Pictures that the media didn't want us to see. (Very Graphic)

Status
Not open for further replies.
if you have the power and ideology to police the world, then you should.

Me, I'm a fence sitter on interventions of this nature, seeing the good and bad of such actions.

I doubt it will be terrorism that destroys the west, as we have all the makings to tear it down from the inside. If 3-mile island had gone the way of Chernoyl, there'd be a huge wasteland where NYC is...and that McVey bastid seemed to lack compassion fer his American bros an sisters.

Keith
 
Ferrous- I dislike Ayn Rand. I do not wish to Police the World. I recognize that when things get sufficiently bad- a value judgement- the world must act, be that starvation, nuclear proliferation, whatever.

I would like nothing better than to stay in America and let the World go to hell. Unfortunately, they'd take us with them. It works both ways, of course; they think we're taking them with us in Iraq. History will be kinder to Bush than Europe is today. This terror thing is big, and going to become part of our children's children's lives.


munk
 
my point exactly. Who makes the value judgement? Who decides to eradicate the Talibaan, and not the Maoists? What are the criteria?

Terrorism has always been around, just look @ history. It is only because many people awoke from their dreams on 9/11 to the threat on US territory that people suddenly care abt it. I see terrorism being used to classify just abt anyone that the Gov't wants to target. Now all sorts of things are considered terrorism.

Here's a bomb scare example to show the 'sleepers' versus the 'awake', and how the same thing can be taken diff:

In the 80s, I attended Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN. When finals rolled around, there would always be bomb threats on campus buildings, probably by a student who didn't study and was hoping to get a reprieve/test reschedule. In most cases, the finals wouuld be rescheduled, but in at least one case I was involved in, the prof made us stay to take the test, as there would be no re-scheduling of the final. So people felt it commonplace to have such bomb threats, and it was not 'real' to them.

Post 9/11, the same thing is taken much more seriously, because folk were 'awakened' to the idea that there may be truth behind the threat. The threat is the same, and for the same reason as before, only the thinking of the folk have changed.


There are always (and have always been) wolves just outside the door, we just forgot about it because of our insular ways and Disneyland outlook thru rose-colored lenses. Any soldier can tell you that they found out how the other half lives and dies in a diff country, and how lucky we are to have what we have in the US. They have seen the cold hard truth of things, and we all had just a small taste of the same. The fear we felt that day is the fear of enlightenment, of the truth. The real world is harsh and unfair, a dangerous place.
 
Very kindly- Bull, Ferrous. It is not business as usual. That's France's postion. When was the last time a terrorist bombing took billions, perhaps trillions away from the world's economy? Next time won't be so easy, and it is exactly the undeveloped nations and the poor who will suffer the most- thousands of miles away from the epicenter.

as for the 'who make these value decisions?" That's the kind of meandering I used to do. Men act, Ferrous. We act badly, we act good, but we act. That is part of the impossible job of living.

I only know about three wise things, and I've just told you one of them.

munk
 
I think it is interesting that Clinton was one of the only presidents ever to go in to a country with the military (Bosnia and Somalia) where we didn't have some grudge or selfish interest, but just to try to stop the suffering of the common guy.

Almost every other war we have been in was due to greed, or pride, or business interests. Interesting that the president with some of the lowest personal morality used our armed forces for some of the highest moral purpose.

Always makes me laugh now. The same people who rushed to Bush the warmongers defense when weapons of mass destruction were not found by saying that it was still good because "Saddam slaughtered his own people" . are now advocating doing the same thing that Saddam did because they are rising up against us. I guess they are thinking two (or 3?) wrongs make a right? :confused:
 
The same people who rushed to Bush the warmongers defense when weapons of mass destruction were not found by saying that it was still good because "Saddam slaughtered his own people" . are now advocating doing the same thing that Saddam did because they are rising up against us. I guess they are thinking two (or 3?) wrongs make a right? >> Hollow

You're my friend, Hollow, but I don't know what to say to this. It sounds pretty crazy. Perhaps you meant that for those former bosses and thugs, who won't give up, we might now inflict suffering upon, in some ways indistinguishable from the suffereing they used to inflict upon others. There is a great difference, though.

And you might be mindful of the innocents swept up in a cause- those radical Shites who attack us and will suffer. There is no good answer for that, that is true.

munk
 
I think violence only breeds more violence. Blessed are the peacemakers. Turn the other cheek. Do not resist one who is evil. You know that old fashioned stuff Jesus said.
 
I don't see it that way, more like a Budhist paradox, for instance: armed citizens- less violence. Gun restrictions- more violence. We try and bring peace to Iraq- now we have a revolution of sorts on our hands. But this 'revolution', like that of Bosnia, was already there. All we did is take the cover off. I sincerely hope we allow Iraqi's to settle the argument amongst themselves.


munk
 
munk said:
I All we did is take the cover off. I sincerely hope we allow Iraqi's to settle the argument amongst themselves.
munk
Click to expand...

Like we did in Afghanistan when we helped Bin Laden and the Tailaban run the Soviets off which allowed the country to become a terrorist haven?


Or when they wanted to nationalize the oil in Iran and the CIA pulled a coup and put the Shah in power that resulted in an Islamic fundamentalist state that exsists to this day?

Or when Reagan sold arms to Iran while saying we wouldn't cooperate with terrorists?

Or when we sold arms and built Saddam up because we wanted to get back at Iran?

As far as I can see the only success we have had in the middle east was Jimmy Carter brokering a peace deal between Egypt and Israel and that didn't involve bombing anyone. Clinton came close with Barak and Arafat, but Arafat wasn't willing to compromise.
 
Those are all talking points of the far left. They have truth, but not the whole story. For instance, we backed Afganis to resist the Soviet take over. Does that make us responsible for a subsequent Terrorist State? Yes, we should have stayed- exactly what we are being criticised now for doing in Iraq. That's what life really is- damned if you do and damned if you don't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

take care,
munk
 
Uh, so it's all about money, then? I guess we are a nation of self-absorbed capitalists, and this thinking shows one of the inherent problems in the US today -- the "what's in it fer me?" syndrome.

The problem with defining terrorism over historic time is that it eventually gets lumped into the categoy of low-intensity conflict leading to a war or follwing one. Thus, the expansionist mongols, huns, visigoths, Kush, etc were looked at at first as terrorists...and later as conquerors.

So, what's on the horizon is what interests me...hopefully the end will ustfy the means.

Keith
 
Ferrous- you've quoted me out of context. Please go back and reread what I said. Yes, it's about money- and the fact that the poor of the world will suffer the most and first should the Western powers take an enormous hit.



munk
 
I don't think it's talking points of the far left. It's just history. We have never been able to bring about any peace in the mid east because we have never been doing it for moral reasons. We have always been in there over greed, or pride, or money. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a policy that we should have abandoned a long time ago.

I am going to sound like some sort of religious crack pot here (I am ;) but if Jesus taught anything, he taught that there was an extreme occult power in forgiveness and forbearance that is more powerful than any gun or bomb. Sometimes the best thing is to do nothing. :D
 
Hollow, I think you're a damned fine man, I just don't know if we can afford an absolute moralism. I'd rather go fishing with you than with a politician, though.

Our mistake was in not seeing the consequences of the rise of strident Islam in Royal controlled countries. If we'd encouraged the majority of moderate Islamics, we wouldn't now be fighting the crazies. But we did nothing to stop the flow of oil, as you say. And all of this is hindsight. There is nothing new in the status quo protecting it's day to day position. That does not make us unique or bad, just human.


munk
 
I don't philosophize about this subject because I end up wanting to take a thousand ( make that a hundred thousand ) rounds of 7.62x51 ball, pull the FMJ 147 grain, and replace it with 150 grain 30-30 bullets with bonded core, nosler, whatever, ultra-premium bullets driven at 400-450 fps above their design velocity. Ship a bunch of heavy barrel remington, winchester, browning, ruger, or savage bolt guns ( varminters ) in 308 Win with scopes to shoot them in. like I said somewhere else, now I understand why they make varmint guns in 308.

Well that's my gut feeling. But inappropriate on Uuncle Bill's forum.
 
What I can't figure is out is why, when these bad guys (the Iraqis) are all out dancing and cheering and shredding those bodies in the streets, why we can't have a half dozen helicopter gunships on standby.

I think three or four Cobras or Apaches cutting loose on those crowds with miniguns would clear those streets right rikki tik and also get rid of a whole bunch of bad characters at the same time.

At one time I was fully in support of our action if for no other reason than from the standpoint that Saddam was evil incarnate and that I thought the Iraqi people deserved better than that. I'm starting to think now I was wrong.

Maybe we oughta just let'em stew in their fouled up tribal, ethnic and religious warfare and set up whatever kinda government they want.

And if we don't like or they mess with us, then go back in, kill them again and then let them start over again. And if the next gov't they set up is hostile to us, then repeat it again, and keep repeating it until we get a gov't that has decided to not screw with the US or its allies.
 
Don Nelson said:
What I can't figure is out is why, when these bad guys (the Iraqis) are all out dancing and cheering and shredding those bodies in the streets, why we can't have a half dozen helicopter gunships on standby.

I think three or four Cobras or Apaches cutting loose on those crowds with miniguns would clear those streets right rikki tik and also get rid of a whole bunch of bad characters at the same time.

At one time I was fully in support of our action if for no other reason than from the standpoint that Saddam was evil incarnate and that I thought the Iraqi people deserved better than that. I'm starting to think now I was wrong.

Maybe we oughta just let'em stew in their fouled up tribal, ethnic and religious warfare and set up whatever kinda government they want.

And if we don't like or they mess with us, then go back in, kill them again and then let them start over again. And if the next gov't they set up is hostile to us, then repeat it again, and keep repeating it until we get a gov't that has decided to not screw with the US or its allies.
Click to expand...
While there's nothing I'd like more than our gunships going over to those crowds and laying down the law with some high rates of fire, letting them establish another hostile government only for us to go back over there to clear them out is going to be like starting this war over again. Once they gain some backbone and get a substantial army together we will lose more of our men just like we did during the beginning months of this war until we start clearing them out again. What we need to do is stop playing by our rules, and start playing by their's, none. As for what to do about their new government, I have no idea what will work, those are some of the most irrational "people" in this world.
 
The Arab press is so hostile and lying that using helicopter gunships on crowds is probably something most middle easterners already think we've done.


The Iranian Govt can't risk a democracy in Iraq; they have a democratic revolution afoot and are on the brink. That's why they're sending in fighters. At least Omar Khadafi is on our side now, eh? If we can do this thing- the rewards will be enormous for the people in the region and the rest of the world.


munk
 
powells85 said:
While there's nothing I'd like more than our gunships going over to those crowds and laying down the law with some high rates of fire....As for what to do about their new government, I have no idea what will work, those are some of the most irrational "people" in this world.
Click to expand...

I have no idea as to the events leading up to the killing of the 'security guards'. Whatever the justification or the perceived justification was for their deaths, after death mutilation cannot be justified.

However, as someone who is part of the "...most irrational 'people' in this world" surely you can understand that I just might take offence... I'm not sure why it is that you somehow feel that we are less than human but I can assure that we are human. As far as I was aware, the United States was not the only repository of humanity on this planet...

The ability to ignore the human needs of other people and conceptually relegate others to sub-human level is not necessarily limited to the United States. Unfortunately, this seems to be a rather basic human fault. What is limited to the United States, however, is capacity. The United States simply has a greater capacity to affect many more people in many more different places around the world at any one time.

This in itself is no cause for concern. After all, the vast majority of humanity have essentially the same hopes and aspirations. Freedom is not something that is the sole perogative of the United States. The promotion of such freedoms as guaranteed through the political and economic process, however, IS the result of the influence of the United States. Given that this concept of freedom is one that is generally shared by all, it is no surprise that many people in the world would look to the United States for inspiration.

The appeal of the institute of democracy lies in it's equality. That is, no one person is inherently superior within the social process. They are simply equal. (By the way, this IS the same message taught within Islam. Equality is not necessarily a Western construct, though it's modern political manifestation may be.) Unfortunately, for many from the US who comment on the Middle East, being a source of inspiration seems to have lead to arrogance and an abandonment of the ideals of equality.

If the people who decide upon foreign policy could just for once look upon others around the world bearing in mind the principles that they supposedly espouse, perhaps we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in today.


Sleiman Azizi


PS: I trust that this post was 'rational' enough for you...
 
Extremly rational, Sleiman.

People usually dehumanize another or a group before they do violence upon the same.

I didn't check to see if you were new to HI or not, but I'm pleased to meet you.



munk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top