Changes to Login and User Dashboard

We are testing a change on the front page where Community Builder will start taking over the user dashboard and activity feed instead of EasySocial. EasySocial has been giving us some compatibility issues after the upgrade, so this is part of making the site more stable going forward.

Who is responsible for the Iraq War ?? Hussein, Bush, Blair or bin Laden ??

  • Topic Author
  • User
  • User
More
06 Jul 2016 16:04 #247441 by
There has been a lot of talk about the Iraq war recently on the news, and I am interested in my politics. Michael Moore holds Blair responsible, but I don;'t think he was a warmonger. What are your opinions on this ?? :)

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
06 Jul 2016 16:22 #247443 by Tellahane
None of the above. My thoughts on all of that is words are words, actions are actions. Any one of those names can speak of war or a call to war, or ask things to happen. But it's the people that perform the act, that actually go to the war, that make it a war. They don't have to listen to orders or talk, they chose to anyway.

I'm sure saying that will spark a comment or two about loyalty and chain of command and following orders, commitment to your country and so on. The fact of that matter is everyone has a choice, some people like to say they didn't, but the truth is they do, they just chose the lesser of the two consequences in the end.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Wescli Wardest

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Topic Author
  • User
  • User
More
06 Jul 2016 16:26 #247444 by
Good point Tellahane. The thing I don't understand, and no disrespect to military Jedi here, whom i know there are a lot of, why do you do it ?? How can you do it ?? Why do you go to the Middle East to say you are 'protecting your country' (which, by the way, is no where near the middle East !!), carpet bomb women and children, kill civilians, and risk your lives, potentially also risking the lives of your family (depression, suicide etc). It doesn't make sense. As Obi-Wan said, there are alternatives to fighting. War will end when people learn to sit down and talk to each other.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
06 Jul 2016 16:35 #247445 by
Ooh, this is a tough one. Any war and its origins are complicated, of course. Saddam Hussein was boasting to his neighbors and to the West that he had powerful weapons that he could use against them, and not only did Britain and the United States believe that, but the rest of the world did as well. That was a very dangerous game to be playing with the world powers, and as Hussein and Iraq were suspected of harboring al-Qaeda, which had declared responsibility for the 2001 September 11 attacks, I find it hard to believe that invasion was not inevitable.

I'm aware that both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair pushed forward for the invasion, stating the motive as the disarming of weapons of mass destruction, while many also wanted to topple Saddam's regime and bring democracy to the middle eastern countries - the problem being that these cultures aren't that compatible with democracy, and as a consequence of the wars, situations only became worse, and the path for ISIL to rise to power was created.

I now agree that we shouldn't have invaded. Was any one person really responsible? Perhaps the United States and Britain did greatly overestimate the truth of the threat that Iraq posed, but at the time, Saddam Hussein was acting as though he was a very real threat, and the whole world bought it. Also, al-Qaeda and its successors have become that real threat, so I wonder, what should we have done, and what should we do now?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • ren
  • Offline
  • Member
  • Member
  • Council Member
  • Council Member
  • Not anywhere near the back of the bus
More
06 Jul 2016 19:24 - 06 Jul 2016 19:31 #247463 by ren

Saddam Hussein was boasting to his neighbors and to the West that he had powerful weapons that he could use against them


No.

not only did Britain and the United States believe that, but the rest of the world did as well


Actually France called on your BS, said they wouldn't take part in the warmongering and did everything to prevent it. Most countries in the world with an official stance on the issue chose not to support this aggression.


Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
Last edit: 06 Jul 2016 19:31 by ren.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alexandre Orion

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
06 Jul 2016 19:25 #247464 by
Asking this question is similar to asking which ingredient is responsible for making a cake. They were all part of the recipe that led to the eventual outcome. You can take any one of them out of the recipe and you might still end up with a cake, but maybe not. It is easy to look back at history and assign responsibility, but as current events unfold it isn't always so clear. Sometimes you think you are baking a cake and end up with muffins instead.

Tellahane wrote: But it's the people that perform the act, that actually go to the war, that make it a war. They don't have to listen to orders or talk, they chose to anyway.


It's not that simple. As we've learned the hard way recently, sometimes war is brought to our doorsteps. Soldiers and their commanding officers do not always choose when and where they will have to fight. They bring the fight where they believe it is necessary based on information that you and I will never be fully aware of. We ask them to make these tough choices for us because we are unwilling to make that sacrifice ourselves. If they do not follow these orders, would you? Or perhaps the more pointed question is if they did not follow these orders and harm came to you because of it, would you blame them or would you blame yourself?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
06 Jul 2016 19:30 #247466 by TheDude
Every politician who supported it, every politician who didn't fight against it, all of the people who signed up for it, and the people who specifically committed the action which lead to war as well as the people who convinced them to do so.

I believe that everyone who was involved in any way shares some level of responsibility, and whether that's good or bad is up to them.

First IP Journal | Second IP Journal | Apprentice Journal | Meditation Journal | Seminary Journal | Degree Jorunal
TM: J.K. Barger
Knighted Apprentices: Nairys | Kevlar | Sophia

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
06 Jul 2016 19:33 #247467 by Leah Starspectre
Does it even matter who began it? A more pressing question is "Who will be responsible for ending it?"

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • ren
  • Offline
  • Member
  • Member
  • Council Member
  • Council Member
  • Not anywhere near the back of the bus
More
06 Jul 2016 19:39 - 06 Jul 2016 19:40 #247469 by ren

Miss_Leah wrote: Does it even matter who began it? A more pressing question is "Who will be responsible for ending it?"


The ones who started it? That's usually how responsibility is established. He who causes it deals with it.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
Last edit: 06 Jul 2016 19:40 by ren.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
06 Jul 2016 19:47 #247471 by Tellahane

Senan wrote: If they do not follow these orders, would you? Or perhaps the more pointed question is if they did not follow these orders and harm came to you because of it, would you blame them or would you blame yourself?

Neither, I would blame the person doing the harming. For without that choice from that person to do the harming in the first place, there would be no need for blame in the first place.

My point I was trying to make was not the view of a soldier in defense of the country, but another who chooses to attack it. The perspective that news and other outlets would try to say is that we moved into iraq to prevent an attack or prevent hostilities and so on, but I'm sure there are people in iraq who believe we did to them what other terrorist organizations or countries have done to the united states in years passed.

The point of my message is simple, anyone who causes harm, for the purpose of war, is the cause of said war. Not what a politician sais, in the perfect world if no one caused harm there would be no problems, but that is an environment to which we will probably not see in our lifetimes because not everyone is raised or taught to respect others views and opinions and that faith and belief which is so strongly encouraged and supported by so many organizations and religion's causes blind following, which will always lead to inevitably corruption and conflict.

I don't think about these matters often, and haven't spent hardly any time in politics so keep that in mind in judging my response, but that's how I see it as of this post. My view may change tomorrow, who knows, I will plan to meditate on it.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
06 Jul 2016 19:48 #247472 by Leah Starspectre

ren wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: Does it even matter who began it? A more pressing question is "Who will be responsible for ending it?"


The ones who started it? That's usually how responsibility is established. He who causes it deals with it.


The ones who started it are probably don't have the cojones to own up and take responsibility. Or the humility. Or intelligence.

So it's up to those who know better to take the reins and solve the conflicts that remain.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
06 Jul 2016 20:09 #247473 by

Tellahane wrote: My point I was trying to make was not the view of a soldier in defense of the country, but another who chooses to attack it. The perspective that news and other outlets would try to say is that we moved into iraq to prevent an attack or prevent hostilities and so on, but I'm sure there are people in iraq who believe we did to them what other terrorist organizations or countries have done to the united states in years passed.


I can understand this point of view, particularly when applying the question of responsibility to the second invasion of Iraq, but the first Gulf War was in direct response to Iraq illegally invading the sovereign nation of Kuwait. The U.S. certainly had other economic and political interests, but the defense of that nation against outside aggression from Iraq was a legitimate motivation. The original operation was called "Desert Shield" and was meant to defend Saudi Arabia and Israel from any further advances by Iraqi forces. It turned to "Desert Storm" when it was decided by a coalition of nations that Kuwait should be liberated by force.

As Jedi, we speak of defending those who cannot defend themselves, and despite my disagreement with the U.S. role of "World Police", I think the use of force to defend Kuwait was justified. Now, the second time when we decided to play hide-n-seek with Saddam and the WMDs... that one is a bit tougher to justify. I'd have to agree with you that the U.S and allies were on the offensive, but I still hesitate to put the responsibility for that on the boots on the ground. If our soldiers questioned the motive of every order they received, they would be ignoring other virtues we like to promote here in our Temple, those of faith, courage, loyalty and integrity.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
06 Jul 2016 22:18 #247483 by OB1Shinobi
http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/saddam-states-reasons-for-kuwait-invasion-1.502105

Warning: Spoiler!

People are complicated.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Wescli Wardest

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
06 Jul 2016 22:43 - 06 Jul 2016 22:57 #247485 by Adder
There were other factors at play IMO...
  1. Iran and Syria were in the market for nuclear material at the time (and so was Saddam if he could have gotten away with it) and of course,
  2. OBL, AQ and 9/11 together with resultant 'Western' operations in Afghanistan had motivated an Islamic fundamentalist grass roots resurgence in militancy throughout the Mid East against the 'West'.

So I think the major players saw those two things, alongside with a few others, and the 'West' considered this as a serious recipe for a nasty cocktail. The variables floating around were starting to became a manifest risk for high casualty events, and in ongoing terms Afghanistan was only fueling that potential maelstrom. I think the 'West' knew it needed to shift the centre of gravity of that emerging threats focus away from CONUS and Europe, and considered that Afghanistan was too far away to have the required effect. So IMO, they had 2 options;
  1. do something to present a hard target in proximity to the emerging new threat
  2. do nothing and wait for another hit at a soft target.

I think the entire 2005 Iraq Invasion was option 1. The military was trained and equipped to place itself right in the middle, defend itself and allow those elements to coalesce around them in one place in such a way that they could better deal with them. It was either going to go one of two ways, the threat would not manifest and the US would work to rebuild a democratic self governing Iraq and leave having freed the Iraqi's from the despot Saddam, or the threat was real and the fight would occur in Iraq instead of Europe, Israel or elsewhere at some future unknown time.

Mostly because with the benefit of hindsight the rest of us can actually see that this is what was actually happening, and indeed what was happened, because as soon as the 'West' effortlessly moved into Iraq the problems only began when the 'foreign fighters' from neighboring countries flooded in to take up arms against this 'West'. Syria and Iran actually did get there hands on nuclear material and the conflict from the US presence in Iraq was driven by those Islamic fundamentalist 'foreign fighters' flooding into Iraq to attack the US forces.

The conflating elements which made things worse were;
  1. Iraqi's initially sided with the 'foreign fighters', until they realized they were worse. At which point the Iraqi clans switched to support the US and the whole thing wound down - that was the turning point in Iraq.
  2. the ongoing near 1400 year old Sunni-Shia conflict. Without the brutal dictator police state to keep the peace on the streets, this civil war served as the new foundation for Islamic militancy to take root again at the local level once the US left.

That is how I see the decision making process regarding this conflict, and I consider the publicly stated reasons for the Iraqi WMD threat back in the day to be a partial truth disguised to protect the actual strategy, in effect a type of deception operation through the media, not quite propaganda but in the same vein. You don't tell the enemy your strategy, the reasons and intended result simply because they will do the opposite.

But I have been told there was enough ordnance dropped on Iraqi underground bunkers that any actual WMD would be buried under so much concrete that they'd never find it even if it was there, so who knows
:blink:

So in my mind, the only reason the US went into Iraq was because of 9/11 and the impact it was thought to potentially have on the potential for militant fundamentalism in the Mid East. I mean if a dozen guys with box cutters can do so much damage... now of course, the Islamic fundamentalists and AQ's narrative was the US wanted the Oil and to occupy the Mid East so the 'West' made it clear from the outset that they were not going to stay in Iraq. They even invited both OBL and Saddam to surrender themselves to avoid any military invasion at all to that end. And did leave when security had reached some level of manageability by indigenous forces.

The entire Mid East saw the 'West' stick to its word and leave.... this cut the legs of the AQ movements narrative. Indeed we had the Arab Spring where democracy became something the Islamic world wanted and was happy to fight for. At the same time the militancy in the Mid East shifted back to its Sunni-Shia civil war roots, and from the chaos of the Syrian resistance to democracy we saw the ISIL emerge from that Sunni-Shia conflict basis and the new narrative develop of anti-anything-not-ISIL (which is a radical Sunni sect).

So what we get now is a smaller number of religo-political salafi terrorists trying to make everyone join their cult or die (ISIL narrative), versus the potential risk of most all Muslim's thinking the 'West' was out to destroy Islam and steal its oil (AQ narrative). The sad thing is many still believe the later.... all just IMO though.

Sigh :pinch:
But that is in the past, we need to look forward to do better I guess.

Introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist.
Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 06 Jul 2016 22:57 by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Wescli Wardest

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
07 Jul 2016 01:34 - 07 Jul 2016 01:35 #247497 by OB1Shinobi
i might come back with more links later but for now i'll just say this: if you want to know who was responsible you could start with the roman adage "cui bono?"

who benefits?

there are players who gained in ways the public cant know but there are plenty enough we can identify

People are complicated.
Last edit: 07 Jul 2016 01:35 by OB1Shinobi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
07 Jul 2016 01:51 #247499 by Adder

OB1Shinobi wrote: i might come back with more links later but for now i'll just say this: if you want to know who was responsible you could start with the roman adage "cui bono?"

who benefits?

there are players who gained in ways the public cant know but there are plenty enough we can identify


I dunno, if people wanted war there has been plenty of opportunities to create plenty of it. To me it looks like its trying to be avoided in the face of various disjointed forces pushing for it at various times and places. The forces of capitalism are inherently similar in some respects and their activity in communities involved with war further add to the illusion of it being to blame, but I think that is confusing different things which are happening to share the same space and time. You could be right though, I dunno!!!

Introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist.
Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
07 Jul 2016 03:59 #247503 by Tellahane

Senan wrote: If our soldiers questioned the motive of every order they received, they would be ignoring other virtues we like to promote here in our Temple, those of faith, courage, loyalty and integrity.


So are you inferring that if a higher rank jedi gave you the order to go in and destroy an area for the sake of a better world you would do it without wondering if that higher rank even knows what they are doing and why? or doesn't have a motive on their own?

What about some other important virtues, knowledge, wisdom, nobility, honesty, if you don't know as much of the full picture as possible how can you act blindly.

I'm not saying it needs to be one extreme or the other, but communication is critical to anything and everything, go here do this because i said so is a poor order, do this go here, because this is happening, and this is our goal is a far better one.

I'm not placing blame on OUR boots on the ground, I'm placing the blame on anyone who takes actions on either side, doesn't matter which boots they are wearing. The reason our boots were on the ground was because someone elses already was, if that wasn't the case, ours wouldn't, and/or shouldn't have been there. We haven't invaded france lately...other then maybe for a special gathering that idk.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
07 Jul 2016 07:58 #247509 by

OB1Shinobi wrote: i might come back with more links later but for now i'll just say this: if you want to know who was responsible you could start with the roman adage "cui bono?"

who benefits?

there are players who gained in ways the public cant know but there are plenty enough we can identify


Yess please follow the money ..

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
07 Jul 2016 08:16 - 07 Jul 2016 08:22 #247512 by
Questions of blame are pointless, and distract from the real problems we as a civilisation now face. The "players" here are now squarely "off the board", and not in a position to inflict this terrible tragedy on anyone else.

The important questions are - what do we do to end the conflict? How can we help those whose lives have been ruined by this war? And, crucially, how can we prevent this from happening again?

Tellahane wrote: So are you inferring that if a higher rank jedi gave you the order to go in and destroy an area for the sake of a better world you would do it without wondering if that higher rank even knows what they are doing and why? or doesn't have a motive on their own?


This straw man isn't helpful. Jedi don't throw other Jedi into military prisons and destroy their careers for disobeying orders. Jedi don't actually issue orders at all, and there is no way a Jedi can compel another to act - totally unlike the military, which only ever operates on the basis that orders are absolute. Frankly I find it a little offensive that the two things are even likened here - this is a religious Temple, not a cult militia.
Last edit: 07 Jul 2016 08:22 by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • ren
  • Offline
  • Member
  • Member
  • Council Member
  • Council Member
  • Not anywhere near the back of the bus
More
07 Jul 2016 09:14 #247514 by ren

Questions of blame are pointless, and distract from the real problems we as a civilisation now face


The problem we face as a civilization is that people who are to blame for the destruction of entire countries, like yourself, are not being held accountable.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: MorkanoWrenPhoenixThe CoyoteRiniTaviKhwang