 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MrFun
Anyway, to what extent do these two lessons that our dear mothers taught us, apply to international politics?
1) Violence never solves anything.
2) Two wrongs do not make a right. |
Unfortunately, there are people who can only understand violence. And to show the limit to those people, violence is the only option.
I would change the phrase "violence never solves anything" to "initiating violence never solves anything".
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MrFun
Anyway, to what extent do these two lessons that our dear mothers taught us, apply to international politics?
1) Violence never solves anything.
2) Two wrongs do not make a right. |
1) Violence solved Hitler.
2) True of course. Since when is fighting to defending yourself a wrong? Sounds like something an oppressor might want their victims to think.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:22
|
|
They believe that the best way to go about protecting liberties is to strip 'em away from us, and they never put any thought into the future (namely, what happens after Saddam; does anyone truly believe that Kurds would retain, and Shiites would gain, autonomy after Saddam is gone, when we've done absolutely squat for them thus far?).
Last edited by Ramo on 22-09-2002 at 10:11
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adagio

|
|
quote: Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
Tyrannical by our standards. And yes, I agree it was tyrannical, but it seems many Afghans preferred the Taliban over the Warlords that have taken over the outer regions of the country.
|
I just saw something in the news last night, that really made me
First they said something about, because of the weather Afghanistan haven't been able to get much food for the last 4 years (might have been more, or less...don't remember exactly). The next thing they said: Afghans were now mad on USA because they had more food some years ago, than they have now!!! Sure, they had more food, back then as the weather didn't "kill" their food, but it's not (only) the Americans fault. So based on this, it seems like they forget to use the brain, or use everything to make USA look bad...
Now lets also say: I haven't checked if it was true what I've heard in the news...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Both parties have to want "peace" and they both have to want it on mutually acceptable terms. |
Yes, but IMO, the party that doesn't want peace in this instance is the U.S. I think Bush is determined to go to war no matter what, and I believe it is mostly driven by his twin desires to avenge his father's legacy and by the far-right war hawks in his administration who think war is a great way to distract people from their abysmal domestic agenda and ensure reelection in '04. That's why potential dates of the war keep getting pushed ahead...string the people along, then launch at a point where we will still be involved come election time and the folks can go the polls feeling its their civic duty to not rock the boat at a "time like this!"
I oppose the war because I think it is utterly unneccessary. We have kept Saddam contained, successfully, for a decade now. For all the talk, no evidence has been produced to show he has WoMD or that Iraq in any way helped in the September 11th attacks. For pete's sake, Al Queda is an enemy of Saddam, as they loathe all secular governments.
We have no casus belli, we have no mandate for war, and I do not want to see American soldiers getting killed over this nonsense. I don't want to see Iraqi citizens getting bombed. I don't want to see what the massive expenditure will do to our still-weak economy.
I am not opposed to wars that are necessary, but nothing has convinced me yet that this one is as such.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yes, but IMO, the party that doesn't want peace in this instance is the U.S. I think Bush is determined to go to war no matter what, and I believe it is mostly driven by his twin desires to avenge his father's legacy and by the far-right war hawks in his administration who think war is a great way to distract people from their abysmal domestic agenda and ensure reelection in '04. That's why potential dates of the war keep getting pushed ahead...string the people along, then launch at a point where we will still be involved come election time and the folks can go the polls feeling its their civic duty to not rock the boat at a "time like this!"
I oppose the war because I think it is utterly unneccessary. We have kept Saddam contained, successfully, for a decade now. For all the talk, no evidence has been produced to show he has WoMD or that Iraq in any way helped in the September 11th attacks. For pete's sake, Al Queda is an enemy of Saddam, as they loathe all secular governments.
We have no casus belli, we have no mandate for war, and I do not want to see American soldiers getting killed over this nonsense. I don't want to see Iraqi citizens getting bombed. I don't want to see what the massive expenditure will do to our still-weak economy.
I am not opposed to wars that are necessary, but nothing has convinced me yet that this one is as such. |
Just as a test, how do you feel about the UK declaration of war on Germany in 1939?
IMHO, THAT is one war that should have been avoided at all costs.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
johncmcleod
|
 |
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002 time: 21:22
|
|
Well the again, we didn't require war. We asked them to hand over bin Laden, and they didn't, meaning they harbor terrorists. If we didn't invade them, I think terrorists could do things like that again then go over to Afghanistan. Just my opinion.
This whole thing is kinda funny though. Typical 'poly. A bunch of highly intelligent and opionated people arguing and sometimes being rather nasty to each other (when I mean highly intelligent people, I don't mean myself, I'm only in 9th grade). I swear this is the coolest forum ever.
Last edited by johncmcleod on 22-09-2002 at 21:18
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:22
|
|
As a liberal, sometimes a radical (though not in economic issues), my problem with the Afghanistan campaign is not that we went in, but once in, we haven't done much: little aid is getting through, warlords are figthing again, the Central admins. power extends just to kabul, and now, the US will shift all attention to Iraq.
One British annalyst for the BBC said it best- the soviets had a great first year in Afghanistan. This has only been our first year- how will the next 5 look like? With the way this amin is going- Karzai gets killed, warlords start problems, more attcks on the US- a slow deterrioration- sepcially if the US does nothing to avert possible famine in the next few months- and we are doing very little.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
As a liberal, sometimes a radical (though not in economic issues), my problem with the Afghanistan campaign is not that we went in, but once in, we haven't done much: little aid is getting through, warlords are figthing again, the Central admins. power extends just to kabul, and now, the US will shift all attention to Iraq.
One British annalyst for the BBC said it best- the soviets had a great first year in Afghanistan. This has only been our first year- how will the next 5 look like? With the way this amin is going- Karzai gets killed, warlords start problems, more attcks on the US- a slow deterrioration- sepcially if the US does nothing to avert possible famine in the next few months- and we are doing very little. |
GePap, We are still fighting the al Qaida, providing security for Karzai, and training and (equipping?) the new Afghan army. What Afghanistan needs is additional financial support and peacekeeping troops from our allies, such as the Germans. Don't blame American for everything.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:22
|
|
Why should the germans, or anyone else send peacekeepers? Were they attacked? Did they pledge to brin security to the region? Do they now state that it is their policy to bring democracy? No, we the US do, not them.
What, our responsibility only aplies to bombing things? Look, if we are serious about Aghanistan being peaceful, then we would send our own troops to do it, not say hey, that's someone elses job'. We do provide security for karzai, which is relatively cheap hing to do, and a bad sign, since it shows his auhority over Afghans is limited. nd aain, if we are seriou, then it is up to us to u or money were our mouth is, and pile i our own money- but we aren't doing that, which means we, not the german or any other European, are failing pour own aim and words.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|