[wEvil]

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.

[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..

[wEvil]

How can the BBC be even handed when it's directly controlled and funded by the british govornment?!

[CP5670]

I'm going to start the practice of "small quoting" from now on.

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 ) 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 ) 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.

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.

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Pera]

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.

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

[CP5670]

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.

[Razor]

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 or maybe this may answer some of the questions as well.

[Top Gun]

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.

[wEvil]

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)

[Black Wolf]

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.

[Top Gun]

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".

[Kellan]

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...

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.

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?

Just askin'.

[aldo_14]

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.

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.

[Windrunner]

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.

[Bobboau]

^ that right there is why we do what we do

[Top Gun]

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.

[Razor]

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.

[Razor]

Originally posted by Bobboau
^ that right there is why we do what we do

You imbecile!

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.

[Windrunner]

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.