 |
| |
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Why has the "international community" (read: the West), through its agent (the UN) only recently begun to worry about the "human rights" situation in the Dafur region of the Sudan, when there have been military conflict there for well near one and a half year now? Also this comes at a time when the situation in Iraq has degenerated into something similar to Mussolinis Salo republic in 1944. In other words this particular rabbit was pulled out with such excellent timing that it flabbergasted the audience.
Why is the conflict in Dafur characterized as genocide. 30.000 people (allegedly) does not contitute a genocide. the very use of the term genocide is proof that what we may be witnessing is, once again, the use of the "big lie". Tell the audience something which if they question it, will generate such anger at the person, that he would rather keep quiet. I ask where is the factual evidence of genocide? From whence does this evidence come from.
In what way will it help to impose sanctions on Sudan? Will this not lead to a further crisis, a food crisis. In other words to stop the "genocide" the west will starve the people instead.
In what way will it help to inject western troops into the area? Recent experiences of British and US interventions in Africa have shown that this has only escalated the violence. Most notably in Angola.
Why were the militias who perpetrated the violence initially termed Arab, but now when this naturally proved too politically loaded, and hence led to a certain cynicism or apathy in the public, the term 'Arab' has been retracted?
How does the various "human rights" and aid institutions percieve their role in the world? As useful idiots for western governments? It seems to me that the west only listened to these organisations when it is politically expedient. For instance no one has been brought to account for French involment in the Rwandan genocide, or Us involvement of the killing of 7 million+ civilians in Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Afghanistan, South America, Mozambique, Angola and Iraq.
What is the actual objective evidence that the Sudanese governmnent is involved in Dafur, and more importantly why is it so important for the West to link the Sudanese government to this? No US government, Christian or UN links please, as we all know that is pure propaganda.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
.
Why is the conflict in Dafur characterized as genocide. 30.000 people (allegedly) does not contitute a genocide. the very use of the term genocide is proof that what we may be witnessing is, once again, the use of the "big lie".
|
'Genocide Convention 1948
The definitional article included in the 1948 convention stipulates:
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in WHOLE OR IN PART a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The critical element is the presence of an "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.'
The term genocide is of recent derivation; etymologically, it combines the Greek for group, tribe-genos, with the Latin for killing-cide. In 1933, at a time when neither the extensiveness nor character of the barbarous practices subsequently carried out under the auspices of the Third Reich could have been foreseen, the jurist Raphael Lemkin submitted to the International Conference for Unification of Criminal Law a proposal to declare the destruction of racial, religious or social collectivities a crime in international law. In 1944 he published a monograph, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, in which he detailed the exterminatory and other practices and policies pursued by the Third Reich and its allies. He went on to argue the case for the international regulation of the "practice of extermination of nations and ethnic groups," a practice which he referred to now as genocide. Lemkin was also instrumental in lobbying United Nations officials and representatives to secure the passage of a resolution by the General Assembly affirming that "genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices are punishable." The matter was referred for consideration to the UN Economic and Social Council, their deliberations culminating with the signing of the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide (UNCG). "
: S D Stein. "Genocide." In E Cashmore (ed.). Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations. Fourth Edition. London: Routledge, 1996]
and further edification can be found here:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/geno...fficialtext.htm
Of course with a name like Stein, that article could be by someone who is part of the Zionist-Capitalist World Order scheme to make Sudan look bad, but I find that having instituted a cultural and racial war against the Christian and animist black south of Sudan, the government of Sudan has been doing a pretty good job of that itself.
The B.B.C. :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm
Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict
Amnesty International:
' "Five to six men would rape us, one after the other, for hours during six days, every night. My husband could not forgive me after this, he disowned me."
Sudanese refugee woman interviewed by Amnesty International.
The mass rapes ongoing in Darfur are war crimes and crimes against humanity, but very little is being done to stop it.
Amnesty International's report: Sudan: Rape as a weapon of war demonstrates that despite the regional and international focus on Darfur and promises by the Sudanese government to disarm the Janjawid militia, there is still no protection for women and girls. '
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sdn-index-eng
Tripledoc ? :
Top of his head conspiracy theories apparently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Idiocy of some of my friends in the left - Exibit A
|
That is very eloquent, Azazel. Adress the issue will you.
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
The number of deaths is not, per se, a factor in determining whether something is genocide.
|
So the US is commiting genocide in Iraq? I'll buy that.
quote:
Like in Sierra Leone ...
Or Côte d'Ivoir, unless you believe the French are somehow intrsinically nicer. |
As stated I believe that French had their hands dirtied in the Rwandan genocide. However this is not about France.
This about the new cold war between the US and the Muslim world.
The reason I alluded to Angola is that if you read John Stockwells account on the intervention in Angola starting in 1976, (he was a CIA station agent there), then there is absolutely no end to the lies they fed to the press.
Now, from perusing one report by Human Rights Watch, it seems to me that the "evidence" that the Sudanese government is involved, is that one line in one obtained document says that local communities should be armed, and this is speculated (!) to be connected with the Arab militia, since there is a concurence in timing. The rest of the obtained document describes attempts at demobilization.
In other words, since the accused sold a gun the same day an aquintance of his committed a robbery, then the accused is an accomplice to robbery. I don't think so. Since it has yet to be established that he sold the gun to the robber.
Last edited by Tripledoc on 27-07-2004 at 06:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
About human rights reports. Since human rights organisations like Amnesty and Human Rights watch are based in the West which is currently in a mode of mobilization, then these western based semi-official institutions are not objective.
These institutions are open to penetration by various agents who have a different agenda than mere human rights. They are also trapped in an ideology, namely liberalism, which seeks to spread rather obscure concepts like freedom and rights, but has very little to say about equality and justice .
It is all fine that the West, although failing as it is, seeks to hold their own with regard to treating thier own subjects according to fluffy standards. However when human rights are used for political and economic aims to impose military might on the third world then the result has so far been even more murders and killings - by the West.
In that sense human rights is a dangerous and totalitarian ideology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
Why has the "international community" (read: the West), through its agent (the UN) only recently begun to worry about the "human rights" situation in the Dafur region of the Sudan, when there have been military conflict there for well near one and a half year now? .
I ask where is the factual evidence of genocide? From whence does this evidence come from.
No US government, Christian or UN links please, as we all know that is pure propaganda. |
Oh, I don't know- somnething to do with a group called Al Qaeda, the killing of thousands of Americans and non-Americans in attacks on the United States, a war in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq.
I think that might occupy anyone's attention for, ooohh, at least an hour or so.
Of course, with people's attention elsewhere, might it not also be an advantageous time at which to undertake a scheme of ethnic/race cleansing in an undeveloped part of a country not renowned for media friendliness and accessibility?
No, that sounds too much like a what do you call it ? a conspiracy, between government and militias.
Couldn't possibly happen.
Where is the factual evidence of genocide?
You mean other than the deserted, bombed out and burnt villages, the displaced persons' camps, the refugees in Chad and southern Sudan?
Clearly they are simply economic refugees freeloading on international charity, scared of a hard day's work.
I love the way you characterize the United Nations as part of some conspiracy- that's precisely the standpoint of the right wing extremists in the United States who talk about black helicopters and how the General Secretary wants to institute rule by the godless U.N. .
It seems all too true then, that extremes turn to meet each other in a banally predictable fashion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Political Background to the Genocide in Iraq
Below is the text of an article in Common Sense issue 25 (2nd quarter 1998) on the topic of the political background to the genocide in Iraq.
Iraq - New Background
The Islamic Party of Britain has come across interesting background information relating to the continuing genocidal onslaught against the Iraqi people by the USA. Dr. Kitty Little, a chemical scientist from Oxford, had written to the Attorney General to demand the indictment of the prime minister and foreign secretary under the 1969 genocide act. Kitty Little, who made her name in medical and atomic research also holds a degree in philosophy and has written the book "Mammon Versus God - The Bankers' New World Dis-order". In her submission she claimed that "in the Gulf War the American, Israelis and British air forces had as their primary targets water and sewage treatment plant, power stations, hospitals and clinics, food warehouses and distribution, churches and mosques, civilians and the civilian infrastructure. A variety of anti-personnel weapons were tried out. During the land advance the order was to kill everyone they met. Instead the British sector of the line took prisoners, while British air crews began to refuse to bomb defenceless people. As a result then war had to be aborted, with only about a million people killed.
Sanctions were introduced, with hospital and medical supplies blocked, since they were allegedly intended for "biological weapons". The other main target for sanctions has been food. Only perhaps the minimum needed for normal health is allowed. The UN inspectors, allegedly looking for evidence of the manufacture of "weapons of mass destruction" would seem to have been acting as spies. All this suggests that the British and American forces will again be targeted by subversive agents. So far the result of sanctions has been the death of about another million people - half of them children under 5 years of age.
The intended Gulf War II has as its primary objective the killing off of the rest of the Iraqi population - genocide. The 1969 Genocide Act specifies that not only the actual killing, but also "...any attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit such an offices". That means that Blair and his associates have already committed a major criminal offence." She makes the following comment about casualty figures: "Pentagon propaganda gave the total number of civilian death's in Iraq as 5,000. The U.S. Census Bureau figures were: 40,000 Military deaths; 13,000 immediate Civilian deaths; 70,000 public health consequences of war damage to electricity and sewage treatment plants; 123,000 Total. They also gave 35,000 deaths in Kurdish and Shiite "rebellions" immediately following this war. Independent observers including the Red Crescent gave totals varying from 300,000 to 50,000. In the circumstances it would have been impossible to make any accurate counts. As well as the deaths, a large number of people would have been injured, many seriously, and there was a shortage of medical supplies and equipment, while hospitals had also been targets. How many of those died of their wounds? The numbers seem disproportionately high for such a short campaign, until one remembers that extermination the population was one of the primary objects of the exercise." To support this contention, she further stated:
"I have known since late 1990 that the reasons the Gulf War was planned by Kissinger and Bush were not only to seize the Iraqi oil for the international oil cartel, but also to "exterminate" the indigenous population to make way for Soviet Jews (see paras 3 to abstract, and paras 47 to 52). At that time James Akins, a former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, came over to warn the government of Kissinger's 1975 plans (4 years before Saddam Hussein became President). He was accompanied to London by a mutual friend".
The James Akins to whom she refers is described in the 1986-87 International edition of Who's Who as an: "American diplomatist, writer and lecturer. Born in 1926; educated at Akron University.; U.S. Navy 1945-46; undertook relief work with non-profit organisation. 1948-50; taught in Lebanon 1951-52; held numerous diplomatic posts in Paris 1954-55, Strasbourg 1955-56, Damascus 1956-57, Kuwait 1958-60, Baghdad 1961-64; with Secr., Washington, D.C. 1965-67, Dir. Fuels and Energy Office 1968-72; Ambassador. To Saudi Arabia 1973-75. Publications: numerous articles on oil and energy policy and the Middle East. (our emphasis)
Dr. Kitty Little's account is highly opinionated, and it would be rash to follow her conclusions without corroboration. However, the leader of the Islamic Party of Britain, David Musa Pidcock, has had the good fortune of being able to speak and correspond directly with Mr. Akins in Washington, and has received, in writing, verifiable facts which clearly help us to understand the historical origins of past and present confrontations in the Gulf.
It is clear from his disclosures that Mr. Akins does not conform to the traditional definition of a diplomat as being: "An honest man sent abroad to lie for his country," - far from it. As far as he is concerned the policy currently being pursued by America and her coadjutors is one devised by Henry Kissinger back in the 1970's which, according to Mr. Akins called for the re-population of the entire area between Kuwait and Dubai with Oklahoma and Texas oilmen (bad enough) but, not as Dr.Little has suggested with Russian Jews. He states in his facsimile letter dated February 20th 1998:
In early 1975 some twelve articles appeared in American newspapers and magazines on "How we can solve our economic problems." The basic idea was that we would occupy the Arab oil fields from Kuwait to Dubai (not Iraq), expel the indigenous populations, "not more than 2 million", bring in Texan and Oklahoma oil men who would produce the oil. The inevitable cries of "imperialism" from the third world would be immediately stilled by our selling them oil for $2.50 a barrel. The reaction of the Soviet Union and the Arabs themselves was conveniently ignored.
It was clear that the articles came from a single "deep background" briefing. I assumed it was given by some idiot in the Pentagon or the CIA and said on American television that "anyone who proposes solving our domestic economic problems in this manner is a madman, a criminal or an agent of the Soviet Union." The oil fields would have been destroyed by the Arabs and, under the best of circumstances, they could not have been restored to production for two years during which the economies of Europe, Japan and the United States would have collapsed. I wrote a long report on the subject; it had low classification and should be available from the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act. Congress subsequently did a study on the same subject and backed me on every point.
Subsequently several of those who were present at the briefing revealed that Henry Kissinger was the one who gave it. Many assumed that I was fully aware of this when I made my statement on the subject. This was untrue; I may be daring but I am not suicidal; had I known the identity of the briefer I would still have opposed the idea but I would have been more cautious in my choice of words. Kissinger was not amused and my diplomatic career was terminated shortly thereafter.
In 1990 in the run up to the Gulf war, I said publicly - perhaps in England as well - that Saddam, through his invasion of Kuwait, had given the US the opportunity to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq which I considered the most important Arab country and, as a bonus to occupy the Arab oil fields as recommended in 1975, but with no losses, indeed, with the cooperation of the Gulf Arabs. I never suggested nor did I believe then or now that our plan was to exterminate the Iraqi people to make way for the settlement of Soviet Jews. In fact, until I read your account of Ms.Little's paper, I had no idea that anyone held such ideas.
Ms.Little did not invent the story about Israeli plans to occupy all the lands "from the Nile to the Euphrates, including Medina in Saudi Arabia...The Zionists at the Versailles conference presented a map of Eretz Israel; its borders would include all of Palestine, all of southern Lebanon up to Sidon, all of southern Syria, not just the Golan, including the entire Jebel Druze, and all of inhabitable Trans-Jordan. The Herut party (now part of Likud) uses as its logo this map superimposed by an arm carrying a rifle and the word "Kahk" - only thus. This concept has never been disavowed by the Herut/Likud.
Israeli expansionist aims were and are bad enough; there is no need to exaggerate them. As for Iraq as a place for settlement of Soviet Jews, I believe Ms' Little is confused...The late Rabbi Kahane said that within three months of his becoming defense minister, Israel will be "free" of its Arab population - by this he meant Arabs in Israel as well as those in the occupied territories. And the main area of settlement of these Arabs would be Iraq, with its adequate land, water and oil. Even Kahane never talked about Israel occupying Iraq.
I served in Iraq for 4 years and have a great affection and admiration for its people. They have the great misfortune to be governed by a monster. I have long said that within 10 years of the overthrow of Saddam a demilitarized Iraq would be known as the "Japan of the Middle East." I'm no longer sure of this; some of the best Iraqi minds are out of the country and many will never return; Iraq's education and health systems - comparable in many ways to the best in the west - have been destroyed; children who are near starvation cannot learn much at school.
I would like to see sanctions lifted; they have failed completely in their stated goal of removing Saddam who is stronger, internally, than he was in 1990. Starving, desperate peoples do not make revolutions; their only concerned is finding enough calories to survive the day.
Many in the Middle East believe the US needs Saddam in power to retain its hold on the Arabs of the peninsula. While I am not privy to the workings of official American political circles I doubt if there is any such intention. Americans don't think in such terms, at least those currently in power don't. I myself believe Saddam must go - and the sooner the better - before [the] resurrection of Iraq can begin. But the bombing of Iraq, currently planned, will not bring about his fall."
As Noam Chomsky wrote in the Observer of February 21,st 1998: "Nor should it be forgotten that before August 1990 Saddam Hussein was a favoured friend and trading partner of the US and UK. He was 'our kind of guy' Saddam Hussein remains a monster and a serious threat as he was when he conducted his most awful crimes with US/UK support. But the reaction of his former backers reeks of cynicism and hypocrisy. And their current designs - even putting aside considerations of international Law - may well make a terrible situation even worse.
As might is right in the jungle of world politics, Henry Kissinger and his Bilderberg cronies - David Rockfeller, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Margaret Thatcher, et al are unlikely to be put in the dock and tried for crimes against humanity. The track record for miscarriages of justice under previous administrations is truly legendary but the Birmingham 6 would pale into insignificance at the side of the Baghdad 6 million.
Author: Islamic Party of Britain
Date Published: Spring 1998
http://www.islamicparty.com/commonsense/iraq25.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
I've heard and read numerous first hand accounts describing coordinated air and ground attacks on villages by the Sudanese Air Force (Antonovs mostly) and the Janjaweed militias. Don't fvck over the black (non-arab) muslims of SW Sudan just because you hate the U.S. If you are really concerned about a fraud being perpetrated, why don't you go there and find the evidence yourself? |
If the Christian militias, who themselves have committed numerous atrocities, in the South had air support they would probably use it too. Why is it a problem for you that Sudan uses the same machinery of death as the US and other advanced nations? Sounds a bit cowardly to me.
But that is the real issue here. I think that it is clear now that the US will not get involved becasue they know the Sudanes will be able to bite back. For instance the Russians have just sold advanced fighter jets to Sudan. As you know the US only attacks weak disarmed nations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
About human rights reports. Since human rights organisations like Amnesty and Human Rights watch are based in the West which is currently in a mode of mobilization, then these western based semi-official institutions are not objective.
|
'No man is exempt from saying silly things; the mischief is to say them deliberately.'
Michel de Montaigne
You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
If you're under the impression that Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch are flavours of the month with Western governments, then you have lost the plot.
As Michel de Montaigne also said:
'I see men ordinarily more eager to discover a reason for things than to find out whether the things are so.'
Look at that pliant tool of the West, American Amnesty:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/index.do
The "War on Terror" Must Not Be
an Excuse to Deny Human Rights
"September 11, 2001, caused many to reflect upon the fundamental values on which this country was founded: freedom of speech, respect for human dignity, freedom of religion, justice for all, tolerance. It is imperative that the United States stand for the principles of unalienable, universal rights. Otherwise, those who wage war on human rights will have won the battle against freedom. Amnesty International is concerned the "war on terror" not become an excuse to deny human rights. "
"AIUSA activists protest indefinite detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, outside the US Supreme Court on April 20, 2003 in Washington, DC. (© AI)"
My goodness, what a popular stance to take.
What a government approved activity to carry out.
Amnesty kissing up to Israel:
'After 14 years of marriage, my husband and the father of my children has no right to sleep in our home, he has no right to kiss his daughters goodnight, no right to be there if they get sick at night...What logic is there for forcing families to go through such hell every day, year after year."
Terry Bullata, a 38-year old school principle from Jerusalem.
Thousands of Palestinians are being denied their fundamental right to live as a family by an Israeli law that is due for review at the end of this month.
The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law bars Israelis who are married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories from living with their spouses in Israel.
In a report published today, Torn Apart: Families split by discriminatory policies, Amnesty International calls on Israel to repeal the law on family unification, which discriminates against Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and against the Palestinian citizens of Israel and residents of Jerusalem who marry them.
"The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law institutionalizes racial discrimination contravening international human rights and humanitarian law. Without the right to family unification, thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jerusalem residents can either have their spouse live with them illegally, in daily fear of expulsion, or the whole family must leave the country," Amnesty International said. '
Sounds to me like they're parroting Sharon and Likud, eh?
" Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.
AI's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.
In pursuit of this vision, AI's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.
AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights."
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng
'There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it.'
William James
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Oh, I don't know- somnething to do with a group called Al Qaeda, the killing of thousands of Americans and non-Americans in attacks on the United States, a war in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq. |
Yes, but the alleged genocide happened after Afghanistan but was not flaunted by the press before Abu Graib needed to taken off the news.
quote:
Of course, with people's attention elsewhere, might it not also be an advantageous time at which to undertake a scheme of ethnic/race cleansing in an undeveloped part of a country not renowned for media friendliness and accessibility? |
Again why was this not reported earlier then, if it began 1 and a half years ago. Let me see, the commencement of the alleged genocide would then have coincided with the invasion of Iraq. So equally if a genocide was under way in the Sudan, then it would be difficult for the Bush administration to explain how precisely now was a good time to get rid of Saddam Hussein, if the Sudan was given higher priority on the human rights scale. A scale which, it seems can be manipulated to whichever ends serve the West best.
quote:
Where is the factual evidence of genocide?
You mean other than the deserted, bombed out and burnt villages, the displaced persons' camps, the refugees in Chad and southern Sudan? |
That sounds more like ethnic cleansing. But this is a civil war between two factions which has been going on for a number of years now and it should be seen in that context.
quote:
I love the way you characterize the United Nations as part of some conspiracy- that's precisely the standpoint of the right wing extremists in the United States who talk about black helicopters and how the General Secretary wants to institute rule by the godless U.N. .
It seems all too true then, that extremes turn to meet each other in a banally predictable fashion. |
Sophistry. Show me one instance when the UN has acted against the basic interests of the West.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
As you know the US only attacks weak disarmed nations. |
The British Empire, 1776.
The Spanish Empire, 1898.
The Triple Alliance, Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, April, 1917
Imperial Japan, December 1941.
Nazi Germany, December 1941
Red China and North Korea, 1950-1953
Be very wary of making such ludicrous statements on a site visited by people with an interest in history.
Unless you have a vested interest in making yourself appear more foolish than you may be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Molly Bloom. Of course Amnesty have to seem objective.
The point is that no action, military or economic, have been taken against the Us or Israel. So every one knows that in these circumstances, nither Israel or the US will make amends. Everyone knows that. Now, if Amnesty makes a damning report against a third world country, then this is used by the western politicians to justify military intervention. Mainly to get the bleeding heart liberals to toe the line. But the liberals are merely useful idiots.
Don't you see any problems in that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
The British Empire, 1776.
The Spanish Empire, 1898.
The Triple Alliance, Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, April, 1917
Imperial Japan, December 1941.
Nazi Germany, December 1941
Red China and North Korea, 1950-1953
Be very wary of making such ludicrous statements on a site visited by people with an interest in history.
Unless you have a vested interest in making yourself appear more foolish than you may be. |
Come on, I meant after the Second World War. That would be clear from the context.
BTW the Spanish Empire was in disarray when the US decided to gobble it up. Germany bled dry in the First World War until the US intervened. In the Second World War Germany was bogged down in Russia. Red China had just had ther entire eastern part of China pillaged by the Japanese.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
All those anti-Israeli resolutions mean absolutely nothing. And you know it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
Come on, I meant after the Second World War. That would be clear from the context.
BTW the Spanish Empire was in disarray when the US decided to gobble it up. Germany bbled dry in the First World War until the US intervened. In the Second World War Germany was bogged down in Russia. Red China had just had ther entire western part of China pillaged by the Japanese. |
Your capacity for self-delusion is very amusing.
There was no historical or age-determined context for your sweeping claim- that's the nature of ludicrous, sweeping statements.
You seem fond of making assumptions or claims, and not backing them up with detail- so bled dry was Imperial Germany (but one part of the Triple Alliance in 1917) that it was able to launch the Ludendorff Offensive from March to July of 1918, nearly a whole year AFTER the United States' declaration of war.
Nazi Germany 'bogged down' in Russia at what date exactly?
December 1941, when the United States declared war?
Or in 1943, a year and a half later, with the defeat at Stalingrad, possibly?
In fact, so 'bogged down' was Germany when America declared war, that a year later it was able to inflict losses in the Unterseeboot campaign in the Battle of the Atlantic amounting to 7.8 million gross tons of merchant shipping, and 26 000 merchant seamen casualties.
1950-1953 was 5 to 8 years AFTER the end of World War II and the occupation of part (not all of Western China) by Imperial Japan.
And the Chinese government was a collection of people who had defeated the Nationalists and were skilled at a war of attrition and willing to countenance human wave attacks by the Red Army.
Amnesty is under no obligation or form of duress from Western governments to appear 'objective'.
Which part of 'independent international worldwide organisation' is unclear?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
All those anti-Israeli resolutions mean absolutely nothing. And you know it. |
You're absolutely right of course- they were all orchestrated by the Zionist-Israel Fan Club in the United Nations, so keen on sucking up to the United States and Israel.
You know, countries like Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Mauritania, Algeria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the former Soviet Union, et cetera.
You'd make a very good recruiter for American War Bonds with your seemingly infinite capacity for self-deception.
I never thought I'd actually find myself sounding like a glee club for previous United States' governments, but paranoid fantasies do strange things to people.
I might have to read 'The Pentagon Papers' or 'The Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam', to regain my normal perspective and composure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
You seem fond of making assumptions or claims, and not backing them up with detail- so bled dry was Imperial Germany (but one part of the Triple Alliance in 1917) that it was able to launch the Ludendorff Offensive from March to July of 1918, nearly a whole year AFTER the United States' declaration of war. |
The Ludendorf offensive was a joke. the German soldiers were so starved that when they finally got a few inches into untouched French territoty they began stealing cows, pigs and chickens and proceeded to drive them back to German lines. The whole offensive fizzed out at that point.
quote:
Nazi Germany 'bogged down' in Russia at what date exactly?.
December 1941, when the United States declared war?
|
Winter of 41, it was clear that Germany had lost the inititive in Russia. Also, unless I am a total illiterate I believe it was Hitler who declared war on the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
If the Christian militias, who themselves have committed numerous atrocities, in the South had air support they would probably use it too. Why is it a problem for you that Sudan uses the same machinery of death as the US and other advanced nations? Sounds a bit cowardly to me.
But that is the real issue here. I think that it is clear now that the US will not get involved becasue they know the Sudanes will be able to bite back. For instance the Russians have just sold advanced fighter jets to Sudan. As you know the US only attacks weak disarmed nations. |
What do the Christian militias in the South have to do with the government sponsored and abetted genocide of the black non-arab muslims in the west, ie Darfur?
These airstrikes weren't against military positions, they were simple area attacks against villages to instill terror in support of the much more dangerous attacks of the Janjaweed. This is ethnic cleansing with an eye toward genocide. The idea is to instill enough terror in the populace that they will abandon their crops, their land and all of their property and flee headlong into the desert where they will either die, live in a squalid refugee camp where they can be easily monitored or leave the country.
Yea, and I'm sure the U.S. is scared to death of the advanced Sudanese jets. If airpower alone could do something here, I'd be all for getting involved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
The Ludendorf offensive was a joke. the German soldiers were so starved that when they finally got a few inches into untouched French territoty they began stealing cows, pigs and chickens and proceeded to drive them back to German lines. The whole offensive fizzed out at that point.
Winter of 41, it was clear that Germany had lost the inititive in Russia. Also, unless I am a total illiterate I believe it was Hitler who declared war on the US. |
Such a joke was it, that it opened a fifty mile wide gap in Entente defences, and advanced a staggering forty miles.
Ha ha, very funny, especially at a time when gains could be measured in feet or metres.
The Marne assault came within forty miles of Paris, and German guns were close enough to bombard the City of Light.
My, the Parisians must have been chuckling at the silly Offensive.
20 000 Allied troops died at the Battle of the River Lys in the offensive, with 80 000 injured.
Oh, how very droll.
In point of fact, the Americans declared war and continued to prosecute a war in which their opponents had one less ally to fight- the Russians gave up in December 1917 (formal armistice, December 5th).
That Nazi Germany declared war on the United States is not in question- and I did not claim the United States declared war first, only that it declared war.
Which it did.
http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Do...9
41.html
Declaration of War on Nazi Germany, 1941
DECLARATION OF WAR ON NAZI GERMANY
F. D. Roosevelt to the Congress:
' " I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.
The Congress, promptly and unanimously adopted the following two joint resolutions declaring a state of war between Germany and Italy and the United States:
''Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
''Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.'' '
I think you may have mistaken me for someone with no interest in history.
Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Soviet Russia, began in June 1941, yes, but so convinced was Stalin that the Germans would succeed in capturing the capital, he had to be persuaded not to flee Moscow and he set up the seat of government in Kuibyshev.
"Later in the autumn, when the Germans were approaching Moscow, he (Stalin) betrayed his anxiety to Sir Stafford Cripps. He told the British Ambassador that Moscow would be defended to the last, but he also envisaged the possibility that the Germans might seize it. He went on to say that if Moscow fell, the Red Army would have to withdraw from the whole territory to the east of the Volga. He believed that even than the Soviets would be able to go on waging war, but that it would take many years before they could strike back across the Volga.
In November the Germans made an all-out attempt to encircle Moscow. Their vanguards advanced to within twenty to thirty miles of the capital. At one point they were only five miles away. All the Commissariats and government departments were evacuated to Kuibyshev on the Volga. In Moscow officials were burning the archives that had not been carried away.
On November 6, the anniversary of the revolution, the Moscow Soviet assembled, as usual, for a ceremonial meeting, but this time the meeting was held underground, at the Mayakovsky station of the subway. Stalin addressed the assembly in calm words, although he made the alarming admission that Russian troops "had several times fewer tanks than the Germans."
The evacuation of the government from Moscow was followed by riots and disorders. People thought that the city had been given up. Crowds stormed food stores. Members of the party destroyed their membership cards and badges. Anti-communists prepared to settle accounts with Communists and to win favor with the invader. Symptoms of anarchy appeared in many places all over the area between the fronts and the Volga. '
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel...es/Warlord.html
Had he only had the benefit of your hindsight, he could have sat down, had a delicious glass of Russian caravan tea and some blinis, caviare and sour cream.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Sikander.
Are you seriously saying that Korea and Vietnam were strong nations? Cuba? Nicaragua? Angola? Panama? Grenada? Afghanistan? Iraq?
Molly Bloom.
When I said joke, I meant as in silly, stupid, ineffective, leading nowhere. Not as in funny haha. You have a tendency to take one sentence and run with it into the ground with wry sarcasm, while avoiding the real issue at hand. Which is, if you recall, the situation in Dafur. More precisely if the West should intervene.
And why do people have such a problem with keeping a civil tone on this board? Maybe this an issue for another thread.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2004 04:54
|