Yep, a year ago today the US-British coalition began bombing Afghanistan to flush out the Taliban and bin Laden. Let's see how things are going: Over 50 people have died, mostly in accidents; Mullah Omar is at large; bin Laden may or may not be alive, and a new government's been put in place. One that's already tried to be destabilized. On top of that, we'll have another war on our hands in no time!
Happy Terror War Day!
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
More then 50 people have died. Or you talking about coalition troops? For a year's work, that's not bad: I think twice that number died in the first Iraqi War.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, our bombing has killed and injured quite a few people... from oth sides....
How would people re-act if we were isolationists?? Letting China be the 'world cop' as they say???
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
it'd probably be an improvement. aside from the shocking human rights violations they put on their own people, the Chinese dont rape and pillage nearly as much as the US Government outside their country. i've yet to hear of them randomly bombing civilian targets in the middle east to cover up their government leaders being fellated. is their current leader mad at anyone because his father was a black ops spook who supplied weapons to petty tyrants, and was then betrayed and now has vowed to wipe out daddies enemies one by one in staged wars?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: i've yet to hear of them randomly bombing civilian targets in the middle east to cover up their government leaders being fellated.
It's not so much a matter of them randomly bombing civilian targets as their armed forces being badly trained and incompetant.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Hey Veers, you've been here too long to be forgiven for making such an obvious posting mistake.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
Sorry.. roamed into hyperbole there.
should be
"i've yet to hear of them randomly bombing supposed military/terrorist targets in the middle east to cover up their government leaders being fellated, and then end up bombing civilian targets due to an incompetent military."
but you have to admit thats still pretty bad.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Yes, I meant over 50 coalition troops...I think thousands of Afghans have been killed. As for the so called "Posting error," I had just gotten up when I posted it, and you know how that is...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: How would people re-act if we were isolationists?? Letting China be the 'world cop' as they say???
Well, if you were isonalisionists, you'd never find out.
Or would you!!???!!!
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:isonalisionists
?
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
isolyticionists popped up in voyager's technobabble a lot i think.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
quote: aside from the shocking human rights violations they put on their own people, the Chinese dont rape and pillage nearly as much as the US Government outside their country
Do you really believe this?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Whether he believes it or not would depend on how he views the status of Tibet, one assumes.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
53 people have died in the war on terror so far. Referenced in speech on 10-7-02.
Our country has a terrible human rights record. I was appalled by the long list of rights abuses listed by Amnesty International for our country. We don't have a leg to stand on when criticizing other nations for their violations of human rights.
This war is being created some think in an effort to build an American Empire. This is the most plausible reason I have heard yet for our reasons for this war. We have individuals in the administration, close to the key figures, who have written articles on a Pax Americana for the Defense Department and the National Security Council. Truthfully, I think we would create a lousy empire. As a nation, we don't think it is our obligation or our duty to be educated about another country.
This is pointed out tonight. President Bush has said the people of Iraq would be happy for us to liberate them from Hussein. The individuals who have visited Iraq and have come to know the culture say this is a misreading of the peoples' opinions. If we are capable of this misunderstanding, how much more so will we be as an empire? The rulers of an empire can be exceedingly arrogant and overconfidant in their military might. I think it is possible to see where this might be a very bad thing.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote: We don't have a leg to stand on when criticizing other nations for their violations of human rights.
Who is "We"? I didn't do any of those things, did you? Oh, you mean "We" as in America.
We as Americans unfortunately/fortunately don't control all the other Americans in the world.
Because of this, bad things sometimes happen.
This is due to the fact that there are Bad People in Places of Power, irregardless of the way things should be.
In an ideal situation, the Bad People in Places of Power would always be punished for their deeds. In an ideal situation, people that did Bad Things Period would be punished for doing evil stuff. But, "We" ain't there yet.
Now, and further more: Adolf Hitler was pretty well liked by a lot of Germans, wasn't he? I'll bet if you asked a typical non-jew on the streets of Berlin in 1939 if they thought Hitler should be deposed, they'd laugh in your face. "silly Amerikanzer. What do you know of our ways?"
You know...America has really fucked up quite a bit throughout it's short history. This is not even a question. (It's done quite a few good things, too, but this is always forgotten in lieu of the negative...I digress) But...even though our president appears to be an inept fool half the time, does that make Saddam Hussien any less dangerous? Did he not just up and invade another fucking country a few years ago? If he had nuclear weapons, does anybody believe he wouldn't use them, if not on America, then on somebody else?
What do you think caused all those mysterious illnesses that American troops returning home had? What was it? It was from a biological attack. And don't be blind and say it wasn't...British SAS forces got it too, and they've been in that region doing nasty shit to people for years, and they've never gotten it before the Gulf War. (If they had, or if anybody had, it wouldn't have been such a mystery, would it?)
Who uses that kind of weapon? A fucking nutcase, that's who. Biological weapons could potentially destroy all of civilization.
This absurd notion that Bush is trying to set up a new American Empire is beyond ridiculous. He's not smart enough and frankly, he doesn't have the balls.
Any attempt at setting up some empire like in Star Wars in the middle east would completely destabilize the entire world. Even the Republicans can see that.
The Republican Goal isn't to trash the place, plant a flag, and call it texas. The Goal is to put a government there that "We" can do Buisness with. Actually That's the Goal in the middle east period. Because "We" Don't like people that we can't do buisness with.
That's why Vietnam was fought. That's why the Korean War was fought. That's why the Gulf War was fought. That's why every war is ever fought. Buisness, in one form or another.
Having stable governments that are generally not evil in power is Good Buisness. 9-11 and this War on Terror rhetoric is window dressing to an action that was going to happen anyway.
I personally don't think this impending invasion thing is a good idea. So, I agree with those who say that this shouldn't be going on...but this paper-thin reasoning of what's going on here (Bush is A fucking asshole! That's why it's happening!) is really stupid.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"It�s no surprise that the Pentagon is shying away from a long-term troop commitment. There are other battles to fight in the war on terrorism, and the tragedy of Somalia � when a 1992 U.S.-led peacekeeping mission got bogged down in clannish feuds � is still fresh in Washington�s mind."
Yeah, 'cuz it's our moral duty to impose our vastly superior Western values on those moronic, backwards amalgamations of sand and ragheads. Kinda like during the inquisitions when we shoved our religion and whatnot down the throats of them Aztek barbarians in the name of Jezus fucking Christ, et all. They studied such worthless things as mathematics and astronomy for crying out loud! You call that a civilized culture?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Thinking about it, I would prefer a bit of isolationism....
I can also see the MSNBC being objective in it's writing and reporting about the government....
About human rights violations....
Is this a blank policy that has been put in place to keep The Party in it's position of power, or are they random acts of stupidity???
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Cartman, that's absolutely right. Just because the U.S. as such a "civilized culture" don't like to do business with certain countries doesn't mean their leaders have to be bombed out of office!
Take the other side: the U.S. DOES like to do business with countries like Israel. Yet they are no better than Iraq!
If S.H. attacked Israel I couldn't even blame him. Think about it before starting to flame. What are the Israelis doing? They are constantly trying genocide on the Palestinians - there is no other word for it. The P. had their land taken away from them and then the I. were not even content with what they had. Instead they had to build settlements even in those areas that were left to the P. Kind of reminds me of the behavior of the U.S. settlers towards the Indians - no? Well, that explains why the U.S. can relate better to the Israelis than to the Palestinians - common historical conduct!
What I am trying to say is that I can completely understand the sentiments of the Arab world towards Israel and their most important ally. It's not just Iraq that doesn't like then, remember.
So who do you think Saddam is trying to reach with his weapons of mass destruction? I think there is only one sensible conclusion isn't there? At the moment it's hard for me to agree with the U.S. way in this matter. I applaude people like Susan Sarandon and her movement who demonstrate that there is more to America than just an idiotic government with delusions of absolute power over the whole world!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Oh, well, that was helpful.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Like most of your contributions, yes.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Nope, got gonna respect political movements run by celebrities with zero political experience... especially Janet Weiss.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I think we should do something about Saudi Arabia, too. They kill, rape, and torture their citizens maybe as much as Saddam Hussein. But no, they're our friends. They give us our oil!
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Originally posted by Snay:
quote: Like most of your contributions, yes.
Thank you so VERY much. As if YOUR contributions were any better. Ok, I know I'm just a second class citizen because I don't live in the holy land of the blessed George W. the Almighty... Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, Snay was referring to Omega.
You silly foreign person.
Overreact much?
Or is just another example of the new "Gripe first, check your facts later" order of business?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: I think we should do something about Saudi Arabia, too. They kill, rape, and torture their citizens maybe as much as Saddam Hussein. But no, they're our friends. They give us our oil!
They don't invade their neighbors, attempt to assassinate our citizens, or have a history of utilizing WMD's, either.
Good use of 'maybe' to get around a lack of substantiating evidence, though.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: (Saudi Arabia does not) attempt to assassinate our citizens
A curious claim, considering where most of the September 11 highjackers and most of Al Qaeda's cash came from.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
They were Saudi Nationals, 'tis true. But evidence that they were acting on behalf of the Saudi government remains nonexistent.
IIRC, it is not standard procedure to blame a civilian citizen's acts on his/her government.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Saudia Arabia is off-limits. Why? Mecca and Medina. The whole country for the people of Islam functions in the same capacity as the Vatican City does for Catholics, Jerusalem for the Jews, and the Ganges River for the Hindus. It is sacred land.
FTCA,
I use the word "we" for we as citizens are responsible for what our country does or doesn't do. WE are ultimately the bosses of this land. The politicians are our elected representatives.
Republicans have shown tendencies for a very long time of having imperialist ambitions. One of our strongest, and one of our most identifiable, presidents, Theodore Roosevelt committed imperialist actions to have the Panama Canal built and sent an armada on a global trip in an effort to showcase American might and industry. Furthermore, in his presidency, Americans were waging a long forgotten campaign in the Philippines.
Though I am a Democrat, I am not happy with my party. They are willing to pass a resolution which moves our country into a new direction-a new direction which other countries may emulate. The leadership in the party wants economic issues for the campaign so they are willing to put our children on the front lines in an expanding war. In their rush, they have made the war a campaign issue. The economic issues have been put on the backburner until near or after the election. Democrats have bungled badly and the Republicans may gain control of all branches of the government. Lousy leadership, lousy forethought, lousy consequences. Gee, thanks Senator Daschle and Congressman Gephardt. Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Theodore Roosevelt committed imperialist actions to have the Panama Canal built
just so you know, TR didn't start the Panama canal. the French are the ones who started it, and the US simply finished a job that the French expedition was ill equipped for. little facts, you know.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Republicans have shown tendencies for a very long time of having imperialist ambitions. One of our strongest, and one of our most identifiable, presidents, Theodore Roosevelt committed imperialist actions to have the Panama Canal built
Which had the side effect of economically benefiting Panama, as well as just about every other country in the world, by reducing the travel time for oceangoing vessels by a considerable fraction. And all that for the small price of supporting the Panamanian revolution from Colombia (now a Narcostate.) Suez, anyone?
quote: and sent an armada on a global trip in an effort to showcase American might and industry.
Whoop-a-dee doo. It took us that long just to HAVE a respectable navy. Nothing wrong in being proud of the fact. It's not as though we were the first or last country to project power.
quote: Furthermore, in his presidency, Americans were waging a long forgotten campaign in the Philippines
So it went from being a Spanish possession to being an American one.
Incidentally, another Democrat has gone 'round the bend...
I suspect this man will be remembered with WWII-era Lindbergh...
A president with such a goal is a possibilty, no matter the party this type of thing has had to be brewing with someone able to get in to the office...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:and most of Al Qaeda's cash
The answer being right from the pockets of the House of Saud. Who they are eager to kill anyway.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
@ First of Two: Yes, I did indeed overreact. But I was in a REALLY bad mood yesterday and G.W.B. is my "pet hate" at the moment, hence my remarks. And I don't have anything against the U.S. in general, quite the contrary, it's just the current government I can't connect to in any way. (But it seems that most of the world can't either.)
@Snay: I'm sorry, I thought your comment was aimed at me. Should have thought before I wrote that. As for why I didn't - see above.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: The whole country for the people of Islam functions in the same capacity as the Vatican City does for Catholics, Jerusalem for the Jews,
I think Jerusalem is holy for Christians and muslims too....
quote: WE are ultimately the bosses of this land
lol
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
This land is my land, this land is your land.....
oh, uhh, nevermind....
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
quote: I think Jerusalem is holy for Christians and muslims too....
Jerusalem is going to be nothing but a hole in the ground if things keep going the way they are.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yes, but a very holy hole.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)