Post #8,782
9/12/01 11:10:10 PM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
> US asked for it. It's sad. For the victims, and their family, but somehow folks in the US conveniently forget that when their high-tech missiles/bombs lights up their targets in Yugoslavia and Iraq for instanance, that there are victims and they have their family too.
>
> And in each of those actions, the governments were warned, and the populace told, and the strikes attempted to be as surgical and as military as possible.
>
> Not with commandeered Serbian civilians on board, cutting up women, and then aiming for tens of thousands of civilians.
>
> But you're right - the US has asked for it. By not continuing "all the way through" when the rest of the world got squeamish. In Serbia, in Iraq.
>
> Of course, what do you blame the Serbs who raped and pillaged for?
>
> What do you blame the Iraqi's who raped and pillaged for?
Addison, what US gotten on 11th Sept was ONE DAY! Imagine for a change that continuing for a week, a moth, a year, a DECADE.
That's what Iraq got. It lost the war. The UN and the coalition decided that that's IT. US chose to go it alone. "Enforcing" what wasn't justified by the UN and the rest of the world. Bombing as and when the US government and MILITARY "BELIEVE" there was a threat to its interest.
No, I'm NOT condoning the terrorist acts. But look at it from a DIFFERENT angle, from the CIVILIANS in Iraq, Yugoslavia. How big is the DIFFERENCE you tell me.
|
Post #8,783
9/12/01 11:20:34 PM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
what US gotten on 11th Sept was ONE DAY! Imagine for a change that continuing for a week, a moth, a year, a DECADE.
10000 people dead a day? No.
Civilian's being targetted? No.
That's what Iraq got. It lost the war.
And has not kept its end of the bargain to end the war.
The UN and the coalition decided that that's IT.
That's bullshit.
US chose to go it alone.
Lies.
"Enforcing" what wasn't justified by the UN and the rest of the world. Bombing as and when the US government and MILITARY "BELIEVE" there was a threat to its interest.
When the Iraqi's BROKE THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY AGREED TO, that STOPPED THE WAR - the examination of weapons plants, incursions on certain zones, and most importantly - not shooting at Allied planes.
If you're going to troll, you've got to do better.
But look at it from a DIFFERENT angle, from the CIVILIANS in Iraq, Yugoslavia. How big is the DIFFERENCE you tell me.
Which civilians in Yugoslavia? the ones being slaughtered by the Serbs?
Oh, not those, huh?
What civilians were targetted? Not which ones were put next to military targets - which ones were TARGETTED?
The difference is huge.
The difference is that the government was warned, and then the military was targetted.
Had this attack been made with Military planes - against military targets, you'd have a point. Or more of one.
Addison
|
Post #8,813
9/13/01 6:34:46 AM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
> When the Iraqi's BROKE THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY AGREED TO, that STOPPED THE WAR - the examination of weapons plants, incursions on certain zones, and most importantly - not shooting at Allied planes.
>
Is there a UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE within Iraq? No. But there's one decided by US, over Iraq's sovereign airspace.
Tell me who the "aggressor" is in this case?
Did UN sanctioned any attacks on Yugoslavia? No. But there's one decided by NATO, spearheaded by the US.
Enthic cleansing? Where are the proofs now? [link|http://members.nbci.com/yugo_archive/19991019stratfor.htm|http://members.nbci...stratfor.htm]
Just look at the reactions of most media's reporting. Jumping to conclusions that it was Arab nationals involved with no evidence, just speculations. And then trying to justify nuking countries that have known ties with terrorists, without ONCE mentioning that US actually provided most of the training and armaments. If that's NOT ties, what is?
So should the US nuke itself?!
Oh no, the US is the poor victim here, wrongly targetted by fanatical terrorists funded and supported by the fanatical Moslem countries in the Middle East. Yup.
Excuse me while I go barf.
In no way have I said that I agreed with the ACTIONS of the terrorists. But tell me again US does not see it coming.
|
Post #8,819
9/13/01 8:39:05 AM
|
You are excused - go barf your guts out.
If the U.S moves to prevent some country from slaughtering their neighbors, then "world opinion" says we are interfering with their devine right to slaughter their neighbors. In Iraq the "no fly zone" unjustly interferes with Sadam's devine right to slaughter Kurds - how very bad of us.
If we stand by and do nothing, then "world opinion" acuses us of doing nothing as thousands are slaughtered.
No matter what we do "world opinion" says we are wrong, so we have to do what we feel is the best we can do under the circumstances and "world opinion" can suck rocks.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #8,829
9/13/01 9:22:01 AM
|
Re: You are excused - go barf your guts out.
> No matter what we do "world opinion" says we are wrong, so we have to do what we feel is the best we can do under the circumstances and "world opinion" can suck rocks.
This is exactly the kind of arrogant attitude that most view the US.
"We think this is the best. We will do it. Fuck the world."
|
Post #8,834
9/13/01 9:36:15 AM
|
And you give us what alternative?
There are two sides to every situation. No matter what we do, including doing nothing, "world opinion" says we are wrong and everything is our fault. "World opinion" is always the offended side, because the other is being quiet. This guarantees you will hear nothing but bad and never good about us.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #8,840
9/13/01 9:56:10 AM
|
Re: And you give us what alternative?
> There are two sides to every situation. No matter what we do, including doing nothing, "world opinion" says we are wrong and everything is our fault. "World opinion" is always the offended side, because the other is being quiet. This guarantees you will hear nothing but bad and never good about us.
On the contrary.
The enormous contribution of the US in WWII was greatly appreciated everywhere.
The leadership that the US took w.r.t. the liberation of Kuwait was roundly applauded. It was immediate, decisive and effective.
The NEGATIVE portion comes about when US acts with only US interest in mind.
Kyoto (sp?) treaty. NMD. Nuclear testing.
|
Post #8,836
9/13/01 9:43:44 AM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
Is there a UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE within Iraq? No. But there's one decided by US, over Iraq's sovereign airspace.
Bullshit. You're lying.
And I've already told you why.
Did UN sanctioned any attacks on Yugoslavia? No. But there's one decided by NATO, spearheaded by the US.
I've asked you before - which civilians should have been protected?
If you're going to troll, you need to do lots better.
Addison
|
Post #8,848
9/13/01 10:08:21 AM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
> Is there a UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE within Iraq? No. But there's one decided by US, over Iraq's sovereign airspace.
>
> Bullshit. You're lying.
>
> And I've already told you why.
I've been unable to find any UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE info. Perhaps you can help me out.
> Did UN sanctioned any attacks on Yugoslavia? No. But there's one decided by NATO, spearheaded by the US.
>
> I've asked you before - which civilians should have been protected?
>
You tell me... which side do you choose to believe/help... by WHAT criteria?
[link|http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-09-10/diary.asp?imsg=2|http://slate.msn.co...y.asp?imsg=2]
[link|http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/keller10.html|http://www.lewrockw...eller10.html]
[link|http://www.salonmag.com/news/feature/2001/09/12/blowback/index.html|http://www.salonmag...k/index.html]
> If you're going to troll, you need to do lots better.
If I were trying to JUSTIFY the actions, I would try to do better. I'm NOT. I'm pointing out the obvious, the "WHY" that many still refuse to acknowledge.
|
Post #8,854
9/13/01 10:23:17 AM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
I've been unable to find any UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE info. Perhaps you can help me out.
Unlikely. You're here to troll.
What were the condititions that Iraq agreed to for cessation of the UN actions against them?
You tell me... which side do you choose to believe/help... by WHAT criteria?
You didn't answer my question. Not surprising. Because the heart of your argument is misdirection.
I've asked you before - which civilians should have been protected?
In Yugoslavia and Iraq, what civilians should have been protected, and where were civilians targetted and by who?
Addison
|
Post #8,858
9/13/01 10:40:07 AM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
> You tell me... which side do you choose to believe/help... by WHAT criteria?
>
> You didn't answer my question. Not surprising. Because the heart of your argument is misdirection.
>
> I've asked you before - which civilians should have been protected?
>
> In Yugoslavia and Iraq, what civilians should have been protected, and where were civilians targetted and by who?
[link|http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-09-10/diary.asp?imsg=2|http://slate.msn.co...y.asp?imsg=2]
The attacks are sad, he said, a
tragedy. But then he got to the
heart of the matter, not only for
him but for many Macedonians
who resent what they regard as American support for ethnic
Albanian rebels.
"Now you have experienced what terrorism is like," Ivo said.
"Now you can understand what terrorism does, and you should
do something about it, especially in Macedonia. You should
condemn the Albanians. It's clear you're helping them. Even a
child knows that."
His friends nodded their heads in agreement. The rebels are
terrorists, they believe, killing civilians and policemen, yet
America coddles them, even supplying them with weapons (a
popular belief). Maybe, the students added, the assaults on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon will serve as a wake-up
call. "Terrorists have never attacked America with this much
devastation," Ivo noted. "America now should see what terrorism
is really about and stop it everywhere."
The feelings of Ivo and his friends are not unusual. There is no
satisfaction in Skopje about the attacks on America\ufffdnone of the
grotesque spectacles, seen on television, of Palestinians and
Libyans celebrating the attacks. The expressions of condolence
here are sincere, but there is, underneath it all, a strong belief that
America has imposed its will on the Balkans in ways that are
neither wise nor fair and that America should not be surprised that
its actions overseas have brought deadly results to the homeland.
The same belief exists in Serbia, which experienced a 78-day
U.S.-led bombing campaign in 1999, and it exists among
nationalists in Croatia who resent U.S. pressure to extradite war
criminals to the Hague.
The sourness surfaces not just in the talk of ordinary citizens but
in media commentaries, too. All you need to do is pick up today's
issue of New Macedonia, a pro-government paper. "The attempt
by western countries to treat Albanian terrorists as human rights
fighters gave them a clear field for seven months of terror against
Macedonians," the main commentary states. "The difference
between yesterday's attacks on the United States and the attacks
of Albanian terrorists in Macedonia is just in the capacity and
power of their action." In other words, Now you know how we
feel.
Can you tell with CERTAINTY that the Albanian were indeed the victims? Or do you simply dismissed all the abv as official Yugoslavia's propoganda?
If you still want to insist that I'm trolling, so be it.
|
Post #8,860
9/13/01 10:42:45 AM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
[link|http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-09-10/diary.asp?imsg=2|http://slate.msn.co...y.asp?imsg=2]
Which has WHAT to do with the BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA?
Which is what you were talking about.
But you won't stay on topic... which is an indication that yep, you're here to troll.
Addison
|
Post #8,863
9/13/01 10:51:58 AM
|
Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now?
> [link|http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-09-10/diary.asp?imsg=2|http://slate.msn.co...y.asp?imsg=2]
>
> Which has WHAT to do with the BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA?
>
> Which is what you were talking about.
>
> But you won't stay on topic... which is an indication that yep, you're here to troll.
>
> Addison
>
If you don't know what MACEDONIA has to do with the bombing of Yugoslavia, what are you basing your "beliefs" that the bombing of Yugoslavia was justified?
I rest my case.
|
Post #8,866
9/13/01 10:57:48 AM
|
Better hold that case.
If you don't know what MACEDONIA has to do with the bombing of Yugoslavia, what are you basing your "beliefs" that the bombing of Yugoslavia was justified?
You were blathering that the bombing of yugoslavia, and the harming of civilians, was "no different" than the WTC bombing.
Now you're talking about something else. The only thing you've stayed constant on was that the US is bad, evil, and we suck.
I guess you would have liked being under Japanese Suzieranity much better. Stupid us.
No, idiot, you've got a looong way to go to lecture me.
Addison
|
Post #8,917
9/13/01 2:25:09 PM
|
Two words: "Essential Harvest"
Look them up. In fact I will for you:
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/europe/easterneurope/macedonia/|Washington Post]
This is a NATO sponsored mission, but the US is part of it. The interview you quoted said
>The rebels are terrorists, they believe, killing civilians and policemen, yet
>America coddles them, even supplying them with weapons (a popular belief).
Of course you believe it because you want to believe the worst of the US, but the "Essential Harvest" mission is all about
1. taking weapons AWAY from the rebels
2. Giving rights back to them
That is official information, not just the word on the street!
~~~)-Steven----
|
Post #8,903
9/13/01 1:43:06 PM
|
You need to be careful, parenthesis boy...
...you're starting to sound (and even write) suspiciously similarly to the style of one Michel Merlin.
And you know in what regard we all hold his missives....
(Or maybe you don't...in which case consider that we hold the opinions of the common ground slug in higher regard.)
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #8,911
9/13/01 1:59:36 PM
|
Identity?
The only person that I know that speaks in one sentence paragraphs and shouts words and phrases is one Khasim - aka Brandioch - aka TTC.
|
Post #8,915
9/13/01 2:05:58 PM
|
Naw.
Remember TT Chua?
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #8,977
9/13/01 8:22:43 PM
|
Re: Naw.
> Remember TT Chua?
> Regards,
-scott anderson
Yes, that's me.
And once again for the record. I do not CONDONE the terrorist actions. Hell no. I totally sympathize with all the victims and their family. Perhaps I should have said that in the very first place. But I assumed that it was a given. Nevermind though.
The fact remains that there ARE many actions that the US has done that MANY do not view it purely as US trying to uphold peace and security. You can argue till your face is blue and call me whatever names, but that DOES NOT change the fact.
I listed ISSUES, and ACTIONS that many believe that the US acted because of its own interest. Iraq and Yugoslavia being two of the primary ones that comes to ones mind in recent time.
|
Post #8,979
9/13/01 8:37:26 PM
|
Re: Naw.
I listed ISSUES, and ACTIONS that many believe that the US acted because of its own interest. Iraq and Yugoslavia being two of the primary ones that comes to ones mind in recent time.
And said that because we killed civilians there (not targetted - pains NOT to target them) - to stop them killing others (who apparently you're all in favor of wiping off the face of the earth), that condones the attitude.
You listed half-truths and the sort of propaganda that the radical muslims use to incite people.
Condone it, don't, I don't give a good damn. You're no better.
Addison+
|
Post #8,980
9/13/01 8:46:10 PM
|
Oh, yeah.
The fact remains that there ARE many actions that the US has done that MANY do not view it purely as US trying to uphold peace and security. You can argue till your face is blue and call me whatever names, but that DOES NOT change the fact.
I listed ISSUES, and ACTIONS that many believe that the US acted because of its own interest. Iraq and Yugoslavia being two of the primary ones that comes to ones mind in recent time.
You never bothered to address the issue about the hatred the US engendered in the Pacific keeping the Japanese from conquering you as a slave country. (Who seem to think it was really unfair that they weren't allowed to have a empire, and wanted the area around you)
I guess we really screwed up there, huh? What utter utter bastards we are.
Addison
|
Post #8,956
9/13/01 6:35:06 PM
|
Scorecards....getcher Scorecards here....
[...]one Khasim - aka Brandioch - aka TTC. OK, I'll bite...how do you keep track of the various aliases of the players? Where is the scorecard vendor? jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #8,873
9/13/01 11:26:49 AM
|
Military vs Civilian targets
>Addison, what US gotten on 11th Sept was ONE DAY! Imagine for a change that
>continuing for a week, a moth, a year, a DECADE.
US military is targeting AA guns and missle turrets in Iraq. They've also in the past targeted weapons factories (primarily chemical). These are military targets. There are NO civilians when involved with these targets. Anybody manning a missle turret, or building those weapons is for all intents and purposes a military target. Military is trained to handle the probability that they could get killed in battle. Civilians on the other hand (whether flying home to see family or do business, or businessmen going about their business:buying or selling or whatever, including selling the very products you are so proud of exporting to us) especially when they are nowhere near a military base or outpost, expect to be safe (even more so when not in a declared state of war). In Iraq those targets were known by them to be potential targets. If the roles were reversed, the US would have pulled the innocents away from target areas so they wouldn't be hurt; Iraq went as far as ensuring their "innocents" were IN harms way just so they could turn around and say "look what the evil infadels have done". This obviously works well since they seem to have fools like you believing that Iraq was the victim. The only victims were those innocents they forced into being human fodder in or near their installations. They were victims of their own government, and what's worse, is they're made to believe they're doing it for their god.
~~~)-Steven----
|
