|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2005 01:31:52 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
from London Terrorthread...
Originally posted by crank2o:
Originally posted by Makka:
This sort of thing is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan everyday and it doesn't get as much coverage! What is the difference I ask? |
The difference is that these people are willing to kill themselves to kill civilians. |
This is supposed to stay out of rant. [rant]But I wondered how many others cringed at Bush's statement damning the killing of tens of innocent civilians, when over 100 thousand innocent civilians have died recently in Iraq. [/rant] |
legalbegal...YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE US OR OUR PRESIDENT.
You want to know the truth?
I THINK AMERICA IS TOO NICE. I think we're too lenient. I think we let other countries slide too often. I think we should worry about our own backs.
We have thousands of soldiers in Iraq -- to protec the civillians in the long-run. Don't talk about innocent civilians dying, that is a casualty of war...NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK. I agree, we SHOULD NOT be there. We have people here without insurance whose house got crashed down from hurricanes last year who are STILL WITHOUT A HOME. We have innocent people IN OUR OWN COUNTRY who cannot afford to fead their families or themselves -- some by choice and stupid mistake, yes -- but others by accident or other misfortune.
Until we fix the problems INSIDE AMERICA, screw the rest of the world. And if another country has a problem with that, then drop the big one on them.
America's news is always aired out for the rest of the world to see. Everyone is so concerned with what America is doing these days. Even though we do more for the world than any other country -- heck, probably all other countries combined, we still get bashed. So I say, we just stop trying. You're never going to please everybody...just worry about pleasing yourself.
My main point, however, is that there's no reason thousands of troops should be in another country, cleaning up, when we need stuff cleaned up around here! All the other countries do is bash us anyway!!! |
He heh he.
Deapee - I can see where you are coming from. You take my comments, on how I perceive the effect of US foreign policy as it affects me and the people I know, to be a personal attack on you and the US. However, with respect, you misunderstand - my comments take the form of criticism - intended to be constructive. Constructive criticism works in other parts of this site - not sure why it cannot here. I will restrain myself next time you comment on any of my photographs from PM'ing you with the comment YOU DID NOT TAKE THIS PHOTO. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CRITICISE THE PHOTO OR ITS PHOTOGRAPHER.
As it is, the US does take an interest in the affairs of the rest of the world. And the rest of the world looks back at the US. Only, it is not just the US and the rest of the world: each country has a relationship with every other country. Big countries get more attention than small ones: you should feel honoured that your country is as talked about as it is. We have one planet to live upon, and each has an opinion on the actions on every other. Luckily, as citizens of a country with free speech, we get to criticise our own governmental policies (which, if you notice, I have consistently criticised our own government on Iraq) as well as that of other countries. In some other countries we would be less lucky - we would only be allowed to criticise other countries.
In terms of running for president, your "drop the bomb on anyone who does not agree with us" policy might not be popular - do not forget that many other nations have the bomb, and may not take kindly to that treatment. Reciprocality would not be popular.
As for when will the US have no more problems internally... could be a long wait. As for cleaning up elsewhere - it would not be necessary had the US and the UK not invaded in the first place. You almost sound like an anti-war campaigner.
As for isolationism - fine. Do not have political relations with any country. Do not import or export goods. Do not let people in or out. Do not communicate with the rest of the world. I wonder how long in these circumstances it would take the US to solve all its problems. That is, while its economy collapsed and the country fell to pieces.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 01:36:28 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
If the detainees are considered prisoners of war than they get to stay locked up until the end of the war. No trials, no nothing. That is the way it is done. Period. Who in there right mind would let prisoners of war go prior to the end of the war???? Trial??? How???? Why???? Where in the history of mankind have any country released there prisoners prior to the end of the war? Once the war is over and if we keep them then a trial would be required. Not until then. |
Your understanding of the PoW v. Criminal analysis is fascinating - you appear to have solved a problem of definitions that plagues our times. The question of whether a country can wage war against an individual, or small group of individuals who do not form a nation state is a difficult and complex one. Technically, there has been no formal declaration of war. There is no country or land to invade. There is no counterparty that can be ascertained with certainty (in war, nationality is a useful indicator. In the current climate, how does one know whether a third party belongs to the "enemy" - declaration of job title on a passport would be handy, but the terrorists have seen past this one). We cannot identify the "enemy" using the normal terms of war. And please do not keep on (to all) with the "it is they who decapitate/human bombs etc - the "enemy" is much broader than that - it is the organisers, the people who import the bomb making materials etc - if all we had to do was capture people in the act of blowing things up, it would be straightforward). It is therefore very hard to know who the enemy is. If it is very hard to know, then it is very hard to be sure that any one person falls within your definition of "enemy". So it is almost certain that innocent people will be locked up. And that is abhorrent. The terrorists win if our principles are so easily subverted.
The best way we have of finding out if a person is innocent is through due legal process. That is why I argue that terrorists must be subject to a legal process, and I would argue strongly for that process to be the criminal process.
In terms of winning the war - would it ever be won while the detainees survived? As this is a war over hearts and minds, wouldn't releasing captives with, presumably after all that time in captivity, the wrong mindset, merely restart the war?
However - bcoble, you seem to have a way of avoiding the whole issue, but you have omitted to explain how it works. Please do expand.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 01:48:18 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by deapee:
oh...that ... and BACK OFF THE US. You say you reserve the right to talk about the US' policies -- you don't have that right. Think what you want, but when you start preaching to hundreds of people about it on the internet, I think you're going overboard. You're insane dude. You live in a country that is too cowardly to back the US up when the US is backing your country up IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! |
Insanity/Genius fine distinction disregarded, most of my "preaching" was against the view that the Islamic faith is to blame. I used the US Constitution as being an admirable an inspirational document - its principles are being ignored in this debate and worryingly (for the rest of the world) in part within the US. I was complimenting your country on a fine set of guiding principles, but criticising departure from them. What is overboard about that?
I do now know what your last line means - I am not sure what the "First Place" is where the US is backing the UK up. I do know that the UK is the only major ally left of the US in the middle East conflict (though I do not agree with the UK government's actions).
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 01:59:40 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
You have blamed "a large chunk of Islam" for terrorism. Your blame is direct. You have suggested that the twisted version of Islam practiced by a tiny percentage of people (infinitessimal) who regard themselves as Muslim is the standard. You take the worst, hold them up, and by doing so, you suggest that we should treat all muslims as if they are this bad. I am reacting very strongly against this religious hatred that you are inspiring on a deeply twisted understanding of the world. I do regard your actions as inspiring religious hatred.
|
I thought of a potentially useful analogy that demonstrates my point.
In the UK and the US we can probably identify a "war on crime". In both countries, the records for, say muggings, demonstrate a significantly higher than average proportion of black people. The equivalent of the viewpoint taken by theSaj, with which I disagree so vehemently, is to say that most black people are muggers. If not all, then a significant proportion, or all black people of a certain type (indistinguishable from all the rest) are muggers. Way too few stand up and deplore the actions of the muggers. Why should we maintain rights for people who just go around mugging and killing people? Why should they face trial? Black people are obviously predisposed to mugging, so there is no need to give them rights, or treat them to a trial. They gave up their rights and their humanity when they went out and mugged, or sent their sons out to mug other people.
Such statements are abhorrent because it is broadly recognised that such language is discriminatory, and it is referred to as inciting racial hatred. Doing the same, but substituting a religion, Islam, for skin colour, and the altering crime does not alter the discriminatory and abhorrent nature of such comments. It is merely that the existence of religious discrimination does not have the same broad recognition as racist discrimination.
Message edited by author 2005-07-10 14:03:23.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 02:08:32 PM · #180 |
| This is hard to explain. If the terrorist had there way. Call them what you want. They would be in control of Afganistan and Iraq. Perhaps we should let them have those countries back then we can invade them? Those are there countries. We have just taken it from them and given it to their people. I know it is not accepted by many. Many would prefer those countries should have been left alone. All the UN resolutions would not have forced these nations into being good ol boys. They were a threat as nations to you and the rest of the world. Now they do not have the resourses and revenues that they had before. They are scattered. As Iraq and Afganistan become strong they will be able to police these people. Right now we the people of the word cannot give up on those people. There freedom is at stake. |
|
|
|
07/10/2005 06:22:06 PM · #181 |
The 9-11 terrorists were predominantly Saudi. One wasy Egyptian, one from UAE, one from Lebanon. Afghanistan was the location of their Osama's camp, and was widely held to be sponsoring that and other terrorist campaigns.
The connection with Iraq? None - terrorism was never raised as a reason to invade Iraq, thoughthe UK press often commented that there was a perception in the US that this was part of the post 9-11 response (though a connection between Iraq and terrorism was often sought and not found).
Iraq's previous conduct was never on terrorist scale: it was being punished for invading a neighbouring state with conventional arms and chemical weapons. It was belligerent, and had a substantial army. After being defeated in a war, the sanctions were imposed by the UN, and not lifted because Saddam failed to meet the conditions required on destruction of weapons of mass destruction.
The war was vaunted on the basis of continued failure to comply with the UN sanction on WMDs. Whether there were WMDs or not, and whether the response was appropriate are subjects for another debate.
Links with terrorism were sought (this would have made justifying the war a heck of a lot easier) - no concrete connections were found, and much was made of Osama having been spotted once in Baghdad several years prior (not long after he had also been meeting with US officials). Even now, T Blair never states that the war's purpose was to limit terror, and GWB is careful when phrasing his words around the subject. The public reason for the war was WMDs. The subsequent ends justifying the means reason was regime change, as Saddam was a brutal dictator (though T Blair was specifically warned by his legal advisors that any such war based on those reasons would be illegal).
Iraq was not a country full of terrorists. As it turned out, nor was it full of WMDs. Suggestions are made that "in time" Saddam might have sponsored terrorism, and/or developed more WMDs. But neither was true when we invaded.
Terrorism is still sponsored in the same way as it was before 9-11, to a large extent. Terrorist cells do not rely on centralised governmental support: (bizarrely, to my mind) on more mundane revenue streams such as bootleg and pirate DVD and software.
Terrorism is not limited to the Middle East. Think of the Nailbomber in London (English), Unabomber (American), Washington Sniper (American), 20 years of terrorism on mainland Britain (Irish), Moscow school siege (Chechnyan), Phillipines ferry bombing (Phillipines), Shoebomber (English).
I acknowledge and admit that a majority of recent terrorist incidents have been carried out in the name of a twisted form of Islam, but it is not true that Islamic sponsored terrorism is limited to the Middle East. Nor is it true that all people practising Islam are terrorists, nor that any country that terrorists have come from necessarily sponsor terrorism.
Just because a country is ruled by a dictator or other form of non-democratic government does not mean that it sponsors or harbors terrorism, nor that terrorists are "in control" of that nation. One third of the world is governed by a regime that is not democratically elected - they are not all terrorists, and most don't want/need a third country to invade and impose a version of democracy on them.
Your suggestion that Iraq and Afghanistan were a threat as nations runs counter to the suggestion that they were a threat because they harbored terrorists - I don't think that either was in a position to do very much, given the collapse of their respective economies and armies. And you are right that they do not have the resources they had before: we now have them.
It is highly unlikely that Iraq was chosen as a target because at that time it was the greatest threat to the US and something had to be done. The greatest threat IMO, was that GWB's war in Afghanistan had been seen as too easy and not very successful (Osama survived), he was facing re-election, and his motives were underpinned by the need for a big ticket successful military campaign. His motives are also influenced by the oil companies, who wished to trade in Iraqi oil, and by the ongoing embarassment of US-sponsored UN sanctions killing thousands of children every year. Plus Iraq was a militarily weak target, following 10 years of those sanctions, and from a PR perspective, Saddam's brutality made him an easy-sell to the PR machine.
Anyway - nothing to do with prevention of terrorism - everything to be seen to do something that could be interpreted as reaction to terrorism.
If the US "cannot give up" on people governed undemocratically, when is it going to move onto the next nation? Was Iraq a training ground for China, North Korea, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Cuba, Fiji etc?
Message edited by author 2005-07-10 18:27:05.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 06:54:55 PM · #182 |
Perhaps we should just leave Iraq and Afganistan to the terrorist.
Regardless of the reasons and whether people believe it was justified or not. Its too late to turn back. Let the people of Irag call there own future. The alternative is not acceptable.
I respect everyones opinion. But now we need to go forward. Support the new government of Iraq. Let the people live in freedom. Let the people choose for themselves where they want to go. The millions of Iraq's who voted for the first time tells me they want to be free!! I applaud those people who voted. We can not take that away from them.
They need the support of all nations, not just a few!
To change the subject I just entered my Family entry!
Message edited by author 2005-07-10 18:56:07. |
|
|
|
07/10/2005 08:34:29 PM · #183 |
Deapee, you should stick to photography. I canĂ¢€™t even believe you would talk about STARTING NUCLEAR WAR in such a matter-of-fact type of way.
Do yourself a favor, break away from your propaganda induced ignorance and read on what the founding Americans wanted: Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States and US History documents and my favorite Thomas Jefferson.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
~Theodore Roosevelt
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
~Thomas Jefferson
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
~Thomas Jefferson
Both are today rolling in their graves.
TodayĂ¢€™s America is a twisted false patriotic version of what our founders envisioned.
Message edited by author 2005-07-10 20:35:10. |
|
|
|
07/10/2005 08:58:29 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Deapee, you should stick to photography. I canĂ¢€™t even believe you would talk about STARTING NUCLEAR WAR in such a matter-of-fact type of way.
Do yourself a favor, break away from your propaganda induced ignorance and read on what the founding Americans wanted |
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk..... It's not nice to call other folks names....
(Breaks out in guffaws, snorts and rolls around the floor)...hehehehehe |
|
|
|
07/10/2005 09:12:33 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Deapee, you should stick to photography. I canĂ¢€™t even believe you would talk about STARTING NUCLEAR WAR in such a matter-of-fact type of way.
Do yourself a favor, break away from your propaganda induced ignorance and read on what the founding Americans wanted |
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk..... It's not nice to call other folks names....
(Breaks out in guffaws, snorts and rolls around the floor)...hehehehehe |
Oh man...there's no easy way to say this without sounding like an internet tough guy...so I'm just not going to say it. But anyway...have a nice one.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2005 11:10:48 PM · #186 |
Typical, but you guys forgot to quote the most important part:
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:13:16 AM · #187 |
I for one believe that deapee voiced some strong opinions based on a crucial premise; that the world at large does not appreciate what this country contributes or has contributed to the world at large over the last 200 years. It is the lack of perceived appreciation heard as "criticism" of our policies, that is triggering such emotion.....not only in deapee but other americans as well. Many americans believe that we have helped millions (yes millions) of people worldwide to have a better living, through innovations and technologies developed or financed in the USA.
On the filp side, americans need to understand that many throughout the world didn't ask for our help, didn't and don't want it, and resent our corporations coming in for the profit potential. (What I don't understand is why the foriegn corporations exploiting the same resources don't receive the same measure of critique).
The truth is, is that capitalism, is an expansion system. Regardless of what country developed the technology to export, that country will be the tempory "superpower" until the next phase of world development.
Within history, China has been the world superpower, Rome, France, England, Germany, and so on. The world sent their outcasts to the US. England sent their worst. African tribes enslaved their own and sold them to merchants for a few goods. The Irish fled in droves. And example after example of nation upon nation. And presently the Mexican migration is upon us. We have absorbed huge influxes of the worlds population when their host countries were begging and encouraging their own to leave. Yet with these outcasts, criminals, religiously persecuted, and greedy merchants, the United States of America was born. It was born of the very ancestors of those who today criticize it. Yes we have our sins, many many sins. We also have some graces.
The health care GIVEN to thousands of illegals each year is literally bankrupting some communities. And yet we donate billions to other countries. We educate foriegn students at some of the finest research universities in the world and our christian missionaries from a multitude of denominations, send millions and millions of dollars each year to underveloped regions. Dollars donated by loving, caring and giving congregation members.
I understand deapee's emotion. I understand the tendency to want to stop the "giving" and keep the money and help at home. I understand the sense of futilism when the appearance is that america's "good" is overshadowed by world criticism. On the flip side, I understand that some of the world does not want our capitalism. Our christianity (small C), or our brand of freedom (including Fox news).
What the world too often forgets, is that we are of them. Criticize our policies if you must, just remember, we are your ancestors families.
As an american of both european and native american decsent, I believe that america's good outweighs its bad and some of the criticism of its policies are designed to weaken us.
After all, history is full of former superpowers.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:42:31 AM · #188 |
| My opinion of the war in Iraq!! George W just wanted to show daddy that he could do it better! hehehe :) |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 05:46:28 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
Regardless of the reasons and whether people believe it was justified or not. Its too late to turn back. Let the people of Irag call there own future. The alternative is not acceptable.
I respect everyones opinion. But now we need to go forward. Support the new government of Iraq. Let the people live in freedom. Let the people choose for themselves where they want to go. The millions of Iraq's who voted for the first time tells me they want to be free!! I applaud those people who voted. We can not take that away from them.
They need the support of all nations, not just a few! |
Agree with you entirely on this point: we cannot expect to abandon our dirty washing. What is done is done. Once on the path, we cannot move off it. It will take a decade of support, but we are answerable for our actions.
The actions of our respective leaders must still be debated and opinions aired: democracy works best if we have considered and informed opinions on which to base our decision on how to vote in the next set of elections. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 06:39:18 AM · #190 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I for one believe that deapee voiced some strong opinions based on a crucial premise; that the world at large does not appreciate what this country contributes or has contributed to the world at large over the last 200 years. It is the lack of perceived appreciation heard as "criticism" of our policies, that is triggering such emotion.....not only in deapee but other americans as well. Many americans believe that we have helped millions (yes millions) of people worldwide to have a better living, through innovations and technologies developed or financed in the USA. |
This is a very interesting and thought provoking post. The same issues have arisen in other posts (even getting as far as asking why the rest of the world is not more grateful for the assistance rendered in WW1 and WW2...!).
However, criticism is a way of life. There is some hypocrisy in that the US is criticised by people who trade using the dollar and drink Coca Cola. Many people have bought into the US culture that they so criticise.
One element of it is that there is a suspicion that while the US "helps" others, it does so at the "others'" expense. When I drink my Coca Cola, the ultimate value is not received in my country, but in the US. Who should be grateful that I drink Coca Cola: me, for having the benefit of the drink, or the US, that I choose to consume (and pay for) its product?
Thus, when the US spends billions on invading Iraq, should the Iraqis be grateful, because the US has spent so much money liberating them from a dictator, or is this outweighed by the benefits received in the US of (perceived) safety, profit in the regeneration of infrastructure by US corporations, availability of oil, increased military reputation, potential reduction of long term costs in enforcing sanctions, personal gain for its leader in popularity and electability etc? It should not come as a surprise that some/many will look at the war, its motives, its effect, and the resulting profit and impact, and come to the conclusion that (rightly or wrongly) the US expense was not an expense but a sound investment, at the cost of the dead of Iraq and the Iraqi economy.
A recent report indicated that the cost to Africa of the conditions imposed as requirements before aid would be given effectively cost the relevant nations $34 per head per annum in lost income. Those conditions largely related to the opening of closed markets for Western countries to compete in. The value of the aid received in return - $29 per head per annum. This is not a criticism of any one country, as it relates to all Western aid, but it illustrates the give and take that is inherent in even the most seemingly beneficient of gestures. (oh - and while the accuracy of the figures in the report can be debated, it illustrates the overall point).
When Western nations give, the cost to the recipients is often less transparent than the act of giving. That is because Western nations like to be seen to give, while minimising the cost of those gifts and/or maximising the value received in return.
As for other types of aid - the cost/benefit ratio varies, and for some types of aid, more may be given than received. But as a whole, as discussed elsewhere, countries act in their best interests. Whereas we like to see ourselves as generous, it is less pleasant to have the ill-consequences of our perceived generosity held up to our faces (all of us - not just the US).
Message edited by author 2005-07-11 06:47:12. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 11:07:47 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
One element of it is that there is a suspicion that while the US "helps" others, it does so at the "others'" expense. When I drink my Coca Cola, the ultimate value is not received in my country, but in the US. Who should be grateful that I drink Coca Cola: me, for having the benefit of the drink, or the US, that I choose to consume (and pay for) its product?
It should not come as a surprise that some/many will look at the war, its motives, its effect, and the resulting profit and impact, and come to the conclusion that (rightly or wrongly) the US expense was not an expense but a sound investment, at the cost of the dead of Iraq and the Iraqi economy.
When Western nations give, the cost to the recipients is often less transparent than the act of giving. That is because Western nations like to be seen to give, while minimising the cost of those gifts and/or maximising the value received in return.
As for other types of aid - the cost/benefit ratio varies, and for some types of aid, more may be given than received. But as a whole, as discussed elsewhere, countries act in their best interests. |
Many a courtroom case has been lost by a barrister who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory simply because they didn't know when to rest their case. LeagleBeagle, I propose your last post spoke more of yours and an inherent British view of "aid" to other nations (and the monarchy's resultant enrichment) than the reality of the view held by a vast majority of Americans. Aid resulting in profiteering by American corporations (and thus their employees) is a red herring, particularly in the case of joining a military coalition in Iraq, invented by many nation heads who thought more of their own public image and financial burden on an already overtaxed population than doing what is right for the Iraqi people. Mr. Bush, for all his political incorrectness, has attempted to restore a democratic decency while standing nearly alone (thank goodness for Mr. Blair's integrity) in the face of an intense worldwide media barrage of skepticism and negativity, to ask for sacrifice (not "Look what we can get!") in order to aid those in a terrible bondage. (This isolation and scorn being reminiscent of another once despised world leader who was later validated, Winston Churchill.) The U.S. will NEVER recover the monies already invested in Iraq or Afganistan, let alone the loss of life (to an American, priceless) and yet Mr. Bush was endorsed (albeit narrowly) by the majority of Americans through their votes (something Mr. Churchill never achieved in his own country.) That President Bush's decision will in the long run be best for the security of not only America but for the world, can only be best illuminated if a present Iraqi child, 30 or so years hence, becomes the president of that country, heretofore an unthinkable scenerio, then dedicates a plaque to Bush and Blair on behalf of a freed nation.
As to your swipe at capitalism in your first paragraph quoted; I find it hard to believe that their are no Coca Cola bottling plants in Great Britain where one would find a large number of native employees making good salaries (in pounds, not dollars) most of whom are quite glad you drank that Coke. Perhaps even MORE glad than a Coca-Cola stockholder, many of whom are of citizens of countries other than America.
Thoughout history, no one has EVER found success in any field of endeavor through which others were not enriched and opportunity escalated as well. Nor was ever a pioneer left unscathed by protestations by those disdaining individual success, which portends only shared misery. Outward movement and growth of a positive product, in fact, has always been a commendable activity.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 11:35:04 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
That President Bush's decision will in the long run be best for the security of not only America but for the world, can only be best illuminated if a present Iraqi child, 30 or so years hence, becomes the president of that country, heretofore an unthinkable scenerio, then dedicates a plaque to Bush and Blair on behalf of a freed nation. |
i have no problem with america's intervention on behalf of a suppressed people. as a superpower, it is our duty to assist when and where we can.
i was 100% behind invading afghanistan. it was a menacing society that was harboring criminals that were actively attempting to harm my country. they also had the opportunity to turn over the bad guys and were given plenty of opportunities to do so.
however, i DO have a problem with our recent actions that were brought about under what i consider to be false pretenses. if we were truly interested in the safety of our nation, i can think of any number of better uses for the hundreds of billions of dollars already blown in this endeavour.
consider:
port security a recent report suggests that homeland security has only invested 3% of the necessary funds to keep our shipping ports (vital to our nation's security and economy) protected from some sort of attack. one needs only to remember the uss cole to think about how easily a small infiltrator could create a disaster of massive proportions. what if instead of a military vessel they had chosen to float a dinghy of dynamite next to an oil tanker or natural gas transport?
border security in the first 9 months of this fiscal year, at LEAST 75,000 non-mexicans have crossed america's southern border. we have no room to detain them all and no means of quickly deporting those who are not mexican. citizens of other countries are given a "ticket" essentially, with a court date. to date, over 98% of those ticketed never show up to argue for asylum and are, instead, left to wander about the country on their own. how much money would it take to shore up the borders and/or increase the availability of detention centers while individuals could plead their cases? i am NOT advocating closing the borders, mind you.
airport security a woman with a MEAT CLEAVER in her CARRY ON LUGGAGE was recently waived through security. she was later arrested after she voluntarily turned it in. i don't remember the circumstances (i don't often carry cutlery on a daily basis), but she got through.
--
those are just some ideas. i can also think of a million other things important to our society that are underfunded and undervalued. BUT if keeping america safe was TRULY our mission in iraq, i have just pointed out a number of smarter ways of doing so.
i don't feel safe. i don't feel safe at all. i don't hide under my bed during the day, but i can tell you that neither madrid nor london were a terrible surprise. i grieve for them, but am not shocked.
we know that north korea has nuclear weapons and that massive amounts of their population are starving to death. they are, in fact, more dangerous than iraq has ever been and their people are in much greater peril. if we're concerned about our safety (or the safety of our allies -- in this case, south korea and japan), OR concerned about the humanitarian act of saving human lives from meeting their end by a ruthless dictator, why aren't we "liberating" that country? or darfour or burma?
wasn't gwb all "i don't think we oughta be nation-building" when he ran for president in 2000? no wonder. he sucks at it.
Message edited by author 2005-07-11 11:36:01. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:00:55 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i DO have a problem with our recent actions that were brought about under what i consider to be false pretenses. if we were truly interested in the safety of our nation, i can think of any number of better uses for the hundreds of billions of dollars already blown in this endeavour.
port security a recent report suggests that homeland security has only invested 3% of the necessary funds to keep our shipping ports (vital to our nation's security and economy) protected from some sort of attack. one needs only to remember the uss cole to think about how easily a small infiltrator could create a disaster of massive proportions. what if instead of a military vessel they had chosen to float a dinghy of dynamite next to an oil tanker or natural gas transport?
i am NOT advocating closing the borders, mind you.
i don't feel safe. i don't feel safe at all. i don't hide under my bed during the day, but i can tell you that neither madrid nor london were a terrible surprise. i grieve for them, but am not shocked. |
I am not privy to any government inside information, but I would not be surprised to one day read in the biography of an historical figure, that discussions and inter-administration debate on how to avert another 9/11 led America into Iraq.
Quoted above, muckpond mentions no surprise at the bombings of Madrid or London. I imagine that is a shared thought. But are you not surprised that America itself has suffered no more devastating attacks along the scale of 9/11? Did you ever ask yourself, "Why?"
The truth of the matter is that by establishing forces in Iraq, the battle of terrorism was placed far from America's shore to be objectively fought by trained, armed marines instead of office workers and firemen at a cost of many LESS billions of dollars that more WTCs would cost the economy of the United States. To attack the USA in America is far more complex than for terrorists to attack the troops in Iraq.
From my perspective, and for its results in light of the points you accurately make in your second paragraph quoted above, it seems the taking of the fight to the Middle East was a wise decision that is working to the benefit of nearly all Americans who have been anticipating more attacks from an enemy that is, afterall, more prioritized to validate its wrath upon the USA than upon any other nation.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:06:06 PM · #194 |
so, if i read this correctly, you're saying that by putting the military in iraq we've created decoys for the terrorists to play with, thereby leaving us alone on our home soil with no fear of attacks to come?
i believe the uk has troops on the ground in iraq. did the terrorists get bored taking potshots at them before they decided to bomb london?
edited to add:
Originally posted by enticing:
But are you not surprised that America itself has suffered no more devastating attacks along the scale of 9/11? Did you ever ask yourself, "Why?" |
no, i really spend more time asking myself "When?" invading iraq did nothing to stop them from plotting against us. if anything, it's emboldened them more.
Message edited by author 2005-07-11 12:09:02. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:22:16 PM · #195 |
As bcoble (I believe) noted somewhere below, this thread is not about the truth, it is about what we individually know and what we feel we know is the truth. It is not the purpose of the DPC to correct other people's views on things, it is the photography. In the meantime, one can visit the Rant section of the forums to pick on the latest controversy, whether troll related, lack of comment/comment quality related, or current world affairs.
Depending on one's openness to other views and other truths, people can get educated here, learn things that they did not know before either because they dismissed them as false, or never had an opportunity to hear the other sides. There are many sides, by the way, not only "us" and "them". (Another personal view of course.)
That said, my opinion is that we are talking a lot here about how to react. The whole thing is about reaction. People are trained - coached - instructed to think in reactive terms. To an average person, it is much easier to do that - it is so primal, even animals can do that.
What is supposed to differentiate animals from humans is the ability to analyze, think beyond what's for dinner, and how to kill before be killed.
What we are supposed to do, and I consider it our duty if we want to continue to live in freedom, is to think about the reasons for all these things that are happening in the world today. It is my opinion again, that the freedom is not merely a right to vote, a right to free speech (contented here by some:-), and other rights given to people that are similar to the amendments to the US constitution. The freedom I refer to here is the freedom to go hitch-hiking without a fear that a serial killer will pick you up and strangle you. A freedom to let my kids play on the street in front of my home without fear that someone is going to snatch them for sexual or other pleasures. A freedom to go on a plane/train/bus and not think about being blown up.
Do we realize that the freedoms that are taunted so much these days in the media aren't the only freedoms that we need, and these cannot be the end that justifies the means to get to them.
Do we realize that by reaction-ism we exercise every day, we are not only not contributing to the solution, we are only making it worse. I claimed in one of my earlier posts here, that there can be no winner - we cannot eradicate people that hate by trying to annihilate them.
We must eliminate the reason for that hatred.
Now, do not think that I am proposing concessions to likes of Osama here, as his letter is a letter of an extremist with a poisoned mind. His letter is written to entice masses, it needed to be extreme, otherwise it would have gone unnoticed, and no one would have treated it with more attention than you treat a 2nd page editorial in your local newspaper on someones' view on the current affairs.
It is not the concessions, it is doing the little things that show to the world that it matters what the west is doing. Instead of making concessions, we need to do enough to help the Osama's audience say "This is moronic! There is nothing to substantiate his claims!" As long as there is truth in small parts of what he is saying, he'll be able to polarize masses against the west. And I'm not talking about drinking lewdness and interest charged by the banks - people don't care about that happening. It is the scenery of people killed in the middle east every day that entices people to read more and then it is easy to add fuel to fire.
One of the reasons why we have this discussion here take turns it takes is that the superficial intent of the current world policing by the west, lead by the US, matches what I ask the west to do - it seems that the intent is to improve the lives of the people over there. But is it what is happening in reality? Are we really helping these people out? I don't know that, you don't know that. A BBC report, CNN report, FoxNews report, Al-Jazeera report etc. does not provide information that we need. You need to walk the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq to learn whether we are right or not. But you need a flak jacket and a military escort to do that, so there is my answer to the question.
I really do not have a solution sitting in my pocket to pull it out and give it to the world. I just promised to myself to never take a single news report from anyone, a single statement from any politician from any side, and go with it without validating it against means available to me. My intelligence orders me not to classify things haphazardly and take sides where there are multiple sides to be taken.
This approach has earned me nothing but problems with different sides in different conflicts, and it is just the proof (to me) that things aren't black and white, and that it may not be correct to take one extreme side and go with it until the annihilation of the human kind.
Enough babbling, I had to, because it reminds me so much of the events in the past. The world of terror did not start on 9/11, remember. Neither the Muslims are the only terrorists in the world.
I will leave you with one plea:
think! Read, the internet is at your disposal. Follow up on the news, there are daily newspapers world-wide that you can read editorials. I am not recommending browsing the extremist sites, neither those of the far liberal left in the US, and the plethora of conspiracy theory web sites. I am just asking you to try and read editorials in different world-renowned journals. Granted, it may not reflect the majority views, but if you are capable of analytical reading, you will be able to take from those articles the substance and apply it to your understanding of the world. What boils my blood when I read rants like this one isn't the difference in views, but the way some people (from all sides of the issue) express their beliefs without allowing for the different "truth".
Read, get yourself acquainted with the world history, and not by reading one author of it. This is a plea to all, not only to those anti X of for Y.
Message edited by author 2005-07-11 12:28:59.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:42:51 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
(thank goodness for Mr. Blair's integrity) |
Sorry but the words ~"Blair' and 'intergrity' just do not go together! In my dictionary "integrity" means honesty and uprightness.
Now at least I haven't upset any Americans with that post!
Or perhaps I have!
:)
P |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:50:41 PM · #197 |
This argument of lack of appreciation by the world for all the good the US has done lacks merit when one considers the history of the past 50 years. For all the talk of establishing democracy in the Middle East it is not believed, and is seen through by the rest of world, especially the third world countries for what it really is...Imperial expansionism for business and militaristic purposes. Since the 1950s, the US has had a hand in overthrowing democratically elected officials in countries such as Iran (Mosadek), Chile (Allende), Guatamala (Jacobo Arbenz Guzman), Ecquador (Jaime Roldos), Panama (Omar Torrijos). These leaders were clear in their vision to return the control of their country's natural resources back to the people of their lands. In their places the US supported the most brutal dictators such as, the Shah of Iran and Pinochet. Saddam Hussein was for many years supported by the US. Even today the US continues to prop up the royal family in Saudi Arabia who are human rights abusers and hated by their people. In addition, lending practices by the World Bank are suspect for helping the countries they give monies to. John Perkins, in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, points out that dictators around the world are bribed for the purposes of taking the huge loans handed out. These enormous loans require the countries to undertake structural adjustment programs for the purposes of opening up the country's economy, market and natural resources of the land to mainly US companies, as well as, eliminating social and environmental programs . When the countries are unable to pay back these loans, that take years, they are forced to give over more of their natural resources and markets. The people gain little and suffer greatly. An example of this is Argentina, who at one time had 50% unemployment.
This is why debt relief was a big topic at the G8 Summit. While the poorest countries were going to be relived of their big debts the structural readjustments were still being required. This is a corrupt system and many in the developing world don't want it in their countries. This is all about corporate globalization and it's what is going on in Iraq today as well.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:55:21 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
so, if i read this correctly, you're saying that by putting the military in iraq we've created decoys for the terrorists to play with, thereby leaving us alone on our home soil with no fear of attacks to come?
i believe the uk has troops on the ground in iraq. did the terrorists get bored taking potshots at them before they decided to bomb london?
edited to add:
Originally posted by enticing:
But are you not surprised that America itself has suffered no more devastating attacks along the scale of 9/11? Did you ever ask yourself, "Why?" |
no, i really spend more time asking myself "When?" invading iraq did nothing to stop them from plotting against us. if anything, it's emboldened them more. |
Yes Britain has many troops in Iraq and has suffered casualties.
I think everyone in London was sure we would be attacked and I think it would be naive to believe this is the last time for the UK or for the USA. These attacks take a long time to plan.
Srdanz - I think you said a tremendous amount of truth but many people are unable to access (or I sorry to say) analyse the information available. They have to rely on news reports and the propaganda from both sides of any conflict is horrendous.
P |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:18:20 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This argument of lack of appreciation by the world for all the good the US has done lacks merit when one considers the history of the past 50 years. For all the talk of establishing democracy in the Middle East it is not believed, and is seen through by the rest of world, especially the third world countries for what it really is...Imperial expansionism for business and militaristic purposes. Since the 1950s, the US has had a hand in overthrowing democratically elected officials in countries such as Iran (Mosadek), Chile (Allende), Guatamala (Jacobo Arbenz Guzman), Ecquador (Jaime Roldos), Panama (Omar Torrijos). These leaders were clear in their vision to return the control of their country's natural resources back to the people of their lands. In their places the US supported the most brutal dictators such as, the Shah of Iran and Pinochet. Saddam Hussein was for many years supported by the US. Even today the US continues to prop up the royal family in Saudi Arabia who are human rights abusers and hated by their people. In addition, lending practices by the World Bank are suspect for helping the countries they give monies to. John Perkins, in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, points out that dictators around the world are bribed for the purposes of taking the huge loans handed out. These enormous loans require the countries to undertake structural adjustment programs for the purposes of opening up the country's economy, market and natural resources of the land to mainly US companies, as well as, eliminating social and environmental programs . When the countries are unable to pay back these loans, that take years, they are forced to give over more of their natural resources and markets. The people gain little and suffer greatly. An example of this is Argentina, who at one time had 50% unemployment.
This is why debt relief was a big topic at the G8 Summit. While the poorest countries were going to be relived of their big debts the structural readjustments were still being required. This is a corrupt system and many in the developing world don't want it in their countries. This is all about corporate globalization and it's what is going on in Iraq today as well. |
Well said.
This is the part of American history that is not shown in any main stream arena. The US government has supported tyrants and helped removed democratically elected presidents in other countries when it serves the US interests.
To many countries, the post WW2 US foreign policy is a form of terrorism. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:30:17 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
These attacks take a long time to plan. |
You know, I keep hearing this but, if I were so inclined I believe I could impliment one in a day or two. There is just no way to stop these attacks IMO. Evil will find a way.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:39:29 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 07:39:29 PM EDT.
|
