Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Jack, these are the questions I'm talking about.

doreen peri wrote:Now, I hope nobody thinks I'm being disrespectful toward the troops. I'm not at all doing that.

I'm just saying that they're really hired killers... hired to "defend" us? In this case, from what? From Osama bin Laden? They haven't been able to find him for 8 years. Will killing more people in Afghanistan help us find him?

To protect us from who? The Taliban? Are they threatening us? Sure there are human rights issues but we really need to kill them to help enforce human rights issues in the world?

To protect us from Al Qaida? Is part of the plan in Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaida members and kill them? Really? I didn't hear that in Obama's speech. If that's the case, how do they plan on finding them? Just wondering. AND will killing more people help the US find them? AND... if they DO find any of them, what do they do with them? Kill them? Try them? For what? For being terrorists? For being involved in 911?

NOW.. there's a worthy goal! That's the ONLY worthy goal, in my opinion. Find the actual people who were responsible for 911 and capture them and try them for their crimes.

Will killing more people, more American soldier deaths, more civilian deaths, more Afghani deaths, more deaths from troops from the UK and Canada, and other supporting countries .... will more of these troops and civilians in Afghanistan really help us find the people responsible for 911 so we can capture them? (Or kill them. ... I mean maybe those people deserve to die, OK? But before a trial? Before we know if it's really THEM?)... but either way... will any of these deaths HELP ONE BIT to resolve that issue and find the people who were responsible? I don't think so.

So why are the troops going there? What's the war for? To protect the world from Pakistan because they have nuclear weapons? Or DO they? Why do we need protection from Pakistan? And if they have nuclear weapons, why is that not OK if the US has nuclear weapons? I never got that part. So many countries are supposed to disarm but it's OK for the US to be armed with nuclear weapons. Totally baffling to me.

And if Pakistan is such a threat, why are we sending more troops into Afghanistan?

Frankly, I think it has to do with a pipeline that's being built in that area.... control of real estate and resources... oil.

If the US *really* wants to help Afghanistan create a stable government, why don't they just do that? Why do they need guns and bombs and dead bodies?

AND.... what gives the US the right to tell countries of the world what type of government to have anyway?... come to think of it

stilltrucking wrote: The only answer I can think of is politics Doreen. It is politic for him to send the troops. We got an election coming up next year.

Unless we have a moral obligation to help the people of Afghanistan after doing our bit to trash their country.

That sounds about right. Politics MUST be a big part of it. Killing people for political reasons. Ugh. How sick and ugly.

There must be more to it, though.

Yeah dam good questions. All of them. Jason is a chip off the old block, that is probably what he is asking too.

THis one makes me think about Obama's statement during the campaign about how we need to export American values.

AND.... what gives the US the right to tell countries of the world what type of government to have anyway?... come to think of it

I read somewhere that American women are much admired around the world for their freedom. Now there is a value worth exporting I think.

This IS a cynical defeatist position.

Sorry, Doreen, it's not. It's a realist position.

So war won't stop because people believe it won't stop. And if they believe it will stop, it will. So belief determines reality. Thank you for clearing this up for me. I'm overjoyed to learn there actually is a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny and a Tooth Fairy.

Peace,
Barry

You're totally not even conceiving what I'm saying, Barry.

Yes, it STARTS with belief. Each individual person has to believe that it CAN happen.... that violence can be stopped... that people can stop killing each other.

But it takes more than that.

The current reality is that it does happen and it will continue to happen as long as people THINK that "it's just the way it is"... and "nothing's going to change" and ... "people will always kill other people" ... and "war is inevitable.. it's part of life." Etc...

We have to overcome those thoughts because though the current reality includes war, it doesn't need to be included in the future of mankind. War CAN be eliminated. War CAN be stopped.

To liken my statements to believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is just plain ridiculous. LOL!

What I'm stating is NOTHING like believing in a childish myth. Not at all. What I'm stating has to do with believing in evolution... believing that the human species can evolve and learn to understand, respect, accept and negotiate with each other. What I'm stating has to do with believing that there CAN be a way to quell greed and selfishness and out-of-control power. There CAN be a way.

And it lies within each and every one of us. One person at a time, we can start not only believing in the way but acting on it. By acting on it, we shun violence, preach non-violence, do NOT support any activity by any persons or any governments which entail violence in any manner, shape or form. And that includes the government of the country where we live. We publicly proclaim that we will NOT support such efforts which drain resources and cause bloodshed.

This isn't believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. This is believing in the capacity for human beings to NOT allow anything other than peace.... and acting on that belief.

You're totally not even conceiving what I'm saying, Barry.

Doreen, I don't think you even bothered to READ what I wrote, much less conceive of what I was saying.

The current reality is that it does happen and it will continue to happen as long as people THINK that "it's just the way it is"... and "nothing's going to change" and ... "people will always kill other people" ... and "war is inevitable.. it's part of life." Etc...

None of this is what I said or even alluded to.

We have to overcome those thoughts because though the current reality includes war, it doesn't need to be included in the future of mankind. War CAN be eliminated. War CAN be stopped.

War is not what I wrote about. Security was. The "we" you write of will, I repeat, NEVER be 100% of everybody. Some will still seek to fuck shit up. It's a reality.

To liken my statements to believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is just plain ridiculous.

No, Doreen, it's not. It is a myth you have been brainwashed into believing, a dangerous myth, one the people who will always be around wanting to fuck shit up want more and more people to believe in. Imagine a future in which 99.9% of humanity believes as you do. What do you think the other 0.01% will be doing?

Fucking your shit up.

Peace,
Barry

Doreen, I don't think you even bothered to READ what I wrote, much less conceive of what I was saying.

Yes I did.

Barry wrote:

This IS a cynical defeatist position.

Sorry, Doreen, it's not. It's a realist position.

So war won't stop because people believe it won't stop. And if they believe it will stop, it will. So belief determines reality. Thank you for clearing this up for me. I'm overjoyed to learn there actually is a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny and a Tooth Fairy.

Peace,
Barry

Isn't that what you said? That's what I read. That's what I was replying to.

What did I read wrong in it? How did I misinterpret what you said?

I don't understand.

No, Doreen, it's not. It is a myth you have been brainwashed into believing, a dangerous myth, one the people who will always be around wanting to fuck shit up want more and more people to believe in. Imagine a future in which 99.9% of humanity believes as you do. What do you think the other 0.01% will be doing?

Fucking your shit up.

I'm going for 100%. One day I would like to see 100% of the people of the world believing as I do. People who believe in peace. People who reject violence and refuse to allow it in their lives.

I give up on this discussion with you, though, because you're convinced there will always be people out there ready and waiting to "fuck my shit up".

I don't believe that.

I prefer to live in a world of peace.

I now build my wall of security around my heart and convictions. Security is here. I can't talk about this any more because it's starting to sound argumentative and I don't want to argue. I just want peace.

And so... that's what I'm going to have.

Peace,

Doreen

I said,

The current reality is that it does happen and it will continue to happen as long as people THINK that "it's just the way it is"... and "nothing's going to change" and ... "people will always kill other people" ... and "war is inevitable.. it's part of life." Etc...

You replied,

None of this is what I said or even alluded to.

But BEFORE in the conversation, you said

Not war as a part of life...people who use violence to meet their aims. As long as there have been people this has been so, and as long as there are people it will be so. It's an unfortunate reality that ain't going away. We just have to manage it somehow.

And you also said,

It would be nice if everyone just stopped killing, but they won't.

Isn't that the same thing as "nothing's going to change" and ... "people will always kill other people" ?

If it's not, I'm sorry I misread you.

How can my reading your statements as meaning that "nothing's going to change" and "people will always kill other people" because that's what you SAID.... possibly cause you to reply telling me,

Doreen, I don't think you even bothered to READ what I wrote, much less conceive of what I was saying.

I didn't conceive it right? I read it in black and white and then practically quoted you. And now I DID quote you!

LOL... All I did was repeat what you said!

Even though you didn't say "war is a part of life" someone else in the thread did. I believe it was SLD who said she accepted war as part of life. I'd have to go back and re-read everything again to find it... but I'm tired now. LOTS of people believe that's true! MANY!!!

......

So, now that I've re-reviewed this thread another couple of times, I have to go to sleep.

Peace to you and yours. Sleep is necessary. I have to bow out now.

You mentioned evolution earlier in the thread, Doreen. What I'm keeping in mind is evolutionary biology. Never has there been or will there be a population in which 100% percent of the individual organisms are all exactly the same. There is variation within the species. Humans are organisms. They have psychology, and psychological evolution becomes much more complex and less cut and dried than biological evolution. That's why I say never will ALL humans be thinking and believing in peace, keeping peace in their hearts, wanting nothing but good for their fellow organisms. It goes against factual science. Go for 100% all you want. It's a noble belief. I want peace, too. I want that world you want. I just think I'm being a little more realistic in my thinking, remembering that no matter what I want, nomatter what the majority wants, there will still always be a minority, smaller and smaller as time goes on, hopefully, that will want to cause trouble and not have peace in their hearts. Therefore, "brainwashed hired killers" will always be a necessary component of human society.

Or we could all just start packing heat. If everyone on board those planes on 9/11 had carried a handgun it never would have been possible for the terrorists to do what they did.

That was facetious. I don't really want a future with every citizen armed at all times. The point is, security forces are necessary and will be in the future, even as more and more people want and believe in peace. Because never will everyone want that.

Peace,
Barry

Keep the faith Doreen. We don't have to wat for biology, culture evolves in a heart beat. This patriarchal culture of war has got to pass. Meanwhile teach your children.

Teach, your children well
Their father's hell
Did slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams

Re: the pipeline and Iraqi (and Libyan) oil (re-posted):

Here's a disturbing theory I ran across:

--- No thread about Western military deployments in Afghanistan would be complete without some mention of the proposed Unocal (TAPI) natural gas pipeline from vast natural gas reserves in Turkmenistan to India (passing through Afghanistan and Pakistan—the “A” and the “P”), which would obviously require a “stabilized” government in Afghanistan. I found some interesting information and conjecture while researching this pipeline, best summarized by this (Republican) blogger named “Sebeq” (in 2006): http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=725 Sebeq researched the background of this pipeline and recent related events in the region after learning that a few soldiers in Afghanistan apparently told Henry Rollins they were protecting the pipeline’s interests more than anything else, when Rollins went there on a USO tour.

First, Sebeq provides background related to Iraq—I was surprised to read that apparently Saddam did in fact maintain a WMD program from 1991-2003, essentially “outsourcing” it to Libya, in concert with Qaddhafi. Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1219953/posts US intelligence apparently knew this to be true from the early ‘90s on, but the Bush Administration either never got the word (yeah, right) or kept this information from the public (likely).

Next, Sebeq outlines a “chain of events” (and cause-effect) as follows:

1) On 9-7-01 Libya warns US oil companies, giving them one year to resume business or lose their operating licenses—in order to pressure Washington to suspend or lift unilateral sanctions, or failing this, lay the groundwork for the resale of U.S. concessions to Asian, European and Russian oil companies.

2) Wash. DC knew about a possible terrorist attack but allowed it to happen (9-11 attacks)—perhaps Bush & Co. didn’t foresee such devastating, horrific damage resulting from such an attack. Why would Wash. DC do this? We already knew Saddam and Libya were in bed together. Halliburton needed Afghanistan to have a stable and recognized government-- http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html -- in order to go forth with the Unocal pipeline. They also needed stable/western friendly governments in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan to traffic oil without a hitch from the newly found reserves in the Caspian Sea. So when terror attacks actually materialized, the US had a strategic new enemy, the Taliban.

3) The US/UK and “NATO” moved quickly to take out the Taliban and then Saddam, which effectively opened up access to twice the oil since Libya’s hand was forced. They must surrender the goods/weapons or face likely reprisal.

4) Libya ditched its WMD program-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777561.stm , finally made a payoff for the Lockerbie incident and suddenly sanctions were lifted and all was forgiven. Now broke, Libya needed cash, cash that would be generated from the operating licenses and oil reserves untapped for years due to the sanctions.

Crazy theory, huh? Just thought I would throw it out there to chew on.

As for human rights concerns along the path of the proposed Unocal pipeline (Turkmenistan- Afghanistan- Pakistan- India), the Taliban may indeed be among the worst offenders, but they are hardly alone in that regard. Freedomhouse.org ranks Turkmenistan in the top 17 of the “worst of the worst” human rights offenders in the world-- http://www.freedomhouse.org/template...=383&report=81, and to my knowledge, while overall human rights progress has been made in Pakistan since the early ‘90s, plenty of political dissenters remain imprisoned or “disappeared” by Musharraf’s government.

And note that Karzai’s government lately has proven itself sketchy regarding women's rights: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/1...hts-again-risk

Just some more ideas and observations. I believe we should at least be aware of possible ulterior economic/corporate energy resource-based motives any time troops are sent around the planet to fight wars that are sometimes marginally understood at best (not to mention the motives of the war machine itself).

Of course, some may continue to support these type of wars as necessary or inevitable-- I mean, they do promise some tangible side benefits on paper-- but I'm not so convinced.

Some background on the Taliban- al Qaeda relationship:

President Obama justifies his escalation of the Afghanistan conflict by reasoning that if the Taliban win in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again be able to set up shop there to carry out its dirty work—an argument constantly repeated but rarely examined. Given the costs and risks associated with the Obama administration’s plans for the region, I think such statements should be given more scrutiny.

As John Mueller, writing for Foreign Affairs put it:

Multiple sources, including Lawrence Wright’s book The Looming Tower, make clear that the Taliban was a reluctant host to al Qaeda in the 1990s and felt betrayed when the terrorist group repeatedly violated agreements to refrain from issuing inflammatory statements and fomenting violence abroad. Then the al Qaeda-sponsored 9/11 attacks — which the Taliban had nothing to do with — led to the toppling of the Taliban’s regime. Given the Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the “AfPak” region, if they came to power again now, they would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention. And even if al Qaeda were able to relocate to Afghanistan after a Taliban victory there, it would still have to operate under the same siege situation it presently enjoys in what Obama calls its “safe haven” in Pakistan.

The very notion that al Qaeda needs a secure geographic base to carry out its terrorist operations, moreover, is questionable. After all, the operational base for 9/11 was in Hamburg, Germany. Conspiracies involving small numbers of people require communication, money, and planning — but not a major protected base camp.

Eric Martin, at American Footprints, wrote:

In addition to Lawrence Wright, Steve Coll makes the same argument in The Bin Ladens: namely, that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were not natural allies, willing to support each primarily out of a religious or ideological affinity. On the contrary, Osama bin Laden had to lavish enormous amounts of money on Taliban leaders in order to stay in their good graces. In addition to other tributes, Osama employed his construction know-how to build palaces, homes and other facilities for Taliban leaders. Without those sweeteners, it is unlikely that the Taliban would have long tolerated what was, essentially, a band of problematic interlopers with an agenda that was irrelevant to the inwardly directed Afghans.

Now that the Taliban has been made aware of the sizable costs that they could and would incur should they decide to reprise their previous landlord/tenant relationship with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, it is less likely that they would be so inclined. And now that the US and other nations have are taking the task of disrupting al-Qaeda’s financing networks seriously (with time, money and other resources dedicated to the cause), it would be harder for Osama and others to generate the funds needed to buy their way in.

Link: http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/2...atural-allies/

Now of course people will argue, rightfully so, that the Taliban are at least indirectly or partially “responsible” for the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks, and have destabilized parts of Pakistan at times recently. Does this mean the Taliban have become less inwardly directed and more outwardly directed, or more “expansionist?” Or is it simply the inevitable result of their displacement from Afghanistan?

I recall asking similar questions about threat level and validity of the mission re: the Iraq invasion seven years ago or so, and sure enough, it wasn't long before I was being called a "Saddam sympathizer," and "soft on terrorism," or various implications of such. Comes with the territory, I suppose.

btw, I basically agree with what both Doreen and Barry are saying, in most respects at least. If war, or any phenomenon for that matter, is simply taken as inevitable, it will indeed be inevitable. And yes, there will always be people out there who want to "fuck up your shit." What I'm less certain about is the link between people who want to "fuck up your shit" and perpetual large scale war. The potential need to take up arms in collective "self-defense" remains a real-world concern, but I also believe in human evolution, and the need to learn from past mistakes, and I'm far less certain about war as an effective agent of reform and spreading ideology. And the world is filled with injustice. Always has been. No human effort could right every wrong by means of military force alone. I suppose I'm not an absolute pacifist in the sense that I stop short of saying military force has absolutely no place at this point in human evolution, but we are definitely to a point where the unquestioned inevitability and glorification of war should diminish, and it should be more truly a last resort.

Nazz I am an absolute pacifist in my own life. It is a luxury I know but I hope the world can afford a few nut cases like me.

Man you really want to understand. You really want to pin it down.
It could be the pipe line, but I think it is more than that. I do not think you are ever going to pin it down to one reason, one motive. Human behavior is always over determined.

You believe in human evolution?

"Natural selection, as it has operated in human history, favors not only the clever but the murderous." Barbara Ehrenreich

Well I gave up on the idea of progress. But I do believe in cultural evolution. It changes a hell of a lot faster than our biology.

I don't like war, I don't even like to read about past wars because they all seem the same and get boring after a while.
Sometimes I think the only time there would not be war would be when there are no men around. I've only met a few men who had really good negotiation skills, but I know many many women who are extremely skilled at it and prefer it to violence as way of getting what they want for themselves and collectively.
I think Obama is in a tough position. He has alot of heavy sort of mafia type dealers he has to navigate around and through in our government. Sometimes I think, idealist that he seems to be, he may be surprized at the games he has to play to get the right thing done, to be more than a spokesmodel smoothing over government crimes. It's difficult to be one person against the corruption of our government. We need to speak out and help him and that is not happening. For example, Rummy let Osama go, we knew this long ago and they just confirmed it recently. We can actually say it now, years later, without fearing jail time. BUSH LET OSAMA GO! Tra la la! We got permission now to say it, because years later some overpaid committee investigated and confirmed it. Why did they let him go? I have no idea, maybe for the pipeline? Or maybe they let him go because the osama bin laden family are friends w/ the bush family? It was maybe a planned agenda, mission accomplished? The mission never really to be known, understood, or revealed??? Hatfields and McCoys?
I wonder if the creeps who ruined the economy did it so people would have to join up to survive. I mean the draft certainly wouldn't fly at this point, thanks to us peace lovers of the 60's and 70's. Ahh, indeed, there was a short while back then when we proved that community and sharing could really work! On a small scale yes, but it never got a chance to really grow did it? Nope they nixed it.
Hell, we got crazy freaks on the streets here in Seattle executing police officers in coffee shops! Pardoned by Huckabee!!!!!!!!!!!
We just can't let the good energy be beat by the crap, I mean, that's the bottom line for me, that's what motivates me to keep going. It's not going to ruin my chances to continue to strive for happiness, and what I believe in, for as long as I can possibly maintain that.
I guess, basically, my realism is that trying to understand wars is futile, and a fucking waste of time and I'm not wasting my time on it anymore.
H