after 9/11 what has been accomplsihed ?

[Ruckus]

Heres something for perspective

[Zeradul]

Yep. Great chart.  And that "cost of the war" chart doesn't include HUGE things we've lost, like the damage we've done to our reputation in the eyes of a whole new generation of middle easterners.  In addition it doesn't include costs of things like the Patriot act, nor BULLSHIT agencies like the Department of Homeland Security.  (HELLO THAT IS THE MILITARY"S JOB... AKA DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE)  Also, the bullshit TSA protecting us from scientifically proven bullshit like bombs made from liquid in water bottles, LOL.

As infinitesimal as terrorism was prior to 9/11, (roughly 50,000 times less likely than dieing in a car crash... no shit!) we aren't making things any better for ourselves with what we've done in the middle east.  JUST IMAGINE if WE were the ones being occupied, and EACH of us had a brother, child, uncle, aunt or grandparent that had been killed by our Occupiers.  Can you wrap your head around how PISSED We'd be?  Even if the death was a military action death, (much worse if the death was accidental).

I know some elderly who STILL hold a grudge against the Russians, and THEY didn't even occupy us for ONE DAY.  Yet that hatred and sentiment remains.  All we have done in the middle east is made furious a large portion of the current, and next generation.  And THAT is the best terrorism recruiting tool there is.  They don't HATE us because we are rich, or because we buy britney spears, or EVEN because American women are allowed to walk around scantily clad.  They HATE us because we've KILLED PART OF THEIR FUCKING FAMILY.

And you could say, "Oh well, at least we'll win in the middle east" but let me remind you that we cannot win with GUNS what we need philosophy to win.  Guerrilla fighters in the history of the world are UN-DEFEATED.  Because they have nowhere to go, and as it turns out, death of family members is a VERY POWERFUL MOTIVATOR.  We cannot win in the middle east with Guns.  It's a "hearts and minds" war, and you can only win by convincing those citizens that we would like to help them achieve something they want.  And no matter HOW GOOD that thing is, it's a HARD BARGAIN with so many deaths on our hands, and guys, trucks, and tanks rumbling through everyone's hometown every day, for years and years and years.

It can not be won in the way we are trying to win.  It's like we're trying to win a game of chess with the strategy of Go Fish.

It's a tough time to be a Bush supporter.  It's no surprise Bush's actions go undefended here on the forums.

[Mnementh]

The reason Bush's actions go undefended on this forum is because it is often met with condescension and derision.  I have engaged in quite a few enlightening conversations about the current state of things with people on this forum privately, where respect is the norm and appreciation is shown to opposing viewpoints.

[Zeradul]

Yea, and the record low approval rating doesn't help either.  Still, if there were good points to be made, those points would survive scrutiny.  The fear that they might not however, further prevents them from being presented.

Opposing viewpoints are great, but they have to be supported with facts, historical similarities, and observations, and once that is done they need to be carefully compared with the pros and cons of alternative viewpoints and the validity of each carefully compared.  What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.  And viewpoints which can be protected by avoiding debate, will never be challenged, and therefore, never altered.

But to each his own.

[Mnementh]

Your broad assumptions only serve the function of proving those that do not post here right. 

[Ruckus]

Damn Zera, broad is an understatement. You sound like that Stossel knucklehead.

[Zeradul]

Your broad assumptions only serve the function of proving those that do not post here right.

And yours serve to reinforce excuses to avoid actual discussion.

In order to have healthy debate, we must all separate our ideas and philosophies from our own views of ourselves.  Discussion of issues is nothing more than that, it is not a critique on one's life, nor who they are, and thus debates about ideas need to be kept separate from one's own self image.  A critique of a view someone holds is not a judgment of that person, but merely that idea.  Personally I eliminate name calling to not only keep the issue from becoming personal, but also out of respect for whom I am debating.  If I didn't respect them, I wouldn't waste time debating them.

Now, I've personally made every effort to avoid hard feelings that debates can stir up.  These are not easy topics, and certainly many people cannot have them without coming away with a grudge.  The phrase: "Don't debate politics or religion" is a commonly held mantra of many for this exact reason.  I avoid certain topics with many people in my life, and I have made every offer to avoid certain issues with anyone who wishes to not go there in a debate.

We can debate the ins and outs of potential hard feelings on various issues, but we don't seem to make any progress, and it just seems to serve the purpose of avoiding debate of the issue itself.

[Zeradul]

Damn Zera, broad is an understatement.

I am being broad, because I do not know what is being claimed.  If I assume anything about the insinuations made, then you'd call me out for assuming too much and picking on someone.

I'm responding to this extremely broad statement:

I have engaged in quite a few enlightening conversations ... where respect is the norm and appreciation is shown to opposing viewpoints.

Any clarification on that and I'll further clarify what I mean.

[Mnementh]

So your reply to me calling you to task for making assumptions was to say I'm also making assumptions?  Brilliant.  Did you have to talk to a roomate to glean that valuable piece of knowledge or did you actually come up with it all by yourself?

In order to have healthy debate, we must all separate our ideas and philosophies from our own views of ourselves.

For a healthy debate to occur, there does not need to be seperation of any kind.  My vaules and philosophies are what help to define me as a person and I hold to them dearly.  In order to discuss them, I do not need to seperate myself from them for that would only serve to sever myself from the discussion and make it, in my opinion, souless.  A measure of a person isn't whether or not they can keep from taking things personally, it is how they conduct themselves while talking about personal issues in the face of someone who doesn't respect them as personal issues.  You have, time and time again, shown that you hold very little value for how someone feels about a specific topic, which has driven people away from wanting to discuss things with you.

One of my biggest gripes about you for as long as I've known you, Zera, is your arrogance.  I know I have repeated this charge to you over and over again, yet I have never seen you ever take into consideration any kind of feedback that you've recieved either from me or from anyone else on this matter.  Heck, there are several examples of it in this thread alone!  That is not "healthy", that is not a person who is interested in respecting other people's points of view or their feelings, and due to that, you have become a person who is not attractive as far as generating a discussion with for me.  

I used to be a bombastic asshole, and I have tried my hardest to tone down my rhetoric and move away from personal attacks and name calling...and I feel as though, for the most part, I have done well with it.  I fail to see any kind of similar growth in you.  I feel like I'm talking to the same exact Zera from 8+ years ago, and to me, that is not the type of person I generally engage.

[Zeradul]

So your reply to me calling you to task for making assumptions was to say I'm also making assumptions?

Weren't you?  Don't you think your statement was extremely vague and broad. "where respect is the norm and appreciation is shown to opposing viewpoints."

For a healthy debate to occur, there does not need to be separation of any kind.  My values and philosophies are what help to define me as a person and I hold to them dearly.

As do mine, I value my views because I constantly test them to ensure (as best I can) that they are the best way to go about things.  But the key point is that I never take offense when someone challenges one of them, in fact I LOVE IT.  It's an opportunity for growth!  I believe this is the root of the problem we have here, because people read things into what I have typed that aren't there.  Sometimes I feel that taking offense to something mundane I've said about a sensitive idea or philosophy is an excuse to divert the discussion instead of responding to the topic at hand.

A measure of a person isn't whether or not they can keep from taking things personally, it is how they conduct themselves while talking about personal issues in the face of someone who doesn't respect them as personal issues.

Yes that's true, they are personal issues, but ideas to the contrary are *NOT* attacks!  That is merely the point I am making.  Anyone who cannot continue a debate without feeling bad because an opposing view was presented should not continue further until they realize there is no reason to feel bad!  They were not personally attacked, and if it turns out that there is a superior option, then they grow as a person.  Stagnating with ones beliefs and views is something to feel bad about, but never fear growth resulting from new information!  I have changed stances on so many things since this community formed 10 years ago, and a good portion of it as a result of debates here!  I'm dead serious!

You have, time and time again, shown that you hold very little value for how someone feels about a specific topic

*What* someone thinks or feels on an issue is not nearly as important to me as *WHY* they think or feel that way.  I value what everyone says, and the more that idea is supported with valid reasons, the more I respect it, even if I couldn't disagree more.  It is very important to me to know all sides of every issue.  Until a person understands all sides, they merely understand one arbitrarily chosen side.  They might be right, or they might be wrong, but they won't know until they start looking and listening to the alternatives.

One of my biggest gripes about you for as long as I've known you, Zera, is your arrogance.  I know I have repeated this charge to you over and over again, yet I have never seen you ever take into consideration any kind of feedback that you've received either from me or from anyone else on this matter.

I appreciate your feedback, but I have yet to be given an example of how I am arrogant in debate.  I admit I am confident in much of what I say, and I support challenged aspects with facts and sources, and I compliment anyone whenever a good point is made.  I believe most people go into most debates confident that they are at least worthy of having some input.  On issues that I am not comfortable contributing I choose to say nothing, and just listen.  Here on the forum, I try to write things as clearly and concisely as possibly, and I do not know where you see arrogance in what I say.  So I ask again, try not to read it that way, because no arrogance is intended.  If you still see arrogance from me, and you believe I am wrong, then the best method to combat it is to present your view with supporting reasons why you believe it is superior, and then present evidence that pokes holes in my view, that will bring any arrogance to a halt and quick.

I have tried my hardest to tone down my rhetoric and move away from personal attacks and name calling...and I feel as though, for the most part, I have done well with it.  I fail to see any kind of similar growth in you.

By all means point out something I said that you feel is a personal attack, name calling that I have said in the past 4 years.  I can assure you, the times I've done such are extremely rare, because it is simply not the reason I am here.  When I engage in a debate, I'm interested in the discussion only.  I realize that absolutely nothing is accomplished by either name calling nor personal attacks, in fact, it usually just breaks down the real discussion into bitching and moaning about completely unrelated minutia.

[m J o]

And that "cost of the war" chart doesn't include HUGE things we've lost, like the damage we've done to our reputation in the eyes of a whole new generation of middle easterners.

was there a time when middle easteners really respected the US? or do you mean the reputation that the US used to have as in what (in thier eyes)

[joel]

zera sucks all good conversation out of a thread.  make your posts fucking smaller, jesus.

[Zeradul]

was there a time when middle easteners really respected the US? or do you mean the reputation that the US used to have as in what (in their eyes)

Excellent question.  I think it's safe to say 100 years ago they would have had no opinion, not positive, but not negative either, especially since we gave a big "Fuck You" to Great Britain 130 years prior, and Great Britain was well underway with fucking with the region at that time, and NOT viewed positively.

Still, in the past 100 years we've done a lot to damage or destroy our reputation.  Destroying Iran's democracy and installing the Shah really pissed off the average Iranian.  We fueled, and funded wars in Iran against both Russia, and Iraq. (not to mention that we betrayed them when we supported Iraq)  We actually did a huge positive for our reputation when we removed Saddam from Kuwait.  But anything we gained from Desert Storm was destroyed in the "War on Terror"

make your posts fucking smaller, jesus.

Any more concise and I'm vague and generalizing, and long posts and I'm a boring windbag.  Some things are complex, and require more than a one sentence response.  If you care not to discuss them then don't.

What I've posted in this thread is comparable to maybe 3 or 4 pages in a typical book, and not even two minutes of speaking in a real debate.  I've had to write weekly 35 page reports on lab work for my engineering degree.  I've watched at least 10 of the 2-3 hour political debates this spring.  5 Paragraphs is too much?

zera sucks all good conversation out of a thread.

I hear that.    When the debate ends, the discussion has arrived at a temporary conclusion.  Until new information, or new events lead to the discussion being reopened and elaborated on later.  I like pursuing debates to that end, or at least to that end of the aspects of the debate I'm interested in.  That often means I end the debate and there's nothing left to be said. 

[dusty]

I just ate a chocolate cookie

[Ruckus]