|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 19, 2004 15:44:58 GMT -5
Why the title, well I think it's strange how some media types won't call a terrorist a terrorist.
Three liberals against one consernative, well you got to be fair.
First for Challenger
"You seriously don't see the problem of shooting innocent civilians to attack an enemy that might not even be there. That chances are have long fled the country when you attack."
Where did you get the idea killing terrorist included shooting civilian?
How long is the world going to put up with that rubbish? Well lets asked the SAS, GSG9, Mossad. I heard the other day Pakistan captured a few terrorists. Anyways the US doesn't invade to get one terrorist. Others will help get them.
One we won't attack North Korea, you don't have to most of the people are starving and running away.
China, we have a more devious plan it call introduction to western products.
France: You got to be kidding, who would want that mess. I would bomb the country with soap. Being stinky is not a fashion statement.
Russia: Take a look at their economy, no that all right we don't need another problem.
Why use a nuke on terrorist when a semi auto will do.
"What really makes you think the USA can do on a global scale what the UK couldn't do in her own backyard."
Well that part of the problem, I don't think Ireland conciders the country to be your backyard. (just a personnal opinion).
The US is not doing this on a global scale. Iraq and Afganstan is hardly global. But to respond to your point, how long have people been robbing banks, selling drugs. Just because it seem to be no end in sight we should just throw up our hands and forget it. Let them do what ever they want, we can stop them. This will not be and over night fix.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 19, 2004 15:56:02 GMT -5
Merkuri and the farm story
Let me see if I get this twisted logic right. A man hired someone to work the farm he owns. They are paid to do a job and accept it, because they accept payment, and work. The crops are worth more than what they are paid even those they agreed to it. Who has rightly earned their property in this scenario.
So if I follow this twisted logic if I'm a cook I should own the restaurant because I was hired as a cook. I own your car because I did the tune up not you.
You are being paid for services render. That's it why do you think you should be given more than that. If you wnat to own a part of the company you can buy stocks, GASP that sounds like CAPITALISM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 19, 2004 17:01:43 GMT -5
First for Challenger "You seriously don't see the problem of shooting innocent civilians to attack an enemy that might not even be there. That chances are have long fled the country when you attack." Where did you get the idea killing terrorist included shooting civilian? Ok from watching the Afganistan War and to a less extend the Iraq War it is painfully obvious that the USA likes to bomb her enemies flat before invading. Now I don't care what they say piecision bombing by regular pilots does not happen. The USAF/USN has an terrible track record for hitting the wrong target. Even with multi million dollar cruse missiles, that against a stationary and fairly large target should acheve 100% accuracy, they still managed to hit a red cross station. Your generals ordered the destruction of a fair number of complettly insignificant and tacticaly worthless villages to prevent troops having to worry about them possible being occupied. I realy don't want to find the civilian casualties for the Afganistan War which BTW was a complettle and utter failure as Bin Lardin was given ample time to escape, because to be honest I won't find a reliable figure nor do I realy want to know how many died. The USA seems not to have moved on from the premisis of WW1, blow the crap out of it then advance because all resistance has been wiped out. Fairly effective when the enemy has nothing effective to fight back with anyway but when we went in to Afganistan and Iraq weren't we there to liberate the civilians from oppression. Not liberate them from life itself. How long is the world going to put up with that rubbish? Well lets asked the SAS, GSG9, Mossad. I heard the other day Pakistan captured a few terrorists. Anyways the US doesn't invade to get one terrorist. Others will help get them. I was talking about invading countries to get at terrorist. You know like Iraq. (so you claim) Heck the SAS taking on terrorists is fine. They don't destroy an entire area to do it, don't bomb civilians. I'm not going to comment further because I have no way of knowing the true nature of SAS missions in regards to what they will and won't be sent on. But the ones we find out about tend to be hostage rescue missions rather than destroying so and so village because MI5 or the CIA, being the reliable chaps they are, think there might be a terrorist there. One we won't attack North Korea, you don't have to most of the people are starving and running away. And yet they have WMD. Are rummored to fund terrorist organisations. Could it possibly be because they do in fact have WMD. China, we have a more devious plan it call introduction to western products. France: You got to be kidding, who would want that mess. I would bomb the country with soap. Being stinky is not a fashion statement. Lol no comment. Russia: Take a look at their economy, no that all right we don't need another problem. Now would be a good time to point out that you missed the point. What happens if your intelligence agencies tell you their are terrorist cells in these countries. As you say neither North Korea or Russia are in a situation to do much about them if they do set up shop. Would you invade? Why use a nuke on terrorist when a semi auto will do. Ok you invade country with nukes they will nuke you. You nuke them back and you will start a chain reaction. Either that or you accept the death of thousands of americans and the fact the next country you invade won't hesitate to blow another city off the map. "What really makes you think the USA can do on a global scale what the UK couldn't do in her own backyard." Well that part of the problem, I don't think Ireland conciders the country to be your backyard. (just a personnal opinion). North Ireland is still part of Britain. And talking in terms of scale. Ireland is Britains backyard compared to the USA and Iraq. The US is not doing this on a global scale. Iraq and Afganstan is hardly global. But to respond to your point, how long have people been robbing banks, selling drugs. Just because it seem to be no end in sight we should just throw up our hands and forget it. Let them do what ever they want, we can stop them. This will not be and over night fix. Correct me if I'm wrong didn't you say words to the effect that you planned to kill terrorists where ever they hid? That certainly implies that world wide opperations. Also when did I say throw up your hands and forgetting it all was a good idea. I've said it before but I'll say it again. Defending against terrorists is a good thing the right thing, but you cannot take the fight to their home countries and expect to have a net reduction in terrorists. It does not work. Even if you are willing to execute civilians in revenge you will only make the problem worse. In answer to your examples. When was the last time anyone invaded another country over bank robbers? Finaly I am not a liberal. I was in support of the War in Afganistan. You won't find me bemoaning the Falklands and Gulf War 1 etc etc. I do however object to my country do anything that makes us the bad guys and by starting a war in Iraq we ARE the bad guys. I tend to object to the airforce's execution of its role and the apparent inability of patriot operator to tell the difference between a Tornado and a cruse missile but thats something different. Challenger |
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Aug 19, 2004 22:59:25 GMT -5
Merkuri and the farm story Let me see if I get this twisted logic right. A man hired someone to work the farm he owns. They are paid to do a job and accept it, because they accept payment, and work. The crops are worth more than what they are paid even those they agreed to it. Who has rightly earned their property in this scenario. So if I follow this twisted logic if I'm a cook I should own the restaurant because I was hired as a cook. I own your car because I did the tune up not you. You are being paid for services render. That's it why do you think you should be given more than that. If you wnat to own a part of the company you can buy stocks, GASP that sounds like CAPITALISM. The farm example is extreme, and (if I'm not mistaken) is somewhat illegal today. That was a common scenario in the Great Depression (if you wanna know a little more, pick up an American History book or read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck). In the midwest mostly, people were starving and begging for work and had essentially no choice (unless you consider starving or theft as options) but to work as hired hands for landowners who would pay them as little as physically possible, because they knew the workers couldn't complain. Do you seriously believe that this situation was moral? One person who happens to own land (and what exactly does that mean? you can't physically posess it... but anyway) sits back and does nothing while reaping the huge majority of benefits while other people do all the work and take away a small profit. Yes, it's capitalism. But is it moral? Pure capitalism is the economic equivalent of survival of the fittest. Except it's more like "survival of the luckiest". Those landowners were lucky enough to own farmable land when the depression struck. The problem is, luck doesn't pass down from generation to generation. Working hard doesn't necessarily mean you can get ahead, which is exemplified by the farmhands in the above example. It's possible to be born in the wrong place or at the wrong time, even in a capitalist system. Is that really moral? Yes, maybe a cook should own part of a restaurant he works in. The car example doesn't apply because the mechanic isn't part of your car. If there was a little guy inside your car making it work, then yeah, maybe he should own stock in it. The mechanic, however, should own part of the shop. I believe that most workers should own stock in the companies they work for. The problem is that some places (like that restaurant) aren't publicly traded companies, or the stock is too expensive, so the employees can't buy stock. There are some companies that offer stock options to their employees, and I think it's a wooonderful idea. Think about it, what incentive does a code monkey (i.e. lowly programmer) like me have to excel in my job, besides the threat of being fired? If I have stock in the company I think that's a pretty good incentive for me to work harder to try and make that stock go up. And wouldn't this work especially well for smaller businesses, like restaurants and mechanic shops, where one person's effort can have a huge impact on the profit for the company? Henry Ford had it right. He made sure all of his employees could afford his product. His employees were happy, and he sold more cars. Lack of that sort of attitude has made the businessplace a lot colder than it used to be, and it's helped drive a financial wedge between the working class and the business owners. Oh, but it's capitalism, so it must be okay, because the other option is eeeeeevil. Gimme a break. |
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 20, 2004 0:06:25 GMT -5
Never mind that we KNOW that N. Korea has WMD's. It's not a suspicion. We KNOW it's true. We do have proof. And, let's not forget that other manufacturer of WMD's in the Middle East - Israel. Oh, but they're our friends, so we won't let anyone say anything about them.
Hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 20, 2004 11:30:16 GMT -5
Hey merkuri, are living during the great depression or in 2004.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 20, 2004 11:33:39 GMT -5
Challenger I guess you missed the part where we said were coming to attack afganstan. Give the people enough time to leave. If we just wanted to bomb everyone there, why give a warning?
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 20, 2004 12:43:10 GMT -5
Go where Galadon. And suvive on what?
Afganistan isn't exactly blesses with natural food sources or cover from the sun. Or water I would imagine though I can't say for certain.
Death by bombs or death by starvation. Hard choice realy. Also in a lot of the smaller towns and villages the residents probably ignored the warning assuming that being a small insignificant town who would bomb them?
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Aug 20, 2004 13:07:18 GMT -5
Hey merkuri, are living during the great depression or in 2004. As I said, it was an extreme example. But is it really different when the big business executives of, say, Wal-Mart, get paid six figure salaries for sitting around a boardroom table all day while the people who haul goods and deal with customers and mop floors are getting paid little more than minimum wage? You have somebody doing nothing and getting a huge portion of the profits while a lot of somebody elses are doing all the work and getting paid peanuts. Not as extreme, but very similar. You don't need a depression to produce those circumstances, it just accelerated the process. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. |
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 20, 2004 14:24:47 GMT -5
Challenger, They left the city and then came back. A corupt government was gotten rid of and they can rebuilt the city. But since it's not high on the media rating your not going to hear about any rebuilding with Bush as president
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 20, 2004 14:31:21 GMT -5
Really Merkuri what history are we repeating.
Although I believe giving money to farmer not to grow food and some corporations are wasteful. Farms feed people both here and in other countries.
About corporations, Like Microsoft, how many people do they employ. Do you know how much money Gates gives to charity and other places.
When is the last time a welfare person employed someone. Did some fruit loop artist who got money from the NEA contribute to anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 20, 2004 14:39:04 GMT -5
It was the running joke at the time that we blew up Afganistan's houses one day and the next dropped tents for them to live in. Illogical and a waste of time and money in my opinion.
BTW did you know the USAF nearly killed the new Afganistan President days after being sworn in. See why I have no faith in the abilities of bomber crews to avoid innocent casualties.
What was the justification for leveling Afganistan anyway? I'm not the slightest bit worried out the invasion, I fully agreed with it. I was however never happy with the way it was waged.
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 20, 2004 14:45:25 GMT -5
The reason they do what they do in combat is up to the people giving the orders, I can only give opinions. How to conduct an assualt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 20, 2004 15:19:56 GMT -5
Galadon please read through what you post before hitting the button. Seriously I can guess what you mean but your post isn't exactly clear.
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 21, 2004 15:34:32 GMT -5
Have asked a Afgan woman if it was a waste of time getting rid of the Taliban.
|
|
