You forget that Big Media has become the government lap dog, instead of Democracy's watchdog.

Fox news for one (24/7 Republican propaganda)
It's the same here in Britain, Murdock also controls many of the biggest media outlets here and we get the same spin.

It looks like Americas PBS are at it also with their "America at a crossroads" 12 hour pro war chant.
The days of the media reporting the truth are very close to over.

Except for stories about puppies getting stuck down wells that is.

Agree! except that religion is not the main cause of war and hate. The main cause of war and hate starts with intollerance.

Yes it is apparant that the Islamic faith causes considerable intollerance of other faiths and ways of life, however most other religions are not like that today (if they were in the past,,, 'crusades'). So with the exception of Islam, religions are not responsible for wars, but are always used in the propoganda of wars.

What days were those that the media did report the truth?? I seem to have missed that memo?

Here is the part that I guess I am 'missing' in a global scope. If the Islamic faith is so 'intolerant' of other religious practices, okay and so what. Are they truly trying to spread Islamic beliefs all across the world? My perception of these events was that it was 'contained' to the areas where these faiths are intermingling. I've never seen or read anything regarding Islamic radicals attempt to convert fifty thousand Christians in New York City so am I missing this 'threat' somewhere?

After thinking about this a bit (and about seven technician's and their parts later), could it be that the Muslim faith is more or less 'fighting' our attempts to bring the western way of life, i.e. video games, Starbuck's, designer clothing, Hollywood, et cetera, et cetera... Capitalism. Is this what they are fighting against? If so, then by all means, we should stop trying to introduce our 'culture' (more like lack thereof, but that's my opinion) to them.
I give the Islamic faith credit to a certain degree as it seems that the followers adhere to their religion, which is good to a degree. At least they show faith and discipline with their prayers and rites, something that I think we can all agree is not so prevalent in our society. I mean seriously, look what Christmas has become and you'll see my point with that one. I don't see the Muslims tarnishing something that should be considered 'holy' the way we do. Do they take things a bit far sometimes? Of course they do. I am not naive to what can happen when religious fanaticism takes hold so don't ever think that I would condone, nor deny, that Islam has some issues. I just think the whole situation of the "why we are doing this", or the "we need to take action against that" is not necessary.
Like I said prior, maybe I am missing something here... but I don't think that I am. In my opinion it's us causing the problem. Causing it because of what we want and how we want people to live. Who died and left us in charge of the world's 'moral compass'?

I was skimming through these posts and every time I come across a discussion like this it scares the living crap out of me. The diversity of opinions are so strong and so polar opposite in so many cases you wonder how humanity has lasted this long. Now that there is technology to finish the job, I wonder how long it is going to take.

Strong beliefs are great. They define you as a person and give you meaning. The problem there is somebody else out there who is your evil opposite.

Here’s quick list of the personalities in this tread. You have the nationalist zealot versus the global zealot. The religious based person versus the secularist. The person who sees conspiracy in everything the government does. The anarchist versus whomever is present. I see hints of socialism/communism in peoples thinking.

Personally I am American first with conservative but secular leanings. I find it very hard to relate, sympathize, or understand the Muslim world. To me, they are crazy people who hold very little value on life. In short, I’m someone the extremist would like to see dead.

The world has never been more dangerous.

What has formed this opinion for you? Media coverage perhaps? You do of course realize that they may actually hold life very near and dear to their little hearts, just like you and I, right? I believe that 'some', not all, of these so called 'crazy' people have just resorted to all that they have left. They do not wish to be oppressed. They do not wish to have another culture thrust upon them. They do not wish to forsake life for greed... it's that simple really.
Have some of these people taken it to the extreme? Of course they have, as happens within any society or even any endeavor. It is not something isolated to a specific group of people necessarily, so we can't continue to place labels.
My heart goes out to those who would throw rocks at men armed with bullets. I feel that it takes a GREAT amount of courage to do what these 'suicide bombers' do, regardless of whether their action is right or wrong. For people to say they are cowards... that is utter nonsense. Let's see you strap a bomb to your chest knowing full well that you are about to die... would a coward push the button or pull the string? I don't think so. They are fighting for their way of life. If 'we' stop trying to push our ways on these people, then maybe, just maybe, we won't be as big a target in their eyes as we are. That, and the US NEEDS to let Israel fend for herself. Stop sending weapons and money over there. Stop allowing them to have their way all across the Middle East.

  half the time the Fox News has the war in it's cross hairs With more Demcart agenda thean republican every should know that if they watch the news every 15 years or so.  
):-B

How are we forcing our culture on them? There is no madatory class they take on how to wear a mini skirt and listen to rock and roll music. They find most of it on their own and a good portion of the liberal population likes it. It is the narrow focused idealogs that are fighting the influence. We don't force them to drink Coke an wear blue jeans. They choose to do it. I guess unfortunately for them, their culture has such little appeal in the west. If they want to block the internet, ban imports, scramble satelite television. That is there choice. In fact, please do it. Then they won't have to lie to their countrymen how they lived it up in Las Vegas over the weekend, or how they brought syphilis back from Amsterdam.

Or are you talking about this part of western culture. You should respect woman, freedom of the press, personal expression, freedom of religion, freedom of no religion, freedom to go and come as you will, seperation of church and state, a government of the people for the people, and those types of things.

I would hate to think they had the right of killing their kids as a property right taken away.

look at they "treorrist" pro ads on there tv and onthere posters it's terriffing deciptive to there own people and these adds have a nich for turning america into a evil looking nation wanting to destroy there tradition and we're trying to help them. so basicly they hate because others have poured propganda down there throats but most just want a better life and enjoy our troops over there and the security they provid.

sorry for bad spelling  

The threat comes from the jihadist belief that all infidels must be destroyed. That is where I draw the line. When you believe that I need to be dead, well, I'm a big believer in peace through superior firepower.

Are all Muslims trying to kill us? No. A fairly small group of fringe extremists have hijacked a valid faith. But - and this is a big problem for me - no Muslim leaders have come forth to preach a message of tolerance and understanding. I'm sure some are, but not in public or in the media. Why is that?

I would suggest that they are afraid of retaliation. There was a film maker that was murdered in Holland that was speaking out against jihad. He was killed by Islamic fundamentalists.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are (well, seem to be) Muslim.



The media has been warping the news for hundreds of years. Randolph Hearst got us into the Spanish-American war by trumpeting news of the explosion of the US battleship "Maine" on the front page of his newspapers. The difference today is that we are so connected that information flies about nearly instantly.



Why do they need to fight our way of life? What we do in our own country should be of no importance to anyone. What they are fighting is the influence our culture has over theirs. If they don't want to deal with the West, they don't have to. Saudi Arabia has been selling us oil while holding on to their own cultural beliefs for years.



This is our problem in a nutshell. We are looking at the problem through our Western eyes. We don't see what they see.



So you have to clearly articulate your ideas in order to get them across. One of the nice things about GalCiv2 (this is a game thread, right? Hi Kryo!) is that the people who play it are pretty bright, so this discussion is actually pretty intelligent. "Dude we shud nuke Iraq! w00t!" is not a well-thought out political comment. This thread has 3 pages of political comment that are mostly of higher quality than my newspaper.



Agreed. Our true enemy are the leaders who manipulate the Iraqi people into that position. Yes, our leaders bend the truth to their own means. How bent do you think the information the Iraqis get is?

Today Tony Blaire announced that the British troops will be pulled out over the next three months. Is it time for us to go now?

I guess I should have chosen my words a little better, or at least collected my thoughts enough to comment with some intelligence.
What I think I should be saying instead of 'culture' is 'capitalism', or what I like to plainly classify as 'Reaganomics' since it was during the 'reign of Ronnie' that corporate and private greed became a 'good thing' in the American moral standard. Corporate entities have pushed their way into all areas of the world seeking to capitalize on the next 'big market', which is all well and good if they were to do this with any ounce of respect for the society which they 'invade'. Even though I dislike capitalism I would never begrudge anyone the opportunity to better themselves financially, hell, I'd love to do this myself! If it wasn't for all those damn bills and taxes though...
Anyhow, I base some of my comments on interviews I have seen at one point or another with respect to politicians/policy makers, whatever (all asses), where they are discussing bringing all of these wonderful ways of American life to the people of an occupied nation. The backdrop, when the report is actually on scene, is usually some sort of strip mall or hastily constructed 'trailer city' which clearly, proudly, display franchise names. Okay, two thousand people died this week on both sides but hey, it was worth it, because you can now get some KFC with a side of mashed potatoes... woohoo. Now I realize some of you might say, "well it is just the background", it is when the person on camera proudly gestures towards what is behind him and spouts off about all the progress which has been made in little time. Yes, I am awed by pre-fabricated and modular buildings...
No my friends, the corporations are behind the worldly affairs, which quite frankly is sickening, as it makes a few people even more rich and powerful and oppresses the masses to new heights. I know, I know, it might not truly be 'oppression' by normal definitions, and the people don't have to purchase or partake, this much is clear. But come on, when you slap stuff like that up in front of these people's faces, I would think that eventually most would succumb to the temptation, as we are only human.
I give your comments about the old 'double standard' their proper respect as you are right with regards to that, the "I don't know how I got 'em, but I got 'em" excuse that those who would proclaim to be devout give to their peers instead of admitting their faults. My take on that is simple, if you're going to talk the talk then you sure as hell better be walking the walk. Nothing I hate more than plastic people.
All in all I hope this little post cleared up a few of my comments regarding 'culture'. To me, these wars are pretty much brought on by big business to further their own interests... the military/industrial complex is alive and well and there is big money to be had in war. If we were smart, and had the reserves to do it, we would buy stock in anything and everything war related because eventually, we would all make a fortune. That's pretty sad now that I re-read it...

There is a great line in the book version of "Black Hawk Down". Michael Durant has been captured from his wrecked helicopter and is being held while the troops are searching for him. He is talking with his Somali captors and one asks, "Did you think you could come here, kill the warlords, and Jeffersonian democracy would just spring up?"

Well, yes, that's what we do think.

We have the highest standard of living in the world because, in part, of our democratic society. There are valid arguments to be made that we have an overly large share of resources and we have trampled cultures and there is truth there, but bear with me.

Our society allows us all to accomplish what we can. I can double my wages by working 100 hrs a week if I like. It would cost me my marriage, but I can make the choice.



Corporate "robber barons" have been around since before the Revolutionary War. Yes, in a capitalistic society there are winners and losers. A socialistic society has no losers, but no winners. Consider this - the poor people in America have microwaves, PS2s, telephones, and air conditioning. Our poor live better than many other cultures middle classes.

This leads us to believe that we have it figured out. And we try to help others figure it out, and we become frustrated when others feel that it is more important to kill people than to make money.

Is it right to let people make those choices? If a culture chooses to destroy itself, is it right to say they are self-determining and just watch? Shouldn't we try to intervene?

England did this in the 18th & 19th century. They called the countries they were trying to rebuild "colonies". I would love to see us call Iraq the 51st state, send 100,000 troops over and pump all them oil out for ourselves. We could have 50cent / gallon gas again. But the world would, rightly, condemn us and it would probably trigger a war. So the world has decided that we should let these people live under a tree and ride camels and not help them better themselves? Then the world is crazy...

If running water, electricity, basic sanitation, education and healthcare facilities are viewed as imposing our culture on a country I'm all for it. But Iraq had some of these things under Saddam. So we removed a tyrant and damaged their infrastructure. Would it have been better to leave Saddam there? I don't want to believe that can be true, but we'll never know.



Not everything war-related. Just Hallibuton...  

I hope you bit your tongue on that one... sheesh.



Again, the wonders of internet 'communication'. Being 36 years old (born in 1970) I was pretty much using events that have happened during my lifetime, events which I was fully aware of since I was at an age where I could comprehend what was going on. Of course I realize that the 'robber barons' have been around for a very, very long time, as well as the concept of capitalism, which I despise. But again, sorry for the miscommunication.



So because the 'poor' people over here have these things are they truly better off than other 'poor' people throughout the world? Are they just as happy? Happier maybe? Your comment that I quoted above pretty much reeks of materialism when setting the standard for how much better our 'poor' people have it. I AM NOT saying that you yourself are materialistic, nor am I saying that you think it's a good thing so please do not get offended (besides, it's been great carrying this on with you Oz, as well as the rest of you who have added your thoughts and I don't want to see this thread get locked over stupid misunderstandings or possible flames like the Iraq thread did). I feel that a part of 'our' problem is that things like these mean more to us than they do to others and when we see people without we tend to think "how can that poor man get through life without a microwave" type thoughts. This is totally wrong. Furthermore, if you are truly poor, what the hell are you doing buying PS2 games and running AC? Remember, I am playing Devils Advocate with this one right here because in reality, it could be said that if you don't have a pot to piss in you sure as hell don't need a gold watch to tell the time.
Materialism. I believe that this is where we falter in the US since we seem to feel (or where we 'made to believe'?) that we have to have all this 'stuff' or else our lives are incomplete. I'm just as guilty of this so I won't excuse myself from my own rant. My example of this is simple enough. I refuse to wear any other type of 'tennis shoe/sneaker than 'name brand'. I will not get 'tennies from Payless or Picway or even Kmart or Walmart. Nope. I won't pay less than 50.00 (and usually not less than 100.00 as I LOVE my Nike Shox) for shoes, regardless of how much or how little money I have. So how sad am I as I spout off about morals and materialism and all that good stuff and here I am, guilty of the same.
Seriously though, we need to look at how our lives are better than others around the world and bring those truly 'good' things to these people if we wish to spread our influence. But then that wouldn't necessarily reap the profits that the materialistic things would and it's this whole "what's in it for me" attitude that irks me.

Again, great topic for discussion. Our current view would be, I think, that our poor people are better off. So does that then mean that it is OK to leave them in their new, improved poverty?



Yeah, it does, doesn't it? Hmmmm...I should ponder about this...

How do we decide the realitive merits of a culture?

Here's another question - are the tacky, materialistic trappings of our superficial society (did you like that?) only the outward signs of a stable productive culture that has overcome many of the challenges that lesser developed nations face? All of the Muslim nations are facing the "invasion" of Western culture. That may be because as the people grow more wealthy they have more money to spend on discretionary items, whether that be GalCiv2, Big Macs, or Girls Gone Wild videos. It is easy to look at the Iraqis as noble savages, bravely struggling on to perserve their way of life as the West encroasches upon them, when in reality, if they had fifty bucks they would get liquored up and sing karoke all night. That's what the 9/11 terrorists did in Florida.

Look at Vietnam. Thirty years after the uh...conflict, yeah, conflict they have become successful. With brights lights and burger stands and the whole nine yards. Look at China today. Or Russia. People get money and noble values and quality of life go right out the window and its all about how shiny your car is.

Topic for discussion, folks. Compare, contrast, and discuss. The inherent materialism of humankind appears to be a root problem. If we were not so dependant on oil as an energy source I don't think we would be in Iraq. So, the nation shouldn't be debating right or wrong in Iraq. Maybe we should be trying to figure out how to not be so focused on our shiny toys and pay attention to the life we are living.

Now, if you will excuse me, I must answer my shiny cell phone because my wife who is working two jobs (we both are) can't cook tonight and she is calling me to ask me to pick up McDinner for the kids. I'm a wage slave, too. But maybe there is a better way...

True! but i'm sure if some muslims tried to do that, then they would not be breaking any laws,,, unlike in most muslim countries where you are forbidden to preach christianity.



Not just that, but the muslim faith is also a very noble faith, it stands strong against some of the modern ideals that have corrupted the christian church. My only chriticism of the muslim faith is it's intollerance of other faiths and ways of life - they seem to be unwilling to tollerate others if they consider what others are doing to be unholy. Also i would not want to offend any women by failing to acknowledge the lack of justice they recieve in the muslim faith.



Tell that to Ghandi (being the one who held back his fellow Hindue's against muslim agression).

"For evil to triumph, it is only neccessary that good men do nothing"
- oh, I can't remember who said it but it's
a good quote

We are charge of the world's moral compass because we can be. We are the last superpower - well, until someone (China?) knocks us off. So, should the quote be

"For evil nations to triumph, it is only neccessary that good nations do nothing"?

And if not, at what point do we surrender our individual responsibility? I feel that I as a person need to speak out and act against evil. Doesn't a nation have a responsibility as well?

Granted, I am acting against what I perceive to be evil. But people that use religion to preach a message of hate and destruction and death seem to be clearly evil, whether it be Muslims, the Spanish Inquisition, or the KKK.

I quoted that several days ago too, It is somthing to consider when you argue against the invasion of Iraq. It is a bit different for afghanistan though, because i don't think you could call the Taliban evil, just seriously misguided!

You sound terrified that we have differing views to you, I am less scared by my diversity than your polarisation,



I am sorry but this is just paranoia, Evil opposite, have you ever considered the "good opposite" to your way of thinking.



Never let it be said that an idea can be challenged, Someone who disagrees has to be labeled in negative terms.



I am actually amazed that you have the temerity to even try and support this view, I accept there maybe many people who think like this but most leave their white robes hidden.

This quote is often used , I am not worried by the actuality or the etymology.

But I have an issue.

This argument has been so misunderstood that any side can claim to be the good apposing evil.

A belief on any side can claim victory over this statement and therefore a false moral initiative.

I think this quote should stay in the ambiguity of history where it belongs.

The point of the saying is to show that there is no excuse good enough to ignore evil.
What you choose to do about a percieved evil, weather you be a muslim percieving the west as evil or vice versa is the real question. And what i am saying is that the way many Muslims choose to act in response to their percieved evil is what upsets me.

This is purely a domestic theory, please don't think this argument has anything to do with reasons for external wars.

I think I cannot put this any more clearly.

The terrorists want to effect our lives in a negative way.
They want our lives to be degraded by their actions.

If our Governments restrict and therefore diminish our freedom and consequently our lives are constricted by laws that are in direct consequence of the terrorism.
Then these acts alone are what the terrorists want.
Therefore our governments are actually, either deliberately or unintentionally collaborating with or at least enforcing the terrorist agenda.
I will not let my Government support terrorism. I will never let them degrade my standard of living, and that goes to the terrorists acts , even if they personally affect me.

A good question here is what is good? Is there a system of beliefs that is inherently good?

I would say yes. Our belief system tends toward openness, inclusion, and opportunity, which are generally felt to be good. Our opponents tend toward closed-mindedness, exclusion and diviciveness, which is generally felt to be evil. This would mean that we are (at least trying to) doing the "good" thing in Iraq.

Is that a reason to destroy a country? Sadly, I say yes. My kids sleep safe at night because we are fighting in Iraq, not here. This is a far from perfect world, but the fact that we are free to have this debate tends to make we think that our way works better, and that it is worth fighting for.

I think that your position may be an exercise in situational ethics. I know I am putting words in your mouth, here. Please feel free to disagree. Yes, the Iraqis think that their beliefs are superior. But those beliefs hold women to be property, education to be meaningless, and all non-believers to be sub-human. That cannot be considered good, can it?



Help me out, here. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Is it that the Muslims think that we are evil, or that you disagree with their responses, or am I completely missing the point?