 |
| |
|
|
realpolitic
|
 |
Rogue States of America
Mar 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by South killer
i am really sorry about 9/11 but that isn't an excuse to continue with your imperialist actitudes towards 3rd world countries. Irak wasn't a threath to the world, hadnn't got MDW, There is no proof of it to be linked to international terrorism (except a report that was proved to be an essay from an university student  ), The iraquis don't seem in better condition that before as all their resourses are being looted by foreign industries, the infraestructure is in shambles, their country is in anarchy and when they protest agains US they are shoot by yanquee soldiers.
Do you, americans, ever wonder why most of the world HATES you? Do you think they are just envidious ?! Or is perhaps for something you've done?
 I've got the answer: It's because your imperialist foreign policies!!!!! Don't believe all the propaganda your government tells you; You aren't the bastion of democracy, it's the opposite thing. Ypu've installed more puppet dictatorships that any other country in the world.
Also remember that in the 80's the USA aided Saddam economycally and fueled the Iran-Irak war, that lasted 10 years. |
According to the Republic Magazine, the only other country whose people supported the invasion was Isreal. Even some of the most obnioxious Americans conservatives, like Bob Novak, were against it, some magazines called them "unpatriotic". There was talk of embargoing countries that are normally allies, because they disagrreed with us. A poll in Greece was 95% against us, to which I'm sure Rummy would say they don't have as long a history of "democracy" as us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
DanS and OneFootInGrave are making excellent points about reasons for the war in this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=87871.
For all of you who cry "imperialism", you have to realize that every country (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) we spent some effort in are doing well today. We flunked the ME until now, but Iraq will be the starting point.
Before you whine too much about the current situation in Iraq, let's wait a year and see what happens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Realpolitic, I don't intend to be offensive.. but wasn't Somalia a UN runned operation with the US spearheading the force? A lot of countries went in there.. including the Pakistanis. |
I think he wanted to say that we underestimated our enemies in Somalia and chickened out when things got tough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I have a question for pro-war people here :
- do you sincerely think WMDs were the first motivation of the administration to attack Iraq, or one of the most important reasons ?
- do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was the major aim of the administration when attacking ?
- If not, did you think so before the beginning of the war ?
Thanks  |
Three days late, but I didn't see anyone else give you my answer, so...
- No and no. Although the thought of Saddam with a purchased nuke or two is/was very sobering. Removing this threat is a nice side effect.
- Definitely not, but likewise a nice side effect.
- No, I never bought any of the stated reasons as the real reason.
The real reason, I believe, was as a step along the way in the struggle of the US against terrorism. That is what I thought before the shooting started.
Getting out of SA is part of this, however I believe the ability to have bases in Iraq (since it is going to require occupation for the foreseeable future) was the major target accomplished and why the American administration was willing to spend the money and risk the lives.
Something is afoot, and I don't think the Yanks are telling most of their allies the whole story. This is going to take years to play out, and there is no quick fix. That is what I still think.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
"Terrorism arises because some people see it as a successful mean to push through their agenda."
Not really, otherwise one would see it in all or most minority opinion groups. The demands of terrorism are separate from the causes, which are generally poor conditions, hopelessness and perceived oppression by the future target of terrorism. It is perhaps one of the nastier sides of the human desire for some degree of self-autonomy.
|
That's only part of the reason. If terrorism doesn't lead anywhere, people won't be so eager to practice it or follow those who practice it. Very few hardcore psychopath will always exist, regardless of how perfect the society gets, such as Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber. A person who killed 118 people in an apartment complex bombing in China for losing his girlfriend is another example.
We can't really get rid the society from psychopaths, but we can prevent other disgruntled people from following those psychopaths.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
"If terrorism doesn't lead anywhere, people won't be so eager to practice it or follow those who practice it"
I dont see Israel withdrawing, the US changing its foreign policy, or Ulster becoming part of the ROI.
It is perhaps something of a release for a people who feel oppressed. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and that is certainly seen in the communities where terrorists come from.
"Very few hardcore psychopath will always exist, regardless of how perfect the society gets, such as Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber."
People who are few enough in number to warrant some heavy psychological help and or prison stretches, without inciting much revolt from the people. On the other hand, wasnt McVeigh a member or sympathiser with the hard line anti-authoritarian far-right white supremacists?
"A person who killed 118 people in an apartment complex bombing in China for losing his girlfriend is another example"
Again, another psycho who needs help. It is true that you cant get rid of psychopaths, thus they should be helped, preemptively, to become useful members of society.
"We can prevent other disgruntled people from following those psychopaths"
You can never really stop people believing in an idea (an idea is not reponsible for those who believe in it), but you can certainly change the sociological conditions that make them view terrorism in an option. People generally wont become terrorists or even think about it if they are too busy with a job, that makes them feel productive, wanted and contributing to society.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
You can never really stop people believing in an idea (an idea is not reponsible for those who believe in it), but you can certainly change the sociological conditions that make them view terrorism in an option. People generally wont become terrorists or even think about it if they are too busy with a job, that makes them feel productive, wanted and contributing to society. |
I think we already had a discussion about this topic once.
My position is that we need to apply force and help at same time. A non-violent approach won't defeat terrorists.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-06-2003 02:49
Finally that is something I certainly can agree with.
|