Thread: Giving People non-Violent Recourse

Suppose we go into a place like Afghanistan, kill every single adult male in the whole country, and the women and children are still standing defiantly at the edge of their villages refusing to accept our rule. What do we do then? Start shooting the women and children? Or just admit we've lost? In the end, victory at war in our time is a game of popularity and nothing else.

So how do we change the way people feel about us? I don't think handing out candy in the villages is going to do it. It certainly helps. American soldiers become more "human" to them by interacting, but we're dealing with highly impoverished people who think "America's Greed" is the reason they don't have running water. Some of them, such as the swamp people in Iraq that got displaced by oil wells, whom Lynx talks about sometimes, are probably right to think that.

What should they do? Take it lying down? Or shoot at us? Clearly the correct answer is that they should shoot at us, and it's our fault that that is the correct answer. We haven't given them a third option. They have no other way to assert themselves apart from guns. Maybe we should....I don't know.... try giving them another way to assert themselves, and see if they use it? So, what are our options? I can think of a few, but it's a complicated question, and I'm sure my own list is far from complete.

1) - Voting

It works if people can be confident that the process isn't going to be hijacked. Also, in places like Iraq where you've got 3 big ethnic groups struggling for supremacy, handing the victory on a silver platter to one group over the other 2, just on the basis of its pure numerical superiority, might not foster the best internal relations for that society. It also encourages the most horrible of all social outcomes: deliberate over-reproduction. Contraception and womens' rights are unlikely to improve in such an environment.

2) - Allowing/Encouraging them to become communists.

For a less educated society, a state property system allows the people to hold their own government more directly responsible for their own individual economic well being. Instead of being confused by a bunch of charts and models that predict that they "should" be making a good living, they can demand results and when those results don't come, they can take up arms and attack their own government instead of ours!

Also, having less personal freedom makes it more difficult for their government to claim plausible deniability in the matter when a terrorist attack occurs. As much as it may hurt our nation's feeling that we lost Vietnam, I've yet to hear of any successful Vietnamese terror cells launching attacks on US soil.

3) - Allow them to kill our profits.

If we're pumping oil out of a region, let the percentage of some quarterly vote be the amount of oil we get to drill. If the well's output capacity is 100 barrels a day, and only 21% of the people like us, then we only get to pump 21 gallons a day until we find a way to improve how they feel about us.

That might be too basic to work, but you can see where I'm going with it?

It's kind of like how your girlfriend won't sleep with you if she's unhappy. You really don't want your girlfriend to be unhappy.

What I'm looking for is non-violent ways for people to forcibly assert themselves. A girlfriend refusing sexual favors until she gets something she wants from you is a kind of forcible assertion, but it's not violent. When workers in a union go on strike, they're exercising a similar punitive force to what might be felt if someone destroyed an equivalent number of valuable objects to the production that the workers have prevented from happening, but it's not an act of violence.


What "non-violent" forms of punitive self assertion can we make available to angry farmers in Afghanistan?

Non-violent force? Apply military intelligence. Prince is really smug these days, sorry. Is chronic condition exacerbated by absurdity.

Killing people to win hearts and minds is strategy with proven track record. Unfortunately it is still key element of United States foreign policy.

Originally Posted by kojax

What I'm looking for is non-violent ways for people to forcibly assert themselves. A girlfriend refusing sexual favors until she gets something she wants from you is a kind of forcible assertion, but it's not violent. When workers in a union go on strike, they're exercising a similar punitive force to what might be felt if someone destroyed an equivalent number of valuable objects to the production that the workers have prevented from happening, but it's not an act of violence.


What "non-violent" forms of punitive self assertion can we make available to angry farmers in Afghanistan?

Coercion isn't unknown. Some I've seen. Crushing a street full of cars after they refused to clear. Closing a bridge critical to a market place. Many others are possible, shutting off power, water and other utilities where they exist--the British did a lot of this kind of stuff during their counter insurgency operations.

What I'm hoping for is to define ways we can let the people coerce us back. I think of the human will as being a lot like water under pressure, especially if we're talking about a situation where tempers are running hot. If the only way for that pressure to be released is by violence, it will be released by violence. However, if the pressure has another, easier pathway it can take which still leads to the same amount of release, then maybe it won't be released by violence. The option to simply contain the pressure and allow it no release at all is not a tenable option. You can make violence a worse and worse alternative, but as long as it's the only way to release the pressure it will still happen, no matter how bad an option it gets to become. The pressure of human emotion borders on being a force of nature.

I'm told that people in Afghanistan have the option to write letters to an ombudsman if they've got a grievance with the way the USA is affecting them. I'm sure they could also organize into peaceful protests, so long as they hold them at a location that has no tactical significance. Or...not.. Maybe the Taliban would break it up? Those are pretty passive options, though. I doubt the true extent of their frustration is really captured.

I'm told that people in Afghanistan have the option to write letters to ....

Not an option for 2/3rd of them.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

What I'm looking for is non-violent ways for people to forcibly assert themselves. A girlfriend refusing sexual favors until she gets something she wants from you is a kind of forcible assertion, but it's not violent. When workers in a union go on strike, they're exercising a similar punitive force to what might be felt if someone destroyed an equivalent number of valuable objects to the production that the workers have prevented from happening, but it's not an act of violence.


What "non-violent" forms of punitive self assertion can we make available to angry farmers in Afghanistan?

Coercion isn't unknown. Some I've seen. Crushing a street full of cars after they refused to clear. Closing a bridge critical to a market place. Many others are possible, shutting off power, water and other utilities where they exist--the British did a lot of this kind of stuff during their counter insurgency operations.

Or restrict calories, starve them into submission, like Nazis in Warsaw Ghetto.

Warsaw Ghetto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What if we tried to start a sports league, and encourage people from areas that we're not well liked to come out and play soccer against us? Would that give them an outlet? They could try and beat us in a game of soccer? Maybe we could even put something at stake? Supplies, gear, something like that?

Boxing matches might let out still more rage. I know that's all still kind of naive. I'm just trying to find a direction here. These people are humiliated to see American soldiers walking around in their country aiming guns at people. They need a way to take back their pride from us, ...... without killing to do it.

I erased what was more a rant than anything

(I'll just leave the part where the wording ~go~ in "Suppose we go into a place" is euphemism that makes 'suppose we bomb-invade-&-militarily-occupy a place' sound like its the usual routine devoid of conscious guilt like going to get some milk at the supermarket)

"What if we tried to start a sports league" I'm reminded of the roman empire's bread and circuses

As one not from USA, I don't understand, if you want oil or anything else, why not just buy fairly? Is it so necessary to apply military actions to make sure USA get that oil which also anger local people first and then think about a non-violent way for them?
There is certainly threats to USA in other countries, but you are the only one having military basements around the whole world, you have the most effective security system. Using these you can keep most threats out from USA. While you send soldiers to other country, the bullets have no eyes, people will get hurt and hate USA for some reason you can't understand, the threats only get stronger from these people.
Isn't withdraw an option for USA? Never?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"What if we tried to start a sports league" I'm reminded of the roman empire's bread and circuses

Those bread and circuses worked, didn't they? At least for the first few centuries.

Originally Posted by wangwy13

As one not from USA, I don't understand, if you want oil or anything else, why not just buy fairly? Is it so necessary to apply military actions to make sure USA get that oil which also anger local people first and then think about a non-violent way for them?
There is certainly threats to USA in other countries, but you are the only one having military basements around the whole world, you have the most effective security system. Using these you can keep most threats out from USA. While you send soldiers to other country, the bullets have no eyes, people will get hurt and hate USA for some reason you can't understand, the threats only get stronger from these people.
Isn't withdraw an option for USA? Never?

It's more complicated than that. Iraq wasn't withholding its oil from the USA. Sadaam Hussein threatened to start trading in Euros instead of Dollars, but the oil he put on the market was actually keeping the price down inside the USA.

The Saudis wanted the USA to invade Iraq to stop Sadaam from providing the USA with oil so they could charge a higher price, and American officials were so corrupt they allowed themselves to be bribed into going along with it. They probably didn't accept a direct bribe, but campaign contributions and free positive publicity serve the same basic purpose. George W. Bush had been elected using quite a lot of oil money to finance his campaign, so he was easy to convince.

The ~the saudi's made us do it~ (iraq) angle is hard to beleive since most of the key moles in the US administration that were pushing the iraq war propaganda behind the scene were dual citizenship israelis and zionist. And it appears more plausible to me that israelis/zionists were in part behind 911 and the anthrax AND that they were framing arabs for it to boot (true to the 'war by deception' motto)

Yeah. You've got to keep present in your mind that there is only one faction: self interest. All religious and ethnic B.S. is just how they divert and evade. The Saudi Royals don't care about the Israelis. I'm sure their people care somewhat, but they aren't their people. The Saudis did what was in their own self interest. Our government (the USA) did what was in its own best interest, and if the Israeli government played any part in it, they were doing it to serve their own self interest as well.

It doesn't benefit the American people to allow a few oil companies to corner the oil market, even if those companies are based in America. We're still sapping our own economy dry by overpaying for a basic commodity. A few high level business people get rich, but the rest of us lose a lot more money than those few fat cats are ever going to make. (The rest goes to the Saudi Royals for their now-more-valuable mineral rights.)

Originally Posted by kojax

Yeah. You've got to keep present in your mind that there is only one faction: self interest. All religious and ethnic B.S. is just how they divert and evade. The Saudi Royals don't care about the Israelis. I'm sure their people care somewhat, but they aren't their people. The Saudis did what was in their own self interest. Our government (the USA) did what was in its own best interest, and if the Israeli government played any part in it, they were doing it to serve their own self interest as well.

It doesn't benefit the American people to allow a few oil companies to corner the oil market, even if those companies are based in America. We're still sapping our own economy dry by overpaying for a basic commodity. A few high level business people get rich, but the rest of us lose a lot more money than those few fat cats are ever going to make. (The rest goes to the Saudi Royals for their now-more-valuable mineral rights.)

Wow, I mostly agree (pinching myself) But I think humanity needs to outgrow and completely rethink the archaic and corrupt way in which human activity is currently organized (economic-monetary system-political-social-hierarchy). Spending time, thought, focus, creativity and human activity on war and military is imo a horrible waste and a sign of failure (that we need to change and have a long way to go).

Along what lines, have you any suggestions?

Perhaps giving local villages the right to fire any magistrate assigned to administer over them by a 3 village veto. That would ensure that the new government is at least somewhat responsive, because the tribal elders could get together and remove anyone they didn't like.

If they had the power to require soldiers (especially mercenaries) to be subjected to severe scrutiny in a similar manner (ie. demand a huge internal investigation be focused on that person or unit), that would go a long way as well I think. Certainly we don't want soldiers to be slandered just because people dislike the occupation itself, but if three villages come together and agree, it would be easy to analyze the process by which they arrived at their conclusions, and know if it was caused by something like that or a genuine grievance. (Be hard for that many people to keep their story straight.)

They know how to keep the Taliban in check, but they don't know how to keep us in check if they give us too much power over them, so we need to build methods into our system whereby they're not making themselves totally helpless/dependant by cooperating with us.

Americas military went into Iraq, and took everything from Iraqs innocent people, we took their electicity, water, hospitals, normal food supply, and just instantly ripped their whole government structure.

And I am not 100% sure, but we most likely did the same heartless disrespect to Afganistans innocent people.


I went threw huricane Katrina, so let me tell you this, It is not cool or nice to,

1.) to knock out some ones electicity in their home
2.) to turn off their water cleaning and sewer plant
3.) to shut down some ones hospital
4.) remove government order from someones streets

the US military basicly did to Iraqs innocent people, what Katrina did to New Orleans people. just 1000x worse than katrina.

I think we killed over 100,000 Iraqis, many were killed by taking away their clean water, hospitals, ex. ex.


the following would be an example, how US military commanders should handle something like Iraq/ Afganistan.


1.) US military comanders should have gained/ got into communication, with those people in Iraq, that they did not want to kill. We should have dropped non-harmful bombs that spread leaflets and $10.00 cell phones, (and) sent them news broadcasts to slowly explain to Iraqs people, the USA militarys actuall objectives. (And taken months to do this.)

Beforehand, US military commanders should have set up communications systems, that would allow this comunication between US comanders and Iraqs innocent people.


2.) the US military should have gotton a bit of air superiority. And prior to actuall bombing, droped a leaflet/ cell phone spreader bombs, on every site that will be bombed to achieve air superiority. To tell inocent people to stay away. And they should have fully tried to keep Iraqs power grid up, even if that means having some areas with missile defenses still up, just tell the planes to stay out these areas, untill they can be beaten in the future, while still leaving up the electric grid.

They cant stop our tomahawk missles, so warning them before hand, does not even matter. If you warn them of the exact targets/ and time these targets will be hit, this will allow people that our military does not want to kill, to exit the battle area.


3.) after gaining (solid) air superiority, our military comanders should have stopped all offensive military action.

4.) the US military should have then began complex communication with those Iraqis they did not want to kill.

5.) At this point US military comanders should have thought about nothing, except protecting the domestic infrastructure of Iraq.

After the domestic infrastructure was fully 100% secure and 100% stable, they should have begun their mission.


6.) US military leaders should have then followed their orders, to get rid of Sadam and his government.



7.) drop cell phone /leaflet spreader bombs, on all homes/ bussinesses of Sadam/ and his apointed leaders, stating the time/and way these placed will be bombed. Then after all inocent people have been warned, when/ how these targets will be destroyed, then destroy them.

8.) US military leaders should have continued to practice this, warn before you bomb system. And then calmly destroyed any and all assets, of Sadam, and his apointed leaders.


And they could have gotton to step 8.) maybe (with lots of luck, and calm planning) with out killing one inocent person, and keeping most Iraqis electricity and hospitals running.



9.) at this point US military leaders, could have used drone cameras, and spy satalites to pin point the locations of Sadams military. And begin leaflet/ cell phone spreader bomb drops on them.

10.) gain/ start communication with Sadams military via leaflets/ and dropped cell phones, the US military comanders should have communicated their objectives to them, and stated who their friends are, and told their friends to run to a safe spot.

11.) bring in a (few) groups of troops, helis, and tanks. And use them in a calm way, and drop leaflet/ cell phone spreader bombs, and comunicate with the inocent Iraqis, that are near the US troops, before these USA troops goto work.

12.) keep on doing things like steps 1 - 11, untill the (particular) Iraqis who actually like machine gun fighting strangers,
are in a safe spot were no inocent people are around, and then let out the USA's present military behavior.


13.) do the warn before you bomb, and destroy any place that is loyal to sadam or his government.
And if done 100% correctly all of the innocent Iraqis would still have electricity, hospitals, water, safe streets, and (working) imporatant government services. And the loyal to US Iraqis, in communication with the US, could tell US forces were Sadams government is working.

14.) and then take 1/10 the money we spent in Iraq , and use that money and buy innocent Iraqis stuff, and this would cause them to better like US forces.



And for Afganistan the same basic thing, we should have 1000% respected Afganistans innocent people. And if you want to make Afganistans happy give them 1/10 the money we spent in Iraq.


And every one should realize that any countrys general population, does (not) like it, when a foreign country takes over their country, and in the process takes away their electricity, water, hospitals, and safe streets.

I learned the above things are unpleasant during huricane Katrina.

Ironically we did a lot of those things. Of course we didnt' have the drones in any number back than like we have today.

Also worth noting that the vast majority of the civilian deaths in Iraq during the past ten years were from secetarian violence--tribe on tribe, family on family etc. Many times American and Brisish soldiers were lost or crippled while trying to reduce collatoral damage.

I think its also worth noting, that the only reason we went to Iraq, is because of Dick Chenys think tank "project for a new American century". This think tank has had plans to invade Iraq, and remove Sadam from power many, many years before Sept 11.

Cheny, Rumsfeld, and other "project for a new American century" members in GW Bushs White House, were in a huge rush to get into Iraq. Sources say that US troops in Afganistan were very close to killing Bin Laden in the start of the war on terror, but Cheny moved the US troops to Iraq, for his think tank.

When the "project for the new american century" white house member's knew they were in Iraq, they started to party and drink champaine, and they told 935 lies to get us into Iraq.


I would bet, the actuall planing (and deciding were to put US troops in Iraq) were all from plans the "project for a new American century" had 5-10+ years before Sept 11.


I am just saying that GW Bushs white house did (not) take as many pre-war precautions, as a normal white house.

This think tank has had plans to invade Iraq, and remove Sadam from power many, many years before Sept 11.

I would hope so since he'd always been on our radar screen for more than 2 decades at that point and someone who we'd knew we might have to eventually remove since the first Gulf War.

Its Haliburton corporations think tanks radar screen, not (our, America's) radar screen.


No one in washington except haliburtons think tank "project for a new american century" (members) wanted to remove sadam.





You make it sound like americas military, or some great american group has been looking to remove sadam for over 20 years.


And If sadam has been on our radar screen for 2+ decades, why did G (H) W Bush not take him out of power?
GHW Bush had US troops 1000 feet from Iraq, if it was this national cause to remove sadam, why didnt G(H)W Bush do it ?????????


Did clinton want to remove sadam ??
what % of our congress people wanted to remove sadam in the last 20+ years ?


Like I said its Chenys think tank, that wanted to invade Iraq, not GHW Bush, not Clinton, and not the US government.


sorry for being so rude, but you are the toughest republican I have met in this forum

You do realize the American and British Air force was almost in constant duty taking out anti-aircraft batteries and and otherwise enforcing the no-fly zone during those years between the ground wars--for them the war never stopped--it just tempered off a bit for nearly ten years. Having a plan to take out Saddam is not in the least a surprise. We have "plans" to take out most bad actors in the world...everytime I read someone use a plan as evidence I chuckle--somewhere buried in a classified facility there are plans for just about anything you can think of. Saddam, which we were still engaged with, and having killed over a half million of his own countrymen was at the top of the pile. (I personally drove through dozens of destroy villages removed by him--you can probably see them from google earth---there are hundreds of Marsh Arab and Kurdish villages completely destroyed by poisoning wells and other means). Cheney had been SECDef the first time around know far more than most about Saddam ability to make a mischief then most people.

Did Clinton want to remove Saddam ??

Most likely--but didn't see a good political play to do so (sadly). He had few other things on his plate as well such as mending the break up of Yugoslavia and messing with his aids.

G (H) W Bush not take him out of power?

You could read a history book. But I'll share a few tidbits from my perspective as a young soldier at the time, tempered by a career studying that region. 1) Saddam's best forces were completely crushed by the 3rd day of the ground war (in fairness the Air force did most of it) 2) The US ground forces were way past their logistical support, nearly out of fuel, bullets, rest, fresh water, and facing a huge labyrinth of swamps and marshes to get to the capital (Saddam would drain many in time for our next venture) 3) We'd kicked Iraqi forces out of Kuwait--(with the exception of a few straggler units (I spent a few days with the executive officer a the company that got accolades for their island defense from our Marines(A US marine told me this); that Iraqi officer now serves as a Colonel in the 14th Iraqi Motorized Infantry Division--he's make a great Military History mag article) 4) The extraordinary coalition of Western and Arab nations were not going to support the US taking out Saddam--we'd accomplished the mission in their eyes.

There is some thing called the "military industrial complex?", this mechanism is the main reason all of this goes on.


I wish you all showed this hate for that Korean dictator (whos population is shorter in hieght, than surounding populations, b/c dictator with holds food from them.)

I wish you all also showed this hate for those African nazi like dictators, that just do outright (satanic) human slaughtering.


Why do you all (not) care about these satanic like dictators above ?

I am not even going to answer the question, but I could...



Why do I even start talking to you when I know, I will just sit here and say rude things in the end ?

( I have been using your toughness to justify my rude tone and rude remarks I say to you. I am now sorry, b/c my comments triggered the things you just said, in a way at this moment I am American slime.)


My political hates come out in the things I say, and it caused me to forget the respect, for the things normal people respect.

All I can think of to say is this, I say "I am sorry" a whole bunch in person to person conversations, and in conversations on the computer.




I am sorry for turning into that kind of american slime.

sorry

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Did Clinton want to remove Saddam ??

Most likely--but didn't see a good political play to do so (sadly). He had few other things on his plate as well such as mending the break up of Yugoslavia and messing with his aids.

A classic case of excessive ambition. We'd wanted Saddam out for years, and Rumsfeld decided he'd accomplish it by exploiting a national tragedy to his benefit.

One of the fundamental failings in the way our leadership is set up is precisely that we give the leadership roles to people with ambition. We should instead prefer people who have no ambition at all. Those people will always be more credible in the eyes of the nations we invade, because their motives are pure. One could go a step further and argue that one of the advantages of Monarchy is the lack of an ambition component to leadership. Either the king is born king, or he isn't. It's small wonder that the feudal systems already present in these countries have so much support against us.

The USA isn't big on pure motives, but that just demonstrates our utter stupidity in politics, and highlights the main reason the world honestly *should* reject our leadership. A smart leader knows the difference between a mixed profit/benevolence/self defense motive and a pure self defense motive. Smart peasants know the difference too. It's dumb to think that removing all the profit motives wouldn't make a difference in how they respond to us. It could save some soldiers' lives. That is..... if America actually cared about its soldiers lives enough to sacrifice that.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

The ~the saudi's made us do it~ (iraq) angle is hard to beleive since most of the key moles in the US administration that were pushing the iraq war propaganda behind the scene were dual citizenship israelis and zionist. And it appears more plausible to me that israelis/zionists were in part behind 911 and the anthrax AND that they were framing arabs for it to boot (true to the 'war by deception' motto)

Coming back to this, I want to be clear that I don't think the Saudis made anyone do anything. I think they paid a lot of money out in bribes (and borderline bribes), such as hiring GW's dad on after he left office.

Originally Posted by kojax

One of the fundamental failings in the way our leadership is set up is precisely that we give the leadership roles to people with ambition. We should instead prefer people who have no ambition at all.

I agree that political ambition can cause problems, however i don't think the whole problem is that leadership goes to people with ambition. In fact i'd say that a leader must be ambitious if they are going to be effective in governing a state, i think a person with no ambition will not be driven to succeed at the job. The job of the voter must be to distinguish between ambition to get the job and ambition to succeed at the job. (of course the definition of success will differ between voters)

Originally Posted by kojax

The USA isn't big on pure motives, but that just demonstrates our utter stupidity in politics, and highlights the main reason the world honestly *should* reject our leadership. A smart leader knows the difference between a mixed profit/benevolence/self defense motive and a pure self defense motive. Smart peasants know the difference too. It's dumb to think that removing all the profit motives wouldn't make a difference in how they respond to us. It could save some soldiers' lives. That is..... if America actually cared about its soldiers lives enough to sacrifice that.

I don't think any nation has the patent on impure motives, the Russian blocking of military intervention in Syria comes to mind.

The republican philosopy of, "not talking about the past, and only talking about the future" seems to be all around here.



No one is talking about the actuall root (cause) of all the problems that are happening in Afganistan.


The cause of all of these problems in Afganistan is a US think tank called "the project for a new american century." The corporations that created this think tank, are the same corporations that are making $100's of billions of dollars working inside of Iraq, with no-bid government contracts.

Dick Cheny, Donald Rumsfeld, and many other members of GW Bushs White House are (members) of this think tank. These White House think tank (members) told 935 lies to get us into Iraq.

This is the actuall root cause of all the problems you speak of in Afganistan.



Cheny and other members in the Bush white house, did not care about Afganistans people in any way. These think tank members only cared about things like getting Haliburton corporation's " no bid government contracts in Iraq"
( Cheny is Haliburtons former CEO )


example,

In the begining of the Afganistan war, US forces were close to killing Osama Bin Ladin, they were hot on his trail. But Cheny moved the forces about to kill Osama Bin Ladin into Iraq.

This (think tank motivated) action above, (could) be a huge cause for most of what you speak of above, but you all dont seem to look at the cause, rather only the problems.



The members of this think tank, (who commanded the Afganistan war), lied and said Sadam Husane had something to do with Sept 11

But Sadam Husane had nothing to do with Sept 11, Donald Trump said Sadam even had orders out to kill Al Quada.

Members of this think tank moved our military out of Afganistan, to kill Sadam who was trying to kill Osama Bin laden himself.
Members of this think tank used US military forces to clean Iraq of Al Quada, when Germany had more Al Quada cells that Iraq.

This is all (insane) wasted use of US troops.

Any politician who was (not) a member of this think tank, would have had all the troops that were in Iraq, in Afganistan instead.



If all US forces were only in Afganistan, our troops would have been safer, and did a better job.

This could be the root cause of all the present problems in Afganistan, but no one seems to think about the root cause.



Heres a look at the root cause of these problems, from another angle.

The political party that planed the Afganistan war, is a polital party that does not even care if 18,000 (edit:40,000) of their own citezens die horrible deaths each year from not having health insurance. Do you honestly think these republican politicians care about a farmer in Afganistan ???

Look at the way they treat illegal South Americans that pick all our produce, Do you honestly think these republican politicians care about farmers in Afganistan ???

This kind of republican politician cares about nothing, except high profits for americas rich and large corporations. (((( literally ))))


Yes farmers in Afganistan are un-happy, but you can be sure the corporations that are part of the "project for a new american century" , these corporations are very very happy with both wars.



Why are Afganistan farmers unhappy, its as simple as 1,2,3,4.

1. The think tank members in Bushs white house that planed these wars, did not care about Afganistans farmers in any way.
2. These think tank members that planed these wars,they did care about Haliburton corporation's.
3. This is why the Afganistan farmers are un-happy
4. and Haliburton corporation's are very very happy

The think tank workers that planed the Afganistan war, did not care about Afganistan farmers, can you be surprised they are not happy ?





Also these think tank members spent $100's of billions of dollars in Iraq for total insanity.


Any politician (not) a member of that think tank, would have used that $100s of billions of dollars spent in Iraq, to make people in Afganistan happy.



How can we help the people in Afganistan ?


We can stop republican think tank workers, from being ellected to run Americas government, and controling our militarys forces.


Only a fool would believe these think tank workers, care about anything else than increasing profits for americas rich and large corporations.


If republican think tank workers get in the white house and congress this ellection, they will be under huge pressure to keep those "project for a new american century" corporations working inside of Iraq with no bid government contracts.



This is not a formula to make Afganistan farmers happy.




What "non-violent" forms of punitive self assertion can we make available to angry farmers in Afganistan ?

We could let them know the root cause of all their problems.



And we could let these Afganistan farmers know, that when Haliburton corporations are in Afganistan building a water well for Afganistans people. That water well only cost about $100.00 to make, but Haliburton corporations will charge $1500.00 plus for that well.


We can tell the Afganistan farmers, that the US government has set aside huge amounts of money for Afganistans people, but Afganistans people will only see about 1/15 of that money if they are lucky. The corporations in the "project for the new american century", will get about 14/15 of Afganistans money, and its all because of republican think tank workers.

Tell the Afganistan farmers the root cause of all of their problems, Why not talk about the root cause of all of their problems.

Cheny and other members in the Bush white house, did not care about Afganistans people in any way. These think tank members only cared about things like getting Haliburton corporation's " no bid government contracts in Iraq"
( Cheny is Haliburtons former CEO )


example,

In the begining of the Afganistan war, US forces were close to killing Osama Bin Ladin, they were hot on his trail. But Cheny moved the forces about to kill Osama Bin Ladin into Iraq.

This (think tank motivated) action above, could be the cause for most of what you speak of above, but you all dont seem to look at the cause, rather only the problems.

What twisted logic.
Chaney had nothing to do with the attack on Tora Bora. The decision was between the Joint Task Force commander, Units on the ground and cooperative Afghan units who'd been fighting in that region for over a decade. They didn't get him and it's not really even sure it was a close call. Furthermore Halliburtan makes its money off supporting the troops--putting massive troops on the ground in Afghanistan would have been their dream come through--even more profitable than in Iraq because of the far greater logistical challenges and need to build everything from scratch--roads, bases, wells, runways, you name it. Instead of that dream there was a deliberately plan to use minimal forces on the ground in Afghanistan for the first seven or eight years of the war.

I won't comment on the rest though it's also full of holes. Here's a piece of advise as well. This isn't the place for shout outs and endless barrages of disjointed one liners that come close to preaching. Organize your thoughts, make a couple points supported as best you know how in coherent paragraphs and engage in the conversation.

Twisted logic or complex logic ?

Google "935 lies Iraq war" and look at (one) of the many sources documenting these 935+ lies.


Dick Cheny lied to Americas people and military, and said Sadam had something to do with Sept 11.
Dick Cheny lied to Americas people and military, and said Sadam had chemical weapons mobile labs.
ex. ex.

And because of Chenys crew telling 935 lies to get us to Iraq.

Over 100,000 innocent Iraqis are dead
and because of Chenys lies 1,000's of US soldiers are dead.


Logic should state you would be talking about putting Dick Cheny in jail, for his lies killing the 100,000+ persons listed above.





You love to glamourize Dick Cheny for his handling of the Iraq war, but this is truely (not) logical

If you want to glamourize Dick Cheny, do it for being the best CEO on planet Earth.

Haliburton put many $10's of millions of dollars in Chenys personal bank account when he was CEO of Haliburton.

Then Chenys crew lied 935 times to get Haliburton into Iraq.

Chenys crews 935 lies, increased Haliburtons bussiness by over 700%.

Has any other CEO ever increased their corpoartions bussiness by 700% levels like Cheny ??
(glamourize him for this 700% bussiness increase, rather than glamourizing him for killing over 100,000 innocent people with his lies.)


Thank you for your advise in your second paragraph, you are correct about my shout outs and preaching. Its just all these things upset me greatly.


I am actually backing away, and I am going to reflect on your accurate advise.


I apologize to all forum members, for breaking away from the subjects of conversation and preaching, its just all this stuff upsets me greatly.

In this day and age i don't think you'll find too many people who think that the war in Iraq was initiated for the "right" reasons, neither do i think many people shed a tear for Saddam or the perpetrators of violent campaigns aimed at destabilising the formation of a post war Iraqi government. But lets examine for a moment the logic in the arguments you provided.

Originally Posted by chad

Google "935 lies Iraq war" and look at (one) of the many sources documenting these 935+ lies.


Dick Cheny lied to Americas people and military, and said Sadam had something to do with Sept 11.
Dick Cheny lied to Americas people and military, and said Sadam had chemical weapons mobile labs.
ex. ex.

And because of Chenys crew telling 935 lies to get us to Iraq.

After a google search i see a plethora of information that says that the Bush Administration lied to the American public (the figure given being 935 times) when making the case for war in Iraq, however the source also points to Bush, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld and others as telling as many or more lies than cheney.

Originally Posted by chad

You love to glamourize Dick Cheny for his handling of the Iraq war, but this is truely (not) logical

I can't find anywhere on this page where anyone has glamorized Dick Cheney, the only mention of him in posts asides from yours and mind was made by Lynx_Fox when he said,

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Cheney had been SECDef the first time around know far more than most about Saddam ability to make a mischief then most people.

I see nothing in this to indicate an admiration, or lack of, for Dick Cheney by Lynx_Fox.

Originally Posted by wallaby

Originally Posted by kojax

One of the fundamental failings in the way our leadership is set up is precisely that we give the leadership roles to people with ambition. We should instead prefer people who have no ambition at all.

I agree that political ambition can cause problems, however i don't think the whole problem is that leadership goes to people with ambition. In fact i'd say that a leader must be ambitious if they are going to be effective in governing a state, i think a person with no ambition will not be driven to succeed at the job. The job of the voter must be to distinguish between ambition to get the job and ambition to succeed at the job. (of course the definition of success will differ between voters)

This is a good example of what I mean. Why do you believe that a person must be ambitious to be effective? I know that many Americans hold this ideology (and apparently Australians too?), but I don't understand why.

In my experience on the small scale, people are all too happy to follow a humble leader, someone who isn't clawing after the job, maybe doesn't even want it, but cares about the others in the group enough that everyone feels they can trust him/her. Ambitious people usually lack empathy in a big way. They're about as emotionally well developed as a five year old child. And yet.... we want that five year old child to lead us. Why????

Is it just a collective desire to feel unaccountablefor the outcome? If the person we put in power is clawing after the job, then maybe we feel like we had no choice but to put them in charge, and so whatever happens wasn't our fault? Is that why? I'm really at a loss here......

Originally Posted by kojax

The USA isn't big on pure motives, but that just demonstrates our utter stupidity in politics, and highlights the main reason the world honestly *should* reject our leadership. A smart leader knows the difference between a mixed profit/benevolence/self defense motive and a pure self defense motive. Smart peasants know the difference too. It's dumb to think that removing all the profit motives wouldn't make a difference in how they respond to us. It could save some soldiers' lives. That is..... if America actually cared about its soldiers lives enough to sacrifice that.

I don't think any nation has the patent on impure motives, the Russian blocking of military intervention in Syria comes to mind.

Yeah. Nobody has the patent on it. Good thing, because we'd have to pay out a lot of royalties to them.

Originally Posted by kojax

This is a good example of what I mean. Why do you believe that a person must be ambitious to be effective? I know that many Americans hold this ideology (and apparently Australians too?), but I don't understand why.

I think that someone who lacks ambition will not display the kind of initiative that is required of leadership roles. (it's also not an ideology held by people of nations but rather just people)

Originally Posted by kojax

In my experience on the small scale, people are all too happy to follow a humble leader, someone who isn't clawing after the job, maybe doesn't even want it, but cares about the others in the group enough that everyone feels they can trust him/her.

There are many instances where what works on the small scale, does not work on larger scales. The position of President, or prime minister/chancelor etc, carries a lot of responsibility and by giving this responsibility to someone who doesn't want the job you have to ask, would this burden be too much to bare?

Originally Posted by kojax

Ambitious people usually lack empathy in a big way. They're about as emotionally well developed as a five year old child. And yet.... we want that five year old child to lead us. Why????

Maybe you've never felt the desire to achieve at something, but i'd dare say that most people at some point in there lives display some form of ambition. Would you say that most people lack empathy? As i said being the top dog is a big responsibility and if you're not willing to do what it takes to get there then you shouldn't be there. That's not to say that ambition can't go too far, illegal and immoral conduct certainly can't be tolerated but i wouldn't attribute that to the mere fact that someone has a lot of ambition. (more likely excess sociopathy)

Originally Posted by wallaby

Originally Posted by kojax

This is a good example of what I mean. Why do you believe that a person must be ambitious to be effective? I know that many Americans hold this ideology (and apparently Australians too?), but I don't understand why.

I think that someone who lacks ambition will not display the kind of initiative that is required of leadership roles. (it's also not an ideology held by people of nations but rather just people)

Ideologies tend to follow cultural lines. So you're right it's not countries. Canada, Australia, the USA, and the UK are for all intents and purposes one culture. Clearly there are differences, but they're much more slight than say,... the difference between Australia and Cambodia.

Originally Posted by kojax

Ambitious people usually lack empathy in a big way. They're about as emotionally well developed as a five year old child. And yet.... we want that five year old child to lead us. Why????

Maybe you've never felt the desire to achieve at something, but i'd dare say that most people at some point in there lives display some form of ambition. Would you say that most people lack empathy? As i said being the top dog is a big responsibility and if you're not willing to do what it takes to get there then you shouldn't be there. That's not to say that ambition can't go too far, illegal and immoral conduct certainly can't be tolerated but i wouldn't attribute that to the mere fact that someone has a lot of ambition. (more likely excess sociopathy)

That becomes the problem then. Competition favors sociopaths. So, regardless of how many non-sociopaths are competing, if a sociopath has a higher probability of winning, then the process has a high probability of putting a sociopath in power. And that would be true by degrees as well, a person can have more or less empathy (it's not an "if" or "not" situation). If diminished capacity for empathy improves your odds of winning, the winner is likely to be a person without a lot of empathy.

However, empathy is invaluable in modern wars. We can't just slug it out with bombs and air raids on civilian targets anymore like we did in WW2. A person with nearly zero empathy can win that kind of war, but their odds of winning a war like the one in Afghanistan are virtually non-existent. If we want things to go better next time we do this, it's going to require a new type of leader.

Originally Posted by kojax

That becomes the problem then. Competition favors sociopaths. So, regardless of how many non-sociopaths are competing, if a sociopath has a higher probability of winning, then the process has a high probability of putting a sociopath in power. And that would be true by degrees as well, a person can have more or less empathy (it's not an "if" or "not" situation). If diminished capacity for empathy improves your odds of winning, the winner is likely to be a person without a lot of empathy.

There are a lot of downsides to being a sociopath/psychopath that will not allow them to get far in the pursuit of politics, namely the lack of comprehension and conformity to social norms, resentment of authority, lack of self control, perceptions of absolute superiority...etc. I would dare say that we don't need to worry about psychopaths or sociopaths becoming leaders of democratic states. But if we must then we can add Empathy to "Wallaby's List of Leadership Qualities."

Originally Posted by kojax

If we want things to go better next time we do this, it's going to require a new type of leader.

Obviously there will always be good leaders and there will be bad leaders, it's my opinion that Bush was a bad leader and that things would have gone down differently in Iraq and Afghanistan if he were not president. But of course i can't say if that would have been for better or for worse, what's important is that the hard lessons learnt are remembered when countries find themselves on the war path again.

I think that US military should be pulled from Afghanistan, there are a lot more problems at home to fixed, and all the money spent on war could be put to better uses, my question is why US politicians are trying to " fix" other countries problems, when there is a lot of shit that needs fixing at home? Afghanistan is not the only example, only on Balkan there are couple of countries like, Bosnia, Croatia, Albania, Kosovo...

Originally Posted by wallaby

Originally Posted by kojax

If we want things to go better next time we do this, it's going to require a new type of leader.

Obviously there will always be good leaders and there will be bad leaders, it's my opinion that Bush was a bad leader and that things would have gone down differently in Iraq and Afghanistan if he were not president. But of course i can't say if that would have been for better or for worse, what's important is that the hard lessons learnt are remembered when countries find themselves on the war path again.

Yes, but you say that like we have no control over it at all. Certainly no matter what we do, there will be bad leaders occasionally, but how occasionally? Does it have to be often? Or it could it be very uncommon?

Our culture creates selection pressures. The way we set those pressures up determines the probability of each possible outcome, both good and bad. It's impossible to outright determine these outcomes in a way where a given outcome is guaranteed, but what's so great about guarantees? I'd settle for weighted dice (so long as they're weighted to fall on the good outcomes.)

Originally Posted by slavenenco

I think that US military should be pulled from Afghanistan, there are a lot more problems at home to fixed, and all the money spent on war could be put to better uses, my question is why US politicians are trying to " fix" other countries problems, when there is a lot of shit that needs fixing at home? Afghanistan is not the only example, only on Balkan there are couple of countries like, Bosnia, Croatia, Albania, Kosovo...

If we'd be honest with ourselves,..... our only true goal in Afghanistan is to ensure that another organization like Al Qaeda doesn't emerge there again and start plotting terrorist activities against the US mainland again. Our politicians just keep feeling the need to dress this up in some kind of condescending "righteousness" message about saving the poor Afghans from their primitive ways, which probably makes the Afghans even more disgusted with us than they already were, and confuses our objectives so that we're never even able to accomplish the main objective we initially set out to complete.

Sometimes I think it's better just to admit that our goals are selfish, take responsibility for that, and proceed to obtain them anyway, by force as necessary. At least when we take responsibility for it we start to look like we might be a half livable ruler. As it stands now, nobody in their right mind would ever want us running their country.

If we'd be honest with ourselves,..... our only true goal in Afghanistan is to ensure that another organization like Al Qaeda doesn't emerge there again and start plotting terrorist activities against the US mainland again.

(nods)

there is a lot of shit that needs fixing at home

compared to Afghanistan, Albanian and many other places the US doesn't have problems at home--it's paradise.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

If we'd be honest with ourselves,..... our only true goal in Afghanistan is to ensure that another organization like Al Qaeda doesn't emerge there again and start plotting terrorist activities against the US mainland again.

(nods)

there is a lot of shit that needs fixing at home

compared to Afghanistan, Albanian and many other places the US doesn't have problems at home--it's paradise.

Dude have you been at any of those places???
I have, Croatia is paradise for US, even people in Bosnia have higher life quality than in US
Albania and Kosovo are hell compared to US

Did you read my post? I didn't mention Croatia did I? And yes I was there in the late 90s doing recon of potential port operations in support of our peace keeping effort. It would have worked except we didnt' have confirmation that the harbors had been cleared of mines yet. The economy was a mess at the time, but the beuatiful coastline made it obvious the huge German (and other Europeans) tourism would return and they'd do fine. I'd love to return again as a civilian with a small cruising saiboat.

After a google search i see a plethora of information that says that the Bush Administration lied to the American public (the figure given being 935 times) when making the case for war in Iraq, however the source also points to Bush, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld and others as telling as many or more lies than cheney.




((You just dont have access to my data, I learned these things on Freespeach and Link TV on dish satilite.))


You dont know about this data b/c the CEO's who own the news broadcasts you listen too, all love their 100s of billions of dollars of republican tax cuts, so they wont let this info on the air (source: Fear and favor in the news room.)


Cheny, rumsfeld and the project for a new american century, have wanted to invade Iraq for many many years before sept 11

cheny and rumsfeld got inside access to some branch of US government like the CIA, after sept 11. Cheny and rumsfeld dug threw old spy inteligence, that was already, filed away for being not true,


cheny and rumsfeld gave this un-true government info. to other members in the white house, and they then repeated it to the american people.

members of the think tank "a project for a new american century" that were in bushs white house did it, the others that lied were only stateing info that cheny and rumsfeld told them was true.

Originally Posted by chad

You love to glamourize Dick Cheny for his handling of the Iraq war, but this is truely (not) logical

I can't find anywhere on this page where anyone has glamorized Dick Cheney, the only mention of him in posts asides from yours and mind was made by Lynx_Fox when he said,

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Cheney had been SECDef the first time around know far more than most about Saddam ability to make a mischief then most people.

I see nothing in this to indicate an admiration, or lack of, for Dick Cheney by Lynx_Fox.[/QUOTE]




((I should have used the word (defend) rather than glamorize.))

Originally Posted by chad

((You just dont have access to my data, I learned these things on Freespeach and Link TV on dish satilite.))


You dont know about this data b/c the CEO's who own the news broadcasts you listen too, all love their 100s of billions of dollars of republican tax cuts, so they wont let this info on the air (source: Fear and favor in the news room.)


Cheny, rumsfeld and the project for a new american century, have wanted to invade Iraq for many many years before sept 11

cheny and rumsfeld got inside access to some branch of US government like the CIA, after sept 11. Cheny and rumsfeld dug threw old spy inteligence, that was already, filed away for being not true,


cheny and rumsfeld gave this un-true government info. to other members in the white house, and they then repeated it to the american people.

members of the think tank "a project for a new american century" that were in bushs white house did it, the others that lied were only stateing info that cheny and rumsfeld told them was true.

I got the information from Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN. As i understand it CNN is not Pro-republican, however you can see also:
False pretenses | iWatch News by The Center for Public Integrity,
Broken Government | Failure: False Premise for Going to War

do you have any proof that Cheney & Rumsfeld were the masterminds behind these acts of systematic lying to the public? or just conspiracy theories?

In the following (free) to watch documentary's,


All people who are interveiwed are/were very high ranking US Military, US government, and US CIA officials.

Or high ranking members in well known American orgaizations ex. ex.


In the first documentary, LT. COL. Karen Kwiatkowski (RET. USAF) Office of Special Planning, Pentagon, explains how groups like "the project for a new American century" are resposable for America going to Iraq after Sept 11. And she explains how Cheny and Rumsfeld are members of this organization think tank . ex. ex.

There are also, many other high ranking officials in the first documentary that explain this as well.

(((( This documentary will show 95(?)% of everything I have ever said about Iraq.))))



the following is the address were to watch " the oil factor: behind the war on terror" documentary film for free,




The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror | Watch Free Documentary Online







the following documentary (may) not be as hard hitting, but it contains many high ranking US government officials. It shows a certain group of American government officials, (who are not allowed on American tv/radio news shows, source: Fear and favor in the news room.)

Uncovered: The War On Iraq | Watch Free Documentary Online




The above documentary tells of the lies and the stupidity of the Iraq war, it just does (not) fully? explain how Cheny and Rumsfeld, got/sneeked into some agency like the CIA, and dug threw old spy evidence that was already decided to be (un-true), and then told the white house to tell everyone in America the un-true spy info. I think it may have actually been a PBS documentary that fully explained that. Or maybe the first documentary will explain that.


There are (many) free to watch Iraq documentarys at the web site topdocumentaryfilms.com that would verify 99.5% of everything I have ever said about Iraq in this forum.


The former mainstream journalists in the documentary "Fear and favor in the news room" explain how, the CEOs who decide what gets on American telivision, will not allow documentarys like these on their broadcasts.


Check out the first documentary, it will show you a kind of thinking, thats not allowed on regular USA TV.

note: In the first documentary, there is a part in it, that talks about projected oil usage for the USA, and with the pasage of time, I believe these figures have been proven to be (not) accurate.


But the infomation that the (LT. COL. USAF) states, was checked by me, when I first saw the documentary. I went to the "project for a new american centurys" official website and printed letter's/article's titled things like " why we should bomb Iraq now", that were signed by both Cheny and Rumsfeld.


I also researched about Sadam switching from the dollar to the Euro, and this was happening as well.

ex. ex. ex.


Everything that the (LT. COL.) speaks about, is grounded within reality , and they were all happening at the time.


There (may) be more parts of those documentarys, that are (not) accurate just like the projected oil figures, may be.


But (most) of the ideas and things stated are 100% reality.

And they are, not allowed to be spoken about on regular American tv. (source listed earlyer)