VoodooAce
Emperor
I know the name of a couple groups. Their called the 700 Club and also any followers of Pat Buchanan.
But hey, ol' Pat can't be that bad, can he? Heck, he got 19,000 votes from elderly Jews in one little community in Florida.
SKP statement
- Thread starter Håkan Eriksson
- Start date
I know the name of a couple groups. Their called the 700 Club and also any followers of Pat Buchanan.
But hey, ol' Pat can't be that bad, can he? Heck, he got 19,000 votes from elderly Jews in one little community in Florida.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Originally posted by CornMaster
The Penical of Freedom statement was sarcasm aimed at rmsharpe and people with his type of views. The US is the one, the only, the ultimate, etc...
As you pointed out......it's not acurate, or my view either.
Very nice, CM.
Too many people believe this, though, and if you disagree with this, or them, then you think Bin Laden should be free to commit any horrible act they want and that the US deserves it.
For some there is no middle ground. It's all straight black and white and you're either with us or again' us.
Now that I can agree with. I don't think the free flights are the right way to go, but I agree completely that some people need freed by force, and many more need increased educational opportunities (Some of them work in the cubes next to me). I go further that we need to develop a consistant and long-term program of helping to alleviate the suffering in the world. This includes loans, gifts, and technical expertise.
The problem comes from the fact that some people aren't ready for the type of help that we can offer. Tribalism is a huge problem in many countries that need help, and it just doesn't fit into the the type of help that the West can offer. These are cultures that are very different from ours. We cannot just hand them Jeffersonian Democracy, Keynsian economics, and a justice system based on British common law, and expect them to just adapt to it like the proverbial duck in water.
Speaking of ducks reminds me of a good example on the tribalism thing. I remember in another thread that Duck of Flanders viewed himself as a citizen of the world and of Europe, not of Belgium. He stated that he hates nationalism. Those with a tribal mentality haven't even gotten to nationalism. They can't concieve of putting the good of the nation ahead of the good of the tribe. When this is the case Western ideas are going to have a hard time taking root.
Corruption is another huge problem in these nations, and will be very hard to get around as it is ingrained in the culture. Bribes are a way of life. The problem with this is that it creates uncertainty, which is bad for business. And that is one thing that needs to be kept in mind at all times. If we are going to help these nations along a Western model, it has to be by making them good places for business and foriegn investment. It's the whole teach a man to fish thing. Otherwise we will be giving them fish for a long time to come. The thing is that there is more to teaching someone to fish than just giving them a pole and some string. There are many different practices and habits that one needs to be a successful fisherman. Many of these nations and peoples don't seem to be willing to buy into this. Property rights, human rights, and representative government are just a few of the things that make the West successful. They may seem like they aren't necessary, but they are as integral to Western success as all the infrstructure already in place.
This is where we must figure out what our objectives and goals are and can be. If we try to put Western culture in the place of the pre-existing one we will be blasted for not respecting the culture. If we don't some cultures may continue their current patterns and not emerge into relative prosperity for some time.
My question is whether the West has the ability or know how to pull a nation out of poverty and place it on a sound footing without using the Western model?
Yeah, that last part was directed towards someone else.
I don't see how you take this any other way than that bombing of civilian targets are acts of lunacy.
Actually I agree with that sentiment. Bombing civilian targets is an act of lunacy. The key word is targets. Targets implies that buildings were selected in advance with the full knowledge that they contained only civilians. I just don't believe this. Mistakes can be made, and bombs can miss, but that does not mean that civilian targets were hit. Target implies that the US was aiming for civilians. I'm sorry, but we've got better things to do than drop million dollar bombs on civilians.
While it is true that I am going to view anything from a communist party with a grain of salt, it doesn't change the meaning of their words (Though translation might have). I don't believe that AndyCapp's or my own analysis would have been any different had the statement not had a source.
As far as Rawanda goes, I think it is a shame that no one went to Rhawanda until it was too late. I think the entire western world shares blame for this one. Almost any of the European nations could have taken care of the problem all by themselves, let alone in concert. If the US was going to hide in isolationism for that event it would have been a prime opportunity for someone else to step up and show some leadership. I hope the next time something like this happens the rest of the world steps up. It just comes back to what I said earlier:
>>I know I was being a bit cynical, but seriously, if the world doesn't want the US as policeman (Neither do I) then it needs to step up and take on those tasks that come along. Whether the next humanitarian crisis requires just aid, or military action, let the world handle it without the US, or with only minimal help from the US. This world's policeman model just breeds resentment. I would call for a world's neighborhood watch instead. The US can be part of it, and even a large part of it, but if the US happens to be vacationing with the kids in Florida, the rest of the world needs to be able to handle the situation on its own.<<
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
Grrr, not all of us 'communists' love(d) the USSR you know.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Thank you! While I wouldn't call myself a communist (rather I'd say I have socialist leanings) but, and I think most people know this, but won't admit it to themselves, the USSR, esp under stalin, was far more a right wing, ultra-nationalist dictatorship than anything else.
Communism = Economic philosophy not a government type.
This is so misunderstood.
A communist nation could JUST AS EASILY be a democracy or a republic.
Just like a fascist dictator can be a capitalist.
The equivalent of calling Stalin a communist is calling Hitler a capitalist, and blaming WWII on 'those damn capitalists'
LOL!!! When you say it that way....kind of turns the whole thing around.
Of course Hitler attacked other capitalist nations too....of course we could call that capitalist in-fighting, where the communist had a unified front.
Ohhh...VoodooAce, your full of jucie ideas.
Appologies for the generalization. It was a bit of sarcasm, but I still shouldn't have applied it to all communists.
That said, there was a reason that the US supported Afgans in the '80's who later became Taliban members. The statements that point out that the US helped Afgans who then became Taliban conveniently ignore that there was a reason, to fight against the Soviet invasion.
This is what I was trying to get at.
VoodooAce
Emperor
My point is that to say that this statement:
"The attacks against the World Trade Center are acts of lunacy, but the same applies to the bombing of civilian targets in Baghdad and Belgrade."
..means that they are saying:
"the actions of the US are the moral equivalent of the 9/11 attacks"
...is just not right.
That's like taking the statemens 'Joe beat the crap out of his neighbor' and 'Bob killed his neighbor'.
If I were to then say, "Yeah, Bob killing that guy was an act of lunacy, but the same applies to Joe's actions.", I would not necessarily be equating the two acts. I would merely be saying the acts were wrong.
I think there is an obvious difference between my first statement about Bob and Joe and equating their acts.
BUT, if I build a bomb in my garage and target an obvious criminal, say somebody that had harmed one of my family members (Say I was targetting a guy that had molested my son) and accidentally take out a few innocent people, not a lot of people would listen when I said, "But I wasn't TARGETING all those other people. It was unavoidable and these things happen."
And they'd listed even less if I said, "What was I supposed to do? He surrounded himself with innocent people, so if I was gonna get him, some collateral damage was unavoidable."
I won't deny that I'm stretching my analogies a little thin, but it's just a general point I'm trying to get across.
"The attacks against the World Trade Center are acts of lunacy, but the same applies to the bombing of civilian targets in Baghdad and Belgrade."
..means that they are saying:
"the actions of the US are the moral equivalent of the 9/11 attacks"
...is just not right.
That's like taking the statemens 'Joe beat the crap out of his neighbor' and 'Bob killed his neighbor'.
If I were to then say, "Yeah, Bob killing that guy was an act of lunacy, but the same applies to Joe's actions.", I would not necessarily be equating the two acts. I would merely be saying the acts were wrong.
I think there is an obvious difference between my first statement about Bob and Joe and equating their acts.
BUT, if I build a bomb in my garage and target an obvious criminal, say somebody that had harmed one of my family members (Say I was targetting a guy that had molested my son) and accidentally take out a few innocent people, not a lot of people would listen when I said, "But I wasn't TARGETING all those other people. It was unavoidable and these things happen."
And they'd listed even less if I said, "What was I supposed to do? He surrounded himself with innocent people, so if I was gonna get him, some collateral damage was unavoidable."
I won't deny that I'm stretching my analogies a little thin, but it's just a general point I'm trying to get across.
I can see what you are saying Voodoo. Your view IS one way of interpreting it. That they are calling them the same is another. I would say that they are equating the two.
The question of civilian casualties is an interesting one. I get the general feeling that the writers of the article and those supporting it here seem to think that there is a better (Less casualties) way of removing the Taliban than by starting with bombs. I would argue that any other approach involving force would have resulted in more casualties on both sides, and that a peaceful solution wasn't available.
If you want to discuss a military option that doesn't include bombing, please outline it and we can go over it.
The question of civilian casualties is an interesting one. I get the general feeling that the writers of the article and those supporting it here seem to think that there is a better (Less casualties) way of removing the Taliban than by starting with bombs. I would argue that any other approach involving force would have resulted in more casualties on both sides, and that a peaceful solution wasn't available.
If you want to discuss a military option that doesn't include bombing, please outline it and we can go over it.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Lol.
Well, let's just agree on the fact that if 100 people read the same story, you will get 100 interpretations of varying degrees.
I would like to admit that the bombing SEEMS to have caused far less of those pesky little negatives, such as innocent people losing their one and only life, than I had initially feared.
It is an interesting debate. It just pains me that so many attitudes are so indifferent to these losses. Far more indifferent than if it were one of their loved ones who's lives were lost.
I also thing the attitude (not necessarily alluding to your statement, rather to the prevaling attitude in America) that bombing saved the lives of American soldiers is very, very arrogant in that this implies an American life is more important than an Afghan peasant's.
And I won't touch the 'other military options' thing, because I couldn't begin to tell you what were and were not viable options available to us.
But soldiers join the military knowing full well the risks of their new jobs.
I did.
The peasants in Afghanistan have had very little say in the matter.
Well, let's just agree on the fact that if 100 people read the same story, you will get 100 interpretations of varying degrees.
I would like to admit that the bombing SEEMS to have caused far less of those pesky little negatives, such as innocent people losing their one and only life, than I had initially feared.
It is an interesting debate. It just pains me that so many attitudes are so indifferent to these losses. Far more indifferent than if it were one of their loved ones who's lives were lost.
I also thing the attitude (not necessarily alluding to your statement, rather to the prevaling attitude in America) that bombing saved the lives of American soldiers is very, very arrogant in that this implies an American life is more important than an Afghan peasant's.
And I won't touch the 'other military options' thing, because I couldn't begin to tell you what were and were not viable options available to us.
But soldiers join the military knowing full well the risks of their new jobs.
I did.
The peasants in Afghanistan have had very little say in the matter.
Flatlander Fox
Armed Cultural Consultant
The poor Afgan peasant... He finally gets to listen to radio for the first time in 3 years... And his wife may not get killed if she missteps in public... Too bad for him...
Voodoo, what branch are you/were you in? P.M. me...
If you ever went anywhere (deployment), I think you would have a vastly different opinion...
America may have made foreign policy missteps in the past... But at least we have one... Standing around and doing nothing always ends the war. (Chamberlain anyone?)
No ethnic cleansing in Kosovo??? Book a flight to Belgrade and drive down to Pristina or Gjilane, and talk to the locals...
Or just look at them... Some of the kids with gunshot wounds are big-time terrorists.
Get a grip... And a healthy dose of reality.
Rwanda? Mistake. But as someone said earlier, western countries can't build countries that have no desire to be built into nations... But we still should have helped...
Bosnia? A mistake that we didn't go in earlier.
The alarming thing is that no other country helps out... None...
All of this handwringing, and then nothing... No peacekeepers until America puts them in first. The idea of a neighborhood watch is great, but not gonna happen...
Too much talk, and no action... Why didn't the SKP help out?
I believe that we were attacked due to our foreign policy decisions. Not exactly rocket science, but I am not blind.
The people who are lauding this piece of literature as insightful and enlightening really need to read some of the "facts" in the statement.
You people frighten me with your lack of realism... A revelution by some charismatic leader would just sweep you away in it, because you don't see the big picture... You just hear the words and believe them... Because you have nothing to fear...
Some of you don't remember the cold war, and have forgotten what it's like to have a big nasty country in the world, who will oppress and destroy. (And to those who would say U.S.A. to this, please give examples)
You have nothing to fear, so you sit around and gripe about how terrible America is, and how we are sticking our noses in everything and such...
Instead of complaining, do something about... Vote for your favorite Commie or Republican or Democrat that is gonna change the world... Or change the world yourself...
Oops, I'm sorry, you couldn't possibly do that!!!
Oh yeah, if I am the leader of a Democratic communism, do I get paid the same as a streetsweeper?
Just asking...
*ducks as Cornmaster throws something at him*
Voodoo, what branch are you/were you in? P.M. me...
If you ever went anywhere (deployment), I think you would have a vastly different opinion...
America may have made foreign policy missteps in the past... But at least we have one... Standing around and doing nothing always ends the war. (Chamberlain anyone?)
No ethnic cleansing in Kosovo??? Book a flight to Belgrade and drive down to Pristina or Gjilane, and talk to the locals...
Or just look at them... Some of the kids with gunshot wounds are big-time terrorists
.Get a grip... And a healthy dose of reality.
Rwanda? Mistake. But as someone said earlier, western countries can't build countries that have no desire to be built into nations... But we still should have helped...
Bosnia? A mistake that we didn't go in earlier.
The alarming thing is that no other country helps out... None...
All of this handwringing, and then nothing... No peacekeepers until America puts them in first. The idea of a neighborhood watch is great, but not gonna happen...
Too much talk, and no action... Why didn't the SKP help out?
I believe that we were attacked due to our foreign policy decisions. Not exactly rocket science, but I am not blind.
The people who are lauding this piece of literature as insightful and enlightening really need to read some of the "facts" in the statement.
You people frighten me with your lack of realism... A revelution by some charismatic leader would just sweep you away in it, because you don't see the big picture... You just hear the words and believe them... Because you have nothing to fear...
Some of you don't remember the cold war, and have forgotten what it's like to have a big nasty country in the world, who will oppress and destroy. (And to those who would say U.S.A. to this, please give examples
)You have nothing to fear, so you sit around and gripe about how terrible America is, and how we are sticking our noses in everything and such...
Instead of complaining, do something about... Vote for your favorite Commie or Republican or Democrat that is gonna change the world... Or change the world yourself...
Oops, I'm sorry, you couldn't possibly do that!!!
Oh yeah, if I am the leader of a Democratic communism, do I get paid the same as a streetsweeper?
Just asking...
*ducks as Cornmaster throws something at him*
You did say that this was a communist party, right? If they can't even get past the first few paragraphs of thier statement without making patntly false statements, I'm stopping right here if they can't even be intellectually honest about thier own ideaology.
Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
Oh yeah, if I am the leader of a Democratic communism, do I get paid the same as a streetsweeper?
Just asking...
*ducks as Cornmaster throws something at him*
Good call.
Of course you get paid the same....however, you wouldn't get paid. Another thing that would REALLY help communism take effect is a surplus in everything, and no currency. If there is no currency, they can be no rich and poor. People just have what they need. And work when they are told. People would work 15 hours a week in a properly run communism. We wouldn't need telamarketers, bankers, accountants, so many pointless jobs could be cut. This would put everyone to work in essiental positions, and with a huge extra work force to get things done.....people can work FAR less. The rest of the time is recreation. Computer games, movies, sports games, ect.....
But that's Utopian Communism....and as you all say, is against current human nature. Of course this point is not in disputy....
dannyevilcat
DESTROYER OF FURNITURE
Ethnic Cleansing is essentially another label for genocide. There was no genocide committed against Kosovar Albanians. There WERE humanitarian crimes, I don't question that atrocities WERE committed. It was an attempt to crush a criminal independence movement. Such cells are hidden amongst a population, thus the reasoning for Serbs retaliating the way they did. And the Serb retaliation, as brutal as it was, was instigated (as far as the most recent crisis is concerned) by KLA attacks on Serbs.
If I come off as Joe Supporter of Serbian brutality, then I'm not explaining my view correctly, and I apologize. But I will not follow logic along these lines: Milosevic=bad, so by default, NATO=good. The people of Serbia have done nothing to stop Milosevic, so when we carelessly bomb Serb cities, we're doing the right thing because these are the people we're protecting the Kovosars from.
Look, if NATO was targeting purely military installations, then they were incredibly sloppy. The Hotel reference I was refering too I can only back up by what I'd read in a book by a journalist in Belgrade at the time, but I do have other writings from Serbs written by professors through E-mail to the outside world describing hospitals being hit nowhere near army installations, and military targets being a loose term including television stations were the only victims were journalists and janitors, though I assume this was done to prevent the use of propaganda. Never mind those buses that had the nerve to use the roads!
My point is that it is easy to sit back and feel all good inside that the good guys won, why? because they're good guys of course, and that's that, when there are no casualties on your side and all you see of the carnage left behind is some sad pictures in time magazine telling you why it all had to happen.
More than that, I must assert that I am not squeamish about military conflict, even though re-reading this, I do sound that way. I will not excuse the Serbs, and I loathe terrorism. But the American penchant for video-game wars which leave American hands clean, and since they win them easily, people just assume that because America stands for all these good things that they are always good, nobody gets hurt but the bad guys who deserve it. This is why it's such a shock-- Why do the people who attack us hate us so much?
I was shocked and outraged by the Sept. 11th attack. I fully support the United States in the War Against Terrorism, and the b*stards who plan these sort of attacks deserve everything they get, but this does not mean I'll just blithely buy into the belief that the U.S. is the moral center of the universe (not naming any names AHEM rmsharp AHEM.)
I know, but what should we do? No one wants this "world's policeman" role, but there is no evidence that the world can take care of itself without one. Why can't the world take care of problems that require a military solution without the US?
If the US unilaterally decided to stop interventions, the world would damn us for that inaction. Rhawanda is a perfect example. Of course the rest of the world didn't do anything to take care of the situation in the absense of the US.
Perhaps I should take solace in the fact that the SKP in stating what Sweeden should do appears not to be in charge. If they are not in charge they most likely don't represent the majority in Sweeden. The article actually states that Sweeden is one of the nations supporting the US. Perhaps I should take this as a sign that the intelligent majority in Sweeden have elected competent representatives who are more aware of the intricacies of world politics than the SKP. I'll assume that they must know what they are doing and that they deem it right to support the US.
Please correct me if I am wrong in any of these assumptions. I know little of the internal politics of Sweeden and freely admit that AFAIK, communists could be an oppressed majority in Sweeden. Or perhaps the minority knows better than the majority what Sweeden should do.
I choose to believe based upon the evidence I've seen, that the peaceloving people of the world by in large support what the US does. Certainly not every aspect on every issue, but in general, when the actions and policies are taken as a whole, the people who value freedom value the US.
Maybe I am naive in this belief. Maybe those that oppose the US have more support than I think. Maybe they will turn out at their next election (where they have the luxury) and vote in a horde of politicians that will sever ties with the US and issue statements of protest. Maybe in nations without elections the demonstrations will be so widespread and the fealings so strong that the governments either bow to the preasure or are overthrown. I'm sure that this is the hope of the SKP. That the unintelligent masses that have been fooled by the evil capitalists will finally wake up and see the truth that the SKP has been advertising all this time. I bet they just can't get over that the masses don't understand their higher vision of the Truth.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Flatlander, I got the feeling that you were going to disagree with me and then I agreed with every single sentence you wrote up until:
"The people who are lauding this piece of literature as insightful and enlightening really need to read some of the "facts" in the statement."
I'm not sure what you meant there. It was the army, btw....field artillery, 13B. First year I was in Germany, however, somebody found out I could type and I got stuck up in HQ filling out award certificates for nearly a year until I complained and demanded to do what I joined to do.....blow sh!t up
From then on, I do disagree with you plenty. I feel that YOU aren't seeing the facts and are not grounded in reality.....that is a nature of disagreement, I suppose.
I don't 'just sit around and gripe', lol.....i'm fairly active.
And I do vote....of course, we saw in the last election that even garnering the greatest number of votes doesn't always matter. I don't want to get into all that, though.
I don't know about that last question. Ask a communist. Or is it the fact that I'm a liberal and disagree with you that automatically makes me a commie?
Regardless, I feel that I am firmly grounded in reality. It's those who have a hard time seeing all sides to a story, i.e. those who always think America is right, that I think have their heads in the clouds.
I'm a capitalist with socialist leanings, hehe.
And, Dino. Dino, Dino, Dino.
WTH are you saying there, bro? What in the quotes in your post is blatantly false? You might argue semantics here and there, but....Please clarify what they even said about their ideology, much less what was blatantly false about it.
Lol, CornMaster....for sure, one thing capitalism does is reward the harder worker, very generally speaking. There are, as always, exceptions to the rule, but still.....which I think was your point, right?
"The people who are lauding this piece of literature as insightful and enlightening really need to read some of the "facts" in the statement."
I'm not sure what you meant there. It was the army, btw....field artillery, 13B. First year I was in Germany, however, somebody found out I could type and I got stuck up in HQ filling out award certificates for nearly a year until I complained and demanded to do what I joined to do.....blow sh!t up
From then on, I do disagree with you plenty. I feel that YOU aren't seeing the facts and are not grounded in reality.....that is a nature of disagreement, I suppose.
I don't 'just sit around and gripe', lol.....i'm fairly active.
And I do vote....of course, we saw in the last election that even garnering the greatest number of votes doesn't always matter. I don't want to get into all that, though.
I don't know about that last question. Ask a communist. Or is it the fact that I'm a liberal and disagree with you that automatically makes me a commie?
Regardless, I feel that I am firmly grounded in reality. It's those who have a hard time seeing all sides to a story, i.e. those who always think America is right, that I think have their heads in the clouds.
I'm a capitalist with socialist leanings, hehe.
And, Dino. Dino, Dino, Dino.
WTH are you saying there, bro? What in the quotes in your post is blatantly false? You might argue semantics here and there, but....Please clarify what they even said about their ideology, much less what was blatantly false about it.
Lol, CornMaster....for sure, one thing capitalism does is reward the harder worker, very generally speaking. There are, as always, exceptions to the rule, but still.....which I think was your point, right?
Dannyevilcat, I see the distinction that you are trying to draw. I am not ready to say it is correct, but I see the point.
My question to you is what should the American military do as opposed to the "video-game" wars that allows us generally quick victories? Should we commit our forces without all of their advantages? The tactics and weapons used by the US are designed to keep conflicts from trending towards the Vietnam model. I don't have exact figures, but I know US dead was over 50,000. The US also almost always had kill ratios of 4:1 or better.
This new form of warfare may result in civilian casualties from stray or careless bombs. But isn't it just possible that far less people are dying because the US can win these conflicts so quickly? Is it so wrong that the conflicts are one-sided? Would it be better if Saddam's forces had been able to hold out against the coalition for months in a war of attrition? What about the Serbs?
My question to you is what should the American military do as opposed to the "video-game" wars that allows us generally quick victories? Should we commit our forces without all of their advantages? The tactics and weapons used by the US are designed to keep conflicts from trending towards the Vietnam model. I don't have exact figures, but I know US dead was over 50,000. The US also almost always had kill ratios of 4:1 or better.
This new form of warfare may result in civilian casualties from stray or careless bombs. But isn't it just possible that far less people are dying because the US can win these conflicts so quickly? Is it so wrong that the conflicts are one-sided? Would it be better if Saddam's forces had been able to hold out against the coalition for months in a war of attrition? What about the Serbs?
