Jeff R: thanks for your balanced reply. Just a couple of things:
I agree. But do you think the other countries in the ME see the Israelis as underdogs? I think not. I think they see them as the 51st state of the US. They have wealth, high standard of living, trade, nuclear arms, huge army and high levels of education. Hardly in the same league as their Palastinian neighbours.
I imagine from a Palastinian point of view that the Israelis seem just a much terrorists as the suicide bombers. After all, Israel has invaded Palastinian land and is occupying it with immigrant jews from Russia and elsewhere so that even when/if Palastine regains the land there will be all these migrants to deal with. I'm sure the Palastinians would argue that the Israeli's practice an insidious form of terrorism.
I imagine this is the case. Can anyone confirm?
Terrorism is an unacceptable means to cause change but it happens whether we like it or not. What I am saying is that it tends to be routed in anger about something and that the something is not trivial. The US may have fueled this anger and would achieve more through dousing the flames than attacking Iraq.
I agree. But do you think the other countries in the ME see the Israelis as underdogs? I think not. I think they see them as the 51st state of the US. They have wealth, high standard of living, trade, nuclear arms, huge army and high levels of education. Hardly in the same league as their Palastinian neighbours.
I imagine from a Palastinian point of view that the Israelis seem just a much terrorists as the suicide bombers. After all, Israel has invaded Palastinian land and is occupying it with immigrant jews from Russia and elsewhere so that even when/if Palastine regains the land there will be all these migrants to deal with. I'm sure the Palastinians would argue that the Israeli's practice an insidious form of terrorism.
I imagine this is the case. Can anyone confirm?
Terrorism is an unacceptable means to cause change but it happens whether we like it or not. What I am saying is that it tends to be routed in anger about something and that the something is not trivial. The US may have fueled this anger and would achieve more through dousing the flames than attacking Iraq.
Jeff R said:
vietnam is not an island in the middle of the pacific ocean. it occupies rather an historically significant and strategic geo/political location on the asian mainland, and that is why you invaded that country. i think history has shown that it was a mistake for you to try to 'simply slow the spread of communism' in that country as they had willingly embraced that political system. aren`t they still communist?
you gave up the panama canal. then, a few years later you returned to depose the right wing dictator that you had installed there when his behaviour displeased you. see the pattern? btw, don`t you still have troops stationed in panama?
Jeff R said:
not only does this paragraph show an unbelievably callous disregard for the fact many peacekeepers have given their lives in the pursuit of peace, it also demonstrates your complete and utter misunderstanding of the intended role of UN peacekeeping forces.
peacekeepers were never intended as surrogate US soldiers to be used at will by the US in furtherance of the US' foreign policy. they were intended to go to the world`s troublespots, physically seperate warring factions (at great personal risk to themselves), and to attempt as much as possible to keep people from killing each other while diplomatic solutions to the problems were explored. the fact that they weren`t always completely successful in stopping people from killing and raping each other speaks more eloquently of the power of hatred and of human ingenuity in matters of killing and raping than it does of any failure of the UN peacekeeping forces.
Jeff R said:
in the real world it matters not one whit whether you and i feel that terrorism against the United States or any other country is justified. i don`t. unfortunately that is not enough to stop the people who do feel justified in terrorist acts, who do feel it is their only recourse in a world that otherwise would pay little or no attention to their plight.
meeting violence with violence will only serve to increase the hatred of terrorists. perhaps it is time that we attempt to redress some of the injustices that lead violence.
at the risk of being banned for telling the truth - i would submit to you that every leader of every country in the world lives in opulence and luxury while members of their society suffer in poverty and hunger. were we to use that as a justification for war we do well to attack ourselves first.
Jeff R said:
1. many countries do fear an increase in terrorism after a unilateral, non-UN sanctioned, US led attack. they have good reason to do so. since the stated aim of the current bush administration is to limit the spread of terrorist activity - why would they embark on a course of action guaranteed to increase the level of hatred and mistrust in a region justifiably reknowned for hatred and mistrust. that hardly seems a logical way to stop the spread of terrorism.
2. few are labouring under the illusion that the US position is 'morally correct'. most believe that the morally correct position is to act under the auspices of the UN. while i feel that this is a start - i believe it to be morally correct to attempt to redress some of the injustices currently afflicting many in the arab world.
3. long term stability in the middle east should be of tantamount concern for everyone in the world today. it is unfortunate that historically and presently little of the behaviour of the US and other former colonial powers have done anything to further that cause.
joe dick said:
This is a good point and something I had been thinking about
too. Recently a military analyst over here warned that since
the US seems to be very well prepared to counter terrorist
attacks, al Queda or others might choose to attack european
countries instead.
Worth thinking about, if the US cares about Europe, that is.
Al Queda is anti-west, not only anti-US, and most people in
the arab world will probably not know which, if any, european
countries support a US attack on Iraq, but rather think of
europe and the US as pretty much the same thing in this case.
joe dick said:
I meant all that to be funny! Man, try dealing with the....oops, I better be quiet! 🙂 I am sure the other side that we deal with is equally dismayed by our own sense of urgency. Some cultures have business rituals that have to be gone through; in many countries, you have to deal with an agency of some sort who has "friends" in the government or industry you are trying to do business with; sometimes you have to have three or four meetings just to get acquainted with each other before much business is discussed; some will agree on 99% of the details and when you are all supposed to be ready to sign, they throw in some new requirements that they had known about for months. So, yeah, it can be a little annoying, but that is part of doing business, and we laugh about it more than complain. As you seem to be saying, these business practices may have evolved over hundreds of years and while we see them as cumbersome and inefficient, if this is what works, then so be it. It is part of the diversity of mankind that makes life fun and interesting.
Please don't read insults where none was intended.
joe dick said:
Your blind hatred of the US is showing here. Are you saying that the Iraqi people now, in the current situation, have a right to self-determination? I hardly think so. The ones who can vote there have to vote for SH or they will be killed.
In France, to use your example, they can vote freely. If they vote in communism, so be it. If a ruthless dictator somehow comes in and behaves like SH such that they have no voice in the affairs of their country anymore, I presume they would want the US to come in and help them get both their freedom and country back.
Am I wrong on this?
I think your anti-Americanism is blinding you a little bit on this issue. Name one country we have invaded where the people there really did have the right of self determination. We have only used forced when there were dictators that did not allow the people a choice in their government.
Self-determination is not something one or a few leaders of nation have when they have taken over by force. Self-determination comes from the people being governed. Our belief that a government is "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" seems a logical test as to whether a nation has self-determination. The government of Iraq certainly fails this test. Many other nations fail, as well, and we have to hope that time will change that.
The fact that so many of you are comfortable with dictators and so concerned about your own little lives back home and what may happen to it if a dictator has to be ousted is discomforting to me. Is this being 'civilized'?
traderbam said:
If this were the situation then I would agree, however it is not.
In 1998 when weapons inspectors left Iraq, they also left behind thousands of tonnes of documented materials that could be used in the development and production of WMD. There is no argument that this stuff existed in 1998.
UN resolution 1441 did not call for UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq and hunt down these materials or look in every nook and cranny in the country to find them. The resolution called for Iraq to make a complete and total declaration of any and all equipment or materials that could be used in the production of WMD including dual use items. The inspectors would then use this declaration, validate it was correct, inspect these dual use items to see if they were being used for civilian, peaceful purposes and to destroy them if they were not.
Iraq's declaration made no mention those thousands of tonnes of equipment and material from 1998. This is the concern, this is what even Hans Blix is saying is the root of the problem. When questioned about these omissions, Iraq says that we have no WMD, but so far have not provided any supporting evidence to indicate what happened to the known material from 1998. We are supposed to take Sadam's word for this, a person who has a long history of falshood
There are people that I don't trust in general:Lawyers, car salesmen, insurance salesmen ......
And there are people whom I trust even less: POLITICIANS
Nobody ever gets president of a big country because he is a friend of mankind, he simply does it because he is hungry for power.
As soon as he has power he wants to use it. This counts for Saddam as well as for Mr. G.B.
Another point is that American presidents do have to show their nation that they are strong men, in order to be/stay credible.
This could also be experienced with Mr. Clinton : At least three times when news from the Lewinsky affair emerged - there were bombings in Serbia the next day !😕
Mr G.B. had to experience the humiliation of the 11th of September and so he has to play the strong man in order to stay credible.
And soon there was his daddy's favourite enemy that came on handy.....
Mabe the terrorist attacks won't have happened at all if he hadn't claimed the seat he did not even win.....
Me too, I think Saddam is a tyrant but there are many more in this world. I have the feeling that American governments always pick their favourite tyrants whom they support and the ones they officially hate (to which group they belong can even chage after some time).
I don't think Americans are killed because they want to live the way they do - but because American politicians think there is only one true way of life for the whole world.
The attacks on the WTC were a barbaric (beyond description) act that killed a lot of innocent people. But it din't hit an innocent nation IMHO.
You simply can't fight terrorism with war - without fighting the real roots of it: Poverty, injustice, illiteracy......
Only mentally deranged politiciancs think this would work, and those are the same ones who are against proper control of firearms (better not obstruct this mega business as long as you can put the bad guys on the electric chair afterwards if someting goes wrong).
Regards
Charles
BTW: The worst thing that could happen to American presidents and the American economy:
WORLDWIDE PEACE !!!!
And there are people whom I trust even less: POLITICIANS
Nobody ever gets president of a big country because he is a friend of mankind, he simply does it because he is hungry for power.
As soon as he has power he wants to use it. This counts for Saddam as well as for Mr. G.B.
Another point is that American presidents do have to show their nation that they are strong men, in order to be/stay credible.
This could also be experienced with Mr. Clinton : At least three times when news from the Lewinsky affair emerged - there were bombings in Serbia the next day !😕
Mr G.B. had to experience the humiliation of the 11th of September and so he has to play the strong man in order to stay credible.
And soon there was his daddy's favourite enemy that came on handy.....
Mabe the terrorist attacks won't have happened at all if he hadn't claimed the seat he did not even win.....
Me too, I think Saddam is a tyrant but there are many more in this world. I have the feeling that American governments always pick their favourite tyrants whom they support and the ones they officially hate (to which group they belong can even chage after some time).
I don't think Americans are killed because they want to live the way they do - but because American politicians think there is only one true way of life for the whole world.
The attacks on the WTC were a barbaric (beyond description) act that killed a lot of innocent people. But it din't hit an innocent nation IMHO.
You simply can't fight terrorism with war - without fighting the real roots of it: Poverty, injustice, illiteracy......
Only mentally deranged politiciancs think this would work, and those are the same ones who are against proper control of firearms (better not obstruct this mega business as long as you can put the bad guys on the electric chair afterwards if someting goes wrong).
Regards
Charles
BTW: The worst thing that could happen to American presidents and the American economy:
WORLDWIDE PEACE !!!!
phase_accurate said:
There is no evidence to support this. The plans for September 11 were well under way before the presidential elections took place.
As well like it or not Bush won the presidential election based on the laws that were in place when the election took place. You may argue that many of these laws were flawed and should be changed (which I think should be done). Ultimately however Gore conceeded the election, he chose to withdraw his candidacy for president. For all intensive purposes the electon was a tie, even the counts for popular vote were well within the margin of error, and I'm sure that depending on your political affiliation you could go and count all the votes and come up with "conclusive" evidence that your candiate was the real winner.
phase_accurate said:
No argument there, bro! 🙂 I hope Engineers are near the top of your trust list!
I can't argue too much with you here, either. It takes a big ego to run for President and to put up with the BS that the press and the other side brings up. Not many good people will put up with it. We only hope that once in power, they will try to act responsibly but what is responsible to one person may be lunacy to another.
There was no humiliation from 911. Bush had been in office less than a year and had not really done much in world affairs. If there is any blame for the attack, it was not due to Bush, Jr.
That Bush didn't win is rubbish. Counts of the votes by independent newspapers show that even had there been the recount Gore wanted, Bush was still the winner. Please, let's not into this issue. I won't say any more.
I won't try to dispute that SH is being picked on now because we were unsuccessful finding BL. Still, I think there is little doubt SH needs to be taken out, somehow.
Well, we can't go after them all, and I am not sure we should ignore them all. We do help some when it appears it is to our advantage (such as supporting Iraq when he was fighting Iran, who had stated we were the enemy), but as was discussed earlier, most all nations do this same thing. We all buy oil from non-democratic nations, we all buy electronics made in China, etc. We are all to blame, if there is blame.
Your excuse for them, therefore, gives them support. While you condemn the act, you still justify their action by essentially saying the US deserved what it got. I know this is a common feeling, and it makes me sick. No nation that supports freedom deserves this, and anyone who tries supports it deserves whatever type of justice the US can dispense. Kicking the sleeping giant may be fun, but don't get upset if he finally decides to swat you down when you do something so atrocious.
Good words, but how is this achieved in dictatorial regimes? I feel if the Palestinian issue could be resolved, things would be a lot better. I do not know how to accomplish that. Both sides want the same things, and only one side can have them, and both sides and willing to kill and die to get/keep what they have/want. I don't know that more schools and a few billion US dollars will solve anything. Why doesn't Europe go in and do something?
War has worked a lot of times. It worked with Germany and it worked with Japan. Your mention about the control of firearms does not seem rational. 911 killed thousands without a single firearm being used. Nerve agents cannot be bought at the local Walmart. Nukes can only be obtained from rouge nations. I wish all we had to deal with was terrorists with a couple of store-bought hand guns.
This is rubbish! Our economy is not well because of 911, in large part, and due to the war preparations. Gasoline prices here are at all times high - this hurts everyone. A few defense companies will prosper, but those same companies take hits during the peaceful times, so it evens out. We will spend billions on this war, and a big chunk of it is going overseas, so it is you guys who will benefit. Look at Turkey and all the billions they are trying to bleed out of us for the honor of us defending them! The popularity of GB is down due to his war plans. Americans are not exactly gung ho about war. Geeze.
Jeff R said:
i am not blindly hateful of anyone. the fact that i am in strong disagreement with current (and past) american foreign policy does not make me anti-american. if you can not argue without resorting to childish name calling that is your problem.
if you read my posts you should be able to tell that i am strongly against dictatorships of any kind.
there is not enough bull, nor can you shovel it fast enough to fill the holes in your ridiculous 'arguements'. i`m not calling you a name. i`m just saying that your style of debate sucks.
I don't trust any engineer since I am one by myself !😉
I didn't want to say the the U.S. deserved this act (911) but they are the most likely target to be picked for such things if someone has decided to do something like that.
Regards
Charles
I didn't want to say the the U.S. deserved this act (911) but they are the most likely target to be picked for such things if someone has decided to do something like that.
Regards
Charles
joe dick said:
Where did I resort to "childish name calling".
As for there being not enough bulls, well, you guys have taken them all! 🙂
(I hope you guys know I am joking! We can be serious, but let's have a good time, too.)
o.k jeff. no hard feelings alright?
believe me, i would rather not get worked up over stuff like this, i would much rather have a good time and be friends.
and, after all, we lost all our bulls when you guys raped us with nafta.
just gettin' back at you. not serious. don`t let`s argue about nafta as i know nothing about it and would have to keep very quiet.
although i suppose you could say that i know nothing about this arguement either.... maybe i should just keep quiet.
believe me, i would rather not get worked up over stuff like this, i would much rather have a good time and be friends.
and, after all, we lost all our bulls when you guys raped us with nafta.
just gettin' back at you. not serious. don`t let`s argue about nafta as i know nothing about it and would have to keep very quiet.
although i suppose you could say that i know nothing about this arguement either.... maybe i should just keep quiet.
joe dick said:
Naw, don't keep quiet. We all need to learn and get the other guy's viewpoint. The worst position to have is one you cannot defend.
I have no hard feelings at all towards anyone here, ok! I hope the feeling is mutual.
Jeff R said:
I hope most of us think so. At least I haven't sensed that any
heated discussions from this thread has affected discussions
with the same people in other, audio-related threads.
So to ease up things, I read recently that Bush and Saddam
does have one thing in common, at least. They buy exactly the
same type of handmade shoes from the same italian shoemaker.
Bush has somewhat bigger feet, though. 🙂
Belief System Problems..
Man A - Have you heard that Salmon Rushdie has a new book out ?.
Man B - No, what is it called ?
Man A - It is called "Buddha Is A Big Fat *****" !.
Eric / - Trying to help people realize that belief systems are belief systems.
Man A - Have you heard that Salmon Rushdie has a new book out ?.
Man B - No, what is it called ?
Man A - It is called "Buddha Is A Big Fat *****" !.
Eric / - Trying to help people realize that belief systems are belief systems.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.