Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Cabbie on August 29, 2004, 07:38:36 pm
-
A bit long but interesting read :)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_26/ai_91236225
-
we did.
-
I am not responsible for the emotional distress caused by the arguments made on these sites.
Remember, questioning one's own government is the ultimate act of patriotism so I hope all the US folks here will pay attention. For the rest of us, it's a warning bell about what will happen in our own countries as the war on terror progresses:
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/9-11bulletpoints.html
http://www.standdown.net/
http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm
-
Carl, did you read it? Thats the general point of such threads, to read the provided material. In any case, I think you can do better than "we did".
-
[q]we did.[/q]
:lol: And J Edgar Hoover liked girls.
-
I haven't read the articles yet, but by behaving rationally, do you mean doing things like not infuriating the entire Muslim world and not invading countries that had nothing to do with it? Or do you mean by not panicing and giving the government the ability to intrude upon our civil liberties?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I haven't read the articles yet, but by behaving rationally, do you mean doing things like not infuriating the entire Muslim world and not invading countries that had nothing to do with it? Or do you mean by not panicing and giving the government the ability to intrude upon our civil liberties?
I would think he means both.
-
Nothing new for me, but well written.
-
Well, I don't think we could expect anyone to behave entirely 'rationally' after an event like that, had it happened in London or Sydney or wherever, I'm sure the reaction from the country involved would be the same kind of outrage.
I think the Americans cannot really be expected to be Vulcans. The government used the peoples fear immediately afterwards to take advantage, but I am praying they will speak with their feet and their pens in November :)
As for the whole Muslim thing, once again, sleight of hand and misdirection. A lot of Americans got bulldozed into that, and once you are in the boat and at Sea, you may as well join the crew, especially when the Captain is trying to make the other choice walking the plank :(
-
Am I the only one who is inevitably reminded of the Reichstag fire?
-
Thing is, I've seen equally believable evidence that it was down to structural design and the fact the building simply wasn't designed to be almost cut in half by a 767.
I've always found it interesting that the Bin Ladens were flown out when all other flights were grounded, especially as I don't think it was officially known for a few days that Osama Bin Laden was the one responsible.
Theres more going on than we know, but as to how truly 'ominous' those truths are, I'm unsure.
-
Read the links I posted, you'll get some interesting points there on the issues you've just raised.
-
I've checked out some of them, the Building #7 thing was very interesting, not unheard of for internal collapse, but strange that there was a building between it and the Towers themselves. I know no steelframe building has ever collapsed from fire, but it may have just been shaken loose by the collapse, been damaged internally through gas main fire, collapsed under it's own weight and poor design, I don't know, the scene could have been cleared so quickly simply because there were delicate government documents in there etc. I'm not saying it's definately not suspicious, because it is, but I'm open to options at the moment ;)
I'm not saying I wouldn't put it past the Cheney/Rumsfield express to consider this kind of thing a 'worthwhile investment', which, for them it certainly has been, and it's not the first time something like this would have been planned (See the plans the US Government made to villainise Cuba, Rictor will probably have a link ;) ).
The handy passports, Quorans and 'How to Fly an Airliner' books always made me laugh as well.
I suppose the question remains, did they allow it to happen or assist in it happening. The answer is a betrayal of the people either way, but how deep does the rabbit hole go? ;)
-
I think the premise the author makes is a bit ridiculous.
The only comparison is that people died. That's it.
What is under attack here, besides our people, is our entire way of life. The terrorists (read Osama's statement of why he attacked us) hate us and all we stand for. They hate our ablity to be free, to make choices, to not choose their way. They hate that because our freedom is so powerful, some of their own people choose it. The purposeful, direct attack to kill our people was carried out with the intent to frighten, to damage, and take away our freedom. This has no comparison to car accidents. Even before there was the automobile, people died in accidents. There always have been and always will be accidents.
Our response to terrorism is appropriate. The author of the article makes the riduculous conclusion that our reaction only makes things worse. How else could we respond? Of course we took action to prevent it happening again. This is only logical.
The fact is, they already hated us, and already attacked us. Our defending ourselves does in no way make it worse. If we weakly let it happen, let them control us, they would only do it again and again, because they hate our freedom and want to take it.
For some reason, authors like this tend to forget who is the problem here -- the terrorists. They are the ones to blame for this, no one else. They intentionally killed people out of murderous desire. I dare say that this is wrong. I say their idea of killing people and inspiring terror as a way of spreading their agenda is wrong. I also say that there is no reasoning with these kind of ruthless killers. They must be met with force, to defend the very freedom we have as a nation.
-
hey, terrorists are people too. let's not demonise them and just turn them into words to hate randomly. even in the US there are murderers and rapists and all that- what's to distinguish those people from terrorists except they happen to live in a different place?
besides, defending freedom by attacking another's freedom to attack seems a bit stupid to me. true freedom is being able to choose not to attack.
-
icespeed, you are wrong.
The terrorists and those that support them are not fighting for freedom. They are keeping people oppressed.
The difference between common murderers and rapists and the terrorists is quite simple. Common murderers and rapists are criminals, they don't have ulterior motives for their actions other than money or a sense of power. The terrorists are a whole 'nother level of evil, they are will to kill, and worse brainwash ignorant children to kill for them, any and all who stand in the way of their schemes to maintain the status quo of their power base.
In 1776, the world turned a corner, a nation was formed that was in exactly the right place at exactly the right time in history and led by some of the greatest men who have ever lived. The first free nation of the modern era was born. It was a long and winding road from that birth to now and we didn't all get here at once. But the idea of freedom was set loose upon the world. The terrorists want to keep/return the world to a sociopolitical enviroment that existed in that part of the world almost half a millenia ago.
The world teeters on the edge of a knife. If the West stood united and said "You will no longer terrorize or oppress you're peoples, you will allow them to be free" and really mean it, the 21st century could go down as one of the most peaceful century in history. Terror could be stricken from the face of the world. Instead, they're playing bloody politics with thousands of lives.
-
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/magnacarta/
We got there 500 odd years earlier ;)
As for your opinion of Terrorists, you define them by their leaders and 'alleged; representatives (i.e the ones that appear on the news the most), just as they define you by yours.
-
Yes but ours aren't out to kill hundreds or thousands to acheive their political aims.
And before you spout off about Afganistan and Iraq, I'll remind you that there are now something on the order of 40 million people free where they were once oppressed by the some of the most brutal governances of the last 30 years.
-
Free? Free to do what? To hide in their houses and hope an artillery shell doesn't turn them into a statistic?
Trust me, from a Middle Eastern point of view, you could say that the Whitehouse has already killed far more poeple to achieve it's political goals than the Terrorists have.
-
What about all those people that America killed during the Cold War, for doing nothing more than electing a slightly leftward government, not even socialst or communist but only moderately left?
Is a death by suicide bomb any worse than death by IMF "structural readjustment" or by Agent Orange induced birth-defect?
-
The very existence of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a prime example for the stupidity of the United States during the Cold War. Overthrowing the leftist democratic government and reinstalling the Shah is what caused it to be there in it's present form.
-
They are keeping people oppressed.
That's what the government here does, but it uses fear and lies instead of bombs.
-
You talk about the Cold War like it was just another period in history. Let me educate you a bit. At no time in recorded history had more people been at risk than during the Cold War.[/b]
In the years following the end of WW2, the world caught it breath and began to rebuild. The "Cold War" was a conflict that was not fought with armies so much as it was spies and sabotuers, because both sides, what became NATO, defacto lead by the USA and the Warsaw Pact nations, dominated by the USSR, knew that should it come to blows, neither side would win, thanks to Atomic and later Thermonuclear weapons. Many mistakes were made on both sides, with the USSR being the more agressive. So much so, that the world almost ended in nuclear fire in late 1962, save for the efforts of a few strong leaders who worked against the Military Machinces on both side who felt that they could win. Decades passed, technology advanced, finally the US spent the USSR into the ground, because Socialism doesn't lend itself to robust, long lived economies. Along the way, the US, instead of being imperialist like the USSR, followed the adage, "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend".
And now it's coming back to bite us in our nethers, and we're biting back.
Peaceniks are fools, man is by nature a violent creature. If not suprised or atagonized he is also a social creature that will live and let live. But if attacked man is one of two species on Earth that will retaliate, up to and including the annihilation of his attackers.
-
Only two? I would think most carnivores that would fight back after being attacked.
-
look, deep inside everyone will commit atrocities. you might say you were peace-loving or whatever but when pushed, you will do those things. so what separates us from the terrorists? opportunity. we don't need to do anything to be comfortable; most of us are sitting at home or work or uni or whatever spouting off about the latest political issue. we don't have to fight to live.
and carnivores don't fight for revenge, they fight for the pain to stop.
-
Mankind and ants are the only two species that war with their own kind.
Carnivores hunt to survive, but will usually try to run from conflict unless it's mating season.
-
Liberator, don't think I'm oblivious to either the history of the Cold War or the evil of the USSR. I'm not saying they were nice guys, far from it, but what I am saying is that in order to stop an often-times imagined threat, the US, either directly or through military and political support for local tyrants, caused millions to suffer and die.
You make the mistake of equating socialism (or even communism) with Stalinism. The USSR was not socialism, despite the name. It was what we shall for the sake of conversation call Oligarchal Collectivism, that it it was collectivism, but instead of the power being in the hands of the workers, ultimate power lay in the hands of the tyranical government. True socialism would more resemblle anarchism than it did Stalinism.
But frankly, I don't see the connection between stopping the USSR from spreading its power, and murdering Vietnamese and Nicaraguan peasants. The US should have led by example, not by force. If you put everything in the context of "stopping Communism" and the domino theory, than the US had the right to do away with the sovereign right of peoples and nations to decide their own government. If Iran, or Chile or whoever, voted in a left-ward leaning government, who is the US to question that? You wouldn't stand for any foreign inteference in American politics, so why shoukd the US be able to do so in foreign nations? And in any case, being on the left does not necessarily mean that you're in bed with the Soviets. The postwar Labour government in the UK would have been enough to justify invasion or a military coup, had it occured in Latin America or South East Asia. Ditto Canada.
-
"Terrorism" is a loaded word; terrorism is nothing but war without national boundaries-- essentially it is the war of the future. Are their actions dishonorable? Most certainly, in my opinion. But think long and hard about what really seperates it from a gentleman's war; governments tell each other when they're about to empty clips at each other. Wonderful. So the ones playing chess with their explosive toys as people are splattered all over the sidewalk are "recognized" officials instead of criminals. I would be a hypocrite to assert that there is no practical distinction, but there is certainly not a moral one. If one views any violence committed against another human being as honorable, then we need look no further for the origin of what we might call "evil." If Osama Bin Laden wanted to fight the United States through nonviolent propaganda, I would let him speak until he was blue in the face because his beliefs, however irrational, are not a crime. It is his actions that are truly destructive.
Osama Bin Laden hates the United States, but does it really matter? What matters is that he killed people; he submitted to his most animalistic instincts, and he succeeded in bringing them out in Americans, as well. Everyone who spouts meaningless declarations like, "They hate us for our freedom" speaks a reminder that no matter what their nationality, ethnicity, religion, or even ideology, all people are bound by their profound inability to see past their black-and-white world. If you think terrorists like Bin Laden are of a select moral category, you're giving them the credit they want; he is simply an angry man with a war to fight who has made himself into a celebrity by selling his people a bill of goods, and if your response to crimes committed against your nation is to tout your ideological superiority in the context of good and evil, then you have submitted to the same indulgences to which terrorists have yielded. The fiery pulses of patriotic fervor that rise up with every round of "They hate us for our way of life" are more akin to those of "Americans are infidels" than either side will ever be willing to accept. And it is this circular loop of human nature that guarantees us that terrorism cannot be erased from civilization any more than the stars can be erased from the sky.
-
[q]They hate that because our freedom is so powerful, some of their own people choose it. [/q]
And so do your own leaders.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
In 1776, the world turned a corner, a nation was formed that was in exactly the right place at exactly the right time in history and led by some of the greatest men who have ever lived. The first free nation of the modern era was born. It was a long and winding road from that birth to now and we didn't all get here at once. But the idea of freedom was set loose upon the world. The terrorists want to keep/return the world to a sociopolitical enviroment that existed in that part of the world almost half a millenia ago.
French Revolution?
Liberty? Fraternity? Equality?
:p
-
"They hate us because we don't know why they hate us"
--Bill Maher
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You talk about the Cold War like it was just another period in his Along the way, the US, instead of being imperialist like the USSR, followed the adage, "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend".
Especially if your friend is a puppet? Whose not afraid to execute a few communists in defense of (cough) democracy?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
French Revolution?
Liberty? Fraternity? Equality?
:p
To be honest, French Revolution was in 1789, 13 years later.
But at least we helped them get their freedom before.
[Sarcasm]Too bad we didn't do the same for those poor black people[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
I always find it funny that the country that preach the most about freedom was one of the last to abolish slavery.... :p
-
And that Thomas Jefferson, the first President and "some of the greatest men who have ever lived", was also a slave owner. Oops.
Now, to be fair, some of the founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, were against slavery.
-
Originally posted by Max Sterling
THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDUMMM
Why don't they hate Netherlands more, then?
-
Originally posted by Genryu
To be honest, French Revolution was in 1789, 13 years later.
But at least we helped them get their freedom before.
[Sarcasm]Too bad we didn't do the same for those poor black people[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
I always find it funny that the country that preach the most about freedom was one of the last to abolish slavery.... :p
Of course, it was all inspired by French and English philosophers.
-
Sorry, but I'm not sure I get your post. Slavery was inspired by French and English philosphers or the freedom for the slaves ? Or is it simply an attempt at sarcasm ? :blah:
-
hey, terrorists are people too. let's not demonise them and just turn them into words to hate randomly. even in the US there are murderers and rapists and all that- what's to distinguish those people from terrorists except they happen to live in a different place?
"There is only one way to stop a terrorist: Cut his ****ing head off" - James Woods
This was one of those rare occasions when I bothered to read one of these linked articles. It confirmed what I already suspected: opinion. *shrug*.
Oh America most definately did not act rationally across the board Post 9/11. It was an irrational situation, and some of the reactions to it most definately were irrational. No argument there.
Let me give you an irrational respose to the 9/11 attacks. Nerve gassing every major city in the middle east until Bin Laden is handed over. THAT is an irrational reaction (or a disproportionate response, if you will). Using terrorism in response to terrorism. THAT is irrational. Have non-combatants been killed? Duh. Was this our objective? Nope. And that, oh great leftist terrorist-backers, is what makes us different from you.
These people understand one thing and one thing only, the sword. They cannot be bargained with, they cannot be reasoned with, surrended to, appeased, period. You kill them or they kill you. There is absoltely no middle ground. To suggest otherwise, while a right to debate, is pointless. There's no bargaining with someone who has no fear of death. Better to just help them on their way
-
Hmm, alot of interesting points as well as somewhat logical fallacies were brought up in this thread, but I feel that I should reply to the article, as that was the subject:
The author first compares the 9/11 attack to a natural disaster that killed far more people. As if somehow arguing that deaths resulting from either natural disaster, or a country's own, chosen (by religon/culture, and/or lifestyle) infrastructural lack, is worse than a group of militant human beings ASSASINATING a large group of NONCOMBATIVE CIVILIANS.
I feel very bad for all those lives lost, in 9/11, in India, in Iran, in Iraq, in Africa, North Korea... every life is precious. It is one thing for a life to be lost in a mistake or bad choice or natural disaster, one can try and fix mistakes or better prepare for next time. It is something else entirely to have your fellow citizens and guests MURDERED by a group of people whose only goal is violence. These people would choose to kill over and over again if we gave them the opportunity... make no mistake. It was a clear danger that needed dealing with.
I won't spout on about the Taliban. I payed more attention to them before 9/11 than anyone else I knew... They did alot of horrible things, but they didn't do it outside of Afghan, so we let them. You can read over their history etc (though I suggest multiple sources as many people have written about them since 9/11 with their own spin) online... but it leads to a big question: Would the US have been justified in an attack on the Taliban (who wasn't directly responsible, but would have fought us) or even their Al Queda allies before 9/11? I can think of thousands of people off the top of my head who would say yes, but the world at the time would have said "no."
"While few of September's auto deaths resulted from malice, neither were they "natural" deaths: most also resulted from individual, corporate, and societal choices about road safety engineering, enforcement of driving-while-drunk laws, safe car design, and so on."
I agree that there are people lost to car accidents that we may have been able to save. But that is a problem we have to deal with, and that we deal with every day. I hate unnecissarily large vehicles (many SUVs), as well as those who take drugs and/or alcohol and drive. Here in America, we have thousands upon thousands of laws concerning roadways, driving, traffic patterns, and preventing accidents. This article makes it seem that we do nothing to stop it. There are thousands of people in the US who spend most of their lives making the roadways safer, and enforcing driving laws. This is something we here in America take seriously and work at a constant vigilance against. The writer makes it seem as if we choose to put people in an unsafe driving environment. Most people strive for the opposite (though many unsafe drivers are out there, with little we can do about it until we find them). Power corrupts, and there are traffic cops and government officials who feel thay should be above these laws. These are the exceptions, not the rule. And in many cases there are checks that catch these crooks, and measures being implemented to prevent them.
Next, he brings up crimes of malace which he claims is all homicide. Murders are a much better comparison. So, what must we be doing in America? I mean, why do we allow so many murders to go unpunished? The answer is, we don't. Again, we spend billions of dollars, and mountains of man hours trying to prevent and solve murders. This is a HUGE area for debate, and I don't believe anyone has shifted their priorities. Lowering murder rates in America is a huge issue. Economic problems are linked to murder rates. Education, wealth, employment... as these decline, murder rates go up along with drug trade/use, crime, and finacial stress. There are also social issues, which education falls into, to be addressed. But this is not an ignored problem. Our Police are not our Military. Sending out our military did not drain our Police force (perhaps a few here and there who may have also been Ntl.Grd. members). But I agree there are certain social programs that need more attention. Not that we should be less concerned with groups that are aggressive towards our country.
What you may see in your media, is not what all Americans think about and do on a daily basis. When it comes down to it, some of the same things matter to us: safety, food, health, family, education... I will do my best to protect my family from a home invader/crazy driver/murderer. But when it comes to someone flying a freaking airplane into my child's preschool, my place of work, my loved ones' homes... I personally can't take care of that. I need help, so I look to the military/FBI/CIA/NSA/Federal Government to do their job. I don't care if they made a mistake, I care that they do better next time.
But up into now, the writer has yet to actually put forth a valid argument, or even address the issue propused int he title: "How we can defeat terrorism by reacting to it more rationally." So, 1/3 of the way in, we get to something meaningful:
How do we defeat terrorism? The writer suggests that we do little to nothing in response here at home, as citizens. To an extent I agree. The writer is correct in saying that how we acted as a society following 9/11, had large finacial implications (although many of them were short term). He/She is also correct in saying that the is the goal of terrorism: To kill many, and impact the lives of even more via fear, with the actions of a few.
However, something had to be done. People have to freak out a little. An act was undertaken by a few horrible people, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents. We cannot let something like this go unpunished.
I agree that an emotional response may not be the best, but that will be the first response, whether the victims be Australian, American, Israeli, Iraqi, Russian... It is human nature, we are animals. Biology plays a far larger role in our lives than many "modern" people give credit. The media makes a living out of sensationalizing things. They did much to sew feelings of fear and desperation into the American people even though many of us were completely unconnected to the event.
There are many precautions we have since put into place that are likely ineffectual and inefficient. That's OK. That is the way to fix a problem, we try something, and if we find it doesn't work, we try something else, or figure a way to lessen the cost. The writer tends to think that many of the precaustions were put into place with little to no thought. This is simply untrue. We're new at this terrorist prevention thing, give it a few more years. But airport and stadium security are not what some of the non-Americans in these forums are likely to feel strongly about. It's the measures taken outside our borders... which this article is not concerned with.
Back to the article: It is critical of the sheer scope of the freak out that Americans went through with the antrax and other terorist-like fears of that time. It claims this is caused by a "misconception of risk." I agree, and believe that the media made this somewhat worse, and that there was a lack of strong leadership. But it would be hard to confirm a lack of strong leadership, as most the news we got at the time had nothing to do with speeches from our leaders. Bad news is good news for reporters... So maybe our leaders were trying to say all the right things... it just didn't get aired... But I'm all for free speech... so what do we do?
I believe we should analyze what we have done carefully, and how it needs to be changed to better fulfill the intended goals. The thing is, this is being done. Large amounts of taxpayer money are being spent on such research (I know this first hand). That's what the whole "Department of Homeland Security" is about.
It's true that we spend more money on things like cancer research... But alot of that money is private money. Old people in America have an IMMENSE amount of disposable income or saved monies. Much of this money is spent helping them to live longer. Medical research is a big buisiness, but that's another debate. What I'd like to point out, is that there is private/personal/corporate money and then there is government/tax money. The writer doesn't differentiate between these in order to make his point better. Call it a lie by omission or incompetency... whatever. But it's a prime example of these "misconceptions" that writers should have a stronger obligation to avoid. But they are in a buisiness ot make money, not some altruistic endeavor to provied the world with the one truth (we'll leave that to those damned priests/shamans/prophets/whatevers).
When it comes down to it, Congress has the most power over anti-terrorist organizations. They are responsible to their constituency... But I'll be damned if I pick up a newspaper, and it has ANYTHING to say about how my congressman voted last week... But I'll be sure to see how Bush, Dick, John or John like their coffee, and that they feel that morality is important in America... The whole world seems to think that the President has way more influence than he does... If you're looking for a change in America, it has to happen with those corrupt or lazy (you DO have a choice!) lawyers that we elect into congress.
Ovarall, a good article. 1/3 longer than it neded to be. A few misleading "facts" included... but far fewer than you'll find in the average NY Times article.
Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics...
There are far fewer sinister conspiracies than you may believe.
Just becasue your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...
An honest politician is one that STAYS bought.
Oh, and for the most part they hate us becasue they are not us, and we are not them...
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Free? Free to do what? To hide in their houses and hope an artillery shell doesn't turn them into a statistic?
Trust me, from a Middle Eastern point of view, you could say that the Whitehouse has already killed far more people to achieve it's political goals than the Terrorists have.
Well said. From the point of view of the non-combative in the countries America/allied nations have invaded - how are "we" different from terrorists when civilians are killed to achieve "our" aims? Is it comfort to them that the world is told that these are unfortunate losses in persuit of a greater cause?
I seriously doubt it.
If each and every country concentrated on improving their own infastructure, transport, welfare, food and water supplies and so on - and created a truly stable and well supported population in which crime is really kept to a minimum and people can live enjoyable lives then I should think they'd be in a far better position to dictate how other countries should behave.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Free? Free to do what? To hide in their houses and hope an artillery shell doesn't turn them into a statistic?
Trust me, from a Middle Eastern point of view, you could say that the Whitehouse has already killed far more people to achieve it's political goals than the Terrorists have.
:wtf: What Middle Eastern country has the Whitehouse invaded to furthur it's political goals before 9/11? I know of one: Kuwait. You don't hear them complaining...
Any others? I'm waiting... Seriously, I can't find any, but I keep feeling I should find some. I seriously want to know what we did to Mid Eastern countries for them to cheer and dance in the street when thousands of our civilians and guests were murdered.
You'd stand a better chance arguing economic motives than political ones. Because aside of our support of Israel (which is something worth criticism IMHO), I think Mid Eastern leaders have been using the US and the UN far more than the other way around.
BTW: I doubt anyone but Islamic extremists will criticize the US defending the Jews from another genocide in Israel. And we did make them give back that big 'ole pennensula...
-
You know not long after the Taliban kicked out the Red Army from Afghanistan, the Taliban Leaders flew to Texas (when George Bush was senator) to meet with Unocal execs, a big US energy corp; in a plan to pipe natural gas from the Caspian Sea (Turkmenistan) through to Turkey in a deal worth millions, if not billions. Once the nature of the Taliban was fully revealed the Us Admin. backed off a little but not the big corporations.
But then Osama blew up a couple of US Embassies in Africa and America responded with Air Strikes and all the Big Corps. took the hint and pulled out leaving the Taliban out of millions/billions dollars.
Point is, the problem with The West and espscially America is ther're happy to support dictators if said dictators are happy to pander to the West's needs.
The exact same thing is happening in China right now. That's why so many people hate America.
-
To the casual observer, it would seem that the US only brings 'freedom' (or rather, 'regime change') to countries that oppose the US.
-
Originally posted by Vaelinx
:wtf: What Middle Eastern country has the Whitehouse invaded to furthur it's political goals before 9/11? I know of one: Kuwait. You don't hear them complaining...
Any others? I'm waiting... Seriously, I can't find any, but I keep feeling I should find some. I seriously want to know what we did to Mid Eastern countries for them to cheer and dance in the street when thousands of our civilians and guests were murdered.
You'd stand a better chance arguing economic motives than political ones. Because aside of our support of Israel (which is something worth criticism IMHO), I think Mid Eastern leaders have been using the US and the UN far more than the other way around.
BTW: I doubt anyone but Islamic extremists will criticize the US defending the Jews from another genocide in Israel. And we did make them give back that big 'ole pennensula...
First of all, no one is talking about a second Holocaust or whatever. Jesus, the Arabs didn't have anything to do with it the first time around, what the hell do they have to do with it?
What I (and others) are talking about is forcing Israel to negotiate and behave itself. If they have Uncle Sam at their back, they are free to do things that no other nations would be. They can just have it their way all the time, and keep using force to get what they want, cause they've got a big brother thats gonna kick your ass if you don't do as they say.
What harm has the US done in the Middle East? Well, the Shah for one. Then the Iraq-Iran war. Then arming extremist assholes in Afghanistan and not doing a damn thing to clean up their mess. Then Desert Storm. Then the 12 years of bombing and sanctions in Iraq. Giving cover for Israel to occupy foreign lands, including the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights. Also, the financial and political support for the Saudi royals. Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003. Moving further north, we have a coup in Georgia and support for a tyrant in Uzbekistan.
sounds like plenty to me.
-
The economic motives are, to a large extent, what has lead to a great deal of poverty and death in the Middle East.
From a Middle Eastern point of view, not only has America funded revolutionary armies which have killed a large number of innocent non-combatants with American funded weapons, but also, trade policies have meant that many suffer so that the few can pay less.
I'm not saying that it is the US's fault alone, many of these things could not of happened without the complicity of those in power in these countries, but it is not those in power that you are dealing with here, it is the blowback from the combined greed of both American and Middle Eastern commerce, added to the fact that the US was used, rightly or wrongly, as a scapegoat by many Middle Eastern leaders for their own atrocious spending regimes.
In attacking in the manner he did, and by handing out 'Freebies' to his favourite corporations etc, Bush managed to make America look exactly as they had been described to the Arab world by their leaders.
This is as much a media war as it is a political, social and military one. America was not only attacked, but humiliated in front of the World Stage, they were egged on into Afghanistan (We have him, no we dont, Bin Who? Oh, he just popped out for milk) and, for the main part, have been led around by their noses ever since.
As long as America remains closed, defensive and directly agressive to anyone who questions their motives, they will continue to isolate and demonise themselves to the rest of the world. A more tempered approach is needed.
-
Wait Rictor, so liberating the nation that Saddam invaded, sanctioning said Saddam, a known psychopath and mass murderer, defending Israel's right to exist and occupy its sovereign lands, taking out the ultra-oppressive Taliban and most of Al-Qaeda's infrastructure, and removing the already-mentioned Saddam from powere are all mistakes? I don't know what crazy logic you're using, but to me, those all sound like good deeds.
-
It's called "liberalism".
-
Well, if Israel simply occupied it's sovereign lands, that wouldn't be the problem, the argument has always been about the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
Both of these were originally Palestinian lands, particuarly the West Bank, which contains some of small amount of arable land available to the Palestinians. Israel invaded these lands, and are allowing settlers to build homes there, whilst pushing out Palestinians.
The problem is not only that occupying these lands is against an agreement that Israel signed after the War, but without this land, Palestinians are losing a large amount of their food-growing land.
Now, Israel has grown far faster than was predicted, and I suspect that is where the problem will arise. Israel needs that land as much as Palestine does. And both sides are too wrapped in their their hatred and mistrust of each other to talk about it like adults :(
As for the sanctions against Saddam, they hardly effected the man himself, most of the fallout from that landed on his people, which was then blamed on America by Saddam. Those sanctions are part of the reason the US is having such a hard time in Iraq right now :(
The Taliban are still around, you just don't hear about them, using exactly the same tactics as the Iraqi insurgents, have been for years. In fact, the Red Cross recently pulled out of Afghinstan because they were tired of being attacked by Taliban.
Al Quaida is an obsession with America, the tip of the boil as it were, is Bin Laden, but if you 'lance' him, you will find out just how much more is underneath. Sorry for the analogy, but it seems apt.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
You know not long after the Taliban kicked out the Red Army from Afghanistan, the Taliban Leaders flew to Texas (when George Bush was senator) to meet with Unocal execs, a big US energy corp; in a plan to pipe natural gas from the Caspian Sea (Turkmenistan) through to Turkey in a deal worth millions, if not billions. Once the nature of the Taliban was fully revealed the Us Admin. backed off a little but not the big corporations.
But then Osama blew up a couple of US Embassies in Africa and America responded with Air Strikes and all the Big Corps. took the hint and pulled out leaving the Taliban out of millions/billions dollars.
Point is, the problem with The West and espscially America is ther're happy to support dictators if said dictators are happy to pander to the West's needs.
The exact same thing is happening in China right now. That's why so many people hate America.
I thought that went to an Argentinian company? ;)
Yeah, and France and Russia were taking Iraqi oil to pay for Saddam's military. France is even now trying to work deals with Iran... While conducting war games with China off the coast of Taiwan...
Greed is a great motivator. And perhaps the best reason for the Mid East to hate the West. Because we need their oil, and we pay for it, but their greedy leaders and dictators and royalty see most of the benefit.
So we should stop using oil. But if we do, then the people may starve... as well as our own... But we can't just *give* them money (well, any more than we already do eh?) and support the dictator directly... So do we invade? But then the extremists try to sew unrest within the factions and kill even more innocents... Tough one... What's the right thing to do? It seems the UN likes Mid East dictators even more than the US does...
Maybe we should them a favor and TAKE their oil? No... that would be worse than supporting genocidal dictators... that would be stealing... ;)
-
Vaelinx, I suggest you read up on Indo-Chinese history before you say the US hasn't influenced other nations militarily for thier own gain.
-
Vyper's right. We have. There was some kind of anti-communist insanty going on in our various administrations between the end of WWII and the Carter administration that resulted in the mucking up of many nations, particular in the south pacific and South America. It's freaky.
A number of people haven't forgotten that.
-
Originally posted by Vaelinx
I thought that went to an Argentinian company? ;)
American comapnies were falling overthemselves left, right and centre to woo the Taliban to allow them to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, until the political situation became untenable. Therw ould, of course, be other parties 'bidding' for this. I believe part of the desire for this was in trying to avoid going through Iran.
I remember this vaguely, from this book ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0330492217/qid=1093901247/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-0251139-5187663 ), but I don't have the exact details of it handy.
I believe the Us has/had negatively influenced governments covertly in many countries to 'fight' communism... Chile, Iran, Brazil, etc are examples IIRC (to varying degrees)... either through effective puppet governments or more subtle manipulation.
It interesting to consider that, had the Spanish civil war taken place in the 50s and not the 30s, then the Americans would probably have supported Francos side.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Vaelinx, I suggest you read up on Indo-Chinese history before you say the US hasn't influenced other nations militarily for thier own gain.
Whoa Nellie! I thought we were talking mid east?
There are plenty of FUBAR things that went on in SE Asia that the US military was smack in the middle of. I'm not trying to deflect the blame, but there were others there as well... like China, and USSR, and France... And we actually have some strong allies as a result (oddly enough)... Not to mention strong enemies... that we pay monies to... so that they won't use their military influece... anyway... :(
As a US citizen, I cannot fix those mistakes, but I can hold my leaders responsible to not repeate them. We need to wait and see with Iraq... will they form a strong and valid government? I hope so...
Economic and Military influence are wielded by countries left and right, hand in hand... Economic is preferred of course... But sometimes you just don't want to make any more bad deals with an oppressive dictator while his people starve (and a happy and fed people will make better deals).
-
[q] but I can hold my leaders responsible to not repeate them[/q]
Unfortunately your leaders seek hegemony, not the survival of your people.
Just wait... there'll be a "nice" war with someone like the chinese in about 10 years to balance things out again.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Unfortunately your leaders seek hegemony, not the survival of your people.
Just wait... there'll be a "nice" war with someone like the chinese in about 10 years to balance things out again.
Friend, if we go to war with china, the balance you speak of will be on the side of...cockroaches.
That's one subject I won't even debate about. If russia/china/US go to full scale war in any combination, politics won't mean jack ****. That's humanity rendered as a minor species, maybe even an extinct one.
-
Hmmmmmmm.... Well it seems to me that dividing 'Economic' and 'Political' motives into 2 seperate entities is not entirely true. One is very much reflected in the other.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Hmmmmmmm.... Well it seems to me that dividing 'Economic' and 'Political' motives into 2 seperate entities is not entirely true. One is very much reflected in the other.
I agree.
But it is possible, as is the case with American companies trying to work with the Taliban, that a corporation may act independently of a governement. They risk losing thier investment. But sometimes even a small economic link between countries can do wonders for smoothing over foreign policy... ie: France and Russia with Iraq even after Saddam gave the UN the big ole finger. Check Cheap oil for WMD's (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/SpecialArticle.asp?article=A11705017_1). Our world's dependance on oil seems to be the root of a very large number of problems... And none of those fuel cell guys can seem to do their math right... we never seem to win on the deal. :(
-
Reflected? They're not reflected. Politics and economics are just different parts of the same game.
And Mongoose, kicking Saddam out doesn't make up for having backed him in the first place, not to mention the horrible job we did at kicking him out.
-
Not on every occasion, business interests have been known to wander away from political interests if the price is right, however, political interests tend to rarely stray from economical ones.
It makes you wonder which is the more influencial in a capitalist society ;)
-
Originally posted by Max Sterling
I think the premise the author makes is a bit ridiculous.
The only comparison is that people died. That's it.
What is under attack here, besides our people, is our entire way of life. The terrorists (read Osama's statement of why he attacked us) hate us and all we stand for. They hate our ablity to be free, to make choices, to not choose their way. They hate that because our freedom is so powerful, some of their own people choose it. The purposeful, direct attack to kill our people was carried out with the intent to frighten, to damage, and take away our freedom. This has no comparison to car accidents. Even before there was the automobile, people died in accidents. There always have been and always will be accidents.
Our response to terrorism is appropriate. The author of the article makes the riduculous conclusion that our reaction only makes things worse. How else could we respond? Of course we took action to prevent it happening again. This is only logical.
The fact is, they already hated us, and already attacked us. Our defending ourselves does in no way make it worse. If we weakly let it happen, let them control us, they would only do it again and again, because they hate our freedom and want to take it.
For some reason, authors like this tend to forget who is the problem here -- the terrorists. They are the ones to blame for this, no one else. They intentionally killed people out of murderous desire. I dare say that this is wrong. I say their idea of killing people and inspiring terror as a way of spreading their agenda is wrong. I also say that there is no reasoning with these kind of ruthless killers. They must be met with force, to defend the very freedom we have as a nation.
Hear hear! Max for prez! ;)
There are 3 responses to terrorism:
[list=1]
- Public fright, defensive security measures taken for the appearance of public saftey (they don't do anything to seriously hinder above-amatuer terrorists).
- Public fright, defensive security measures taken, as well as offensive "you're not gonna get away with this" measures. Terrorists don't cause terror for the fun of it - they have a goal, and are very driven to achieve that goal by any means. If terrorism accomplishes or brings them closer to accomplishing said goal, then they will use terror.
- Act, as the article states, "rationally". Take the attacks in stride, ignore anything beyond the immediate issues, etc. This is not that bad of a "solution", truth be told.
Similarly to the bully at school situation - if he enjoys your reaction to getting called names, you can run in tears to teacher, you can suck it up, even while crying, and punch the bastard in the face, or you can completely ignore him and not allow him the reactions he's looking for.
On a semi-related note, I just got a news flash as I was writing this post that there are at least 12 dead so far in a double bus bombing in Be'er Sheva a few minutes ago. Israelis' reactions usually are a combo of options 2 and 3 - go about your business, and let the IDF punch "them" in the face.
-
I think the US response to 9/11 is inappropriate not just because the military targeting was flawed (abandoning Afghanistan for a seemingly pointless invasion of Iraq), but primarily because it's been used as a political tool.
People are basically being told that the number one threat to them is terrorist attack...that they should be afraid yadda yadda yadda.... so people are focusing on this one phantom enemy who, in relative terms to other domestic concerns, have actually done very little.
Possibly it's a Brit-centric view (what with have spent many decades dealing with the threat of the IRA*), but it seems as if terrorism, and 9/11 specifically, is being used as a method to push the US governments aims through - both in terms of foreign military action, and also in acts which curtail civil liberties to strengthen the intelligence services.
I think the Israeli / Palestinian situation is an effective example of why equal / excessive response doesn't work if you don;t tackle the base issues - if it did, it wouldn't still be necessary. 'Circle of violence' as a cliche, but it's a valid one... similar example can be used for the Irish troubles, which were only fully resolved with the Good Friday agreement.#
It's the classic argument that you can't fight terrorism with more terror.... you have to destroy the basis & support for that terrorism. Which civillian casualties do not do (the converse, in fact - the bereaved don't hold much truck for words like 'collateral damage' when they're friends or family are lying in a morgue or on a street).
*NB: you may say that the IRA campaign didn't have a single incident on the scale of 9/11.... but then again, they did launch several attacks directly at the British government (mortar bombing of Downing Street, bomb at the Brighton hotel hosting the Tory pary conference), which is something Al-Queda has not attempted. And also the assassination of Lord Mountbatten, IIRC.
#Distasteful as it may be (and it bloody well is) to release IRA/ Loyalist prisoners under this agreement, it would seem that terrorist activity is no longer a major problem with regards to N.Ireland.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Friend, if we go to war with china, the balance you speak of will be on the side of...cockroaches.
That's one subject I won't even debate about. If russia/china/US go to full scale war in any combination, politics won't mean jack ****. That's humanity rendered as a minor species, maybe even an extinct one.
Conventional conflict would come first. It'd be us that would use WMD first, in an attempt to take out the Chinese manpower issue.
The trick is to stop his nukes before yours. Can it be done? Maybe. Does it matter? No. China can't hit the entire world, nor will the fallouts be as fatal to the rest of the world as to the west coast of the US.
-
Fallout from Chernobyl continues to cause higher rates of leukemia in certain areas of Scotland nowadays, BTW. A major nuclear war would be much worse....
-
Originally posted by vyper
Conventional conflict would come first. It'd be us that would use WMD first, in an attempt to take out the Chinese manpower issue.
The trick is to stop his nukes before yours. Can it be done? Maybe. Does it matter? No. China can't hit the entire world, nor will the fallouts be as fatal to the rest of the world as to the west coast of the US.
Conventional conflict would be pointless. We couldn't win in China, and China couldn't win in the US... And I doubt they could win in Europe (with an allied front). They know this, we know this. It's old cold war like stuff again. Nobody will engage unless one side thinks they can attain their objective. Let's just say that some extreme things would have to go on between then and now for any WW3 to break out... And that it would be horrible on a global scale...
But that assumes everyone stays as rational as they did during the cold war... :rolleyes: Meaning we keep the nukes/WMDs away from those who don't fear death and desire only destruction... you know who I mean... :blah:
-
China & the US are probably happier trading with than fighting each other.... China's a good export market, and US companies also create lots of low-paid jobs over there.
The truth is that the US doesn't really give a **** about China being communist if they can make money out of it. It's not like the Cold War, when the USSR was trying to expand the communist ideology
-
Did someone say "behaving rationally??" (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/31/iraq.main/index.html)
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Did someone say "behaving rationally??" (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/31/iraq.main/index.html)
Pray, tell us, just what are you trying to say or prove?
-
This sort of thing will continue long after the majority of calm is restored in Iraq, though that itself is a long way away, in much the same way as their were still active members of various sub-divisions of the IRA after the main body had called a truce.
I don't deny that people who do things like this are ignorant animals, commiting murder for murders sake, because they think they can blame it on Islam and clear their own guilt.
However, at this time and in this place, the world isn't ready for an 'American' solution, it takes the whole world to turn against terrorism and it's goals. Living in the UK or the US it is hard to see why this doesn't happen, but living in Iraq or Iran or Syria, I wonder what I would be thinking then?
-
It's always worth remembering there are zealots in every camp. The aim has to be to remove the popular support / sympathy that gives them lifeblood - and you can't do that with bombs.
-
Oooh, looky. More rational behaviour courtesy of Chechen separatists. Seems they just bombed a Moscow subway. Way to go.
and in response to:
Pray, tell us, just what are you trying to say or prove?
Pfft, you're 'green', whatever that means. No sense trying to say or prove anything to you.
-
[q]China & the US are probably happier trading[/q]
Who said we were though? We follow the US sometimes... sometimes the US follows us. See where I'm going? Remember we're losing power, we're losing credibility and we're losing our economy pretty much even if it has taken a long long time.
Last time, we were given the opportunity of a plate, this time we might have to cause it to happen.
-
The US only follows the UK when we know where oil is and they don't.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
and in response to:
Pray, tell us, just what are you trying to say or prove?
Pfft, you're 'green', whatever that means. No sense trying to say or prove anything to you.
So:
1) You are making a personal attack. WAY TO GO CHIEF
2) Nobody still knows what you are trying to achieve
3) You can't prove whatever you are trying to say, therefore you won't even give out a straight question.
:yes: :yes: That's the way, dude.
-
Originally posted by Janos
So:
1) You are making a personal attack. WAY TO GO CHIEF
2) Nobody still knows what you are trying to achieve
3) You can't prove whatever you are trying to say, therefore you won't even give out a straight question.
:yes: :yes: That's the way, dude.
1. You chucked the first rock. Don't cry that I threw it back at you.
2. Nobody cares what I'm trying to achieve. My position is in the minority.
3. I don't have to prove what I'm trying to say, that work has already been done.
:yes:
-
Originally posted by ionia23
1. You chucked the first rock. Don't cry that I threw it back at you.
2. Nobody cares what I'm trying to achieve. My position is in the minority.
3. I don't have to prove what I'm trying to say, that work has already been done.
:yes:
1. what
You make an unclear statement. I then ask what it mean. Then you make a bad personal attack, I again ask what you were trying to achieve and you continue your attacks. You kinda suck at debating, dude.
2. You make a statement and I'm calling you on it.
3. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
Originally posted by Janos
1. what
You make an unclear statement. I then ask what it mean. Then you make a bad personal attack, I again ask what you were trying to achieve and you continue your attacks. You kinda suck at debating, dude.
2. You make a statement and I'm calling you on it.
3. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
*sigh* back to this again. My original statement about 'rational behavior' ought to be self-explanatory. Some of our post 9/11 actions have been very rational, some under the category of what-the hell. But you put that in proportion with these idiot suicide bombers and we've been saints by comparison. Some thing could be done better or differently (depending on who benefits), but at least we didn't resort to that.
If we used the same 'rational behavior' as those we are fighting, a large chunk of the planet would be radioactive by now.
Like I said, you threw the first rock. Quit crying.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
*sigh* back to this again. My original statement about 'rational behavior' ought to be self-explanatory. Some of our post 9/11 actions have been very rational, some under the category of what-the hell. But you put that in proportion with these idiot suicide bombers and we've been saints by comparison. Some thing could be done better or differently (depending on who benefits), but at least we didn't resort to that.
If we used the same 'rational behavior' as those we are fighting, a large chunk of the planet would be radioactive by now.
Like I said, you threw the first rock. Quit crying.
Pulling your best Arab speakers out of Afgahnistan and the hunt for Bin Ladin to invade a completely unconnected country for false reasons, and thus inflaming the arab world?
Starting a slagging match with France & Germany for opposing a war at the UN? (so much for free speech).
Whilst offering financial incentives to the small african dictatorship on the security council so they would support it?
Enacting laws repressive of civil liberties to 'combat terrorism', yet not allowing the FBI to check up on whether terrorist suspects have bought a gun?
Just because some nut is incensed enough to bomb / kill peope does not justify a foreign policy. In fact, it calls its effectiveness into question.
The difference is that when an government via military kills thousands of civillians, its couched in nice indirect terms like 'collateral damage'.
Is it worse to intentionally kill someone as a terrorist does, or to send in troops and tanks recklessly? Or are they both equally bad in their real effect upon the rest of the world?
-
Ah, but this is where religion makes a wonderful shield to hide behind. They're not dead, you see, everything they are hasn't been wiped from the face of the planet, their every hope, dream aspiration. Because they've gone to heaven, see, be it Christian or Muslim.
So, therefore it doesn't matter how many people we kill, because in reality we aren't actually killing anyone. We are simply pushing into a different plane of existence. Because, of course, If we thought we were really snuffing out human beings who are far more like ourselves than we like to admit, it would be horrible.
Religion, the worlds most comforting lie. :)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Pulling your best Arab speakers out of Afgahnistan and the hunt for Bin Ladin to invade a completely unconnected country for false reasons, and thus inflaming the arab world?
Starting a slagging match with France & Germany for opposing a war at the UN? (so much for free speech).
Whilst offering financial incentives to the small african dictatorship on the security council so they would support it?
I wrote about the slagging in another thread, which was retarded from the get-go ('Freedom Fries', indeed). Funny that the 'arab' world being referred to here can get inflamed at us for attempting to topple Hussein, but at the same time none of them liked him either. I recall astonishment that the Republican Guard was crushed so quickly (now we're in the real war).
Originally posted by aldo_14
Enacting laws repressive of civil liberties to 'combat terrorism', yet not allowing the FBI to check up on whether terrorist suspects have bought a gun?
Just because some nut is incensed enough to bomb / kill peope does not justify a foreign policy. In fact, it calls its effectiveness into question.
No one held a gun to Bin Laden's head and said "start some ****". He did that on his own. I wonder sometimes if that was his true goal. Either way, he didn't do his own religion, or their followers, any favors. Our foreign policy is ****ed up. I'd rather go isolationist. Put it up to a vote and I'm in.
Originally posted by aldo_14
The difference is that when an government via military kills thousands of civillians, its couched in nice indirect terms like 'collateral damage'. Is it worse to intentionally kill someone as a terrorist does, or to send in troops and tanks recklessly? Or are they both equally bad in their real effect upon the rest of the world?
This is a loaded question. I'd hardly call our troop deployments 'reckless' from a military standpoint. Politically? Absoltuely. So to 'really' answer your question:
The terrorist is far worse, for the terrorist doesn't care who they kill.
Okay, this is where I get bent out of shape. I'm sorry, but wars are no longer fought on a big isolated battlefield where Winner Takes All. You don't see the allied troops using Iraqi civilians as human shields, do you? These people we fight will hide snipers in a mosque because they know we won't hit it. We determine victory by whether or not our objectives were accomplished and how few non-combatants got killed in the process. The terrorist doesn't give a damn who gets killed as long as the message gets out.
I would have been perfectly content to leave the sanctions against Iraq in place indefinately. I don't like the idea that the tax dollars I'm forced to pay out are footing the bill for this crap. Oh sure, maybe someday people in Bagdhad will be able to go to work without worrying about being carbombed. Great. Wonderful. Do you really think anyone's going to THANK us for that? Not likely. We, and a good chunk of the planet, will be dealing with the consequences of these actions for a long, long time.
My co-worker from India was right. "Democracy is empowerment for idiots".
-
Actually these deployments are reckless from a military standpoint as well: overextension.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I wrote about the slagging in another thread, which was retarded from the get-go ('Freedom Fries', indeed). Funny that the 'arab' world being referred to here can get inflamed at us for attempting to topple Hussein, but at the same time none of them liked him either. I recall astonishment that the Republican Guard was crushed so quickly (now we're in the real war).
I believe that the Arab world doesn't like the idea of any of its members being invaded by a foreign country, for one thing.
The other aspect is they would be well aware that this action would result in instability across the region.
Originally posted by ionia23
No one held a gun to Bin Laden's head and said "start some ****". He did that on his own. I wonder sometimes if that was his true goal. Either way, he didn't do his own religion, or their followers, any favors. Our foreign policy is ****ed up. I'd rather go isolationist. Put it up to a vote and I'm in.
Unless you try and understand why he does what he does and - more importantly - why people follow him, then any war on terror is doomed to failure. Al-quedas' strength is not Osama Bin Ladin, it';s the supply of recruits who believe the West is the enemy. Find their reasons for that, and take it away as much as possible, and you hurt the organisation more than dropping bombs and creating martyrs in the process.
Originally posted by ionia23
This is a loaded question. I'd hardly call our troop deployments 'reckless' from a military standpoint. Politically? Absoltuely. So to 'really' answer your question:
Definately reckless. the military forces sent into Iraq were massively understrength, and more importantly it's weakened the forces in Afghanistan hunting what should have been the primary objective - the spiritual and organisational heads of Al-Queda (not to mention the folly of more or less abandoing the Afghan people to warlords... Karzai has pleaded for extra troops at least once that I can recall)
It's also served to strengthen the terrorists hand.
Originally posted by ionia23
The terrorist is far worse, for the terrorist doesn't care who they kill.
Okay, this is where I get bent out of shape. I'm sorry, but wars are no longer fought on a big isolated battlefield where Winner Takes All. You don't see the allied troops using Iraqi civilians as human shields, do you? These people we fight will hide snipers in a mosque because they know we won't hit it. We determine victory by whether or not our objectives were accomplished and how few non-combatants got killed in the process. The terrorist doesn't give a damn who gets killed as long as the message gets out.
Which is a war is so totally ineffective at combatting terrorism. Either the life of the soldier is critically important - in which case civillians are going to die - or the civillians are most improtant, in which case you see the US army being rendered completely impotent against an irregular militia.
I'm not sure what the Us objectives for Iraq were, but insofar as I can tell, the major one - stopping terrorists from getting Iraqi WMD has been an abject failure. Not only do we not know if there was any WMD (likely not), there's porobably more terrorists in Iraq than otherwise.
In the context of the 'War on Terror', Iraq has been a disaster.
-
What's the term being used at the moment?
'A Catastrophic Success' :lol:
It may be indirectly correct, but it's still funny :D
-
http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2004521A35.html
-
Quote:
"I believe that the Arab world doesn't like the idea of any of its members being invaded by a foreign country, for one thing."
I dont think any reigon of countries likes the idea of one of them beeing invaded thus this is a pointless statement.
saddam on numerous occasions invaded his neibours and they had more reason to fear him than america who is paying them trillions for oil.
-
Saddam was a spent force. Even if he was militarily capable of invading another country, everyone knew there would be a response akin to the Gulf War (er,1. 2 if you include the Iran-Iraq war).
-
Originally posted by ionia23
*sigh* back to this again. My original statement about 'rational behavior' ought to be self-explanatory. Some of our post 9/11 actions have been very rational, some under the category of what-the hell. But you put that in proportion with these idiot suicide bombers and we've been saints by comparison. Some thing could be done better or differently (depending on who benefits), but at least we didn't resort to that.
If we used the same 'rational behavior' as those we are fighting, a large chunk of the planet would be radioactive by now.
OK, so now I know what you were saying, thanks a lot. BTW, I wasn't trying to compare US policies with terrorist activities, but was more concerned whether the actions of ZOMG TERRISTS could be justification for ~any kind of stupid counteractions. Clearly, sometimes they are, but happily the kindergarden ideology has not spread into higher echelons. Actually I kinda agree with you what you were saying.
Like I said, you threw the first rock. Quit crying.
This still gets a hearty :rolleyes: