Ableton Forum

jashic wrote:All religion is filled with acts of violence..

Of course it is - the religion that wins is the one that is most successful at wiping out or terrorising the opposition into submission. Survival of the fittest. How many people took up another religion because they looked at it and said 'hey that makes sense, better than the gods I worship, think i'll transfer my allegiance to them'? (other than cat stevens of course)

what a crock of shit religion is.

indeed

What the fuck does religion have to do with any of this?

Double post, sorry.

jashic wrote:M. Bréqs, since you seem to truly believe that the war you are fighting is worth the cost, tell me, define victory and how and when can it be achieved.

That is the simplest question asked of the US government and they have to find an answer in over 5 years of bloodshed in Iraq. One would think that it would be easy to answer when our soldiers are being killed for it. I know the Iraq and Afghani wars are different and separate wars. But, any war requires goals.

Again, simple question:

- what is the goal of this war and how and when can this goal be achieved?

First off, our victory is already half-achieved. The first (and as I stated earlier most important) war aim was proving the terrible consequence of attacking a NATO nation. That is done, and has been done handily. No rational actor, state or otherwise would threaten the West with an attack after our response to 9/11, and all states (within their capabilities) rightly fear the growth of radical groups within their borders that would draw a Western military response.

The second war aim is to set the conditions for Afghanistan to take over its own protection. This one is a long-term project. When the Government of Afghanistan is capable of sustaining and employing a security apparatus that can keep the Taliban at bay (not kill or capture every single individual Taliban fighter outright, that would be impossible), then the West can leave the country. The Government of Afghanistan would then have to offer an amnesty program for low-level fighters to both coerce and attract them away from the Quetta Shura and Provincial level Taliban leadership.

A third outcome is also plausible, Karzai's could offer to disarm and demobilize former Taliban and allied groups at the highest level; it would require that the Afghan government begin negotiation from an overwhelming position of strength, and must be accompanied by an Algerian-style reconciliation afterwards. However, I stress the need to approach this course of action only with a strong military advantage and posession of the strategic initiative.

If we were immoral, we would have achieved our first war aim and packed up and went home. But we're not immoral, we're principled. We needed to achieve the second war aim because to do otherwise would be to resign the Afghan people to a worse fate through our own inaction.

That's the war in Afghanistan. When those conditions are met, I can go back to being an Infidel in Canada and mind my own business.

Do you instead refer to the dreadful possibility of a larger scale conflict between Islam and the West?

That cannot be won, only prevented. ...And it can only be prevented through a large scale reformation within islam.

M. Bréqs wrote:

jashic wrote: Do you instead refer to the dreadful possibility of a larger scale conflict between Islam and the West?

That cannot be won, only prevented.

Pfft. I've got 350 thermonuclear warheads that says your wrong on that one....

Of course, the blowback would destroy most of the other people on the planet as well, but hey... the price of Victory!

M. Bréqs wrote: That's the war in Afghanistan. When those conditions are met, I can go back to being an Infidel in Canada and mind my own business.

Do you instead refer to the dreadful possibility of a larger scale conflict between Islam and the West?

That cannot be won, only prevented. ...And it can only be prevented through a large scale reformation within islam.

Where I differ with you. Fundamentalism of all kinds springs from a real or perceived injustice. In the states the most crazy religious nuts are from the south, which to a degree was disenfranchised economically after the civil war.
In the middle east it comes from our constant military and economic presence, and in that sense it's my opinion that you are creating more problems than you are solving. In many respects the fact that you lay blame for the insanity of the Taliban and islamic fundamentalism on the religion itself instead of looking at the reasons why a people would turn even more sharply towards fundamentalism is the cancer that causes young middle eastern kids to join terrorist cells in the first place. They don't appear out of nowhere lured by afterlife virgins etc.
I do not, and will never understand what drives you, and people like you to ignore our own complicity in this Catch 22 and to aggressively pursue the very tactics that landed Afghanistan into Taliban hands in the first place, foreign military presence and a puppet government.
It doesn't matter that we're "better" than the Russians, it doesn't matter that the Taliban sucked, in the end of the day if a people do not feel they are truly self governing then they will turn towards fundamentalism.

You want to prevent 911? go after the hearts and minds of the people who largely drove those planes, Saudis..... and where's Bin Ladin? I guess getting involved in Iraq was much more important than finding the guy truly responsible for the attacks?

Where I differ with you. Fundamentalism of all kinds springs from a real or perceived injustice. In the states the most crazy religious nuts are from the south, which to a degree was disenfranchised economically after the civil war.
In the middle east it comes from our constant military and economic presence, and in that sense it's my opinion that you are creating more problems than you are solving. In many respects the fact that you lay blame for the insanity of the Taliban and islamic fundamentalism on the religion itself instead of looking at the reasons why a people would turn even more sharply towards fundamentalism is the cancer that causes young middle eastern kids to join terrorist cells in the first place. They don't appear out of nowhere lured by afterlife virgins etc.

Right on. But, it's a catch 22 like you said. What could we have done? Here are some alternatives to what we could have done (Not that I agree with them) after 9/11. Pick one.

1) Nothing
2) Held protests and sent nasty letters to the Taliban through our diplomatic channels
3) Put up a UN resolution to impose sanctions
4) Say "I know why you killed 4000 of our civilians. It's because we were mean to you in the last 20 years. Let me help you by giving you money, food and medicine as a reward for making us see our devious ways".
5) Use harsh language and yell at them.

You want to prevent 911? go after the hearts and minds of the people who largely drove those planes, Saudis..... and where's Bin Ladin? I guess getting involved in Iraq was much more important than finding the guy truly responsible for the attacks? Rolling Eyes

There are so many things wrong with this statement, its downright confusing.

1) Go after Hearts and Minds after 9/11? Excuse me, where do you live? I live in downtown NYC. Fuck the "hearts and minds" of those who attacked us. Fuck you too for sympathizing with them. I understand the plight of the palestinians and the muslim nations. Flying planes into civilian buildings is not a good way to deal with it. Any nation who sanctions that behavior needs to be torn down. Immediately.

2) You mentioned Iraq. We are talking about Afghanistan. Two different naations. Look at a globe. Really, they are different places.

M. Bréqs wrote: First off, our victory is already half-achieved. The first (and as I stated earlier most important) war aim was proving the terrible consequence of attacking a NATO nation. That is done, and has been done handily. No rational actor, state or otherwise would threaten the West with an attack after our response to 9/11, and all states (within their capabilities) rightly fear the growth of radical groups within their borders that would draw a Western military response.

Agreed. Mission accomplished. Great work. Everyone should be given a medal and mounds of cash. I'm not kidding. MOUNDS of cash. Maybe a few hundred thousand per soldier.

The second war aim is to set the conditions for Afghanistan to take over its own protection. This one is a long-term project. When the Government of Afghanistan is capable of sustaining and employing a security apparatus that can keep the Taliban at bay (not kill or capture every single individual Taliban fighter outright, that would be impossible), then the West can leave the country. The Government of Afghanistan would then have to offer an amnesty program for low-level fighters to both coerce and attract them away from the Quetta Shura and Provincial level Taliban leadership.

This is nation building. Why did we sign up for this? Is it the "we destroyed it, so we bought it" kinda logic? How many US lives are enough before we say that we've had enough? Suppose a few thousand die in the next 5-10 years (since this is long term). Would it have been worth the cost?

What motivation does the afghan people and government have to be self sufficient? What if that day never comes?

I don't doubt that the afghani's are great, honest, hard working people. But, it doesn't convince me that we should be the ones bearing this great burden to rebuild their nation. I'm always left with the question of "when is enough enough? What are the benchmarks for success? You say, when the afghani's are self sufficient. What does that mean? e.g., they are able to push back 10 taliban offensives in a row. Score! We're done?

If we were immoral, we would have achieved our first war aim and packed up and went home. But we're not immoral, we're principled. We needed to achieve the second war aim because to do otherwise would be to resign the Afghan people to a worse fate through our own inaction.

Agreed that it wouldn't have been right for us to pack up and leave. But we do it all the time. We did it in the first gulf war. We screwed over a whole bunch of Iraqi ppl when we packed up and left. We not only pack up and leave, we sometimes never even go in. Look at North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Somalia (well, we kinda went in here). Bad places. We do nothing. So while I understand how it is immoral to leave after destroying to taliban, its very common for us to do so. Why is it different this time around?


I feel like I'm asking very basic questions. Yet feel I am never given a proper answer. I am a supporter of our effort in Afghanistan. I am NOT a supporter of the Iraq war. But, as a supporter of your effort, I need to know when it'll be all over...in a little more detail than "when they are self sufficient". That answer is like the equivalent as "when there is world peace".

jashic wrote:
Agreed that it wouldn't have been right for us to pack up and leave. But we do it all the time. We did it in the first gulf war. We screwed over a whole bunch of Iraqi ppl when we packed up and left. We not only pack up and leave, we sometimes never even go in. Look at North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Somalia (well, we kinda went in here). Bad places. We do nothing. So while I understand how it is immoral to leave after destroying to taliban, its very common for us to do so. Why is it different this time around?

Why does Venezuela make it into this list?

you're all full of shit.

Homebelly wrote:

jashic wrote:
Agreed that it wouldn't have been right for us to pack up and leave. But we do it all the time. We did it in the first gulf war. We screwed over a whole bunch of Iraqi ppl when we packed up and left. We not only pack up and leave, we sometimes never even go in. Look at North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Somalia (well, we kinda went in here). Bad places. We do nothing. So while I understand how it is immoral to leave after destroying to taliban, its very common for us to do so. Why is it different this time around?

Why does Venezuela make it into this list?

I got a bit carried away, lol

jashic wrote:

Where I differ with you. Fundamentalism of all kinds springs from a real or perceived injustice. In the states the most crazy religious nuts are from the south, which to a degree was disenfranchised economically after the civil war.
In the middle east it comes from our constant military and economic presence, and in that sense it's my opinion that you are creating more problems than you are solving. In many respects the fact that you lay blame for the insanity of the Taliban and islamic fundamentalism on the religion itself instead of looking at the reasons why a people would turn even more sharply towards fundamentalism is the cancer that causes young middle eastern kids to join terrorist cells in the first place. They don't appear out of nowhere lured by afterlife virgins etc.

Right on. But, it's a catch 22 like you said. What could we have done? Here are some alternatives to what we could have done (Not that I agree with them) after 9/11. Pick one.

No. You're not getting it. Bin Ladin flew those planes into those towers using the hearts and minds of Saudis mainly. The fools that followed him were tools, he's the one we want. To bring him down you have to offer the people of the middle east something better than what the fundamentalists offer. So far that's meant a lot of blather about how our military presence in the middle east will somehow make the disenfranchised come out and vote for one of the US/UN military approved candidates. We pick and choose who they can vote for, and enforce 'stability' with a military presence. Really, what rebellious teenager wouldn't think a rouge organization offering strong religious code coupled with the promise of virgins with martyrdom would look good compared to sucking up to foreigners in battle gear roving your streets?

The money spent on Iraq, and the time spent grand standing with the Taliban about handing the fucker over..... total BS! As if Bin Ladin wasn't long gone by the time that was done. Sure, go in attack Bin ladins camps, fight off the Taliban, bomb them to shit whatever, but to make a big show of it, and lose the main guy, then publicly state he wasn't that important anyway, and go after Iraq........ all the while siding with northern "freedom" fighters who of course turned out to be mainly opium growers pissed off that the Taliban was messing up their business...... we look like what we always do in third world nations with goods and product we want, self serving hypocrites.

Basically, we are creating our own boogymen.
The money spent on all this, Iraq etc. could have easily been used to find bin Ladin IMO. Iraq is connected, we wouldn't have gone in to Iraq without 911, and we would have a better chance of finding Bin Ladin if we weren't spending billions on that BS.

Just as a final comment, I'm willing to bet Bin ladin is in Pakistan, and we won't do shit to get him there, because that particular muslim nation has nuclear capabilities. The more we meddle with the middle east, the less likely Pakistan is to cooperate and let us engage him there.

So yes, in theory I think that Afghanistan and the taliban were a problem and it made some sense to go in there, but in practice we're just stirring the pot of shit we keep cooking up in that area, and my price per gallon at the pumps isn't even down. The greedy bastards that are lining their pockets from this aren't sharing.

Machinesworking wrote:

jashic wrote:

Where I differ with you. Fundamentalism of all kinds springs from a real or perceived injustice. In the states the most crazy religious nuts are from the south, which to a degree was disenfranchised economically after the civil war.
In the middle east it comes from our constant military and economic presence, and in that sense it's my opinion that you are creating more problems than you are solving. In many respects the fact that you lay blame for the insanity of the Taliban and islamic fundamentalism on the religion itself instead of looking at the reasons why a people would turn even more sharply towards fundamentalism is the cancer that causes young middle eastern kids to join terrorist cells in the first place. They don't appear out of nowhere lured by afterlife virgins etc.

Right on. But, it's a catch 22 like you said. What could we have done? Here are some alternatives to what we could have done (Not that I agree with them) after 9/11. Pick one.

No. You're not getting it. Bin Ladin flew those planes into those towers using the hearts and minds of Saudis mainly. The fools that followed him were tools, he's the one we want. To bring him down you have to offer the people of the middle east something better than what the fundamentalists offer. So far that's meant a lot of blather about how our military presence in the middle east will somehow make the disenfranchised come out and vote for one of the US/UN military approved candidates. We pick and choose who they can vote for, and enforce 'stability' with a military presence. Really, what rebellious teenager wouldn't think a rouge organization offering strong religious code coupled with the promise of virgins with martyrdom would look good compared to sucking up to foreigners in battle gear roving your streets?

The money spent on Iraq, and the time spent grand standing with the Taliban about handing the fucker over..... total BS! As if Bin Ladin wasn't long gone by the time that was done. Sure, go in attack Bin ladins camps, fight off the Taliban, bomb them to shit whatever, but to make a big show of it, and lose the main guy, then publicly state he wasn't that important anyway, and go after Iraq........ all the while siding with northern "freedom" fighters who of course turned out to be mainly opium growers pissed off that the Taliban was messing up their business...... we look like what we always do in third world nations with goods and product we want, self serving hypocrites.

Basically, we are creating our own boogymen.
The money spent on all this, Iraq etc. could have easily been used to find bin Ladin IMO. Iraq is connected, we wouldn't have gone in to Iraq without 911, and we would have a better chance of finding Bin Ladin if we weren't spending billions on that BS.

Just as a final comment, I'm willing to bet Bin ladin is in Pakistan, and we won't do shit to get him there, because that particular muslim nation has nuclear capabilities. The more we meddle with the middle east, the less likely Pakistan is to cooperate and let us engage him there.

So yes, in theory I think that Afghanistan and the taliban were a problem and it made some sense to go in there, but in practice we're just stirring the pot of shit we keep cooking up in that area, and my price per gallon at the pumps isn't even down. The greedy bastards that are lining their pockets from this aren't sharing.

Agreed on almost all of your points. But, basically, you're blaming our foreign policy as a whole. Which I agree is insanely flawed. But isolate the afghani war we are fighting and I think it is a more noble war than any conflict since the korean war.

For example:

Say we never went into Iraq, we only went into Afghanistan. We spread love between Israel and the Palestinians, find bin laden in Pakistan, save Bhutto from being assasinated, etc.

All of a sudden the afghani war looks noble.

But instead of all the things to support that effort, we went into Iraq, pissed off Iran, sat idly while jews and muslims fire rockets at each other and side with the jews on everything they do, include invade another country.

So again, I agree with you in general. But don't agree with you in specific isolated things, such as the Afghan war.

Oh yeah, regarding gas prices, someone do the math and explain to me why oil companies are making huge profits when demand for oil has not increased?

Why are oil companies making record profits on our behalf? Our consumption of oil has not increased. So why are they making more money?

If we consume 1 million barrels a day, then their profits should be the same. I don't care what the cost of oil is, if they charge the same premium on top of whatever they had to pay for the oil, and they sell the same amount of it, then the bottom line should be equal.

They are price gouging everyone in the USA. They basically decided to raise their rates ON TOP OF the OPEC prices going up. That is unacceptable. The government needs to HEAVILY regulate the oil companies.

jashic wrote:Oh yeah, regarding gas prices, someone do the math and explain to me why oil companies are making huge profits when demand for oil has not increased?

Why are oil companies making record profits on our behalf? Our consumption of oil has not increased. So why are they making more money?

If we consume 1 million barrels a day, then their profits should be the same. I don't care what the cost of oil is, if they charge the same premium on top of whatever they had to pay for the oil, and they sell the same amount of it, then the bottom line should be equal.

They are price gouging everyone in the USA. They basically decided to raise their rates ON TOP OF the OPEC prices going up. That is unacceptable. The government needs to HEAVILY regulate the oil companies.

because saddam started selling OIL in EUROS (autumn 2000) , meaning america couldn't just print the money to buy the oil, they had to buy euros first. This was better for iraqis, because at the time the euro was worth about 18% more.
What did the USA do as soon as they seized control in Iraq ? That's right, they started selling iraqi oil with the dollar again. Doing the iraqis out of 18% or more on the barrel. Smmmmooooth.

Oh, and Iran have been selling their oil in euros. and they've set up this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse

Ohhhh say can you SEEEEEEEE....what's gonna happen next?