Homepage - FAQ - Search - Memberlist - Usergroups - Register - Profile - Log in to check your private messages - Log in
Global Politics Quiz
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Human Shields Forum Index -> Public Chatroom
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Christiaan Briggs
Site Admin


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 129
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2003 11:19 am    Post subject: Global Politics Quiz Reply with quote

1) Which is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on over twenty different countries since 1945?

2) Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and not just once but twice?

3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history?

4) Which country's illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the UN Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism?

5) Which country rejected the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986, and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law?

6) Which country was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of providing "direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s?

7) Which country unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in December 2001?

8) Which country renounced the efforts to negotiate a verification process for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an international conference on the matter to a halt in July 2001?

9) Which country prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at a small arms conference in July 2001?

10) Aside from Somalia, which is the only other country in the world to have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

11) Which is the only Western country that allows the death penalty to be applied to children?

12) Which is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines?

13) Which is the only G7 country to have voted against the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998?

14) Which was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism?

15) Which country refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations' resolutions?

The answer to all 15 questions?

The United States of America
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2003 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, tell me, what exactly does this prove? Mindless quizzes with obvious answers are essentially pointless. So the United States does not have a perfect track record. Tell me, what country does?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Christiaan Briggs
Site Admin


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 129
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2003 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So, tell me, what exactly does this prove? ... So the United States does not have a perfect track record. Tell me, what country does?

I'm quite a big fan of Ann Coulter:
http://www.anncoulter.org/

You see Coulter says what the American right really thinks. Instead of decoding Cheney or reading between the lines of Bush, Coulter gives it to you straight. Here's her foreign policy: "Dangerous regimes run by crazy people who may develop trouble, yeah, I think we should knock them out." This is what Rumsfeld really thinks but is too scared to say out loud, so he babbles on about humanitarian concerns and democratisation.

What this quiz illustrates is that those currently squatting the White House are cowards. They're liars. Frankly I'd rather have Ann Coulter running the show. At least then we could talk straight. These people don't give a rats arse about ordinary people. And they certainly don't give a rats arse about the right of other countries to self-determination. What they want is global domination, at pretty much any cost, and they're just too pathetic to come right out and say it.

It illustrates that far from being a country with an "imperfect track record" the U.S. is, in fact, the single largest and most active terrorist state the world has ever seen, thanks in no small part to the C.I.A.

Quote:
Mindless quizzes with obvious answers are essentially pointless.

Well it does seem odd that you would take the time to comment on something you consider "essentially pointless." Anyway, strange as it may seem, the answers to these questions aren't all that obvious to a great many people. The whole point is that they are very obvious to those of us who don't glean our entire view of the world from Fox TV and Donald Rumsfeld.


Last edited by Christiaan Briggs on Sun May 18, 2003 8:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Flavia



Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 36
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2003 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:
So the United States does not have a perfect track record. Tell me, what country does?

The United States not only does not have a perfect track record, but the world's worst one. At the same time, they're the sole super power, which makes them the main threat to all of us.
_________________
"Our true country is the land of our values, and our conscience is the voice of its patriotism." Richard Bach
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2003 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm, first to Mr. Briggs. Alright, I suppose it is interesting that I decided to comment on this quiz since I do believe that the points taken from it are out of context. In any case, I do agree with you that Cheney and Rummy are not being completely truthful about everything, but I have to disagree with you about the United States wanting complete and total world domination.

Its been about, what, 12 years, since the end of the cold war? If the United States really wanted to be the only country on the planet and throw every other country back to the 13th century, there probably would be some pretty hefty evidence against Washington. Consider what Imperialistic nations want: Money, resources, and power over people. Iraq would be an example of a nation that has resources, but money is lacking and to be frank, no one wants to rule over the Iraqis due to the fact that the country is a melting pot of different ethnicities. Somalia, does not have any of these things, nor does Afghanistan. If the next country is Syria, Iran, or North Korea, what exactly do they offer to this grand Imperialistic scheme of the United States?

To Flavia:

So the fact that the United States is a superpower automatically makes the country a threat to the world. Well, I have a question, which is slightly off-task but I am curious: If the cold war was to end with the Soviets winning out, would you rather have the Soviet Union being the sole superpower, or the United States? Either way, I am curious about your belief that the United States has the worst track record. Perhaps you did not think about this, but not every country openly discloses documents like the United States does. Therefore, the general public will never know the whole story behind those countries that are so much better than the United States.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Flavia



Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 36
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2003 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:

So the fact that the United States is a superpower automatically makes the country a threat to the world.

Maybe you didn't get my point; the fact that the United State is the sole superpower does not automatically make it a threat to the world, what does is the fact that it's the country which most damage has done to the world (and currently is doing) AND is the sole superpower.

Quote:
I have a question, which is slightly off-task but I am curious: If the cold war was to end with the Soviets winning out, would you rather have the Soviet Union being the sole superpower, or the United States?

There's more important issues to think about that are currently taking place. "What if's" are totally pointless. I go by the facts.

Quote:
I am curious about your belief that the United States has the worst track record. Perhaps you did not think about this, but not every country openly discloses documents like the United States does. Therefore, the general public will never know the whole story behind those countries that are so much better than the United States.

There is no need for the United States to openly disclose documents in order for people to know what they do. You can find it out anytime by looking at the news, it's no secret, and in countries like mine this is the top subject of most conversations.
_________________
"Our true country is the land of our values, and our conscience is the voice of its patriotism." Richard Bach
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2003 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alright Flavia, what has the United States done that is so bad? Every little radical says it, but where is the evidence?

In regards to my first question about the cold war, do you notice what I put at the beginning? Do you Flavia, because it says this is off topic. I wasn't making that an argument, I was being generally curious. Or is it perhaps that you knew that the United States is the better superpower and the only country fit to be a superpower.

Well hell, I didn't need to say a word and you proved my point. No one focuses on Mexico or Argentina because the major western media outlets are all in the center of free speech, the United States. So all of the attention is focused on the United States. Any slip up the United States makes, will instantly be seen around the world and then the repercussions will also be seen.

When you say countries like yours, you are of course referring to Argentina, correct. I find it interesting how the top subject of conversations in Argentina are about the United States, when Argentina is slowly falling down to the level of an impoverished nation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Flavia



Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 36
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2003 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:
Alright Flavia, what has the United States done that is so bad? Every little radical says it, but where is the evidence?

Have you even read the first message on this topic?

Quote:
In regards to my first question about the cold war, do you notice what I put at the beginning? Do you Flavia, because it says this is off topic. I wasn't making that an argument, I was being generally curious. Or is it perhaps that you knew that the United States is the better superpower and the only country fit to be a superpower.

I believe I answered that already, I'm not going to be wasting my time on "what if's," I rather focus on current issues.

Quote:
Well hell, I didn't need to say a word and you proved my point. No one focuses on Mexico or Argentina because the major western media outlets are all in the center of free speech, the United States. So all of the attention is focused on the United States. Any slip up the United States makes, will instantly be seen around the world and then the repercussions will also be seen.

Tell me again where did I say people should focus on Mexico or Argentina? Oh, and about the United States being the "center of free speech"... check this out and then tell me again why the United States should be considered the "center of free speech."

Quote:
When you say countries like yours, you are of course referring to Argentina, correct. I find it interesting how the top subject of conversations in Argentina are about the United States, when Argentina is slowly falling down to the level of an impoverished nation.

Check out the facts, see what happened to Jamaica and you'll see that's what's happening to Argentina, and you'll see whose fault was it aswell.
_________________
"Our true country is the land of our values, and our conscience is the voice of its patriotism." Richard Bach
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2003 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like I said before, most of those "bits of information" are out of context and do not hint at what the goals of the ideas were.

Oh I am truly sorry, dare I waste your time with a simple question. No lets get back to your bitter bashing of America.

Oh yes, Ken O'Keefe, my doesn't he speak the truth. (Oh yeah, how did that human shield thing go in Iraq?) That article was nothing but, pardon my grammar, liberal bullshit. Conspiracy theories are worthless to most people but to those who feel that the government has wronged them, they make perfect sense. Yes I will still consider America the center of free speech when we have Al-Jazeera out there.

Sorry, what happened to Jamaica? If I can take a guess, it probably is somehow related to the United States, because don't we just do everything wrong? Oh yes, Argentina's slumping economy isn't the fault of its own people, but instead, its the fault of those Americans. I see what this is now. Just a whole lot of built up bitter resent. I'm out for a while.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Flavia



Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 36
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2003 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:

Oh yes, Ken O'Keefe, my doesn't he speak the truth. (Oh yeah, how did that human shield thing go in Iraq?)

So that's the best you have? Try to make fun of the people who actually care about others? I believe they did a pretty good job in the places they shielded. Too bad there wasn't enough shields, that's why I will be joining them in a few years. I believe it's a pretty good cause they're fighting for, and I really admire them.

Quote:
That article was nothing but, pardon my grammar, liberal bullshit. Conspiracy theories are worthless to most people but to those who feel that the government has wronged them, they make perfect sense.

Conspiracy theories are now making more sense to people than they used to, that's the reason protests for peace around the world were record in attendance.

Quote:
Yes I will still consider America the center of free speech when we have Al-Jazeera out there.

This just shows how uninformed you are. Al-Jazeera being in the "enemy" side, remained less biased than most American media. Actually, you could watch CNN during the bombings and really feel sorry for the people buying the crap they were feeding them.
I got so happy when I found out the Al-Jazeera news channel was coming to Argentina with a Latin American version for all of us Latin American countries who could only have access to CNN, or if we got lucky maybe to the French or Dutch news channels.

Quote:
Sorry, what happened to Jamaica? If I can take a guess, it probably is somehow related to the United States, because don't we just do everything wrong? Oh yes, Argentina's slumping economy isn't the fault of its own people, but instead, its the fault of those Americans.

Funny how I never said anything against Americans, the people, but their government and you go and repeat what the IMF people have said a thousand times, that it was our people's fault... yeah right, we followed each and every IMF recommendation and got where we are now; so did Jamaica. Yet it is our fault. Hmn...

Quote:
I see what this is now. Just a whole lot of built up bitter resent. I'm out for a while.

And there you go again with the generalisations, ah didn't I see that coming...
Well, the truth is I haven't been affected myself, I haven't suffered the effects of this impovershiment as most of my country's people have. Yet I care because I believe what's happening is not fair, and if there's something I strongly support that would be justice for everyone.
_________________
"Our true country is the land of our values, and our conscience is the voice of its patriotism." Richard Bach
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Christiaan Briggs
Site Admin


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 129
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2003 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:
Alright, I suppose it is interesting that I decided to comment on this quiz since I do believe that the points taken from it are out of context.

I wouldn't call it interesting. It's just odd that you're asking important questions of something you thought was "essentially pointless." It seems you've changed your mind a little and it's now "taken out of context," but obviously not "pointless" otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote:
In any case, I do agree with you that Cheney and Rummy are not being completely truthful about everything, but I have to disagree with you about the United States wanting complete and total world domination.

Well it depends what you mean by "United States." Most U.S. citizens aren't ready for global domination (but they're being worked on).

I was talking about the U.S. elite and you don't have to believe some limp-wristed pinko lefty commie like myself. Just go read their policies. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a far-right think-tank with a membership belonging to the era of Ronald Reagan, probably takes the cake with this piece of work:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Some people compare it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored until after the war was over.

What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." September 11 anybody?

It's a blueprint of Bush regime aims in all but name. Over two years ago recommending an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars." It said the U.S. should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. How prophetic.

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction," this was dismissed as the convenient excuse it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Last year Richard Perle made the comment, "No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan.

A good analysis of Rebuilding Americas Defenses can be read here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

Quote:
Its been about, what, 12 years, since the end of the cold war? If the United States really wanted to be the only country on the planet and throw every other country back to the 13th century, there probably would be some pretty hefty evidence against Washington.

Well we're in a new cold war thanks to the deluded cowards squatting the White House. They've proven to the rest of the world, to avoid U.S. military invasion, you need to develop Nuclear capability, and quick. The way in which the totally defenceless Afghanistan and Iraq have been dealt with in comparison to Nth Korea is a good illustration of this.

Being an imperial regime does not mean you're looking to be "the only country on the planet." It means political, military and economic domination. And you only have to delve into the history of U.S. intervention in Indonesia, Sth America, and the Middle East, to name a few, to see the excesses of this imperative.

Quote:
Consider what Imperialistic nations want: Money, resources, and power over people. Iraq would be an example of a nation that has resources, but money is lacking and to be frank, no one wants to rule over the Iraqis due to the fact that the country is a melting pot of different ethnicities. Somalia, does not have any of these things, nor does Afghanistan. If the next country is Syria, Iran, or North Korea, what exactly do they offer to this grand Imperialistic scheme of the United States?

To build an empire you need total domination. This means, in the case of the U.S., you need to crush any semblance of a challenge to North American capitalism.

So you don't need resources to be a victim of imperialism. However you're still totally off the mark with your analysis of which countries are worth what to the capitalist elite. I mean Iraq? Come on. Sure the Iraqi people don't have a whole lot of money (thanks to 12 years of brutal economic sanctions) but they live in a country that has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world. And Afghanistan? Along with Russia and Iran it is one of only three routes for a pipeline to the Caspian oil and gas reserves. And these are just things I know off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many strategic reasons regarding the U.S. regime's conquests that I wouldn't have a clue about.

And while we're in this neck of the woods let's talk about Afghanistan. Apparently invaded in the name of humanitarian concerns, liberation and catching terrorists. Well they still haven't caught Osama bin Laden or his chums, even though they dropped 10000 tonnes of bombs on Afghanistan, murdering thousands in the process. The U.N. estimates that between 50 and 100 people are killed or injured every week by unexploded bombs and landmines.

Having tortured and executed hundreds of PoWs, as well as looted foreign aid warehouses, the new "heroes," the barbaric Northern Alliance, with U.S. support, have quietly established their monopoly over the affairs of the nation, as well as the heroin trade (which has increased something like 18 fold since the bombing). Life is meant to be easier for Afghan women, but the burqa remains, along with most of the Taliban's Laws. Only a third of children are educated; of these, less than three per cent are girls. Sexual policing thrives; and the much-trumpeted Women's Affairs Minister, Dr Sima Samar, has been disposed of and charged with blasphemy. Fazul Hadi Shinwari, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, has said the Taliban's Sharia punishments will continue, including stoning and amputation. The president, Hamid Karzi, installed by Washington, rules over a tribal council that is seen by most Afghans as an unrepresentative sham. Afghanistan is screwed, with only a fraction of the money promised by its "liberators" with which, they pledged, to build a civilian infrastructure.

That's some liberation huh?

Quote:
If the cold war was to end with the Soviets winning out, would you rather have the Soviet Union being the sole superpower, or the United States? Either way, I am curious about your belief that the United States has the worst track record. Perhaps you did not think about this, but not every country openly discloses documents like the United States does. Therefore, the general public will never know the whole story behind those countries that are so much better than the United States.

Well you really need to take another look. We may never know what really happened on September 11 because, whatta ya know, they not disclosing the documents:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1610361.php

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The question I usually get from people who don't live in the U.S. (because most Americans just can't yet believe that their regime is imperialistic) is, "well, wouldn't you rather have the U.S. in control?"

It is usually the last ditch effort of somebody trying to justify U.S. imperialism after a long discussion, like this, denying its existence in the first place.

The answer is a simple no. I don't want the U.S. in control. I want self-determination like the rest of the planet. I just want to get on with my life without idiotic people like Bush or bin Laden meddling in it. The U.S. is controlled by sadistic bastards who care nothing about ordinary people. And even if the U.S. wasn't controlled by sadistic bastards (which I obviously think it is), even if you think U.S. global domination is actually in your interests, who is to say someone like Hitler won't eventually take the wheel once the power structures are in place? The answer, as Germany proved, is no one.

Okay, you say, if all this is true, why on earth would they want to dominate the world in the first place?

I think this quote from George Kennan, a U.S. strategic planner, in 1948, about sums it all up:

"We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period ... is to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality ... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation."

God bless America.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2003 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Briggs, I will hand it to you, you have quite a bit of information at hand.

Flavia on the other hand, you are one of the many people out in the world who find that hating America is one of the many "cool" things to do today and find a way to show repressed anger. I was not making fun of O'Keefe, although it does sound a bit sarcastic now that I look back on it, I was simply asking a question because I obviously knew they were over in Iraq. I also saw O'Keefe's name on the forum so I thought I might ask.

In any case, why was it too bad that there were not enough shields? Do you want more people to die? By sending people over to protect buildings in Baghdad, you are putting them in a very scary situation. I know its a protest against the evils of this "Imperialistic government", but my god. If you admire them, then go for it, but I won't shed a tear when a human shield gets blown to pieces by a 10,000 pound bomb. You put yourself in that position and don't expect the war train to stop.

And these conspiracy theories, who are they making sense to again? Radical liberals? To a neoconservative like myself, I don't find these theories remotely true.

That brings me to Mr. Briggs. I do like how you compared PNAC to Mein Kampf, or should I say one of the most baised websites around, the Information Clearinghouse, said. I agree with PNAC, but perhaps to a less extreme extent. I realized that every country out in the world is not looking out for its brother, it's looking out for itself. And when the United States does it, it's suddenly some big controversey? Well hell, what are we supposed to do then, since all every person abroad seems to know the best way to run our government. Abandon Israel? Perhaps move our troops away from areas that are problem spots. Or wait, why not go back to the way it was before WWI and we were unilateralists. All of you America-bashers know thats what you want, but you will never fess up to it. However, the United States will never do this as long as it has some form of formidable power.

In case you didn't realize it, we have been in a new nuclear age ever since the Cold War ended. This isn't a cold war we are in right now. This is the second nuclear age.

What way would youy have dealt with these so called defenseless countries? Should we just have given Afghanistan a pat on the back and said, well you harbored terrorists, but you're good guys anyways? You will soon see what happens to North Korea because that god-forsaken little hellhole won't last forever. Democrats, who I will always vote for barring some superb republican, will be crushed in next years election. So that means another four years of Bush and I know there will be a few wars in there.

Yes, you are correct, the United States dominates economically and militarily. So what should we do, let the little guy win? As I said before, or in another post, global politics isn't about equality. We will continue to hold onto this power and won't somehow give it out to all the other nations. Like it or not, but your country would do the same if it had the power we have right now.

I will admit that at least part of the Iraq war was about oil, but to say that Afghanistan was about resources is insane. The country is virtually a wasteland.

And speaking of Afghanistan, what should our military have done, not dropped 10,000 tons of bombs on those who wanted to kill our soldiers. Sorry, but posies don't kill soldiers and even if we did drop flowers, most would miss. All these stats about Afghanistan are also bull. Hey, what percent of Afghan women went to school while the Taliban was in power? It has been only one year since that war ended and you already think that not enough progress has been made. You can shout more about how the United States is an evil country who is imperialistic, or you can go into our shoes and look at how we see the world. 7/8 of the people hate us. Nearly everyone resents the power we have. We are on the brink of a war against an entire religion. Now how would you feel if this was on your country. Perhaps a bit pressurred? Maybe its time to stop shouting about all the bad things we have done and look at all the good things we are doing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Christiaan Briggs
Site Admin


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 129
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2003 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:
Briggs, I will hand it to you, you have quite a bit of information at hand.

I don't really. It probably just seems like that because it's so different to the received truth.

Quote:
Flavia on the other hand, you are one of the many people out in the world who find that hating America is one of the many "cool" things to do today and find a way to show repressed anger.

I don't know that Flavia hates America. I don't know her. You seem to have the inside story. Going by what she's written in this forum you really are pushing shit up hill with a rake to pin the "anti-American" badge though.

The accusation of hating America is strange one. It really should be labelled anti-USAism rather than anti-Americanism. It's not America that so many people despise. The accusation is an understandable reaction I guess. Often not warranted, but clearly understandable. Unfortunately it has become a mantra; finger-pointing by people who are not used to taking responsibility for their government's actions.

As for me I don't hate the U.S., although I am constantly told I do. The U.S. is a country of extremes and this is reflected in people's relationship with it.

How could I hate a country that spawned the likes of Jay Adams and the Zephyrs, The Simpsons, Steve Wozniak and Apple Computer, Guns 'N' Roses, Noam Chomsky and Michael Albert, Jimi Hendrix, the Internet even! And if the U.S. wasn't on this planet, who would the aliens abduct?

But how could I love a country that destroys the lives of so many, that thwarts democratisation in every corner of the planet, that sadistically punishes those who dare to try anything other than Nth American capitalism.

I don't hate America but I won't condemn those who do. Even when it's clear U.S. citizens are being manipulated by their media it becomes very difficult to separate the elite from ordinary people when you hear of polls that indicate a 90% support rate for the Bush regime.

Quote:
In any case, why was it too bad that there were not enough shields? Do you want more people to die?

Well, for a start, no shields died in Iraq. I think Flavia is referring to strategy. The main thinking behind this action has never been one of martyrdom. Numbers are critical for it to work, otherwise it's simply a noble gesture and little more. You'll find a number of Human Shield volunteers are prepared to die but this doesn't mean they want to. In fact the opposite is true. From my experience such actions invariably attract great lovers of life.

You may want to read Ken O'Keefe's statement about the successes and failures of our action in Iraq. It refers to our inability to actually stop the war and our inability to protect other civilian sites throughout Iraq, besides those in Baghdad, due to a lack of numbers:

https://humanshields.org/news/Iraq/iraqsuccessandfailure.htm

Quote:
And these conspiracy theories, who are they making sense to again? Radical liberals? To a neoconservative like myself, I don't find these theories remotely true.

I'm not surprised. Armchair NeoCons (along with most of your so-called liberals too actually) are the embarrassing Marxists of their era; ever willing to forgive and forget according to the orders of the day. I can all but guarantee you weren't demanding the invasion of Iraq ten months ago, let alone condemning Iraqi atrocities before Gulf War I. But, instructions having gone out from NeoCon Central, it's suddenly the received truth.

I can't see any conspiracy theories in Flavia's argument. Just the chatter of someone who has experienced first hand the results of IMF policies. Argentina: a model IMF citizen. Didn't matter, its economy collapsed anyway.

Remember that quote from George Kennan in my previous post. I left a bit out (for clarity). He wrote:

"...our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity."

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were invented to implement this 'pattern of relationships.' Their base is Washington, where they are joined by an umbilical cord to the U.S. Treasury, a few blocks away. This is where the globalisation of poverty and the use of debt as a weapon of control was conceived.

Quote:
That brings me to Mr. Briggs. I do like how you compared PNAC to Mein Kampf, or should I say one of the most baised websites around, the Information Clearinghouse, said.

Great. I don't really know what else to say. Being biased is hardly recriminating. They don't pretend to be otherwise. Can't say the same for Fox TV of course, America's "objective news source."

Quote:
In case you didn't realize it, we have been in a new nuclear age ever since the Cold War ended. This isn't a cold war we are in right now. This is the second nuclear age.

Yeah well, I was simply referring to the nuclear arms race the Bush regime seems to have reignited.

Quote:
I agree with PNAC, but perhaps to a less extreme extent. I realized that every country out in the world is not looking out for its brother, it's looking out for itself. And when the United States does it, it's suddenly some big controversey? Well hell, what are we supposed to do then, since all every person abroad seems to know the best way to run our government. Abandon Israel? Perhaps move our troops away from areas that are problem spots. Or wait, why not go back to the way it was before WWI and we were unilateralists. All of you America-bashers know thats what you want, but you will never fess up to it. However, the United States will never do this as long as it has some form of formidable power.

You see that's the thing. The U.S. elite are not looking out for U.S. citizens. Just look at the situation:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0516-10.htm

The Bush regime is not looking out for U.S. citizens, it's after power so it can implement its imperial agenda. And not only that, in doing so, they're actively destroying the lives of millions of people around the world.

Quote:
What way would youy have dealt with these so called defenseless countries? Should we just have given Afghanistan a pat on the back and said, well you harbored terrorists, but you're good guys anyways? You will soon see what happens to North Korea because that god-forsaken little hellhole won't last forever. Democrats, who I will always vote for barring some superb republican, will be crushed in next years election. So that means another four years of Bush and I know there will be a few wars in there.

What you're missing is that not only are terrorists a convenient excuse (like Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction"), for the imperial intentions outlined in the George Kennan quote, but they're actually a product of these very same imperial intentions.

When the twin towers were hit, and America looked up, it didn't find sympathy. It found a world completely unsurprised. There's a reason for this.

I'm not saying stop intervention. I'm saying stop the imperialism. Stop the domination. Stop the disparity. And I'm saying this along with most of the planet.

Law and shame are the tools we should use to deal with Bush, bin Laden and their elk.

Paul Krugman elaborates on the Bush regime's failure to actually deal with terrorism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/opinion/16KRUG.html

Quote:
Yes, you are correct, the United States dominates economically and militarily. So what should we do, let the little guy win? As I said before, or in another post, global politics isn't about equality. We will continue to hold onto this power and won't somehow give it out to all the other nations. Like it or not, but your country would do the same if it had the power we have right now.

Who knows, but this is where your anti-American "we hate your freedom and power" argument falls. If my country were as powerful as the U.S. and it allowed the sort of sadistic cowards squatting the White House to run the show I can assure you I would be criticising it just as I am the U.S.

Quote:
I will admit that at least part of the Iraq war was about oil, but to say that Afghanistan was about resources is insane. The country is virtually a wasteland.

Come on, I'm putting a lot of time into responding to you. The least you can do is read my posts properly. I said Afghanistan was one of only three routes to the Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves. And I didn't say this was the only reason. In fact it was probably just a bonus in their first trial "theatre war."

Quote:
And speaking of Afghanistan, what should our military have done, not dropped 10,000 tons of bombs on those who wanted to kill our soldiers. Sorry, but posies don't kill soldiers and even if we did drop flowers, most would miss.

See above comments about terrorists being an excuse.

Quote:
All these stats about Afghanistan are also bull. Hey, what percent of Afghan women went to school while the Taliban was in power? It has been only one year since that war ended and you already think that not enough progress has been made.

All these stats are bull? Because you said so right? What you're missing here is that not only is there no progress, but things are actually worsening.

Quote:
You can shout more about how the United States is an evil country who is imperialistic, or you can go into our shoes and look at how we see the world. 7/8 of the people hate us. Nearly everyone resents the power we have.

No, people resent the way it is being used.

Quote:
We are on the brink of a war against an entire religion. Now how would you feel if this was on your country. Perhaps a bit pressurred? Maybe its time to stop shouting about all the bad things we have done and look at all the good things we are doing.

Yes maybe you are on the brink. It's what Bush and bin Laden want. So it's up to people like yourself, ordinary people, to stop it. Only your continued acceptance and silence will allow such a thing to happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2003 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the most part Briggs, that post was not directed towards you. It was Flavia that I was talking to for the second half of the

Another thing, I didn't pin the anti-American pin on Flavia. She did that herself. Read the other topic that I have written posts about, I believe it is American Cafe.

Explain to me, why anti-Americans shoudl be called Anti-USAism? I don't quite understand what the distinction is between the two. You also honestly believe that those people who have gotten the finger pointed at them as anti-Americans, those who bear "Bush is Hitler" and "Americans are Nazis" posters, are not anti-Americans? Perhaps they are not quite as hard core as those in the Middle East who have hated us for quite some time, but that does not make them pro-Americans. I never really said you were an anti-American, you simply have views that would seem to say that our government is wrong and evil, which is your own opinion.

Does the United States really thwart democritisation? If so, where are the examples of these thwartings? I seem to see the United States creating some of the strongest democracies in the world after wars, such as Japan and South Korea.

Nor do I see how American citizens are being manipulated. I hear this very often, yet I never hear any proof of such manipulation. The actual support poll was 70% and that majority was composed of both democrats and republicans. Perhaps Americans realized that a war against Iraq was ruly needed. You might say, "What about the 200,000 people who protested the war?" To that I respond, where was the other 364.8 million people?

What I was trying to say by that quote is that human shields cannot protect these areas forever. Where did Saddam first suggest the shields go to when they arrived? Military installations. Eventually, these shields went to dams and power plants, though I never understood the dam decision, because blowing up a dam was a worst case scenario for war planners as it would slow the march to Baghdad. If shields keep on travelling to dangerous areas to put up their form of protest, I say, go ahead and do it. What will eventually happen, in North Korea perhaps, is that these shields will be forcefully taken to military compounds to protect soldiers from American bombs. However, if these shields get in the way, they will be killed.

Ken O'Keefe has a noble cause as his last sentence demonstrates. Eliminate all war. To him I say, be a realist. War can never be eliminated. Period.

So I am an armchair NeoCon? Why, you know me so well. Actually, I have been promoting a war on Iraq for quite a long time. I thought that one of the first Bush's mistakes was not killing Saddam in the first Gulf War. I also thought the murdering of Shi'ite Muslims who rebelled in the Southern areas of Iraq after Gulf War I to be a terrible crime that needed action, as did many other Americans.

I never really chanted for the IMF, and I am not a proponent for NAFTA, CAFTA, or the FTAA trade agreements. I am neutral on these subjects.

About FOX, I have to agree with you, though I do find it quite funny to watch Bill O'Reilly. If there is any humor in this world, I believe it can be found somewhere within the "serious" content of FOX news.

Actually the nuclear arms race was not started by the Bush administration. It was started by the collapse of the nuclear umbrella the Soviet Union had created for countries around the world that now found they needed protection. The attacks on the nation-states of Afghanistan and Iraq may seemed to have acted as a catalyst to such a process, but closer inspection reveals that countries like North Korea and Iran have been working on such projects since the mid 1990's.

Perhaps someone never told the writer of the article you mentioned, but polls are used as a device to show what the general American populace believes and does not believe. They have been used for quite a long time and are not unique to the Bush administration.

Now you say Americans didn't find sympathy around the world? I beg to differ.

http://clkoberg.com/9-11-01/

I don't agree with your comment about anti-Americanists hating us for our power and freedom. Later on, I will elaborate why.

Well, I thank you for the time you are putting into this, but I am being serious. If you think that Afghanistan, despite this route to the Caspian sea oil line, was invaded for resources you have been fed a big pile of steaming propaganda. That war was about terrorism and justice. And this theatre war, where is the next theatre. I am indeed curious to know where the location will be and also, how you can tell the future.

Terrorism being an excuse? Uh I think not. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but the United States had a marginal intrest in Afghanistan pre 9-11. In fact, when the Taliban first came to power, back before the hardline Islamic law, the United States supported the ideas of a progressive Muslim state.

I'd like to see your sources on before and after the Afghanistan war, because I don't see how 3% of women being educated is worse than 0%.

Now referring to your belief that anti-Americans have a good reason for hating Americans, I would like to pull something off http://www.9-11justice.org/sympathy_for_the_devil.html

What truly offends me about the argument that we are at fault for the insane hatred directed at us by Muslim fanatics is that the logic behind it would be universally condemned by its very proponents were it applied to any other real world situation. As evidence of this assertion, let's review the core elements of the terrorist apologia:

-The U.S. must be (in whole or in part) to blame for the hatred directed at it by Muslim fanatics. After all, nobody harbors virulent hate toward anybody without good reason.
-The U.S. must critically examine its actions to understand why it should change since it clearly offends Muslim fanatics to the point that they are compelled to commit wanton acts of violence against the U.S.
-The U.S. must change itself and its way of life to show good faith toward (or otherwise accommodate) the wishes of Muslim fanatics so that it does not offend them in that way any longer.

Replace "the U.S." and "Muslim fanatics" with "women" and "rapists."

• Women must be (in whole or in part) to blame for the hatred directed at them by rapists. After all, nobody harbors virulent hate toward anybody without good reason.
• Women must critically examine their actions to understand why they should change since they clearly offend rapists to the point that they are compelled to commit wanton acts of violence against women.
• Women must change themselves and their way of life to show good faith toward (or otherwise accommodate) the wishes of rapists so that they do not offend them in that way any longer.

Still not convinced? Replace "the U.S." with "Jews" and "Muslim fanatics" with "Nazis." (Not as hip or trendy now, is it?)

As this little piece of information demonstrates, Muslims might have a deeper hate for Americans that not at the analysts look at.

Now, this arguement can never end. It will go back and forth and back and forth, but if you want to continue, okay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gracefh



Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 12
Location: West Midlands, England

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 12:58 am    Post subject: How can I put this politely - don't be STUPID. Reply with quote

You're clearly an intelligent person, so do try and act it. All the backlash against America is an attempt at a general intifada. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's justified, I'm just saying that people do these things when they are oppressed, and a lot of people are oppressed, and a lot of these people think their oppression is the fault of the United States, and a lot of these people are right. The United States does oppress people and cause them suffering - I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept that, the way I accepted it about my own country - and so to compare America, even for the purposes of illustration, with the Jewish people and rape victims, neither of whom could be called oppressors in anybody's book, is an insult to your own intelligence as well as to Jews and women.

Speaking of insults to women: you don't have to take Christiaan's word about the ongoing plight of women in Afghanistan. Have a look at www.rawa.org - I think you'll agree that they probably know what they're talking about on this issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Grace, aren't you the angry one. Please, we try to talk in relatively calm tones in this forum. While I may not necessarily agree with Briggs, Flavia, or your viewpoints, I do not scream that you are idiots. Please try to show the same resepct for us.

If you had perhaps followed the link that I provided in one of my comments regarding the replacement of Americans with rape victims, you would realize that I was saying that rape victims and people of the Jewish faith are the oppressed. Perhaps you should read from the web site I attained the material from.

I looked at the RAWA website and if you will notice from some of their press releases during the Afghanistan war, they wished for the United States to stay out of their country. In fact, they mention Americans as being "forces who have dependence, looting, crime and national treason as the main components of their perfidious entity".

While their goal was for an Afghani revolt against the Taliban, I find it a bit ungrateful that they do not accept the destruction og the Taliban. True, no one likes their country to be invaved, but perhaps these women should have realized that an Afghani revolt could never have occurred under the strict conditions the Taliban blanketed Afghanistan with.

Now I see why perhaps you have the impression that these women would see there women as still being repressed. As long as this "evil" Northern Alliance and Karzai remain in control, along with the Americans, the RAWA will continue to say they are being repressed.

There is a very delicate situation in Afghanistan. The RAWA feels that there country and Islam in general is being invaded by an "external enemy", an obvious allusion to the United States. However, if the women of RAWA continue to refuse to accept the benevolent attempts of the Americans, they will continue to be forced to follow strict Islamic law. Perhaps if the United States had full control over the country, could some form of true democracy fall over the country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Flavia



Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 36
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:
Briggs, I will hand it to you, you have quite a bit of information at hand.

I think that'd be the best thing to do, he seems like the best informed person on this place. I'm not, I admit it. I became very interested on politics a couple months ago, when the whole Iraq thing started, so I realize I might now be the best person to discuss this with, specially considering the hard time I have trying to write an understandable english.

Quote:
Flavia on the other hand, you are one of the many people out in the world who find that hating America is one of the many "cool" things to do today and find a way to show repressed anger.

Is that all you people can say? I've heard it a lot of times. So if you actually care it's because you want to be cool... yeah right. You shouldn't go assuming things like that and generalize about people, it's not nice. I don't hate America, I just don't like what the government is doing, that's all.

Quote:
In any case, why was it too bad that there were not enough shields?

It was bad because they weren't able to shield all the other places that were bombed outside of Baghdad that shouldn't have been.
_________________
"Our true country is the land of our values, and our conscience is the voice of its patriotism." Richard Bach
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, I was making a generalization because of the way you portrayed the United States in your previous posts and also how displayed some of the stereotypical characteristics of those who only protest to be cool. Sorry if I got you wrong.

I really want to know where these places are that are being bombed and shouldn't be bombed. God knows the media would have jumped on them if it was like a university, but no such coverage exists. You could say it was propoganda, but what about the other news agencies outside of the United States?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Flavia



Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 36
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:
First of all, I was making a generalization because of the way you portrayed the United States in your previous posts

When I say "the United States" I mean the government, not the American people.

Quote:
I really want to know where these places are that are being bombed and shouldn't be bombed. God knows the media would have jumped on them if it was like a university, but no such coverage exists. You could say it was propoganda, but what about the other news agencies outside of the United States?

They are not being bombed, they were bombed. These were power supply and water plants outsite of Baghdad that were bombed.
_________________
"Our true country is the land of our values, and our conscience is the voice of its patriotism." Richard Bach
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Saratoga



Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if there was another administration in power, you would not be voicing your opinion?

Also, the reason such electrical plants were bombed, is that the electricity was providing heat and light to enemy positions. Obviously, civilians were not the target. I have not heard of any water plants being bombed. In any case, you people should be happy that American planners are as kind as they are today. During World War II, civilians were seen as just another enemy and the more civilians killed in air raids, the better. Strangely enough, this is the best time to be a civilian in a war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Christiaan Briggs
Site Admin


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 129
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:
Also, the reason such electrical plants were bombed, is that the electricity was providing heat and light to enemy positions.

Under international law, to which the U.S. is party, it is a war crime to harm or destroy facilities that provide essential services to the civilian population.

Saratoga wrote:
For the most part Briggs, that post was not directed towards you. It was Flavia that I was talking to for the second half of the

Yes I know.

Quote:
Another thing, I didn't pin the anti-American pin on Flavia. She did that herself. Read the other topic that I have written posts about, I believe it is American Cafe.

Whatever.

Quote:
Explain to me, why anti-Americans shoudl be called Anti-USAism? I don't quite understand what the distinction is between the two.

The U.S.A. is only a small part of America.

Quote:
You also honestly believe that those people who have gotten the finger pointed at them as anti-Americans, those who bear "Bush is Hitler" and "Americans are Nazis" posters, are not anti-Americans?

No I'm just not that interested. I'd have to judge each case on its own merits. As an aside, the Nazi Germany analogy is a useful one, as I alluded to in the last sentence of my last post.

Quote:
Perhaps they are not quite as hard core as those in the Middle East who have hated us for quite some time, but that does not make them pro-Americans. I never really said you were an anti-American, you simply have views that would seem to say that our government is wrong and evil, which is your own opinion.

Yes I know you didn't say I was anti-American.

Quote:
Does the United States really thwart democritisation? If so, where are the examples of these thwartings?

To name a few, Indonesia, Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cuba, Chile, and Iraq when they supported Saddam, and now. The saddest example is Nicaragua. What your beloved regime did there was simply inhuman. I don't know how else to describe it.

Quote:
I seem to see the United States creating some of the strongest democracies in the world after wars, such as Japan and South Korea.

That's your justification for the devastation perpetrated in other countries? It's like saying a murderer is not a murderer because she didn't murder everyone she came in contact with.

In any case I don't believe there's democracy anywhere in the world currently. Being an anarchist has some bearing on this, but it's not only that; even the progress of democracy has being hijacked. Arundhati Roy explains:

http://www.cesr.org/roy/royspeech.htm

Quote:
Nor do I see how American citizens are being manipulated. I hear this very often, yet I never hear any proof of such manipulation.

Being the patriot you are, if you heard this "very often," then wouldn't you be curious and actively search for this evidence rather than wait around to "hear" of it?

Recommended reading on this extensively covered topic:
Manufactoring Consent by Noam Chomsky
Free to be Human by David Edwards

Quote:
The actual support poll was 70% and that majority was composed of both democrats and republicans. Perhaps Americans realized that a war against Iraq was ruly needed.

As I already said I don't blame people for being anti-American when U.S. citizens get behind such a regime. To me it's like being anti-Nazi Germany.

Quote:
What I was trying to say by that quote is that human shields cannot protect these areas forever. Where did Saddam first suggest the shields go to when they arrived? Military installations.

I can only assume you are not talking about us. Military sites were never suggested to us.

Quote:
Eventually, these shields went to dams and power plants, though I never understood the dam decision, because blowing up a dam was a worst case scenario for war planners as it would slow the march to Baghdad.

Again I can only assume you are not talking about us. We did not shield any dams.

Quote:
If shields keep on travelling to dangerous areas to put up their form of protest, I say, go ahead and do it. What will eventually happen, in North Korea perhaps, is that these shields will be forcefully taken to military compounds to protect soldiers from American bombs. However, if these shields get in the way, they will be killed.

Okay, thanks for the advice.

Quote:
Ken O'Keefe has a noble cause as his last sentence demonstrates. Eliminate all war. To him I say, be a realist. War can never be eliminated. Period.

Humanity is about 3 million years old. At the most, war has a history of about 10 000 years. Somewhere round there anyway. It's a laughable statement to suggest we cannot live without war, but a neccesary one to support the NeoCon argument.

Quote:
Perhaps someone never told the writer of the article you mentioned, but polls are used as a device to show what the general American populace believes and does not believe. They have been used for quite a long time and are not unique to the Bush administration.

Great.

Quote:
Now you say Americans didn't find sympathy around the world? I beg to differ.

No, I didn't say that.

Quote:
I don't agree with your comment about anti-Americanists hating us for our power and freedom. Later on, I will elaborate why.

I was responding to what you said (and what your "president" told you). You said, "7/8 of the people hate us ... Nearly everyone resents the power we have."

Quote:
Well, I thank you for the time you are putting into this, but I am being serious. If you think that Afghanistan, despite this route to the Caspian sea oil line, was invaded for resources you have been fed a big pile of steaming propaganda.

I don't think that. I didn't say it. So why do you keep repeating it? I'm sorry I just don't have time for this sort of thing.

Quote:
Terrorism being an excuse? Uh I think not. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but the United States had a marginal intrest in Afghanistan pre 9-11. In fact, when the Taliban first came to power, back before the hardline Islamic law, the United States supported the ideas of a progressive Muslim state.

That support's had amazing results huh?

Quote:
I'd like to see your sources on before and after the Afghanistan war, because I don't see how 3% of women being educated is worse than 0%.

Well first of all I didn't mention women (the figures are much worse). And, luckily, I have sources, unlike yourself. Where did you get your 0% figure from, The White House? Girls generally weren't allowed to attend school under the Taliban but that doesn't mean they didn't. Actually 3 per cent is the estimated figure before and after the Taliban were ousted.

http://www.unicef.org.uk/news/Presscentre/Afghanistan/EducationJan02.htm#1
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/c7ca0eaf6c79faae852567af003c69ca/c6d98714e9cc45f949256c06008230a1?OpenDocument

You're clutching at straws on this one point; I can understand why you wouldn't want to respond to the other points.

Quote:
Now referring to your belief that anti-Americans have a good reason for hating Americans, I would like to pull something off http://www.9-11justice.org/sympathy_for_the_devil.html

As I've already argued (and you have not responded in any meaningful way) terrorism is an excuse. It's not surprising that webpage is headed "The Hypocrisy of Terrorist Apologia," because that's exactly what it is.

Quote:
What truly offends me about the argument that we are at fault for the insane hatred directed at us by Muslim fanatics is that the logic behind it would be universally condemned by its very proponents were it applied to any other real world situation. As evidence of this assertion, let's review the core elements of the terrorist apologia:

-The U.S. must be (in whole or in part) to blame for the hatred directed at it by Muslim fanatics. After all, nobody harbors virulent hate toward anybody without good reason.
-The U.S. must critically examine its actions to understand why it should change since it clearly offends Muslim fanatics to the point that they are compelled to commit wanton acts of violence against the U.S.
-The U.S. must change itself and its way of life to show good faith toward (or otherwise accommodate) the wishes of Muslim fanatics so that it does not offend them in that way any longer.

Replace "the U.S." and "Muslim fanatics" with "women" and "rapists."

ï Women must be (in whole or in part) to blame for the hatred directed at them by rapists. After all, nobody harbors virulent hate toward anybody without good reason.
ï Women must critically examine their actions to understand why they should change since they clearly offend rapists to the point that they are compelled to commit wanton acts of violence against women.
ï Women must change themselves and their way of life to show good faith toward (or otherwise accommodate) the wishes of rapists so that they do not offend them in that way any longer.

Still not convinced? Replace "the U.S." with "Jews" and "Muslim fanatics" with "Nazis." (Not as hip or trendy now, is it?)

"Still not convinced"? None of these arguments are mine. I never said them. You said them and you're now trying to project them onto me. Why don't you address my arguments?

Quote:
Now, this arguement can never end. It will go back and forth and back and forth, but if you want to continue, okay.

It's not going back and forth at all. It's going like a dodgems race. Why not address just one of my arguments? How about my argument that terrorists are used as an excuse. It's a plausible hypothesis backed up by quotes, facts and other people's commentary. But you don't seem to want to address it. I've spent a lot of time replying to you point by point but you only seem interested in responding with selective chatter.

I'll even paste a tiny excerpt of my argument for you to respond to. If you don't want to respond in substance then fine but please I don't have time for anything else.

Christiaan wrote:
What you're missing is that not only are terrorists a convenient excuse (like Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction"), for the imperial intentions outlined in the George Kennan quote, but they're actually a product of these very same imperial intentions.

When the twin towers were hit, and America looked up, it didn't find sympathy. It found a world completely unsurprised. There's a reason for this.

I'm not saying stop intervention. I'm saying stop the imperialism. Stop the domination. Stop the disparity. And I'm saying this along with most of the planet.

Law and shame are the tools we should use to deal with Bush, bin Laden and their elk.

Paul Krugman elaborates on the Bush regime's failure to actually deal with terrorism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/opinion/16KRUG.html


Last edited by Christiaan Briggs on Wed May 21, 2003 1:31 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Christiaan Briggs
Site Admin


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 129
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saratoga wrote:
My Grace, aren't you the angry one. Please, we try to talk in relatively calm tones in this forum. While I may not necessarily agree with Briggs, Flavia, or your viewpoints, I do not scream that you are idiots. Please try to show the same resepct for us.

Feel free to quote her where she "screamed you were an idiot" Saratoga. Let's just stick to the argument at hand okay. Grace did nothing of the sort.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
American_Bad_Ass
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 6:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Politics Quiz Reply with quote

Christiaan Briggs wrote:



3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history?


The United States of America


So the 261 Marines in Lebanon in '83 on a peace keeping mission (saving Arafat's ass from the Israli's) who were killed in their beds on a Sunday morning don't count?
Back to top
Christiaan Briggs
Site Admin


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 129
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 7:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Politics Quiz Reply with quote

American_Bad_Ass wrote:
So the 261 Marines in Lebanon in '83 on a peace keeping mission (saving Arafat's ass from the Israli's) who were killed in their beds on a Sunday morning don't count?

I would have thought the answer was obvious. No life is worth more than another in my opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
American-Bad-Ass



Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2003 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Politics Quiz Reply with quote

Christiaan Briggs wrote:
American_Bad_Ass wrote:
So the 261 Marines in Lebanon in '83 on a peace keeping mission (saving Arafat's ass from the Israli's) who were killed in their beds on a Sunday morning don't count?

I would have thought the answer was obvious. No life is worth more than another in my opinion.


Last time I checked 261 was a higher number than 80. So when you post that " a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history? " you were either mistaken or lying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Human Shields Forum Index -> Public Chatroom All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.4
Appalachia Theme © 2002 Droshi's Island