Do you really feel that the US way is right?

[knowltok]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo


America has done it:
VIETNAM
KOREA
INDONESIA
LATIN AMERICA
THE 2nd WORLD WAR!!!! (or have you forgotten the bombing of Dresden etc, not that I say it wasn't deserved but the fact is it was done for the 'advance of social beliefs ' i.e.the destruction of the NAZI's!)
NORTHERN IRELAND (dissededents funded by Irish americans)


knowltok - sorry if I was a bit offensive in the last post, seems I kinda mislead you a bit, my original statement was that America itself has carried out/funded terrorist attacks so they should stop blabbering about a war on terrorism when it is in reality a war on their enemies.

America has done wrong in the past. There is no arguing that. In fact its rather a testament to openess that it can be read about and discussed. However, there are a couple of points I want to make.
1. There are other bad things in the world beside terrorism. Some are even worse. Don't mislabel certain actions as terrorism when a better label will fit. i.e. WWII The bombing of Dresden (or any other city for that matter) should not be labeled as terrorism. Call it the bombing of civilians during a war, call it wrong if you want (yes I know you didn't) but it is different than flying a plane full of civilians into a building. (if you want I can give a list of reasons)

2. Further explanation (given or needed)

Vietnam: A time of war. Not justifying, cause the whole conflict shouldn't have happened in the first place, and if you want to label some of the actions taken war crimes do so, but it doesn't fit the real definition of terrorism.

Korea: Give examples of what was terrorist as opposed to fighting a war. Keep in mind that the North invaded the South.

Indonesia: Not framilier with what we did wrong here. Please elaborate.

Latin America: This whole issue is rather unsavory. America often found itself choosing between the lesser of two evils. Often choosing incorrectly I might add. I suspect that much of the terrorism was done by those that the US supported. This doesn't make it right in any way, or excuse the US either, but America didn't go in with a deliberate policy of blowing up civilians either.

2nd World War: Touched on this above, but I don't think anything the US did in WWII can be labeled as terrorism. Atrocities are possible in war, but the civilian that makes tanks is not an innocent. Even if they aren't at the factory at the time. The destruction of the Nazi's was not a social belief. It was the destruction of an agressive enemy nation that had started a war.

Northern Ireland: Not a policy of the US government, and should be cracked down on just as hard as any other terrorist funding.


I will admit that what the US is saying right now can be seen as rhetoric. The question will come in the future months to see if the US continues the 'war on terrorism' or stops. Also keep in mind that the US has clarified that the war is on Terrorist organizations with international reach. This is important because what it means is that we aren't going to get involved in disputes like Spain's with the Basques unless they start blowing up things outside of Spain. (If they have, forgive me, you get my point, and hopefully we will help Spain go after them in that case).

Please don't take my post as a rah rah the US hasn't ever done anything wrong chant. It is not intended that way. My word of caution is to wait and see what the US does after Afganistan. My guess (and hope) is that we focus on Iraq. I know this will seem like we are still going after enemies, but I think Iraq might have something to do with terrorism in some way. Also keep in mind that the US may be helping quite a bit with terrorism in other places as we speak. We won't know about it until after the fact, and even then it is likely to be downplayed. Lets face it, help in Northern Ireland isn't going to be US marines keeping order. I'd say absolutely no-one whats something like that. Thus it will be quiter and more overshadowed.

 

[knowltok]

unload them from the heights without a personal fear that anybody on the other side can do more than hurl rocks at them.

If you don't like the war, or the politics, or whatever else that is fine, but don't complain that we are fighting unfair. I suppose that we should send in the marines with old outdated russian equipment and rocks so that it is 'fair'? You kill your whole arguement when you do this.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by SunTzu
i say hold military tribunals and execute the bastards! try John Walker and execute him for treason!
I'm not going to argue this because i believe this is what we should do

The problem with military tribunals lies twofold:
1) Foreign nations that arrest terrorists will be less likely to hand them over to us,
2) Us Americans, if arrested in foreign nations, would be more likely to receiove a partisan tribunal trial ourselves instead of a fair trial.

And anyway, it's a given that a US jury would approve the death penalty as a punishent for any terrorist. There is simply no need for a military tribunal.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Mega fast rushed reply, may be a bit scant, sorry

Ok..first of all those were all examples to respond to the line 'attacks against innocent civilians for the advance of social beliefs' to make that clear. Remember this is isn't a terrorist thread. So basically that was just a reponse to the statement that america never kils anyone to further it's interests. rmsharpe was saying that America has never attacked innocent civilians which is of course complete lies as those examples I gave show.

Umm..Indonesia and Vietnam and Latin America they supported dictatorship to oppose communism and this relates to how they propose to crack down on terrorist assets and those that fund terrorists, the fact that they say 'It is wrong to fund our enemies and assist them to kill our civilians' yet they have funded governments to kill civilians. If it a terrorist act for an group already at war with America to kill American civilians then I consider it a terrorist act to fund a government to help it kill communists. note: killing civilians is always wrong, no matter who does it

Therefore I do beleive America has commited/funded terrorist acts and these have affected civilians, fact is every country hasn't done it and I get fed up with American right-wingers trying to make their country out as an 'shining example to all' when it has just as much blood on it's hands as everyone else.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo


I mean no personal offence here BUT THAT IS THE BIGGEST LIE I HAVE EVER EVER EVER HEARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

America has done it:
VIETNAM
KOREA
INDONESIA
LATIN AMERICA
THE 2nd WORLD WAR!!!! (or have you forgotten the bombing of Dresden etc, not that I say it wasn't deserved but the fact is it was done for the 'advance of social beliefs ' i.e.the destruction of the NAZI's!)
NORTHERN IRELAND (dissededents funded by Irish americans)

It is carried out against military targets:
BOLIVIA (aasination of che gueverra in a CIA funded and trained operation)
PALESTIAN SUCIDE ATTACKS AGAINST ISREALI MILITARY POSTS!!!!(all the bloody time)
AL - QUEDIA FLYING A PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON!!!!!(no need to state when)

knowltok - sorry if I was a bit offensive in the last post, seems I kinda mislead you a bit, my original statement was that America itself has carried out/funded terrorist attacks so they should stop blabbering about a war on terrorism when it is in reality a war on their enemies.

Sounds like another America-hating campaign taken out by some of our resident communists.

Maybe you should take a lesson from another of your heroes, good old "Uncle Joe" Stalin. How many people died of famine because of him? 20,000,000.

How about Mao Zedong's China? 65,000,000...

By the way, John Lennon, donated $100,000 to the Irish Republican Army.

 

[ComradeDavo]

get this: I'm not a Bolshevik......I don't support dictatorships. And I dislike the chinese version of communism just as much as I dislike the American version of capatilism.

 

[amadeus]

Regardless, your anti-Americanism is disgusting, accusing us of horrendus acts of violence on innocent civilians for the advance of an ideology.

 

[animepornstar]

Indonesia: Not framilier with what we did wrong here. Please elaborate.

usa supported (i don´t know if they still do) a regime that can be compared to the talibans with money and weapons.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by animepornstar


usa supported (i don´t know if they still do) a regime that can be compared to the talibans with money and weapons.

Animepornstar, I presume you and ComradeDavo are referring to the American support for the Suharto regime. Suharto was a Indonesian Army General who came to power after toppling President Sukarno (Megawati Sukarno-Putri, the current President is his daughter) in what was considered to be an anti-communist coup at the height of the Cold War.

What support Suharto received from the Americans to carry out the coup is disputable, what is not disputable is that the US and (I regret to say) Australia very much supported Suharto's corrupt and brutal regime in the years following the coup.

All sorts of arguments can be made justifying support for Suharto during the Cold War years, given the titanic struggle between The West and the Communist powers (something todays lefties fail to appreciate), however the failure of the US and Australia to either topple Suharto or pressure him into less corrupt and brutal rule after the end of the Cold War is a matter of lasting shame.

In particular the US and Australia's green light to Suharto to undertake the invasion and occupation of East Timor in 1975, and the blind eye that was turned to the continuing human rights abuses there was appalling.

However, to suggest that the US/Western action against terrorism in Afghanistan equates to state 'terrorism' because of support for Suharto and similar regimes during the Cold War years is absurd and a simplistic approach to politics, history and international relations.

It is a shame that both sides of this argument insist on being guided by their nationalistic and/or political prejudices into positions of black and white rather than an examination of fact and the shades of grey that go with it.

Edit: spelling and grammar.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Knowltok, it isnt anti-Americanism to point out what we have done wrong.
No, I dont think the US should go in with marines in Russian tanks or whatever, I dont think we should go in at all. What I am saying is that the guys who did the September 11 bombing all died on September 11. Now, if you think other people funded them, etc., you can work on finding those people. Or you can mobilize your entire army to rain bombs on the most backwards country in the world, a country that is backwards because you helped make it that way in the first place.

The first option, patient justice, might take a long time, and in the meantime, the terrorists (new terrorists, since the last ones all killed themselves) might strike again. But if you are truly doing all you can to make the world a better place and not just eating supersize meals and propping up dictators to secure your Nigerian oil, the terrorists are just going to look uglier and uglier.

The second option, Fascist overkill, is quicker but will not necessarily yield up the terrorists, will alienate most people over time, and will prove to anyone who doesnt have it as good as we do that the US is actually a BIG BAD BULLY state, just like Osama says. We are willing to kill lots of innocents just to - to what? Prove a point? Wipe out a hidden network with bases in many countries? Ensure future investment in new bullets? What?

And I dont think Comrade Davo is being anti-American. It is the BEST part of America to be able to look at things rationally and wisely, to expose the truth to the light of reason, to admit when the government or even the masses are wrong about a thing. I love and respect you for arguing about this, but you will never change my mind: DEATH plus DEATH equals DEATH, and our depleted uranium coated munitions have planted the next generation of terrorists in the middle east, just as the weapons and training WE gave them to beat the USSR helped bring the current crop to fruition.

I want a world where nobody feels like killing anybody. Not for capitalist pursuit of riches (it does happen, every day, even in America itself), not for religious pursuit of "Jihad" or "Crusade", or whatever the Hindus and Hebrews call their particular versions, and not because they are simply hungry or drug addicted and in need of relief.

 

[knowltok]

Knowltok, it isnt anti-Americanism to point out what we have done wrong.

Okay, in reviewing my posts, I don't find where I accused anyone of anti-americanism. Don't confuse me with other posters who may have said such things. I will restate that if you don't think we should be there that is fine, your right, and I respect your right to have that opinion, no matter how wrong I might think you are. My point was, don't complain that when we go in we go in with superior forces. Given that we are going to be there, overwhelming the enemy will lead to less deaths and recriminations than a long drawn out campaign. Given that we are there, too damn bad they only have rocks left to throw at us. Given that we are there, that is a good thing.

just as the weapons and training WE gave them to beat the USSR helped bring the current crop to fruition.

The other option being to try and convince the Soviets of the wrongness of their actions and diplomatically get them to release their grip on a new territory. Ask the Hungarians about how reasonable the Soviet Union was.
If you want to say that we should have stayed around to support a strong stabilizing government that promoted human rights and democratic elections (Like we could have found one) that's fine, but it sounds like what you are saying is that we should have just let the Soviets conquer Afganistan. I guess in hindsight that may have been for the best. I know that the beaches of Normandy would have less American Blood on them had we just minded our own business.

On Indonesia. The reason I asked is because it was in a list where all the others had had US troops commited at one time or another. As far as I knew, WWII was the only time US troops were in that area. Thank you for the clarification. I'll go along with Mr. Capp's analysis.

I get fed up with American right-wingers trying to make their country out as an 'shining example to all'

As do I. However, I don't think that past mistakes indiscretions, or even outright crimes should keep a nation from doing what it feels is right to protect itself. O.B. Ladin orchistrated a massive attack on the US. His base was in Afganistan and the current, largely unrecognized, regime was supporting him. I don't know if you've seen the tapes yet, but they look pretty convincing to me. Al Jazeera (Or whatever they are called) has already denounced them as fakes and if you choose, you can too. The point is that these people are guilty and need justice. Keep in mind that it is Revenge that is best served cold, not justice.

I believe the true test and lasting impression will come not from our prosecution of the war, but in how we support the peace. The destruction visited on Germany and Japan in WWII was a 1000 times that which the Afganis have suffered, yet there are no German or Japanese terrorist groups trying to blow up people or buildings in the US.

Something to keep in mind: You believe the US has been hipocritical. So Does Bin Laden. I don't think you are terrorists because of it. Please don't assume that I am a right-wing extremist just because I support our current actions in Afganistan.

 

[ComradeDavo]

'Something to keep in mind: You believe the US has been hipocritical. So Does Bin Laden. I don't think you are terrorists because of it. Please don't assume that I am a right-wing extremist just because I support our current actions in Afganistan.'

Don't worry, I don't

Sultan Bhargashabo - you sum things up well

Now to Indonesia, well their has much talk of an attack on IRAQ (meaning an great escalation of the current sporadic bombing) because it is believed they may have helped organise/fund the mission, well I do not see how that differs from American actions in Indonesia (they funded and helped organised killing of communist civilians and are now accusing IRAQ of funding and killing American civilians).

Regardless, your anti-Americanism is disgusting, accusing us of horrendus acts of violence on innocent civilians for the advance of an ideology.

rmsharpe -
Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't you just accuse Communists of horrendus acts of violence against innocent civilians for the advance of an ideology????????
And seeing how these accusations against America are true.........
I can admit that my country has coomited atrocities yet you cannot admit yours has. I merly wonder why this is?
And I find your right-wing veiws disgusting yet I at least try and see why you have them.....I understand the reasons why people think consertavive in nature I just disagree with it.
And what's so wrong with anti-Americanism???? I sense the double standards system again, it's ok for you to hate and insult everyone/anyone else (such as the USSR and Cuba) yet as soon as they make statements questioning your country it becomes disgusting and is automatically branded as lies.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

PS - Apologies Knowltok. It was RMSharpe who used the term Anti American.

Just out of curiousity, how old are the participants in this forum? I am 31. I am only wondering if left/right wingedness has any correlation to age...

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

I am 19, will be 20 in four months (WHOOHOO!)

I am not against our military action in Afghanistan. While I feel it is sad that the nations of the world, with all of the advances we have made in technology, equality, and so on, still fight amongst ourselves, I feel that the appropriate action in this case, at this time, is a militaristic one.

What I DO have a problem with is the Bush Administration, especially Bush and Ashcroft, taking advantage of this wave of patriotism by jamming through their political agendas with little to no dissertion for fear of seeming "anti-American." There is nothing more anti-American than excessive government interference in our lives, limited civil liberties, military tribunals, profiling, and secret government actions unchecked by Congress and unbeknownst to the public.

I am American and I love my country to death. I just wish I could say the same about our government.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Just out of curiousity, how old are the participants in this forum? I am 31. I am only wondering if left/right wingedness has any correlation to age...

I'm 16 and obviously communist in my believe

 

[andycapp]

ComradeDavo, I see the point you are trying to make regarding Indonesia and the comparison with current events however the context and circumstances were different.

That is not to say I approve of US/Western interference in countries such as Indonesia during the Cold War, I do not. However, I do understand the motivation (whether it was wrong or right), which must be seen in the context of the Cold War and what was literally a life and death struggle between the (mostly) democratic West and the totalitarian Communist Bloc (read, mainly Soviet empire).

The democracies of the Western world are far from perfect but they are the best form of government that has yet been developed and are worth fighting to preserve against totalitarian forces including religious extremism.

As regards my age, let's just say I've been around long enough to have lived through some of the world events we've been discussing.

 

[joespaniel]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
PS - Apologies Knowltok. It was RMSharpe who used the term Anti American.

Just out of curiousity, how old are the participants in this forum? I am 31. I am only wondering if left/right wingedness has any correlation to age...

I would wager polictical leanings has about as much correlation to age as history-revisionism.



Check my profile if your that interested.

 

[allan]

Yep. I'm 33 and a libertarian, and I know people of my age group that are hard-core fundy conservatives, Greens, and every shade in between....

Same with other age groups. My maternal grandfather is a liberal democrat, and although I disagree with him on a lot of things he has FAR more years under his belt than I, and I treat his opinions with respect because of that.... Many other people his age are conservative, or libertarian like me too. Nader's getting "up there" in years too....

Age I think can be more indicative of the QUALITY OF SUBSTANCE in an argument (with MANY exceptions, however!), rather than one's core beliefs and views themselves.... An older person generally has had more time to test his views with real-life experience, and refine them (or even totally revolutionize them) as he sees necessary.

 

[knowltok]

Accepted Sultan. We're cool.

28 years young.

On Indonesia I will once again second Mr. Capp.

On Iraq: The US policy with Iraq has been crocked since we didn't drive on to Bagdad and haul his ass before a world tribunal. I am as against these sporadic bombings as anyone on this board, but for different reasons I suspect. I am against them because they are not clear policy or decisive action, they are mearly a containment bred out of fear of recriminations and world opinion. In short, it appears that we think Iraq should be stopped from doing what it wants, but are afraid to really solve the problem. We need to resolve the situation in Iraq in a permanent manner one way or the other. I figure (No one in the public has any real proof) that Saddam has aided / funded terrorists, including Al Queda. Even if this is not the case he invaded another country for conquest, defied formal world opinion in the form of UN resolutions, and fired inaccurate missles at Israel just to try and widen the conflict. For all of the above I'd say he needs removed and brought to trial (Or simply shot, if that proves easier). His crimes are known to the world and should not go unpunished.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I would be pleased to see Saddam removed from power in Iraq, it's just that if the USA does launch a campaign against him presently it could provide a catylist for a wider middle eastern conflict, as I expect Iraq would use it as an excuse for an invasion of Isreal(or at least a bombing campaign similar to taht of the scud attacks during the Gulf war, and with the situation as it is the chances are Isreal would get violent!!). I was merly pointing out American hypocrasy on the matter, the same old 'we can do it but they can't' attidude.