|
|
|
Dr Shari
Skeptic Friend
135 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2002 : 21:53:20 [Permalink]
|
George W has to prove to the nation that he is not Bush Light and is searching for ways to prove he is a better president then his father was. His first major act as president was to resume the bombing of Saddam Hussien. He platformed on the premis that we needed to strengthen the military and 9/11 gave him the chance to prove he has what it takes.
I jokingly said on another thread that with millions of people in the US why did we have to elect another Bush and perhaps brother Jeb could do it next. Some people thought I was rather silly for suggesting a Bush Dynasty but now I wonder. If he cannot do real reform, save the economy and get us out of this slump he will distinguish himself through Military Strength by trying to convince the US Puplic that there is some evil threat waitng to do us in. He wants his weapons.
Death: The High Cost of Living
It is easier to get forgiveness then to get permission! |
 |
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 09:35:16 [Permalink]
|
Dr Shari, it appears to me that you're suggesting a conspiracy. As yet, there is no evidence to support that.
Whatever motivations existed before 9/11, I think the American response has been correct. The other alternative is to turn the other cheek, and get slapped again. To my mind, there are times to turn the other cheek, but this is not one of them.
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 12:02:15 [Permalink]
|
I find it ironic that someone could say that socialism leads to corruption after what happened with Enron. Capitalism is extremely corrupt. I find that any system involving humans will be corrupt.
There are more choices available than bomb them to gravel or do nothing at all. The possibilities are endless and are hardly contrained to anything so simplistic.
I personally don't think there is any conspiracy but I do question the advice being fed to the president and Bush's own comments. Now, more than ever, flexing of the military muscle requires the approval of the international community. I fear that the President does not comprehend the complexity of how the world actually works and that he is making moves that we will somehow pay for at a later date.
He could be screwing us all over in the long run but we shall just have to deal with that when the day arrives.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 15:28:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find it ironic that someone could say that socialism leads to corruption after what happened with Enron. Capitalism is extremely corrupt. I find that any system involving humans will be corrupt.
I think that ideologys that make unwaranted assumtions about the inherent 'goodness' of man suffer far more from corruption. Comunism did not work because people are selfish basterds. In Capitalism people are selfish bastards, too, but that has far less impact. It is more or less build in.
It would be hard to corrupt a system that is almost completly based on selfishness. NO corruption possible in an system based on the ideas of Ayn Rand, but would you want to live there?
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 17:06:06 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, jumping in here without having read the whole thread. However, there was one slight error in a statement made regarding America starting the problem in Afghanistan and then someone saying it was a problem with tribal warfare.
Afhanistan had relatively few problems until 1979 when they were invaded by the former Soviet Union looking for a southern port for their naval forces. Gee, St. Petersburg freezes for a good portion of the winter.
Anyway, the US did not want to step in to help Afghanistan directly with troops to avoid a conflict between the USSR and the US. So, it provided advisors and material to the Mujahideen that were fighting against the USSR. They just happened to use bin Laden as their pipeline for material and information and training into Afghanistan.
Prior to the Russian invasion, Afghanistan was considered one of the most progressive muslim countries with women having as close to equal rights as possible in a muslim country, which is really saying something. The troubles didn't start in Afghanistan until the temporary government set up after the withdrawl of Soviet troop fell to a group of upstart college muslims who wanted to enact Sha'ria law overthrew the government. These college kids had not (for the most part) faught with the Mujahideen, these kids were the Taliban.
The history of Afghanistan as a 'war-torn' country split by rival tribes, is recent and of Soviet making. Had Afghanistan not been invaded by Soviet troops, I think things would be very different today.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 17:08:20 [Permalink]
|
@tomic, I'm sorry for not being clear. My comment about socialist states should have included stuff about Francisco Franco, Christianity, and the curling league in Acme. I totally agree with you that any system involving humans is corrupt.
It appears to me that Bush is acting as point man for western countries, and he should probably consult with them behind the scenes a bit more before he opens his mouth. But terrorism is a concern to many countries, and this is what is driving the whole thing.
With regard to him making moves that we would pay for at some later date, even if he didn't make moves, I think we'd pay. After all, they did vow to kill us. Based on past performance, I believe 'em.
It's well and good to wish that everyone would play nicey-nice, but that time is past. It ended on 9/11. Before then, we all thought we could talk things out. Now we know that sometimes you have to take a stand.
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 18:23:25 [Permalink]
|
I think we would do well to ask questions about the U.S. role in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion.
Take a stand, or murder thousands more innocent people?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 18:34:54 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
It's apparent from your chosen quote that you think the US shouldn't be doing anything about terrorism.
Shall we bow to their every whim, then?
It's apparent from your comment that you think the US is killing innocent people intentionally in Afghanistan......As opposed to the terrorists who state that as one of their goals they will kill innocents wherever they can. Are they right and justified in doing this?
You and I are different people, and have different ways of doing things. I agree with the way things are being done now (there's always room for improvement, mind you), but you don't. So, what would you have done instead? I'd would seriously like to know.
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 19:05:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's apparent from your chosen quote that you think the US shouldn't be doing anything about terrorism.
If you look back at the 80s that was the Reagan policy and it was pathetic. Obviously something has to be done.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2002 : 05:08:52 [Permalink]
|
You've given us a false choice. Either engage in terrorism, or do nothing.
There are many things the U.S. could have done. Did they kill civilians on purpose? They had been told that to continue the bombing would risk the lives of millions because of the disruption in the food distibution, the destruction of farms, etc. Did they know that destroying water supplies and shutting off electricity and other "collateral" damage would occur? Of course they did. The question isn't did they know they would risk the lives of millions and terrorize millions, the question is were other methods tried first? They were not. The U.S. is not interested in ending terrorism or they'd end their own terrorism, the terrorism of Isreal, the terrorism funded by Saudi Arabia, etc.
Atomic is right. Look at the terrorism of the U.S. in Central and South America. Does Haiti or Guatemala or Cuba now have the right to bomb U.S. cities?
quote:
Gorgo, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 02/18/2002 06:09:30 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2002 : 10:28:39 [Permalink]
|
To be fair Gorgo, millions already were at risk before we started bombing. Do you think all those international aid organizations were there for a reason?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2002 : 10:58:37 [Permalink]
|
As in Iraq, the only ones really capable of figuring out the destruction of the U.S. is the U.S., and the U.S. has no interest in documenting its own crimes.
However, it doesn't really matter, as it can be said that the U.S. was warned that many more would die, so the U.S. knew that they were increasing the risk of death and suffering a great deal by the bombing even if they really didn't. If we limit it only to the bombing, it has been calculated by some (correctly or incorrectly) that at least as many died because of the bombing as died in NY and Washington on 9/11/01. Certainly, this was a terrorist attack.
quote:
To be fair Gorgo, millions already were at risk before we started bombing. Do you think all those international aid organizations were there for a reason?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2002 : 14:07:52 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, didn't the Taliban have some missionaries in custody prior to 9/11? Were they not actively cutting off ties to the rest of the world? I'm not sure of the timing of this last one, but didn't they take over the Red Cross office prior to commencement of bombing?
It seems to me that they were going to let millions die because the west couldn't get suport in to the country. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Saddam Hussein is letting millions die rather than letting inspectors in to monitor production of weapos of mass distruction. Shall we let him continue?
Your responses have not answered my question. They have said "Look at how evil the US is!!" Fine. It's your opinion that the US is evil. So I'll ask again, what would you have done differently?
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2002 : 14:30:08 [Permalink]
|
No. I haven't used the word evil. That's your word, not mine. The U.N. charter says that countries should negotiate before they attack one another. The U.S. did not attempt to negotiate. Any attempt at justifying their actions internationally were done after the fact. They had no interest in overthrowing the Taliban before the U.S. attack started. No interest in cooperating with Afghans. Just an interest in maintaining economic and military superiority in the world.
I don't know what the Taliban did. We were talking about the U.S.
The Ba'ath party (who came to power after the CIA supported revolution) is pretty nasty, but it is the U.S. that has a military blockade on the country, wrecking its economy.
quote:
Gorgo, didn't the Taliban have some missionaries in custody prior to 9/11? Were they not actively cutting off ties to the rest of the world? I'm not sure of the timing of this last one, but didn't they take over the Red Cross office prior to commencement of bombing?
It seems to me that they were going to let millions die because the west couldn't get suport in to the country. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Saddam Hussein is letting millions die rather than letting inspectors in to monitor production of weapos of mass distruction. Shall we let him continue?
Your responses have not answered my question. They have said "Look at how evil the US is!!" Fine. It's your opinion that the US is evil. So I'll ask again, what would you have done differently?
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2002 : 14:45:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't know what the Taliban did. We were talking about the U.S.
You should try opening a newspaper sometime Gorgo. The Taliban allowed their country to be used as a base from which to launch terrorist attacks. Do the police negotiate with a murderer? I don't think so. The US asked for Osama to be handed over and they refused. Even without that, allowing Afghanistan to be used as a terrorist base of operations was more than enough cause to go in and take care of business.
The Taliban needed to go. That was clear for a long time. I don't think that even Afghans miss them. They have a better shot at living a good life now than they did 5 months ago.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
