Hard to fathom that they are turning away aid workers, and that governments like this still exist in the world :confused:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1143691.ece
Printable View
Hard to fathom that they are turning away aid workers, and that governments like this still exist in the world :confused:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1143691.ece
No government rules without the compliance of its people.
Unfortunately, many are and have been forced to "comply" through brutal oppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
The meek shall inherit the grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by medievalelks
None of us is as strong as all of us.
Those are nice sayings, but people in countries like N. Korea, China, Iran, etc. don't have the freedom of speech and organization that others do.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
There's some abstract truth in that statement, but its easy for you to say that... and not so easy for those in complience...Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Myanmar ambassador to the UN has apparently stated today those visas will be granted, after all.
The nation-wide constitutional referendum is not going to be postponed though and will take place tomorrow. Shameful. The affected areas will indeed cast their ballots later... but when? Well, in 15 days!
Military Juntas are powerful forms of regime that opress their population and stop most, if not all, forms of opposition. Overthrowing these regimes is very hard and in no way is an indicator of the weakness of the population or their willingness to accept the opression.
In fact last September, fully aware some would die, some would be imprisoned without any hope of defending themselves, and many would be crudely beaten, monks, nuns and the population in general marched the streets in protest and revolt against the regime and in defense of Democracy.
That's meek?
Yes meek. They spoke boastfully but forgot to take a big stick to back those words up. Obviously the govt forces in that country value their freedom more than the populace values its freedom.
Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun.
Political power is a measure of your willingness to kill those that oppose you.
Look, I know everyone thinks protest adn peaceful demonstrations cna change thign but they cant. All they do is get your picture on the television. If you REALLY want to change things you have to kill the people that oppose you, or at least intimidate them into ceasing to oppose you. Particularly when dealign with people that are conditioned to killing all that oppose them, you can use no lesser means to sway them. Half measures will only diminish your resources and serve to strengthen their resolve. If that cold hard reality doesn't sit well with you, then tough.
Quote:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
meek http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.pngAudio Help/mik/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meek]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–adjective, -er, -est. 1.humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others. 2.overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame. 3.Obsolete. gentle; kind.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME meke, meoc < ON mjūkr soft, mild, meekhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.png]
All you need is your guns and your religion, right?
If this kind of stupidity were to have been eternally perpetuated than civilized society would never have emerged. Yes, there are still plenty of savages left on earth, but it does not mean to say that they cannot change. If you beleive that you cannot overcome your conditioning then you are a slave to it.Quote:
If you REALLY want to change things you have to kill the people that oppose you, or at least intimidate them into ceasing to oppose you. Particularly when dealign with people that are conditioned to killing all that oppose them, you can use no lesser means to sway them.
You are clearly too unexperienced to speak of these things, abachler. In your lifetime you never experienced one situation of political oppression.
But I'll let you know that you have figured out what humanity has not found in these hundreds of thousands of years; The way to avoid tyranny is to pick up on weapons. Congratulations. Outstanding!
Spoken like a true American!Quote:
Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun.
You can thank the American attitude that the whole world doesnt speak German or Japanese. You may hate us now, but you thank us that you have that freedom. But of course the european mentaility has always been, what have you done for me lately. For a civilization [sic] that has such a logn history, europeans sure are short sighted.
...I'd like to apoligize for this gentleman, on behalf of the rest of us living in the United States. I swear, not all of us have our heads inserted directly up our rear ends. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
I find it appalling that in the twenty-first century we're still willing to resolve our differences by shooting and lopping each other's heads off. I'm way, way too old to fight in a war, though many here may have to endure that horror and misery before their lives' are out.
No need. Apologizing or accepting any apologies is bringing the discussion to a level that doesn't belong here; i.e. stereotypes. Anyone with a forehead knows not all Americans think like that and some Europeans do. It's all the same. I can as easily hear that nonsense from some European, Asian or African.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lithorien
What annoys me instead is that some people actually still thinks like that in our century. A clear sign we are still basically a bunch of apes fighting for a branch.
Abachler argument is one of those - these constructions have a name actually. Wish I knew the right word - falsehoods hiding behind a hard to interpret logic that on the surface makes it look a truth.
The words are these:
And then goes on defending this point of view with such pearls as "Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun" and even "Political power is a measure of your willingness to kill those that oppose you.".Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
First, I don't recognize in abachler an authority on these matters. The fact he leaves no room for discussion and uses his words as if they were absolute truths is the mark of the ignorant. A clear sign he has very little knowledge on tyrannies, how they form, why they form, and the historical aspects that may lead to the formation and perpetuation of a political regime and the subservience of the populations. Ultimately he should be ignored. However, because I love to argue... I'll argue.
Forgetting any historic considerations that may had lead to the formation of a dictatorship, it's the main characteristic of such political regimes that they want themselves to perpetuate. The methods used are collectively called as Oppression. Oppression has the characteristic of making it hard for an organized resistance to be formed and become successful. But every single dictatorship meets resistance. There are always those who fight oppression. Eventually they will succeed. Sometimes with external help, sometimes not. Certainly with many defeats.
As such, abachler idea that a dictatorship is a sign the population is weak, is completely false. There are historical, political, social and sometimes even economical reasons behind the formation of a dictatorship. Always! And once formed, resistance will follow suit. Because dictatorships use oppression as a means to stay in power, resistance is hard to organize, meets many setbacks and defeats, and along with terror and fear the regime instills will take a long time to succeed. But will succeed invariably. Always has.
Then you have another problem with his logic. He ignores the historical reasons behind the formation of a dictatorship, we discussed that. But he also ignores its victims. By so boldly and cruelly assigning them the term "meek". I would like to see how meek abachler would feel with a whip on his back and torture on all his body after having been caught by the political police for being so brave and having to watch his family being tortured too. His death and that of his family would have no meaning. After all abachler was caught. He died and consequently failed. Meek? Of course not.
Because then we will have to say the millions of Jews that died in the concentration camps were all weak and only got what they deserved for having not fight back. They inherited the grave, right? We would have to say the black slaves were weak and deserved being slaves for not fighting back. Speaking of which, blacks in US during the oppression were all weak and deserved being oppressed and having to go to black only places. Ghandi was weak and only got what he deserved. The millions of Russians that died to Stalin, the worst dictator of human history, were weak and a waste of space... etcetera, etcetera...
Abachler argument is ridiculous and false. No nation in human history ever accepted oppression. No people in human history ever accepted oppression. Not all oppression was defeated at gun point.
Oh please, i guess the entire continent of Europe are in an eternal debt to you guys then? Not to mention the fact that the US reacted way overdue in WW2, ultimately resulting in a lot of deaths that could've been avoided if you guys had taken responsibility a bit earlier...Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Whatever, keep your guns and your ignorance, you've already proven how well that works out for you guys over there, enjoy your economical depression, warmongers...
The argument that USA saved Europe is as old as the war. And as ignorant.
USA would have not succeeded if it wasn't for the fact it was allied with UK and the Soviet Union. The war in Europe was fought by these three along with the help of many other countries that provided essential forces. Without the French Resistance, for instance, D-Day would have never happened. Or it could have resulted in a sound defeat.
Europe victory was not the doing of the Americans. It was the doing of the Americans, British, French, Dutch, Canadians, etc. In fact, if there is a country Europe owes much, that country is UK. And I never heard the British claiming any rights over it as much as I hear this crap from some americans.
I'm half dutch, and tbh they dident do all that much for the war. Apparently the dutch army had like 13 people in it. The dutch are too cool for that stuff.
From what I have heard the American businesses were having a great time at the start of the war. Was it ford that was selling the nazis vehicles? And IBM was supplying them with computers. Its only when Japan attacked that the government started to seriously re-evaluate the situation.
And yes, 5 years was a bit late.
Not the UK, The commonwealth. Big difference. That way you're not ignoring countries like Australia or New Zealand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Most especially the pilots of the RAAF. Men like Sgt. Rawdon Middleton.
And the many kiwis that fought and died in the British RAF and Navy.
Oh, you guys are just mad because you don't want what I say to be right, but you know deep down that it is, and that sucks, but it's reality. If there was a better more efficient answer than violence, then nature would have evolved to use that method instead of violence. Sure, there are other methods that we as humans employ, but there does come a point beyond which negotiations are pointless. Some people simply will not respond to civilized discourse. Some times the stakes are such that any compromise is simply unacceptable. Try to compromise with a rapist, there is simply no middle ground that is acceptable to both parties. What, are you going to let him stick it in just a few times and in exchange he agrees to not go all the way? (Sorry to be so graphicaly blunt). Its the same in Burma. The people would rather live in oppression than do what it takes to remove the government from power. The government isn't going to just lay down their weapons and leave, why should they, they have a passive populace that won't fight back.
efficient != better
Now hold on a second. Isn't America being villianized now for being involved in a war it has "no business being in"? And you wanted them landing on the shores of France in the 1930s?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
Whatever.
Depression? Who's spreading myths and untruths now?Quote:
Whatever, keep your guns and your ignorance, you've already proven how well that works out for you guys over there, enjoy your economical depression, warmongers...
I partially agree with abachler, and partially disagree. I just don't think he understands how brutal the oppression is that these people live under. I will not, however, partake in a US-bashing bloodlust by ignorant people such as yourself.
And without the US invasion, the French resistance would have been crushed. Yes, it was a victory for the Allies, but if the US didn't get involved, you would be a subject of the 3rd Reich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
>> If there was a better more efficient answer than violence, then nature would have evolved to
>> use that method instead of violence.
I think you just explained why you are wrong. It is obvious that humans have evolved to use less violence than they have in the past. Humans are also obviously still evolving (your opinions are case in point that there is a long way to go).
The most powerful governments in the world are the ones based on cooperation of the people being governed, not the ones that use violence to achieve their power.
I'm not villianizing anyone, it was Abachler who started out with a glorious tale about how the US saved us, and that somehow compensates for all the stuff you guys are doing now..Quote:
Originally Posted by medievalelks
Excuse me, i may have gotten a bit carried away, i tend to do that when people say stuff like:Quote:
Depression? Who's spreading myths and untruths now?
I partially agree with abachler, and partially disagree. I just don't think he understands how brutal the oppression is that these people live under. I will not, however, partake in a US-bashing bloodlust by ignorant people such as yourself.
Alot of good stuff has originated in the US, so has alot of bad stuff, and it's human nature to make a big deal out of the bad stuff. I apologize for sounding overly critical..Quote:
Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun.
It was not a US invasion. It was an ally evasion. USA contributed with exactly half the forces. For years too, the French Resistance was supported by the British and the British alone. Not the Americans. They would have been dead by the time America made it into the war. More, the common knowledge is that without the allies commitment in Europe, it would be Russian, not German we would be "talking" today. The Soviet Union forces were taking the blunt of the German forces and still making huge progresses towards Berlin. While arguable, there is very little doubt in the mind of many historians Stalin would have reached as far as France. The catalyst behind Operation Overlord, and what made this type of operation possible, was exactly Russia involvement in the East.Quote:
Originally Posted by medievalelks
Many, many things, people and events contributed for the success of the Allied campaign. Even Germany did! The fact german leaders where pickering among themselves, the fact Hitler didn't recognize Rommel defense strategy in Normandy, the fact Hitler dared to remove Rundstedt from his command. The 3rd Reich was doomed on any front simply because it's leadership model that so many successes had in the past was exhausted and since the bombing in Hitler's bunker, it became increasingly centered on Hitler. In fact one can say with some degree of accuracy that one has to thank Stauffenberg and the remaining conspiracy members. Despite the failed attempt, it completely shaped the rest of the war in Europe since Hitler never recovered from it and became increasingly paranoid, ill, and calling to himself the command of some of the most important forces in Europe. For which he was obviously not qualified to command.
Acknowledging USA involvement and having a collective feeling of gratitude towards all countries, men, and women, involved is one thing. To hear Europe has a debt of gratitude to America is another completely different thing. I, and many Europeans don't recognize such debt. I certainly don't agree Germany would have won the war. Germany was doomed by the time USA entered the war when it was enduring its biggest flop in the whole war; Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Russia. This was what turned the tide in Europe. Germany would never recover from the loses. The amount of men and material lost in the largest scale military operation in human history was never going to be replaced.
So yes, I thank USA participation. And that of everyone involved. I don't however owe USA anything that I wouldn't owe any other country involved. Some even more.
EDIT: I don't however agree with the argument USA was looking at his own feet during the early years of the war. Despite private enterprising on behalf of some that actually sympathized with the 3rd Reich (which I must remind everyone, was also happening a little all over Europe, UK included), the government and population in general were actively against Germany belligerence. During the early years and throughout the whole period USA was not directly involved in the war, several measures where taken by the two USA governments that allowed some level of participation; most notably the Lend-Lease Program and the Mutual Board of Defense. For Churchill this was manifestly very little since he wanted a formal declaration of war on Germany. But he also knew Roosevelt was facing three main problems;
1 - There were two faction inside his own government and society in general. The Interventionists and the Isolationists. Without Japan "help", this political impasse would have been very hard to solve.
2 - Most of USA forces where deployed in the West and USA lacked a strong navy capable of handling a long distant war in the Atlantic.
3 - USA had been neglecting his military power for decades. It was simply not ready to be an active player in the war. The fact point 1 was limiting Roosevelt (who was an Interventionist) ability to pass more important measures in Congress, wasn't helping the effort to arm the country.
Churchill knew all this. And when some of his advisers actively protested against USA, he would get angry and scold them. The Air Superiority campaign lead by the 3rd Reich would invariably draw USA into the war even if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor. As soon as one German troop set foot in English soil, USA would be forced to the war. Japan just made it happen sooner.
And that is the exact reason I would never elect you as my leader. That goes in direct opposition to everything I believe, and you are completely wrong.Quote:
If you REALLY want to change things you have to kill the people that oppose you
What exacly are we doing that offends you so? Lets see we overthrew a brutal regime in Iraq and are bringing stability to an extremely unstable region. Oh wait, I think France is ........ed because they had a back door deal with Saddam that we cancelled as soon as we took over. So France was and still is supporting terrorism, count yourself lucky that all it cost you was your oil deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
While I think Neo 1's sentiments were a little rash, comparing WW2 with the current wars is in no way a like for like comparison. WW2 presented a situation that could only be overcome through co-operation and the outcome was in the interest of all allied countries, including America. Its a perfect example of how important co-operation is. This kind of unification is impossible to attain through means that abachler suggested.Quote:
Now hold on a second. Isn't America being villianized now for being involved in a war it has "no business being in"? And you wanted them landing on the shores of France in the 1930s?
Whatever.
For example take the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current American government wanted to go and start a war, most European countries were strongly opposed to this so Bush took the Abachler approach and created a confrontation by insisting that anyone who's not going to join the war is against them. By completely ignoring the opinion of the rest of the world while being caught up in the post 9/11 mob mentality America lost much of its credibility. Ultimately what the American government has managed to do over the last few years in increasingly isolate themselves, which ironically is what caused the downfall of the nazis.
Until recently Americans seem to have been oblivious as to how much the rest of the world opposed this aggressive attitude. When I was travelling in Australia in 2004 I met americans that pretended to be canadian because they were so fed up with all the grief that they would get about their governments actions. Personally I think its unfair to judge anyone on the actions of their nations government. Thankfully the american popular sentiment seems to be shifting tho.
Depression might be a bit overkill, but the Dollars is worth next to nothings now. Some years ago it cost more to buy things from the USA then from home, now I can save about 30% by ordering from USQuote:
Depression? Who's spreading myths and untruths now?
India got her freedom through Satyagraha :) You don't always need violence to achieve freedom from oppressors.Quote:
Look, I know everyone thinks protest adn peaceful demonstrations cna change thign but they cant. All they do is get your picture on the television. If you REALLY want to change things you have to kill the people that oppose you, or at least intimidate them into ceasing to oppose you. Particularly when dealign with people that are conditioned to killing all that oppose them, you can use no lesser means to sway them. Half measures will only diminish your resources and serve to strengthen their resolve. If that cold hard reality doesn't sit well with you, then tough.
Excuse me! Stability?Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
In your dreams. While it is indisputable the fact it was a brutal regime, Saddam was a factor of stability in the region. The only one. That is why USA financed and supported his regime and the war on Iran. If anything the region is now one of the most dangerous places in the world. Chaos, not stability is what was brought to the Middle East. Thank you very much. We feel much safer now.
You have to understand at this point that very few, outside possibly your little circle of close friends and those radical enough in the US or outside of it to believe in this crap, agree that France is supporting terrorism.Quote:
Oh wait, I think France is ........ed because they had a back door deal with Saddam that we cancelled as soon as we took over. So France was and still is supporting terrorism, count yourself lucky that all it cost you was your oil deal.
The thought alone is so mind-boggling that it can only come from the mind of a) anyone red-eyed enough to become an idiot b) an idiot c) anyone trying to justify their idiocy.
Meanwhile, Saddam was not a terrorist. In fact, Saddam was a sworn enemy of Al-Qaeda, being this a sunni movement. I'm surprised you still think as you were told to, instead of thinking for yourself. The fact Al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime were so far apart is something everyone always knew and part of the reason Saddam was armed and financed by the US for years and years, since it was the only one in the region facing the Sunni regime in Iran. I'm still surprised as the american public in general bought this one. In Europe almost no one did.
Lies, a collegue of mine is Indian. He says that the 'peaceful' revolution really didn't do anything, btu get sall teh credit in the west. It was the armed ebellion that freed the country, but you don't hear about it because armed resistance isn't 'Politically Correct'.Quote:
Originally Posted by PING
So, you base all your opinions on heresy ?Quote:
Lies, a collegue of mine is Indian. He says that the 'peaceful' revolution really didn't do anything, btu get sall teh credit in the west. It was the armed ebellion that freed the country, but you don't hear about it because armed resistance isn't 'Politically Correct'.
No, I think Abachler bases most of his opinions on fantasy.
Actually we replaced a brutal regime with a load of brutal factions, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of people dying in the process. If we were to leave now, things look set to degrade into civil war. So we will just have to keep pouring money into it indefinitely while our troops are being shot at and blown up. Like Mario said, Sadam had nothing to do with terrorism we invaded Iraq to disarm the weapons of mass destruction. As these never existed its a classic example of how to waste billions of dollars and thousands of lives acting on bad intelligence and ignoring the basic principles of law. Then theres Guantanamo another instance where the American government chose to defy the basic rules of law, in the face of which America's claim to stand for freedom is blatant hypocrisy.Quote:
What exacly are we doing that offends you so? Lets see we overthrew a brutal regime in Iraq and are bringing stability to an extremely unstable region.
What are you suggesting here? That America should go to war with France? An unbelievably deranged statement, do you really believe that America can take on the entire world single handedly? Surely Iran is of greater priority, since there is a far greater indication that they are working on weapons of mass destruction then Iraq, so naturally we should invade them too. Then theres Venezuela; they must be supporting terrorists. And north Korea; more terrorists. I think its time to get your gun out.Quote:
Oh wait, I think France is ........ed because they had a back door deal with Saddam that we cancelled as soon as we took over. So France was and still is supporting terrorism, count yourself lucky that all it cost you was your oil deal.
A brutal regime that nonetheless, was stable. What you did was remove all kinds of authority, essentially bringing chaos to an already troubled nation, at the expense of several thousand civilians, and soldiers. All of this, because of a suspicion, that Iraq might have been in possession of WOMD.Quote:
What exacly are we doing that offends you so? Lets see we overthrew a brutal regime in Iraq and are bringing stability to an extremely unstable region.
But still, it is well known that the US itself has tonnes of ballistic missiles just laying around. How come you get to decide who can and who can't have WOMD? The POTUS is not Judge Dredd you know, stay out of other countries business, why did these people have to die, based on a suspicion? The US is living in fear, trying to control everything and everyone, and convincing their citizens that everyone else is the bad guys. Sometimes i wonder, who is it that is living under a suppressing regime? Who is it that is being meek, Abachler?
Wow, the plight of Myanmar made a quite speedy exit from this conversation.
Excuse me, but the American citizen did nothing of the sort. One of the reasons Bush was *first* elected might have been because of a campaign promise. Stating that he "did not believe in nation building," the American people I think were under the impression that he had a more diplomatic foreign policy than "strike first." I wasn't permitted to vote at the time, but you're free to study the election.Quote:
A brutal regime that nonetheless, was stable. What you did was remove all kinds of authority, essentially bringing chaos to an already troubled nation, at the expense of several thousand civilians, and soldiers. All of this, because of a suspicion, that Iraq might have been in possession of WOMD.
If it helps assuage your worries, Democratic candidates tend to slash the military budget and dismantle these. Clinton did it in the 90s, but he also made the mistake of putting through executive orders that ordered the CIA to stop recruiting. We reaped the crop of that decision, didn't we? :(Quote:
But still, it is well known that the US itself has tonnes of ballistic missiles just laying around.
Sure there is a smart way to demilitarize, but our government tends to ignore big problems and cut stupid corners. Sorry, can't do much about it. If you still want to accuse the average person of being a headcase (or use abachler as an excuse to whine), that is your perogative but frankly I think this is getting out of hand. Voters do not approve, and the only reason McCain turned into an electable candidate is due to the fact that the other house simply won't stop sabotaging itself. Delegates are finally starting to line up behind Obama as the presumptive nominee, but Hillary, despite being mathematically out of the nomination, is still clawing for every vote. The only thing that the Democrats seem to be talking about is each other instead of McCain, politics, and why it's smart not to vote for him. We'll see if anybody's dumb enough to elect that sleazeball.
We should all be programming right about now.
Hahahahahaha, we WHAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
We went into a soverign nation, took down the government that - while run by an evil man - provided stability to the region, and allowed three warring factions free reign on each other. THAT is what we've done in Iraq - none of this "overthrowing a brutal regime and are bringing stability to an unstable region" crap.
Speaking as an external observer, I'd say what seemed highly unlikely at first is now becoming a possible outcome. The democrats seem to have made a complete fool of themselves. And I'm pretty sure they will pay the price during the presidential campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen
As a democrat sympathizer, trust me when I say, despite having no links with US, there were times I was feeling ashamed. Particularly because I actively defend the democrats case among my friendships which includes many Republican sympathizers. Thankfully I trust the American voters have chosen wisely on this case, since Hillary campaign was by far the most damaging to the party. And it comes as no surprise that Obama is garnering a majority among the super delegates. And its not only because they have no choice now but support him. They do have the choice. But the people spoke loudly.
The sleezeball will surely capitalize over the primaries. Hillary would have been a much easier target since her credibility is now a joke. Obama will be an harder target, especially because McCain will die to tell him of his skin color, but will not dare to.
I don't think that was the purpose of this thread anyways. One look at the first post and you know where this thread is heading .Quote:
Wow, the plight of Myanmar made a quite speedy exit from this conversation.
US bashing is unwarranted IMO. Even though the region is unstable as of now, with a democratic process in place, there is hope that someday in the not so distant future, the Arab Middle-East will be a stable region. Look at Afghanistan now and compare it to what it was when the Taliban was overthrown.Quote:
none of this "overthrowing a brutal regime and are bringing stability to an unstable region" crap.
As for the brutality of the regime, I don't think that you and I who have been lucky enough never to experience it should comment on what is right and what is not.
[Just a couple of comments.]
Hamas in Iraq: Iran funds al-QaedaQuote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Iraqi Perspectives Project Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)
Saddam and al-QaedaQuote:
Abstract: Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.
Other.Quote:
In conclusion, the Pentagon Papers clearly show that Saddam had direct ties to the EIJ. Saddam was both financing and training EIJ members from as far back as 1990. The support Saddam was providing was ongoing. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the EIJ merged with al-Qaeda in 1998. Therefore, Saddam was financing and training al-Qaeda.
[Resume argument, I enjoy the different perspectives.]
I think this debate has gotten a bit out of hand. Bashing this or that country does nothing and you guys are talking about a war and about issues that occurred nearly half a century ago. I'm a very avid WW2 semi-historian and find many of the things said in here quite disturbing.
It is true that Hitler was defeated the moment he decided to attack Russia. On THAT Russian front yes he was defeated. But my grandfather has plenty of dead friends to prove that on the European front Hitler was far from defeated. It took a helluva lot to push Hitler back and saying the USA or the UK or any country who fought valiantly against the Nazi regime had it easy is quite honestly disrespectful and extremely ignorant and arrogant. Shameful at the least.Quote:
Germany was doomed by the time USA entered the war when it was enduring its biggest flop in the whole war; Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Russia.
Many countries contributed to the victories and eventual overall VE and VJ in WW2. My heart, my respect, and my thanks go to all the men in all the countries who gave the ultimate sacrifice.
Whether a Brit gave his life or a Dutchmen or Russian or American or whoever...they all deserve the same honor and respect.
On the same note, there are also plenty of other forgotten men on the other side of the war who served their country and gave their lives to fight for what they felt was right. None of those deaths should be minimized.
I guess the point is many men from many nations fought for what they felt was right and stepped up to get the job done. Regardless of whether they were Allied or Axis they all had courage. Sorry but I have nothing but respect for that type of person. To squabble about things none of us here are experts on or have experienced personally is just immature. Let dead men rest.
Now back to the topic....
Bubba, I'll get back to the topic. But have to say that at no point I tried to imply the operations in Europe were a walk in the park for the allies. As you said that would be ignoring the death toll for the whole operation from Normandy to Paris, and the campaign that followed towards Berlin. Not to mention the planning and coordination it took in an operation that it's to this day the biggest example of military cooperation between several countries.
What I was contesting however was the idea Germany would have won the war if USA hadn't participated in Europe (or to simplify, if Overlord hasn't happened or had failed). It's my belief the Soviet Union would have reached as far as Paris for the reasons I brushed on.
I too am a passionate about WWII. I study about the subject from as many sources as possible and as much as I can, for no reason other than I too feel this was a unique time in human history where exceptionally people emerged and took their place in history books and the collective mind of mankind - on all sides of the conflict. Nowhere in what was said did I at any time sought to remove value or importance from any of the participants.
English only seems "better" because we're used to it. If either German or Japanese was the global language, you'd say the same about those languages. It's all about what you're used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
America has a large army and sometimes helps out other countries with their army, but it would be foolish to assume that an army makes a country good. America simply is a large country and then of course has a large army. But that doesn't mean it's better than any other place. When America fights against what they call terrorists, Europe fights against pollution and GMOs, and supports green energy and organic farming, while USA rejects any treaties related to decreasing pollution, for marketing reasons I suppose.
Original topic. There is not much to discuss about Burma. It's all wrong over there. There is much discussion about it but I'm afraid there will be no good solution to that problem. Kurdistan, Tibet and Chechnya are basically in the same situation, only that their problem is a little different - they don't have their own country. Though the situation is the same - everything is wrong, but noone can do anything about it.
The language there was used to imply that all of us would be under the rule of the Germans or the Japanese.Quote:
English only seems "better" because we're used to it. If either German or Japanese was the global language, you'd say the same about those languages. It's all about what you're used to.
Back to Burma...
I believe the situation is in an impasse until the results from the referendum are known, considered legit and the military junta proves to follow through with the decision, in case it results in democratic elections in the near future.
Myanmar is actually a very good example how Europe can it too be demagogic. In the interest of maintaining good commercial relationships with China, many European countries keep vetoing a sanctions package on Myanmar. All it takes is for one country to say no, for the whole process to not take place. It's shameful that my own country, for instance, advertises respect for human rights but has repeatedly vetoed, along with others.
Myanmar is at a specially weak position as most of its income is through foreign investment (of which a large chunk is European). A ban on investments and commercial sanctions would weaken the regime even further. At the expense of the population, granted. But the Burmese would applaud, I'm pretty sure.
Some anti-sanctions advocates argue China has the capability to replace any of the European foreign investments, basically rendering any measure ineffective. I'm not so sure this is the case, since this is not the best time for China to add yet another file to its already thick dossier on human rights infringement and totalitarian regimes support. But more important, it would serve as a stance; Europe would send the message it does not support the regime and seeks to have it overthrown.
It's possible however that the recent changes in Europe voting process will allow for sanctions to be approved. It will no longer be necessary a consensus across the board. Meanwhile, any country could have unilaterally imposed sanctions on Burma. To my knowledge no European country did, whereas USA has a sanction package in-place for well over 10 years, if i'm not mistaken.
Actually that statement has nothing to do with the actual language being spoken, rather to do withteh reasons why those languages would be spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
It has more to do with remaining a sovereign nation; and europes idea is for the US to make all the sacrifices. Maybe when europe gets its population under control they can stop talking out both sides of their mouth. A continent smaller than 1/3 the US with more than twice the population of the US doesnt have any room to talk about living in harmony with nature.Quote:
Europe fights against pollution and GMOs, and supports green energy and organic farming, while USA rejects any treaties related to decreasing pollution, for marketing reasons I suppose.
I thought people like you had all died in Waco, Texas.
Under control? You mean like tracking control chips which are in US passports? And sacrifices - yes, the number of soldiers who die in Iraq or Afghanistan is really high. But that has nothing to do with Europe and it wasn't our idea to send anyone there.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
And you said continent smaller than 1/3 of the US? I live on Eurasia, which is actually more than 2 times larger than North America (5.5 times larger than the US). And how does the population have anything to do with it? And even if you're not that good at geography and meant to compare the US with Europe, then you're wrong. Europe is larger than the US.
Really, "population under control" - what are you trying to say? Population in Europe is not growing much like it is in Africa or like it was in Asia. For example, the population in Estonia is decreasing and that's one important problem here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
Yes, I mispoke about the area, but you still have twice the population density, so blow it out your pie hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Theres no tracking control chip in my passport, you must be mistaken. Or perhaps you mean the biometric smart chip, which isnt in mine either. Those are required by most civilized countries now, and even some in europe. To bad I got my passport 6 months before it went into effect.
People have lived in Europe for thousands of years. This is the place where hundreds of nations have existed for a long time. This is not a colony, it's the main land. We didn't have the choice to simply select how many shipfuls of people we bring here.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Yeah, I'm talking about the new passports, maybe you don't have one yet. Though, around here, only a digital image of the person's face and fingerprint pattern is planned to put into the passport in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
How come is a tracking chip civilized? Some time ago tracking chip was only seen in horror movies. Now it is reality... in the US...
Do you have a source on that?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...1/article.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by citizen
Notice the "starting in early 2006"...
People have lived in north america for ~15,000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
The ones which were killed or put to reservations by the colonists?Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
They didn't get us all ...
Gosh! I can't believe this has derailed so much and I'm still part of it.
Anyways, it's not the size or the population. But polution per population:
http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions
The technology you spoke of was actually RFID. And according to your own source, the information on it is already on the paper passport.
But RFID is not a "tracking chip." The idea was to make the passport harder to forge, not to pinpoint my location. RFID does not do that inherently; the only reason you can use it to track anything is because of the reader. The location is inferred from where an RFID tag is scanned The RFID chip would not contain my current residence or be able to tell anyone where my travel destination is, nor my hotel reservations or favorite places to eat. All convenient places to kill me, but it doesn't work quite like that. Now if you go on to read this article, you find that there was a legitimate concern about the security (the information could be picked up by strangers using a remote scanner, an invasion of my privacy), but put down the kool-aid.Quote:
Starting in early 2006, the U.S. Department of State will begin issuing passports with 64-kilobyte RFID (radio frequency identification) chips that will contain the name, nationality, gender, date of birth, and place of birth of the passport holder, as well as a digitized photograph of that person.
Tracking chips aren't supposed to carry any information. They send radio signals. Though the US government "promised" they won't use it for tracking, I see no other reasons why the chip has to send out radio signals.Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen
This topic sounds like a continuation to the last one...
Identification is not tracking.
Sending radio signals is an overkill way to identify people (unless it is used for something more).
The purpose is automated registration. The radio signals arent strong enough to be tracked by satellites, so its effectiveness as a tracking chip is dubious at best. I suppose they could stick a receiver on every corner of every city in the world and track you, but I doubt that is goin to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
Yeah, its really turning into barrens chat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
This thread seems to have reached its end... thankfully, I guess. However it would be unfair to not reply to Dave_Sinkula efforts. I thank you for your links. I didn't reply earlier because I wanted to take a close look at them.
However the "evidence" that is contested on those links is exactly what the Commission found to not constitute any evidence. So, I'm unsure what to say.
I know there was, and probably still there is in some circles, a debate in US about said September 11 Commission and the validity of its findings. But that's the nature of every Commission. What one eventually does is side with the results that better fit with their beliefs at that time. But there is much more to Saddam possible links to Al-Qaeda than simply so-called evidence that is later dismissed and best guesses or even faith. There is an historical, social and regional evidence that was always ignored, being more convenient to make the link especially because it can't be proved or disproved.
On the subject of terrorism however, it can be said Saddam may have provided direct support to Hamas. Hamas however is not an arm of Al-Qaeda. Islamic based terrorist groups do indeed join efforts sometimes even when they share different doctrines, as one of the papers you presented argued. If there is one thing they hate more than each other is the US, and one thing they hate more than the US, is Israel. However, this doesn't turn Hamas into Al-Qaeda.
The "with ties to Al-Qaeda" is the most used expression since Sept. 11 when referring to extremist groups. I wonder how many people actually filter that phrase and look at it objectively. It's quiet irrelevant that some group has ties or not to Al-Qaeda when the message being transmitted is that they are a terrorist group. And it offends my intelligence every time the media uses that expression. It actually annoys me. It's almost an impossibility for any extremist islamic group to not have "ties" with Al-Qaeda. And what are these "ties"? Support, training, personnel, sympathy, exchanged letters, intelligence, requests never fulfilled? What exactly?
We will never know if Saddam supported Al-Qaeda. Strong evidence suggest not. Some evidence suggest yes. Using logic alone, I defend no. It makes no sense to me. And then there is the problem of exactly how strong is this an argument against Saddam. Because in that context, US would have had to declare war on:
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Iran
Pakistan
Syria
Possibly even Sudan and Egypt