Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kellan on June 14, 2002, 02:15:26 pm
-
I know this is OT, and I'm infecting HLP with my politics again (pah), but I thought it was interesting...
Note: It's long, but it gets taken down from the site I got it from tomorrow so I had to copy it all.
===
Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression. The signers of this statement call on the people of the US to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11 and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world.
We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers. We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the US government should have the same rights of due process. We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for.
We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do - we must first of all oppose the injustice that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to resist the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world.
We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage - even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.
But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of "good v evil" that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home.
In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq - a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the US government has a blank cheque to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?
In our name the government has created two classes of people within the US: those to whom the basic rights of the US legal system are at least promised, and those who now seem to have no rights at all. The government rounded up more than 1,000 immigrants and detained them in secret and indefinitely. Hundreds have been deported and hundreds of others still languish today in prison. For the first time in decades, immigration procedures single out certain nationalities for unequal treatment.
In our name, the government has brought down a pall of repression over society. The president's spokesperson warns people to "watch what they say". Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed. The so-called Patriot Act - along with a host of similar measures on the state level - gives police sweeping new powers of search and seizure, supervised, if at all, by secret proceedings before secret courts.
In our name, the executive has steadily usurped the roles and functions of the other branches of government. Military tribunals with lax rules of evidence and no right to appeal to the regular courts are put in place by executive order. Groups are declared "terrorist" at the stroke of a presidential pen.
We must take the highest officers of the land seriously when they talk of a war that will last a generation and when they speak of a new domestic order. We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights.
There is a deadly trajectory to the events of the past months that must be seen for what it is and resisted. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist. President Bush has declared: "You're either with us or against us." Here is our answer: We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. We say not in our name. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed.
We who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together to rise to this challenge. We applaud and support the questioning and protest now going on, even as we recognise the need for much, much more to actually stop this juggernaut. We draw inspiration from the Israeli reservists who, at great personal risk, declare "there is a limit" and refuse to serve in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
We draw on the many examples of resistance and conscience from the past of the US: from those who fought slavery with rebellions and the underground railroad, to those who defied the Vietnam war by refusing orders, resisting the draft, and standing in solidarity with resisters. Let us not allow the watching world to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.
From:
Michael Albert
Laurie Anderson
Edward Asner, actor
Russell Banks, writer
Rosalyn Baxandall, historian
Jessica Blank, actor/playwright
Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange
William Blum, author
Theresa Bonpane, executive director, Office of the Americas
Blase Bonpane, director, Office of the Americas
Fr Bob Bossie, SCJ
Leslie Cagan
Henry Chalfant,author/filmmaker
Bell Chevigny, writer
Paul Chevigny, professor of law, NYU
Noam Chomsky
Stephanie Coontz, historian, Evergreen State College
Kia Corthron, playwright
Kevin Danaher, Global Exchange
Ossie Davis
Mos Def
Carol Downer, board of directors, Chico (CA) Feminist Women's Health Centre
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, professor, California State University, Hayward
Eve Ensler
Leo Estrada, UCLA professor, Urban Planning
John Gillis, writer, professor of history, Rutgers
Jeremy Matthew Glick, editor of Another World Is Possible
Suheir Hammad, writer
David Harvey, distinguished professor of anthropology, CUNY Graduate Centre
Rakaa Iriscience, hip hop artist
Erik Jensen, actor/playwright
Casey Kasem
Robin DG Kelly
Martin Luther King III, president, Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Barbara Kingsolver
C Clark Kissinger, Refuse & Resist!
Jodie Kliman, psychologist
Yuri Kochiyama, activist
Annisette & Thomas Koppel, singers/composers
Tony Kushner
James Lafferty, executive director, National Lawyers Guild/LA
Ray Laforest, Haiti Support Network
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, Tikkun magazine
Barbara Lubin, Middle East Childrens Alliance
Staughton Lynd
Anuradha Mittal, co-director, Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First
Malaquias Montoya, visual artist
Robert Nichols, writer
Rev E Randall Osburn, executive vice president, Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Grace Paley
Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter
Jerry Quickley, poet
Juan Gumez Quiones, historian, UCLA
Michael Ratner, president, Centre for Constitutional Rights
David Riker, filmmaker
Boots Riley, hip hop artist, The Coup
Edward Said
John J Simon, writer, editor
Starhawk
Michael Steven Smith, National Lawyers Guild/NY
Bob Stein, publisher
Gloria Steinem
Alice Walker
Naomi Wallace, playwright
Rev George Webber, president emeritus, NY Theological Seminary
Leonard Weinglass, attorney
John Edgar Wideman
Saul Williams, spoken word artist
Howard Zinn, historian
Contact the Not In Our Name statement
[email protected]
-
Actually Iraq has connections with Osama Bin ladens terrorist organistation, not to mention it stockpiles biological,chemical and is attempting to produce nukes, the sooner Sadamn is removed the better. If American could put its Military forces where it wants and root out terrorism of all kinds, the world would become a much safer place. Also whats this stupidy about a war without limit? The war is on terrorism, the largest growing threat to the world and states such as Iran(who support Palastinian terrorist groups) and Iraq(who obtain weapons of mass destruction and have links to terrorist groups) must be dealt with.
-
Uh oh, here we go again.... :rolleyes:
Okay, prove to me that Saddam still has the capability to attack the West with NBCs. You know as well as I that the bilogical weapons he purchased second-hand before 1992 have a use-by date on them - one that has passed. I know this doesn't necessarily mean that they won't go off, but they won't necessarily. In addition he did go through a period of compliance with UN weapons inspections because the UN and member nations' embargo on trade was so stiflying overarching that a million children died because they didn't get medicine which "could be used as a chemical weapon" or some nonsense.
The fact that I accept is that it would be easy for Saddam to get NBC weapons, so embargoes are demonstrably useless. They just hurt his people, not him, as I'm sure he lives on black market goods in the lap of luxury. I'm sure that this will make the Iraqi people hate Saddam, not the West (who are attacking the civilians for no perceptible reason) and they'll overthrow him and welcome America with open arms. Yeah, maybe I should turn my sacasm tag off, too... :p
The other thing that you fail to mention is that Iraq's supposed conncetions with an al-Qaida operative are rumours, as are the assertions that "he has weapons and will kill us alllllll!!! He's eeeevillll!.
Face it, Irag is a regional power, and never really has been anything else. Saddam only ever had the capacity to attack Israel, which I'm not saying is right but is hardly 'threatening the globe'. In addition he has a position and a country which I'm sure he's keen to hold onto - he's not al-Qaida, with no country and nothing to defend - he's just another in the long line of dictators who bluster a lot but don't actually act much.
Sure he's a nasty regional dictator, but maybe it's not the role of the West to see a government it doesn't like and turn on the 'kill' button just because its interests don't coincide with ours. For an example, look at globe-threatening Cuba. :)
---
As for the "unlimited war" I think you will find on closer inspection that the potential for war is in fact unlimited. First, rather than pursue the terrorists who planned and carried out the WTC attacks the US went for a country that couldn't control who went in and out of its borders (although I know they were allied, they were hardly the masters of the universe. Fair enough to attack them, I guess). However, if you look at the new fronts on The War Against Terrorism (acronymise it :D) you'll see that it's now opening up not into a war against the terrorists who did or could do a September 11th, but anyone that Bush doesn't like.
For example, countries include in the latest "spindle of atrocity" are: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Somalia and Syria. Tell me that all of those are involved in attacks on America and I'll believe you.
It's rather more the case that the US is using what mandate it seems to have been given by the world following 9/11 to press its interests in countires by preventing Islamist regimes from forming (which are natuarally anti-commericialist) and doing away with countries it has a grude with, such as Cuba and Iraq.
---
I am open to the changing of my mind, though this combative post may not seem that way, IF there is relatively independent and/or well-verified evidence. However, until then I remain in support of the protest letter above.
-
I cant prove to you. Im not in a position to have access to Military data regarding then activities of Iraq, but the mere fact UN weapons Inspectors arent allowed into the country proves he has something to hide. The sanctions are to reduce his ability to maintain a Military force and the No-fly zone to prevent him from bombing his own people. Sadamn isnt just attack Israel, he invaded Kuwait and if that insane git gets nuclear weapons, he'll use them and even if he only has the capacity to attack Israel, does that really change anything? We should act to save any country that is threatened, just because they may not share our nationality doesnt mean who shouldnt help them. The War on terrorism isnt limited to those who attacked American because American wants to rid the world of Terrorism! It doesnt matter whether these terrorists were involved in September 11th or not, they should be hunted down and stopped anyway. Until Islamic Jihad and other Palastinian terrorist groups are stopped, Iraelies wont be able to walk the streets safely. Sadamn if he gains access to weapons of mass destruction and if he is allowed to develop them will threaten the world, i may not have the proof but my Government sure does, they wouldnt be willing to send Soldiers to fight a war without proof. They just cant hand it out willy nilly as the information game must be played. Also the west is attacking civilians at all. Sadamn can sell oil for medical supplies and food whenever he wants, its just he chooses to let his people starve and spend what little money he gets on weapons. There were people protesting about Afganistan, because they didnt see the big picture. All they saw was "war" and thought 'oh dear cant have that', yet through that conflict the people of Afganistan were set free, able to play music in the streets. Once Iraq ability to produce weapons of mass destruction is eliminated(or Saddamn allows UN Weapons Inspectors back in)the world will be safer than it was.
-
So America are going to end world terrorism eh? So they're going to send in troops to wipe them out, eh? Tell it to Ireland. So America are going to drop marines into the nightmarish battlefields of Dublin? :lol:. Troops have been in Ireland for many decades now yet you'll still get IRA splinter groups blowing things up. Ever wonder why the reports from Afghanistan died down? Because the marines can't find the Afghans. They've even had to resort to reporting bad news which is completely screwing with their propaganda plans. Face it do0d, America should never have started the war, they'll never get Bin Laden and they sure as hell aren't going to win.
I bet you, 2 years from now there's a report on how heroic Marines stormed the caves and captured Bin Laden, but unfortunately there won't be any footage due to security concerns. Then another 5 years will roll by and you'll be hearing about how religious fanaticism is on the increase then BAM, Taliban back in power.
-
American freed to the people of Afganistan, im sure they are thankful of that.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
American freed to the people of Afganistan, im sure they are thankful of that.
And who ****ed up the country in the first place?
-
Prepare for this thread to be 0wnT. It is inevitable. It is your destiny.
-
Well the Religion thread didn't get owned and this is no worse than that.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And who ****ed up the country in the first place?
The Soviet Union by invading and occupying the country :p
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I cant prove to you. Im not in a position to have access to Military data regarding then activities of Iraq, but the mere fact UN weapons Inspectors arent allowed into the country proves he has something to hide
maybe, just maybe if the US did stick its nose in where it didnt belong, problems of the past wouldn't be biting our ass right now. If the US hadnt given Saddam Hussein weapons to fight Iran because we didn't like who was in control of Iran, because we backed a military coup(or assassination, i dont remember), and the Iranians found out and we're too happy with what we were doing(figure that, ungrateful Iranians), we wouldnt be in this mess. And if you're not convinced, lets try another example. In the 1970's the soviets tried to invade AFGANISTAN. This was during the cold war, so anything the Evil Empire did, it was our DUTY to counteract it. So we armed the mujahadeen to fight the soviets. Guess who some of the mujahadeen became. That's right, The TALIBAN. Go figure.
When we mind our business, other people will leave us alone. And dont bring up that we go in to free people blah blah blah BS. When the massacres were happening in Rwanda, the US said it wasnt their problem. We only intervene if we have something to gain from it. Once we get what we want, we pull out, and if all hell breaks loose, we don't care. And thats one reason why nobody likes us.
-
Bah, that appears to be written by some of these ultrapacifistic moralist fools. They give some evidence, but take a lot of other stuff for granted, which is no way to construct a logic argument; I agree with some of their implications but not others. The US certainly did a lot of very stupid things in the past that were detrimental to its own long-term interest, but at least it is trying to correct some of the mistakes now. Some parts of that article look like they came straight from Chomsky himself. :p :D
We only intervene if we have something to gain from it. Once we get what we want, we pull out, and if all hell breaks loose, we don't care.
Exactly. That is what every country does, as well they should. Remember that societies operate on completely different principles than do individuals.
-
Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression.
You're absolutely right. The people of the United States did NOT do nothing when their government declared without limit.
The people of our precious little Republic (yeah, not a 'Democracy', a REPUBLIC) CHEERED THEM ON. Did you miss that part? Where were you and your cosignees in November, December, January, February and March when these decisions were made, and these measures passed? Most likely, many of them, maybe even you, were in the 'cheered them on' camp back then. Even if not, there weren't enough of you, or you didn't speak loud or well enough to cut through the mob mentality and make the rest of your fellow citizens see reason.
The spear got cast to the cheers of an angry, stupid polulous. You don't get to unthrow it. The whole thing is destined to be screwed up and leave us with a legacy of old soldiers (those who survive) with broken hearts and minds, and a new generation of the public that hates its government, its military and its self.
[edit]
This actually came out a lot more angry than it was intended.
[/edit]
-
In addition he did go through a period of compliance with UN weapons inspections because the UN and member nations' embargo on trade was so stiflying overarching that a million children died because they didn't get medicine which "could be used as a chemical weapon" or some nonsense.
Partly because the food supplies were redirected, captured, impounded, and generally messed up by that countries own government. Plenty of aid workers will tell you that. I'm pretty sure the Iraqi government can blame itself for sending food away from its starving populace and into the hands of the few with power.
Such is the nature of politics, of backstabing, of general inhumanity, and the idiocy of the world.
-
I'll admit it. I don't like Bush (not that that's any big revelation to those of you who know me). And I don't like war, any war, not even this one. But I support SOME of the measures that have been taken to wage this war, namely sending the troops to Afganistan. Other measures, like expanding the FBI's police powers and trimming down civil rights, I am deeply ambivalent about.
All I know is this: Osama bin Laden started this war when he murdered 3000 people on 9/11. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING the U.S. has done in the past, not arming the Taliban mujaheddin (Afghan soldiers who fought against Soviet invasion), not propping up Arab regimes to gain allies in the Middle east, not our support of Israel, NOTHING justifies the murder of three thousand innocent Americans. Anyone who says America deserved what it got on 9/11 is a fool, a liar, a hypocrite and a moron.
We'll win this war. Of that I have absolutely no doubt. Osama bin Laddie may run and hide for years. Maybe, just maybe, he'll never be captured. But I know for sure that he can never destroy America. He can hurt us, even kill thousands more of us, but he will NEVER defeat us.
As for the above letter and its signatories, I can fully understand their misgivings about giving the government great power that can all too easily be abused. I may not agree with them all the time or even some of the time, but I still respect them as fellow patriots. It's because of them that possible government abuse of power will be noticed and rectified. If we're really lucky, their exhortations to be careful with these newly given power might even prevent such abuses.
Remember that Jose Pasandra dude, the Hispanic who was arrested a month ago for planning to blow up a dirty bomb? He's an American citizen and he's already been transferred to a military court and being held as an "enemy combatant," something Bush said would never happen to an American citizen! I hate the Taliban and the other Muslim militants who want to destroy us, but I don't trust Bush either.
Go figure.
All I know for sure is that we'll win. Because losing this war is NOT an option.
-
"Remember that Jose Pasandra dude, the Hispanic who was arrested a month ago for planning to blow up a dirty bomb? He's an American citizen and he's already been transferred to a military court and being held as an "enemy combatant," something Bush said would never happen to an American citizen! "
If you inlist in a foreign army currently engaged in hostilities against America, you lose you're citizenship,
So the moral of this lesson is, don't plan to render a section of suburbia a radioactive wasteland for the next ten thousand years, or you risk facing the military courts
As for the "America shouldn't be running around killing people", that is much like the **** of a bull
If anything we should be bombing more, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, supporting this **** should feel our wrath like the Japanese did, all it takes is a few megatons and they'll fall right in line
As for the rest of you, name you're country and I'll tell you who we saved you're asses from, with our frig'n gung-ho wild west cowboy aditude
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
All I know is this: Osama bin Laden started this war when he murdered 3000 people on 9/11. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING the U.S. has done in the past, not arming the Taliban mujaheddin (Afghan soldiers who fought against Soviet invasion), not propping up Arab regimes to gain allies in the Middle east, not our support of Israel, NOTHING justifies the murder of three thousand innocent Americans. Anyone who says America deserved what it got on 9/11 is a fool, a liar, a hypocrite and a moron.
Nobody here ever said that you could justify the murders of 3000 people of any nationality, for any reason at all. You can, however try to explain it. I'm sure that you con understand why the people who did this felt this way, and even though the methods are repulsive, the warped logic working behind them can't be denied. Besides, to do so would be dangerous - 'know your enemy' and so on.
Understanding why this was done is part of the key to preventing it from happening again, IMO. I've no doubt that America will win - they can't not, as the WTC attacks were the kind of attack a losing side makes anyway. However, it's only a matter of time before al-Qaida people or other groups make another attack as things stand. By changing the conditions in which terrorism breeds we can perhaps reduce its future occurence.
---
Bobboau: you seem angry. Take a pill. Relax. ;)
Oh, and as for 'saving your asses' and the "you'd be speaking German now..." thing, it's just not true. The USSR won the Second World War for us, we just made it a lot easier for them with the D-Day landings. Germany had lost by the time their offensive stalled in Russia, and they knew it.
-
Overall in this thread, my stance agrees with that of Kellan's.
One word of comment:
"My nation right or wrong. When right keep it right, when wrong make it right."
My stance on patriotism is the exact same as on religion, preach all you wish in the end you are judged on the actions you take as an individual, not on what you speak.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Overall in this thread, my stance agrees with that of Kellan's.
One word of comment:
"My nation right or wrong. When right keep it right, when wrong make it right."
My stance on patriotism is the exact same as on religion, preach all you wish in the end you are judged on the actions you take as an individual, not on what you speak.
Whee! I have a friend! :D
I'm not an "ultrapacifistic moralist fool" to quote CP, but I do think countries on the whole are irresponsible as outlined further up the thread. I just oppose hipocrisy, and pre 9/11 the Americans were only interested in terrorism and cruelty against their own people, not others.
I'm not particularly anti-American because most other Western Allies are to blame, they just make an interestingly current case study. Besides, Britain did a LOT wrong in the past, and I can admit that. They still do wrong now.
-
The US. a democracy :rolleyes: Pah! Although I admit that the UK is not that much better. For Example, a lot of the allegations against Saddam Hussain are over exagerated or just outright made up (Tony Blair said Iraq was selling weapons of mass destruction to terrorists but the Intelligence service later confirmed there was no evidence of it at all, but that's to be expected of someone with his political stance who's leader of the Labour Party (the UK's main socialist party)). .....and as for Cuba, well. It's laughable that Cuba is condemed so heavily yet the same politicians that condem it sit down and Banquet with the house of Saud, which is in some ways worse than Saddam's regieme. Anyone remember the 15 girls who died because the Saudi religious police wouldn't let them out of their burning school because they weren't wearing the Hijab.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"Remember that Jose Pasandra dude, the Hispanic who was arrested a month ago for planning to blow up a dirty bomb? He's an American citizen and he's already been transferred to a military court and being held as an "enemy combatant," something Bush said would never happen to an American citizen! "
If you inlist in a foreign army currently engaged in hostilities against America, you lose you're citizenship,
So the moral of this lesson is, don't plan to render a section of suburbia a radioactive wasteland for the next ten thousand years, or you risk facing the military courts
As for the "America shouldn't be running around killing people", that is much like the **** of a bull
If anything we should be bombing more, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, supporting this **** should feel our wrath like the Japanese did, all it takes is a few megatons and they'll fall right in line
As for the rest of you, name you're country and I'll tell you who we saved you're asses from, with our frig'n gung-ho wild west cowboy aditude
Yep i agree with all of that, nuclear weapons are a bit too much through, conventional weapons would be just fine.
Al Qauda just werent planning to hit American either, they were going to hit Big Pen and the House of Commons as well, but lucky we shut down all the airports stopping them.
(also no one saved Britain from anything, we beat the Germans in the Battle of Britain).
-
The way things are going in the UK I'd plan to hit the house of commons.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
As for the "America shouldn't be running around killing people", that is much like the **** of a bull
If anything we should be bombing more, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, supporting this **** should feel our wrath like the Japanese did, all it takes is a few megatons and they'll fall right in line
As for the rest of you, name you're country and I'll tell you who we saved you're asses from, with our frig'n gung-ho wild west cowboy aditude
So if I would say that I am against USA's attacks on those countries and if I would say that I hate the war that America fights, then my country should be bombed to death. Then, you my friend are an imbicile. :rolleyes:
Sure, it isn't a big problem to bomb something. USA has who knows how man nuclear warheads that can destroy a nation and kill not thousonds, nor millions, but billions and later when that happens, Bush or another american president would say that they destroyed a nation for democratic reasons and in effort to stop terrorism. Now that we are talking about terrorism, you may know what happened on Kosovo from 1997 to 1999 and that Yugoslavia was bombed for something we didn't even do. And to talk about things that USA violated when they commited this cowerdly, grousom and terrorist act, well I can find you pages and pages of material to read. And of course, USA just had to act to show off their power even though they didn't have a single clue what was really going on. They took satelite pictures, added some things on them, altered them a bit and said that Serbian police was killing masses of people on Kosovo. And what about Albanian terrorists. They killed about a hundred times greater number. Of course, I don't say that Slobodan Milosevic is a good guy, on the contrary he is evil. He made Serbia suffer for 10 years, he robbed us, but he didn't attack any other nation during that conflict.
But, now to return to america.
By attacking Yugoslavia NATO violated the following:
- United Nation Statute by attacking FRY without any UN resolution allowing them to use force. Further more Yugoslavia didn't attack any other country.
- NATO Founding Act that states NATO mission is protection of member countries. No country was under attack by Yugoslavia. In fact, Yugoslavia through it's history always fought the war where it deffended it self. Which is also the case in 1999.
- Wienna Convention forbidding one state to use military force to compel other state to sign an international agreement.
Of course, when NATO attacked yugoslavia, they disregarded these treties and conventions and made out that USA can attack any country at any time. And this is democracy? Please! :doubt:
Now, what am I trying to say is that America is and has been absolutely unfair to the world. 11.9 was a tragedy. I felt sorry for the people that died, but I doubt that any american was actually against USA's attacks on Afghanistan and YU.
And I agree with Top Gun's statement. USA is NO democracy. Killing millions is cruel and more Nazi than democratic. I say that Americans should stand up against their cruel government. This has to be putted to an end.
-
the US has been acting the superhero ever since the end of WWII -
policy of containment?
Why bother containing communism (not to mention their own system seems to be going seriously off the rails in the past ten years)?
The simple fact is that the US has reached such a height of utter hubris they beleive they can now do no wrong - which in the larger scheme of things is sortof correct considering they can bully anyone who complains into silence.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
the US has been acting the superhero ever since the end of WWII -
policy of containment?
Why bother containing communism (not to mention their own system seems to be going seriously off the rails in the past ten years)?
The simple fact is that the US has reached such a height of utter hubris they beleive they can now do no wrong - which in the larger scheme of things is sortof correct considering they can bully anyone who complains into silence.
Well, maybe they can bully a small country, but they can't bully the world with the other 6 billion people. They would loose. :D
-
And there's probably a reason why they leverage their currently superior economic position for instance to stop Europe consolidating into a federal govornment type - the United States of Europe would certainly be an economic powerhouse if it ever happened.
Which is why it probably won't - too many influential individuals are trying to stop it from ever happening.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Well, maybe they can bully a small country, but they can't bully the world with the other 6 billion people. They would loose. :D
But the world is divided. America has thus ascended to a position where 'it is the world' in foreign policy terms. No government can feasibly pursue an anti-American course and survive.
This sounds bitter, jealous and like blanket condemnation. :o However, the comments of people like mikhael show that (some) American people are just as disgusted with some US actions as foreigners. I have nothing against American people, as I've never met one I didn't like (not having met Rupert Murdoch :D - and I know he's Australian but he's also been naturalized).
-
If you're country is supporting them (them being any group planing a mass murder of our civilian population) then you have already violated NATO treaties by starting a war with us. And to hell with the UN, if we're getting attacked I'm not going to just stand around and watch it happen.
You sound like those people who don't believe the holocaust happened, I know a few people who will disagree with you about what happened in Kosovo, because there husbands and brothers and sons have yet to be found
All the bad things we've done, we have done because some stupid know it all European or liberal told us we had too, to keep alliances so we wouldn't act unilaterally, to save this or that,
And I hope you like the freedom of speech you have because if it wasn't for the "Evil American Nazi Party of Doom" you'd still be under the thumb of the USSR, and before that Hitler, hell you'd (or you're parents) probably have been killed by Hitler if we hadn't stopped him, which none of you European countries (other than England) would have done,
"No he won't invade us because we've got a treaty"
"The USSR won the Second World War for us" no they didn't, but I'm not even going to argue this now, I mean this is just a stupid response, I mean USSR, that isn't much better than the Nazis, and we did beat the USSR.
You may not be a ultrapacifistic moralist fool but who ever wrote that letter is
We have given peace a chance,
It has failed because we are fighting people who want no peace,
Now I say give war a chance,
So we can talk in a language that these bustards can understand.
-
Not again...:rolleyes:
I posted something like this once, about Israel. Bad idea.
A wise man (well, maybe not wise actually) once said Just say NO to politics
:D
A cookie for whoever remembers who said that!
-
:eek:
I'm scared. :sigh:
My issue wasn't really with you not liking the USSR - I don't think anyone who has read 1984 can really like it - but in grouping Communists alongside the Stalinists who controlled the USSR.
Sadly, the USSR might have had more of a chance of giving its people a better quality of life if it hadn't been so obsessed with fighting the US - in arms-race terms. The USSR spent up to 50% of GDP on military spending. Imagine that - the US spending $0.5 trillion on defence would certainly put a dent in the number of shiny consumables that could be made.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Not again...:rolleyes:
I posted something like this once, about Israel. Bad idea.
Yeah, I've been a bad, baad person. I realise my error. :p
Still, saying no to politics is fine until Jean-Marie Le Pen and his cronies say Yes (or "oui") and take control of your country. You'll be screwed then... :nod:
-
Originally posted by Kellan
But the world is divided. America has thus ascended to a position where 'it is the world' in foreign policy terms. No government can feasibly pursue an anti-American course and survive.
Cuba have done quite well. They even made a vaccine for Meningitis.
Originally posted by Bobbau
And I hope you like the freedom of speech you have because if it wasn't for the "Evil American Nazi Party of Doom" you'd still be under the thumb of the USSR, and before that Hitler, hell you'd (or you're parents) probably have been killed by Hitler if we hadn't stopped him, which none of you European countries (other than England) would have done,
That's very spurious reasoning. If Hitler had taken over the world, we'd all be strong, fast, clever and would have freedom of speech because all we would know would be pro-Nazi stuff. And before you get too chuffed with America winning world war two, lets not forget they let millions be slaughtered and only started fighting after they were directly attacked. And the USSR put ever last penny, every last man, every conceivable resource they had into crushing the Nazi's. America only used a fraction of their resources, hardly the behaviour of heroes.
The Nazi regime fell, not through American involvement, all America did was hold them off. They fell because Hitler generals didn't want to fight anymore. Germany was running out of food and money so Hitlers generals stopped having submarines upgraded and relaxed the training of the troops. This allowed Allied troops to eventually beat them.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Yeah, I've been a bad, baad person. I realise my error. :p
Still, saying no to politics is fine until Jean-Marie Le Pen and his cronies say Yes (or "oui") and take control of your country. You'll be screwed then... :nod:
Actually the quote was only directed at no politics in the forums. But do you know who said it? :p
And an0n is right about the USSR in WWII. They practically went broke because of their effort and something around 23 million Soviets died.
-
The sooner we invade Iraq, smash its pitful T-72 and BMPs up and nuke(fiquretively speaking) its ability to perform any sort of research on biological weapons and get rid of Saddamn, the better. Pacifism doesnt work, getting rid of nukes doesnt work, getting rid of evil people by saying, ooh well its not our problem, lets sit here and protest against our government because they dont like Islamic Extremists who blow themselves up doesnt work, shooting the evil people in the head with a M4 Carbine does.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
World War for us" no they didn't, but I'm not even going to argue this now, I mean this is just a stupid response, I mean USSR, that isn't much better than the Nazis, and we did beat the USSR.
Huh?
so who did win the war?
The US certainly didn't do anything except take all the credit at the end (as usual)
My evidence is this : Without the USSR soaking up vast amounts of manpower on the eastern front there would have been...what? three, four times as many german troops manning defenses in France when it came to D-day?
It would have been a total disaster.
Now i freely admit I only studied the second world war and cold war for GCSE history, but the facts probably still remain.
Face it, without your communist ALLIES the US would *possibly* be sitting across from a nuclear-armed Fascist supernation.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
The sooner we invade Iraq, smash its pitful T-72 and BMPs up and nuke(fiquretively speaking) its ability to perform any sort of research on biological weapons and get rid of Saddamn, the better. Pacifism doesnt work, getting rid of nukes doesnt work, getting rid of evil people by saying, ooh well its not our problem, lets sit here and protest against our government because they dont like Islamic Extremists who blow themselves up doesnt work, shooting the evil people in the head with a M4 Carbine does.
You kill them, you make them martyrs. You can't put the fear of death into people who want to die.
The whole point is that attacking Iraq will simply inflame the Arab world - not just by the attacks, but also from the inevitable stationing of US troops in Arab countries. The reason behind September 11 was (along with the insanity of Bin Ladin and other religious dogma) the stationing of Allied trrops in Saudia Arabia - considered sacred soil.
The other thing is that the 'war against terrorism' has yet to do anything to counteract the causes of terrorism - it is far better to focus on stabilising the situation in Israel and in assisiting stuggling arab countries, rather than attacking them.
Remember that Iraq, Iran, etc, have these weapons because of their distrust towards the US, and the non muslim world in general - compounded by the reciprocal hostility. The problem is that Us, and indeed (to a lesser degree) NATO countries seem to reject the forms of life and government in Arab or Communist countries, rather than allowing the people of that country to decide for themselves.
i.e. look at the USSr - it was always fairly free from any real danger of US attac, and eventually democracy came about peacefully.
The more worrying thing is the human rights lapses in the US itself, IMo. Effectively, Habeus Corpus is suspended - any US citizen can be designated an 'unlawful combatant' (or whateve the term is), and held indefinately without trial, or indeed without any evidence being produced agianst them.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
The sooner we invade Iraq, smash its pitful T-72 and BMPs up and nuke(fiquretively speaking) its ability to perform any sort of research on biological weapons and get rid of Saddamn, the better. Pacifism doesnt work, getting rid of nukes doesnt work, getting rid of evil people by saying, ooh well its not our problem, lets sit here and protest against our government because they dont like Islamic Extremists who blow themselves up doesnt work, shooting the evil people in the head with a M4 Carbine does.
Which, although a pitifully simple way of looking at it, also makes you the evil one to them.
Catch -22
-
It's amazing how hypocritical the British and Us governments can get when it suits them. Iraq is far more permissive than any of the other states in that area (exclufding the UAE) and remember who gave them all of the "Weapons of mass destruction". Studies have shown that the Iraqi government has been responsible in distributing food to its population, everting major famine (although they are contested) and there has been NO EVIDENCE TO LINK IRAQ TO TERRORISM.
The war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, it captured a significant number of terrorists (although their treatment has been shocking), gathered vital intelligence and freed the Afghans from the Taliban (which they appeared to appreciate) with minimal casualties. Saddam Hussein's regieme is no Taliban, the Iraqui people have a lot more freedom than many other Arab countries.
Edit: Here's a link (http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=930). The source is obviously Biased against war but it containes refrences to unbiased research.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
If you're country is supporting them (them being any group planing a mass murder of our civilian population) then you have already violated NATO treaties by starting a war with us.
I am a Serb. I lived in Yugoslavia for 15 years before I mooved to Norway two years ago and I saw the suffering of people when nato bombed my country. And no, I don't support terrorism or anything like it. I don't hate American people, I just hate your imperialistic, dictating government and NATO because they ruined my country and left it that way. They even used depleted uranium weapons against us. That is too evil to even comment. Our environment is poluted and our nature almost eradicated thanks to Americans. My country was allready suffering economy crises now it is worse, thanks to Americans again.
Our cultural monuments on Kosovo are on the edges of collapse. Again, thanks to Americans and this time, even thanks to Albanian terrorists. But above all, thousonds of innocent civilians died. NATO also cowerdly tried to stop the truth from reaching the world. They bombed the TV and radio center in Belgrade and destroyed two hospitals in Belgrade. If you don't believe me, go and search the web for truth about your countries true face.
Anyway, our small nation was one of the few that even mannaged to substain the attack of the super force like America. If you weren't cowards like you are and if you would have fought us on the ground ( instead from air and from the safe distance), you would have lost BIG TIME.
-
Razor...I don't think many of us here have gone through what you have and so whatever we can say and debate and argue about definately neglects the fact that none of us were THERE and none of us can really understand what kind of events you went through.
But I go back to my original point. Nobody is on the right anywhere it seems. In that particular situation in Yugoslavia, I'm pretty sure that there was ethnic cleansing (and im not sure if the media blew it out of proportion or tried to quiet it up...the scale is questionable, the act is most likely not - despite media twisting).
Ultimately the people always suffer in the name of something thats supposed to be greater or bigger or better or with larger implications. But also, we always seem to end up with two sides of people....victimized by the other...who then turn around and do it again and again and again to the other in a cycle of violence.
Its a wonder our species has survived as long as we have. Maybe its a miracle. Maybe it means there is a glimmer of hope for us yet.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Its a wonder our species has survived as long as we have. Maybe its a miracle. Maybe it means there is a glimmer of hope for us yet.
And I hope their isn't - any other sentient species in the galaxy wouldn't stand a chance against our agressive nature.
-
Razor: Interesting. As far as I understand the TV Station were run by the government, which at that time was Milocovic (sp?) and what about the genocides committed in Bosnia and Kosovo by people like Arkan, Carradich(sp) and Maladich(sp?). Was that supported by the people of serbia or was it just Milocovic (sp?) that was responsible.
It was touched by the BBC (which is probably the most even handed of all the big media corporations) that when they ran out of military targets to attack, they started to bomb civilian targets, including engineering firms and builders yards, which I wholly disapproved of..
-
How can the BBC be even handed when it's directly controlled and funded by the british govornment?!
-
I'm going to start the practice of "small quoting" from now on. :D
As for the "America shouldn't be running around killing people", that is much like the **** of a bull
If anything we should be bombing more, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, supporting this **** should feel our wrath like the Japanese did, all it takes is a few megatons and they'll fall right in line
I would agree there; the Gandhi approach to these matters is very stupid and impractical. An all-out war is not necessary but sniping out the leaders and high officials in those nations would be beneficial to both the US and the rest of the civilized world in the long run. The social machine must eliminate the elements that pose a threat to the rest of it, and besides, the US is acting in its own long-term interest. Any nation would and should do the same. Pacifism is a good idea in principle but only if everyone in the system works according to it, which is definitely not the case in today's world; fighting violence with nonviolence is a very foolish approach to these things.
During times of national crisis, it is necessary to have strong central authority to prevent internal collapse, so I would, to a certain extent, support some anti-civil rights measures as long as they are given only a temporary effective period. This good/evil distinction that the government is making is just stupid but I think it is quite a clever idea because it is an effective propaganda technique for keeping the masses of people quiet for the most part, who are very ignorant and prone to immediate influence by any simple-sounding idea. (anyone with half a brain should be able to see past it and realize that the concepts of good and evil have no absolute meaning)
The US is obviously not a total democracy, but that is one of the good things about it; a complete democracy would crumble apart in a matter of days, especially during times of crisis when everyone has a different opinion on things and starts making a ruckus over it without considering the practicalities of the situation. Some authority is needed for any large institution to survive during wartime. Also, as mik said earlier, the overwhelming majority of people were quite supportive of these measures, probably including these current dissenters, but the US government has essentially failed in the original objective, so now they are taking fire from a silly, timid public. (although many other important goals were reached in the process) I definitely do not like the reasoning that most of the "warhawks" use to back up their arguments (and the pacifists use the same methods of thought), but I have reached a similar conclusion through a different process.
Regarding things that the US did in the past, I do think that many of them were silly and a useless expenditure of resources, but not because it was "evil" or "immoral" (ask Hitler about that :p) but because it was not in the nation's own interest. However, this "war on terrorism" as a whole or whatever they call it would indeed be a beneficial to the US.
Simply sitting there and doing nothing about it will only serve to encourage the enemy. If the US had simply ignored the event, we would have gotten a repeat of 9/11 in a matter of months. We cannot ever "win" this war as in eliminating these terrorists for good (because they are within our institutions), but we certainly can disrupt their circles of power and keep the pressure going on them. And trying to convince the enemy that they are wrong and continually appeasing them is a very naive and foolish approach to these things; look what happened with Hitler. (yeah, I love giving examples of this guy :D) Defensive security is next to useless here; the civilized world is completely unprepared for these new kinds of attacks, and no amount of security measures is going to put a scratch in the enemy's infiltration plans. It is necessary to strike first, and at the heart of the opposition.
Although I do think that Bush is a real idiot due to his past history and credence. He is doing quite a fine job on this issue but almost anyone in the world could do it just as well; he has a very good cabinet team which probably makes all the important decisions, seeing as Bush is too stupid to understand the details. :p :D
We have given peace a chance,
It has failed because we are fighting people who want no peace,
Now I say give war a chance,
So we can talk in a language that these bustards can understand.
:yes: :yes:
Anyway, our small nation was one of the few that even mannaged to substain the attack of the super force like America. If you weren't cowards like you are and if you would have fought us on the ground ( instead from air and from the safe distance), you would have lost BIG TIME.
This is probably the stupidest set of statements I have seen in this thread. People who cannot keep up with the progressing technology use these excuses to cover up their losses. Of course the US acted like cowards, but that is exactly what anyone with a bit of sense would and should have done. :p
-
Saying that bombing anyone who disagrees with the US will make them fall immediately into line is the most idiotic and naive thing i have ever heard. It is proven that doing that will only encourage further terrorism.
I have no qualms with killing terrorists. I'd love to see them wiped off the face of the earth. but you can't just bomb their sponsors without addressing the causes. and that may mean compromise - accepting that Cuba has every right to exist as a nation, or that maybe it's not a good idea to have US troops on Saudi 'sacred' soil.
It's all about compromises....
For example, afghanistan. US bombs it to crap to flush out the Taleban. fair enough. But if the Us, and indeed the coalition does not work to rebuild and improve the Afghan economy, rebuild the cities and facilities, etc, then it will only become into a breeding ground for resentment, and then further terrorism.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
For example, afghanistan. US bombs it to crap to flush out the Taleban. fair enough. But if the Us, and indeed the coalition does not work to rebuild and improve the Afghan economy, rebuild the cities and facilities, etc, then it will only become into a breeding ground for resentment, and then further terrorism.
:yes:
Originally posted by Bobbau
As for the rest of you, name you're country and I'll tell you who we saved you're asses from, with our frig'n gung-ho wild west cowboy aditude
Finland. You didn't save us, instead , you _helped_ the USSR when they tried to invade Finland during WW2. So :ha:
-
Saying that bombing anyone who disagrees with the US will make them fall immediately into line is the most idiotic and naive thing i have ever heard. It is proven that doing that will only encourage further terrorism.
I am not fully supporting an outright bombing, as that usually involves extra casualties and the original targets end up escaping, but it is definitely a good idea to send in covert commando teams to eliminate key men.
I have no qualms with killing terrorists. I'd love to see them wiped off the face of the earth. but you can't just bomb their sponsors without addressing the causes. and that may mean compromise - accepting that Cuba has every right to exist as a nation, or that maybe it's not a good idea to have US troops on Saudi 'sacred' soil.
That is no excuse for a compromise; this stupid idea of "sacred soil" (or sacred anything, for that matter) must be eliminated from the world once and for all, and besides, those soldiers are there on invitation from the Saudi government. What is the need for a compromise with some tribal terrorist bands when they can be eliminated just as easily? Besides, there is no reason to think that they will stop their "terrorism" once that is done; in fact, all circumstances are pointing directly against it. As I said, before, the appeasement policy is a useless answer to these kinds of problems.
For example, afghanistan. US bombs it to crap to flush out the Taleban. fair enough. But if the Us, and indeed the coalition does not work to rebuild and improve the Afghan economy, rebuild the cities and facilities, etc, then it will only become into a breeding ground for resentment, and then further terrorism.
Yes I agree there, but from what I have been hearing, the US is doing just that.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Razor: Interesting. As far as I understand the TV Station were run by the government, which at that time was Milocovic (sp?) and what about the genocides committed in Bosnia and Kosovo by people like Arkan, Carradich(sp) and Maladich(sp?). Was that supported by the people of serbia or was it just Milocovic (sp?) that was responsible.
It was touched by the BBC (which is probably the most even handed of all the big media corporations) that when they ran out of military targets to attack, they started to bomb civilian targets, including engineering firms and builders yards, which I wholly disapproved of..
No. The TV station was independent and wasn't run by the government. Yes, there were some reporters who were strong in suporting Milosevic, but they didn't run the station. If NATO ran out of military targets, why didn't they just stop the bombing?
The war in Bosnia was a war where all three sides fought. Three sides: Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. Yes Milosevic is to be blamed for the genocide there but he, Arkan and Karadzic are not the only ones to be blamed. There were also other leaders out there (on the two other sides) that commited similar acts. And no, those acts were not supported by Serbs. Nobody wanted the war, especially the civil war.
If some of you want to learn more about these things, visit this page (http://www.warfacts.org.yu/history/) or maybe this (http://www.warfacts.org.yu/history/index.html) may answer some of the questions as well.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
How can the BBC be even handed when it's directly controlled and funded by the british govornment?!
It's funded by a licence fee and although it controlled by the government to some extent (Choice of DGs etc.) It's forced to be apolitical. It's not 100% even handed but a darn sight more so than the corprate owned networks of america.
-
And unfortunately the US gov't is the corporations' b1tch, and the British govornment is the US gov't's b1tch.
And the beeb is the British govornments propaganda tool.
The sheer amount of misinformation on the BBC is astonoshing - as well as some extremely disturbing and important issues that have just been glossed over (the RIP act for one)
-
You want to know what's really pissed me off about the "War on Terror" situation? In the last 12 months we've had 3 major conflicts (or near conflicts) which I can think of off the top of my head - Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan. And, surprise surprise - all three claim to be 'attacking terrorism'. Everyone knows that America has been looking for a way to get the Taliban out of Afghanistan for awhile. If 11/9 hadn't happened, I bet he would have done it anyway some time during his term. Similarly with India and Pakistan, and Israel on Palestine. Now, thanks to Bush, they all know they can do whatever the hell they want without international condemnation, because what's the rest of the world going to do? They just formed a coalition to do "exactly the same thing"!!!
I don't like Bush. I never have. I was really hoping for Al Gore all the way through your messy elections, and I think if he'd gotten in, the world would be a whole lot more peaceful now than it is.
Maybe, since I'm not American, I don't understand how pissed off you guys are at losing all those people. And yes, I do sympathize. But your leaders have screwed things up something cruel, and to top it all off, they're going to ride those same screw ups right back into office, pulled along by a gun happy, vengeful population.
-
Ahh yes the Liberal use of the word "Terrorism" by governments to describe anything they don't like. Since september 11th I've seen Peaceful Protest, Political opposition to abusive acts of congress/Parliament/etc, scrutiny of government policy, satire, copyright infringement, canabis use, encryption, immigration, civil liberties campaigners and people with x religion all denounced as terrorism. Thousands of people died on september 11th and later millions were deprived of the most basic civil liberties. Remember what this "War on terror is supposed to be fighting for".
-
CP: Your comments that 'targeted assassination' (for that is what you propose) would work wonders at eliminating terrorism hold no water when applied to the real world. Let's take an example where, for good or ill a government has ordered targeted assassinations: Israel.
When the Israelis killed the leaders of groups like Islamic Jihad, these same groups just responded with a wave of suicide bombers and the assassination in kind of Rehaim Ze'evi (sp?). This brought about all of the IDF incursions into Palestinian territory, leading to the deaths (accidental or otherwise) of Palestinian civilians.
In turn, the Palestinians attacked Israeli settlements with guns and bombs. And so it goes on and on... :sigh:
These same things have also happened in Colombia, Sri Lanka and other countries. They invariably lead only to an escalating spiral of violence. However, remove the support for terrorists by removing the preconceptions of America (or other nations) being "evil empires" by improving the quality of their lives, and they can no longer "move like fish in the water" among large civilian populations.
Sure there needs to be a stick to temper the carrot and make sure that people go the right way, but it seems to me that we just have a whole lot of sticks at the moment. :p
Oh, and another minor observation: your 'social machine' theory being wheeled out again (:D) seems to suggest that everyone, for some reason or another should die for the good of society. Everyone, that is, except yourself. Would you accept that fate if it improved society, even though you'd be dead and wouldn't give a screw about society (and vice versa)? Or would you behave in the "naturally cowardly" way that you say intelligent people should and duck it?
Just askin'. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I am not fully supporting an outright bombing, as that usually involves extra casualties and the original targets end up escaping, but it is definitely a good idea to send in covert commando teams to eliminate key men.
Yup. :nod:
That is no excuse for a compromise; this stupid idea of "sacred soil" (or sacred anything, for that matter) must be eliminated from the world once and for all, and besides, those soldiers are there on invitation from the Saudi government.
Well, eliminating this 'sacred soil' idea is basically eliminating or alterting the beliefs of a religion or people, which is unacceptable. you cannot try to bend the will of another country or race to suit your own.
Sometimes, you have to do things you don't like for the benefit of others - and it's not the Saudi government, but the Saudi people that are improtant in this situation.
What is the need for a compromise with some tribal terrorist bands when they can be eliminated just as easily? Besides, there is no reason to think that they will stop their "terrorism" once that is done; in fact, all circumstances are pointing directly against it. As I said, before, the appeasement policy is a useless answer to these kinds of problems.
There is no point in killing terrorists if you fail to deal with the conditions that create them (every martyr creates 2 more). In Ireland, for example, terrorism has been drastically reduced as a result of the Good Friday agreement. Granted, it's not eliminated, but the risk has been reduced - and it means there are a lot less terrorists to hunt down.
-
Originally posted by Razor
I am a Serb. I lived in Yugoslavia for 15 years before I mooved to Norway two years ago and I saw the suffering of people when nato bombed my country. And no, I don't support terrorism or anything like it. I don't hate American people, I just hate your imperialistic, dictating government and NATO because they ruined my country and left it that way. They even used depleted uranium weapons against us. That is too evil to even comment. Our environment is poluted and our nature almost eradicated thanks to Americans. My country was allready suffering economy crises now it is worse, thanks to Americans again.
Our cultural monuments on Kosovo are on the edges of collapse. Again, thanks to Americans and this time, even thanks to Albanian terrorists. But above all, thousonds of innocent civilians died. NATO also cowerdly tried to stop the truth from reaching the world. They bombed the TV and radio center in Belgrade and destroyed two hospitals in Belgrade. If you don't believe me, go and search the web for truth about your countries true face.
Anyway, our small nation was one of the few that even mannaged to substain the attack of the super force like America. If you weren't cowards like you are and if you would have fought us on the ground ( instead from air and from the safe distance), you would have lost BIG TIME.
I am a bosnian refugee my self. And i have heard these things before. I fleed to sweden for almost 10 years ago. Razor you are blaming Nato and USA for what they have done to Serbia. But have you ever asked your self what your leaders has done to mine. The serbian troops have destoryed the willage where i have lived and slaughtered countless of lives. I know that there where bosnian leaders that have done the same but it was your former so called leaders that started the war in Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia not mine. If it wasn't for NATO the war vould probably raged on for another 2 or 3 years.
I know AMericans aren't perfect, but at least they were the ones that saved me and my relatives from being killed.
And as for you calling them cowards, i can say that serbs are the ones that were big cowards when they bombarded Sarajevo from the moutains and have their coward snipers kill innocent civilains in the city when they try to get food or what. They are the real cowards. Americans were smart. And i don't think they vould lose against serbian froces in a ground fight. The serbs army just scared, they vould run for thier lives.
-
^ that right there is why we do what we do
-
Maybe so, but what about all of the Saudi people that are forced to live under the stinking regieme of the Al Saud Family? or the many many African countries which are debt ridden and in a far worse situation than any europen or arabic country has ever been in (with the possible exception of Afghanistan)? It's a fact that for every civilian Killed in the Kosovo Conflict, 10 Times the number of Angolans died and 100 times the number of Somalians. Not to mention the bungled way in which the bobming was carried out, which may have been effective against traditional military infrastructure, but didn't effect the Militia and Paramilitary groups operating there in the slightest, on the contrary, it only feueled their hatred towards the local Albanien population making the problem a lot worse. I am not averse to military action where it is required but irresponsible war for war's sake is highly damaging.
-
Originally posted by Windrunner
I am a bosnian refugee my self. And i have heard these things before. I fleed to sweden for almost 10 years ago. Razor you are blaming Nato and USA for what they have done to Serbia. But have you ever asked your self what your leaders has done to mine. The serbian troops have destoryed the willage where i have lived and slaughtered countless of lives. I know that there where bosnian leaders that have done the same but it was your former so called leaders that started the war in Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia not mine. If it wasn't for NATO the war vould probably raged on for another 2 or 3 years.
I know AMericans aren't perfect, but at least they were the ones that saved me and my relatives from being killed.
Well that is all true but you can't say that it was just Slobodan Milosevic who sent troops. And there were also regugees from Bosnia who fled to Serbia. Well of course, they were mostly Bosnian Serbs. And this war was not the will of the people. It was a result of Milosevics wrong politics that caused the war. Of course, noone wanted the war, but what could those poor soldiers have done when our former leader was an idiot. My father was a recruted, but he was a doctor on the field. Thankfully, the Dayton meeting brought peace and stability, but do you think that we deserved that what happened to us in 1999?
Do you think that it were just Serbs that sniped? What about Bosnian Serbs that left And one more thing. Just a little historical reminder. When the Turks invaded Serbia some 500 years ago, we didn't flee or run for our lives. We fought bravely to hold them off. If it wasn't for us, the entire Europe would probably have been occupied by the Ottomans. In the Balkan wars we finally defeated the Turks and with Greeks we freed the Balkan. You know what I am talking about if you remember the Solun front and those battles. In the first World War both our nations fought against Austro Hungary and if you remember well, Serbs and Bosnians fought side by side to hold them off. In the second world war we held off the Nazis and we, along with Greece were the only two countries that didn't accept Hitlers controll on our teritory. I can see that you disregarded all these facts that we mentioned. We were also the part of The Alliance that fought the Nazis. In our history we always fought to PROTECT our country, our culture, our integrity. We never surrendered, we never fled cowardly from battle. We have NEVER attacked another country away from our borders. When Americans attacked us, for the second time, they knew that we would never surrender and they would have known that we would support our leader and our fighters in the time of war. They should also have known our historical background. They even sent us an ultimatun to surrender and allow NATO troops to ocupy Yugoslavia. Now that was the most stupid thing they did because they also knew our treaty that our government MUST NOT surrender the country no matter what.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
^ that right there is why we do what we do
You imbecile! :snipe:
Give me some good reasons why North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation had to bomb Yugoslavia so I can slam you with a mallet on your head and bury you 10 kilometers under the ground.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Well that is all true but you can't say that it was just Slobodan Milosevic who sent troops. And there were also regugees from Bosnia who fled to Serbia. Well of course, they were mostly Bosnian Serbs. And this war was not the will of the people. It was a result of Milosevics wrong politics that caused the war. Of course, noone wanted the war, but what could those poor soldiers have done when our former leader was an idiot. My father was a recruted, but he was a doctor on the field. Thankfully, the Dayton meeting brought peace and stability, but do you think that we deserved that what happened to us in 1999?
Do you think that it were just Serbs that sniped? What about Bosnian Serbs that left And one more thing. Just a little historical reminder. When the Turks invaded Serbia some 500 years ago, we didn't flee or run for our lives. We fought bravely to hold them off. If it wasn't for us, the entire Europe would probably have been occupied by the Ottomans. In the Balkan wars we finally defeated the Turks and with Greeks we freed the Balkan. You know what I am talking about if you remember the Solun front and those battles. In the first World War both our nations fought against Austro Hungary and if you remember well, Serbs and Bosnians fought side by side to hold them off. In the second world war we held off the Nazis and we, along with Greece were the only two countries that didn't accept Hitlers controll on our teritory. I can see that you disregarded all these facts that we mentioned. We were also the part of The Alliance that fought the Nazis. In our history we always fought to PROTECT our country, our culture, our integrity. We never surrendered, we never fled cowardly from battle. We have NEVER attacked another country away from our borders. When Americans attacked us, for the second time, they knew that we would never surrender and they would have known that we would support our leader and our fighters in the time of war. They should also have known our historical background. They even sent us an ultimatun to surrender and allow NATO troops to ocupy Yugoslavia. Now that was the most stupid thing they did because they also knew our treaty that our government MUST NOT surrender the country no matter what.
Yes i do know all that. And thats beacuse of the turks that i am a muslim. But that all happend like you said 500 years ago. But you also know that it wasn't bosnian muslims and croatians that started the civilwar in bosnia. Its serbia and its people that couldn't accept that Bosnia and Hercegovina wanted to become an independent country and that Yugoslavia was falling apart. Thats why the war started and the etnic clenzing started in Bosnia. Croatia was smart kept thier army and thatswhy they didn't lost mutch of their teritory in the war. The reason why USA attacked Serbia that summer was beacuse Milosevic was to stuborn to realize that his time as president was over. Every youngster in serbia wanted someone new. And yes i think they knew the historical background thats why they wanted to settle it the diplomatic way but when that didn't work they attacked. Again a result of Milosevics bad politics. That man never deserved to be the president from the first time. I don't hate serbs but i do hate its leaders and the soldiers that killed the innocent people in Bosnia. 200 000 people were killed for nothing. And you know that.
-
Originally posted by Razor
You imbecile! :snipe:
Give me some good reasons why North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation had to bomb Yugoslavia so I can slam you with a mallet on your head and bury you 10 kilometers under the ground.
'
One reason is that they oppresed people in Kosovo for many years.
-
Originally posted by Windrunner
'
One reason is that they oppresed people in Kosovo for many years.
Razor seems to be happily forgetting the fact that without NATO:s intervention, the war would probably still be raging, and much more people would be dead.
-
All right first of all, not all Americans are that arrogant, and yes, I am one. I am just sick and tired of Bush and how the news has portrayed our actions as humanitarian. Most people just believe what the news tells them, which is obviously biased. I'll bet you can ask ten Americans who are well educated about what's going on and at least eight will be opposed to at least some of what our government has done. At least Bush approval rating is starting to go down and we wont have to put up with him much longer. Bush isn't evil. He's just stupid. Stupid enough that he thinks everything he is doing is right.
And Razor, think you're angry right now? You should have seen how it was portrayed in the news. We were supposedly "saving millions of Kosovans from torture and death at the hands of ruthless Serbians". Now thats not to say the Kosovans didn't suffer at all, but that was sure as hell exagerated.
-
CP: Your comments that 'targeted assassination' (for that is what you propose) would work wonders at eliminating terrorism hold no water when applied to the real world. Let's take an example where, for good or ill a government has ordered targeted assassinations: Israel.
When the Israelis killed the leaders of groups like Islamic Jihad, these same groups just responded with a wave of suicide bombers and the assassination in kind of Rehaim Ze'evi (sp?). This brought about all of the IDF incursions into Palestinian territory, leading to the deaths (accidental or otherwise) of Palestinian civilians.
No, that is not quite what I meant. The best thing would be to have the enemy leader(s) captured and imprisoned, since the people may follow a martyr into destruction but they will not follow a coward so easily, which is what a captive appears as to the public. Also, the critical thing that I think most nations do not get right is to instigate a clever propaganda campaign in the affected provinces; most of these suicide bomber type people are both poor and uneducated (which is why they joined a terrorist band in the first place) and if they are given some money and the appropriate information, their fury and fanaticism can just as easily be turned in the other direction. If the leader(s) cannot be captured for whatever reason (somewhat rare), then they should indeed attempt to just kill him and subsequently begin heavy propaganda efforts. Leaving the guys in place and not doing anything about terrorist attacks is definitely the most useless solution, though; that will just give lots of confidence to the enemy and spur further events.
Oh, and another minor observation: your 'social machine' theory being wheeled out again () seems to suggest that everyone, for some reason or another should die for the good of society. Everyone, that is, except yourself. Would you accept that fate if it improved society, even though you'd be dead and wouldn't give a screw about society (and vice versa)? Or would you behave in the "naturally cowardly" way that you say intelligent people should and duck it?
Since when did I single myself out? Obviously I would not "like" such a fate, but as I said in that other thread, my opinion would hardly matter in account of the whole. You are trying to bring social concerns to a personal scale and thus invalidating the whole question; it is like asking a cell in your body whether or not it "likes" to die for the organism. :D
Well, eliminating this 'sacred soil' idea is basically eliminating or alterting the beliefs of a religion or people, which is unacceptable. you cannot try to bend the will of another country or race to suit your own.
It is perfectly acceptable; in fact, that could be said to be one of the principles that the society operates on - a struggle between ideologies, with everyone trying to convince everyone else of their ideas. However, these religious ideas are fine at the moment as long as they have no influence whatsoever on a social scale, but the moment it grows out of the individual it starts to pose a threat. When the religion starts to interfere with state affairs, the line must be drawn right there. If there is some religious group who says that their religion dictates to kill everyone else on the planet and they go about doing so, would it be "acceptable" simply because people claim it to be a religious belief? :p
Sometimes, you have to do things you don't like for the benefit of others - and it's not the Saudi government, but the Saudi people that are improtant in this situation.
That is not the way world politics works. Again, you are trying to use the common human moral values on a completely different scale - the same error Gandhi made. No national institution ever does, or should do, anything for some other nation unless they are going to benefit in some way in the end. In fact, that is how morals came up in the first place when civilizations began to form. But that is all irrelevant, as the terrorist bands probably couldn't care less about getting the troops out of this "holy land;" they are just using that as an excuse to gain recruits and to make it appear that they are more civilized than they actually are. (i.e. they would stop hostilities if the demands are met)
There is no point in killing terrorists if you fail to deal with the conditions that create them (every martyr creates 2 more). In Ireland, for example, terrorism has been drastically reduced as a result of the Good Friday agreement. Granted, it's not eliminated, but the risk has been reduced - and it means there are a lot less terrorists to hunt down.
Well, the thing is that this does not work out so nicely 90% of the time. Making some "compromise" with these types of completely uncivilized and backward people (terrorist groups) is not going to make them stop with their assaults; if anything, it can (and has, in most cases in history) just increase the amount of terrorism since the enemy knows that they can get what they want through such means. The other solution, as you said, also leads to the same thing to some extent, but it is not nearly as bad if certain other measures are employed and it does not end up have detrimental effects in other ways. As I said before, the best solution is to use media maniuplation to stir up anti-government sentiments and fund internal revolts from the lower classes, which I think the US should be doing more in these rogue states. Using nonviolence against violence just ends up having disastrous long-term effects in a number of ways, some of which are not readily apparent.
-
okay, i'd like to put a disclaimer right here and say that i'm stupid and i don't really understand politics well, so anything im say shouldn't be taken to seriously.
the problem is terrorism, right? terrorists exist because they don't like the country they're attacking. why don't they? reasons: they want to address a power imbalance; they got mad cos the country didn't do something for them (like, i dunno, provide support for them or whatever); or they think the country attacked them first.
but the thing is, isn't most of the problem because of the governments? i don't think civilians really care about politics. i mean, i don't. none of my friends do. all civilians want is to live peacefully, and screw the big power players.
so, if it were possible, we should have no governments, no nations; land and resources distributed equally to all people and mean all; and leave everyone to live as they want.
of course, that's not possible. but what would be good, would be if the developed world could equalise things a bit more. i mean, im not communist or whatever, but part of the problem is capitalism- unequal distribution of money and food and stuff. if somehow, america and england and australia and all the western countries could, i dunno, somehow help...
yeah, okay, im an idiot, things like this can't really happen. but i don't think that declaring war on something will help. or bombing people. that's having wars to end wars. oxymoron.
the war on terrorism is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard. okay, obviously bush had to do something to pacify the american people immediately after sep11, but war on terrorism is not it. some idiots will probably deliberately continue terrorism just to defy him.
thats some of what i think. its all quite messy (usual state of my mind). feel free to contradict and to correct. or ignore.
-
No, its because they are Islamic Extremists who think they own everything and one such git, Osama Bin Laden got angry when we helped the Saudi in the Gulf war for stepping on "holy" land. The best solution to elminating these problems comes through my personal choice, the SA80A2(OCIW would be better) and a few MBTs. These things then go around and kill the terrorists. Then you set up a Internation force which continues to kill terrorists whenever they emerge. The other problem, rogue states and state sponsered terrorism can be solved with similar methods as most eastern countries use Russian export models in their armies(which arent that good).
-
Why the hell would any sane govenment want to help that Al Saud Family? They're a gang of inbred murderous tyrants that are no better than Saddam Hussein. But of course they sell The West a crap load of oil cheaply which makes everything allright :rolleyes:
-
CP: I agree with almost everything you have written there, after reading your responses. I'm still thinking about the violence/non-violence thing because I don't think it applies in all situations, though. Although I my not agree with the power politics your describe and the exploitation of other countries, that's the way the world goes around and I guess I have to accept that - at least in the short term until I can replace it with a more amenable system... :) :p
Icespeed: I don't think that your ideas are 'crazy'. In fact, redistributional policies are very much what I believe in to resolve inequalities within societies and in the world in general. Think about most Western states. They have a graduated system of income tax, where the rich pay the most. This can then be given as benefits to the poor. We don't have that on a world scale, and it's just increasing the poverty gap.
Also, wages need to be higher. Giving benefits is an ineffective method of supporting the poorest because it removes the incentive to work, which should be there but not in the yawning fashion we have now. It's also administratively more expensive than just bumping up the national minimum wage. Basically, the rich in society have to be prepared to pay for services to an extent that workers will be able to live on them without extreme hardship. On a world scale, the same applies - we pay too little for some goods, meaning people live in constant poverty.
And Zeronet: your knowledge of the names of guns doesn't impress me; talk sense, man. :D ;)
-
I doubt you'll ever need to know more than their names, a SA80A2 is the main British rifle, just like the US has the M16A2. Also when i say Saudi i mean Saudi Arabia.
-
Originally posted by Windrunner
Yes i do know all that. And thats beacuse of the turks that i am a muslim. But that all happend like you said 500 years ago. But you also know that it wasn't bosnian muslims and croatians that started the civilwar in bosnia. Its serbia and its people that couldn't accept that Bosnia and Hercegovina wanted to become an independent country and that Yugoslavia was falling apart. Thats why the war started and the etnic clenzing started in Bosnia. Croatia was smart kept thier army and thatswhy they didn't lost mutch of their teritory in the war. The reason why USA attacked Serbia that summer was beacuse Milosevic was to stuborn to realize that his time as president was over. Every youngster in serbia wanted someone new. And yes i think they knew the historical background thats why they wanted to settle it the diplomatic way but when that didn't work they attacked. Again a result of Milosevics bad politics. That man never deserved to be the president from the first time. I don't hate serbs but i do hate its leaders and the soldiers that killed the innocent people in Bosnia. 200 000 people were killed for nothing. And you know that.
It is true that Serbs didn't want Yugoslavia to fall apart, but noone wanted a war. It was NOT Serbian people who encouraged Milosevic to start the civil-war. It is true that Milosevic was a bad president, but in the time of war (year 1999) he defended his country from NATO and didn't want to surrender. Nobody wanted because if he did surrender, he would be dead the next day people found out about it. There was NO diplomatic aproach from NATO's side to this problem. The only "diplomatic" ( with sarcastic tone) attempt was when our leaders had a meeting in Ramouei (sp) and when Madlen Albrait (sp) threatened Yugoslavia to be bombed to death unless we accept NATO's ocupation of Yugoslavia, and presented other unacceptable conditions to us. I can't remember all of them, but one can only be an idiot not to realize that it was an obvious threat. And that is a diplomatic approach? Please. :snipe:
And so, they decided to send us an ultimatum, again with impossible conditions and of course we didn't accept it and then they started to bomb us with cold blod. So you see, there was no diplomatic negotiation because if there were any diplomatic negotiations, they would have made an agreement which would benefit (sp) us as well, not only their interests.
And what about the Albanian terrorists on Kosovo? Do you think that it isn't terrorism to jump into a Serbian villige, open fire from machine guns and kill every Serb you see runing? What about that? Or what about kidnapping hundreds of Serbs and never returning them home? However, there were not just Serbs, but there were also other nationalities taht were terrorised on Kosovo by Albanian terrorists. And the reason why Albanian terrorists attacked Kosovo is because they wanted to exterminate all Serbs so that they would later say that there are no Serbs there and that Kosovo belongs to Albania. Just because there are more Albanians there, it doesn't mean that it is Albanian territory while it is still a Serbian provincy. May I just remind you all that those Albanians there had the same rights as everyone else. They had their own TV programme, newspapers, schools, books, everything. So, why the heck they wanted to clean up Serbs from Kosovo? Yet, this is another example of our fight against terrorism, but it is only that the west didn't understand what was really goin on. Thye only folowed their interests (what ever they are) and instead of helping us defeat Albanian terrorists on Kosovo, they bombed us. This is one of 400 reasons why I hate nato and american government.
-
I think it was the Ethnic cleasing we(NATO countries) were opposed to, you know Serb Police killing all the ethic albanians.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I think it was the Ethnic cleasing we(NATO countries) were opposed to, you know Serb Police killing all the ethic albanians.
From memory, it was the "special police" that carried out the genocide. They were made up of people like Carridich(sp?), Arkan and Maladich(sp?). The chances were that they had allegence to Milocevic and not Serbia as a whole although there definately was genocide going on after the pole responded to the attacks.
-
CP: I agree with almost everything you have written there, after reading your responses. I'm still thinking about the violence/non-violence thing because I don't think it applies in all situations, though. Although I my not agree with the power politics your describe and the exploitation of other countries, that's the way the world goes around and I guess I have to accept that - at least in the short term until I can replace it with a more amenable system... :) :p
Wow; someone actually agrees with me! As the saying goes, "hell must have frozen over!" :D ;) :D
Thye only folowed their interests
um, yes, that is what everyone does. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Wow; someone actually agrees with me! As the saying goes, "hell must have frozen over!" :D ;) :D
Basically, I agree with you that this is the way that the world currently works. I don't agree with it, but I'm just a little rebellious ant in the mighty cogs of the social machine, aren't I? :wink:
I don't agree with you totally because I don't believe that violence should be fought with violence all the time. I mean, I'm sure you didn't mean to refer to crime in that way, though it could be construed like that. Basically, military intervention should be valid only after other avenues for pursuing a solution have failed. Diplomacy and ultimatums should precede military action.
In addition, military intervention should reduce the amount of harm and suffering, not increase it. If possible, it should also be the minimum necessary force (within reason - without making it so weak as to endanger the lives of your soldiers or prolong the conflict, but no using nukes pre-emptively, as Bush so terrifyingly says).
Anyway, I could go on an on, but I'll shut up now. :D
-
And what about hundreds of thousonds of Serbs that were killed during the World War 2?
Read (http://www.warfacts.org.yu/history/index.html) the article at the bottom of the page titled: Why are the Albanians majority in Kosovo??
That may answer some of your questions so that you people wouldn't later blame my country and my people that we are the ones who comitted mass murders of Albanian civilians.
-
Originally posted by Razor
And what about hundreds of thousonds of Serbs that were killed during the World War 2?
Read (http://www.warfacts.org.yu/history/index.html) the article at the bottom of the page titled: Why are the Albanians majority in Kosovo??
That may answer some of your questions so that you people wouldn't later blame my country and my people that we are the ones who comitted mass murders of Albanian civilians.
Read it and still think Ethnic Cleasing by Serbs is wrong and that NATO was perfectly right(as always) to deliver justice to the murders in Kosovo. The Serbs just cant take the fact Yugoslavia is falling apart and they dont want to give it up.
-
About the Yugoslavia Wars: There were several different factions fightingthere: Serbs, Croats, Bosnians etc. You'd need a slide rule to keep them all straight. All I know is that Milosevic (among others) was responsible for all that death and destruction and he is now sitting in a jail inside The Hague, where he belongs. Soon enough, he'll be convicted and spend the rest of his life behind bars. **** him in the ass anyway. He's nothing and people will eventually deem him irrelevant, as they should.
Worthless bastards, the whole lot of those Muslim militants. In the three wars the USA fought during the 1990s, the Gulf War, the Bosnia war and the Kosovo war, you know what all three of those wars had in common? In all three wars, America saved a Muslim people.
In the Gulf war, America saved the Saudi Arabians from the threat of an Iraqi invasion. (And if you think that Saddam Hussein would have stopped at just Kuwait if the USA had done nothing, I got a bridge in San Fransisco that I could sell you.) In the Bosnian war, the USA and NATO shut down the rape camps in Bosnia, camps where Muslim women were being raped, tortured and murdered by the thousands. In the Kosovo war, we bombed Yugoslavia and allowed almost a million Muslim Kosovo refugees to return to their homes. THEN Osama bin Laden sees all this and decides to mass murder 3000 American civilians just because he's got a bug up his butt? After everything we've done for Muslims in the past decade, this is how he repays us? **** HIM IN THE ASS THEN.
Hey, Osama bin Laddie! I got something for you!
,,|,,
As for the Muslim terrorists, all I have to say about them is this:
(_|_)
:drevil: :ha: