 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
So is Turkey which continues to destroy kurdish villages and kill kurds, supress freedom of press, torturing and killing political prisoners etc etc
You can't choose which one to label a terrorist and which one not to according to your interests.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why not? You do. |
Of course not.
Why not? Because you are a lose cannon and the world will unite against you, like the EU begins to do, if you push it too far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then could you enlighten me about the difference between the PKK and the KLA. Just to pick an example close to your frame of reference. |
Very little. That's why Kurds of Turkey should be helped just like Albanians in Kosovo were.
But according to the US, Kurds are «terrorists» and Albanians «freedom fighters».
Hence the appearance of the US as «protector of democracy and freedom» crumbles down. But you already know that.
quote:
Once the EU realizes that the PA as it stands now isn't the slightest bit interested in peace, I'll start taking them seriously in matters of consistancy regarding terrorism. Until then, objections from them are met with merely a smile and a wink. |
There is state terrorism and there is stateless terrorism. Both are equally «evil» (to use your terminology)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Now we're getting somewhere. Now explain why you support the PKK and not the KLA, if there is so little difference between the two groups. |
We support human rights. Kurds are 20 millions in Turkey. They deserve their own country. Albanian minorities are far fewer and they already have their country. Of course their rights in other countries should also be respected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Now you may try to give this a shot:
quote:
There is state terrorism and there is stateless terrorism. Both are equally «evil» (to use your terminology) |
And also justify why you are propably the number one country - sponsor of terrorist groups in the world and particularly in South America and then expect other countries to take your word for who should be labeled a terrorist and who should not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
1.Because they fight for their human rights. Edit: And we are well within EU definitions on that issue.
2.This does not cancel anything. 20 million of people being butchered by a military regime deserve their freedom and their country nevertheless.
So the question is why YOU don't support them? An ally of yours is commiting attrocities. What's your answer?
BTW, Try answering what I've asked you in the previous post too.
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 02-02-2002 at 12:27
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kyle
|
 |
Evil and I'm also a Capitalist
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
That is the problem, you cannot change the people by killing their neighbours and taking down the governments they have elected. To take them down you need an internal opposition which has a popular support and ability to run the government after the regime is down. Plus if you take on Iraq Iran North Korea at the same time as Bush indicated you are very very likely to get China against you directly an wwwIII could be arounf the corner. Whom to blame - Bush. This is not the way to bring them down, North Korea would have collapsed in a matter of years from now, it was even so despearate to open talks with South Korea. Iran has to change from within and all those people who were happy with Shah might have turned the tide soon as well.
|
That's the thing though, none of those people were elected (Khatami, notwithstandin, but he's not in charge there). Bush was simply putting these people on notice. With the exception of Iraq, military action against them is unlikely anytime soon. And again, people are overestimating China's will to do things. They'll huff and complain, but they simply can't do anything.
Iraq: Saddam will have to be removed. He's in too strong a position to be overthrown. It'll require US assistance.
Iran: I agree that internal social change will have to take care of this one. But the US can and will continue to pressure the government and isolate them. The problem now is, Europe doesn't seem to have any problems with Iran's funding of terrorists in Lebanon. And Russia's foreign (or defense, one of them) minister said he had no information that Iran was involved with terrorism. That is either a blatent lie or Russia's intellegence services have really gotten bad.
And North Korea: Again, I agree that they could very well collapse in a matter of years, but the unpredictablility of them will probably result in a major war as the government collapses. It's better that it be handled by the US, South Korea, and Japan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
To all the gun-ho terrorist warriors out there (I wonder how many will join the army?)
What exactly can Dubya do against any of these states? Well, we already don't trade with any of them, so unilateral sacntions would do nothing. Each of these states does business with other states so UN sanctions are not a possibility.
With Iraq, we would not be able to use S.A. as a base, perhaps kuwait or Turkey, though neither is really gun-ho, so from were we could attack Iraq is as of yet, difficult. It is even more difficult with Iran, which is much bigger, and whose neighbors are far less likely to help us invade Iran. Heck, the western parts of Afghanistan are held by pro-iranina faction. Then there is N.K., which has the world's 3rd largest army, Chemical weapons, and perhaps nukes already, with the ability to hit Japan. In about 1/2 hour, they could devaste Seoul, and do a big number on S.K. economy. And of course, China is the other neighbor- so, I doubt higly that Japan, China, or S.K. would allow us at all to use them to stage the sort of massive operation that would be needed.
But of course, everyone here is an armchair general, so you can get craking.
I guess the question is, why are the neighbors of these state, you know, the ones in immidiate danger, like the Saudis' Kuwaitis, Central Asians, South Koreans, or Japanese so NOT EAGER to attack these EVIL regimes at their borders? Because they understand that right does not come from violence- It seems that BUsh has become a maoist just like Sharon- Power comes from the barrel of a gun.
p.s. to all the self-serving moralists: The greatest crime in the last decade was not 9/11, in which at most 3500 people died (if you question the number, look them up again, the figure went way down), but the genocide in Rwanda, in which between 500,000 and 800,000 people died, in a massacre that the world had the chance to try to stop. We let hundreads of thousands die, and now we expect the whole world to weep for 35 hundred? What screwed up morality do we have?
(and this is, of couse, without mentioning all the other bad things, like funding Osama, that we did in the name of 'freedom' from 1945-1989)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
What exactly can Dubya do against any of these states? Well, we already don't trade with any of them, so unilateral sacntions would do nothing. Each of these states does business with other states so UN sanctions are not a possibility. |
That's why military action is being considered.
quote:
With Iraq, we would not be able to use S.A. as a base, perhaps kuwait or Turkey, though neither is really gun-ho, so from were we could attack Iraq is as of yet, difficult. |
We'll use Turkey, a NATO member, and then use air strikes to help the Kurds and Shi'ites to overthrow Saddam. The right incentives can be found for all of these groups.
quote:
It is even more difficult with Iran, which is much bigger, and whose neighbors are far less likely to help us invade Iran. Heck, the western parts of Afghanistan are held by pro-iranina faction. |
That's why we probably aren't going after Iran right away, if at all.
quote:
Then there is N.K., which has the world's 3rd largest army, Chemical weapons, and perhaps nukes already, with the ability to hit Japan. In about 1/2 hour, they could devaste Seoul, and do a big number on S.K. economy. And of course, China is the other neighbor- so, I doubt higly that Japan, China, or S.K. would allow us at all to use them to stage the sort of massive operation that would be needed. |
Agreed. Although all these factors which you've mentioned are reasons to attack them, I think in this case the risks outweigh the benefits.
quote:
But of course, everyone here is an armchair general, so you can get craking.
|
You're an armchair general here too, telling us what is and is not possible militarily, no?
quote:
I guess the question is, why are the neighbors of these state, you know, the ones in immidiate danger, like the Saudis' Kuwaitis, Central Asians, South Koreans, or Japanese so NOT EAGER to attack these EVIL regimes at their borders? |
Maybe because they're afraid? Maybe because these states are more of a danger to us than to their neighbors?
quote:
Because they understand that right does not come from violence- It seems that BUsh has become a maoist just like Sharon- Power comes from the barrel of a gun. |
So are you saying here that non-violence is the solution to meglomaniacal dictators in the proccess of acquiring nuclear weapons?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2002 11:23
Sorry. 
I just had to get that one in.
But it is actaully american oppression which has led to much suffering.
it is not only the evil axis which did not like the comments
) than having this war threatening speach which just makes moderates and opposition in those countrieas to stick behind their leaders that they don't actually support.
|