|
| Thread: Is Bush crazy? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
posted August 24, 2002 11:08 AM |
|
|
<p>First, When the 11th of september came, all nations that are allied with the US <i>were supposed to</i> help America in Afghanistan. If your nation tried to remain Neutral, you were either a terrorist country or a traitor. The war went to Afghanistan, a war-tired country in middle asia. The target was the terrorist network and the ruling group, the Taliban. Guess which country has helped the Taliban to gain power. In those days against the Russians, who tried to attack on land, and not safely above the ground. The only reason why the White house wants stability in this region is because there are oil fields in neighbouring countrys and Afghanistan is the best way to transport them and ignoring both Iraq and Iran. I am afraid to say the US government starts no war other then on revenge or economical grounds. Let's go back to Afghanistan. Now the ministers are killed lioke flys, the ruling parlement is one chaos and the land's also in chaos</p>
<p>Second, If Sadam was in control of some middle-american nation, the US government would <b>never</b> had begun a crusade like that against Iraq. Why are they doing it now? Iraq 's in the middle east and there is oil. They haven't got any serious capability to fight a war, it's citizens are dying under the embargo and all will fuel the hatred against the west. Look at other countrys in the region: Iran used to be an american supporting country (with the previous dynasty of rulers), but now there is a muslim government. (altogh people there tend to behave more western). So it's part of the 'axis of evil' or whatever it was. Quwait was lyal to America, AND strategical oil reserves, so they <b>had to</b> be defended. And the Jewish lobby in Washington determines the policys concerning Israel. No need to use more words for it.</p>
<p>Now how did Bush rose to power. In general, Al Gore had more votes, but due to the American system (and some <i>irregularitys</i> in a state where Bush's brother is the governer) Bush rose to power. And now he's spending much time in his ranch in i-dunno-where. <p>
<p>We cannot forget the amount of International treatys and others that are <i>abandoned</i> during the reign of Bush. Kyoto (OH NO, our economical growth is stagnating!!!), IBM (I want to defend me against terrorism that launches nuclear warheads).,... The amount of conferentions sabotaged by foreign policys. (Remember Bush's vision on sexual matters: children must believe they are magically born and if they're 13 or so they may not know what's happening to them and if there are some teenage-mothers that's their fault- they should have known better (where's the fault exactly). Eventually the children will learn from porn on the internet methinks.), the 'stupid laws' (hague invasion act), the sabotage of the International court of law (equality, wasn't that one of Americas rights?). The current government especially has an appetite for destroying 'green' conferentions. And of course we have the newest idea of increasing the woodcutting. 'give away a finger and they'll take an arm' is a saying in my country. Soon there won't be any trees left in the parks- just as outside them.</p>
<p>it's just our luck the congress and senate frequently urges the Ministers and president (in this case Bush) to slw down. But even now allies are melting as snow.</p>
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 03:25 PM |
|
|
That may well be the case Ivy and I may be totally wrong, but whenever innocent palestinians are killed no-one from the Israeli government comes to give a statement saying how sorry they were, how they didn't mean to and how they will try to stop it in future, it gives the impression they don't care. In the same way very few palestinian authorities come forward and say sorry for when some swine blows up innocent children, or whatever he targetted. It gives the impression from both sides that neither could give a damn about the other.
As far as second class, that was aimed at earlier times mainly, but still there are many palestinians living in squalor in towns like jenin, where they are hardly in a happy life for whatever reasons they may be.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
CraigHack
Known Hero
Have fantasies, will travel...
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 06:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lets just bomb everyone and let God sort it out
Hell yeah!!
I believe that you get your enemies attention when you start killing innocent women and children in large numbers!
Carpet bomb the b@stards I say.
*I love the smell of napalm in the morning*
____________
The Gods have brought us together... I can't imagine why.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 09:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Lets just bomb everyone and let God sort it out
Hell yeah!!
I believe that you get your enemies attention when you start killing innocent women and children in large numbers!
Carpet bomb the b@stards I say.
*I love the smell of napalm in the morning*
Someone please tell me these two are kidding?
Otherwise my faith in humanity is out of the window again
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 09:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Lets just bomb everyone and let God sort it out
Hell yeah!!
I believe that you get your enemies attention when you start killing innocent women and children in large numbers!
Carpet bomb the b@stards I say.
*I love the smell of napalm in the morning*
Yeah! Just nuke the planet!
What good are atom bombs if you keep them in bunkers? Launch the suckers, that's the way to get everyones attention. Stupid conventional warfare, time for some tasty biological weapons, yummy!
*Another day, another bomb, lalala*
____________
~Vegetables don't spam~
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 10:28 PM |
|
|
Is bush crazy?
Possibly but the last few people to post (other than me) there is not doubt about!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Abazagaroth
Hired Hero
Paladin of Knowledge
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 10:50 PM |
|
|
I hate when politics are brought up, it always pisses me off to no end.
Bush is an idiot, sure, but he doesn't have any more lasting impact that any other presidents post Lyndon Johnson have had. I will say, his administration is about the most ass-backward in terms of logic that I have seen in a long time. But he's just putting forth the standard conservative republican lines, rather than some stupidity from his own thoughts.
/sarcasm on
Yeah! Let's cut down more forest to prevent forestfires! Let's ignore the fact that the fires have little to do with the trees themselves, and have to do with underbrush which forestry services policies have prevented from being burned off in natural fires for the past 40+ years!
Yeah! Let's give more tax breaks to the wealthy! I mean, its not the government's fault that the wealthy pay less taxes on the dollar than the lower middle class due to tax loopholes and shelters! Oh, and look away from the fact that rich government officials and other government officials whose campaigns are funded by the rich are the reason those loopholes exist!
Yeah! Let's attack Afghanistan after years of denying the Taliban regime was brutal to women and children! Forget about those petitions that have circulated on the internet for the past 7 years that have been sent to the government, the reports from aid agencies, etc. that have listed what went on there! Let's use that as an excuse to go after these terrorists! Don't forget to ignore that the terrorists are not the same people as the Taliban! We need to gain public support for a ground war so let's pump up the brutality to women angle! Let's also move attention away from the fact that Bush got much of his initial funding for his oil ventures from OSAMA BIN LADEN! Can't bury that fact enough can we? Sometimes it still comes and bites us in the ass! Can't let it out that Cheney was on a commission from oil companies to the Taliban with the blessing of the U.S. government with the goal of negotiating (hence, de facto legitimizing the Taliban as a standing government) building a oil pipeline through Afghanistan, which the Taliban refused to agree to!
Yeah! Let's go after Saddam because Bush Jr. is a puppet to the Republican leadership that have wanted to remove Hussein since the Gulf War! The same people that tried to prevent Bush Sr. from getting the nomination in 1992, and some of whome worked with Perot (which handed the election to Clinton) over the issue! And why did Bush Sr. not agree to let the CIA to assassinate Saddam? Why did Bush Sr. not agree to have Saddam be a military target? Because the U.S. has LAWS making such actions ILLEGAL! These laws and executive orders came out of the cold war and the failed assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, and the fall out from the various scandels from Latin America!
Let's ignore that Saddam Hussein was reportedly given reason to believe by the CIA that any action taken against Kuwait would be tolerated by the West (Hussein's top advisors met extensively with the Bush administration officials in 1989-1990 in Washington D.C.)! Too bad the public outcry gave the Bush administration reason to fight a war, and garner public opinion for themselves! Let's ignore the fact that Saddam was equipped by the U.S. in a war against Iran, and then we left them hanging which left Iran and Iraq in a war that lasted over a decade! Let's ignore the fact the Saddam Hussein is NOT a "madman" but the leader of a sovereign nation, and that gassing his own people to test technology received from the U.S. didn't bother us, but a possible issue with oil prices and a chance for some public confidence garnering would lead us to war! Let's ignore that Saddam had ZERO reason to give a flying **** about the U.S. except in issue directly involving Iraq, and that people in the public are complete morons to think he's going to try and nuke the U.S., or anyone else for that matter!
Let's forget that this same type of propaganda was out there about the "Reds" for decades, and we all know how that turned out, and why that hype existed (to gain more support for military spending of course! We lied to the american public about USSR having X times the weapons we did, when we knew for a FACT that we had twice the number of tactical warheads at the height of the cold war!)! Let's all believe that the U.S. is the only nation that exists in the world, and call any nation that wants to protect itself with tactical nuclear weapons "terror states"! Oh, don't mention that we don't call France a terror state for developing a nuclear weapon program (and they had signed treaties in the past saying they wouldn't develop them, unlike these "terror nations" which were never under such strictures), and let's not point out that the U.S. did the exact same thing, and we just don't want any other country in the world to become a POTENTIAL military rival, because they reduces our economic power due to our ability to mold the policies of other nations!
I could go on and on and on and on...I could talk about how we removed a socialist leader in guatamala and replaced him with a dictator that committed genocide (with out money and blessing) because a large number of senators at the time held stock in fruit companies whose land was confiscated and given to the poor farmers of the country (who had been used as unpaid slave labor by the american companies) and got the CIA to make up a popular revolt against the "evil" socialist for the benefit of the U.S. populace...I could talk about how the policy towards cuba is STILL dictated primarily by individuals that stand to gain millions of dollars if the frozen assets of american companies were recognized by a new regime, and those that were in the pocket of said american companies and who now want to go take over the cuban government for themselves...etc etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, Sadda Hussein would get a bullet from me any day, and Castro has brutally dealt with homosexuals for instance (brutally dealing with insurgencies is beyond the pale, the U.S. does that as well, ever heard of the Republic of Texas movement? or Waco? or Ruby Ridge? Sedition is a crime here in the states too, and treason can lead to the death penalty), but the point is hypocrisy and lies. The U.S. government has always been hypocritally in terms of who we deal with or don't, which international treaties we honor (and I'm talking about ones ratified by the senate, not just ones signed by a president which means jack) and which we don't, and has lied to the public regarding what and why it is doing various things.
I am perfectly fine with the U.S. taking an arrogant position and trying to play outside the rules, maintaining itself is the primary function of a government once it is created, its just a fact of life, and looking out for number 1 is what one would expect a government to do. In a perfect world this wouldn't be so, but we don't live in that world. What pisses me off is hypocritically lambasting one country for something that we refuse to acknowledge going on in another. Let's keep cuba isolated because they are "communist" and because people have been "oppressed", but let's let China become out number 2 trade partner when they have done far far far worse. At least in Cuba the majority of the populace still support Castro...unlike in the U.S. where bush got less than 50% of the votes. Hell, Castro put in a provision into the Cuban constitution allowing for a change in government, and has NOt cracked down on an organization in Havana that is currently trying to get the 50,000 signatures from cuban citizens to put a referendum on government change to a vote. You think the Chinese government would let that happen?
Hell, I don't even have a problem with the U.S. going to war over oil, oil is a major economic factor, and having enough to run the country should be a priority to the government, but don't LIE to us about why we are doing something. And it wouldn't be half as bad if the politicians weren't in the pocket of big business, so that the government would actually do the correct and most efficient policy changes, rather than idiotic ones that line the pockets of the rich. Why tap Anwar for 1% less dependency on foreign oil? Not going to affect oil prices, not going to make a difference for a decade, just going to line the pockets of U.S. oil interests that will get the oil out of Anwar cheaper than elsewhere and still sell it at the market value. Does it ever occur to republicans that it makes more sense to import MORE oil from other countries when you have OPEC keeping prices at a level that gives them maximum profits anyway? Just means that if the snow ever DOES hit the fan, we maintain our ability to supply ourselves with resources, rather than having no choices. What do we do when our oil reserves run out? 100% dependent on other nations. So why would be not get as much as we can from other nations (prices to consumers won't change any more than they already do due to price controls by OPEC), we maintain our ability to supply ourselves in emergency conditions, and we keep resources at the hands of the government so that if need be, in times of severe economic deprecation, the goverment could use those resources to generate revenue instead of raising taxes on a populace in the midst of a recession. But no, we have our government give access to the resources away for a song an dance so U.S. oil companies (who many of these politicians have their campaigns funded greatly from) can get richer.
I am sick of typing, these issues I could write on for days and days, because there is so much to talk about. There are too many people with NO understanding of world politics, history, economics, and simple cause and effect that the most ridiculous crap gets spewed out of people's mouths or proposed as political or economic solutions. Just keep in mind that a terrorist and a freedom fighter are the same thing, just two different words from two different prespectives to describe the same thing. For example, some British history books refer to George Washington as a terrorist and a traitor. Winners dictate history, and not everything is what it seems. It would be very educational if they required reading in high schools about the U.S. actions in Latin America. Very educational, and is only a footnote in history books and almosy never mentioned. Guatamala is the worst example, but not the only one.
____________
C. David Kreger
dkreger@yahoo.com
[url]http://www.modernhumanorigins.com[/url]
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted August 24, 2002 11:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Iraq doesn’t have the power to attack anything? Well there again you are misinformed…everyone knows that he has the capability for weapons of mass destruction. If he is so pure if he doesn’t have anything to hide…why did he kick the UN investigators out years ago? He has violently attacked innocents on numerous occasions in the past…so how many people must die before you deem him a “real” threat?
Ok ill start here,
"Well there again you are misinformed…everyone knows that he has the capability for weapons of mass destruction."
So what do you think hes gonna do with these weapons of mass destruction when half a million troops invade Iraq?????? Its kind of suicidal attacking him if hes already got them.
Quote:
Frankly I think there are too many limp wristed linguine Euro politicians who have made trade agreements with Iraq to stand up and say NO to him…they are merely thinking of their trade agreements they hope to salvage. Oil oh precious oil…they sell their souls. Thankfully there are countries who have leaders with balls like Blair who can stand up for what is right as Churchill did against Hitler!
Coming from a country thats has been giving 20 million dollars a day to him i think your arguements extremely weak.
The fact that you paid Iraq $4.5 billion in 2001 for oil, which could be dramatically lowered if you could push them about more must have nothing to do with reason for attacking Iraq?
The U.S. Government Energy Information factsheet on Afghanistan dated December 2000 says that: "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographic position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes proposed multi-billion dollar oil and gas export pipelines through Afghanistan. "
By the way most of the British public is against attacking Iraq, infact a lot of the Labour government is also against it(some are even saying they will resign if it goes ahead).
Quote:
As far as trees…yeah tree cause fire….big bulletin…who doesn’t know that? For all the tree huggers out there I have two comments. One please immediately vacate your home as it was made out….oh no say it ain’t so…TREES! Also please don’t use any paper, visit your local grocery store, etc. Do these tree huggers realize that trees are a crop…got that crop! Where are all these environmental wackos when it comes to corn, tomatoes, etc. Why aren’t they protesting the devastation in all of our crops? “oh it is so horrible they plucked 5 million carrots right from there innocent roots…it is so horrible”. Fact…the USA has NEVER had as many trees in its recorded history as it does now….wait that can’t be true…we cut so many down…yes but we also plant so many more trees and have better resources to fight devastating fires which use to consume enormous amount of trees.
Does the fact that your countries is the biggest importer of wood in the world need to be meantioned?
Quote:
If you are more afraid of Bush than Sadaam you are truly and completely ignorant fellow. Where the heck do you get off even attempting to make a foolish comparison like that??????? Only an imbecile (which I am sure does not include you…you are most likely just misinformed) would compare a dictator who has murdered thousands to one who is the freely elected president of a democracy!
Freely elected president chosen by 5 high up judges wasnt it? Saddam is inteligent murdering nutter making him extremley dangerous. Bush is completely incompetent imbecile in charge of the worlds only super power making him extremley dangerous
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 11:42 PM |
|
|
I'm going to leave most of the above to D'argon and the other yanks as I really don't know too much about US policy in the past.
Of course the US can be and has been hypocritcal in the past. Example: The USA still holds over the british the debts that we incurred in WWII, defending the world against the agression of hitler. Despite our constant support since then and backing after 9/11 the USA still sees fit to not remove it!
But then again what country is not hypocritical? To take Castro he wasn't even elected as a communist ruler, he largely adopted this to recieve Russian Aid when it became clear the USA would not be forthcoming. Every country does it, because each is run by Humans, who will always act as they feel best, and if this means being hypocritical then that is what will happen!
Often the reason for ignoring things such as the taliban is simply the fact that it is clear that backing will not be forthcoming, or that war or attacks would be madness. No-one is seriously going to suggest that China, Zimbabwe or any other country for that matter has a perfect human rights record, but what would be the result of an attack? China, if you could ever conventionally defeat her would nuke the world, so not really a good idea to push them too far is it?
Another reason revealed since 1991 for not removing Sadam, is apparently that the USA felt that the opposition party was far worse because it was of the same branch as that in Iran that had the Ayatolla Khomeni(appologies for this if that is spelt wrong) as a leader. Europe was all for it, but America did not want the risk.
Right so I am a moron for thinking he may nuke me? this madman is the kind of person who is all or nothing, if he feels there is a chance of loosing power, he will probably get his own back in the worst way possible. You personall in America might not care, but people like me in Britain and the middle east DO care. I think you would be more concerned somehow if it was say Mexico somehow!
Twice the number of nukes or not, the Russians and Americns had more than enough to nuke the world many times over. Besides that at the height of the cold war who could say for certain how many nukes the other side had? Oh and how do you protect yourself with nukes? Would it not be simpler if no-one had them?
Besides that there are many nations with equal millitary power to the USA, do not forget the might of the US arms could not defeat the NVA, or the VC. Can you say for certain that in a conventional war the USA would beat the Germans again without support? or the Russians?, the Chineese?
And a terrorist and a freedom fighter are NOT the same. A terrorist in my mind targets civilian and innocent civilians and targets. A freedom fighter targets the millitary infrastructure of a country. Are you trying to compare OBL with say the French Resistance? Just beacause they are described as the same for political or morale gain by some people does not make it so.
Oh and no-one I know over here think that Washington was a terrorist! He was fighting for the freedom and rights of his people and for that I for one Brit applaud him. Btw when can we have our colonies back? (j/k for those who want to have a knee jerk reaction). It's simply a pity that my country at that time tried to stop this cause.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Dear_Morons
Disgraceful
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 11:49 PM |
|
|
|
I'm right and you're wrong, nah nah nah nah nah nah
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 24, 2002 11:53 PM |
|
|
right on what dm?
or is this thread just a little tooooo taxing for you to actually state an opinion on something?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Dear_Morons
Disgraceful
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 12:27 AM |
|
|
|
I posted my opinion on the first page then stoped caring...then it just became a pissing contest.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 12:34 AM |
|
|
Oh yes I had almost forgot after all of those replies.
So still waiting for the call from the UN?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Abazagaroth
Hired Hero
Paladin of Knowledge
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 02:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
China, if you could ever conventionally defeat her would nuke the world, so not really a good idea to push them too far is it?
China has less tactical nuclear warheads than I have toes and fingers. Why exactly should we be invading china anyway? And that question is the point entirely: Why should we be attacking Iraq? The reasons given for the attack can be applied to many other nations, and are not enough to make us even *talk* about doing so. Why? Because there is no justification under international law, and tend to be outright silly. It is far more a political war (which is why it likely won't ever happen, mostly just talking from the political extreme right, something to garner support for and to conveniently drop after the 2002 elections in a couple of months), which makes it much more frightening.
Quote:
Right so I am a moron for thinking he may nuke me? this madman is the kind of person who is all or nothing, if he feels there is a chance of loosing power, he will probably get his own back in the worst way possible. You personall in America might not care, but people like me in Britain and the middle east DO care. I think you would be more concerned somehow if it was say Mexico somehow!
I didn't call anyone a moron I don't believe, so hopefully you are talking about a different poster, but.... Iraq has missles that barely reach Israel, they have nothing that can reach Britain. Period. They also do NOT have any nuclear weapons atm, because it takes a hell of a lot more than raw uranium and some instructions to build one. It really isn't as simple as many people seem to believe, or that the press makes it out to be. Here's a question: Why not invade the former Soviet republics? They all have nukes, they have shaky leadership and graft is rampant, aren't they a threat? Hell, they even have a society that has been programmed to hate the west for 50 years, so aren't they a threat for some nutcase? They even have tactical warheads ready made with CBMs already made that can go anywhere on the planet. Why don't we go attack them to "remove the threat"? Why not attack France? They had a right wing nut get into the runoffs, someone who is a zealot just like Saddam is supposed to be, and France has nuclear warheads? Why not attack them? The answer is simple, no justification for it. And making up imagined threats and saying, "I'm worried so and so will do X" is not enough reason to start a war.
Iraq is a scapegoat for politicians, same way Cuba is (in the U.S. anyways). The status quo is what will be maintained, regardless of all the hype. I personally expect air strikes in Iraq in late October, just enough time for the public to give the republicans a boost in the polls, but not enough time for criticism of inneffectiveness to take off the edge.
Quote:
Twice the number of nukes or not, the Russians and Americns had more than enough to nuke the world many times over. Besides that at the height of the cold war who could say for certain how many nukes the other side had? Oh and how do you protect yourself with nukes? Would it not be simpler if no-one had them?
And since we both had more than enough to "nuke the world" (which, let's be serious, is a stupid statement, that estimation comes from the minimum number of warheads needed to get fallout over the entire planet, you can't "nuke" the planet or "destroy the world") why should the U.S. keep hyping the "Russion superiority" in order to build more weapons? Answer: to get more money for military spending, which is exactly what I said in my post. Who knew for certain how many nukes the other side had? We did. The U.S. government has admitted it, the military has admitted it, declassified documents have shown that. The hype was to maintain support for an opposition to communism and to maintain support for high military spending. Would it be simpler if no oe had them? No, it wouldn't. Nuclear weapons have prevented more military conflicts than anything else. M.A.D. is more than a catch phrase, it is something that changed the way states interacted in conflicts, and prevented all out war. 50,000 americans died in Korea, far less died in Vietnam. Compare that to the numbers that died in every conflict back to the Revolutionary war (sans spanish-american war and minor conflicts). Nuclear weapons made the world a safer place, through fear to be sure, but if you know the true capabilities of nuclear weapons and the political climate, its a fear that shouldn't exist.
Quote:
Besides that there are many nations with equal millitary power to the USA, do not forget the might of the US arms could not defeat the NVA, or the VC. Can you say for certain that in a conventional war the USA would beat the Germans again without support? or the Russians?, the Chineese?
I'm sorry, that is just flat out completely ill-informed and incorrect. A few nations have bigger standing armies than the U.S. (China and India, possibly Russia), but that doesn't equal military "power". Russia is the only nation that can come close to the same military power, and in the future only China has a forseeable chance to come close.
Quote:
And a terrorist and a freedom fighter are NOT the same. A terrorist in my mind targets civilian and innocent civilians and targets. A freedom fighter targets the millitary infrastructure of a country. Are you trying to compare OBL with say the French Resistance? Just beacause they are described as the same for political or morale gain by some people does not make it so.
If you can show me a successful or failed military revolution that came to violence rather than a peaceful coup that did not involve attacks on civilian supporters of the penecontemporary regime in the 20th century, I'll give you a cookie. Hasn't happened.
Quote:
Oh and no-one I know over here think that Washington was a terrorist! He was fighting for the freedom and rights of his people and for that I for one Brit applaud him. Btw when can we have our colonies back? (j/k for those who want to have a knee jerk reaction). It's simply a pity that my country at that time tried to stop this cause.
You really need to learn your history, because your knowledge of it is atrocious. The American Revolution was not fought over "representation" or "freedom and rights" or any such thing. It began as a civil unrest caused by primarily WEALTHY individuals that were angry to have to pay a single tax that had been levied on British citizens and other colonies for years. In the 1770s surveys by the British government showed that the U.S. colonies had netted Britain almost nothing, due to taxes not being levied, and resources not being delivered (keep in mind this was the time of mercantilism, and the ideology of colonies supplying resources to the home nation where the resources were converted to consumer goods, and the consumer goods traded to other nations and back to the colonies). One of the taxes that only the U.S. colonies were not being levied with was applied. Rich individuals revolted, not common workers, not "the people", wealthy landowners, the taxpayers of the time. That is what started the conflict. After several violent protests and (probably more importantly) several acts of vandalism against british owned property, the british sent in troops to quell the "riots" as it was considered.
The increase in the number of british soldiers that had to be kept up in these same relatively wealthy colonists homes led to more resentment, arrests of friends and neighbors over seditious statements and such led to more resentment, the resentment spread through the populace and these wealthy landowners that started it all were able to bend public support to their cause, and this led to the formation of militias, as the feeling of "those bastards aren't going to take my property" and such began to spread. This escalated and eventually led to conflict. Washington, btw, was opposed to the revolutionary war. He only joined when it the conflict was inevitable, which is actually noble, as he only fought when he had no choice but to fight with the people that were his countrymen in order to prevent the outcome of the british crushing the rebellion and tightening rule (and likely executing all of Washingtons peers), or joining with the countrymen he owed allegiance to and help kill the people that were his peers. He took the first route, and will be well-regarded by most because of that, and because he declined becoming King at the end of the war (which was the popular opinion of the time).
However, he was essentially a terrorist. He was a part of an "organization" that attacked toreys (british sympathizers) and took their property, attack the government buildings of the british governers and their staff, etc. Terrorism is using violence to create fear in order to fullfill a goal (usually political). Now, remembering that statement, think about the U.S. bombing over and over Iraq over the past decade (using violence) in order to force Iraq to not fly planes over their own airspace or to attempt to rebuild their military (create fear of reprisals to prevent action by Iraq). Or think about the worst economic embargo in this century (something I consider effectively violent in its effects) in order to try and create an atmosphere in Iraq where the populace would rise up and remove Saddam, or someone else would enact a coup in his regime to remove him (using fear of continued economic depravation in order to force political action). Who's the terrorist?
Terrorism and the "War on Terror" may have become buzzwords (and I blame a lot of this on modern news organizations which have about as much journalistic integrity as the National Enquirer nowadays), and be used to try and get an "us or them" mentality, but that doesn't make the distinction factual. The WTC attacks were terrible. We have a right to DEFEND ourselves and try to bring to JUSTICE those involved. That does not mean we can just create a list of "terror nations" due to the actions of a religious zealot and his organization and go about trying to wholesale remove soverein leaders and go to war. I wish some of the people that talk about Hussein being a "madman" and think he's trying to get nuclear warheads to bomb the U.S. (um, hello! he wants them to gain an upperhand in the regional power struggle in the Middle East!) would actually look at his history and how he rose to power. Having people trying to oust him executed doesn't make someone a "madman" (name one country that lets sedition run rampant, and disavowal of government laws go free). Driving tanks and taking over a tiny piece of land (relatively violence free) for the strategic oil contained therewithin doesn't make one a madman (hmm...and think about those republicans that have in the past advocated we remove saddam and take control of his oil fields?).
Becoming brainwashed by nationalism and paranoid that everyone is out to get you (and nuke you as well!) can be a mark of a madman however. Iraq is an easy scapegoat, I just wish so many of us would refuse to be sheep.
____________
C. David Kreger
dkreger@yahoo.com
[url]http://www.modernhumanorigins.com[/url]
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 03:31 AM |
|
|
I will quote your earlier remark if I may
and that people in the public are complete morons to think he's going to try and nuke the U.S., or anyone else for that matter!
Do you remember typing that? How do you know he does not have this capability? We don't do we now because no-one has checked them for some time now, which to my recollection was the problem for a while now. Personally whether they reach Israel, Britain or the planet mars doesn't bother me, it's the fact he has them at all
And I do know my history!!!!! just because I interpret it in a different way to you does not make me someone who knows little or nothing of that period. Your defenition of terrorism could include as a terrorist anyone who ever fought in any war since the begining of time, they have all used fear to promote their cause, but not all target civilians openly for murder.
You say I have no knowledge of history but I do have knowledge, but only of millitary history as I find political history a bit boring. Ask me about a battle, I know it, ask me the reasons for war i'm sketchy. The reasons for the independance war were as many and varied as the civil war, and to attribute them solely to one act, one reason or one cause is frankly a bit ignorant of the others. Can you tell me there was no feeling at the time in the colonies for independance amongst the people? Whatever the causes the result was a constitution, that whilst flawed, represented at that time a great leap towards freedom, which begs the question if washington fought solely for defending the rich classes, why bother at the end of the war to defend all people's?
I suppose next you will inform me that Churchill, Cromwell, Elizabeth the first and others were all terrorists? Well I bow to your superior knowledge!
Oh and your ability to win a war does not solely come down to numbers, a fact that seems to often be missed by Americans. Looking on the scale of things, how would america defeat Germany? Where would they invade from? Who would they fly from? Exactly! wars don't always come down to who's got more tanks, who's got better planes! The point you missed is that you may be able to outnumber many nations might, but that does not mean you can defeat them. and therefore this leads to not being able to influence them as often as you would like.
The fact is you seem to be wanting to know why the world and specifically US does not stop being hypocritical. This though would need the US to be run by robots, because no matter how you try someone always adds their needs and rights and wrongs go out of the window. You can't intervene everywhere, in every conflict in every bloodbath. Millitary power means zippo if every country nearby refuses to support you. Do you think d-day would have happened, with the USA at a high millitary level without the use of the UK as a base? No because there would have been no way to invade. Simliarly you cannot expect the world to invade china over tianamon square, because no-one would ever support the notion.
And carrying on from there it doesn't need x warheads, put it this way fire one at russia, they respond, fire one at taiwan, the US responds perhaps one being paranoid fires on the other, or hits the other by accident, so on and so forth. OK so it takes someone slightly mad to do this, but Putin and Bush would not be the people I'd choose to make the decision on wether to press that button.
Nuke the world's a term, perhaps badly used, but one I feel that got the meaning across. And btw the figure for Korea was re-worked, they made an error and discovered recently 34,000 died. Not sure how that compares to nam, but thought you'd want to know.
And on the madman/not madman thing so I geuss you like rulers who invade countries (with sovereign rights i might add), execute rivals, gas people. Why attack the US actions if this is the actions of a sane and normal leader?
Again on invading france, or the former republics do you understand what reaction you would get? oh yes Germany, Spain and Italy would love America for that wouldn't they! Or would russia sit idly by whilst the USA overruns bases close to them? I think not.
You have to be realistic, there is a huge list of targets of nations supporting terrorism such as Iraq. Iraq is being chosen and targetted simply because it is the easiest to defeat of them all. If the sole reason for the war in the USA is to gain votes for the right wing, remind me why Blair a leader of a left wing (well kind of for those who knows the Labour part) party is supporting him?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Nivek
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 03:32 AM |
|
|
Good to see a nice debate going on.
Quote:
Yes the points you mention are drawbacks…but who cares on the whole…as mentioned before….Churchill alone stood against Hitler…even his own people wouldn’t listen to him….and millions died due to the worlds indifference. This lesson has been repeated over and over in history. You do the right thing…period…don’t wait for consensus….consensus typically comes after the fact…it is typically reactionary instead of proactive.
Still, what are we accomplishing here? Yes we oust Hussein from power. But what will that do... will that eliminate a significant threat to the U.S.? I doubt it. Iraq "supposedly" has nuclear weapons, but there are the UN weapons sanctions. Right now, there isn't enough significant evidence to show us that Iraq is violating it.... all we have is Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. telling us that they do. This is for oil and votes IMO. Here's a link for further information about Iraqi nuclear capabilities:
[url]http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0709nuc.htm[/url]
Quote:
As far as the US congress…you got to be kidding..Bush will/has complete support…only the democrats are slyly casting seeds of doubt as elections are in 3 months. Notice they don’t actually take a stand…that way if it works out they can claim…I was right behind him…if it doesn’t ‘t work out they can claim…hey I had concerns to begin with.
[url]http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000453.htm[/url]
Again, what we're being told is that Iraq has nukes and they're going to blow the snow out of us. So... why isn't Congress more enthusiastic? Yes, it's politics, but that's what the whole plan of attacking Iraq is based on: politics. People see Republicans finally eliminating
Quote:
As far as support in America….how about all the polls of Americans that overwhelmingly state their support of a regime change. A little history also might prove helpful…remember Reagan calling USSR and “evil empire”…oh the critics had a field day…and look what happened…the fall of the Wall and the fall of communism…so the critics stand with their genitals in there hands as they have no sight about reality and the world.
This is a different situation though. We were in severe tensions with Russia for about 40 years... and this isn't going to deal a big blow to terrorism, unlike how the fall of the Wall dealt a big blow to Communism.
Quote:
Casualties…yeah of course…it is called war. Come on lets stop whining….there are deaths in war… imagine that. When did we become so nieve? There were deaths in WW I in WW II, etc. It is the price that unfortunately must be paid to preserve freedom. Remember all the wimpy critics in the gulf war???? They were predicting untold casualties and fortunately they were dead wrong. Causalities are sad but are part of freedom. US was founded upon death of heroes. Most freedom loving countries were established through blood shed….an unfortunate fact of life.
Yes there will be casualties, but the way this is shaping up a lot of people are going to die in the cities of Iraq because that is where the Iraqi army is going to stand off at. Why not attempt to minimize the casualties? There has got to be a better way than this... maybe an assassination attempt?
____________
Since when do you type signatures?
"This win by the Panthers in Week 1 bodes well for the rest of the season." - Me last year
|
|
Pure_Chaos
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Destroyer of Morons
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 04:02 AM |
- penalty applied. |
|
Quite frankly, I think all Americans are a bunch of arrogant rednecks led by a f#cking monkey George Bush.
HOWEVER. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if USA nuked the hell out of Iraq/Iran and other sub-human nations led by crazed religious f#ckwits.
You can all flame me now.
Peace and Love.
____________
If I were a banana and you were a monkey, would you eat me?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 04:07 AM |
|
|
I am going to assume that either you are a member of Bin Laden's terror network, or you are completely insane, either way I decline to argue with someone who lowers the argument to such a level
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Dear_Morons
Disgraceful
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 04:08 AM |
|
|
|
You can always spot someone who lives in some country like afgan where everyones opinions are supressed. Get it out Pure Chaos, we're pretending to listen.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 25, 2002 04:13 AM |
|
|
on the other hand here's someone who seems to be on your level PC so go for it
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
