Neo-Cold War Paranoia

[ductonius]

1. the indian region was secured by the UK in a similar situation to what iraq is in now. except the british did it a little different. there were still terrorists but they worked together and the country is prosperous and is joining the modern world. i expect there are a few people who are still opposed to the western influence on their country, but i wouldn't label them as 'terrorists'. they want their country back how it was, what's wrong with that? they don't want imperialist people shoving them out of the way. anyway, that point is a little short sighted, especially your use of 'terrorist'.

Im not sure what your point is.

2. another very short sighted comment. can you think five minutes in front of your face?

Can you argue without using ad hominem?

for all your quoting and analysing and argumentative posture, you lack a bit of common sense. "Does that encite people to terrorism? Certainly not." that happens to be a very naive thing to say. when the british were trying to keep hold of the US, they sent armies over and pillaged and killed and whatever else. they wanted to keep you part of the British Empire, so in other words they were being Imperialist. the denizens of the americas were naturally angry and wanted to murder every brit they saw. in other words, they were terrorists (to borrow the term you use frequently).

#1. Im Canadian.

#2. The Americans resorted to a gruilla war, not a terrorist campain in London.

#3. Even if they were terrorists, that dosent excuse the acts of terrorism commited against the US today, nor does it mean the US cannot respond to those acts with every resource neccisary.

similar to the british/america situation all that time ago: present day, the US want to expand their 'empire' of the wonderful, beautiful, perfect, heavenly, nirvana-esque Democracy. so the US go over and bang a few heads and say here, have Democracy. now if i've been living happily and someone comes along and suggests, no, orders me to change then naturally i'm going to be a little peeved. so, when you're shoving your lovely democracy in someone's face, expect them to want to kick your face in.

You do realize that if it werent for the upsurge in terrorism agains the US and other western targets, the US wouldnt have invaded Afghanistan et al?

So your timeline is a bit backwards there. Its more like "Oh, those depots helped the terrorists *boom* now they're dead, oh, BTW, heres some democracy."

"Does that encite people to terrorism? Certainly not." i'm sorry but yes it does.

The French loath the Americans to the bottom of thier heart, but how many Frenchmen do you see running around blowing up American civilians? None.

Antipathy does not create terrorism.

i'm pretty well versed when it comes to history, and from all the texts i've read i can't see a single instance of 'terrorism' involving muslim nations.

Except for the Taliban helping out our old buddies Al-Q, or Syrial/Jordan helpign out Hamas et al, oh, but wait, they arnt REAL Muslims, are they?

the only event that involves the middle east was the crusades and that's going a while back. so i think you should rethink your ideas on that point. terrorism didn't just spring up around your ears. you created it. think about that.

Ive read quite a bit about how many of the terrorist organizations justify thier actions, and you know, most of them work the crusades in there somehow too.

 

[el Chi]

"I can't make out your responses very well..."
Is that because I writes not so good or because I didn't separate quotes and responses so good?

Okay, I wasn't saying that just the working classes vote for the BNP (or Hitler for that matter), nor was I saying they were stupid. What I am saying is that scapegoating is always easy and the case of immigrants "stealing" jobs is an easy line to spin. And I'd never call the working class peasants. Not to their faces, at least. (no but seriously folks...)
But yeah I know you're right that the government is somewhat too soft on immigration (but I don't believe it's because they don't want to be seen as racist), but then I'm a filthy filthy liberal, so my opinion on that subject amounts to bugger all.
Oh waitaminute - didn't Blunkett come up with some crack-pot scheme recently about deporting scores of Zimbabwean (or a proximate African country - what does it matter, they're all the same) illegal immigrabts to a neighbouring African country!? Obviously I might be getting the non-existant end of the stick here, but I know I heard something along those lines somewhere - and I wouldnae put it past ole Davey. The big joker! :hmph:

 

[el Chi]

[1] Even if they were terrorists, that dosent excuse the acts of terrorism commited against the US today, nor does it mean the US cannot respond to those acts with every resource neccisary.

[2] You do realize that if it werent for the upsurge in terrorism agains the US and other western targets, the US wouldnt have invaded Afghanistan et al?

[3] The French loath the Americans to the bottom of thier heart, but how man Frenchmen do you see running around blowing up American civilians? None.

[4] Except for the Taliban helping out our old buddies Al-Q, or Syrial/Jordan helpign out Hamas et al, oh, but wait, they arnt REAL Muslims, are they?

1. The philosopher Aquinas claimed that, in order for a war to be just, the force of retaliation must equal the force of the attack. Whilst this is somewhat difficult to apply well and slightly nonsensical, I will say this:
Kids with stones vs. Tanks. Congratulations Mr. Sharon.
2. I find that quite sad really. The US helped create that f*ck-up of a regime and then left the country in turmoil without a second thought. Oh no wait yeah - they gave them more money for saying that they would clamp down on opium production. This was a lie. Still, nothing.
3. There's a major gap between being pissed off at someone and actually loathing someone. Yeah the French hate the US, but the feelings are reciprocal. Perhaps I'm being pernickety and I think I see the spirit in which your analogy was intended, but the difference between the French's hatred for the US, and the hatred that has generated in the occuppied territories is immense.
4. Did the Taliban help out Jordan? What did they do? I've been to Jordan and at no point did it seem a dodgy Muslim nation, so this surprises me...

 

[ductonius]

Fine, and yes of course it is borne out of ignorance, but I have seen little in the way from governments trying to set the record straight that not all Muslims are terrorists.

Need I point out it is not the govornments responsiblity to correct the thought patterns of its citizens?

I never said it was - I actually said it was a religious matter; but religious is still racism.

Lets not get bogged down in semantics. I disagree it is *whatever*-ism in any case.

So the original Gulf War was genuinely because the Kuwatis were being so hard-done by and it was purely coincidental that the US has oil ties there? Perhaps one could say that wasprotecting US interests, but I find it monstrously hypocritical; if Kuwait didn't have oil Bush Sr. wouldn't have given it a second thought.

How about Kosovo? Plenty of US oil interest there? Serbia? Yup, they must be flooded in oil. Somolia? Great globs of it.

/sarcasm

Point == the forign policy of the US is not dicatated by oil.

Did the US free Kuait and at the same time, protect thier oil interests. Sure, but saying it was BECAUSE of the oil is not a very tennable position.

I didn't argue that at all - I believe I said that liberal Western culture is something to be celebrated but going around showing them the light? I have a deep problem with missionary work and this is only marginally better.

Well, I argued that the culture in many middle eastern countires is restrictive and opressive to the people. If there is no argument with that then I suggest we save some space on the page and drop this portion of the discussion. (really, these things can get quite long). If you wish to start a different discussion on this subject elsewhere I would be more than happy to read your thoughts on it.

Earlier, you mentioned how ignorant it is to generalise... There are some extremists that make the rest of the religionlook bad.

True. However. There seems to be very little condemnation of terrorist activities from the general Muslim population. This probably has to do with the repressed nature of thier socieites, but even muslim leaders in Canada do not speak out againt them.

I'm not quite sure of your point here: I wouldn't say that the current situation is like Nazi Germany - not yet at least. Besides, obeying the law didn't help them (this is not a criticism of the Jews in Nazi Germany for whom I hold the utmost reverie) - but then suicide bombings aren't exactly helping Palestine. American Jews at the moment need not fear the KKK or Neo-Nazis becaus: a) They are wealthy and powerful; b) The KKK and Neo-Nazis are fringe groups of idiot fanatics who talk a lot but <touch wood> aren't a real threat.

My point was that there are a lot more productive ways to respond to an "oppressed" situation.

I know what you mean but seeing as "suspicious" activities are so open to interpretation that it could feel tantamount to oppression.

I meant the same thing as my last point. Lay low, obey the law and go about your business.

No, not necessarily (unless the situation called for some sort of resistance movement like the French in WW2 or ordinary citizens harboring Jews in Nazi controlled areas, a la Anne Frank's situation) but then once again it is a minority reflecting badly on everyone else.

In addition, During WWII the Maquis attacked German MILITARY and industrial targets. Also, it was a full blown war, not the situation today where the people "feel bullied".

1. Iraq, Afghanistan, N. Korea, Vietnam - you name it.

Iraq: Nope, they dont use it. Why? Too waseful. A single laser guided bomb will do pretty much any job just fine. They dont need to waste 45,000 lbs of bombs when 500-2000 will do.

Afghanistan: Nope, Carpet bombing is for big targets. Not for hitting convoys or cave mouths.

N.Korea: Are you talking about the Korean War? During the WAR? The whole bloody western hemisphere fought that one, not just the US.

Vietnam: Yup, they carpet bombed the Ho-Chi Minh trail, but then again, do you know of a better way to hit MILITARY convoys moving under tree cover along a single narrow, linear path?

2. Well I did actually mean friendly fire - when I'm talking about the US killing people in this bit, I don't just mean Muslims - but yeah why not throw "collateral damage" into the mix. Yes it's going to happen but with a military budget larger than many countries' GDPs one would've hoped the targetting would be more precise, no?

The US tires to be as precise as it can in its bombing. During WWII it too 9000 bombs to destroy a single aircraft bunker. Today it can be done with two, and the US is working on ways to get that down to ONE.

Unfortunatly, free fall bombs are not as precise as missiles but becaue they can be much larger they have to be used. IIRC, a JDAM has an accuracy of ~20 meters. For a freefall bomb released at 10,000 meters up, 20 meters accruacy is amazing.

The US would like to have 100% accuracy all the time, but its just not available currently, at any price.

In addition, collateral damage can be caused by the enemy putting its stuff next to civilian structures. In these cases, there is nothing the US can do to avoid damagaing the civilian buildings.

3. The CIA has helped so many crooked regimes that have ended in the abritrary executions of hundreds of thousands - Pinochet, the Taliban (ironically), Saddam, Iran, the list is almost endless. Their plans are often completely selfish, mishuided and badly planned. Perhaps it's not intentional but if you take on something as serious as helping a dictator to power you've got to tak some responsibilty and think past the five minutes in front of your nose.

Hindsight is 20/20. There was no telling how long the Cold War could have lasted or what the effects would be.

Actually I've heard them be called terrorists by various military and PR personnel.

The fact of the matter is that there are actually some actual terrorists mixed in with them. As far as I have seen, they try to keep it straight.

Fair point, but then would that make the attack of the USS Cole and the Marine barracks acts of sedition or legitimate warfare?

It correct to say the actual acts againt the US military equiptment and personel are not terrorists acts themselves, but they are still acts committed by known terrorist groups. This is why they are "things terrorists have done to us", though they are not themselves terrorist attacks.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

I'd just like to say Imperialism is when a nation has been taken over, and claimed a territory by an invading nation. Not only are my fellow soldiers dying to secure the stability of this nation, but contractors, aid workers and such are being taken hostage, killed, and mutilated. We'll also be allowing elections eventually, I don't believe a June election is plausible at this rate, and a lot of money is being poured out of my pockets for this effort. Let's not forget Spain's new Prime Minister pulling soldiers out of Iraq, and dimming his country's support of the War on Terrorism. I don't see why some don't understand the line between a conflict and Imperlialist Invasion. I love the British, but to be honest el Chi, the most Imperialist nation known is Britain, Not by current standards, but by it's record. I wouldn't bring up the past as it really has no relevence, but you seem to be doing just that so I decided I'd give it a shot.

If we were Imperialists our territories would be : Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Phillipines, Japan, Germany, Kosovo, Bosnie, and Quwait. If I missed a few, please let me know.

Also, I never remember my Govt. or any of it's leaders saying all terrorists are Muslims or Arabs, in fact, we're still searching for terrorists from our country. This nation has had it's fair deal with internal terrorism as well. And if you want to discredit Muslims who live in the US that have attacked it, then you don't cut much off that list except the Sniper shootings and the first WTC bombing.

I believe we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until we stabilize the countries, if we don't, someone worse than Saddam or the Taliban could seize power. But, after that, maybe we should grant your wish even further. Total withdrawl from Iraq, Afghanistan - Understandable and just what I want when it's over...but wait, there's more - then South Korea, then Japan, then Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Africa, all Arab nations and anywhere else we have soldiers. Send out an international broadcasts for all Americans to return home, become what the UN calls a "Rogue state", and focus on keeping terrorism inside our borders. Like Inervision said a few months ago, "Play in our own yard."

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Continued:

I mean, who cares about the safety of the world as a whole, right? Who cares what happens to innocent people overseas, right? Who cares what doesn't harm me, right? Believe me, the foolish concept of even ending the war on terrorism wouldn't prevent more attacks, no such war was occuring when the attacks on America occured. There was no war when the USS Cole was attacked, there was no war when the Embassies in Africa where attacked, no war when the Marine Barracks were attacked, no wars to instigate such attacks or the many others I forgot to mention. Terorrism is terrorism, if it only happened on account of war then it would be called Hostile Retaliation or something like that.

And no, I don't think abandoning the world and becoming isolationists is the proper way to go about things, I was only being sarcastic. However, should the day come, I won't lift my voice in protest. Because my tone of sorrow for the plight of innocent nations is being drowned out by the shouts of those who don't care. Giving up on the world is something I don't believe in, while I don't believe it can be innocent, I still believe in doing the job of keeping it as safe as possible. But in the face of seeing our "allies" don't care about us, it's pushing me against the wall...slowly, I'm starting to care less...not about terrorists, but about my allies. I'm sorry to any of you I've offended, but this is what's happening to me inside on account of it. Perhaps I've ranted off of the original subject matter, but this is something burning in my heart and in the hearts of a few others I know. I'm sure there are many hearts, some notable on these forums, that would love to see America ablaze.

 

[el Chi]

Arguments like this - especially on forums with people you don't know - are funny in a painful way because, unless one person makes a quick succession of undeniably solid points, there's little chance of any resolve. Head bashing until God knows when. Main reason being is that if you say "Agree to disagree" it can sound like: "I cannot think of a sensible retort and I am, therefore backing down whilst trying desperately to save face."
But by the way - very interesting stuff. It's nice to read something other than bitching about HL2's many minor problems. OMG!1! OMG!11

1. Of course the government does not have influence on peoples' thoughts, and I did not think that one through. Nevertheless, governments can do things to sway public opinion and I have not seen much of that even-handedness.

2. No there's no oil in Kosovo, but if you say that the US aren't responsible for carpet-bombing in Korea because it was a joint operation then this was a joint operation too... Does a similar rule apply? Is one exempt from an action because someone else did it too? Plus, I did not say "The US Is Only Motivated By Oil Interests" - I said that it played a factor in the first Gulf War and that it is most certainly one in this war: Saddam, however unsavory he was, had no links to al-Qaeda or no WMDs - yes his regime was appaling, but the fact that that was their last resort justification is very peculiar.
And Bush has prominent ties to oil companies (he didn't get where he done got to today without a little he'p) whereas Clinton did not. Not that Bill was a saint, but he was better than Bush.

3. In Britain I have heard quite a lot of condemnation from the Muslim community - friends of mine, and a few news reports. Perhaps the entire community is up in arms about it, but that hardly means they support it (I am not entirely saying you suggested that, please note)

4. "There are a lot more productive ways to respond to an "oppressed" situation"
Of course there are. On the flip side, there are more productive ways to respond to an attack by simply blowing the f*ck out of a whole load of people. They were within their rights to retaliate, but that shouldn't be the only step you take. They, as far as I have seen, didn't make too many attempts at trying to spruce up diplomatic relations with Middle Eastern countries, and at this point the political damage done will not recover fully for a long long time. Dig your own grave...

5. I wasn't comparing Islamic extremists (or any terror group) to the French resistance. I was just saying that in those circumstances, I might resort to violence and feel justified.

6. Yes I know collateral damage can be caused because the enemy put their weapons cache next to a school or whatever - that's just not cricket. Well I would suggest taking those out with ground troops where possible, but I'm not military expert, so there is some reason why that's not useful.

7. Yes hindsight is 20/20 - who cares? You meddle too much without thinking far enough ahead you will screw up. I understand that at the time, the Russkies expanding ever-further into Afghanistan was perceived to be a huge threat - so much so that funding potentially dangerous and fickle Islamic extremists to the tune of hundereds of millions of dollars seemed like a good idea? The Taliban were probably more oppressive than the Soviets would've been. The main problem was that then the US simply left them to it. That's what annoys me. "Yeah your countries in a bit of a state - geddit? Nah but seriously... Erm, yeah - be lucky! Byeee!" Afghanistan was one of the most impoverished, most anarchic nations on the globe.
And as for Pinochet: Fine he was a Socialist. Fine it was the Cold War. But President Allende was democratically elected - he was the choice of the people. So in a montrous show of hypocrisy on the US's part, they have this military dictator thrust upon them (thanks, in part to the CIA). I was aware that the Cold War was about stopping oppression? The lesson learned is that oppression is fine! So long as you're not a Commie and you behave according to what we say. Pinochet, despite killing hundreds of thousands, never got put on trial, never got brought to justice.
It is through events and activities similar to these that the CIA gives other countries reasons to hate the US. Foreign policy is to blame.

8. I'm sorry but they are calling the insurgents terrorists because it's easy. "Freedom fighters" or "resistance movement" are heroic terms, insugents fits, but "terrorist" is easier. Iraq had no links with al-Qadea; Saddam made Iraq a secular state - sure he occasionally called on Allah to help them beat the Allies, but only as a cynical call to arms. Osama Bin Laden HATES Saddam Hussein. Of course the regime would've had some very shady contacts, but then all governments do. And where DID Israel get that nuclear bomb from? Oh well, I'm sure it doesn't matter. Sharon is, after all a sane and fair leader.

9. Thank you for clearing up that last point

 

[Lil' Timmy]

just for anyone being misled by some comments:

i've been to france both before and after 9/11. the average 'frenchman' doesn't hate americans at all. they do, like most of europe, see american policy as arrogant, simplistic and childish. but don't take my word for it, go to france and/or interact with the french people and find out for yourself.

the US did indeed carpet bomb in afghanistan. the USAF resorted to it (with b-52s) after several weeks into the war. it wasn't a pervasive tactic, but it did happen.

 

[dfc05]

just for anyone being misled by some comments:

i've been to france both before and after 9/11. the average 'frenchman' doesn't hate americans at all. they do, like most of europe, see american policy as arrogant, simplistic and childish. but don't take my word for it, go to france and/or interact with the french people and find out for yourself.

the US did indeed carpet bomb in afghanistan. the USAF resorted to it (with b-52s) after several weeks into the war. it wasn't a pervasive tactic, but it did happen.

yeah, my old us history teacher went to france last summer to go to a bunch of different wwII sites... and as a us history teacher, well, she made herself very obviously american. she said the people at normandy love americans.

and french people like mcdonald's... which has little if any relevance; i just thought it was interesting.

 

[el Chi]

I'd just like to say Imperialism is when a nation has been taken over, and claimed a territory by an invading nation.

I believe we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until we stabilize the countries, if we don't, someone worse than Saddam or the Taliban could seize power.

1. GhostValkyrie - traditional imperialism is no longer possible, not if you want to be taken seriously. What appears to be happening is a new spin on an old model, whereby the US (as it has been the center of this debate) severely influences a smaller nation's govt. Or helps overthrow one government and installs a new one that it can keep in check and make sure it does what it's told.
There's also the argument that American cultural homogenisation is a problem.
2. You're absolutely right, a total and sudden withdrawl from the two countries is a stupid idea that would only result in a situation as bad if not worse than before. When the countries of Europe were built back adfter WW2, this ws essentially what happened. There needs to be a stabiliser, but there is such cynicism and distrust of the US due to its previous "activities" pinches of salt are falling everywhere.

I don't agree with everything you say, but it was a damn good post. Huzzah for you. Personally I wouldn't like to see America ablaze as such, but for a country with its power it has far too many problems that need to be addressed - it's a cliche, but "With great power comes great responsibility" (where's that from?)

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Spider-Man all the way.

True, our Govt. in the past has placed individuals suiting it's interests in power, and such could happen with a rigged election. I was simply stating the fact America isn't an Imperialist nation as many see it, true our weight is thrown around occasion to occasion, I won't deny it. But I wont bear the weight of another man's supposed sins, and I won't allow anyone to disavow the sins of another. Clinton did many shady things, including keeping Haiti's ousted President in power. An evil, evil dictator with ties to Mob Boses, Drug cartels, and many assasinations within their borders. Saddam was placed in power because the ones in pwoer thought it would be good - Oops! But, that's not America's fault. I wasn't alive when that happened, so the finger should not be pointed at ones such as myself simply because I love my country and favor an outsing. Frankly, Saddam likely disarmed his weapons to make us look bad or there were none. I didn't support the war because I was afraid of Saddam, I supported it because I believe human deserve dignity and liberty. He is an evil man, and is getting more than he deserves. Anyway, thanks for not giving me an incoherent rebuttle of being a stupid American or the like. I appreciate people responding with dignity and sense. I don't agree with all you say, but I think you have your opinions for your reasons and should never allow yourself to be put down on account of it.

 

[ductonius]

1. The philosopher Aquinas claimed that, in order for a war to be just, the force of retaliation must equal the force of the attack. Whilst this is somewhat difficult to apply well and slightly nonsensical, I will say this:
Kids with stones vs. Tanks. Congratulations Mr. Sharon.

Forgetting that there have been instances where those stones have actually turned out to be molitov cocktails or grenades (which can, in fact, damage tanks severly).

In any case, those who go up against tanks with stones are trying to make a statement more than they are trying to fight, and if you think those kids are throwing stones at tanks becaue they think its fun, think again. They're doing to because someone else told them to.

Anyway, this is an entierly different discussion altogether. If the US responds to a threat with everything its got it is no fault of the US.

2. I find that quite sad really. The US helped create that f*ck-up of a regime and then left the country in turmoil without a second thought. Oh no wait yeah - they gave them more money for saying that they would clamp down on opium production. This was a lie. Still, nothing.

Cold War fallout. The US helped the Taliban and other groups kick the Soviets ass. The Soviets left and the Muslim extremists took over. The US funded them to try and hamper the drug trade. Then, when it became crystal clear they were into helping terrorists they went in and cleaned up the problem.

In different words, the actions of the US dont seem so sinister or cruel.

3. There's a major gap between being pissed off at someone and actually loathing someone. Yeah the French hate the US, but the feelings are reciprocal. Perhaps I'm being pernickety and I think I see the spirit in which your analogy was intended, but the difference between the French's hatred for the US, and the hatred that has generated in the occuppied territories is immense.

Granted, but what terrotories is the US occupying? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Im sorry, those were only occupied AFTER they were attacked, not before.

If your talking about Saudi Arabia then you have just used teh same justification for attacks that OBL uses.

4. Did the Taliban help out Jordan? What did they do? I've been to Jordan and at no point did it seem a dodgy Muslim nation, so this surprises me...

No, Jordan and Syria help out Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc in thier terrorist attacks againt Isreal.

The Taliban harboured Al-Quida.

 

[el Chi]

1. "Forgetting that there have been instances where those stones have actually turned out to be molitov cocktails or grenades (which can, in fact, damage tanks severly).
In any case, those who go up against tanks with stones are trying to make a statement more than they are trying to fight, and if you think those kids are throwing stones at tanks becaue they think its fun, think again. They're doing to because someone else told them to.
Anyway, this is an entierly different discussion altogether.
Yes, sometimes it turns out to be more serious, but you'll forgive me if I shed a slight bit of sympathy for the Palenstinians when tanks and gunships wreak unspecified havock and destruction in communities. There's a subtlety to certain military operations (apprehending suspects/enemies is one) and Isarel's responses have been about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the chest. I in no way support or agree with HAMAS, of course not, but if retaliations of the magnitude that have been seen so far continue (and they will) things will get worse, not better.
No, I know the children aren't doing it for fun, for Christ's sake, and doubtless they ARE taking encouragement from their elders.
Yes, this is a different topic to an extent: Whatever Israel does always reflects badly on the US because of the millions of dollars in aid (from tax dollars) given to them each year. And because the US would never move to condemn an action Israel took.

"If the US responds to a threat with everything its got it is no fault of the US."
I'm afraid it is. I can understand why, and yes they won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with relative ease and swiftness, but they probably could have done that without utterly battering the sh*t out of those countries with multi-million dollar weapons (and in the process killing people with what should have been education money). Because of some of the weapons used in both Gulf Wars, some areas will be dangerously radioactive for decades to come at the very least. Just because you CAN use this "shock and awe" plethora of destructiveness doesn't mean you have to, or should. They look like playground bullies throwing their weight around because they CAN, and let's not forget that a major part of the problem is how America looks to the rest of the world.


"Cold War fallout. The US helped the Taliban and other groups kick the Soviets ass. The Soviets left and the Muslim extremists took over. The US funded them to try and hamper the drug trade. Then, when it became crystal clear they were into helping terrorists they went in and cleaned up the problem.
In different words, the actions of the US dont seem so sinister or cruel."
They gave them money as a reward for condemning the drug trade an opium growers, but the Taliban didn't do masses to stop it and I'm sure the US knew that. The fact is that because they did not care who pushed the Russians out, so long as it worked, they made some appalling decisions and just hoped it would blow over. The US was active in certain countries(through the CIA mainly) in terms of helping overthrow governments etc. but not in Afghanistan and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if that was down to the fact that the mess was partly their fault (and more than a little bit) and they'd rather have forgotten about it.

"Granted, but what terrotories is the US occupying? Iraq? Afghanistan?"
I was actually making another reference to Israel spoiling it for the US. Hatred for Israel breeds contempt for the US and things spiral out of control for there on in.


And Ghost Valkyrie, you're right it's not a fault of America's as such, but rather thecrooked people in power and the people who line their pockets and pull their strings.

 

[Rupertvdb]

Overthrowing a govornment is not terrorism.

But plotting to overthrow a communist country because it kicked your big fat people raping corporations out isn't exactly a nice thign to do anyways. lus i doubt the populace would get off lightly.

 

[r4z0r_bl4d3]

All very interesting.

My view of this is just christians and muslims (and jews in israel) duking it out, trying to prove which religion is right (both are warped and corrupt in my view)

Anyway, religion aside, I must add that fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity. The more you try to fight to gain peace, the harder it becomes to get peace.

The Neo-Cold war bit scares me though. It reminds me of Orwell's 1984 with constant warfare to use surplus goods, and keep the populace in subserviance. And the Partiot Act, man that really scares me. Basically anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be denied all constitutional rights.

"This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT)" just thought i would add that.

*http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html*

 

[el Chi]

Yeah the PATRIOT Act is actually a stroke of genius - who can say "I'm against the Patriot a-" before being interrupted by finger-pointing, whistle-blowing people claiming (in a Stalin-esque show-trial denouncement stylee) they're "un-American" (of all the stupid things...) or "as bad as the terrorists." :hmph:

 

[Rupertvdb]

It's the worst act possible, half crazed panic law that is going to SCREW with people's personal freedoms, for the good of the state have we in england felt the burn of anything? i haven't noticed it if we have.

 

[el Chi]

I'm not sure - I think in Britain we're more bitter and cynical so something as obvious as the "Patriot" act would be harder to pass.

 

[Korgoth]

What would legally classify you as a terrorist in America? I really want to know, because from what I understand, if the government deems you to be a terrorist (whether your an American citizen or not) you can be detained without warning or trial, and held indefinatley.
I.E.- Pro Kerry anti Bush sign holder marching down mainstreet.. "Hey look, that guys trying to oust our president, and cause anarchy and jeapordise national security. He is a terrorist, lock him up, or kill him, no one will know and we don't have to tell (for national security reasons)"
It is genius though, like el chi said, who is going to question the PATRIOT act? Your un-patriotic, un-American if you do. And if your un-American, your either with us or against us, so that makes you a dirty commie, or a terrorist.
I'm also tired of this administration hiding behind the veil of national security. 3,000 people died on September 11th. Innocent Americans going about their everyday lives. If you ask me "national security" as it is, has already been broken. Tell the truth, tell it loud, if they have nothing to hide then why not? How many members of this administration have been booted or quit only to expose them? (Pearle, Clark anyone?)
How many more will it take before the whole picture is revealed. What did they know before 9/11? What intellegence did they have? We know they had intellegence going as far as saying al qaeda were planning to attack America, and hijack airplanes.
Ask yourself, would the public approve of a war in Iraq pre 9/11? What if 9/11 never happened? I seriously doubt it...
Had any of these questions been asked about a democrat (clinton sex scandal anyone?) that poor SOB would have already been up for impeachment 5 or 6 times.
I'm tired of this, I can't wait till' November.

 

[el Chi]

[1] ... if the government deems you to be a terrorist (whether your an American citizen or not) you can be detained without warning or trial, and held indefinatley.
[2] I.E.- Pro Kerry anti Bush sign holder marching down mainstreet.. "Hey look, that guys trying to oust our president, and cause anarchy and jeapordise national security. He is a terrorist, lock him up, or kill him, no one will know and we don't have to tell (for national security reasons)"
[3] How many more will it take before the whole picture is revealed. What did they know before 9/11? What intellegence did they have? We know they had intellegence going as far as saying al qaeda were planning to attack America, and hijack airplanes.
[4] Had any of these questions been asked about a democrat (clinton sex scandal anyone?) that poor SOB would have already been up for impeachment 5 or 6 times.

1. They have detained people, you're right. However what is going on in Camp X-Ray is a gross violation of all human rights laws. Amnesty have officially put the United States on their human rights black-list as one of the worse countries (but not just for that)

2. That doesn't really constitute terrorism because it's legitimate political protest, but I know what you're getting at. A Stalinist all-purpose phrase to capture anyone who steps out of line.

3. I fear the full truth will probably never be released. It would be a remarkable (not to say fresh) display of openness by a government.

4. There have been countless calls to impeach Bush, and all things considered it's a wonder it hasn't happened already. People wanted to impeach Clinton for God's sake. "Woo, he got head and you didn't. Get over it." Yes he lied, but it was a little white lie (no innuendo intended) and hardly threatened the nation. Bush, on the other hand...

 

[GhostValkyrie]

It is genius though, like el chi said, who is going to question the PATRIOT act? Your un-patriotic, un-American if you do.

Don't be a bastard about this, I'm very Patriotic and I am against the "Patriot Act" on account of it. I believe in freedom, and that's why I supported the War in Iraq and any other war to oust a brutal dictator or regime. If we're the supposed biggots and racists, who come you're the one always using stereotypes and generalizations?

 

[Sorze]

Err... I really don't think he meant anything bad against the american population by that. It's just a goddam smart thing to name something that alot of people might complain and protest about. I mean, who wants to complain about something patriotic and thus be un-patriotic??

 

[GhostValkyrie]

He's an American. Believe me, going against such an act is a show of Patriotism. I know plenty of Patriots, each are against the "Patriot Act".

Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin.

 

[mrchimp]

just for anyone being misled by some comments:

i've been to france both before and after 9/11. the average 'frenchman' doesn't hate americans at all. they do, like most of europe, see american policy as arrogant, simplistic and childish. but don't take my word for it, go to france and/or interact with the french people and find out for yourself.

the US did indeed carpet bomb in afghanistan. the USAF resorted to it (with b-52s) after several weeks into the war. it wasn't a pervasive tactic, but it did happen.

The French calling someone else arrogant!!! thats a bit ****ing rich. Also i think there policy on imagration is a bit simplistic and childish i.e send all the imagrants down the channel tunnel. Not only that but all there women have hairy armpits.



I'm not being serious so don't start... no actually I am it's all true.

 

[el Chi]

He's an American. Believe me, going against such an act is a show of Patriotism. I know plenty of Patriots, each are against the "Patriot Act".
Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin.

I'm not American, I'm British. Well, actually I'm a Londoner
Sorry GhostValkyrie if you got the wrong end of the stick. What Sorze said was what I meant. I don't have a problem with the majority of the American populous necessarily but the "Patriot" act is just a load of near-Fascist nonsense dressed up in this one word that's supposed to make it water-tight. Of course it is within one's rights to crticise the govt. (some would say it's a resposibilty, and I wouldn't fault them too heavily on that) and that does not make you un-patriotic in the slightest if you do. The problem is that there are far too many ignorant people out there to whom the word "patriotism" is equivalent to blind, unquestioning acceptance.
As such, if someone raises a voice against this "Patriot" act, then the morons will simply denounce them as "un-American" or a hundred other terms (all of which amount to nought) that are banded about by idiots with no opinions of their own. It's scary. It sort of sends out a message to stupid people that not only is this act is automatically good for the country and the people, but that anyone who is against the "Patriot" act... They're against acting like a patriot? They're not patriots? They're against America!?
It's all propangandist drivel. There is nothing wrong with national pride (within reason), especially not if you are a sentient human being, and I never said there was. If you are a patriot, then good for you.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

The French calling someone else arrogant!!! thats a bit ****ing rich. Also i think there policy on imagration is a bit simplistic and childish i.e send all the imagrants down the channel tunnel. Not only that but all there women have hairy armpits.

oh i never claimed france was perfect, just that ductonius' characterization was flatly wrong and/or uninformed. but you're right the women don't shave as much as they should, imo :x

el Chi: GV was talking about innervision.

 

[dfc05]

It's the worst act possible, half crazed panic law that is going to SCREW with people's personal freedoms, for the good of the state have we in england felt the burn of anything? i haven't noticed it if we have.

actually, laws like that have been passed before in the us. during WWI they had the "espionage and sedition acts" (1917/1918)... although they came without the nice name of "patriot act" the premise was generally the same--you got to go to prison for speaking against the government's war policy. "The Sedition Act went much further by prohibiting anyone from making 'disloyal' or 'abusive' remarks about the U.S. government."--from my history book. no, i am not saying that it is right to do that (i personally disagree with the patriot act)... just that it has been done before and they didn't just pull the patriot act straight out of nowhere.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

I'm not American, I'm British. Well, actually I'm a Londoner

I was talking about Innervision. I know you're British, no need to explain.

 

[el Chi]

Once again I have managed to prove my own idiocy. Sorry dude.

 

[Korgoth]

im not a bastard
Its what Sorze said...
(love ya ghostvalk )

 

[GhostValkyrie]

im not a bastard
Its what Sorze said...
(love ya ghostvalk )

I love you, too.
But please, don't use stereotypes, some of us supported the war because we want freedom for the world, not because we're paranoid.

 

[el Chi]

some of us supported the war because we want freedom for the world

Yeah but that's where the some of the contetion lies - was it for a free-er world? After all, Blair and Bush went through two other excuses before settling on freedom (terrorism and WMDs).
But of course if what you as a person wanted from the war was democracy for Iraq then you might just have your wish. Might.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

That's what I myself wanted for the people of Iraq. Now, while I cared about an evil man like Saddam having weapons, the weapons really didn't bear any weight in my mind. I knew that if they had them - They'd either be slipped to another enemy who already has weapons, or he'd decide to destroy them to make the US look bad. And if he didn't have them to begin with, I still didn't care. All I care about is that the people of Iraq become a free nation to be governed by the people.

 

[el Chi]

You, sir, are a truly good person and I can merely concur with that if the people of Iraq get a genuinely democratic system free from outside "influences" I hope that it works from them. If you thrust democracy on a country and populous un-used to it, all manner of bad things can happen. After all - there aren't any well known politicians to vote for and there haven't been in the last 30/40 years so how will anyone be sure who or how to vote? Same goes for Afghanistan. Scary stuff.