Post #20,242
12/4/01 4:55:03 PM
|
More jingoism and oddly, similarities
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/12/04/mideast/index.html|Israeli helicopters hit building next to Arafat's] Israeli army spokesman, Brig. Gen. Ron Kitrey, said Arafat was not a target of the attacks. "The target is not the man, the target is the apparatuses," Kitrey told CNN.
Yep, some bloody lunatics goes boom, next thing you know, the armed force of the victim country delivers its revenge. But it's not really revenge. It's targetting the infrastructures/apparatuses/masterminds/organizations, just NEVER the people. But guess who feel the hurt most? Organizations? Infrastructures? No unless you're only looking at $ signs. So now the US keep mums re Isreal's retaliation. Will it keep mum when Cuba retaliates? Or Nicaragua?
|
Post #20,301
12/5/01 7:59:36 AM
|
Re: More jingoism and oddly, similarities
If we were talking about some "bloody lunatic" you might be right, however, the fact is that Arafat has consistently supported the "bloody lunatics" in their attacks against Israel. He sent a letter to the family of the suicide bomber who blew himself up in Sbarro's in Jerusalem praising him. His own Fatah group is commiting terrorist attacks and claiming responsibility for them. He is not exactly an innocent bystander.
|
Post #20,306
12/5/01 8:56:34 AM
|
Re: More jingoism and oddly, similarities
No, I didn't claim that Arafat was an innocent bystander.
But.
It was the loonies who do the bombing.
Isreal utilizes its armed force and violate another "nation" in the name of retaliation against terrorism.
End effect, civilian deaths and innocents wounded on both sides.
If the loonies sucide bombing is terrorism, what is Israel's?
Of course, I'm neither Palestinian, nor Israeli, so I'm NOT sure which side of the story is in fact the truth, but AFAIK, the UN has ruled that Israel was "guilty" of illegally occupying Palestinian territories.
So speaking from pure 3rd party viewpoint, if the sucide bombing are terrorism, then the Israel retaliation is pretty much the same or worse.
And viewed from a different perspective, to the Afghanistanis, the American carpet bombings are nothing less than terrorism, and since President Bush openly hail the "perpetrator" as heroes doing their heroic deeds, would that changes your mind if government sanctioned "retaliations" sprung up in the states?
But you seem to missed my point.
Now, Israel is using the "exact" phrasing the US used when it "justified" its action against the Taliban. Whether the US would have asked Israel to stop is irrelevant as even if it would, it would not have any justification in view of its own "retaliation" against terror perpetrators.
Will you then also brand US as a terrorist state in view of Cuba or Nicaragua?
Just curious.
|
Post #20,303
12/5/01 8:36:44 AM
|
Do you have anything resembling a point?
If not, that's ok. I just wondered if you ever do anything but complain about the big bad ol' USA.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #20,307
12/5/01 8:59:54 AM
|
Re: Do you have anything resembling a point?
So now the US keep mums re Isreal's retaliation. Will it keep mum when Cuba retaliates? Or Nicaragua?
Will you?
Or do you automatically dismissed Cuba and Nicaragua as victims of US military and political coercion?
If you can't see the point, it's because you chose not to see.
|
Post #20,309
12/5/01 9:18:29 AM
|
Ah thats no fun...
...you have to spell these things out for the members of the evil empire.
Granted, the timing for all of this is unfortunate. However, it would be a little difficult for us to fault Israel for retaliating against terrorist organizations considering what we're in the midst of doing ourselves.
And Cuba? We're supposed to be nice to them? Castro picked his friends. We're not one of them. And Cuba has suffered for that choice. But to blame the US? Please...pick better.
Nicaragua is a different story..and probably better suited to your point...but of course no Americans walked into an open-air market with shrapnel attached and blew themselves up in Managua.
Is our behavior towards Nicaragua questionable, sure....equivalent...you're outta your mind.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,323
12/5/01 11:02:44 AM
|
Re: Ah thats no fun...
Bepatient,
I do understand your need to be patriotic. But don't be ever defensive.
>And Cuba? We're supposed to be nice to them? Castro picked his friends. We're not one of them. And Cuba has suffered for that choice. But to blame the US? Please...pick better.
I asked a specific question. If Cuba "retaliate" against what it deem as US terrorist acts, what will you do?
>Nicaragua is a different story..and probably better suited to your point...but of course no Americans walked into an open-air market with shrapnel attached and blew themselves up in Managua.
>Is our behavior towards Nicaragua questionable, sure....equivalent...you're outta your mind.
Did I state that they were equivalent? Where?
But then again, who gets to define how questionable it has to be to be considered terrorist acts?
The question and the point is, what if these countries "retaliate" against what they deem as US terrorist acts, WHAT WILL YOU DO?
Why does the US get to define for the world what constitute terrorist actions? "You are with us or you are with the terrorists". Speaks volume, no?
|
Post #20,328
12/5/01 11:17:24 AM
|
Devil's advocacy doesn't build understanding.
Hi TT,
I asked a specific question. If Cuba "retaliate" against what it deem as US terrorist acts, what will you do?
Why does the US get to define for the world what constitute terrorist actions? "You are with us or you are with the terrorists". Speaks volume, no?
I don't think so.
Terrorism has a generally well understood meaning. You're using the word outside that generally understood meaning. Bush's "rhetorical flourishes" are simplifications of the US policy of doing all it can to end global terrorism. In order to do so, the US believes it must convince others to end all support for them. Do you disagree with his statement? If so, why and how?
You're mixing hypotheticals with actual events and using fuzzy language thus creating a jumble which is difficult to discuss. And you're using language which will cause people talking with you to argue about definitions rather than the meat of the issues which are bothering you.
It's clear that you have differences with US foreign policies, but I haven't seen you offer explanations of what you think the US should have done differently.
Should the US have supported Ortega? Should the US have supported Castro? Should the US have done things differently in Afghanistan? Should the US have done nothing when Iraq invaded Kuwait? If so, what and why? Or, if you want to discuss some other issue, please state what you think the US did wrong and what it should have done differently.
Thanks.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #20,334
12/5/01 11:44:44 AM
|
Re: Devil's advocacy doesn't build understanding.
Does sovereign of a nation still mean anything to the US?
If so, it's involvement in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was the right one, endorsed by almost every nation.
But then there's Yugoslavia etc, where the US took specific sides in a sovereign nation's internal conflict. Will the US welcome such intervention by other countries?
Does international law still mean anything to the US?
If so, on what basis is the US using to justify carpet bombing a sovereign country (Afghanistan) based on SUSPECTED link of terrorism when request to produce evidence is ignored and disdainfully brushed aside.
Does the UN still mean anything to the US?
If so, why does it choose to ignore the UN proposed sanction and went ahead with its own against Iraq?
And I would really appreciate if you can define TERRORISM as used by your President Bush. What constitute terrorism? Mindless bombing of civilians? Premeditated killing? What do you call bombing of areas with KNOWN civilian population? What do you call knowingly cutting off food and medical supply? Collateral damage?
Why is it that quite a number of folks here can so easily justify the death of tens/hundreds/thousands of civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan etc caused by the US actions (if you prefer, REaction)?
If asking that folks view world events from the WORLD'S (that is, non-US) perspectives and not purely the US perspective is Devil's advocacy, then so be it.
|
Post #20,344
12/5/01 1:19:25 PM
|
Interesting.
What do you call knowingly cutting off food and medical supply? This is an interesting addition. FOr it appears that by its inclusion, you think the US is under some obligation to supply food and meds to everyone...and when we don't...we're guilty of terrorism. Wow. Thats deep. And Iraqi sanctions? Iraq hasn't complied with anyone's demands for sanction relief. And we have allowed them to sell exchange oil in return for food and humanitarian supplies. And, you say, the Iraqi people never see it?? Big surprise from the Hussein regime, eh? So...it appears that you think the US should be the world's benefactor...yet remain uninvolved in world individual sovereign politic (even if it appears that genocide is part of that politic) Interesting.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,358
12/5/01 3:11:07 PM
|
One point about food and medicine
You've slightly oversimplified here. The US doesn't just not supply... they threaten to punish others who would like to supply, whether for commercial or altruistic reasons, and actively patrol shipping lanes to ensure that these people are not able to deliver food or medicine. I'm talking about Iraq in this case. Actually, Castro didn't pick his friends, the US picked theirs. They just happened to pick the guy (Batista) that was willing to kill people to keep unions out of US owned factories. The problem was that the US decided to be friends with the guy who was so egregiously abusive of his power that they managed to alienate the vast majority of the citizens of Cuba. Finally, you should really read about the CIA, Nicaragua, and the CIA's involvement in the California cocaine trade to raise money for their covert war in Nicaragua. You'll find that there are congress critters that find the idea of a US gov't agency selling highly addictive drugs to US citizens in order to raise money for people with a stated policy of shelling schools and hospitals somewhat... problematic.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link|http://jakesplace.dhs.org|[link|http://jakesplace.dhs.org|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org|[link|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link|news://jakesplace.dhs.org|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #20,382
12/5/01 5:22:45 PM
|
On Nicaragua
...that was not a stellar moment in US foreign policy.
Cuba...well...we pissed them off...they picked a guy who decided it was better to align with our principle enemy. While I can understand the overall reasons for doing so...allowing nukes to be shipped there and pointed at us was..well...ill-advised considering their proximity.
And with Iraq...we may patrol the shipping lanes...but I have not...to date...heard of us threatening any humanitarian aid (meds and food)
And we would threaten...and have...companies who do business against our will...but it happens all the time and we largely do nothing...unless the materials in question have military applications...and even them sometimes we do nothing (think China)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,395
12/5/01 6:22:05 PM
12/5/01 8:07:10 PM
|
So the US has no blame whatsoever?
Cuba...well...we pissed them off...they picked a guy who decided it was better to align with our principle enemy.
Wait a minute! You tossed off our support for ol' Batista really fast there. Should the US be able to rape the resource of any country it feels like? Hell, at least you admitted we pissed them off. Let's go into details why. Come on, the US is blameless, no? (edited - mixed up Balista with yet someone else entirely.)
|
Post #20,409
12/5/01 8:23:42 PM
|
No
Batista was in charge for close to 25 years. Unless you think we should have had him overthrown, which the cubans did (actually he more or less just split).
The same thing happened with Machado before that...we loved him...the people hated him and they kicked his ass out too.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,310
12/5/01 9:29:14 AM
|
Re: Keeping mum.
Do you watch any US news shows? Seems to be all over the place. But what do I know? I'm just another arrogant American spouting propaganda.
In other news, bite me.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
|
Post #20,331
12/5/01 11:28:01 AM
|
Yup, we're keeping mum.
We saw the Palestinians celebrating in the streets on Sept 11th, and we know we saw only a corner of the action because Arafat's police confiscated the cameras in and around all the big celebrations and threatened news people of dire consequences if anything was shown.
There was quite a bit of sympathy for the Palestinians in the U.S., but that's pretty much gone now. If the Israelis want to rough 'em up a bit over slaughtering a bunch of teen agers and other innocents, well, why should we have a problem with that?
As for Cuba and Nicaragua, well, that depends on whether the government is involved. If it is, I'll just let Afghanistan speak for that. If it's not, then we'll expect the government to assist in aprehending the attackers.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #20,404
12/5/01 8:12:34 PM
|
ya wanna keep my mum too?
I keep moving but she always seems to find us, thanx, bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #20,369
12/5/01 4:06:29 PM
|
OK, I'm confused
What has Cuba got to do with this?
What should Cuba retaliate for?
I personally wouldn't blame Cuba for declaring war on the US in an effort to reclaim their occupied territory (Guantanamo) but Cuba understands that discretion is definitely the better part of valor here (they are hopelessly out-gunned). So they pretend that that land just isn't there.
Cuba is actually a pretty good example of what the US has historically done wrong in foreign policy - supporting the nasty Batistas while the US mobsters exploited the products of Havana nightlife. The Cuban revolution is understandable and they had pretty much two choices in superpowers to pick from for allies after the coup - the country who had propped up the murderous regime they just deposed and the other one.
Cuba was played by both sides, when mostly, they're just trying to improve the standard of living for all their people (and have done a much better job than we have with higher literacy rates, more accessible health care, lower infant mortality rates, longer life expectancy...). Its not perfect, but given their resource constraints I think they've done an amazing job.
I see a lot to admire in Cuba and a lot to dislike in the US treatment of same.
|
Post #20,371
12/5/01 4:31:56 PM
|
Thought we were making lease payments on Guantanamo.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #20,373
12/5/01 4:40:55 PM
|
I set up shop in a room in your house...
...and start paying rent, all without your permission.
Would you want to kick me out?
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #20,406
12/5/01 8:15:05 PM
|
not if you were white:)
The room in the house was setup in Anchorage Alaska and suddenly they are demanding rent from the occupants of all the other rooms, withholding heat and toilets while their room is carpeted in gold. Nothing new there. thanx, bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #20,392
12/5/01 5:56:15 PM
|
Re: Thought we were making lease payments on Guantanamo.
We are but the lease can only be terminated by agreement of *both* parties, the lease fee is around $5k and Castro has never cashed the check and instead indicated his desire to terminate the lease. The US, naturally, refused. The lease was originally "negotiated" under pressure and under normal contract law could likely be proved invalid due to duress. Hard to prove just now as all original signers are dead.
Consequently, Castro claims Guantanamo is actually occupied territory (rightly so to my mind). Not only does the US continue to enjoy their Cuban base, but they play the poor guest by imposing economic sanctions against their host and attempting to bully other nations into going along.
Interesting side note: Kennedy was fond of cigars and is rumored to have stashed 1000 Petit Uppmans prior to imposing the embargo believing that those would last him through the crisis.
|
Post #20,379
12/5/01 5:16:54 PM
|
Typically too
The inhabitants of Little Havana / Miami Dade - are the cohorts of the US mobsters who were the exploiters. Typically these are portrayed in US agitprop as "the freedom loving antiCommyunist true representatives" of the er Cuban Peepul (cf. The Murican Peepul). I wonder if the name Bautista is ever even mentioned to HS students, in Murican prepared 'text'books nowadays (?)
Hah.. the Calle Ocho folk make Trent Lott look like a 'humanitarian'. Having lost cosa nostra, their dudgeon knows no bounds. I've talked with some (a friend was involved with a Cuban there). None will acknowledge any of the points you mentioned. Of course. It's like trying to talk to a thousand Jerry Foulwells.
That we maintain our blockade in Y2K signifies only - the petulant and predictable behavior of an adolescent mind-set in most all our foreign relations. The juvenile nature is displayed everytime a Murican asks, all teary eyed.. Gosh.. why don't they Like US? Huhh?
Maybe the Marshall Plan was our last genuinely humane policy statement. All since was mere dodging and weaving to embarrass the USSR, win cold-war brownie points: but Never was all that about helping people per se. The dictators and other slime we terror-trained at the
School for the Americas (!) (Ft. Benning?) [Oh the Irony]
Demonstrated for all the world to see - that our actions were purely strategic and on the most maudlin scale of all: sheer maintenance of Power. Screw the inhabitants. That is our legacy in Cuba as in Nacaragua, Guatemala, Chile ... ... And the fantasy of 'otherwise' is now so deeply ingrained (Graham Greene writings notwithstanding) - the Murican Peepul continue to ask the above terminally naive Question:
Even here! and after 9/11.. Can a perennial adolescent Ever grow up?
We'll see..
Ashton at play in the fields of the lurid.
|
Post #20,388
12/5/01 5:42:03 PM
|
The Cubans you decry send $800 million per year to their...
relatives in Cuba, thus propping up that dictatorship. A little irony there.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #20,400
12/5/01 7:30:57 PM
|
Of course there's irony! They are People!
Familia trumps the hierarchy Every Time. D'Oh.
And of course.. there is no more 'the average Calle Ocho ex-pat' than.. that other mythical beast, The Murican Peepul.
{sheesh} I mean simply: the Murican juvenile preoccupation, spin, Hatred! for Fidel == the entire Israel Question too! Stupid Fucking Slogans R'Us (too).
Just as the cold war distilled All Nations\ufffd into daily reciting mantras of Hatred <> EZ Slogans about the sub-humans: their 'adversary' yada yada. It's what juveniles do. And this species demonstrates hourly: it's teen-age acne in all spheres. The mass don't need Gibbon or Dostoyevsky or ___ they gots Dan Rather and Tee Vee. And we get this doggerel.
Meanwhile: the Corporations run the mess for their banal (but ever so simple) aim - all that heavy yellow shiny metal. (or that oozy black fluid, just a surrogate for the metal -and now digital- form).
A.
|
Post #20,415
12/5/01 8:45:46 PM
|
I don't see the problem
The Palestinan leadership (I'm pretty well convinced most Palestinians, like most other people, just want to be left alone) has pretty well ruled out any negotiation position that doesn't involve the complete destruction of Israel.
There is a moral difference between targeting combatants and targeting non-combatants, even if non-combatants end up dead both ways. Ir is it exactly the same to you if somebody keys your car or it is involved in a minor fender-bender that results in scratches but no dents? And I still want to know - have we killed as many non-combattants as we have disrupted executions for "crimes" that would not rate a fine in most countries?
As for all the other things, particularly Nicaragua where the U.S. was clearly and definitively the evil empire and a bunch of murdering thugs, well, that's not why those guys blew up the towers. We are very often in the wrong. The right to self-defense is not limited to saints. It is not earned by goodness, it is inherent in existence. And yes, this is self-defense. The people involved have a clearly stated intent, backed by actions, to kill as many Americans as they can. Until they change their tune, that makes anything we do to stop them self defense. Not revenge, not retaliation, self-defense.
---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #20,423
12/5/01 9:20:19 PM
|
Re: I don't see the problem
>Not revenge, not retaliation, self-defense.
Raining 500 pounders on a foreign country where the majority of its population are at the verge of starvation and disease is self-defense?
The tune is getting old. Yes, Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. No doubt abt it. OBL is the leader of Al Qaeda. No doubt abt that either. 9/11 is PROBABLY the work of Al Qaeda, that many of us understood, but note probably. Proof/evidence are nowhere to be seen.
Al Qaeda is NOT Afghanistan. No doubt abt that, do you? But the US is carpet bombing Afghanistan. No doubt abt that too, do you?
The US so-called self defense against Al Qaeda is destroying Afghanistan (now, whether it was already partially destroyed is another issue, at least it was THEY themselves who did the destroying) and so far has caused significant innocent casualties, and more to come as the bombing continues.
>There is a moral difference between targeting combatants and targeting non-combatants, even if non-combatants end up dead both ways.
Ok, I'm going out on a limb here, but bear with me. Wasn't the Pentagon a military establishment? So the terrorists were indeed targeting combatants, and the poor victims in the planes are non-combatants killed, like collateral damages? Make sense to you? And didn't the CIA has a office in WTC? So that's another combatant-stationed target, with non-combatants casualties, no?
Or does that sound too foul?
It does to me cause a life is a life, whether combatant, non-combatant, American or Afghani.
And believe me when I say I can comprehend your perspective. I just hope that you might also attempt to view it from a different one.
Thanks.
|
Post #20,427
12/5/01 9:56:22 PM
|
Let's talk about this ---
Quote: "Raining 500 pounders on a foreign country where the majority of its population are at the verge of starvation and disease is self-defense?"
" But the US is carpet bombing Afghanistan. No doubt abt that too, do you?"
That's a lie. If you're originating it, you're a liar. If you're repeating it, you've been lied to.
And please -- it's as much a surprise to us XGAs as it is to you. In the first place, over on another forum one of the planners in the logistics of all this is reporting that everyone's complaining that the bombs are too big! -- they don't even have 500 pounders any more; 1000 lbs and up is it! And in the second place, even the action they are taking is not by any stretch "carpet bombing". "Surgical Strike" is a stupid term -- we're talking about explosives here, and explosives are messy -- but within the constraints available, what they're doing is putting bombs exactly where they want them. Even Ashton ought to see the irony here -- they don't want to waste bombs (which cost money) blowing up people whose death doesn't help. Corporate war, with the bean-counters in control. Takes all kinds to make a world --
I've posted this before: Not everybody in the United States loved Fulgencio Bautista. During the mid and late Fifties, Castro's group had operatives all over the U.S. South, soliciting help -- and getting it. There weren't many people who starved to support the insurgency, but we didn't get a new car in '58 after Dad had promised Mom... I was in the room when the TeeVee showed Fidel's speech: "I am a Communist. I have always been a Communist." Dad's face, and that of his friend Jimmy (who was in much deeper) had to be seen to be believed. The Americans who supported Castro were betrayed, and they will remember that until they die.
You might recall that, in addition, it was Cubans who gave us "airplane hijacking" as a profitable pastime. Not a good way to make good PR.
When the last American who remembers that betrayal dies, we will resume diplomatic relations with Cuba, on a "let bygones be bygones" basis. If Castro dies before that happens, we will resume relations, etc. etc. But the people who were betrayed by Castro are now the elders, with at least advice-giving powers, and for thirty years were the power structure; it won't happen until they go.
As for the Palestinians -- another poster has noted the relevant point: The Arabs offer only one solution to the Middle East: Kill the Jews and destroy Israel. Unfortunately, they brought it up first at a time when somebody else with a similar policy was green in the memory. It doesn't help that they've consistently chosen stupid policies over the last half century, or that every time they've tried the Final Solution it blew up in their faces. The West Bank is held by Israel by precisely the same method whereby Canada holds Newfoundland or Italy holds Sicily or any other you can name. The method is called by the quaint French phrase force majeure, and every state (whether or not it is a nation-state) uses precisely the same method. [It's pretty easy when nobody wants to take it back, which is why Canadians have no problems :-) ]
Until very recently, you could find pockets of sympathy for the Palestinian people (though not Arafat and the force structure) throughout the United States, on the same basis as anti-Bautista sentiment in the Fifties. I know several Israelis, some expats, some not, and the continual refrain they sing is that the United States bullies them into letting their people be killed to advance some nebulous and doomed "peace process". The reason we have been doing that (and we have, since at least '67) is that we would strongly prefer not to have to kill people in job lots.
That consideration just went away. The photos of Palestinians rejoicing at our dead in the WTC just ended it. Congratulations, Yasser -- here's your gift from Osama bin Laden: nobody in the United States gives enough of a damn to protect you from the IDF any more. Wear it in good health.
Nicauragua? A mistake, for which many of the relevant people have been canned. But if you wanted it repeated, bombing the WTC would have been a real good place to start. Personally, I think the biggest mistake the U.S. made was failing to support Ho Chi Minh when he asked; backing the Froggies got us in ridiculously deep, for no result whatever. However, if you want to make a list of U.S. foreign policy mistakes, the list is long. Have a ball.
Yes, the Pentagon was a valid military target, and the dead on the airplane were collateral damage. Too bad you don't seem to pay much attention: that's precisely the official position of the U.S. Government. Next accusation, please.
"And didn't the CIA has a office in WTC? So that's another combatant-stationed target, with non-combatants casualties, no?"
Did it? Cite, please. Oh, I'm not saying it isn't so -- but keep in mind that the people who bragged about it didn't even have enough sense to emulate Timothy McVeigh and bring that up! (Note that McVeigh said he was after the Federal offices -- FBI, IRS, etc.) Even so, the WTC was a civilian building. The braggarts specified that it was a civilian building!
"It does to me cause a life is a life, whether combatant, non-combatant, American or Afghani."
Unless, of course, they happen to be American soldiers, American embassy guards, or Americans just standing around when somebody you approve of wants to make a point, right? Then they're "valid targets."
Regards, Ric
|
Post #20,442
12/6/01 12:21:12 AM
|
Carpet bombing with 29 civilian casualties?
My goodness we must aim bad.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #20,467
12/6/01 10:09:47 AM
|
You've hit on an important point...
And missed it entirely. You write: "Raining 500 pounders on a foreign country where the majority of its population are at the verge of starvation and disease is self-defense?" Which can be the only semblance of a point you have made in this entire thread. But where did you get the crazy idea that this is self defense? This is an offensive war to kill a group of people who have declared war on us. It is in our interest to kill them rather than let them fester and grow in Afghanistan and yes, the best defense is a good offense, but what do you mean, defense? Well, the problem further stated is such... The government of those poor people (the average Afghani citizen) chose a very poor friend to defend. The Taliban, by their refusal to hand over Bin Laden (which makes all of your points about international law, presenting evidence, etc... so much horseshit - The prosecution does not tip it's hand before the accused is detained), invited us and the bombs in.
As to Cuba, Nicaragua, Somalia, and on and on. The COLD WAR IS OVER. All the happy horseshit about propping up tyrants who would wave our flag (as opposed to the hammer and sickle) is also over (let's pray). And the rhetoric surrounding the evil US and it's naive populous is over (should be - understand?), because it no longer applies. If it makes you happy, maybe we are paying for our Cold War sins now, but what we are doing militarily is ABSOLUTELY the right thing at this point in our history. When we allow Israel to do what is necessary, it will also be the right thing. Something that seems to get lost in these discussions is the fact that we have trained and armed Israel to the teeth. Militarily, they could have expanded their borders long ago... We have been chanting restraint. We won't much longer. The Arab countries that now "hate" us, are really going to hate us when we "allow" Israel to take care of their business.
When you think it's okay to target civilians in New York or Jerusalem and think of them as "military" victories... You most probably aren't long for this world. I would argue that this is just one more negative consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. If nothing else, the Soviets in their hayday were able to keep Yugoslavia together by threat of abject violence. The same for Nicaragua and Cuba... Sort of the Yin with the Yan... The vacuum left by their disintegration is the root cause of much of the mess... And, like it or not, the remaining superpower is obligated to clean it up.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
|
Post #20,469
12/6/01 10:17:26 AM
|
Ah, you forget TTC still waves Red China's hammer and sicle.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #20,508
12/6/01 2:41:44 PM
|
Re: You've hit on an important point...
If you do read the post that I was responding to, perhaps my post would make MORE sense to you when taken in proper context.
|
Post #20,529
12/6/01 5:45:32 PM
|
Actually, you are probably right
in that the context of your reply and the general point of your thread is about jingoism... It's hard not to at times when the topic is inflamatory and the statements that follow conjure up strong emotion.
That said, all war euphemisms (like marketing... collateral damage, friendly fire, etc..) are pretty disgusting in that they are language meant to diffuse (or confuse). Please understand that my problem with your particular statements to which I responded to, seem to point out that you are still debating from a somewhat "Cold War" America (and all it's faults) point of view. I could be wrong. I dislike the rah, rah, rah, just as much as the next guy, but I also feel that this is a "just" action (if there ever really could be). I wish I could be more concrete but I still cannot divorce myself from the pathos of this situation. In debate, it is best to always try to argue from the logos, and that's why I am tending to shy away from this forum as of late. I think it very "human" to be emotional and not want to discuss this country's faults at this particular time.
Notice that I have not stated that I disagree with much of your posts in this thread, I think that the one I replied to may have gone a bit too far... YMMV.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
|
Post #20,600
12/6/01 11:52:55 PM
|
Re: Actually, you are probably right
Believe me, I do understand.
|
Post #20,527
12/6/01 5:38:53 PM
|
Al punte mon fr\ufffdre: No Balance of Power today exists..
That which sustained all throughout the 30 Years War, the 100 Years War, the ___ Wars ...ad nauseum ad infinitum and --> ongoing.. through the perpetual adolescence of homo non compos mentis.
There is No Place in the (This!) World for *Just One* Superpower! as your Yin/Yang simile wisely reminds. And at the present rate of accidental contretemps - there *Will* be an opposition coalition created.. eventually.. to counter our unsustainable hegemony \ufffdber alles. Microsloth is what you get, with *Just One* of ANYTHING. (And with an Ashcroftian/Billyan at the helm)
'Balance' or.. Worldwide Dystopia via (virtual) Dictat. We are dumb enough collectively - maybe?? - that either is a possible fork, in some next: depending IMhO on just how long we can keep it in the pants. Period. One Nuke next: can ruin Your Whole \ufffdon.
Ashton
|
Post #20,530
12/6/01 5:58:43 PM
|
Balance...
It is an impossible judgement to make. I still want to remain hopeful that one superpower can thrive in a world... History is against it (see Rome, Greece, Great Britain, etc...), but there is a chance that we could become enlightened... Unfortunately, our greed (commonly euphemized "business interests"), tends to make us want to build empires and makes it harder from us to steer clear of tyrants. Given the nature of this country, we basically are a decent lot - way too materialistic for some culture's tastes...
Oh, all right. You are probably right. Just wish it weren't so...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
|
Post #20,535
12/6/01 6:24:03 PM
|
Next Stop Rollerball :(
tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|