Bush Administration's latest excuse... - Page 11

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 17:49

Okay I have never longer the time to argue with a washing machine.. one who keeps spewing out the same old stuff over and over again.

I am going out on a date with my SO.. now bugger off.

ThePlagueRat · May 31, 2003, 17:52

That's a very rude way of discussing Fezzyboy...

If you want to insult people, why don't you play Monkey Island instead?
I did not call you anything, just expressed my opinion on Georgie the Cowboyman.

Now I demand an apology.

MichaeltheGreat · May 31, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Okay I have never longer the time to argue with a washing machine.. one who keeps spewing out the same old stuff over and over again.

I am going out on a date with my SO.. now bugger off.

Need some time off to work on your manners, Fez?

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 17:53

Rat: I play a game called Tropico where I arrest anybody who opposes me. Rude? Perhaps. You will get no apology and you will demand NOTHING of me.

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Need some time off to work on your manners, Fez?

Sorry MtG, I'll abstain from posting in these threads... later.

ThePlagueRat · May 31, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How soon? I hate vague psychics!

Depends on the how they set up the "Axis of Evil invasion order".
I really don't know, but as soon as China gets stepped on it's toes, it's gonna be a blast... But I think invasion of NK is some years into the future. Meanwhile the US-force could really stir up some bad terror in the Middle East.
With the current policy it's gonna be more terrorism, experts say...

DinoDoc · May 31, 2003, 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
But I think invasion of NK is some years into the future.

Do you really think Dear Leader is stupid enough to start trafficing in nukes?

GePap · May 31, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you really think Dear Leader is stupid enough to start trafficing in nukes?

No, unless the money was good. After NK leaves the NPT, there are no legal restrcitions on sae fo nuclear weapons to other states: the crime would be commioted by the buyer, not the seller.

MichaeltheGreat · May 31, 2003, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

Sorry MtG, I'll abstain from posting in these threads... later.

You just need to abstain from posting gratuitous insults. It doesn't matter what threads.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 18:03

Report sent.

I doubt there will be a WW3 in the next 10/20 years (I hope at least), but yes, China is up and coming, I read somewhere that it will have taken over the US has the worlds most dominent economy, which will create an interesting situation, should it occur.

Whether this will degenerate into a third world war, I dont know, but I sincerely hope not. Cold War II perhaps, although I think that is also harmful.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 18:04

"it will have taken over the US" [in the next 20-30 years]

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 18:08

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

You just need to abstain from posting gratuitous insults. It doesn't matter what threads.

Alright. I will try to do so.

Elijah sent the report?

ThePlagueRat · May 31, 2003, 18:13

I gotta say one more thing before I go:

The terrorism-problem is really an issue of cause and effect...
I don't think the Bush-admin has understood the fundamentals of cause and effect.
Think about it for a while...

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
I gotta say one more thing before I go:

The terrorism-problem is really an issue of cause and effect...
I don't think the Bush-admin has understood the fundamentals of cause and effect.
Think about it for a while...

Terrorism arises because some people see it as a successful mean to push through their agenda.

realpolitic · May 31, 2003, 18:30

Quote:

Originally posted by South killer

i am really sorry about 9/11 but that isn't an excuse to continue with your imperialist actitudes towards 3rd world countries. Irak wasn't a threath to the world, hadnn't got MDW, There is no proof of it to be linked to international terrorism (except a report that was proved to be an essay from an university student

), The iraquis don't seem in better condition that before as all their resourses are being looted by foreign industries, the infraestructure is in shambles, their country is in anarchy and when they protest agains US they are shoot by yanquee soldiers.

Do you, americans, ever wonder why most of the world HATES you? Do you think they are just envidious ?! Or is perhaps for something you've done?

I've got the answer: It's because your imperialist foreign policies!!!!! Don't believe all the propaganda your government tells you; You aren't the bastion of democracy, it's the opposite thing. Ypu've installed more puppet dictatorships that any other country in the world.
Also remember that in the 80's the USA aided Saddam economycally and fueled the Iran-Irak war, that lasted 10 years.

According to the Republic Magazine, the only other country whose people supported the invasion was Isreal. Even some of the most obnioxious Americans conservatives, like Bob Novak, were against it, some magazines called them "unpatriotic". There was talk of embargoing countries that are normally allies, because they disagrreed with us. A poll in Greece was 95% against us, to which I'm sure Rummy would say they don't have as long a history of "democracy" as us.

realpolitic · May 31, 2003, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

The UN are a bunch of corrupt whores who can't even peacekeep their way out of a wet paper bag. UN "Peacekeepers" taken hostage by ****ing African rebels, and the UN having to go in on it's knees and ask nicely if we can please have them back safely?

A corrupt bureaucracy paralyzed by a "management by committee" approach? Tell me, how hard has the UN slammed Mugabe, for just one example?

The US doesn't have a perfect record here eigther, we hightailed it out of Somalia. People don't seem to realize that in a war you may have smart people opposing you who make your job harder than you expect.

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 18:43

DanS and OneFootInGrave are making excellent points about reasons for the war in this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=87871.

For all of you who cry "imperialism", you have to realize that every country (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) we spent some effort in are doing well today. We flunked the ME until now, but Iraq will be the starting point.

Before you whine too much about the current situation in Iraq, let's wait a year and see what happens.

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 18:44

Realpolitic, I don't intend to be offensive.. but wasn't Somalia a UN runned operation with the US spearheading the force? A lot of countries went in there.. including the Pakistanis.

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Realpolitic, I don't intend to be offensive.. but wasn't Somalia a UN runned operation with the US spearheading the force? A lot of countries went in there.. including the Pakistanis.

I think he wanted to say that we underestimated our enemies in Somalia and chickened out when things got tough.

notyoueither · May 31, 2003, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have a question for pro-war people here :

- do you sincerely think WMDs were the first motivation of the administration to attack Iraq, or one of the most important reasons ?

- do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was the major aim of the administration when attacking ?

- If not, did you think so before the beginning of the war ?

Thanks

Three days late, but I didn't see anyone else give you my answer, so...

- No and no. Although the thought of Saddam with a purchased nuke or two is/was very sobering. Removing this threat is a nice side effect.

- Definitely not, but likewise a nice side effect.

- No, I never bought any of the stated reasons as the real reason.

The real reason, I believe, was as a step along the way in the struggle of the US against terrorism. That is what I thought before the shooting started.

Getting out of SA is part of this, however I believe the ability to have bases in Iraq (since it is going to require occupation for the foreseeable future) was the major target accomplished and why the American administration was willing to spend the money and risk the lives.

Something is afoot, and I don't think the Yanks are telling most of their allies the whole story. This is going to take years to play out, and there is no quick fix. That is what I still think.

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 18:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

I think he wanted to say that we underestimated our enemies in Somalia and chickened out when things got tough.

Well, 1,500+ Somalis dead was it... from those little helicopters they call Little Birds?

Under estimate not. The base there had enough fire power and could of finished the job. But it would of been a blood bath for the Somalis.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 18:52

"Terrorism arises because some people see it as a successful mean to push through their agenda."

Not really, otherwise one would see it in all or most minority opinion groups. The demands of terrorism are separate from the causes, which are generally poor conditions, hopelessness and perceived oppression by the future target of terrorism. It is perhaps one of the nastier sides of the human desire for some degree of self-autonomy.

"we underestimated our enemies in Somalia and chickened out when things got tough"

Not sure thats entirely fair. Even with the best preparation, things can go awry. That is tactically of course, I dont know much about the cause of US troops being in Somalia, perhaps someone could fill me in?

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Not sure thats entirely fair. Even with the best preparation, things can go awry. That is tactically of course, I dont know much about the cause of US troops being in Somalia, perhaps someone could fill me in?

Finally that is something I certainly can agree with.

Somebody once said, I don't remember who, is that the most complicated and ambitious mission is bound to go wrong.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 18:57

Not bad for a "washing machine".

With regards to the US military, few could doubt it is the most organised and best prepared organisation in the world.... second only to the British army!

My dispute is with their reasons for deployment in various circumstances. Could someone fill me in about somalia?

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 19:01

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Not bad for a "washing machine".

With regards to the US military, few could doubt it is the most organised and best prepared organisation in the world.... second only to the British army!

My dispute is with their reasons for deployment in various circumstances. Could someone fill me in about somalia?

I am sorry for calling you that..

Hahaha.. the British Army is definitely good for urban conditions I will hand that to them because of the conflict with the IRA. But leave the mountains and the rest to the US Military.

If I am not mistaken, you might want to get a second opinion on this, the US send their forces to help the food distribution operation in Somalia under UN auspicies (SP?). The sh*t hit the fan though and the whole operation took a turn to the worst. 18 or 19 US personel were killed, and 1,500+ Somalis were killed.

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
"Terrorism arises because some people see it as a successful mean to push through their agenda."

Not really, otherwise one would see it in all or most minority opinion groups. The demands of terrorism are separate from the causes, which are generally poor conditions, hopelessness and perceived oppression by the future target of terrorism. It is perhaps one of the nastier sides of the human desire for some degree of self-autonomy.

That's only part of the reason. If terrorism doesn't lead anywhere, people won't be so eager to practice it or follow those who practice it. Very few hardcore psychopath will always exist, regardless of how perfect the society gets, such as Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber. A person who killed 118 people in an apartment complex bombing in China for losing his girlfriend is another example.

We can't really get rid the society from psychopaths, but we can prevent other disgruntled people from following those psychopaths.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 19:11

"If terrorism doesn't lead anywhere, people won't be so eager to practice it or follow those who practice it"

I dont see Israel withdrawing, the US changing its foreign policy, or Ulster becoming part of the ROI.

It is perhaps something of a release for a people who feel oppressed. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and that is certainly seen in the communities where terrorists come from.

"Very few hardcore psychopath will always exist, regardless of how perfect the society gets, such as Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber."

People who are few enough in number to warrant some heavy psychological help and or prison stretches, without inciting much revolt from the people. On the other hand, wasnt McVeigh a member or sympathiser with the hard line anti-authoritarian far-right white supremacists?

"A person who killed 118 people in an apartment complex bombing in China for losing his girlfriend is another example"

Again, another psycho who needs help. It is true that you cant get rid of psychopaths, thus they should be helped, preemptively, to become useful members of society.

"We can prevent other disgruntled people from following those psychopaths"

You can never really stop people believing in an idea (an idea is not reponsible for those who believe in it), but you can certainly change the sociological conditions that make them view terrorism in an option. People generally wont become terrorists or even think about it if they are too busy with a job, that makes them feel productive, wanted and contributing to society.

HershOstropoler · May 31, 2003, 19:19

MtG:

"Hope. Not expect until I have an idea what the Dems will do to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time."

Iow, we're doomed.

"Get is close enough.

"

If you insist... what the main battle tank is to you, the US current account deficit is to me...

"The perception about hegemonial power by the outside world. The ass-kissing, etc."

If you think this is about the erotic appeal of ass-kissing.... well...

"The latter is about how the American people would respond to the notion that the US isn't the hegemon we/they think it is."

US hegomony is for a bunch of braindead yankee rightwing extremists and a bunch of braindead euro leftwing extremists (and the occasional Gaullist). The US position in the world is a bit like that of Charles of Anjou in Italy AD 1282. Time to party...

"As far as a war goes, they're still ****. Occupation's another mess, but it doesn't get the news attention of the Fox cheerleading squad, or the American public."

You outspend them 40:1, so that's not the issue. The issue is the price to pay.

Of course, providing Iran with nuclear weapons looks like a reasonable option now...

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
You can never really stop people believing in an idea (an idea is not reponsible for those who believe in it), but you can certainly change the sociological conditions that make them view terrorism in an option. People generally wont become terrorists or even think about it if they are too busy with a job, that makes them feel productive, wanted and contributing to society.

I think we already had a discussion about this topic once.

My position is that we need to apply force and help at same time. A non-violent approach won't defeat terrorists.

Giancarlo · May 31, 2003, 19:22

Lord Merciless: Exactly.. and I have the perfect quote for that:

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. —Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

It is in my signature.