jazz
|
Re: *)% dependent on aid
Apr 04, 2003, 14:28
|
|
How would you administer this aid whilst the current dictator is in power? Do you not think this aid would be missused by Sadam were he to remain in power?
|
RiotGibbon
|
Re: You know, for anti-war dudes...
Apr 04, 2003, 14:36
|
i think AQ was being ironic ... all day it's been the "Elite" Republican Guard being "neutralised" and "engaged"
not a lot of "killed"
I get a bit sick of hearing about how a soldiers life only matters if they are US or British ...
they *ALL* do - there was a softsell until last week about how this would be a "clean" war. Yeah, right. Death, looting, terror, ecological devastation ... doesn't matter who's doing it, people still end up dead
but liberated
RG
|
FourWinds
|
Re: *)% dependent on aid
Apr 04, 2003, 14:37
|
You give it directly to the people. With a UN peace keeping presence if necessary.
Simple innit!? Did you not read the quote in there
<<
One young man angrily said to me: "You support us when the TV cameras and newspapers are here, to show the world you like us.
"When they have gone you change. You have changed Saddam for another kind of imperialism."
>>
That's what some of them think of this invasion and forth coming occupation.
Remember. The US have NEVER installed a true democracy ANYWHERE. They've destroyed the hopes of many though.
|
Zastrozzi
|
Re: You know, for anti-war dudes...
Apr 04, 2003, 14:44
|
'It became necessary to destroy (the town of Ben Tre) in order to save it'.
- Unnamed US Major during the Tet Offensive, quoted by Peter Arnett
|
FourWinds
|
Re: You know, for anti-war dudes...
Apr 04, 2003, 14:48
|
And a noble action it was too.
It became necessary to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to test out two different designs of big bomb on live targets.
|
Zastrozzi
|
Re: You know, for anti-war dudes...
Apr 04, 2003, 15:01
|
But hey - c'mon... they'd built it already, right? Nice and shiny... must've just seemed like a pity not to use it... Besides which, as well as building it, they'd PAID for it, godammit!
Shee.....
Going back to the 'training soldiers' thing, it's interesting how attitudes compare. Western armies try to turn humans into - essentially - killing machines; which is why when they're successful, what emerges is a very bad human being.
Older philosophies stressed that you had to be arounded character to be a warrior - art and intellect were just as important as fighting ability. This was most notable in eastern philosophy, but not limited to there (think of Cyrano de Bergerac etc).
I guess that as war got mechanised, the people doing it got put through a production line as well.
|
jazz
|
Re: sorry, you're loosing me
Apr 04, 2003, 15:03
|
"Read again, I never said I accept pre emptive strikes at necessary".....
"PRE -emptive? as in, before they do?'
"NO, unless you show me a bid piece of evidence first, show me proof"...
I take you are the same Annexus Queen - there's not two of ya is there?
My point is this, if you accept that there is a point at which there is a need to disarm/depose a dictator or regime then you must be prepared to use military force - bad mouthing the military who are the tool of a societies will in the way you have discredits you..
"Even when public opinions against their actions? I thought democracy was exactly that"
Wrong, western parliamenatry democracy does not work in this way. If you want to influence your MP get off this board and start lobbying him/her - they may take some notice assuming you're old enough to vote. Where do you draw the line in holding a referendum? Matters of war are the single least appropriate for this.
"I have more proof of it than you do of mustard gas"
Are you serious? Ask the relatives of thousands of dead Kurdish Iraqi's about mustard gas.
You are strong on rhetoric but short on answers and solutions.
|
RiotGibbon
|
Re: You know, for anti-war dudes...
Apr 04, 2003, 15:17
|
>I guess that as war got mechanised, the people >doing it got put through a production line as well.
death as an industrial process. Cows, chickens and pigs get it, why not people? Have you seen the pictures of the military bulldozers?
ugh
that about sums it up
not over yet though
nice at the mosques today. One of them has a big courtyard, and everyone went out into that for the sunshine. Mosques are by far the most civilised places of worship ... go in, go out, do your own thing ... no-one's really in charge. I love them ...
RG
RG
|
jazz
|
Re: *)% dependent on aid
Apr 04, 2003, 15:19
|
|
Without someone policing aid then Saddam cannot be trusted - hence oil for food. I agree a UN peace keeping presence is the obvious way to go but the reality is that it seems to take a war to get that presence in there, doesn't it? e.g. Balkans/Afghanistan.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: *)% dependent on aid
Apr 04, 2003, 15:25
|
Was there a need to go into Afghanistan? And what has happened there since. Let's play spot the democracy shall we.
The US installed puppet leader is now known as the Mayor of Kabul, because his power does not extend past the limits of the city.
There has been more heroine produced in Afghanistan since 'liberation' than at any time during the Taliban years.
There is STILL a war going on in Afghanistan. The US are spending $1bn a month fighting there right now! The south of the country is in turmoil.
Do not use Afghanistan as an example of US success .. because it isn't.
|
