-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Real-life President Clark
- Thread starter GKarsEye
- Start date
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:
So Irmo, are you saying that there is never a cause to use violence?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. Never did. What I am saying is that if everyone else, including your allies which just supported you in a use of military force, tells you that using it in a specific circumstance is a bad idea -it probably is.
I never said anything against the use of military force in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. But neither Iran nor Iraq nor Korea are Afghanistan.
------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?
(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)
So Irmo, are you saying that there is never a cause to use violence?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. Never did. What I am saying is that if everyone else, including your allies which just supported you in a use of military force, tells you that using it in a specific circumstance is a bad idea -it probably is.
I never said anything against the use of military force in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. But neither Iran nor Iraq nor Korea are Afghanistan.
------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?
(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
While I am definitely not a pacifist, I am appalled that military action against a sovereign country can be taken so lightly.
And what about the 'collateral damage'. Life is precious, and should not be sacrificed at the altar of corporate interests dressed up as 'self-defence'.
When people speak of Iraq, I think of the 500,000 children who have died as a result of sanctions. I may be called all sorts of names for this, but I think no-one with an ounce of humanity should ignore their plight.
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
And what about the 'collateral damage'. Life is precious, and should not be sacrificed at the altar of corporate interests dressed up as 'self-defence'.
When people speak of Iraq, I think of the 500,000 children who have died as a result of sanctions. I may be called all sorts of names for this, but I think no-one with an ounce of humanity should ignore their plight.
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
taichidave
Regular
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Irmo:
Clinton was well-respected abroad. Bush most certainly isn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One of the reasons I'm warming to Bush.
Not to sound too much like an arrogant American, Clinton tried too hard to be liked abroad. To the point of signing international environmental agreements he knew would never make it through the Senate. Clinton often traded opportunities for real progress for the sake of a feel good photo-op.
------------------
"We are (not) all Kosh."
Clinton was well-respected abroad. Bush most certainly isn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One of the reasons I'm warming to Bush.
Not to sound too much like an arrogant American, Clinton tried too hard to be liked abroad. To the point of signing international environmental agreements he knew would never make it through the Senate. Clinton often traded opportunities for real progress for the sake of a feel good photo-op.
------------------
"We are (not) all Kosh."
taichidave
Regular
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by b5junkie:
When people speak of Iraq, I think of the 500,000 children who have died as a result of sanctions. I may be called all sorts of names for this, but I think no-one with an ounce of humanity should ignore their plight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Made worse by the fact that Saddam Hussein is pouring resources into his armed forces at the expense of those very children.
All the more reason a regime change is in order.
------------------
"We are (not) all Kosh."
When people speak of Iraq, I think of the 500,000 children who have died as a result of sanctions. I may be called all sorts of names for this, but I think no-one with an ounce of humanity should ignore their plight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Made worse by the fact that Saddam Hussein is pouring resources into his armed forces at the expense of those very children.
All the more reason a regime change is in order.
------------------
"We are (not) all Kosh."
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
What kind of regime? One that serves the interests of the Iraqi people or one that serves the interests of energy companies, like the one in Saudi Arabia.
US interests and those of ordinary people in the region do not always coincide. How many people in Saudi back the presence of US troops on what they consider to be their holy land (excluding members of the Saudi royal family?)
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
US interests and those of ordinary people in the region do not always coincide. How many people in Saudi back the presence of US troops on what they consider to be their holy land (excluding members of the Saudi royal family?)
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Very few support US bases in Saudi Arabia.
But that is an entirely different matter.
The Saudi dynasty, you see, fears extremists.
Unfortunatly they choose to appease them.
-------
But the current regime of Iraq is about as far as you can get... from the interests of Iraqi people.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
But that is an entirely different matter.
The Saudi dynasty, you see, fears extremists.
Unfortunatly they choose to appease them.
-------
But the current regime of Iraq is about as far as you can get... from the interests of Iraqi people.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Of course Saddam was suppported and armed in his war against Iran - a war in which millions died. I believe dictators should never be supported, even if it is perceived to be in the national interest at the time.
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
And the damnedest thing is that once they get to power, they tend to become self-sufficient. At the cost of their people.
And there is no easy way to remove one from power. There are some ways... but these require careful planning, the cooperation of neighbouring countries and enough determination. But in the end, they might be favourable to letting a dictator (and his successors) continue. Naturally, removing a dictator should always be followed up by rebuilding a stable and responsible government.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 20, 2002).]
And there is no easy way to remove one from power. There are some ways... but these require careful planning, the cooperation of neighbouring countries and enough determination. But in the end, they might be favourable to letting a dictator (and his successors) continue. Naturally, removing a dictator should always be followed up by rebuilding a stable and responsible government.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 20, 2002).]
A_M_Swallow
Regular
The USA needed to speak in an extremely tough fashion. Simply because the USA has a reputation for being weak and a coward.
The whole world saw the USA run in Vietnam. There was a repeat performance in Somalia.
From this evidence bin Laden deduced that the USA was weak and could safely be attacked. In this he had made a big mistake.
In Somalia the USA was playing a role from "The Seven Samurai", helping the innocent locals against the bandits. The USA found out the locals were not innocent and did not want help. So it killed a thousand of them and left.
After 9/11 the USA is defending itself. A few deaths will not cause the USA to leave the countries to their do-it-yourself hell on Earth. The enemy will be destroyed.
The war in Afghanistan has shown the USA to be dangerous.
By announcing the axis of evil, Bush has told Iran, Iraq and North Korea to behave. Many naughty actions these and other countries may have performed will not happen. Attacking a weak opponent may be fun, attacking a dangerous one is obviously inadvisable.
There will be trouble but not as much. Deterrence works.
------------------
Andrew Swallow
The whole world saw the USA run in Vietnam. There was a repeat performance in Somalia.
From this evidence bin Laden deduced that the USA was weak and could safely be attacked. In this he had made a big mistake.
In Somalia the USA was playing a role from "The Seven Samurai", helping the innocent locals against the bandits. The USA found out the locals were not innocent and did not want help. So it killed a thousand of them and left.
After 9/11 the USA is defending itself. A few deaths will not cause the USA to leave the countries to their do-it-yourself hell on Earth. The enemy will be destroyed.
The war in Afghanistan has shown the USA to be dangerous.
By announcing the axis of evil, Bush has told Iran, Iraq and North Korea to behave. Many naughty actions these and other countries may have performed will not happen. Attacking a weak opponent may be fun, attacking a dangerous one is obviously inadvisable.
There will be trouble but not as much. Deterrence works.
------------------
Andrew Swallow
GKarsEye
Regular
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>I never said anything against the use of military force in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. But neither Iran nor Iraq nor Korea are Afghanistan.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, but what about the Al Queda elements in Iran and Iraq? Or Somalia, or Sudan, or Saudi Arabia for that matter? They are just as dangerous as those in Afghanistan.
Sure, the political situation there is a bit more delicate than Afghanistan. Let me remind you that the US did not nor plans to use military force in those areas. Bush was merely pointing out that the danger lies not only in Afghanistan, but in other countries as well. He never said, "We're going to blow the shit out of you."
People just make too much out of a little speech. AM_Swallow seems to think his speech prevented violence. Others think it will cause more. Folks, anyone who is going to kill people will kill people. The speech just gave diplomats a chance to bitch. Allies are partly trying to criticise America because they are being accused of blindly following and being weak, especially Tony Blair, so they're flexing their diplomatic muscles.
In the end, it's actions that make us, not words.
------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, but what about the Al Queda elements in Iran and Iraq? Or Somalia, or Sudan, or Saudi Arabia for that matter? They are just as dangerous as those in Afghanistan.
Sure, the political situation there is a bit more delicate than Afghanistan. Let me remind you that the US did not nor plans to use military force in those areas. Bush was merely pointing out that the danger lies not only in Afghanistan, but in other countries as well. He never said, "We're going to blow the shit out of you."
People just make too much out of a little speech. AM_Swallow seems to think his speech prevented violence. Others think it will cause more. Folks, anyone who is going to kill people will kill people. The speech just gave diplomats a chance to bitch. Allies are partly trying to criticise America because they are being accused of blindly following and being weak, especially Tony Blair, so they're flexing their diplomatic muscles.
In the end, it's actions that make us, not words.
------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
So Bush Senior signs National Security Directive 26 on October 2, 1989, which declares <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our long-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East...We should pursue, and seek to facilitate,opportunities for U.S. firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then he proceeds to destroy Iraq and kill one million of its citizens (via military force and sanctions).
Then Junior decides its time to remove Saddam and replace him with a US puppet, with no regard for the 'collateral damage' this may cause.
Then we can all sit back and congratulate ourselves on a job well done.
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
Then he proceeds to destroy Iraq and kill one million of its citizens (via military force and sanctions).
Then Junior decides its time to remove Saddam and replace him with a US puppet, with no regard for the 'collateral damage' this may cause.
Then we can all sit back and congratulate ourselves on a job well done.
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
A_M_Swallow
Regular
If anyone wants a fight, there may be one to remove Mugabe from Zimbabwe (Rhodesia).
------------------
Andrew Swallow
------------------
Andrew Swallow
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Below is a link to an LA times article about South Korean reaction to Bush and his speech. Note their views about the US Base:
click here
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
click here
------------------
I will never stop hoping that you retreat from the road that you're walking. I will never stop searching for a means to turn you away from it. And I will never stop being your friend... - Vir
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:
Ok, but what about the Al Queda elements in Iran and Iraq? Or Somalia, or Sudan, or Saudi Arabia for that matter? They are just as dangerous as those in Afghanistan.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "Al Quaeda elements" in Iran and Iraq are right now the stuff of spin. There has been no evidence whatsoever presented to anyone within NATO that they exist, since otherwise the opposition against attacks would be much more muted.
Any problems in Iran would be settled it the secular government could consolidate its power and drive out the extremists.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>
Sure, the political situation there is a bit more delicate than Afghanistan. Let me remind you that the US did not nor plans to use military force in those areas. Bush was merely pointing out that the danger lies not only in Afghanistan, but in other countries as well. He never said, "We're going to blow the shit out of you."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two things:
a)The situation with Iraq is obviously far beyond a warning, since concrete plans are being developed to depose of the regime. The big question is if anyone has any plans in development what is happening after that. US foreign policy is notorious for completely bungling the long-term consequences of their actions. Bin Laden was one of them.
b)No, they did not just issue a warning. Calling someone evil is much more than that. It justifies fighting them for that fact alone, namely being evil, as opposed for concrete reasons. It is the first step in a complete loss of political perspective, which is usually the basis not for a successful military operation, but for a huge mess. Clausewitz' "War is a continuation of politics with different means" is usually misrepresented as war being just politics. War isn't politics, war is a MEANS of politics. And losing track of what you want to achieve with a war is the best way to head into a disaster.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>
People just make too much out of a little speech. AM_Swallow seems to think his speech prevented violence. Others think it will cause more. Folks, anyone who is going to kill people will kill people. The speech just gave diplomats a chance to bitch. Allies are partly trying to criticise America because they are being accused of blindly following and being weak, especially Tony Blair, so they're flexing their diplomatic muscles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think anyone ever accused the Swedes of anything, so they'd have little rationale from your argumentation to call Bush's policies "simply insane".
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>
In the end, it's actions that make us, not words.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is that you miss that in diplomacy, words ARE actions.
------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?
(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)
Ok, but what about the Al Queda elements in Iran and Iraq? Or Somalia, or Sudan, or Saudi Arabia for that matter? They are just as dangerous as those in Afghanistan.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "Al Quaeda elements" in Iran and Iraq are right now the stuff of spin. There has been no evidence whatsoever presented to anyone within NATO that they exist, since otherwise the opposition against attacks would be much more muted.
Any problems in Iran would be settled it the secular government could consolidate its power and drive out the extremists.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>
Sure, the political situation there is a bit more delicate than Afghanistan. Let me remind you that the US did not nor plans to use military force in those areas. Bush was merely pointing out that the danger lies not only in Afghanistan, but in other countries as well. He never said, "We're going to blow the shit out of you."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two things:
a)The situation with Iraq is obviously far beyond a warning, since concrete plans are being developed to depose of the regime. The big question is if anyone has any plans in development what is happening after that. US foreign policy is notorious for completely bungling the long-term consequences of their actions. Bin Laden was one of them.
b)No, they did not just issue a warning. Calling someone evil is much more than that. It justifies fighting them for that fact alone, namely being evil, as opposed for concrete reasons. It is the first step in a complete loss of political perspective, which is usually the basis not for a successful military operation, but for a huge mess. Clausewitz' "War is a continuation of politics with different means" is usually misrepresented as war being just politics. War isn't politics, war is a MEANS of politics. And losing track of what you want to achieve with a war is the best way to head into a disaster.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>
People just make too much out of a little speech. AM_Swallow seems to think his speech prevented violence. Others think it will cause more. Folks, anyone who is going to kill people will kill people. The speech just gave diplomats a chance to bitch. Allies are partly trying to criticise America because they are being accused of blindly following and being weak, especially Tony Blair, so they're flexing their diplomatic muscles.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think anyone ever accused the Swedes of anything, so they'd have little rationale from your argumentation to call Bush's policies "simply insane".
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>
In the end, it's actions that make us, not words.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is that you miss that in diplomacy, words ARE actions.
------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?
(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by taichidave:
One of the reasons I'm warming to Bush.
Not to sound too much like an arrogant American, Clinton tried too hard to be liked abroad. To the point of signing international environmental agreements he knew would never make it through the Senate. Clinton often traded opportunities for real progress for the sake of a feel good photo-op.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What real progress? Bush's suggestion that actually allows the CO2 output to be increased? When Houston is called the Venice of Texas (and they were close to it last year), he might think again whether that was a wise choice. The fact that a bunch of senators had their integrity bought by the fossil fuel industry doesn't make Clinton's actions the least questionable.
What you miss is that a confrontational approach doesn't give you more influence what's going on, it gives you less, because people are just as little inclined to work together with you as you are inclined to work together with them.
------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?
(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)
One of the reasons I'm warming to Bush.
Not to sound too much like an arrogant American, Clinton tried too hard to be liked abroad. To the point of signing international environmental agreements he knew would never make it through the Senate. Clinton often traded opportunities for real progress for the sake of a feel good photo-op.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What real progress? Bush's suggestion that actually allows the CO2 output to be increased? When Houston is called the Venice of Texas (and they were close to it last year), he might think again whether that was a wise choice. The fact that a bunch of senators had their integrity bought by the fossil fuel industry doesn't make Clinton's actions the least questionable.
What you miss is that a confrontational approach doesn't give you more influence what's going on, it gives you less, because people are just as little inclined to work together with you as you are inclined to work together with them.
------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?
(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
This is a very delicate subject matter that can be argued so many ways and the question of who is right? What is right? What is justice? What is violence? It is a matter of perspective, socialization, education, and self-interest. Everyone agrees that violence and death is wrong. Some people see the need for it for the greater good, some people don't see the need for it at all. Who is right, I cannot say. What I will say is that information will always be in the hands of the strong. History is written by the victorious. This is just something that no one can change.
Where do people get most of their information? One example is CNN. Where is CNN based, where do the people who work for CNN live, what nationality is the CEO of CNN. Another example is the BBC, I ask again, where is it, who runs it, what political ties does it have. These questions all have to be addressed before making a rational debate and putting forth your opinions. Granted Lower powers will always be at the mercy of higher powers, expediency comes before justice, action comes before reflection, profit before morals. But speaking as an idealist I wish for these things to be different.
The debate in question is the effect of Bush's comments on the situation in Afghanistan and the entire muslim world. I, for one, agree with the so-called 'tree-hugger' philosophy of condemning him and his speech-writers for not being careful. But I say what does it matter what he says, when the collective world has realized that the actions of the U.S. are righteous based on information gained from corporations based in the U.S. We can sit here and debase his use of the word 'crusade' all we want, but the truth is that people will operate under the perception (whether real or false) that his actions are right and in his heart, he is sincere.
If two buildings in the heart of Jericho collapse and kill, say 6000 Palestinian people. CNN does a blurb on its World Report segment, maybe the BBC (I'm not from UK), peole say what a shame, and in a week the collective powers of the world forget what happened. Since Palestine is not a very powerful political or military entity in the grand scheme of things, no one will truly run to their aide and run a full investigation on who, what, and how everything happened. In fact it'll probably be one more incident to add to the burning fire at the heart of the middle east. The same situation happens at the heart of New York and the toppling of an entire regime ensues at the cost of the lives of thousands more. With the calling and pleading of more action to be done against terrorism, all over the world, in every corner, in every house. Why does the same situation yield different results, because the world operates under the parameters I have described earlier.
It is not of any benefit to us Americans (we few civilized, educated citizens) to stop terrorism when 6,000 Palestinians lose their lives. They are not our problem, as long as those deaths don't cause oil prices to jump, let them deal with their own problems. Yet when the horrible reality of terrorism shows up at our doorstep, 'that' is when action is necessary. In fact, overreaction is necessary, we must make sure that this never happens again, EVER. Whatever the cost. Well at what point does the end justify the means. All of us agree that 6,000 civilians should never die again in New York. Well, to that end, what is necessary, I ask? The death of 6,000 Afghani civilians? The death of 6,000 Irani? The subjucation of any country under alleged terrorist influence? The use of cluster-bombs that are known to kill thousands of people and burn the fertile land needed for the Afghani economy? Sending a ground campaign of Northern Alliance troops on our behalf and then mowing them down (our own allies) with bombs dropped from our B-52s? Are these the means that justify our end?
The truth of the matter is that we not only have the power to decree what is righteous and what is evil (under our own extensive information system). We have the power to carry out ANY action against ANY sovereign power for ANY of our goals to be established and with the backing of our civilized enlightened partners in the Permanent Security council. The West (speaking of modern times--U.S. + Europe) are simply the higher powers and are operating under the rules of the game set up since man started differentiating themselves politically, socially, and religiously. I did not answer any of the questions I asked at the beginning of my post but I am saying those questions will always be answered by those in power (whoever that may be).
The reason I am appalled at 'the way the world works', as I like to call it is because I fear for a time when me or my family are not living in the cradle of power. As I fear for every individual in that most dubious position presently.
------------------
YOU ARE NOT READY FOR IMMORTALITY!
Where do people get most of their information? One example is CNN. Where is CNN based, where do the people who work for CNN live, what nationality is the CEO of CNN. Another example is the BBC, I ask again, where is it, who runs it, what political ties does it have. These questions all have to be addressed before making a rational debate and putting forth your opinions. Granted Lower powers will always be at the mercy of higher powers, expediency comes before justice, action comes before reflection, profit before morals. But speaking as an idealist I wish for these things to be different.
The debate in question is the effect of Bush's comments on the situation in Afghanistan and the entire muslim world. I, for one, agree with the so-called 'tree-hugger' philosophy of condemning him and his speech-writers for not being careful. But I say what does it matter what he says, when the collective world has realized that the actions of the U.S. are righteous based on information gained from corporations based in the U.S. We can sit here and debase his use of the word 'crusade' all we want, but the truth is that people will operate under the perception (whether real or false) that his actions are right and in his heart, he is sincere.
If two buildings in the heart of Jericho collapse and kill, say 6000 Palestinian people. CNN does a blurb on its World Report segment, maybe the BBC (I'm not from UK), peole say what a shame, and in a week the collective powers of the world forget what happened. Since Palestine is not a very powerful political or military entity in the grand scheme of things, no one will truly run to their aide and run a full investigation on who, what, and how everything happened. In fact it'll probably be one more incident to add to the burning fire at the heart of the middle east. The same situation happens at the heart of New York and the toppling of an entire regime ensues at the cost of the lives of thousands more. With the calling and pleading of more action to be done against terrorism, all over the world, in every corner, in every house. Why does the same situation yield different results, because the world operates under the parameters I have described earlier.
It is not of any benefit to us Americans (we few civilized, educated citizens) to stop terrorism when 6,000 Palestinians lose their lives. They are not our problem, as long as those deaths don't cause oil prices to jump, let them deal with their own problems. Yet when the horrible reality of terrorism shows up at our doorstep, 'that' is when action is necessary. In fact, overreaction is necessary, we must make sure that this never happens again, EVER. Whatever the cost. Well at what point does the end justify the means. All of us agree that 6,000 civilians should never die again in New York. Well, to that end, what is necessary, I ask? The death of 6,000 Afghani civilians? The death of 6,000 Irani? The subjucation of any country under alleged terrorist influence? The use of cluster-bombs that are known to kill thousands of people and burn the fertile land needed for the Afghani economy? Sending a ground campaign of Northern Alliance troops on our behalf and then mowing them down (our own allies) with bombs dropped from our B-52s? Are these the means that justify our end?
The truth of the matter is that we not only have the power to decree what is righteous and what is evil (under our own extensive information system). We have the power to carry out ANY action against ANY sovereign power for ANY of our goals to be established and with the backing of our civilized enlightened partners in the Permanent Security council. The West (speaking of modern times--U.S. + Europe) are simply the higher powers and are operating under the rules of the game set up since man started differentiating themselves politically, socially, and religiously. I did not answer any of the questions I asked at the beginning of my post but I am saying those questions will always be answered by those in power (whoever that may be).
The reason I am appalled at 'the way the world works', as I like to call it is because I fear for a time when me or my family are not living in the cradle of power. As I fear for every individual in that most dubious position presently.
------------------
YOU ARE NOT READY FOR IMMORTALITY!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by b5junkie:
Then he proceeds to destroy Iraq and kill one million of its citizens (via military force and sanctions).
Then Junior decides its time to remove Saddam and replace him with a US puppet, with no regard for the 'collateral damage' this may cause.
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is crap. The US does all it can to limit civilian casualties when bombing but no one can completely eliminate them. If you decide not to attack when civilian casualties are possible your enemies will simply increase the use of human shields. As others have said you might want to look at Sadam for answers on why his people are starving and where the money has gone.
------------------
"I was free to wallow in my own crapulence." -Mr. Burns in "Who Shot Mr. Burns Part Two"
Then he proceeds to destroy Iraq and kill one million of its citizens (via military force and sanctions).
Then Junior decides its time to remove Saddam and replace him with a US puppet, with no regard for the 'collateral damage' this may cause.
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is crap. The US does all it can to limit civilian casualties when bombing but no one can completely eliminate them. If you decide not to attack when civilian casualties are possible your enemies will simply increase the use of human shields. As others have said you might want to look at Sadam for answers on why his people are starving and where the money has gone.
------------------
"I was free to wallow in my own crapulence." -Mr. Burns in "Who Shot Mr. Burns Part Two"
GKarsEye
Regular
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>How about "The "Arab world" can suck my big fat American ass." ?
It is certainly not referring to individuals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How not taking things out of context? I was responding to Channe's statement how people are supposedly sensitive to the word "Crusade" and such. I say they are wrong for behaving like that, and that we shouldn't cater to it. Channe disagreed. No racism here.
I'll argue me being a racist anymore. If you wish to continue believing it is so, that's your business.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> So an agent of North Korea, conditioned to hate the south so much that she kills almost 200 people is not brainwashed in your mind? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course. What's your point?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Someone who has seen the US in exchange programs, listens to US music on the radio, encounters US citizens on the street, or someone who gets a couple of tons of explosives into his home town for reasons he has no idea about, courtesy of the US Air Force?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those are often the same people.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Discussion and cooperation prevent the terrorists from replenishing their ranks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So does blowing the shit out of their training camps and weapon storage areas and stopping their income.
The Iranian government supports these terrorists. There is not "oh, maybe they're right" here. It must be stopped. Now. If they do so of their own volition or due to some reasonable negotiation, great. If not...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Ever thought about whether it might be more sensible to support the elected government in its struggle with the Mullahs?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily yoru friend. Anyone who harbors terrorists is equally guilty, even they are at conflict with other terrorists.
------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
It is certainly not referring to individuals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How not taking things out of context? I was responding to Channe's statement how people are supposedly sensitive to the word "Crusade" and such. I say they are wrong for behaving like that, and that we shouldn't cater to it. Channe disagreed. No racism here.
I'll argue me being a racist anymore. If you wish to continue believing it is so, that's your business.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> So an agent of North Korea, conditioned to hate the south so much that she kills almost 200 people is not brainwashed in your mind? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course. What's your point?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Someone who has seen the US in exchange programs, listens to US music on the radio, encounters US citizens on the street, or someone who gets a couple of tons of explosives into his home town for reasons he has no idea about, courtesy of the US Air Force?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those are often the same people.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Discussion and cooperation prevent the terrorists from replenishing their ranks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So does blowing the shit out of their training camps and weapon storage areas and stopping their income.
The Iranian government supports these terrorists. There is not "oh, maybe they're right" here. It must be stopped. Now. If they do so of their own volition or due to some reasonable negotiation, great. If not...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Ever thought about whether it might be more sensible to support the elected government in its struggle with the Mullahs?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily yoru friend. Anyone who harbors terrorists is equally guilty, even they are at conflict with other terrorists.
------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
