PDA

View Full Version : German Troops



nvoigt
01-03-2002, 07:41 AM
Reading the following, please keep in mind it's from the German perspective.

First troops arrived in Afghanistan to attend UN Peacekeeping Mission

We had quite a long and heated discussion about this here in Germany:

Send troops to Afghanistan ?

Actually it is obvious that a peacekeeping force is needed. We supported all the other UN or NATO peacekeeping missions with either money or non-fighting forces. On the balkans, we sent armed forces for the first time since World War II. Well, even paramedics or helicopter pilots carry sidearms, but this time, it's a force of soldiers. No assistants, medics, chefs or staff. A fighting crew. This is the first time since the war that we send armed forces to a country outside NATO. Which means we are leaving the territory we acknowledge as our defensive position. We are sending our troops 'out'. Which the founders of the Federal Republic of Germany vowed never to do again. Never ever would we wage a war outside our borders again. Actually, fighting a war is illegal here. It's a law that Germany may never fight a war again. Not that laws apply to acts of state controlled murder anyway, but it clearly shows the intention.

We do have a military force that is perfect for smoking out terrorists, called the KSK. You'd call it special forces command. They are drilled to a point where they resemble the best the world has. I think it ........ed the military off quite a bit to have to ask Belgium for assistance to get out our diplomats of some african civil war last time. Mighty Belgium... please help us. I guess that stung. So now we have half a thousand guys clad in black ready to kick serious ass. Does that help ? Does it help to see dark, german soldiers marching again ? We are quite concerned about this. What is an outsiders oppinion on this ? What would you think if you saw armed forces with a German flag on CNN tomorrow ?

gamegod3001
01-03-2002, 08:44 AM
So germany is doing the same thing as japan.

maes
01-03-2002, 08:54 AM
I think it is a good thing that the Germans are sending their troops. I would be proud if my country would do that, but the Belgian army isn't a world power. it is very small.
The WW II is the past. We should NOT forget the past but think about the future. If we leave the Afghan people now, they won't have a future. Germany is a great country and I think the world can use a military force like that. Today it is a country like any other country in Europe. When I first heard it on the news that they would sent troops to Afghanistan, I said: Good, finaly they are leaving the past behind them. If you have such special forces like you say you have, then it will be a big gain for the UN and NATO

Mighty Belgium... please help usLOL is that ironicly :D

I wouldn't mind seeing (sp?) the German flag and soldiers on CNN.
as long as it isn't the "old " German flag if you know what I mean

I say: go kick ass

nvoigt
01-03-2002, 09:17 AM
>Japan

As far as I know, the Japanese don't have forces outside their islands at all. Not for peacekeeping, not for defensive alliances. Just not at all.
Germany did have forces outside it's borders, but still in territories that we would consider our defense base. That includes the NATO territories. We wouldn't think twice about sending troops to help our allies on their ground. But this time, we have to send them to a country that cannot be seen as our own defensive room. This is an agressive mission. Though you don't really have another choice against terrorists, the fact still remains: this is not a defensive mission like we used to be prepared for.

>LOL is that ironic

I hope you don't mind, but that was exactly the way it was intended... no offense meant ;)

>as long as it isn't the "old " German flag if you know what I mean

I know what you mean, and no, you won't see it. Unlike other states, Nazi propaganda and symbols like the swastika are forbidden here. You can get punished for just having one. In fact I doubt you would see a flag at all, we aren't that good in flying our colors. You'd probably just get some guys in black looking away from the camera, and an officer with the usual "no comment" comment.

Fordy
01-03-2002, 09:30 AM
>>They are drilled to a point where they resemble the best the world has

Oh...you mean the SAS :)

>>What is an outsiders oppinion on this ? What would you think if you saw armed forces with a German flag on CNN tomorrow ?

It's not as if there could be much of a German military presence in the scheme of things. More probable that we will soon assemble a Europe Wide military force.

Personally, I have no problems with Germany having a visible military function. I'm more concerned with other war machines around the world, than the laughable possibility that Modern Germany will start WW4.

maes
01-03-2002, 09:35 AM
>I hope you don't mind, but that was exactly the way it was intended... no offense meant
none taken. It is funny when a big country like Germany would ask something like that to a small country like Belgium:D

>as long as it isn't the "old " German flag if you know what I mean
that wasn't exacty ment as a question. I know it is forbidden to use nazi propeganda in Germany. I think it is the same in Belgium. And that is a good thing. It was meant as very bad joke. Sorry for that:(

>You'd probably just get some guys in black looking away from the camera, and an officer with the usual "no comment" comment
I don't think that is neccasery. It almost sounds like you are a shamed to have a German army? No need for that. Like I said the past is the past. and there are totaly different leaders now.

Betazep
01-03-2002, 11:33 AM
>> usual "no comment" comment.

LOL.

Being of German descent (not born there though), I have always had a big admiration for Germany (not the Nazi years). My friends may be going over there as part of a support team... I could think of no better people to be protecting them than the German soldiers.

Thank you Germany!!!! Stay safe.

Unregistered
01-03-2002, 11:43 AM
Yep! You know this white man's burden...

Just a quick question: How many terrorists have been caught so far thanks to the Nato's operation?

kooma
01-03-2002, 11:51 AM
And the post above is mine... Must've forget to log in...

gamegod3001
01-03-2002, 04:19 PM
>As far as I know, the Japanese don't have forces outside their islands at all. Not for peacekeeping, not for defensive alliances. Just not at all.
Germany did have forces outside it's borders, but still in territories that we would consider our defense base. That includes the NATO territories. We wouldn't think twice about sending troops to help our allies on their ground. But this time, we have to send them to a country that cannot be seen as our own defensive room. This is an agressive mission. Though you don't really have another choice against terrorists, the fact still remains: this is not a defensive mission like we used to be prepared for. <

As stated in Articale 9 of there constion. Jappan's millitary is only for self defence. That is changeing.

DISGUISED
01-03-2002, 04:40 PM
I too would welcome the help from any freedom loving country that wants to get over there and help. Including Germany. Like it has already been said, the past is the past. I have always thought of the Germans as very inteligent and very inclined people. I think your troops could do some real good over there and help to banish even further "The old views" of German soldiers world wide.

I am much more likely to see the old German flag here in America than you are in Germany. People are allowed to fly it here all they want. Now that's Ironic.

Govtcheez
01-03-2002, 08:46 PM
I say send them in. It doesn't even really matter if they are the killing machines you say they are. Hell, it doesn't matter if they don't do anything but play cards. Since most of the ground fighting's done anyways, it really doesn't matter a whole lot. However, it isa very nice show of support for America's actions (besides just saying "Oh, yeah... Go America. Go kill 'em dead" like some nations have done). The more nations we can actually get to support this, the quicker we can end it.

Also, I really don't think Germany's past matters a whole lot in this case. Yeah, what happened in WWII was atrocious, but there's no reason to believe that by putting German troops into battle again would immediately cause another Holocaust. Every country's got more than its share of skeletons.

> I am much more likely to see the old German flag here in America than you are in Germany. People are allowed to fly it here all they want. Now that's Ironic.

No, it's disgusting. Problem is, it's also an "undeniable right". Freedom of speech shouldn't extend to hatemongers like the KKK, neo-Nazis, or any groups like them that preach them same sorts of ass backwards "thought".

Betazep
01-03-2002, 09:49 PM
You have the wrong idea CollegeGirl...

The troops are going in to help maintain the peace that has been established and uphold a working government.

Local police cannot be trusted to do so... because they have none.

It has turned into policing operations... and I hope that the afganistans look toward it as protection from terrrorism and not an enforcement of values.

They need to set up a government and provide for their people. They need to stop fighting amongst themselves with weapons and start compromising with words.

This is the intention now... and I support that.

The other is to find Bin Laden and $%&^ his world up! I support that as well... but I am not one to let bygones be bygones when retribution hasn't been paid. Everyone needs their hand slapped when they reach into the cookie jar. Bin Laden isn't an exception.

Death or Capture or both? What do you guys think? Should he be killed on sight (most likely will happen if he is seen... reality) or caught and put in prison, or caught and put to death?

mithrandir
01-03-2002, 11:01 PM
>>As stated in Articale 9 of there constion. Jappan's millitary is only for self defence. That is changeing.<<

As an Australian I'm horrified to see Japan being allowed to be involved. We have never received a formal apology for their torture, abuse, and murder of our troops who were enslaved to work on the Burma Railroad and other P.O.W camps they set up (e.g. - Changi).

I'm sorry to say I'm not that pleased to see German armed forces on the move either. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that in this day and age that the German government would want to take over the world or anything, but it's very hard to forget the past. Perhaps if only a very small number were allowed to go, but otherwise I don't think it's right.

DISGUISED
01-04-2002, 12:24 AM
>No, it's disgusting. Problem is, it's also an "undeniable right". Freedom of speech shouldn't extend to hatemongers like the KKK, neo-Nazis, or any groups like them that preach them same sorts of ass backwards "thought".<

I totally agree. I believe in the old saying ..Your rights end where another person's begin.

>Death or Capture or both? What do you guys think? Should he be killed on sight (most likely will happen if he is seen... reality) or caught and put in prison, or caught and put to death?<

I have conflicting opinions on this. I think he should die a miserable death, but on the other hand death seems like almost to easy of a punishment.

If they capture him alive (doubtful), and plan to execute him; I think they should do it live on world wide television. Then it will be replayed a million times a day like they did with the deaths in New York.

SilentStrike
01-04-2002, 01:21 AM
I think the isolationist/defensive approach is the best, Germany aught to stay out of it IMO. There was a reason we were the victims of the terrorism, and I think it had something to do with ........ing other people off by getting involved in their affairs.

>No, it's disgusting. Problem is, it's also an "undeniable right". Freedom of speech shouldn't extend to hatemongers like the KKK, neo-Nazis, or any groups like them that preach them same sorts of ass backwards "thought".<

Yeah, freedom of speech, as long as you agree with that speech.

I don't think so.

Fordy
01-04-2002, 03:54 AM
Death or Capture or both? What do you guys think? Should he be killed on sight (most likely will happen if he is seen... reality) or caught and put in prison, or caught and put to death?

I dont think he will ever see the inside of a cell. As soon as he's located he will be popped. Who the hell wants to have a massive public excecution on tv? Hundreds of demonstrations......the legality of such an act.........What will that help.

On the other hand who wants the guy to go on behind prison bars? Everytime one of these evil b#stards hijacks a plane or kidnaps some one it will be "Free Bin Laden". Also it's a massive hassle to keep him.....who has him...the US? That would just be an invite for every terrorist to come and attack.

Nah....he will be killed in private......a dead martyr is better than a live one in many cases, and the sooner he's dead...the sooner the world will forget him.

nvoigt
01-04-2002, 10:18 AM
>Just a quick question: How many terrorists have been caught so far thanks to the Nato's operation?

Probably none. NATOs mission is not to catch terrorists. If our troops catch one, by german law, he'd get life. After 15 years, he's out. I seriously hope the US guys get him and toast him. NATOs mission is to ensure safety of the Afghan people and provide assistance to the government in keeping the peace and doing police tasks.

>but it's very hard to forget the past. Perhaps if only a very small number were allowed to go, but otherwise I don't think it's right.

Thats what I meant. I don't think anyone actually believes we are trying to conquer the world again, but if our troops cause hard feelings just because they come from Germany, maybe it's better to hold them back.
It's only about 1.200 Soldiers in a joint taskforce under UK command.

>if they are the killing machines you say they are.

It's not like we have an army of genetically enhanced murderers... it's just a special force that doesn't have to fear comparison with Seals or SAS. Maybe half a thousand men. I didn't know we had such a force until it was offered to be used in anti-terror missions. Quite a surprise... now I know where my taxes vanish to. And I'm not sure I'm happy about it.


Isolist approach:

Hm. Yes and no. Standing on the sidelines watching is nice and comfortable. We did this for the last years. But I don't think we can be a reliable partner for NATO for example by only giving verbal assistance. How much of an equal partnership is one guy talking and one guy acting ? Acting might not always be the right thing. Minding your own business has been quite ok in the past. But sometimes, looking away is a crime, too. If someone is killing your neighbour, and you just stand there looking at him, it's a criminal act. It might be enough to call the police, but the police is nothing but some selected people from the community who will arrive and help the victim. It would strengthen the community, if there were more than one policeman. If someone else could take the nightshift.
If German troops aren't needed in the mission, I can ensure you that every single soldier is happy to stay home and safe. But we would be a lousy partner if we wouldn't offer assistance when we can afford it.

-KEN-
01-04-2002, 10:29 AM
I think germany should finally release years of pent up blood lust and whoop the crud out of the al queda. ;)

But seriously. Germany shouldn't just be a helpless bystander anymore. They have the force, hitler's gone, no more nazis. What more can you ask for before we let them fight again?

Why sit by and let a powerful force go unused because of the past?

Govtcheez
01-04-2002, 10:38 AM
> Yeah, freedom of speech, as long as you agree with that speech.

That's not exactly what I mean. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If someone says things that lead to church burning, lynching, and other losses of life, that should be controlled.

maes
01-04-2002, 10:49 AM
>>Why sit by and let a powerful force go unused because of the past?
My point exactly.

>>It's not like we have an army of genetically enhanced murderers
That is not what I meant. I haven't heard much of the German army before. So I don't know what they are capable of. What I actually mean is if they are like the Seals or SAS, then I would sent them. But there is no point of sending forces to such a difficult terrain that aren’t well trained.

I keep saying the wrong things in this post, what is happening to me :confused:
nv, can you check your pm please

nvoigt
01-04-2002, 12:01 PM
Checked the pm. No prob. ;)

>I haven't heard much of the German army before.

Hehe. For a reason. Don't get the regular conscript guys into a fight. Lichtenstein could march to Berlin and back while we try to get the ammo supply organized :) If anyone got the impression that we have a nice, powerful, organized army, I can calm your fears... we couldn't conquer the world if you send it by FedEx to Berlin. I'm just talking about the special forces. Which seem to be up to date... considering how much money went into that, I guess building an aircraft carrier would have been cheaper.

But indeed, besides the KSK, for the afghan terrain, German GebirgsJäger would be perfect.

Freedom of speech is nice. But if someone preaches violence and hate, he is misusing his freedom. Freedom does not mean lack of control. Freedom means that you have to control yourself instead of being watched by someone else. If you don't... too bad.
Opinions have no morals and can't be good or bad. Only actions can be categorized this way. But trying to convince someone of your opinion is an action. Making him commit a crime is a crime itself. And failing in a criminal act doesn't make it legal. So trying to make someone commit a crime is illegal.


[For non-europeans: GebirgsJäger = Mountaineers, Lichtenstein is a european state that is too small to field a professional soccer team ( 11 people ). ]

maes
01-04-2002, 12:12 PM
if they are the killing machines you say they are.

It wasn't me who said that, but I did write the same thing and deleted it before I pressed the the "submit reply" button. when I read it I thought it was me who posted it. what is it with me and this post I can't keep my head with this one. Before my next reply I'll read the whole thread again and think twice before I post.

>>Checked the pm. No prob.
thx

-KEN-
01-04-2002, 01:50 PM
>>Being of German descent

Hey, I'm half german! I want a cookie! :)

>>No, it's disgusting. Problem is, it's also an "undeniable right". Freedom of speech shouldn't extend to hatemongers like the KKK, neo-Nazis, or any groups like them that preach them same sorts of ass backwards "thought".<<

I agree, but we can't just have selective bearing of rights. "Yes, you can have freedom of speech...so can you, you too, you as well...wait a minute! You can't!"
The thing is that our forefathers (sp?) had no clue we'd have hate-lovin little pieces of %^#! like them. They thought we'd all live in harmony with good people...yaddayaddayadda...a few centuries later we have flag burners, and the like. Hey, if you don't like the country get your arse out. Don't think anyone would be sad to see you go.

>>Yeah, freedom of speech, as long as you agree with that speech. <<

Not particularly. Noone wants to hear or see or hear their hate. I sure don't. Sure, they're entitled to their opionions, but if you ain't got something nice to say don't say anything at all, remember? :) Now if only the whole world could follow that thought :rolleyes:

>>Death or Capture or both? What do you guys think? Should he be killed on sight (most likely will happen if he is seen... reality) or caught and put in prison, or caught and put to death?<<

Doesn't matter. He's going to die either way. You have to realize that:

scenario 1:
He gets caught and put in prison. Do you really think anyone in there is gonna make it easy for him? No. They'll kill him.
scenario 2,3,4,5...etc:
we kill him somehow :)

see? my logic is un-beatable :D

Govtcheez
01-04-2002, 03:07 PM
> if they are the killing machines you say they are.

OK, I embellished a bit, ok? Jeez... Point is, you make them sound like the Seals or SAS, and that's what I think about them, so that's why I said it...

>I agree, but we can't just have selective bearing of rights.

We sure can, and do. Everyone has a right to bear arms. As long as you pass screenings. Everyone can vote. As long as you're 18. We do it all the time. There's no reason people that preach things that are meant to do nothing but harm should be allowed to. I'd be arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a theater - why doesn't freedom of speech cover that?

Isometric
01-04-2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by -KEN-
>>a few centuries later we have flag burners, and the like.

umm.. if you drop the flag or it touches the ground your spose to burn it. I've burn about 10 flags ceremoniously yet I'm a very proud American.

Another thing is that alot of the people hear are saying that we shouldn't be able to say anything that will offend someone. Well lets just say my grandmother died from being hung(she wasn't really infact she is still alive). Then you say are tieing knots and tie a slip knot. Well now im offended even if you didnt know about my grandmother. Should you be punished?

Govtcheez
01-04-2002, 03:39 PM
Another thing is that alot of the people hear are saying that we shouldn't be able to say anything that will offend someone. Well lets just say my grandmother died from being hung(she wasn't really infact she is still alive). Then you say are tieing knots and tie a slip knot. Well now im offended even if you didnt know about my grandmother. Should you be punished?Since I think this was directed at me, I think I'll respond... No one ever said offensive speech shouldn't be allowed. If it wasn't, I'd probably be permanently gagged. The only reason groups like the KKK are around is to cause harm. No other reason.

Also, (ignoring the fact that tying a know isn't talking) how does your little analogy make any sense? I didn't harm your grandmother (either in real life or in your example), nor threaten to harm her (again, either in real life or in your example) so what does me tying a knot have to do with anything?

Isometric
01-04-2002, 03:53 PM
that wasnt meant towards you. And ignore the example, i re-read it and even I dont know what teh hell i meant. Anyways... The KKK believe they are right and that White males are superior to everyone else. They are not there to cause harm they are there because they think that African Americans dont have the right to live. As long as they would keep it intellecual(I use the word lightly) and not go on to cause physical harm then I wouldnt have a problem with them. Personally if you can have your beliefs changed by a pamphlet then how much did you acturally believe in your beliefs? and if your trying to prevent harm arent your harming them by not allowing them to practice their beliefs(this doesn't including killing or toturing)?

-KEN-
01-04-2002, 04:49 PM
um dude, the KKK _do_ cause harm...haven't you ever watched those old movies with KKK beating the crud out of any black person in their path? :rolleyes:


>>I'd be arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a theater - why doesn't freedom of speech cover that?<<

Good point...

>>umm.. if you drop the flag or it touches the ground your spose to burn it. I've burn about 10 flags ceremoniously yet I'm a very proud American. <<

Now you know that's not what I meant...Haven't you ever heard of flag burners? They kinda take normal flags, protest the government, and burn the flags. Plus, it was just an example...


And about the grandmother thing...I get what you're saying but that would just make you hyper-sensitive. Not saying you can't offend anyone, but when you hate (the key word here...do I hate your grandma so much I talk about knots?), or target large groups with that hate (gays, jews, african americans...you name it, someone hates it), then it becomes wrong. Hell, it was wrong to being with...

Anyone can hate, most people do, but why bother us with it? We surely don't care.

Isometric
01-04-2002, 06:36 PM
So hating people a large mass of people is wrong? And people who hate are bad? Do you hate hitler and the Nazis? That was a very large mass of people. Are you bad?

And the political protestors that you think are so bad, what separates them from the revolutionist before 1776 who were protesting England? And even if we skip that point lets just say you can no longer protest the goverment, what happenes when they pass unjust laws and sanctions that you dont agree with? Do you sit back and follow them without any effort to do anything to change the law? After several similar laws and the goverment ignores all the writing and letters people write would you protest the goverment would you protest?

Isometric
01-04-2002, 06:40 PM
Im sorry for posting twice but this came to me after I pressed send.
Was it right for the French to protest and eventually take over the king and Queen in the french revolution? They were oppressed greatly and they were not allowed to protest so how could they express the anger towards the king and queen without them protesting?

-KEN-
01-04-2002, 07:03 PM
Bear with me, I'm like deathly ill right now and you're trying to make me think...hell, that's a nono even when I'm not sick...

See, about the political protests, they were doing something RIGHT...I really haven't heard one smart thing out of one of those flag burners. It's all "Lower taxes!" and stuff...do they even know how far we're in debt? ;) (haha, like our taxes even GO to pay off the debt :rolleyes: )

Those kings and queens and english tea taxes were all horrendous things...name me something equaling that at the moment (in the US). I'm not saying you can't protest, but you should have good cause!

>>Do you hate hitler and the Nazis? That was a very large mass of people. Are you bad?<<

if you hadn't noticed there's a TEENSY bit of a difference between the nazis and gays, jews, etc...

Isometric
01-04-2002, 07:14 PM
Im sorry you are sick. I will stop argueing now and let agree to disagree. Hope you get better. By the way your very good at arguing and you sound like your very intelligent. When you get better I would like to have some more discussions like this. Now that I think of it this is one of the few arguments that didnt break down to "Your a poopy head" :-)

Govtcheez
01-04-2002, 09:10 PM
> I will stop argueing now and let agree to disagree.

Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard that said online. Works for me.

> Now that I think of it this is one of the few arguments that didnt break down to "Your a poopy head" :-)

Butt face.

Unregistered
01-05-2002, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Unregistered
Yep! You know this white man's burden...

Just a quick question: How many terrorists have been caught so far thanks to the Nato's operation?

LOL

I am german, and we'll rule the world again. Behold the arian race! :) The only frightening in our country is the stupidity of the people, but I don't think it's very different in other welfare societies.

LandOfTheTiger

-KEN-
01-05-2002, 09:05 AM
>> I will stop argueing now and let agree to disagree.

Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard that said online. Works for me. <<

same here...normally arguments continue until the thread is buried...:)

>> Now that I think of it this is one of the few arguments that didnt break down to "Your a poopy head" :-)

Butt face.<<

bite me :)

nvoigt
01-05-2002, 12:04 PM
>Do you hate hitler and the Nazis?

No, I don't. Don't fight fire with fire. I don't hate Neo-Nazis. I think they are stupid and their actions are wrong, but hate is the not the right way. The end does not always justify the means.
Hate leads to the dark side. Doesn't matter if your victim deserves it or not.


>I am german, and we'll rule the world again.

I get the impression you have no clue what you are talking about...

>The only frightening in our country is the stupidity of the people,

...oh. I see, you do know what goes here... sorry. ;)

<german>ich würd die kommentare über Arier allerdings hier raushalten... zuviele Missverständnisse.</german>

novacain
01-05-2002, 09:36 PM
The price of free speech is having to listen to things you don't like or agree with.

In Aust we had a row about letting in Emim (?) for his tour as some did not agree with what he had to say.

We must fight to protect his right to say it. Same with the KKK, natzi's ect.

They are not right (in my opinion) but only by allowing ALL views to be expressed can we hope to educate others to choose right from wrong.

mithrandir
01-06-2002, 04:06 AM
>> The price of free speech is having to listen to things you don't like or agree with <<

It was freedom of speech that allowed al Quada (sp?) members to hold rallies in the UK denouncing the US and most "Western" countries, long before September 11. I don't believe in freedom of speech if it is to allow such people to spread their hate and mistruths.

And let us not forget Hitler started off as just one person who was allowed to say what he liked.

Words are a dangerous thing in the hands of madmen.

novacain
01-06-2002, 09:24 PM
They have the right to say what they believe no matter what it is.
Just as you do.
Take it away from them and you must also give up your right to free speech.

I for one will not.

>>And let us not forget Hitler started off as just one person who was allowed to say what he liked.

And so were Nelson Mandela, Lecvowenza(?) (Polish unionist), Lincon, Dali Lama(?) ect, ect.

Do you want to loose what they had to contribute?

Or is it that you do not trust the rest of us to be able to make our own decisions as to what is right and wrong?

We in the first world only have so much BECAUSE others in the third world have so little.

mithrandir
01-06-2002, 10:03 PM
>>They have the right to say what they believe no matter what it is.
Just as you do.
Take it away from them and you must also give up your right to free speech. <<

Freedom of speech came about because people were being killed for speaking out against the injustices of their societies, not to allow every Tom Dick and Harry to spread racism/hatred/misogynism.

>>And so were Nelson Mandela, Lecvowenza(?) (Polish unionist), Lincon, Dali Lama(?) ect, ect.
Do you want to loose what they had to contribute? <<

That is not the same thing, and you know it. Those people stand for peace and unity, not for violence and hatred.

>>Or is it that you do not trust the rest of us to be able to make our own decisions as to what is right and wrong? <<

It is impossible to run a country without leaders. And no, people can't be trusted to make their own decisions on right and wrong, as too much conflict would occur. We need structure to hold society together othewise it just won't work. Why do you think we have laws?

Yoshi
01-06-2002, 10:30 PM
Just send them in... We need help.

novacain
01-07-2002, 12:27 AM
>>That is not the same thing, and you know it. Those people stand for peace and unity, not for violence and hatred.

No, it is the very same thing. Truth / justice is a very relative concept.

They all stated a position which was anti establishment, that is they did not agree with the status quo.

Who decides who gets to be heard?
The government? You or me? The media?

I trust none of these enough to decide what I should or shouldn't hear, do you?

mithrandir
01-07-2002, 03:12 AM
>>Who decides who gets to be heard?
The government? You or me? The media?
<<

All of the above. The Government, you, me, and the media all have a role to play in deciding what is best for us as a collective group. Each is an important part of our society, and each should be responsible.

>>They all stated a position which was anti establishment, that is they did not agree with the status quo. <<

Sadly, there have been many times when governments and the media have taken it upon themselves to determine what we should or should not know or see or do on issues, to the detrement of people. People like Nelson Mandela have seen that this is wrong, and took action against it.

When you start trying to group in people who are not working for peace, who are agents for evil, that is not right. The fact is, these people don't want to build a better society, they want to build a world for themselves.

There is a fundamental difference between challenging the status quo when there are injustices going on, to challenging the status quo because you want more for yourself.

Freedom of Speech is a catch 22 - you can only have it if you truly believe that anything is allowed to be said at all about anything, against anyone. I for one, do not believe that this will ever be allowable, or possible. Freedom of Speech, take at its most literal meaning is a dangerous thing.

novacain
01-07-2002, 03:42 AM
>>Freedom of Speech is a catch 22 - you can only have it if you truly believe that anything is allowed to be said at all about anything, against anyone.

This is my point. Some freedoms can be used against us, but we must still maintain them. Like we must accept some guilty do not get convicted so no innocents go to jail.

>>I for one, do not believe that this will ever be allowable, or possible.

Wait a second. You were saying that we should not have freedom of speech a few posts ago.
Now you are saying we don't? I'm confused.


>>All of the above. The Government, you, me, and the media
The government would not be there except for the money of the rich and the power of the media.

The media is owned by only a few and panders shamelessly to their needs (the Kerry's and Rupert here in Aust)

I don't know you and trust ME even less.

mithrandir
01-07-2002, 07:49 PM
>>Wait a second. You were saying that we should not have freedom of speech a few posts ago.
Now you are saying we don't? I'm confused. <<

I was saying, freedom of speech, taken by your definition and interpretation is an impossible goal in these times.

>> The government would not be there except for the money of the rich and the power of the media. <<

Oh yes, every one in the government is taking kick-backs, and the media bossess are the puppet masters of the Prime Minister. Gimme a break...certainly the media has an influence over politics, but do you honestly believe that they control the government? At the end of the day, its those living in the electorates that decide who is in government.

>>I don't know you and trust ME even less<<

You said you trust yourself even less, then why before did you say "Or is it that you do not trust the rest of us to be able to make our own decisions as to what is right and wrong" ? How can you make your own decisions if you can't trust yourself?

novacain
01-08-2002, 04:00 AM
>>>>I don't know you and trust ME even less<<

I don't trust myself not to be influenced by the offer of large quantities of money and power.

But by understanding my strengths and weaknesses, and in others, I can use them to my advantage.
And yes I do think that the PM would not be there if the media monsters decided together he should not. I think that most politicians get into it for the right reasons but soon discover that there is very little they can change. Why not enjoy the perks?

Look at former senator O'chee(?). Not as honest and upstanding as he once was. What has changed? Is it that he no longer needs to keep up the pretence or is it the he has become corrupt?

Or Clinton who is a proven liar, even under oath, and not be charged with a thing. (In the J Flowers case he said he did not have any affairs, specifically denying one with ML and rested on his reputation as a family man an Pres of USA.)