Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on September 15, 2004, 06:37:13 am
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0914/dailyUpdate.html
-
You never saw this (news) before?
Twas on the bbc website last week IIRC.
-
My bet is, they'll ship some terrorists over to the baltic states in a couple of months or so, and the come with tanks to wipe them out, accidentally eradicating the entire goverment in the process.
Or something to that effect
-
**** DRAFT IN FINLAND
-
Although disappointed by this, I loved his response to criticism though. :lol:
-
and you people complained about the patriot act...
-
The end justifies the means.
-
You better be taking the piss.
-
Security is more important than freedom.
When people finally realise this, we will have less 9/11s, Bali nightclubs, and Beslans....
Wake up and smell the coffee.
There is only one way to combat terrorism, and that is to crack down as hard as possible. The time has come to stop mincing around, pandering to the wishy-washy human rights liberals, and get tough. Because the next time something gets blown up and hundreds die, everyone will be wringing thier hands and saying "Oh! how could this happen?" The balance is between freedom and security - you have to sacrifice some freedoms to get better security.
So.... 'the end justifies the means' well yes, I think so.
You want to die?
I don't....
-
You're a coward. You would sacrifice your freedom and liberty so you don't have to take risks in life.
My grandfather did not fight his way across Africa in ww2 so someone like you could come along and say everything he fought for meant nothing. Nor did any other men who did.
[q]When people finally realise this, we will have less 9/11s, Bali nightclubs, and Beslans....[/q]
No, when you realize US Foreign Policy pissed so many people off for the last 40 years, and change it, THEN you'll have less bombings et al.
-
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-
Whoever said that was living in la-la land....
-
:wtf:
He's winding us up. Either that or he's a retard.
-
Listen.. How should I know who said that? If you throw some random, unattributed quote at me, what do you expect?
-
Originally posted by Clave
Listen.. How should I know who said that? If you throw some random, unattributed quote at me, what do you expect?
The source of the quote does not matter, it's the content.
If you must know, it's attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
-
Very fine and noble I'm sure....
So, let me get this right: You are prepared to let another 9/11 happen to protect your freedom?
-
Originally posted by Clave
Very fine and noble I'm sure....
So, let me get this right: You are prepared to let another 9/11 happen to protect your freedom?
Yes, absolutely and without any doubt.
-
But, surely putting lives at risk for an abstract concept such as freedom is indicative of worse government than trying to protect citizens from terrorists?
-
Originally posted by Clave
But, surely putting lives at risk for an abstract concept such as freedom is indicative of worse government than trying to protect citizens from terrorists?
The thing is that once you've given up your freedoms you'll very soon end up living in a totalitarian state.
Don't believe it can happen? Look at Mccarthyism as a rather light example of what can happen. Can you imagine how much further that could have gone? The only thing that stopped it was the very freedoms you'd suggest giving up.
What you propose would give us a second era of Mccarthyism except with the word communist replaced with terrorist.
-
So, everything is just fine the way it is then?
No need to make any changes?
-
Originally posted by Clave
But, surely putting lives at risk for an abstract concept such as freedom is indicative of worse government than trying to protect citizens from terrorists?
No. Removing freedoms removes the accountability of governement, the existence of a higher power - the people - who can evaluate and judge government responses.
For example, you could probably remove a large amount the terrorist risk by placing everyone in the country (i.e. US or UK) who was Muslim, of an Arab origin, or had visited an Arab/Muslim country into a concentration-stroke-internment camp (ala Guantanamo bay).
History has shown that a loss of freedom only leads to disaster for the populace - Hitler and Stalin being the best examples in recent times. And it's a slippery road... once you abandon the principle of enforcing democracy and freedom as a fundamental part of government, the floodgates can open.
The way to prevent terrorism does not lie with disempowering the people. If anything, that will hurt these efforts - people will become less likely to co-operate with a government that they cannot influence the policies of, and you again have a lack of oversight.
Originally posted by Clave
So, everything is just fine the way it is then?
No need to make any changes?
Nothing is perfect. But negative change is worse than no change.
-
After all...Hitler was all about protecting the Germanic peoples from being overtaken by the Slavs and other cultural/ethnic groups who he believed were taking over the world.
The terrorists win if they let fear dictate the response and "force" us to change the core beliefs of western democracies.
-
Is democracy a guarantee of freedom?
True you can vote for whoever you like, but you are voting for the same type of person in all cases, ie: politicians.
And why do people enter politics?
To gain power, money, and influence, and climb to the top of the sludge-pit where they can line their pockets with taxpayer's money and get their cronies good contracts for goverment work.
Would I vote for a politician every again? I don't think so....
Elections are a waste of time. The person with the most money/best ad campaign wins...
-
There is no garaunteee of freedom, no undeniable safety. There never will be. Terrorism is just a symptom, not a disease, to crack down on the symptoms will not eradicate said disease.
All surrendering freedom does is lose freedom, nothing else, surrendering freedom cannot defeat terrorism, surrendering freedom cannot protect your family, it can only lose you freedom.
Terrorists are evil scum, I don't doubt that, but before we start trying to track them down and kill them, maybe we need to be asking what made these people evil scum, and it's nothing to do with their religion.
-
Elections are a waste of time. The person with the most money/best ad campaign wins...
That only might be true if the country has an uneducated majority of masses, which is true in the majority of countries. Until such a majority is "removed", elections will always have a money/best ad campaign content that will dictate that majority. If everything works out as planned I suppose the majority of northern world countries will have that majority removed in about 50 years maximum.
-
[q]You are prepared to let another 9/11 happen to protect your freedom?[/q]
Yes.
[q]Is democracy a guarantee of freedom?[/q]
Name me another system where the people can choose, hold accountable, and question the people who govern thier country?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Terrorists are evil scum, I don't doubt that, but before we start trying to track them down and kill them, maybe we need to be asking what made these people evil scum, and it's nothing to do with their religion.
I agree that they are evil.
But, the cause is without doubt religion. You only have to look at Ireland to see that.
-
Religion is a mere excuse in Ireland too right now, it's more another thing... All bow before the almighty $$$ God!
-
I was referring of course to the 35 years of US-funded terrorism that has recently ended of course....
Relgion may not be believed or practiced, but if you have the label given to you by your parents, then you carry all the baggage associated with that.
-
I'm not sure about what you mean...
Unless you're jewish (and even in that case it's not easy) you cannot be recognized as follower of any religion...
Thankfully we are still able to change our beliefs, and besides that do not mix religion with the twisted ideologies that are the base of terrorism...
-
Originally posted by Clave
But, the cause is without doubt religion. You only have to look at Ireland to see that.
Ok, I don't like religion one bit but that's just the most retarded statement EVER.
:doubt:
-
Originally posted by Clave
I agree that they are evil.
But, the cause is without doubt religion. You only have to look at Ireland to see that.
Last time I heard, there wasn't a massive outbreak of aetheism in Ireland, so how come the peace process has been so succesful in stopping more attacks?
-
I like how you skipped the issue of an alternative to democracy that matched my requirements... anyway....
-
[q]**** DRAFT IN FINLAND[/q]
Is that like a draft coming in an open door, or a draft that says you're about to be loved by your squadmates?
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Religion is a mere excuse in Ireland too right now, it's more another thing... All bow before the almighty $$$ God!
[color=66ff00]Actually it's always been about land; religion was just a simple way to 'identify the enemy'. It's well known that there are quite a few catholic businessmen who are pro-union and many many protestants who live in the republic but sectarians don't care, it's our side and their side.
Actually you'll see more religiously inclined bias with the hardline unionists (Ian Paisley and his mob.) the hardline nationalists have always been about nationalism.
I'm not vilifying terrorists here but if you look at the troubles overall you'll see that the IRA (that is the official IRA and not the splinter groups) always chose military targets whereas the loyalists just picked out any old nationalist (and continue to do so).
The thing that gets me most though is the BBC bias in reporting the news, republican terrorist attacks are headlined and emphasised yet loyalist attacks which are far more frequent and sinister are downplayed.
BBC worldwide is largely to blame for this, BBC NI can't really avoid the truth as it would be quickly called on it and tend to tell it like it is.
As for Putin; it'll probably just render another slap in the face for what's left of the communist way over there.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Actually it's always been about land; religion was just a simple way to 'identify the enemy'. It's well known that there are quite a few catholic businessmen who are pro-union and many many protestants who live in the republic but sectarians don't care, it's our side and their side.
Actually you'll see more religiously inclined bias with the hardline unionists (Ian Paisley and his mob.) the hardline nationalists have always been about nationalism.
I'm not vilifying terrorists here but if you look at the troubles overall you'll see that the IRA (that is the official IRA and not the splinter groups) always chose military targets whereas the loyalists just picked out any old nationalist (and continue to do so).
The thing that gets me most though is the BBC bias in reporting the news, republican terrorist attacks are headlined and emphasised yet loyalist attacks which are far more frequent and sinister are downplayed.
BBC worldwide is largely to blame for this, BBC NI can't really avoid the truth as it would be quickly called on it and tend to tell it like it is.
[/color]
Presumably you don't mean the PIRA since 1971, then.........which most people would count as the 'official' IRA, given its operational histroy and association with politics.
* 1971: Three British soldiers are killed in a bomb attack in Belfast.
* 1971: Catholic mother of ten, Jean McConville, is executed by the Provisional IRA for cushioning the head of a dying British soldier, although it is also claimed that she was informing the British Army of PIRA activities. The PIRA would deny any involvement in the killing until the 1990s, when it would acknowledge its action.
* 21 July 1972: On 'Bloody Friday' 22 bombs kill 9 and seriously injure 130. 30 years later the PIRA would officially apologise for this set of attacks.
* 1974: The Guildford pub bombing kills 19 and injures 182. The motive for the bombing was apparently that the pub attacked was frequented by soldiers. Four people, dubbed the 'Guildford Four', would be convicted for the bombing and imprisoned for life. The Guidford Four would claim police tortured them into confessing and 15 years later Lord Lane of the Court of Appeal would overturn their convictions noting "the investigating officers must have lied".
* 1974: In the Birmingham Pub Bombings bombs in two pubs kill 19. The Birmingham Six' would be tried for this and convicted. Many years later, after new evidence of police fabrication and suppression of evidence, their convictions would be quashed. Appeals by the Birmingham Six that the real IRA bombers had admitted responsibility for the bombings were ignored.
* 1975: The assassination of Ross McWhirter.
* 1975: The Balcombe Street Siege.
* 1976: A PIRA bomb kills the newly appointed British ambassador to the Republic of Ireland, resulting in the declaration of a State of Emergency in the Republic. The PIRA also threatens to kidnap or kill Irish cabinet ministers and the President of Ireland.
* 1979: A PIRA bomb kills Earl Mountbatten of Burma, members of his family and a local child off the Irish coast. On the same day the PIRA kill 18 British soldiers at Narrow Water, near Newry, County Down; in an attack described by the British government as "a classic guerilla attack", they first plant one bomb, which kills 6, and then begin firing with sniper rifles at soldiers sheltered near a nearby gate where a second bomb explodes, killing 12 others. During an Irish visit Pope John Paul II calls for the PIRA campaign of violence to come to an end.
* 1981: IRA prisoner Bobby Sands, imprisoned in connection with his involvement in an attack involving a bomb and subsequent gun battle, is elected Member of Parliament for the Northern Ireland constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in a by-election. The moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party decides not to run a candidate, and so split the nationalist vote, leaving Sands as the main nationalist candidate. Sands had been on a hunger strike for 'Prisoner of War' status for 41 days prior to being elected. He died 23 days later.
* 1981: The PIRA kill Ulster Unionist Party Belfast MP Rev Robert Bradford along with the caretaker of a community centre. Irish Taoiseach Dr. Garret FitzGerald and former taoiseach Charles Haughey condemn the killings in Dáil Éireann. SDLP party leader John Hume accuses the Provisionals of waging a campaign of "sectarian genocide".
* 10 October 1981: a bomb blast on Ebury Bridge Road in London kills 2 people and injures 39.
* 26 October 1981: a bomb explodes at a Wimpy Bar in Oxford Street London killing one person.
* 20 July 1982: In Hyde Park, a bomb bombs kills two members of the Household Cavalry performing ceremonial duties in the park. Seven of their horses are also killed. On the same day another device kills seven bandsmen the Royal Green Jackets as it explodes underneath the bandstand in Regents Park as they played music to 120 spectators.
* 1983: A Harrods department store bomb planted by the PIRA during Christmas shopping season kills six (three police) and wounds 90.
* 1984: In the Brighton hotel bombing a bomb in the Grand Hotel kills five in a failed attempt to assassinate members of the British cabinet, including Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
* 1987: In the Enniskillen 'Massacre' the PIRA bombing of a Remembrance Day parade kills eleven civilians and injures sixty-three. Among the dead is nurse Marie Wilson, whose father, Gordon Wilson, would go on to become a leading campaigner for an end to violence in Northern Ireland. The PIRA would later claim that their target was a colour guard of British soldiers. On Remembrance Day 1997 the leader of Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, formally apologised for the bombing.
* 1989: Ten Royal Marine bandsmen are killed and 22 injured in the bombing of their base in Deal in Kent.
* 1990: Car bombings in Northern Ireland kill seven and wound 37.
* 30 July 1990 Ian Gow MP is killed when a device explodes under his car as he is leaving his home.
* 1990: A British Army Artillery officer is killed by the PIRA in Dortmund in the then West Germany.
* 18 February 1991: A bomb explodes at Victoria Station. One man killed and 38 people injured.
* 1991: Mortar attack on members of the British cabinet and the Prime Minister, John Major at the height of a huge security clampdown amid the Gulf War is launched by PIRA.
* 1991: Two PIRA members are killed in St. Albans when their own bomb detonates prematurely.
* 28 February 1992: A bomb explodes at London Bridge railway station injuring 29 people.
* 10 April 1992: A large bomb explodes in St Mary Axe in the City of London killing three people and injuring 91. Many buildings are heavily damaged and the Baltic Exchange is completely destroyed.
* 12 October 1992: A device explodes in the gents' toilet of the Sussex Arms public house in Covent Garden killing one person and injuring four others.
* 1992: Eight Protestant builders are killed by a PIRA bomb on their way to work at an army base near Omagh.
* 1993: A PIRA bomb in Warrington kills two children.
* 1993: The PIRA detonates a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate, which kills two and causes around £350m of damage, including the near destruction of St. Ethelburga's Bishopsgate.
* 1993: A bomb at a fish and chip shop underneath a UDA office on the Protestant Shankill Road in Belfast detonates prematurely, killing ten, including the bomber and two children.
* 1 September 1994: the PIRA declares the first of two cease-fires in the 1990s.
* 10 February 1996: The PIRA ends its 1994 cease-fire, killing two in a bomb at the Canary Wharf towers in London.
* 18 February 1996 an improvised high explosive device detonates prematurely on a bus, killing the PIRA operative transporting the device and injuring eight others.
* 15 June 1996: The PIRA detonates a 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) bomb in Manchester, injuring 206 people and damaging seventy thousand square metres of retail and office space.
-
[q]always chose military targets[/q]
'Cause the Tory party conference in Brighton was a military target, and so was that little boy who's leg got blow off in a bomb in (I believe) the tower of London.
I'm sorry Maeg, but you touched a nerve there - I can't stand the IRA, I can't stand what they try and do, and how they use thier own people to purport more hatred.
The British Govt is not without it's stains in this matter, but at least we did away with the Black & Tans well before the worst of the IRA mainland attacks.
-
[color=66ff00]No aldo, the PIRA is a splinter group (one of the most insidious given their long term activity). The 'official IRA' (about the only accurate name I can give them tbh) are largely responsible for the liberation of the republic and mediation between the more nasty splinter groups. You don't tend to hear about them so much. That's not to downplay their nastiness though as they have killed innocents.
The hardcore splinter groups are by far the most sickening, between omagh, downright vague 'military targets' (the guy who cleaned a local police station for instance) and blatently terrorising targets (british mainland).
They tend to fundraise via pirated movies etc. incidently, for some reason they staunchly claim that they take no part in drugs trafficing (doubtful given the money to be made).
Anyhow, I'm off the beaten track here. What I was trying to point out is that initally the IRA were labelled as terrorists back in the liberation of Ireland days and in my mind they were not the term freedom fighter was more accurate. In recent decades they deserve the title of terrorist and only maniacs would dispute that (and I can point you in the direction of a few sadly).
[/color]
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]**** DRAFT IN FINLAND[/q]
Is that like a draft coming in an open door, or a draft that says you're about to be loved by your squadmates?
oh you sexy you *kiss* ((((((vyper)))))
-
:nervous:
I think religion is often used as an handy excuse to build emnity between two sides.
'Hate them because they worship a different God and He wants you all dead. Oh, by the way, be sure and grab any Gold, valuables and slaves on your way out.'
People who are mentally unstable, such as terrorists, or the Grand Prix Priest, or that guy that climbed into a lions cage holding a bible the other day, tend to use religion as an excuse for their actions, but I don't really think of it as the reason.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
People who are mentally unstable, such as terrorists, or the Grand Prix Priest, or that guy that climbed into a lions cage holding a bible the other day, tend to use religion as an excuse for their actions, but I don't really think of it as the reason.
It's what us normal folk would call retardedness.
-
Now we just need Kazan's holy wrath towards religion to complete this thread...
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]No aldo, the PIRA is a splinter group (one of the most insidious given their long term activity). The 'official IRA' (about the only accurate name I can give them tbh) are largely responsible for the liberation of the republic and mediation between the more nasty splinter groups. You don't tend to hear about them so much. That's not to downplay their nastiness though as they have killed innocents.
The hardcore splinter groups are by far the most sickening, between omagh, downright vague 'military targets' (the guy who cleaned a local police station for instance) and blatently terrorising targets (british mainland).
They tend to fundraise via pirated movies etc. incidently, for some reason they staunchly claim that they take no part in drugs trafficing (doubtful given the money to be made).
Anyhow, I'm off the beaten track here. What I was trying to point out is that initally the IRA were labelled as terrorists back in the liberation of Ireland days and in my mind they were not the term freedom fighter was more accurate. In recent decades they deserve the title of terrorist and only maniacs would dispute that (and I can point you in the direction of a few sadly).
[/color]
I'm not aware much of the history of the IRA, to be honest, albiet I did think you meant the originals. Is the Official IRA the one that offered to assist the Germans (i.e. they would do it if given logistical / military support) by launching a 'invasion' into N.Ireland during WW2, then? (IIRC the Nazis called it off after meeting with IRA liasons, because they didn't believe they were competent enough to carry it off).
EDIT; found the story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/719924.stm
Little different from what I remembered above.
-
[color=66ff00]Wow, never even heard of that.
To be honest I'm not 100% on my IRA related history either I know bits and pieces it's all a bit fragmented.
[/color]
-
[q]freedom fighter was more accurate[/q]
They killed British Civilians, even your "real" IRA, I'm very sure were involved at least some mainland bombings.
That, in my book, just took away any sympathy I may have for them.
-
I've said it before and I"ll say it again:
"Al Queda (and it's variants) is to Islam as the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity".
St. Mother Teresa was a Christian, but so was Torquemada. It's never the religion, but what you do with it that matters.
-
There can be no worse utterance than: 'God is on our side' - it is either the vain hope that they are going to succeed, or lamentable justification for the atrocities that will be committed.
If there is a God, then he/she is not on anyone's side....
OK - Democracy:
The problem with democracy is that you elect politicians. No big deal you might think, but, you have to ask why those candidates wanted to become politicians in the first place. The simple answer is Power. They are hungry for power and the associated wealth, success, and status. It's a big trough, and they all want to get their snouts in and suck up as much of our money as they can, hopefully before moving higher up the ranks until they get to the top. There is no such thing as a clean politician....
My system would eliminate all that, but I'll save that gem for another day :)
-
Originally posted by Clave
The problem with democracy is that you elect politicians. No big deal you might think, but, you have to ask why those candidates wanted to become politicians in the first place. The simple answer is Power. They are hungry for power and the associated wealth, success, and status. It's a big trough, and they all want to get their snouts in and suck up as much of our money as they can, hopefully before moving higher up the ranks until they get to the top. There is no such thing as a clean politician....
My system would eliminate all that, but I'll save that gem for another day :)
How could you possibly do that? By putting a gun to peoples heads so they govern when they don;t want to? (which is a transference to power, BTW).
The truth is that there is no ideal system of government, because government is based on people, and people are inherently selfish.
-
As a co-worker from India put it: "Democracy is empowerment for idiots. Just look at who gets elected."
I thought it was funny.
-
Originally posted by Clave
The problem with democracy is that you elect politicians. No big deal you might think, but, you have to ask why those candidates wanted to become politicians in the first place. The simple answer is Power. They are hungry for power and the associated wealth, success, and status. It's a big trough, and they all want to get their snouts in and suck up as much of our money as they can, hopefully before moving higher up the ranks until they get to the top. There is no such thing as a clean politician....
That's quite a stereotype you got there. Not that it's not generally true...
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
That's quite a stereotype you got there. Not that it's not generally true...
I agree. As nice as it is to think that all politicians are the same, there are some that do what they do because they genuinely care about the people they represent.
-
Sure, at the local level, I expect they are honest and well-meaning, but give them a sniff of major government, then they fall in with the rest of the leeches....
-
Well, at the moment, we are, at least, not at the position where you have to be a 'rich personality' in order to run for office, I am at least grateful for that.
However, in a sense Clave is right, once a politician makes the cabinet or similar role, he now represents the government more than he represents the people, and his actions change accordingly.
-
Exactly, while I don't mean to be harsh, I always question people's motives. It is called 'healthy scepticism' or something....
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]freedom fighter was more accurate[/q]
They killed British Civilians, even your "real" IRA, I'm very sure were involved at least some mainland bombings.
That, in my book, just took away any sympathy I may have for them.
[color=66ff00]You didn't read what I posted, back when they were liberating Ireland they were freedom fighters though to the british they were branded terrorists. After that, when it became a war of trying to get the north liberated the people involved with the IRA became terrorists.
Anyhow this is a dodgy subject and largely based on perception so I think I'll stop.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by ionia23
As a co-worker from India put it: "Democracy is empowerment for idiots. Just look at who gets elected."
I thought it was funny.
or
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. "
-
There is only one way to combat terrorism, and that is to crack down as hard as possible.
Good idea. If we shoot at them enough, there will be no more terrorism. I don't know why we haven't tried that.
-
You would do nothing then?
-
Originally posted by Clave
You would do nothing then?
I think history has proven that creating martyrs to the cause is not an effective anti-terrorism strategy.
-
get at the root causes of terrorism. You can't be naive enough to think that people get up one day and think "hey, I'm kind of bored, I think I'll go strap explosives to myself and blow up a building".
No, religion and all that **** are excuses that peope give themselves. Now, some are more legitimate than others. Bin Laden and his bunch for example, don't really have all that great a cause - they're mostly soldiers, in search of a cause. After the Afghan war in the 80s, you had a group or orhanized miltants who suddenly found themselves without a fight. Part of the problem is that al Queda is really an international organization and as such does not really have a firm agenda, other than fighting Israeli and US influence in the Middle-East. Part of their grievance, and what drives alot of yound people to their cause, is the treatment of the Palestinians and sympathy with their cause. Another is, I would imagine, constant US intervention in the Middle East, and their support of regional dictators. As I said, al Queda is not the best example,
But others, like some of the Palestinian groups, have much more legitimate causes. Want to weaken terrorism? Get Israel to treat the Palestinians like human beings, and all that that entails.
-
The only way we can... get rid of all but the most extremeist terrorists is by completely ignoring them. that includes getting the thousands and thousands of soldiers out of their friggin' countries. And only intervene if nessecary, not pre-emptively intervene in any way.
If say, China or Russia had thousands of soldiers in the US and they answered to nobody then their own government, wouldn't you get... 'pissed' to say the least? Or when your government is dictated by a foreign government?
I mean, having influence is one thing. But saying what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in another man's country is just plain dumb. Not to mention extremely hypocritical.
Let's look at nukes for a minute. The US has hundreds of nukes of varying yields. From levelling a single street to levelling entire cities like Tokyo. yet when another country wants to make a nuke and they don't agree with that countries vision they all go "BUT THEY CAN'T HAVE THEM! WE DON'T AGREE WITH THEM AND THEY MIGHT USE THEM AGAINST US! WE WILL INVADE YOU IF YOU DON'T STOP MAKING NUKEZ!"
Why the **** do you think they want to have them in the first place? Because the US is looming over them with hundreds of ICBM with nuclear warheads attached aimed at their asses.
This is basically the Amiracan military slogan;
RESPECT MY AUTHORITAI!!!!!
(http://guhcavalcante.weblogger.terra.com.br/img/cartman.jpg)
If anyone disagrees with them in any consequential way they are ZE AXZEES OV EEEEVIIIIL!
This is the kind of stance that just BEGS for terrorism to arise and start to f*ck you up. Because they litterally have no other way to fight you.
Not that I condone terrorism in any way, but i can see why they do it. Hell, if the US was trying to invade my country just because you disagree with our ways or dictate policy for the same reason, I'd seriously consider fighting you in any way I can. And many people in the poorer countries blame the US and it's friends for many things and feel the same way.
***NOTE 1; I'm not arguing the invasion of Iraq here. That was pretty much legit.
***NOTE 2; Once again, this is not US bashing, this is US policy bashing.
-
iraq was legit?
-
Quite basically, to get rid of terrorism in its current form, we have to stop using an "iron fist in a velvet glove". Spewing platitudes about freedom from our collective mouth while messing with small countries that do things we don't like is the most blatant act of hypocrisy one can do.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Quite basically, to get rid of terrorism in its current form, we have to stop using an "iron fist in a velvet glove". Spewing platitudes about freedom from our collective mouth while messing with small countries that do things we don't like is the most blatant act of hypocrisy one can do.
Pretty much what I said but in a more... civil way :p
I suck at being civil :D
-
Originally posted by Rictor
iraq was legit?
I'm a little curious about that part myself.
-
The invasion was pretty much legit. Though the manner in the way it was performed from the very beginning is... questionable at best. As was the timing.
But thats another topic :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I suck at being civil :D
[color=66ff00]Heheh.
Good point about the nukes though. If it's all about others not having nukes then america should decommission all theirs first.
Like that's going to happen.
[/color]
-
This whole chain of evens in Russia is hardly suprising.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
The invasion was pretty much legit. Though the manner in the way it was performed from the very beginning is... questionable at best. As was the timing.
But thats another topic :p
attacking a sovereign nation is legitimate? And without authorization from the UN, in contravention of international law?plus they posed no threat.
Though I will agree that an invasion might in theory have been legit; most Iraqis (and this is coming from an Iraqi source) initially supported the overthrow of Saddam and, to varying degrees, welcomed the US....that is until all of that other stuff happened.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
attacking a sovereign nation is legitimate? And without authorization from the UN, in contravention of international law?plus they posed no threat.
Attacking a dictator that kills his own subjects is bound to get shot down eventually.
But i did say I didn't agree with the manner it was performed, nor the timing. That includes your point about the authorization. :)
And I'm not even talking about the 'power base establishing'-policy of the Post-War time by the US.
Though I will agree that an invasion might in theory have been legit; most Iraqis (and this is coming from an Iraqi source) initially supported the overthrow of Saddam and, to varying degrees, welcomed the US....that is until all of that other stuff happened.
Exactly what i meant. The invasion was bound to happen sooner or later. But the way it did happen was just stupid. The deaths of the Iraqis surpass the deaths under Saddam's rule for the last 5 years IIRC. Not to mention the casualties on the US side that just keeps mounting. And just because the US doesn't want to give other countries a more active role because 'they did it so they should be in control', those countries and their soldiers suffer as well.
The US sees this as 'their' victory while claiming they did it purely for Iraq itself. In the meanwhile the ignorance and hypocracy just keeps on growing.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
The deaths of the Iraqis surpass the deaths under Saddam's rule for the last 5 years IIRC.
We killed more than 600,000? because that is about what Saddam did to his own...
-
yeah, I think it was around 6-700,000 total.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Heheh.
Good point about the nukes though. If it's all about others not having nukes then america should decommission all theirs first.
Like that's going to happen.
[/color]
Give all the worlds nukes to me. I will dispose of them. Or keep them.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, I think it was around 6-700,000 total.
That'd be like killing off the entire population of San Francisco...
That's a lot of bombs that 'missed.'
-
Well see, this is where I think Saddam and Clinton (and also Bush Sr) were equal partners, in the deaths of those hundreds of thousands, which I assume is reffering to the deaths under sanctions.
Sure, Saddam was a part of that, but the US imposed (and UN tolerated) sanctions were far from reasonable, and prevented cruccial infrastructure and health equipment from entering the country.