The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was watching the news, a special report on a Shi-ite group in Iran.
One of them said (paraphrased) 'there are many of us willing to give our lives to prevent the American occupation of Iraq'.
And I felt admiration.
People with the balls to stand up.
I should probably qualify that by confirming that the only implication of harm was towards the American military.
But nonetheless, when I caught myself thinking that.. damn.
On reflection I feel like I shouldn't think this way. If I'm completely honest with myself I'm not sure whether I really do or not.
IMO, the American occupation does increasingly look like just another corrupt dictatorship, hanging onto power for as long as the international community will stand by watching.
I saw on the news that all over Iraq, oil production is at upwards of 90% of pre-war levels, while cities still lie in ruins and a population are left largely unaided as they try to get to their feet.
But even so...
Damn.
Maybe I've lost objectivity. Maybe I've been swept along with an overreacting media / public opinion.
Maybe I've come to realise that the evil is truely inherant in all sides, and I'm just yet to learn to balance for the lesser.
Or maybe that instinct was right.
I don't know anymore. And I don't know who to trust from the people who claim to know.
One of them said (paraphrased) 'there are many of us willing to give our lives to prevent the American occupation of Iraq'.
And I felt admiration.
People with the balls to stand up.
I should probably qualify that by confirming that the only implication of harm was towards the American military.
But nonetheless, when I caught myself thinking that.. damn.
On reflection I feel like I shouldn't think this way. If I'm completely honest with myself I'm not sure whether I really do or not.
IMO, the American occupation does increasingly look like just another corrupt dictatorship, hanging onto power for as long as the international community will stand by watching.
I saw on the news that all over Iraq, oil production is at upwards of 90% of pre-war levels, while cities still lie in ruins and a population are left largely unaided as they try to get to their feet.
But even so...
Damn.
Maybe I've lost objectivity. Maybe I've been swept along with an overreacting media / public opinion.
Maybe I've come to realise that the evil is truely inherant in all sides, and I'm just yet to learn to balance for the lesser.
Or maybe that instinct was right.
I don't know anymore. And I don't know who to trust from the people who claim to know.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> I'll reply to Light tomorrow, suffice to say that this makes
> disturbing viewing and further proof that kicking Saddam out was well
> justified.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html
>
> Sadly, the inclusion of verified video evidence means it can't be
> dismissed as being "Fox"
And once again, you're missing the point; no-one denied that Saddam should have been kicked out.
Once again you're avoiding the point; that the US couldn't care less about kicking out a dictator when they've installed so many.
Once again you've avoided addressing the admission of the US government that ridding Iraq of a dictator to improve the lot of the Iraqi people was the last motivation picked.
~sigh~ So determined to move the focus. So what Bell? The Ba'athists tortured and murdered people? We've known that for years. Didn't stop the US being Iraq's number 1 trading partner in 2001, did it? Didn't stop the west arming him, tacitly condoning him, god, even encouraging him.
I've already explained why your moral outrage is nothing short of crocodile tears. Try another approach to distract attention Bell, because this one is trasparent.
> I'll reply to Light tomorrow, suffice to say that this makes
> disturbing viewing and further proof that kicking Saddam out was well
> justified.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html
>
> Sadly, the inclusion of verified video evidence means it can't be
> dismissed as being "Fox"
And once again, you're missing the point; no-one denied that Saddam should have been kicked out.
Once again you're avoiding the point; that the US couldn't care less about kicking out a dictator when they've installed so many.
Once again you've avoided addressing the admission of the US government that ridding Iraq of a dictator to improve the lot of the Iraqi people was the last motivation picked.
~sigh~ So determined to move the focus. So what Bell? The Ba'athists tortured and murdered people? We've known that for years. Didn't stop the US being Iraq's number 1 trading partner in 2001, did it? Didn't stop the west arming him, tacitly condoning him, god, even encouraging him.
I've already explained why your moral outrage is nothing short of crocodile tears. Try another approach to distract attention Bell, because this one is trasparent.
I the Persians still ruled you wouldn't get that Iranian terroist malarky.
But, yes, you should certainly keep an open mind for both sides.
I can't help but think that the Iranians just have imperialist ambitions of their own in the region though. I suspect they would like nothing more than to make democracy fail and have a theorcay in Iraq which they could exploit. This opinion may have no basis other than the history of hatred between Iran and Iraq though.
And thats all I have to say at the moment.
But, yes, you should certainly keep an open mind for both sides.
I can't help but think that the Iranians just have imperialist ambitions of their own in the region though. I suspect they would like nothing more than to make democracy fail and have a theorcay in Iraq which they could exploit. This opinion may have no basis other than the history of hatred between Iran and Iraq though.
And thats all I have to say at the moment.
I'll reply to Light tomorrow, suffice to say that this makes disturbing viewing and further proof that kicking Saddam out was well justified.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html
Sadly, the inclusion of verified video evidence means it can't be dismissed as being "Fox"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html
Sadly, the inclusion of verified video evidence means it can't be dismissed as being "Fox"
Belldandy wrote:
>
> I'll reply to the other stuff a bit later because I'm itching to play
> Samba De Amigo that just turned up, suffice to say that, as you see
> me "parroting" I see the same in you and I've heard most of
> your arguments before elsewhere. To believe in anything you generally
> have to accept certain ideals of that belief, like a religion. Seeing
> as no one on the planet has any unique new argument about such topics
> as we disagree on then I think it's a bit lame to complain, and I
> tend to abhor people who believe they have unique ideas - because
> it's very rare that they do even if they believe them to be.
I've said this numerous times, and you still don't seem to get it, so I'll say it again; I couldn't give the first toss about WHAT you believe. Whatever your opinions are, knock yourself out. What I complain about is that whenever you're asked to explain how you came to those opinions, you invariably change the subject. Or respond with insults. Or try to make a snide comment and hope that no-one will push you too far to explain yourself.
Are my ideas unique? Of course they're not. Are yours? No. The difference between you and I is that, whilst I share many of my beliefs with the left wing of politics, I also explain just why I've arrived at those conclusions. I can give you chapter and verse on the thought process behind those beliefs. I haven't read them and decided "that's the view for me!". I've read it, thought about it, checked other alternate viewpoints, and settled for what sounds the closest to being correct to me. You don't; it simply comes across that you believe what you're told with regard to the Right wing of politics, and you don't question it.
I'll give you another example; when an event is reported in the media, my thought process is "Right; what would this seem to say? Who wrote it? What might their bias be?" So when I repeat an opinion I share in common with someone else, I have thought through just why I believe it, and can explain myself.
Your thought process seems to be "Does this support the US? If it does, I believe it. If not, it's a lie". So when you repeat your opinion, you have no real idea WHY you believe it beyond "The US say it's true, ergo it's true".
One more example again; Michael Moore.
You've slated him nonstop. Yet you've never read a single word he's written. And you expect your words to be taken seriously? You expect someone to listen to you? All you're doing is repeating what you've been told. You haven't thought about it; how could you have done so when you haven't even read Moore's books?
On the other hand, I've read (God help me) some of Ann Coulter's 'masterworks', and so as and when I rip into her work, I'm doing so from a position of (and this is important) knowing what I'm talking about. (in fairness though I generally don't as her special blend of half truth and outright lies makes my blood boil)
THAT is what I refer to as your mindless parrotting of opinions. And your blind faith. And, when all is said and done, your fundamentalist belief that the US is right and everyone else is wrong, regardless of what the evidence may be.
>
> Even a new argument or idea is most likely to be the result of
> another person's work - because let's afce it, if either of us had
> truly new unique ideas we wouldn't be resorting to thrashing them out
> over the internet.
Yes, of course that's the case. All I ask of you is that you think about those ideas, and think about how they were arrived at. Thus far, you've failed in that regard because whenever you're challenged on your Pro-Dubya views, rather than defending and explaining them, you settle for trying to derogate the views of others. Or try and reduce it to the Emotional level (which, after your little rant at Goaty about 9/11, just shows up as rank hypocrisy on your part). Or out and out ignoring it until the subject is dropped. Everyone has let a thread drop every now and again. You've done it on almost every one. And so you'll find that a lot of people have almost no respect for your views because you're unable or unwilling to justify them. Not only that, but until very recently you were absolutely unable to admit you may have been wrong, and trust me; when you've been argued into a corner and you're STILL trying to say that Black is, in fact, White...well, then you are thought even less of. Coupled with your unbearable self-righteousness lack of a sense of humour and inexplicable self-importance (both of which you seem to be keeping a lid on recently, and you'll probably find that you're taken a bit more seriously as a result), and you can see how you've come to be regarded as a joke; a mouthpiece for right wing opinions who lacks the wit to actually explain the theory behind those opinions.
That does seem to be changing now. I hope it lasts. Bearing in mind how things have gone with you previously, I'm kinda cynical about whether it will. But I hope to be proved wrong. I also hope to be an astronaut; one doesn't always get what one wants.
Right; back to work...
>
> I'll reply to the other stuff a bit later because I'm itching to play
> Samba De Amigo that just turned up, suffice to say that, as you see
> me "parroting" I see the same in you and I've heard most of
> your arguments before elsewhere. To believe in anything you generally
> have to accept certain ideals of that belief, like a religion. Seeing
> as no one on the planet has any unique new argument about such topics
> as we disagree on then I think it's a bit lame to complain, and I
> tend to abhor people who believe they have unique ideas - because
> it's very rare that they do even if they believe them to be.
I've said this numerous times, and you still don't seem to get it, so I'll say it again; I couldn't give the first toss about WHAT you believe. Whatever your opinions are, knock yourself out. What I complain about is that whenever you're asked to explain how you came to those opinions, you invariably change the subject. Or respond with insults. Or try to make a snide comment and hope that no-one will push you too far to explain yourself.
Are my ideas unique? Of course they're not. Are yours? No. The difference between you and I is that, whilst I share many of my beliefs with the left wing of politics, I also explain just why I've arrived at those conclusions. I can give you chapter and verse on the thought process behind those beliefs. I haven't read them and decided "that's the view for me!". I've read it, thought about it, checked other alternate viewpoints, and settled for what sounds the closest to being correct to me. You don't; it simply comes across that you believe what you're told with regard to the Right wing of politics, and you don't question it.
I'll give you another example; when an event is reported in the media, my thought process is "Right; what would this seem to say? Who wrote it? What might their bias be?" So when I repeat an opinion I share in common with someone else, I have thought through just why I believe it, and can explain myself.
Your thought process seems to be "Does this support the US? If it does, I believe it. If not, it's a lie". So when you repeat your opinion, you have no real idea WHY you believe it beyond "The US say it's true, ergo it's true".
One more example again; Michael Moore.
You've slated him nonstop. Yet you've never read a single word he's written. And you expect your words to be taken seriously? You expect someone to listen to you? All you're doing is repeating what you've been told. You haven't thought about it; how could you have done so when you haven't even read Moore's books?
On the other hand, I've read (God help me) some of Ann Coulter's 'masterworks', and so as and when I rip into her work, I'm doing so from a position of (and this is important) knowing what I'm talking about. (in fairness though I generally don't as her special blend of half truth and outright lies makes my blood boil)
THAT is what I refer to as your mindless parrotting of opinions. And your blind faith. And, when all is said and done, your fundamentalist belief that the US is right and everyone else is wrong, regardless of what the evidence may be.
>
> Even a new argument or idea is most likely to be the result of
> another person's work - because let's afce it, if either of us had
> truly new unique ideas we wouldn't be resorting to thrashing them out
> over the internet.
Yes, of course that's the case. All I ask of you is that you think about those ideas, and think about how they were arrived at. Thus far, you've failed in that regard because whenever you're challenged on your Pro-Dubya views, rather than defending and explaining them, you settle for trying to derogate the views of others. Or try and reduce it to the Emotional level (which, after your little rant at Goaty about 9/11, just shows up as rank hypocrisy on your part). Or out and out ignoring it until the subject is dropped. Everyone has let a thread drop every now and again. You've done it on almost every one. And so you'll find that a lot of people have almost no respect for your views because you're unable or unwilling to justify them. Not only that, but until very recently you were absolutely unable to admit you may have been wrong, and trust me; when you've been argued into a corner and you're STILL trying to say that Black is, in fact, White...well, then you are thought even less of. Coupled with your unbearable self-righteousness lack of a sense of humour and inexplicable self-importance (both of which you seem to be keeping a lid on recently, and you'll probably find that you're taken a bit more seriously as a result), and you can see how you've come to be regarded as a joke; a mouthpiece for right wing opinions who lacks the wit to actually explain the theory behind those opinions.
That does seem to be changing now. I hope it lasts. Bearing in mind how things have gone with you previously, I'm kinda cynical about whether it will. But I hope to be proved wrong. I also hope to be an astronaut; one doesn't always get what one wants.
Right; back to work...
I wish, being on a poor student budget (Ha right) I've had to settle for third party maracas which Lik Sang does, and I bought a US version of the game from Ebay US. Got the game this morning but earliest the maracas can be here is Friday :( Having said that I love the game, the monkey thing is so mad ! I can't help but smile when I see him madly shaking his stuff around, really, they should prescribe a dreamcast and Samba to every depressed person in England.
Belldandy wrote:
> because I'm itching to play Samba De Amigo that just turned up,
Don't shake your maracas too hard.
> because I'm itching to play Samba De Amigo that just turned up,
Don't shake your maracas too hard.
Light wrote:
> And if there is one thing I abhor, it's the blind faith of
> a fundamentalist.
I'll reply to the other stuff a bit later because I'm itching to play Samba De Amigo that just turned up, suffice to say that, as you see me "parroting" I see the same in you and I've heard most of your arguments before elsewhere. To believe in anything you generally have to accept certain ideals of that belief, like a religion. Seeing as no one on the planet has any unique new argument about such topics as we disagree on then I think it's a bit lame to complain, and I tend to abhor people who believe they have unique ideas - because it's very rare that they do even if they believe them to be.
Even a new argument or idea is most likely to be the result of another person's work - because let's afce it, if either of us had truly new unique ideas we wouldn't be resorting to thrashing them out over the internet.
> And if there is one thing I abhor, it's the blind faith of
> a fundamentalist.
I'll reply to the other stuff a bit later because I'm itching to play Samba De Amigo that just turned up, suffice to say that, as you see me "parroting" I see the same in you and I've heard most of your arguments before elsewhere. To believe in anything you generally have to accept certain ideals of that belief, like a religion. Seeing as no one on the planet has any unique new argument about such topics as we disagree on then I think it's a bit lame to complain, and I tend to abhor people who believe they have unique ideas - because it's very rare that they do even if they believe them to be.
Even a new argument or idea is most likely to be the result of another person's work - because let's afce it, if either of us had truly new unique ideas we wouldn't be resorting to thrashing them out over the internet.
Warped - Part 2
Another documentary, another head full of questions.
"...think we're Jews, and in some parts of Iraq that's certain death":
Well, my gut reaction was mild contempt, far less than I'd level at, say a BNP monkey airing the same opinion.
Then I noticed, and realised I have to try to reconcile the two opinions.
I figure serious contempt, balanced with an acknowledgement that all these mongs are ultimately just the products of environments where such hatred is accepted.
The whole 'honour killing' thing, coupled with extending responsibility for one person's actions to their whole family / group / country :
I feel a slightly more reluctant to condemn this attitude. It feels like we're just beginning to get into the territory of different yet equal moral/philosophical codes.
I guess like the first issue, it's born of dividing the world into groups of 'us and them', and attaching identity to those particular groups.
And well, I've never really understood this. Admittedly nobody's ever been able to put forward a rational argument for it to me, but that's no ground to dismiss it altogether.
The same could be said for a specific part of the issue - placing responsibility on people for the actions of others, and for things outside of their control.
Of course, these attitudes (or the first at least) shouldn't be taken to represent the Iraqi population generally.
Another thing that occured to me - coalition soldiers entering and searching peoples' homes at will. It seems reasonable enough at first, but if this was done in the UK, for example, on mass and without warrants, etc, civil rights whiners would throw a hissy fit. And they'd no doubt get a lot of sympathy.
So is it fair to dismiss complaints from Iraqis about the same treatment?
So many questions, no real answers any more.
Another documentary, another head full of questions.
"...think we're Jews, and in some parts of Iraq that's certain death":
Well, my gut reaction was mild contempt, far less than I'd level at, say a BNP monkey airing the same opinion.
Then I noticed, and realised I have to try to reconcile the two opinions.
I figure serious contempt, balanced with an acknowledgement that all these mongs are ultimately just the products of environments where such hatred is accepted.
The whole 'honour killing' thing, coupled with extending responsibility for one person's actions to their whole family / group / country :
I feel a slightly more reluctant to condemn this attitude. It feels like we're just beginning to get into the territory of different yet equal moral/philosophical codes.
I guess like the first issue, it's born of dividing the world into groups of 'us and them', and attaching identity to those particular groups.
And well, I've never really understood this. Admittedly nobody's ever been able to put forward a rational argument for it to me, but that's no ground to dismiss it altogether.
The same could be said for a specific part of the issue - placing responsibility on people for the actions of others, and for things outside of their control.
Of course, these attitudes (or the first at least) shouldn't be taken to represent the Iraqi population generally.
Another thing that occured to me - coalition soldiers entering and searching peoples' homes at will. It seems reasonable enough at first, but if this was done in the UK, for example, on mass and without warrants, etc, civil rights whiners would throw a hissy fit. And they'd no doubt get a lot of sympathy.
So is it fair to dismiss complaints from Iraqis about the same treatment?
So many questions, no real answers any more.
Belldandy wrote:
> No, that is not what I said. For a start "tackled" does not
> eqaute with "nuke everything" or even military action. A
> difference in opinion is not a threat par se, it's all about context.
> If the difference of opinion is on the price of banana's, defecits,
> international events, and such, then excuse me if you don't see the
> B2's roaring out of Roswell and Andrews.
Wise enough words. So how come Dubya and the Neo-Cons seem to think that 'tackled' DOES mean military action? Or at the very least, the threat thereof (as Syria and Iran well know...)?
You're also assuming that the UK and US are basically one and the same when it comes to what is wanted. Have you heard of the trade wars that have gone on between us in the near past and that continue to happen now?
>
> If it's on topics which directly threaten national security or
> strategic interests and such, then it has to be tackled - not war -
> tackled. War always is and always should remain the final option, but
> it must always remain the option for without it everything else lacks
> credibility. What stops North Korea doing more than talking tough ?
> Because it knows that any action will cause the US to retailiate in
> defence, and then neither side wins.
Erm...and you criticised someone else for not understanding the complexity of an issue?!?!
Okay; NK rattles it's sabre periodically. It also goes ahead and states that it is building WOMD. And yet it gets aid from the US. Know why this is? NK has been playing, and beating, the rest of the world at Brinkmanship since the end of the Korean War. To imply that the US is somehow keeping a lid on things is to pretty much ignore the fact that NK continues to benefit from America, whilst all America gets is another few weeks to breath a sigh of relief that Seoul didn't disappear from the map THIS time. You posed the question "What stops NK from doing more than talking tough"? Well, what stops the US from doing more than giving them aid, failing to impose sanctions, etc?
> No, that is not what I said. For a start "tackled" does not
> eqaute with "nuke everything" or even military action. A
> difference in opinion is not a threat par se, it's all about context.
> If the difference of opinion is on the price of banana's, defecits,
> international events, and such, then excuse me if you don't see the
> B2's roaring out of Roswell and Andrews.
Wise enough words. So how come Dubya and the Neo-Cons seem to think that 'tackled' DOES mean military action? Or at the very least, the threat thereof (as Syria and Iran well know...)?
You're also assuming that the UK and US are basically one and the same when it comes to what is wanted. Have you heard of the trade wars that have gone on between us in the near past and that continue to happen now?
>
> If it's on topics which directly threaten national security or
> strategic interests and such, then it has to be tackled - not war -
> tackled. War always is and always should remain the final option, but
> it must always remain the option for without it everything else lacks
> credibility. What stops North Korea doing more than talking tough ?
> Because it knows that any action will cause the US to retailiate in
> defence, and then neither side wins.
Erm...and you criticised someone else for not understanding the complexity of an issue?!?!
Okay; NK rattles it's sabre periodically. It also goes ahead and states that it is building WOMD. And yet it gets aid from the US. Know why this is? NK has been playing, and beating, the rest of the world at Brinkmanship since the end of the Korean War. To imply that the US is somehow keeping a lid on things is to pretty much ignore the fact that NK continues to benefit from America, whilst all America gets is another few weeks to breath a sigh of relief that Seoul didn't disappear from the map THIS time. You posed the question "What stops NK from doing more than talking tough"? Well, what stops the US from doing more than giving them aid, failing to impose sanctions, etc?
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Okay, I think I need to clarify a few points in my last post so here
> goes.
>
> I'm quite aware that just about every nation has in some way been
> involved in the weapons trade, bar a few. My point in relation to the
> Russians and Chinese is that it seems a little stupid on their part
> because of the risk that one day coalition forces would be fighting
> against the equipment they'd sold. Admittedly coalition forces in
> 1990/91 faced a similar situation, facing some weapons, including
> WMD, that was western sourced and a hangover from the Iran/Iraq war.
> To me, Russian/Chinese involvement in supplying arms post 1991
> undermined their positions in the UN and the Iraq debate. Part of me
> wondered how much they just didn't want to see Russian T80's being
> blown apart by Apache's and Americans piling up hordes of AK's and
> Chem-bio suits.
Okay, lets leave aside the inherent anti-Russian and anti-Chinese feeling from that paragraph (didn't want to see there equipment being blown apart? Jesus, do you think that this is just a game of Command and Conquer?!) on the grounds that it creates quite a funny image; Why is it any more or less stupid for them to sell their arms to Iraq post 91? What risk could they possibly face? A few barbed comments maybe? Probably not; Russia and China are in the position of being world powers (though not to the same degree as the US), and as such are basically immune to suffering ANY sort of comeback from the US and UK. Don't believe me? Look at how carefully the US had to tread getting their spyplane back from the Chinese; I hardly think that the US are going to be in a position to criticise THEM for breaches of international law when one remembers that incident. And even if they did face accusations, the US and UK don't exactly have the moral high ground in Iraq, do they?
>
> It's well known that Russia broke the sanctions on many occasion post
> 1999 (After, I think, Desert Fox) and it's never been entirely clear
> what happened when they did - no way was it sight seeing. On the
> other hand we'll never know the flipside for a long while ? I
> suspect, as others in the media and press have wondered, that Russia
> and China may have slipped information via back channels to the US or
> at the very least exerted some influence.
Well...yeah. That's what happens in international relations. I dunno where you've got the idea that there are good and bad guys when it comes to world affairs. Don't you think that the US had to do something VERY similar for a long time in order to keep, for example, the contra scandal and arms to Iran stories out of reach of prying eyes?
>
> Within the conditions of the Cold War the Ba'athist regime was
> pro-western but actual support for him in the sense of funds/trainers
> and so on was cut off around 1988. Remember that at the time Iran had
> just had it's revolution,
Iran's revolution had occurred 10 years earlier, and the only reason that funding would have been cut was the imminent end of the Gulf War between Iran and Iraq.
> and NATO knew Russia was sending people and
> equipment to the country
> Idealogically the two countries had
> differences but each had an interest in the other - Iran to increase
> it's power in the region and protect itself from Israel, and Russia
> to gain a foothold in the vital oil producing region.
I'd be interested to see what your source for that is. Especially as the USSR had rather more than a foothold in that region thanks to Afghanistan, not to mention the other now former Soviet republics just next door.
> Within the
> scope of the 'big picture' the main concern was to ensure the
> Russians forgot about any ideas like that, and Saddam was willing to
> do the deed given our help. Yes, Saddam was doing god-knows what, but
> it's reasonable to assume this would have gone on regardless of
> Western support, or failing that an invasion by Iran and Soviets
> would have led to equal abuses and may have precipitated a larger
> conflict. It was a case of making sacrifices in order to fulfill
> large objectives, as has happened before and will happen again. The
> only redeeming thing is that Saddam was eventually ousted.
Erm...this totally falls down on the point that the USSR didn't have any need to increase their 'foothold'. Moreover, what you've described actually just sounds like the plot of Threads....
Anyway, aside from that; you've been going on about Saddam and his evil doings, criticising anyone who dared criticise the war as "Saddam's best friend", and generally doing your best to say "Anti War = Pro Saddam". Now you're saying that it's quite acceptible to treat an appallingly brutal dictator as a best friend, just so long as he does whatever the west wants?
Secondly, don't you think that an Iran weakened by 10 years of war with Iraq would have been...well, MORE vulnerable to Soviet invasion? Logically, what you are saying makes no sense. Again, I'd like to see your source for this scenario.
>
>
> No, because the only reason for basically ignoring much of what goes
> on there is a friendly government in power. It's a fair guess that
> the rebels, if allowed to form a government, would not be pro-western
> and would kick out the military stationed in the area. Simple fact is
> we need those bases in that area more than ever because Asia
> represents the last area with potential for a war.
So you're quite happy for people to suffer, just so long as the war against terror rumbles on? Tell me, how do you think all of those Indonesians feel about the US (Land of the Free, remember?) supporting the Indonesian government, and providing the means for them to oppress and brutalise them? Do you think they'll just accept it? Or do you think that, if a group of people come along and say "This is how the US are taking advantage of you. Join us, and we will take the fight to them", they'll join them? Supporting that government is counterproductive; what's the point of keeping a few bases with a few thousand military personnel when you're turning thousands of Indonesians against you every day? If the west wants to stop terror, it needs to stop supporting it.
>
> There is no guarantee that a rebel government would act any
> differently, whilst this does not excuse anything it is the job of
> the UN as well as countries willing to take unilateral action to sort
> problems like this. Right now the Indonesians provide vital support
> for the war on terror in Asia, and until the rest of the UN gets
> tough on the subject I don't expect anything to change. Get the right
> tv footage, send in a UN expeditionary force, and you'd get support
> to effect change.
True, but as I say; you can't go on supporting a terrible regime and expect there to be no repercussions or consequences. The US supports the deeply unpopular regime in Saudi Arabia, which is noted for it's human rights abuses. Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Coincidence?
>
> Because I'm biased towards the US/UK/coalition alliances. Anything
> that threatens that has to be tackled, and it is my belief that the
> best chance for a better world does lie with such alliances. China is
> still a potential enemy, Russia less so.
Well, kudos for finally admitting your bias. Less so for viewing the world in terms of 'enemies' and 'friends'. If the world really were that simple, then we'd be perpetually at war. You want to know what the US's biggest enemy is? It's government; it has, in 4 years, alienated almost ALL of it's allies worldwide (despite the huge outpouring of sympathy from every single nation in the world after Sept 11th...even Iran showed compassion toward the Great Satan for 9/11. IRAN for Gods sake...), and for what real effect? Well...some of Dubya's campaign contributors have got some pretty juicy contracts to help rebuild Iraq...and that's it. Hell, even Rumsfield has admitted that the actions of the US may well create more terrorists than it stops.
>
> With respect towards the subject of the indonesians/rebels, it's one
> for one, one lot kills those they shouldn't, the other side does, and
> so on. Both are equally as bad to me, but again, whilst one remains
> pro-western not an awful lot is going to happen. Even Russia rarely
> comments on it, 'cause in a way the bases are just as important to it
> as they are to the US.
Hmm...both are equally as bad? Can't really argue with that. But once again, I'd draw your attention to the huge number of moral outrage-posts you've used to try and justify the Iraq invasion. Now contrast them with your post here saying that an oppressive regime is A-ok as long as they're friendly to the US (and again I'd say; how on earth do you expect the US to stop terrorists when, by their actions in supporting regimes like Indonesia, they're responsible for creating them?) Would I be right in saying that you're no longer trying to claim that the Iraq invasion was all about 'doing the right thing'?
> I am excusing them in a way , but it's political fact and nothing
> much will change that. No, it's not inevitable, but I'm saying that
> unless Indonesia becomes a threat that there are bigger priorities
> right now. Say we end the war on terror at some point, the US will
> turn it's attention elsewhere and, I believe, one by one these
> problems will be solved. There is not one thing however stopping the
> UN acting without the US to throw Indonesia into the headlines and
> build support for action if the government will not act itself
Again; Indonesia's government is already a threat because, thanks to it's brutality, it creates more terrorists. Saudi Arabia is proof of that. As is Chechnya (more brutality by the Russians led to more determined resistance from the Chechens). I'll repeat; by supporting such regimes, America is creating it's own enemies. What can it do to stop that? Stop supporting such regimes. You're saying the UN should step in, and I agree. But the UN is hamstrung by the national interests of the members of the Security Council. Look how many resolutions have been vetoed that would have gone some way to easing the lot of the ordinary person in a less developed or dictatorial nation. It's all very well laying the blame at the door of the UN, but only if you accept that those 5 nations have done their utmost to prevent the UN from doing their job.
>
> It threatened Israel, had invaded Kuwait and suchlike, which was good
> enough. Saddam's gone and to me that's a major victory, the other
> point is that the coalition encouraged TV coverage for the most part.
> I found it quite hilarious to see all the "shock" at times
> when the footage shown was later revealed to be acting or likewise.
> To many people watched the coverage and assumed they'd get the truth,
> which in a time of war is frankly naive.
THAT was good enough? Oh come ON! Get real; if that was the case, why haven't North Korea been invaded? They were publically stating they were going to nuke Japan if anyone put sanctions in place against them. Net result? No sanctions have been put in place against them. If that was the case, why isn't every Arab nation in danger from the US due to threats to Israel? If that was the case, why hasn't Israel itself been invaded for it's invasions and continued occupation of Arab territory? Are you honestly and seriously trying to tell me that Iraq, in any way, represented a danger to it's neighbours?!
'And suchlike'? Or in other words, you can't really think of too many reasons why the invasion happened?
And you're not in a position to talk about naivety; some of the (lets be frank here) outright lies told by the US and UK governments that you've swallowed without question thanks to your blind faith in those 2 organisations...well, it takes the breath away quite frankly. I'll completely agree with you that people shouldn't assume they'll get the pure unvarnished truth from the media. But neither should you assume you'll get it from the government.
Finally, just how much of that coverage has been 'acting or otherwise'? Not much at all I think you'll find. Are you trying to condemn the media en masse because of the lies of a few?
>
> 4 officers? 4 people have been brought to account for the god-knows
> how many judicially approved murders and acts of torture ordered by
> government? 4 men?
>
> I didn't actually say that made it okay did I ? I should have perhaps
> been clearer - they were obviously scape goats put on trial purely to
> quieten the international community and silence various NGO's. The
> West has a general belief that blame for actions lies at the top of
> an organisation - by sentencing 4 such people it undermines any NGO
> protests because the average person will think along the lines of
> "those responsible were punished" and that's that.
No, you didn't. I assumed an implication was being made, and if I was wrong in that then I'm sorry.
>
> I've never said "stop the debate" or such, not that I
> remember anyway, I've simply pointed before to other similar examples
> related to Iraq, I find it annoying that some can be so blase in
> their assertions without little fact, and can't admit their own
> biases despite taking me to task about mine - thee still seems to be
> this idealised view that someone can be unbiased, which is rubbish,
> everyone is biased in some way. Yes, I've probably done likewise
> myself but that doesn't stop me.
Pure objectivity is an arrogant fallacy, and I think you'll find that neither myself or Goatboy have ever claimed to be completely objective. I'm always entirely open about my opinion, and the bias that underpins it. I'll also however (and this is important) explain the thought process that has brought me to the conclusion; I always equate the reason for that to the rather annoying instruction given in every Maths exam since time immemorial; "Always show your working out; that way if the answer is wrong, the examiners can still see that you understand the principle". I'll give my opinions, together with the reasons behind them. That way, if people want to debate me they can see why I believe what I believe and react accordingly.
Whereas your posts, in the very recent past, did nothing more than say "you're wrong. This is what the US government have said, and it must be correct", followed by various rather ugly attempts to avoid addressing a point put to you. That is the reason you get such a hard time; not because of your bias, but because of the apparent lack of thought behind it. That opinion was compounded by your epic whinge at Goatboy for disagreeing with you; your final post to him in discussion about Sept 11th (whilst the 'Smoker Commie' thing has been done to death, I haven't forgotten the spiteful comments you made concerning the relative he lost in the WTC attack), which made it seem that you didn't care at all about the people who died in those towers. Nor did you seem to care about ridding the world of a dictator. And nor were you concerned with the Iraqi and Afghan people. It simply looked like the bitter wailings of a boy who was petulant because someone was questioning him. And with the very best will in the world, if you think you're going to be able to convince people to see things your way by getting p!ssed off if they ask you quesions about your view...well, you can look forward to many more such disagreements.
>
> I don't idealise the ideas as much as some seem to think, nothing is
> perfect, but as I said previously, I believe it's the best way to get
> where we want to go.
Fair enough; would be a strange and boring place if we all thought the same. People (I suspect) assume you idealise those beliefs because of your rabid determination to never back down, even when it simply gets ridiculous. Speaking personally, I've always picked you up on almost every point you've parroted for on other reason than it was just that; parrotting, with absolutely no evidence of any thought behind it. And if there is one thing I abhor, it's the blind faith of a fundamentalist.
>
> Okay, I think I need to clarify a few points in my last post so here
> goes.
>
> I'm quite aware that just about every nation has in some way been
> involved in the weapons trade, bar a few. My point in relation to the
> Russians and Chinese is that it seems a little stupid on their part
> because of the risk that one day coalition forces would be fighting
> against the equipment they'd sold. Admittedly coalition forces in
> 1990/91 faced a similar situation, facing some weapons, including
> WMD, that was western sourced and a hangover from the Iran/Iraq war.
> To me, Russian/Chinese involvement in supplying arms post 1991
> undermined their positions in the UN and the Iraq debate. Part of me
> wondered how much they just didn't want to see Russian T80's being
> blown apart by Apache's and Americans piling up hordes of AK's and
> Chem-bio suits.
Okay, lets leave aside the inherent anti-Russian and anti-Chinese feeling from that paragraph (didn't want to see there equipment being blown apart? Jesus, do you think that this is just a game of Command and Conquer?!) on the grounds that it creates quite a funny image; Why is it any more or less stupid for them to sell their arms to Iraq post 91? What risk could they possibly face? A few barbed comments maybe? Probably not; Russia and China are in the position of being world powers (though not to the same degree as the US), and as such are basically immune to suffering ANY sort of comeback from the US and UK. Don't believe me? Look at how carefully the US had to tread getting their spyplane back from the Chinese; I hardly think that the US are going to be in a position to criticise THEM for breaches of international law when one remembers that incident. And even if they did face accusations, the US and UK don't exactly have the moral high ground in Iraq, do they?
>
> It's well known that Russia broke the sanctions on many occasion post
> 1999 (After, I think, Desert Fox) and it's never been entirely clear
> what happened when they did - no way was it sight seeing. On the
> other hand we'll never know the flipside for a long while ? I
> suspect, as others in the media and press have wondered, that Russia
> and China may have slipped information via back channels to the US or
> at the very least exerted some influence.
Well...yeah. That's what happens in international relations. I dunno where you've got the idea that there are good and bad guys when it comes to world affairs. Don't you think that the US had to do something VERY similar for a long time in order to keep, for example, the contra scandal and arms to Iran stories out of reach of prying eyes?
>
> Within the conditions of the Cold War the Ba'athist regime was
> pro-western but actual support for him in the sense of funds/trainers
> and so on was cut off around 1988. Remember that at the time Iran had
> just had it's revolution,
Iran's revolution had occurred 10 years earlier, and the only reason that funding would have been cut was the imminent end of the Gulf War between Iran and Iraq.
> and NATO knew Russia was sending people and
> equipment to the country
> Idealogically the two countries had
> differences but each had an interest in the other - Iran to increase
> it's power in the region and protect itself from Israel, and Russia
> to gain a foothold in the vital oil producing region.
I'd be interested to see what your source for that is. Especially as the USSR had rather more than a foothold in that region thanks to Afghanistan, not to mention the other now former Soviet republics just next door.
> Within the
> scope of the 'big picture' the main concern was to ensure the
> Russians forgot about any ideas like that, and Saddam was willing to
> do the deed given our help. Yes, Saddam was doing god-knows what, but
> it's reasonable to assume this would have gone on regardless of
> Western support, or failing that an invasion by Iran and Soviets
> would have led to equal abuses and may have precipitated a larger
> conflict. It was a case of making sacrifices in order to fulfill
> large objectives, as has happened before and will happen again. The
> only redeeming thing is that Saddam was eventually ousted.
Erm...this totally falls down on the point that the USSR didn't have any need to increase their 'foothold'. Moreover, what you've described actually just sounds like the plot of Threads....
Anyway, aside from that; you've been going on about Saddam and his evil doings, criticising anyone who dared criticise the war as "Saddam's best friend", and generally doing your best to say "Anti War = Pro Saddam". Now you're saying that it's quite acceptible to treat an appallingly brutal dictator as a best friend, just so long as he does whatever the west wants?
Secondly, don't you think that an Iran weakened by 10 years of war with Iraq would have been...well, MORE vulnerable to Soviet invasion? Logically, what you are saying makes no sense. Again, I'd like to see your source for this scenario.
>
>
> No, because the only reason for basically ignoring much of what goes
> on there is a friendly government in power. It's a fair guess that
> the rebels, if allowed to form a government, would not be pro-western
> and would kick out the military stationed in the area. Simple fact is
> we need those bases in that area more than ever because Asia
> represents the last area with potential for a war.
So you're quite happy for people to suffer, just so long as the war against terror rumbles on? Tell me, how do you think all of those Indonesians feel about the US (Land of the Free, remember?) supporting the Indonesian government, and providing the means for them to oppress and brutalise them? Do you think they'll just accept it? Or do you think that, if a group of people come along and say "This is how the US are taking advantage of you. Join us, and we will take the fight to them", they'll join them? Supporting that government is counterproductive; what's the point of keeping a few bases with a few thousand military personnel when you're turning thousands of Indonesians against you every day? If the west wants to stop terror, it needs to stop supporting it.
>
> There is no guarantee that a rebel government would act any
> differently, whilst this does not excuse anything it is the job of
> the UN as well as countries willing to take unilateral action to sort
> problems like this. Right now the Indonesians provide vital support
> for the war on terror in Asia, and until the rest of the UN gets
> tough on the subject I don't expect anything to change. Get the right
> tv footage, send in a UN expeditionary force, and you'd get support
> to effect change.
True, but as I say; you can't go on supporting a terrible regime and expect there to be no repercussions or consequences. The US supports the deeply unpopular regime in Saudi Arabia, which is noted for it's human rights abuses. Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Coincidence?
>
> Because I'm biased towards the US/UK/coalition alliances. Anything
> that threatens that has to be tackled, and it is my belief that the
> best chance for a better world does lie with such alliances. China is
> still a potential enemy, Russia less so.
Well, kudos for finally admitting your bias. Less so for viewing the world in terms of 'enemies' and 'friends'. If the world really were that simple, then we'd be perpetually at war. You want to know what the US's biggest enemy is? It's government; it has, in 4 years, alienated almost ALL of it's allies worldwide (despite the huge outpouring of sympathy from every single nation in the world after Sept 11th...even Iran showed compassion toward the Great Satan for 9/11. IRAN for Gods sake...), and for what real effect? Well...some of Dubya's campaign contributors have got some pretty juicy contracts to help rebuild Iraq...and that's it. Hell, even Rumsfield has admitted that the actions of the US may well create more terrorists than it stops.
>
> With respect towards the subject of the indonesians/rebels, it's one
> for one, one lot kills those they shouldn't, the other side does, and
> so on. Both are equally as bad to me, but again, whilst one remains
> pro-western not an awful lot is going to happen. Even Russia rarely
> comments on it, 'cause in a way the bases are just as important to it
> as they are to the US.
Hmm...both are equally as bad? Can't really argue with that. But once again, I'd draw your attention to the huge number of moral outrage-posts you've used to try and justify the Iraq invasion. Now contrast them with your post here saying that an oppressive regime is A-ok as long as they're friendly to the US (and again I'd say; how on earth do you expect the US to stop terrorists when, by their actions in supporting regimes like Indonesia, they're responsible for creating them?) Would I be right in saying that you're no longer trying to claim that the Iraq invasion was all about 'doing the right thing'?
> I am excusing them in a way , but it's political fact and nothing
> much will change that. No, it's not inevitable, but I'm saying that
> unless Indonesia becomes a threat that there are bigger priorities
> right now. Say we end the war on terror at some point, the US will
> turn it's attention elsewhere and, I believe, one by one these
> problems will be solved. There is not one thing however stopping the
> UN acting without the US to throw Indonesia into the headlines and
> build support for action if the government will not act itself
Again; Indonesia's government is already a threat because, thanks to it's brutality, it creates more terrorists. Saudi Arabia is proof of that. As is Chechnya (more brutality by the Russians led to more determined resistance from the Chechens). I'll repeat; by supporting such regimes, America is creating it's own enemies. What can it do to stop that? Stop supporting such regimes. You're saying the UN should step in, and I agree. But the UN is hamstrung by the national interests of the members of the Security Council. Look how many resolutions have been vetoed that would have gone some way to easing the lot of the ordinary person in a less developed or dictatorial nation. It's all very well laying the blame at the door of the UN, but only if you accept that those 5 nations have done their utmost to prevent the UN from doing their job.
>
> It threatened Israel, had invaded Kuwait and suchlike, which was good
> enough. Saddam's gone and to me that's a major victory, the other
> point is that the coalition encouraged TV coverage for the most part.
> I found it quite hilarious to see all the "shock" at times
> when the footage shown was later revealed to be acting or likewise.
> To many people watched the coverage and assumed they'd get the truth,
> which in a time of war is frankly naive.
THAT was good enough? Oh come ON! Get real; if that was the case, why haven't North Korea been invaded? They were publically stating they were going to nuke Japan if anyone put sanctions in place against them. Net result? No sanctions have been put in place against them. If that was the case, why isn't every Arab nation in danger from the US due to threats to Israel? If that was the case, why hasn't Israel itself been invaded for it's invasions and continued occupation of Arab territory? Are you honestly and seriously trying to tell me that Iraq, in any way, represented a danger to it's neighbours?!
'And suchlike'? Or in other words, you can't really think of too many reasons why the invasion happened?
And you're not in a position to talk about naivety; some of the (lets be frank here) outright lies told by the US and UK governments that you've swallowed without question thanks to your blind faith in those 2 organisations...well, it takes the breath away quite frankly. I'll completely agree with you that people shouldn't assume they'll get the pure unvarnished truth from the media. But neither should you assume you'll get it from the government.
Finally, just how much of that coverage has been 'acting or otherwise'? Not much at all I think you'll find. Are you trying to condemn the media en masse because of the lies of a few?
>
> 4 officers? 4 people have been brought to account for the god-knows
> how many judicially approved murders and acts of torture ordered by
> government? 4 men?
>
> I didn't actually say that made it okay did I ? I should have perhaps
> been clearer - they were obviously scape goats put on trial purely to
> quieten the international community and silence various NGO's. The
> West has a general belief that blame for actions lies at the top of
> an organisation - by sentencing 4 such people it undermines any NGO
> protests because the average person will think along the lines of
> "those responsible were punished" and that's that.
No, you didn't. I assumed an implication was being made, and if I was wrong in that then I'm sorry.
>
> I've never said "stop the debate" or such, not that I
> remember anyway, I've simply pointed before to other similar examples
> related to Iraq, I find it annoying that some can be so blase in
> their assertions without little fact, and can't admit their own
> biases despite taking me to task about mine - thee still seems to be
> this idealised view that someone can be unbiased, which is rubbish,
> everyone is biased in some way. Yes, I've probably done likewise
> myself but that doesn't stop me.
Pure objectivity is an arrogant fallacy, and I think you'll find that neither myself or Goatboy have ever claimed to be completely objective. I'm always entirely open about my opinion, and the bias that underpins it. I'll also however (and this is important) explain the thought process that has brought me to the conclusion; I always equate the reason for that to the rather annoying instruction given in every Maths exam since time immemorial; "Always show your working out; that way if the answer is wrong, the examiners can still see that you understand the principle". I'll give my opinions, together with the reasons behind them. That way, if people want to debate me they can see why I believe what I believe and react accordingly.
Whereas your posts, in the very recent past, did nothing more than say "you're wrong. This is what the US government have said, and it must be correct", followed by various rather ugly attempts to avoid addressing a point put to you. That is the reason you get such a hard time; not because of your bias, but because of the apparent lack of thought behind it. That opinion was compounded by your epic whinge at Goatboy for disagreeing with you; your final post to him in discussion about Sept 11th (whilst the 'Smoker Commie' thing has been done to death, I haven't forgotten the spiteful comments you made concerning the relative he lost in the WTC attack), which made it seem that you didn't care at all about the people who died in those towers. Nor did you seem to care about ridding the world of a dictator. And nor were you concerned with the Iraqi and Afghan people. It simply looked like the bitter wailings of a boy who was petulant because someone was questioning him. And with the very best will in the world, if you think you're going to be able to convince people to see things your way by getting p!ssed off if they ask you quesions about your view...well, you can look forward to many more such disagreements.
>
> I don't idealise the ideas as much as some seem to think, nothing is
> perfect, but as I said previously, I believe it's the best way to get
> where we want to go.
Fair enough; would be a strange and boring place if we all thought the same. People (I suspect) assume you idealise those beliefs because of your rabid determination to never back down, even when it simply gets ridiculous. Speaking personally, I've always picked you up on almost every point you've parroted for on other reason than it was just that; parrotting, with absolutely no evidence of any thought behind it. And if there is one thing I abhor, it's the blind faith of a fundamentalist.
Page: