Now I'm sure someone here is going to call them "freedom fighters" or some other nonsence... They will come up with a defense for the terrorists (or 'seperatists'/'militants' as this article calls them). All I ask is while you write your defense of the murderers, that you have these pictures in a window so you can see what they did.
Btw, as the article mentions, this comes on the heals of a suicide bomb in Moscow and 2 plane crashes. All caused by Chechen Terrorists.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Yep. Killing people is what terrorists do to draw attention.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Problem is that the Russians are hypocrites. They view Chechnya as an internal matter and condemn and Israeli actions against Palestinian terrorism. Russia also unites with France and Germany against America taking agressive action against Al-Queda.
Even with weak links all three nations face different groups.
Whether or not you agree with the War in Iraq that doesn't change that it was a war designed to combat terror even if you believe the logic is flawed, e.g the real terrorists are/were in Afgahnistan. As long as Russia condemns this and Israel is prevented from joining in, the Saudis wouldn't allow it and the Iraqi revolt would be immeasurable, there can't and won't be any true alliances between the three. This is very unfortunate as the three nations possess three of the most proficient intelligence agencies in the world, even with the KGB demolished.
Right now terrorists are uniting to bring down all three, all three are refusing to unite and bring down the terrorists.
Imagine if during World War II every nation combatted Germany individually, with no coordination and an excess of friendly fire and that's what you get here, although the friendly fire is of the diplomatic nature. One of the reasons the Axis failed in World War II is that Japan never attacked their ally's enemy, Russia. If the Russians had been attacked on two fronts the Germans may very well have seen Moscow from the inside and before winter.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Blowing up children. Not cool. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
That would be my attitude except that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has left me desensitized to snipers taking potshots at babies. So now all I do is sigh, and complain about it to anyone will or won't listen.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Now I'm sure someone here is going to call them "freedom fighters" or some other nonsence
Unlikely, methinks. Though I've been surprised on this board before. (Did you expect one of us Lib'rals to defend this action? )
quote:Russia also unites with France and Germany against America taking agressive action against Al-Queda.
Really? I was under the impression that they were more or less OK with that. It was our intervention in Iraq that got them all upset. Sorry to nitpick. Incidentally, nfl, I like your analogy with the diplomatic friendly fire -- very accurate, I think.
In any case, I'm curious to what extent this is a war against Islamic fundamentalism and to what extent it's a war against the tactics of terrorism.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mike, some on this board defended the 9/11 terrorists saying that it was all America's fault.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Each time I think you've gone off the deep end, Pixiest, you find new depths.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Mike, I was referring to Iraq. I understand that people are going to claim that Al-Queda wasn't really there and while I disagree I'm not going to argue the point because its irrelevant to the argument. If there are three nations with a common interest in fighting a common enemy and one nation determines that there is a threat and another nation attempts to block that former nation from attacking that threat there cannot be a true alliance. The equivalent to WWII would be if Russia actively tried to prevent the Allies from launching Operation Torch (North Africa). In reality Russia did not want that invasion, they wanted an invasion of mainland Europe to distract the Nazis, but even though it happened anyways Russia did not attempt to block it and maintained the alliance. Today, Russia has attempted to block that invasion and any semblance to an alliance immediately after 9/11 has disappeared for the most part. Its possible that the flurry of recent attacks will change Russia's mind, but it seems more likely that Russian and American troops will not be fighting together in the near future. Also keep in mind that Russia doesn't even want assistance in Chechnya as they view it as internal matter, take extremely harsh measures, and fear foreign influence. On the other hand, the fact that they believe Al-Queda was involved may make them reconsider seeing as how Al-Queda is an international organization. I think its more likely that they are trying to appeal to America to approve of its upcoming actions than to move their combat of terrorism to an international level.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
NFL: remember. you are saying our enemy is Radical Islam. It is not All Islam, or All Arabic countries.
While your argument is sound, only a united front was able to defeat Nazi Germany, your analogy is not.
You said that Russia's disagreement about Iraq is like having Russia actively try to stop us from invading North Africa.
I say its more like the US trying to stop Russia from invading Finland. That invasion did not do much to help the war effort, killed a lot of non-nazi's and was a drain on the Soviet Union's ability to fight the "real War."
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
No, because while you may disagree with the decision to go to war in Iraq, the motives were firmly based. Similarly, the African invasion could have gone disastrously wrong and it really served no purpose except as a "warmup" to the invasions of Italy and France. What if the French put up more resistance in Algeria? What if Rommel hadn't been pushed back at El-Alamein? We would have wasted thousands of men to do what? It freed up no allies and only gave Hitler an excuse to pull his generals and armies back to the continent where they could be of some use against the Allies. Fortunately, Hitler in one his many blunders didn't allow his army to fully retreat and we captured a large portion of it instead. Finland on the other was based only on Stalin's imperial ambitions. That was also before Hitler and Stalin were at war and long before America was involved.
I chose Torch because it was the main invasion that Russia really had a beef with, they wanted an invasion of France or some sort of flanking maneuver in the East immediately. They felt, correctly, that the African landing would do little to hinder Hitler's Eastern offensive.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Also, I don't remember saying that our enemy wasn't radical Islam.
A mistake people make however, is that they seem to assume that since terrorism is an "idea" there are no hard targets and that all we can do is "win the hearts and minds." In reality there are hard targets out there and they are being ignored. In probably most Arab nations there are terrorist training bases that operate with or without the consent of the government of that nation, or in Somalia they just operate because there is no government. Furthermore, Israel has shown how its possible to actually cause significant damage to terrorist groups, by cutting off their heads. Some argue that when you do that you just create a hundred new heads. I would tend to argue that that's a good thing. Multiple heads makes coordination difficult. These heads are also inherently inferior to the ones they replaced. We also can/could have used Iraq as a tool. By this I mean that we wave our big stick at the nations that harbor terrorists and use Iraq as a warning of what's to come. This already worked without our even trying to in Libya, and could quite possibly work again. At the least we could wave that stick 'till November without actually having to engage any nations in combat. Instead we've reverted back to our isolationist stance and another war would be so extremely unpopular that any other nation knows we wouldn't dare act on anything short of them openly declaring war on us. None of this is to say that we should ignore the "hearts and minds," just that we should think about attacking more than the idea.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Libya is a state. For all we know, they are still welcoming terrorists, they just don't have the state flag on their uniforms. Who do you want to bomb, Pix? Radical Islamists look like non-radical ones, and they breed like Gremlins and all we have are water pistols. Who do want to invade, 'cause, you know, there are a whole lot of Muslims out there and this group wasn't even with al Queada, they may have been an al qaeda 527, but this is was a home grown rebellion. Linking them to our problems in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and is like trying to link David Kuresh with the KKK and Timothy McVeigh. We could have gotten of them them if we'd nuked the Mid-west.
It's a nuclear age, the race is over and if we get into a war everywhere there are muslims who don't like the US, there will be a bomb. Pix and nfl, you are trying to fight a war with the wrong weapons and our political institutions are outdated, and you are looking for the answers in the barrel of a gun where decisions can't be made today with causes this diasporatic. How do you kill a cause? Sure, you go after the principals, but everyone else you have to send them to school, not to jail. And it's the everyone else that makes the war tactically tricky.
The war between the west and radical Islam is going to be won with either a nuke or by men and women poorer, simpler, tenderer and tougher, quieter and more self-sacrificing and slower of decision than you or nfl. If it's the nuke, we lose. I don't think this war can be won by hawks or the over patriotic anything, it'll take too much soul searching and diplomatic ingenuity.
[ September 04, 2004, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Yes, send Osama bin Laden and Ahmed Yassin to school, that'll teach 'em.
I don't like fighting wars, but I see their necessity and much prefer to fight them on my terms. We've already got a slow start against Islamic terrorism and I for one do not want them to be able rally their forces behind some invisible wall only to have the gate unleashed and death and destruction to come pouring out.
I don't want to kill every Muslim with an Osama bin Laden bumper sticker because it would be impractical and unnecessary. But as soon as that person picks up a gun and aims it me I'm going to shoot him first. By this I mean we strike visible, isolated targets, of which there are plenty, at will and selectively take out identified leaders. This will result in reverse terrorism as the members of terrorist groups will fear more for than own lives than for their cause. I don't want to duplicate the Israeli practice of bulldozing houses, more because it turns the otherwise innocent against us than it is wrong. I don't want to bring terror to the average Muslim, just to the average terrorist.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Mike, some on this board defended the 9/11 terrorists saying that it was all America's fault.
Saying that we are completely responsible for terrorist acts directed against us is, of course, ridiculous. However, America, France, Great Britain, and Russia are all at least partially responsible.
There is nothing wrong with Islamic doctrines per se. The problem is allowing religion, any religion, dictate government policy.
Before European governments were completely secularized, Christians were perfectly able to commit terrible atrocities (inquisitions, crusades, witch hunts, etc). Today, some of the fervent Christian fundamentalists still scare me a little, but fortunately, in a secular democracy, their extremism can be contained.
Too many Muslim countries give their religious figures political power. Part of this is our fault. What does Palestine, Iraq, and Chechnya have in common: They were products of imperial colonization. England, France, United States, and Russia had invaded, colonized, and meddled in these countries for so long that these countries had no stable secularized governments.
When secular political institutions are unstable, the religious leaders step up to fill the power vacuum. These religious leaders are demagogues, and nothing rile up followers like hatred and xenophobia.
I'm not condoning terrorist acts. But let us not forget that we also played a part in setting up environments where religious fundamentalism flourish.
Let us also not forget that Muslims are also victims of terrorism. When the Russians and the Israelis conduct their "countermeasures," a lot of innocent Muslims are killed; when the United Nations set up embargoes on Iraq oil, one million Iraqis, mostly children, died as a result.
quote:What's most striking about this article is the GRAPHIC!!! pictures of dead children
OK, I'll bite. check this out. (Note: graphic pictures provided by Al Jazeera).
quote:We have a common enemy and that enemy is radical Islam.
Maybe, just maybe, there is another reason behind these terrorist attacks.
quote:
Human rights violations continue to go unpunished in Chechnya, rights group Amnesty International says in a report.
The group says Russian security services in the republic are responsible for extrajudicial killings, "disappearances", torture and rape.
***
Despite orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin that raids by soldiers on civilian homes be reduced, the practice is still widespread, the report says.
Such raids often result in Chechens being taken away. Many do not return; they simply "disappear", the report says. Those that do make it home often speak of torture, rape and death threats.
***
Amnesty concludes that the international community - notably the United Nations Commission on Human Rights - has been decidedly muted about the crisis in Chechnya, especially after the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001. Source: BBC News
I'm not saying you are justified in killing children just because your enemies raped your daughter, tortured your son, and violated your political rights. However, I can understand where they are coming from.
edited: to add final paragraph
[ September 04, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Mike, some on this board defended the 9/11 terrorists saying that it was all America's fault."
Name one person who did, Pix. You frothing wacko.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Look at the post just above yours, Tom. He puts the blame for the existance of terrror on America/Western Civilization.
He even provided his own link to Al Jazeera with pictures of the "Anglo-American Agression." (This is Al Jazeera of "There are no tanks in Bagdad" fame.)
And this is a minor example. There was much more of it in the past, shortly after 9-11. Unfortunately this board doesn't go back more than a year so I can't hit people with their own words.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Er, Pixie, you do admit that the west has spent the last few hundred years mucking about the Muslim world, often with grusome and violent results, right?
It's not as if terrorists are just playing a game of pin the tail on the donkey, blindly attacking random countries and people.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You're right Foust, they attack everyone. Even eachother.
France, Spain, US, Syria, Lebanon, Russia, Israel, Germany, Somolia... on and on and on.
And we haven't mucked about there (except to throw vast sums of money at them) in generations. At some point they have to take responsibility themselves and stop blaming the 2nd world war.
(edit: We interviened at the request of Kuwait in the first gulf war. But terror was already going strong by that time. Ask Leon Klinghoffer.)
[ September 04, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm going to have to side with Pix on that one. And will continue to do so as long as the Radical Islamic groups keep intentionally targeting the defenseless, especially when they knowingly and actively target children.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Look at the post just above yours, Tom. He puts the blame for the existance of terrror on America/Western Civilization.
I said partially responsible. Partially.
quote:You're right Foust, they attack everyone. Even eachother.
Reread what Foust wrote: It's not as if terrorists are just playing a game of pin the tail on the donkey, blindly attacking random countries and people.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Sopwith, I'm not saying Radical Islamic groups should not be blamed. However, I just think when we condemn these groups we should remember that countries like France, United States, Russia, and Great Britain played a part in creating these groups as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the problem, Pix, is that you don't seem to understand that it's perfectly possible to share the blame for the birth of terrorism with somebody without being directly responsible for that terrorism.
Modern Islamic terrorists would almost certainly not have appeared without Western colonialism. That said, Western colonialists didn't blow up the World Trade Center, and neither did those killed by that explosion "deserve it" for belonging to a colonialist power.
No one has said anything of the kind, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone on this board seeking to excuse mass murder -- except, perhaps, when explaining why it would be necessary to subjugate the Arab world in order to save it.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Nope they are blending mayhem, grudge matches, vendettas and internal power struggles. Everyone is a potential target.
Whatever the purposes the individual groups are aiming for, the overall effect is that of a rabid pitbull in a shopping mall. Everyone and anyone could be at imminent danger. And those who are bitten have a good chance of catching their own form of the disease.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: What does Palestine, Iraq, and Chechnya have in common: They were products of imperial colonization. England, France, United States, and Russia had invaded, colonized, and meddled in these countries for so long that these countries had no stable secularized governments.
This quote makes me wonder if you have any clue what you are talking about. First, America's problem with terrorism isn't because me meddled with the Muslim world but that we support Israel and have aided other Muslims. Remember, bin Laden formed his group because we "occupied" Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War. Unless you somehow think we incurred his wrath when we aided him against the Soviets. Palestine was a victim of colonial imperialism, but not by Israel and they were by their Arab neighbors, particularly Jordan. Chechnya was not a product of imperial colonization at all. They are a part of Russia, a part that like many former Soviet states has a predominantly Muslim population. Finally, only Iraq is actually a country. Palestine is an area arbitrarily drawn in the sand, and Chenchnya is a province.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote: Chechnya was not a product of imperial colonization at all. They are a part of Russia, a part that like many former Soviet states has a predominantly Muslim population.
By that logic, if Iraq had successfully invaded Kuwait, then Kuwait would be considered "part of" Iraq.
quote: 1858 - After decades of violent resistance, Chechnya is conquered by Russia following the defeat of Imam Shamil and his fighters, who had aimed to establish an Islamic state.
1944 - Soviet dictator Stalin deports the entire Chechen and Ingush populations to Siberia and Central Asia, citing alleged collaboration with Nazi Germany. Many thousands die in the process.
1991 - Collapse of the Soviet Union. Communist leader Doku Zavgayev overthrown; Dzhokhar Dudayev wins a presidential poll and proclaims Chechnya independent of Russia.
1992 - Chechnya adopts a constitution defining it as an independent, secular state governed by a president and parliament.
1994 December - Russian troops enter Chechnya to quash the independence movement. Up to 100,000 people - many of them civilians - are estimated to have been killed in the 20-month war that followed.
quote:Palestine was a victim of colonial imperialism, but not by Israel and they were by their Arab neighbors, particularly Jordan
I did not mention Israel, you did. I believe the British have a special responsibility for Israel.
quote: The Israeli/Palestine conflict was the creation of the West and specifically was the creatiion of Britain.
Just as Britain must bear responsibility for the conflict between India and Pakistan because of the rapid withdrawl from India and the mess of Partition in 1947, so, by leaving the Israeli/Palestine conflict unresolved, having first created it by the rapid withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, Britain has a direct responsibility.
When Britain took over the mandate for Palestine at the end of the Second World War, Palestine was 93 percent Palestinian, 7 percent Jewish. Britain promised the United Nations to act as a guardian, as a a ward for Palestine, for the Palestinians, and ended up with 75 percent of the Palestinians expelled at the end of the British mandate. Now that leaves us with the most phenomenal moral obligation to finding a just solution to the Palestinian problem.
Palestine and Iraq were both under British control. After the first World War, the Middle East was carved up between France and Great Britain, with the blessings of the United States:
quote: Under strong pressure from the United States, a sort of compromise was evolved whereby Britain and France were given mandates for the administration of these provinces, under international supervision, by the League of Nations. The Arabs claimed this was a veiled colonialism, because there was only an indefinite promise of independence.
Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Iraq's inhabitants at what they saw as a charade, and in 1920 a strong revolt spread through the country - a revolt that was put down only with great difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny.
Indiscriminate air power was used to quell the revolt of the region's tribesmen, methods the British admitted did not win them friends and, as one of them said, implanted undying hatred of the British among the people of the area, and a desire for revenge.
quote: First, America's problem with terrorism isn't because me meddled with the Muslim world but that we support Israel and have aided other Muslims.
Yes, our support of Israel is part of the problem. But so is our "aid" of certain dictators in exchange for regional stability, which is a code word for stable oil prices.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:First, America's problem with terrorism isn't because me meddled with the Muslim world but that we support Israel and have aided other Muslims.
We did do our share of meddling with the Shah, Sagat, the Saudis, and Saddam. We were more like the charasmatic drug pusher, making the dope available and smiling, than the guy who ties you down and injects you with heroine.
At any rate, it's partly a result than our international economy surpassing our political sensibilities. Political meaning that which deals with the relations of the people in a polis. The market driven by goods grew faster than our knowledge and care of people. And this is the adjustment period, kind of like an earthquake.
[ September 04, 2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Saying that the west isn't doing a very good job of helping the situation is not the same as saying its all the west's fault, contrary to what misguided idiots such as yourself think, pixiest.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Personal assaults aside...
Do you REALLY think the mid east situation would be any better if the west hadn't interfered with the balkinization of the ottaman empire into warring tribal states?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:They view Chechnya as an internal matter and condemn and Israeli actions against Palestinian terrorism
Chechnya has been part of Russia for a long time whereas Palestine only existed for two years while the UK and the UN divided up the land....
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Do you REALLY think the mid east situation would be any better if the west hadn't interfered with the balkinization of the ottaman empire into warring tribal states?
Well, let's take British interference in Palestine for example.
During World War I, the British promised the local Arabs independence for a united Arab country in exchange for Arab support for the British.
Later on, the British made a confilcting promise to the Zionists for the creation of a separate Jewish state in Palestine, in exchange for Jewish support of the war. See Wikipedia.
The British were willing to make conflicting promises because
quote:... the British never intended to give back the Ottoman Arab provinces to the Arabs. With the rise of Arab nationalism after World War II, Britain began to see geopolitical utility in using the creation of a Westernized Jewish state as an effective proxy to combat rising Arab nationalism.
quote:should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in 20 to 30 years a million Jews out there - perhaps more; they would ... form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal." Source: United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine
Promising one piece of land to two groups of people, especially when that land was not yours to give away in the first place, has a tendency to piss people off.
More from the UN site:
quote: While the [first world] war was at its height and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire became clearly imminent, the Entente Powers already were negotiating over rival territorial ambitions....
Great Britain's aims in the war linked with these Arab national aspirations and led to assurances of sovereign independence for the Arab peoples after the defeat of the Axis Powers. [Beren's note: And we wonder why the Iraqis are so suspicious of our liberation force.]
In principle, the [British] Mandate was meant to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the League's Covenant, but in fact the Mandate's historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation.
The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine....
...almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war.
P.S. I have nothing against the Isralie people. The Jewish people were being persecuted all over the world. Naturally they would want their own indepenent state.
But for Great Britain to haphazardly make conflicting promises to serve their self interest is just plain wrong.
edit: Missing quote closer.
[ September 04, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To put it simply, Pixiest: Uh, yeah.
The west completely screwed with power dynamics, including breaking major tribes by national boundaries, putting minority tribes in power over previously powerful majority tribes, all sorts of things that seem guaranteed to screw a region over. I think its safe to say the middle east would be at least a little bit safer, and quite possibly a lot, had the west not gone blithely about its business of exploitation (and exploitation it was in almost all cases).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Be honest here. Do you truely think that it would have made a difference if Britain hadn't stuck their nose in?
These tribes were squabbling over what was left of the Ottomans and would have gone to war and would still be fighting today. They are different branches of Islam and would be trying to make each other convert or die just as they are doing today (when not occupied killing Jews, Russians and Americans.)
Third world hell holes don't tend to be places of peace. And British meddling or no, the middle east is a third world hell hole full of dictators and dictator-wannabes who will fight and kill eachother till they have the power or they are dead.
You can say "Nuh-uh! They would have linked hands and sung Kumbaya!" if you like. Since we don't have an Alternate History Viewing Machine we'll never know what would have happened. But try to use a little common sense.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
World of peace? Of course not, but there are degrees of chaos, and the suggestion that disturbing the region orders of magnitude less wouldn't make a noticeable difference in the chaos there is laughable. Take a look at the balkans, which you just compared the region to. The balkans, which while ripped apart were ripped apart to a lesser degree, are in orders of magnitude better shape than the middle east, particularly in acts of hatred against the west.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
So far I've been accused of being ignorant ("This quote makes me wonder if you have any clue what you are talking about") and naive ("You can say "Nuh-uh! They would have linked hands and sung Kumbaya!" if you like").
Maybe I should stop posting in this thread I guess, since I obviously know nothing about the subject and probably should stick to my favorite DS9 and Gilmore Girl fluff threads.
Just a few things before I leave:
quote:These tribes were squabbling over what was left of the Ottomans and would have gone to war and would still be fighting today.
quote:Since we don't have an Alternate History Viewing Machine we'll never know what would have happened.
These two comments contradict each other. The first quote claims you know what "would have" happened, while the second asserts that we'll never know what would have happened.
But that's a silly quibble. My main concern is your contention that just because we don't know how things would have turned out, Great Britain does not deserve any blame for the mess in Palestine.
This is the way I see it. Let's say I broke into your house at night to rob you. During the burglary, I noticed your house was cluttered with furniture, and I had to move your furniture around so I can get better access to your big screen TV.
While I was outside loading my van, you returned home, blissfully unaware of the burglary in progress.
You walked in without turning on the light. Heck, this was your own house, and you think you can walk through your own home blindfolded. Unlucky for you, you tripped over the ottomon I placed next to the front door and twisted your ankle.
According to your logic, I'm not responsible for your injury. Your house was a mess anyway, and you were bound to trip over your own furniture one of these days.
Edited: spelling, snarkiness, and rephrasing of last paragraph for clarity.
[ September 05, 2004, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think Beren has done an excellent job of expositing why your position is silly and untenable, pixiest.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It doesn't matter whether or not the Mddle East would have been better off had the West not interefered. The fact is that many of the specific problems there can be traced directly, if only partially, back to that interference.
Other problems that might have occurred might have been worse. These problems would not be as severe.
Dagonee
[ September 05, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'd like to just say one thing.
quote: These two comments contradict each other.
You took both quotes out of context. In the former Pix was appealing to common sense, and in the latter Pix was just accepting that common sense isn't fact but that we should still be reasonable.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It doesn't matter whether or not the Mddle East would have been better off had the West not interefered. The fact is that many of the specific problems there can be traced directly, if only partially, back to that interference.
Other problems that might have occurred might have been worse. These problems would not be as severe.
That's a concise post, with even a fine and accurate distinction in the last sentence.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
NFL, you're right and I apologize to Pix. I was getting frustrated with her and my misquotes are no better than the Democrats' "Bush declares war on terror unwinnable!" or the Republicans' "Kerry wants to fight a more sensitive war!?"
Trying to quibble over those comments when I should've known what she meant was not constructive.
Pix's position is not contradictory. Pix asserted that none of us know what would've happened without British intervention. But according to Pix, common sense tells us the remnants of the Ottoman empire would've killed each other, and in their spare time, start killing Jews, Russiand, and Americans.
My argument with Pix is that
(a) You cannot escape responsibility for your actions just because you think things would've turned out the same anyway;
(b) Based on the materials I've read (and linked to), my common sense tells me that it would be pretty unlikely that things would've turned out worse in Palestine without British intervention; and
(c) If there were singing to be done, it would've been Puff the Magic Dragon, and not Kumbaya.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The BBC had a great program on last night that summed up the problems in the Arab world very nicely. The basic gist of the story is that most of the Arab world has been isolated from the rest of the planet for 1000 years, only in the past century landing on Earth. They have wasted the incredible wealth of the oil on corruption. They could have become a huge world power with all the trillions of dollars from oil...instead it was wasted. 1000 years ago the Arab world produced more books than the rest of the World. Now only one book is published. In fact, the Arab world is twice as poor as it was in the 70’s. All 22 Arab nations are in danger of becoming failed states. And it all stems from the horrible governments they have.
I’ll try and find a link to that program.
Well it was the "People and Politics: The Arab Crisis". I still can't find a link to a transcript or audio file.. but this should help in the search.
[ September 05, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Bush pats Vladmir Putin on the back for a job well done.
People don't do this for no reason. They don't kill children for no reason. Sure you can blame them for this. Blame the evil people, I'm sure they had some other way to get their point across, their suffering across.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I don't remember Martin Luther King or Ghandi taking a school hostage and slaughtering its occupants.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I guess not everyone can see things as clearly as they could.
It's so easy to sit here and tell them there are other ways.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't remember Martin Luther King or Ghandi taking a school hostage and slaughtering its occupants.
And I'm sure those two would have been all about awe and shock in Iraq in the war on terror.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Irami, you're using a false analogy.
So jebus, I guess killing kid then is ok so long is the goal is justified? Or maybe you would think differently if those were your kids.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
You don't get it, logic. I am not condoning what they did. It was terrible, it was disgusting. But WHY? WHY did they do it? WHY did they decide their life was so unbearable that they had to target the most innocent part of society just so that someone would listen to them?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
My guess is, they felt the attack was justified because of Russia's thorough destruction of their country in their last war for independence. I'm sure some of the attackers lost friends and family in that war. Of course, that still just leaves them on a level with other terrorists.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
::slaps terrorist label on the bad people::
::sleeps soundly at night::
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:So jebus, I guess killing kid then is ok so long is the goal is justified? Or maybe you would think differently if those were your kids.
What about the Iraqi children?
quote: An estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions—almost three times as many as the number of Japanese killed during the U.S. atomic bomb attacks.
quote: Nearly everything for Iraq's entire infrastructure—electricity, roads, telephones, water treatment—as well as much of the equipment and supplies related to food and medicine has been subject to Security Council review. In practice, this has meant that the United States and Britain subjected hundreds of contracts to elaborate scrutiny, without the involvement of any other country on the council; and after that scrutiny, the United States, only occasionally seconded by Britain, consistently blocked or delayed hundreds of humanitarian contracts.
Source: Harpers see link above.
This is not intended as a criticism of the Bush administration. The sanctions ran under the Clinton administration as well.
I think both parties favor sanctions because sanctions makes it sound like we're punishing Iraq without actually risking any American lives.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I was wondering if someone could present me with one situation, where the continued violation of human rights and the forceful use of military had stopped aggression in a hostile area of a country, permanently.
Why aren't we blaming Russia? It's all cause and effect. Everything in history is cause and effect.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Actually, that wasn't the point. What would you call them? I'll argue pretty fervently their actions constituted terrorism. Perhaps you have an insight to your question of "why?"
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
They ARE terrorists. But you can't just use that as an excuse to stop treating them like people.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
So based on American leadership in fighting the war on terrorism, the response to the Chechen terror attack should be a perfunctory attack on Chechen sources and then...invade China. Because, you know, they don't always like Putin, either.
fil
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
There are two ways to look at terrorists. The first way is to label them as bloodthirsty lunatics who are attacking our way of life because they are jealous of our freedom.
The second way is to recognize them as products of geopolitical injustice.
Neither approach exonerate the terrorist's responsibility for their acts. But the second approach is more useful, as it recognizes root causes of terrorism so that we can better prevent it from happening in the future.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or the second method is more useless, as we blame the victims and try to figure out what we/they could have done differently to keep the terrorists from attacking us/them. Only to eventually realize that one cannot reason or deal with terrorists.
The roots cause of terrorism is a belief that their cause(s) is more important that the life of every innocent on the planet. Including their own children.
This is not a stance that can be reasoned with. And as far as I can see, every attempt to do so (both in recent history and farther back) has made things worse.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Not a single child died because of American economic sanctions. Those numbers include very single child that died from anything from hunger to disease. Would those children have died anyways if it weren't for American sanctions? Yes.
1. Saddam had plenty of money, he just spent it on Soviet tanks rather than on food. 2. Saddam had more money still, he just spent it on palaces so lavish it would make English royalty blush. 3. We never stopped exporting food and medicine to Iraq and Oil for Food program would have worked well had participants on both sides ignored the food part, the US not included in those sides. We're talking about countries like France, Germany, and Russia. 4. American children still die from malnutrition and lack of medical care, but I don't see anyone blaming economic sanctions.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: Would those children have died anyways if it weren't for American sanctions? Yes
"Maybe" would be a better answer. We won't know for sure.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Yeah, you Democrats don't kill enough babies through abortions that we decided we had lend a hand . Oh, that's not what you wanted this argument to degenerate into? Well then maybe you shouldn't have gotten us started.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: But you can't just use that as an excuse to stop treating them like people.
Well, I haven't done it yet, so hold your horses. Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
nfl, I'm having a hard time understanding your last comment. Could you give me a little direction on it?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Tstorm, we do know because the sanctions were completely seperate from Iraqi children dying. Otherwise I can claim that if I hadn't had three meals election Tuesday in 2000 Al Gore would have won.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It was a response to something that was deleted.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It first said something like, "Republicans are good at killing children." Then it was edited to be a little less disgusting, then it was deleted.
[ September 05, 2004, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
Question for you though, on the sanctions. Our sanctions were quite thorough. Is it unreasonable to claim that none of the children died because of our sanctions? Or is it possible that some of the deaths would have been preventable without our sanctions?
I don't believe the huge numbers thrown out by the press and humanitarian organizations, of course. However, I have a hard time believing that our sanctions can't be traced to some deaths.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Any extra money would have went to Saddam's pocketbook, not the poor starving children. Saddam could have fed everyone if he wanted to. He didn't want to because it was a great propoganda tool drummed up further by local liberals and it would have meant fewer palaces.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:"Republicans are good at killing children." Then it was edited to be a little less disgusting, then it was deleted.
Are you talking about me? Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If that was your post. I don't remember for sure whose it was and I'm not going to accuse when I could be wrong.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Thanks.
That was definitely not my post.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And you weren't the person I had in mind. Now if the guilty party would like to come forward so I can delete my response...
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Only to eventually realize that one cannot reason or deal with terrorists.
Rivka, I am not saying we should reason or negotiate with terrorists. I repeat: recognizing that terrorists had a reason for their actions, regardless of the merit of that reason, does not exonerate them from their acts.
quote:Or the second method is more useless, as we blame the victims and try to figure out what we/they could have done differently to keep the terrorists from attacking us/them.
You don't think figuring out what the Russians could have done differently would have prevented the terrorist attacks?
Russia invaded Chechnya, deported 100,000 civilians from the country, and for the past decade, conducted a campaign of "extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture and rape" against Chechen civilians. (Source: Source: BBC News citing Amnesty Report
If Russia recognized Chechen independence and stopped its human rights abuses, wouldn't there be less terrorism?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:NFL: Not a single child died because of American economic sanctions. Those numbers include very single child that died from anything from hunger to disease. Would those children have died anyways if it weren't for American sanctions? Yes.
Oh really?
quote: According to Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, the death rate of children under five is more than 4,000 a month - that is 4,000 more than would have died before sanctions. That is half a million children dead in eight years....
"Even if not all the suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors," says Unicef, "the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivation in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."
"The change in 10 years is unparalleled, in my experience," Anupama Rao Singh, Unicef's senior representative in Iraq, told me. "....In 10 years, child mortality has gone from one of the lowest in the world, to the highest." (emphasis added)
[ September 05, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:Or the second method is more useless, as we blame the victims and try to figure out what we/they could have done differently to keep the terrorists from attacking us/them
That doesn't work. Didn't it help people in our past to know that mosquitos are attracted to our blood? Or that they breed in standing water? And so on? Or it is easier to just say "Swat them until they are gone" and hope they don't come back? And we can't control terrorist behavior...only our own. We have to make the conditions work in such a way that they can't attack, have no opportunity to attack or have no reason to attack.
fil
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There will ALWAYS be reasons to attack. Does that mean that we shouldn't examine our actions, or encourage our allies to examine theirs? No, certainly not.
But certainly the primary response to murderous attacks should not be wringing of hands and trying to figure out what we did to deserve it. Because the terrorists are watching, and that sort of actions on our part is a victory -- not to mention being seen as a sign of weakness.
And fil, care to elaborate on the no-standing-water analogy? Are you seriously suggesting that we stop terrorist groups from reproducing?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
yeah, rivka, I am saying lets neuter the terrorists...they will never see it coming!
For you "handwringing" is doing anything but lashing out blindly at an enemy. The US clearly didn't think through their anti-terrorist plan prior to 9/11/01 and the lack of "handwringing" (as you put it) has shown us attacking but not finishing one attack in Afganistan and then attacking a completely unrelated target...even though none of the terrorists had any ties to that country. If we know where mosquitos come from and stop them at the source, we are doing better than all the OFF or flyswatters or mosquito nets in the world. If we know the causes of terrorism and attack them at that source (by attack I don't always mean "shoot") we go a long way to really ending it or preventing it.
But if you want a president who simply lashes out without thinking beyond pulling the trigger, then Bush is clearly your president of choice.
fil
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It was Saddam's choice not to feed his people. His choices were to build palaces or feed children, he decided to build palaces because after all starving children is a good propoganda tool. Also again, we never put an embargo on food and medical supplies to Iraq. So how did the economic sanctions cause Iraqi children to die?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah, I'm being informed of what I think. That is always my cue to get out of a conversation -- especially when it's incorrect.
Have fun, kids.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
You are correct, rivka. I should have put it like you did. Are you "suggesting" that lashing out is best vs. taking the time to figure out who the players were? Because that is what this administration certainly has done. In fact, it took a commission that he opposed to get to the bottom of what really happened in 2001 and only now are we looking at how to better prevent it. Or, as you "suggested" hand wringing.
Are you suggesting that a show of strength is needed to prevent terrorism? You mean, like in Israel? Where Palestine and Israel exchange death after death? It certainly worked there, didn't it. So I am suggesting, not telling, that if one (not necessarily you) wants a president who reacts with a show of force vs. thorough investigation, then Bush is definitely the one to vote for.
Was that better?
fil
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
NFL, what if I went into my neighbor's house with a gun and hold that family hostage. The police decided that they will smoke me out by cutting off my water and food supply.
The police believes their strategy will weaken me and encourage my neighbors to "rise up" against me or face starvation.
Fine by me, 'cause I gots the gun and there's plenty of food and bottled water in the fridge--for me. Sixty days later, my neighbors are all dead and I'm still alive and kicking.
I'm the primary cause of my neighbor's death. But surely the police played a role with their idiotic assumption that my neighbors will somehow try to take me out due to the lack of food and water.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
NFL, here are some examples of how our sanctions contributed to the deaths of Iraqi children:
quote: Since the programme began, Iraq has earned approximately $57 billion in oil revenues, of which it has spent about $23 billion on goods that actually arrived. This comes to about $170 per year per person, which is less than one half the annual per capita income of Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Iraqi diplomats noted last year that this is well below what the U.N. spends on food for dogs used in Iraqi de-mining operations (about $400 per dog per year on imported food, according to the U.N.).
***
In the late 1980s the mortality rate for Iraqi children under five years old was about fifty per thousand. By 1994 it had nearly doubled, to just under ninety. By 1999 it had increased again, this time to nearly 130; that is, 13 percent of all Iraqi children were dead before their fifth birthday. For the most part, they die as a direct or indirect result of contaminated water.
The United States anticipated the collapse of the Iraqi water system early on. In January 1991, shortly before the Persian Gulf War began and six months into the sanctions, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency projected that, under the embargo, Iraq's ability to provide clean drinking water would collapse within six months. Chemicals for water treatment, the agency noted, “are depleted or nearing depletion,” chlorine supplies were “critically low,” the main chlorine-production plants had been shut down, and industries such as pharmaceuticals and food processing were already becoming incapacitated. “Unless the water is purified with chlorine,” the agency concluded, “epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.”
All of this indeed came to pass. And got worse. Yet U.S. policy on water-supply contracts remained as aggressive as ever. For every such contract unblocked in August 2001, for example, three new ones were put on hold. A 2001 UNICEF report to the Security Council found that access to potable water for the Iraqi population had not improved much under the Oil for Food Programme, and specifically cited the half a billion dollars of water- and sanitation-supply contracts then blocked—one third of all submitted. UNICEF reported that up to 40 percent of the purified water run through pipes is contaminated or lost through leakage. Yet the United States blocked or delayed contracts for water pipes, and for the bulldozers and earth-moving equipment necessary to install them. And despite approving the dangerous dual-use chlorine, the United States blocked the safety equipment necessary to handle the substance—not only for Iraqis but for U.N. employees charged with chlorine monitoring there.
Rivka, I think we are getting closer to an understanding.
The immediate response to terrorism is certainly to actively seek out and capture the terrorists. That much, I think, we can agree on.
We also both agree that it would be prudent for us to encourage Russia to examine their actions.
For example, the Russian government has been controlling the Russian media's reporting of the Chechen conflict. It is very likely that if the Russian people knew the whole truth about the war, their support for the war will drop dramatically.
Opening up honest channels of information is not about capitulating to terrorist demands, it is simply good democratic practice--something we are supposedly in favor of.
Now I inform you to think that we are agreeing.
edited to add: Did I just triple post in a thread I said I was leaving? Yes I did.
[ September 06, 2004, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: For the most part, they die as a direct or indirect result of contaminated water.
It would have been very easy for Saddam to spend the money to fix this. He did not. It is unfair to blame the US for what Saddam did with his money.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
But after a couple of years, we had a pretty good idea that Saddam wasn't going to do so.
Comprehensive embargoes make sense against democracies. But against a madman with nothing to lose?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So great, you think it was a waste of time, but that still doesn't it make it America's fault. Stop shifting the blame from the madman to the country trying to combat aggression.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
What were those children going to do, take up arms and rise up against the Repubilcan army?
I'm not shifting blame from Saddam to the Americans. I'm saying there's plenty of blame to go around.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Dead children make for great propoganda especially when liberals are ready to take up Saddam's cause.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
After further research, I found that UNICEF is actually an Iraqi propaganda machine AND most of their members are registered Democrats.
Thanks for setting me straight. I learned so much on this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So great, you think it was a waste of time, but that still doesn't it make it America's fault."
Well, yes, it DOES. Sanctions WERE our fault.
See, what some conservatives don't seem to understand is that while a villain is indeed responsible for a hero's response, the hero is ALSO responsible for his response.
If someone robs a bank, and I blow up an entire city block and kill thirty people to stop him, it's not JUST his fault for robbing the bank; the thirty deaths are ALSO on my head for having responded in that specific way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:See, what some conservatives don't seem to understand is that while a villain is indeed responsible for a hero's response, the hero is ALSO responsible for his response.
What makes this a specifically conservative lack of understanding?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mainly because it's conservatives who use the argument, "Well, sure, the invasion of Iraq is killing innocent people, but we got rid of Saddam -- so that's better than doing nothing at all, you dirty hippie with your doing-nothing ways."
There's a certain black and white philosophy there that I don't see among liberals on issues of this sort. I would in fact argue that a defining difference between liberals and conservatives on the issue of foreign policy and internal justice is the ability to see shades of grey, particularly regarding implementation.
[ September 06, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Seems to me the flip side is used often in more liberal circles. Person A has had a hard life, been abused, and just been fired. This somehow justifies how Person A reacts.
Same argument, different tact. It's a near universal human tendency.
Dagonee Edit: I missed this part of your post:
quote:There's a certain black and white philosophy there that I don't see among liberals on issues of this sort. I would in fact argue that a defining difference between liberals and conservatives on the issue of foreign policy and internal justice is the ability to see shades of grey, particularly regarding implementation.
And I think that's a pretty ridiculous assertion to make. It's all a matter of which shades of gray your talking about. In fact, it's possible to argue that people adamanantly against the war were failing to see shades of gray when they pointed to loss of life as the reason not to go forward.
[ September 06, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Read this article before dicussing sanctions and how everything is our fault.
Some quotes:
quote: Multiple investigations under way in Washington and Iraq and at the United Nations all center on one straightforward question: How did Saddam Hussein siphon off billions of dollars from the U.N. oil-for-food program while Iraq was under sanctions? An examination of the program, the largest in U.N. history, suggests an equally straightforward answer: The United Nations let him do it.
quote: Congress' Government Accountability Office, or GAO, has estimated that the Iraqi leader siphoned at least $10 billion from the program by illicitly trading in oil and collecting kickbacks from companies that had U.N. approval to do business with Iraq.
There was a program in place to feed the people. Saddam and the UN made sure it went to building palaces and arms instead.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*points to Pix, then turns to Dag* See what I mean?
"Seems to me the flip side is used often in more liberal circles."
The flip side IS used more often in liberal circles, which is why liberals are often accused of sympathizing with the bad guys. This doesn't mean, of course, that liberals sympathize with the bad guys; they empathize with them, in many cases, but that's enough.
By the same token, I'd imagine that not ALL -- or even most -- conservatives believe that taking out Saddam Hussein justifies anything we might do. But this generalization is at LEAST as accurate as the whole "liberals rationalize evil" bit, IMO. Both fringes are pretty darn ugly, which is why I think it's a shame that slandering the fringe is far, far more effective a political technique than looking for common ground in the middle.
[ September 06, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then why do you do that ("slander the fringe") so often?
[ September 06, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because, as I pointed out, it's more effective. Years of responding to, say, Pix and Baldar with "now, that's a distortion and you know it" have proved useless and easily ignored. I think the Bush campaign team has demonstrated that the best way to "win" an argument like this is to go on the attack, to point out weakness and hypocrisy rather than seeking common ground.
Unfortunately, at this stage, winning the argument is more important than suffering through four more years of pseudo-conservative foolishness. I HATE that we've come to this, but I think we've been shown that maintaining the high ground in the modern political climate pretty much guarantees a loss.
But, anyway, back to the topic....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So tempted...so tempted...
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
Tom, you can't get a little bit pregnant. You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because it'll win. As soon as the debate becomes about economy, the good guys loose, throwing the world into an affluent slum of degradation and mistrust. I don't have to tell you this.
Pix,
Yes, Hussein was stealing all of the Oil for food money, was that even a secret? But if this war was about national defense, Hussein was in a box, inert. If this was about terrorism, then we could have stayed Afghanistan, kept the deficit low and spent the money for the war in Iraq to teach American kids how to be speak the many dialects in the Middle East to fight the real ideological war, and not with guns.
[ September 06, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because it'll win."
Suggestions?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Tom, you can't get a little bit pregnant. You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because it'll win.
Pregnancy is black and white. Foreign relations are not. They don't even compare.
Humans are a patch-work quilt of emotions and motives. There is no black and white.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Tom, what about a cage match? Are you handy with a flail?
Pix, I guess you're right. We weren't part of the UN security council and we had no idea that Saddam, a model of honesty and integrity, would ever abuse the oil for food system.
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
PSI,
I wasn't talking about foreign policy, I was talking about Tom's excuse about fighting dirty.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: kept the deficit low and spent the money for the war in Iraq to teach American kids how to be speak the many dialects in the Middle East to fight the real ideological war, and not with guns.
And without hard power, you aren't getting those ideas into an area that is hostile.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ah, I see, Snow.
Then replace "foreign policy" with Tom and we'll be on the same page.
Of course, the page will be filled with grammatical errors and such phrases as, "Tom are not."
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
are too.
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
quote:Humans are a patch-work quilt of emotions and motives. There is no black and white.
Yes and no, but somethings like prostitution, pornography, and courage are clear as day, they just don't give themselves over to easy definitions, but you know it when you see it and pretending that they don't exist doesn't help anybody.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Rivka:
quote: Or the second method is more useless, as we blame the victims and try to figure out what we/they could have done differently to keep the terrorists from attacking us/them. Only to eventually realize that one cannot reason or deal with terrorists.
Are you actually saying that looking at terrorists as
quote: bloodthirsty lunatics who are attacking our way of life because they are jealous of our freedom.
is more useful then as
quote: the products of geopolitical injustice.
?
Seriously?
Does that mean you don't think there is any chance of stopping terrorism peacefully?
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
Jebus, if you look at the ballooning American prison population, I don't know if you can defeat terrorism by more jails, either. _______________________ Rivka,
Take an American terrorist organization, the KKK. There is an extent to which the North did their part in creating the KKK by demoralizing the already poor southern whites after the war. There didn't have to be a KKK, and it doesn't mean the Klan members where any less culpable for their actions, but they sure weren't born that way and there was something we could have done about it.
[ September 06, 2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Gee, Snowden, if only we were gracious and let them keep their slaves. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And they were definitely born that way. Ever hear of Nathanial Bedford Forrest's exploits during the Civil War?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Logic, no I haven't, please enlighten me.
You're right Snowden, killing them is easier.
[ September 06, 2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: The Confederates charged the Union position and drove the federal soldiers over the bluff and down the riverbank, where many tried to surrender. What happened next has been debated over the years. From the high casualty rate of the Union troops it seems a massacre occured. The Union troops suffered 231 killed, 100 wounded, and 226 captured. The black units suffered 64 percent killed; the white units only 33 percent. The attacking Confederates suffered only 14 killed and 86 wounded.
Gen. Forrest was a slave trader prior to the war and was a founding member of the Ku Klux Klan after. He led the attack on Ft. Pillow that ended in the massacre of Black soldiers trying to surrender. Unfortunately, his name is still revered by many in the South.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Maybe I'm missing something.
How does that prove your statement: "They were definitely born that way"?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Unless you mean that since a slave trader who massacred blacks helped start the KKK. Obviously his hatred for blacks wasn't due to northern influence and thus none of the people who supported him and joined the KKK were a product of it either.
[ September 06, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Forrest represented what the KKK was. A group resentful of the fact that they were beaten by the North and that the Blacks were no longer slaves. The only way to have prevented the creation of the KKK was to either have not beat the South or let the South keep slaves. Its not the way we beat the South, its the fact that we did.
As far as being "born" that way. I imagine that they would be less likely to become members of thr KKK if they were born in the North, but its not like we did something and it flipped a switch and they were suddenly racists.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)