Sitting in a pro-terrorist state

To be fair, he said that he wouldn't be tortured, not that his train station wouldn't get blown up, or a famous artist murdered.

okay, i'll bite. Show me a country that has more freedom across the board than compared to USA. I'm really interested if there is one.

I'm a Libertarian. As far as I'm concerned, no nation on the planet is a free society.
 
As Ghandi said, "An Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

We have reached a stage no one wants to say sorry or make amends for years of injustice. The United States like many other countries spent too much time backing heavy handed governments to get oil and resources, geopolitics.

Saddam was a monster, but the States had ignored him for a bit, even during Kuwait, when they could have gone in and taken the teeth from the snake. Instead, they let him reign for another decade... And then the whole weapons of mass destruction.

The Fundementalist didn't pop out of thin air, most of them, its all they have. Why? Because of nearly three decades of failed foreign policy... and the gap that was once Communism.

The Terrorist groups had a noble cause perhaps at heart, but it turned from the time they attacked innocent civilians and resolved themselves to behad innocent Americans as well as other nationals.

I do however appreciate the sacrifice the soldiers make... And in war, lines get blurred. People do terrible things. When you see your partners get sliced up by enemy fire, you stop caring about the rules and act out of gut instinct.

War isn't nice, or pretty.... Iraqi has been an ugly one... I mean, if you go to Iraqi why not go to North Korea, I mean they are the bigger threat, right?

But that aside, its all politics. They people voted in office don't stand in the battle field, they just dictate and expect you to stroll through the minefield and not around it.

Its not cut and dry... And war is hell.

Time will tell how far its gone, but America as well as other nations are now getting what they sowed. You bully small nations, in time they turn.

Iran was a puppet government that oppressed its people, and then the Clerics stepped forward and took control. Castro was the same. He wanted American aid but they turned a blind eye, even when they were aware of what the man they had ptu in charge was doing.

Politics for you.
 
It's funny how one minute we are selling weapons to a country or guy and then next minute we get sand in our vagina and say he's a monster. Talk about flip-flopping. It's not like he has ever been remotely decent at any time. Same goes for a whole bunch of tin-pot dictators and wacky generals around the world.
 
geopolitics, aaa yes the US has always had some fucked up political standing with the world, but even so i have a hard time with the whole situation what one president did another tries to erase and not all presidents have the same agenda. Take Bill clinton for example, he did some very serious dealing with Osama Bin Laden's family and now bush is trying to undue it all. Every nation in the praised and worship UN has been disobeying every nuclear treaty ever signed and the dirty rag heads are getting together to have a end of the world party with russia backing them up.

How many times can the shit hit the fan before the motor gives?
 
I hear Russia can't account for a few of its nuclear ordiance, but taking into consideration the late Soviet Union basically had pockets of warheads in the event those Capitalist Pigs (That's us Yanks) were going to try anything funny.

And well, having expanded so far and so much, I am sure no one noticed General Ivan and General Saiga sell a few war heads for some pocket change?

Money is god anyway.

On another note, take a note from our good friends the North Koreans. They have weapons, they're a threat and I am sure they want to pay back Japan for years of cruelty, especially during the second world war... Sex Slaves, the death railroad.... War.

The world hasn't changed at all. When the bad guys become nice and decide to put on a civilized face for the world, someone remembers its time for pay back.

Kosovo was that story. Centuries ago, the Serbs were at the mercy of the muslims. When the Muslims got kind after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Serbs decide to kick some ass.

So the world turns. Everyone wants the last world. Africa tears itself apart by the seeds of hate sowed by the whites who once held all the power.

Maybe if Mandela decided to execute those chief architects of the old aparthite system, maybe problems would be solved. But the genocide and blood shed that errupted all over that nation was apalling and the world stood by and watched another holocaust. People cried when it was the Jews (and I sympathize with the jews in that respect) But no one batted an eye or gave the same blowhardy threats they gave Saddam. Calculated hypocracy is just as dangerous as not doing anything at all.

But it seems the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat themselves. You avoid a third world war and get years of misery and strife.
 
bob_the_rambler said:
Take Bill clinton for example, he did some very serious dealing with Osama Bin Laden's family and now bush is trying to undue it all. Every nation in the praised and worship UN has been disobeying every nuclear treaty ever signed and the dirty rag heads are getting together to have a end of the world party with russia backing them up.

How many times can the shit hit the fan before the motor gives?


Ok, first of all it was the Bush family who had dealings with Bin Laden. This has been proven over and over. Dubya is just trying to clean up his own and his father's mess.

Second, *hands tin foil hat to bob*. I mean, Russia? Backing up the muslims? "ragheads" (please... At least try to be mature) wanting the end of the world? Yeah, and Iceland was solely responsible for the Holocaust, too. If this isn't a joke, I don't see how people can take you seriously, at all.


Oh, and CCR, the Allies definitely lowered themselves to the Axis' level by bombing Dresden, yes. I offer no argument there, and don't see why I should. This "revenge action" wasn't completely out of proportion like 9/11 though.
 
Baboon said:
Oh, and CCR, the Allies definitely lowered themselves to the Axis' level by bombing Dresden, yes. I offer no argument there, and don't see why I should. This "revenge action" wasn't completely out of proportion like 9/11 though.
Wait. You are arguing that because of Dresden the Allies where morally equal to the Axis? You are SERIOUSLY suggesting THAT?

Both wars where moral, in that they helped the people of both nations without (so far) brining on massive instability. It's helped along Democracy in the Mid-East for the last two years, and will continue to do so.
 
John Uskglass said:
Wait. You are arguing that because of Dresden the Allies where morally equal to the Axis? You are SERIOUSLY suggesting THAT?


Same with Hiroshima. Unnecessary use of extreme violence, for the pure sake of revenge, or satisfaction. Much like the nazis. For those two short periods of time, they lowered themselves to that level, yes. But overall, they had a moral goal. But they weren't saints, either, which was proven by those two events, for instance.

And I really don't see what you mean. Really.
 
Moral Relitivists are just beyond me.

How in the name of God can you say that the non-Soviet Allies and the Nazis where moally equal? The Nazis where as 'evil' as one could ever concive in every imagineable situation.
 
John Uskglass said:
The Nazis where as 'evil' as one could ever concive in every imagineable situation.


Drop the Tolkien act. The Allies weren't saints. If you had read my post, I clearly stated that overall they had a moral goal, but that doesn't mean they were knights in shining armour. You just try imagining being a bomber pilot whose entire family was killed in the Blitz. We'll see how long you last before vengeance takes over completely.

They were still humans, just like the Axis.

I never said the Nazis were good or morally equal to the Allies, don't you even dare reply to this post as if I had.
 
Nothing happened during the war for no reason, even if it was an amoral one.

The bombing of Dresden, for instance, wasn't merely a revenge measure of the RAF. Rather, its intent was to serve as a warning to Moscow about the capabilities of the Allied air force, and how easily it could level an entire Russian city in a matter of days. The Russians holding up their obligations was a very serious concern at the time. It was uncertain whether or not the Soviet juggernaut would stop at Berlin, and Dresden was used as an example of Allied resolve.

The Russians were also a serious concern behind the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By the time Truman had to make the decision whether or not to use them, the Russians had invaded Manchuria, and were well on their way to conquering the entirety of the Korean peninsula. The concern at the time was that if an unconditional surrender of Japan did not take place soon, the Russians would have conquered the entirety of Korea, and be poised for an invasion of Japan, and intervention on behalf of the Communist factions in China against their Nationalist countrymen. The dropping of the atomic bombs was a measure to force a quick end to the war before the Russians could get into a position where they could dominate East Asian politics.

Unlike Dresden, however, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were significant military and industrial targets.

The politics of containment had begun well into the second world war, and indeed, had been in place since after the first.

The war was faught for very practical reasons, and wasn't simply a case of Good vs. Evil. We didn't even know until after the war what the Germans had done to European minorities and the Japanese to our POWs. It was only then that the monster spin of homefront propaganda had been revealed to contain some truths.

To say that we were on different moral grounds in fighting the war is a naivete of significant proportions. No war has been fought over anything other than pure self-interest. Always has, always will be.

Some might claim interventions in Somalia and Yugoslavia, but those were purely interventionary actions, and not the full commitment needed for a war effort.

Even Yugoslavia was fought for the sake of Western interests. The threat of the ethnic conflict spilling over the borders was a very real concern, and a forced peace was seen as a necessity.
 
There are way too many terrorist/anti-American/pro-American/Iraq/war/fundy/whatever threads going on right now for my taste.

Could someone please stop feeding the trolls and fueling the flames? This is getting a wee bit out of hand.
 
welsh said:
What's funny is that this often comes from conservatives, who are supposed to be more religious- that whole "Do on to others as you would have them do onto you" idea is suddenly not important anymore.

Very well said. I hope you do not mind if I use that.
 
Back
Top