http://www.personalsingles.com/bubbaland/traitor3.htm
Anyone care to counter?
------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student
You elected him. TWICE. But of course you, personally, didn't vote for him. Most of you will probably say it was because you were too old, and you'd have voted against him if you could. And therefore the whole democratic process is invalid. Who cares that most people DID vote for him? You didn't, and that's what counts.
Naturally I guess the whole thrust of your argument is "President Bush/Quayle/Dole/Gingrich/Buchanan wouldn't have let rocket experts go to China." Of course. He'd have sent them to Iraq/Indonesia/wherever already. More likely given the way the Republicans like to see business do whatever they want, they'd still have gone to China.
But please, DO GROW UP. It's as boring as the "Bill Gates is evil" rants. You tried to impeach him and you f***ing BLEW IT. And all because the guy's wife worked for the committee that brought down Nixon, thereby depriving you of your little Republican dictatorship.
------------------
No I'm Spartacus!
------------------
"And if we weren't good to you, Dave, you shouldn't take it all the way to your grave."
--
Will Rigby
Personally, I'd take Nixon over Clinton any day. Nixon's people took one file, and the rest of the Republicans helped try to get rid of him. And he had the decency to resign. Clinton took hundreds of files (or was it thousands?). He took campaign money from the Chinese. He stood by while they stole three decades of nuclear secrets, possibly leading to another cold war within the next decade. He commited perjury. He dragged this country through an impeachment. He has been found in contempt of court. He has violated his presedential oath of office. He blocks every investigation he can, and runs a smear campaign against those he can't. And yet the majority of the Democratic party continues to stand by this pathetic excuse for a man. And yet some people say that the Democratic party is "morally superior". Go figure.
I don't know about traitor, technically, but the rest of what he's done I consider far worse.
------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
But from now on I'm going to get all my news from Bubbaland!
Yeeeee Hawwww!
------------------
If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 22, 1999).]
(and the wisdom of Jay's oft-misquoted dog)
God protect the world from another republican US president. Hell, God help the world from the US period.
Ah, my crystal ball foretells many strange things, but surely the irony of a Europe united by the mentality, "Jeez/Mon Dieu/Mein Gott! We'd better stick together because those americans are CRAZY!"
A final volley:
At least democratic presidents HAVE a foreign policy that involves more than lining borders with nukes and daring anybody to look at the US in a funny way!
------------------
"You will be swept away....
You, your men, your ship, your WORLDS!"
And they've already signed a deal with the CHINESE to administer BOTH sides of the canal for the next 50 years.
This does not bode well, given China's declared intent to reconquer an independent nation which the US has close ties with, namely Taiwan. Nor does it bode well for South Korea, Indonesia, or any other area the Chinese have designs on.
Why does this bode badly? Well, where do you think the US sends reinforcements through when the Pacific Fleet is busy? The Canal. If the Chinese are taking Taiwan, do you really think they'll freely allow US warships through a Chinese-controlled canal?
I kind of doubt it.
These are the same Chinese, by the way, that stole nuclear secrets, once threatened to nuke the West Coast if we interfered with their plans for Taiwan, and recently launched an ICBM-worthy space vehicle.
Are you concerned yet?
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student
.------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"
Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net
IIRC, China has had several border disputes with India (and possibly Pakistan, but I'm not certain). They have the military might to make anyone's day unpleasant if they should choose to do so. I think I'd rather deter China than have to go toe-to-toe with them in a military manner.
--Baloo
------------------
It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
------------------
"And if we weren't good to you, Dave, you shouldn't take it all the way to your grave."
--
Will Rigby
Either the time when we are overrun by Christian Right Wing or by nuked back to the stone age Chinese missles built on stolen technology launched by warlords bent on taking over the rest of the western world.
Should the second option happen, I'll save you some space in my bomb shelter which was built during the administrations of Roosevelt and Truman, two more traitorous democrats. See, they like Clinton (who callously, and with mallice and forethought allowed the Chinese to grab secrets in return campaign contributions), opened the doors to America's early nuclear arsenal those insidious Soviet spies.
I wonder if Stalin ever got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. Hmmm.
Then again Sadie the Wonderdog can't read so she doesn't know her history the way that those fellers at BubbaLand do.
------------------
If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!
~C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
"Think of all the delightful aspects of the reproductive process: menstruation, pregnancy, labor. And the part we're trying to eliminate is sex?" Cecil Adams the guy who does Straight Dope.
There is one way to avoid this. Make alliances protecting US interests around the world, much as we had with Kuwait. This would include Taiwan, Japan, and Russia. We must then make it clear that any agression toward our allies will not be tolerated, and we must back up that claim. I don't think China will be willing to risk war with the US AND Russia simultaneously. Chinese agression must be stopped before it starts. We must "nip it in the bud", as it were.
------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Anarchias de meizon ouk estin kakon." - Creon
[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited November 23, 1999).]
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Anarchias de meizon ouk estin kakon." - Creon
------------------
"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came and the grasshopper died and the octopus ate all his acorns, and then he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?."
--
Futurama
Frank:
What makes you think we're not already a dictatorship? Clinton sure acts like it is.
Tell me something. You've all (at least, all US citizins here) heard countless times of the interview in which W couldn't answer some question about the names of four world leaders, which are, of course, useless trivia, for which he's been bashed repeatedly. How many of you have heard about the interview in which Clinton, when asked something about what the people would think about how he spends their money or something like that, said that "It's not their money" and "We don't think they'll spend it the right way". First, when did we start living in a socialist state? Second, why does no one in the mainstream media bring this, which gives extreme insight into Clinton's character (or lack of such) and prooves his socialist views, while they fry W for not knowing the names of four leaders who'll probably be out of office by the time he would be sworn in if he wins?
------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited November 24, 1999).]
Say what you want about Clinton, (I like to start out with lecherous bloated gasbag and go from there.) but at least his accomplishments are his own.
At any rate, Omega, I suggest you quickly move to Washington State.
------------------
"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came and the grasshopper died and the octopus ate all his acorns, and then he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?."
--
Futurama
I actually remember writing in US history class that Nixon would be an ideal dictator, but I forget my justification...I have it around somewhere.
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Anarchias de meizon ouk estin kakon." - Creon
Thanks for that one Omega. Sadie the Wonderdog and I had the best laugh in years about that one!
LOL!!!
------------------
If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!
~C. Montgomery Burns
Ya know the Fundies already want to nuke China for failing to allow them to stage a Christian takeover via missionaries. That's what all this talk of "Christian persecution" is all about, see.
Although a real good dictatorship might just be what the US needs, I wouldn't trust anybody but myself or Mark Twain with the job, so...
And as for Canada conquering ANYTHING... you've got French territory just off your coast in the Atlantic, and Danish territory across Baffin Bay, one province that wants to secede, and area that's still unincorporated (unless you call the Northwest Territories besides Nunavut something else now). Unfinished Country...
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee
Methinks the Autobot doth protest too much..
Or at least, has an overly heightened sensitivity to his nationality.
It's people like that wot cause wars, it is...
Bub, I like Canada, really I do. But calling it a global power is much like calling me a pillar of the community. The label just doesn't fit.
and need I point out it's you who was talking about taking over the world... I just want the US.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 24, 1999).]
------------------
"I've never seen anything this beautiful in the entire galaxy. Alright, give me the bomb" -Ultra Magnus, Fight or Flee
And unrelated, the Christian missionaries have nothing to do with the US since missionaries are world wide. If it did the ACLU would be screaming Sep. of Church and State.
------------------
With 17 hours of class, guess what I'm doing.
or
As a territory of the United States, Puerto Rico does have some advantages. They have almost all the benefits they'd have if they were a state, except representation in Congress and the right to vote for the president.
As an independent nation, they might not have the absolute protection of the U.S. On the other hand, they could set their own foreign policy.
As things stand, the populace of Puerto Rico is too evenly divided over what to do, so they stay the same. Mind you, there are militant groups who want each of the above options. I suppose right now, it's just easier to let things stay the way they've been for now.
--Baloo
------------------
It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 25, 1999).]
"You will be assimilated. You will become more like us. You will seek perfection. Resistance? That's persecution!"
Zealots.
Sorry, I'm in a bad mood. Always happens when I eat thanksgiving dinner with the Fundie side of the family.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"
Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net
------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
(sorry, couldn't resist, I swear, I WON'T post again)
------------------
Would someone care to name me the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?
Richard Nixon bombed two countries
Bill Clinton bombed four countries
George Bush bombed a whole bunch of countries (oft under the guise of Reagan) and whoever is President next will too.
Hawkish conservatives? Like the Democrats who prosecuted a war against the Serbs? Or like the Democrats who prosecuted a war against the Iraqis? Or like the Republicans who prosecuted a war against the Iraqis?
You're all quibbling over such minor issues. Democrats? Republicans? Whigs? Show me the differences, then I'll become convinced.
THIS was my last post, I'm sure of it.
------------------
Yay!!
Good to have ya back DT.
------------------
If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!
~C. Montgomery Burns
Our war with Iraq was fully justified. Kuwait was (and presumably still is) our ally. We were obligated to defend them. Protecting Kuwait gets the US something in return, and we're therefore protecting our own interests. We had a prior agreement to defend them, and Iraq knew that we would honor that agreement.
And one difference is that Republicans in general aren't COMPLETE hypocrites. You have Clinton saying that "We must stop the politics of personal destruction", which is something the Democrats invented in the first place, and while he personally continues to assault the Republican party. You have some Democratic congressman (whose name escapes me) saying that we need campaign finance reform, but doing all the things he wants outlawed all the while. You have the same Democrats saying that Clinton doesn't have to answer questions about his past, while "W" does. Yes, you do have Republicans going back on their promises occasionally, like "HW"'s "no new taxes" bit, or our esteemed governer Sunquist saying in January that an income tax simply funds "the easy and unlimited expansion of government", then ten months later blackmailing senators to pass a graduated income tax. But it's nowhere near as common as Democrats, and the rest of the Republican party usually disowns anyone after a major offence. Take Nixon There IS a difference, DT. The Republican party still has some honor left to it.
Not that I'm defending partisan politics, by any means. But it does exist, and we have to choose sides to be effective, so I pick Republican.
------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
I'm bowing out of this one, it should be cool enough to witness without my involvement.
Cry havoc!!!
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
Let the games begin...
------------------
Under Capitalism man exploits man; under Socialism the reverse is true.
- Polish proverb
------------------
"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came and the grasshopper died and the octopus ate all his acorns, and then he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?."
--
Futurama
------------------
If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!
~C. Montgomery Burns
Still, after all the fun Clinton's done in the past year or two, it's a bit sad when the most shocking thing Tony Blair has done is get a woman pregnent. His wife no less.
Still, I too await the fun of DT and Omega. I propose a new forum just for the two of them, with topics ranging from:
"Why evolution sucks" to "I want all my KFC to just have left-wings".
------------------
*gasp* "The pictures...they're...coming...alive!"
-Abe Simpson, on the miracle of the moving image
First: I much like that term, may I use it? Ubersocialist sounds better than Trotskyist.
Incidentally, you and I should agree more now that I've developed an almost equal dislike of religion.
Omega: Nixon bombed Indochina.
Reagan/Bush bombed Iraq, Grenada, Libya, Panama (bombed is the generic term I used for any military action).
Clinton bombed Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan and Sudan.
I've gone over the Iraq thing so many times I don't want to get into it again, cause it'll just be a rehashing of the same old stuff. I'm not saying that I would be entirely opposed to such a debate, but it's not wise for me to enter into said diskutieren.
Keep in mind, this is the new, mellower DT. I'm more than willing to lose a battle so as to keep myself calm enough to win a war.
Liam:
You sure Clinton didn't do that too?
(hmm, should I go through the trouble of bringing back a signature...?)
------------------
It does not surprise me in the least that it is Polish, as the Polish ruling class has long been quite reactionary. For example, their actions following Versailles. Instead of helping their Slavic brethren throw off the shackles of Tsarism, which had opressed the Poles as well, they prosecuted a war against the Russian workers. This resulted in a great blow to international socialism. Particularly at the Battle of Warsaw which, had we won, would've led to a socialist uprising in Poland (which happened anyway, but was brutally supressed).
BEGIN TANGENT Leon Trotsky was able to, within four years, form a mass of workers in a backwards nation which had spent three years being pounded in WWI into a fighting force that defeat counterrevolutionary Whites, Poles, and the imperialist intervention of the US, France, Japan and England. Impressive. END TANGENT
The defeat of the workers outside Warsaw would be a fatal blow to internationalism. Without the revolution succeeding there, or in Germany in 1923 (which almost certainly would've succeeded had their been a worker's state bordering it) it led to the defeat of the Trotsky socialist and rise of the reactionary Stalinist regime.
Let us consider the opinions of Stalin and Trotsky as to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime
Shortly before Hitler's rise to power, the Germany Communist Party (KPD) and Social Democrats (SPD) commanded the votes of over 13 million voters, more than Hitler's fascists. However, instead of combining their efforts for a united front, the KPD stood with the Stalnist line that the SPD was a variety of fascism, social fascism as they called it, and that it should be opposed and no agreements made with it.
In 1930, Trotsky wrote that a successful defensive struggle against fascism, he wrote, "means a policy of
closing ranks with the majority of the German working class and forming a united front with the Social Democratic and non-party workers against the fascist threat."
On January 27, 1932, Trotsky made this reply to the Stalinist line that the victory of Hitler would be beneficial for the ComIntern.
"Fascism is not merely a system of reprisals, of brutal force and of police terror. Fascism is a particular governmental system based on the uprooting of all elements of proletarian democracy within bourgeois
society."
In April of that same year, Trotsky made this statement as to what MUST be done by the Soviet leadership if Hitler gains power.
"Upon receiving the telegraphic communication of this event, I would sign an order for the mobilization of the reserves."
Now, unfortunately, it would be the Polish workers who suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Yet, one cannot find it somewhat kharmic that the destruction of the Polish state occured by the Stalnist and Hitler regimes. Of course, I don't believe in kharma, so I can only blame it on the short sightedness of the ruling class and the destructive policies which they push.
Just a thought...
------------------
I don't care what it's called as long as the people retain (and hopefully use) the right to vote, and retain their rights as citizens.
I am uncomfortable with the concept that corporations have (some) rights as individuals.
I believe the U.S. Constitution had the aim of protecting the citizen not only from excessive government interference, but also to prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minority (example: restricting freedom of speech when there is no threat to public safety1).
I believe it's past my bedtime and I should go get some Z's.
--Baloo
1Example: pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire poses a threat to public safety.Burning an American flag does not (unless it is burned at a gas station). (I don't believe in passing legislation to prevent people from saying things that piss you off just because it pisses you off!)
------------------
"There are some upon this earth of yours, who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all out kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us."
-- The Ghost of Christmas Present (A Christmas Carol -- Charles Dickens)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
Wow, the second quote I've mangled and stolen tonight. I need a vacation.
And this is all a joke, mind you. Nobody go accusing me of being a...hmm...Platonist.
------------------
"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came and the grasshopper died and the octopus ate all his acorns, and then he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?."
--
Futurama
------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"
Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net
------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
There's a reason we call it the Social Equality Party. EQUALITY is a key theme. Depriving the people of the right to vote is a critical flaw in Stalnism, and denies equality. All must be able to vote, and moreover, have an EQUAL vote. Trotsky, in 1925, wanted to give the vote to the people (keep in mind, Russians had never had a vote, due to the Tsarists). His basic theory was that the revolution was safe. There was no longer a need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Democracy, and thus equality, had to come into being in Soviet Russia. Stalin, fearful of what this could mean to his beuracracy and his own power, denied Trotsky's request.
Democracy itself is not inheritently perfect, either. The Nazis were elected to power. Slavery would not have been voted out in the south. One of the lessons I learnt from Julius Caesar, and incorporate into my mindset when portraying Marc Antony, is that skilled oration can mislead the people. Let us briefly consider Josef Goebbels.
Dr. Joseph Paul Goebbells was the Reich Minister of Education and Enlightenment, or, propaganda. He was responsible for "enlightening" the people, into whatever Hitler wanted them to believe. He practiced the Big Lie Theory
1) Tell a lie often
2) Tell a lie strongly
3) Keep it protected from scrutiny
If those three critera were met, Goebbels believed, then the lie would work. History has proven him right. Hearstian techniques are used even now. How many people knew before April that there was a conflict in Serbia? How many know that the KLA is executing an equally brutally war against Serbs, Romas and Gypsies even as we speak? Americans were told that genocide was being carried out in Kosovo. Americans believed it. Americans didn't know that, all told, less than 3,000 Kosovan Albanians died. If they did, if CBS or CNN came out with daily coverage of the war from the Serbian soldier POV, or if the New York Times carried editorials opposed to the war, or if ABC had reported EXTENSIVELY on the terrorist background of the KLA and on the true nature of the Kosovan conflict, would Americans been as gung-ho to carry out the war?
Likewise, if Americans knew the plight of the Kurdish people, that they're the victims of a policy by Turkey that would make Slobodan Milosevic look like Mickey Mouse, would there be an outcry to stop sending the Turks arms? But you don't see that on NBC, and Meet the Press never focuses on the PKK.
What does all this mean? Essentially, I advocate republicanism (representative democracy) as it is the best form of government. Yet, it is incompatible in the shadow of business, and it is worthless without STRONG education and freedom of speech. Only when people are exposed to many different views can they come to a decision. As I'm fond of saying, I respect a man more if he comes to a wrong decision after reasoning on it than if he comes to that same decision because he is told to.
(hmm, any ideas what Nirvana song I Should tap for my siggy?)
------------------
------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
He was Hitler's propaganda man.
------------------
"There are some upon this earth of yours, who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all out kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us."
-- The Ghost of Christmas Present (A Christmas Carol -- Charles Dickens)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
From a friend.
------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student
#1. The semantics of "equality." We all know that equality in most cases is an illusion, even in "equality under the law." Ask anybody whose ever tried to exercise free speech in school. people are not physically, mentally, or socially equal.
#2. The idea that 3000 dead people isn't genocide... it sure smells like it to me.
"How many does it take before it becomes wrong, Admiral?"
Of course, this leads in to all sorts of quibbles about Iraq and such, too... so it's not necessarily a justifiable quibble.
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited December 02, 1999).]
This is not just restricted to the USA, everyone does it. Or tries anyway.
------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"
Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net
------------------
"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came and the grasshopper died and the octopus ate all his acorns, and then he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?."
--
Futurama
It also serves to demonstrate the hypocrisy. Are 3,000 Albanians worth more than 100,000 Kurds or 20,000 Columbians or 5,000 Tamils or 50,000 Chechens?
Moreover, numbers do matter. If we had an accurate count of how many Vietnamese "we" killed, would it surpass that? There is a point where casulaties of war turn into genocide. This isn't a numbers game, this is a judgement call. A small percentage of a population being shot, by paramilitary organizations, is not genocide. Not by the dictionary or connatative definition. Genocide is rounding up of mass groups of people to be interned and shot or burned. Genocide is sealing the border's of a country after hauling out all the food. Genocide is when 90% of a population is exterminated. (I know what you're going to counter with is the arguement that "well, we had to stop Milosevic before that point" to which I will counter with "The small military incursion into Kosovo is a farther cry from genocide than was rounding up the Japanese to put into internment camps, which could've turned into genocide with but the stroke of a pen" so let's not go there) Finally, genocide is the destruction of an entire indigenous population through disease, guns, and destroying their source of food. (if you're wondering, I named Nazi Germany, Stalinist Ukraine, Occupied Poland, and the Native Americans)
If you wish to stop "other Kosovos" from occuring, look to Turkey and the Kurds, look to Australia and the Aborigines, look to Sri Lanka and the Tamils, look to Columbia and the FARC supporters, look to Mexico and the Mayan Indians, look to Russia and the Chechens.
Slobo Milosevic is an awful, awful man. But he's no worse than Tudjman in Croatia, who the US actively supports. If you doubt me, just ask the Krajina Serbs. Well, you can't. And soon, you won't be able to ask the Kosovo Serbs. Thus the ancient riddle, if a Serb screams while he dies, does he make a sound? (apparently the Nazis the Serbs killed DID make sounds)
Let me leave you all with one last thought. Is it not slightly hypocritical that the man who commands KFOR, and would've commanded a ground invasion to, supposedly, stop an ethnic cleansing against the Kosovo Albanians brought about by their legally recognized rulers who claim to be stopping a terrorist organization, was the same man who was second in command of British troops in Derry on Bloody Sunday?
Something to think about.
------------------
"Look on the bright side is suicide" - Kurt Cobain
Milk It, Nirvana
As an aside, I hear through the grapevine that Milosevich has cut off all heat oil shipments and power to locations in Serbia whose populations called for his ouster.
Can anybody confirm or deny this?
------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson
Do not be surprised if he is ousted soon. The US actively supports that, which probably hurts more than helps. What people fail to consider is that his own supporters were turning against him, as they opposed the war against Kosovo. Bombing simply brought them to support Slobo. Historically, we can see this is often the case. The Germans, for instance, who were not enamored with Adolf Hitler, were not enamored with the Americans who brought death from above. There were people in Dresden. And that is one of the many reasons I oppose bombing campaigns of the ilk. More often than not it is the civilians who bear the brunt, and with little strategic result.
------------------
"Look on the bright side is suicide" - Kurt Cobain
Milk It, Nirvana
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor so the U.S. would be unable to interfere in the pacific, and because the U.S. had decided not to sell oil to a country that was expanding its borders by conquering other nations. Germany declared war on the U.S. because it was allied with Japan. No-one expected America to fight. Should we be sorry they were wrong?
The problem with war is, once it begins, people die and continue to do so until well after the shooting stops.
--Baloo
------------------
"If knowledge is power, then willful misinformation is the work of the Devil."
-- Barbara "the man who sought Liberty's talents" Mikkelson
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
Incidentally, why is it that condemning one side automatically leads people to believe you're supporting the other?
------------------
"Look on the bright side is suicide" - Kurt Cobain
Milk It, Nirvana
) can have very subtle meanings, that are colored not only what you say, but what you leave out.The firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and other targets was at the time considered a distasteful way to shorten the war. The strategic planners of the time thought that you could break a people's will to fight by bombing them into submission. Of course, this turns out to be wrong, but they were the folks who tested the theory. No-one knew the theory was incorrect until it was used. All sides used similar tactics.
When German bombers wandered off course and accidentally bombed English civilian targets, the English retaliated by bombing German civilians. No-one wanted to open that can of worms, but once the "bomb civilians" card had been played, both sides embraced the strategy with great enthusiasm, since they could each point to the other side and say "they did it first".
In actuality, it seems that bombing civilians stiffens the resolve of the survivors, enabling them to view the bombers (and those who sent them) as inhuman monsters. That's one of the reasons the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) exhist. LOAC is why the U.S. and its allies try not to bomb civilian targets or historical landmarks. War is an inhumane undertaking, and most nations recognize the need to establish peace once the fighting's over. It's not always as non-lethal as diplomacy, but if everyone bitterly hates one another at war's end, you will have another one before long (reference World Wars I and II).
------------------
"If knowledge is power, then willful misinformation is the work of the Devil."
-- Barbara "the man who sought Liberty's talents" Mikkelson
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"
Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net