I don't know what all the fuss is about.  Lampard10 is absolutely correct when he posted, "there's only one country in the world that has already dropped a nuke on innocent women and children", and that country was the good ol' US of A.  They dropped the bomb on cities filled with innocent women and children, and innocent men as well I might add, and to try to deny this is insanity or at least gross ignorance.  When they dropped these bombs they knew full well that they were killing innocent people and they decided that the sacrifice was worth the benefit.  You can argue until the cows come home as to whether they were moral in their evaluation of the cost benefit ratio...but...it is a well documented and undeniable fact that the US of A did drop two nuclear devices on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people knowing full well that they would kill hundreds of thousands of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the exact definition of terrorism. Killing civilians to further your agenda. Mind you that the other "Allies" were also guilty of those same acts over in Germany.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point.

I wonder when this killing of civilians started? Who was responsible?

When was the last war fought in which civilians did not lose their lives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think there is a difference between targeting specifically civilians and having civilians as collateral damages.

The yanks could argue that they were not the only one to target specifically civilians in Hiroshima, but also the Dresden "incident" was a deliberate attack on German civilians.

Who started it and who ended it is irrelevant. It happened and surely it will happen again.

I don't know what all the fuss is about.  Lampard10 is absolutely correct when he posted, "there's only one country in the world that has already dropped a nuke on innocent women and children", and that country was the good ol' US of A.  They dropped the bomb on cities filled with innocent women and children, and innocent men as well I might add, and to try to deny this is insanity or at least gross ignorance.  When they dropped these bombs they knew full well that they were killing innocent people and they decided that the sacrifice was worth the benefit.  You can argue until the cows come home as to whether they were moral in their evaluation of the cost benefit ratio...but...it is a well documented and undeniable fact that the US of A did drop two nuclear devices on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people knowing full well that they would kill hundreds of thousands of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the exact definition of terrorism. Killing civilians to further your agenda. Mind you that the other "Allies" were also guilty of those same acts over in Germany.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point.

I wonder when this killing of civilians started? Who was responsible?

When was the last war fought in which civilians did not lose their lives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think there is a difference between targeting specifically civilians and having civilians as collateral damages.

The yanks could argue that they were not the only one to target specifically civilians in Hiroshima, but also the Dresden "incident" was a deliberate attack on German civilians.

Who started it and who ended it is irrelevant. It happened and surely it will happen again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was giving you a chance to name a war - going back to the start of recorded time - not just WWII - in which civilians did not lose there lives. I'm sure as to whether someone lost their life as the result of a deliberate action, is only academic to the dead person. But when is an action deliberate, or not?

What exactly is "target specifically civilians" as compared to "collateral damages"?

Doesn't the spin doctor speak "collateral damages" cover everything from "Oops, sorry" to "Ah, well"?

Chownah-

It maybe a small point, but I like accuracy. No Nuclear weapons have ever been used on people anywhere. The bombs dropped in Japan were atomic, BIG difference.

Tornado-

When the U.S. invaded Iraq, I was working with a man named Bahez, he was Kurdish. He showed me his deformed hand, the one that Saddam's man had smashed when he was being tortured for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Saddam has been in power for YEARS. I doubt our bombing raids would have killed as many people as he did. Bahez was very happy when he heard American forces invaded. He told me that if the first Bush had given the Kurds weapons last time, Saddam wouldn't be a problem today. Get your head outta the sand.

Butterfly-

Where are you from? "Like we didn't tell them 3 years ago." I am taking a guess, so forgive me, but I bet you are from an english speaking country. As far as I know every english speaking country is helping us out in Iraq.

You wish to liken the decision to drop the bombs to terrorism. Because killing civillians to further ones cause is terrorism? How come you aren't pointing your fingers at the Germans, or the Japanese. You are defending them and saying that the allied forces of WW II were involed in acts of terrorism.

I know people around the world hate us, "yanks". We are told of it everyday. But what is done in war is to win for the sake of your counrty, and both sides did bad things. However, WW II showed that if anything German and Japan got what they put out.

I know people view Pearl Habor as "not a big deal" yet civillians died there as well, for the surrounding area that would help to support the navel targets was also targeted. No big deal though right?

I guess also the treatment of the POWs in Japanese control was also "no big deal". They were only ran the same way that German concentration camps were, minus the ovens. The Japanese wanted to starve the men to death.

I don't suppose that any one hear has heard of the Medical Unit #735 (I believe that to be the right number). This Japanese unit was based in north China and was to conduct bio and chem warfare. The test subjects were the Chinese people. One account was Japanese handing out anthrax filled chocolates to starving Chinese children. Was this an act of terrorism? The weapons developed here were to be used in a balloon delivery system to target U.S. cities. Was this terrorism? The Japanese were only able to send normal explosives, and the system proved a failure.

I suggest everyone read The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang, if you haven't already. You will learn that in a matter of days over 300,000 Chinese were killed by Japanese forces. Women were raped from 8 to 80. They victims pictures were taken as trophy pictures to take back home. They Japanese played a game where they would throw infants into the air and try to spear them on their bayonets on the way down. Was this an act of terrorism?

Taken from The Rape of Nanking, "The Japanese media avidly covered the army's killing contests near Nanking. In one of the most notorious, two Japanese sublieutenants, Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi, went on separate beheading sprees near Nanking to see who could kill one hundred men first. The Japan Advertiser ran their picture under the bold headline, "Contest to kill First 100 Chinese with Sword Extended When Both Fighter Exceed Mark-Mukai Scores 106 and Noda 105"

And you compare us Americans to terrorists! The Japanese people supported acts like this. These men were heros back home and got front page. The Japanese were living out the insane dream of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. The dream that said Japan shoud rule Asia. He tried the same thing and failed, yet modern Japanese were trying again at any cost. The same way most Germans viewed Jews was the same way Japan viewed everyother Asian. Innocent indeed!

BTW, kamikaze pilots, terrorists?

President Truman had reports, because the Japanese weren't keeping it a secert, that when American forces landed on the beaches of Japan, they would be met by women and children with sticks, the only defense the Japanese had left. All of this to save face. They wanted to get America to agree to a cease fire, instead of unconditional surrender. President Truman's responsiblity was to the American people, he made the choice to save America lives over Japanese, which still saved even more Japanese lives and U.S. troops from having to fight women and children, that the Japanese gov was willing to use as a shield.

Yes, we war crazed Americans actually felt bad about useing such weapons that we drafted the Marshall Plan, which dumped millions of dollars in to Japan to rebuild and invest in companies like Honda.

War is ######, but to play us Americans out as such evil people is wrong. To say that we are willing to use are weapons to kill anybody we want is wrong. I know men and women who serve, and their training is not to kill mindlessly. I know of soldiers who put their platoons at risk to save the children of their enemies.

I don't know how to end this. I am not as upset as you might think, or surprised by such comments. I don't trust any gov (that's the American way) but I will not leave my people undefended and grouped with terrorists.

I know one of the family members of the pilot that flew the Enola Gay (forgive spelling please) he went insane and spent the rest of his days in a mental ward.

Chownah-

It maybe a small point, but I like accuracy. No Nuclear weapons have ever been used on people anywhere. The bombs dropped in Japan were atomic, BIG difference.

...................

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Atomic" bombs were the bombs which were fueled by nuclear fission...so they were and are rightly called nuclear weapons. Later another type of bomb was developed and called the "Hydrogen" bomb. It was fueled by nuclear fusion...so they were and are rightly called nuclear weapons. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan were nuclear weapons...without a doubt...do some googling if you don't want to take my word for it.

Your quite wrong Thaibebop

check this out

I know people view Pearl Habor as "not a big deal" yet civillians died there as well, for the surrounding area that would help to support the navel targets was also targeted. No big deal though right?

Isn't there a lot of proof to your govt letting those attacks happen so they had reason to enter the war? The 9/11 syndrome?

Also, and someone with a better knowledge of history will have to clarify for me here, wasn't the war world 2 virtually won when the nucleur bombs were dropped on Japan?

Was it a really needed, or just a good way of showing the whole world what power the USA had got?

And you compare us Americans to terrorists! The Japanese people supported acts like this. These men were heros back home and got front page. The Japanese were living out the insane dream of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. The dream that said Japan shoud rule Asia. He tried the same thing and failed, yet modern Japanese were trying again at any cost. The same way most Germans viewed Jews was the same way Japan viewed everyother Asian. Innocent indeed!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am very much aware of what the Japanese and the Germans did for WW2 and I am not apoligizing for them by any means. They are guilty as charged. However, the "yank" and "allies" attitude that we didn't sink to those levels because our shit doesn't stink is totally ridiculous. Americans have commited numerous acts of terrorism like everybody else. Blinking your lashes like nothing happened and acting all innocent and "morally" concerned about the sake of others is for me "unacceptable" and "insulting". The reasons people hate americans is not because "they hate us for our freedom". The resentment against Americans is very much "justified". They did terrible things during the Vietnam war (that's just an easy example) in the name of "freedom", killing innocent civilians to win some kind of "psychology war". Totally ridiculous and unacceptable. To make things worse, history is repeating itself with the Iraq mess. Rapes, prisoners abuse, bombing by the US Air force of weddings etc... is "unacceptable" for our western society. If it is "acceptable" then we must "accept" and stop "whinning" about the consequences of terrorism acts like 911. Things don't happen by chance. If our politicians are not willing to accept the risk and the consequences of their act, then don't be surprised that the "population" becomes "collateral damages" in those little war game. We, the public, are being taken hostage by 2 ennemies, not one. Government officials take their huge political bets with our lives, not theirs.

Would London have been bombed if the Iraq invasion had not taken place?

Would London have been bombed if the Iraq invasion had not taken place?

That's the question folks who have forgotten their history like to ask.

How about if we ask if the Normandy Invasion had not happened, would Hitler have bombed London with the V-2 rockets, hmm?

I have heard all this crap before. Go head blame big bad America for all your problems. Even you Brits can blame us if you want. Sure you were bombed because we and only we went to Iraq, you guys didn't set foot in the place, it wasn't Brits (along with all other major powers) the carved up the Ottoman Empire for our own gain. It was all Americas fault, I know.

We'll be blamed now, the way the Brits were blamed before, and mostly likely China will be blamed in the furture. The one who is most susscessful is the one who will be targeted.

I will not deny that our gov had done bad things. But you guys aren't attacking the American gov, you're aiming at it's people, and that's who I am defending. As an American, it is my duty not to trust my gov, and I will let any one, American or not, question what they do. But to go after the people is just bad taste. When you are attacking an American you are attacking yourself and what you stand for.

Your quite wrong Thaibebop

  check this out

I know people view Pearl Habor as "not a big deal" yet civillians died there as well, for the surrounding area that would help to support the navel targets was also targeted. No big deal though right?

Isn't there a lot of proof to your govt letting those attacks happen so they had reason to enter the war? The 9/11 syndrome?

Also, and someone with a better knowledge of history will have to clarify for me here, wasn't the war world 2 virtually won when the nucleur bombs were dropped on Japan?

Was it a really needed, or just a good way of showing the whole world what power the USA had got?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand corrected on that point.

.....

I will not deny that our gov had done bad things. But you guys aren't attacking the American gov, you're aiming at it's people, and that's who I am defending. As an American, it is my duty not to trust my gov, and I will let any one, American or not, question what they do. But to go after the people is just bad taste. When you are attacking an American you are attacking yourself and what you stand for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. I don´t see it as an us and them scenario, with regards to the UK/US relationship here.

I - and I can only speak for myself - do not at any time in these posts or others, nor in the multitude of conversations I have about various political issues, attack the people. I question the governance thereof.

Indeed, I question the very validity of government and their decision making points. I do not, for example, in any way question or suspect any random arab of being a terrorist/suicide bomber/Intifadah warrior/etc...

If an arabic person wishes to enter into a discussion with me about the infidels etc... I may enter into it, if I can be bothered.

If said arab person goes defending OBL/Al Quaeda, or Saddam, or any previous warriors actions on claims of a higher moral ground, then I may choose to question more poignantly.

Thaibebop, In all fairness, Same applies. If a US citizen, admirably respecting his/her people, goes to defend their government on similar lines as said gov´t does itself, then surely you are setting yourself up for more precision bombing question. They do go astray sometimes, apparently.

You (figurative, general use of the word), You set yourself up as gov´t spokeman, your gonna have to speak up or put out.

With respect.

Kayo

Would London have been bombed if the Iraq invasion had not taken place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the question folks who have forgotten their history like to ask.

How about if we ask if the Normandy Invasion had not happened, would Hitler have bombed London with the V-2 rockets, hmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As usual Boon Me you throw in "irrelevant" arguments in a defensive manner. Hitler was a real threat. Saddam was a goon. You are fighting ghosts in the name of freedom and trying to bring everyone on board. The rest of the world know better and can smell the bullshit around this "War on Terra". You don't but that's your problem.

I disagree. I don´t see it as an us and them scenario, with regards to the UK/US relationship here.

I - and I can only speak for myself - do not at any time in these posts or others, nor in the multitude of conversations I have about various political issues, attack the people. I question the governance thereof.

Indeed, I question the very validity of government and their decision making points. I do not, for example, in any way question or suspect any random arab of being a terrorist/suicide bomber/Intifadah warrior/etc...

If an arabic person wishes to enter into a discussion with me about the infidels etc... I may enter into it, if I can be bothered.

If said arab person goes defending OBL/Al Quaeda, or Saddam, or any previous warriors actions on claims of a higher moral ground, then I may choose to question more poignantly.

Thaibebop, In all fairness, Same applies. If a US citizen, admirably respecting his/her people, goes to defend their government on similar lines as said gov´t does itself, then surely you are setting yourself up for more precision bombing question. They do go astray sometimes, apparently.

You (figurative, general use of the word), You set yourself up as gov´t spokeman, your gonna have to speak up or put out.

With respect.

Kayo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen to that Kayo. You are right on the money.

I have heard all this crap before. Go head blame big bad America for all your problems. Even you Brits can blame us if you want. Sure you were bombed because we and only we went to Iraq, you guys didn't set foot in the place, it wasn't Brits (along with all other major powers) the carved up the Ottoman Empire for our own gain. It was all Americas fault, I know.

We'll be blamed now, the way the Brits were blamed before, and mostly likely China will be blamed in the furture. The one who is most susscessful is the one who will be targeted.

I will not deny that our gov had done bad things. But you guys aren't attacking the American gov, you're aiming at it's people, and that's who I am defending. As an American, it is my duty not to trust my gov, and I will let any one, American or not, question what they do. But to go after the people is just bad taste. When you are attacking an American you are attacking yourself and what you stand for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hold on your horsie, thaibebop, you are sounding like an Islam extremist. Have you been reading anything that has been said before ? we are not blaming "America" for everything "out of the blue". First you invaded Iraq on a false pretense to steal oil in an illegal war. That alone, as you probably know, is not going to make "America" more popular and not "without consequences". You will be held responsible for those acts sooner or later.

Now, you seem to imply that America did nothing wrong for quite a while and she is all innocent. Yes the American public is not directly responsible for those acts of terrorism, but they did support their government during those acts of terrorism. They are not 100% innocent. As a supporter of such acts, you must also be able to bear the consequences. That's what I am saying. Likewise, fundamentalists and Islamists who support "terrorism" must face the consequences of such acts, even though it is easier to understand that they are in such a state of "desperation" that this is their only way to "defend" themselves (in the case of Palestinians, even though they are not Islam fundamentalists). However this is not the case for all of them, and certainly not the case for our western societies. Or are we so "desperate" to fight terror that we need to become "terrorists" to defend ourselves ? I would like to believe this is not the case, but I think the American public do.

Basically, there are other way to resolve those differences. Ways not involving the bombing of innocent civilians from the safety of a bomber at 10,000 feet above the ground. All this under the "false" pretense of freedom.

Hold on your horsie, thaibebop, you are sounding like an Islam extremist. Have you been reading anything that has been said before ? we are not blaming "America" for everything "out of the blue". First you invaded Iraq on a false pretense to steal oil in an illegal war. That alone, as you probably know, is not going to make "America" more popular and not "without consequences". You will be held responsible for those acts sooner or later.

I am not writing to defend anything the American government is doing, let me say that first.  Every country and it's government is responsible for it's actions, that is true.  The citizens of the country cannot be held responsible though, that is ridiculous.

Now, you seem to imply that America did nothing wrong for quite a while and she is all innocent. Yes the American public is not directly responsible for those acts of terrorism, but they did support their government during those acts of terrorism. They are not 100% innocent. As a supporter of such acts, you must also be able to bear the consequences. That's what I am saying.

You cannot be serious about this?  You really think because some, not all, of the American citizens stand behind what the government is doing that they should be blamed on equal footing with the government?  Normal citizens in a country do not have the same information their government has.  They are not privy to what is actually going on anywhere.  They are not in the loop.  The only thing the American people know is what they hear on TV news or read in the newspaper.  American people hear only what the government allows them to hear and nothing more than that.  The US government could be giving the people a biased, one-sided segment of an actual story just to turn opinion in their favor.  Basically, all normal citizens of a country are completely ignorant as to what their government is doing or why they are doing it.  The ignorant masses cannot be held responsible for supporting a cause when these people don't actually know everything.  Of course a lot of the Americans are going to support the government when that same government tells them how bad everyone else is and how we are trying to change that and help them.  These ignorant people think they are doing the right thing, they have no idea about anything.  These people think they know something but they really dont.  Just like I dont know the full story, you dont know the full story and the Iraqi people dont know the full story.  For everyone here to sit and argue like you know something is asinine because none of us know shit!  If you think you're getting the full story and all the facts from the media then you're sorely mistaken.

Basically, there are other way to resolve those differences.

Please enlighten me as to what these might be?

Gentlemen,

as OP for this thread, I would like to remind you of its subject, and to note, if you are unable to keep this discussion on topic, I will request the thread closed:

Here is an interesting little conundrum to ponder over:

Imagine you are president of the USA and your intelligence services inform you that Saudi Arabia has signed an "oil for nukes" agreement with Pakistan, similar to the "nukes for missiles deal" Pakistan already has with North Korea.

What contingency plans do you take to protect American interests and maintain world peace?

Do not forget that Saudi Arabia is also the home of Osama bin Laden plus King Fahd is near death, and his designated successor, Crown Prince Abdullah, is known to be more actively hostile to American foreign policy, and more sympathetic to militant Wahhabi Sunni currents in the Islamic world.

I guess my assumptions about the supporting public was the flag waving crowd. But you are absolutely right. We can't assume the general public to be held 100% responsible, but they are not 100% innocent either. A good chunk of the American public was against the war. Of course, all you can hear were the right wing lunatics and the Faux News crowd. They are the most noisy group so it was difficult to "ignore" them. They gave a bad name to the rest of the american population who was against the war and could see through the bullshit from the start as "true patrtiots". The "traitors" were those going along with the government propaganda without asking the relevant questions. The US main stream media is definitely guilty on that front. The system has failed.

However, ignorance is not an excuse for not being a citizen and not do what's right for your country, and that is to do your research and be properly informed. Above all today with so much info on the web. This is the same as saying that ignoring the law is an excuse for doing something illegal and not knowing about it. The real problem is that our citizens are ignorant because they are lazy. They are not being involved and don't want to face the "reality" of the world. They rather watch Oprah and NASCAR. At the end, you get a leader that ressemble your society: an insecure, incurious and ignorant Texan who rather play with his PlayStation than fix what needs to be fixed in the world. I am not against America intervention in the world, I am against unilateral intervention without UN mandate and a clear agenda.

Gentlemen,

as OP for this thread, I would like to remind you of its subject, and to note, if you are unable to keep this discussion on topic, I will request the thread closed:

Here is an interesting little conundrum to ponder over:

Imagine you are president of the USA and your intelligence services inform you that Saudi Arabia has signed an "oil for nukes" agreement with Pakistan, similar to the "nukes for missiles deal" Pakistan already has with North Korea.

What contingency plans do you take to protect American interests and maintain world peace?

Do not forget that Saudi Arabia is also the home of Osama bin Laden plus King Fahd is near death, and his designated successor, Crown Prince Abdullah, is known to be more actively hostile to American foreign policy, and more sympathetic to militant Wahhabi Sunni currents in the Islamic world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I can asnwer that. Give them what they want. An islamic state where they can all meet and have their "alternative" to the west. Cut diplomatic relations with SA and the rest of those Islamic state. They could build their own UN and we could have a liasion through diplomacy with the whole group. Let them manage their islamic state as they wish, we have to accept their differences. Osama Bin Laden is a product of Gulf War 1, and 911 would have never happened if US troops had left SA in due time. Before 911, Islam fundamentalists cause was dying. They were unsuccessful in their quest to overthrow the corrupt Arab governments with an Islamic state. Osama showed up with his money and a new cause. They have never been so happy since.

Of course this will never happen because oil is there and nobody gives a ###### about the Islamists as long as you can squeeze more oil out of them. Why do you think SA is still there.

As to who should bear responsibility for the US going to war against Saddam....it was made very very clear to the people of the US that the US had an urgent need to stop Saddam from committing acts of terrorism on the US using the aresenal of nuclear, biological, and nerve gas agents that were already developed in a vast network of clandestine laboratories.....Bush made it very very clear that if we waited even a few months we might suffer an attack from Saddam's capabilities...

As to who should bear responsibility for the US going to war against Saddam...Bush made it very very clear that Saddam was a major alie of Osama Bin Ladin and was actively supporting his terrorist efforts.

It is very easy to see who should bear the responsibility...it should be the intelligence underling who apparently lied to Bush about these matters because I'm so very very sure that Bush is a good Christian and would never lie to the American citizenry....don't you agree?

This is the last time I go off thread Thomas I promise.

Butterfly-

No man, you are what is wrong with America. You and all like you, you are an extermist (left wing) but you are no better than the right wingers either. America is now torn in two by both of these kinds of people. Neither one willing to work with the other and always trying to destory what the other has done, bad or good. Washington warned us against a two party system and now we have two groups who are way too alike supported by diehards who care more about being right than doing what is right. You're the one pulling this country apart. Maybe you're the real traitor?

As to who should bear responsibility for the US going to war against Saddam....it was made very very clear to the people of the US that the US had an urgent need to stop Saddam from committing acts of terrorism on the US using the aresenal of nuclear, biological, and nerve gas agents that were already developed in a vast network of clandestine laboratories.....Bush made it very very clear that if we waited even a few months we might suffer an attack from Saddam's capabilities...

As to who should bear responsibility for the US going to war against Saddam...Bush made it very very clear that Saddam was a major alie of Osama Bin Ladin and was actively supporting his terrorist efforts.

It is very easy to see who should bear the responsibility...it should be the intelligence underling who apparently lied to Bush about these matters because I'm so very very sure that Bush is a good Christian and would never lie to the American citizenry....don't you agree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok this is sarcasm right ?

In case it's not:

Bush had a hardon since day 1 for Saddam. The real reasons: oil and probably a few other things we will never know. There has never been links between Saddam and 911 or Osama Bin Laden. That was a fantasy created by the Bush admin and the Faux News folks as a way to gather the sheep to "support our troops". Total bullshit of course but a few rednecks bought it. Too bad it had to be the Iraqi people who had to suffer the consequences of this "unecessary" war, and not the rednecks who tought it was good idea to show some muscle in the middle east. The world is not a safer place, it's even more dangerous than ever, thanks to the Iraq mess. But once again, like 911 with the warning signs, it will be ignored out of lazyness and incuriousity by the majority of the American public.

If you had to make the world safer, then you wouldn't bomb around innocent civilians to show off how strong you are to your population, when in reality you are only demonstrating your weakness.

This is the last time I go off thread Thomas I promise.

Butterfly-

No man, you are what is wrong with America. You and all like you, you are an extermist (left wing) but you are no better than the right wingers either. America is now torn in two by both of these kinds of people. Neither one willing to work with the other and always trying to destory what the other has done, bad or good. Washington warned us against a two party system and now we have two groups who are way too alike supported by diehards who care more about being right than doing what is right. You're the one pulling this country apart. Maybe you're the real traitor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately I am not wrong, I wish I was. Read some history book on world matters, maybe it would change your mind. Didn't you know that most Japanese feel they have been victims of the West during WW2 and they never did anything wrong ? This is how students are taught in School. Neat, isn't it ? likewise, did you know that the French think they were all "Resistants" during the Petin Regime ? of course they forgot that they supported Germany and were collaborators during WW2. Still, they will "skip" entire sections of history in French schools over the Petin "incident".

My point is, it's too easy to be biased when you are an American and be faced with the truth, because most Americans can't handle the truth. They have been living in those dreams, myths, that they combating "evil" and they are the "good guys" while in fact they are not, they are just another bunch of "bad guys" in a world already full of "bad guys". To make things worse, the "good guys" lost long ago and were defeated. We can't even remember who they were.

I don't look for the destruction of America and advocate acts of terrorism against the US or any other countries. Far from it. However I am trying to understand the motivations behind those acts and how countries react when they get served with the same "weapons" as they served others in the past. It's all interesting. Denials, false pretense, scapegoats etc... a game that loves to repeat itself throughout History. A pattern that makes predictions almost too easy.

As for being a traitor for asking real questions and not be gullible to government propaganda, I will let you decide what's the right thing to do. This right wing administration has been "demonizing" liberals, and the lefts and the anti-war hippies since day 1. They have been trying to divide the country from day 1 to strengthen their grip on power. I think it's reasonable that the left is finally fighting back. Balance of power. Every heard of it ?

I guess my assumptions about the supporting public was the flag waving crowd. But you are absolutely right. We can't assume the general public to be held 100% responsible, but they are not 100% innocent either.

They are innocent because they don't know anything the government doesnt want them to know and they have no choice on that matter.

The "traitors" were those going along with the government propaganda without asking the relevant questions. The US main stream media is definitely guilty on that front. The system has failed.

You think these people have a choice?  Yes, the government fed them a bunch of propaganda and that is all people hear.  None of us can turn into little "fly's-on-the-wall" and hear what gets said at top-secret meetings when politics is being discussed. 

However, ignorance is not an excuse for not being a citizen and not do what's right for your country, and that is to do your research and be properly informed. Above all today with so much info on the web.

Do your research and be properly informed huh?  Where is one supposed to start this research at?  Anything you hear on TV, anything you read in a newspaper, no matter which country it comes from, is what the government has told the media to report to you.  Where do news reporters get their information from to write a story?  Either a press conference is held to make broad statements or they have a "source".  Either way, they report what they are told or they are just speculating.  None of us can make an informed decision because we don't know all the facts about anything.  The only thing you know about Iraq, the only thing I know about Iraq, the only thing any of us know about Iraq, is what we've been told which is nothing.  Just because you are getting your information from the BBC rather than Fox News, just as an example, doesn't mean you know something different or better.  We know nothing!

I am against unilateral intervention without UN mandate and a clear agenda.

Agenda?  Sure, the UN has one but they are never going to tell us what it really is?  They can blow smoke all they want and give a public statement about where they stand but how do you know they are telling you the truth?  You don't, it's that simple.  The UN, give me a break!

Unfortunately I am not wrong, I wish I was. Read some history book on world matters, maybe it would change your mind.

This is exactly what I am talking about.  What information do you have that makes you think you know something special, that you know something different?  Is it because you read a history book?  Do you believe everything you read?  You only know what you're told and that's it.  Same as the rest of the world.

As for being a traitor for asking real questions and not be gullible to government propaganda, I will let you decide what's the right thing to do.

Being gullible to government propaganda is something none of us are able to avoid.  Every government of every country has an agenda and they will tell us only what they want us to hear in order to sway our opinion in the favor of what their goal is.  No government is innocent, they all lie and skew stories.  The media of every country is a governments vehicle for spreading the propaganda they spew.  No media is unbiased or all-true.  American government and media are guilty of this for sure but so is England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Israel etc etc, name them all.  Every country has a vested interest in world events and to accomplish their goals and win over popular opinion, they will tell us whatever it takes to win us over.  None of us know the truth because none of us are being told everything, no matter where you are getting your information.

Great post Tripxcore. There is always a massive amount of naiveity shown when people are discussing politics.

TM, dont bother getting the topic closed, its turned into a good conversation as it is, and seems a shame and a little selfish to have it closed because its not about your original post anymore. Closing it benefits no one.

Gentlemen,

as OP for this thread, I would like to remind you of its subject, and to note, if you are unable to keep this discussion on topic, I will request the thread closed:

Here is an interesting little conundrum to ponder over:

Imagine you are president of the USA and your intelligence services inform you that Saudi Arabia has signed an "oil for nukes" agreement with Pakistan, similar to the "nukes for missiles deal" Pakistan already has with North Korea.

What contingency plans do you take to protect American interests and maintain world peace?

Do not forget that Saudi Arabia is also the home of Osama bin Laden erm... I don´t think so. As far as I kno he hasn´t lived in SA since they kicked him out plus King Fahd is near death, and his designated successor, Crown Prince

Abdullah, is known to be more actively hostile to American foreign policy, and more sympathetic to militant Wahhabi Sunni currents in the Islamic world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thomas, a lot of this thread has gone slightly off topic, but it has developed into an intersting one all the same, without getting silly, for a change.

I also believe if you look back you may see that we ALL have gone slightly O.T.

but not O.T.T.

Maybe I can asnwer that. Give them what they want. An islamic state where they can all meet and have their "alternative" to the west. Cut diplomatic relations with SA and the rest of those Islamic state. They could build their own UN and we could have a liasion through diplomacy with the whole group. Let them manage their islamic state as they wish, we have to accept their differences. Ho Hum... Do we have a LP idealist on the board? Osama Bin Laden is a product of Gulf War 1, How do you explain that? He was already a (US sponsored but that´s beside the point) already a warrior in the russo-US war theatre in afghanistan in the early eighties.and 911 would have never happened if US troops had left SA in due time. &lt;deleted&gt;. It had already been tried before, and will happen again. Whether or not troops were in SA is moot. OBL&co could just as easily have used any justification they felt. Palestinian territories/Israel being the main one probably Before 911, Islam fundamentalists cause was dying. Tell that to the thousands upon thousands of arabs, jews, and innocents who dies every year since time began, and certainly since christianity etc... religion generally began.They were unsuccessful in their quest to overthrow the corrupt Arab governments with an Islamic state. Osama showed up with his money and a new cause. They have never been so happy since.

Of course this will never happen because oil is there and nobody gives a ###### about the Islamists as long as you can squeeze more oil out of them. Why do you think SA is still there.Finally agreed with that... The sad thing is, the oils is gonna run out, and then what will it all have been for?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the last time I go off thread Thomas I promise. No it´s not. 

Butterfly-

No man, you are what is wrong with America. You and all like you, you are an extermist (left wing) but you are no better than the right wingers either. America is now torn in two by both of these kinds of people. Neither one willing to work with the other and always trying to destory what the other has done, bad or good. Washington warned us against a two party system and now we have two groups who are way too alike supported by diehards who care more about being right than doing what is right. You're the one pulling this country apart. Maybe you're the real traitor?  OUCH!!!    , Kayo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately I am not wrong, I wish I was. Read some history book on world matters, maybe it would change your mind. Didn't you know that most Japanese feel they have been victims of the West during WW2 and they never did anything wrong ? This is how students are taught in School. Neat, isn't it ? likewise, did you know that the French think they were all "Resistants" during the Petin Regime ? of course they forgot that they supported Germany and were collaborators during WW2. Still, they will "skip" entire sections of history in French schools over the Petin "incident". Agreed.

My point is, it's too easy to be biased when you are an American and be faced with the truth, because most Americans can't handle the truth. They have been living in those dreams, myths, that they combating "evil" and they are the "good guys" while in fact they are not, they are just another bunch of "bad guys" in a world already full of "bad guys". To make things worse, the "good guys" lost long ago and were defeated. We can't even remember who they were.

.........

Okay with reference to good/bad/balanceofpower, here´s an interesting experiment for you guys.

Take three buckets.

Fill #1 with HOT water

Fill #2 with tepid room temperature water

Fill #3 with COLD water.

Now, when you put your hand in 1, you will feel heat

Put your hand in 2 and you will feel comfortable.

Put your hand in 3, and you feel the cold.

So far we agree?

Good.

Now, Keep your hand in #3 for a over 5 minutes.

Then dunk it in #1.

What are the results?

Now, Keep your hand in #1 for five minutes.

Then dunk it in #3.

What are the results?

Gentlemen, if you have succeeded in this experiment, I await your answers.

It would appear, good sirs, that appearences or preconceived notions are in fact, not always what they seem.

Cheers,

Kayo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... I am against unilateral intervention without UN mandate and a clear agenda.

Unfettered naiveté to the Max!

Just what color is the sky on the world you're living on, Bitterfly?

...careful now, you don't want to get turfed off here so soon after starting posting again!

... I am against unilateral intervention without UN mandate and a clear agenda.

Unfettered naiveté to the Max!

Just what color is the sky on the world you're living on, Bitterfly?

...careful now, you don't want to get turfed off here so soon after starting posting again!

Note: Never form any kind of pact or commitment with BoonMee, from his above comment it appears he thinks that playing by the rules is only ok when the rules work in ones own favour.

Overdose of renegade cop breaking all the rules because 'you don't mess with my family' movies?

You're right Kayo, it's not.

Butterfly-

What am I suppose to say? You are so caught up in the propaganda of the left that I doubt you'll hear anything. As I said before, you are no better off as those who are caught up in the right wing politics.

These problems over the world always go back further then most of us care to think of. Then new issues are added to the ones already plaguing us. I mentioned before the Ottoman Empire, what if it wasn't carved up? Would some of the problems in the middle east have had a chance to happen? Oil, yes that's part of it, but only part.

I wouldn't put so much faith in the U.N. that's just asking for someone to dump sh1t on you. It's far better for countries to come together and talk than keep putting issues in the hands of the U.N.

Keep two things in mind Butterfly:

The minute you think you have all the answers, you're wrong.

There's nothing proper about you're propaganda-RATM

You're right Kayo, it's not. 

Butterfly-

Keep two things in mind Butterfly:

The minute you think you have all the answers, you're wrong.

Yes, oh yes, oh Yes! .... Or, no that I'm sure about that,...  maybe no!

There's nothing proper about you're propaganda-RATM

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't put so much faith in the U.N. that's just asking for someone to dump sh1t on you. It's far better for countries to come together and talk than keep putting issues in the hands of the U.N.

Better for whom? Surely not for the small countries with small armies and scarce resources. Without a forum like the UN, what chance have they got at getting their voices heard?

Is it in your mind ok for the US who for years and years refused to pay their membership fees but still claimed a seat in the security council?

Dont know about you, but I was taught that when you join a club, you make a commitment, a commitment that should be honoured. Not doing so is arrogant and totally undermines your credibility when you try to moralize to others afterwards.