Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on August 10, 2004, 10:29:07 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3550560.stm
The US says it will not allow its al-Qaeda suspects to testify at the retrial of a man charged with helping to plot the 11 September 2001 attacks.
The decision was announced as Moroccan Mounir al-Motassadek appeared in court in Hamburg, Germany, on Tuesday.
The stance is seen as a major blow for the prosecutors.
-
Why are you surprised? Only a week ago the Bush administration named their biggest double agent in Al-Queda while he was still operative.
-
yeah, that was a dumb move. well, that may be just a bit of an understatement.
As for not allowing suspects to meet and cross-examine witnesses, thats pure bull****, just like all Bush administration decisions in regards to terr'rists since 9/11.
-
They're probably terrified that if the guy gets a fair trial it might be the wrong man.
-
Really? Even though the article says this is a major blow to prosuecution.
-
The germans should just say f**k it. 9/11 didn't happen to us and give the guy a ticket to Syria or Iran or where ever he wants to go. If the Amercans don't care about one of the terrorists involved in an attrocity commited in their own country why should the Germans?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3550560.stm
The US says it will not allow its al-Qaeda suspects to testify at the retrial of a man charged with helping to plot the 11 September 2001 attacks.
The decision was announced as Moroccan Mounir al-Motassadek appeared in court in Hamburg, Germany, on Tuesday.
The stance is seen as a major blow for the prosecutors.
Land of the free, they hate us for our freedom, Europeans want just to appease terrorists, all brown guys are dirty terrists anyways, I heard that Muslims are going to take over the world, why do you hate USA, do you really want terrorists to control you, lol france sucks lol spain is the new france ps. france surrenders, Europeans are responsible for this, we are the shining beacon of hope, well he wasn't born here so nevermind, it's none of your bussiness, well does Europe have any experience with terrorists I THINK NO!, Texas proud.
Did I make it right? :confused:
-
You gave George a blow job just fine.
-
Originally posted by vyper
You gave George a blow job just fine.
i'm no longer thirsty :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The germans should just say f**k it. 9/11 didn't happen to us and give the guy a ticket to Syria or Iran or where ever he wants to go. If the Amercans don't care about one of the terrorists involved in an attrocity commited in their own country why should the Germans?
In addition to that, the US's "our way or the highway" approach has made many germans upset at the US. This is why having allies is a very good thing.
-
Originally posted by vyper
You gave George a blow job just fine.
Does this mean we can impeach him?
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Does this mean we can impeach him?
I'm sure Jimmy Carter has a nice big peach we can put him in...
-
does anyone here still doubt that he is trying to fuck up?
-
Not after he admitted it on national TV earlier this week :D
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
does anyone here still doubt that he is trying to fuck up?
Actually I did, never underestimate the power of sheer stupidity, although sending troops into the Shrine of Imam Ali is pushing things a bit too far.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=1&u=/nm/20040811/wl_nm/iraq_dc_156
If I owned a car I'd be stocking up on petrol right now.
-
I never underestemate the stupidity of other people, that is one of my pricepal rules of life in fact, but this (everything he's done over the last 6 months) goes beond stupidity into the relm of "he has to be doing this intentionaly"
-
Im finding Janus' reply hard to make a decision on. Are there people that are actually that stupid and ignorant to hold that view or is it some kind of sarcastic joke?
But then Bush has a good chance of being re-elected so I guess there are plenty of idiots to go round. And Im not really talking abot the war issues. I agree hussein needed booting but he should be impeached purely for the false reasons he sold to the world.
What really gets me are that his general policies are so unbelievably upper class and coporate biased. Im amazed he still gets support from average joes. Its like watching lemmings.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I never underestemate the stupidity of other people, that is one of my pricepal rules of life in fact, but this (everything he's done over the last 6 months) goes beond stupidity into the relm of "he has to be doing this intentionaly"
Thats a bit conspiracy-minded, but I agree completely. The people in charge, I mean the ones really in charge, not Bush, of American foreign policy, are all highly educated and intelligent people. Bush's series of ****-ups stands a very good chance of being intentional, in order to unseat him.
Kerry may wear a nicer mask, but in the long run he is much better for the American empire than Bush. Dubya's been in office for four years, and already he is universally depised. But not to worry, Kerry will come along and fix all that up, while retaining the same policies. As I've said on occasion, if I were American, I'de vote for Nader, because I'de rather have Bush than Kerry in the whitehouse.
-
It's like watching lemmings.
Nah, not quite. After all, scientists have proven most lemming deaths are accidents.
This is real stupidity.
-
Originally posted by Rand al'Thor
Im finding Janos' reply hard to make a decision on. Are there people that are actually that stupid and ignorant to hold that view or is it some kind of sarcastic joke?
[/b]
fixed
YES! At least I managed in something.
It's a joke, relax. But the people who sprout the bull**** I was citating are not difficult to find in THE INTERNET!!1 Just take look at some lunatic right-wing site, like FreeRepublic.
-
Janos, I was hoping you'd say that. :D
I wasn't completely sure if you were being sarcastic either, but I was hoping you were. Thanks for clearing that up. :)
As for Rictor, however...
Originally posted by Rictor
As I've said on occasion, if I were American, I'd vote for Nader, because I'd rather have Bush than Kerry in the White House.
*sound of loud thump as Su-tehp's jaw hits the floor*
Well, gee, I guess I should be thankful that you're not voting in this election then. If you really wanted to keep Bush in the White House, why not stop beating around the bush and actually vote for Bush instead of Nader? Is your hypotethetical vote for Nader some sort of misguided way to ease your conscience for your desire to keep Bush in the White House? Why not just vote for Bush flat out? :rolleyes:
Nader is useless. The only reason he's running is because he's trying to punish the Democrats for abandoning him and his causes. Nader may have been a great progressive back in the 1970s for his work in putting pressure on the American car companies to make safer cars, but now he's just a bitter old man who's pissed off that he's no longer relevant.
For Christ's sake, he taking money from Republican contributors who don't stand for any of his causes. The only reason they're giving him money is because, in an election this close, he can take votes away from Kerry and swing the election to Bush.
As for Bush outing one of our own operatives inside Al Queda, it doesn't really surprise me. The man will do anything, and I mean anything to get re-elected, even compromise his own war on terror. Something like this should surprise me, but it doesn't. Damn it all to hell, but it doesn't.
Do you think that makes me cynical? :doubt:
-
I've made it clear that I personally, and I guess that the majority of you will disagree, would rather see another Bush administration than a Kerry one.
Now, why would I vote for Nader? The answer is two-fold. First of all, I'm not stupid, I know that a vote for Nader will help elect Bush, but while busy getting Bush back in, why not help support a worthy cause. I mean, if you can either vote for Nader or Bush, and the result is the same, at least you're giving your vote to the good guy. The second reason is that Kerry and the Democrats should be denied the White House, and continue to be so, as long as they practice their stupid policies. They're dirifting further to the right, I don't think even the staunchest Kerry supporters deny that. Kerry and Bush are two sides of the same coin: US hegemony. As I explained, they're like two princes fighting for control over the kingdom. Yes, they fight for who will call the shots, but neither of them is interested in getting rid of the corrupt and injust system that keeps them in power: corporate socialism (you know what corporate means, you know what socialism means, put the two together and I trust you are all intelligent enough to understand what I'm getting at) and the military industriial complex.
And anyway, the lesser of two evils is a child's game. If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, why should they give you anything but evil? If you can be trusted on to rubber-stamp whatever asshat is paraded infront of you, then what exactly is your use? They could run Reagan as the Democratic candidate, and you'de still vote for him cause he's someone other than Bush.
Quite the opposite Su-tehp, I think you're not cynical enough. There are those like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and George Soros, who are interested in the exact same things that Bush, Cheney and the neocons (Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rummy etc) are intterested in, only they have a better way of getting there.
Here is a quote from an interview with Stan Goff, one of the smartest American lefitists that I know of, and a Special-Ops soldier for over 20 years (ince obviously you people seem to regard military service as a badge of honour, though I do not)
The form of imperialism is unstable right now. Neoliberalism is in a serious crisis. It is a monetary-military system, and the war in Southwest Asia is wrecking the myth of American military invincibility upon which the current system depends. The neocons are stepping on the gas to try and leap the gorge, so to speak, and the technocrats like Colin Powell, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, et cetera, want to stop the car, get out, and recon for a way around the gorge.
edit: Look, its simple. The people in charge of American policy, they're clearly trying to sink Bush. All these mistakes couldn't just be mistakes, they're too many and too obvious. An educated 15 year old could avoid them. So, that means that they're intentional, which means that whoever is calling the shots wants Bush out and Kerry in. ANd its not hard to see why. Bush has destroyed worldwide support for America, and contrary to popular belief, world opinion DOES matter in the long-term. Think of the big picture, beyond this election or the next, think 15 or 20 years ahead. If the world is united against America, and under Bush for 4 years it nearly is, another 4 would achieve that, the US can not act with impunity and continue its imperal adventures. So, you need someone who is going to implement policies that retain America's rule around the world, and yet win over public support. Thats Kerry. Tell me you at least see the logic in that Su-Tehp.
-
You know, the votes for Nader in the 2000 election were about evenly split between those who would have voted for Gore, and those who would have chosen Bush. The Nader factor was negligible.
Second, I don't understand your logic. The Democratic party may be drifting to the right, but the Republican party is OFF THE DEEP END! America as a whole has shifted to the right. You can't set such lofty goals, just try for baby steps.
-
Well, the Nader-factor so called, is irrelevant, since if Bush had followed the law, it wouldn't matter. I don't hear Democrats complaining about that. If they have to blame someone, they should blame either Bush for his para-legal shennanigans or Gore for failing to secure enough votes. Its almost as if he was trying to lose. If he lost to an illiterate, Bible-thumping cowboy, thats his own fault.
The general view of the Democratic party is : "Don't you dare challenge our authority, or you'll end up like Nader, demonized on no rational basis."
The point is Ford, is the Dems can rely on your vote, no matter what, than they will never have a reason to respect your wishes. They could do as they please, becuase they know that people will not oppose them because the fear of the Republicans is always greater.
Its a classic tactic for silencing dissent. If there is an enemy to fear, then we must all give up our rights and opinions and corwd around whoever is going to defeat the enemy. And the Democrats wil alway have an enemy to scare people with, the Republicans.
Bush is to the Democrats what bin Laden is to Bush.
-
I think maybe that many of the changes that we both wish could happen cannot occur solely through the political process. The shift rightward is not just a political movement, it's a social tendency, and perhaps a change in direction requires that society itself be reached, rather than simply the politicians.
You may be right about the tactics of the Democratic party, but I still believe that their intentions are at least marginally more attractive than those of the Republicans.
-
to gain and hold on to power :)
-
Well that's what politics is. Someone who doesn't care about power wouldn't want to be in politics to begin with. Just because they all want to gain and hold onto power doesn't mean they're all the same.
-
edit: this is responding to Ford's post at the end of page 1, just to clarify since there have been some posts while I was typing.
I agree fully. Social change, though it may take time, is immensley more important than just politics. Its the only thing short fo a dictatorship that can produce lasting results. Thats why I think that whoever is running America wants Bush out. He may be able to secure short-term gains (Iran, Syria, Latin America) better than Kerry, but he is producing social disconetent among the people of the world. Kerry would be less effective in the short term (or maybe not, he is pretty jingoist) but he will be able to turn world opinion back to the American side.
There is another option, its possible though I think unlikely. Kerry may be playing tough on foreign policy and catering to all sorts of special interests, only to get himself elected. Once he is elected, he would work to undermine American hegemony and allow democratic opposition movements to take root. Essentially, this could all be an act in order to get himself elected, so that he could put his real agenda into place, which is peaceful and progressive. Thats what I would do if I were running for President. But somehow I doubt it. We'll see, but its quite a leap of faith.
Anyway, at the moment, my thinking is; screw America, world opinion is more important, and if I had to dedicate limited resources to something, thats where I would do it. It would take tremendous time and energy to change the social and politcal consciousness in America, because the military-industrial (and now, media) complex is so entrenched. If the media affect public perceptions, then its an uphill battle considering the resources of the big media. I can afford to disregard American public opinion, but you probably can't, being America. I realize that Kerry's domestic paltform is a bit more progressive than his foreign policy, but I just don't care about that becuase it affects only aout 250 million people, of which I am not one. But you are. So, thats where I think we diisagree.
As for the intentions of the Democratic Party being marginally better than the Republicans, well, I think that honestly...when it comes to foreign policy, their *intentions* are the same. Now, their methods to get there might not be, and thats what I think the difference is. As I said, this doesn't refer to domestic policy. Noam Chomsky mentioned in an interview, and this seems to me pretty close to what you're getting at, that though Kerry and Bush might be close, given the influence of the US, small differences can translate into large, or at least significant, changes. I think this refers to giving social movements in Latin America, India, Europe and other places, a bit more room to manuever, becuase Kerry will be marginally softer on such issues.
Is that more or less what you're saying, that small differences in ideaology can mean significant differences in policy?
anyways, just I thought, I think this is maybe something you'll enjoy reading. I coud be wrong, but I just thought I'de give you a heads-up (yes, yes, I know I'm always linking to CountPunch, so what)
http://www.counterpunch.com/seidman08062004.html
-
I realize that Kerry's domestic paltform is a bit more progressive than his foreign policy, but I just don't care about that becuase it affects only aout 250 million people, of which I am not one. But you are. So, thats where I think we diisagree.
Aha! Now I see the missing piece. Yes, I was wondering why you were saying all this about Kerry when his domestic plans were so encouraging.
Yeah, my basic belief is that when it comes to America's foreign policy, any little bit in the right direction is a good thing. I mean, Kerry may have voted to authorize the war, but I have no doubt that if he had been president, there wouldn't have been a war to begin with.
-
like hell the democrats were useing WMDs to take pot shots at Sadam for nearly a decade, one of the reasons why I thought he had them.
one thing to keep in mind, Rictor doesn't like America, and damageing our ability to do anything, limiting our power is something that he consiters good, he thinks that Bush will damage our power ,wereas Kerry will reinforce it, and I'm begining to think he might be right. unfortunately I like us haveing power.
-
I have no use for patriotism, so he'll get no contempt from my direction. :)
-
Well, its good that you have no doubt, becuase Kerry apparently has plenty ;) ;)
Kerry recently stated, via Jamie Rubin (a seedy character from Clinton's administration and Kerry's top foreign policy guy) that he would have "in all probability" launched a military attack on Iraq if he had been President. This is the latest statement, so presumably the one that is most true.
This is quite a change from his previous position of
Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldnt vote for me.
Its true what they say about his flip-flopping. It reminds me of that time when Sideshow Bob is running for major. "Major Quimby flip-flops, he doesn't know if he's coming or going". I only wish that Bush could do that walk-in-two directions thing that Sideshow Bob did. Now THAT would be entertainment
-
Christ on a cracker, has that man no shame?!
To be perfectly honest, I don't believe him. The war in Iraq is the result of an agenda that Bush had before he was even elected. I don't believe that Kerry would have had the gaul to play on people's ignorance and make up a link between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
one thing to keep in mind, Rictor doesn't like America, and damageing our ability to do anything, limiting our power is something that he consiters good, he thinks that Bush will damage our power ,wereas Kerry will reinforce it, and I'm begining to think he might be right. unfortunately I like us haveing power.
not power, hegemony.
unchallenged rule in a political, economic and military sense. World control, what every petty tyrant and dictator has been striving for since...ever. Cause thats what America has and is tryng to keep.
Are you in favour of that? I'm not, and I don't see that as hating America, I see that as hating subjugation, of anyone by anyone.
-
To be honest with you Ford, I prefer Bush's war to Clinton's sanctions. Yes, I was an am against the war, but obectively, Bush saved lives. The sanctions were killing around 3000 children a day. And thats just children. A week of Clinton's rule was worse than Bush's war, maybe not for Americans but for Iraqis. Not to mention the constant bombings.
One fact that is almost always missed is that when Saddam "kicked out" weapons inspectors in 1998, he didn't kick them out, they were ordered out by the UN, becuase Clinton didn't want them to get hit by the fresh round of bombings he was planning.
You'll have to excuse my contempt for Kerry, Clinton and their lot, I really do consider them a greater danger to the world than Bush and the Republicans.
-
do I like the fact that my nation can do... prety much, whatever it wants, when ever and were ever it wants to?
yeah.
would I like that if some other nation had that power and mine didn't?
no.
does that matter to me given that I do live in the omnipotent hyper-nation?
not realy.
-
thats sort of like the slave-owners of the 18th century saying "well ofcourse I have no problem with slavery, it does me well". And yet, today slavery is regarded by all (yourself included I assume) as barbaric. Are you incapable of looking beyond your own gain, and at other people's loss, or simply unwilling?
I am not in favour of ANOTHER nation having that kind of power, I am in favour of NO nation having it.
and actually, you're not that well off due to US global power. I mean, you still pay taxes and work your ass off to feed the war economy. I could understand it if you were a banker or businessman or such, but ordinary lower-middle class US citizens...you're getting shafted, only you're getting shafted less than most people around the world.
-
Well, Bobboau, that is hard to argue with. If the state of human affairs as a whole does not concern you, there's not much that can be said to change that.
But remember that even if you don't consider it your business, there will always be people such as Osama Bin Laden who will make it your business.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
You know, the votes for Nader in the 2000 election were about evenly split between those who would have voted for Gore, and those who would have chosen Bush. The Nader factor was negligible.
Not so. The votes for Nader were not evenly split between those who would have voted for Bush or those who would have voted for Gore. They were evenly split between those who would have voted for Gore and those who would not have voted at all. Bush’s margin of victory (and I use that term loosely) was only about 507 votes. Nader’s total number of votes in Florida was in the neighborhood of about 98,000 votes. If Nader had not been running in the 2000 election, half of that 98,000 would have voted for Gore and the other half would have stayed home and not voted at all. Those 46,000 votes would have swamped Bush’s miniscule margin (it’s simple math; 46,000 is a waaaay bigger number than 507, duh). If Nader had not run in 2000, Gore would have gained 46,000 votes and Bush would have gained nothing.
Ford, with all due respect, there is no way you can say that is negligible. If Nader had not been in the 2000 election, Gore would have won Florida in a walk and would have won the Presidency. A lot of people deny the effect Nader had on the 2000 election (perhaps even some Democrats, but not very many from what I’ve seen), but everything I’ve seen convinces me that it’s true.
Now to Rictor:
Originally posted by Rictor
The general view of the Democratic party is : "Don't you dare challenge our authority, or you'll end up like Nader, demonized on no rational basis."
Maybe so, but the view of the Republican Party is: "Don't you dare challenge our authority, or you'll end up demonized as a terrorist sympathizer like former Senator Max Cleland, dismissed as being out of the loop on the war on terror like former Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, or fired for being disloyal just for disagreeing with President Bush like former Bush Cabinet officers Bob Woodward or Paul O’Neil. And don’t you dare piss off the religious right or we’ll destroy you."
And you accuse the Democrats of trying to suppress dissent? Please.
Originally posted by Rictor
And anyway, the lesser of two evils is a child's game. If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, why should they give you anything but evil? If you can be trusted on to rubber-stamp whatever asshat is paraded infront of you, then what exactly is your use? They could run Reagan as the Democratic candidate, and you'de still vote for him cause he's someone other than Bush.
Well, gee, if I only had to choose between Bush and Reagan, and if Reagan was to the left of Bush, then, hell yeah, I’d vote for Reagan. The lesser of two evils is not a child's game, that’s democracy in a two party system. If you refuse to make a choice for one or the other, you have absolutely no right to complain when the guy who you liked least gets elected. If you kept quiet on Election day, then you have no right at all to ***** about it. If you had a chance to vote for the guy who was slightly less to your disliking and blew it by staying home and masturbating on Election Day, then you can't complain at all when the guy you disliked more gets into office. Our two party system may not be a perfect system, but I have yet to see anything better anywhere in the world.
And I’ve traveled around the world quite a bit.
Originally stated by Stan Goff at Rictor’s link to the article here: http://www.counterpunch.com/seidman08062004.html
I'm not anti-war and neither are a lot of other people in this movement. We are anti-imperialist. I don't oppose the war in Iraq. I oppose the US occupation. To say I simply oppose the war- as war- is to deny the Iraqi's the right of resistance. I'm sure the Bush administration now opposes the war. They want the resistance to stand down. In this, they share a goal with pacifists, who say no one should fight. As long as there is a US occupation, I must defend the Iraqi's right, even duty, to resist.
Is this guy for real? What exactly are the insurgents “resisting” against? American soldiers who are only trying to rebuild Iraq and get its water running and its electricity working?
Is Goff actually saying that killing American soldiers who only went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people by getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a legitimate tactic of resistance? Forget Bush’s motives for invading Iraq. They don’t matter a damn here. How is killing American soldiers a “defensible right of resistance?”
How is killing fellow Iraqis who cooperate with coalition forces to rebuild Iraq, get its economy running and transform a nation scarred by a 30 year dictatorship into a functioning democracy a "defensible right of resistance?"
How is beheading civilian truck drivers and blowing up Iraqi policemen a "defensible right of resistance?"
Rictor, c’mon, this guy is a complete nut. Former Special Forces or no, this guy is simply talking out of his ass. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq is one thing. Saying that it's a legitimate tactic to kill American soldiers who are only trying to help the Iraqis is damn well another, especially when you're essentially advocating the deaths of fellow American soldiers. And the way this guy tries to distinguish between being for the war in Iraq but being against the occupation makes absolutely no sense; it's nothing but a distinction without a difference.
Rictor, there is no way I can take this guy seriously.
Originally posted by Rictor
Not power, hegemony.
Unchallenged rule in a political, economic and military sense. World control, what every petty tyrant and dictator has been striving for since...ever. Because that’s what America has and is trying to keep.
Are you in favour of that? I'm not, and I don't see that as hating America, I see that as hating subjugation, of anyone by anyone.
Rictor, I’m still confused by your logic. If you so despise the idea of American hegemony (whatever that is), then why would you vote for Bush, a man who would continue to be so dedicated to perpetuating that same hegemony? Doesn’t that seem a little…incongruous? Maybe even hypocritical?
Or is your hope that Bush will so alienate the world that the unity of the world will prevent America from taking any meaningful action against our mutual enemy Al Queda? How is that going to help Europe? Or Africa? Or Asia? Or the Middle East? WE ARE AT WAR. Not just America is at war, but so is the rest of the civilized world. Osama bin laden wants to destroy you (meaning Europe) as much as he wants to destroy us (meaning America). If you rule out military action by America, who else will put boots on the ground when military action against Al Queda is needed? Europe doesn’t have the military forces and NATO only acts when America leads out in front.
I wouldn’t have gone into Iraq at the present time because I thought we needed to secure Afghanistan before moving on to any other military action. But I would have gone into Iraq eventually (perhaps a few years from now) once I was sure the Taliban was crushed completely and Osama bin Laden and Muhammad Omar (the leader of the Taliban) were both captured. I was convinced Saddam Hussein had WMD, but I didn’t support the war in Iraq because I thought that he wasn’t an imminent threat. I also knew that going into Iraq before America earned credibility from the Muslim world that the war on terror was not a war on Islam would only push more recruits into Al Queda’s camp.
But the fact remains, the Western world is going to have to face the danger of Al Queda. Wouldn’t it be more to the benefit of having American power on your side, Rictor? Or would you rather have Europe face Al Queda alone without America’s help? Do you honestly think that Al Queda will leave Europe and the rest of the world alone if you all abandon us?
If Spain is any indicator, then I fear for us all. The people of Spain voted the way their consciences told them to; I can respect that. But what I can't respect is appeasement in any form. If Al Queda manages to convince the rest of the world to abandon America’s fight on terror, we are all completely f*cked. It's like Benjamin Franklin (at least i think it was Ben Franklin who said it) said: "If we don't hang together, we will all hang separately."
I wouldn’t have gone into Iraq because I wouldn’t have opened a new front on the war on terror before we were ready. Whether or not Bush was wrong in saying that Iraq was part of the war on terror back in 2002, the fact is that Iraq is part of the war on terror now. Spain (and the other countries abandoning the coalition, like the Philippines) made a mistake in leaving because their shows of weakness will only embolden Al Queda to frighten more countries into leaving.
Jesus Christ, didn't Europe learn ANYTHING from trying to appease Hitler back in 1938? You can’t negotiate with these Islamic terrorist fanatics. You can only fight them. If you surrender, they'll own you. Rictor, I'm guessing that you live in Europe, but you don't want to see Al Queda resurrect the Muslim Caliphate, which stretched all the way from the Middle East to Spain. Trust me on this.
And since when has America oppressed the rest of the world? When has America ever had “unchallenged rule in a political, economic and military sense” or “world control”? I think you’re being slightly…I don’t know, delusional? I'm perfectly willing to admit that America has made some tremendous f*ck-ups in the realm of geopolitics. Hell, my parents saw friends and neighbors "disappeared" by the Latin American dictatorships' "dirty wars" in South America, much of which was instigated and funded by the CIA. But it's damn well another to say that America controls the world with an iron fist.
Please, if America was half as powerful as you think it is, we’d have stomped Al Queda, nuked Iran and Syria, and flat-out invaded "Old" Europe long ago.
Maybe I'm stepping out on a limb here, but I don't think any of those things are going to happen in the immediate future. :rolleyes:
Rictor, if the next thing you tell me is that America is a greater threat to world peace than Al Queda, I’ll gladly refrain from insulting your intelligence…only because by then it’ll be crystal clear that you don’t have any.
Rictor, please, don’t make me refrain from insulting your intelligence. :lol:
-
Holy hunchbacks, Batman, that was a long post, but I would like to address one point.
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Is this guy for real? What exactly are the insurgents “resisting” against? American soldiers who are only trying to rebuild Iraq and get its water running and its electricity working?
[/b]
Well, which one insurgent group? There are quite a few of them, ranging from Mahdi's Army to your token islamic nutjob.
Is Goff actually saying that killing American soldiers who only went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people by getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a legitimate tactic of resistance? Forget Bush’s motives for invading Iraq. They don’t matter a damn here. How is killing American soldiers a “defensible right of resistance?”
They are soldiers, occupying your country. Since they are soldiers, they are totally legitimate target as long as you consider their presence illegal and/or threatening to your country. Hey now - the armed forces did not decide to fly into Iraq to build stuff. They were used by greater authority to remove a military threat [Iraq's laughable army] and pave way for politics to step in [reconstruction, whatever]. So far Bush's motives really matter, because he is the guy who ultimately decided to sent the troops in.
Besides, it really no longer matters if they went there just to "get rid of Saddam" [or because of Al-Quaeda -connections, or WMDs, or Baathists taking over the world, or whatever reason you can afterwards use to justify the invasion]. For you, me, US administration, US soldiers, yeah - getting rid of Saddam is a good thing. That does not mean it ultimately is a good thing for everyone, and not that it even matters.
At this moment Coalition forces are occupying Iraq, and many Iraqis wish to get them hell out of there - what they are not doing, and should not if Coalition of the Willing Politicians really wants Iraq to become a democratic and stable nation. In such case, armed resistance is pretty much the only option, and fully legitimate - soldiers are
How is killing fellow Iraqis who cooperate with coalition forces to rebuild Iraq, get its economy running and transform a nation scarred by a 30 year dictatorship into a functioning democracy a "defensible right of resistance?"
How is beheading civilian truck drivers and blowing up Iraqi policemen a "defensible right of resistance?"
You are drifting, don't appeal to emotion here dude. "Armed resistance" usually involves targeting soldiers and their affiliates (say, military supply personell - of course, as many functions that used to be elemental part of the army are now privatized and mercenaries are used, the line between civilian and soldier is blurred) in order to cause such harass, trouble or casualties that the occupation itself becomes unsustainable.
Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi's Army is a militia trying to keep the US forces out of Najaf and ultimately get them back home.
Terror attacks, in which the beheading belong, are on the other hand used to cause dissent, malcontency and destability. The basic concept is really simple:
nation A occupies nation B + deteriorating conditions for citizens
=
the bad situation is ultimately due to occupation
Of course, the logic behind this is a bit fallacious, but so is human mind - we tend to place much more emphasis on our feelings rather than logic.
Killing soldiers != killing civilians. Soldiers are a-ok as long as I'm concerned - they have willingly set themselves in danger and are not personally running and ideating the entire reconstruction process - as stated earlier, they are mere tools.
If Spain is any indicator, then I fear for us all. If Al Queda manages to convince the rest of the world to abandon America’s fight on terror, we are all completely f*cked.
FOR ****'S SAKE, LEARN THE SITUATION BEHIND THE SPAIN'S DECISIONS
1. 90% of population resists the goverment's decision to go to Iraq
2. Opposition leader announces that if his party wins, the troops will pull out of Iraq due to 30th June 2004
3. bombs everywhere!! oh noes!
4. Goverment tries to blame ETA, uses UN security council as a tool, forces press to publish disinformation even when the government has no clues who did it
5. ZOMG, apparently it was some Islamic nutjob's work! Hey, here we have some tapes where they state that the attack was because of Spain's decision to participate in Iraq
6. Government still tells people it was ETA
7. No it wasn't
8. People get mad. Take over the election sites. Chaos ensues, opposition wins
9. Opposition dude keeps his election promise and announces that Spain will withdraw troops from Iraq
10. TERRORIST APPEASERS
I guess in case the policies of my country go all wrong and they [policies] cause us great problems, better to STICK TO THE COURSE BECAUSE THUS WE ARE SUPPORTING THE DEAR LEADER
-
Originally posted by Janos
Well, which one insurgent group? There are quite a few of them, ranging from Mahdi's Army to your token islamic nutjob.
They are soldiers, occupying your country. Since they are soldiers, they are totally legitimate target as long as you consider their presence illegal and/or threatening to your country. Hey now - the armed forces did not decide to fly into Iraq to build stuff. They were used by greater authority to remove a military threat [Iraq's laughable army] and pave way for politics to step in [reconstruction, whatever]. So far Bush's motives really matter, because he is the guy who ultimately decided to sent the troops in.
Besides, it really no longer matters if they went there just to "get rid of Saddam" [or because of Al-Quaeda -connections, or WMDs, or Baathists taking over the world, or whatever reason you can afterwards use to justify the invasion]. For you, me, US administration, US soldiers, yeah - getting rid of Saddam is a good thing. That does not mean it ultimately is a good thing for everyone, and not that it even matters.
At this moment Coalition forces are occupying Iraq, and many Iraqis wish to get them hell out of there - what they are not doing, and should not if Coalition of the Willing Politicians really wants Iraq to become a democratic and stable nation. In such case, armed resistance is pretty much the only option, and fully legitimate - soldiers are
You are drifting, don't appeal to emotion here dude. "Armed resistance" usually involves targeting soldiers and their affiliates (say, military supply personell - of course, as many functions that used to be elemental part of the army are now privatized and mercenaries are used, the line between civilian and soldier is blurred) in order to cause such harass, trouble or casualties that the occupation itself becomes unsustainable.
Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi's Army is a militia trying to keep the US forces out of Najaf and ultimately get them back home.
Terror attacks, in which the beheading belong, are on the other hand used to cause dissent, malcontency and destability. The basic concept is really simple:
nation A occupies nation B + deteriorating conditions for citizens
=
the bad situation is ultimately due to occupation
Of course, the logic behind this is a bit fallacious, but so is human mind - we tend to place much more emphasis on our feelings rather than logic.
Killing soldiers != killing civilians. Soldiers are a-ok as long as I'm concerned - they have willingly set themselves in danger and are not personally running and ideating the entire reconstruction process - as stated earlier, they are mere tools. [/B]
There's no difference between any of the insurgency groups. If they attack and kill American soldiers, they are all essentially one and the same, no matter the difference in names, motives or ideology. Kill American soldiers and you deserve whatever consequences you reap from that. If the insurgents had simply stayed down and done nothing, Iraq would not be in chaos now. The insurgents are responsible for delaying Iraq's transformation to democracy and, thus, the departure of the American troops.
If there had been no insurgency against American troops over the last year-and-a-half, the American troops would have left by now, or at least would have had a greatly reduced presence after the handover on June 30.
Any assertation that the Americans are responsible for the chaos in Iraq and that the insurgents are not because they are engaging in "legitimate resistance" is nothing but a load of crap. C'mon, Rictor, you know this. I honestly don't know why I have to explain this to you. You're more than smart enough to realize this.
Originally posted by Janos
FOR ****'S SAKE, LEARN THE SITUATION BEHIND THE SPAIN'S DECISIONS
1. 90% of population resists the goverment's decision to go to Iraq
2. Opposition leader announces that if his party wins, the troops will pull out of Iraq due to 30th June 2004
3. bombs everywhere!! oh noes!
4. Goverment tries to blame ETA, uses UN security council as a tool, forces press to publish disinformation even when the government has no clues who did it
5. ZOMG, apparently it was some Islamic nutjob's work! Hey, here we have some tapes where they state that the attack was because of Spain's decision to participate in Iraq
6. Government still tells people it was ETA
7. No it wasn't
8. People get mad. Take over the election sites. Chaos ensues, opposition wins
9. Opposition dude keeps his election promise and announces that Spain will withdraw troops from Iraq
10. TERRORIST APPEASERS
I guess in case the policies of my country go all wrong and they [policies] cause us great problems, better to STICK TO THE COURSE BECAUSE THUS WE ARE SUPPORTING THE DEAR LEADER
Yeah, 1 through 10 are all true but I still can't respect it. I was editing my post to include that I could respect the fact that the Spaniards were voting thier consciences, even if I couldn't respect their withdrawing from Iraq as you were posting.
Maybe the former Spanish government deserved to lose the election. But I still can't help but see the Spanish as little more than Aguardiente-drinking surrender monkeys. (It's kinda like how Americans see the French as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.) Your facts on the Spanish election are all correct, Rictor. But it still doesn't make much difference to me.
On 9/11, America lost 3,000 people and went on the warpath. In Spain, when they only lost 200 people, they ran off with their tails between their legs (and, in-my-humble-yet-admittedly-biased-opinion, with their heads in their asses). Don't the Spanish have any desire to punish the murderers of their loved ones?
And since my great-grandfather was Spanish and I still have relatives living in Spain, you know I'm not being pissed and disappointed in the Spaniards lightly. I can't respect appeasers, even if they are my distant kin.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
There's no difference between any of the insurgency groups. If they attack and kill American soldiers, they are all essentially one and the same, no matter the difference in names, motives or ideology. Kill American soldiers and you deserve whatever consequences you reap from that. If the insurgents had simply stayed down and done nothing, Iraq would not be in chaos now. The insurgents are responsible for delaying Iraq's transformation to democracy and, thus, the departure of the American troops.
[/b]
There isn't? So they all are the same?
Please, you can do better than that. The motives are often pretty different. Even the outcome varies.
If there had been no insurgency against American troops over the last year-and-a-half, the American troops would have left by now, or at least would have had a greatly reduced presence after the handover on June 30.
Bull****. You're staying there at least until 2005, that was well known before.
Any assertation that the Americans are responsible for the chaos in Iraq and that the insurgents are not because they are engaging in "legitimate resistance" is nothing but a load of crap. C'mon, Rictor, you know this. I honestly don't know why I have to explain this to you. You're more than smart enough to realize this.
I'm no Rictor.
Hey, basically American's were responsible, by invading the country and failing to keep security up when Saddam's regime fall. Of course, now the insurgents and rebels are those who are keeping up the destability, but the root cause was and is the US invasion, there's no denying that.
Now, we have the insurgents battling the US troops, which sometimes but not always respond pretty heavy-handedly, see for example the recent Najaf battles. And don't throw me the "Yea ***** deserved it let's just bomb them and the problem is solved" rant, because you must be aware that bombing holy sites and battling over cemetaries can piss off even ordinary people, which might in turn start to view the Coalition forces as a bad thing and finally even end up assisting insurgents. Pretty ironic.
Yeah, 1 through 10 are all true but I still can't respect it. I was editing my post to include that I could respect the fact that the Spaniards were voting thier consciences, even if I couldn't respect their withdrawing from Iraq as you were posting.
Maybe the former Spanish government deserved to lose the election. But I still can't help but see the Spanish as little more than Aguardiente-drinking surrender monkeys. (It's kinda like how Americans see the French as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.) Your facts on the Spanish election are all correct, Rictor. But it still doesn't make much difference to me.
LOL SPAIN IS THE NEW FRANCE LOL and I am still not Rictor
So, logic and understanding what happened can't change your point of view?
hahahahhahahhhahahhhahahhahahaaa pathetic
On 9/11, America lost 3,000 people and went on the warpath. In Spain, when they only lost 200 people, they ran off with their tails between their legs (and, in-my-humble-yet-admittedly-biased-opinion, with their heads in their asses). Don't the Spanish have any desire to punish the murderers of their loved ones?
(http://img26.exs.cx/img26/5397/rollbarf.gif)
They already did, if you watched the news, dude. They captured and/or killed most of the group who was supposedly responsible for the Madrid bombings. You know, those guys who weren't in Iraq before Coalition entered there and created just fine enviroment to islamic nutjobs to spawn.
Oh yeah, and after 9/11 the rest of the world just had to hear endless crying over some 3,000 dead (NEVAR FORGET let's roll!!), but after Madrid Americans started to ***** right after the opposition had won.
Of course, since Spain has even boosted their Afghanistan forces [which is much more relevant than Iraq if terrorism is considered], your point is pretty invaldid, but still.
And since my great-grandfather was Spanish and I still have relatives living in Spain, you know I'm not being pissed and disappointed in the Spaniards lightly. I can't respect appeasers, even if they are my distant kin. [/B]
I can't respect idiots - so ****ing what? We're not really interested if they are your kin or not. You openly state that you defy logic and sense, instead glorifying blind bashing and 9/11 NEVA FORGET mentality? Great.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
On 9/11, America lost 3,000 people and went on the warpath. In Spain, when they only lost 200 people, they ran off with their tails between their legs (and, in-my-humble-yet-admittedly-biased-opinion, with their heads in their asses). Don't the Spanish have any desire to punish the murderers of their loved ones?
And what makes you think they'll find them in Iraq? :rolleyes: Iraq had no connection to Al-Qaeda during Saddam's rule.
If the Spanish people want to catch the terrorists responsible they should be looking in Afghanistan not in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And what makes you think they'll find them in Iraq? :rolleyes: Iraq had no connection to Al-Qaeda during Saddam's rule.
If the Spanish people want to catch the terrorists responsible they should be looking in Afghanistan not in Iraq.
Morocco, more likely.
-
True but I wouldn't suggest that Spain go stirring up any more trouble in Morocco.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
There's no difference between any of the insurgency groups. If they attack and kill American soldiers, they are all essentially one and the same, no matter the difference in names, motives or ideology. Kill American soldiers and you deserve whatever consequences you reap from that.
Just a quick question. Take the statement you made I quoted above, and change these words: "insurgency" and "insurgents" to "occupational", "American" to "Iraq citizen" and "ideology" to "nationality". What do we get? The exact same insane statements we've been hearing from Iraq insurgency groups.
It's facinating that over and over, again and again, two sides opposing each other don't see how close in reality they are to each other. Sure, the reasons for their actions differ, but it's not the reasons but the actions that really matter. A kill is always a kill. Nothing changes that. And eventually the reasons fade out of memory, and the circle of killing keeps on without a meaning.
I haven't really participated in these quarrels, way too flamy for my taste, but I do like to ask a couple of questions. Just profound questions I see nobody asking any more. What do you see as the ultimate reason for US being in Iraq? What is the goal, and do you think the actions taken by US make them closer to their goal? And while sitting in your cosy chair thousands of miles from the conflict, do you think you really understand the reasons why the insurgency groups are doing what they're doing?
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Not so. The votes for Nader were not evenly split between those who would have voted for Bush or those who would have voted for Gore. They were evenly split between those who would have voted for Gore and those who would not have voted at all. Bush’s margin of victory (and I use that term loosely) was only about 507 votes. Nader’s total number of votes in Florida was in the neighborhood of about 98,000 votes. If Nader had not been running in the 2000 election, half of that 98,000 would have voted for Gore and the other half would have stayed home and not voted at all. Those 46,000 votes would have swamped Bush’s miniscule margin (it’s simple math; 46,000 is a waaaay bigger number than 507, duh). If Nader had not run in 2000, Gore would have gained 46,000 votes and Bush would have gained nothing.
Do you even read my posts? If the Democrats had forced Bush to keep to the law, it wouldn't have matttered. Who do you think is worse, the man who get legitimate votes because people believe in his ideas, or the man who steals them? Why are you cutting Bush so much slack?
And another question. Since there will always be a Republican party, when will it EVER be acceptable to run a third candidate?
You have to realize, that as it stands, Democratic voters have no power. If your vote is just automatically Democratic, and you will endorse anyone who is even 1 degree to the left of the Republican candidate, then you have no power. There is no reason why the Democrats should listen to you, because you already give them everything they want - your vote. They're not going to change of their own accord, someone has to force them.
Ford, with all due respect, there is no way you can say that is negligible. If Nader had not been in the 2000 election, Gore would have won Florida in a walk and would have won the Presidency. A lot of people deny the effect Nader had on the 2000 election (perhaps even some Democrats, but not very many from what I’ve seen), but everything I’ve seen convinces me that it’s true.
Now to Rictor:
Maybe so, but the view of the Republican Party is: "Don't you dare challenge our authority, or you'll end up demonized as a terrorist sympathizer like former Senator Max Cleland, dismissed as being out of the loop on the war on terror like former Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, or fired for being disloyal just for disagreeing with President Bush like former Bush Cabinet officers Bob Woodward or Paul O’Neil. And don’t you dare piss off the religious right or we’ll destroy you."
And you accuse the Democrats of trying to suppress dissent? Please.
Again, you're playing the same game. I don't have to like either party. Just because the Republicans are somehow worse, doesn't mean the Democrats are good enough.
Well, gee, if I only had to choose between Bush and Reagan, and if Reagan was to the left of Bush, then, hell yeah, I’d vote for Reagan. The lesser of two evils is not a child's game, that’s democracy in a two party system. If you refuse to make a choice for one or the other, you have absolutely no right to complain when the guy who you liked least gets elected. If you kept quiet on Election day, then you have no right at all to ***** about it. If you had a chance to vote for the guy who was slightly less to your disliking and blew it by staying home and masturbating on Election Day, then you can't complain at all when the guy you disliked more gets into office. Our two party system may not be a perfect system, but I have yet to see anything better anywhere in the world.
And I’ve traveled around the world quite a bit.
Now you're just embarassing yourself. Almost every democracy on Earth has a better system, becuase most have more than 2 parties with an actual shot at victory. The only Western democracy that I can think of that is worse is Britain, where Labour is essentially entrenched. And you Brits, correct me if I'm wrong on this.
You want a better system? How about this. Greater choice, greater direct control (not just voting once every 4 years, thats not democracy)
http://www.swissworld.org/dvd_rom/eng/direct_democracy_2004/content/politsystem/politsystem.html
Is this guy for real? What exactly are the insurgents “resisting” against? American soldiers who are only trying to rebuild Iraq and get its water running and its electricity working?
Is Goff actually saying that killing American soldiers who only went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people by getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a legitimate tactic of resistance? Forget Bush’s motives for invading Iraq. They don’t matter a damn here. How is killing American soldiers a “defensible right of resistance?”
How is killing fellow Iraqis who cooperate with coalition forces to rebuild Iraq, get its economy running and transform a nation scarred by a 30 year dictatorship into a functioning democracy a "defensible right of resistance?"
How is beheading civilian truck drivers and blowing up Iraqi policemen a "defensible right of resistance?"
Rictor, c’mon, this guy is a complete nut. Former Special Forces or no, this guy is simply talking out of his ass. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq is one thing. Saying that it's a legitimate tactic to kill American soldiers who are only trying to help the Iraqis is damn well another, especially when you're essentially advocating the deaths of fellow American soldiers. And the way this guy tries to distinguish between being for the war in Iraq but being against the occupation makes absolutely no sense; it's nothing but a distinction without a difference.
Rictor, there is no way I can take this guy seriously.
You're the typical American leftist nationalist, and that the reason why I don't think you can really understand what essentially the whole world is saying.
Lets go over some of the finer points.
1. American forces invaded, so that they could overthrow Saddam, so that there would be a power vacuum and they could put their man (originally intended to be Chalabi) in charge. Are you really so naive to believe the whole "exporting democracy" ****? Its the same old story, only a different pretense. During the Cold War, it was called "fighting Communism" and the results were essentially the same. Does the word "client state" mean anything to you?
2. Now granted, that process is a bit more refined these days and more subtle, but its the same tried and true formula. Jesus, its the same story as with the British in India a hundred years ago. Orwell wrote in Burmese Days: "The British Empire is essentially nothing more than a tool for giving trade monopolies to the English". Same deal, only its harder to detect now, after a few hundred years of it, they're finally improving.
The way it works now is, the war is a way of legally transferring large amounts of money from the American and Iraqi people into private hands, the ruling American businessmen. Bush couldn't just decide one day "Gee, you know, I think I'm going to give a couple billion dollars to Halliburton, Kellog Brown and Root, Raytheon, and all the various subsidiaries of Carlyle." There would be a public outcry. So, we have the war, and a small number of well connected corporations make out like bandidts.
3. Do you understand that there are foreign soldiers on Iraqi soil. Do you even understand the concept of occupation. Do you understand the words "under siege"? There can be no democracy, as long as there are armed foreign soldiers in Iraq. Its such a simple concept, since I don't think you're incapable of understanding it, it must mean you are unwilling. Fighting an occupation is legitimate, including the soldiers, those who supply them, and those Iraqis who prop them up.
The Americans are there to stay. For a decade at least, probably several. They have four permanent bases in construction, each the size of a small city. Just watch, when the last American soldier leaves Iraq, I'll buy you a drink.
You can't be so naive that you think the Americans are there to give the Iraqis chocolate and flowers, and leave it at that. There is a very specific return on the investment that is expected. The invasion and occupation have cost over 100 billion dollars, and in return for that investment, something is expected back. Political power, control over resources, influence in the region - something.
Rictor, I’m still confused by your logic. If you so despise the idea of American hegemony (whatever that is), then why would you vote for Bush, a man who would continue to be so dedicated to perpetuating that same hegemony? Doesn’t that seem a little…incongruous? Maybe even hypocritical?
Look it up in a dictionary. It essentially means "unchecked, unmitigated power". Now granted, this doesn't apply everywhere. China can't be pushed around, Russia also (under Putin, not Yeltsin). The EU also, but not quite so much. In Latin America, in Africa, in South East Asia and the Middle-East, you've got hegemony.
Or is your hope that Bush will so alienate the world that the unity of the world will prevent America from taking any meaningful action against our mutual enemy Al Queda? How is that going to help Europe? Or Africa? Or Asia? Or the Middle East? WE ARE AT WAR. Not just America is at war, but so is the rest of the civilized world. Osama bin laden wants to destroy you (meaning Europe) as much as he wants to destroy us (meaning America). If you rule out military action by America, who else will put boots on the ground when military action against Al Queda is needed? Europe doesn’t have the military forces and NATO only acts when America leads out in front.
I wouldn’t have gone into Iraq at the present time because I thought we needed to secure Afghanistan before moving on to any other military action. But I would have gone into Iraq eventually (perhaps a few years from now) once I was sure the Taliban was crushed completely and Osama bin Laden and Muhammad Omar (the leader of the Taliban) were both captured. I was convinced Saddam Hussein had WMD, but I didn’t support the war in Iraq because I thought that he wasn’t an imminent threat. I also knew that going into Iraq before America earned credibility from the Muslim world that the war on terror was not a war on Islam would only push more recruits into Al Queda’s camp.
You know, America right now is like a scared little child, running away from the invisible boogeyman. The slightest shadow on the wall makes you jump.
al-Queda is a few guys in a cave with AKs. They're not a real threat. Sure they can kill a few people here and there, but not much more.
How do I put this to you gently? 9/11 was nothing. It was a drop in the bucket. It was not a historic moment. Worse tragedies happen all the time, only the difference is, they don't happen to Americans so they're not important. This is not a war of civilization vs terror. Its a few Arabs trying to strike at their enemy. The "war on terror" is non-existant. Terrorism has existed long before America took notice, and it will exists long after America looses intersts. Furthermore, its a front. America needs an enemy to give them a pretense for what they do. During the Cold War, that was the Russians. After the USSR fell, they were scrambling to find another enemy. Terrorism, poverty, drugs, something, anything. And here comes our buddy bin Laden with a perfect answer to our problems.
You know, I think you ought to check outside you window. while you weren't looking I wrote the words "gullible" in 20-foot tall letters.
No really, check, they're there.
But the fact remains, the Western world is going to have to face the danger of Al Queda. Wouldn’t it be more to the benefit of having American power on your side, Rictor? Or would you rather have Europe face Al Queda alone without America’s help? Do you honestly think that Al Queda will leave Europe and the rest of the world alone if you all abandon us?
If Spain is any indicator, then I fear for us all. The people of Spain voted the way their consciences told them to; I can respect that. But what I can't respect is appeasement in any form. If Al Queda manages to convince the rest of the world to abandon America’s fight on terror, we are all completely f*cked. It's like Benjamin Franklin (at least i think it was Ben Franklin who said it) said: "If we don't hang together, we will all hang separately."
I wouldn’t have gone into Iraq because I wouldn’t have opened a new front on the war on terror before we were ready. Whether or not Bush was wrong in saying that Iraq was part of the war on terror back in 2002, the fact is that Iraq is part of the war on terror now. Spain (and the other countries abandoning the coalition, like the Philippines) made a mistake in leaving because their shows of weakness will only embolden Al Queda to frighten more countries into leaving.
Jesus Christ, didn't Europe learn ANYTHING from trying to appease Hitler back in 1938? You can’t negotiate with these Islamic terrorist fanatics. You can only fight them. If you surrender, they'll own you. Rictor, I'm guessing that you live in Europe, but you don't want to see Al Queda resurrect the Muslim Caliphate, which stretched all the way from the Middle East to Spain. Trust me on this.
Read what Janos wrote. The Spanish people didn't want the war in Iraq, it was forced on them by Aznar. So, they kicked him out. They don't want to see people dying in Madrid for the benefit of America. Not to mention that Aznar is essentially what remains of Franco and the Phalangist movement.
And since when has America oppressed the rest of the world? When has America ever had “unchallenged rule in a political, economic and military sense” or “world control”? I think you’re being slightly…I don’t know, delusional? I'm perfectly willing to admit that America has made some tremendous f*ck-ups in the realm of geopolitics. Hell, my parents saw friends and neighbors "disappeared" by the Latin American dictatorships' "dirty wars" in South America, much of which was instigated and funded by the CIA. But it's damn well another to say that America controls the world with an iron fist.
San Salvador, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, Iran, Haiti (2x), Serbia, Columbia, Argentina, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq (2x).
Over the past 60 years, that about once every 3 years, which is not even counting Korea, Afghanistan the first time, the brief adventure in Lebanon, American involvement in Turkish, Iraqi and Indonesian attrocities (politcal cover and supply of weapons), a few "benign" interventions like Somalia, Bosnia and the recent coup in Georgia; and our old buddy Israel.
As for control, well, you have NATO as the main military body, which is subservient to America, also the vast American military (American military expeditures are more per year then the next 40 competitors combined AFAIK). The UN, despite the recent fallout, is still pliable. Then you have control over the financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization, several NGOs and government funds used to subvert democracy such as the NED (National Endowment for Democracy ironically)
I'm not saying its total, I mean, there are still several states powerful enough to protect themselves (North Korea, Iran, Egypt, India etc) and a few who are even influential locally (Russia, China, the EU and so forth), but I would say that 80% of the world can, and in some cases is, be made to dance to Washington's tune.
Please, if America was half as powerful as you think it is, we’d have stomped Al Queda, nuked Iran and Syria, and flat-out invaded "Old" Europe long ago.
Maybe I'm stepping out on a limb here, but I don't think any of those things are going to happen in the immediate future. :rolleyes:
Rictor, if the next thing you tell me is that America is a greater threat to world peace than Al Queda, I’ll gladly refrain from insulting your intelligence…only because by then it’ll be crystal clear that you don’t have any.
Rictor, please, don’t make me refrain from insulting your intelligence. :lol:
al Queda has 1/100th of the power than America has. They don't even have a country. As I said, the most they can do is blow up a few people here and there, which is nothing all that important. Since 9/11, they have killed maybe 500 people total. In that time, America has directly killed between 15 and 20 thousand civilians, probably close to a hundred thousand militants and soldiers, and who knows how many deaths from other economic and political policies.
How can you even type the sentence "I''m guessing that you live in Europe, but you don't want to see Al Queda resurrect the Muslim Caliphate" with a straight face. They're a small group of fanatics, they're not suddenly going to conquer Asia. Sure, they can make a few more 9/11s happen, but thats it. Beside the emotional impact, thats tiny.
America has the potential to inflict much, much more harm than al Queda. And if history is any indication, they're not going to hesistate to do it to advance their goals.
Su-tehp, if the next thing you tell me is that Al Queda is a greater threat to world peace than America, I’ll gladly refrain from insulting your intelligence ("http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3613217.stm")…only because by then it’ll be crystal clear that you don’t have any.
Su-tehp, please, don’t make me refrain from insulting your intelligence.
-
Please, if America was half as powerful as you think it is, we’d have stomped Al Queda, nuked Iran and Syria, and flat-out invaded "Old" Europe long ago.
That's only if you believe the Bush administration intended to go after Al Quaeda with any real determination. The campaign in Afghanistan was half-assed because the administration didn't care about Al Quaeda; the million-dollar prize was Saddam Hussein.
And I hope you don't really think that "nuking" anyone is a step in the right direction.
-
Please, if America was half as powerful as you think it is, we’d have stomped Al Queda, nuked Iran and Syria, and flat-out invaded "Old" Europe long ago.
America won't do that (at least the Al Queda part) for the same reason Russia won't 'do what is necessary' to fix the Chechnya problem.
-
Someone asked these, thought I'd take a stab:
What do you see as the ultimate reason for US being in Iraq? We have a Commander-In-Chief with an imagined 'score' to settle. It's personal. I believe the quote is: "He tried to kill my Daddy." At the end of the day, that's the truth. All the stuff about oil and security is more meat for the pie.
What is the goal, and do you think the actions taken by US make them closer to their goal?
That goal seems to change from day to day. Overall, an attempt to remake Iraq in what they perceive to be "America's Image". No suicide bombings, no more huge armed resistance groups, McDonald's etc. The buzzword used is "peace".
And while sitting in your cosy chair thousands of miles from the conflict, do you think you really understand the reasons why the insurgency groups are doing what they're doing?
Without any doubt at all. It's a combination of a few groups
1. Sadists who rather like the fact that war lets you act out whatever fantasy you want with a stamp of approval
2. Those who are pissed off that their house got searched, flattened, a relative got killed, whatever, and need someone to blame
3. Those who benefitted from Saddam's rule and are a little upset that he's out.
Whip it up in a bowl and you have crowd mentality. Doesn't take long to start singing the same song.
-
One of the reasons America didn't bother to invade Europe at any point was because most Presidents were smart enough to realise that holding an occupied country that is constantly squirming is one of the quickest ways to end an Empire, almost every Empire has fallen because it got caught up in these kinds of situations.
Bush, alas, had to learn the hard way :(
-
hold on, "need someone to blame"?
If an American GI kills your uncle, and American GI busts down your door, pushes your around, loots your home and takes you away in chains, an American GI demolishes your neighborhood and an American GI is occupying your country, I think its rather obvious where the blame lies.
Could it possibly be....the American GI?
also, "the Chechen problem" is sort of like "the Jewish problem" that Hitler had, in that it is not the Chechens who are the problem, but rather the Russians. They seem to think that they have some claim to a country which is clearly not theirs, that broke away along with all the other former Soviet republics.
...or do you propose that the Russians solve "the Polish problem" by rolling their tanks into Warsaw? How about Gerogia, or Ukraine, or maybe they ought to try their hand at Afghanistan once more, I'de hate to see the Afghan problem go unresolved.
-
That's a rather odd statement coming from someone who continually refers to Yugoslavia and has never said a word against Milosevic for doing exactly the same bloody thing.
-
Uh... the whole Kosovo thing is rather back to front in the western media in that way...
-
Who said I was only on about Kosovo?
-
I have never said a word against Milosevic? Are you trying to be sarcastic?
and anyway, Kosovo was never a province. There has traditionally been a sizeable Serb (and other non Albanian, such as Roma) population, which would make breaking away not quite so clear cut.
and if you're reffering to the civil war(s) during the 90s, that has always been a case of a province wanting to break off but keeping the land that is predominantly inhabited by members of another group, for example like the Serb population of Bosnia. And it wasn't just the Serbs, there were Croatians living in Bosnia and vice versa who also demanded they they remain part of the country with which they assosciate. The trouble with the former Yugoslavia is that, when broken up, each country is rather small, so they will all fight for every inch of land.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
also, "the Chechen problem" is sort of like "the Jewish problem" that Hitler had, in that it is not the Chechens who are the problem, but rather the Russians. They seem to think that they have some claim to a country which is clearly not theirs, that broke away along with all the other former Soviet republics.
In order for Russia to put an end to it, they'll have to pretty much pull a Genghis Khan and flatten the whole place, Chechnya. House to house fighting from one border to the other, no mercy, no restraint. It'd be too easy for an atrocity like that to get out. Those are just facts. The part I don't get is what is so important about Chechnya in the first place, at least to the Russians. It's a dinky little place, why all the effort? Plenty of other Republics bolted and you don't see them at war.
You're not going to drag Hitler into this.
-
But its an apt analogy. Hitlers Jewish problem did not mean that the Jews were at fault, just like America's "marijuana problem", where the users are blameless and those who opress them are the source of the problem.
The short answer, and without having a telepathic link with the Russian leadership, is that Russia is trying to re-assert its power a bit now. They don't like that they have been loosing influence for 10 years, and Putin is taking steps to take out all those he percieves as weaking Russia's power. He's making **** in Gerogia now as well, but though he not justified, at least I can see the logic, with Saakashvili running the show now. I think that its part of a rather wider program, both internal and external, for trying to, as I said, re-assert's Russian power in the region.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I have never said a word against Milosevic? Are you trying to be sarcastic?
I only ever hear you complain about the UN. Never word about Serbia's part in the war. Even responding to me you still didn't have anything to say about the guy.
Originally posted by Rictor
and if you're reffering to the civil war(s) during the 90s, that has always been a case of a province wanting to break off but keeping the land that is predominantly inhabited by members of another group, for example like the Serb population of Bosnia. And it wasn't just the Serbs, there were Croatians living in Bosnia and vice versa who also demanded they they remain part of the country with which they assosciate. The trouble with the former Yugoslavia is that, when broken up, each country is rather small, so they will all fight for every inch of land.
Re-read what you just wrote. Look at Chechnya. See? You don't think that were are non chechens in Chechnya? You think that the population was 100% behind breaking away from Russia?
-
****, guys the UK's been dealing with this in the form of Ireland for a _very_ long time. Go learn from our mistakes/plans.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
In order for Russia to put an end to it, they'll have to pretty much pull a Genghis Khan and flatten the whole place, Chechnya. House to house fighting from one border to the other, no mercy, no restraint. It'd be too easy for an atrocity like that to get out. Those are just facts. The part I don't get is what is so important about Chechnya in the first place, at least to the Russians. It's a dinky little place, why all the effort? Plenty of other Republics bolted and you don't see them at war.
You're not going to drag Hitler into this.
Oil