Do you really feel that the US way is right?
- Thread starter scorch
- Start date
- Status
SunTzu, please keep the discussion civil. As a CFC Staff member I would expect you to show high standards. Please do not bring this trash into my Forum.
(All respects to Alcibiaties of Athenae and CornMaster, whom are also moderators)
(All respects to Alcibiaties of Athenae and CornMaster, whom are also moderators)
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
I was keeping quiet but after reading this, I must speak!
Comrade, we have had our debates in the past,
but I must say you are most definatley wrong here!
"most" British "citizens" are all for destroying terrorists,
but to say we dream of attacking florida is utter childish junk.
Maybe the people you hang around with have these views,
but I can say from my experience (I live in the real world) Is
that most sane women nad men in UK see the attacks as a
horrible atrocity of our times.
And the subsquent war is bad and a terrible precedent is being
set for the future, but We understand why it is being fought.
Comrade, Do your rebel politics have an answer for dealing
with a raging lunatic like Osama Bin-Laden?
I don't think you do.
Now Davo I want to stay friendly,
but I have to say most people in Britian know what it means to
face terror, We back the war against the women and child-killing Al-Queda.
We also Know USA isn't by any means perfect, but I disagree
with the tired "US want oil" crap. You are looking for negative aspects, that aren't really there...
America is not going to stick around in Afghan soil once the new peoples administration is set up. The peaceniks have been proven wrong at every turn in this conflict.
Comrade you should get out and meet more real people, instead of crazy anarchist-punks.
Don't draw conclusions without real info!
Only those in Afghanistan know what is REALLY happening,
We are just spectators...
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Bravo, Curt and Andy, that fairly much expresses my position.
I get very tired of the hackneyed conspiracy theories being peddalled, about oil pipe lines, CIA complicity, and secret role of oil cartels and the Bush family.
If we simply take Occam's razor to these explanations, we find they are built on unnecessary grounds. The simplest explanation is the correct one: this is a necessary and righteous war, and will be won by the side of right.
I get very tired of the hackneyed conspiracy theories being peddalled, about oil pipe lines, CIA complicity, and secret role of oil cartels and the Bush family.
If we simply take Occam's razor to these explanations, we find they are built on unnecessary grounds. The simplest explanation is the correct one: this is a necessary and righteous war, and will be won by the side of right.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
The 'storming the beaches of florida' was reference to a contervialsial articel in the British paper 'The Mirror' a few weeks ago by the well respected ex-war corospdant John Pilger, saying this cannot be a true war on terrorism when AMERICANS continue to fund Irish dissadents, assisting/financing them to BLOW UP INNOCENT British CIVILIANS and how the American government shelters people of which various other countries consider terrorists.
The reason I said that about the war on Islam is that towards trhe start of the conflict Tont Blair obssesed with making it well known that it wasn't a war on Islam.
Simon Darkshade- I didn't start the bloody thread
'Comrade you should get out and meet more real people, instead of crazy anarchist-punks'
well seeing how I don't know any fething so called anarchist punks I think you should rethink that (not meaning to insult you but I really didn't like that statement
)
'Maybe the people you hang around with have these views,
but I can say from my experience (I live in the real world) Is
that most sane women nad men in UK see the attacks as a
horrible atrocity of our times. '
Well down here in England we are considered IRA targets so i'll let you think about that one...and what is this persuption that I'm some sort of anarchist groupie, I ain't even gonna bother with dismissing that.
'Comrade, Do your rebel politics have an answer for dealing
with a raging lunatic like Osama Bin-Laden?'
YEAH, it's called the Hauge. 'rebel politics' - WTH!!! it's called socialism and it's all about being nice to people and not blowing them up in the name of making a profit.
Now as for this women and childre stuff, America has known about the Taliban since 1996 yet they only took action when there people are hurt by it. I hate the Taliban as much as everyone but I dislike these double standards which say American lives are more important than Afghan ones
Look: we 'left wingers' hate the Taliban it's just that we disagree with the way the war is being conducted and question why september 11th happened. We can and do provide alternative action and we do want to see Bin laden brought to justice, it's just we are not willing to see slaughters such as what happened at Mazar-e-shariff to bring this about.
Now i've suggested my alternative and, fair-do's you may disagree with it, now I would like to see yours.
The reason I said that about the war on Islam is that towards trhe start of the conflict Tont Blair obssesed with making it well known that it wasn't a war on Islam.
Simon Darkshade- I didn't start the bloody thread
'Comrade you should get out and meet more real people, instead of crazy anarchist-punks'
well seeing how I don't know any fething so called anarchist punks I think you should rethink that (not meaning to insult you but I really didn't like that statement
) 'Maybe the people you hang around with have these views,
but I can say from my experience (I live in the real world) Is
that most sane women nad men in UK see the attacks as a
horrible atrocity of our times. '
Well down here in England we are considered IRA targets so i'll let you think about that one...and what is this persuption that I'm some sort of anarchist groupie, I ain't even gonna bother with dismissing that.
'Comrade, Do your rebel politics have an answer for dealing
with a raging lunatic like Osama Bin-Laden?'
YEAH, it's called the Hauge. 'rebel politics' - WTH!!! it's called socialism and it's all about being nice to people and not blowing them up in the name of making a profit.
Now as for this women and childre stuff, America has known about the Taliban since 1996 yet they only took action when there people are hurt by it. I hate the Taliban as much as everyone but I dislike these double standards which say American lives are more important than Afghan ones
Look: we 'left wingers' hate the Taliban it's just that we disagree with the way the war is being conducted and question why september 11th happened. We can and do provide alternative action and we do want to see Bin laden brought to justice, it's just we are not willing to see slaughters such as what happened at Mazar-e-shariff to bring this about.
Now i've suggested my alternative and, fair-do's you may disagree with it, now I would like to see yours.
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
ComradeDavo,
I would advise extreme caution when quoting John Pilger, he has a penchant for the sensational and outrageous and doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
There was a time when Mr Pilger thought that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were doing a great job running Cambodia.
Not one of the better horses Pilger has backed!
In an ideal world all terrorists and murderous dictators would be brought before an international court, tried and sentenced in accordance with international law.
In the real world there are a number of problems with this approach, not least the practical aspect of how you go about catching Bin Laden when he is given sanctuary and support by the Taliban who have clearly stated they have no intention of handing him over to anyone.
It takes great imagination to envisage UN law enforcers presenting a warrant for the arrest of Mr Bin Laden to the Taliban and then cuffing the suspect after reading him his rights.
How long did it take to bring the Lockerbie bombers to trial? Does anyone believe that the person/people who were ultimately responsible were the ones in the dock?
So whilst the world futilely waits (years-never?) for a combination of sanctions, diplomacy and law enforcement to bring Bin Laden to justice don't you think there's a strong possibility that Bin Laden and his murderous thugs would be actively trying to improve on the body count from September 11?
In answer to your question ComradeDavo, as much as I abhor war, I don't see any viable alternative to the approach that is being taken by the US and her Allies.
As I indicated in my previous post the US and her Allies must be careful not to adopt a hypocritical stance on what constitutes 'terror'. However, that does not make the current action in Afghanistan wrong.
ComradeDavo I was wondering what you thought of the articles by Salman Rushdie and Anwar Ibrahim? They make it clear that whilst this war isn't directed against Islam in toto, it is very much about Islam - your thoughts?
I would advise extreme caution when quoting John Pilger, he has a penchant for the sensational and outrageous and doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
There was a time when Mr Pilger thought that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were doing a great job running Cambodia.
Not one of the better horses Pilger has backed!In an ideal world all terrorists and murderous dictators would be brought before an international court, tried and sentenced in accordance with international law.
In the real world there are a number of problems with this approach, not least the practical aspect of how you go about catching Bin Laden when he is given sanctuary and support by the Taliban who have clearly stated they have no intention of handing him over to anyone.
It takes great imagination to envisage UN law enforcers presenting a warrant for the arrest of Mr Bin Laden to the Taliban and then cuffing the suspect after reading him his rights.
How long did it take to bring the Lockerbie bombers to trial? Does anyone believe that the person/people who were ultimately responsible were the ones in the dock?
So whilst the world futilely waits (years-never?) for a combination of sanctions, diplomacy and law enforcement to bring Bin Laden to justice don't you think there's a strong possibility that Bin Laden and his murderous thugs would be actively trying to improve on the body count from September 11?
In answer to your question ComradeDavo, as much as I abhor war, I don't see any viable alternative to the approach that is being taken by the US and her Allies.
As I indicated in my previous post the US and her Allies must be careful not to adopt a hypocritical stance on what constitutes 'terror'. However, that does not make the current action in Afghanistan wrong.
ComradeDavo I was wondering what you thought of the articles by Salman Rushdie and Anwar Ibrahim? They make it clear that whilst this war isn't directed against Islam in toto, it is very much about Islam - your thoughts?
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
THE HAUGE? What in the hell are you talking about?
These terrorists attacked THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not Belgium or France or North Korea, they attacked US, not you.
The United States, a soverign nation, is doing what it believes is right -- irregardless of meddling by the United Nations or other anti-American fronts.
We're going to kill Osama bin Laden, whether you like it or not, and we've got every damned right to.
walbers
Chieftain
<<<pretty soon labour unions would start to take hold. and THEN where would they be? Who would make their $100 running shoes for $0.05 an hour? maybe instead of costing them $30 per shoe it would start to cost them $35 per shoe? Just imagine all the money they would lose. >>>>
these people don't make 5 cents an hour...and while they're not making $10 an hour, their standard of living is several times better than the common, agriculturally oriented, peasant of their country who is not employed in contract manufacturing.
these people willingly work in these factories because they know this is the way to raise their standard of living, their educational oppurtunities and the way to improve the lives of their children. Most work at a factory for a couple of years, save up a lot of money then go back home and move into business on their own. There are hundreds of potential workers lined up outside factory complexes waiting for a job. this economic model is what has dragged Japan, Korea, Thailand and Taiwan out of economic depths and helped to create robust economies, open societies and higher standards of living and education for all their citizens. It's doing the same for China, Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries.
I've lived over there, and worked for American corporations (footwear) doing contract manufacturing in Asia. I've spent 10 years working next to these people in factories. American companies don't own the factories over there, they subcontract. And while the factory workers aren't their employees per se, many American corporations are very proactive at improving workers rights, benefits and working conditions. Many factories over there do have organized worker groups who monitor conditions and campaign for improved benefits.
To say these people are exploited is a pretty broad statement. They get paid a fair (by their country's standard of living) for doing a job they willingly want to hold. It's a job, I might add, that you couldn't find many Americans willing to do for $20 or $30 an hour which is one reason footwear manufacturing is done overseas. I'd ask what brand of shoes you wear? Chances are they were made overseas. Would you be willing to pay 3 or 4 times what you paid for them? That's what they would cost if they were made here and trust me, no one is going to pay through the nose for sport shoes. Also, just so you know....if it takes $20 for a pair of shoes to be landed in the USA (cost of goods, plus up to 20% duty and shipping) then that shoe will be sold to a retailer for $35-40, sometimes less. The retailer turns around and puts in on the store shelf for $70-80. All that turnaround supports a significant number of employees: at the factory, transportation services, raw materials vendors, the brand, retailers.....it's what makes the world go round my friend.
Why would you want to put these companies out of business? do you have any idea how many people are supported around the world through global manufacturing and commerce? Have you ever been to China? You wouldn't believe how much that country has changed in just 10 years and it has everything to do with globalization of their economy, much of it through the influence of American business.
regards, will
these people don't make 5 cents an hour...and while they're not making $10 an hour, their standard of living is several times better than the common, agriculturally oriented, peasant of their country who is not employed in contract manufacturing.
these people willingly work in these factories because they know this is the way to raise their standard of living, their educational oppurtunities and the way to improve the lives of their children. Most work at a factory for a couple of years, save up a lot of money then go back home and move into business on their own. There are hundreds of potential workers lined up outside factory complexes waiting for a job. this economic model is what has dragged Japan, Korea, Thailand and Taiwan out of economic depths and helped to create robust economies, open societies and higher standards of living and education for all their citizens. It's doing the same for China, Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries.
I've lived over there, and worked for American corporations (footwear) doing contract manufacturing in Asia. I've spent 10 years working next to these people in factories. American companies don't own the factories over there, they subcontract. And while the factory workers aren't their employees per se, many American corporations are very proactive at improving workers rights, benefits and working conditions. Many factories over there do have organized worker groups who monitor conditions and campaign for improved benefits.
To say these people are exploited is a pretty broad statement. They get paid a fair (by their country's standard of living) for doing a job they willingly want to hold. It's a job, I might add, that you couldn't find many Americans willing to do for $20 or $30 an hour which is one reason footwear manufacturing is done overseas. I'd ask what brand of shoes you wear? Chances are they were made overseas. Would you be willing to pay 3 or 4 times what you paid for them? That's what they would cost if they were made here and trust me, no one is going to pay through the nose for sport shoes. Also, just so you know....if it takes $20 for a pair of shoes to be landed in the USA (cost of goods, plus up to 20% duty and shipping) then that shoe will be sold to a retailer for $35-40, sometimes less. The retailer turns around and puts in on the store shelf for $70-80. All that turnaround supports a significant number of employees: at the factory, transportation services, raw materials vendors, the brand, retailers.....it's what makes the world go round my friend.
Why would you want to put these companies out of business? do you have any idea how many people are supported around the world through global manufacturing and commerce? Have you ever been to China? You wouldn't believe how much that country has changed in just 10 years and it has everything to do with globalization of their economy, much of it through the influence of American business.
regards, will
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
''THE HAUGE? What in the hell are you talking about?
These terrorists attacked THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not Belgium or France or North Korea, they attacked US, not you.
The United States, a soverign nation, is doing what it believes is right -- irregardless of meddling by the United Nations or other anti-American fronts.
We're going to kill Osama bin Laden, whether you like it or not, and we've got every damned right to.''
um.........YAWN international coalition, attack was on all free people of this world bla bla bla.
andycapp: I must admitt I haven't looked a great deal at what has been said on Islam issue, just standard paper talkso thanks for the links
Salman Rushdie - I like the 1st two paragrahps, makes a good point about the demonstrations and I do agree with that. He does ask some questions that need serious thinking about and I can see where he is coming from when he speaks of being reminded about socialists trying to differ themselves from the Soviets.
I do also agree with much of what Anwar Ibrahim has to say, gotta have an open mind ya know
I'll have to agree with you there then
As for John Pilger, well that article **davo now scrambles around on the mirror site trying to find it**AH HAH! here it is:http://mirror.icnetwork.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11392430&method=full
did have some good points which need addressing (you should find the florida bit there too, everbody please note it is meterophrical).
These terrorists attacked THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not Belgium or France or North Korea, they attacked US, not you.
The United States, a soverign nation, is doing what it believes is right -- irregardless of meddling by the United Nations or other anti-American fronts.
We're going to kill Osama bin Laden, whether you like it or not, and we've got every damned right to.''
um.........YAWN international coalition, attack was on all free people of this world bla bla bla.
andycapp: I must admitt I haven't looked a great deal at what has been said on Islam issue, just standard paper talk
so thanks for the linksSalman Rushdie - I like the 1st two paragrahps, makes a good point about the demonstrations and I do agree with that. He does ask some questions that need serious thinking about and I can see where he is coming from when he speaks of being reminded about socialists trying to differ themselves from the Soviets.
I do also agree with much of what Anwar Ibrahim has to say, gotta have an open mind ya know
I'll have to agree with you there then
As for John Pilger, well that article **davo now scrambles around on the mirror site trying to find it**AH HAH! here it is:http://mirror.icnetwork.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11392430&method=full
did have some good points which need addressing (you should find the florida bit there too, everbody please note it is meterophrical).
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Just who do you think you are?
I know we disagree on issues, but you've insulted me...
Irregardless of the members of this forum to agree or disagree with me on issues, I think everyone can agree with me, that a message like that, is nothing more than pure ignorance and a complete disregard for the seriousness of this issue.
Its just that people are always getting worked up and exaggerate and complicate matters. its just a simple matter of osama bombing US and US bombing back. Its only needs involve US and afghanistan, the other countries and the international community are too nosy about a matter that does not concern them.
About the people being paid low wages and exploited, you have to look at it from different perspectives, in a less developed country like China. 20 cents can buy you a meal that costs $2 in a more developed country, their cost of living is less, therefore they don't need to be paid as much. Also , in less developed countries, homes in the rural places are very cheap, the cost to rent an apartment in a city could buy several houses there. Thats why often when you buy stuff in less developed countries its cheaper.
About the people being paid low wages and exploited, you have to look at it from different perspectives, in a less developed country like China. 20 cents can buy you a meal that costs $2 in a more developed country, their cost of living is less, therefore they don't need to be paid as much. Also , in less developed countries, homes in the rural places are very cheap, the cost to rent an apartment in a city could buy several houses there. Thats why often when you buy stuff in less developed countries its cheaper.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Exactly right.
People that are retired would typically take their social security checks and move to Poland.
In Poland, you could probably buy a fancy steak dinner for no more than $6.00US, where here in the US, it'd cost ten times as much.
People that are retired would typically take their social security checks and move to Poland.
In Poland, you could probably buy a fancy steak dinner for no more than $6.00US, where here in the US, it'd cost ten times as much.
allan
Cabrón
"Now as for this women and childre stuff, America has known about the Taliban since 1996 yet they only took action when there people are hurt by it. I hate the Taliban as much as everyone but I dislike these double standards which say American lives are more important than Afghan ones"
Two things here: first, it is not the responsibility of ANY country to police or dictate domestic policy to other countries. I.e. before September 11 we had no reason to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan, because they were no threat to us. Revise that: they were percieved as LESS of a threat to us, although they were still sheltering bin Laden who was likely behind the smaller embassy and Cole attacks.
Second, when we HAVE unilaterally tried to dictate the domestic affairs of other countries, i.e. in Vietnam and Latin America, the left has criticized us soundly (and I was against those actions in Latin America myself, and would have been had I been old enough to be politically aware during Vietnam). So the left (or, many on the left) need to be careful not to talk out of both sides of their mouth here, methinks....
If we went in and removed the Taliban before September 11 (or before ANY of bin Laden's actions against the US), I can guarantee the left would have screamed MUCH more loudly than they do now about it--and I would have agreed with them in that case too.
But a country's government DOES have the ultimate duty of protecting and defending its citizens from danger. So when the danger reared its head from the caves of Afghanistan, we HAD to respond to disable the apparatus behind that danger.
But it is not that "one nation's lives are more important" in a universal sense, but that a government of country X has the RESPONSIBILITY for protecting the lives of citizens of country X, and not any other country (unless, of course, they bind themselves through treaties with some other countries to do so--but IMHO a government should be careful to limit these arrangements if they enter any at all--but then their own country's citizens still take precedence if it becomes an either/or situation). Same for the governments of country Y, Z, etc. Since there is no "world government", each government is delegated, if you will, with the protection of its respective citizens, and thus NO government ever prioritizes everyone in the world equally, because they lack the authority to do so.
Understand?
Two things here: first, it is not the responsibility of ANY country to police or dictate domestic policy to other countries. I.e. before September 11 we had no reason to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan, because they were no threat to us. Revise that: they were percieved as LESS of a threat to us, although they were still sheltering bin Laden who was likely behind the smaller embassy and Cole attacks.
Second, when we HAVE unilaterally tried to dictate the domestic affairs of other countries, i.e. in Vietnam and Latin America, the left has criticized us soundly (and I was against those actions in Latin America myself, and would have been had I been old enough to be politically aware during Vietnam). So the left (or, many on the left) need to be careful not to talk out of both sides of their mouth here, methinks....
If we went in and removed the Taliban before September 11 (or before ANY of bin Laden's actions against the US), I can guarantee the left would have screamed MUCH more loudly than they do now about it--and I would have agreed with them in that case too.
But a country's government DOES have the ultimate duty of protecting and defending its citizens from danger. So when the danger reared its head from the caves of Afghanistan, we HAD to respond to disable the apparatus behind that danger.
But it is not that "one nation's lives are more important" in a universal sense, but that a government of country X has the RESPONSIBILITY for protecting the lives of citizens of country X, and not any other country (unless, of course, they bind themselves through treaties with some other countries to do so--but IMHO a government should be careful to limit these arrangements if they enter any at all--but then their own country's citizens still take precedence if it becomes an either/or situation). Same for the governments of country Y, Z, etc. Since there is no "world government", each government is delegated, if you will, with the protection of its respective citizens, and thus NO government ever prioritizes everyone in the world equally, because they lack the authority to do so.
Understand?
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
It's a fraction more complicated than that - hopefully you're not looking for a career in international relations.
Quite apart from the fact that the US has sought the support of it's allies - principally moral and political but also some military - the September 11 atrocity involved the murder of US citizens and the citizens of other nations.
September 11 was an attack on civilized society - that should involve all civilized nations - it's not that hard to understand.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
My aplogies to you rmsharpe, I was merly implying that I am growing tired of (what I find to be) the contradictary arguments of the right. No personal offence intented.
allan - may I remind you that action was taken in Kosovo on 'humanitarian' issues (and I did in part agree with that, though it could of been conducted alot better etc etc).
well put andycapp
allan - may I remind you that action was taken in Kosovo on 'humanitarian' issues (and I did in part agree with that, though it could of been conducted alot better etc etc).
well put andycapp
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
I knew someone who has an open and intelligent mind would see my point. Regardless of whether I agree with the arguments you put or not, the calm and measured way you carry out your discussions does you credit ComradeDavo.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Then how come the UK and Japan weren't attacked by the highjackers? Canada? South Korea?
It was an attack on American freedom, ideals, and capitalism.
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
A member of the al Qaeda network was recently arrested in India and according to news reports was planning similar attacks (as those on Sept 11) on targets in Australia, Britain and India - this is just one of a number of reports that indicate that al Qaeda intended attacks against a number of Western nations not just the US.
Unquestionably Sept 11 was an attack on the US, it was also an attack on the citizens of other nations and an attack on the civilized values of all civilized people - your portrayal of this as purely an attack on "American freedom, ideals and capitalism" misses the point.
The concept is not really that hard to understand.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
I just don't want Spain saying they're not going to send terrorists here for justice (after this, can anyone care to guess why Spain isn't even a MINOR power now?)
Also, the United Nations, which acts like it rules the world, but in reality, they only rule the Third World, if they say that they "oppose [variable action]", and Tony Blair says "we can not bring peace by attacking the nation of Iraq..."
The U.S. is just about the only country to actually DO anything and not just piss and moan.
Also, the United Nations, which acts like it rules the world, but in reality, they only rule the Third World, if they say that they "oppose [variable action]", and Tony Blair says "we can not bring peace by attacking the nation of Iraq..."
The U.S. is just about the only country to actually DO anything and not just piss and moan.
- Status
Similar threads
