IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: "forcing"
>Setting aside all the rediculous demands on US that the article makes, could you explain the meaning of the word "force", v. ?

I would start by asking you to clarify why you consider those "demands" ridiculous?

By ridiculing another's opinion without clarification on why it is ridiculous, isn't that forcing your views upon others?
New Re: "Forcing"
Well, I thought that I've shown that simply concentrating those demands and taking them to the logical conclusions makes them _sound_ ridiculous. I guess you disagree. I also guess we'd disagree on a great deal of other stuff.

But, I fail to see how my srcasm (failed sarcasm too, apparently - you did not find my version ridiculous, did you?) of the article's author position is "forcing" anything on you. I am still waiting for the definition of the "force".
Expand Edited by Arkadiy Nov. 21, 2001, 02:11:12 PM EST
New Re: "Forcing"
I'll redirect you [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=19003|here].

That's the premise.

If you follow that premise, then you probably will come to the same conclusion that the author of the article you tried to be sarcastic with arrived at.

If you choose ONLY to view US as the only victim, I can understand how you would consider her article ridiculous.

2 sides to a coin. More in life.

You can choose to only see from a purely US-centric POV. Or you can try the, dare I say it, OTHER side(s).

As to the "" on "force"... think coercion, think "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" (Really?!)


New My conclusions.
There are 2 ways to look at this. First, let's try the logical way.

Please tell me what did we do that makes it wrong to respond to 9/11 events the way we did? An acceptable example would be American corporation or governement wilfully killing thousand of innocents and being happy about it.


The less logfical way, the way I really feel, is:

So they feel offended. If they think _they_ were offended by whatever we did before, let them see how offended we are by what they did. We'll go all the way, including but not limited to sealing off that part of the world, to prevent this from happening again.If they want to deal with civilized people nowadays, they'll need to learn that there are no economical/diplomatic offences worth killing thousands in 45 minutes.

Here is an alternative scenario for you to concider:

Suppose the biggest mosque in Saudy Arabia gets hit by a cruse missile. In 20 minutes, the king's palace is hit as well. All that on Friday, during prayer hours. The missiles are immediately traced to US manufacturers. US Department of Defence says that they did not do it, but those Arabs had it coming (they are all terrorists anyway) and US Government was glad that it happened. Saudis demand investigation. US answers that Mr. Rumsfield is a high administration official and they will not even consider investigating.


Does it sound outlandish? Think why...
New Re: My conclusions.
And we come back to square one...

I'll point you to [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=10116|the list]

And [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=10221|here's] my reply to Bepatient (22th Sept).

>Here is an alternative scenario for you to concider:

>Suppose the biggest mosque in Saudy Arabia gets hit by a cruse missile. In 20 minutes, the king's palace is hit as well. All that on Friday, during prayer hours. The missiles are immediately traced to US manufacturers. US Department of Defence says that they did not do it, but those Arabs had it coming (they are all terrorists anyway) and US Government was glad that it happened. Saudis demand investigation. US answers that Mr. Rumsfield is a high administration official and they will not even consider investigating.

You forgot something in your "analogy", the Saudis have tons of nukes and $$$ and are using those as chips to dictate US policies. Oh wait, you didn't put those in since you know they don't have that capability.

And you forgot to extend it further, to the "logical" conclusion that they will then DEMAND you hand over Mr Rumsfield without presenting any proof, and gave you one MONTH to comply OR ELSE.

And they started to BOMB US. But no, it's JUST the government they are going after. The war is NOT against Americans. REALLY.

Outlandish enough for you?
New Outlandish.
OK, let's try again.

Now US Dept of Defence is saying that Saudis use their oil influence to distort our rights to drive 10GPM UAWs. That's why they had it coming.And unless they'll promise to support our 10GPM religion with cheap gas, it will happen again. Mind you, we still don't say we did it.

And Saudis are saying that if US's investigation does not lead to arest and deportation of Mr Rumsfield in 1 month, they will turn off the oil. For the whole world. All of it.

Now, some questions for you.

Are Saudis in the right in my story?
Is US in the wrong?
Can you imagine this actually happenning in the current US?
New Re: list
I still do not see deliberate killing of thousand of civilian there.




1948: Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.

We "failed to press" someone? That's compared to 3800 dead bodies?



1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.

We backed _their_ coup? They fight, and it's our fault that we look out for our interest?



1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter-century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

Need more data on this one... May be you are right. Still it's not the example I am looking for.


1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.


"Cuts off promised aid". Again, bad, bad US.


1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.

"US does not support the invasion"




1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability".

"to preserve stability". Look what a fine job they had been doing before us, and after us.


early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.

"unsuccesfully". OK.


1963: U.S. reported to gives Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.

What makes you think that communists are any better than Ba'ath? Especially in 1963?


1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 244, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

May be right or wrong, but that's diplomacy. Nothing that calls for a cold-blooded murder of thousands.


1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. prepare to intervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.


"prepare to intervene" ?


1972: U.S. blocks Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Egypt.

Huh? Sadat was an Egiptian, no?


1973: U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.


And if it did not, US would have had millions of dead Jews on its consciense.

1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."


We failed to support rebels all the way. And now that we try to do it in Afghanistan, you aren't happy either.


1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.


Now we are faithful to our allies. And you are still not happy. In any case, even if US tried to save a bad regime, it failed. And what replaced the regime is not much better. And still I see no call to murder here. Iranians got thier revenge already, in less painful ways.


1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979. Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

Soviet involvement in Afghanistan started years before the actual invasion. Afghanistan was essentially another Checoslovakia for Soviet Union.


1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

The airliner catasrophy comes close. But, if I remember correctly, "overly-aggressive" is not just your assesment of this. The carier of the ship's captain was over. The Navy apologised. No one selebrated in the streets.



I am sorry, I don't have time to go answering to you entire list. I find all of them, even taken together, pathetically short of provoking the murder we witnessed. By all means, go buil your own economy, expand your diplomatic influence, even in vest some money in our politicians (just try not to get caught). But don't murder people.

I cannot do much if you feel differently. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. But I hope US will be able to do something about bin Laden who actually put his feelings into actions.


     The new hawks - (Silverlock) - (22)
         Re: The new hawks - (TTC) - (21)
             Bad, bad US. - (Arkadiy) - (9)
                 Re: Bad, bad US. - (TTC) - (8)
                     "forcing" - (Arkadiy) - (7)
                         Re: "forcing" - (TTC) - (6)
                             Re: "Forcing" - (Arkadiy) - (5)
                                 Re: "Forcing" - (TTC) - (4)
                                     My conclusions. - (Arkadiy) - (3)
                                         Re: My conclusions. - (TTC) - (2)
                                             Outlandish. - (Arkadiy)
                                             Re: list - (Arkadiy)
             Oh dear..we actually meant what we said... - (bepatient) - (7)
                 Re: Oh dear..we actually meant what we said... - (TTC) - (6)
                     Nice change of direction there.... - (bepatient) - (5)
                         Oh, don't worry... - (Arkadiy)
                         Oil - (Arkadiy)
                         Re: Nice change of direction there.... - (TTC) - (2)
                             Proof - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                 Re: Proof - (TTC)
             Re: This bit quoted, seems quite wrong. - (dmarker2) - (2)
                 gawd, agreeing with dm? - (wharris2) - (1)
                     Re: gawd, agreeing with dm? - (TTC)

He's so far to the right of the bell curve he could drop a marble and it wouldn't roll away.
51 ms