The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 have decided to begin this thread so that we can all predict the future in our own little way. Basically we will all pick a topic/subject etc and predict how long it will take to happen and why/how it will come about. I'll get the ball rolling -
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
Page:
That post scored a 24 on my "mouse-scroll" meter.
IMpressive.
IMpressive.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> And the "peace" before we went in was what exactly ?
> Peaceful for the people in the ever rising tally of unmarked graves ?
> Or would that be peaceful for those being executed for speaking
> against Saddam ? Or those being gang raped in prisons by Iraqi
> military forces ? I'm having difficulty locating this peace that
> existed before we went in. Sure, the terrorists may find it
> irrelevant, but that's because they've lost what little power and
> purpose they had. There is no place for them anymore in Iraq and they
> will fight to the death to regain it.
As opposed to now; peaceful for the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed during and after the war? Peaceful being shot by US troops for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Once again, you've missed the point; I never said that there was peace beforehand. You've simply decided to misinterpret what was said, either deliberately or not. The point is that the US presence has NOT brought peace, nor an end to bloodshed. You might say "Well, at least it's better than before", but that doesn't answer why many Iraqi's are demonstrating against the US presence. And it certainly doesn't excuse the number of civilians killed by the US and UK military.
No place for them ANYMORE in Iraq? So the fact that there are now more terrorists operating in Iraq than there were beforehand...that doesn't concern you then?
There was no place for Al-Quaida BEFORE this war. Now they have a chance to flourish. The only terrorist found in Iraq has been a man who renounced violence years ago to the extent that he was allowed by the Irraeli's to travel to Israel. Now if you can explain to me just how the influx of Islamic radicals who never got into Iraq under Saddam counts as 'regain(ing)' power and influence, please go ahead.
>
> Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did
> Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa?
>
> After years of violence ? Okay.
Yet it wasn't violence that ended it, was it? There was no force used, was there? It was ended by the government who were NOT in a position where they were forced to do so. Using your logic, one may as well say that the rule of force of arms only comes about after years of peace.
>
> Because the UK no longer had the military forces to maintain rule by
> force, plus you may want to look up the idea of neo-colonialism if
> you think that most gained true independence, in many cases those who
> were elected were little better than us, or indeed worse in many
> cases. Plus if you want to call it a remarkable lack of bloodshed
> then Iraq, by comparison, is a negligible amount of bloodshed.
Right, right...so the end of rule by peaceful means doesn't count if the military is no longer there? And the fact that who was elected afterwards were little better...is that at all the point? We're talking about the end of a rule. Which this was. You're now trying to say that "it wasn't true independance". So what IS true independance? Or are you going to keep redefining what you say?
>
> These would be the negotiation that have been going on for decades,
> whilst all the time various groups still kill, maim and terrorise yes
> ? I'm sure those in Canary Wharf, Manchester, Omagh and such were
> heartened to know that the peace process was ongoing.
Okay, I should have been more specific; my bad. Since the Good Friday agreement. Not that it changes the simple fact that the best chance IS still through negotiation, and not violence. The acts you mention prolonged the conflict, no? So therefore you're saying that the use of violence did not help bring about peace.
>
> And there you go playing the counter-emotional bulls"it.=, last
> time I looked this was a democracy, with a reasonable freedom of
> speech, I have as much right as you to discuss it and noticeably you
> avoid the actual point that the worst act of terrorism EVER was
> comitted before overt action against the terrorists.
Okay Bell, here's the thing; you don't seem to understand that you keep blowing your own arguments out of the water with your own rhetoric. You keep pointing out how awful 9/11 was, and use it as a justification for everything because of those poor people who died. Then, when confronted with someone who disagrees with you who has actually lost someone close to them in that attack, you demean their loss. This shows that the only reason you care about the deaths in 9/11 is because they've given Dubya the excuse to have his little war, and you support anything Dubya does without question. Okay? Are we clear on that? When I get emotional about things like this...well, I've never said anything that shows my emotion to be crocodile tears. Whereas you have.
Now then; this was the worst act of terrorism ever. Yes, it was. And it was committed by mainly Saudi people. And planned by a Saudi. And the US invaded...Iraq.
But that's a side issue; you've been careful with your choice of words, which is at least an improvement on your usual scattergun approach. 'Overt' actions? Okay...so, the keeping in power of an unpopular and brutal Saudi government which causes suffering to his people? That's not overt, no. But it gives the terrorists good cause to hate America. The support of Saddam, arming him in the 80's, allowing US companies to do business with him to the extent that the US were the largest purchasor of Iraqi oil up to 2001? Well, no that's not overt either. But as Al-Quaida hated Saddam's secular Iraq almost as much as the US (and indeed offered to drive him out of Kuwait in order to avoid US troops being stationed in Saudi), then it's yet more reason to hate the US.
I know what you'll say; "those aren't good reasons". Well, no not to you. And not to me either. But to someone who is living in fear of a regime that is only in power because the US put it and keeps it there? Well...there's plenty of reason to want to strike back, isn't there? Just because something isn't overt, doesn't mean that it isn't reason to hate someone.
Once more, I'd best explain this completely so as to avoid giving you an excuse to try and avoid the issue by saying "you support terrorists!". 9/11 was an atrocity. So is the invasion of Iraq. So is the callous disregard shown by the west for developing nations where terrorists tend to come from. One atrocity spawned the next atrocity, which in turn spawned another, and so on. If you want to see where Dubya's methods of dealing with terrorism will lead us, look at Israel. If you're happy to live your life in fear because Dubya is too stupid to attempt to deal with a problem by means other than polarising the world into black and white, good for you. I on the other would prefer to live in a world where I lose all of my civil liberties in order to safeguard what is increasingly laughably known as 'freedom'.
> REally ? Well gather up your evidence about the IRA because I'm sure
> 6 would like to look it over, as would the FBI and such, heck it's
> been looked for for ages so I'm glad you've got it !
So, aside from that sarcasm, have you got anything whatsoever to contradict what I've said? It's obvious how annoyed you're getting Bell, because you're responding with sarcasm, and attempts to distract. Either answer a point, or shut up about it. I've read enough of your rather poor attempts to be insulting before; you make yourself look a fool by doing so again.
> Plus if you've
> got the Pentagon plans which say "Objective: Bomb
> Civilians" there's a pile of Democrat Senators and Liberal
> Democrat MP's who'll be interested
Right, right; it was collateral damage, yeah? And that makes it SO much better; to know that 6000+ civilians died in Iraq because of accidents.
Can you explain to me how an innocent civilian killed by a bomb dropped by the army is any less dead than someone killer by a terrorist bomb? I think you'll find that a grieving family in Iraq won't make that distinction. And if a group of Islamic gentlemen offer members of that family a way to strike back at America, don't you think they'll take it?
>, ETA is supposedly in negotiations
> (like the IRA peace process you hold up earlier on)
Wrong. They entered into a ceasefire not long after the IRA entered into the Good Friday agreement. They then ended their ceasefire about a year later. ETA are continuing their bombing campaign today. Sorry to spoil your sarcasm, but once more you've charged in without checking facts. And if this turns out anything like previous arguments with you, you'll do your level best to avoid addressing that error.
> and again with
> reference to Russia we see this peculair "leave the terrorists
> alone and they'll leave us alone" idea. USS Cole anyone ? First
> WTC bombing ? And many more...
No, we see more of you misunderstanding or misinterpreting what is said. What I am saying is that the Chechen problem did not need a military response. A republic seceded from the Russian confederacy. This could have been dealt with by negotiation; there were no terror attacks prior to the Chechen nation wanting to leave. But no, Boris Yeltsin, in an attempt to restore some of his prestige, ordered a long and costly war which has cost lives and increased terrorism. There was no need for that war, and the war created terrorists that were not there in the first place. THAT is what I am saying. If you choose to deliberately misconstrue what I've said, well that sort of shows the inadequacy of your arguments.
USS Cole and first WTC bombing?
Okay then; in return, how about the fact (that I keep mentioning, and you keep avoiding) that the US is responsible for keeping the standard of living low in countries like the Phillipines, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia etc? Or doesn't that count? Both have one group of people responsible for causing death or damage to the other. What's the difference?
> Yes, they're soft targets and show that in order to cause damage they
> are going for low rate weak targets in peripheral regions. Sure,
> Osama and his buddies keep making these tapes saying he's going to
> strike, but oh dear, no strikes.
Apart from the daily loss of American life in Iraq...
>
> See above, they are weak targets, which whilst providing little
> comfort for those left behind in such attacks, it does show a gradual
> move towards the end.
Really? How long did the IRA bomb 'weak' targets? You said yourself earlier on in this thread that the campaign has been going on for decades. You've tried to imply that it has no end in sight, and that the negotiations are worthless. Yet you're now saying that the bombing of weak targets is a sign of things coming to an end. So which is it Bell? Or are you happy at the prospect of 30 years of 'soft' and 'weak' targets that will see thousands of innocent people dead?
Incidentally, I'm staggered by your complete lack of compassion and empathy towards those who have been killed in such attacks. You seem to view the people who have died as statistics and not much more.
> No, but as you well know, the terrorists come from a small minority
> in certain countries. Earlier this week the Red Cross was hit. Now if
> you're a parent in Iraq, and your kid dies because the Red Cross goes
> or was damaged, I'd guess you're not going to give a toss about the
> "holy cause" and you're going to act against the
> terrorists.
And if you're a parent in Iraq and your kid dies because the Americans dropped a bomb on your house, you're not going to give a toss about the cause of 'freedom', and you're going to act against the Americans. Simple, isn't it?
By further token, if you're a parent in Indonesia, and your child is murdered by the army, you're not going to give a toss about how the govenment is pro-western; you're going to want revenge and act against them. Do you see? By creating terror, you create more terrorists. Terrorists are a minority, but that minority increases by the actions of Dubya et al. Your argument is a sound one, but you've failed to apply it to American actions due to your blind faith.
> Saddam's sons were found because the guy whose place they
> took didn't like them anymore, the information to extract Private
> Lynch was obtained because an Iraqi lawyer did not like what he saw,
> in Afghanistan Afghani's are helping us to find the terrorists
> because they don't want the life they had for their children.
Saddam's sons were also found because of the money that was offered for a reward. Private Lynch was found because she hadn't actually even been shot in the first place; she was held in a private hospital where an Iraqi nurse sang her to sleep every night and where she received preferential treatment. Afghanistan, where America have got it pretty much right, still sees people devoting themselves to the Taliban and other warlords.
Anyway, on the flip side of your argument...American troops are killed every day because the Iraqi's don't want them there (after all, any terror network needs support; these terrorists can't act in isolation, they need some support). American workers are being killed and maimed in Saudi because ordinary Saudi's don't want them there any more. It's easy to take what you're saying and apply it to America. When you do, you see that both sides are as guilty as the other of causing terror. But you refuse to even contemplate that, and I can only conclude that it is due to your blind faith.
> No,, read above. Also you remove the means, and you harden security
> to prevent possible attacks.
But you're not removing the means, are you. You're increasing the liklihood of people becoming terrorists. If Donald Rumsfield can admit that, how come you can't?
> That's a very simplified way of looking at it, unless the entire
> continents of Asia and Africa suddenly erupted in open warfare this
> morning then that's not the case - you'll find people in all nations
> live in varying conditions and the division is not on the grounds of
> nationality or country, usually it's class.
Yes, and the lower classes are far more populous in Asia and Africa. And they live in poverty. And the overwhelming type of government in Asia and Africa? Corrupt, dictatorial, unrepresentative, and oppressive. So although it is, I admit, a simplified way of looking at it, it's a true one.
I note you've misrepresented what I've said again; I respond to your point about people living in fear, you imply that I'm saying they're all in open warfare. Further evidence, as if any were needed, that you simply don't understand the issues I'm raising.
> Well they'd do well to look at their own leaders who sold them out,
> not the western world. Why was colonialism possible in the past ?
> Because most of the elites in the colonies were easily bought or
> willingly joined in.
Right...so those leaders who are only there because the west helped them there, or support them to keep them there...that doesn't matter? Yes, their leaders sold them out, but the implication of that is that you accept that the nations they sold out too ARE taking advantage of the developing world.
I agree, one should not try and exempt their own leaders. And I wasn't trying to. In a lot of cases, they don't (look at the rebels in Indonesia) But, bearing in mind you've already accepted that America keeps oppressive regimes in place because it suits their purpose, are you really trying to exempt America from the responsibility for all of the poor, oppressed, and above all, very angry people there? Don't you see how this policy of the west will always, always result in the creation of more terrorists?
>
> That's one view, but not the only one. Remove those who put them in
> that position - their own leaders. Right now Mr Mugabe's running
> Zimbabwe into the ground, which I guess is our fault for not acting ?
> But if we act then his supporters will get angry and shoot at our
> people, so using your logic we should sit back and do zilch.
No. The way to do it is by negotiation, by consent, by acting via the UN, by not allowing national interests to override international ones, by improving the lot of the people there, by guaranteeing them clean drinking water, by stopping corporations working people to death for 50 cents a day. By creating one international state in other words. It was a round world last time I looked.
Doubtless you'll say that's not possible. And I agree that it is VERY idealistic. But there's no reason why it won't happen apart from people like Dubya.
And really Bell, stop deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. Over the last few months, it's been made painfully (for you) clear that anti-war does NOT mean "sit back and do nothing". Yet you continue to trot out that same line, despite the fact that, as an argument, it was bankrupt a long time ago. It just indicates that you're not thinking about what you say; that you're parrotting something because you were once told it; that you're a fundamentalist.
>
> Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't
> be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle
> east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
>
> Except they're not from whole continents, and the average terrorist
> is well educated - usually in the west - and from a middle class
> background. Yes, suicide bombers aren't, but the people controlling
> the terrorist groups are, in fact many have rich families and vast
> personal wealth. Strangely none seem to bothered about these people
> you're saying are angry. I mean, it's almost like people like Osama
> are using those people to justify their own little crusades eh ? So
> we find them, and we remove them. And we keep on doing that, and hope
> that those places where people are being badly treated by their own
> leaders and such get rid of them, and I'm sure that in the shadows
> we'll be all too happy to give the little push now and then.
Hang on; suicide bombers aren't? Uh...I'm sorry, but what is your point? I'm saying that more terrorists will be created. You're saying 'yes, but only footsoldiers'. So...what you're saying is that all we're doing is increasing the number of people who are willing to give their lives in order to hurt the west?! You don't see that as...well, an extremely bad thing?
Also, I know that the terrorist leaders aren't concerned. I wrote something about that about a month ago. Their motivations are personal crusades, yes. D'you think they're saying that to the people they recruit? The terrorist leaders are lying b@stards, just like our leaders. In fact, what I said about it was;
" We're encouraged to have faith in our leaders, but our leaders constantly lie to us and are visibly and demonstratably self-serving buckets of bullb*llocks. However, thanks to centuries of being told we shouldn't rely on ourselves, we turn to organisations that encourage us to have faith in them instead, and they in turn abuse that trust to achieve their own aims. "
Okay, the people controlling them; many of them seem to originate from Saudi do they not? A nation that has been left entirely alone thanks to Dubya's special relationship with the Saudi royal family?
We keep on getting rid of them yes, yet more seem to be there don't they? And more seem to arrive on the scene all the time. And when they do, they have a huge pool of possible recruits to pick from, thanks to the policies of the west.
As for what America does 'in the shadows'...well, you really are being naive if you think anything will be done to improve the lives of people living under oppressive regimes. Have another look at America's track record on what they do in the shadows;
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/ dictators.html
>
>
> Becaue Paul Wolfowitz is the president now ? And the context that
> quote is taken from is the reason why Saddam's 4th on the list. But
> you forget to mention that.
Good lord; I thought you couldn't get any more evasive, and I'm proved wrong. O-kay; Wolfowitz is a senior advisor to Dubya, and is responsible for formulating policy. He is deputy to Rumsfield, who was in charge of organising the war. In other words, this man played a huge role in deciding if, when, and how to attack. And you're just dismissing what he's said because it doesn't fit in with what you believe? Come on Bell, this is getting as bad as your excusal of Rumsfields involvement in the sale of Nuclear Reactors to North Korea.
And I don't understand what you mean by '4th on the list', or the context. In the interview, Wolfowitz was asked what the reasons for invading Iraq were. He stated that the first and second reasons were "WOMD, and Al-Quaida". (And looking at the interview, I've made a mistake; he said it was 3rd on the list. There was no 4th justification), and that the last justification, that of liberating the Iraqi people, was "a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for". He said this AFTER the end of the war. And no WOMD have been found, and no Al-Quida link to Saddam has come within a hairsbreadth of being proven. Nor, despite your fabricated story about the Iraqi army going on high alert before 9/11, is there likely to be any link shown between the two.
So, in other words, a man involved in the planning of the war in Iraq has admitted that the justification that you believe is the main reason for the war was the very last justification, and even then it was not enough to justify a war in it's own right.
> So you're the holder of the truth then eh ? It's all lies ? Okay.
Bell, have you anything to offer to say that these reasons weren't fabrication? Or are you only capable of snide comments in response to facts that you can't dispute?
I am saying that I am the holder of a coherent opinion about what has happened, and I have facts to back it up. And I am giving you that opinion, the reasons behind it, and the facts supporting it. In return, you're giving me a few sarcastic comments, and total avoidance of the subject.
>
> See back to who these terrorists generally are.
Yes, and see back to my rebuttal of who you say the terrorists generally are.
>
> Probably to keep people like you happy ? You want the world to change
> but you want to do it peacefully, that will not happen and you're a
> fool to think otherwise.
What? What on earth are you talking about Bell? That reads like a small piece of petulance unless I've misread what you're saying. Regardless, it's avoiding the original point; if America is interested in removing despotic regimes (peacefully or otherwise), then why does it keep supporting them? I'd be obliged if you'd address that point rather than resorting to insults.
> Ah, of course, back to the "Light says it so it's thinking,
> Belldandy says it and it's parrot food" theory ? Okay.
Bell, are you going to do anything other than make a snide response? I've explained the difference between what I regard as your parrotting, and my opinions. If you want to ignore that and just try to avoid the topics, go for it. Just don't expect to be taken as seriously as you crave.
What I'm saying (for the millionth time...) is that I am NOT interested in changing your opinions, despite your desperate assertion that I am. I am interested (are you paying attention?) in getting you to THINK about why you have those opinions.
>
> Because we went in and gave them the ability to protest about what
> they care about without fear of being dragged away in the night with
> their families and killed ?
Yes, we did. And they're using that right to tell us that they don't want us there. Yet we're not respecting that, and you seem to still think that their overwhelming desire for the US to leave is somehow proof they're grateful.
>
> Because it shows they want the Americans out of the country and will
> kill anyone and anything that stands in the way, including NGO's.
> Generally most people don't care who delivers the food and medical
> care if they need it so I doubt most Iraqi's want the NGO's out of
> there - but the terrorists do, so they can control the food and such
> as they did before the war and regain status and power.
Are you distinguishing between Ba'athists and Islamic radicals? I hope so, because the two are wildly different factions who hate each other as much as the Americans. Anyway, I disagree with your logic, but at least you've actually thought about why you believe the terrorists lost when the bombed the Red Cross. And that is a welcome change from you.
>
> But hang on ? You're complaining earlier that you want action against
> regimes like this ? You even name China ! Now you're complaining
> about someone saying they are a risk ? Okay. I don't actually say
> they're evil, I'm just saying that the UN should be more concerned
> about North Korea and it's ongoing "what can we say to get
> people's attention" ploy, China's little military jaunts which
> have gone unmentioned for the most part, and Russia's inability to
> control WMD stores in it's own territory, to name but a few things.
> But hey, if you feel the greatest world threat right now is the US
> led coalition trying to destory the remains of one evil regime then
> that's cool.
See below; you're assuming that I'm defending China. I'm not. I'm making the point that you try and distract attention from the evildoings of the US by saying "China and Russia do the same". I agree, they do. But you then go on to try and say that the US is somehow better than China and Russia, despite the fact that all of these nations act in the same way. I am saying that all 3 of these nations are equally as bad, and that your blind faith in the US in excusing all their various atrocities in no better than the blind faith of, for example, an Al-Quaida supporter who wants to see the end of America.
Nor, I note, have you actually even attempted to answer why you think the US are better than these other nations despite behaving in the same way. Could you please do so.
>
> Again this strange double logic, that all nations are as bad as each
> other and should be viewed equally, yet the most criticism and
> attention should be reserved for the ones taking down dictator and
> terrorist regimes ?
No, it's not double logic. What I am criticising (as I have said to you many times, yet you continue to decide that I'm saying something else) is the fact that whenever the US are justifiably criticised, you never answer that criticism. Instead you say "Look at China and Russia", and fail entirely to give any reasons behind why what the US is doing is excusable. I would be greatly obliged if you could make the effort to understand and remember what my viewpoint is before attempting to criticise it, as thus far most of your post is based on misrepresentation and misunderstanding of my views.
>
> That's why all the other ones get away with it...don't you see that ?
> So many put so much effort into demonising and criticising a few
> nations and they get all the press coverage and public attention, so
> all the other nations carry on because they know that most
> Westerner's are far too busy attacking a few nations to bother with
> them. Maybe you need to look a little at yourself and those who
> criticise a few countries as much as you do those who oppose your
> views...
Erm...hang on a minute here; what exactly are you trying to say? That I don't pay attention to the actions of other nations? Well, that's a little presumptuous, not to mention wholly incorrect, of you. You seem to be saying that America doesn't get away with anything because it is under constant scrutiny. Yet it has just invaded another country on the basis of lies. Seems like it's gotten away with an awful lot DESPITE greater scrutiny.
You further seem to be saying that we should ignore what America does and concentrate on other nations. I'm not denying that the media would do well to cover Chechnya in more detail, but the media would do equally as well to bring to light just how abusive the regime in Indonesia is, and how it is only there with Western support.
Also, if you want to talk about how godawful other nations are, start a thread about it; I'd love to talk about it. But as is, we're discussing America and Iraq. And your main response is to try and talk about other nations whenever criticisms that you can't rebut are raised. Well, I take your point about how bad other nations are. So now can you please begin to answer some of the points concerning how bad America and the UK are behaving please?
>
> And the "peace" before we went in was what exactly ?
> Peaceful for the people in the ever rising tally of unmarked graves ?
> Or would that be peaceful for those being executed for speaking
> against Saddam ? Or those being gang raped in prisons by Iraqi
> military forces ? I'm having difficulty locating this peace that
> existed before we went in. Sure, the terrorists may find it
> irrelevant, but that's because they've lost what little power and
> purpose they had. There is no place for them anymore in Iraq and they
> will fight to the death to regain it.
As opposed to now; peaceful for the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed during and after the war? Peaceful being shot by US troops for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Once again, you've missed the point; I never said that there was peace beforehand. You've simply decided to misinterpret what was said, either deliberately or not. The point is that the US presence has NOT brought peace, nor an end to bloodshed. You might say "Well, at least it's better than before", but that doesn't answer why many Iraqi's are demonstrating against the US presence. And it certainly doesn't excuse the number of civilians killed by the US and UK military.
No place for them ANYMORE in Iraq? So the fact that there are now more terrorists operating in Iraq than there were beforehand...that doesn't concern you then?
There was no place for Al-Quaida BEFORE this war. Now they have a chance to flourish. The only terrorist found in Iraq has been a man who renounced violence years ago to the extent that he was allowed by the Irraeli's to travel to Israel. Now if you can explain to me just how the influx of Islamic radicals who never got into Iraq under Saddam counts as 'regain(ing)' power and influence, please go ahead.
>
> Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did
> Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa?
>
> After years of violence ? Okay.
Yet it wasn't violence that ended it, was it? There was no force used, was there? It was ended by the government who were NOT in a position where they were forced to do so. Using your logic, one may as well say that the rule of force of arms only comes about after years of peace.
>
> Because the UK no longer had the military forces to maintain rule by
> force, plus you may want to look up the idea of neo-colonialism if
> you think that most gained true independence, in many cases those who
> were elected were little better than us, or indeed worse in many
> cases. Plus if you want to call it a remarkable lack of bloodshed
> then Iraq, by comparison, is a negligible amount of bloodshed.
Right, right...so the end of rule by peaceful means doesn't count if the military is no longer there? And the fact that who was elected afterwards were little better...is that at all the point? We're talking about the end of a rule. Which this was. You're now trying to say that "it wasn't true independance". So what IS true independance? Or are you going to keep redefining what you say?
>
> These would be the negotiation that have been going on for decades,
> whilst all the time various groups still kill, maim and terrorise yes
> ? I'm sure those in Canary Wharf, Manchester, Omagh and such were
> heartened to know that the peace process was ongoing.
Okay, I should have been more specific; my bad. Since the Good Friday agreement. Not that it changes the simple fact that the best chance IS still through negotiation, and not violence. The acts you mention prolonged the conflict, no? So therefore you're saying that the use of violence did not help bring about peace.
>
> And there you go playing the counter-emotional bulls"it.=, last
> time I looked this was a democracy, with a reasonable freedom of
> speech, I have as much right as you to discuss it and noticeably you
> avoid the actual point that the worst act of terrorism EVER was
> comitted before overt action against the terrorists.
Okay Bell, here's the thing; you don't seem to understand that you keep blowing your own arguments out of the water with your own rhetoric. You keep pointing out how awful 9/11 was, and use it as a justification for everything because of those poor people who died. Then, when confronted with someone who disagrees with you who has actually lost someone close to them in that attack, you demean their loss. This shows that the only reason you care about the deaths in 9/11 is because they've given Dubya the excuse to have his little war, and you support anything Dubya does without question. Okay? Are we clear on that? When I get emotional about things like this...well, I've never said anything that shows my emotion to be crocodile tears. Whereas you have.
Now then; this was the worst act of terrorism ever. Yes, it was. And it was committed by mainly Saudi people. And planned by a Saudi. And the US invaded...Iraq.
But that's a side issue; you've been careful with your choice of words, which is at least an improvement on your usual scattergun approach. 'Overt' actions? Okay...so, the keeping in power of an unpopular and brutal Saudi government which causes suffering to his people? That's not overt, no. But it gives the terrorists good cause to hate America. The support of Saddam, arming him in the 80's, allowing US companies to do business with him to the extent that the US were the largest purchasor of Iraqi oil up to 2001? Well, no that's not overt either. But as Al-Quaida hated Saddam's secular Iraq almost as much as the US (and indeed offered to drive him out of Kuwait in order to avoid US troops being stationed in Saudi), then it's yet more reason to hate the US.
I know what you'll say; "those aren't good reasons". Well, no not to you. And not to me either. But to someone who is living in fear of a regime that is only in power because the US put it and keeps it there? Well...there's plenty of reason to want to strike back, isn't there? Just because something isn't overt, doesn't mean that it isn't reason to hate someone.
Once more, I'd best explain this completely so as to avoid giving you an excuse to try and avoid the issue by saying "you support terrorists!". 9/11 was an atrocity. So is the invasion of Iraq. So is the callous disregard shown by the west for developing nations where terrorists tend to come from. One atrocity spawned the next atrocity, which in turn spawned another, and so on. If you want to see where Dubya's methods of dealing with terrorism will lead us, look at Israel. If you're happy to live your life in fear because Dubya is too stupid to attempt to deal with a problem by means other than polarising the world into black and white, good for you. I on the other would prefer to live in a world where I lose all of my civil liberties in order to safeguard what is increasingly laughably known as 'freedom'.
> REally ? Well gather up your evidence about the IRA because I'm sure
> 6 would like to look it over, as would the FBI and such, heck it's
> been looked for for ages so I'm glad you've got it !
So, aside from that sarcasm, have you got anything whatsoever to contradict what I've said? It's obvious how annoyed you're getting Bell, because you're responding with sarcasm, and attempts to distract. Either answer a point, or shut up about it. I've read enough of your rather poor attempts to be insulting before; you make yourself look a fool by doing so again.
> Plus if you've
> got the Pentagon plans which say "Objective: Bomb
> Civilians" there's a pile of Democrat Senators and Liberal
> Democrat MP's who'll be interested
Right, right; it was collateral damage, yeah? And that makes it SO much better; to know that 6000+ civilians died in Iraq because of accidents.
Can you explain to me how an innocent civilian killed by a bomb dropped by the army is any less dead than someone killer by a terrorist bomb? I think you'll find that a grieving family in Iraq won't make that distinction. And if a group of Islamic gentlemen offer members of that family a way to strike back at America, don't you think they'll take it?
>, ETA is supposedly in negotiations
> (like the IRA peace process you hold up earlier on)
Wrong. They entered into a ceasefire not long after the IRA entered into the Good Friday agreement. They then ended their ceasefire about a year later. ETA are continuing their bombing campaign today. Sorry to spoil your sarcasm, but once more you've charged in without checking facts. And if this turns out anything like previous arguments with you, you'll do your level best to avoid addressing that error.
> and again with
> reference to Russia we see this peculair "leave the terrorists
> alone and they'll leave us alone" idea. USS Cole anyone ? First
> WTC bombing ? And many more...
No, we see more of you misunderstanding or misinterpreting what is said. What I am saying is that the Chechen problem did not need a military response. A republic seceded from the Russian confederacy. This could have been dealt with by negotiation; there were no terror attacks prior to the Chechen nation wanting to leave. But no, Boris Yeltsin, in an attempt to restore some of his prestige, ordered a long and costly war which has cost lives and increased terrorism. There was no need for that war, and the war created terrorists that were not there in the first place. THAT is what I am saying. If you choose to deliberately misconstrue what I've said, well that sort of shows the inadequacy of your arguments.
USS Cole and first WTC bombing?
Okay then; in return, how about the fact (that I keep mentioning, and you keep avoiding) that the US is responsible for keeping the standard of living low in countries like the Phillipines, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia etc? Or doesn't that count? Both have one group of people responsible for causing death or damage to the other. What's the difference?
> Yes, they're soft targets and show that in order to cause damage they
> are going for low rate weak targets in peripheral regions. Sure,
> Osama and his buddies keep making these tapes saying he's going to
> strike, but oh dear, no strikes.
Apart from the daily loss of American life in Iraq...
>
> See above, they are weak targets, which whilst providing little
> comfort for those left behind in such attacks, it does show a gradual
> move towards the end.
Really? How long did the IRA bomb 'weak' targets? You said yourself earlier on in this thread that the campaign has been going on for decades. You've tried to imply that it has no end in sight, and that the negotiations are worthless. Yet you're now saying that the bombing of weak targets is a sign of things coming to an end. So which is it Bell? Or are you happy at the prospect of 30 years of 'soft' and 'weak' targets that will see thousands of innocent people dead?
Incidentally, I'm staggered by your complete lack of compassion and empathy towards those who have been killed in such attacks. You seem to view the people who have died as statistics and not much more.
> No, but as you well know, the terrorists come from a small minority
> in certain countries. Earlier this week the Red Cross was hit. Now if
> you're a parent in Iraq, and your kid dies because the Red Cross goes
> or was damaged, I'd guess you're not going to give a toss about the
> "holy cause" and you're going to act against the
> terrorists.
And if you're a parent in Iraq and your kid dies because the Americans dropped a bomb on your house, you're not going to give a toss about the cause of 'freedom', and you're going to act against the Americans. Simple, isn't it?
By further token, if you're a parent in Indonesia, and your child is murdered by the army, you're not going to give a toss about how the govenment is pro-western; you're going to want revenge and act against them. Do you see? By creating terror, you create more terrorists. Terrorists are a minority, but that minority increases by the actions of Dubya et al. Your argument is a sound one, but you've failed to apply it to American actions due to your blind faith.
> Saddam's sons were found because the guy whose place they
> took didn't like them anymore, the information to extract Private
> Lynch was obtained because an Iraqi lawyer did not like what he saw,
> in Afghanistan Afghani's are helping us to find the terrorists
> because they don't want the life they had for their children.
Saddam's sons were also found because of the money that was offered for a reward. Private Lynch was found because she hadn't actually even been shot in the first place; she was held in a private hospital where an Iraqi nurse sang her to sleep every night and where she received preferential treatment. Afghanistan, where America have got it pretty much right, still sees people devoting themselves to the Taliban and other warlords.
Anyway, on the flip side of your argument...American troops are killed every day because the Iraqi's don't want them there (after all, any terror network needs support; these terrorists can't act in isolation, they need some support). American workers are being killed and maimed in Saudi because ordinary Saudi's don't want them there any more. It's easy to take what you're saying and apply it to America. When you do, you see that both sides are as guilty as the other of causing terror. But you refuse to even contemplate that, and I can only conclude that it is due to your blind faith.
> No,, read above. Also you remove the means, and you harden security
> to prevent possible attacks.
But you're not removing the means, are you. You're increasing the liklihood of people becoming terrorists. If Donald Rumsfield can admit that, how come you can't?
> That's a very simplified way of looking at it, unless the entire
> continents of Asia and Africa suddenly erupted in open warfare this
> morning then that's not the case - you'll find people in all nations
> live in varying conditions and the division is not on the grounds of
> nationality or country, usually it's class.
Yes, and the lower classes are far more populous in Asia and Africa. And they live in poverty. And the overwhelming type of government in Asia and Africa? Corrupt, dictatorial, unrepresentative, and oppressive. So although it is, I admit, a simplified way of looking at it, it's a true one.
I note you've misrepresented what I've said again; I respond to your point about people living in fear, you imply that I'm saying they're all in open warfare. Further evidence, as if any were needed, that you simply don't understand the issues I'm raising.
> Well they'd do well to look at their own leaders who sold them out,
> not the western world. Why was colonialism possible in the past ?
> Because most of the elites in the colonies were easily bought or
> willingly joined in.
Right...so those leaders who are only there because the west helped them there, or support them to keep them there...that doesn't matter? Yes, their leaders sold them out, but the implication of that is that you accept that the nations they sold out too ARE taking advantage of the developing world.
I agree, one should not try and exempt their own leaders. And I wasn't trying to. In a lot of cases, they don't (look at the rebels in Indonesia) But, bearing in mind you've already accepted that America keeps oppressive regimes in place because it suits their purpose, are you really trying to exempt America from the responsibility for all of the poor, oppressed, and above all, very angry people there? Don't you see how this policy of the west will always, always result in the creation of more terrorists?
>
> That's one view, but not the only one. Remove those who put them in
> that position - their own leaders. Right now Mr Mugabe's running
> Zimbabwe into the ground, which I guess is our fault for not acting ?
> But if we act then his supporters will get angry and shoot at our
> people, so using your logic we should sit back and do zilch.
No. The way to do it is by negotiation, by consent, by acting via the UN, by not allowing national interests to override international ones, by improving the lot of the people there, by guaranteeing them clean drinking water, by stopping corporations working people to death for 50 cents a day. By creating one international state in other words. It was a round world last time I looked.
Doubtless you'll say that's not possible. And I agree that it is VERY idealistic. But there's no reason why it won't happen apart from people like Dubya.
And really Bell, stop deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. Over the last few months, it's been made painfully (for you) clear that anti-war does NOT mean "sit back and do nothing". Yet you continue to trot out that same line, despite the fact that, as an argument, it was bankrupt a long time ago. It just indicates that you're not thinking about what you say; that you're parrotting something because you were once told it; that you're a fundamentalist.
>
> Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't
> be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle
> east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
>
> Except they're not from whole continents, and the average terrorist
> is well educated - usually in the west - and from a middle class
> background. Yes, suicide bombers aren't, but the people controlling
> the terrorist groups are, in fact many have rich families and vast
> personal wealth. Strangely none seem to bothered about these people
> you're saying are angry. I mean, it's almost like people like Osama
> are using those people to justify their own little crusades eh ? So
> we find them, and we remove them. And we keep on doing that, and hope
> that those places where people are being badly treated by their own
> leaders and such get rid of them, and I'm sure that in the shadows
> we'll be all too happy to give the little push now and then.
Hang on; suicide bombers aren't? Uh...I'm sorry, but what is your point? I'm saying that more terrorists will be created. You're saying 'yes, but only footsoldiers'. So...what you're saying is that all we're doing is increasing the number of people who are willing to give their lives in order to hurt the west?! You don't see that as...well, an extremely bad thing?
Also, I know that the terrorist leaders aren't concerned. I wrote something about that about a month ago. Their motivations are personal crusades, yes. D'you think they're saying that to the people they recruit? The terrorist leaders are lying b@stards, just like our leaders. In fact, what I said about it was;
" We're encouraged to have faith in our leaders, but our leaders constantly lie to us and are visibly and demonstratably self-serving buckets of bullb*llocks. However, thanks to centuries of being told we shouldn't rely on ourselves, we turn to organisations that encourage us to have faith in them instead, and they in turn abuse that trust to achieve their own aims. "
Okay, the people controlling them; many of them seem to originate from Saudi do they not? A nation that has been left entirely alone thanks to Dubya's special relationship with the Saudi royal family?
We keep on getting rid of them yes, yet more seem to be there don't they? And more seem to arrive on the scene all the time. And when they do, they have a huge pool of possible recruits to pick from, thanks to the policies of the west.
As for what America does 'in the shadows'...well, you really are being naive if you think anything will be done to improve the lives of people living under oppressive regimes. Have another look at America's track record on what they do in the shadows;
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/ dictators.html
>
>
> Becaue Paul Wolfowitz is the president now ? And the context that
> quote is taken from is the reason why Saddam's 4th on the list. But
> you forget to mention that.
Good lord; I thought you couldn't get any more evasive, and I'm proved wrong. O-kay; Wolfowitz is a senior advisor to Dubya, and is responsible for formulating policy. He is deputy to Rumsfield, who was in charge of organising the war. In other words, this man played a huge role in deciding if, when, and how to attack. And you're just dismissing what he's said because it doesn't fit in with what you believe? Come on Bell, this is getting as bad as your excusal of Rumsfields involvement in the sale of Nuclear Reactors to North Korea.
And I don't understand what you mean by '4th on the list', or the context. In the interview, Wolfowitz was asked what the reasons for invading Iraq were. He stated that the first and second reasons were "WOMD, and Al-Quaida". (And looking at the interview, I've made a mistake; he said it was 3rd on the list. There was no 4th justification), and that the last justification, that of liberating the Iraqi people, was "a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for". He said this AFTER the end of the war. And no WOMD have been found, and no Al-Quida link to Saddam has come within a hairsbreadth of being proven. Nor, despite your fabricated story about the Iraqi army going on high alert before 9/11, is there likely to be any link shown between the two.
So, in other words, a man involved in the planning of the war in Iraq has admitted that the justification that you believe is the main reason for the war was the very last justification, and even then it was not enough to justify a war in it's own right.
> So you're the holder of the truth then eh ? It's all lies ? Okay.
Bell, have you anything to offer to say that these reasons weren't fabrication? Or are you only capable of snide comments in response to facts that you can't dispute?
I am saying that I am the holder of a coherent opinion about what has happened, and I have facts to back it up. And I am giving you that opinion, the reasons behind it, and the facts supporting it. In return, you're giving me a few sarcastic comments, and total avoidance of the subject.
>
> See back to who these terrorists generally are.
Yes, and see back to my rebuttal of who you say the terrorists generally are.
>
> Probably to keep people like you happy ? You want the world to change
> but you want to do it peacefully, that will not happen and you're a
> fool to think otherwise.
What? What on earth are you talking about Bell? That reads like a small piece of petulance unless I've misread what you're saying. Regardless, it's avoiding the original point; if America is interested in removing despotic regimes (peacefully or otherwise), then why does it keep supporting them? I'd be obliged if you'd address that point rather than resorting to insults.
> Ah, of course, back to the "Light says it so it's thinking,
> Belldandy says it and it's parrot food" theory ? Okay.
Bell, are you going to do anything other than make a snide response? I've explained the difference between what I regard as your parrotting, and my opinions. If you want to ignore that and just try to avoid the topics, go for it. Just don't expect to be taken as seriously as you crave.
What I'm saying (for the millionth time...) is that I am NOT interested in changing your opinions, despite your desperate assertion that I am. I am interested (are you paying attention?) in getting you to THINK about why you have those opinions.
>
> Because we went in and gave them the ability to protest about what
> they care about without fear of being dragged away in the night with
> their families and killed ?
Yes, we did. And they're using that right to tell us that they don't want us there. Yet we're not respecting that, and you seem to still think that their overwhelming desire for the US to leave is somehow proof they're grateful.
>
> Because it shows they want the Americans out of the country and will
> kill anyone and anything that stands in the way, including NGO's.
> Generally most people don't care who delivers the food and medical
> care if they need it so I doubt most Iraqi's want the NGO's out of
> there - but the terrorists do, so they can control the food and such
> as they did before the war and regain status and power.
Are you distinguishing between Ba'athists and Islamic radicals? I hope so, because the two are wildly different factions who hate each other as much as the Americans. Anyway, I disagree with your logic, but at least you've actually thought about why you believe the terrorists lost when the bombed the Red Cross. And that is a welcome change from you.
>
> But hang on ? You're complaining earlier that you want action against
> regimes like this ? You even name China ! Now you're complaining
> about someone saying they are a risk ? Okay. I don't actually say
> they're evil, I'm just saying that the UN should be more concerned
> about North Korea and it's ongoing "what can we say to get
> people's attention" ploy, China's little military jaunts which
> have gone unmentioned for the most part, and Russia's inability to
> control WMD stores in it's own territory, to name but a few things.
> But hey, if you feel the greatest world threat right now is the US
> led coalition trying to destory the remains of one evil regime then
> that's cool.
See below; you're assuming that I'm defending China. I'm not. I'm making the point that you try and distract attention from the evildoings of the US by saying "China and Russia do the same". I agree, they do. But you then go on to try and say that the US is somehow better than China and Russia, despite the fact that all of these nations act in the same way. I am saying that all 3 of these nations are equally as bad, and that your blind faith in the US in excusing all their various atrocities in no better than the blind faith of, for example, an Al-Quaida supporter who wants to see the end of America.
Nor, I note, have you actually even attempted to answer why you think the US are better than these other nations despite behaving in the same way. Could you please do so.
>
> Again this strange double logic, that all nations are as bad as each
> other and should be viewed equally, yet the most criticism and
> attention should be reserved for the ones taking down dictator and
> terrorist regimes ?
No, it's not double logic. What I am criticising (as I have said to you many times, yet you continue to decide that I'm saying something else) is the fact that whenever the US are justifiably criticised, you never answer that criticism. Instead you say "Look at China and Russia", and fail entirely to give any reasons behind why what the US is doing is excusable. I would be greatly obliged if you could make the effort to understand and remember what my viewpoint is before attempting to criticise it, as thus far most of your post is based on misrepresentation and misunderstanding of my views.
>
> That's why all the other ones get away with it...don't you see that ?
> So many put so much effort into demonising and criticising a few
> nations and they get all the press coverage and public attention, so
> all the other nations carry on because they know that most
> Westerner's are far too busy attacking a few nations to bother with
> them. Maybe you need to look a little at yourself and those who
> criticise a few countries as much as you do those who oppose your
> views...
Erm...hang on a minute here; what exactly are you trying to say? That I don't pay attention to the actions of other nations? Well, that's a little presumptuous, not to mention wholly incorrect, of you. You seem to be saying that America doesn't get away with anything because it is under constant scrutiny. Yet it has just invaded another country on the basis of lies. Seems like it's gotten away with an awful lot DESPITE greater scrutiny.
You further seem to be saying that we should ignore what America does and concentrate on other nations. I'm not denying that the media would do well to cover Chechnya in more detail, but the media would do equally as well to bring to light just how abusive the regime in Indonesia is, and how it is only there with Western support.
Also, if you want to talk about how godawful other nations are, start a thread about it; I'd love to talk about it. But as is, we're discussing America and Iraq. And your main response is to try and talk about other nations whenever criticisms that you can't rebut are raised. Well, I take your point about how bad other nations are. So now can you please begin to answer some of the points concerning how bad America and the UK are behaving please?
Belldandy wrote:
> What would get both you and Light laughed out of a university
> would be your apparent idea that the independence was true
> independence. It wasn't, they swopped one form of rule for another
> and the people in charge were stil lthe colonial powers but in
> different ways.
I don't think either of us said that. I for one am just as opposed to neo-colonialism as I am to colonialism mark one. Misrepresenting people's opinions, trying to change the subject? Deja vu, deja vu.
In any case, if I understand you correctly then violence is the only way to effective change, so in this context we could expect Vietnam, a country that fought for its independence, to be free of neo-colonialism: except, of course, that it isn't.
And, something I don't quite understand, are you for neo-colonialism or against it? Because, by your logic, Arabs who are fed up with American imperialism can only hope to change things by violent means and so their terrorism is justified; and Americans who are fed up with uppity little Arabs can only maintain the status quo with violence, and so their terrorism is justified; and Bush, Sharon, Belldandy and Bin Laden can all dance in a circle throwing bombs at each other until all of the Middle East is smoke and rubble, and all in the name of peace.
> What would get both you and Light laughed out of a university
> would be your apparent idea that the independence was true
> independence. It wasn't, they swopped one form of rule for another
> and the people in charge were stil lthe colonial powers but in
> different ways.
I don't think either of us said that. I for one am just as opposed to neo-colonialism as I am to colonialism mark one. Misrepresenting people's opinions, trying to change the subject? Deja vu, deja vu.
In any case, if I understand you correctly then violence is the only way to effective change, so in this context we could expect Vietnam, a country that fought for its independence, to be free of neo-colonialism: except, of course, that it isn't.
And, something I don't quite understand, are you for neo-colonialism or against it? Because, by your logic, Arabs who are fed up with American imperialism can only hope to change things by violent means and so their terrorism is justified; and Americans who are fed up with uppity little Arabs can only maintain the status quo with violence, and so their terrorism is justified; and Bush, Sharon, Belldandy and Bin Laden can all dance in a circle throwing bombs at each other until all of the Middle East is smoke and rubble, and all in the name of peace.
unknown kernel wrote:
> I don't know where you've picked up this 'interesting' theory about
> the end of the British empire but it really doesn't stand up to much
> scrutiny. It dismisses every local resistance and independence
> movement and places sole responsibility for history at the feet of
> the British.
The local resistance had grown to include many people who were the actual British forces in the colonies. It is not the sole answer, but the very fact that the military could no longer be relied upon to put down any rebellion was what led to the political changes - that and the fact that 6 years of war had worn Britain's finances to threads.
>It also discounts political changes within Britain that
> made empire an unattractive and, for some, unprincipled idea, and
> puts the whole process down to military expedience. It is the sort
> of blinkered, Eurocentric, one-right-answer history that would get
> you laughed out of every university in town.
Whatever you think, but even Light point to the relative ease with which most gained independence - because no one fought back in most cases. What would get both you and Light laughed out of a university would be your apparent idea that the independence was true independence. It wasn't, they swopped one form of rule for another and the people in charge were stil lthe colonial powers but in different ways.
> This is the thing that bugs me most about your posting style: you
> portray yourself as the oracle of truth, the greatest expert on every
> subject under sun, when in fact you are more like Henry's Cat in
> reverse, in that you know nothing about everything.
Whatever you think, that's not my problem.
> I don't know where you've picked up this 'interesting' theory about
> the end of the British empire but it really doesn't stand up to much
> scrutiny. It dismisses every local resistance and independence
> movement and places sole responsibility for history at the feet of
> the British.
The local resistance had grown to include many people who were the actual British forces in the colonies. It is not the sole answer, but the very fact that the military could no longer be relied upon to put down any rebellion was what led to the political changes - that and the fact that 6 years of war had worn Britain's finances to threads.
>It also discounts political changes within Britain that
> made empire an unattractive and, for some, unprincipled idea, and
> puts the whole process down to military expedience. It is the sort
> of blinkered, Eurocentric, one-right-answer history that would get
> you laughed out of every university in town.
Whatever you think, but even Light point to the relative ease with which most gained independence - because no one fought back in most cases. What would get both you and Light laughed out of a university would be your apparent idea that the independence was true independence. It wasn't, they swopped one form of rule for another and the people in charge were stil lthe colonial powers but in different ways.
> This is the thing that bugs me most about your posting style: you
> portray yourself as the oracle of truth, the greatest expert on every
> subject under sun, when in fact you are more like Henry's Cat in
> reverse, in that you know nothing about everything.
Whatever you think, that's not my problem.
Belldandy wrote:
> Why did the British Empire
> end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer
> occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of
> bloodshed?
>
> Because the UK no longer had the military forces to maintain rule by
> force, plus you may want to look up the idea of neo-colonialism if
> you think that most gained true independence, in many cases those who
> were elected were little better than us, or indeed worse in many
> cases.
I don't know where you've picked up this 'interesting' theory about the end of the British empire but it really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. It dismisses every local resistance and independence movement and places sole responsibility for history at the feet of the British. It also discounts political changes within Britain that made empire an unattractive and, for some, unprincipled idea, and puts the whole process down to military expedience. It is the sort of blinkered, Eurocentric, one-right-answer history that would get you laughed out of every university in town.
This is the thing that bugs me most about your posting style: you portray yourself as the oracle of truth, the greatest expert on every subject under sun, when in fact you are more like Henry's Cat in reverse, in that you know nothing about everything.
> Why did the British Empire
> end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer
> occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of
> bloodshed?
>
> Because the UK no longer had the military forces to maintain rule by
> force, plus you may want to look up the idea of neo-colonialism if
> you think that most gained true independence, in many cases those who
> were elected were little better than us, or indeed worse in many
> cases.
I don't know where you've picked up this 'interesting' theory about the end of the British empire but it really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. It dismisses every local resistance and independence movement and places sole responsibility for history at the feet of the British. It also discounts political changes within Britain that made empire an unattractive and, for some, unprincipled idea, and puts the whole process down to military expedience. It is the sort of blinkered, Eurocentric, one-right-answer history that would get you laughed out of every university in town.
This is the thing that bugs me most about your posting style: you portray yourself as the oracle of truth, the greatest expert on every subject under sun, when in fact you are more like Henry's Cat in reverse, in that you know nothing about everything.
Light wrote:
> Irrelevant? Do you really think so? Look at Iraq; there is peace
> there by force of arms. The people killing US soldiers every day
> don't seem to find that irrelevant.
And the "peace" before we went in was what exactly ? Peaceful for the people in the ever rising tally of unmarked graves ? Or would that be peaceful for those being executed for speaking against Saddam ? Or those being gang raped in prisons by Iraqi military forces ? I'm having difficulty locating this peace that existed before we went in. Sure, the terrorists may find it irrelevant, but that's because they've lost what little power and purpose they had. There is no place for them anymore in Iraq and they will fight to the death to regain it.
> Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did
> Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa?
After years of violence ? Okay.
> Why did the British Empire
> end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer
> occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of bloodshed?
Because the UK no longer had the military forces to maintain rule by force, plus you may want to look up the idea of neo-colonialism if you think that most gained true independence, in many cases those who were elected were little better than us, or indeed worse in many cases. Plus if you want to call it a remarkable lack of bloodshed then Iraq, by comparison, is a negligible amount of bloodshed.
> Why is it that the best chance of peace in northern ireland is coming
> through negotiation and not bloodshed?
These would be the negotiation that have been going on for decades, whilst all the time various groups still kill, maim and terrorise yes ? I'm sure those in Canary Wharf, Manchester, Omagh and such were heartened to know that the peace process was ongoing.
> There you go again; trying to play the emotional "this was so
> terrible!" card. B******t. Sorry Bell, but you lost the right to
> wring your hands in dismay about 9/11 when you wailed about Goatboy
> disagreeing with you, and demeaned his loss because his opinions
> conflicted with your own.
And there you go playing the counter-emotional bulls"it.=, last time I looked this was a democracy, with a reasonable freedom of speech, I have as much right as you to discuss it and noticeably you avoid the actual point that the worst act of terrorism EVER was comitted before overt action against the terrorists.
> Erm...before 9/11, no terrorists had hit any major western city for a
> while. We didn't feel the need to bomb civilians to mush then...the
> only major attacks before then were those by the IRA (funded mainly
> by rich Americans...), ETA (yet no war against them; funny that...),
> and Chechen rebels (and curiously, the more Russia pours troops into
> that nation, the more terrorists pour out of it).
REally ? Well gather up your evidence about the IRA because I'm sure 6 would like to look it over, as would the FBI and such, heck it's been looked for for ages so I'm glad you've got it ! Plus if you've got the Pentagon plans which say "Objective: Bomb Civilians" there's a pile of Democrat Senators and Liberal Democrat MP's who'll be interested, ETA is supposedly in negotiations (like the IRA peace process you hold up earlier on) and again with reference to Russia we see this peculair "leave the terrorists alone and they'll leave us alone" idea. USS Cole anyone ? First WTC bombing ? And many more...
> And how about the Bali nightclub bomb? Does that not count? What
> about the acts of terrorism in Iraq as we speak? Are they somehow
> different
Yes, they're soft targets and show that in order to cause damage they are going for low rate weak targets in peripheral regions. Sure, Osama and his buddies keep making these tapes saying he's going to strike, but oh dear, no strikes.
> Weak targets?! Right...so that's a comfort to those who died or who
> lost loved ones? "Hey, at least they didn't die in a major
> attack on a major city!" Could you maybe stop trying to redefine
> a terrorist atrocity in order to avoid backing down from what is a
> manifestly absurd argument.
See above, they are weak targets, which whilst providing little comfort for those left behind in such attacks, it does show a gradual move towards the end.
> Every month more are killed? Well guess what; every month a lot more
> are created thanks to the policies of the west. Not forever? So when
> do you think it will stop? Will the citizens of oppressive regimes
> just decide "Ah well, we'd best just accept our lot in
> life"? Or do you maybe think that as long as the US supports
> oppressive regimes, there will be people hating the US for doing so?
No, but as you well know, the terrorists come from a small minority in certain countries. Earlier this week the Red Cross was hit. Now if you're a parent in Iraq, and your kid dies because the Red Cross goes or was damaged, I'd guess you're not going to give a toss about the "holy cause" and you're going to act against the terrorists. Saddam's sons were found because the guy whose place they took didn't like them anymore, the information to extract Private Lynch was obtained because an Iraqi lawyer did not like what he saw, in Afghanistan Afghani's are helping us to find the terrorists because they don't want the life they had for their children.
> And last stand?!? What, d'you think that all terrorism will stop if
> you just kill enough people? Might I ask what gives you that idea?
No,, read above. Also you remove the means, and you harden security to prevent possible attacks.
> Yes. A lot of WESTERN people live like that. An awful lot of people
> in the developing world don't.
That's a very simplified way of looking at it, unless the entire continents of Asia and Africa suddenly erupted in open warfare this morning then that's not the case - you'll find people in all nations live in varying conditions and the division is not on the grounds of nationality or country, usually it's class.
>They live in fear, under oppression,
> and in danger. And they look at the western world, living in peace
> thanks to the labour of the developing world.
Well they'd do well to look at their own leaders who sold them out, not the western world. Why was colonialism possible in the past ? Because most of the elites in the colonies were easily bought or willingly joined in.
> And they get angry. And
> funnily enough, terrorists can prey on that anger and use it to their
> advantage. Only way that will stop is if we stop giving them reason
> to be angry. Bombing them doesn't strike me as the best way to do
> that.
That's one view, but not the only one. Remove those who put them in that position - their own leaders. Right now Mr Mugabe's running Zimbabwe into the ground, which I guess is our fault for not acting ? But if we act then his supporters will get angry and shoot at our people, so using your logic we should sit back and do zilch.
> Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't
> be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle
> east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
Except they're not from whole continents, and the average terrorist is well educated - usually in the west - and from a middle class background. Yes, suicide bombers aren't, but the people controlling the terrorist groups are, in fact many have rich families and vast personal wealth. Strangely none seem to bothered about these people you're saying are angry. I mean, it's almost like people like Osama are using those people to justify their own little crusades eh ? So we find them, and we remove them. And we keep on doing that, and hope that those places where people are being badly treated by their own leaders and such get rid of them, and I'm sure that in the shadows we'll be all too happy to give the little push now and then.
> Really? So how come Paul Wolfowitz, a very senior Neo-Con, admitted
> that "removing the regime is pretty much the 4th reason on the
> list. And it's more of a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam
> is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for"
Becaue Paul Wolfowitz is the president now ? And the context that quote is taken from is the reason why Saddam's 4th on the list. But you forget to mention that.
> You're swallowing the lies you've been told, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN
> THINKING ABOUT THEM! They made it clear? Utter, total cr@p. It was
> about WOMD. Then it was about Al-Quaida. Only after both of these
> reasons had been exposed as total and complete fabrication did
> Dubya...well, actually he just kept repeating them. But he also said
> it was for "the iraqi people".
So you're the holder of the truth then eh ? It's all lies ? Okay.
> Sorry, let me get this straight; you're saying that terrorists would
> just appear to destroy the US, even if the US WEREN'T responsible for
> their way of life being so demeaning to human dignity? Uhh...and
> what's your evidence for that please?
See back to who these terrorists generally are.
> And if you're going to give Saddam a good kicking, why aren't you
> demanding that other regimes get a good kicking?
Probably to keep people like you happy ? You want the world to change but you want to do it peacefully, that will not happen and you're a fool to think otherwise.
> Jesus...THINK will you?
Ah, of course, back to the "Light says it so it's thinking, Belldandy says it and it's parrot food" theory ? Okay.
> They turn more Iraqi's against them? Really...then why are the
> Iraqi's protesting against the occupying American and British troops?
Because we went in and gave them the ability to protest about what they care about without fear of being dragged away in the night with their families and killed ?
> That was the moment they lost? You think so? Why? Explain yourself
> beyond a blank assertion please.
Because it shows they want the Americans out of the country and will kill anyone and anything that stands in the way, including NGO's. Generally most people don't care who delivers the food and medical care if they need it so I doubt most Iraqi's want the NGO's out of there - but the terrorists do, so they can control the food and such as they did before the war and regain status and power.
> Jesus, there you go AGAIN..."Yeah, it's bad; but look at what
> EVIL RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE DOING!!" FORGET about them for a
> moment; you're trying to justify the Land of the Free doing all
> manner of deeply unpleasant things by saying that other countries do
> them...yet you don't see the contradiction in continuing to insist
> that the US are the best. How can they be a better nation if they do
> the same as what you consider to be the bad guys?!
But hang on ? You're complaining earlier that you want action against regimes like this ? You even name China ! Now you're complaining about someone saying they are a risk ? Okay. I don't actually say they're evil, I'm just saying that the UN should be more concerned about North Korea and it's ongoing "what can we say to get people's attention" ploy, China's little military jaunts which have gone unmentioned for the most part, and Russia's inability to control WMD stores in it's own territory, to name but a few things. But hey, if you feel the greatest world threat right now is the US led coalition trying to destory the remains of one evil regime then that's cool.
> Christ almighty...how many times do I have to say that ALL nations
> are as bad as each other before you get it? Say all you want about
> other nations being international floating t*rds; you won't get me
> flying to their defence. But STOP trying to distract attention away
> from the godawful actions of the US and UK.
Again this strange double logic, that all nations are as bad as each other and should be viewed equally, yet the most criticism and attention should be reserved for the ones taking down dictator and terrorist regimes ?
That's why all the other ones get away with it...don't you see that ? So many put so much effort into demonising and criticising a few nations and they get all the press coverage and public attention, so all the other nations carry on because they know that most Westerner's are far too busy attacking a few nations to bother with them. Maybe you need to look a little at yourself and those who criticise a few countries as much as you do those who oppose your views...
> Irrelevant? Do you really think so? Look at Iraq; there is peace
> there by force of arms. The people killing US soldiers every day
> don't seem to find that irrelevant.
And the "peace" before we went in was what exactly ? Peaceful for the people in the ever rising tally of unmarked graves ? Or would that be peaceful for those being executed for speaking against Saddam ? Or those being gang raped in prisons by Iraqi military forces ? I'm having difficulty locating this peace that existed before we went in. Sure, the terrorists may find it irrelevant, but that's because they've lost what little power and purpose they had. There is no place for them anymore in Iraq and they will fight to the death to regain it.
> Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did
> Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa?
After years of violence ? Okay.
> Why did the British Empire
> end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer
> occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of bloodshed?
Because the UK no longer had the military forces to maintain rule by force, plus you may want to look up the idea of neo-colonialism if you think that most gained true independence, in many cases those who were elected were little better than us, or indeed worse in many cases. Plus if you want to call it a remarkable lack of bloodshed then Iraq, by comparison, is a negligible amount of bloodshed.
> Why is it that the best chance of peace in northern ireland is coming
> through negotiation and not bloodshed?
These would be the negotiation that have been going on for decades, whilst all the time various groups still kill, maim and terrorise yes ? I'm sure those in Canary Wharf, Manchester, Omagh and such were heartened to know that the peace process was ongoing.
> There you go again; trying to play the emotional "this was so
> terrible!" card. B******t. Sorry Bell, but you lost the right to
> wring your hands in dismay about 9/11 when you wailed about Goatboy
> disagreeing with you, and demeaned his loss because his opinions
> conflicted with your own.
And there you go playing the counter-emotional bulls"it.=, last time I looked this was a democracy, with a reasonable freedom of speech, I have as much right as you to discuss it and noticeably you avoid the actual point that the worst act of terrorism EVER was comitted before overt action against the terrorists.
> Erm...before 9/11, no terrorists had hit any major western city for a
> while. We didn't feel the need to bomb civilians to mush then...the
> only major attacks before then were those by the IRA (funded mainly
> by rich Americans...), ETA (yet no war against them; funny that...),
> and Chechen rebels (and curiously, the more Russia pours troops into
> that nation, the more terrorists pour out of it).
REally ? Well gather up your evidence about the IRA because I'm sure 6 would like to look it over, as would the FBI and such, heck it's been looked for for ages so I'm glad you've got it ! Plus if you've got the Pentagon plans which say "Objective: Bomb Civilians" there's a pile of Democrat Senators and Liberal Democrat MP's who'll be interested, ETA is supposedly in negotiations (like the IRA peace process you hold up earlier on) and again with reference to Russia we see this peculair "leave the terrorists alone and they'll leave us alone" idea. USS Cole anyone ? First WTC bombing ? And many more...
> And how about the Bali nightclub bomb? Does that not count? What
> about the acts of terrorism in Iraq as we speak? Are they somehow
> different
Yes, they're soft targets and show that in order to cause damage they are going for low rate weak targets in peripheral regions. Sure, Osama and his buddies keep making these tapes saying he's going to strike, but oh dear, no strikes.
> Weak targets?! Right...so that's a comfort to those who died or who
> lost loved ones? "Hey, at least they didn't die in a major
> attack on a major city!" Could you maybe stop trying to redefine
> a terrorist atrocity in order to avoid backing down from what is a
> manifestly absurd argument.
See above, they are weak targets, which whilst providing little comfort for those left behind in such attacks, it does show a gradual move towards the end.
> Every month more are killed? Well guess what; every month a lot more
> are created thanks to the policies of the west. Not forever? So when
> do you think it will stop? Will the citizens of oppressive regimes
> just decide "Ah well, we'd best just accept our lot in
> life"? Or do you maybe think that as long as the US supports
> oppressive regimes, there will be people hating the US for doing so?
No, but as you well know, the terrorists come from a small minority in certain countries. Earlier this week the Red Cross was hit. Now if you're a parent in Iraq, and your kid dies because the Red Cross goes or was damaged, I'd guess you're not going to give a toss about the "holy cause" and you're going to act against the terrorists. Saddam's sons were found because the guy whose place they took didn't like them anymore, the information to extract Private Lynch was obtained because an Iraqi lawyer did not like what he saw, in Afghanistan Afghani's are helping us to find the terrorists because they don't want the life they had for their children.
> And last stand?!? What, d'you think that all terrorism will stop if
> you just kill enough people? Might I ask what gives you that idea?
No,, read above. Also you remove the means, and you harden security to prevent possible attacks.
> Yes. A lot of WESTERN people live like that. An awful lot of people
> in the developing world don't.
That's a very simplified way of looking at it, unless the entire continents of Asia and Africa suddenly erupted in open warfare this morning then that's not the case - you'll find people in all nations live in varying conditions and the division is not on the grounds of nationality or country, usually it's class.
>They live in fear, under oppression,
> and in danger. And they look at the western world, living in peace
> thanks to the labour of the developing world.
Well they'd do well to look at their own leaders who sold them out, not the western world. Why was colonialism possible in the past ? Because most of the elites in the colonies were easily bought or willingly joined in.
> And they get angry. And
> funnily enough, terrorists can prey on that anger and use it to their
> advantage. Only way that will stop is if we stop giving them reason
> to be angry. Bombing them doesn't strike me as the best way to do
> that.
That's one view, but not the only one. Remove those who put them in that position - their own leaders. Right now Mr Mugabe's running Zimbabwe into the ground, which I guess is our fault for not acting ? But if we act then his supporters will get angry and shoot at our people, so using your logic we should sit back and do zilch.
> Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't
> be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle
> east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
Except they're not from whole continents, and the average terrorist is well educated - usually in the west - and from a middle class background. Yes, suicide bombers aren't, but the people controlling the terrorist groups are, in fact many have rich families and vast personal wealth. Strangely none seem to bothered about these people you're saying are angry. I mean, it's almost like people like Osama are using those people to justify their own little crusades eh ? So we find them, and we remove them. And we keep on doing that, and hope that those places where people are being badly treated by their own leaders and such get rid of them, and I'm sure that in the shadows we'll be all too happy to give the little push now and then.
> Really? So how come Paul Wolfowitz, a very senior Neo-Con, admitted
> that "removing the regime is pretty much the 4th reason on the
> list. And it's more of a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam
> is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for"
Becaue Paul Wolfowitz is the president now ? And the context that quote is taken from is the reason why Saddam's 4th on the list. But you forget to mention that.
> You're swallowing the lies you've been told, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN
> THINKING ABOUT THEM! They made it clear? Utter, total cr@p. It was
> about WOMD. Then it was about Al-Quaida. Only after both of these
> reasons had been exposed as total and complete fabrication did
> Dubya...well, actually he just kept repeating them. But he also said
> it was for "the iraqi people".
So you're the holder of the truth then eh ? It's all lies ? Okay.
> Sorry, let me get this straight; you're saying that terrorists would
> just appear to destroy the US, even if the US WEREN'T responsible for
> their way of life being so demeaning to human dignity? Uhh...and
> what's your evidence for that please?
See back to who these terrorists generally are.
> And if you're going to give Saddam a good kicking, why aren't you
> demanding that other regimes get a good kicking?
Probably to keep people like you happy ? You want the world to change but you want to do it peacefully, that will not happen and you're a fool to think otherwise.
> Jesus...THINK will you?
Ah, of course, back to the "Light says it so it's thinking, Belldandy says it and it's parrot food" theory ? Okay.
> They turn more Iraqi's against them? Really...then why are the
> Iraqi's protesting against the occupying American and British troops?
Because we went in and gave them the ability to protest about what they care about without fear of being dragged away in the night with their families and killed ?
> That was the moment they lost? You think so? Why? Explain yourself
> beyond a blank assertion please.
Because it shows they want the Americans out of the country and will kill anyone and anything that stands in the way, including NGO's. Generally most people don't care who delivers the food and medical care if they need it so I doubt most Iraqi's want the NGO's out of there - but the terrorists do, so they can control the food and such as they did before the war and regain status and power.
> Jesus, there you go AGAIN..."Yeah, it's bad; but look at what
> EVIL RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE DOING!!" FORGET about them for a
> moment; you're trying to justify the Land of the Free doing all
> manner of deeply unpleasant things by saying that other countries do
> them...yet you don't see the contradiction in continuing to insist
> that the US are the best. How can they be a better nation if they do
> the same as what you consider to be the bad guys?!
But hang on ? You're complaining earlier that you want action against regimes like this ? You even name China ! Now you're complaining about someone saying they are a risk ? Okay. I don't actually say they're evil, I'm just saying that the UN should be more concerned about North Korea and it's ongoing "what can we say to get people's attention" ploy, China's little military jaunts which have gone unmentioned for the most part, and Russia's inability to control WMD stores in it's own territory, to name but a few things. But hey, if you feel the greatest world threat right now is the US led coalition trying to destory the remains of one evil regime then that's cool.
> Christ almighty...how many times do I have to say that ALL nations
> are as bad as each other before you get it? Say all you want about
> other nations being international floating t*rds; you won't get me
> flying to their defence. But STOP trying to distract attention away
> from the godawful actions of the US and UK.
Again this strange double logic, that all nations are as bad as each other and should be viewed equally, yet the most criticism and attention should be reserved for the ones taking down dictator and terrorist regimes ?
That's why all the other ones get away with it...don't you see that ? So many put so much effort into demonising and criticising a few nations and they get all the press coverage and public attention, so all the other nations carry on because they know that most Westerner's are far too busy attacking a few nations to bother with them. Maybe you need to look a little at yourself and those who criticise a few countries as much as you do those who oppose your views...
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> Light wrote:
> They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible
> for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions
> had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the
> difference?
>
> This by NO means makes the actions right, but I think the fundamental
> differance is that Osama was an individual where as Dubya was
> technicall acting through the apparatus of a state. From what I
> understand is that a state is something that monopolises the
> legitamate use of force. However, this is refering to within ones
> nation, outside who can possibly say what is the legitamate use of
> force? Especially when the major powers just do what the want anyway.
> Thats the differance, but whether you find that morally right or
> wrong is your decision.
Hmm...yeah, fair point. I'll go with that.
If anything, it kinda makes Dubya out in a worse light; bin Laden used his own resources to further his aims. Dubya used the resources of an entire nation to further his, and lied to that nation in order to get approval for the use of those resources.
For the record, the actions of BOTH men are utterly reprehensible. Frankly, I'd be glad to see both of them in front of a criminal court.
> Light wrote:
> They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible
> for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions
> had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the
> difference?
>
> This by NO means makes the actions right, but I think the fundamental
> differance is that Osama was an individual where as Dubya was
> technicall acting through the apparatus of a state. From what I
> understand is that a state is something that monopolises the
> legitamate use of force. However, this is refering to within ones
> nation, outside who can possibly say what is the legitamate use of
> force? Especially when the major powers just do what the want anyway.
> Thats the differance, but whether you find that morally right or
> wrong is your decision.
Hmm...yeah, fair point. I'll go with that.
If anything, it kinda makes Dubya out in a worse light; bin Laden used his own resources to further his aims. Dubya used the resources of an entire nation to further his, and lied to that nation in order to get approval for the use of those resources.
For the record, the actions of BOTH men are utterly reprehensible. Frankly, I'd be glad to see both of them in front of a criminal court.
Light wrote:
> They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible
> for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions
> had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the
> difference?
This by NO means makes the actions right, but I think the fundamental differance is that Osama was an individual where as Dubya was technicall acting through the apparatus of a state. From what I understand is that a state is something that monopolises the legitamate use of force. However, this is refering to within ones nation, outside who can possibly say what is the legitamate use of force? Especially when the major powers just do what the want anyway. Thats the differance, but whether you find that morally right or wrong is your decision.
> They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible
> for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions
> had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the
> difference?
This by NO means makes the actions right, but I think the fundamental differance is that Osama was an individual where as Dubya was technicall acting through the apparatus of a state. From what I understand is that a state is something that monopolises the legitamate use of force. However, this is refering to within ones nation, outside who can possibly say what is the legitamate use of force? Especially when the major powers just do what the want anyway. Thats the differance, but whether you find that morally right or wrong is your decision.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> True, in a sense, but for those living in peace because of force of
> arms it's really irrelevant. Realisitically, at this point in time,
> peace can only be achieved through force. I'm not saying that is how
> it will always be, because no one knows, but I'm saying - bar any
> major event - that's how its going to be for the next 10 years at
> least.
Irrelevant? Do you really think so? Look at Iraq; there is peace there by force of arms. The people killing US soldiers every day don't seem to find that irrelevant.
Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa? Why did the British Empire end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of bloodshed? Why is it that the best chance of peace in northern ireland is coming through negotiation and not bloodshed?
>
> But September 11 - the worst act of terrorism in the western world
> ever, occurred before any major action was ever taken against the
> terrorists.
There you go again; trying to play the emotional "this was so terrible!" card. B******t. Sorry Bell, but you lost the right to wring your hands in dismay about 9/11 when you wailed about Goatboy disagreeing with you, and demeaned his loss because his opinions conflicted with your own.
> And since 9/11 no terrorists have hit any major western
> city again.
Erm...before 9/11, no terrorists had hit any major western city for a while. We didn't feel the need to bomb civilians to mush then...the only major attacks before then were those by the IRA (funded mainly by rich Americans...), ETA (yet no war against them; funny that...), and Chechen rebels (and curiously, the more Russia pours troops into that nation, the more terrorists pour out of it).
> Sure, there are threats, but no actual attacks take
> place.
And how about the Bali nightclub bomb? Does that not count? What about the acts of terrorism in Iraq as we speak? Are they somehow different
> The terrorists, after such a short time, are being forced to
> their last stand by hitting weak targets such as Bali, Baghdad,
> Kenya, and every month more and more are killed or captured. Yes,
> there will be potential terrorists to take their place, but not
> forever - you yourself said that nothing is forced to stay the same
> just because it has before.
Weak targets?! Right...so that's a comfort to those who died or who lost loved ones? "Hey, at least they didn't die in a major attack on a major city!" Could you maybe stop trying to redefine a terrorist atrocity in order to avoid backing down from what is a manifestly absurd argument.
Every month more are killed? Well guess what; every month a lot more are created thanks to the policies of the west. Not forever? So when do you think it will stop? Will the citizens of oppressive regimes just decide "Ah well, we'd best just accept our lot in life"? Or do you maybe think that as long as the US supports oppressive regimes, there will be people hating the US for doing so?
And last stand?!? What, d'you think that all terrorism will stop if you just kill enough people? Might I ask what gives you that idea?
>
> Of a vague sorts yes. World peace ? Nope, but a lot of people live
> their lives right now without ever being caught in a war, or seeing a
> gun fire, an explosion, and so on.
Yes. A lot of WESTERN people live like that. An awful lot of people in the developing world don't. They live in fear, under oppression, and in danger. And they look at the western world, living in peace thanks to the labour of the developing world. And they get angry. And funnily enough, terrorists can prey on that anger and use it to their advantage. Only way that will stop is if we stop giving them reason to be angry. Bombing them doesn't strike me as the best way to do that.
> For some people that is all the
> peace that's needed.
Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
> Iraq was about war on Saddam's regime, you know
> as well as I do that everyone concerned made that clear, it was war
> on Saddam and the regime. It appears some of the intelligence used to
> justify action was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that
> Saddam needed taking out of power ASAP.
Really? So how come Paul Wolfowitz, a very senior Neo-Con, admitted that "removing the regime is pretty much the 4th reason on the list. And it's more of a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for"
You're swallowing the lies you've been told, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT THEM! They made it clear? Utter, total cr@p. It was about WOMD. Then it was about Al-Quaida. Only after both of these reasons had been exposed as total and complete fabrication did Dubya...well, actually he just kept repeating them. But he also said it was for "the iraqi people".
> We did that, and we'll get
> his followers bit by bit. I'm happy that Saddam is at last out of
> power and on the run. That more terrorists will be created...well
> that much was obvious, but they were going to emerge someday and to
> say "No we won't go give Saddam a damn good kicking because some
> people won't like it and will become terrorists" is pathetic.
Sorry, let me get this straight; you're saying that terrorists would just appear to destroy the US, even if the US WEREN'T responsible for their way of life being so demeaning to human dignity? Uhh...and what's your evidence for that please?
Also, you show a misunderstanding of disapproval for the war (as you always do; you always misrepresent the opposing viewpoint, and that is another reason why I abhor you as a fundamentalist). Some did indeed say that the creation of more terrorists would be a bad thing (including Dubya himself; how can you say that the war on terror is a good thing when it increases terrorists?! Isn't that like saying "There are more enemy soldiers every day! Their forces have doubled! What a great victory for us!!"). The majority said that the war was a bad thing because it was an ugly grab for resources, it would destabilise the region, and it would lead to more terror attacks. So far, all of that has proved true. Yet the Iraqi people don't seem very happy to have America there. Do they?
And if you're going to give Saddam a good kicking, why aren't you demanding that other regimes get a good kicking? Other regimes equally as brutal, if not more so? Oh, that's right; they're pro-western. Or, like China, too big, right? But you think THIS war was about removing a bad guy. That's the only reason?
Jesus...THINK will you?
> Right now I'd say the situation in Iraq - from news reports anyway -
> is improving. Food, water and electricity are being restored or are
> already, the #1 problem is security and the last UN resolution
> authorised more foreign troops and money, but it'll take time to get
> in place. As it is the last wave of bombings seem a stupid idea on
> the part of the terrorists in Iraq - by hitting the Red Cross they
> turn more Iraqi's against them, as well as by hitting the Iraqi
> policemen as well. The moment they stopped exclusively attacking the
> US troops was the moment they lost, all it is now is how long they'll
> take to lose.
They turn more Iraqi's against them? Really...then why are the Iraqi's protesting against the occupying American and British troops?
That was the moment they lost? You think so? Why? Explain yourself beyond a blank assertion please.
>
> In the US, and it's allies, I see countries that act, that do things.
> Yes, they usually have their own interests as part of that action,
> but when you look around the UN Security Council the rest of the
> table is pretty much as bad or worse. Right now I'd be more concerned
> with China, North Korea and Russia.
Jesus, there you go AGAIN..."Yeah, it's bad; but look at what EVIL RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE DOING!!" FORGET about them for a moment; you're trying to justify the Land of the Free doing all manner of deeply unpleasant things by saying that other countries do them...yet you don't see the contradiction in continuing to insist that the US are the best. How can they be a better nation if they do the same as what you consider to be the bad guys?!
Christ almighty...how many times do I have to say that ALL nations are as bad as each other before you get it? Say all you want about other nations being international floating t*rds; you won't get me flying to their defence. But STOP trying to distract attention away from the godawful actions of the US and UK.
They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the difference?
You say only 'part' of the action. Which part? Can you carefully divide it up and tell me? Or are you only trying to see the best of the US and the worst of everyone else?
>
> True, in a sense, but for those living in peace because of force of
> arms it's really irrelevant. Realisitically, at this point in time,
> peace can only be achieved through force. I'm not saying that is how
> it will always be, because no one knows, but I'm saying - bar any
> major event - that's how its going to be for the next 10 years at
> least.
Irrelevant? Do you really think so? Look at Iraq; there is peace there by force of arms. The people killing US soldiers every day don't seem to find that irrelevant.
Peace can only be achieved through force of arms? Then why did Apartheid end peacefully in South Africa? Why did the British Empire end peacefully, and with elections in those countries we no longer occupied, and with a remarkable (though not total) lack of bloodshed? Why is it that the best chance of peace in northern ireland is coming through negotiation and not bloodshed?
>
> But September 11 - the worst act of terrorism in the western world
> ever, occurred before any major action was ever taken against the
> terrorists.
There you go again; trying to play the emotional "this was so terrible!" card. B******t. Sorry Bell, but you lost the right to wring your hands in dismay about 9/11 when you wailed about Goatboy disagreeing with you, and demeaned his loss because his opinions conflicted with your own.
> And since 9/11 no terrorists have hit any major western
> city again.
Erm...before 9/11, no terrorists had hit any major western city for a while. We didn't feel the need to bomb civilians to mush then...the only major attacks before then were those by the IRA (funded mainly by rich Americans...), ETA (yet no war against them; funny that...), and Chechen rebels (and curiously, the more Russia pours troops into that nation, the more terrorists pour out of it).
> Sure, there are threats, but no actual attacks take
> place.
And how about the Bali nightclub bomb? Does that not count? What about the acts of terrorism in Iraq as we speak? Are they somehow different
> The terrorists, after such a short time, are being forced to
> their last stand by hitting weak targets such as Bali, Baghdad,
> Kenya, and every month more and more are killed or captured. Yes,
> there will be potential terrorists to take their place, but not
> forever - you yourself said that nothing is forced to stay the same
> just because it has before.
Weak targets?! Right...so that's a comfort to those who died or who lost loved ones? "Hey, at least they didn't die in a major attack on a major city!" Could you maybe stop trying to redefine a terrorist atrocity in order to avoid backing down from what is a manifestly absurd argument.
Every month more are killed? Well guess what; every month a lot more are created thanks to the policies of the west. Not forever? So when do you think it will stop? Will the citizens of oppressive regimes just decide "Ah well, we'd best just accept our lot in life"? Or do you maybe think that as long as the US supports oppressive regimes, there will be people hating the US for doing so?
And last stand?!? What, d'you think that all terrorism will stop if you just kill enough people? Might I ask what gives you that idea?
>
> Of a vague sorts yes. World peace ? Nope, but a lot of people live
> their lives right now without ever being caught in a war, or seeing a
> gun fire, an explosion, and so on.
Yes. A lot of WESTERN people live like that. An awful lot of people in the developing world don't. They live in fear, under oppression, and in danger. And they look at the western world, living in peace thanks to the labour of the developing world. And they get angry. And funnily enough, terrorists can prey on that anger and use it to their advantage. Only way that will stop is if we stop giving them reason to be angry. Bombing them doesn't strike me as the best way to do that.
> For some people that is all the
> peace that's needed.
Yes; the minority of people in the world. What I am saying is, don't be surprised at the neverending stream of terrorists from the middle east, Africa, Asia. What, d'you think they'll just give up?
> Iraq was about war on Saddam's regime, you know
> as well as I do that everyone concerned made that clear, it was war
> on Saddam and the regime. It appears some of the intelligence used to
> justify action was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that
> Saddam needed taking out of power ASAP.
Really? So how come Paul Wolfowitz, a very senior Neo-Con, admitted that "removing the regime is pretty much the 4th reason on the list. And it's more of a supplemental reason. I mean, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's not worth risking American lives for"
You're swallowing the lies you've been told, AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT THEM! They made it clear? Utter, total cr@p. It was about WOMD. Then it was about Al-Quaida. Only after both of these reasons had been exposed as total and complete fabrication did Dubya...well, actually he just kept repeating them. But he also said it was for "the iraqi people".
> We did that, and we'll get
> his followers bit by bit. I'm happy that Saddam is at last out of
> power and on the run. That more terrorists will be created...well
> that much was obvious, but they were going to emerge someday and to
> say "No we won't go give Saddam a damn good kicking because some
> people won't like it and will become terrorists" is pathetic.
Sorry, let me get this straight; you're saying that terrorists would just appear to destroy the US, even if the US WEREN'T responsible for their way of life being so demeaning to human dignity? Uhh...and what's your evidence for that please?
Also, you show a misunderstanding of disapproval for the war (as you always do; you always misrepresent the opposing viewpoint, and that is another reason why I abhor you as a fundamentalist). Some did indeed say that the creation of more terrorists would be a bad thing (including Dubya himself; how can you say that the war on terror is a good thing when it increases terrorists?! Isn't that like saying "There are more enemy soldiers every day! Their forces have doubled! What a great victory for us!!"). The majority said that the war was a bad thing because it was an ugly grab for resources, it would destabilise the region, and it would lead to more terror attacks. So far, all of that has proved true. Yet the Iraqi people don't seem very happy to have America there. Do they?
And if you're going to give Saddam a good kicking, why aren't you demanding that other regimes get a good kicking? Other regimes equally as brutal, if not more so? Oh, that's right; they're pro-western. Or, like China, too big, right? But you think THIS war was about removing a bad guy. That's the only reason?
Jesus...THINK will you?
> Right now I'd say the situation in Iraq - from news reports anyway -
> is improving. Food, water and electricity are being restored or are
> already, the #1 problem is security and the last UN resolution
> authorised more foreign troops and money, but it'll take time to get
> in place. As it is the last wave of bombings seem a stupid idea on
> the part of the terrorists in Iraq - by hitting the Red Cross they
> turn more Iraqi's against them, as well as by hitting the Iraqi
> policemen as well. The moment they stopped exclusively attacking the
> US troops was the moment they lost, all it is now is how long they'll
> take to lose.
They turn more Iraqi's against them? Really...then why are the Iraqi's protesting against the occupying American and British troops?
That was the moment they lost? You think so? Why? Explain yourself beyond a blank assertion please.
>
> In the US, and it's allies, I see countries that act, that do things.
> Yes, they usually have their own interests as part of that action,
> but when you look around the UN Security Council the rest of the
> table is pretty much as bad or worse. Right now I'd be more concerned
> with China, North Korea and Russia.
Jesus, there you go AGAIN..."Yeah, it's bad; but look at what EVIL RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE DOING!!" FORGET about them for a moment; you're trying to justify the Land of the Free doing all manner of deeply unpleasant things by saying that other countries do them...yet you don't see the contradiction in continuing to insist that the US are the best. How can they be a better nation if they do the same as what you consider to be the bad guys?!
Christ almighty...how many times do I have to say that ALL nations are as bad as each other before you get it? Say all you want about other nations being international floating t*rds; you won't get me flying to their defence. But STOP trying to distract attention away from the godawful actions of the US and UK.
They act, they do things. So did Osama bin Laden. He is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. So is Dubya. Both of these actions had their own interests as the whole of the action. So what's the difference?
You say only 'part' of the action. Which part? Can you carefully divide it up and tell me? Or are you only trying to see the best of the US and the worst of everyone else?
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
>
> Thankyou for your forgiveness. I forgive you too Light.
> As Jebus would say 'do unto others as you would have done unter
> you.'
> Or something.
Heh. Personally, I think he would have said "Get me the ^&£% down from this plank of wood you Roman &*%^%".
>
> Thankyou for your forgiveness. I forgive you too Light.
> As Jebus would say 'do unto others as you would have done unter
> you.'
> Or something.
Heh. Personally, I think he would have said "Get me the ^&£% down from this plank of wood you Roman &*%^%".
Page: