Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on June 15, 2005, 08:18:26 pm
-
I have to say, there are some valid points. The IMF/World Bank are the ones responsible for this in the first place, and yet they get not so much as a slap on the wrist. I'm all for forgiving the debts, it's fair considering the shady circumstances under which they were made, but I must say that those who are responsible, on both sides, ought to be punished and some sort of oversight be established for future cases.
The IMF/World Bank are fundamentally unaccountable instututions, and I think that whether you choose to believe it was negligence of malicious intent, they screwed up and unfortunately will continue to do so.
Reviving the Foreign Aid Racket
by Patrick J. Buchanan
"Debt Cut Is Set for Poorest Nations" was the headline in Sunday's Washington Post over the lead story.
"The world's wealthiest nations," wrote Paul Blustein, "agreed yesterday to cancel more than $40 billion in debts that some of the world's poorest nations owe to international lenders – a move inspired by the belief that full debt forgiveness is necessary to give those countries a chance to escape the trap of hunger, disease, and economic stagnation." Sounds wonderful.
Alan Cowell's story in The New York Times explained: "The deal [is] expected to ease the 18 poorest countries' annual debt burdens by $1.5 billion. They are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. All must take anticorruption measures."
It is hard not to break out laughing at that last line.
This $40 billion debt write-off is being hailed as the most magnanimous act since the Marshall Plan. But there is another way to see it. George Bush signed onto one of the biggest bailouts in history. For, here, children, is what has just gone down.
First, that $40 billion was squandered or stolen by the most corrupt regimes and biggest thieves in the Third World. The money is gone. We shall never see it again. And all the wastrels and crooks who got away with it will not be pursued.
Second, the idiot bankers at the IMF, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank who failed to do due diligence when they made the $40 billion in loans, and lied about how good the loans were, will not be exposed and prosecuted, or tarred and feathered as they should be.
Third, the IMF, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank will see all their lost funds replenished, so they can start flying around to those same exotic countries and capitals, shelling out new loans to the same crowd of crooks and incompetents, or their successors.
Fourth, American taxpayers will have to pony up the cash for this historic bailout of the international banks.
Why is this happening? Because George Bush owes Tony Blair, and because Blair, bless his socialist soul, believes in the salvific power of foreign aid and has to bring home some bacon to show his skeptical countrymen the "special relationship" between the two is not that of master and poodle.
Make no mistake. This not a bailout of Africa's poor or Latin American peasants. This is a bailout of the IMF, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank. They will get the money to replace their lost loans. As in a Monopoly game where the rules are thrown out, they will be handed new money to play with. Bush and Blair are bailing out failed global institutions run by the highest-paid bureaucrats on earth.
What should have been done?
The IMF, the World Bank, and the ADP should have been held to the same standards as any U.S. government bank that squandered capital entrusted to its care. Congressional auditors should have gone over their books, looked at the bad loans, looked at the backup provided and statements made at the time by lending officers, then let the American people know whether they had been faithful custodians of our tax dollars or clowns who ought not to be trusted with kids' lunch money. If the banks failed, they should be forced to undergo the same discipline and downsizing as any public bank that made similar unsecured loans and lost $40 billion.
At the least, we should shut down the World Bank-IMF country club in Montgomery County, Md. – and make them all travel coach.
But none of this is going to happen. All three of these institutions will soon be back at the same game, and their critics will be denounced as hard-hearted conservatives who lack compassion for the world's poor.
When an American worker has to take a hit for every foolish or failed investment in the family portfolio or 401K, why do international bankers and bureaucrats work with a safety net and always get a bailout? Why do they never have to answer or apologize for the follies they commit? By all means, give the African people debt relief. But why let the lenders who lied and lost the money off the hook?
In the last analysis, it is Congress that has failed in its stewardship of the money entrusted to it by the most generous people on earth. A self-confident government would not give the IMF, the World Bank, or the African Development Bank another dime. Let them call us names.
Unfortunately, we have a Congress that cannot say no to any demand for foreign aid in the name of the "world's poorest" and a U.S. government that cannot stand up to a moral shakedown.
-
Everybody seems to have forgotten that the poorest nations in Africa are run by Dictators of some kind, of which Mugabe(sp?) is one of the worst. He took Zimbabwe, and changed it from the "breadbasket of the continent" to a dust bowl.
-
Well it's hardly the people's fault. Dictators are poping up all the time, especially in a environment like Africa. Even Mugabe started out as a freedom fighter, an admirable figure, but as the saying goes: power corrupts.
-
Don't worry, if Berlusconi wins in 2006 the IMF will find a new customer: Italy.
-
The IMF is a private organization? If that is the case, don't they have a right to do lend money as they please?
-
Suure, it's as private and independent as the federal reserve...
-
I think it's worth noting that poverty can be a tool of dictators, though. Obviously steps need to be taken to control corruption, etc, but at the same time you can't ignore the problem because of the people abusing the system.
I would note, though;
Benin - democratic (Reporters Without Borders rates it has having greater press freedom than the UK)
Bolivia - democratic (I believe; seen no contradictory infor from the wikipedia, bbc or CIA WF to that extent), but high rich-poor divide.
Burkina Faso - reportedly democratic, albeit the current President took power through a coup and was elected in 1998 (I don't know how democratic these elections were). Concerns over human rights & possible involvement in diamond smuggling by Sierra Leone rebels.
Ethiopia - reportedly democratic, albeit with allegations over vote-rigging in last election and concerns over the jailing of journalists. A ruling Marxist junta was overthrown in 1991.
Ghana - democratic, regarded as a model for economic and political reform within Africa. Plays a strong peace-keeping / mediation role.
Guyana - democratic
Honduras - democratic; ruled by military government/dictatorship until 1982. Impelementing economic reforms in return for (a degree of) IMF relief / US aid already.
Madagascar - democratic, massive poverty; 70% live on less than $1 per day
Mali - democratic. Current president is regarded as a 'soldier of democracy' for overthrowing military dictatorship in 1991 and holding elections the following year. Media is amongst the free-est in Africa.
Mauritania - democratic (As far as I can tell); president has been ruled since 1984 - first within a military Junta, and then elected in the 1992 multi-party elections (civillian government). Allegations over intimidation / vote-rigging in last election.
Mozambique - democratic. Allegations of vote rigging in last election; international monitors say this was not enough to change the result. Economy ruined by 77-92 war and then floods in 2000, 2001 and 2002.
Nicaragua - democratic (president is politically isolated due to anti-corruption charges against predecessor, supported by the Us ahead of the main opponent - who fought against US sponsored Contra rebels); economy badly damaged by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, which left 20% of the population homeless.
Niger - Democratic. Only banned slavery in 2003; allegations thousands still live in servitude. President has been hailed for returning stability; but still has to cope with mass poverty, illiteracy and a non-existant health service.
Rwanda -democratic, first elections (after the 1994 genocide) in 2003. Concerns expressed in 2002 by the International Crisis Group - a conflict-prevention agency - that the ruling party tolerated no criticism or challenge to its authority.
Senegal - democratic; President is an adovcate of democratisation and reform.
Tanzania - Democratic. President was elected as an anti-corruption crusader and is responsible for economic liberalisation welcomed by the World Bank. Due to retire at the end of his 2nd term this year.
Uganda - Purportedly Democratic, but with restrictions upon elections limit only the ruling party to stand in polls (purportedly to be lifted prior to the 2006 election). The President has been credited with improving the human rights record of the police and army, and with economic reform (western backed).
Zambia - Reportedly democratic (opposition allegations of vote-rigging in last election); President has committed to anti-corruption reforms. Issues over media freedom; laws against defaming the President, use of libel etc laws to intimidate journalists.
NB: a lot of the countries with allegations over vote-rigging are regarded in the CIA World Factbook as simply 'republic'; i.e. democratic.
-
Blair, bless his socialist soul
:lol: I find that very funny...
It makes some very good points, though.
-
My point about Mugabe was that he takes producing farms from the hands of the people who's families have lived and worked them for nearly 500 years in some cases just because they are white, and gives them to know nothing political allies who are black, changing his country from an exporter of foodstuffs to a land where the people are starving.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
My point about Mugabe was that he takes producing farms from the hands of the people who's families have lived and worked them for nearly 500 years in some cases just because they are white, and gives them to know nothing political allies who are black, changing his country from an exporter of foodstuffs to a land where the people are starving.
It's not even that; Mugabe essentially gave his supporters - not allies, just plain old voters - carte blanche to forcefully evict and indeed kill not just white landowners, but their black employees. So he not only 'stole' the land (regardless of the circumstance of the original ownership / colonisation, it's never right to take without recompense), but he/they managed to drive away those black farmworkers who were educated enough to maintain the existing crops and soforth.
Mugabe is simply a menace; he may not be a threat to the rest of the world, but he is to his own people. The problem is that, if you punish Mugabe by withdrawing aid, you're punishing the ordinary citizens more. It's a catch-22 situation, unfortunately; aid risks propping up his regime, withdrawing it hurts millions of people who don't even support him.
IMO the best policy in humanitarian terms is to allow NGOs to perform aid work, but at the same time to make it explicitly clear that aid is not for Mugabe - or whatever tinpot dictator there may be in the country - but for the people. And when said dictator blocks aid, to make that clear to the people.
One thing about the poorest nations, though; some are recovering from dictatorships which incurred said huge debts. We shouldn't punish those people for a government which foisted itself upon them; it's probably in our (the richer western world) own interests to provide aid particularly in terms of education and health, because the former will help prevent juntas from forming and suppressing the people (education breeds dissent against totalitarianism IIRC).
-
This is in no way a surprise. When we heard Bush had nominated Paul Wolfowitz to the job of World Bank chairman, we knew this was bound to happen.
Albeit i agree with dropping the international dept for poor countries, the simple truth is that these countries never get to see a dime of that money. It alweays gets lost amidst a ton of burocratic paper work, and mostly in the hands of unscropulous greedy people. Just like the iraqi Oil for Food program.
These people are worst than vultures. It´s as if they could scent the money from a million miles away, and get drawned to it like flies on shiit.
Corporate fraud is, without a doubt, the worst plague Mankind has suffered throughout history. It has caused millions of victims more than any spanish Influenza or Black Plague could ever hope to cause. Millions of people could have been spared a horrible death by starvation, if that money had reached those who needed it the most...
And now, having Wolfowitz in control of who gets or not the much needed funds, there´s not much hope it gets any better...
-
The best way to deal with it is to put a 40cal between his eyes and into the wall behind him. You can't deal with megalomaniacs or the Cult of Personality that always seems to follow them around. The only way to win a conflict is utter and complete defeat of the opposition, which is why we're having problems in Iraq. We're trying to talk our way to victory, and while it would eventually work, it would take generations. Much better to defeat them and then they will be easier to handle.
*note the use of the word defeat, not kill*
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The best way to deal with it is to put a 40cal between his eyes and into the wall behind him. You can't deal with megalomaniacs or the Cult of Personality that always seems to follow them around. The only way to win a conflict is utter and complete defeat of the opposition, which is why we're having problems in Iraq. We're trying to talk our way to victory, and while it would eventually work, it would take generations. Much better to defeat them and then they will be easier to handle.
*note the use of the word defeat, not kill*
The problem is that you can't just 'defeat' them like that; any form of totalitarian state will have a security apparatus intended to control the population. In removing the government, you remove that apparatus and create a power vacuum perfect for the next dictator to arise.
The reason for the problems in Iraq is not defeating the opposition, it's that the current tactics are especially useful creating the opposition;the Abu Ghraib scandal, Falluja, the issues over elections in Shia areas, the long-lasting infrastructure damage (electrical, medical, security) all combine to not only create an environment where rebellion can take place, but where it can grow in response.
The best you can hope of via military action is instability; the actions taken to remove the causes of an insurgency have always been conciliatory, to remove grass-roots support. If you were to assassinate Mugabe - even when he's still solidifying IMO his grasp on power - you'd be more likely to create resentment from even his opponents for intruding upon their affairs. And any form of 'security intervention' (military action) to fill the resulting power vacuum would likely lead to resentment with the implication that you'd be looking to install a puppet government. And even that's assuming that there's not a deputy just as bad, waiting to step in.
Iraq (and probably Afghanistan, with it's roaming warlords and rampant drug trade) is arguably the perfect example of why military intervention doesn't work.
-
On the contrary, military intervention worked perfectly: the governments of both countries fell within a month. It's the peacekeeping/nation-building intervention that's a mess.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
On the contrary, military intervention worked perfectly: the governments of both countries fell within a month. It's the peacekeeping/nation-building intervention that's a mess.
But military intervention was on the basis of nation-building; in reality, the military intervention is ongoing so long as there is an insurgency and instability.
-
You know how you defeat a group like the militants in Iraq? You close of the Sunni Triangle. Blanket the region with pamphlets explaining that in 48 hours the planes will come, and when they leave, nothing other than mountains and small pebbles will be left, then tell them that they have those 48 hours to leave the area. When that period expires you send in the B-52s and carpet bomb the entire region until not even a blade of grass is standing.
If you're going to make war, MAKE WAR.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You know how you defeat a group like the militants in Iraq? You close of the Sunni Triangle. Blanket the region with pamphlets explaining that in 48 hours the planes will come, and when they leave, nothing other than mountains and small pebbles will be left, then tell them that they have those 48 hours to leave the area. When that period expires you send in the B-52s and carpet bomb the entire region until not even a blade of grass is standing.
If you're going to make war, MAKE WAR.
Reality check. Do you want to know why they don't do that? Because that also gives the militants more than enough advanced warning to get out and set up shop somewhere else. So what do you end up doing? Nothing but make the current infrastructure problems even worse and waste lots of fuel and bombs. It won't "shock and awe" them either.
-
i beg to differ, once they see that we are willing to "drop the hammer", i believe that the militants will give up. Right now, even with 150,000+ US soldiers in Iraq, they are convinced they can win. (And depressingly, there are many who would help them, because it is politically expedient for them)
They must be shown, through a demonstration of raw power if necessary, that under no circumstances can they win.
-
Lib, it's more their country then yours. Maybe 10% of the insurgency at most are foreign fighters, though these tend to be among the higer echelons due to their previous expertise (Afghanistan in the 80s, Bosnia etc). US brass in Iraq has confirmed this. Most of the rank and file is pissed-off Iraqis, and until America faces that fact, victory isn't even on the horizon.
What you are suggesting is more or less what the Russians did to Chechnya. They park their artillery outside Grozny, and turn the place to rubble. And send in some bombers for good measure. Unfortunately, that resulted in about 100,000+ civilian deaths, and the destruction of an entire country. In technical terms, genocide, ethnic cleansing (there are only around 1.3 million Chehcens left) and war crimes. Didn't work though, the guerillas just went to the hills and fought from there. The point is, people resent others meddling in their country. Regardless of whether you think it's good or bad, right or wrong, the very presence of foreign troops, and their control over the civilian government, that by itself creates huge resentment.
Yes, dictators exist. Yes, it's a tricky situation to unseat them. But firstly, violence is never the solution to internal conflicts. Wars between nations, yes, but civil war and insurgency/counter-insurgency are incredibly messy, to put it mildly, and rarely achieve anything. People resent, quite naturally, when some outside power comes along and tries to fix all the problems, like some sort of global cop. Even in a completely positive situations, internal problems are best handled very, very gently. The main thrust has to come from within, or else people will not feel like they have a stake in their own affairs. The civil wars in Africa can be solved, though it takes efforts on many fronts. The African Union could potentialkly be a force for great good, if they weren't so ineffectual. If America likes to solve thing forecefully, fine: African Union peacekeepers are extremely ill equipped and trained. Handing out weapons and training is the US's specialty, I don't see why they couldn't do that in Africa too.
-
i believe that the militants will give up.
The militants are fanatics of some kind or another. For them to "give up" means to die. This is something you need to understand.
They must be shown, through a demonstration of raw power if necessary, that under no circumstances can they win.
They thought exactly that same thing in Vietnam. The US dropped huge amounts of aerial ordinance on Vietnam, and did the Vietcong give up? Hardly. They just kept coming. This situation in Iraq isn't much different; it is a war of attrition.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
i beg to differ, once they see that we are willing to "drop the hammer", i believe that the militants will give up. Right now, even with 150,000+ US soldiers in Iraq, they are convinced they can win. (And depressingly, there are many who would help them, because it is politically expedient for them)
They must be shown, through a demonstration of raw power if necessary, that under no circumstances can they win.
Is carpet bombing the entire Shia region because some oppose you any different from, say, Saddam gassing a village of Kurds because some may have been rebels?
And if you give them warning... they'll relocate. Just like they did from Fallujah. Maybe they'll move to Baghdad; should you flatten that too? Or what about the Sunni rebels like the (Moqtada Al-Sadrs') Mahdi army? Do you flatten the Sunni area then?
And what if the previously open-minded, non-violent population starts protesting at you massacring hundreds of thousands of civillians to make a point - do you then just go 'sod it', and kill everyone in Iraq?
Because if your solution is waving your gun around like it'll change anything, then that's what you'll need to do. The militants will only give up when they don't have the public support to operate and move freely (and the hardcore that don't will be isolated and weakened); so long as you're advocating strategies of uber-violence and collateral damage, then you're activately working to support their cause.
-
I think you need to reexamine the Vietnam conflict. 2 years after the conflict began, MacAuthur had the VC pushed from from Vietnam completely, then the Politicians got involved. They prevented the Army from pursuing the enemy into neighboring Laos and Cambodia. The VC sat over there and rebuilt and then when they returned they were able to use fear and disinformation to turn the tide of battle in their favor.
You are correct about 1 thing, Iraq and Vietnam are similar in a few key ways, the majority of the population is uneducated and conditioned to accept the word of a specific group as absolute truth.
-
McArthur?
He died in 1964 and wasn't involved in 'Nam insofar as I can see (he was dismissed for insubordination during the Korean war IIRC and retired in the same year).
I'm not sure what year you define as the start of the Vietnam war, anyways; if it's the Gulf of Tonkin incident in '64, then the Vietcong weren't driven out by any historical site I've seen; the US ended up allowing napalm in '65 and authorising an increase to 400,000 troops in '67. I've read nothing that suggests the Vietcong had been defeated as such (bar the loss of 'visibility' due to a switch to guerilla tactics having been comprehensively defeated by US air dominance in initial battles in '65); and if you use 65 as the start date of ground fighting and hence the war, the VC / North Vietnam were definately still fighting in '67 (and launched an ultimately doomed siegewith 20,000 troops upon Khe Sang in January '68).
And then there's the Tet offensive, when the supposedly crippled VC forces captured Hue. Although ultimately driven back, it shown that the war wouldn't be ending soon and was a propaganda victory (given that war is as much about politics as military strength).
EDIT; IIRC there were US troops operating in Laos and Cambodia anyways; the US launched bombing of Laos from 1968 to 1972, and also bombed Cambodian. It then invaded Cambodia in 1970 with South Vietnamese troops and secretly sent Marines into Laos in 1969 (South Vietnam would later invade in 1971).
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You are correct about 1 thing, Iraq and Vietnam are similar in a few key ways, the majority of the population is uneducated and conditioned to accept the word of a specific group as absolute truth.
The American following their presidents ? :D
-
Originally posted by Liberator
If you're going to make war, MAKE WAR.
It's nice to see a good christian perspective on the matter for a change.
You know. Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children or driving them from their homes and destroying them. Taking christianity back to the Crusades when it was a far less civilised religion than Islam.
Good to see someone taking a back to basics approach to christianity rather than going with that whole tolerance thing that all the liberal christians claim is what Jesus actually preached. :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
-
1925: "A german extremist can't be that bad"
2005: "A german pope can't be that bad"
Not that I have anything against germans but... :p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It's nice to see a good christian perspective on the matter for a change.
You know. Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children or driving them from their homes and destroying them. Taking christianity back to the Crusades when it was a far less civilised religion than Islam.
Good to see someone taking a back to basics approach to christianity rather than going with that whole tolerance thing that all the liberal christians claim is what Jesus actually preached. :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
I didn't say it was the Christian thing to do.
I am just sick to death of the pussyfooting around. Either finish it or leave, don't dick around and let our boys(and girls now) die for little or no reason.
Yes, you heard correctly, I said they are dying needlessly. The spirit of the enemy must be crushed for victory and the desired result of this war to come to fruition. Or else, the children will continue to die and we willl have another vietnam on our hands...:blah:
-
lib... what is the objective of the war in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It's nice to see a good christian perspective on the matter for a change.
You know. Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children or driving them from their homes and destroying them. Taking christianity back to the Crusades when it was a far less civilised religion than Islam.
Good to see someone taking a back to basics approach to christianity rather than going with that whole tolerance thing that all the liberal christians claim is what Jesus actually preached. :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
Leave religion out of it kara. Every civilization is history has been involved in "Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children or driving them from their homes and destroying them". Neither crimes of agression nor the mentality behind them are particular to a single religion, and it's stupid to pretend otherwise. More or less, it's human nature.
-
I am just sick to death of the pussyfooting around.
They "pussyfoot around" because that is how things must be done. There is simply no other way to do it. Occupying a foreign country is a long, drawn out process.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Leave religion out of it kara.
I wasn't critising christianity. Notice the last line? I went out of my way not to do that. I was critising Liberator for constantly telling us that we should do things according his to his christian ideals when he can't even hold them himself.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I think you need to reexamine the Vietnam conflict. 2 years after the conflict began, MacAuthur had the VC pushed from from Vietnam completely, then the Politicians got involved.
Ermm... mixing Korea and Vietnam together, aren't we?
In the case of the Korean war, MacArthur did manage to pull all the way up to the Chinese border and was ordered to stand down. Patton was primed and ready to roll into Moscow when Berlin fell... US forces were ready to take on full operations in Laos and Cambodia.
What do all of these things have in common? The 'Commander and Chief' "reprioritized" targets due to political reasons.
The end results? North Korea exists. The Cold War occured. Cambodia fell to Pol-Pot. Afganistan is pumping out more opium than ever.
-
Exactly, the politicans need to let the warriors war, and to hell with their delicate sensibilities. There is too much "oh what will X think if we crush these people who are threatening them too?". You know I don't care what someone 100 miles from me is thinking, why should i care what someone on the other side of the ocean thinks?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Exactly, the politicans need to let the warriors war, and to hell with their delicate sensibilities. There is too much "oh what will X think if we crush these people who are threatening them too?". You know I don't care what someone 100 miles from me is thinking, why should i care what someone on the other side of the ocean thinks?
Suuure, keep giving more power to the army...
But then don't complain when the generals will replace the politicians...
-
I didn't say give more power to the military, i said stop hampering them because it makes you look bad politically.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I didn't say it was the Christian thing to do.
I am just sick to death of the pussyfooting around. Either finish it or leave, don't dick around and let our boys(and girls now) die for little or no reason.
Yes, you heard correctly, I said they are dying needlessly. The spirit of the enemy must be crushed for victory and the desired result of this war to come to fruition. Or else, the children will continue to die and we willl have another vietnam on our hands...
And what about the deaths of those innocents who get caught up in crossfire? What about the people left homeless, or crippled, or who see their entire family taken from them in the flash of a misdirected tank shell or suicide bomb? They don't care whether it was aimed at them, or who was right in the fight - if anyone - they just know they've lost everything. Does preventing the death of a single American soldier now matter more than them, in their own country?
Have you ever actually considered why civillian casualties - stroke 'collateral damage' - is politically negative?
-
...and for that matter if all life is equal why not have a "war on drunk driving" because more Americans die each year from car accidents in general, or from complications of smoking and obesity, then have ever died from terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Ace
...and for that matter if all life is equal why not have a "war on drunk driving" because more Americans die each year from car accidents in general, or from complications of smoking and obesity, then have ever died from terrorism.
Are you insane? That would hamper the corporate interest and require even more welfare for multibillion companies while the majority dies from easily avoidable diseases.
-
I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR. Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on. Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.
If you can't tell, I'm pissed off at the soft shoes in the world who think everything should be happiness and light all the time. I hate to break it to ya, creep, Life is Pain, get used to it or move on.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR. Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on. Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.
If you can't tell, I'm pissed off at the soft shoes in the world who think everything should be happiness and light all the time. I hate to break it to ya, creep, Life is Pain, get used to it or move on.
You could tell that same thing to the american soldiers then, who, incidentally, signed up voluntarily knowing that they might die in service, contrary to the innocent civilians living in their own country. ;)
-
Lib, you're dumb.
Everyone else, you're dumb for trying to talk Lib out of his opinions.
That's my thoughts on the entire matter :p
-
Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.
That's Darwinism. But isn't that heresey? :p
I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR. Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on.
Are you in the military?
Everyone else, you're dumb for trying to talk Lib out of his opinions.
Lib can never be talked out of his opinions, no matter how ill-informed they may be. We just have nothing better to do. :D
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR. Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on. Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.
No offence, but that's a truly idiotic viewpoint. It's pathetic. People die in war... of course - why do you think people are against it?
Presumably the thousands killed in 9/11 are better off dead because they were 'too stupid to get out of the way'? When American constracters were killed and hung up in Fallujah, I don't think you chastised them for being dumb in going to work in a warzone, did you?
Originally posted by Liberator
If you can't tell, I'm pissed off at the soft shoes in the world who think everything should be happiness and light all the time. I hate to break it to ya, creep, Life is Pain, get used to it or move on.
If you're happy for the world to suffer (to paraphrase), then that's your problem. You keep on wallowing in that; the rest of us want to try and improve the world in the small ways we can as individuals.
I find it strange how you can rally against the perceived evils of illigitimate children, homosexuality, immigration etc - anything that offends your particular sensibilities - but when it comes to criticising uneccessary deaths, then it's ok because 'the world is bad'. Bit hypocritical, no?
-
Lib, why don't you get a military or political career if you believe in what you say?
It's too easy to shoot sentences from one's own comfortable bunker without never going out.
-
I believe you all have continued to miss my point, the helpless and innocent will continue to die in mass numbers if we don't obliterate the enemy. Will some die, sure, but when I here stories about our troops doing a sweep through a neighborhood, going into a house, being told that the person under a blanket is the families sick grandfather and then finding out that it one of the missing aid workers, I start to believe that there are far fewer innocent in the Triangle than certain agencies would have you believe.
Also, study history, the only way wars have ever been won is through one of two ways, overwhelming force or making continued offensives too expensive for the enemy to maintain.
I'm advocating the loss of a few to benefit the large whole of the region for a longer period. Yes, it's cold, yes i know it's out of character for me a bit, but I've gotten totally pissed off at the whole situation and you'll forgive me for taking the short way out. Diplomacy is all fine and good, but who is the first to die when things go pear shaped? The diplomats. I have little patience for people who want to "handle me". Either do it or don't just don't stop someone else from doing it.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR. Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on. Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.
It's a war America started though. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and every sensible person in the country knew that.
The claim was that America was going in to stop the tyranny of Saddam. How on Earth can you justify that claim by slaughtering civilians and claiming they were collatoral damage?
That's actually worse than anything Saddam did. At least he mostly went after political enemies. What you're suggesting would actually make life worse for the people of Iraq.
-
Lib, this isn't a "war" in the conventional sense. You're trying to fight an army that doesn't exist.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I believe you all have continued to miss my point, the helpless and innocent will continue to die in mass numbers if we don't obliterate the enemy. Will some die, sure, but when I here stories about our troops doing a sweep through a neighborhood, going into a house, being told that the person under a blanket is the families sick grandfather and then finding out that it one of the missing aid workers, I start to believe that there are far fewer innocent in the Triangle than certain agencies would have you believe.
Also, study history, the only way wars have ever been won is through one of two ways, overwhelming force or making continued offensives too expensive for the enemy to maintain.
I'm advocating the loss of a few to benefit the large whole of the region for a longer period. Yes, it's cold, yes i know it's out of character for me a bit, but I've gotten totally pissed off at the whole situation and you'll forgive me for taking the short way out. Diplomacy is all fine and good, but who is the first to die when things go pear shaped? The diplomats. I have little patience for people who want to "handle me". Either do it or don't just don't stop someone else from doing it.
Advocating the loss of a few is an easy tactic when those few are very far away, and from a different place. It's all very nice touting 'obliterating the enemy', but you're talking about an enemy whose very tactics revolve around hiding themselves in a civillian population, for the simple reason that Americans killing innocent arabs brings them support.
This isn't a conventional war; it doesn't matter how relevant or not your definition of the only way to win a war is. There is no state apparatus to attack. There is no vast army to meet and destroy in open battle. There are people - both terrorists, insurgents, whatever - who operate in the shadows, and rely upon civillian support to do so. And people support them, because the US army makes itself the enemy when it comes in, and bombs a neighbourhood, or abuses a few prisoners, and loses any hope of looking the 'good guys'.
Your 'strategy' is based along a supposition that Iraqis are already guilty, that killing them - thousands of them - doesn't matter as long as you think you've got a few enemy combatants with them. How many Iraqi lives are worth being able to claim 'victory'? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? A million?
Who are you to determine what the 'best' is for the region? It's not your region, it's not even near where you or I live. I'd bet you've never even visited it, that you don't speak the language, you don't know the religion, the customs, the history, what makes these people tick. All you know is what you are told is best for America, and you force that upon these people claiming that it's best for them.
It's no wonder they hate you back in return. And if you keep on doing it, it'll spread. It won't be the reservation of the looniest section of fundamentalists that hate you, it'll be the entire population who feel oppressed by the guns of a foreign power. Same as the US did when it was a British colony, and the British decided what was best for you.
-
Once again, everyone of you involved in this argument is dumb. Arguing against Lib is like running into a brick wall repeatadly at top speed. He's not gonna move.
-
Doesn't matter. To remain mute implies acceptance, or even understanding. And threads are not just viewed by those who participate within them.
-
This is a typical Liberator argument:
Lib: "Typical uninformed, biased, untolerating comment"
Forum: "Lib, you're wrong, these are the facts, here here and here. Here are the links from respected web sites, here here and here."
Lib: "Usual babble about the rightousness of America"
Forum: "Retort about how it's possible for America to be wrong once in awhile"
Lib: "A variation of either 'im right, you're wrong,' or 'if i'm wrong, then it doesn't exist'"
Admin: "Stop this tomfoolery at once."
Tomfoolery ceases.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It's a war America started though. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and every sensible person in the country knew that.
The claim was that America was going in to stop the tyranny of Saddam. How on Earth can you justify that claim by slaughtering civilians and claiming they were collatoral damage?
That's actually worse than anything Saddam did. At least he mostly went after political enemies. What you're suggesting would actually make life worse for the people of Iraq.
Errmm....Saddam was a despot, a particularly evil one at that. While I don't support the US invasion, his deposition is by far worse than any of what America has done so far.
Note, this does not preclude the fact that yes, in the future what the Americans do might just end up being worse. But truth to be told, so far Saddam's spread and influence was far worse than the Americans, and he intended to cause harm - at least the Americans are trying to help, if not actually succeeding at it very well.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
This is a typical Liberator argument:
Lib: "Typical uninformed, biased, untolerating comment"
Forum: "Lib, you're wrong, these are the facts, here here and here. Here are the links from respected web sites, here here and here."
Lib: "Usual babble about the rightousness of America"
Forum: "Retort about how it's possible for America to be wrong once in awhile"
Lib: "A variation of either 'im right, you're wrong,' or 'if i'm wrong, then it doesn't exist'"
Admin: "Stop this tomfoolery at once."
Tomfoolery ceases.
Then you've proven my point;
Forum: "Lib, you're wrong, these are the facts, here here and here. Here are the links from respected web sites, here here and here."
If we have facts, show them. If we see something we know - or believe - to be wrong, say so. If there is another opinion, show it. But don't stand baclk and do nothing, if there is something you know to be wrong, just because a single person might choose to disagree with you.
-
I don't stand back, I've gone through more arguments with Lib than I care to remember, and right now I'm too tired to try and make another one.
And what the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about me or Lib or what? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I don't stand back, I've gone through more arguments with Lib than I care to remember, and right now I'm too tired to try and make another one.
And what the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about me or Lib or what? :wtf:
In principle, I'm talking about me.
Originally posted by Singh
Errmm....Saddam was a despot, a particularly evil one at that. While I don't support the US invasion, his deposition is by far worse than any of what America has done so far.
Note, this does not preclude the fact that yes, in the future what the Americans do might just end up being worse. But truth to be told, so far Saddam's spread and influence was far worse than the Americans, and he intended to cause harm - at least the Americans are trying to help, if not actually succeeding at it very well.
Well, the first thing is - why this despot? Why Iraq? There's no shortage of them, after all - some are even the US' allies.
The second thing is - was it even to remove a despot? The arguement was always along the lines of WMD or terrorism... it was never about simply removing Saddam. Perhaps because, evil as he is/was, if you begin to force your selected leader or form of government upon other countries, you risk contradicting the freedom you claim to represent. Gunboat diplomacy has always been hard to defend, regardless of the target.
Combined that with the above question, it's hard not to see an ulterior motive - oil, strategic positioning against Iran, alternate operating bases to those in Saudi, etc.
The third thing - did this help? Is Iraq safer? Is the world safer? Has this reduced the threat of terrorism, the anti-Western antagonism, or even the suffering of everyday Iraqis? In the former 2, it's no - and the latter is highly subjective and possibly even unanswerable; how many Iraqi deaths would be considered acceptable in this scenario, for example.
The fourth thing - the UN. By taking a unilateral action, the worlds only organization set up as a global talking shop, to avoid conflicts and try and ensure freedom for all (a possibly unobtainable aim) has been severely damaged - possibly irrecoverably. Not only does this mean the US can act with relative impunity, it means other nations can do so by following their example. China or Russia, perhaps.
In general, the concern is whether the US is doing these things for the benefit of humanity as a whole, or it's own. Most evidence would indicate the latter; particularly the infamous 'project for a new American century' or whatever it was called. I find war hard to view as an altruistic act on any circumstances where it is not in response to a direct attack.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, the first thing is - why this despot? Why Iraq? There's no shortage of them, after all - some are even the US' allies.
The second thing is - was it even to remove a despot? The arguement was always along the lines of WMD or terrorism... it was never about simply removing Saddam. Perhaps because, evil as he is/was, if you begin to force your selected leader or form of government upon other countries, you risk contradicting the freedom you claim to represent. Gunboat diplomacy has always been hard to defend, regardless of the target.
Combined that with the above question, it's hard not to see an ulterior motive - oil, strategic positioning against Iran, alternate operating bases to those in Saudi, etc.
The third thing - did this help? Is Iraq safer? Is the world safer? Has this reduced the threat of terrorism, the anti-Western antagonism, or even the suffering of everyday Iraqis? In the former 2, it's no - and the latter is highly subjective and possibly even unanswerable; how many Iraqi deaths would be considered acceptable in this scenario, for example.
The fourth thing - the UN. By taking a unilateral action, the worlds only organization set up as a global talking shop, to avoid conflicts and try and ensure freedom for all (a possibly unobtainable aim) has been severely damaged - possibly irrecoverably. Not only does this mean the US can act with relative impunity, it means other nations can do so by following their example. China or Russia, perhaps.
In general, the concern is whether the US is doing these things for the benefit of humanity as a whole, or it's own. Most evidence would indicate the latter; particularly the infamous 'project for a new American century' or whatever it was called. I find war hard to view as an altruistic act on any circumstances where it is not in response to a direct attack.
All good and valid points, as well as important flaws in the US's campiagns, and are also some of the reasons I dont support the campaign itself. I was more referring to Karajoma's post where he stated that the US was worse than Saddam. Regardless of the reason of invasion, the Iraqies are, in the long run at least, better off in US forces than that of Saddam's. However, its not an excuse to conduct an invasion at all, as the US has so proven.....
-
Read my post again Singh. I didn't say that the US was worse that Saddam. I said that if they did what Lib was suggesting they would be worse than Saddam.
In principle I support the idea of removing tin pot dictators. My problem with the war is that I doubt the ability of Britain and America to do it right.
Either way so far I'm not going to say whether Iraq is better or worse off than it used to be. Some things have improved while others have gotten worse.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Read my post again Singh. I didn't say that the US was worse that Saddam. I said that if they did what Lib was suggesting they would be worse than Saddam.
I think that's spot on; what distinguishes the worst dictators, IMO, is that they are not concerned with the cost of innocent lives it takes to remove their enemies (actual or perceived), nor the political fallout of said deaths.
-
I would like to ask a question, and I will do it is as unexplosive a way as possible.
Which shall it be?
1)America is to use her status as a "super-power" for the betterment of the world.
OR
2)America doesn't do a damn thing.
Case 1)America does something and automatically it is assumed that they are worse than leaving things as they were.
Case 2)America is bad mouthed and touted as 'not caring enough' and not doing enough.
Which shall it be, gentlemen? Because quite obviously there is no middle ground and frankly I'm tired of America not being able to win.
-
I would prefer #2, America doesn't do a damn thing. Sure, most people will talk about Rwanda and all that, but honestly, people die all the time. So a million people were killed. Welcome to Africa. Civil wars, starvation, tribal killings. The whole continent is, frankly, a shithole. Tribal massacres are the status quo, so there's no use pretending that Rwanda was unique and horrible. Read this ("http://www.exile.ru/2005-June-17/war_nerd.html"), and tell me I'm wrong.
.
The choice is either to respect national sovereignty, and let a few people be killed here and there, or legitimize the concept of intervetionism, and return to the days of might makes right. I'm too cynical to believe that the idea of "humanitarian intervention" will not be abused and misused to serve the political agendas of those with influence enough to declare a "crisis" at will. They have in the past, and I have no reason to believe that anything has changed. In the long run, I believe it's more important to retain what is left of a nation's right to conduct it's own affairs as it sees fit, no matter how bloody they may be, than to throw sovereignty to the wind in a useless effort to save those who are going to die anyway, it's just a matter of whether it's the neighboring tribe, AIDS, starvation or the regularly scheduled civil war and/or coup d'etat.
-
You know, every so often I start liking the Americans. I like a lot of you here on HLP. I like a lot of the ones who've come over and spent a semester on student exchange over here. I like my flatmate.
And then I read stuff like this thread and realize that for every sane, sensible, funny guy/girl I meet, there're half a dozen Liberators out there who want to bomb the Arabs out of existence because it's good for Uncle Sam.
Thanks Lib - you've restored my mind to it's natural state.
-
...and return to the days of might makes right.
Return? When did humans leave those days? I must have missed that in the history books.
[Ford's opinion]When we take a step back, what the hell is the difference anyway? You're essentially arguing between people killing each other and nations of people killing each other, and since people who disagree tend to form their own nations anyway, it's all just an endless joke with no punchline.[/Ford's opinion]
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I would like to ask a question, and I will do it is as unexplosive a way as possible.
Which shall it be?
1)America is to use her status as a "super-power" for the betterment of the world.
You don't make the world a better place by attacking countries alone, unsporrted, under lies and false pretenses, and then torture it's population.
See, Lib, I'm a patriot too. I love America. But the thing that makes me different, and indeed, a better servant of my country, is that I allow myself to question the actions of said country. If everyone blindly followed anything, be it ideals, their country, their religion, or even their own impulses, then they would be doing more harm than good - you never, ever follow something blindly. You must question things to improve things. If we never question America, and assume that whatever she does is right, then when she finally does something wrong (and she will, Liberator - we are mortals led by mortals), then no one will be there to stop her, and correct her. America, indeed, all countries and peoples of the world, are children needing guidance. If you do not provide this guidance, then they will never learn and improve. If they never learn and improve, then they can only get worse. And when a super power such as America gets worse, the world gets worse.
Yes, we are a powerful nation, and yes, I believe we are the greatest nation to ever walk the Earth, but unlike you, I believe that we can do wrong. You can think that you're as right as your Christian God, but when it comes right down to it, the mind that guides your body and actions is simply reacting to mortal concerns, and therefore suspectable to mortal complications.
You must question to make better. You must make better to survive.
-
Alright, I should have worder that better. I meant return to the days when a might makes right approach to international affairs was seen as legitimate. In theory, the UN is supposed to settle these sorts of things, and for the most part they are seen by the world as a credible organization for that task. But increasingly, powerful nations (this includes the "doves" France and Germany, the US, the EU, Russia and others) give themselves the authority to intervene in the issues of other nations at will, and try to pass the whole thing of as right an proper. Observe the occupations in Haiti, Kosovo etc, as well as the mentality of interventionism prevalent among the politicians of these nations, and to an extent among the populace as well.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, I should have worder that better. I meant return to the days when a might makes right approach to international affairs was seen as legitimate. In theory, the UN is supposed to settle these sorts of things, and for the most part they are seen by the world as a credible organization for that task. But increasingly, powerful nations (this includes the "doves" France and Germany, the US, the EU, Russia and others) give themselves the authority to intervene in the issues of other nations at will, and try to pass the whole thing of as right an proper. Observe the occupations in Haiti, Kosovo etc, as well as the mentality of interventionism prevalent among the politicians of these nations, and to an extent among the populace as well.
Now consider the ridiculously short amount of time for which the UN has existed, and how little time it took for "might makes right" to work its way back into the general mentality. This is because [booming voice of god] we are always the same, no matter what organizations we create to pretend otherwise.
But hey, better to try than to accept it, I suppose.
-
I disagree. I think that eventually we may be able to make a functioning society that will stand in place for at least two hundred years. Look at America - it's been about that long before we started to really fall.
But with enough regulation and checks and balance, things like freedom and prosperity can be extended.
And when that ends, there will always be a resistance, to the end of time, people will resist tyranny. It doesn't matter if they win or lose, there will always be the good and the bad, and both sides will be constantly fighting. It's the embodiment of human nature to fight for our beliefs, and since those will always differ from others, we will always fight.
-
200 years? Big whoop. As you said, America has already managed that. The structure of our government has succeeded in stalling the human animal, but even in American history, you can see how hopelessly delicate the balance is between tyranny and liberty, right back to the Alien and Sedition Acts. You're certainly right that our lot in life is to fight. I don't know about you, but I find that rather depressing if I think about it for any length of time. That's what's so hideous about it all; if we all agree on everything, the individual is dead. But if we allow ourselves to be different, we're doomed to suffer at the hands of one another.
If there were a god I would kick it in the nuts.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
1)America is to use her status as a "super-power" for the betterment of the world.
You think killing everyone in the Sunni Triangle would make the world a better place?
It might be a good idea to remember that it's Americas previous attempts to make the world a better place that resulted in Saddam being in power in the first place.
Same for Bin Laden and the same for Iran.
So no I don't think America should try to make the world a better place. It's patently obvious that it's not very good at it.
-
2)America doesn't do a damn thing.
Case 1)America does something and automatically it is assumed that they are worse than leaving things as they were.
America doesn't do a damn thing about a lot of bad regimes. In fact, the US has a history of propping up bad regimes.
Iran used to have a democracy, but the US overthrew that democracy and installed the Shah.
After Vietnam invaded Combodia and kicked out Pol Pot's COMMUNIST regime, guess who the US supportted and sheltered? The reminants of Pol Pot's COMMUNIST regime.
1)America is to use her status as a "super-power" for the betterment of the world.
That would be nice if it actually did use its super-power status for the betterment of the world, but it rarely does.
Well, the first thing is - why this despot? Why Iraq?
Read that article that I posted the other day and all will be revealed. I'm serious.
Errmm....Saddam was a despot, a particularly evil one at that. While I don't support the US invasion, his deposition is by far worse than any of what America has done so far.
You're forgetting that Saddam was merely a puppet of america for many years. When he gassed the Kurds, america thought it was ok, because he was a "good" evil dictator. It wasn't until he decided that he didn't want to merely be a puppet that america removed the "good" part of ""good" evil dictator.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I would like to ask a question, and I will do it is as unexplosive a way as possible.
Which shall it be?
1)America is to use her status as a "super-power" for the betterment of the world.
OR
2)America doesn't do a damn thing.
Case 1)America does something and automatically it is assumed that they are worse than leaving things as they were.
Case 2)America is bad mouthed and touted as 'not caring enough' and not doing enough.
Which shall it be, gentlemen? Because quite obviously there is no middle ground and frankly I'm tired of America not being able to win.
2/
Because the US doesn't do things "for the betterment of the world". It does things for the betterment of (the people in charge of) the US. That's all any country does; the difference between the US and, for example, the UK is that we don't have the capability to force our viewpoint upon any country in the world, and the US can and does try to.
You want the US to be the worlds policeman, yet it ignores and wilfully damages the only institution set up to provide international law by consensus.
If the US wishes to be looked at as a caring country, how about - for example - making that 0.7% recommended GDP target for aid (without strings attached to the governments foreign and moral policy; i.e. not restricting Aids assistance) - that wouldn't only be a massive hike in what is paid, but set an example to almost every country in the world (AFAIK it's only a few of the Scandinavians who meet that target). i.e. genuine help, not gunboat diplomacy masquerading as help.
(NB: not using the term America, because it apparently pisses off the rest of the people living on those 2 continents)