agentwhale007. wrote: So what did everybody do this weekend?

Uhh, i hit the rec-ball field, and barrel tagged a guy in speedball, that was fun.  2nd game i got 2 guys off the break, so it was all a good weekend, how about everyone else?

Linus wrote: Dune wrote: So lets not try to fix things since this is just how it always will be? He never said that.

No, he's just spreading rhetoric that could be argued in the opposite as well, with no clear or correct answer. Making statements about who really are the "haves" versus the "have nots" is an assumption.

Linus wrote: No, not an assumption, an opinion, and this is Thoughts and Opinions

I don't see a difference. Anyways, his opinion taken as the word of god most times.

Linus wrote: Dune wrote: Anyways, his opinion taken as the word of god most times. Not to offend you, but what do you know about the word of God... you don't believe in him.

Once again, semantics. Do you ever try to argue a point without breaking down the actual paragraph to debate the correctness of a metaphor. Is it that when you lose you need to find something else in order to make it look like you won?

oldsoldier wrote: Thoughout our history America has never embarked on a true war of conquest, though many an opertunity has been presented.

Tell that to a Native American...

**Stunned Silence**

oldsoldier wrote: As for Americas "War on Poverty", here at home, a major offensive has been going on since 1965's "Great Society" as seen by Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats, yet no victory in sight, and no exit stategy either. Oh, by the way does Jesse Jackson, or for that matter any Democrat actually want to see victory in this war, will put many thier parties and causes "haves" out of work, and a culture no longer dependant on the government will no longer need thier election promises.

Very well put. My dislike for Jesse Jackson's political views is only outshadowed by my extreme dislike for programs that increase dependency on the government.

It's funny to me that liberal democrats want people to trust their lifestyles with a nation whose debt goes into the trillions.

oldsoldier wrote: Dune, this forum is a classic example of human predatorial nature. There are two distinct powers here at work, two distinct ideals, each defended as right by all parties involved, neither will compromise their ideals for it will show weakness to the other, welcome to the human race.

Err...  Speak for yourself.

I agree with some people on some issues, other people on other issues.  I most certainly don't see two disctinct camps. 

I guess you missed the 15-page heated debate of me vs. one of the smittys, where smitty was siding with the folks that often side with you.

Moreover, the rational people in this forum are happy to "admit weakness" if their position is weak.  I have changed many views and opinions after discussions on this forum.

Linus - remember when I told you that there are times when you clinging to a point that is obviously wrong, and everybody is telling you it is obviously wrong?  This is one of those times.

I advised you then to let those points drop.  I am advising you now to let this point drop, because every time you post this, more people are laughing at you.

oldsoldier wrote: The conquest of America, yes a true war of agression and expansion along with conquest, forgive the indescretion. And please those who find it unjust please fell free to abandon your illgotten properties here in the Americas, be true to your principles, and exit back to your ancestrial homeland. Oh, you are now part of the "haves" and have no intention on giving anything back to the "have nots". But you can change, why should it be as it allways was.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk

Polk also sought to address the Oregon boundary dispute. Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1818" title="1818 - 1818 , Oregon had been under the joint occupation and control of Britain and the United States; Polk, however, demanded sovereignty over the whole territory. Though he had campaigned on the slogan "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight," Polk was not prepared to wage war with the British, especially when the acceptance of Texas into the Union had already made Mexico a hostile power. Polk preferred to accept a compromise offered by the British Foreign Secretary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hamilton-Gordon%2C_4th_Earl_of_Aberdeen" title="George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen - Lord Aberdeen , and ratified the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Treaty" title="Oregon Treaty - Oregon Treaty . The treaty divided the Oregon Country between the two countries along the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49th_parallel_north" title="49th parallel north - 49th parallel . Although there were many who still clamored for the whole of Oregon, the treaty was approved by the Senate. The portion of Oregon acquired by the United States would later form the states of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington" title="Washington - Washington , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon" title="Oregon - Oregon , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho" title="Idaho - Idaho , and parts of the states of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana" title="Montana - Montana and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming" title="Wyoming - Wyoming .

The President turned his attention to the acquisition of California, and in this case, he was prepared to go to war if necessary (see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War" title="Mexican-American War - Mexican-American War ). In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1845" title="1845 - 1845 , Polk had sent a diplomat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Slidell" title="John Slidell - John Slidell , to Mexico to negotiate the purchase of California and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico" title="New Mexico - New Mexico . Although Slidell was prepared to offer up to $40 million, the Mexicans, angered by the annexation of Texas, refused to bargain. In January http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1846" title="1846 - 1846 , Polk ordered General http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Taylor" title="Zachary Taylor - Zachary Taylor to lead his troops into the area between the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueces_River" title="Nueces River - Nueces River and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande" title="Rio Grande - Rio Grande —territory that was claimed by both Texas and Mexico. As negotiations continued to prove fruitless, Polk prepared to ask Congress for a declaration of war. Serendipitously, mere days before Polk intended to make his request to Congress, he received word that Mexican forces had crossed the Rio Grande area and killed eleven American troops. Polk amended his planned speech and changed his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli" title="Casus belli - casus belli , stating that Mexico had "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil." However, he ignored the point that the territory in question was disputed, and did not unequivocally belong to the United States. A Whig congressman, future President http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln" title="Abraham Lincoln - Abraham Lincoln , introduced the "Spot Resolutions," which demanded that Polk point out the precise "spot" where American blood had been spilt. Such technical points, however, were largely ignored by the public, especially in the South and the West. Congress easily approved the declaration of war, with many Whigs fearing that they would have lost the support of their constituents had they voted for peace.

By the summer of 1846, New Mexico had been conquered by American forces under General http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_W._Kearny" title="Stephen W. Kearny - Stephen W. Kearny . Meanwhile, American settlers in California, led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Fr%C3%A9mont" title="John C. Frémont - John C. Frémont , rebelled against Mexican rule, and established the independent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic" title="California Republic - California Republic . General Zachary Taylor, at the same time, met with success on the Rio Grande. The United States also negotiated a secret arrangement with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna" title="Antonio López de Santa Anna - Antonio López de Santa Anna , the Mexican general and dictator who had been overthrown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1844" title="1844 - 1844 . Santa Anna agreed that, if given safe passage into Mexico, he would attempt to persuade those in power to sell California and New Mexico to the United States. Once he reached Mexico, however, he reneged on his agreement, declared himself President, and tried to fight the American invaders back. Santa Anna's efforts, however, were in vain, as Generals Zachary Taylor and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield_Scott" title="Winfield Scott - Winfield Scott destroyed all resistance.

To go back to the beginning...

I actually agreed with many of the lesser observations in OS' first post, with some minor clarifications:

oldsoldier wrote: This cycle repeats, the "have nots" declare "war" on the "haves", possibly win the "war" and then the "have nots" become the "haves" and no matter how well intended an ideal, aquire power, wealth, and another group of "have nots" develope and desire what they now feel is denied them, and away we go into the next cycle.`

What you are describing is essentially revolution, where the "oppressed masses" (or equivalent) overthrow their rules/imperial overlords/whatever.  And I agree that the revolutionaries tend to become what they were fighting.

Where you are wrong, however, is that you apply this logic to all wars.  I would suggest that the vast majority of wars have been started not by the have-nots against the haves, but by the strong haves against the weaker haves.

It is a rare war started by the underdog.

Most wars for conquest have been started by the rich and strong looking for more loot.  Take Rome (one of your favorite historical examples) - can anyone seriously argue that Rome attacked the Northern barbarians because the Romans were jealous of their mud huts?  The Romans were strong and rich, and they were looking for more stuff, preferably in the hands of weaker folks.

To describe the Roman campaigns as the have-nots taking on the haves would be silly.

[Arafat's] war was and still is a war for personal profit for the haves of the Palestinian cause.

I think you may be overstating your point a bit here.  While wealth certainly is a common goal of war, certainly ideologies play into it as well?  Are you arguing that every single revolutionary leader in history was ONLY in it for the money?

Currently we are fighting an idea, Radical Islam, just as we fought National Socialism, Communism, and whatever cause celebre', each idea counter to American Ideals, and each bend on imparting their ideals on us, exerting thier percieved "better" way of life on us because for no other reason, we have what thier leaders desire, and will use their cultures "have nots" poverty as a weapon in thier personal struggle to get it, and what will change for the "have nots" in thier culture.

Do you seriously believe that?  Does your arrogance run that deep?

Thoughout our history America has never embarked on a true war of conquest, though many an opertunity has been presented.

I think this point has been covered.

America just uses a differant approach in its "wars", we do have a highr moral ground than most "world powers" and see our way as "better",

This is where I beg to differ.  Our country, in its current form, was born out of blood-soaked imperialistic ambition.  We hold the world record for speed-killing of civilians.  We offered bounties for the killing and mutilation of certain groups of our own citizens less than a hundred years ago.  Less than fifty years ago we were persecuting citizens that MIGHT hold unpopular political views.  Less than forty years ago we had laws prohibiting citizens to marry if they were the wrong color.  We currently imprison our own citizens indefinitely, with no rights and in complete secrecy, if there is a mere suspicion that they might in some way be associated with terrorism.

How does that make us "better"?  Our history speaks for itself.

...and those who differ in opinion in that statement give me an example of a current world leader and or power you would prefere to see in our role in the world, who would not use it to thier advantage in aquisition of power and wealth.

Wrong question - every group thinks "they" are better.  You could ask that question in any terrorist group of your choice, and they would all answer that they should be running the place. 

The better is what OTHER people think of us.  You are not a good guy because YOU think you are a good guy.  You might, however, be a good guy if other people think you are.  How many people have to tell you that you are a bad guy before you start thinking "hmm - maybe I am a bad guy?"  While the opinions of others are not conclusive either, they certainly provide much more useful information than your own opinions.

This idea we are fighting Radical Islam, is led by Islamic "haves" (find me a poor terrorist leader in the mix)

Ok - Al-Zarqawi.  That was the first name I tried.  Took me one try.

And the same hold for other leading terrorist groups.  IRA, LTTE, FARC, your terrorists in Indonesia and Thailand - all led by dirt-poor folks.  Osama is the exception, not the rule.

... who will continue as they have done throughout history to use thier "have nots" under promise and threat of thier "religion" to further thier "cause", and will continue till they "win" and impart thier brand of "control" on those they feel as weak, and the Islamic elite will still keep the control of poverty on those they wish to control.

Now here I agree - at some point the cause tends to become perverted, and the leaders will use rather unscrupulous means to maintain morale and discipline.  That does not mean, however, that there is not legitimate belief in the ideology at the highest and lowest levels.

oldsoldier wrote: Clark..you amaze me...you find pleasure in disecting any idea contrary to yours, but seldom do you actually bring foward a reference or point that you believe is a solution (as many leftists are prone to do, no ideas just good intentions). Just everyone elses opinion, answer or idea in your opinion is flawed.

OS, you amuse me ... your insistence on labels is, if nothing else, consistent.

As I have said on numeous occasions:  I support the war in Iraq.  I supported it from the beginning, before the invasion.

I think our presence in the Middle East is a good thing.  I think we need more of it, not less.

Calling me a "leftist" shows nothing other than your own inability or unwillingness to see nuance.  I have been called a Nazi too many times for the "leftist" label to do anything other than make me giggle.

And, as I indicated earlier, I agreed with much of your initial post.  Heck, I agree with many of your posts.  But just because I may agree with the substance of one of your posts doesn't mean that I am going to look the other way if your argument is flawed, if your facts are wrong, or if your post is generally idiotic.  I can't sit still and let you spout your made-up history and half-baked theories of human behavior just because I support the war in Iraq.

Beleive me Al-Zarqawi is getting funding from somewhere, and he is not going to pocket any of it is he, all for the cause.....the point is no matter how poor our resident insurgent, guerilla, revolutionary starts, by the end of the cause, only the leaders profit out of the fight.

Of course Zarqawi is getting funded.  Terrorism is expensive.  I raised him in direct response to your idiotic claim that there are no poor Islamic terrorist leaders.

As to your larger claim that in the end only the leaders profit - certainly it is true that many revolutionary/insurgent leader types have profited, and many in a corrupt fashion, but I think you are significantly underappreciating the sincerity behind their actions in many cases.  Example:  The Founding Fathers of the US.  Clearly insurgents by any definition.  Was Thomas Jefferson in it only for the groupies?  I certainly like to believe that those guys believed in what they were fighting for.  Why should we give any less credit to the other side of this conflict?

What is the solution to the terrorist who is generated by the "haves" or radical belief contrary to anothers.  Here we are dealing with a belief that wants to revert the world to a 12th century belief, and fundimentally anyone who does not belief as them are the enemy and by their belief is a legitimate target.

I don't have a specific answer.  If I did, I wouldn't be wasting it on a paintball bulletin board.  But - lessons can be learned.  How was the IRA defeated?  By bullets and tanks?  No - by the Irish civilians.  Once an ever-increasing number of Irish came to see the world "our" way, and saw that the terrorists were no longer fighting for them, the IRA became marginalized.  They ran out of recruits, funding, and support.

In my view, the way to defeat terrorists/insurgents/revolutionaries is to cut off their popular support.  As long as they continue to get new recruits and money, as long as they can vanish in the crowd with "no witnesses", we have no chance.  We truly have to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people - indeed, of the entire Middle East.  That is no easy task, and it is a battle that will not be fought with bullets.

Negotiation, what do we offer, military action, what is the goal.

Depends on the circumstances.  If bribing Al-Zarqawi ends the fighting, isn't that worth pursuing?  I can think of a variety of things to discuss.  Clearly our government can as well - you know they are pursuing negotiations with the insurgents.

These are religious warriors, from birth brought up in a world of predudice and violence, promised paradise for suicidal acts against the infidel, taught that thier holy war is just and the only way to bring the true value of Islam to the world.

Suicide bombing is of course not the sole purview of religious groups - not even close.  But just because they blow themselves up doesn't mean they can't be talked down.  It DOES mean, however, that threatening them probably won't work.  There have been successful negotiations with suicide bomber groups in the past.  As to the religious aspect - that's where the hearts and minds comes in.  If parents stop raising their children to believe that killing Americans is the way to heaven, that will tend to slow down recruiting.  We should be befriending mothers, not alienating them.

Yep, lets just leave the middle east, and let them hammer out thier problems, they will instantly see that we want no further conflict, and they will then respect our belief as we are to respect thiers.

You truly are the most consistent straw-man arguer I have ever seen.  You are very good at defeating arguments that nobody has made.

But let me go back to my earlier point - you state that the US has the moral high ground.  I ask:  On what basis do you make that claim?  What gives us the moral high ground over the insurgents in this case?

Clark Kent wrote: We kill innocent people also, Linus...   And often on purpose.

hrioshima, nagasaki, both were on purpose.  When you kill the innocent, the guilty start to stop fighting.  We vaporized them dude.  .032 of a second and the bomb was done exploding and the kinetic energy was starting to destroy everything above ground, women, men , children, animals.  And it was all on purpose

Second one first - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Vietnam (multiple locations).

Then, "collateral damage".  Massive copout.

We unload thousands of pounds of massive explosive ordnance into a heavily populated area, and when civilians are killed, we say "oops" and think it will be ok?

We went in KNOWING there would be civilian casualties.  We disregarded that and went in anyway.  We make strategic and tactical decisions that we KNOW will result in high likelihood of civilian casualties - we do it anyway.

Let me ask you this:  If SWAT teams in the US started using tactics and weapons similar to what our guys are doing in Iraq - would that be ok?  There would be riots, and you know it, because there would be countless "collateral damage".  So if it isn't ok to use a smart bomb to take out criminals in the middle of Chicago, what makes it ok to do so in Bagdad?

Linus wrote: And as for the SWAT metaphor, where do you think SWAT got it's tactics? Where do you think sSWAT got it's weapons?   The army had flashbangs, M4's, tear gas, gas mask, bullet proof vest LONG before swat was even made. Why do you think people leaving the military are often becoming cops? The military lends it's tactics to cops. COps use the same EXACT tactics as the military, but SWATS goal is life preservation, the military's goal is to get rid of any and all threats by what ever means necessary.

No, if we used the same techniques on our own people that we use in Iraq that have become acceptable to you and your ilk, then we would drop 2000 Lb GPS guided bombs in the middle of Compton to kill a suspected drug dealer, and say "what a shame" when it also takes out 45 innocent civilians. And then picket an abortion clinic in our self-righteous zeal.

It's retarDed, professor.

Now, you said we do not kill innocent civilians. We kill them 40:1 with our high tech warfare every day. You are wrong. Again.

OS-Let me restate your point as I understand it:

"We are the haves, so screw the have-nots because it's always been that way. We have no responsibility to humanity even though we are humans." Correct me if I didn't get this straight.

oldsoldier wrote: Goodsmitty, No you missed it, OK we resolve to have our respect for humanity, we preach peace love and understanding, we give the world our riches, and guess what, someone out there in thier ideals will say, not enough, you exsist, still have something I want, and I am coming to get it. And after we have disarmed put flowers in our weapons, trusted in others to defend us (UN), what is our destiny at that point.

So then you ignore what we can fix? Do you ignore what is blatantly wrong with our foreign policy that causes poverty, such as free trade agreements?

Linus wrote: [ zesty, true. But we didn't buy the land from spain, we got it as spoils after the spanish american war. Now i see your point, but if that were a legit reason then EVERYONE country on earth would be guilty of that, not just the US.

Sure - nobody ever said this was only an issue for the US.  We have been trying to make the opposite point:  That the US is no better than anybody else.

"No Child Left Behind" is a joke.

Hey, nice marmot!