" Damouse70, again I think you misread me. I have absolutely no intention of suggesting that the US should not support Israel. I do believe it should sometimes take a more even handed approach to politics in the area (and it's condemnation of the physical barrier does indeed do that). Previous attitudes of condemning only Palestinian attrocities was one sided.
The Palestinian woman was the recent suicide bomber who killed 4 soldiers. There are frequent interviews with her family on TV at the moment. To put my arguements in perspective (which I believe are actually the same as yours - do correct me if I'm wrong), if that woman had something to live for, if she had a job, had a future, had peace, would she still have blown herself up? There will always be fanatics, but the quantity of them will probably be related to the social and economic realities of the population from which they come.
Trying to apportion blame and settle for incidents of the past is not going to fix the problem. "

I read about the mother who blew herself up yesterday after you mentioned it on this board. But I still don't think this woman was a good example, because she told her children in that video that she had been wanting to be a martyr since she was 13 years of age. The other part of this thing is that at least for the last 3 years, the suicide bombings which were taking place nearly on a daily basis, have done nothing to accomplish peace, in fact all they have done is hinder it.

The people that were at the security checkpoint were on their way to work, but when she blew herself up, they didn't get to go to work that day.

Reply #93 By: blindNeo - 1/17/2004 2:01:53 AM



I pity a crazy jibba jabba talkin fooh

hehe this thread is funny.

While I don't consider either side to be completely right, Brad makes a good point.

here is my view of this whole mess:
Selfdefense is human nature. It is illogical, but it will and does happen. Selfdefense is not premeditated and it is in direct retaliation. While you could say that the US military planned, they did it in response to 9/11. If they hadn't responded the result would have been much worse for the whole world. Right now the USA is the greatest world economic power. If we didn't respond there is a good chance that a drastic change in theUS citizen's moral would have led to its downfall. If the US fell there is a good chance that a period like the middle ages would occur again, a stagnant time where religion preempts science and the value of human life is lessened. This is what happened when Rome fell: the collapse of Rome led to the economic collapse of Europe. another anology is saying that the world is a building. Right now the US is an economic foundation and if the US lost its stabiltiy so would the world.

The acts of terrorists are meant to destabalize the world. The reaction of the USA was to stabalize it. You can say all day that invading Afganistan was a wrongful act and I would consider you wrong every time. Afganistan was allowing the terrorists to live there. Whether or not they wanted them to, it doesn't matter. The fact that they were there is reason enough. Allowing people to exist anywhere whose only purpose is terror is wrong.

Saddam needed to be dealt with. Saying that the US had a hand in his rise (whether true or not) and that it allowed him to commit numerous evil acts again has nothing to do with the point that he needed to be dealt with. While I disagree with Bush misleading us about the wmds I agree that invading and ending Saddams reign was necessary. Irag was a wound. We thought it would heal itself. It didn't and got worse. The US is part of the world and the wound called Iraq was hurting the whole world. Therefor since the US is a member of the world it has a right to protect itself from Iraq. A festering wound untreated can kill. Now that the infection has been removed (surgically I might add... the US did a very good job at it) Iraq is on the path to getting better. The US cannot allow Iraq to become infected again so it must stay there and watch over it until it has healed enough to protect itself.

Saying that America is a Bully is completely wrong. A bully is a kid who hurts, teases, and abuses other kids to get what it wants. Its only power is abuse. America's greatest power is its economy, not its military. Throughout history a strong military has been linked to a strong economy. The safest place is the best place to keep ones money. With its military might, I consider the US the be the kid who has the ability to stop the real bullies like Saddam and does. I consider France and Germany to be the onlookers who can't decide to help or not because of what the other kids will think.

America has no distinct culture. It is a melting pot. You cannot describe the American culture. In the same neighborhood a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, and a Japanese family, can all live together. Each has their own culture and they all live harmoniously. That if anything is the American culture. The other stuff often described as culture (popular activities) isn't. When you think about the French culture do you think about the fact that they used to love Jerry Lewis. No you think about their food, the art, the atmosphere. In fact most of what is described as American culture exists in all major cities and nations. The US has so much of it because of their economic prominence. Let me itterate, America has no distinct culture. It is a melting pot of all cultures. Now if people would understand that, then they would understand that by lambasting the "American Cutlure" they are in fact lambasting their own culture because it exists somewhere within the United States.

If people would only stop making assumptions about other people and why they did what they did and instead focus on what they did and how to fix/improve it then the world would be a lot better place. Once something is done it is done. You can't change history. Life is about changing the future. Focus on the present, think about the future, and enjoy every minute.

The real nutters are those who believe in al-Qa'eda and weapons of mass destruction

John Laughland

Believing in conspiracy theories is rather like having been to a grammar school: both are rather socially awkward to admit. Although I once sat next to a sister-in-law of the Duke of Norfolk who agreed that you can't believe everything you read in the newspapers, conspiracy theories are generally considered a rather repellent form of intellectual low-life, and their theorists rightfully the object of scorn and snobbery. Writing in the Daily Mail last week, the columnist Melanie Phillips even attacked conspiracy theories as the consequence of a special pathology, of the collapse in religious belief, and of a 'descent into the irrational'. The implication is that those who oppose 'the West', or who think that governments are secretive and dishonest, might need psychiatric treatment.

In fact, it is the other way round. British and American foreign policy is itself based on a series of highly improbable conspiracy theories, the biggest of which is that an evil Saudi millionaire genius in a cave in the Hindu Kush controls a secret worldwide network of 'tens of thousands of terrorists' 'in more than 60 countries' (George Bush). News reports frequently tell us that terrorist organisations, such as those which have attacked Bali or Istanbul, have 'links' to al-Qa'eda, but we never learn quite what those 'links' are. According to two terrorism experts in California, Adam Dolnik and Kimberly McCloud, this is because they do not exist. 'In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow al-Qa'eda out of proportion,' they write. They argue that the name 'al-Qa'eda' was invented in the West to designate what is, in reality, a highly disparate collection of otherwise independent groups with no central command structure and not even a logo. They claim that some terrorist organisations say they are affiliated to bin Laden simply to gain kudos and name-recognition for their entirely local grievances.

By the same token, the US-led invasion of Iraq was based on a fantasy that Saddam Hussein was in, or might one day enter into, a conspiracy with Osama bin Laden. This is as verifiable as the claim that MI6 used mind control to make Henri Paul crash Princess Diana's car into the 13th pillar of the tunnel under the Place de l'Alma. With similar mystic gnosis, Donald Rumsfeld has alleged that the failure to find 'weapons of mass distraction', as Tony Blair likes to call them, shows that they once existed but were destroyed. Indeed, London and Washington have shamelessly exploited people's fear of the unknown to get public opinion to believe their claim that Iraq had masses of anthrax and botulism. This played on a deep and ancient seam of fear about poison conspiracies which, in the Middle Ages, led to pogroms against Jews. And yet it is the anti-war people who continue to be branded paranoid, even though the British Prime Minister himself, his eyes staring wildly, said in September 2002, 'Saddam has got all these weapons ...and they're pointing at us!'

In contrast to such imaginings, it is perfectly reasonable to raise questions about the power of the secret services and armed forces of the world's most powerful states, especially those of the USA. These are not 'theories' at all; they are based on fact. The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other US secret services spend more than $30,000,000,000 a year on espionage and covert operations. Do opponents of conspiracy theories think that this money is given to the Langley, Virginia Cats' Home? It would also be churlish to deny that the American military industry plays a very major role in the economics and politics of the US. Every day at 5 p.m., the Pentagon announces hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to arms manufacturers all over America - click on the Department of Defense's website for details - who in turn peddle influence through donations to politicians and opinion-formers.

It is also odd that opponents of conspiracy theories often allow that conspiracies have occurred in the past, but refuse to contemplate their existence in the present. For some reason, you are bordering on the bonkers if you wonder about the truth behind events like 9/11, when it is established as fact that in 1962 the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer, tried to convince President Kennedy to authorise an attack on John Glenn's rocket, or on a US navy vessel, to provide a pretext for invading Cuba. Two years later, a similar strategy was deployed in the faked Gulf of Tonkin incident, when US engagement in Vietnam was justified in the light of the false allegation that the North Vietnamese had launched an unprovoked attack on a US destroyer. Are such tactics confined to history? Paul O'Neill, George Bush's former Treasury Secretary, has just revealed that the White House decided to get rid of Saddam eight months before 9/11.

Indeed, one ought to speak of a 'conspir- acy of silence' about the role of secret services in politics. This is especially true of the events in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It is the height of irresponsibility to discuss the post-communist transition without extensive reference to the role of the spooks, yet our media stick doggedly to the myth that their role is irrelevant. During the overthrow of the Georgian president, Eduard Shevardnadze, on 22 November 2003, the world's news outlets peddled a wonderful fairy-tale about a spontaneous uprising - 'the revolution of roses', CNN shlockily dubbed it - even though all the key actors have subsequently bragged that they were covertly funded and organised by the US.

Similarly, it is a matter of public record that the Americans pumped at least $100 million into Serbia in order to get rid of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, and huge sums in the years before. (An election in Britain, whose population is eight times bigger than Yugoslavia's, costs about two thirds of this.) This money was used to fund and equip the Kosovo Liberation Army; to stuff international observer missions in Kosovo with hundreds of military intelligence officers; to pay off the opposition and the so-called 'independent' media; and to buy heavily-armed Mafia gangsters to come and smash up central Belgrade, so that the world's cameras could show a 'people's revolution'.

At every stage, the covert aid and organisation provided by the US and British intelligence agencies were decisive, as they had been on many occasions before and since, all over the world. Yet for some reason, it is acceptable to say, 'The CIA organised the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq in Iran in 1953', but not that it did it again in Belgrade in 2000 or Tbilisi in 2003. And in spite of the well-known subterfuge and deception practised, for instance, in the Iran-Contra scandal in the mid-1980s, people experience an enormous psychological reluctance to accept that the British and American governments knowingly lied us into war in 2002 and 2003. To be sure, some conspiracy theories may be outlandish or wrong. But it seems to me that anyone who refuses to make simple empirical deductions ought to have his head examined.

Er, you don't believe in Al-Queda?

Nice post Travis, I agree with most of your points. America's involvement in Afganistan was directly related to 9/11 and a perfect response to an attack against it. America's invasion of Iraq is not as clear cut however. I do believe Saddam needed to be removed, it's just a pity the US wasn't more honest about it's reasons. Remember that France, Germany and Russia refused to support the US invasion because they disagreed about WDM. Perhaps things would have been different if the US had been honest and talked about the threat to stability, the suffering of the people, the need for a stable middle east muslim democracy...

As for America being a bully, it does have a tendancy to flex it's muscles when it's not getting it's own way. The way it treated France, Germany and Russia is a good example of this. The way it forces many small countries to exempt it's soldiers from the Internation court in the Hague before it will invest in the country is an example of this. Like any powerful country, America tries to achieve what it feels is best for itself. That self focussed attitude (which all countries exhibit) is often a form of bullying when seen from another countries perspective. Because America has the most clout it will get it's way the most and so will be seen as the biggest bully.

As for American culture, your points are very good. Unfortunately people don't see Americans. They see the American government and American capitalist companies. This unfortunately is what people associate with America. Few multi-national companies (whether American or not) have any morals. Making money is the sole task. They will do whatever it takes and walk over whoever they have to, in achieving profit. This becomes especially problematic in poorer countries where the company is richer than the country. That attitude then gets transferred to Americans in general. Sad but true.

Your last paragraph is totally true. It's about time people move on and look to fixing problem. No matter who caused them, or what history is involved.

Paul.

As for American culture, your points are very good. Unfortunately people don't see Americans. They see the American government and American capitalist companies. This unfortunately is what people associate with America. Few multi-national companies (whether American or not) have any morals. Making money is the sole task. They will do whatever it takes and walk over whoever they have to, in achieving profit. This becomes especially problematic in poorer countries where the company is richer than the country. That attitude then gets transferred to Americans in general. Sad but true.

I think this is the main issue.

The War of 1812 as we were learned in Canada was caused indirectly by the French/English War in Europe . The US saw Canada as a easy land grab.

Bit over the top.

Laywers receiving death threats for defending people others hate is nothing new. Happens in most countries. Whether they defend bank robbers, terrorists, child molesters or abortionists doesn't matter. Soimeone will always take offense. Part of the job really. Look at places like northern Ireland where there have been a number of lawyers murdered. Sometimes with the collusions of the police forces. Doesn't stop many others from still representing those who need it. I have a much higher opinion of individual laywers and journalists than you seem to. When they are pushed there will be those martyers who stand out and cause the change.

Paul.

Wait, the question that should be asked is, which poll showed that a "vast majority of Americans" wanted to wipe out the Japanese as a race? And where were they taken? The backwater of appalachia? The place where people think "Deliverance" is a way of life?

So many long-winded posts. It's impossible to Understand the American Character because we're not totally finished Defining what it IS to be American.
And how would a foreigner know better than us? Ask yourself who you are..and to hell with the rest.

P.S. If I got beat up because my cousin kicked the person who jumped me, I'd beat the shiznit out of my cousin so that he gets the point to NOT CAUSE ME TROUBLE.
If a terrorist attacks the US..and we come after the country they live in..wouldn't it be wiser by that country to expunge the 'tard so as not to cause any more complications?

By the way, if you really want to declare America as an Imperalistic Nation..well then, maybe we should show you how much of one we can be.
Who's gonnnnaa stop us..nannynannybooboo.

jeblackstar: It was a Gallup poll, 1945. National. 

Of course, meanwhile, Europeans had done more than supported genocide, they had actively executed on it to the tune of 12 million people exterminated.  Meanwhile, the Japanese had exterminated millions of Chinese.

Perhaps before you condemn the passions of Americans in 1945 you should take a look at what the rest of the world was doing.

Oh I agree, we should look at that, but I think the critical difference is, unlike the Nazis, whom you should have used to support your arguement and not the general "Europeans", by the by, I think a good number of people in this forum should be offended by that statement, Americans and perhaps more importantly their leaders, didn't exterminate the Japanese. If you want to look back at the only acts of genocide committed by Americans I'm afraid you'll have to look back hundreds of years when we did it to the American Indians.

Cheers

The United States did not exterminate the American Indians. There are millions of American indians who exist. Please feel free to provide examples of goverment sponsered programs of genocide to the American indians? Hint: The trail of tears is not genocide.

Also, blaming the Nazi's alone is a cop-out. The Nazi's had, in general, fairly wide spread support for "dealing with the Jews". This is particularly true in Eastern Europe but also countries such as France also cooperated heavily.

Ever heard the old blame joke? The Europeans didn't do it, the Germans did it! No, the Germans didn't do it, the Nazi's did it. No the Nazi's didn't do it, the SS did it. No the SS didn't do it, Hitler did it.  The story of the holocaust is truly tragic. Tragic because it happened largely because every day ordinary Europeans in occupied countries helped turn in neighbors and coworkers knowing deep down that something very bad was going to happen to them.  Believe it or not, the Nazi's did not have some sort of tricorder that could scan a person and know that they were Jewish. They relied heavily on the locals to round them up.

Fear tactics "Don't kill me! I'm not a jew supporter! I'll prove it! My neighbor is a jew!"..Savin your own skin...rarely is it EVER moral..but boy is it Human Nature.
That's why we honor those who are selfless and help others..usually at the cost of their own hide.

Every country has commited some atrocity! (I don't know about Canada. lol) Back to what I've said quite often. Everyone is guilty. Why are you damn foreigners (damn dirty apes) pointing the finger only in America's direction? Is your memory that short term? Like Brad stated..(and yes, it is a fact these bad things happened)..China, Russia, Japan, Africa, etc., etc., etc., all have atrocities. It's the pot calling kettle black and it's irritating.

Does anyone have any links to European of Asian blog pages? I'd like to go to one and rip them a new earlobe.