism was destroyed by hunting them all down and citing this as an example of how massive, or perhaps even genocidal force, is necessary to destroy an enemy that is not simple soldiers and and leaders, but an ideology integrated into the very nature of a culture. Example:

Groups like "The Volkssturm" and "Hitler Youth" didn't evaporate, we killed them all off. It's just we don't bother to put the pictures of the corpse piles we made and talk about what bastards we were in order to win in our historical records.

To put things into another perspective, I again point to World War II. The Nazis were defeated by demonizing them beyond all reality, and then relentlessly exterminating them, including women and children. It went from a huge, international movement, to a tiny underground fringe after the war. We spent decades hunting down survivors even after the war ended.

My problem with this representation is that it is misleading. The Third Reich was not destroyed in the manner in which you propose. Yes, large potions of the army and especially the SS was either killed in battle or hunted down after the war (but not by death-squads, but by the judicial apparatus of the occupational forces). The civilian Nazis, however, where not killed with the intent of destroying the "infected culture" of a Germany comprising of a majority of Nazis.

Nazi Germany is not an example of cultural genocide through murder and military might. Rather, it is a perfect example of reconciliation and progression. Germany was not destroyed till no Nazis were left in this world, rather Germany was damaged and rebuilt in a new image. By economic assistance, constitutional reform, re-education, and successive lifting of restrictions, Germany was shaped in a way so Nazism would fade from the mind of Germans, not though a bullet between the eyes, but though other means.

In the years following the commencement of occupation, the allies realised that an extermination or even a general imprisonment of all Nazis was impossible without a humanitarian tragedy. For this reason, much of the bureaucracy (comprised of mostly Nazi officials) was left standing. Instead of murder, the allies utilized what is referred to as "Denazification", a process which was not always morally sound but far from the ?killing of women and children" that you speak of.
Following this, Germany was integrated into the broader European community and "the Marshall Plan" secured its reconstruction, thus reducing the resentment that had caused Nazism to rise following WWI. As an important step, the west Germans where allowed membership into NATO, turning foe into friend.

If anything, Nazi Germany teaches us that victory is not achieved by permanently viewing a group as the enemy, but rather to be capable of abandoning hatred. To win hearts and mind and to change people, not to kill them.

Finally, concerning your idea that "Hitler Youth" was not dispelled, but killed. I would like to point out that the Pope, Benedict XVI, was a "Hitler Youth" -- although an unwilling one-- and an infantryman in the German army before his desertion. The people believing in, or associated with, Nazism where not the permanent "them", but became "us". Let that be a lesson while making inaccurate parallels to contemporary conflicts.

I understand why you think that. I mean that is the popularized version, since we paint it as being a good war. That is however not the reality of the situation. You have to understand that our war department was working full time on the propaganda, we covered up our own atrocities, while at the same time claiming the nazis did things like make lampshades out of human flesh, and deploy portable bone grinding devices... both of which were proven false (look it up).

What's more with war powers in effect, a lot of information was surpressed for the duration of the conflict, but allowed to be released later. This includes war time photos of American troops standing around corpse piles, executing people, and doing all kinds of really screwed up things. They are almost exactly like the ones you see in books like "The Holocaust Chronicle' except in reverse. If you dig you can find them on various neo-nazi and holocaust denier sites (I'm reluctant to go hunting and post links to sites like that however). Likewise there are books full of photos like this, however they aren't generally carried. You pretty much need to know specifically what your looking for, and request it. One of those situations where if you don't know about it, you can't get it, but if nobody can get it, how do you know about it? Typically information like this can be found on again, neo-nazi sites and the like, but you can also get such things from school iibraries if you ask. When I attended Three Rivers Community College one of my history professors made a point out of us taking a look at a few unmarked books full of pictures that they were keeping around.

Understand that World War II was not the peachy thing history presents it as. The Nazis were a huge international movement (not just in Germany) and even after Pearl Harbour a lot of people wanted to embrace "peace at any price" and isolationist sentiments. A lot of people wanted to derail the war, but the goverment used war powers to prevent people from doing all the kind of crap you see in the current conflict, that didn't however prevent a lot of them trying to assemble propaganda, taking pictures, and producing things which were not released until well after the conflict ended. Pretty much an object lesson in how information control is part of fighting a successful war. As we won, we got to write the history books, and decide what went into them.

The point isn't that we were wrong to fight the war, it's that we pretty much exterminated the Nazis. It's an inconveinent truth in the case of arguments like this, since our beliefs on how we fought have influanced our current engagement doctrine, and more or less caused us to lose every war we've been in since (excepting a few things like Grenada) even if our military hasn't been defeated.

Like anything there are always going to be survivors no matter how much they are hunted down, and in general anyone associated with the Nazis is going to try and deny having been involved willingly. I mean it's not like the pope is going to say "oh yeah, I loved the Nazis, and being part of the Hitler Youth was the highlight of my life" if it was true. Just like in France or Romania everyone will talk about having relatives who were part of the resistance, when in reality both nations more or less embraced the Nazis (Germany didn't have the manpower to occupy them itself while fighting other wars) after at most token resistance. Indeed a bit criticism of France, and a lot of what's behind the comments about France surrendering is that France surrendered to the Nazis, and while it did have a resistance it was GREATLY exagerrated, and backed them as they seemed to be winning. Later when the tide changed France more or less switched sides again and joined the Allies because if it didn't it was going to get steamrolled even if Germany won in the end. There is diplomacy involved though because of the way how the whole thing played out, and France is not portrayed as being an Axis nation, despite the fact that Germany simply couldn't have occupied it like in the movies while doing all of the other things they did. By many snide portrayals France surrendered twice during World War II, and are accused of basically being backstabbing oppertunists ever since Vicintrix and the gauls betrayed the Romans. At least that's how I wound up learning a lot of it.

Another interesting fact that is of course missing about World War II is how we pretty much started the cold war by screwing the Russians out of paranoia. We pretty much raped the German rocket factories and recruited a lot of their top scientists, while handing the Russians a few V-1s and V-2s and saying "here is your share of their tech". This didn't go over too well. The Berlin wall being raised in part due to this conflict, but also to try and prevent Germany from recovering. Neither the Russians or the US wanted the other side to annex it for that purpose.

Or basically to cover things in brief, we pretty much won World War II and got a big lead on the Russians technologically (which remained through the cold war) by simply being the biggest bastards. Of course fighting building to building and slaughtering civilians, backstabbing our Russian allies out of paranoia (which was admittedly probably the wise thing to do), doesn't make us look good in our own history books, so we spin everything in other directions.

This is incidently why a lot of europeans get irritated by the American portrayal of history that we were angelic saviors riding down on beams of light, who comported ourselves like a group of White Knights. We beat the Germans by being nastier than they were, and the Russians by being even more cynical and ruthless than they were right from the beginning.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's pretty much how I learned things, but then again I think school is a lot more politically correct nowadays, and I don't think many teachers even in college are big on debunking what you learned in high school, and a pragmatic analysis of warfare nowadays.

 

[Therumancer]

Snip

In your comparison between Nazism and Islam you seem to forget that Islam is a couple hundred year old world-wide religion. When you've completly destroyed all of Islam in the Middle East what do you do about the Muslims in other nations? Do you think they'll understand why you had to wipe out all those other muslims? In order to protect the country you'd need to round up all of them and stick them in some sort of camp, you'd also have to produce anti-Islamic propaganda to make sure the nation doesn't sympathise with them, those that did would have to be taken out. In the end you become a facist state that will piss off most of the world, and will have to be crushed like the Nazis. Ultimatly the Total War method is just bad for everyone.

I think it's a little older than a couple of centuries. Just a little.

That said, you'll notice I've been very specific in pointing out that Islam is not the enemy but the Muslim culture of a specific region of the world. I've pointed out that Islam CAN be practiced peacefully and co-exist with other religions, however the Muslims in this paticular region represent a problem.

Perhaps I did not convey that clearly.

The point of my rants is that we're not dealing with one nation, but a culture throughout an entire region of the world. Attacking every nation with a Muslim population is a bit more than I was recommending, you'll notice I never suggested we start our own concentration camps, or demand other nations turn over their Muslim populations or be nuked or whatever.

As far as what the rest of the world thinks, I'll be honest in saying I think we care too much about that on a lot of matters. You know, in some of my more cynical moods I've actually thought I'd like the rest of the world to gang up on the US, and then have us demonstrate the we have the abillity to kill the world 10x over and enough defense to at least have a chance of survival in some form. At which point either we'll all be dead and the stupidity can end, or I'll finally get some quiet with the radioactive tumbleweeds. Of course then I usually become lucid again.

In the end the rest of the world is only likely to really care because The Middle East has oil. Like it or not, most of the world requires oil, but only a few nations have any kind of domestic reserves. The reason why a lot of the world doesn't like the way we're behaving down there is because it hampers their abillity to buy oil, and of course the simple fact that the US still buys up their oil (and maintains a fairly strong grasp on it one way or another) while having it's own as part of a long term strategy really irritates people. In the end most people don't care how many times the US was attacked, but about what they can put in their car, and use to run their military. If it wasn't for that I think a lot more of the world would be sitting back watching the show and saying "go for it" rather than everyone trying to make sure they have an opinion on issues like Isreal floating around out there that they hope will encourage oil producing nations to be friendlier with them.

A lot of the world is concerned about the US in the region because even though it's not our direct objective, if we wind up controlling all that oil, even indirectly, the world becomes increasingly dependant on us.

This is however a tangent from a tangent and not worth argueing about. The point here being that where I'm talking about killing off a signifigant amount of people, I'm not talking about hunting down every Islamic on the globe. The purpose is to end a conflict to ensure our own safety.

To be honest though, if it did come down to it, and we faced a literal global threat on that level, it's still us or them. Even if it's an uphill battle it's still a war that would have to be fought.

There are lots of islamic cultures though, and they fight and hate each other as much as anything. If we did take out the whole region, I doubt you'd see a global rally anymore than Protestants or followers of various anti-popes would come running to the defense of the Catholics if someone dropped chemical weapons on Vaticon city and exterminated the seat of catholic power. They might not like it, but you wouldn't see a global holy war over it.

 

[Urh]

Am I the only one who found it ridiculous when Bob said that "jobs are safer," only to mention robotic manufacturing mere moments later? I couldn't help but laugh. But I suppose Bob is still clinging on (like many) to the Luddite's fallacy that there'll always be jobs (which there won't be).

 

[Therumancer]

[

I agree with most of what you are saying but I disaggre with you on some points. I do believe that there is a certain level of morality in SOME wars but in most it gray( ex if I with my country of Joeastan invaded your country of Therumancer nd to steal its natural resources and install a puppet government to enrich my self I believe that the situation would make me the "bad guy" but I digress.

At 1st I commented because I thought what you were impling was that all wars should be resolved by appling the maximum amount of force possible and completly destroying your opponents culture for the sake of it but not that I read more I dont think that what your saying.

Anyway what I believe is that war should be won by appling the amount of force neede to win while minimising your own casulties no more and mo less.

I think that we are half assing the war in afganistan and that if we are not willing to bite the bullet and take the actions neccary to secure our victory then we should not have gone to begin with and we sshould have kept our troops home.


I do think we do have to try to make nice with Islam because even if you could moralise the extermination they are 1/4 of the world population and wiping them out would take more resources then we have at our disposal and have sever reprocussions that we as a country do not wish to deal with.

This will be my last message on the subject, I'm talking to a lot of people and have been at this more or less all day, I'm getting tired, and my writing is suffering. Plus as someone pointed out this is more or less irrelevent to the topic, and I really don't want an endless thread on the politics board which I try and avoid.

Just because a group represents 1/4th of the world's population doesn't mean we should let them overrun us, even if I think that was going to happen. See, I'm talking about attacking the cultures of a specific region. Islam itself can be practiced peacefully, and the point isn't to annihilate the entire religion, as I believe I mentioned in some of my posts. There are nations that have nothing to do with this.

Also understand that while Muslims in The Middle East tend to agree on anti-US sentiment and a global conquest agenda, there are differant sects that fight each other, even there. Your dealing with a lot of differant groups. Afghanistan and Iran both hate the US, but are seperate nations. Iran and Iraq have both been against the US, but have also spent a lot of time fighting each other, and so on. A lot of the nations outside of the region are unlikely to give a crud about even an extreme war that these guys brought on themselves. No more than all Christians would rally if someone blew away Vaticon city and decimated the seat of Catholic power. Sure a lot of Christians might be upset, but the Protestants and similar groups are unlikely to suddenly engage in a holy war of Christian solidarity, even the most fanatical ones.

Believe it or not, while I support wariness about Muslims in general (common sense due to the war) to some extent, I think there ARE a lot of Islamics who understand the issue, cooperate with the security measures, and take the position that nations like Iraq more or less brought this upon themselves. I mean understand, Iraq had been playing "poke the badger" for a long time before the invasion. A lot of anti-war people don't like any war, but there are plenty of people who thought we should have gone after Iraq a long time before we did.

Suggesting we finally pull the trigger on The Middle East due to all the problems and conflicts with a variety of nations and cultures in the region, doesn't mean that I have any intention of going after uninvolved nations seperated from the area, simply based on their dominant religion. If a group doesn't threaten the US, then there is no point in sending the military after them. I'm advocating this attitude, as extreme as it is, because of the threat posed and for how long it's been going on.

I specify cultures and a specific region exactly because I don't want a misunderstanding, or people to think I'm advocating some kind of global purge of Islam. I'm concerned about specific cultures built around it, even if there are quite few of them.

 

[philosophicalbastard]

Snip

Never underestimate the Human capacity for compassion, especially when its for the people one would normally hate.

My method (or atleast something like it) is currently being employed in the Middle East, so we'll see how it works out. If dealing with the Middle Eastern culture your way is truly the only way to win the war, maybe we should just nuke ourselves back to the stone age.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Well first off, I think the Only things seperating Cobra Commander and Bin Ladin are that Cobra seemed to have an unlimited budget and an opposing force that never seemed to have heard the terms "pro-active" and "preventitive Strike".

Culturally, times have changed, even since the 80s. Freedom is the order of the day whereas even the "white power base" of old, would find itself shoved into predetermined roles, or career paths based on heredity and expectations. Today's generation has gone so far libertarian there's almost no respect for any authority, and any attempt to get someone to do something they don't want to do is equated to tyranny. That creates a lot of confusion when we're told to create our own path and half of us don't even know what path we want to carve, let alone how to get there, and a lot of trouble when our carved paths start to conflict with each other. We might admire GI Joe, but we take great resentment that we should aspire to be GI Joe because GI Joe is something or someone other than ourselves.

The last few years have made me wonder just how much America even wants to aspire to anything anymore beyond accumulating wealth and stuff. Comment on how America is falling behind on anything, but leading the world in obesity, and suddenly it's more important to protect the right to be fat and lazy than even try and convince people should be otherwise. People want all the problems of the world solved only to the point taxes don't go up and the social programs they use don't go away, and would rather have organized whining parties than actually do something themselves. Even common courasy has gone out the window (see your Game Overthinker video witht the cursing 12 year old).

It's hard to produce a hero, something to aspire to, to a group of people that feel entitled to just be them and nothing more. This doesn't mean I want to go back to the old days when every role, mannerism, choice, expression, and everything else was just expected as a societal norm, but I haven't seen extreme "do as you please" turn out much better.