| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!!   Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
The Following was posted by "ToTheSummit" in OTD. Unfortunatly subjects in that forum tend to fly off to right field. I really liked this post and not one person has been able to beat the logic. I figured it was better to be put into the Political forum for semi-intellectual debate
 I hope i don't step on the MOD's toes by moving this to Political  Here are some simple steps to help you deal with people who are opposed to fighting a war against terrorist activities: 1)- Loacte an anti-war protester 2)- Approach them and ask them why they are opposed to fighting this war against terrorism. 3)- Begin listening to their reply about how you should not respond to violence with more violence 4)- While they are in mid-sentence, punch them in the face hard enough to knock them to the ground. 5)- Stand over them with your arms folded and a smirk on your face while they try to scramble to their feet. 6)- As they move towards you to hit you back, remind them that it is silly to respond to violence with more violence. 7)- As they begin to agree, hit them again, even harder this time. 8)- Repeat steps 5, 6 and 7 as many times as necessary until they learn that sooner or later you have to fight back! Do you actually think that a pacifist will understand what is trying to be taught by the previous example? Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick..... Edited by Innvertigo on 10/08/01 12:57 PM. --------------------  America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Captain Jack i [heart] you  Registered: 01/23/00 Posts: 4,113 |
| ||||||
|
Some of us wouldn't need to be reminded not to fight back.
You're stereotyping us all as hypocritical. http://www.captainjackmusic.com -------------------- - Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.
| |||||||
 mm. addict   Registered: 06/15/99 Posts: 605 Loc: England Last seen: 2 months, 3 days |
| ||||||
|
It kind of misses the point because neither the Taleban or the US are pacifists. Obviously if one gets attacked, one needs to defend oneself. But pacifism is about looking at the causes of the violence and acting to resolve them, so then there is no fighting atall. If either party fails to do that, then conflict will continue.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son  Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Captain Jack writes:
"You're stereotyping us all as hypocritical." Not at all. By definition, a Pacifist is one who eschews ALL violence, even retaliatory violence used strictly in self defense. In the example given above, a Pacifist would allow himself to be knocked down repeatedly, until he could either flee or was knocked unconscious. The Pacifist is not being hypocritical, since he is practicing his moral code consistently. To a Pacifist, there is NEVER a situation in which the use of violence is morally correct, violence is NEVER allowed. A Pacifist would rather give his own life than betray his deeply held principles. He might reason with his opponent, he might try to flee, but he would NEVER retaliate, regardless of the circumstances. A Pacifist mother would allow her child to be tortured and murdered rather than punch the murderer in the nose. Unrealistic? Others may think so, but to a Pacifist, reality is less important than what he believes is proper moral behavior. If his survival can only be purchased at the cost of betraying his moral code, he will refuse to pay. He values his beliefs more highly than he values his own existence. It must be noted that there are many people who claim to be Pacifists, but actually are not. They may properly described as "peace-lovers", or "peaceful", or "Doves", or whatever, but if they admit that in some circumstances -- ANY circumstance -- the use of violence is justifiable, then they are NOT Pacifists. An analogy would be a self-proclaimed Atheist praying that she be saved from the cancer that is killing her. If she prays, she isn't an Atheist, regardless of how loudly or how often she proclaims herself to be. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
refer to the previous post...Pinksharkmark hit the nail on the head. I never said either side was pacifists, the post refers to those that are proclaimed pacifists within our border....ya know the people who have nothing better to do?...er i mean peace demonstrators....at least a majority of them are proclaimed "give peace a chance" pacifists
****But pacifism is about looking at the causes of the violence and acting to resolve them**** No it is not..pacifism is the act of not doing anything no matter what. ****If either party fails to do that, then conflict will continue.**** It doesn't matter what "WE" do, they will still try to kill us ie:the WTC...short memory Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick..... -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
mm. addict Registered: 06/15/99 Posts: 605 Loc: England Last seen: 2 months, 3 days |
| ||||||
In reply to: No its about not resorting to violence no matter what In reply to: So why is "WE" resorting to violence that kills inocent people then? Edited by mm. on 10/08/01 06:44 PM.
| |||||||
|
MrKurtz enthusiast Registered: 08/04/01 Posts: 303 Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Well, I think the point of these strikes are to avoid killing any civilians and only destroy military targets. But, of course, the US has a history of bombing innocent people by accident, so i bet alot of Afghan citizens were killed already.
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
and they're known for killing only innocent people.....
Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick..... -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Captain Jack i [heart] you Registered: 01/23/00 Posts: 4,113 |
| ||||||
|
pinkshark, my complaint is that the original post makes it sound as if every pacifist will get up and hit you back. That would make them hypocrites. Read it.
http://www.captainjackmusic.com -------------------- - Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.
| |||||||
|
ToTheSummit peregrinus   Registered: 08/22/99 Posts: 9,125 Loc: Las Vegas Last seen: 6 days, 5 minutes |
| ||||||
|
My point in posting this originally is to illustrate a point that is lost on many who oppose fighting this war. How many times do you let someone punch you before you fight back?
The WTC is NOT the first time we have lost lives to terrorist activities! And its not like we can just run away and avoid being "punched" by these terrorists! (we are all stuck here on this planet together). These people are extremists who despise what the USA (and other free societies) stands for and even if we stayed completely out of their affairs they would still despise us and want to do us harm. Remember, we are not talking about good moslem folk who care about others and want to live in peace. These are extremist zealots who have bastardized a religion to suit their violent needs. And now we face the fact that we are stuck here with them. So we have two choices: cower from them and not retaliate (which we have been doing for too long) while they continue to take shots at us and kill our people and destroy our property; or we can fight back and send the message that this terrorist activity WILL NOT BE TOLERATED ANY LONGER! For those opposed to fighting this war I just want know what you expect us to do? I think you are fools if you believe we can use mediation and diplomacy as an effective tactic against murdering zealots. And how far are you willing to let the body count in our country climb before you think we ought to fight back?! I'm not trying to be a smartass here either, I honestly want to know what you think we should do rather than fight? I just don't think you can ever reason with these type of people.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do! -------------------- You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
| |||||||
|
mm. addict Registered: 06/15/99 Posts: 605 Loc: England Last seen: 2 months, 3 days |
| ||||||
|
If you react with violences, you will invite more terrorist attcks etc... Unless you look at the causes of this tragedy, the cycle of violenece will not be broken. The WTC was a minor incident compared to US actions in the past.
Take a look at this written by an American, Larry Mosqueda, Ph.D. from The Evergreen State College: Like all Americans, on Tuesday, 9-11, I was shocked and horrified to watch the WTC Twin Towers attacked by hijacked planes and collapse, resulting in the deaths of perhaps up to 10,000 innocent people. I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that 'war' (slaughter). This includes the infamous 'highway of death' in the last days of the slaughter when U.S. pilots literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers. I continue to be horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children, about whom former Secretary of State Madeline Allbright has stated that their deaths 'are worth the cost'. Over the course of my life I have been shocked and horrified by a variety of U.S. governmental actions, such as the U.S. sponsored coup against democracy in Guatemala in 1954 which resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 Guatemalan peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four decades. Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to murder 3,000 people. And it reminded me of the shock I felt in 1973, when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens. Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the shock and horror I felt in 1965 when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger. I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the U.S. government used to call them before the term 'collateral damage' was invented--'soft targets'). I was reminded of being horrified by the U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or 'soft targets'. I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that began in the 1970's and continues to this day and has resulted in the deaths and mutilations of over 1,000,000. I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt as the U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season of 1989 and killed over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned enemy, Manual Noriega. I was reminded of the horror I felt when I learned about how the Shah of Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from 1952-1979. And the continuing shock as I learned that the Ayatollah Khomani, who overthrew the Shah in 1979, and who was the U.S. public enemy for decade of the 1980s, was also on the CIA payroll, while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s. I was reminded of the shock and horror that I felt as I learned about how the U.S. has 'manufactured consent' since 1948 for its support of Israel, to the exclusion of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their native lands resulting in ever worsening day-to-day conditions for the people of Palestine. I was shocked as I learned about the hundreds of towns and villages that were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the early days of Israeli colonization. I was horrified in 1982 as the villagers of Sabra and Shatila were massacred byIsraeli allies with direct Israeli complicity and direction. The untold thousands who died on that day match the scene of horror that we saw last Tuesday. But those scenes were not repeated over and over again on the national media to inflame the American public. The events and images of last Tuesday have been appropriately compared to the horrific events and images of Lebanon in the 1980s with resulted in the deaths of tens of thousand of people, with no reference to the fact that the country that inflicted the terror on Lebanon was Israel, with U.S. backing. I still continue to be shocked at how mainstream commentators refer to 'Israeli settlers' in the 'occupied territories' with no sense of irony as they report on who are the aggressors in the region. Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of the 20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually 'hands on' murdered in the 'Phoenix Program' (this is where Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in 'The Pentagon Papers,' released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation. In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war. He has stated that, 'It is a tribute to the American people that our leaders perceived that they had to lie to us, it is not a tribute to us that we were so easily misled.' I was continually shocked and horrified as the U.S. attacked and bombed with impunity the nation of Libya in the 1980s, including killing the infant daughter of Khadafi. I was shocked as the U.S. bombed and invaded Grenada in 1983. I was horrified by U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia. The deaths in these actions ran into the hundreds of thousands. The above list is by no means complete or comprehensive. It is merely a list that is easily accessible and not unknown, especially to the economic and intellectual elites. It has just been conveniently eliminated from the public discourse and public consciousness. And for the most part, the analysis that the U.S. actions have resulted in the deaths of primarily civilians (over 90%) is not unknown to these elites and policy makers. A conservative number for those who have been killed by U.S. terror and military action since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat--8,000,000 people. This does not include the wounded, the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in 1967, during the Vietnam War, 'My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence.' Shocking and horrifying. Nothing that I have written is meant to disparage or disrespect those who were victims and those who suffered death or the loss of a loved one during this week's events. It is not meant to 'justify' any action by those who bombed the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. It is meant to put it in a context. If we believe that the actions were those of 'madmen', they are 'madmen' who are able to keep a secret for 2 years or more among over 100 people, as they trained to execute a complex plan. While not the acts of madmen, they are apparently the acts of 'fanatics' who, depending on who they really are, can find real grievances, but whose actions are illegitimate. Osama Bin Laden at this point has been accused by the media and the government of being the mastermind of Tuesday's bombings. Given the government's track record on lying to the America people, that should not be accepted as fact at this time. If indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of this action, he is responsible for the deaths of perhaps 10,000 people-a shocking and horrible crime. Ed Herman in his book The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda does not justify any terrorism but points out that states often engage in 'wholesale' terror, while those whom governments define as 'terrorist' engage is 'retail' terrorism. While qualitatively the results are the same for the individual victims of terrorism, there is a clear quantitative difference. And as Herman and others point out, the seeds, the roots, of much of the 'retail' terror are in fact found in the 'wholesale' terror of states. Again this is not to justify, in any way, the actions of last Tuesday, but to put them in a context and suggest an explanation. Perhaps most shocking and horrific, if indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of Tuesday's actions; he has clearly had significant training in logistics, armaments, and military training, etc. by competent and expert military personnel. And indeed he has. During the 1980s, he was recruited, trained and funded by the CIA in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. As long as he visited his terror on Russians and his enemies in Afghanistan, he was 'our man' in that country. The same is true of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who was a CIA asset in Iraq during the 1980s. Hussein could gas his own people, repress the population, and invade his neighbor (Iran) as long as he did it with U.S. approval. The same was true of Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was a contemporary and CIA partner of George H. Bush in the 1980s. Noriega's main crime for Bush, the father, was not that he dealt drugs (he did, but the U.S. and Bush knew this before 1989), but that Noriega was no longer going to cooperate in the ongoing U.S. terrorist contra war against Nicaragua. This information is not unknown or really controversial among elite policy makers. To repeat, this not to justify any of the actions of last Tuesday, but to put it in its horrifying context. As shocking as the events of last Tuesday were, they are likely to generate even more horrific actions by the U.S. government that will add significantly to the 8,000,000 figure stated above. This response may well be qualitatively and quantitatively worst than the events of Tuesday. The New York Times headline of 9/14/01 states that, 'Bush And Top Aides Proclaim Policy Of Ending States That Back Terror' as if that was a rationale, measured, or even sane option. States that have been identified for possible elimination are 'a number of Asian and African countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and even Pakistan.' This is beyond shocking and horrific-it is just as potentially suicidal, homicidal, and more insane than the hijackers themselves. Also, qualitatively, these actions will be even worse than the original bombers if one accepts the mainstream premise that those involved are 'madmen', 'religious fanatics', or a 'terrorist group.' If so, they are acting as either individuals or as a small group. The U.S. actions may continue the homicidal policies of a few thousand elites for the past 50 years, involving both political parties. The retail terror is that of desperate and sometime fanatical small groups and individuals who often have legitimate grievances, but engage in individual criminal and illegitimate activities; the wholesale terror is that of 'rational' educated men where the pain, suffering, and deaths of millions of people are contemplated, planned, and too often, executed, for the purpose of furthering a nebulous concept called the 'national interest'. Space does not allow a full explanation of the elites Orwellian concept of the 'national interest', but it can be summarized as the protection and expansion of hegemony and an imperial empire. The American public is being prepared for war while being fed a continuous stream of shocking and horrific repeated images of Tuesday's events and heartfelt stories from the survivors and the loved ones of those who lost family members. These stories are real and should not be diminished. In fact, those who lost family members can be considered a representative sample of humanity of the 8,000,000 who have been lost previously. If we multiply by 800-1000 times the amount of pain, angst, and anger being currently felt by the American public, we might begin to understand how much of the rest of the world feels as they are continually victimized. Some particularly poignant images are the heart wrenching public stories that we are seeing and hearing of family members with pictures and flyers searching for their loved ones. These images are virtually the same as those of the 'Mothers of the Disappeared' who searched for their (primarily) adult children in places such as Argentina, where over 11,000 were 'disappeared' in 1976-1982, again with U.S. approval. Just as the mothers of Argentina deserved our respect and compassion, so do the relatives of those who are searching for their relatives now. However we should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the media and U.S. government into turning real grief and anger into a national policy of wholesale terror and genocide against innocent civilians in Asia and Africa. What we are seeing in military terms is called 'softening the target.' The target here is the American public and we are being ideologically and emotionally prepared for the slaughter that may commence soon. None of the previously identified Asian and African countries are democracies, which means that the people of these countries have virtually no impact on developing the policies of their governments, even if we assume that these governments are complicit in Tuesday's actions. When one examines the recent history of these countries, one will find that the American government had direct and indirect influences on creating the conditions for the existence of some of these governments. This is especially true of the Taliban government of Afghanistan itself. The New York Metropolitan Area has about 21,000,000 people or about 8 % of the U.S. population. Almost everyone in America knows someone who has been killed, injured or traumatized by the events of Tuesday. I know that I do. Many people are calling for 'revenge' or 'vengeance' and comments such as 'kill them all' have been circulated on the TV, radio, and email. A few more potentially benign comments have called for 'justice.' This is only potentially benign since that term may be defined by people such as Bush and Colin Powell. Powell is an unrepentant participant in the Vietnam War, the terrorist contra war against Nicaragua, and the Gulf war, at each level becoming more responsible for the planning and execution of the policies. Those affected, all of us, must do everything in our power to prevent a wider war and even greater atrocity, do everything possible to stop the genocide if it starts, and hold those responsible for their potential war crimes during and after the war. If there is a great war in 2001 and it is not catastrophic (a real possibility), the crimes of that war will be revisited upon the U.S. over the next generation. That is not some kind of religious prophecy or threat, it is merely a straightforward political analysis. If indeed it is Bin Laden, the world must not deal only with him as an individual criminal, but eliminate the conditions that create the injustices and war crimes that will inevitably lead to more of these types of attacks in the future. The phrase 'No Justice, No Peace' is more than a slogan used in a march, it is an observable historical fact. It is time to end the horror. In a few short pages it is impossible to delineate all of the events described over the past week or to give a comprehensive accounting of U.S. foreign policy. Below are a few resources for up to date news and some background reading, by Noam Chomsky, the noted analyst. The titles of the books explain their relevance for this topic. Edited by mm. on 10/08/01 09:11 PM.
| |||||||
|
ToTheSummit peregrinus Registered: 08/22/99 Posts: 9,125 Loc: Las Vegas Last seen: 6 days, 5 minutes |
| ||||||
|
This piece by Larry Mosqeda is a joke. He is obviously nothing more than a pacifist who harbors a deep hatred for the Government of the US. He wants to take every wartime death in the last 50 years and attribute it to the US government either directly or by complicity. As if the US just went out killing people for the hell of it. Lets not forget, it takes "two to tango". In all military action there are at least two factions, usually more, involved. And although he tries to cover his ass a number of times by saying things like "It is not meant to justify action by those who bombed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon" he clearly tries to put forth the image that the US government is even worse than these terrorists. Frankly I find it appaling!
He even goes so far as to make personal attacks on US leaders, examples: 1)-"when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that 'war' (slaughter)." 2)-"with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger" 3)-"where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually 'hands on' murdered in the 'Phoenix Program' (this is where Oliver North got his start)" 4)-"Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war" 5)-"'Bush And Top Aides Proclaim Policy Of Ending States That Back Terror' as if that was a rationale, measured, or even sane option" 5)-"Powell is an unrepentant participant in the Vietnam War, the terrorist contra war against Nicaragua, and the Gulf war, at each level becoming more responsible for the planning and execution of the policies. Personally I don't care where Mr. Mosqueda comes from or what degree he has, he has absolutely no credibility in my book. He just has a big fat chip on his shoulder for the US government and I could give a shit about his opinion. However, the best irony in his entire piece is found in the second to last paragraph..."If indeed it is Bin Laden, the world must not deal only with him as an individual criminal, but eliminate the conditions that create the injustices and war crimes that will inevitably lead to more of these types of attacks in the future. The phrase 'No Justice, No Peace' is more than a slogan used in a march, it is an observable historical fact. It is time to end the horror." Pardon me, Mr Mosqueda, but that is exactly what is going on!!! And again I ask the question to those who don't want to fight this war....what would you have us do now? And when do you finally justify fighting back? Neither of these questions are addressed by this article... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do! -------------------- You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
You are saying that it is not correct for the government of the US to protect its citizens. If Mexico gets a bug up its collective ass and invades the US tomorrow, the government would be acting immorally by repelling the invasion.
May I point out that the ONLY legitimate function of government is the protection of its citizens? That's why we have a government in the first place. Oh, I forgot. You are an anarchist. You believe that ALL governments are immoral. As for Larry Mosqueda... there is so much exaggeration, package-dealing, and outright lies in that diatribe that it is hard to know where to begin. Let me cherry-pick just a few: "I continue to be horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children" Firstly, the embargo is not an American embargo, it is a UN embargo. Secondly, if any country wants to ignore the embargo and deal with Iraq, they are free to do so. Thirdly, it is Hussein himself who is thwarting the efforts of humanitarian groups who try to help. It is to his political benefit to have the embargo continue. Fourthly, those who decry the embargo are the same ones who made it impossible for the coalition to finish the job by continuing to Baghdad and killing Hussein. "You must not cross the borders of Iraq! An invasion is wrong! Kuwait has been liberated, that's enough! Pursuing it further is imperialism, pure and simple, since your stated goal of liberating Kuwait has been accomplished!" Am I the only one who actually remembers this? It was only a decade ago, for pete's sake! "Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to murder 3,000 people." This is absolute BULLSHIT. I live in the Dominican Republic. The US did not overthrow a democratic government, it prevented a military coup designed to install a dictatorship, and I can assure you that the Dominican people were pretty bloody sick of dictators. Ever hear of Trujillo? He killed a fuck of a lot more than 3,000 people. The Dominican people were extremely grateful to the US, and remain so to this day. We have one of the most stable, peaceful, longest-lasting democracies in Latin America, thanks to the USA. Most of the rest of this bubblehead's gibberish is variations on a few central themes: 1) The government of some country with which the US had friendly relations murdered its own people or invaded some other nation, therefore the US murdered these people. 2) The US did not intervene in time to prevent a particular government from murdering people, therefore the US murdered those people. 3) Some people that the US helped in the past to achieve their freedom from invaders (Afghani mujahadeen resisting the Soviet occupation) are now murdering and oppressing their people, therefore the US murdered those people. Anyone else notice a common thread here? Viet Nam was a clusterfuck. It should never have occurred. The US government eventually realized that its position was wrong, and withdrew, allowing the communists to murder thousands more as they consolidated power, and allowing Pol Pot to murder millions of his own people in neighbouring Cambodia. I would also like to point out that many of these so-called "democratic" or "democratically-elected" governments that the US assisted in overthrowing were in fact NEVER democratically elected. The "elections" were either rigged or stolen, or, in many cases, there was but a single totalitarian party for which to vote. Need I remind anyone that voter turnout in the Soviet Union was practically universal? I LIVE in Latin America. I can assure you that the "democratic elections" in most Latin American countries bear little relation to what the rest of the world has in mind when using the term. That is precisely why the Constitution of the Dominican Republic requires that American and other foreign scrutineers supervise the voting and verify the results of each national election, REGARDLESS of which political party is in power at the time. My country learned its lesson. Not every Latin American country has. Besides, tyranny is tyranny, whether imposed by coup or elected by majority vote. The fact that the populace of a country was bamboozled into electing a gang of thugs who then wreak mayhem on their country and refuse to relinquish power does not mean that such a government has automatic legitimacy for the rest of time. Such a "government" is, in fact, an outlaw regime, with no legitimacy, and may be ousted without compunction, either through internal revolution or with the assistance of other nations. For the sake of argument, let's assume that everything Larry Mosqueda said is true, and that the US is the most evil country that has ever existed on earth. That still does not change the fact that the US government has the right to defend the lives of its citizens. The US was attacked by foreign nationals, its citizens were killed, and there is every reason to believe that the attacks will continue if those initiating the attacks are not neutralized. An act of war has taken place. No thinking man can dispute this. The US therefore has the RIGHT to defend itself. Not only the RIGHT, but the OBLIGATION. Nothing more need be said. As for Noam Chomsky... The man is a brilliant linguist, period. However, he hasn't the foggiest idea of the nature of government. His political theories are, to put it charitably, those of a loon. pinky Edited by pinksharkmark on 10/08/01 11:20 PM. --------------------
| |||||||
|
ToTheSummit peregrinus Registered: 08/22/99 Posts: 9,125 Loc: Las Vegas Last seen: 6 days, 5 minutes |
| ||||||
|
good points there pinky...that article was just plain stupid!
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do! -------------------- You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
| |||||||
|
gluke bastid Stinky Bum  Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 4 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I understand everyone's desire to hit back, but it is important to consider that waging war on Afghanistan is not going to accomplish anything we want to.
1) Afghanistan did not attack us. 2) Bin Laden did attack us and this war is giving him exactly what he wants. Look at the sudden unification of many (not all) Islamic peoples in the East in support of Afghanistan. We are, in effect, directly helping Bin Laden in his most productive effort to recruit people to his cause. The number of angry fundamentalists now willing to release small pox in the united states thereby killing all of us has probably tripled. Remember, it only takes one. 3) Terrorism, the threat that we all want to fight a war against, is not a nationalist ideal. Afghanistan, while it is a nation that harbors Bin Laden, is not the seat of terrorism. Even if we destroyed every one who lived in the entire country, whether guilty or innocent of crimes against us, there would still be terrorists all over the world ready to attack us. There are terrorists in the US, in case all had forgotten. Declaring war on Afghanistan makes only slightly more sense than if we had declared war on Oklahoma after the Oklahoma City bombings. Innvertigo: Your contention that "pacifism is the act of not doing anything no matter what" is not only a double negative, it is absolutely ridiculous. You can "do things" without blowing shit up. Gandhi managed to liberate India from England without taking any military action, thereby preventing the deaths of thousands of people. I believe in justifiable war and am thereby not a pacifist, but I am also open-minded enough to understand the validity of the pacifist argument. ToTheSummit: You seem to be forgetting why these extremists hate us. It is not because "our society is free," it is because we made theirs un-free, and the concept of us staying out of their affairs completely is quite opposite from the truth. Hope you don't take this as a personal attack. Unfortunately I don't have an answer for what an alternative to war would be, I just that think that war is an alternative that is going to get us nothing in this situation. "All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet." -Hunter S. Thompson --------------------  Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
gluke bastid writes:
"Afghanistan did not attack us." People LIVING in Afghanistan attacked the USA. When the USA asked, repeatedly, that the rulers of Afghanistan turn those people over, they refused. Not only did they refuse to turn over those people, but they also refused to let US forces step one inch into Afghanistan to capture the terrorists themselves and remove them from Afghanistan. Further, they threatened fearsome vengeance on any neighboring countries who allowed USA forces to set foot on their own soil. "We are, in effect, directly helping Bin Laden in his most productive effort to recruit people to his cause." This is the equivalent of saying to your schoolyard buddy, "Don't hit back! Even if you beat him up, his big brother will come and kick your ass tomorrow" when giving advice to a friend getting the shit kicked out of him by the local bully. End result? The bully kicks the shit out of your buddy for the rest of his days. "Even if we destroyed every one who lived in the entire country, whether guilty or innocent of crimes against us, there would still be terrorists all over the world ready to attack us." Firstly, there is no intention whatsoever of killing everyone who lives in the country. Secondly, what makes you think that anti-terrorist actions will be restricted to Afghanistan? "Declaring war on Afghanistan makes only slightly more sense than if we had declared war on Oklahoma after the Oklahoma City bombings." Oh, come on! If Bin Laden was living within the borders of the USA, this could be handled with police rather than with military. Unfortunately, police have no jurisdiction in Afghanistan. "You seem to be forgetting why these extremists hate us..." When it comes to self-defense, the motive of the agressor is irrelevant. If I am attacked by some loony wielding a knife, it makes not a whit of difference WHY he is attacking me. Maybe he thinks I am committing adultery with his wife. Maybe he wants my money. Maybe he gets a sexual thrill out of killing. Maybe the voices in his head are telling him to do it. Who cares? He has initiated the use of force. He has made it abundantly clear that his preferred method of interacting with other humans is by murder rather than by reason. So be it. Who lives by the sword shall die by it. "...It is not because "our society is free," it is because we made theirs un-free..." Bullshit. The USA did not make their societies "un-free". They did that all on their own. Hell, the USA did PLENTY to assist Afghanistan in becoming free... to assist them to oust the Soviet occupation. Where do you think the Taliban would be today if the Soviets were still there? "Unfortunately I don't have an answer for what an alternative to war would be..." Nor does anyone else. Why is that? Because there is none. It is an ugly alternative, true. No one wants it. But doing nothing will accomplish nothing. Fanatics are immune to reasoned discourse, appeals to conscience, or even appeals to follow the teachings of their own religion. A dead murderer is a harmless murderer. If his death incites another murderer to take his place, so be it. Kill him, too. But appeasement of agressors has NEVER worked, and will never work. Appeasement encourages further predation. Read the history of Europe in the late 1930s. Read the history of the Spanish conquest of the New World. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
****Your contention that "pacifism is the act of not doing anything no matter what" is not only a double negative, it is absolutely ridiculous.****
Your right, being a pacifist is rediculous........pacifist refuse to do anything. ****You can "do things" without blowing shit up**** With terrorists?....Violence is the only thing they know ****Gandhi managed to liberate India from England without taking any military action, thereby preventing the deaths of thousands of people**** Gandhi would of been over-thrown and had all his people slaugtered (in today's terms) by these cowardly pricks. Resorting to Gandhi is a tad idealistic........what if we didn't puch Hitler back? ****I believe in justifiable war and am thereby not a pacifist, but I am also open-minded enough to understand the validity of the pacifist argument**** Open mindedness has nothing to do with it. I refuse to be "open minded" to cowards when not one struggle the United states has been in has ever been won by being a coward...er pacifist. ****Unfortunately I don't have an answer for what an alternative to war would be**** I'm not surprised...noone like yourself ever does have the answers Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick..... -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
gluke bastid Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 4 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I see a problem with your schoolyard bully metaphor. Namely, we can't hit the schoolyard bully back. He's in hiding, not standing right in front of us. Bombing the taliban is like beating up the bully's parents because he lives in their house. I don't think it accomplishes anything.
This is my point. I don't think Afghanistan is an innocent nation. I also don't think they are as weak as everyone thinks they are. We are not going to force them into submission within a month or two. They opposed the Soviet Union for ten years. "What makes you think anti-terrorist actions will be restricted to Afghanistan?" Are we going to blow up buildings in every country around the world all of a sudden? Even if we blew up every terrorist facility in the world, we are not going to "beat" terrorism. You can't beat terrorism because it is an idea, not an institution. Terrorism has been beating us, and by us I mean every Nation in the world, for decades.The scary truth of the matter is that terrorism works really, really well for the terrorist. "The US did not make their societies 'un-free,' they did that all on their own." So Palestine decided to branch its most important land off to make it into Israel? I agree wholeheartedly that concession to Hitler was one of the things that allowed him to rise to so much power. I also believe that if France or Britain had gone into Germany as soon as Hitler began acquiring territory that wasn't his, they would have won and laid the third reich to rest, and that this victory would have been final. I think the situation in Afghanistan is different. What we are fighting there is an ideology that is based mainly on hatred for America. Destroying the Taleban will not destroy this hatred, it will only make it more widespread. The injustice of my argument is that, by not bombing, we would be taking no effective measure to ensure attacks on us would never happen again. The injustice of your argument is that its consequences ensure attacks on us WILL happen again. The way I see it, both arguments are pretty shitty. Want you to know that I value this discussion and am respectfully considering all your points. "All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet." -Hunter S. Thompson -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
alienmindscape member  Registered: 08/28/01 Posts: 184 Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
The real thing is to go after the perpetrators of the "suicide bombins" while also reevaluating our activities in the Middle East (consider lifting sanctions in Iraq that are resulting in the deaths of 5,000 children a month?). George H.W. Bush (the senior) once said, "For ever great president there is a great war." You can see the shrub might have learned this little pile of shit lesson.
Bush wants a war, and a big one. But that's not what most of us want. We want justice and peace. We're being tricked into supporting a war that Bush told us we will have little access to knowing about (he said we will see some of it on our TVs, but much we will not be allowed to know about). And there are other reasons for this war, such as getting a stronger hold on the natural resources (oil & gas) in the MIddle East. Sure, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks must be brought to justice, but we are being tricked into backing an war that is not needed, and we are being tricked into giving up our civil liberties. The reactionary right is getting everything they ever dreamed of politically under the rubric of fighting terrorists. Let's just bring the actual perpetrators to justice and not buy into the whole program of going totalitarian here. It isn't necesary. "That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
| |||||||
|
gluke bastid Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 4 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I never said being a pacifist is ridiculous, even though I believe that uncompromising pacifism is. I said your contention is ridiculous, and it still is. Violence is the only thing terrorists know? Pretty over-simplified. Ever stop to think that they probably say the same thing about us? It is generalizations like these, Invertigo, that breed heartless people like terrorists and I urge to try not to make them. Gandhi would have been slayed by which cowardly pricks? The Taliban? For what reason? I also don't think referring to gandhi is idealistic because he succeded in what he was trying to do. Ideal=concept. Gandhi's liberation of India=historical fact. And how the hell did you make the leap from Gandhi to Hitler? If you want to know what I think about Hitler and how he has nothing to do with Bin Laden look at the post before this one. -I refuse to be "open minded" to cowards when not one struggle the United states has been in has ever been won by being a coward...er pacifist. Mute point. When has the US every dabbled in Pacifism? Never. Furthermore, your statement implies that there isn't any feasible situation in which you would consider not going to war with someone. By your rationale, we should declare war on every nation in the world that we have had disagreements with, from China to France to Mexico. And who are the ones who "only understand violence?" I know this is not what you meant but it is what you said. "noone like yourself ever does have the answers" Like myself? What does that mean? I already told you that I am not a pacifist so I wonder what it is you mean. Please let me know if you figure it out. "All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet." -Hunter S. Thompson -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
alienmindscape member Registered: 08/28/01 Posts: 184 Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Also, pacifism holds war as a last result. You can be a pacifist and still find fighting necessary at some point. I'd consider myself a pacifist. Buy if you hit me in the face because I'm opposed to a bullshit war, I'll kick the living crap out of you. You leave me no choice. But if you happened to get away from me, I wouldn't search down whatever city you happened to live in, and which was harboring you, and launch missles at it. Plus, the whole analogy doesn't work anyways because, as someone else pointed out, the U.S. is not a pacifist country and we've been kicking the shit out of the Middle East for a long time. Basically a bully got kicked in the nads, and now he's attacking everyone because he can't kind the kid who actually nailed him.
"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
| |||||||
|
gluke bastid Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 4 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Damn straight, brutha. "All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet." -Hunter S. Thompson -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
***consider lifting sanctions in Iraq that are resulting in the deaths of 5,000 children a month?). ****
This is complete and utter bullshit ****Bush wants a war, and a big one. But that's not what most of us want. We want justice and peace. **** Speak for yourself about 90% of americans want to beat the living shit out of these cowards and the country's that harbor them...you my friend are in the minority. ****And there are other reasons for this war, such as getting a stronger hold on the natural resources (oil & gas) in the MIddle East. **** I couldn't be that over 5000 of our own people are killed. Why don't you stop while you are ahead because it is becoming drastically aparent that you have no idea what your talking about. ****The reactionary right is getting everything they ever dreamed of politically under the rubric of fighting terrorists.**** The reactionary right? If you remember Klinton bombed imediatly after the terrorist attacks and managed to bring to justice none of the intended targets. Please educate yourself to reality...it might help ***Let's just bring the actual perpetrators to justice and not buy into the whole program of going totalitarian here. It isn't necesary.*** Spoken like a pure pacifist Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick..... -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
***Also, pacifism holds war as a last result***
No Pacifist believe violence is never the answer. Period. ***You can be a pacifist and still find fighting necessary at some point*** Only if the Pacifist is a Hypocrite.... ****I'd consider myself a pacifist. Buy if you hit me in the face because I'm opposed to a bullshit war, I'll kick the living crap out of you**** Then your not a pacifist...your a hypocrite ****Plus, the whole analogy doesn't work anyways because, as someone else pointed out, the U.S. is not a pacifist country*** If you read the original post you'd see we are not talking about a country but the people inside of it and people's mindset. ****Basically a bully got kicked in the nads, and now he's attacking everyone because he can't kind the kid who actually nailed him.**** No 5000 people are dead by cowards and we want him and his friends to pay. Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick..... -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
MokshaMan enthusiast Registered: 03/12/01 Posts: 280 |
| ||||||
|
The thing is with what Gandhi did was at the time, the British Empire was falling. It had become too expensive to keep the British Empire in existence. Canada was granted their "freedom" soon before that I believe and several other countries soon after that. I personally think this is because they were no longer able to exploit large numbers of people in those countries. Besides the British at the time were far more willing to listen instead of just killing Gandhi(which they had the ability to do).
As for making the terrorist lives unfree, we do no such thing for bin laden and most of the rest of the people in the higher levels of his organization. I mean bin laden has money and is getting money donated to him from all over the world, instead of helping the poor and starving he's creating troops. He could be using his funds to educate those in Afghanistan so that they could have a better life, he's doing no such thing. -------------------- Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -- George Owell
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
gluke bastid writes:
"I see a problem with your schoolyard bully metaphor. Namely, we can't hit the schoolyard bully back. He's in hiding, not standing right in front of us. Bombing the taliban is like beating up the bully's parents because he lives in their house. I don't think it accomplishes anything." No, the analogy is this: Bully beats you up, hides in parents house. Parents refuse to surrender him. The police then go in and get him. "We are not going to force them into submission within a month or two. They opposed the Soviet Union for ten years." It is not necessary for them to be forced into submission. All that is necessary is for the terrorists to be captured and extracted from Afghanistan for trial. If the Taliban says. "Fine. We are not powerful enough to capture him ourselves, but we will allow you to come in and search without attacking you while you carry out your search. We will not HELP you find him, but we will not hinder you either" then the problem is resolved. "Even if we blew up every terrorist facility in the world, we are not going to "beat" terrorism." That's what people said about Nazi Germany. That was precisely the same argument that the British appeasers spewed in WW II. "You can't beat terrorism because it is an idea, not an institution." It is not an idea. It is a tactic. "Terrorism has been beating us, and by us I mean every Nation in the world, for decades.The scary truth of the matter is that terrorism works really, really well for the terrorist." This is untrue. They haven't been "beating" us, they have been harming us. And, by the way, not every country is as inept at handling terrorism as the US is. The English are damn good at handling terrorists, as are the French, the Germans, the Italians, and the Israelis. Of course it is unrealistic to expect that you can capture or kill every terrorist before he can carry out his attacks, just as it is unrealistic to expect that you can capture every bank robber before he pulls off his heist, or capture a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer before he murders his first victim. But it is indisputable that a dead terrorist is a harmless terrorist. A dead serial murderer is a harmless serial murderer. A bank robber serving a life sentence without parole will not be robbing any more banks. Will there be more serial murderers and more bank robbers in the future? Of course. Will there be more terrorists in the future? Of course. Does that mean we should ignore the ones who are causing problems NOW for fear that by punishing them we piss off their friends? Hardly. "So Palestine decided to branch its most important land off to make it into Israel?" The US had absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of Israel. Palestine was a British protectorate. "I think the situation in Afghanistan is different. What we are fighting there is an ideology that is based mainly on hatred for America. Destroying the Taleban will not destroy this hatred, it will only make it more widespread." Why do you think that the rest of the Muslim world will support the Taliban? There is not a SINGLE Muslim nation (except Pakistan) that even recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate government. In the eyes of the Muslim world, the Taliban is an outlaw "government", a "rogue state", who have bastardized the teachings of Mohammed. Besides, it is not necessary for the Taliban to be destroyed, just for bin Laden to be captured. "The injustice of my argument is that, by not bombing, we would be taking no effective measure to ensure attacks on us would never happen again. The injustice of your argument is that its consequences ensure attacks on us WILL happen again." No, the consequences of my argument is that bin Laden's group (and almost certainly others associated with it) will be destroyed, and rendered harmless. This ensures that, though we may be attacked again, we will not be attacked by bin Laden. Might Hezbollah attack us again, as they have in the past? Yes. But they would have attacked us anyways. Hezbollah has killed more Americans in total, through their hundreds of separate smaller terrorist attacks, than the total dead from the Sept 11 attacks. You think that retaliation MIGHT make more fanatics turn to terrorist tactics. I say that appeasement will GUARANTEE future attacks. Further, I say that even if this retaliatory action DOES cause further attempts (which I do not stipulate -- this is strictly for the sake of argument), it is still CORRECT and NECESSARY for criminals to be brought to justice. There is NO civilized society that permits those who initiate force to get away with it. NO civilized society that will offer a murderer driven by hatred sympathy and understanding rather than punishment. Why? Because even the most hopelessly naive society understands that there are some individuals for whom sympathy and love means less than nothing. They don't crave your "understanding", they loathe and despise you for being weak enough to offer it. Sad but true. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
alienmindscape writes:
"The real thing is to go after the perpetrators of the "suicide bombins" while also reevaluating our activities in the Middle East..." Correct. "...consider lifting sanctions in Iraq that are resulting in the deaths of 5,000 children a month? This is not a US sanction. This is a UN sanction. Any country is free at any time, and has been free since the sanctions were imposed, to deal with Iraq if they choose. The US will not declare war on them if they ignore the embargo. "Bush wants a war, and a big one." Bullshit. "Sure, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks must be brought to justice..." Yes, that is what everyone says. But the very next words out of their mouths is some reason why it can't be done. Negativity. Slam whatever action the US chooses to make, but propose nothing in its place. "...but we are being tricked into backing an war that is not needed..." Please give us a workable alternative to capturing a fugitive that enjoys the full protection, militarily and economically, of a "rogue nation", one whose "leaders" aren't considered legitimate even by the other Muslim states in the world, who are considered an embarassment to Islam. "...and we are being tricked into giving up our civil liberties." Which civil liberties? The right to take more than one carryon bag on an American Airlines flight? "The reactionary right is getting everything they ever dreamed of politically under the rubric of fighting terrorists." Nonsense. This such a sweeping, bald-faced generality that I call you on it. Exactly WHAT has the "reactionary right" gained? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
MrKurtz enthusiast Registered: 08/04/01 Posts: 303 Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Has anyone thought about the fact that the Taliban is in power because of the US? And, there are many examples of the US killing innocent people for no good reason really. Can you explain the US bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam war? They bombed major cities for no reason really, and let Pol Pot come into power, who killed a quarter of Cambodia's population(about 2 million people). The CIA bombed many Latin America countries with unmarked jets to destroy democratic goverments who were attempting to be independent.
As for terrorist groups and the Taliban, this is a group that is not supported by the people, but guess whos paying for it? the people. I'm sure alot more then 5,000 Afghan citizens, who have nothing to do with the Taliban other then being unfairly ruled by them, will be killed. There are more ways to kick the Taliban out and have Bin Laden brought to justice then to invade and kill alot of people while losing a good number of soldiers. Have any of you heard about the cases of anthrax in Florida? Sounds like something is going on....
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
MrKurtz writes:
"Has anyone thought about the fact that the Taliban is in power because of the US?" Yes. What's your point? That the US was supposed to know, in advance, that by helping Afghans eject the Soviet occupation forces, they were setting the stage for a band of religious nutbars to take over the country a decade later? The US was supposed to know somehow that these nutbars would not only enslave their own people, but harbor and protect a lunatic who would engineer terrorist attacks of enormous magnitude against the same people who helped him when he was a mujahadeen leader? A question for you: was it correct for the US to help the mujahadeen or not? If not, why not? "And, there are many examples of the US killing innocent people for no good reason really. Can you explain the US bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam war?" No. I can't. Is it your contention that since the US bombed Cambodia thirty years ago, any bombing of any target in any country regardless of the situation, from now until the end of time is automatically wrong? Germany bombed civilian targets sixty years ago. So did Japan. Does this mean that neither Germany nor Japan may defend their citizens against attack? The Romans invaded Africa two millenia ago, slaughtering entire populations. Does this mean that Italy may not defend itself? Again, what is your point? "There are more ways to kick the Taliban out and have Bin Laden brought to justice then to invade and kill alot of people while losing a good number of soldiers." Name one. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
alienmindscape member Registered: 08/28/01 Posts: 184 Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
"Speak for yourself about 90% of americans want to beat the living shit out of these cowards and the country's that harbor them...you my friend are in the minority"
Cowards? Youd learn to fly a jet, take it over with cheapo knives, kiling people in the bargain, and fly to your own death. That isn't cowardly, and these people aren't cowards. Bush is a coward. Just look at him. He looks like a beaked bowl of oatmeal with 2 raisins in it. Tonight I saw him on the BBC gloating over his air attacks, and then he said something like, "as to whether we are going to have ground strikes or not, well, I'm not going to tell you." That was a priceless fuck you to the public, most of whome are stupid enough to follow the imbecile puppet president sone of an asshole crappy former president whos wife, incidentally, looks like Jabba the Hut with a wig on. George Bush is a puss, and not one that I'd stick my cock in either. He's a nasty skanky dribbling puss with ears that thinks curtailing pollution to slow down global warming and not wreck the planet is bad for business. Fucking talking oatmeal cookie puss. I bet Osama could kick the living shit out of Bush with one hand tied behind his back. A pussy named Bush. Bush is biting off more than he can chew, and pretty soon the whole of the MIddle East will be on his ass. Everytime he opens his mouth there's the smell of a fart. What a fucking pile of dog crap. O shit. O George W. Bush. "For every great president there is a great war," George H. W. Bush. "That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alienmindscape writes:
"Bush is a coward. Just look at him. He looks like a beaked bowl of oatmeal with 2 raisins in it." Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sure convinced. I certainly can't argue with reasoning like that. Alienmindscape has just proven that the US has no choice but to roll over and raise its butt in the air and take whatever terrorists care to dish out, because the mother of the American president bears a resemblance to a fictional movie character. Might as well lock this thread right now... no point in continuing. We are all doomed. pinky Edited by pinksharkmark on 10/10/01 12:23 AM. --------------------
| |||||||
|
gluke bastid Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 4 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I really think Bush did a shitty job when he delivered that speech telling the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden "or else." Y'know, the one he followed up the next day by saying. "We want him dead or alive, like in those wanted posters from the Old West" (mind of a child) Doesn't anyone else think that that put the Taleban into a position that they couldn't back down from? The day before the speech the Pakistan ambassadors were saying that the Taleban was considering asking Bin Laden to leave the country, but they were definetely singing a different tune the next day. Granted, maybe this is a mute point, because the taleban most likely wouldn't have released him. I'm sure Bush had to convince the American people that he was being real tough on dem 'ol terrorist bastards that attacked god's country, so he couldn't have backed down from such a speach also. The speech certainly didn't make me feel any better though. It only reaffirmed that our country is in the hands of a dixie boy who thinks America wants a cowboy as a leader. I really don't like Bush. I support our country but I refuse to forget how much of a moron that man is. "All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet." -Hunter S. Thompson -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
MokshaMan enthusiast Registered: 03/12/01 Posts: 280 |
| ||||||
|
If you're British, bitch about your own leader who BTW if you hadn't noticed is supporting the US 100%. As for him not telling us what's going to take place, read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, the element of suprise has always been preached in military matters. If the US never tells the citizens what took place, that's a different story; however, that does not mean that they have to tell you what's going to happen before it happens. I mean if you have something to share with the rest of us that has a point, please do so; if all you're going to do is spout off crap, please hold your tongue.
-------------------- Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -- George Owell
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
gluke bastid writes:
"The day before the speech the Pakistan ambassadors were saying that the Taleban was considering asking Bin Laden to leave the country, but they were definetely singing a different tune the next day." They've been singing a different tune EVERY day. Here are some examples: "We don't know where he is" "We have cut off his communication and internet capabilities" ummm... how did you do that if you don't know where he is? "We will bring him to trial in an Islamic court" ummm.... see above Besides, it's a moot point. The Taliban does not have the power to capture him even if they wanted to. That is not speculation, that is FACT, as attested by many reports from Afghanis and independent observers. As one ex-Taliban member said, "It is not Omar who protects bin Laden. It is bin Laden who protects Omar." "I'm sure Bush had to convince the American people that he was being real tough on dem 'ol terrorist bastards that attacked god's country, so he couldn't have backed down from such a speach also." So you problem is with his choice of metaphor? You would have felt more at ease if he had instead invoked ...oh... the image of an FBI "wanted" poster in a post office? If Germany had been attacked, Germany's Head Dude would have been every bit as forceful. Or France, or England. It goes with the territory: a job requirement. It is not restricted to Bush. And if you think Bush's rhetoric was a tad over the top, what was your reaction to bin Laden's videotaped rant? In a previous post you told me that you "Want you to know that I value this discussion and am respectfully considering all your points." If that is true, that you really DO value this discussion, then why not forget about trivial quibbles over the phrasing of a presidential speechwriter, or the fact that you personally dislike the president and address the fundamental issues involved in this debate, specifically: the validity of adopting a pacifist position in a situation where an act of war has been committed by foreign nationals. Not trying to diss you, but it seems like each succeeding post of yours is stretching further and further to find something to complain about. What next? Criticizing Bush's haircut? Let's deal with matters of substance, okay? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
alienmindscape member Registered: 08/28/01 Posts: 184 Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
"As for him not telling us what's
going to take place, read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, the element of suprise has always been preached in military matters. If the US never tells the citizens what took place, that's a different story; however, that does not mean that they have to tell you what's going to happen before it happens." I think the Taliban is already prepared for ground strikes, and for Bush to not acknowledge whether we are going to or not, and to be a smug prick about it in the bargain, is just flaunting his capacity to wage a secret war and do whatever the fuck he wants, as he has done ever since he took seat in the White House, and despite his losing the popular vote. We have a right to know what our real objectives are in the Middle East, and I think is WWIII. Eh, you fucking conservative Bushites spout crap all day, so it's OK for someone who's more liberal to spout it too. I think Bush looks like a fucking bowl of outmeal with a beak. He has no lips and his upper lip covers his lower one kind of like a Simpson's character. He say's "War on Terra" instead of "War on Terror," "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear," and he said that the terroritsts "misunderestimated the commander in chief." I was reading about liberal professors getting death threats because they were teaching the other side of the picture at their colleges. Hey, fuck you. I'm for tought liberals, or tough when we're confronted with violent sptupidity. I will personally jump up and down and celebrate if Bush is assassinated. I will thank God AND Allah. Bush is the most dangerous man alive, because he wields the most power, and he's a fucking retarded idiot who is nothing more than a drooling baby playing with fireworks. See, we really want to get the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and we don't really want a huge was that is projected to last over a decade. People just wanna' get the "terrorists" and go on with out lives of rampant expansionist consumer culture and unbridled capitalism. Nobody wants a prolonged war on the Middle East, or Bush deciding to be a cowboy and go after his father's enemie, Hussein. So now we can have a huge war, that could potential escalate until nuclear weapons are deployed. If we don't so happen to get our asses kicked in the bargain, we will destroy the Middle East, and it will be a phyric victory. Yes the Taliban were willing, if they could get him, to give up Osama to a trial in a neutral country. No they were not willing to after Bush's speach in which he demaned they turn over Osama, all leader of terrorism, all terrorists, and give the U.S. access to all terrorist training camps. Duh, these were deliberately impossible demands. We probably had the chance to negotiate, get the bad guys, have world sympathy, AND go a long ways towards disarming attacks that fall withing the rubric of "terrorism." But we want WAR, damn it. We got pilots and bombers and weapons to play with. We are REEEAAAAAADDDDDDY TOOOOO RUUUUUMBLEEEE. The lesson that will be leaned, again, is that "might equals right," only it doesn't. And then, after our phyric (sp?) victory, in which thousands or millions are killed and nations are virtually destroyed, we will have to keep a more repressive sort of environment at home to minimize reflection and guilt, and to silence the outspoken dissent that will naturally flow from the more educated and informed and openminded. They are already talking about an identification system for every person. What would that be, a fucking chip? We are giving permission to tap our phones and read our email. Gimmie a fucking break! Is that what people really want? And for the dillweed that was talking about sticking our asses in the air so the terrorists can fuck us, that's not what happened or what would happened. What happened is we went around bullying people, and we got kicked in the nuts. Now we want to kicks ass again and reassset our head bully status, only someone managed to kick us in the nads, so, if we take on more than we can chew, we're going to get hurt in this fight. Now lets all reflect on the sage wisdom of Bush senior: "For every great president there is a great war." I don't think so. More like "For every failed president there is a great tragedy." And, lastly, let's quote me: "A stupid president for a stupid people." Let's all admit our president is stupid, and that we've now given the office of the president more power than it has ever had before to wage war without our consent. If the U.S. gets hit again, there will be bubbles and chunks in the facade of our idiot oatmeal presidents face, because Americans are kind of pussies, and we don't want to fight if we're going to get hurt, too. But you can't fuck all of the Muslims (20% of the world population) and not expect to get hurt. When the world is free of Muslims, Bush can reinstate Christian prayer in classrooms and make damn well sure we pledge our allegiance to the flage every fucking morning. We are inching towards totalitarianism, with Bush as our own personal fascist. I can just see him gloating years from now, "The people of Amurica agreed to give up certain civil liberties in order to preserve freedom." We don't even have the freedom to smoke pot or protest without getting shot with rubber bullets or pepper sprayed. Bush also looks like a nice round steaming pile of dog shit if one were to look at it on the sidewalk from above. And where the fuck is Dick Cheney? "That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
| |||||||
|
gluke bastid Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 4 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Pinky, I think you completely missed the tone of my last post. I thought it quite obvious that I was simply bitching about Bush and not really asserting any constructive criticism about any issue. If it makes you uncomfortable that I did so, that is not really my problem. It is my right to say whatever the hell I want to about Bush. If I am the one who is merely looking for something to complain about, why would you bother to respond to my last post which obviously was simply an opinion about Bush as a character completely unbacked by any substance? And wouldn't "dealing with matters of substance" obligate you to ignore my last post, instead of you complaining about it? I don't really understand what motivated you to reply and argue. The fact that you ponited out my moot point is itself a moot point because I pointed out that it was a moot point in the post itself. Did you read the whole thing? "If Germany had been attacked, Germany's Head Dude would have been every bit as forceful. Or France, or England. It goes with the territory: a job requirement. It is not restricted to Bush. " This is exactly what I meant when I said "I'm sure Bush had to convince the American people that he was being real tough on dem 'ol terrorist bastards that attacked god's country, so he couldn't have backed down from such a speach also." Granted I am being cynical about what I see as America's reactionary attitude but I am making the same point as you. Bush could not have backed down. No leader of any government could. So, you're not trying to diss me, but you're going to tell me that I am stretching myself just to have something to complain about? I haven't made any assumptions about you except for one: That you honestly believe your end of the argument. If you think that I consider military action against Afghanistan to be wrong simply because I like to complain,argue with people, or simply get on your nerves, don't bother talking to me anymore. "All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet." -Hunter S. Thompson -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
ToTheSummit peregrinus Registered: 08/22/99 Posts: 9,125 Loc: Las Vegas Last seen: 6 days, 5 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Alienmindscape, your blind hatred for a person you don't know completely negates any opinion you could possibly have. I didn't vote for Bush and I think he is a terrible public speaker but if you think you could do any better in his shoes then I'd like to see you try. To make such a moronic statement as this, "I will personally jump up and down and celebrate if Bush is assassinated. I will thank God AND Allah." just proves you are stupid fucking idiot. Pinky is right, when morons like you start spouting garbage like this it is time to lock the thread because any rational discussion is finished!
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do! -------------------- You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
| |||||||
|
MokshaMan enthusiast Registered: 03/12/01 Posts: 280 |
| ||||||
|
The Taliban may be ready, but if he says "Oh tomorrow, we're going in with special forces around Kabul." What does this accomplish other than to warn them exactly what to expect? I mean are you seriously so ill informed about the way that war works that you'd think he'd give any piece of information away before it happens? Right now, his "real objectives" are in Afghanistan, if this changes my and other people's opinion might and likely will change.
BTW in case you didn't know, the point of the US election is not to get the popular vote. The point has never been to get the popular vote. If instead of every state giving all their votes to one person, they would have split it by districts, Bush still would've won(ie more of areas and states in the US wanted him). And had it gone to Senate because it was "too close" to call, which maybe it should have, there might have been a different outcome. I voted for Bush and I'm glad I did now, at first I kind of thought that I should have voted Nadar because of how Bush's presidency was going. He's handled the crisis with China fine and thus far handled this crisis fine. To be perfectly honest, Bush and Gore both were crappy choices. And given the choice, I'm glad we've got Bush. And for some odd reason you're convinced that this is a "racist" war, which I've for some odd reason be hearing peace protesters yell, why did Bush go to a Mosque? Why is Bush making every attempt to condemn attacks on this group(ie Muslims)? Anytime someone attacks a person of another race, is that racist? No, and such vague generalizations are absolutely stupid. I don't have any problem with you mentioning anything of substance, but you seem incapable of doing so. As far as the start of WWIII, I'd be far more worried if Bush did get assaniated. Take a look at Cheney's old job in charge of the Pentagon for instance, his voting record, etc. The man is a much more of a hawk than Bush and likely would not have delayed the beginning of strikes. Just shows once again, how ill informed you are. Might I suggest you pick up a newspaper outside whatever country you're in, or perhaps one with less bias. The Taliban we're not going to hand over bin Laden, you're a fool if you believe they were. The guy who's in charge of the Taliban was put into power by bin Laden and without bin Laden, he'll have no power. Why would he want to relinquish control of his country? Since bin Laden is the one that in the end put the Taliban(with help from Pakistan, and possibly the US) in power, how are they going to capture someone more powerful than they are? Bin Laden wasn't going to be handed over to any country, this was attempted before with the attack on the two US embassies. He has been indicted and the US was attempting to us more civil means to get bin Laden. Admittedly the US should have accepted the offer by Sudan to apprehend him before he fled to Afghanistan. They didn't, they fucked up, they're trying to make up for it now. If all you're going to do is spout the same shit again, please don't waste your or my time. Edited by MokshaMan on 10/11/01 12:24 AM. -------------------- Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -- George Owell
| |||||||
|
MrKurtz enthusiast Registered: 08/04/01 Posts: 303 Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
"I didn't vote for Bush and I think he is a terrible public speaker but if you think you could do any better in his shoes then I'd like to see you try. "
Yeah, i bet most people would do just about as well. Thats why idiots don't run for president.
| |||||||
|
MrKurtz enthusiast Registered: 08/04/01 Posts: 303 Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
"That the US was supposed to know, in advance, that by helping Afghans eject the Soviet occupation forces, they were setting the stage for a band of religious nutbars to take over the country a decade later?"
That often happens when you allow a dictatorship to come to power. "No. I can't. Is it your contention that since the US bombed Cambodia thirty years ago, any bombing of any target in any country regardless of the situation, from now until the end of time is automatically wrong? " Um, i was defending the post by.. forgot who... but it was an article on americas various war crimes. But, i think it is wrong to bomb random targets in Afghan just in case some terrorists may be living there. "'There are more ways to kick the Taliban out and have Bin Laden brought to justice then to invade and kill alot of people while losing a good number of soldiers.' Name one. " Eh, im not a politician, thats not my job. But, maybe any form of diplomacy other then a redneck asshole(Bush) yelling about how we are gonna go kick some towelhead ass. Maybe if they tried talking with the Taliban, who knows, maybe they would have given up Bin Laden. But they didn't even give them a chance, Bush said we are coming whether they like it or not. And every other country is scared shitless to object. "Germany bombed civilian targets sixty years ago. So did Japan. Does this mean that neither Germany nor Japan may defend their citizens against attack? The Romans invaded Africa two millenia ago, slaughtering entire populations. Does this mean that Italy may not defend itself? Again, what is your point? " well, lets see, maybe my point is it happened before, so we shouldn't do it again? Or do you honestly think that all these bombs blowing up in major cities in Afghanistan only kill terrorists? I'm not against trying to get our hands on who did this. But, when all they talk about is a "War on Terrorism", and finding those responsible, and then they go and bomb major cities, I think I have a good reason to object.
| |||||||
|
~`Tursiops truncatus`~ enthusiast  Registered: 11/01/00 Posts: 105 Loc: CO... UsA Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
It's the goverments responsibillity to defend the nation, right, but when does defending somthing involve hunting down everyone that might want to steal or destroy what it is that you're defending? Even if they've already destroyed a part of what it is that you're defending why kill them for it? Terrorists are human too ya know, they're not just some cyborgs that have KILL! KILL! KILL! programed into them and that thats all they're capable of, they're human and maybe they do have kill! kill! kill! programed into them but that dosin't mean they're incapable of loving us, It just means that the society they're living in is a cesspool for breeding violence and hatred. So with that it's simple to see that they're just a product of they're enviroment and unless we address why it is the way it is and what we can do to end that cycle, the violence and hatred will continue to fester. War will not end the cycle.
And just because I'm against war and violence dosin't mean I can't defend myself. I may not fight back, but I'll see that punch comin a mile away and respond to it acordingly. It may result in you being in a very uncomfortable position but thats about it, and from there we could continue our talk ( ; I leave you with this... "The real art of Peace is not to sacrifice a single one of your warriors to defeat an enemy. Vanquish your foes by always keeping yourself in a safe and unassailable position; then no one will suffer any losses. The Way of a Warrior, the Art of Politics, is to stop trouble before it starts. It consists in defeating your adversaries spiritually by making them realize the folly of their actions. The Way of a Warrior is to establish harmony." ~Morihei Ueshiba.
| |||||||
|
MokshaMan enthusiast Registered: 03/12/01 Posts: 280 |
| ||||||
|
>Eh, im not a politician, thats not my job. But, maybe any form of diplomacy other then a redneck asshole(Bush) yelling about how we are gonna go kick some towelhead ass. Maybe if they tried talking with the Taliban, who knows, maybe they would have given up Bin Laden. But they didn't even give them a chance, Bush said we are coming whether they like it or not. And every other country is scared shitless to object.
They had tried diplomacy in the past. The guy in charge of Afghanistan has been linked to bin Laden and in fact there are indications that bin Laden helped him get power(their beliefs of Islam are the same). Why would he give up his power? Do you realistically think that the Taliban has the power to get bin Laden if he's them one that helped them get power? They turned down the only government(Pakistan) that recognized them for a diplomatic mission and nearly a month is plenty of time(time enough to build a coalition). These people were using what's called a delay tactic, delay tactics are useful to dig in so that they have a better control over a country. Trenches can't be dug over night you know(I'm not claiming that they're actually digging trenches, but I hope you understand the example). If you are so opposed to war that you do not think it should be engaged in, you clearly should be able to provide an alternative to be taken seriously(wish I could think of an alternative, but since I can't I fully support the current conflict). To have any change in policy from today, someone must give an alternative. The unfortunate truth of war is that civilians die, this is of course why no one wants war. If you want them to "get the terrorist" please tell me how without the use of some form of violence and without the permission of the Taliban. The fact is that if we do nothing, we're screwed and it will happen again; if we do something, we may be able to disrupt their system enough so that we're not attacked again(though it may still happen again). -------------------- Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -- George Owell
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
MrKurtz writes:
"That often happens when you allow a dictatorship to come to power." The US did not "allow" a dictatorship to come into power in Afghanistan. The US, through the CIA, supplied funding and gave other assistance to Afghanis who were trying to evict an occupying army. The Soviets withdrew many years before the Taliban came to power. Or are you saying that the best way for the US to defend its citizens is to make sure that no dictatorship ever comes into power in any country in the world? This would necessarily mean massive US intervention in the internal politics of dozens of countries. Are you in favor of that? "But, i think it is wrong to bomb random targets in Afghan just in case some terrorists may be living there." So do I. That is not even close to what is occurring now. "Eh, im not a politician, thats not my job. But, maybe any form of diplomacy other then a redneck asshole(Bush) yelling about how we are gonna go kick some towelhead ass." Bush is not a redneck. He didn't yell. He never used the word towelhead, or ass. "Maybe if they tried talking with the Taliban, who knows, maybe they would have given up Bin Laden. But they didn't even give them a chance, Bush said we are coming whether they like it or not." There was plenty of talking, both directly and with the Pakistani government acting as go-betweens. Both sides knew going into it that this would accomplish nothing, since everyone knew going into it that: (a) the Taliban would never turn bin Laden over, and (b) even if they wanted to turn him over, they are powerless to capture him. Nonetheless, they were allowed plenty of time to at least admit something like: "Hey, guys, we'd like to stay out of this. This is between you and bin Laden. Since we can't capture him, why don't you come on in here and see if YOU can. We won't help you get him, but we won't hinder you either." But that is not what the Taliban said. They not only refused to co-operate, they threatened neighboring countries with dire consequences if those countries allowed entry to US forces. They claimed that the Afghani populace was prepared to resist US action. They practically dared the US to do something. "Or do you honestly think that all these bombs blowing up in major cities in Afghanistan only kill terrorists? I'm not against trying to get our hands on who did this. But, when all they talk about is a "War on Terrorism", and finding those responsible, and then they go and bomb major cities, I think I have a good reason to object." They are not bombing major cities. They are bombing military targets, some of which are located near cities, some of which are located in the cities themselves. The phrase "bombing major cities" could be properly used to describe the London Blitz in World War II, but not to describe the recent actions in Afghanistan. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
tursiops truncatus writes:
"It's the goverments responsibillity to defend the nation, right, but when does defending somthing involve hunting down everyone that might want to steal or destroy what it is that you're defending? Even if they've already destroyed a part of what it is that you're defending why kill them for it? " So, if a gang of criminals kidnaps one of your daughters and kills her, it is correct for you to say, "Gee, that's sad. But hunting them down and killing them won't bring her back to life. Hunting them down and killing them won't protect the rest of my children, either. I guess I'll just put better locks on my windows and hope these guys can't get past the locks when they return to kidnap another of my children." "...maybe they do have kill! kill! kill! programed into them but that dosin't mean they're incapable of loving us, It just means that the society they're living in is a cesspool for breeding violence and hatred." It is irrelevant WHY they choose to kill. It is irrelevant whether they love us or hate us. If I were walking down a street and someone tried to kill me with a knife, for example, I couldn't give a rat's ass WHY he wants to kill me. Maybe he has mistaken me for the guy that is boinking his wife. Maybe he's homophobic and thinks I'm gay. Maybe he's a serial murderer and he gets a thrill out of hacking people to death. Maybe he just wants my money. WHO CARES? He is trying to kill me. If I do nothing, he will kill me. If I try to psychoanalyze him to figure out WHY he is trying to kill me, he will kill me. My only option is to stop him from killing me. It may be that my efforts result in his death. So be it. Too bad, so sad. "...it's simple to see that they're just a product of they're enviroment and unless we address why it is the way it is and what we can do to end that cycle, the violence and hatred will continue to fester. War will not end the cycle." Perhaps they are a product of their environment. Perhaps we can address "the way it is", and somehow reach the young growing up in that environment today and somehow prevent them from becoming religious fanatics with a pathological hatred of Infidels. Perhaps. But clearly it is too late to use this approach with the terrorists who exist TODAY. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Harry_Ballsonia journeyman Registered: 04/25/01 Posts: 45 Loc: Florida |
| ||||||
|
Pacifist = Pussy
It's simple math really! There are 2 things in life i enjoy....sex and ah?....well one thing i guess............................. -------------------- There are 2 things in life i enjoy....sex and ah?....well one thing i guess.............................
| |||||||
|
~`Tursiops truncatus`~ enthusiast Registered: 11/01/00 Posts: 105 Loc: CO... UsA Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
The war on terrorism is like the war on drugs in the sense that we're only concentrating on getting rid of the product and not the source. I mean it's rediculous to think that we could get rid of all the 'Terrorists' just like it's rediculous to think that we could get rid of all the 'Drugs'. You can't kill a weed by cuting off its limbs, you gotta uproot it all together. And what makes you think that one of my kids could easily be kindnaped and that I would just let it keep happening over and over again?
And who knows maybe I am a weak little sissified pussy... What of it? does calling people names make you feel big and strong Mr 2 foot cock?
| |||||||
|
Harry_Ballsonia journeyman Registered: 04/25/01 Posts: 45 Loc: Florida |
| ||||||
|
"And who knows maybe I am a weak little sissified pussy..."
Yes you are. What of it? does calling people names make you feel big and strong Mr 2 foot cock?" 2 foot cock? I unfold my cock for noone. But i may make an exception for you. There are 2 things in life i enjoy....sex and ah?....well one thing i guess............................. -------------------- There are 2 things in life i enjoy....sex and ah?....well one thing i guess.............................
| |||||||
|
alienmindscape member Registered: 08/28/01 Posts: 184 Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Nah dude, a pacifist is someone who tries every other means before resorting to force or violence. If nothing else works then the pacifist may kick your lilly ass. A great pacifist was Cain of Kung Fu. He never started shit, tried to avoid it as much as possible, but when he had no other choice he kicked ass, and having learned to control his rage and to employ other techniques and use restraint, his power was that much more formidable when he chose to unleash it.
Compare that to being a bully, which is what Bush is. Most bullies are pussies who only pick on someone they know they can trounce (our bombs falling on tents). You don't see bullies picking on people that can kick their ass, and you do see them backing down fast when they are up against someone toughter than they are. "That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
| |||||||
|
MrKurtz enthusiast Registered: 08/04/01 Posts: 303 Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
"Or are you saying that the best way for the US to defend its citizens is to make sure that no dictatorship ever comes into power in any country in the world? This would necessarily mean massive US intervention in the internal politics of dozens of countries. Are you in favor of that? "
Thats sort of like being in favor of killing every terrorist ever, huh? It also seemed like America has no problem intervening with any country that tries to develope an economy independent of america, or attempts to be communist. America is known for its nosiness when money is involved, while turning a blind eye to injustices. "Bush is not a redneck. He didn't yell. He never used the word towelhead, or ass. " Heh, sure he isn't. I was exagerating, but he sure said he was gonna kick some ass afghan ass, just stated it in a more eloquent way. "They are not bombing major cities. They are bombing military targets, some of which are located near cities, some of which are located in the cities themselves. The phrase "bombing major cities" could be properly used to describe the London Blitz in World War II, but not to describe the recent actions in Afghanistan. " Every major city in Afghan was hit by bombs. I would consider that bombing major cities. Bombs miss, and unless I see with my own eyes they only hit terrorist instillations, I'll believe they hit alot of civilians also. "There was plenty of talking, both directly and with the Pakistani government acting as go-betweens. Both sides knew going into it that this would accomplish nothing, since everyone knew going into it that: (a) the Taliban would never turn bin Laden over, and (b) even if they wanted to turn him over, they are powerless to capture him. Nonetheless, they were allowed plenty of time to at least admit something like: 'Hey, guys, we'd like to stay out of this. This is between you and bin Laden. Since we can't capture him, why don't you come on in here and see if YOU can. We won't help you get him, but we won't hinder you either.'" Well, I would agree with you if the Bush didn't hint at, pretty much the next day, that we were going to war. It was obvious the second it happened Bush was gonna make a war out of this cause, of course, it would make him the most popular man in America. They could have done alot of things other then bombing, maybe keep the stepped up security in America, and put an embargo on Afghanistan.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
MrKurtz writes:
"Thats sort of like being in favor of killing every terrorist ever, huh? It also seemed like America has no problem intervening with any country that tries to develope an economy independent of america, or attempts to be communist. America is known for its nosiness when money is involved, while turning a blind eye to injustices." You dodged the question. Are you in favor of America intervening in the internal affairs of other countries in order to prevent a dictatorship being formed? Yes or no? "Every major city in Afghan was hit by bombs. I would consider that bombing major cities." No, that is bombing targets. Bombing CITIES is what was done to London in the Blitz, or to Hiroshima. In those cases, the idea was not to hit military targets, but to kill as many civilians as possible. The target in those cases was the city itself. That is not what is going on here. If a SAM missile site is located inside a city, then a bomb (or artillery fire, for that matter) designed to destroy that site necessarily must land within the city limits. "Well, I would agree with you if the Bush didn't hint at, pretty much the next day, that we were going to war." Well, DUH! As if that came as a surprise to anyone. Unlike past US presidents who blustered and bluffed and ended up doing nothing (a la Jimmy Carter), Bush wanted to make it very plain that he was putting the Taliban on fair warning. He did not want to be accused of springing any sneak attacks on anyone. He was saying, "Look. Hand these guys over or we will come and get them. And we are not kidding this time." "They could have done alot of things other then bombing, maybe keep the stepped up security in America, and put an embargo on Afghanistan." Oh, right... like that would have worked. Osama bin Laden is a freakin' millionaire! Does anyone who takes the time to think about it for more than... oh... ten seconds... really think that he would give two shits about an embargo? Get real! Besides, it seems like every second post in this forum is about how horrible and inhumane and unworkable the embargo of Iraq is, and how it means diddly to Sadam, but millions of Iraqi babies are dying. You're just grabbing around for something, ANYTHING, to avoid admitting that in this particular case, military action is required to capture the terrorists. That means ground troops being inserted by helicopter, which means anti-aircraft installations must be destroyed first. The bombing is not just randomly tossing ordnance here and there to scare the natives, you know. Or don't you know? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
****Nah dude, a pacifist is someone who tries every other means before resorting to force or violence****
pacifism - noun [U] Pacifism is the belief that war is wrong, and therefore that to fight in a war is wrong. no pacifism is the practice of doing nothing. ****A great pacifist was Cain of Kung Fu**** That's a TV show...you base your stance on a fictional character?..ha ha ****Most bullies are pussies who only pick on someone they know they can trounce **** either that or they run jets into buildings or sit on the sidelines and do nothing Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick..... -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
alienmindscape member Registered: 08/28/01 Posts: 184 Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
See, you need to believe that pacifism means not defending yourself under any circumstances so that you can create a scenario where there are only 2 choices = kill the fucking Muslims or lay down and die. But there are more options. Let go of your self-serving definition of pacifism. Maybe Gandi took pacifism to that exreme.
But, beyond that, one doesn't need to be a pacifist (and especially one by YOUR definition) to oppose starting WWIII. So leave the "pacifist" notion out of it, and let's just talk about whether we are doing the right thing or not, and whether we are going about it the right way or not. "That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!! Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
****Let go of your self-serving definition of pacifism****
It's not my definition, it's the cambrige dictionary's definition...seems to me i'm not the only one who believes it. ****kill the fucking Muslims or lay down and die**** Unfortunatly that is our circumstance. You can't negotiate with terrorist. They want us dead no matter what. ****But, beyond that, one doesn't need to be a pacifist (and especially one by YOUR definition) to oppose starting WWIII**** one does if they aren't willing to defend themselves and let those with evil intentions bitch slap them. ****and let's just talk about whether we are doing the right thing or not**** That's the topic of this thread...pacifism is the reason why these kinds of people find it easy to attack us...we need to breed a country of men....not pacifists Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick..... -------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
alienmindscape writes:
"See, you need to believe that pacifism means not defending yourself under any circumstances so that you can create a scenario where there are only 2 choices = kill the fucking Muslims or lay down and die." If you want to use some other word, such as "peacenik" or "dove" or "peace-loving" rather than "pacifist", you may have some chance of convincing people of the validity of your argument. But "pacifist" and "pacifism" have very specific and limited definitions. All dictionaries agree on the same definition. Merriam-Webster, Oxford English, Collier's, Encyclopedia Brittanica... any of them will give you the same definition. Not only do the dictionaries agree, but so do the pacifists. No pacifist would agree to be compared to your Kung Fu character. Some pacifists (certain Buddhist monks, for example) take it to such extremes that they will not even slap a mosquito, or knowingly step on an ant. Innvertigo is NOT making up some twisted definition of pacifism in order to justify his position. YOU are the one who is distorting the meaning of pacifism. Argue with the dictionary. Or with a pacifist. To save you the time of scrolling back to one of the first posts on this thread, let me repeat it for you here: ********************************************************** By definition, a pacifist is one who eschews ALL violence, even retaliatory violence used strictly in self defense. To a Pacifist, there is NEVER a situation in which the use of violence is morally correct, violence is NEVER allowed. A Pacifist would rather give his own life than betray his deeply held principles. He might try to reason with his opponent, he might try to flee, but he would NEVER retaliate, regardless of the circumstances. A Pacifist mother would allow her child to be tortured and murdered rather than punch the murderer in the nose. Unrealistic? Others may think so, but to a Pacifist, reality is less important than what he believes is proper moral behavior. If his survival can only be purchased at the cost of betraying his moral code, he will refuse to pay. He values his beliefs more highly than he values his own existence. It must be noted that there are many people who claim to be Pacifists, but actually are not. They may properly described as "peace-lovers", or "peaceniks", or "Doves", or whatever, but if they admit that in some circumstances -- ANY circumstance -- the use of violence is justifiable, then they are NOT Pacifists. ********************************************************** To say that a pacifist holds that violence is justifiable in some situations is just as incorrect as saying that an atheist holds that believing in God is justifiable in some situations. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
MrKurtz enthusiast Registered: 08/04/01 Posts: 303 Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
"You dodged the question. Are you in favor of America intervening in the internal affairs of other countries in order to prevent a dictatorship being formed? Yes or no? "
Eh, if you dont get it, i meant yes. I think thats one of the only good reasons to intervene in the affairs of other countries. "No, that is bombing targets. Bombing CITIES is what was done to London in the Blitz, or to Hiroshima. In those cases, the idea was not to hit military targets, but to kill as many civilians as possible. The target in those cases was the city itself. That is not what is going on here. " And that therefore causes bombs to blow up in the city, killing people who are walking by or whatever. Is it really that hard to understand what I am trying to say? "Oh, right... like that would have worked. Osama bin Laden is a freakin' millionaire! Does anyone who takes the time to think about it for more than... oh... ten seconds... really think that he would give two shits about an embargo? Get real! " Well, if America actually put security into the hands of the government and not the commercial airlines.. this probably never would have happened. "The bombing is not just randomly tossing ordnance here and there to scare the natives, you know. Or don't you know? " I tend to believe that they want to hit targets, but hitting shit with bombs isn't a science. They miss... alot. Therefore, innocents die. "You're just grabbing around for something, ANYTHING, to avoid admitting that in this particular case, military action is required to capture the terrorists. That means ground troops being inserted by helicopter, which means anti-aircraft installations must be destroyed first. " Well, I would be more in favor of a ground assualt then bombings. Every country bordering Afghanistan said they would allow troops to be brought in... so they can't bring them in by ground? I just don't see any reason to justify dropping bombs in a city when the government you are fighting isn't even supported by the people.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
MrKurtz writes:
"Well, if America actually put security into the hands of the government and not the commercial airlines.. this probably never would have happened." It also never would have happened if we didn't allow foreign nationals to board American-owned commercial aircraft. It also wouldn't have happened if the World Trade Center had never been built. But it DID happen. We are now discussing what should (or should not) be done about it. "Well, I would be more in favor of a ground assualt then bombings. Every country bordering Afghanistan said they would allow troops to be brought in... so they can't bring them in by ground? I just don't see any reason to justify dropping bombs in a city when the government you are fighting isn't even supported by the people." Even if they do bring them in by ground rather than by helicopter insertion, air support is required. The Afghanis have (or had) combat aircraft, too, you know. Do you believe they would not have used them against US ground troops? Let's face it, this isn't the nineteenth century anymore. Combat aircraft are a part of armed conflict, and have been for quite some time. Do you think that an Afghan fighter-bomber would decline to strafe a column of US troops passing through a village on the off chance that some stray Afghani bullets might kill some Afghani civilians? "I just don't see any reason to justify dropping bombs in a city when the government you are fighting isn't even supported by the people." So all they have to do is to make sure that every military installation is located inside a city in order to keep it safe from harm? Wow... that concept could revolutionize warfare! No need for armor, no need for anti-aircraft batteries... just plop everything within the city limits and anything goes. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
alienmindscape member Registered: 08/28/01 Posts: 184 Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Well then screw "pacifism." I think most of us who are against the war aren't pacifists, we just think it's stupid.
"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
| |||||||
|
ElPrimo journeyman Registered: 09/29/01 Posts: 92 Last seen: 21 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
Why do you think none of the Arab Countries will let us launch attacks from their soil? Why were none of the terrorists Afghanis or had Afghani passports? Why did most have Saudi passports? Do you really think we are going to just wipe them all out by flying B52's over Afghanistan?
Yeah, they commit suicide and think we are devils and evil because we love liberty and freedom, democracy and are Christians... Are you really dumb enough to believe that??? They think they are the Freedom fighters. They think they are blessed by God and are fighting the good fight. "... even if we stayed completely out of their affairs they would still despise us ..." Might be getting a little closer to the truth here... who supports and keep these puppet dictatorships in power? who installed the Saudis in power after WWII? Who built oil derricks and helped themselves to the oil. What Nations have gotten rich and which Nations still have millions starving and living in poverty after 60 years? Do you really think we are working for Democracy abroad??? I know there are a bunch of crazy ass fanatics over there who hate us more than they love life... but I don't kid myself it is because we are a peacefull freedom loving people.... Edited by ElPrimo (10/19/01 10:46 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
I Don't Understand Pacifists... (  1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Madtowntripper |
2,887 | 68 | 02/05/08 06:28 PM by gluke bastid |
|
|
What do you think of pacifism as a political and personal belief? |  RandalFlagg |
784 | 15 | 11/02/05 10:12 AM by looner2 |
|
 |
The Taliban has captured an American in Afghanistan ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Coaster |
2,266 | 41 | 07/21/09 01:04 PM by zappaisgod |
|
|
Obama administration warns America that US Combat Deaths in Afghanistan are likely to increase ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 lonestar2004 |
7,913 | 77 | 01/29/09 10:19 AM by TGRR |
|
|
The Betrayal of Afghanistan | Xochitl |
1,924 | 12 | 09/24/03 02:18 PM by JonnyOnTheSpot |
|
|
The betrayal of Afghanistan | Xlea321 |
693 | 3 | 11/03/03 01:21 PM by Azmodeus |
|
|
Obama: Anti-terror plans focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan |  Racist Polarbear |
1,092 | 12 | 03/28/09 11:25 AM by muscimol |
|
|
Interesting Read on Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there |  vintage_gonzo |
609 | 0 | 07/07/07 10:43 AM by vintage_gonzo |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 5,881 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||