mookaloid
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 06:12 PM |
|
|
Well put Jasper. I don't think it really matters which guy ended up as President as I don't think their foreign policy would have changed
either way.
Our American friends don't always appreciate that we all feel bad about terrorism here too - they are not the only victims.
We show that we haven't forgotten WW2 etc. by our armed forces standing alongside US forces in Iraq and elsewhere when neccessary.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 06:21 PM |
|
|
This war was brought to 'US' just as Japan brought it to us in WWII,
Roosevelt started that war by cutting Japans oil, which was his original intention. He was also warned that Pearl Harbour was a bad idea as a base for
the fleet but was intent on goading the Japanese, but they struck harder than expected. I'm not politically motivated at all but I'm not
brainwashed either. Edit here:-
It was his way of getting into the war without appearing to support Communist Russia. America was not an innocent bystander attacked out of the blue
but a victim of its foreign policy, looking for a way to get into the war without appearing to be an aggressor.
[Edited on 3/11/04 by Peteff]
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 06:28 PM |
|
|
Some good comments!
On the terrorism angle I find it amazing that the west in general seems to focus on the wrongs that have been done to us. There seems to be precious
little attention paid to looking at why these things are happening and what may have been done in the past to inflame the situation.
 I'm constantly disapointed by the lack of honesty from our elected leaders about their motivations for going to war. I strongly believe that
the middle east's oil reserves are the prime mover for the west's interest in the region.
These are my personal opions, but I'm always keen to hear what others believe.
Nick
|
|
|
The Shootist
|
 posted on 3/11/04 at 06:28 PM |
|
|
And don't think for a second....
.....that we don't appeciate the help from the Brits, and everyone else who came to our aid.
The fact of the matter is that this IS WWIII. We are all fighting a collaboration of madmen who have the sole target of destroying everything that the
west imbodies.
The last Al Qaeda video mentions bankrupting America as a goal.
Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda..... Through "oil for food" funds, and the use of borderlands to set up training camps.
Somehow when this info comes out it never sees much press. I wonder why?
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 06:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sgraber
This war was brought to 'US' just as Japan brought it to us in WWII, when incidentally we awoke from a lumbering sleep and saved YOUR
asses and all of western Europe, but you have forgotten THAT...
Firstly - great post jasper.
secondly - shootist - i will never understand why americans think they need to own machine guns or other presonal weapons. Ive heard its to protect
against crime or a federal superstate. How can you defend your president and democracy, then say you need a gun to keep it free? the rest of the 1st
world copes without.
thirdly -
Steve
a contrasting view held by america is that you won the WW2 war.
You didnt - it was a joint effort.
In fact, for three years, the brits stood alone. America supported us with money and supplies, and its absolutely true that we would have lost without
USA support.
Consider if we had just given up.
Germany would have taken europe. USA wou;ld have had no platform except aircraft carriers to launch an invasion.
Perhaps the states would have threatened to nuke the germans too. But then they already had an atomic program, and dr wener von braun, who was key to
the USA space program, would have flung a few your way when you didnt have the ability to launch nukes, except from old bombers that could be shot
down.
so, it could be considered, that the UK holding out in ww2 saved the world order.
It could not have been done without the usa. But entering that war had a lot to do with what was good for america too. You didnt enter it for the fun
of it.
atb
steve
[Edited on 3/11/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
sgraber
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 07:15 PM |
|
|
First off - You guys ARE our allies. We have to assist each other. I apologize for earlier comments about WWII. (I will not edit my prior post.) But
I strongly insist that parallels between the 2 wars do exist.
With your indulgence I quote Clifford D. May in a June10, 2004 article;
"The British historian Michael Burleigh, in his massive study of the Third Reich, defines Nazism as a “political religion” manifesting itself as
a “cult of violence and destruction.”
Could there be a better description of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athism?
Nor is that mere coincidence. Ba'athism is the direct ideological descendant of Nazism. Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis points out that in
1940, the French government surrendered to Hitler “and a collaborationist regime was established in Vichy. The rulers of the French colonial empire
had to decide whether they would stay with Vichy, or rally to De Gaulle. … Syria and Lebanon were at that time under French mandate, and these French
officials stayed with Vichy, so Syria and Lebanon became a center of Axis propaganda in the Middle East. That was when real Fascist ideas began to
penetrate. There were many translations and adaptations of Nazi material into Arabic. The Ba'ath party, which dates from a little after that
period, came in as a sort of Middle Eastern clone of the Nazi party and, a little later, the Communist party.”
Communism, Nazism and Ba'athism are all totalitarian ideologies--aggressive, violent and expansionist. All seek the destruction of democratic
societies. Nazism and Ba'athism are radically anti-Semitic; Communism, in its Stalinist expression, is at least Judeo-phobic.
The key distinction is that the Nazis claimed that the “Aryan race” was entitled to rule the world. Communists wanted the proletariat as the ruling
class, a role Ba'athism reserves for Arabs.
Ralph Peters, a military strategist, observes that Saddam embodies “the European tradition of a tyrant sustained by a bureaucracy of terror. Europeans
pioneered the methods. Saddam is merely an imitator.”
Peters has called the war in Iraq “the most important ‘hot' war America and Britain have waged since World War II.”
Of course, Nazism was not the only aggressive totalitarian ideology against which the Allies struggled. There also was Japanese Militarism and Italian
Fascism.
Similarly, Ba'athism is not the only ideology against which America, Britain and the other coalition nations are today fighting – there also is
Radical Islamism.
That ideology, too, is aggressive, violent and totalitarian. It seeks a world dominated not by Aryans, proletarians or Arabs but by extremist Muslim
fanatics. Lewis maintains that while bin Laden's ideology contradicts basic Islamic teachings, it does arise “from within Muslim civilization,
just as Hitler and the Nazis arose from within Christian civilization.”
Other historians would argue that Hitler represented an older, neo-pagan and anti-Christian impulse.
The British historian Andrew Roberts calls Osama bin Laden's style “essentially Hitlerian in its vernacular and antecedents.” Robert concludes:
“Might not the War against Terror be legitimately seen as a re-fighting of the Second World War by proxy? I believe it can be.”
Paul Johnson, another esteemed British historian, observes that, “Geopolitics is like a game of chess: You have to think a dozen moves ahead. This is
as true today as in 1944-45. When President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to destroy Saddam Hussein's military power, they
took a risk that was abundantly justified both geopolitically and morally.”
Johnson does scold Bush and Blair for not being adequately prepared for the public relations problems that must be expected when fighting a chronic
insurgency in the age of 24-hour television news, an era when journalists “have their own opinions and agendas and feel under no obligation to pursue
the war (and peace) aims of the allied commanders.”
The military historian John Keegan adds that “the serried ranks of self-appointed strategic commentators who currently dominate the written and visual
media's treatment of the Iraq story have a duty to stop indulging their emotions and start remembering a bit of … history.”
In other words, quite a few experts would disagree with the Communist Senator Helene Luc and Moroccan immigrant Abu Mohammed -- quite a few scholars
would say that the struggle we are engaged in today against a lethal brand of totalitarianism is very much like the struggle against a lethal brand of
totalitarianism that was fought in the last century. What's different, it seems, are the media.
Or maybe not. Throughout the 1930s, there was only one prominent voice warning of a gathering storm, urging that steps be taken to stop Hitler before
it was too late. That voice was Winston Churchill's – and the prestigious Times of London was among those in the elite media who denounced him
as a “war-monger.”
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 07:21 PM |
|
|
Yeah.....what Steve said.....
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 07:32 PM |
|
|
wow steve, that reads like a political thesis for a university degree. I mean that as a compliment.
lots of info in there that in the main I couldnt possibly comment on without a lot of further research.
I think however you have to look at things from the other side too.
to quote you
"Communism, Nazism and Ba'athism are all totalitarian ideologies--aggressive, violent and expansionist. All seek the destruction of
democratic societies. Nazism and Ba'athism are radically anti-Semitic; Communism, in its Stalinist expression, is at least Judeo-phobic.
"
From the other side, it could be seen that democracy is also a regime seeking to expand itself over the world, and at the moment, in Iraq, by force
and invasion. Yes, people might be glad that saddam is gone, but i doubt they are particularly happy in iraq - and we will only leave once we have
installed our own vichy style govenrment. you can only vote for who is put forward - i guess its not the iraqis that will choose the candidate
lists........
ive seen opinions of americans that the right to bear arms is essential, to protect yourself from federalism. People hold these views extremely
strongly. I suspect people hold similar stong views when they return with a loaf of bread to their house in Falluja to find a B52 has just wiped out
your wife and 6 kids. Do you mope around, or do you find al zakawi - or whatefver the frig his name is - and start chopping heads off without mercy.
Or strap a bomb to yourself and walk into a cafe in jerusalem.
this is a way complicate issue, and gunboat diplomacy doesnt work too well. If it did, then 1776 wiould not have happend.
atb
steve
ps
as always, excuse the typos!
[Edited on 3/11/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
i wanted bush to win, so there... it seems people fall into two camp, either camp overlooking some small puddles in their moral high ground.
However, bush has made , IMHO, a good stand against the fanatics. Iraq may or may not have been to do with Osama, however, thats how the cookie
crumbles. He got taken out cos his time came. there is no process underway against other 'bad' nations, so it might be years until the
likes of mugabe get crushed. I would charge him, and others, with crimes against humanity, and then make the moves necessary to bring him to trial.
Ideally, a surgical strike rather than a costly (in life and money) invasion. Iraq was under the international spot light since the early 90s after
the gulf war, and his time just ran out, hurried along by the war against the taliban ending. good ridance i say.
i also wanted bush to win, at least in part, to silence the critics (the wobblers, as they were called before the iraq war).
however, in regards to jaspers comments on the causes of terrorism, great care must be taken to keep the moral high ground. Unfortunately, errant
bombs and unruly prison guards dont help. still, IF YOU GONNA MAKE AN OMMLETTE, EGGS WILL GET BROKEN.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 07:45 PM |
|
|
mugabe!!!!
what a joke
we are gonna play cricket over there.
but we invade iraq!
hes old and will die before tony even things of sending him a nasty letter, let alone intervening.
problem is, if we feel we can go to zimbabwe and sort the regime out, cant osama use the same logic against bush?
ie attack someone that doesnt suit your morals - and lets face it, they vary a whole lot in the world.
atb
steve
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 07:50 PM |
|
|
very true steve, but that assumes all morals are equal. IMHO, they arent. there is a definate right and wrong across the board, it is not a local
thing. we are right, and osama is wrong. cos he fervently believes he is right, he will try to sow his madness in other minds, but he is evil. maybe
he doesnt even know it. in fact, he probably doesnt.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 08:09 PM |
|
|
Perhaps the US voters had a similar problem to the one we'll face next year...
...we don't like the incumbent, but the opposition has as much character as a house brick.
We'll probably end up with Blair again, due to 'the creature of the night' and his charisma bypass.
David
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
so, from a communists or arab terrorsist point of view, why isnt capitalism wrong?
example
bush and kerry come from VERY rich favoured backgrounds.
like one is married to a heinz heiress, and the other's dad was a rich oil baron and president.
These are the people that are elected to represent and change the lives of trailer park '8 mile' types.
hmmmm.
from a commie point of view, things are supposed to be equal.
the american situation isnt exactly equal that the few rich control and represent the poor.
Im not a commie btw. Im just trying to present a view of how the world sees things from different sides.
take mandela.
he was a terrorist. advovcated violence against whites. now hes everyones favourite grandad, hero type. Depends on where you aree coming from at the
time really doesnt it?
some of ireland thinks adams and mcginness are hero's the other half think murderers.
atb
steve
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 08:16 PM |
|
|
blair will walk it.
regardless of what hes does.
he could campaign in a panda suit and call himself woofles and he'd still win.
there is no effective opposition. Hes gotta fcuk up big time to lose methinks......
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Perhaps the US voters had a similar problem to the one we'll face next year...
...we don't like the incumbent, but the opposition has as much character as a house brick.
We'll probably end up with Blair again, due to 'the creature of the night' and his charisma bypass.
David
|
|
|
Noodle
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 10:34 PM |
|
|
Someone was rambling on in the staffroom today at school about it was awful that Bush was about to win so I asked her what the difference was.
No idea at all. Just a typically trendy position to adopt.
I don't know either so I kept my mouth shut.
As a nation, or even the broader sense a 'Christendom', we're fabulously arrogant about the superiority of our political systems.
We're raised that way. Who's to say it's any better than the one's opposed by Bin Liner and his mates?
I don't believe that the 'terror' threat they hold is particularly large but since we lost the commies, we've been short of a
sinister looking bogey man.
Blair will walk it. He's got no opposition.
Your sort make me sick
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 11:08 PM |
|
|
do you wear a tweedy jacket with patches on the arms?
atb
steve
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 12:10 AM |
|
|
what the hell happened to osama anyway? did he waft away into the ether?
is anyone chasing him anymore or has he sort of got off?
i've never really got into politics on a global level,but there have been some interesting twists recently.
tom
ps i think i spotted him wandering through dewsbury town centre the other day, although theres plenty of lookalikes.
i heard he was involved in a scuffle and lost an arm. its pretty bad for him, but its even worse for the body doubles
|
|
|
turbo time
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 03:21 AM |
|
|
As of Nov. 1:
(CNN) -- The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head
of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin
Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of
attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to
make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some
benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
Al-Jazeera executives said they decided to post the entire speech because rumors were circulating that the network omitted parts that "had
direct threats toward specific states, which was totally untrue."
"We chose the most newsworthy parts of the address and aired them. The rest was used in lower thirds in graphics format," said one
official.
U.S. intelligence officials Monday confirmed that the transcript made public Monday by Al-Jazeera was a complete one.
As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the
attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.
"Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said.
"As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion. The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department.
"It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something
that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind,
will be convinced.
"And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy."
As for President Bush's Iraq policy, Bin Laden said, "the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to
private interests over the public interests of America.
"So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his
future," bin Laden said.
U.S. government officials said Friday that the tape appeared to be authentic and recently made. It was the first videotaped message from the al Qaeda
leader in nearly three years.
BTW: I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I tend to be more conservative (Republican) for the most part, but I voted Kerry, I have my
reasons, and I read up and studied the candidates like I was studying for final exams. After I was done, I had no question in my mind that if every
single other American had done their research like I had, they would vote the same way. Well, they obviously didn't know what I knew,
there's no point in whining about it now, it's over and we have to see 4 more years of him.
|
|
|
andkilde
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 04:12 AM |
|
|
Been having great roiling debates with my best friend, a republican in Boston of all places, over all matters electoral and otherwise political.
His take on the "divisiveness" plaguing the US at the moment is a novel one. It goes as follows...
The Right is pissed because the intellectual Left has, for the past umpteen years treated Southerners and the religious Right like a bunch of
backward hicks due to differing opinions and beliefs both religious and socio-political. Backlash being the inevitable result.
I sort of like it -- it's neat and compact and all that, but...
It, unfortunately, leaves little room for solutions.
And the disagreements, starting with evolution, progressing through civil liberties, and working their way toward stem cell research are hardly
the kind if minor details one can "agree to disagree" on.
My personal pet peeve in all this is the bizarre use of fear by the republicans (though the dems didn't do enough to ratchet it down
IMHO).
About 35,000 Americans perish due to complications from influenza each year, roughly 43,000 in auto accidents, about 5,000 have been victims of
terrorism in the past ten years.
Before you get too upset, I'm not making light of 9/11 or the Madrid bombing -- Bin Ladin and his ilk need to be decommisioned but the
republicans are treating terrorism like a free pass to the cookie jar.
Roll back privacy rights and civil liberties to the stone age? Invade an unrelated country for personal enrichment, deceive the the world and
your own people about your ridiculously transparent motives? Give huge tax breaks to the richest 2% of your population while racking up record
deficits and using the other 98%'s kids as cannon fodder in previously mentioned war of personal enrichment?
It's bloody Orwellian IMHO...
It's late, I'm ranting and I honestly don't have a solution (I'm not a massive fan of Kerry -- give me McCain anyday) so
I'll shut up now.
It is all bloody mind boggling to this casual observer though.
Cheers, Ted
|
|
|
Brooky
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
When terrorists stop their jihad against the west then we will lay down our arms and the world will coexist peacefully again. The radical muslims are
against everything that the west symbolizes and they won't stop their jihad just because we stop fighting the war. You are just silly to believe
that.
This war was brought to 'US'
--------------------------------------------------------
It is the stated goal of Al-Qaida to remove the invaders from the holy lands of Arabia. They want the withdrawl of non Islamic people from the holy
land of Saudi as this contains the two most holy places to Islam ( Mecca, the great prophet Mohamed's birth place and his final resting place of
Medina ) as the great prophet had one said only one religion can be studied in the holy land.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait Usama Bin Laden offered his help as a senior war lord in the mujahedeen to his adoptive family ( the royal family of Saudi
adpoted the enire Bin Laden family after the death of their father Mohamed Awad Bin Laden as a way of thanking him for all the hard work building
Saudi's infrastructure), to remove the agressor. This offer was turned down and they went to their friend and business partner George Bush to
remove Saddam. They have never left the holy land since.
Al-Qaida evolved from the mujahedeen, A militia force the CIA helped to create and train. Their goal was to expel the none believers (russians) from
the holy land .They were financed by the Afghan drug trade which was set up by the Americans to turn Russian soldiers based there into heroin addicts.
This Heroin is now finding its way onto the streets of the western world.
All the terror attacks around the world in the name of Al-Qaida have been on nations involved in the occupation of the Arab home lands.
So in short hand The USA hacked off a terroist who they helped create and train in covert hit and run tactics against invaders, by invading his
country. They are now appalled at the use of hit and run terror tactics against them.
So plase dont try to tell me that you were pulled into it.
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
Nicely put Brooky
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 01:35 PM |
|
|
very well put Brooky
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 02:26 PM |
|
|
i concur
tom
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 03:05 PM |
|
|
my last word on the subject ......... YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW !!
|
|
|
Alez
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 03:19 PM |
|
|
A different view
Steve, from your post I get the impression that you have always lived in the USA, am I wrong?
The USA may or may not be a pillar of democracy but it's not a Pillar of freedom, especially just now. As Benjamin Franklin said, "People
who would give up their freedom for security diserve neither"
Plus the USA have been involved (in some way or another) in every conflict that has happened and is happening in the world since I can remember, see
here:
http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm
On the left, click on "Watches"->"Regional and Country Watches".
The USA actually needs to continue selling weapons to Israel and stuff like that in order for you to be able to build your car. We ALL need that the
USA continues doing this stuff in order to live our lifes, I need that the USA continues doing this stuff in order to spend my life comfortably,
driving my nice kit car and playing in bands, which is what I enjoy doing with my SPARE TIME, a great thing to have. But let's not talk about
freedom.
My English is so limiting when it comes to explain my views.
Cheers,
Alex
[Edited on 4/11/04 by Alez]
|
|
|
