just for eden

this post is for eden mainly but others can read it, its ment to be informative and debatative (a new word perhaps) but i'd rather keep the emotions down in here, and keep the opinion with some facts or reasons thanks guys

yes eden i would like to keep the politics seperate from the memorys of the people that died.

i feel i can say what i want to say now in a political sense that has nothing to do with the people that died and jsut has to do with my feelings towards policys

bear in mind that in this thread i will NOT take into acount the dead,about the politics of the government.

Quote :

With all due honesty it's the passive attitude that is causing all of this Alltaken. If the USA stays idle and hopes for peace treaties with the terrorists, it ain't gonna work. People think we can manage a world with no war, with no violence, but the truth is those people in the army who are putting their lives on the front, are WILLING to kill to save others. They are not only doing this for the country but for the world.

i do see what you mean and yes in a sense i agree with that, it is human nature to have disagreement and is human nature to fight.

however its not the retaliation of september 11th that i disagre with, but the way in which it was done and carried out.
i hope you can understand i knew somthing needed to be done, but that i didn't think invading a country was the correct option. i felt a more effective way to do it would be to go in with the military in a limited offensive role and instead of using guns to kill enemys, it may have been more effective to convert enemys (most of which were in the groups for food and water and didn't have anything personal against the us) by offering them suplys and aid as well as water.

i felt the people in afganistan were so so poor and so so desperate that they really had nothign else to look fowards to, nothing to hope for. i think the US could have played this card, the hope for a better future card to more effectively wage a mental war rather than a war which has gotten more enemys who are bitter with them.

i feel that in the end a war primarily aimed at destroying things will end up making more people feel angry, because they will feel the US is responsible for killing people they know, for destroying infrastructure etc... but if you give someone a helping hand they will think, the US gave us these schools and cloths and gave us the skills to feed ourselves they are great.

Quote :

I simply never understood the rallies, they support passiveness yet cannot understand that if someone does not fight the fire with the fire at some point, no one will be safe.

if you fight fire with fire it gets hotter and hotter untill all the fuel is burnt out.

if you fight fire with water it may still burn but with every drop supressing sparks it will die out, and hopefully in the end what you have saved may still have some value

if you don't understand passive resistance you will never understand my point of view on it. its a totally way of thinking that must be obtained by oneself and cannot be taught.

Quote :

RobD's absolutely on target. This world is filled and littered with scum, and thinking of being for one second passive with it is gonna cause you damage. They have no consciousness, we do. The protestors in the streets of palestine are like zombies, they push each other without caring, walking forth with burning USA flags and supporting mindless murderer leaders, they have no rationality, no philosophy, and I can't even begin to wonder what it'd be like to watch them during their day doing stuff. Are they as mindless? Are they even conscious sometimes? Do they ever evaluate their behavior?

one question

DO you evaluate your behaviour?

not many people evaluate their own behaviour because they consider it correct, i really do question wether the USA evaluates their own behaviour.

please take time to stand in another mans shoe, i have done it for the us situation and can understand responses i have done it for osamas and the iraqi peoples shoes and i can understand their positions, however standing in another persons shoe doesn't mean you MUST agree with them, jsut that you understand them.

(this is honestly the most important thing to learn if you can jsut do this one thing you will get my praise (if you do it with meaning and feeling))

Quote :

They know little but what those who harbored terrorists taught them. And they will carry on their wishes like the sheep they are. As an arab who fully backs the USA, I have nothing but anger at protestors who think they are right. While the USA has done its share of flaws, this is absolutely ridiculous, they think they have a point but they do not. If you go for serious violence, you can cut the bloodline, essentially the source of who transcends his anger to his brethren and sons. If you let them be, it's over for you.
It's a kill or be killed situation, as silly as it sounds. And I fully back Bush or whoever will still have the guts alone to take on the world's terror.

i do see your logic but i fear that it doesn't always work like that.

this is my story which i will tell to give you a bit of insight into the REAL effects that the us led retaliation has had, it is not opinion, it is fact but it is from my perspective.

[story mode]
before september 11th 2001
i was a young lad, and when president clinton was still in.

i was about to write an essay talking about the talliban and how much i hated them, i was going to write about the buda statues being destroyed and the human rights violations against women.

i was personally sceptical of the united states policys but on the whole i didn't think it was too bad, i was disapointed about the emphasis on the environment and the strong push for economic power. I WAS ONE OF 3 PEOPLE I KNEW WHO AGREED. however the taliban were greater evils in all of our eyes

i was in the minority on this, most of the people i know really liked the US, they either wanted to travell there or live there, most people loved the us style and had nothing againt the government or anything.

most people disagreed with me

sepember 11th 2001 for about a year afterwards

on the whole people were somewhat polarised on the issues, there were the people who were already swinging one direction and were pushed to extremes, either loving or hating the US, the people in the middle showed imense sympathy for the US and stood by all the decisions that were made to go into afganistan.

i soon realised that i felt the US was a greater evil than the taliban, and felt somewhat sorry for the people in afganistan, my views and opinions were often not welcome, i was often shutdown by many many people in arguments and debates (somewhat like here), all becasue 97% of the people were in suport of the US defending themselves

 pushing on 2003 and to curent day

with the war in afganistan being more bloody than normal and draging on for a long time the general public here lost interest in returned somewhat to there mild belifs, the public was still polarised to some extent but the general feeling was about 50/50 now with most people being in the middle on it.

however along came Iraq, most people were sittng on 50/50 but couldn't belive that george wanted to attack another country, people thought WHAT why is he attacking these guys, they have nothing to do with afganistan and september 11th what is going on.

it was hard for the public to understand or belive the reason for George starting another war.

the public soon began to swing against the US government on its policy of war and began to hate them.

it has came to a point where i go to university (at my university we have classes of 12-16 and have discutions wher ethe lectureer is not pushing ideas but is as equal as us, we run our classes as students and talk about what we want to, its design school BTW)

well anyway its a topic that is now bought up nearly every day, its now 100% the other direction with people who would have once suported the US on things now saying how terrible they are, i sit there in disbelif as its been that way for me for a long time, and suddenly everyone i know agrees with me, i don't even bring up or start the discussions on it, i try to not get involed in it because i don't see the point in tlaking about things i agree with (its jsut not an argument that way) its like tlaking to a brick wall LOL.
[/story mode]

this is what happened in my small countyr that really has nothing to do with either side of the argument or debate expect for what we see and hear from rather impartial news, we have no ties to either country (well we do to the USA) so are not really influenced in our news covergae.

this backlash has come from the WAR mentality that you so suport.

you say in your earlier thing that destorying people will cut off the bloodline of the movment, well that may have been true in the dark ages, but currently we live in an age of technology which means that information is passed before you can cut off the line.

opinions are formed from watching the news and NEW people are polarised, this means that if 90% of people in what was a moderate country start to dislike a country how many of them will become so angry that they become terrists ???

it doesn't take that mush to create a new generation of terrorists

my thinking is that if you responded by give aid to afganistan (and only killing the top guys, yes i do support killing in a few circumstances) and went in with the "good guy" approch then

A) the people in the country would have nothing to be angry about

B) the more important fact is that the people around the world would see the US in a better light and be LESS LIKELY to turn against the US (yes some may still for the few people you killed but the backlash wuld be less)

C) you may even benifit by getting US suporters in that country

to move onto iraq as an issue, there is no argument that saddam needed to be removed from power some time, it was unversally agreed even within iraq that he needed to go.

However it is normally undestood (by all the people i know, and all the news networks i see from outside the US) that it should have been left up to the Iraqi people to start a civil war on their own terms.

it has also polarised the world as with new evidence that the old eveidence was MADE UP, and that most people feel the us did it for oil control, or becasue george bush senior had been planning it for ten years. all of these factoes led most people to feel it was totally over the top and a bad idea.

wether they are right in thinking this doesn't matter, the big thing is that they DO think this.

it doesn't matter if they are wrong a person will alwasy stand up for what they think they know, just as the people who crashed into the twin towers were wrong in thinking all americans are evil the real problem was that they did think this.

i don't think the US battle should be agaisnt terror but should go one step back and be against public perception.

i hope you can understnad my point of view a little bit better on things now. i jsut feel the US has been fighting the wrong war with the right intentions.

this post was to inform you eden rather than attck you, please take it as a way to try and understand me better, rather than to try and change my opinions, i do not change my opinions by being told i am wrong, rather i change them from learning different perspectives and incorperating others personal experiences into my own.

i am keen to hear your personal feelings and reasons why war is the best way, i liek to hear oters sides of the issue, and i like learning why they might work.

but i'd rather keep the debate very low key and non-emotionally charged. facts and observations only please. i don't really want to hear BECASUE THEY ARE EVIL, or anything like that, becasue they toture women and blow up buda statues is valid, but please keep the catch words and rhetoric phrases down.

i hope i didn't use any in mine (if i did i appoligise)

p.s. i expect rather full and complete posts also, no one liners thanks guys

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

Afghanistan, controlled by the Taleban, was a known terrorist state. It harboured Bin Laden, and in the aftermath of 9/11, they refused to hand him over. Now, given what happened, and the sheer magnitude of the attack and the fact that Bin Laden bragged about it, they refused to hand over the worldwide public enemy number one. A man who financed and organised the whole thing. You have to ask yourself why? Why would any country at all want to not only be associated with him, but to give him a safe haven and carte blanche to do it again. So immediately, the whole governing body became an enemy of the US and it's allies.

When the allies went in, they didn't kill everything in sight. Instead, they formed an alliance with the rebels and overthrew one of the most despicable and brutal regimes of modern times. One that actually encouraged poppy farmers to convert their harvest into heroin to ship to the west. Slightly hypocritical IMO. Hate the west, but more than happy to take it's money. Can't have it both ways.

The war was relatively short. Yes, people lost their lives, both good and evil, but that's the nature of war. There are always casualties. The Taleban were routed and from then on, the coalitions detractors started sniping. The country was free, but who in their right mind expects the country to immediately function fully without some teething troubles? It will take years before it is fully functioning, and there will be some setbacks along the way, without doubt. But you only have to look at the people there to see the real victory. Not the deaths of thousands of anti-west fanatics, but the ordinary people of the country. Little things that they now enjoy. Like kids being able to go to school, which they couldn't before. Women able to actually wear a dress and go out with their faces uncovered. Being able to dance and listen to music. Watch TV. Doesn't sound much, but to these people, it's total freedom.

Contrast this to the last time the US went after Bin Laden. Bill Clinton decided to hit him after the attack on the USS Cole, and what did he do? Shot a couple of Cruise missles at him. Bush, IMO did the absolute right thing. By routing the Taleban, terrorists have one less place to stay, one less place to recruit and move weapons through. One less place to move money to their terror cells through. And as I said earlier, the real victory is that the people of Afghanistan are free. You've now got a country that was once anti-US because of it's "government", and I use the term loosely, because only 3 countries worldwide recognised it as a governing body, now they are pro-US because of what they've been given back. Their dignity and the right to live how they want to.

I'm not saying that everyone there feels the same. There will always be the remnants of the Taleban and it's supporters making waves and biding their time until they think they can get back in power. But they are the minority now.

Bush's detractors will point to the recent video shown on al-Jazeera and mock him, saying they failed to eliminate him when they went into Afghanistan. But he's a coward, like most terror leaders. All mouth and no trousers. They light the touchpaper and bugger off without waiting to see what happens. If he really did believe that the US and it's allies were so fundamentally evil, why didn't he stand and fight against our forces? Because he hasn't go the balls. He hides away and makes derogatory comments about the western world and says how brave his men were for striking a blow against the west. People point out he's a clever man. Maybe he is, but it doesn't mask the fact he's a gutless turd who get's his brainwashed followers to do his dirty work, while he sits thousands of miles away, basking in the "glory", as he no doubt sees it. As I've said, he hasn't got the nerve to lay his own life on the line.

I was in the US on holiday when 9/11 happenned. I spoke at great length with Amercians about it, and spoke with some authority, as, being a British citizen, I know what terrorism is all about. We've lived with it for 30 years. After my feelings of sadness and utter disbelief at what happened, one though went through my mind. That I wished I was 10 years younger, that I was still serving in the army. I would have given anything to have gone out to Afghanistan with my regiment. There's nothing worse than feeling anger and hatred for such cowardism, such an unjust act, and being able to do nothing about it.

Whatever anyone's feelings about 9/11 and the aftermath, I still find it incredulous that some people actually believe that the US deserved what happened. If any human being with an ounce of humanity and compassion cannot feel sadness at such a huge loss of life, lives of innocent, honest, hard working, loving people, then they cannot be considered human. People look down on soldiers as unfeeling robots, but the stuff I've seen during my tours, still now, 8 years after I left the army, still affects me. I cry when I read about 9/11 in the papers and when I see it on TV, and make no apologies for that.

Anyway, I've said enough for now. I hope this didn't come across as a rant, it wasn't meant to. I'll touch on Iraq later.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that" - Bill Shankly

Reply to RobD

Most above all, Rob has said a great amount on just one the two main issues here, the Afghan "war". I should however note to everyone reading, that I am simply 17, with little political knowledge, and no, I don't spend hours researching each topic. Simply looking at feelings sometimes says it all.

I also quoted "war" because this is where I want to begin with here.

First of all, as I have learned in philosophy lately, let us give concept to the words of the big questions here: What is WAR?
Let's put this at least as defined first, so that our conversation, discussion, debate actually works in the right direction with no confusion.
I believe, to many, war means a conflict, almost always armed, between two distinct societies, of different convictions.
Now I ask you though, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, did the government represent the society? If it DID, then there is a war here, as two societies are conscensual and democratically following the conflict. However, in this case, no. In both cases it was tyranic. Dictatorship at its best. Taliban of course had mixed leadership, but in both cases revoked human rights, if not existence rights.

So, war is defined as a conflict between two distinct societies, a conflict of convictions on a certain issue. But since in both countries, we are talking about a society who asks for freedom from its government and does not condone anything their govt. does (with the exception of sheeps, or the coward ones who pretend they follow them, to gain an extra day of life on their calendar).
So, with that said, how can we still define a war here?
Yes, I realize it's a tad hypocritical from an external POV, with the "War on terror" statement. But let's go inside. The US wants to eliminate terror, bad regimes, and such. In each occurence, they went to destroy the govt that encouraged it and the regime implemented by the govt.. So they went, and did that. I ask again, is that a war? Did they "attack" a country? If a country is defined as a distinct geographical area with a distinct society with its own system of convictions and beliefs (laws as well), then I ask you, did Bush attack them? Is Iraq as a country, before the intervention by the US, really a country based on its civilians? No. It is not. Therefore, the US did, NOT ONLY NOT wage a war, but they did NOT attack the country. They entered there with armed forces to liberate and create a true country, if not recover the real country within.

Aside from detractors, the people who feel free are happy. They're not entirely though, in Iraq, as their country is still suffering greatly from economic lax situations, and lack of resources such as water and electricity. I believe the US is helping at the moment, but I could be wrong. Humanitarian aid in any case will be provided by many countries.

Many people keep thinking the US is INVADING, and WAGING WARS on COUNTRIES. Again I ask you to conceptualize the key words here.
This is a definite wrong POV by people, because if we look at the true sense of it, they aren't. Those people are lead to be against the US because they are forming the wrong sense of the intentions.

The US' intentions, in my eyes, are to go into different countries with opressive regimes containing terrorists, and liberate them. Otherwise, I don't get why the US would go into Afghanistan and liberate them if they offer little resources compared to Iraq's oil?
Furthermore, as I also studied in the very first chapter of my Philosophy book, which holds ever so much truth right now, the question: Is a human speech true simply because we give it so much value?
In this context, aside from religious and extremist beliefs, there is also the fact people agree the US is out for oil. There is no proof, but since there is actual existance of oil in Iraq, it backs up the claim one or two did publically, that the US wants oil. And then people will believe it if enough do. This is how myths were sought as true, how history is and finally, how religion works. Is it not?

I wouldn't deny that the US is gonna ask for some resources in return. I find it a bit odd they didn't make more talk about the "Food for oil" program that was instigated. But nonetheless, are they actually right now pumping oil? Have they installed rigs with the US flag on it?

It's all about believing when enough do.

Next up, terrorists and their mindset. While I discussed it, you raised the point of converting them. I disagree if you imply it is possible. You cannot change someone's "life" convictions. Their existance is based solely on wanting the US to go down. I know it all too well, my Lebanese friend at school hates the US badly, and the jews. When we saw Schindler's List last year in class, he said he was bored so much but loved it when...-and this is offensive- the jews were tortured and killed.
Amazing just how much he has it in him and the conviction he wants them to die. You simply cannot convert him. He is anti-semitic and admits his dad is too!

And the worst though, (and if you do try to put yourself into their mind to understand, here's the kicker) is their minds are not conceptualizing the right thing at all!
He was set with the idea jews are a threat to life, that the US supports only them, and wants them to kill Arabs. It has to be something like that. You can't put your place in blind people, you see?

Now, if we went into the debate of stealing for example, and a man who stole bread to live and feed his family, or the guy who broke in a lab to steal a drug needed to let his wife survive a sickness he could not afford medical support of, then yeah, putting ourselves in their role at least allows us to evaluate two sides.

With this analogy, maybe you can see why I cannot possibly understand the terrorists and their supporters' views. And of course, the people who don't support the US anymore. I believe it is all because of absolutely wrong conceptualization of the intentions and the words, caused by the speech some delivered in which so many put so much value into it and importance, that most believed in it. It's a chain, ironically, but there is a ball at the end that makes it solidly there.

Talking about evaluation, brings me to a more personal thing, your next question:

Quote :

DO you evaluate your behaviour?

I could say so much but chances are I'd look like I am boosting my ego in this and it makes it less believable if you get what I mean. I'll go on though.

Yes, I do. It is why I have matured so much in one year. It is why I am constantly evaluating who I am and changing. Over 70% of people around won't do that and stay themselves. I won't, I refuse to stay in a state that can cause more hurt to me and others than one that bases itself on reason and acknowledgement. Believe me when I say, I DO evaluate a lot. In fact, were it not for that, I would not be posting what I post here, but I'd be saying so many immature things. I could have, but too often my brain module intervenes right before it, asking me if I think it's right, and if I have put myself in x position or considered x argument. I do that all the time, but am not perfect and will always do errors and say things I shouldn't have. The Eden you see here is the Eden who has run a "ECC Check" as you could put it in RAM terms, :wink: before posting. Often in fact I cut a post or argument short before I write it, because midway I found out I am not putting the right intention in there, nor do I have a point to convey.

Quote :

you say in your earlier thing that destorying people will cut off the bloodline of the movment, well that may have been true in the dark ages, but currently we live in an age of technology which means that information is passed before you can cut off the line.

Even if the information passes, a family who has smart terrorists, that is cut off from future generations, cannot live any more to provide the goods. Not just that, but destroy a huge army (if you can even qualify a group of terrorists as that!) of terrorists, and chances are it'll take over 20 years before they can strenghten back. THEY as in those who SUPPORTED them, but now lost them, and want to take their place and avenge. Destroy the Palestinian Hamas, and those who rally on streets have no power. It's true though, Hamas gets its sources from big terrorist leaders like Saddam, and then they provide those who are willing, the tools to go attack or simply 'give away their life'. No Saddam and other rich terrorist leaders means no resources passed on to fund terrorists, which means Hamas has no resources to pass on as well, which means no Hamas in the end, and that means the supporters are powerless.

IMO the US should even interfere in the conflict down there, and get over with Hamas already. As they wiped out in 3 months the entire Iraqi regime, they would likely wipe off Hamas like a fly. But what will the world think?

They are INVADING the PALESTINIANS, and WAGING WAR AGAINST THEM.

I am quite tired right now, writing way too much and in fact a bit lost. Hehe, but I tried my best, and I know you have an open-mind since some time now, and are willing to open it up to discussion and perhaps even change of ideology. So, may this post be of any worth to you, even if one argument only works.

Ede'

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>Edited by Eden on 09/13/03 05:08 PM.

Reply to eden

RobD

i tend to agree with you that afganistan was holding and harbouring a terrorist and had strogn ties with the USA

my real argument is not really going into afganistan as i see why the US felt it was necisary, i don't really agree with how they did it on the whole, but really it was a fairly clean war (except for a few carpet bombing city type things)

what really did get my disaproval was a few things about the whoel situation that made me very very uneasy.

A) the united states started the PATRIOT ACT

i felt this was a very dangerous move and kinda ruined the entire "fighting for freedom" argument which they currently state. it reminded me heavily of the germans in berlin after the war had ended while berlin was split by a wall.

B) the united states started or publicly said they were developing LOW YEILD nuclear warheads, which would be 1/3 of the size of hiroshima, this deeply concerned me as nuclear fallout is international not just a localised thing, the entire premise of the low yeild warhead is that it would be less politically ruining if used.

C)The US called it a "war on terror" when it was very much an attack on a country. it was a war on afganistan and not a war on terror.

D) the us payed and helped the rebels take control. i felt this was a stupid idea becasue after the main war had been finished the soldiers found many many mass graves of tortured women and children, these were killed by the rebels who were no better than the taliban, often they mistreated people jsut as badly as the taliban had been.

E) i felt the US wasn't going to stop at afganistan (i was right)

in the long run i suport the action taken, but there were so many other factors that lead me to disagree with it.

p.s. this was an interesting article which shows the US did recognise the taliban as a government.

Quote :

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."

Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.

As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.

i realise that you were an ex army officer or still are, so i don't really wish to continue an argument or debate with you, i know you have been trained as a military man, and view things in a military way. if you were trained as a hostage negotiator i would perhaps view it differently, but i realise that your life skills and training will ahve changed how you view conflict resolution.

however i'm interested in hearing your experiences fighting terrorism in north ireland.

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

Most above all, Rob has said a great amount on just one the two main issues here, the Afghan "war". I should however note to everyone reading, that I am simply 17, with little political knowledge, and no, I don't spend hours researching each topic. Simply looking at feelings sometimes says it all.

i'm only 19 so we are in similar shoes on this one bro

Quote :

First of all, as I have learned in philosophy lately, let us give concept to the words of the big questions here: What is WAR?
Let's put this at least as defined first, so that our conversation, discussion, debate actually works in the right direction with no confusion.
I believe, to many, war means a conflict, almost always armed, between two distinct societies, of different convictions.
Now I ask you though, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, did the government represent the society? If it DID, then there is a war here, as two societies are conscensual and democratically following the conflict. However, in this case, no. In both cases it was tyranic. Dictatorship at its best. Taliban of course had mixed leadership, but in both cases revoked human rights, if not existence rights.

So, war is defined as a conflict between two distinct societies, a conflict of convictions on a certain issue. But since in both countries, we are talking about a society who asks for freedom from its government and does not condone anything their govt. does (with the exception of sheeps, or the coward ones who pretend they follow them, to gain an extra day of life on their calendar).
So, with that said, how can we still define a war here?
Yes, I realize it's a tad hypocritical from an external POV, with the "War on terror" statement. But let's go inside. The US wants to eliminate terror, bad regimes, and such. In each occurence, they went to destroy the govt that encouraged it and the regime implemented by the govt.. So they went, and did that. I ask again, is that a war? Did they "attack" a country? If a country is defined as a distinct geographical area with a distinct society with its own system of convictions and beliefs (laws as well), then I ask you, did Bush attack them? Is Iraq as a country, before the intervention by the US, really a country based on its civilians? No. It is not. Therefore, the US did, NOT ONLY NOT wage a war, but they did NOT attack the country. They entered there with armed forces to liberate and create a true country, if not recover the real country within.

i don't really feel that any particular goverment system can be considerd differnt.
just as in the US Bush won with under 50% of the vote, does that make him not agreeing with the population ???

i also feel it was a war because it was clearly attakcing a country, but yes i agree many of the people invloved didn't suport the goverment!!

also i felel it was the right of the people invloved to liberate their own countries. i don't feel that the US needs to take it apon themselves to say who is or isn't a good leader, i personally wouldn't want the US coming over here trying to liberate me from helen clark becasue she doesn't like bush and has said so publicly.

when enough people disagree with a leadership it will fall, just as the US people had a war of inderpendance and gained independance from the queen (sure with a bit of help from the french LOL) it was on the US peoples terms and by their decision and choice, it wasn't forced apon them by the french.

if the people of afganistan of of iraq had gotten to a point where they turned agaisnt their own governemtn then the US went in to Help, then i would have suported it more as its the peoples choice.

the entire us mentality is the freedom of choice of the individual, yet they went and personally forced their own choice apon other nations.

timing was the big thing.

Quote :

Aside from detractors, the people who feel free are happy. They're not entirely though, in Iraq, as their country is still suffering greatly from economic lax situations, and lack of resources such as water and electricity. I believe the US is helping at the moment, but I could be wrong. Humanitarian aid in any case will be provided by many countries.

yes this is what really annoys me (personally)

the united staes went into IRAQ without the backing of the UN, and yet now the united states are trying to get the UN to foot the bil of the humanitarian aid, also note that the United states refused to pay its UN bill. it was a private citizen who payed it for the USA.

i think the US, britan, and Aus should foot 100% of the humanitarian bill unles it is private aid from individual citizens (e.g. door collects) i don't think any other governement should help pay unless their people vote for it.

Quote :

Many people keep thinking the US is INVADING, and WAGING WARS on COUNTRIES. Again I ask you to conceptualize the key words here.
This is a definite wrong POV by people, because if we look at the true sense of it, they aren't. Those people are lead to be against the US because they are forming the wrong sense of the intentions.

DON'T BALME OTHERS BY SAYING THEY ARE THINKING THE WRONG THING

this is my most important point, please please realise that the united states really needs to fight a war of opinion rather than a war of fact.

it is my view that the US invaded iraq, you are basicly saying that is wrong.

however it is a FACT that that is my opinion which is what you should really be worried about, i need to be convinced that my opinion should be changed, and thats not going to happen through telling me i'm worng, thats going to happen through proving by actions that i'm wrong.

i may be wrong, but its a FACT that i think that.

if people think that the US is invading, it doesn;t really matter if they are or arn't the public persception that they are is the biggest issue, and the most dangerous thing to the us currently.

Quote :

The US' intentions, in my eyes, are to go into different countries with opressive regimes containing terrorists, and liberate them. Otherwise, I don't get why the US would go into Afghanistan and liberate them if they offer little resources compared to Iraq's oil?
Furthermore, as I also studied in the very first chapter of my Philosophy book, which holds ever so much truth right now, the question: Is a human speech true simply because we give it so much value?
In this context, aside from religious and extremist beliefs, there is also the fact people agree the US is out for oil. There is no proof, but since there is actual existance of oil in Iraq, it backs up the claim one or two did publically, that the US wants oil. And then people will believe it if enough do. This is how myths were sought as true, how history is and finally, how religion works. Is it not?[quote]

i respect your opinion that the US is liberating these countrys.

but as i said earlier it doesn't matter if they are or arn't, its the public perception of wether they are or arn't that is the issue. it seems you understand this idea somewhat by the philosophy you are talking about.

[quote]I wouldn't deny that the US is gonna ask for some resources in return. I find it a bit odd they didn't make more talk about the "Food for oil" program that was instigated. But nonetheless, are they actually right now pumping oil? Have they installed rigs with the US flag on it?

i think the oil for food program favours the US more than IRAQ.

if the US was giving a truly equal value of food for the oil they recive then i would agree with it, however i am personally scpetical that the US will be giving a good deal to the Iraqis.

i'd hope that i was proven wrong on this one

Quote :

Next up, terrorists and their mindset. While I discussed it, you raised the point of converting them. I disagree if you imply it is possible. You cannot change someone's "life" convictions. Their existance is based solely on wanting the US to go down. I know it all too well, my Lebanese friend at school hates the US badly, and the jews. When we saw Schindler's List last year in class, he said he was bored so much but loved it when...-and this is offensive- the jews were tortured and killed.
Amazing just how much he has it in him and the conviction he wants them to die. You simply cannot convert him. He is anti-semitic and admits his dad is too!

yes i agree you cannot convert a terrorist, i suport killing terrorists,

HOWEVER, why does a terrorist become a terrorist, i think it needs to be a proactive thing the US should do to step up and stop terrorists before they start.

schooling is a good way to change the opinions of kids at a young age (AKA brainwashing, is a more extreme word, but is sitll relavent, i'm not saying brainwashing is a bad thing BTW)

the people i am talking about converting are the average JO's who only joined the taliban because they needed their familys to be feed, the ones that are trying to stay alive not the ones with convictions to kill, not the ones that are so set in their ways that they will do anything to kill people.

just the avergae people in the wrong situation.

Quote :

And the worst though, (and if you do try to put yourself into their mind to understand, here's the kicker) is their minds are not conceptualizing the right thing at all!
He was set with the idea jews are a threat to life, that the US supports only them, and wants them to kill Arabs. It has to be something like that. You can't put your place in blind people, you see?

well actually i have noticed as well as most people in my country that the US favours isreal. i don't understand why!!!!

i don't agree with this guys views but i don't see how he is any more blind than you or i to POV's

he has a different POV, ask him WHY he thinks this and then you may understand a reason why he thinks this, it may not be the "right" pov, but really you need to realise its a FACT that he thinks this way, try to understand him a bit more then you can disagree with him, and understand why you are disagreeing with him.

Quote :

Now, if we went into the debate of stealing for example, and a man who stole bread to live and feed his family, or the guy who broke in a lab to steal a drug needed to let his wife survive a sickness he could not afford medical support of, then yeah, putting ourselves in their role at least allows us to evaluate two sides.

With this analogy, maybe you can see why I cannot possibly understand the terrorists and their supporters' views. And of course, the people who don't support the US anymore. I believe it is all because of absolutely wrong conceptualization of the intentions and the words, caused by the speech some delivered in which so many put so much value into it and importance, that most believed in it. It's a chain, ironically, but there is a ball at the end that makes it solidly there.

Talking about evaluation, brings me to a more personal thing, your next question:

well i feel the same and opposite way, i feel that the US hates many nations in the world because they are listening to the speeches of George bush rather than looking at information on their own accord and therefore coming up with their own opinion.

for example everyone (ok most) in the US belived that the reports george was talking about were FACT, that iraq could attack within 45 mins but as you may or may not have heard, in britan there is a huge stink as they have found out that that report was mainly exagerated and not factual at all.

so i feel its a bit on both sides on this one, at both extremes there is misinformation, and blind sheepish following.
its not jsut in terrorist nations but also in westurn nations.

Quote :

I could say so much but chances are I'd look like I am boosting my ego in this and it makes it less believable if you get what I mean. I'll go on though.

Yes, I do. It is why I have matured so much in one year. It is why I am constantly evaluating who I am and changing. Over 70% of people around won't do that and stay themselves. I won't, I refuse to stay in a state that can cause more hurt to me and others than one that bases itself on reason and acknowledgement. Believe me when I say, I DO evaluate a lot. In fact, were it not for that, I would not be posting what I post here, but I'd be saying so many immature things. I could have, but too often my brain module intervenes right before it, asking me if I think it's right, and if I have put myself in x position or considered x argument. I do that all the time, but am not perfect and will always do errors and say things I shouldn't have. The Eden you see here is the Eden who has run a "ECC Check" as you could put it in RAM terms, before posting. Often in fact I cut a post or argument short before I write it, because midway I found out I am not putting the right intention in there, nor do I have a point to convey.

i hear you on that one, i too have been in simialr situations and feel i do a simialr thing.

i have matured a lot over the last year also, i think its becasue of trying to understand other peoples experiences and points of view.

Quote :

Even if the information passes, a family who has smart terrorists, that is cut off from future generations, cannot live any more to provide the goods. Not just that, but destroy a huge army (if you can even qualify a group of terrorists as that!) of terrorists, and chances are it'll take over 20 years before they can strenghten back. THEY as in those who SUPPORTED them, but now lost them, and want to take their place and avenge. Destroy the Palestinian Hamas, and those who rally on streets have no power. It's true though, Hamas gets its sources from big terrorist leaders like Saddam, and then they provide those who are willing, the tools to go attack or simply 'give away their life'. No Saddam and other rich terrorist leaders means no resources passed on to fund terrorists, which means Hamas has no resources to pass on as well, which means no Hamas in the end, and that means the supporters are powerless.

IMO the US should even interfere in the conflict down there, and get over with Hamas already. As they wiped out in 3 months the entire Iraqi regime, they would likely wipe off Hamas like a fly. But what will the world think?

i see you logic on this, but in my opinion its a greater issue for the US to fight public opinion than trying to fight people that are already terrorists.

if the US fights the opinons then the younger generation will hopefully never become terrorists in the first palce.

rememebr a terrorist can be anyone from anywhere, it could be you for all i know. fighting the large organisations is only a small part of the problem. a new unkonwn group of terrorists could pop up at anytime.

Quote :

They are INVADING the PALESTINIANS, and WAGING WAR AGAINST THEM.

actually i am sympathetic with the palistinians on this one (not the terrorists, but the everyday palistinians)

i feel that Isreal has been encroaching on their land illegally, i'm very concerned about the isreali wall, AKA the berlin wall but 3 times taller.

its pretty sad state of affairs down there, i don't really suport either side, but i fele the palistinains are so poor and have nothing, while the isrealis are so rich, have weapons and have power. i am kinda feeling sorry for the underdogs.

Quote :

I am quite tired right now, writing way too much and in fact a bit lost. Hehe, but I tried my best, and I know you have an open-mind since some time now, and are willing to open it up to discussion and perhaps even change of ideology. So, may this post be of any worth to you, even if one argument only works.

yeah everything helps a bit to find common ground, its not going to ever change my views and convictions 100%, but it does bring people closer to understanding each other and moving past their differeneces.

i feel since you are young also you are open to new ideas as i am.

i know you will always suport the US side on it, but the day you can understand that your ideas are no more correct than anyone elses then you will realise what i am trying to talk about.

i feel that your views are different from mine, yet they are no more or less correct.

its a FACT that you feel the way you do, just as its a FACT that i feel the way i do.

its also a FACT that we both have had different influences and different experiences, we have different perspective son the same situations.

i may see somthing from a different camera, and a different way of talking about it than you.

it doesn't make either of us MORE correct, it just emphasise that in the end we are individuals, and ONLY HUMAN.

i know you can never fully understand a terrorist, i don;t expect you to be able to(just as i can't either), you havn't had the same set of influences and experiences so cannot think the same way.

just as i will never fully understand the way people feel in the US (and will never fully undestand RobD who has had military experiences that i havn't), i have been exposed to different MEDIA, and differnt life experiences and a differnt culture,

your society and upbringing have a great effect on the way you think, it doens't make either more correct than any other.

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

i don't really feel that any particular goverment system can be considerd differnt.

Of course it can, hence what dictatorship govts. do compared to democratic ones!

Quote :

i also feel it was a war because it was clearly attakcing a country,

This is where I must point out a lack of reading. You clearly did not grasp anything I just said in my previous post!
I said let us define war and attacking a COUNTRY before anything. A war happens between two countries (where the government AND its civilians or soldiers are in it) waging war, in the desire to win. The USA did not one bit try to conquer Iraq and rename it. They didn't eliminate any solidiers representing the country itself. I cannot for the life of me see this as a war more than a rescue mission or the like. It cannot be defined a war since the USA did not ATTACK. Will you people stop saying ATTACK already? Did they go and kill Iraqi citizens on purpose? Did they go on uncharted territory, destroy buildings that had no relevance to them and their mission?
(take out any friendly fire occurence here)

I can't debate if you still repeat WAR and ATTACK. It's just NOT that.

Quote :

also i felel it was the right of the people invloved to liberate their own countries.

Here is where I can use your own recommendation and tip for mature debates, against you. Have you tried putting your place in these poor civilians' shoes?

These poor civilians without freedom of speech.
These poor civilians without freedom of speech and the ability to live on their own.
These poor civilians without freedom of speech and the ability to live on their own, and simply don't have much money.
These poor civilians without freedom of speech and the ability to live on their own, and simply don't have much money, nor any kind of ways to defend themselves.

THESE are the civilians there, and if there is anything you and the rest of the world who opposes what the US is doing, should try to imagine above all, it's THIS. Did you also happen to forget the news showing the happy faces these people had, and the pride they displayed once they toppled down the statues?
How about in Afghanistan where now people even have comps and download MP3s? (I saw it on a report on Canada's music TV station Much Music.)

These people are powerless man, they have little to fight. They can't anyways, the army is surrounding them with superior weapons, if not chemical ones. I know if I were in their shoes, I'd have nothing much. I don't think there were even that many rebel forces, for the fact they simply don't have access to defense and offense armory. These people couldn't know what a knife does on a person if you showed them one. It's been a decade since Bush Sr. attacked, and yet they're still not free, they still haven't done jack to stop one of the world's most despicable yet strongest leaders. (except for the child's play toppling the US did in 3 months ROFL)

Quote :

when enough people disagree with a leadership it will fall,

The whole point of dictatorship is to render the people defenseless and powerless in front of its government. They can't topple it, as I said before.

Quote :

the entire us mentality is the freedom of choice of the individual, yet they went and personally forced their own choice apon other nations.

There's nary a thing that can be described as a nation in both Afghanistan and Iraq's case. The free Afghanistan now is not the Afghanistan of before. Before that, it wasn't a nation. Its inhabitants were barely constituting or giving it any cultural aspect, because their regime stopped it all. The entire country was literally a camp for torture on its own. Try hoping they could eventually turn against the govt. Trust me, hoping for something to happen, and letting people suffer isn't my idea of a good thing.

If you saw a father who whips his children and makes them cry and told me you wouldn't do a thing, it's up to his kids to grow and topple him, I'd say you're sadistic. This is the same thing here. You can't just let such people rule the place, hurting the population. You can't possible let that child get whipped and not do a thing but wait till that kid has gotten enough bruises to fight back.

Quote :

the united staes went into IRAQ without the backing of the UN, and yet now the united states are trying to get the UN to foot the bil of the humanitarian aid, also note that the United states refused to pay its UN bill. it was a private citizen who payed it for the USA.

What about what the US did DURING the mission? In Afghanistan you saw the big parachuted aid. The US allowed these people to survive during this fight. "The UN should step in now, it's safe."

Quote :

DON'T BALME OTHERS BY SAYING THEY ARE THINKING THE WRONG THING

this is my most important point, please please realise that the united states really needs to fight a war of opinion rather than a war of fact.

it is my view that the US invaded iraq, you are basicly saying that is wrong.

And I will always say that. There is absolutely no good usage when saying "INVADED" when the key words describing this mission, if you put them near the word INVADED, were: FREEDOM, LIBERATION, TOPPLING DOWN REGIME, RESTORE DEMOCRATIC POWER. Where does that lexical field denote INVASION?

Quote :

if people think that the US is invading, it doesn;t really matter if they are or arn't the public persception that they are is the biggest issue, and the most dangerous thing to the us currently.

Well you know what? Tough luck for them. I don't care one bit what they think. I think they have the wrong perception completely when they say INVADE and ATTACK.
Besides, they'll whine, but just look at how they'll come begging each time they need resources and help from the US. You do know the US helps and gives a lot do you?

Quote :

i think the oil for food program favours the US more than IRAQ.

if the US was giving a truly equal value of food for the oil they recive then i would agree with it, however i am personally scpetical that the US will be giving a good deal to the Iraqis.

i'd hope that i was proven wrong on this one

While I have my own little skepticism, two things allow me to go on believing not:
1)My argument which still stands: The US went to Afghanistan, liberated it, yet Afghanistan had little points of interest for the US, compared to Iraq with -coincidently- its oil.
2)No oil rig so far was exploited AFAIK and had a slapped-on US flag or sign.

Quote :

HOWEVER, why does a terrorist become a terrorist, i think it needs to be a proactive thing the US should do to step up and stop terrorists before they start.

schooling is a good way to change the opinions of kids at a young age (AKA brainwashing, is a more extreme word, but is sitll relavent, i'm not saying brainwashing is a bad thing BTW)

It is a fact the household you grow up in, influences your behavior mainly. The US not only needs to destroy and kill terrorists and their bloodline, but they need to stop all those parents teaching their children to hate them. Hey, you can choose to hate what the US is doing, but hating a country, its citizens who didn't do a thing to you, is generalizing and wrong. Most hate AMERICANS as a whole simply because they were taught to. An American is another person like you, like a black, a jew, an arab is.

Quote :

the people i am talking about converting are the average JO's who only joined the taliban because they needed their familys to be feed, the ones that are trying to stay alive not the ones with convictions to kill, not the ones that are so set in their ways that they will do anything to kill people.

And do you have proof about that? They were taught to, and I doubt they get so much in reward for killing. There are kids there with guns, ready to shoot. They were taught to hate the US nationality and shoot on sight.
Again, you need to cut the source of the problem, here being the terrorists, before anything can be done. Render the haters powerless and then you can start teaching them. If they still got knives, they'll try to get you and not listen.

Quote :

that the US favours isreal. i don't understand why!!!!

I don't know the exact history of how Israel started and who got mad, but it seemed to me like the US saved Germany's jews from the Nazi regime, they went and found Israel, but then I guess the Arabs were not happy. I don't know why, but I am guessing it's so petty it's stupid. Next thing you know, they are trying to kill all jews, so the US has no choice but to protect Israel as the eyes are glaring at it from all sides of the country's borders.

Quote :

i don't agree with this guys views but i don't see how he is any more blind than you or i to POV's

he has a different POV, ask him WHY he thinks this and then you may understand a reason why he thinks this, it may not be the "right" pov, but really you need to realise its a FACT that he thinks this way, try to understand him a bit more then you can disagree with him, and understand why you are disagreeing with him.

Let's go to a similar analogy to the bad dad one. A dad will hit his child all the time. You could ask him why, but he wouldn't have a reason, he just was taught or given even enough lashing to lash out himself. That dude at school is just that man. He hates because he was taught to, and the arabic propaganda was slit into his throat. I know it for a fact he speaks out of his ass. Too often his arguments have no goal at all. He defends Saddam or anyone. I won't ever stoop as low as wondering and trying to sympathize with his POV. Because he doesn't know himself why. He'll give you what he's been told. Sorry Alltaken, your request here is really pointless IMO. Nobody will understand why someone hates another so badly for no reason, compared to someone who dislikes what someone else is doing and explains why he doesn't like that.
I, as an arab, know this very well, it's been so typical, most arabs are that way. They'll hate what they want to, with absolutely NO RATIONALITY. I've seen it, I've lived it and I live it.
Meddling is good sometimes, 'nuff said.

Quote :

i feel that the US hates many nations in the world because they are listening to the speeches of George bush rather than looking at information on their own accord and therefore coming up with their own opinion.

for example everyone (ok most) in the US belived that the reports george was talking about were FACT, that iraq could attack within 45 mins but as you may or may not have heard, in britan there is a huge stink as they have found out that that report was mainly exagerated and not factual at all.

Actually a lot disagree with George's arguments. And as for the US hates world thing, I really wish you will revoke that statement ASAP. That's a very invalid opinion you laid out.

Quote :

, and blind sheepish following.
its not jsut in terrorist nations but also in westurn nations.

And that's another misinformed statement. You got the Bush supporters, but nobody here will go on streets waiving his face on a carton, yelling like the sheep on those Palestinian streets. Maybe it's because you live so far and you don't see it on the media, but we're a developped civlisation up here, and we never go blind like that. There are too many people in the US against this war to even start making some small point on what you said.

Quote :

a new unkonwn group of terrorists could pop up at anytime

Would you agree that terrorists pop up in the countries with the least adequate government?
If so, I leave the rest to your logic.

Quote :

(not the terrorists, but the everyday palistinians)

i feel that Isreal has been encroaching on their land illegally, i'm very concerned about the isreali wall, AKA the berlin wall but 3 times taller.

its pretty sad state of affairs down there, i don't really suport either side, but i fele the palistinains are so poor and have nothing, while the isrealis are so rich, have weapons and have power. i am kinda feeling sorry for the underdogs.

Considering you get easily 10 times more Israeli casualties each attack relative to Palestinian ones, I think you're looking at one side only. Because in each way, Palestinian civilians and Israeli civilians are innocent and die. Luckily Israel does not have sheep street rallie people. Those people should not even be considered civilians, and you shouldn't feel sympathy for blind people. They won't listen to any other news than Al-Jazeera's.

I'd feel sympathy for both sides' civilians if I were you, especially since Israel gets 10 times the casualties each time there's an attack. Not only this, but the extremists in Palestine fight dirty, an unfairly. They attack civilians, and don't get to the root of their enemy, the govt., which means they are doing JACK for their cause. Israelis target the terrorist group, and not the civilians.
So who's better here, and wiser?

Quote :

you havn't had the same set of influences and experiences so cannot think the same way.

But as an Arab, who actually supports the Arab majority's enemy, the US, I know a lot from where I come from, and their behavior, more than any person here. I know the behavior, and like I said, I've lived to see it. I was born during a civil war JSYK.

Quote :

your society and upbringing have a great effect on the way you think, it doens't make either more correct than any other.
[quote]your society and upbringing have a great effect on the way you think, it doens't make either more correct than any other.

Most Canadians don't support the USA and are against the war. I am one of the few who thinks differently, and I give you my word on it. About 3-4 per class of 30 at school will support the USA. And, at the same time, not only this, but as I said above, I am an Arab and don't believe in the crap propaganda those extremists believe.
My mom is anti-american, hates Bush and all, and opposes the war, I am raised in a over +50% anti-american member family. But luckily I have the open mind and escaped such brainwashing. My bro is pro-American too. Simply put, terrorists are mindless, period. If you have something against someone, you tell it to him, you don't freakin' send him planes into his territory to make a statement. And as someone on CNN's WTC-remembering video said: "I'm not ready to give up my life just so someone can make a statement".

I've also always found that those who oppose the war, will do the typical concession: "Oh I agree, Saddam is evil, but the way it was done is bad...", but you know what, you can't goddamn send Saddam a letter to his mailbox saying: PLEASE, PLEASE give up your regime, we'll be your frrriends!

This is a world of good and bad, and when bad exceeds good, you fight hard, you go with hard weapons, and you go to war against THEM. All of us hate war, but when we are at times like these, you cannot do anything else but that, period.

PS: Oh well, at least you ain't one of the fugnuts that rally and protest mindlessly, at least you bother to discuss. Svol would've twisted the words by now already, LOL!
--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>Edited by Eden on 09/14/03 10:35 PM.

Reply to eden

Um guys who are reading this, you can participate! This isn't just between me and Alltaken!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

I only have so much free time in my day.....

Reply to Auburn9698

Yeah I know. But if you got something you wanna say, do so man. I just want people not to feel it's a personal debate.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Well, actually I did have a comment to make on this thread and I made it in that post. :wink:

Reply to Auburn9698

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

this is a good history FROM THE UN, of the isreal vs palistinian conflict

i might make a longer post some other time, but i don't really seem to see the point, becasue in your post you basicly ignored my entire message.

and that was to at least "try" and understand the others reasoning. instead you just said that they had no reasoning!!!!

i personally don't think anyone does anything without reason.

try and ask your friend in a non-confrontational why he feels the way he does, don't argue back, jsut keep asking the questions.

go home and thinki about what he said, (you will definatly disagree with what he eblives but you will at least know why he belives it)

you say he thinks it without reason, yet you seem to think you have a reason behind your thoughts.

jsut try it and see, you may grow up a bit.

it was this reason that i have become more open minded, i started steping into other peoples minds and asking why they belived certain things.

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

oh p.s. look at this

Quote :

During this intifada through 11/25/02, for every 1 Israeli civilian wounded by a Palestinian, FORTY Palestinian civilians are hospitalized in attacks by Israelis.

Quote :

TOTAL INJURIES
- 1 Israeli is wounded every 27 hrs, 42 mins
- 1 Palestinian is wounded every 55 mins

CIVILIAN INJURIES
- 1 Israeli civilian is wounded every 39 hrs, 57 mins
- 1 Palestinian civilian is wounded every 1 hour and 5 mins
(1 to 40 ratio)

TOTAL CASUALTIES
- 1 Israeli is killed every 30 hrs, 33 mins
- 1 Palestinian is killed every 10 hours, 9 mins
(1 to 3 ratio)

CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
- 1 Israeli civilian is killed in Israel every 71 hrs, 12 mins (2.96 days)
- 1 Palestinian civilian is killed every 11 hrs, 57 mins
(1 to 6 ratio)

so don't mis quote your sources, i think you know NOTHING about the conflict between isreal and palistine, jsut as you know only the US perspective about the war in the afganistan and iraq wars also. but then again you see a different perspective on it.

the media you are exposed to must be really weird

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

i'm very concerned about the isreali wall, AKA the berlin wall but 3 times taller.

It's late and I won't jump into all the crap you spew out, but I want to point out one significant difference.

The Berlin Wall was to keep freedom loving people in - to prevent their escape to the free West Berlin.

Israel's fence is an effort to stop the homocide bombers from walkin IN unfettered - clearly, they haven't been 100% successful, but that fence is a desperate effort at murder control - hardly inappropriate nor raciest.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Bejamin Franklin

Reply to Jake_Barnes

point taken.

i kinda feel it is trying to cage the palistinians though.

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

so don't mis quote your sources, i think you know NOTHING about the conflict between isreal and palistine, jsut as you know only the US perspective about the war in the afganistan and iraq wars also. but then again you see a different perspective on it.

the media you are exposed to must be really weird

Alltaken

That is an odd source but I guess it is true. I DO have to ask though if this is still recent. Especially when every time I see news on a suicide bombing, at least 50 are injured. If you have RECENT statistics, that'd prove me wrong.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Jake you really should join in if you got something to say. I don't wanna have to debate alone. I am sure you got your POV and points to lay out. I know I am not exactly good at explaining. So I hope you would reconsider and chime in. People with more military experience will also probably know a bit more in "wartime" situations.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

eden a note on the isreal palistinian thing.

the news you see that shows about 50 people getting injured in a bombing is CORRECT.

they are not lying about that, the bombings are often rather brutal and involve about 50 people being injured and many dieing, +1 palistinian.

the news i see shows a bombing hapening every week or so. i assume your news shows a simialr quantity?!?!?!

the thing is, the news i see also shows the isreali attacks on palistinians. my news broadcaster (BBC world) goes somthing like this. (example is fiction but you get the idea)

"palistinain bomber kills 5 isrealis and injurs another 40 people in a car bomb in the central west bank.

isreal sends in helicopter gunships and destroys 5 suspected palistinian militia headquaters in a retaliation for last weeks bombing, 15 people are thought dead, and many injured.

isreal sends in tanks to dispurse a group of palistinianss throwing stones, they kill 5 people and injure another 15 palistinaians"

our news goes somthing like that. i totally understand that the palistinians are attacking the isrealis, but then again the retaliations from both sides are totally rediculous.

i really and honestly don't suport either side on this argument.

they are both provoking each other, and are both going to be engaged in bloody battles untill the palistinains or the jews are totally wiped out.

i was manily using it as an example of the different perspectives that News channels offer, i don't know if you get the same news as we do but for example in afganistan and iraq we see more anti US protests than groups of people who feel liberated.

its about 3-1 3 groups of iraqis that hate the US, vs 1 group that are glad to see them there.

i can't say my news is accurate at all and do not claim too, but i feel you are only seeing people who are happy with the US being in Iraq.

its only half the story, i don't know many of the sides like i bet i don't know the US side on it, but then again i often see two sides broadcast one after the other BBC world trys to offer an unbiased opinion (although that is impossible)

please don't think i am trying to personally attack you in any of this, i am mearly trying to challenge your perspective on it.

i'm not trying to change your mind of what you think, but mearly get you into a possition where you are able to understand the other side better. (its a good skill to have in any feild of work, to be able to empathise without agreeing can work in your favour, you can use situations to your advantage and get on the good side of anyone wether you desirve to be or not. you can also use it to manipulte people etc... so yes its a powerfull way to think, wether you agree or not)

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

(in Re: to all of these posts)
Three words.

Ho
Lee
Crap!!!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
I couldn't take the time to read all of these posts, but what I did read seemed to be fairly well thought out, and it seemed to be a very civilized conversation. On that, I applaud all those involved. Please do continue!!!

I've got a fever,
and the only prescription
is more cowbell

Reply to JustPlainJef

Quote :

point taken.

i kinda feel it is trying to cage the palistinians though.

Alltaken

Now that is an example of where you also let your opinion more than facts get in!
You "feel" way too much on something than actually find realism in something. Everywhere in your post you say "I feel", yet I wonder if you tried to find some arguments with facts or simply reasoning. I am still waiting on you to find a flaw in the war definition and the invading. You say I am not being open minded enough here, but I should note that you aren't trying to exchange the logic I am trying to convey. Most of the time you give me your "I feel" terms more than a universal POV as arguments could be.

Furthermore, you still don't see what I mean by blind propaganda-laden people. If you were near my "pal" at school, you'd see that you wouldn't be even tempted to ask. Hell, he's like the Palestinian sheeps on the streets. Try asking one of them what they think. I can't possibly even open my mind to their arguments. Because they are just raging deep inside to burn yet another US flag. And to further prove my argument's strength, they are not people who are willing to tell the US they disagree with their mindset or anything, they are people who want to irrationally KILL them without at least helping the US see their POV. Just as we supposedly can't let them understand, they can't let us understand with their behavior. We supposedly provoke them, so they provoke us back. No one will sit on the chairs and talk.

Hope RobD will come back to give his military look on things.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Read you cowcrap, READ! :lol:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

I know CNN is very pro-American, however our Canadian news company CTV is quite neutral, I'd say. I have seen tons of news on Iraqis being sadened. My point was that there are many who are happy and those who aren't, well often they were manipulated to like Saddam, against their will, and support without knowing this guy is a tyrant who would shoot them randomly.

Still, in the end, it's not about who's happy and who's not, it's that finally Iraq is given the chance to evolve, after decades and decades of being held down. They can move on, develop, give the people of the world their culture (even those some arseholes there burned down a freakin' museum with valuable cultural items). Heck the US is offering cable TV now LOL!
So, whether they're happy or not, they'll live more now and eventually they will see what freedom offers, especially democratically speaking.

Your data is pretty much what I see too. I know there are lots of Palestinians injured, but my other point, as I said a few posts before, is that the bombers don't target rationally, they go for population, while Israel goes for the source of the terrorism, the organization. They managed to kill several of the high ranked Hamas leaders for christ's sake. Palestinian bombers have yet (I could be wrong and if you can correct me do so) to kill some important Israeli figure! I mean, what's their goal really, to prove a point? Which? They're not taking down the military so far nor their Israeli leaders.

But in the end, like you, I don't like either things, and I feel bad seeing people get killed when they did jack. I WON'T however feel bad if the sheeps got killed. Those people deserve nothing, they support killing and terrorism. I hate their faces that scream: ARAFAT ALALALALAL....(arabic humor I guess heheh).

Additionally, my POV is as I said before, very distant from my family's and often, my culture. I've lived wartime, seen Arabs behave and think oddly (I did live in Lebanon a good while and know lots of friends who still speak to me about it), so I know how my opinion is formed. It took me a while to.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>Edited by Eden on 09/15/03 10:18 AM.

Reply to eden

i'll come back in a few days eden and continue this lovely convisation.

i will give you the definition of invading and liberating and see which if not both fit in.

it depends on what perspective you see it from also though.

untill then back to my assignment.

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

Correction, your assignment includes: WAR, ATTACK AND INVADE A COUNTRY. Remember the key words though, as I tried to dissect even COUNTRY!

Now go you sheep-shagger! :lol:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

LOL

yeah those sheep shag good.

ok i've done the dictioanry thing for you

Quote :

attack

1. To set upon with violent force.
2. To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.
3. To start work on with purpose and vigor: attack a problem.
4. To begin to affect harmfully: a disease that attacks the central nervous system.

so YES the us did ATTACK iraq

Quote :

invade

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco” (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

yes the US government went in to overrun Iraq
yes the US is encroaching on iraqi soil

Quote :

liberate

1. To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control.
2. Chemistry. To release (a gas, for example) from combination.
3. Slang. To obtain by illegal or stealthy action: tried to sell appliances that were liberated during the riot.

yes the us has liberated oil from iraq (ha ha ha i had to say that one LOL)

yes the us has liberated the iraqi people.

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

so YES the us did ATTACK iraq

Which of these definitions did you base that on, so we can work further?

Quote :

yes the US is encroaching on iraqi soil

<A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encroach" target="_new">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encroach</A>
First definition: The US is destroying rights over there and taking away Iraqi's possessions?!

Quote :

yes the US government went in to overrun Iraq

<A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overrun" target="_new">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overrun</A>
Take the first part, not the Printing definitions!
So, they either conquered Iraqi forces which were terrorist and Saddam-forces, or they came in ..."swarms and spread over destructively?" Damn Dictionary definitions, so weird.

Urm there you go though, pick which suits you and we'll work on it.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

encroach i'll take this please, and could i buy a vowl

# To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland

for overrun i'll take these two

#

2. To spread or swarm over destructively: Locusts overran the prairie.

# To spread swiftly throughout:

the first one of the two could be argued with using the "perspective argument"

e.g. i think its destructive what the us is doing, but you think its constructive.

so lets look mainly at the second, to spread swiftly throughout.

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

Quote :

the first one of the two could be argued with using the "perspective argument"
e.g. i th[ink its destructive what the us is doing, but you think its constructive.

If you so as use that first definition, I'll opt out of the debate, knowing you're just another mindless zombie rallier with the worst possible interpretations. So don't ever put that definition here.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

I reckon I'll make a short post so it'll be read, and folk will breath a sigh of relief. :wink:

Not bad, eh? Easy reading..

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Quote :

i felt a more effective way to do it would be to go in with the military in a limited offensive role and instead of using guns to kill enemys, it may have been more effective to convert enemys (most of which were in the groups for food and water and didn't have anything personal against the us) by offering them supplies and aid as well as water.

First of all, it is fairly obvious that you live a sheltered life. Tell me this, have you ever met a taliban, a skin head, a NAZI a member of the KKK, or some other member of a radical group? I HAVE. They aren't like you and me. They're sick people. They hate us because our entire way of life doesn't agree with theirs. Our principles of humanity aren't even closely related. Food and water? Sure, for the farmers in the hills. We were fighting the government and the terrorists. How do you propose that we give the peasant people supplies when they are run by a cruel and terrorist harboring government? You seem to forget that we DID give the Taliban several warnings and they still refused to hand over Al Qaeda.

Quote :

if you don't understand passive resistance you will never understand my point of view on it. its a totally way of thinking that must be obtained by oneself and cannot be taught.

Can you please name a time in history where passive resistance worked? Did it work with the Romans, Germans, Italians, NAZIS, Japanese, Mongols, Serbs, Arabs, or the Spanish? All those who passively sat back and apathetically watched events unfold were conquered and killed.

Quote :

i soon realised that i felt the US was a greater evil than the taliban, and felt somewhat sorry for the people in afganistan, my views and opinions were often not welcome, i was often shutdown by many many people in arguments and debates (somewhat like here), all becasue 97% of the people were in suport of the US defending themselves

Have you ever left NZ? How old are you? If a man breaks into your home and kills your dog or little sister do you give him food and water? He swears that his entire family is coming right behind him. Personally I think you need to face reality. You have to stop him, what do you do? You kill him.

Quote :

with the war in afganistan being more bloody than normal and draging on for a long time the general public here lost interest in returned somewhat to there mild belifs, the public was still polarised to some extent but the general feeling was about 50/50 now with most people being in the middle on it.[quote]

More bloody than normal? LOL. You don't seem to understand the severity of warfare. The Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, from a purely military standpoint, were the most successfull of any operation EVER. 50/50? Was that in NZ?

[quote]however along came Iraq, most people were sittng on 50/50 but couldn't belive that george wanted to attack another country, people thought WHAT why is he attacking these guys, they have nothing to do with afganistan and september 11th what is going on.

This isn't just about afghanistan or sept 11. It's about terrorism and countries that sponsor them. It's about world instability. It's about Americas desire to protect itself. You're very isolated on your little island down there but it wasn't more than 60 years ago that your people's entire way of life was in jeapordy of being taken from them. What did they do?

Quote :

my thinking is that if you responded by give aid to afganistan (and only killing the top guys, yes i do support killing in a few circumstances) and went in with the "good guy" approch then

Um, they had armies. Like, omg, these dudes with guns and missiles and stuff. There were like these camps with these terrorists too. Like OMG. There's no such thing as a good guy approach against an army or a hostile government. Kissing and hugging and smiling just wasn't going to work.

Quote :

However it is normally undestood (by all the people i know, and all the news networks i see from outside the US) that it should have been left up to the Iraqi people to start a civil war on their own terms.

You're just being cruel now. What the hell is wrong with you? Go read about the Iraqi uprisings. The Saddam regime brutally killed millions of people. He gassed his own people when they tried to rise against him. Dear god Alltaken what are you thinking?

Quote :

i don't think the US battle should be agaisnt terror but should go one step back and be against public perception.

I think both. I still don't understand why the USA doesn't improve it's image.

Quote :

The US called it a "war on terror" when it was very much an attack on a country. it was a war on afganistan and not a war on terror.

You still don't get it. Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war isn't over. Somebody will be next.

Quote :

also i felel it was the right of the people invloved to liberate their own countries. i don't feel that the US needs to take it apon themselves to say who is or isn't a good leader, i personally wouldn't want the US coming over here trying to liberate me from helen clark becasue she doesn't like bush and has said so publicly.

You REALLY need to travel to a country that was under the rule of a powerfull and ruthless goverment. You're in lala land if you think that's realistic.

Quote :

DON'T BALME OTHERS BY SAYING THEY ARE THINKING THE WRONG THING

You are more worried about public opinion than what is right and wrong. Do you realize how dumb that is? The USA is doing what it's people want it to do. We don't need Frances permission to secure our way of life. We don't need you to agree with us. What we hope you will agree on though is that a liberated Iraq and Afghanistan is better than a repressed and brutally violated Afghan and Iraqi people. We hope that you'll understand that governments who are out to kill us or help others kill us are not in your best interest.

Quote :

HOWEVER, why does a terrorist become a terrorist, i think it needs to be a proactive thing the US should do to step up and stop terrorists before they start.

Terrorists are sick people. What are you doing to stop terrorists before they start? What are you doing to stop terrorists after they start? That's right. You're doing absolutely nothing. Leave it to the USA to handle it. Well we are. I suppose we could have gone to the Taliban and Saddam and asked if we could build pro-democratic schools in their country. I can't believe we didn't think of that earlier.

Quote :

well actually i have noticed as well as most people in my country that the US favours isreal. i don't understand why!!!!

It's because the Palestinians hijacked planes, hijacked ships, hijacked the olympics, killed our people, strap bombs to their bodies and rush into a mall. They kill innocent people for public attention. This doesn't agree with anything we believe in. Arafat doesn't want peace. The Israelis aren't perfect, but they at least democratically elect their leaders and choose the route they are going to take towards peace. The Palestinians don't like Arafat and Arafat has always taken a route of violence in order to gain his goals.

Quote :

if the US fights the opinons then the younger generation will hopefully never become terrorists in the first palce.

The USA cannot get thier words heard everywhere. Why do you think we drop millions of leaflets over Afghanistan and Iraq? Should we start dropping leaflets over Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and the Sudan?

Quote :

this is a good history FROM THE UN, of the isreal vs palistinian conflict

Yes it is! It's very very long though. I'm assuming you linked to the page that is like 100 pages long. It is a good read. Conclusion: That the situation was very complicated. In the end though the Palestinians still decided to take the word of the Arabs, "fight now and we'll wipe them out". Unfortionately they lost. Recognize the Palestinian Authorities goals. They are the complete and total destruction of Israel. It wasn't more than a few days ago that Arafat declared to a crowd that the Palestinian flag will fly over Jerusalem. We both know that it will never happen unless Israel is destroyed.

____________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Well said my southern brother.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Gotta agree with you on all you said. I can't say it as well. Thanks!!

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

Damn, what about moi? :frown: *snif*

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Man, I'm sorry!!! "Wipes red forehead beaded with sweat"

I sincerely appreciate your view & respect it. I have all along. Thing of it is, I'm no debater, such as yourself. So I have to lurk & kind of put my $.02 in where I can.

"Drags foot across the floor nervously"

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

ME?

Um, thanks, but I hardly make a good debater. The most informed like DH, Camie, Rob will give true testament. I'm just laying arguments with just a view, rather than real experience facts or history.

Still man, you, as someone who did do his army time, would do a good addition in this thread as well. I'd like to see your arguments.

Now kiss my boots for not giving me praise before! :wink:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Well - I reckon I'll go with DH and Eden on this one.

God, you guys exhaust me...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Bejamin Franklin

Reply to Jake_Barnes

Heheh, we make it an eye strain with our posts.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Well, being how you asked for it, I'll do the best I can.

The way I see it is my generation caused a whole lot of what's going on in the world right now. Bear with me now.

My generation was the 60's. The Boomer Generation. The biggest ever. What was our credo? Peace & Love! All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance! Never trust anyone over 30! You'll never live that long anyway! At least for those that were over in the Nam, that wasn't happening! We were abandon. The ones that were home had the rallies & actually in my mind costs us big time.

So, our generation spawned what we see now called Liberalism. Some of us (although a minority) in my generation have always believed in attacking terrorism at it's heart. Which I think really is a new term for an old meaning, "Enemy", that is now held.

We've gotten so benevolent because of all of it with the last 30 years of it, what happened, 9/11. So there you go.

Now we've got a leader that is attacking on their grounds. I couldn't have said it any better than DH said here:

Quote :

Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war isn't over. Somebody will be next.

What I believe, is that the Democrats / Liberals just do not get it. They have lost all power in the US. Never in my life have I ever imagined that would happen. All seats of power, the White House, the Senate, & the House. Now there on the EPA for the Clean Air Standard wasn't correctly reported & endangered people when the Trade Canter came down. Oh My God!!!! Now were supposed to make our cities safe even in a attack & it was Bush's fault? That's all they got, BS like that.

We've got a President that is more popular that even Jack Kennedy himself (no disrespect there) & I've never seen any President that popular. What does that mean to me. Let them wine & cry. Bush will be running the show for the US after the election & we'll keep on our goal of finding & destroying terrorists wherever they may be harbored & at whatever cost. It's nothing that we haven't known all along. Bush said it all when he said "Your either with us, or against us". It's just now that it's really being felt. Liberals without power, the UN impudent, the Democratic party befuddled & the World listening now.

So back to my point. I sum it up this way.

My Father was a WW 2 vet. Those Vets saved the world. They knew what Patriotism was. Patriotism they held dear. My generation, on the other hand, ignored it. Patriotism was for the old folks. Let's use the UN. Send over the Peace Corps, they'll see the light.

Well on 9/11 that all changed! We will never never take our Patriotism for granted again. We'll peruse evil where it lives & not relent. Trouble is liberals just don't have any Patriotism in them.

So there you have my view on it. I'm so dam proud to be an American now. I'll do whatever I can, as long as I live, to not let the old mentality that led to 9/11 rise again.

Not a rant, just my take on it...

Bends & kisses boots on the way out the door.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

Just a pet peeve of mine, but I like to give credit to the Allies as a whole for winning WWII. Saying that we saved the world is wrong in so many ways.

_________________________________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</A>

Reply to dhlucke

*cries in agreement* It's ok, you don't need to kiss them anymore, snif! Go, fellow soldier, walk in honor towards the sunset! snif!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

True. But in the general sense of it, people think passively attacking works. Well, then why did the USA and Allies go to WAR against the Nazis to finally remove Hitler?

I suppose if we dropped leaflets and sent mail to Hitler saying: PLEASE STOP!
And rallied, that would've helped lots huh.

Almost every war in the history of mankind, helped and made the difference, ironically enough.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

You are right on that. My bad. It was the Allies as well.

Got carried away, I guess.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

Quote :

True. But in the general sense of it, people think passively attacking works. Well, then why did the USA and Allies go to WAR against the Nazis to finally remove Hitler?

Very true. The other side of the coin is, before this war is over, it will touch every home in the country. Just as other wars have in recent memory.

Still the price of freedom is never cheap. The alternative is even more costly, IMO.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

can i ask how many of you guys are Americans, ex army personal from any country, or canadians/british.

i'm jsut curious, becasue i really don't think you realise the world isn't jsut your country versus the rest of them.

there are about 5 billion people who don't have anything to do with the US in any way shape or form, i'd like their opinions on it LOL

i think you'll find its only really right wing americans or americans here.

i jsut think it ouwld be interesting for you guys to realise there are more like me

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

I think it would be important for you to think about what we have said. American, Canadian, Aussie, or Brit--what we have to say might actually make sense.

_________________________________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</A>

Reply to dhlucke

actually i totally understand what you guys have been saying.

i know exactly why the us has attacked these places, i know exactly whats happening in your minds and can totally understand why.

its just i don't agree with it.

my whole argument here isn't really trying to prove that what the US did is wrong, becasue i know it makes sense to you guys, it makes sense to me too, however i don't agree with it becasue my perspective on it is totally different, i have totally different perspective.

my country isn't dirrectly invloved with the conflict so we don't feel patriotism towards the US or towards the iraqi's , afganistan, or anyone.

from my point of view (which is shared by a large majority of the world, "including australia whom don't support the us" )

my entire argument here really has little to do with whats already happened but more to do with getting you guys to at least TRY and understand the enemys perspective. (and as i keep saying understanding and agreeing are two different things)

all i've heard so far is.

"they hate americans without reaosn"

i'm trying to say they have a reason, and untill you understand the reason (wether you agree or not) you will never be able to fix the problem. you will also never be able to debate the issue

you think some people hate the US for no reason??

well thes simply not true.
people always have a reason nomatter how semingly stupid.

Alltaken

Reply to alltaken

SOemone asked 'when in history has passive resistance worked?' I've been thinking about this alot lately. When Britain was colonising India, Gahndi led his people in a passive resistance "revolt". It worked, and the British Government left the area. Do you want to know why it worked? Because the British have a conscience. There is a moral voice inside their collective head that told them that it was time to go. They were not willing to slaughter the thousands it would take to put down the revolt. Which leads us back to our discussion....
DO you think that the Taliban and Saddam had that same moral voice? DO you think that, as shown by their previous actions, that they would have relented if the people rose up against them in a passive way? I know what happened to the Kurds and Shiites. I know that the Taliban turned the local football stadium into an gallows. I also know that passive resistance in these cases is tantamount to suicide. I wish that everything could be soved peacably...but it can't. The reason being is that there are some people in this would that cannot be reasoned with. They are sociopathic...egocentric to the extreme...and possessed with a twisted idealism that leaves no room for comprimise. The US didn't seek these fights, they were brought to our doorstep by: the bombing of the marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the USS Cole, and 9/11. We have been provoked, and we are responding with God's own thunder.

Every silver lining has a cloud...

Reply to Grub

Quote :

all i've heard so far is.

"they hate americans without reaosn"

i'm trying to say they have a reason, and untill you understand the reason (wether you agree or not) you will never be able to fix the problem ...

You know the old 80-20% rule - well, guess who the (top)20% is ... the allies - the US, Brits, Canada, (often) the Aussies and others.
I can imagine us engaging an enemy by your terms: Locate, close with and "debate" - "hey pal, can't we all just get along" ... ever hear the sound of an AK47 - the sound of hostile fire aimed at you - you'll never forget it - and your life will be changed in that instant. You will be freed from that naive, simplistic world view.

Yes the rest of the world may not always agree with the heavy hitters here - but the rest of the world represents that 80% that never acts - that calls on their "big brothers" when the sh*t hits the fan - that forms a "general assembly", assigns committees and begins debates (UN Human Rights Commission - now chaired by that great defender - Libya - remember the Pan Am flight)

As I see it, there ain't no problem that needs fixing. I'm delighted that we have taken up this challenge - and I hope we maintain the intestinal fortitude to see it through.

It's fashionable to "hate America" right now - kind of makes you feel significant while you do nothing. (A common Michael Moore tactic).

Sorry I didn't address all of your points - as I've said, this thread - and your positions - are tiresome and redundant.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Bejamin Franklin

Reply to Jake_Barnes

I'm British, ex-army and I'm 100% behind the US. Always have been and always will be. So too are the majority of the British public. Until you've experienced what our countries have in terms of cowardly barbaric terrorist acts, then you cannot see our side.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that" - Bill Shankly

Reply to RobD

Well I hope your country never needs us. Very few countries in this world can stand on their own. If they were knocking on your door, you'd be talking a different story.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

Quote :

my entire argument here really has little to do with whats already happened but more to do with getting you guys to at least TRY and understand the enemys perspective. (and as i keep saying understanding and agreeing are two different things)

all i've heard so far is.

"they hate americans without reaosn"

i'm trying to say they have a reason, and untill you understand the reason (wether you agree or not) you will never be able to fix the problem. you will also never be able to debate the issue

A major part of this perspective is that the people we're talking about here want ALL Americans dead. Men, women, children, black, white, right, left, straight, gay, smart, dumb, military, civilian, everybody. Sorry, but I don't see what there is to understand about that.

I have issue with those who legitimately threaten and take action against us. And I want something done about that and those people. Not with ALL the citizens of country X. Leave us alone, and I'll be happy to leave them alone. But when you mess with the biggest dog on the block, don't be surprised when it bites back.

Reply to Auburn9698

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other just for eden

Please mind