On the forth comming war & the "liberal" media

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Shadygrove, Mar 10, 2003.

Remove all ads!
Support Terra-Arcanum:

GOG.com

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
  1. Qilikatal

    Qilikatal New Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    The taliban and all the other resistant groups were trained and supported with weapons comming from the untied states, if they had not been trained and supplied the way they were, they would not have had a chance against the sovjet, the best soldiers were sent to scottland for training, by the SAS (scandinavian airlines ;) ). The US even gave stinger missilis to the afghan resitants groups so they could fight the sovjet helicopters.
    The situation was compleatly diffrent in afghanistan when the was forced to back out , then it was when the us, and the north alliance attacked.

    Somehow there is still people that belive that the "US achived in a few months what the sovjet tried for years to achive".
    And for those that have not noticed there is still fighting going on i afghanistan, there is not undisputed control, and more than likely it will not be in some time.

    Capturing hitler during the war was more important than you might think, he was the force that said "Not one step back", the germans would have surrendered much faster if it was not for him. They tried to assainate him once, for then to surrender.
     
  2. Solaris

    Solaris New Member

    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    The "fighting" in Afghanistan hardly threatens the US army or the newly installed government. Its basically eradicating the last remains of resistance. Those who keep fighting get no support from even the Muslim states and are incapable of regaining control over any inhabited area of Afghanistan.
    As for Hitler, it was important to crush the Nazi regime created by him, but even if he managed to escape and live the rest of his life in the jungle of Argentina as many Nazis did, it wouldn't change much. Maybe there would be a few more freaky neo Nazis in this world, but the war wouldn't be lost just because Hitler wasn't captured.

    Tair Nean,
    Capturing Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda leaders wasn't the only goal of the war. Al-Qaeda activity had been disrupted, their capabilities greatly reduced, training camps destroyed. The regime, that openly supported Bin Laden, was crushed. The presence of the US armed forces in Afghanistan created an effective mechanism of pressure on other regimes who are involved in funding terrorism- Iran for example. So this victory may be incomplete because Bin Laden personally wasn't foind, but its still a victory.
    I'll post that other piece I wrote in the next post[/quote]
     
  3. Solaris

    Solaris New Member

    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    The basis of the European Union was a certain balance of power- an alliance of four states (France, Germany, Italy and Britain) with more or less equal population, equal level of industrial development and equal lack of natural resources. Neither of the four states was capable of being a real threat to the others. For the threat to appear, two of those states had to join forces, thus returning to the situation that existed in 1914 and 1939 (for those who missed it- before the First and the Second World wars).
    For a long time everyone was quite satisfied, Europe grew into the European Union with no borders between the member states, one currency, and they would have a joined army if it wasn't for the NATO. NATO was comfortable: the Americans were doing all the dirty job, sending their troops everywhere they were needed, and investing most of the money, the Europeans just had to show symbolic involvement and keep up to the standards in weaponry, saving billions on defense. But NATO kept expanding to the east, accepting new members, and the French and the Germans began to feel that they were losing the political weight they once had inside NATO- all of a sudden they were just two states out of many.
    While the Soviet Union or Russia remained somewhat of a threat, the French and the Germans would have to put up with it, because they still weren't interested in investing too much money into the army. But once there is no threat, France and Germany decided that they don't want to be part of NATO anymore, they want to be on their own and free from any American influence (Gratitude? What gratitude? We're free nations, we can do as we please!). So they wait for the right moment (for the next crisis between USA and the UN over Iraq)- and then they strike. All of a sudden they stubbornly oppose any political moves of the American administration in the UN, they ignore the request for military aid from Turkey- a member of NATO- which is a violation of their obligations as NATO members, and do anyhting they can to show the world that they are independent and have foreign politics of their own. No more NATO, they don't need anyone.
    Now the rest of the EU begin to worry. They're facing an alliance (and future union) of the two most powerful European nations, and I have already mentioned what it immediately reminds of. An alliance of France and Germany is 130 million people and half of the European economy, and Shroeder is talking about "the German way of development for Europe" during his elections. Quite a lot of reasons to worry. And here comes another twist in the plot- the Spanish prime minister declares his support for the Americans in the Iraqi crisis. Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Czechia, Hungary and Britain join in. Its not exactly an expression of love to America (licking Bush's arse in terms of the excited teens), its a counter-alliance. Europe is divided into two coalitions, both looking for allies outside: France and Germany-with the Arab states, the rest of Europe- with the US. No friendships, no stupidity, pure pragmatism.
    The British played wiser than the rest, remaining suspicious about the Euro zone and other EU initiatives, and now they have a doubtful pleasure of watching all this mess from aside. The way it looks, they prefer a safe relationship with a rich and powerful ally, who also speaks the same language, over jumping into the reopening European snake pit.
    Honestly speaking, I also find the coming union of France and Germany quite disturbing. Europe splitting into two camps had never been a good sign...
     
  4. Qilikatal

    Qilikatal New Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    The basis of the European union was to avoid war, wich there has not been ever since, not a ballance of power, instead they tied themselves to each other through economy.
    Result? there has been no war ever since. Europe is not split in two camps, most of the wounds between the countries are healing, and i don't think they go that deep.

    What dirty jobs are you talking about? The vietnam war? Or the korean?

    The reason they did not send forces to turkey is that they considered this to be an agressive act, the NATO is supposed to be an deffensive alliance, remember? (though it has turned more and more into an attack alliance)
    The germans and the french are one of the peoples that has felt war more than any other country onto their skin, might explain why they don't want a war? There is other ways than to go to an unlegal war.

    The joined EU army will be ready later this year counting 60000 men.

    Bush is talking about "the finest people" in the world with a "god given mission" that is a reason to worry. Notice how many of the countries in the koalision is either old facist countries or poor coutries. There is even a few dictators with on this great "coalision".
     
  5. Clothos_Vermillion

    Clothos_Vermillion New Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2001
    Could you please explain. I wrote a vast simplification, and i do respect your arguements (i thought i made that clear in my following sentences), except for that one about a totalitarian regime. I've read all of your statements and tried to be respectful, and i really don't understand your statement, and frankly, i take offense at it. I haven't attacked you, except on one position which i find highly irrational, and even then, its still your position i'm attacking, not you directly.

    And if you mean that you don't consider yourself a liberal, fine, i consider you a cynic, and you are one. I'm a cynic myself in most matters, but i don't believe the worst automatically, especially with nothing to back it up. There wouldn't be protestors if this was a totalitarian country, and there are still plenty of protestors.
     
  6. Langolier

    Langolier Member

    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    "Reads all the new posts since last visiting"
    Lots of interesting opinions...
    Golly, what wonderful times we live in. :grin:
     
  7. Shadygrove

    Shadygrove New Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Sorry, the USA lost its cherry on that one in WWII. Massive bombing of German cities to "break the will of the Greman people." And we saw how well the reverse worked to break the will of the British people. Try the fire bombing of Dresden, which had no military signifance at all. Then we move swiftly on to the end of that war. Quick, how many countries have used nucular weapons against civilian populations?

    We seem to have missed targiting civilians in Korea, but during the Viet-Nam unpleasantness we had what was called "fire hose" bombing. We had the B-52s, we had the ordinance, & we flew every day, valid military targets or not. We bombed countries that were not in that conflict. We bombed temples, villages, & archiological sites simply because they were marked on a map & we had the B-52s, the ordinance, & flew every day & had to drop the bombs on something.

    Yes, our soldiers are told not to target civilians. The generals have all the fun.
     
  8. Snowmane

    Snowmane New Member

    Messages:
    944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    That's were I disagree with you. You say about how we bombed Dresden, and killed Germans, saying it was to destroy morale, but what about the Blitz? You barely, and unsympathetically, touch on the thousands of British Civilians killed by the Germans. Dropping the atomic bomb was terrible, but the Japanese had plenty of time before we dropped it. They refused to surrender. The Japanese Emperor didn't care about his people, or anybody elses. I'm tired of hearing, "America targets civilians... whaha!" What about the 15 million people of Nanking who were raped, and brutally killed by the Japanese? What about the islanders of countless South Pacific islands that were killed, beaten, starved, and raped by the Japanese? What about Kosovo, Bosnia, and all those places? What about September 11? Don't tell me those people deserved to die. There have been many, many atrocities that happened to civilians that were not committed by the United States. I can name plenty of other times when there were horrible crimes that civilians endured by other places.
     
  9. Langolier

    Langolier Member

    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Excelent post....... It is clear and obvious in this war that Coalition soldiers are not attacking and killing civilians on purpose. Yes a few are gonna die, thats war. Ofcourse Saddam is targeting civilians, but never mind him.....
     
  10. TairNean

    TairNean New Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Ok, I admit, perhaps that was a little rash, and I apologize for it. I have tried numerous times to explain and it seems like my point has been missed, it gets frustrating.
    I am a cynic. Where I see laws, I also see great potential for abuse of those laws. By being cynical and questioning events or policies that pave the way for oppression, or abuses, by having people accept not that it's happening, but that the potential is there for it to happen, it can help prevent those abuses from happening. Neighborhood watch concept.

    Cynic and believe don't quite belong in the same sentence. Just because I see the potential, doesn't mean I neccessarily think it's so.

    I see the potential for abuses of law, the Constitution, and the People. and that is the perspective my arguments come from. To forewarn.


    I consider myself a cynic. I haven't argued that at all. In fact, cynic is the only thing I can classify myself in that regard. I'm not a democrat or a republican, I'm independant. Unaligned. There are good points I agree with within both parties, there are bad things I disagree with in both parties
    Liberal or conservative, I simply don't know. Both rhetorics have points, both have sheer idiocy. Unaligned.

    Yes, there are plenty of protestors. And people have been arrested for wearing t-shirts. It starts with one arrest, for one foolish reason. There are plenty of protestors for now. The potential is there, while I don't think it's happening, and gods help me I hope it isn't, the only way to prevent it happening is to be aware of the possiblity that it *could* happen. And it *will* happen if the people allow it to, by allowing themselves to be silenced, by following blindly, by not questioning what their goverment does in their name. That is the beauty of America. The people have the power to stand up, and make themselves heard. Without having to fear being run over by a tank. My intent is to help ensure it stays that way.


    I am as much a social critic as a government critic. I hope this clarifies at least a little. Again I apologize for my rash response, it was born of sheer frustration. I thought of deleting that post, but didn't. Perhaps I should have.
    Quite often in trying to get my view across, I come on strong, and much of what I say gets dismissed as liberal-commie-pinko-fag garbage. I'm not selling dissention, I'm selling prevention and enlightenment.

    (I have another post written up, I was going to post it the other night, but I figured I'd give some time for some other responses to come in.
     
  11. Langolier

    Langolier Member

    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Cynicism and skepticism are good things to have around.... I myself am not old enough to vote, but I do not know for sure what party I want to join in couple years. I tend to agree with the Republican/Conservative view more, I also see plenty of valid arguments for the Democratic and Liberal groups. While I dont think that the Bush administration would abuse power if it were given more. After all we have had to give up rights for short periods of time durring other wars. However the "war on Terror" may last decades.... that is alot of time for someone to become corrupt..... personally I dont think it will happen, but I agree that it COULD.
     
  12. TairNean

    TairNean New Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Here's the other post I mentioned:

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. That rhetoric can be applied to a couple of events in history. The rise of the third reich, for example, with their master race and mission from god. Further back in history it can be applied to the Crusades. Nobody's wrong when god's on their side.


    And again, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that. However, Britain was hit just as hard, they just didn't have to suffer Nazi occupation. One of the advantages to having an island empire. It's a strategically sound location, difficult to occupy, difficult to keep open supply chains. One needs massive naval and air support to do it effectively. Technology that was in the works, but not yet readily available at the time. But that is also due, at least in part, to the fact that the nazi army was fighting a war on several fronts. Conversely, that was also one of the reasons for the atomic bomb drops on Japan. But that's another rant for another time.



    Fair enough. However, the US still hasn't made good on its promise to rebuild Afghanistan. I realize this takes time, but I've found no indication (aside from thus far empty promises), that any steps have been taken to start the ball rolling.


    So far. That is very likely to change if the US continues to put rebuilding on the back burner.



    I can't argue that. History has shown us such. But, in my eyes it's no worse than starting a questionably justified, questionably legal war. We are only now seeing the hint of justification for the war. If one can believe the media. Just because the US has the strongest, best equipped military in the world is no reason to arbitrarily deploy that force. Whether that's actually happened or happening, remains to be seen.



    Cold war cleanup, as a friend of mine put it. The same friend mentioned to me: "Maybe the US has such a vendetta against Iraq because they know exactly what weapons they have. Maybe they came from US surplus stockpiles." After all, chemical and biological warfare is illegal by the Geneva Convention. The US couldn't have these things laying around. Hey saddam, I got a deal for you. Help us get our hostages from Iran, and we'll give you some neato-nifty toys. Stranger things have happened.
    After all, there was a bush on that administration too. And the one that follwed. Then we got eight years of comic relief with Clinton, then lo and behold, another bush. Smacks of a dynasty to me.
     
  13. Snowmane

    Snowmane New Member

    Messages:
    944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Prince Bush? :oops:

    Seriously, I would have Clinton back any day over Dubya, despite all his skirt chasing.
     
  14. Darkwalker

    Darkwalker Member

    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2002
    In the history of the world there has never been a nation as powerful as the United States, and at the same time, never has there been such a powerful nation who abused their power less. Yet no one is infallible, and mistakes will be made. Next time you shine that harsh light of criticism towards America, remember the aforementioned statement and weigh it against whatever gripe you have. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have an opinion, nor am I saying don't express that opinion, all I am saying is look at the grand scheme of things.
     
  15. Langolier

    Langolier Member

    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    I belive that we DO know what weapons Iraq has.. We know because of a defector (Saddams Brother in Law I think) told us. However he went back to Iraq and was killed. I dont see why Saddam wouldnt have these weapons. Why would he destroy them all on his own? An unfortunate possibility has recently been mentioned. That Saddam may have moved the weapons to Syria. Ofcourse Syria would be putting itself in a very bad position if it did. No one can say for sure. We still have lots of places to look in Iraq.
     
  16. Shadygrove

    Shadygrove New Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    So you are saying that two wrongs make a right? Or are you saying that we should behave as badly as the worst nations on the planet? I expect better from my country than that.

    You have admited that we have delibrately targeted civilians in the past, which was the theme of that post.

    BTW, I am a jew & a 1944 model. I am very happy we won "the big one", but it could have ben won much sooner if we had targeted the oil fields of Roumainia & Poland as soon as we had the Mustang instead of Berlin & Dresdin. Or used Chirchill's "soft underbelly" strategy which was designed to capture those oilfields. Every month extra that the European conflict went on, the Germans ran over 20,000 people through those creamotoriams, AND THE US HIGH COMAND DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT. We were after big symbolic things, such as bombing Berlin.
     
  17. TairNean

    TairNean New Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    I'm sorry.."We could be worse?" That just doesn't cut it. While it may be true, are we to accept that "we could be worse" and just turn a blind eye? That undermines nearly every reason this country was founded, and it's just plain ridiculous!

    America was founded on the ideal that there's a better life out there for anyone, not "ah well it could be worse."

    Does a football coach say "Ah well we could be worse"? No, he says this is what's wrong. Fix it. Improve. Don't make those mistakes again.

    Now we could be worse, but let's work on being better. That's more reasonable. And that harsh light of criticism is one tool to help acheive that end.
     
Our Host!