"Islamic Extremeist Terrorist", or, Just 'Terrorist'?

[sunshinenbrick]

OK so the "UN" in its current form came later, but still implemented by 'western' type powers...

 

Now I'm not saying that people haven't been 'sold out' here, and this doesn't exclude us 'westerners' who are also along for the ride too. All of this globalisation stuff is an experiment where a lot is done without knowing where it will lead. Unless there are some truth to alien stroies, this has never done before which really does make it flying by the seat of your pants stuff!

 

This is all kind of besides the point though anyway as its all quite instinctual, humans really are just as tribal as they always have been. What I get frustrated about though is the lying... on all fronts. In fact it looks more like panicked denial, classic addiction symptoms...

 

...and what are we addicted to? You gussed it, oil - and all the pleasure it brings.

[HeyYou]

Trouble is, the good ol' US of A seems to think that we have 'better ideas' than everyone else.... even though we have amply demonstrated that instead, we seem to have the schmidas touch. (everything we touch turns to s#*!.) Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Lybia, Yemen..... Are those places better off now because of American 'intervention'? Is the area more stable? Is ANYTHING there improving? Not that I have seen..... And now, we are trying to do the same thing in Syria, that we KNOW simply doesn't work. The american government is being led by the nose by the military/industrial complex, for the profit of a selection of companies..... To the detriment of the rest of the world. The global economy is coming about for the very same reasons. Profit. Not 'the good of the people'...... The US is starting to look a lot more like some of those third world nations we are trying to 'help'.....

[Aurielius]

Auxiliary History Lesson:

 

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by 45 other signatories. Hence the Security Council composition, with the ability of one SC member veto being able to block any resolution.

 

Hardly a Western only construct.....the math is self evident. :facepalm:

[sunshinenbrick]

I don't think the plans are badly implemented as it depends what the end goal is. While I think there are people with the intent of producing stability, sharing and fairness, there is also the idea that it is too much effort and risk to overcome the differences. I think the scene in Indiana Jones when he shoots the swordmaster kind of sums up what I mean.

 

It gets increasingly complicated though as geography is less relvent these days both in politics and business, other than in terms of moving resources. The 'west' is more a way of thinking than a part of the world and yes, will include people from all countries as long as they are willing to do what is needed for the 'greater good'.

 

Countries no longer have borders in the new globalised age. This is a very frightening prospect for people, as the old traditions and assumptions are being washed away to be replaced with new systems. The EU is a good example of the intention, as is NAFTA, NATO, the UN and all the other united government/corporate agreements. The biggest kept secret is that governements are now commercial entities, policies are bought and the money we give them is turned into the most amazing simulation of freedom and democracy.

 

Social and economic cleansing is the order of the day and there are people in the richest nations who are so poor, destitute and hopeless that they could be considered refugees of war. It gives a whole new spin to a war on poverty.

[HeyYou]

I don't think the plans are badly implemented as it depends what the end goal is. While I think there are people with the intent of producing stability, sharing and fairness, there is also the idea that it is too much effort and risk to overcome the differences. I think the scene in Indiana Jones when he shoots the swordmaster kind of sums up what I mean.

 

It gets increasingly complicated though as geography is less relvent these days both in politics and business, other than in terms of moving resources. The 'west' is more a way of thinking than a part of the world and yes, will include people from all countries as long as they are willing to do what is needed for the 'greater good'.

 

Countries no longer have borders in the new globalised age. This is a very frightening prospect for people, as the old traditions and assumptions are being washed away to be replaced with new systems. The EU is a good example of the intention, as is NAFTA, NATO, the UN and all the other united government/corporate agreements. The biggest kept secret is that governements are now commercial entities, policies are bought and the money we give them is turned into the most amazing simulation of freedom and democracy.

 

Social and economic cleansing is the order of the day and there are people in the richest nations who are so poor, destitute and hopeless that they could be considered refugees of war. It gives a whole new spin to a war on poverty.

So, supplanting a form of government, that while it may be distasteful, actually WORKS, with anarchy, sectarian violence, and more death than when the dictator was in charge... is a "good plan"?

 

If the end goal was to destabilize the region, give terrorists new training grounds, and lots of new recruits, then, it came off beautifully. If the 'end goal' was stability, and a working government, we failed miserably. Back when Saddam was in charge in Iraq, Baghdad was listed as one of the top ten cities to live in. Now, it rates in the ten WORST. Face it, our (USA) skills at nation building flat out suck. We are terrible at it, and if our government even makes noises about considering doing something akin to it, we should immediately impeach every last one of them, and start all over again. Our track record shows that we have no concept of what we are doing, whom we are dealing with, or what the people in those regions actually want, or need.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

I don't think the plans are badly implemented as it depends what the end goal is. While I think there are people with the intent of producing stability, sharing and fairness, there is also the idea that it is too much effort and risk to overcome the differences. I think the scene in Indiana Jones when he shoots the swordmaster kind of sums up what I mean.

 

It gets increasingly complicated though as geography is less relvent these days both in politics and business, other than in terms of moving resources. The 'west' is more a way of thinking than a part of the world and yes, will include people from all countries as long as they are willing to do what is needed for the 'greater good'.

 

Countries no longer have borders in the new globalised age. This is a very frightening prospect for people, as the old traditions and assumptions are being washed away to be replaced with new systems. The EU is a good example of the intention, as is NAFTA, NATO, the UN and all the other united government/corporate agreements. The biggest kept secret is that governements are now commercial entities, policies are bought and the money we give them is turned into the most amazing simulation of freedom and democracy.

 

Social and economic cleansing is the order of the day and there are people in the richest nations who are so poor, destitute and hopeless that they could be considered refugees of war. It gives a whole new spin to a war on poverty.

So, supplanting a form of government, that while it may be distasteful, actually WORKS, with anarchy, sectarian violence, and more death than when the dictator was in charge... is a "good plan"?

 

If the end goal was to destabilize the region, give terrorists new training grounds, and lots of new recruits, then, it came off beautifully. If the 'end goal' was stability, and a working government, we failed miserably. Back when Saddam was in charge in Iraq, Baghdad was listed as one of the top ten cities to live in. Now, it rates in the ten WORST. Face it, our (USA) skills at nation building flat out suck. We are terrible at it, and if our government even makes noises about considering doing something akin to it, we should immediately impeach every last one of them, and start all over again. Our track record shows that we have no concept of what we are doing, whom we are dealing with, or what the people in those regions actually want, or need.

 

 

I think that the old relationships went sour and then neither would play ball so it all went pear-shaped.

 

Not everything goes to plan, but all of the things that are happening now were part of the contigencies in some form. I very much doubt all was put into motion with just the vain hope and crossed fingers that all will be well. I have more faith in governements (and the people who invest in the wars) than to go and do that.

 

What this appears to be is a textbook Problem->Solution->Reaction strategy. Admittedly this may not have been Plan A but hey... if it works.

 

It works like this - a problem (real or not) is created, you are then presented a solution, and people will eventually practically beg you to implement it even if it is not in their best interest. The people at large do not like to have to deal with problems themselves i.e. we sort of expect the government to sort it out... cuz that's what they do right? An example would be if my bank started failing and I may lose all my money I would probably take the opportunity to stop that happening, even if in the small print it said I would lose something else or be indebted some way.

 

There is now more than ever the need for a solution to the problem. And I wouldn't be surprised if the nuclear powers now entering Iran are funded by 'western' hands. While some things appear like utter chaos from the outside their are other things that seem exeptionally well crafted.

[HeyYou]

I disagree. President Bush had absolutely no idea what he was getting himself in for when he went into Iraq, and Afghanistan. As you will recall, Bush sr. was also in a position to oust Saddam. He was within sight of Baghdad, had all the equipment necessary to boot him right the hell out, yet, he did not. Why? "No Viable exit strategy." Exactly what we are seeing today. Sure, we left, for a while..... but, we left because they wanted our soldiers subject to their Sharia law, and we weren't willing to go there. And what we left was a mess. Its still a mess, and it isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Not only are there more terrorists in Iraq now, than when Saddam was in charge, but, they also have real americans to shoot at. We turned Iraq from a non-entity, into a terrorist training ground. Al-qaeda/ISIS wet dream.

 

Afghanistan is now one of THE most corrupt nations in the world.

 

Libya is still in the midst of civil war.

 

Egypt was once again taken over by the Military.

 

Etc.

 

No. It wasn't anything as easy as 'things not going according to plan', though that does play a role. It was simply stupid from the word go. We had NO idea what we were getting ourselves into, we had no idea what the people that lived there actually wanted. (and apparently, it sure wasn't 'democracy'......) The whole region would have been MUCH better off, and more stable..... had we kept our noses out of business we knew absolutely nothing about. The thought that everyone in the world wants the same things americans do, is the height of arrogance. Or, the depth of stupidity........ Either way, the results are the same.

[sunshinenbrick]

Hmmm... I would have to agree that the approach opened a can of worms not easliy closed and that greed may have gotten the better of us.

 

But Bush was not alone, Blair here in the UK, who won the philanthropist award last year which is a sick joke, was very much a part of masterminding the situations we have now. For example, they 'somehow' predicted today's mass movements of people (in fact this goes back to the formation of the EU in the 70's) and measures were even taken to stave off the impending problems. Whether these plans work or what they are it seems like rocky road ahead... there are many hands at work here, many of which may never be seen.

 

Whatever the situation and the bad planning that went with it there is a reason we went into the region, and I bet it was't just to liberate people.

 

A Partial List

 

EDIT: Don't get me wrong though there are more sides to all this, and its quite likely that their are utter lunatics out there and people who have sobbotaged and backstabbed eachother the world over.

 

I do agree it seems like a mess, but Rome was not built in a day :tongue:

[HeyYou]

"mess" is an understatement. :) And I seriously doubt will we end up with anything approaching Rome when all is said and done.

 

Yeah, Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize when he hadn't even been in office six months. All that proved to me was that it was a political decision, not based on anything he had actually done. (as, he hadn't done anything......)

 

I think the major reason we went there was exactly what you say. Oil. Various mega-corporations saw a land ripe for the picking, and a 'new' government would be more interested in getting some money, than in just what they were selling off for said money. I found it absolutely hilarious that when the time came to start bidding on oil rights, not a single american company was to be seen. Too many 'security concerns' for them, apparently. Talk about 'not according to plan'...... there is the very picture of a plan gone wrong.

[sunshinenbrick]

I reckon if we lived in the times of ancient Rome we would have seen it for the house of cards it was. Things from outside always have a veneer, appearing more majestic than they really are.

 

Oil is an increasingly toxic issue in politics these days. Plus the amalgamation of companies coupled with advances in technologies means that the production and manufacturing of oil is driven ever further underground (sorry about the puns...)

 

I would be hesitant to write off the plans of the most powerful people in the world as a complete failure, as I just think there are limited tickets available for the after party.