3,767 dead :( (small edit)

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0


<< #1 Why did you post something so biased it called the war a "coward's war"? >>


to you anything is biased



<< #2 Why did you not mention that the report is an "Estimate" and NOT a factual report? >>


Because this is the only report done, so far there is nothing that supports your belive that this is a lie.



<< #3 Why did you not mention the sources for the article come from newspapers that got their information DIRECTLY from the Taliban? >>


He took reports from the US, from the Taliban, from the Afghan people and other sources, he made a estemate from the most reliable sources. If he had only used "official" numbers from the US then the number should be, what, 10?


are you sexualy aroused now?
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<<

<< #1 Why did you post something so biased it called the war a "coward's war"? >>


to you anything is biased
>>




No, but that was biased. Now answer it and quit running away.




<< #2 Why did you not mention that the report is an "Estimate" and NOT a factual report? >>




<< Because this is the only report done, so far there is nothing that supports your belive that this is a lie. >>




LOL!!!! How can an estimate be a lie? LOL But its not FACTUAL to say the least. Of course you selectivly dont mention that do you?



<< #3 Why did you not mention the sources for the article come from newspapers that got their information DIRECTLY from the Taliban? >>




<< He took reports from the US, from the Taliban, from the Afghan people and other sources, he made a estemate from the most reliable sources. If he had only used "official" numbers from the US then the number should be, what, 10? >>




LOL!!! He called the Pakestini newspapers "reliable sources" when they only printed Taliban estimates? How is that producing "reliable sources"?




<< are you sexualy aroused now? >>




No but I am Amused how you keep dodging the BS in this article and run away from trying to explain it.
 

Why don't you just rename this thread Texmaster vs Czar?

Thats what it always comes down to.
 

Alienwho

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
6,766
0
76
Czar posting his anti-american garbage again, while he stands on the sidelines yelling how the players suck and are wrong in every action they take.

And yes the 3,767 was an estimate, but what kind of idiot estimates a number like that? That alone should tell us that this report is complete bullshit.

I estimate that czar has 63,532 hairs on his head. You can't prove me wrong cause i'm the only one who's guessed.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
judgemental europeans. if the us was never attacked, would the europeans help liberate afganistan? no chance in hell they would. most of em could barely support the us effort. so easy to judge. if europe wanted zero civilian deaths they should have sent in vast armies and took great sacrifices to keep every hair safe on every afganie. actions speak louder then words eh? when did the french finally send help? when it was over.. of course.
 

SacredCow

Banned
Sep 14, 2001
6
0
0
Oh, I don't think they're bent on destroying our way of life, unless you consider that OUR way of life is to destroy THEIR way of life. Our politicians go on and on about protecting our freedoms, about extending democracy to the rest of the world. It's all bullshit. The only reason we get into these things is to protect capitalism. The proverbial Average American hasn't the sense to understand that Democracy is a political system, while Capitalism is an economic system. It is possible for a country to be both democratic and communist or socialist. But our Leaders have persuaded people to believe that Democracy can only exist in a Capitalist economy.
Dumbya Bush and his cronies have convinced people that bin Laden and his group are EVIL. They're only evil because they don't want to eat Big Macs, drink Bud Light, and watch WWF. They want to live in a world without the pollution of Western lifestyles. (I don't see that as much different from the religious right, except the religious right believes strongly in capitalism and merchandising.) I disagree with their policies related to women (since I am one), but I also disagree with the Pope's policies and the Southern Baptists' policies. I definitely disagree with Bush's policies (or should I say Cheney's?).
Having spent some years in the military at the command level, I will never believe that the September 11 attacks were a complete surprise to U.S. intelligence organizations. I will always believe that Bush and his cronies allowed things to happen because they were losing political ground at an amazing pace. This "crisis" was the answer to their prayers.
 

jbod

Senior member
Sep 20, 2001
495
0
0


<< He took reports from the US, from the Taliban, from the Afghan people and other sources, he made a estemate from the most reliable sources. If he had only used "official" numbers from the US then the number should be, what, 10? >>



How can you base anything related to the Taliban credible? They have shown their selves to be utterly ridiculous and untrustworhty. As far as I'm concerned, if it has Taliban in it, it's wrote off.
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< I estimate that czar has 63,532 hairs on his head. You can't prove me wrong cause i'm the only one who's guessed. >>



Wait a minute I can! I have a link to an article that estimates 70,000 and my "reliable sources" are 3 blind mice.
 

jbod

Senior member
Sep 20, 2001
495
0
0


<< Oh, I don't think they're bent on destroying our way of life, unless you consider that OUR way of life is to destroy THEIR way of life. Our politicians go on and on about protecting our freedoms, about extending democracy to the rest of the world. It's all bullshit. The only reason we get into these things is to protect capitalism. The proverbial Average American hasn't the sense to understand that Democracy is a political system, while Capitalism is an economic system. It is possible for a country to be both democratic and communist or socialist. But our Leaders have persuaded people to believe that Democracy can only exist in a Capitalist economy.
Dumbya Bush and his cronies have convinced people that bin Laden and his group are EVIL. They're only evil because they don't want to eat Big Macs, drink Bud Light, and watch WWF. They want to live in a world without the pollution of Western lifestyles. (I don't see that as much different from the religious right, except the religious right believes strongly in capitalism and merchandising.) I disagree with their policies related to women (since I am one), but I also disagree with the Pope's policies and the Southern Baptists' policies. I definitely disagree with Bush's policies (or should I say Cheney's?).
Having spent some years in the military at the command level, I will never believe that the September 11 attacks were a complete surprise to U.S. intelligence organizations. I will always believe that Bush and his cronies allowed things to happen because they were losing political ground at an amazing pace. This "crisis" was the answer to their prayers.
>>



Typical liberal diatribe. You can't prove your point through logical reasoning, or don't have the ability, so you must attack, attack, attack.


 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Alternatives:

1) Continue covert ops initially started under Clinton (scuttled by our new best buddy General Musharraf after he overthrew the elected head of state in Pakistan). Apparently, the counter-terrorism group at State was working on a new plan during the months preceding the terrorist attack. Many "talking heads" have bitchedNmoaned about our lack of human intelligence in the Middle East. A protracted campaign to find and execute bin Laden might have been successful. It is very likely that many more US troops would have lost their lives. But they would have lost their lives serving their country with the highest degree of honor and integrity (at least as honorable as special ops can be).

2) True economic embargo against ALL countries and entities that have demonstrable links to organizations that sponsor terrorism; prospective offenders are guilty til proven innocent and guilt by association is acceptable. Foreign aid to every country in the Middle East (including Israel) is immediately stopped. Good faith acts are rewarded in kind. Round up terrorist leaders ala Pakistan, Palestine, Jordan, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Yemen then funds would be restored. Corporations that provide munitions, telecommunications, financial services and other supplies could be enlisted to provide continuing intelligence. If they agree international terrorists worldwide would be crippled. If they refuse then deny access to US markets until they are swayed. If they don't come around in 7 days; ruin them by denying access to US markets for any 3rd party companies that deal with uncooperative businesses.

3) Bully pulpit at the UN and support for World Court: No reasonable country would deny that 9/11 was an attack on civilized people everywhere not just America. The security council could formulate a coordinated, systematic plan for eradicating these organizations in "civilized" countries. Clearly, countries like China, Russia, and Uzbekistan will use such a plan to stifle legitimate dissent within their borders but we're looking the other way now so why worry about it complicating this plan. Once the reasonable countries have been addressed. Well, as a PROUD pacifist I would love it if we could isolate the "evil-doers" and subsequently diminish their power. But realistically some will yield only to overwelming military force.

4) Special-envoy to the Middle East . . . hold on to your Rush is Right bedpans . . . William Jefferson Clinton. For whatever reason, people all over the world love Slick Willie. Osama is probably still pissed about the cruise missiles (along with the Sudan and maybe a few people in Afghanistan) but just about everybody else is still a fan. Let Clinton do what he does best . . . blow smoke up people's arses. While Clinton puts a prominent, credible (don't laugh), "I feel your pain" kind of compassionate face on US foreign policy, we can execute the less savory aspects of bringing our most recent terrorists to justice and destroying their infrastructure. As long as we are losing the battle for the hearts of people (yes, many Afghanis are joyous at their liberation but many others now suffer under the same warlords forcibly removed . . . with the ascent of the people. . . by the Taliban) we will have problems in the Middle East. Clinton in Kabul and subsequently the West Bank, Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Cairo could help convince the masses that "America's New War" is a misnomer. That our foreign policy seeks to assist all cultures and countries not just our own.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91


<< Having spent some years in the military at the command level, I will never believe that the September 11 attacks were a complete surprise to U.S. intelligence organizations. I will always believe that Bush and his cronies allowed things to happen because they were losing political ground at an amazing pace. This "crisis" was the answer to their prayers. >>



What an ugly display of partisanship!!!

My god, what lengths will people take, what vile sh!t will they spew from their mouths, all for the sake of their political parties.

Let me ask you a question, whoever the hell you are you f*cking coward (perhaps the mod will let us know), if Bush knew about 911, then I guess that Clinton is also responsible and had knowledge of the prior attack on the World Trade Center, the embassy bombings in Saudi and Africa, and the USS Cole attacks as well......

....whatsa matta, Mod got your tongue? Piece of sh1t dishonest coward......LOL as if you "spent some years in the military at the command level", what a f*cking laugh riot.
 

jbod

Senior member
Sep 20, 2001
495
0
0


<< Having spent some years in the military at the command level, I will never believe that the September 11 attacks were a complete surprise to U.S. intelligence organizations. I will always believe that Bush and his cronies allowed things to happen because they were losing political ground at an amazing pace. This "crisis" was the answer to their prayers >>



I knew it was just a matter of time before:

***BS-NEWSFLASH*** George W. Bush was actually in one of the planes that destroyed the WTC. I know it's hard to believe but it's true. We have credible evidence from the Taliban. The President you are seeing now is really his father with a face lift...***BS-NEWSFLASH***

Jeez, gimme a break!
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<<

<< Having spent some years in the military at the command level, I will never believe that the September 11 attacks were a complete surprise to U.S. intelligence organizations. I will always believe that Bush and his cronies allowed things to happen because they were losing political ground at an amazing pace. This "crisis" was the answer to their prayers >>



I knew it was just a matter of time before:

***BS-NEWSFLASH*** George W. Bush was actually in one of the planes that destroyed the WTC. I know it's hard to believe but it's true. We have credible evidence from the Taliban. The President you are seeing now is really his father with a face lift...***BS-NEWSFLASH***

Jeez, gimme a break!
>>



LOL
 

yerkel

Member
Nov 13, 2001
112
0
0
"It's become standard to call the terrorists animals. After all, they can't be human like us and do what they did, right? But they're not animals. I live with animals, dogs and cats, and the worst they'll do is pee on the rug. No, this kind of calculated barbarity can only be the work of humans.

And that's the real horror. These people put their pants on like us, ate, slept and burped just like us, and then one day got on a plane and guided it into the side of a building. Sure, it's hard for us to fathom the cold-hearted callousness required for such an action. But that's because we live in a privileged society, with a long life-expectancy lived in relative comfort.

The terrorists we're fighting come from a part of the world where life is cheap. While we treasure each person's existence as a unique and precious gift, they don't have that luxury. Death from poverty and war surrounds them, on a daily basis, devaluing life and desensitizing them to ongoing horror.

The nations of the world are right in saying this isn't just America's battle. It's the battle of everyone who believes in civility and respect for human life. But how can we legislate respect for human life to people in countries where life is cheap, where existence is nasty, brutish and short? Bomb them? That just devalues life to them even more.

That's why the war rhetoric splashed across every front page has me concerned. Many shocked onlookers to the attacks said it was as if they were watching a movie, and they kept waiting for Bruce Willis to ride to the rescue and the end credits to roll. And with that frame of reality ingrained in us, we now expect to go out there and bomb the crap out of the people responsible. The good guys win. Roll credits.

But that's the movies. This is real life. Now there's billions of dollars available to wage war against the people behind the attacks. But wage war against who? Where are you going to find them? The very nature of terrorists makes it very nearly impossible to find them, and certainly doesn't lend itself well to waves of fighter planes. No, this type of operation needs a surgeon's knife, not an explosive bludgeon.

This is a different type of war, and we need a different type of weaponry. The threat or use of big guns and big planes won't work. How can you use violence to scare people who are willing to see their own lives end in pursuit of their goals? Bomb the countries which give them safe harbour? All you do is feed their bloodlust and strengthen their support among the enemies of the west.

No, the way to not just fight this war, but ultimately win it, is to attack the endemic poverty and ignorance that gives rise to such desperation and fanatacism as we saw demonstrated on Tuesday. Hatred takes root in empty minds and empty bellies. We need to, in our own self-interest if nothing else, make the world safer for us by making it safer for all. It's just smart tactics - erode their hate-fortified support systems and the murderers who planned and executed Tuesday's perfidy will not find safe harbour anywhere."

-Ed The Sock ([url]www.edthesock.com)[/url]
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
Czar's contribution to ATOT:

Flash Putt-putt golf
Liberal anti-americanism
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Czar, why don't you just change your name to "I hate America". You obviously do. Your posts are masked as offering information, when all you're really trying to do is piss Americans off.

Go ahead, just say it. You hate America. Then you won't have to act like you're just "reporting facts" when they are NOT facts, just guesses.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Ed the sock is a moron.

Please Ed, tell us, how exactly are we going to remove poverty and ignorance from the entire planet? Whose gonna pay for it? Dunno, his "article" doesn't say......

Just another piece of liberal tripe that essentially uses the murdered prom queen's beauty as justification for the ugly outcast to pull the trigger.

<< It's just not fair, she was prettier than me....that bitch had it coming..... >>



Osama is not an ignorant peasant. The WTC and Pentagon attacks would not have occurred without his, and other wealthy co-conspirators, leading the charge. Poverty didn't cause this attack, a mass murderer did.




<< 2) True economic embargo against ALL countries and entities that have demonstrable links to organizations that sponsor terrorism; prospective offenders are guilty til proven innocent and guilt by association is acceptable. Foreign aid to every country in the Middle East (including Israel) is immediately stopped. Good faith acts are rewarded in kind. Round up terrorist leaders ala Pakistan, Palestine, Jordan, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Yemen then funds would be restored. Corporations that provide munitions, telecommunications, financial services and other supplies could be enlisted to provide continuing intelligence. If they agree international terrorists worldwide would be crippled. If they refuse then deny access to US markets until they are swayed. If they don't come around in 7 days; ruin them by denying access to US markets for any 3rd party companies that deal with uncooperative businesses. >>



Riddle me this BaliBabyDoc, how have those sanctions in Iraq panned out? How many more have died [cough] because of these "sanctions"? To listen to people like Czar or Saddam lay it out, millions of children are dead because of starvation or slow death from a lack of "medicine". Yeah, economic sanctions are a sure fire way of getting what we want, and leave us smelling rosey in the meantime.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really into the whole lifting sanctions against Iraq battlecry the elite snobs from Europe are calling for. But it would be far more humane to just bomb Saddam's palaces with the risk of some civillian casualties then to allow Saddam to starve his population to death slowly.

Oh and Czar, your edit is poppycock. You didn't start this thread for any reason other than being an insufferable snot and taking yet another cheapshot over the pond.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
No riddle necessary . . . reactionaries wouldn't understand anyway. Sanctions against Iraq much like Cuba disproportionately hurt the population b/c of poor execution. They are indicative of US unilateralism. The world essentially views Iraq/Cuba as little guys being oppressed by The Man. Saddam has rebuilt his weapons program and Cuba has become a world leader in biotechnology in spite of US sanctions b/c the rest of the world has been thumbing their noses at the US sanctions.

NOTE: I think sanctions should be used infrequently but if you are going to do it bring the world with you. Sanctions against Cuba and to a certain extent Iraq are difficult to truly justify considering the despotic states of active trade. Accordingly, the world sees these efforts for what they are . . . US holding a grudge or trying to use economic coercion after failed military interventions ie Bay of Pigs, multiple attempts to assassinate Castro, post Gulf War behavior of GHWB administration.

Not as insult Corn or Maize it is intellectually disingenuous to use the notion of millions of deaths attributed to US sanctions to discredit my argument when you believe those numbers to be suspect. I don't know how many millions have died but clearly Saddam prefers to build weapons instead of buy adequate food and medicine . . . most despots are POS so that's not all that surprising; especially from Saddam. Granted, he usually prefers a quick death for his enemies. Castro, like any good socialist, actually cares for his people . . . in his own way. Sanctions can be effective and compassionate if the world agrees to utilize them. As long as "you're with us or with the turrurist" agenda prevails we will go it alone and continue to have long term debacles in foreign policy.
 

jbod

Senior member
Sep 20, 2001
495
0
0


<< They are indicative of US unilateralism. The world essentially views Iraq/Cuba as little guys being oppressed by The Man. Saddam has rebuilt his weapons program and Cuba has become a world leader in biotechnology in spite of US sanctions b/c the rest of the world has been thumbing their noses at the US sanctions. >>



If I'm not mistaken, the United States is not the United Nations. The US did not unilaterally impose sanctions on Iraq. (not sure about Cuba) That being said, if other member nations were so adamant to end the sanctions on Iraq they would protest more succinctly. So instead, the member nations call on the US to do what? Give them more money. Why? Because they would not be a governing body without America's money and influence.

They can't have it two ways. One way is to call upon the US to police the world when !sheot! hits the fan. The other way is to tie the hands of Uncle Sam when they have no more use for our opinion and is inconvenient to their political cause. The UN is nothing more than a political hawk when the tuff get tuff, and a songbird of peace when America can be blamed.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The US did not unilaterally impose sanctions on Iraq. (not sure about Cuba)
True but when much of the world (essentially everyone except the Brits) abandoned the sanctions the US was "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead". There are many reasons sanctions have failed in Iraq and Cuba. But two undeniable facts are 1) Saddam and Castro maintain power through oppression with populist appeal (Iraq more oppressive/Cuba more populous) and 2) most of the world has a very different perspective than we do on these two countries . . . or at the very least disagree that sanctions are the answer. Personally, I think we're right on Iraq just bad execution. Sanctions on Cuba are pure poop. The American Cuban community has a rabid edge while most Americans know very little about US/Cuba 20th century history so they support sanctions out of ignorance.

if other member nations were so adamant to end the sanctions on Iraq they would protest more succinctly
What exactly is a succinct protest? Countries like France, Turkey, Russia, and China not only bitch but also continue to trade with Saddam's regime. Hell even Halliburton (through an offshore subsidiary) actively helped Iraq with oil exploration/extraction . . . remember their CEO . . . Dick Cheney. These countries have no overwelming love for Saddam's regime. They're doing it for the money . . . Our duplicity with Saudi Arabia is the same. Along with Egypt they appear to supply much of the intelligentsia and finances for many terrorist organizations . . . they know it and we know it. Are we twisting any arms? SA owes the US big time but we don't have the intestinal fortitude to demand they do the right thing . . . all the time not just when it is convenient. The harsh reality is that the Saudis supply almost a fifth our oil and Egypt controls the Suez. These facts compelled Clinton to tread lightly in the region and Bush has been no different.

The UN is nothing more than a political hawk when the tuff get tuff, and a songbird of peace when America can be blamed.
Interesting perspective. Not exactly sure what tuff get tuff means but let me give you a clear example of US blame in the face of known atrocities and UN response. East Timor recently achieved independence from Indonesia after decades of struggle and hundreds of thousands of deaths . . . yes that is an ESTIMATE b/c I doubt EXACT numbers exist since marauding government troops that kill and use mass graves rarely give accurate head counts (Nazis being an exception, but of course they planned their slaughter ahead of time). I'm too lazy to look it up but Sudharto pretty much made it clear to several US administrations that he intended to put down rebellion in East Timor by any means necessary. Where did he get the funding and weapons? Uncle Sam and our tax dollars provided the tools to slaughter revolutionaries fighting for the right to self-determination. But the majority of the dead were non-combatants. Why would we allow this predominantly Muslim country to commit such atrocities with our aid? Basically, one of the largest populations in the world spanning hundreds of islands within the Indian and South Pacific Oceans and a dictator (corrupt but of course do they come any other way) in complete control of abundant natural resources. The UN lead intervention (majority Australian troops I believe) into the islands with the US a late entry into arbitration for peace AND independence.

Today, much like Afghanistan, US munitions aid the oppression of free thinkers within Indonesia. Not an estimate or a guess, I went to Indonesia in the summer of 2000, met the wife of the Vice President in Yogykarta (central Java), talked with demonstrators protesting government corruption (promptly beat down by thugs with bats and metal rods . . . but the protestors returned later), and then talked with one of the "thugs" (he had a nice T-shirt with three bold letters FBI).

We are partially the blame for Iran b/c we deposed the popular king in favor of the corrupt Shah.

We are partially to blame for Iraq (Saddam) b/c we actively supported him (Russians did, too) in his war against Iran (which we did not like b/c the Ayatollah had removed our favored Shah who replaced the King we did not like but the Iranians loved).

Clinton is partially to blame for continued conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He should have known that Arafat (not being a truly oppressive despot) could not truly control Palestine. Hence, if the US had feigned hard ball with Arafat and MADE him take the gem of a deal offered by Barak, Arafat could have blamed Clinton but signed on anyway. Furthermore, as payback Barak could have accepted international "monitors". What would the monitors do? Move throughout the occupied territories and using intelligence provided by Israel and the Palestinian Authority eradicate militants.

We are partially to blame for terrorist factories in SA, Egypt, and to a limited extent Jordan b/c we are enablers. We know these countries have serious issues but we're not holding their feet to the fire.

Worst of all we are so beholden to Gulf oil . . . like a crack whore . . . that we will not concede that maybe we should change our habits since it doesn't seem quite worth all the effort. Yes, I'm green and damn proud (my modified rice mobile still gets 30+ mpg . . . currently zero b/c no go in the snow) but that doesn't make my argument any less credible. We can either pay to police the region (not the world since we really don't care about being the world's policeman) or pay to make our vehicles, homes, industry more fuel efficient or utilize different resources (looking for more oil is a faux pas b/c our expectation of economic expansion cannot be sustained even with the fanciful ESTIMATES of ANWAR or offshore drilling.)

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91


<< Not as insult Corn or Maize it is intellectually disingenuous to use the notion of millions of deaths attributed to US sanctions to discredit my argument when you believe those numbers to be suspect. >>



You might have a point there had you not misunderstood that which I had written. I have no doubt in my mind the numbers being tossed about listing the death toll to be in the millions, "as the direct result of UN sanctions", are not anything other than completely accurate. I just find that blaming sanctions, which BTW allow for humanitarian aid to be subsidized with sale of Iraqi oil, as the cause of the horrible suffering that Saddam puts his citizens through to be rather droll.

Perhaps I should have been more clear.....

.....still does not erase the millions of people who starve to death at the hands of economic sanctions. But alas, this is ground already trod.


Well, I thought you were off to a good start anyway.......

Oh, and I really like that Indonesia story....what hooked it for me was the part about witnessing some demonstrators getting beat down. Genius my friend, pure genius.


One last note prior to retiring for the evening. Yes indeed, your final paragraph paints quite a clear picture. While I applaud your unwavering loyalty to your "cause", you haven't really thought out your "conclusion" all that well:

While I'm sure you acknowledge the fact that technology, as it stands today, has yet to render a cost effective substitute for petrol. There are any number of "reasons" for this I suppose.....ranging anywhere from "big oil" buying up patents behind closed doors to stifle such technology (however I've always thought that if a cheap alternative to oil were viable, the company that gets it's hands on that technology would be foolish not to license it and simply profit without any additional expenditures---but then again, that's reasoned thinking......) to it simply not yet attainable.

However; since I enjoy following a good story to it's ultimate conclusion, let's pretend for a minute that such technology exists tomorrow. Some likeminded piece off footware has concluded that all that is needed for world peace is to eliminate poverty.

[sarcasm]This argument, of course, is sound reasoning. Desperation fuels terrorism by making life cheap.[/] What makes the "poor" in, say, Saudi Arabia, desperate? Well, I think we all can easily ascertain what that could be--no freedom, no money, no real future.....you know, big important stuff like that.

Imagine for a moment what it must be like to be an "average Joe" over there today. Now imagine that place 2 years after people stop buying the single item that fuels 95% of your entire economy--and there isn't the natural resources available to sustain a nation of starving people. Yeah, that's right, the "rich" guy king and his 75 brothers and sisters blew outta town a while ago to party in tax free Monte Carlo..........Think people are desperate over there now, just you wait till the oil, or demand for oil, runs dry.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Who will you blame then?
 

fekker

Member
Aug 19, 2001
66
0
0


<< it is sad how low so many people here have to go.

one says "we are the best"
the rest goes "YEAHHH!!!"
one says "kill the taliban!"
the rest goes "YEAAAAAAHHH!!!"

this is like a war chant, no one seems to care about anything but their own lifes, no one seems to be willing to give away a small part of theirselves even though it may influence many lifes in a good way, just because those lifes dont matter to them.
>>



No one seems to care? not willing to give a small part.. life don't matter?

I lost many many friends defending the US. I gave up 8 years of my life to keeping this country a safe place. And you don't think we care. I cared enough to do 8 years in the service, my friends cared enough to give their lives defending this country. there dead, gone, never to return. And you still say we don't care.

Why don't you get off your ass and see the real world where people are f u c k e d up, s h i t stinks and war is hell.

Jim
SGT. USMC

 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< True but when much of the world (essentially everyone except the Brits) abandoned the sanctions the US was "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead". >>



There is a problem in that statement. "Essentially everyone" it not everyone. And Jbod is right. If other countries like Germany and France Really had a problem they would have been more vocal.



<< There are many reasons sanctions have failed in Iraq and Cuba. >>



LOL Failed? Neither one of these countries have been able to openly wage war. I'd say thats a victory.



<< But two undeniable facts are 1) Saddam and Castro maintain power through oppression with populist appeal (Iraq more oppressive/Cuba more populous) and 2) most of the world has a very different perspective than we do on these two countries . . . or at the very least disagree that sanctions are the answer. Personally, I think we're right on Iraq just bad execution. Sanctions on Cuba are pure poop. The American Cuban community has a rabid edge while most Americans know very little about US/Cuba 20th century history so they support sanctions out of ignorance. >>



I think most people know Cuba gave Russia permission to put nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida and got us the closest to a nuclear world war than any other time in history. Call me crazy but that kind of danger is enough for me to support the sanctions.



<< What exactly is a succinct protest? Countries like France, Turkey, Russia, and China not only bitch but also continue to trade with Saddam's regime. Hell even Halliburton (through an offshore subsidiary) actively helped Iraq with oil exploration/extraction . . . remember their CEO . . . Dick Cheney. These countries have no overwelming love for Saddam's regime. They're doing it for the money . . . Our duplicity with Saudi Arabia is the same. Along with Egypt they appear to supply much of the intelligentsia and finances for many terrorist organizations . . . they know it and we know it. Are we twisting any arms? SA owes the US big time but we don't have the intestinal fortitude to demand they do the right thing . . . all the time not just when it is convenient. The harsh reality is that the Saudis supply almost a fifth our oil and Egypt controls the Suez. These facts compelled Clinton to tread lightly in the region and Bush has been no different. >>



Not to mention that the younger people of Saudi Arabia have no love for the US mainly because they did not attend Western Schools like their Elders did but stayed in country.

SA's governemnt is holding onto power by a thread. If they support the US too openly, they go under.



<< East Timor recently achieved independence from Indonesia after decades of struggle and hundreds of thousands of deaths . . . yes that is an ESTIMATE b/c I doubt EXACT numbers exist since marauding government troops that kill and use mass graves rarely give accurate head counts (Nazis being an exception, but of course they planned their slaughter ahead of time). I'm too lazy to look it up but Sudharto pretty much made it clear to several US administrations that he intended to put down rebellion in East Timor by any means necessary. Where did he get the funding and weapons? Uncle Sam and our tax dollars provided the tools to slaughter revolutionaries fighting for the right to self-determination. But the majority of the dead were non-combatants. >>



And where did you get this account? From East Timor perhaps? Yes the US funds some very nasty people but you cannot put the blame entirely on the US. I'm sure people in East Timor had similar weapon supplies.



<< Why would we allow this predominantly Muslim country to commit such atrocities with our aid? Basically, one of the largest populations in the world spanning hundreds of islands within the Indian and South Pacific Oceans and a dictator (corrupt but of course do they come any other way) in complete control of abundant natural resources. The UN lead intervention (majority Australian troops I believe) into the islands with the US a late entry into arbitration for peace AND independence. >>



I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but I don't have time to solve every human right's violation I find as an American. There are plenty of examples where America has stepped in to help people yet you only judge America's involvement by this one island.



<< Today, much like Afghanistan, US munitions aid the oppression of free thinkers within Indonesia. Not an estimate or a guess, I went to Indonesia in the summer of 2000, met the wife of the Vice President in Yogykarta (central Java), talked with demonstrators protesting government corruption (promptly beat down by thugs with bats and metal rods . . . but the protestors returned later), and then talked with one of the "thugs" (he had a nice T-shirt with three bold letters FBI). >>



Obviosuly you have an extreme bias conscerning Indonesia. But do you really believe that talking to some protestors gives you a clear perspective into what is going on and more importantly, who is doing what? So far you have one perspective only.




<< We are partially the blame for Iran b/c we deposed the popular king in favor of the corrupt Shah. >>



America isn't perfect and no one is saying we are but you are convienetly avioding the good we do in the world in aid and support. We give more than any other country in the world. try mentioning that along with your criticism.



<< Clinton is partially to blame for continued conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He should have known that Arafat (not being a truly oppressive despot) could not truly control Palestine. Hence, if the US had feigned hard ball with Arafat and MADE him take the gem of a deal offered by Barak, Arafat could have blamed Clinton but signed on anyway. Furthermore, as payback Barak could have accepted international "monitors". What would the monitors do? Move throughout the occupied territories and using intelligence provided by Israel and the Palestinian Authority eradicate militants. >>



As much as I hate Clinton's reign as president, he is NOT to blame for the continued conflict in Israel.

He gave Arafat the best deal possbile and Arafat turned it down. Do you really believe that if Arafat had accepted with as much power as he has (35-40,000 troops) with Palestinians that there would have been a massive revolt?

Clinton was doing everything he could to make a legacy for himself and he went all out. Arafat is to blame for the continuing violence.



<< We are partially to blame for terrorist factories in SA, Egypt, and to a limited extent Jordan b/c we are enablers. We know these countries have serious issues but we're not holding their feet to the fire. >>




More partial blame I see. Hell if you wanted to you could partially blame the US for ANYTHING that happens in the world we live in because the US is the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world. But it doesn't make you right.



<< Worst of all we are so beholden to Gulf oil . . . like a crack whore . . . that we will not concede that maybe we should change our habits since it doesn't seem quite worth all the effort. Yes, I'm green and damn proud (my modified rice mobile still gets 30+ mpg . . . currently zero b/c no go in the snow) but that doesn't make my argument any less credible. >>



You point out a problem and like a true greener you fail to provide a plan that would not massivly damage the world economy.

Face it, the technology isn't there yet. Gradual changes are the only way to keep stability in the world economy.



<< We can either pay to police the region (not the world since we really don't care about being the world's policeman) or pay to make our vehicles, homes, industry more fuel efficient or utilize different resources (looking for more oil is a faux pas b/c our expectation of economic expansion cannot be sustained even with the fanciful ESTIMATES of ANWAR or offshore drilling.) >>



And where is all this money going to come from? You dont have an answer for that and THATS the problem.
 

snooker

Platinum Member
Apr 13, 2001
2,366
0
76
The US and British bombing was justified and the Peacekeeping force is needed in Afganistan to ensure the civilians that did manage to survive the last 20 years get a chance to live a peaceful and free life.

Even if the US was to admit it bombed 3 villages on purpose I am sure the majority of the US Population would know exactly why and understand. Those villages was more then likely villages of Al-Qaeda people. Yes Women and children included. I do remember a place the US bombed that was later inspected and it was found that it was a compound but also a village for the Al-Qaeda family members who chose to go to Afganistan.

You got to figure, they are raising kids that will eventually grow up to strap on an explosive and blow himself/herself up in the name of Allah and that needs to be taken care of now before it happens and we are faced with thousands upon thousands of people willing to die for Allah.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Hey Tex, here's one for you. What about the billions in humanitarian aid we shell out yearly? You know if we (meaning the USA) stopped or even drastically reduced this aid, I wonder how "damned" we would be then?

This is what really bites. All these lamers come in here with their cheap shots. Repetitive cheap shots, I might add. How soon they forget the generosity.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |