Menchise

quote:Yes darling, I know, but if I'm going to read propaganda it might as well be propaganda that I agree with.To only read one side is to be ignorant. quote:I'm not entirely sure I see the relevance here, it seams to me that the opinion of the populace being liberated is of secondary importance.If the opinion of the populace is that they're not being liberated, then it's far from secondary. That's the relevance. quote:So? America's roll is to look out for the interests of America's population, and if this means allying with a dictatorship, then I simply don't see a problem with that. Besides, there are only a dozen or so countries that political scientists consider true democracies (or maybe it's a half dozen, I forget), so it's not like we have a lot of options.If the US government's role is to look out for the interests of America's population, then it wouldn't hide so much of what it does from the population, especially when that information indicates significant danger to the population. You might say that they do that because "the people are morons" or some such lame excuse, but remember that government officials come from the population, and it's a basic requirement that representative governments are accountable to the people they represent. The US government doesn't mention to the people that it allies with oppressive regimes because that would raise the question of whether that's a cause of terrorism against American citizens. When Americans are killed as a result, the government spreads the claim that it's because the terrorists are "freedom-haters" or "religious extremists", omitting the fact that the US government contributes to a lack of freedom in the region. In the end, the American people become the human shields of the economic elite, who directly benefit from the oppression. quote:Ha, like the people have any self determination as far as the government goes anyway, that's rich darling.You said it yourself, the role of the government is to work in the interests of its people. A puppet government works in the interests of another government, often in a brutal manner against its own people. Guess what happens to the level of terrorism. Guess what the US government says about it. Guess whose interests are not being upheld. quote:Well, I see nothing wrong with benefiting the economic elite, just as I'm sure a lot of poor people have no problem with policies that benefit the poor.Nice copout. The problem is that by benefiting the economic elite in this way, the rest of the American population is put at risk. This truly indicates whose interests the US government really work for. quote:As for this American hooliganism (great word choice by the way) striking off more terrorism, I rather think that strong and decisive action against countries harboring terrorists (like Afghanistan) will reduce the terrorist problem rather then enhance it.The problem is that decisive military action has been counter-productive to reducing terrorism. Here is a quote from FAQ B2: "For example, when the Bush administration proclaimed war in Afghanistan as its prime approach to protecting Americans, anti-war critics argued that this approach would be of little value and might even drive more people to terrorism. And sure enough, the New York Times reported on June 16, 2002, based on conversations with senior government officials: "Classified investigations of the Qaeda threat now under way at the FBI and CIA have concluded that the war in Afghanistan failed to diminish the threat to the United States, the officials said. Instead, the war may have complicated counterterrorism efforts by dispersing potential attackers across a wider geographic area." Where careful police work can be effective against al Qaeda- type threats, as it has been in Germany, Spain, and elsewhere, bombing has had negligible positive benefit, as might be expected given that the terrorists did most of their planning not in Kabul or Kandahar but in Hamburg, Germany, and Paterson, New Jersey. "Far from being bizarre, therefore, the anti-war view was in fact similar to that of hardheaded mainstream realist international relations specialists. Thus Stephen Walt has noted "Military power is not necessary to wiping out Al Qaeda. It's a crude instrument, and it almost always has effects you can't anticipate. We're seeing that now. We didn't get Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. We're killing civilians. We're killing friendly forces. This is ultimately a battle for the hearts and minds of people around the world. When your village just got leveled by an American mistake, the conclusions you draw will be rather different from what we'd want them to be." (Quoted in Nicolas Lemann, New Yorker, 9/16/02.)" quote:And before I do something like assume you're advocating inaction, what do you suggest America does?Support the demand for weapons inspections rather than curtailing it; tighten the military sanctions, which includes keeping its own allied smugglers in check (e.g. Turkey); lift the economic sanctions; provide food, medicine, and arms where possible to popular resistance groups; provide international aid for rebuilding the country once Saddam is overthrown. quote:So remind me, will you, what exactly is wrong with imperialism?I'm not going to go off on a tangent here, except to say that U.S. imperialism has lead to the rise of anti-U.S. terrorism. Do you see anything wrong with that? quote:If given a strict choice between learning to speak Arabic or firing a couple of well-placed nukes to end it, guess which one I'm gonna choose? What you're not considering is the danger of not going to war to end needless bloodshed and international terrorism. If you're so hot in this 'anti-war' position, which of the warring countries do you want to be your Master? Inaction is a choice -- the choice to be ruled by others, not of your choosing.You've just proven my point about false dilemmas by repeating one yourself. This is what Bush's propaganda has done to people. quote:what we did in southern america and vietnam should not even be mentioned in the same breath as what the soviet union did during the cold war, or the other facts i have mentioned. our form of "imperialism" doesnt even hold a candle to what those other countries have done... we get the crap end of the stick because we're the biggest on the block, where there are other countries who wipe out entire civilizations before breakfast. spain happens to ring a bell as does central africa. there is no comparison period.Could I borrow your crayons for a minute? Thank you. The year is 2002. Soviet imperialism is gone, and Spanish imperialism is gone. U.S. imperialism is still around and it's horrendous. You can compare the relative effects of all three as much as you want, but it's still horrendous. I suggest you take a closer look at the effects of U.S. imperialism. A comprehensive book on the subject is 'Rogue State' by William H. Blum. quote:no one will forget american "imperialism" simply due to the fact that the left keeps beating the dead horse.It's not a dead horse, because it's still happening. You're the one who's been flogging a dead horse by bringing up the Spanish Empire. quote:its always what america does.It's this claim that FAQ A9 addresses. Maybe you should read it again. quote:everyone wants to hash on us, but the fact remains that they are too damn lazy to do research and actually look for facts supporting their claims... such as you and your author have done.It's an FAQ, Grayfox. If the authors had to quote every source, the document would be ten times its current size. Despite this, they do provide some evidence of the horrors of U.S. imperialism and clarify their arguments in light of it. FAQ B9, B10, B11, B16, C1, C13, C14, C15 quote:this pacifist crap is just too funny...You like to react, well, we're done reacting and being on the defensive because we might hurt your feelings. We are now on the offense and will remain there.FAQ A1 quote:But, if a nuke goes off in New York city, you will be one of the first ones screaming about how we didn't do anything. They killed 3000 of our citizens, Iraq helps and finances terrorism. If the Pali's or Al Quaeda get a nuke, they WILL use it. Where would they get that nuke? Iraq, that's where.FAQ C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9 [ 11-08-2002, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:first, i did read what you pointed me to, my point being (between yawns) there should be no argument or counter argument about the subject period. what those people have done is beyond the contention of someone who ,odds are, gets his information second hand. if you would just open your eyes a little you would be amazed at what you see. if you still dont understand this, then ill get out the big crayons.Grayfox, get your crayons and explain your issues with this section of the FAQ (this is the one I've been referring): "A9. Adam Shatz quotes Don Guttenplan saying that for a small but vocal section of American radicals, "there is only one imperialism, and if it isn't American it's not imperialism." Is this your view? "Not at all. During the Cold War, Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan was as much a reality as U.S. imperialism in Latin America or Vietnam. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States is far and away the world's most powerful nation and, therefore, its imperialism is far more dangerous than that of lesser powers. But lesser powers can still be imperialist and we condemn all these imperialisms: among them Iraq (in Iran and Kuwait), Israel (in Lebanon and the Occupied Palestinian Territories), Serbia (in Bosnia), Russia (in Chechnya), and China (in Tibet). Opposing U.S. imperialism doesn't mean one has to be blind to the imperialism of others. But war supporters ought to be careful that their opposition to Iraqi or Serbian imperialism doesn't lead them to ignore U.S. imperialism." quote:it is a waste of time, because it is quite obvious that the author wishes us to think he knows what he is talking about by spewing forth a ton (and i reiderate the word ton) of leftist trash that doesnt mean a thing... its like putting a puzzle together when you suddenly realize you have 4 puzzles in the same box. or trying to solve a rubix cube with half the stickers torn off...Circular argument: you claim it's a waste of time because the authors spewed forth leftist trash, and yet you provide no convincing argument for why it is trash, apart from your trashy claim that it's "quite obvious". What you said is no different from saying that the authors are writing trash because it's quite obvious that it's a waste of time. If everyone debated like this, the world would be a giant Monty Python sketch. In fact, you already stated that you didn't read most of the article because you believe it's a waste of time, hence you contradicted your own claim that the authors wrote trash. [ 11-08-2002, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Menchise, darling, there is no way I'm going to read through that FAQ; it's extremely long and rather bland.Then don't post about it. quote:It seams as if your primary argumentative strategy involves demanding that everyone spend an inordinate amount of time reading propaganda (and please, that is propaganda, don't bother trying to argue otherwise).Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Any medium that advocates a political allegiance is propaganda, whether it's true or not. Therefore, Bush's speeches are propaganda, and so is the FAQ. As people in political debate, we choose which propaganda to believe. To refuse to read leftist material because it's "propaganda" is to fail to recognize that right-wing material (and everything in between) is also propaganda. quote:Of course those aren't the only two options, but ultimately you either support Bush's plan, or you oppose it (perhaps in favor of another plan, perhaps not).The problem that anti-war people face all the time is the assumption from pro-war people that we're for inaction. It's annoying to say the least, especially when it's just one of a dozen other assumptions about the anti-war left. That's why the FAQ is so long: much of it is merely countering mainstream prejudice toward leftists. For example, no one questions whether a right-wing person cares about what happened on 9/11, but leftists are required to restate their sentiments over and over again or else they're regarded as uncaring scum. It's very insulting. quote:Darling, either we are suppose to be interventionists and try to change all of this nonsense, or we're not, make up your mind.Not. See FAQ sections B14 and C12. quote:What's wrong with either?"What's wrong with having allies?" Depends on who the ally is. To ally oneself with oppressive regimes is wrong because it legitimizes the oppression of the people there. Generally, if you're a corrupt and brutal dictator, you will have no worries about oppressing the people when a superpower is arming your soldiers (e.g. US support for Indonesia). "What's wrong with having puppets?" To make puppets out of regimes is to deny self-determination to the people there, hence they have no freedom to run their own affairs. Given these two situations, is there really any wonder why anti-Western terrorism exists? quote:And this is bad because why? The American governments responsible for the American people, it exists because of us and it exists for us. This means that the government should do what benefits us the most (speaking in the long term, of course).Even in the long term, an invasion of Iraq would benefit the economic elite, but the American people would be worse off, because the imposition of another puppet regime as an example of full-scale American hooliganism would precipitate more terrorism, and American civilians will be the targets. The US government will use the subsequent attacks to rationalize further deterioration of civil liberties, hence the American people become even worse off. [ 11-08-2002, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:the fact that there is a counter argument at all about so heinous a crime to humanity shows the ignorance of the author who pretends to know what hes talking about.If you had read what I referred you to, you wouldn't have written what you just wrote, because it was irrelevant. quote:the fact whether or not you respond to me is a trivial matter, my object is to show what a waste of time this little "faq" was, and if the author was a little more intelligible, he would have gotten a point across... maybe.Explain to me why it's a waste of time.

Grayfox, take a look at FAQ A9. Grayfox's rant was already covered in section A9 of the FAQ. The fact that he repeated the same assertions without responding to the FAQ's counter-argument indicates that he didn't read the article with much attention. From now on, I'm only responding to criticisms of the FAQ that actually address points made in the FAQ (like Dredd's post).

quote:THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's like saying we should not go after al Qaeda because we might irritate somebody and that would create a danger to Americans...Terry, listen, there's risk in all action we take. But the risk of inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. The inaction creates more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful...People need to think about what would happen if the United States had remained silent on this issue and just hoped for a change of his attitude, or maybe hoped that he would not invade somebody again, or just hoped that he wouldn't use gas on his own people when pressure at home began to mount.These and more quotes from the speech that Jaguar contributes to the debate are examples of one of the most common fallacies of critical thinking: the false dilemma. Bush is trying to spread the lie that people who oppose an invasion of Iraq believe in doing nothing. The false dilemma: support Bush's plan, or support inaction. It's illogical and misleading. quote:Popularity doesn't determine right/wrong.Of course not. If that were the case I would be agreeing with you, since I'm in the minority here. The point that's being made in the first two paragraphs of C17 is that American support for the war depends on the type of questions that are being asked. The Bush administration likes to use the former question rather than the latter, since the former is an effective fearmongering tool and the latter would illuminate the consequences of the action, which the Bush administration omits. The point that's being made in the last paragraph of C17 is that the British government is not representing the British people on this issue, which is contrary to its role as an elected representative government. No government, especially a government that claims to be representative, has any right to determine "right/wrong" when the people clearly object to their interpretation of it. quote:If you asked Americans if you think allowing oppressive regimes that torture and kill their people and give them no rights is something we should allow to happen if we can stop it, i'm guessing a vast majority would say NO, WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT.FAQ: A8, B13 quote:We liked Iraq when he wasn't a threat.You mean, when he wasn't a threat to Americans. The fact that the US government liked him when he was slaughtering human beings who happened to be Arabs says a lot about America's image as a "beacon of freedom". Many other governments are the same (I know that the Australian government is very similar), but like you said, popularity doesn't determine right/wrong. quote:The fact we used to like him, maybe even support him, is NOT an argument why we shouldn't STOP HIM NOW.FAQ: A2, A4 quote:What's wrong with nations being in our hip pocket?I think you need to clarify this question. I detect two possible interpretations here: 1. What's wrong with having allies? 2. What's wrong with having puppets? Which one are you suggesting? quote:At least then there isn't a danger of them doing things that are going to hurt us.Another false dilemma: support brutal dictatorships, or risk American lives. quote:Tax cuts for the rich just make it fair. Why should the rich be punished for their success? Besides, that's just typical democrat rhetoric, the tax cuts are equal for EVERYONE. If one group pays MORE taxes, they should naturally be saving MORE money from a tax cut. It's unjust to only give the cuts to SOME and not to all.C18 was not offering a case for why this is a bad thing, even though the authors clearly believe it is (and so do I, but this is a different debate altogether). The point that's being made here is that the Bush administration is using the 'war fever' to distract and/or discourage the American people from even discussing the effects of such policies, since it's clear that many Americans oppose it. Our particular opinions on whether it's bad or not are irrelevant to this issue. The relevant point is that the US government is supposed to represent the people, and it's trying to bypass its accountability to the people. quote:Oil? Globalization? I'm sorry, there is no alternative, and it makes no sense that a war on Iraq would HELP our "oil interests". It'd probably just flood the market, driving down demand and making companies lose money.No it wouldn't. First of all, Iraqi oil is already being exported through the Oil for Food Program, so the increase in supply would be relatively marginal. Secondly, an increase in supply does not reduce demand, and oil is always in demand, regardless of how much there is or where it comes from. Thirdly, American oil companies would gain tons of money from a US-led invasion because it would give them a bigger slice of the pie in an oligopoly. quote:I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.FAQ: A3 [ 11-08-2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Rather than merely spewing a blanket statement that the whole thing is "pacifist propaganda" (which I think you only claim to be so because it's leftist), why don't you try responding to the points that the article makes? I appreciate Dredd for being the only person so far who has done this, and I will respond in time.

America's Role Part 2 has gone off on so many tangents that I've decided to start a spin-off thread to clarify the debate. Obviously, the theme of this thread is an anti-war FAQ. It's long, but a good read.

quote:Socialism has taken a HUGE hit, and it is about time!!!The Democratic Party is not socialist. It's not even remotely left-wing either. It just appeals to a different sector of big business and projects a carrot over stick approach in its public image. It's actually quite similar to the major parties in Australia. Our Republican equivalent is the Liberal Party (the real definition of liberalism, not the American 'big government' stereotype), which is currently in power under John Howard. The Democratic equivalent is the ALP (Australian Labor Party). There are some differences in the way they run and stuff, but they essentially have the same political allegiances. Neither of these parties are left-wing. quote:Its great here in Australia...you don't have to be past you're sexual prime to be a major political member!!True, but depending on the side you're on, you have to be twice as dirty, even in the minor political arenas. I recently ran for and won a position in a university student election with a victorious left-wing group (one of two major groups in the election, the other was right-wing). All throughout the election period, the right-wing group's campaign consisted of incoherent vote-bribing policies, personal attacks, and manipulation of prejudices. While we were talking to and debating with students about our platform, the other side was forming wolf packs around students and herding them towards the voting booth, making sure that only their leaflets were within reach. This is a common occurrence among right-wing groups during university elections, because these elections are the proving grounds for future status in the major parties of Australian government. If they don't win at uni, their reputation within the Young Liberals or the Young ALP is tarnished, hence they will do anything to get the votes. [ 11-06-2002, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Game developers? What about the rest of the rank and file?I stand corrected.

I find Gerry Anderson's shows to be a mixed bag. Thunderbirds is way cool, but UFO sucks in my opinion (dull actors; boring plots; and over-recycled special effects that made Thunderbirds look like Star Wars). I admit that the tech was cool, and at least it wasn't as bad as Space 1999. I used to like them both, but I just got sick of them over time. [ 11-05-2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Who are you?Hehe. I think the purple hair was a giveaway, Ep5. quote:Yeah, we've even scared SC off. That proves it HAS to be bad.You think? quote:One thing about the limited supply of females here, we are never forgotten!Akuma's easier to remember because of her expressive cheerfulness rather than her gender. quote:I know the captions for these are happy and joyous, but I'm learning Java. No joy at all. Bloody annoying, and it's only gonna get worse.I feel your pain, mate. Last week I spent 20 hours in two days writing ASP in Javascript, and it didn't come close to the hell I went through to pass the first Java course at uni last year. It's so deceptively difficult, especially for a first language. I can't imagine what game developers must go through during a day.

This is my list of favourite theme music from games (at the moment, anyway): 1. Crusader: No Remorse 2. Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers 3. Wing Commander 4. Betrayal at Krondor 5. Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness 6. In Pursuit of Greed 7. Deus Ex 8. Castlevania 9. Dune II 10. Rise of the Triad

Commander Nick Menchise of the ICV Lion's Mane reporting. RRRRAARRR!!!

I'm surprised that there hasn't already been a topic on this in the forum. What's your favourite game music?

I'm still around, although I'm not posting as often as I used to.

quote:That's the way the world works, whether you choose to see it or not.That is a worthless argument, because the way the world operates is always subject to change. There was once a time when slave societies made the world go 'round. Did that justify or even rationalize them? quote:Might makes right? I think that in the case of the US, it is true. We do not use our might easily.There's a book you should read called 'Rogue State' by William Blum. It provides details of remarkable ease of using force by the USA. quote:Saaddam is involved up to his eyeballs in terrorism and Al Quaeda, the evidence is there, you just have to see them, and not ignore them because they are not what you want to see.I have not seen any evidence of this, and I have seen more compelling arguments for why Saddam and "Al Quaeda" would be enemies of each other. quote:If one of the terrorist cells that Saddam is supporting gets hold of a WMD from him, then all bets are off, we HAVE to stop him before that occorus. Might makes right in this case, we have the might, and we have the right to destroy him.Circular argument. There is no hard evidence that Saddam has WMD, and any such evidence would support the need for inspections, not a military invasion, which would put Saddam in a situation where he would actually use such weapons if he had them. quote:You may like to talk about your conmspiracies about oil, and how it is all about big business etc. BUT it is NOT!! Iraq, by taking down Saddam will bring the price of oil down to such a point where most of the oil companies are not going to make a lot of profit because oil will glut the market, and bring the price WAY down.A price drop would be temporary; this is about long term oil interests. If the US takes control of Iraq, it would give American oil companies a monopoly (or the big slice of an oligopoly) on the world's second largest oil reserves. Such a benefit clearly outweighs a temporary price drop. quote:This is another reason that Russia is so upset about us attacking Iraq, Russia cannot afford oil prices to drop to $19 a barrel, and niether can the oil companies. If it were all about oil, we would leave Saddam alone and make sure the sanctions stayed in place.Russia is opposing the invasion because the Russian oil companies would be excluded from operating in Iraq, or at least lose the influence they currently have. That's why the US government is trying to make deals with Russia and France to get their support in exchange for a piece of the pie.

quote:I don't see how might makes right can be viewed as a philosophy of lawlessness. Might makes right is the cornerstone of enforcing law in any nation... that's why there are millions of police officers in the United States, after all. They are the 'might' that enforces what the majority of people feel is 'right'.'Might makes right' argues that the usage of more powerful force is right simply because the force is more powerful. It's a circular argument, hence it's illogical. What makes the enforcement of morals right is the morality, not the force.

quote:No darling, but it nullifies your first point admirably.Read my first point again: The first reason why 'might makes right' is hypocritical: It's easy to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might. If that were not the case, the argument wouldn't be so appealing. In what way does your response indicate that it's hard to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might? Better yet, in what way does your response indicate that that's not hypocritical? quote:Such a group wouldnÔÇÖt stay small (at least if it didnÔÇÖt self destruct), but when I was referring to nations I was talking about each nation being an entity in a relatively small group of other nations (certainly of powerful nation).Can you be more specific? That sounds like the EU to me. quote:Of course not darling, I would never support a movement that supported lawlessness, that would be counter productive (after all, what advantage is there in being amoral when everyone is amoral). It is perfectly possible, however, to believe that might makes right while acting inside (or outside, but only very carefully) the law, but so long as law exists the kind of self destruction you are talking about.Catch-22. 'Might makes right' is contrary to moral law. You believe that 'might makes right' is possible within the boundaries of moral law, but one needs morals in order to make those laws. If everyone supports the concept of 'might makes right', then there would be no moral lawmakers to set those boundaries. The result is lawlessness and self-destruction. quote:I refuse to argue nomenclature with you Menchise. I was referring to Athenian democracy as being true democracy, but it doesnÔÇÖt matter, your method is an even better example, being even more infeasible in large groups while still being bad for minorities.Explain how it would be bad for minorities, or how it would be "more infeasible" in large groups. By the way, my name is not darling. It's Nick.

quote:And its even easier to say that might doesnÔÇÖt make right when you are on the side without might, itÔÇÖs called self interest.In both cases it's self interest, but that doesn't nullify the hypocrisy of the former. quote:Well darling, I agree that such a society would be rather chaotic, and could very well self destruct, but thatÔÇÖs why the principle isnÔÇÖt applied on a societal level. In a small group it works just fine though, or in this case between nations (for truly, the number of powerful nations is small).It's destructive on all levels. 'Might makes right' rationalizes any forceful action, including the most irrational, and dare I say the most amoral too. Small groups (and small nations) that use such tactics successfully don't stay small for long either. Soon they're running the whole society into the ground. That's one of the reasons why we have morals in the first place, to help determine the usage of might that upholds justice for all. You may not believe that it's possible to have justice for all, but that does not justify or even rationalize supporting an anti-social movement that guarantees justice for none. quote:A small group (or group of groups) can succeed in a true democracy, but it fails with larger numbers. I do not, however, hear you complaining about how democracy is ÔÇ£totally hypocriticalÔÇØ. Oh, and to make the democracy comparison for your first point, true democracy is only nice when you happen to agree with the majority, it can really suck for minorities of any sort. So by your logic democracy is totally hypocritical.No, it's not. Your definition of 'true' democracy is that everyone votes on every issue that is put forward, which is hypocritical because it's not really democratic. I follow a libertarian socialist definition, which is that everyone has decision-making power in proportion to the degree that they are affected by the issue put forward.

*sigh* Here I go again. The 'might makes right' argument is totally hypocritical for two reasons. 1. It's easy to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might. If that were not the case, the argument wouldn't be so appealing. 2. The argument is frequently used very selectively in an attempt to rationalize particular injustices, but is never applied by such advocates as a fundamental guiding principle, since it runs the risk of backfiring in their faces. If 'might makes right' became the core value of society, it would rationalize lawlessness and the rule of thugs along any line of interest or prejudice. The result would be a brutal and utterly destructive anti-society.

quote:That I did. With all the anti-american bull you spew thats the immpression I get when I read your posts.Nothing that I have written here criticizes the American people. I am criticizing the US government. Call it "anti-American bull" if you prefer, but don't expect me to take your name calling seriously. quote:Thats easy their leaders planned the attack in Afghanistan, lived in Afghanistan. The Taliban gave them support. Its only logical to go after the men that issued the orders. Making it harder or impossible for them to attack again. Thats self defence.It's self-defense when one uses reasonable means to go after the perpetrators. The US action was not reasonable. Recent history also demonstrates that it's not successful. quote:As far as the articles goes its amazing the garbage people can find on the net now days. As I said those people were starving when the taliban were in power and even if the allies had not invaded it was only going to get worse. because of drought and 20 year of civil war.That is the most lame dismissal of sources I have ever encountered. You provide no argument for why that article or its 37 citations could be questionable. You call it garbage for no reason other than its disagreement with your assertions. I've never been more disappointed in a debate. quote:Because he is dead. A billion pounds of rock laying on you from a cave colapse will do that to you.There is some speculation that he is dead, but no proof whatsoever. Another article for you to call "garbage". quote:Hehe. If you say so it must be true(sarcasm)I was responding to Dragon Lady's post, which gave me the impression of a 'might makes right' argument. quote:It appears the only person blind to the facts lives in Australia.I'm not the one who's calling the facts "garbage" just because I disagree with them. quote:Anyway I've said all I'm going to in this topic. Its pointless to debate with someone that see only what they want to see regardless of the truth.You took the words right out of my mouth. EDIT: I don't like to be insulting, but I also don't like to be dismissed as ignorant by nothing more than inflammatory assertions. I think I'll stay out of this thread from now on, since I'm clearly having some difficulty being civil at this time. Have fun, people (if you can). [ 10-06-2002, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Menchise, it's kind of hard for Israel to take the "moral high ground" and not use force when every day Israeli women, children, police, firefighters, civilians, and military are being indiscriminately slaughtered by Palestinians with C4 and nails.A better way would be to find the sources that provide the C4 or whatever it is that the terrorists use. Terrorizing the Palestinian families is pointless and cruel. quote:Boo Hoo for the Palestinians. Israel has done nothing that bothers them except EXIST.Take a closer look at the history of the country's formation and the treatment of Palestinians within Israel and the occupied territories.

quote:Shouldn't that instead read as... The US government, Cananda, Australia, Germany, Britian, and etc. etc. did the latter in there campaign blah blah blah. Of course not right. It was only the evil Americans.Point taken. I emphasize America (you called it 'evil', not me) because it lead the action, and because this thread is about America's role. quote:Who have no right to defend themselves. Sheeesh!How was the invasion of Afghanistan an act of self-defense? As far as I know, the four planes didn't come from Afghanistan. The operation was implemented within US borders, and the hijackers received some of their training domestically. An act of self-defense would be a criminal investigation into how these terrorists planned and implemented the operation under the noses of law enforcement agencies, and tracking down the domestic elements that made the attack possible. quote:Further more post one link to and article or news clip to back up the claim that millions of Afghans died of starvation from the elimination of the taliban.Done. quote:Yea, but it will give the next bastard who wants to use terror tactics on the US pause, not to mention the leaders of the country he is in.Terrorists only give pause if they're at risk of getting caught. Bin Laden escaped. What reason does he have for giving pause? quote:Let them try darling, it would be quite amusing.That's because the Haitian government is not the international thug that the US government is, but imagine if that wasn't the case. Would that justify Haiti bombing the USA? quote:Yea, but it works. There is something to be said for success.There is no indication that it works. Remember that it took a long time to prepare the 9/11 attack. What makes you think that the next big one is not being designed right now? Besides, there is also something to be said about mass murder. The blood of millions is on Bush's hands, and he should be held accountable for his crimes, along with the institutions that deliberately concealed this fact from the American people. If the people had known that the Red Cross and Christian Aid were warning about the millions of lives that would be jeopardized as a result of the bombing, it would not have commenced. Every mainstream media group had this information well in advance from the Associated Press, and deliberately chose not to report it.