America as a police nation

Remove all ads!

"Conclusion:
USA is as bad as any "terror" country, if not even worse. USA...

...I HATE IT!!"

Sweeeet. I totally feel the same way.

 

That is great, everybody jump on the USA. Let's see, how we can respond to all of this.

Ragusa, you still don't address the fact that your own presented evidence states that Iraq made a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and you keep running that dogma about Iran being poor and defenseless, when again, your own presented evidence tells a different story. The current Iraqi regime is a threat to the US, as was Iran (for a bunch of peace loving people they sure didn't have any problems killing our Marines when they took over our embassy), if we use allies to fight proxy wars for us, though $hit, we don't force them to fight, they choose to, and there is an enormous difference between Iran in the late 1970's and Kuwait in the early 90's. Kuwait was no threat to Iraq, and again, per your own evidence, Iran was a threat to Iraq. Also, per your own evidence, the Iranians had pushed Iraq back into Iraq, and were holding Iraqi territory when Iraq sued for peace. And your comparison to Hitler and Stalingrad, is not accurate. By the time Hitler started attacking the Soviets, we had already proven himself to be a complete animal bent on the destruction of certain racial groups and world dominiation at any cost. There is no evidence that Iraq was out to take over 1/2 of the world. Had the Soviets accepted peace before Germany was pushed back into its own boarder, they would have been almost as stupid as you are being on this topic. Next bullet point, Iran, peaceful? We must have different history books here! The only time that any Muslim fundamentalist state has been peaceful is when they are preparing for their next attack. Remember, fundamentalist Muslims consider non-Muslims to be only one step better than a cow, and that they are to be enslaved whenever encountered. And the Iranians do not value life anyway, or else once they had pushed Iraq back within its borders, they would have accepted Saddams peace offering, instead of forcing Iraq to do what Iran knew they would, kill a couple hundred thousand more Iranians with bio and chem weapons.

Ivanji, first off, what is your national language? Well, if it weren’t for America it would be German! So my grandfather (who lost half a leg in WWII) says "your welcome for your freedom, you ingrate!".

“1. USA is the only state in the whole world who have been convicted for state terrorism.”

What court convicted us, when and for what crime?

“2. They shouldn't be allowed to attack Iraq becouse last time they lost 148 soilders, add three zeros and you are coming close to what Iraq lost, many civilians.”

Iraqi soldiers killed Kuwaiti children in their incubators! If the Iraqi people don't like the fact that their government invited, and continues to invite attacks, and places military targets in them middle of civilian areas, then one of them needs to put a bullet in Saddams head! You also do not get the point of war. Only losing 148 soldiers while destroying your enemey is what is called a "victory". Would it have made it alright with you if we had lost a couple hundred-thousand troops before the war was over, would that have made you happy?

“3. Should they be allowed to destroy whole nations just to find one, two or twenty terrorists? No. But this is what they did to Afghanistan and what they will do to Iraq.”

America attacked the Taliban, who were the ruling government of Afghanistan. We did not kill Afghans to find 1, or even 20 terrorists. We attacked them because they committed an unprovoked act of war on America! And before you refute that, a person under the protection and physical control of the Taliban, funded and orchestrated an attack on a strictly civilian target that resulted in the death of over 3000 non-combatant men, women and children. The Taliban then refused to hand over that son of a diseased camel and a feral swine to any authority to stand trial. That makes the Taliban accomplices, and as such just as guilty as Osama bin Laden. The US did not intentionally attack any civilian targets. All of our attacks were aimed at what we believed to be military targets. Were we perfect in this? No, but we did try. It is a little difficult to attack military targets without hitting any civilians when your enemy places those military targets in the middle of civilian communities!

“4. I have never said that Mulla Omar, Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein are good. I just defends them.”

You are a real stand up person, I always respect people who want to defend those who think that the murder and mutilation of women and children is an acceptable manner in which to make a political statement . I really like people who support a person like Hussein. I suppose that you believe that the use of rape rooms and torture devices is A-OK! Your buddy Saddam does. You really think that Saddam should not be removed from power. Even if you don't believe that he is actively supporting terrorists, just the fact that he has women raped in front of their husbands and children, and husbands tortured in front of their wives and children, and has used chem and bio weapons on his own people should be enough to make the world cry out for his removal. But that is ok by you, you are going to defend him!

“5. If they finds out that any western country have a terrorist group, let say Germany, but they can't prove it to the goverment should they bomb Germany? NO! And they wont becouse Germany is a western country. Idiotical. They are fascists, fascists I tell you.”

If we discovered that Germany was harboring, encouraging, and financing a terrorist, and they refused to hand over these criminals after they had committed an act of war against us, would we bomb them? Not at first. We would try economic sanctions and asking the UN to assist us in this effort for justice. If that didn’t work would we bomb them? Not just yes, but h#ll yes we would. And we did bomb Germany once. Remember the Nazis? WWII? Remember that from your history books? As for your fascist comment, the Merriam-Webster definition of fascist is: “1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”. Lets see, we do not promote one race over another, we are not a dictatorship. Our government is currently under the control of the Republican party, a party that does not place nation above individual rights, and our government only uses forcible suppression in the case of a threat to our citizens, and does not use it internally at all. Our government is not only split up between 3 branches, but responsibility is also split between the States and Federal government. Which part of the definition of fascist are you referring to? Quit showing your stupidity by throwing words around that you can’t even define!

“6. USA was as guilty to the Cuba-crise as Sovjet and Cuba. Remember their little nuclear-launchers in Turkey?”

Big difference between Turkey and Cuba. In the case of Turkey we were invited by not only Turkey , but also by NATO. Another difference is that if we hadn't, Sweden would today be a former Republic of the USSR. If you don't believe that the Soviets would have ran you over in a heartbeat, ask the Finnish people for their opinion of the Soviet Union. There was no danger of American taking over an entire continent. The Soviets had about a 20 to one military advantage over NATO. It would have taken the Soviets less than 2 weeks to overrun Europe, and then the only way to push them back would have involved another Normandy type invasion by the US. The threat of nuclear reprisal was the only thing holding the Soviets back.

“Conclusion:
USA is as bad as any "terror" country, if not even worse. USA...”

As far as America being a terrorist county, GO TO H#LL! America does not make random attacks against civilian targets. We do not go out of our way to kill women and children unless they become combatants. I will admit we did some terrible things to women and children in Vietnam, and they should not be forgiven, but it should also be remembered that the Vietnamese would strap bombs on to women and children and send them in to kill American soldiers. You hate America, fine, just admit it is because, economically, technologically, and militarily we have totally outpaced the world. It is historically very fashionable to hate the dominant world society. However, America has done far more to advance the peoples of the world than we have done damage them. Before you dispute that, go do some research to see just how much of our GNP goes to undeveloped and under-developed nations around to world. How much food do we provide to the undernourished of the world? How many American charities do work in the worst nations of the world? I think you will find that the cost of our charity is greater than the entire GNP of many European counties, such as Sweden! America is not perfect, but we are still one of the model citizens of the world community.

 

By what evidence was Iran a threat to Iraq? First of all, you seem a little prejudice ridden

You seemingly don't even know that there is a difference between Shiites, radical Shiites, Suniites and radical Sunnites (iirc named Wahabites (a saudi direction btw) like the Taliban for example). That, as well as the general content of that quote, is not a sign of beeing too well informed, and admittedly a little sickening to read. Mullahmania galore

As pointed out the Iranian military was down, the only thing Saddam had to perhaps fear was an uprising of the Shiite groups in Iraq. He adressed that problem with his proven cruelty against his own people - but why attack Iran? And you misunderstood me, I said that Iraq was still holding iranian territory when they asked for peace first, not vice versa. And what difference does it make for you when Saddam wasn't to get 1/2 of the world but just the country you live in? Is that the difference between a good butcher and an evil one? Mind, Saddam had just assassinated his predesessor when he started the war against Iran. He had to gain prestige, and a war against a weaker neighbour was just the right thing for a quick, profitable success.
Though you really seem convinced about Iraq attacking preemptive, consider the folowing points:

• Saddam wanted to take advantage from the, after the islamic revolution, disorganised state of his neighbour country. It seemed easy prey. Put it the way you like it, Iran was the victim country, and how many evil things they might have done in Lebanon (more later) or intendeded in Iraq, that can't change this simple fact. Iran, that much is sure, had no war plans against Iraq. So why preemptive? IMO you overstress the meaning of that word a little.
  Amusingly you bring up the arguments Saddam used to justify the war as your owns: Worries about the Shiites in Iraq starting a rebellion. The Shiites are a minority in Iraq and would hardly be able to control more than the marshland around Basra - a nuisance but not a threat to Saddam. When you generally don't like to believe Saddam - why are you so blueeyed when he sais something you like to hear?
• And another thing: You said you don't force your proxies to fight in a war. Right. But by encouraging them you carry responsibility for the things you started. That is for Iraq not very different than perhaps in Chile. You cannot encourage someone to start a war or civil war and then claim that it is his war and that you don't have any responsibility for the excesses and atrocities of your proxy. That is hypochrisy.
• And wat else? Maybe Iran was threat a to US national safety? Because of disliking the US? The loss of the base in Iran was clearly a loss to the US. They lost valuable SIGINT stations alongside the russian border and a lot of high tech equipment in Iran. The embassy siege was silly and humiliating, right. You are aware that the Shah was a dictator? The US massively supported him; for the iranian opposition not really a reason to like the US. What else?
• Iran also was supporting the shiites in Lebanon, brothers in faith (Shiites are a minority in Islam). The Shiites were fighting Israel and their own neighbours in Lebanon. By method every force in lebanon was a terrorist group, even the *good* lebanese who supported Israel and the west. Shiites later blew up the US Marines in Beirut (as well as a lot of french soldiers as you probably don't know).
  Initially successful the *multinational* (US-french) peacekeeping force in Lebanon eventually was unwanted (as for example in Mogadischu as well. Some might have drawn lessons from Beirut ... ). When sending Soldiers out for peacekeeping in a place like Beirut where the local population does not want peace that is almost unavoidably a failure.
  A peacekeeping force has to be neutral, a moderator. After beeing neutral for a while the US preferred to coose a side, that of the actual president Gemaiel - and became a target. Not very surprising. Seemingly the US didn't understand that and had to receive the same lesson again in Mogadischu.
  When doing something stupid and suffering losses as a result of that it is questionable to only blame (and bomb) the opponent. Doing so is myopia.

So?

[ January 12, 2003, 09:58: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

DarkWolf:

1. 1987, laying landmines in a civilian harbor(don't remember where.)

2. The desert storm wasn't a war, it was a massacre. That was was i ment.

3. Bin Laden is not a hundred-piece as bad as Bush, your defence minister or any other in your stupid freaking goverment.

4. Are they civilians-murderers? Yes, i know that. How about USA? Should we ask all of those thousen of killed civilians families by the American army in the 'nam?

5. Ok, you would bomb them. But what if you finds out that those terrorists are also in France, Russia and England? Attack them and you will get your ass kicked so hard you will have to remove the boot with a chainsaw.

6. NATO is just like UN just maipulated by USA. Like when USA took the papers from the UN-inspections in Iraq and edited them a "little."

7. America DOES makes orginized attacks att civilians targets. My guess that efter Iraq it will be the next small, underpowered, oil or other mineral-rich country in the middle east so they will control the whole region.

8. ejsmith: thanks for the support.

9. I lost over half my relatives on my fathers side in WWII. They where jewish germans there. And we all know that they weren't so popular. And FYI, i would rather be controlled by Sovjet than USA.

/my two cents

[ January 12, 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

 

Ragusa,

I do know the difference between the different flavors of the Muslim religion. However, the fact of the matter is it was not only the Shiites celebrating in the streets of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan after 9/11. The fact of the matter is that an identifiable group has attacked America. That group is supposedly a vast minority in a sea of a "peaceful" majority. However, that sea of majority does nothing to prevent, stop, or punish the minority for the crimes they commit, and actually revels in every successful attack. This makes them accomplices to the fact, and just as guilty. I can guarantee you that if one of the American militant movements were to start terrorist attacks against any country of the world, the American people, and the American government, would immediately bring those involved to justice. It is the moral responsibility of every one of these "peace loving" Sunnis to stamp out their terrorist cousins. But they are too sympathetic to the cause. Is America historically complicit in the entire affair? You bet. However, we are still trying to undue what was done during the cold war, things we did in an honest attempt to protect a maximum number of lives. Did we engage in proxy wars with the Soviets? Of course, but as I said before, it would have been a long nuclear winter this century if we hadn't. What we really did was get a cat to kill a mouse, then a dog to get rid of the cat, then a tiger to get rid of the dog. Did we do the right thing? No, but hindsight is always 20/20. I believe that we are currently attempting to remedy the situation that we created. If we wanted to, we could probably the Saudis to take care of the Iraqi’s for us, but then we would just end up with another problem and one less ally. The entire world is effected one way or another by the actions we take. If we choose to go one way certain groups will criticize us, do what they want and another group steps in. Apparently very few of the governments of the world truly oppose us, and believe me, that is more telling than any evidence that anyone on this post can present. They have far more knowledge of what is going on than you or I.

If America were truly the new evil empire, there would be about 10 or 12 new territories under our control. We do not take others land and keep it. We are currently the dominant power of the world. With that comes the responsibility of policing the world. We have not chosen this role, it just fell to us. Other countries of the world were happy to sit back and let, if not force us into doing this. What do you think the German economy would be like if Germany had to spend the same percentage of its GNP on its military that the US does. Most of the western world has been happy to sit back and let America spend its wealth to insure their security. Given the power that America has, I believe that we have been for the most part benevolent in this role. I have a good friend who grew up in Iran. She saw first hand what happened after Khomenii took over. There was no peace. The Iranian people were terrified. Human rights were completely suspended. Before Khomenii there was peace, security, a blossoming economy, freedom of speech, and a progressive society where arts and technology were being explored and expanded. After Khomenii, it was like the clock was turned back 200 years. Women were being stoned in the streets for being seen without their burkahs. Men were publicly beheaded without trial for allegedly speaking out against the government. She was an eyewitness to these things and a credible witness at that. So I really have a hard time with your peaceful representation of Iran.

And finally, you are right, if we choose a side, then we shouldn't be to surprised when we get hit by the other side. The problem is that the rest of the world seems to think that just because we are big and powerful, that we should just take it. We have every right to ally ourselves with those we choose, and we have every right to defend ourselves when attacked. As far as the politics go there will always be militants, and pacifists, and everything in between. It is all shades of gray, but you and the rest of the world owe a debt of gratitude to the US for playing the part of moderator and protector, regardless of the fact that we have not been perfect in those roles.

 

Ivanji,

There was a reason why all the former Republics of the Soviet Union couldn't get away from the USSR fast enough. Too bad you don't understand that.

Thank you for showing exactly what you are and your maturity level. I will hope for your sake that you are still young, and that with a little time to mature you will see just how naive you really are. Until then, your opinions are like those of a misguided child. The views should be spurned, but the child nurtured.

Oh and I will respond to #5.

If that happened it would be called a World War, and at this point we would all be in the $hit. The fact of the matter is that most of those countries would not condone such behavior, and if you are more than a child, you should understand that.

Just so you realize, your 2 cents are exactly like an American penny. Not worth as much as it costs to produce.

 

Here, here Darkwolf!

I get so sick of all the US bashing. If you have a problem with our constitution fine, if you do not believe our philosophy of life and freedom fine. Our biggest fault is that we are the strongest nation, therefore the easiest to criticize. I don't want my country to be the police around the world, but if we learned anything from WWII it is how easy it is for countries, neighbors, to sit around doing nothing, only to find they are not immune to the issues going on next door. Go ahead and complain about how slowly we Americans came around to help in that war; Damned if you do damned if you don't. We wouldn't be where we are now had we stayed out of that picture.

This does not mean I support everything my country is doing at the moment. I just believe the US has one of the best political systems available in the world.

 

Ok i change the fifth question. What if ONLY Russia had terrorist? Would you attack them even if. Remember that they have the nuke you know.

And I am not naive. I am a patriot, a smart one who isn't so dumb that I will go back to the dumb ones.

I am a real man, a socialist!

[ January 13, 2003, 17:22: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

 

As for shooting back, think about it. IMO it depends. When you start a peacekeeping operation as a neutral party to keep war parties from killing each other that doesn't take away your right to defend yourself when beeing shot at.
When you provoked beeing fired at that may be different. Usually soldiers do what they have learned: When someone shoots at them, they shoot back. This menthality is deadly for a peacekeeper. And I feel that there is a lack of understanding about that point. A peacekeeper does his job well when both sides dislike him.

So when political leadership makes a move to join one of the parties, the peacekeepers mutate into combattants - the move unavoidably provokes violence. This not only is not in the interest of the country you originally want to settle peace in, but not in the interest of the soldiers you sent there. Soldiers and civilians pay for such political mistakes.
Politicians should spend a good deal of attention to the possible consequences of their decisions, anything else is irresponsible. As in the case of Beirut the consequences weren't hard to predict.

When a president (Reagan in the case of Beirut) makes such a move, or mistake, and when, as a result of that, his soldiers die, it is always easier to credibly blame a flag burning mob
and to fire a couple of cruise missiles than to admit a mistake - we all know how evil the average mullah is
It is thought too short to only say: "Since Shiites bombed us we now bomb them in reaction". Since the Shiites know why they bombed the Marines - as a reaction on the previous provocation of joining a side, this will only create a new reason for further violence. So indeed, not firing back might be more prudent sometimes, but eventually that would undermine the credibility of a president, as well as his chances in the next elections.

Following Klausewitz war is the continuation of politics with military means. Taking this as a criterium: What was the use of shelling of Shiite positions after the bombing?
The bombers weren't hit, civilians died instead. Further hatred was caused and more bombings of US facilities followed. And what political aim was achieved by that? The shiites, previously mainly indifferent and busy with their old enemies - the sunnites of the PLO and the christians as well as with the occasional israelis, now really had a reason to hate the US. A decicive strike against terror What kind of mess is that, politics?!

 

Ivanji,

Socialism will not work until you get humans to change their nature. Most people would rather take what little is offered to them without having to work for it than to get off their butts and try to make themselves more than they are. Let's look at how socialism works in a real life situation.

Two people go to work at a firm at the same time. One of them is a real go getter, works through lunches, puts in overtime off the clock, always goes the extra mile. The other one just kind of shows up, you know on time, most of the time, and is usually back from lunch on time, and stays in their word area until the clock shows exactly the time it is to leave, and heck they even stay awake most of the day. Now in America, the second worker would be fired. Meanwhile the first worker would have the title of Manager in a few short years. He would be getting a steady stream of raises, of which he would get to keep at least 60% of. In a socialist system, the second worker couldn't be fired. It is not really his fault, maybe he just isn't very intelligent, or maybe he grew up in a lazy household, but it isn't his fault, he is just a product of his environment. Meanwhile our first worker, well, he probably is still getting promotions, only problem is that he only gets to keep 30% of this new found wealth. You know, he has to pay taxes so that the government can give his money that he earned to someone who is too lazy to go get a job and work like he did. And also the company he works for can't really afford to give him as big of a raise as he would have gotten in a capitalist system, because they have to support on the lazy workers who don't do their jobs, since they can't be fired.

So lets see, who are the 2 biggest groups that are going to be in favor of socialism? Well it certainly isn't the smart guy who is working his butt off to get ahead. So it must be the stupid and/or lazy ones.

So Ivanji, which one are you, stupid, lazy, or both?

I know which one I am voting for .

You see, real men actually prefer capitalism. The reason for that is because they want to stand on their own 2 feet, and provide for their families without dependence on or having to pay excessively to the government.

Now, this thread has gotten WAY off topic. So I tell you what, I will give you the last word. Take your best shot sport! Show us all how superior you socialists are.

 

Last word eh? I am not as good in writing as you so I will make this short.

It wont work until human nature changes, no. But then lets change it. I believe in a strog socialistic revolution that will show the people which the greatest political system is. A patriot will work, the other one too becouse i don't believe in total freedom so I guess you will get what happens. Remember Sibiria anyone?

Its hard to express my word and ideas on this community, with a reply system. Can we take this on mIRC? I would like to talk to you there.

And BTW, the second worker wouldn't get fired. He just have to be a suck-up guy on work.

I believe in a strong and socialistic world.

/This was my two öre.

[EDIT] - I don't want to make any enemies here DarkWolf. Just so you know.

[ January 13, 2003, 23:51: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

 

Well spoken Ragusa!

We actually agree on about 90% of your last post. I agree the America needs to stop taking sides in these skirmishes. As a matter of fact, the next time some group starts doing a little ethnic cleansing I hope America turns a blind eye. Doesn't affect us! Why should we care if people are being oppressed, tortured and murdered as long as they are not Americans? Heck, we might end up on the side of the losers, and then we have a big bull’s-eye on our backs. Or we might not choose a side at all, and get smacked by both sides. I mean, we have no real obligation to choose one side over another, even if one of the sides is committing atrocities. They are just 2 equal sides after all. So why should we be involved at all?

I just wish that the rest of the world would stop telling us that it is our job as the richest country in the world to be the world's police. And welfare provider. Sure would be nice to see Americans stop dying in foreign countries that would rather that we weren't there. Let the UN take care of it with their peacekeepers, and let none of them be Americans. No more American soldiers under the command of any foreigners!

PAX AMERICANA!

The rest of the world better remember one thing though. When you walk up to the biggest toughest kid on the playground and punch him in the face, you are going to pay the price! And in today's world, that price is high indeed. So if you think your country's leaders are complicit in such a plan, you better get rid of them one way or another.

[ January 14, 2003, 00:22: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Reading your rant I doubt you have understood a single word of my text.

 

okay guys, feelings are riding high here and trains are passing each other on different tracks.

Ivanji needs to learn much

Darkwolf needs to lighten up a bit and let the defenses down enough to look at what rational arguments are out there

Ragusa might be better off talking with a democrat

and I,
have entered into a battle playing umpire in a way that is entirely biased.

 

Scara, it's a lost cause. And, more than likely, pointless. The best thing you can do, here, is pull a Nym.

Get both sides so worked up, that the whole thing explodes, and it's some really massive bloodbath.

Then, when the shooting stops (because the targets are so far apart, now, that people have to travel to find a target), everyone is a bit more talkative. They are talkative because now the lions and tigers encroch, and instead of killing other humans, they are having to kill lions and tigers. The whole zenophobia thing.



Teenagers are like this. Anyone watch "The Ozzbournes" on the Telly?

The mother is just plain awesome. The kids are totally going off on each other, cussing and spitting, with Mom sitting right there inbetween them; silent as a mouse. But as soon as it comes to blows, Teh Mom is in there, pushing them apart.

 

Scara,

The fact of the matter is, America has made some mistakes, and it is really easy for these self-righteous Euros to point the finger at us for it, and tell us how bad we are, when the fact of the matter is that the only reason that they are able to have the freedom to say the things they do is because of America. Europe is so overblown with its inflated sense of superiority that it is sickening. America will be wrong in the eyes of these pompous individuals whatever we do. It is a lot like a sporting event, after the game is over fans love to tell everyone what the coaches should have done to win the game, but none of those fans seem to realize that it is really easy to sit back and look at the game in hindsight and pick it apart. On top of that, even if the couch would have done what the fans wanted, the game still may have turned out as bad or even worse. And then the fans would have wanted the coach to do something else. There is a reason that the coaches are where they are and the fans are on the sidelines.

I have no problem with someone expressing an opinion of how someone thinks things should be, but trashing America is just another of Europe's petty fashions. If even one of these Euros would admit that America does far more good than harm in this world, I wouldn't be so impassioned. The fact of the matter is, they are jealous of, and simply dislike America. And to be quite honest, I am probably just adding fuel to the fire, so I quit. When someone wants to hate, and wallow in it, there is nothing you can do to help them, they have to get past it themselves. So with that I will take my leave of this thread.

 

ejsmith: I think I understand you and some of your posts a little better now...but what the heck is a Nym?

 

thanks for the explanation, I really gotta get this game! And don't worry, Tal, I will purchase it here!

[This is the "Serious Topics" forum, so try to keep on topic more than elsewhere - BTA]

[ January 16, 2003, 00:33: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]