Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/27/2002 1:51:38 PM EDT
This war on terror is ridiculous. This is not a bitch on us service persons It is a bitch on us policy. It’s like a little kid (the US) thinking he can play in an ant bed (any other country) and not get bit and when the ants do bit him he declares war on the ants and he dumps amdro on them. Then guess what a week later the ants are back. So we assert our influence on a country in an effort to profit by them. I.e. we will give you money and medical supplies if you let us build a army base or a pipeline in your country. Or if you want to be our friend and get new technology you have to buy diet coke or other useless crap from us. This has been something we have been doing for decades. But If that doesn’t work we send weapons to the opposition parties to overthrow the country. Imagine for a minute that the U.S. is a small country bordered by a large aggressive nation. The larger nation will sell us medical supplies and other goods only if they come wrapped in containers that have child pornography on them. Believe me Brittany Spears dressed like a hooker looks to Arabs like kiddie porn looks to us. Add to that you can’t turn on your radio or TV without hearing vile disgusting crap. What would you do? I would probably attack. Other countries are tired of the us sticking our nose in their business. The only way to stop the war on terrorism is to kill everyone that doe not accept the American perspective.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 2:10:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 308wood: The only way to stop the war on terrorism is to kill everyone that doe not accept the American perspective.
View Quote
Well if you define the 'American perspective' as being for freedom,liberty,and democratic rule of law, then I think you may have a point.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 2:49:53 PM EDT
And we should also kill anyone *in* America that doesn't hold to your particular "American perspective"? Better roll out the concertina wire and dust off the gas chambers! Too bad, but the world is a lot less simple than you'd like to suppose. It's more like we're the grasshoppers and they're the ants, and we demand that the ants supply us with food, because we're bigger and stronger and can bite their heads off if they don't. But there are just a few, brave, but hapless ants with courage and intelligence that learn how to fight back and save the Queen, who's threatened with anhiliation by the grasshoppers if they don't bow down and bend to the grasshopper's will. Of course the ants have to ally with other kinds of bugs, but fortunately, there's a travelling flea circus nearby, and... oh wait, I'll give away the ending if I go on. [img]http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/3422/anibugs.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 3:00:17 PM EDT
308Wood has a point. We try to win friends by throwing $$$ and weapons at the opposition which usually comes back to haunt us. Trouble is we can't do what needs to be done because the region is delicate to begin with. I agree that our current policy is bull. BUT, what else do we do? We can't turn the place into a glass parking lot. I'd love to see that but the rest of the world wound not stand for it. We cannot also do nothing. Our cause is just but how do you fight a phantom army of lunitics? Especially since it's a worldwide problem. We are doing what is best for the situation
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 3:00:32 PM EDT
Or, for another perspective, have a look at this: [b]Why the Muslims Misjudged Us[/b] They hate us because their culture is backward and corrupt [url]www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105001688[/url]
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 3:45:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 308wood: This war on terror is ridiculous.
View Quote
No, the war on terror is necessary. The endless carping by the peanut gallery is ridiculous. Not unexpected, but still ridiculous.
It’s like a little kid (the US) thinking he can play in an ant bed (any other country) and not get bit and when the ants do bit him he declares war on the ants and he dumps amdro on them. Then guess what a week later the ants are back.
View Quote
So, you think homeowners should turn over their house to the ants and stop dropping Amdro? I would hate to walk in YOUR yard...
So we assert our influence on a country in an effort to profit by them. I.e. we will give you money and medical supplies if you let us build a army base or a pipeline in your country. Or if you want to be our friend and get new technology you have to buy diet coke or other useless crap from us. This has been something we have been doing for decades.
View Quote
Umm...Homer, this has been going on since the beginning of recorded history. It's how governments work.
But If that doesn’t work we send weapons to the opposition parties to overthrow the country.
View Quote
We have. We haven't for quite some time, however. Hopefully we've learned from our mistakes in Iran and other places. That doesn't mean we can withdraw into a shell and ignore the world.
Imagine for a minute that the U.S. is a small country bordered by a large aggressive nation. The larger nation will sell us medical supplies and other goods only if they come wrapped in containers that have child pornography on them. Believe me Brittany Spears dressed like a hooker looks to Arabs like kiddie porn looks to us. Add to that you can’t turn on your radio or TV without hearing vile disgusting crap. What would you do?
View Quote
Have the guys picking up the supplies put them in new boxes and start our own radio and TV stations that drown out the ones from the other country. But then, I like to look at things logically.
I would probably attack.
View Quote
And obviously you don't.
Other countries are tired of the us sticking our nose in their business.
View Quote
Yeah? Too eff'ing bad for them.
The only way to stop the war on terrorism is to kill everyone that doe not accept the American perspective.
View Quote
No, just kill a few, very publically...the rest will fall in line.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 4:18:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 308wood: So we assert our influence on a country in an effort to profit by them. I.e. we will give you money and medical supplies if you let us build a army base or a pipeline in your country. Or if you want to be our friend and get new technology you have to buy diet coke or other useless crap from us. This has been something we have been doing for decades. But If that doesn’t work we send weapons to the opposition parties to overthrow the country.
View Quote
What you have just spelled out is how the japanese dole out their foreign aid. It is always tied to their economic concerns. But you've overstated your position in regards to us. We always spend far more than we could ever get back. Afganistan is costing a billion a month. The problem is that there are no countries in the third world that will ever do the right thing without extracting something from us. THEY ASK FOR IT Did Pakistan do the right thing? Sure they did after we agreed to give them billions of $$, remove our sanctions, countenencing their violation of the non-proliferation treaty, etc. They were culpable in creating and later propping up a government in Kabul that supported our destruction. And what about the Gulf War? The Arabs got together to head that one off at the pass at an emergency meeting of the Arab League. Saddam lied to Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (to his face), who was playing the strongman in an attempt to force Saddam to back down. Afterwards Saddam went home and ordered the invasion of Kuwait. Mubarak was humiliated and Egypt's national pride besmirched. But even though his interests and commitments were to drive Saddam out, that didn't then stop him from extorting forgiven loans and ADDITIONAL monies (we already gave him $3 bil/year) from us to support OUR war. I mean, once we were commited, he could play the field again... The problem is that we are too generous with people who have done us wrong, or for whom we are siding with to protect their interests, which predate our own. But all you hear from the left-wingers is, "They abandoned that country afterwards, you know" and "it's really about a pipeline and not getting terrorists."
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 5:19:55 PM EDT
Imagine for a minute that the U.S. is a small country bordered by a large aggressive nation. The larger nation will sell us medical supplies and other goods only if they come wrapped in containers that have child pornography on them. Believe me Brittany Spears dressed like a hooker looks to Arabs like kiddie porn looks to us. Add to that you can’t turn on your radio or TV without hearing vile disgusting crap. What would you do? I would probably attack.
View Quote
No, just turn off the TV. A society that is incapable of ignoring or not voyeuristically watching things they find offensive is not much of a society then is it? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 5:30:02 PM EDT
308wood, I think the title of your post is a little misleading. It seems to me, that you are talking about U.S. foreign policy in general – rather than the specific war on terrorism. My remarks concern your the title of your post. There are two types of terrorism: Individuals – be they national (McVeigh, Unibomber or the Anthrax wacko) or foreign nationals. These people you cannot stop – no matter what! Their aim is simple: to cause injury as a means of eliciting revenge in response to perceived injustice of some kind. Terrorist Groups: Bader Meinhof, Red Brigade, R.A.F., Al Qeada. The aim here is far more grandiose: To overthrow the status quo; to cause governments to institute measures that incite the citizenry – I.D. cards, stupid airline searches, restrictive firearms regulations, stop and search procedures without warrants, phone and computer tapping ect. These groups can be prevented from orchestrated, organized and devastating attacks (9/11) by doing what the U.S. is currently doing, i.e., attacking their ability to organize and finance such orchestrated attacks. The reason that the Afghan affair was a retalliatory measure that cost billions is because the U.S. (and others) did not spend the millions to gather the intelligence that might have prevented 9/11 in the first place. In other words it was a reactive measure (like the decades of similarly flawed Israeli policy of retalliation), rather than a proactive effort. You cannot ever erradicate terrorism for it is limited only to the imagination of a single fanatic – and I, together with many members here, know how easy that is to bring about.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 5:45:38 PM EDT
Deerslayer wrote: BUT, what else do we do? We can't turn the place into a glass parking lot. And why not? Just who is going to stop us? If we can't use 'em, why pay to have 'em? Japan certainly understood and fell in line. So will the moslem vermin!!!
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:14:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 308wood: This war on terror is ridiculous. This is not a bitch on us service persons It is a bitch on us policy. It’s like a little kid (the US) thinking he can play in an ant bed (any other country) and not get bit and when the ants do bit him he declares war on the ants and he dumps amdro on them. Then guess what a week later the ants are back. So we assert our influence on a country in an effort to profit by them. I.e. we will give you money and medical supplies if you let us build a army base or a pipeline in your country. Or if you want to be our friend and get new technology you have to buy diet coke or other useless crap from us. This has been something we have been doing for decades. But If that doesn’t work we send weapons to the opposition parties to overthrow the country. Imagine for a minute that the U.S. is a small country bordered by a large aggressive nation. The larger nation will sell us medical supplies and other goods only if they come wrapped in containers that have child pornography on them. Believe me Brittany Spears dressed like a hooker looks to Arabs like kiddie porn looks to us. Add to that you can’t turn on your radio or TV without hearing vile disgusting crap. What would you do? I would probably attack. Other countries are tired of the us sticking our nose in their business. The only way to stop the war on terrorism is to kill everyone that doe not accept the American perspective.
View Quote
You claim to be a service person, so I will say I thank you and you put your life on the line for your country, I just put my money on the line for our country. BUT, I will say your rant falls in this category, "If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem". If you rant about something like this, please follow with your suggestion on what you think the GOV. should do. I'm sorry, they are more in the know, but they still are humans I'm sure they all are shiiting bricks on how the F!@# this new type of "war" is going to be fought and won. I wouldn't even know where to begin, being an american, with an american opinion my opinion wouldn't please other world leaders and civilians. It's all about politics. Did I say it was all about politics?
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:27:40 PM EDT
Eh! Mickey Mouse, I think your name perfectly reflects your grasp of global history and world affairs.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:34:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ECS: Well if you define the 'American perspective' as being for freedom,liberty,and democratic rule of law, then I think you may have a point.
View Quote
Wow, are you ever idealistic! What freedom? What liberty? What democratic rule of law? We have none of those things here. We have arbitrary rule, and carefully rationed freedom and liberty. I agree that the war on terror is a sham. It has been hijacked by political interests. The reaction to 9/11 was necessary, but I disagree that there is no middleground between all out war (glass parking lots as someone said) and doing nothing at all. I fear that the PATRIOT Act was a terrible new threat to the American people, as is part of the general pretext for government expansion that 9/11 created for the control freaks. I would even go as far as saying that the internal political threats are far more serious threats to our everyday lives than 10,000 Osama bin Ladens. All the talk about NBC weapons is more to create fear in the hearts of Americans in order to create a situation in which they will be happy to knuckle under to a fascist police state. Little of it is grounded in reality. This is a big country, and no terrorist organization can totally destroy it. Only we (and I use that term loosely, because I don't really identify with the political ruling class) can destroy America, and it is taking place right before our eyes. Look at the Orwellian absurdity that our airports have become if you want a pretty good picture of what is in store for this nation unless we change course soon.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:39:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Wow, are you ever idealistic! What freedom? What liberty? What democratic rule of law? We have none of those things here.
View Quote
That's your opinion. A historical perspective would show we have more freedom and liberty than any other nation since the development of agriculture.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 7:28:43 PM EDT
RikWriter, I'm only comparing contemporary America to America of the past. Every aspect of our lives is now regulated in some way or another. There are other places in the world where such things do not take place, unfortunately those places also suffer from various other serious problems. We still enjoy more economic freedom than other countries, but maybe not for much longer. I made no value judgements over which is better--maybe it is chaos vs. repression. Rule of law is a joke though. We have rule by so many laws that everyone breaks one or more every day. Making everyone a criminal to some degree is not what rule of law is about.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 11:57:14 PM EDT
Did anyone else get as fired up at Bush's "axis of evil" statement as I did? Iran hasn't committed any hostilities toward the US in twenty years, North Korea in 50. He managed to rile up millions of Iranians in one sound bite. North/South Korean relations are further along than at any time in the last 50 fifty years and now are suffering a setback. The rest of the world marvels at our inconsistant foreign policy. Clinton was heavily involved in Palestinian/Israeli peace to the end of his term, Bush pulled out immediately. Bush sends troops to Somolia, Clinton drags feet in Balkans, Rwanadans left to die. Reagan takes strong stance in Lebannon, Marines bombed, Reagan tucks tail. U.S. out to arrest Aideed, BlackHawk Down, U.S. tucks tail. If anything we have shown to the world that terrorism indeed affects our foreign policy.
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 1:05:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2002 1:47:05 AM EDT by shooter69]
Originally Posted By GreenLocust: Did anyone else get as fired up at Bush's "axis of evil" statement as I did? Iran hasn't committed any hostilities toward the US in twenty years, North Korea in 50. He managed to rile up millions of Iranians in one sound bite. North/South Korean relations are further along than at any time in the last 50 fifty years and now are suffering a setback. The rest of the world marvels at our inconsistant foreign policy. Clinton was heavily involved in Palestinian/Israeli peace to the end of his term, Bush pulled out immediately. Bush sends troops to Somolia, Clinton drags feet in Balkans, Rwanadans left to die. Reagan takes strong stance in Lebannon, Marines bombed, Reagan tucks tail. U.S. out to arrest Aideed, BlackHawk Down, U.S. tucks tail. If anything we have shown to the world that terrorism indeed affects our foreign policy.
View Quote
Yes, and that's why we have a new resolve now. I understand why he said that even if others insist on seeing no connections between the "axis of evil" member states. "Iraq wasn't behind 9/11 so we can't go there." "The Iranians were moderating until his speech." "North Korea was just thrown in so that it wouldn't appear that we are picking on only muslims." Heard that nonsense? Those nations are terrorist states. Many terrorist groups have used Iraq as a base in the past and defectors tell us they have a passenger jet that was used to train terrorists not too long ago. For attempting to assassinate former President Bush after the gulf war we have a casus belli in eternity IMO. And what were they doing meeting with Al-Qaida operatives in Prague (according to Czech intelligence)? And don't tell me that there are any true moderates in Iran. We went through that before. Remember Iran-Contra? Khatemi is a moderate the way Mussolini was a moderate compared to Hitler. Their state support of terrorism has continued since he came to power. It may be the late 80s since they were firing on our warships in the gulf, but they are still funding Hezbollah and their suicide bombing lunatics. The recent ship load of weapons to the Palestinians was hardly an oversight either. Meanwhile they dream of turning their Russian nuclear reactor into real power. North Korea is the only true stalinist state left with a foreign policy that can only be described as schizophrenic. Launching ICBM's over Japan as well as fifty years of terrorism against the south. From the assassinations of politicians there and abroad, to the more recent bizarre submarine beach landings. Kim Dae-jung’s "Sunshine Policy" has no chance of success. Here is a link showing it ground to halt even before 9/11 and Bush's tough talk: [url]//asia.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/09/03/n.skorea.talks/[/url}
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 1:11:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2002 1:27:46 AM EDT by shooter69]
A recent North Korean defector has said that Kim Jung Il believes that any opening up of North Korea would be to his detriment, and is absolutely commited to making sure that doesn't happen. They are are also connected through North Korean missile transfers, and the common desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction (specifically nuclear) ASAP. This is a single minded objective almost on their part. So I have to conclude that they are an axis of sorts and certainly commited to evil. None of them are repenting, that's for sure. Saddam is as belligerent as ever and going back to the weapons inspector charade is a fools errand. The Iranians are making trouble in western Afghanistan and were even letting Al-Quaida thugs escape capture in Iran before some tough talk (AFTER that speech) changed their mind. The only one we are likely to go after is Iraq. So don't get too worried! If the "live and let live" Europeans (led by the French, who want nothing more then to go back to selling arms to these characters) want to feign astonishment, and lecture us that's fine. If the Eiffel Tower and the Elysee Palace were demolished with people inside them they wouldn't have that attitude. Dictatorships/Theocracies + funding terrorism + no direct diplomatic channels (we go through third countries) + seeking weapons of mass destruction = "axis of evil" BTW - as to your other gibberish. When Bush came into office the peace process WAS DEAD. The Israelis and the Arab nations were telling us not to brow-beat their respective sides, or it would make things worse. Many of them were blaming us! Bush was right. Even Clinton said that he understood Bush's decision and blamed Arafat for not taking the Wye River deal. And how exactly were we supposed to prevent millions of Rwandans from murdering each other? They turned on neighbors they had known all of their lives in a 24 hour period, going from drinking with them one night, to the next day hacking them to bits. It was a disorganized genocide with us having a limited capacity to move the needed DIVISIONS of troops into the heart of south central africa. Do you remember how long it took us to get enough troops in place just for Desert Shield (and that was surprisingly fast in world history) despite the Saudis having an excellent infrastructure (which the Rwandans lack) and proximity to our NATO bases?
Top Top