This week's book giveaways are in the AI and JavaScript forums.
We're giving away four copies each of GANs in Action and WebAssembly in Action and have the authors on-line!
See this thread and this one for details.
Win a copy of GANs in ActionE this week in the AI forum
or WebAssembly in Action in the JavaScript forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

[political?] Not the Baghdad Diaries

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Palestine.


And capturing/claiming land on the basis of Bible is right ???
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 53
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
TP: the colonists lived peacefully with the Indians in North America until the early 1600's when the Indians rose up and almost destroyed the white population. The Indians consistently chose the wrong side in wars with the colonies and the US.
Oh, it's the Indians' fault? They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, right?

Your theory of genocide against all Indians is provably false by the fact that so many Indian tribes are still around in the eastern US. If it had been a war of geneocide wouldn't they have been exterminated?
What kind of argument is that, Tom? There are millions of Jews living in Germany and in many other countries around the world, does it mean that the Holocaust never happened?


Folks, I have an admission to make: Eugene and I are one and the same
Seriously, though, amazing how our thought processes intersect almost perfectly.
Thomas, are you sure you have your history straight? The first recognized
English colony in what was to become the US was Jamestown, founded in 1608. How is it then possible for you to make the claim that "Indians" lived peacefully with the colonists when they didn't start coming en masse until the 1600's? Perhaps they lived peacefully because there weren't as many of them at the time, and they didn't expect a freakin' influx of these people?
Wars of genocide need not achieve their intended goal to be wars of genocide, as Euguene alludes to. So, are you saying that since Americans weren't successful in eradicating the natives, they weren't trying to commit genocide?
Also, I'm kinda sick of individuals using the term "Indians" to describe the native population of the Americas. Call them "Natives", but please don't call them "Indians" - that term should only be applied to people from the subcontinent of India. The population that crossed the Bering Straits millenia ago are ALSO not "Indian", but rather Central Asian (of mongoloid descent - hence the the epicanthic folds, etc.)
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
What kind of argument is that, Tom? There are millions of Jews living in Germany and in many other countries around the world, does it mean that the Holocaust never happened?

We had 400 years to exterminate the Indians. If that had been our goal I am sure we could have done it that amount of time.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

Genocidal slaughter is Evil any year, Ravish.
Joe



[Thanks, it means you are aware of that it happend in 80s]
[Actuaaly most of the time people say that it happend that time so why to talk now. ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tarun Sukhani:
Thomas, are you sure you have your history straight? The first recognized English colony in what was to become the US was Jamestown, founded in 1608. How is it then possible for you to make the claim that "Indians" lived peacefully with the colonists when they didn't start coming en masse until the 1600's? Perhaps they lived peacefully because there weren't as many of them at the time, and they didn't expect a freakin' influx of these people?
Wars of genocide need not achieve their intended goal to be wars of genocide, as Euguene alludes to. So, are you saying that since Americans weren't successful in eradicating the natives, they weren't trying to commit genocide?
Also, I'm kinda sick of individuals using the term "Indians" to describe the native population of the Americas. Call them "Natives", but please don't call them "Indians" - that term should only be applied to people from the subcontinent of India. The population that crossed the Bering Straits millenia ago are ALSO not "Indian", but rather Central Asian (of mongoloid descent - hence the the epicanthic folds, etc.)


I actually meant that the Indian wars were in the late 1600's. The white population of New England was almost exterminated by the Indians.
Indians lived peacefully with white people in the Eastern US throughout the late 1800's at the same time that the supposed genocidal wars were being fought in the west. That was my point.
I really don't care if you are offended by the term "Indian". I know many Indians and none of them like the term "Native American". As one Indian said to me, "You and I are both native Americans. It's just that my family came here a little earlier than yours." By the way, I am part Iroquois.
[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Support of terrorism? It is well known that Iraq supported terrorist groups like Hamaas in Palestine. They even paid off the families of suicide bombers! So what exactly are you looking for proof of?


Lot of things are well known.
It is also well known, who is creator of OBL.
It is also well known that predictions about oil contract is now reality.
It is also well known that local people are not supporting their liberators.
AW, is there any proof [apart from belief] of link between Saddam and terrorist group.
I think if one stick to term "war of liberation" then he will have strong hold on his argument.
AW some one was talking about police ??
And I heard that now liberators are going around UN whose existence was neglected.
Oh yes, now mess is created, we need help to clean it up at the expense of other nations' soldiers life.
And now about killing N numbers of its own people. Its internal matter. Yes, Police can interfere. From when US has become police ???
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
We had 400 years to exterminate the Indians. If that had been our goal I am sure we could have done it that amount of time.
Tom, do you think that communists comitted genocide against Ukrainians in 1930-s and Chechens in 1940-s in the Soviet Union?
 
Tarun Sukhani
Ranch Hand
Posts: 53
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

I really don't care if you are offended by the term "Indian". I know many Indians and none of them like the term "Native American".


I don't like the term "Native American" either. I said "Native", not "Native American". This is the correct term anthropologically, for it takes into account that these people predated the nationalization of the Americas.


As one Indian said to me, "You and I are both native Americans. It's just that my family came here a little earlier than yours." By the way, I am part Iroquois.


If one "Indian" said that to you, that's nice :roll:
You're part Iroquois, huh? Which part, your warped mind?
Seriously, even if you are, I don't see how this has any bearing on the argument that Columbus was seeking out India and found something else, but continued to call the native inhabitants "Indians", which is wrong. I also don't care if natives call themselves "Indians", because no matter what they claim, they are not anthropologically so.
By the way, I'm part rational human being..scary, ain't it?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Where did you infer "must" from? I asked if it is moral or immoral to kill 1000 people to save 1,000,000. You do not have to, you have a choice.


Okay, I'm not going to continue on this thread much longer, because it costantly comes down to the same issues: is Saddam an evil summabeetch, and was it just for the US to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq to wipe out Hussein's regime.
I am tired of arguing these points. By my definitions in this and other threads, Hussein is Evil. Period. It's an inarguable fact to me. Any attempt to convince me otherwise is a waste of breath, and I have to believe that a poll taken of, say, ALL OF HUMANITY, would tend to strongly favor my position.
As to our going in with all deliberate force, well, my take on it is that the UN agreed to the move a long time ago and that only the backpedaling of France and Germany caused it to be an issue. Regardless, I have no problem with my country going in and whomping snot out of anybody who does the things Hussein did. Am I a bully? Maybe. But somebody's got to do it, and I don't see anybody else in the world standing up. You can natter on and on about how we did it for oil, but that dog don't hunt, otherwise we'd be deposing regimes in Mexico and Nigeria. If Hussein hadn't been a brutal, genocidal monster, we'd have had no good reason to go in. As it is, I think we were justified.
So, that's my final word on this whole issue. However, since Map was kind enough to ask, I'm going to return to her point:

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Where did you infer "must" from? I asked if it is moral or immoral to kill 1000 people to save 1,000,000. You do not have to, you have a choice.


Please apply basic logic here, Map. Either the million are in danger of dying, or not. If the million are not in danger, I do nothing, and we have no question. Therefore, you must be implying that a million people will die if I do not kill a thousand.
So I have to choose - a thousand die or a million die. That is my only choice, thanks to the horrible position you have put me in. At that point, it is not a moral decision on my part. I simply try to do the greatest good, and may God have mercy on my soul. There was a wonderful Sidney Lumet film on just this question, called Fail-Safe, in which the President of the United States ultimately had to decide to... well, I hate to spoil the movie for you. I suggest you rent it sometime, and you'll understand my position on the question.
The person who has to make such a horrible choice, they must look in their heart and make their decision as best they can based on the situation at hand. Such a cruel situation cannot be dealt with "theoretically", you can only act when the time comes.
But for the person who CAUSED this predicament, however they did it, my belief is that their soul is forfeit.
Joe
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Hussein is Evil. Period.


Oye yaar, you are too emotional.
I have one question, do you see GW-2 as "war of liberation" OR "war against terrorism" ?
Let me assume that you see GW-2 as "war of liberation".
Did any one ask any help ??
If, let us say XYZ country believes [and period. It believes] that Bush is evil and people of US should be liberated from Bush [are you laughing? US is democratic country and all..... Saddam was elected with 100% vote ]
Do you think XYZ country should attack US to liberate ??
[True no country, today can do this but still just for a thought]
[i]And if US felt that Iraq has to be liberated from Evil Saddam, then what US is doing right now same thing can be done earlier also. [dont you think so, Mr. Joe]
And I see it as UN victory over a child who even cant assemble its own toy after playing with it and needs parents help.[i]
And worst part parents were giving warning that he cant assemble it.
If you see GW-2 as part of war against terrorism then till now it has not been proved to others.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:
Oye yaar, you are too emotional.


Ravish, your behavior is getting tiresome. To say that a man who kills millions is Evil is hardly emotional, to say otherwise is indefensible. Good grief.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:
If you see GW-2 as part of war against terrorism then till now it has not been proved to others.


Actually, it has been proven to other, just not you. Because just like when you argued with me about the meaning of my own English, you simply ignore what others provide as facts. This is why it is so very tiresome to deal with you, and why I am dropping this discussion.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe wrote: Please apply basic logic here, Map. Either the million are in danger of dying, or not. If the million are not in danger, I do nothing, and we have no question. Therefore, you must be implying that a million people will die if I do not kill a thousand.
But it cannot be called "you killed them", can it? Otherwise you'll have to agree that UN killed 500,000 Iraqi children, and we are responsible for all Saddam's atrocities of late, as we did not prevent them. Now we blame them on Saddam -- he is the monster, not we. If you do nothing, the million can die but nobody can say you killed them. That's why I wondered why you decided to use "must" verb.
Ok, that's not all there is. Frankly, I was irritated that you said that my "spin is much more cruel, much more biased, and much less likely" -- as I believe my question (actually I borrowed Eugene's wordings) precisely expresses the quintessence of our current situation, as well as many other situations, up to isomorphism. Your "much more cruel, much more biased" simply communicates that you feel uncomfortable about this question, no?
I think, your answer is not too far (if not identical) from what Eugene and me agreed on:
"The person I have the most sympathy for is the one required to make the decision, because in that case there are no perfectly moral answers. Letting a million people die is not moral, but neither is killing 1000 innocents."
Another advantage of stripping the question of momentary details is that we can now compare our answer to what Dostoevsky's answer seem to be -- both his heroes "wouldn't consent". This puzzles me, as nowadays the common answer would be different. Did we became more cynical or more practical since XIX century?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
But it cannot be called "you killed them", can it? Otherwise you'll have to agree that UN killed 500,000 Iraqi children, and we are responsible for all Saddam's atrocities of late, as we did not prevent them. Now we blame them on Saddam -- he is the monster, not we. If you do nothing, the million can die but nobody can say you killed them. That's why I wondered why you decided to use "must" verb.


In the moral sense, yes, we (the whole world) are responsible, Map. We are our brother's keepers. "The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." But that's a more general issue.
The question here is one of foreknowledge. If you give me the foreknowledge that a million people will die if I do not act, and still I do not act, then the blood of those million are at least to some degree on my hands. So my decision is simple - a million people die or a thousand.
I don't understand why this confuses you, or why you make it more complex. What you're TRYING to get me to say is whether it is moral to kill a thousand civilians to save a million, but yet you don't want to pin it to any real circumstances. My answer is that it is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply horrific, and that it depends on the circumstances. What if your family were among the thousand? That changes things. What if your family were among the million? What if one child was among the thousand and one among the million? What if it were a thousand and a thousand and one? What if it were your child and a thousand civilians?
You can play these moral what-ifs all you want. The Jesuits used to say that before He created the universe, God was creating a Hell for people who asked these kinds of questions: questions carefully designed to give no good answer.
But my answer is simple: it depends on the situation. And in the situation in Iraq, we were completely justified. And I will happily look God in the eye and say so. That's about as moral as I can get.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe said: In the moral sense, yes, we (the whole world) are responsible, Map.
Joe also said: My answer is that it is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply horrific.

You prohibited me from using somebody else's words, but what can I do if all good words are already used? So there: "Joe, I think I love you"
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:

It is also well known that predictions about oil contract is now reality.


But at what costs
The whole Iraq-operation is much more costly for the US than that what they earn from the oil contracts.
Trying to convince Ravish that GW2 is no business for US part no. 242.
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If one "Indian" said that to you, that's nice
I've talked to a number of native americans who didn't really care for either "native American" or "Indian" - they preferred to be known as Navajo (well, Dine really), Apache, or whatever. Personally I avoid calling them Indian just because I know enough people actually from India that that would be needless ambiguity. I note however that many people from India are perfectly happy to say "red Indian" to refer to native Americans. That may not sound very PC to american ears, but the point is, yes, everyone knows that people from India != native Americans (duh!) but nonetheless we sometimes need collective nouns for different groups (it's not really practical to list Navajo, Apache, herokke, and however many hundread of other names are needed). And fundamentally, "Native American" is just as linguistically stupid a choice of term as "Indian" is. Personally I'd prefer "Amerind" for "American Indian" but that doesn't seem to have caught on, so "Native American" is my default. I don't find it very constructive to complain about it when others user different terms though, especially when the context makes the meaning clear.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Tom, do you think that communists comitted genocide against Ukrainians in 1930-s and Chechens in 1940-s in the Soviet Union?


Genocide? No. It was just a simple case of murdering those who were in the way of "progress".
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:
Let me assume that you see GW-2 as "war of liberation".
Did any one ask any help ??

Yep. The Kurds asked. The people in the south of Iraq that had been gassed when they tried to revolt in 1991. Many of the Iraqis forced to live in exile. And many Iraqis living in Iraq. There were plenty of people who asked for help.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

It is also well known, who is creator of OBL.
It is also well known that predictions about oil contract is now reality.
It is also well known that local people are not supporting their liberators.


I cannot agree with one of these.
I am having doubt. I am beginning to believe it is a war against Islam.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It is also well known, who is creator of OBL.
Yep. The former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia and himself. Not in that order.
It is also well known that predictions about oil contract is now reality.
How much oil is being shipped to the US? Also what predictions about contracts. What you and others have said is that the war was about oil.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:
Lot of things are well known.
It is also well known, who is creator of OBL.


Not by you apparently. Your insinuation is that the US "created" Bin Laden, however this is a statement ignorant of the facts. These facts have been pointed out to you in the past in this forum. If you choose to ignore them, that's all on you.

It is also well known that predictions about oil contract is now reality.


Really? "Oil contracts" can mean quite a wealth of things, what is your definition?

It is also well known that local people are not supporting their liberators.


Which "local people"? All of them? Some of them? The majority of them? A minority of them? Privileged Baathists? Sunnis? Shia? Turkmen? Kurds? Marsh Arabs?
If I said "it is well known that local people are supporting their liberators", that statement would be at least as factual as the one of yours quoted above.
What Iraqis Really Think (9/10/03)

AW, is there any proof [apart from belief] of link between Saddam and terrorist group.


Yes, and it has been posted many times in this forum.

And now about killing N numbers of its own people. Its internal matter.


That's pretty sick, imho. Various international bodies, chief among them the UN (and likely every human rights organization on the planet), disagree with the statement quoted above.
[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Tarun Sukhani
Ranch Hand
Posts: 53
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
If one "Indian" said that to you, that's nice
I've talked to a number of native americans who didn't really care for either "native American" or "Indian" - they preferred to be known as Navajo (well, Dine really), Apache, or whatever. Personally I avoid calling them Indian just because I know enough people actually from India that that would be needless ambiguity. I note however that many people from India are perfectly happy to say "red Indian" to refer to native Americans. That may not sound very PC to american ears, but the point is, yes, everyone knows that people from India != native Americans (duh!) but nonetheless we sometimes need collective nouns for different groups (it's not really practical to list Navajo, Apache, herokke, and however many hundread of other names are needed). And fundamentally, "Native American" is just as linguistically stupid a choice of term as "Indian" is. Personally I'd prefer "Amerind" for "American Indian" but that doesn't seem to have caught on, so "Native American" is my default. I don't find it very constructive to complain about it when others user different terms though, especially when the context makes the meaning clear.



The best compromise for a collective noun may just be West Indian, as opposed to East Indian (those from India). I believe that a new collective noun should be added to the English lexicon to address this long-standing issue that takes into account the particular ethnic makeup of these individuals but does not introduce nationalization or historical misrepresentation.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
American policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fosters the creation of guys like OBM, I would say.
OBL got weapons, war experience, organizational experience in quite a long period in the 80ties when the U.S of A. supported him.
Maybe his hate grew, because the US used his religious fanatism not because they liked it but as a tool for their own goals (drive russians out of Afghanistan). I am not going to defend OBL. He should be killed. But he has human emotions and I hate nothing more as when I realize that some bigheaded wanna-be smarties are trying to use me for their goals. So this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff is quite risky.
Despite of all this hyper power bragging, US depends on local allies to keep costs of lifes and money down. In contrast to all "foster democracy" rhetoric, empiric facts show that the US govs weren't very picky in ally-selection (anti-Arbenz-golpistas in mid fifties in Guatemala, Batista in Cuba, the shah of persia, A. Pinochet in Chile september eleventh 1973, Contras in Nicaragua in mid 80ties, etc).
Maybe the use of ethically questionable but effective local allies is the only way to pursue an active global strategy of containment of communism, terrorism and plain evil, but don't tell me that this policy has been very succesful in creating stable democratic institutions in a lot of the regions of operation.
Axel
P.S. I am not saying that EU strategy of letting US do the dirty work is any better. Its all that wicked and problematic that as good roman catholic I see sin everywhere I turn my head
[ September 14, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The best compromise for a collective noun may just be West Indian, as opposed to East Indian (those from India). I believe that a new collective noun should be added to the English lexicon to address this long-standing issue that takes into account the particular ethnic makeup of these individuals but does not introduce nationalization or historical misrepresentation.
Hmmm. "West Indian" has possibilities too, but also some problems. For me, the term makes me think of a person from the West Indies. Do we redefine their place name too? And "East Indian" isn't that great a term either. I remember telling a friend about an Indian restaurant I'd visited, and he asked is it East Indian? I, not realizing what was meant, replied that no, I think it's mostly south Indian. People inside India use east and west to refer to regions inside India, not in other hemispheres. So as long as we're trying to define new terms, I'd rather avoid such potential confusion.
It's similar to the question of whether "American" refers to the US, or to both North and South America. Unfortunately, bad choices were made in the past about what terms to use, and now we're stuck with a de facto usage in English which perpetually annoys South and Central Americans. I'm not sure the Canadians care so much, as in many cases I think they'd prefer to have a more distinctive identity anyway, so saying that "American" does not include "Canadian" is good, as far as many Canadians are concerned.
Anyway - people want a short name for concepts that come up frequently. Which IMO is the main reason "Indian" is still used a lot, despite its ambiguities. Using "East Indian" and "West Indian", I think many people would just drop the east/west in contexts where they think it's obvious, than thereby lead to more confusion later when it turns out that assumption was unwarranted. I like "Amerind" because it's short enough that if we could get past the initial acceptance barrier, people might actually use it in normal conversation. Whereas the length and ambiguity of "Native American" still grates on me a bit whenever I have to use it in conversation.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Various international bodies, chief among them the UN (and likely every human rights organization on the planet), disagree with the statement quoted above.


Then as Tom suggested, call a police.
But hey.. where is police ??
Where now Powell is running for support.
And whats wrong if UN wants the control of Iraq ??
I think a new thread is needed to forget past and discuss present.
[let us assume that yes Saddam had terrorist links, GW-2 was not for oil, OBL is not created by anyone.]
So now what are the problem US sees diplomatically/politically/economically to hand over Iraq to UN ??
OR
Why US does NOT want to handover control of Iraq to UN?
OR
Why UN wants control over Iraq from US ?
I think these questions cant be clubbed in a single question as NOW I see they all are different. I think OR should be AND.
[ September 15, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

Oye yaar, you are too emotional.

Ravish, your behavior is getting tiresome. To say that a man who kills millions is Evil is hardly emotional, to say otherwise is indefensible. Good grief.
Joe


While writing that I was thinking that I was praising you as today I found very less people who think from heart. But alas....
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

Actually, it has been proven to other, just not you.


Did you read the counters ??
AW to refresh your memory, just one, U.N. team finds no link between Iraq and al-Qaida
Oh yes, even Powell had proof of WMD also [I dont know but I heard that people say that it was fake. Now good question comes, which people .. Jason, please provide me the list of options to choose]
AW I liked this co-incident.
Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11
Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001. But most of them were from Saudi Arabia. None were Iraqis.
When I read this poll 4 hrs back, I was thinking that this poll is not correct as site name sounds islamic. But then ... I found this link.
How many "documentable terrorists" would you have to see caught before you conceded that Saddam's regime supported terrorism? Three? A dozen? One hundred? Two thousand? 17 hijackers?
The problem I face that everyone knows that except US no one finds any link or proof of WMD.
Even last time I have to provide link that oil contracts has been given to US companies, still initially some were arguing that it was about re-construction of Iraq, till I show them actual wording were it was clearly written "oil contract".
Is this about information gap ??
I was watching FoxNews and AajTak yesterday.
FoxNews reported that Powell was able to getting some support in UN.[It was not clear report, it did not mention whose support Powell is getting ?? ]
AajTak reported that China, France and Germany are not supporting US on Iraq till they give control to UN.
AW I am tired of from personal attacks and not able to fill the information gap.
BTW someone was telling in one thread that GW-2 has world support then may I ask why now US is going after UN. After all it had world support.
Oh yes, I read somewhere that Australia is not in Peace keeping force now... [Actually they mentioned it before war that in creating mess they will help but not in cleaning]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:

I cannot agree with one of these.
I am having doubt.


http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php
I am beginning to believe it is a war against Islam.
Never repeat this .... even not for fun
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Never repeat this .... even not for fun


I first heard it on NBC news. An Iraqi said it,"This is a war against Islam. They are trying to change our way of life."
OBL claims it's a religious war.
Islam threw the first jetliner.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
OBL claims it's a religious war.


Actually people who talk about religions AND are 'destructive' in nature are nothing but #$*&%^(
This is same OBL who once wanted to start war against Saddam when Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991.

An Iraqi said it...
OBL claims it's a religious war.
Islam threw the first jetliner.

A religion can not be represented by some sad Iraqi or psycho fanatic. OR any religion cant be represented by one single person or group of men.
[ September 15, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Rights of women was a big justification of action in Afghanistan. Is this an attack on Islam or on Afghanni culture?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Rights of women was a big justification of action in Afghanistan.


This certainly wasn't a justification offered by the US government.
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans:
...
The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.
Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.
The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.
And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:


Jason, where were you?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Jason, where were you?


How very Michael Moore-esque. Here's the entire speech, in context, that Rufus quoted. It was from the State of the Union address on 9/20/01
The relevant parts of that speech, some of which was quoted by Rufus:

There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.
They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled.
Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime.
(APPLAUSE)
It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.
By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:
-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.
-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.
-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.
-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.


Now the above was stated prior to any attacks being made. He is not saying we need to go after the Taliban because they oppress women. He does mention that the world that Al-Qaeda envisions is represented by the regime of the Taliban where he states "In Afghanistan we see al Qaeda's vision for the world", followed by examples such as the aforementioned oppression of women.
Once we did launch military action, the President made another speech. In it, he succinctly laid out the [justification for the attack:

More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the al Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens unjustly detained in our country.
None of these demands were met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price.

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I agree with Jim and others, 'Indian' is totally contextual.
Around here, no one would expect to see people wearing Sari, Kurtha or bindi when they are talking about 'Indians and Cowboys' theme night out! Similarly no one would expect a head-chef named 'howling fox' or 'shooing sparrow' when we talk about a dinner-date in one of the many Indian restaurants around.
And 'bout Iraq, Saddam IS evil, and as usual, America being the most powerful nation in the world, did what they got to do - They did the right thing, the wrong way!
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
That two week delay is not just for the Taliban. It allows the pollsters to check the pulse. Bush is cleary reaching out to those for whom women's rights are an issue. If building a consensus prior to invading a sovereign nation is not your idea of a justification then I am speechless.
[ September 15, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]
 
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the al Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens unjustly detained in our country.
None of these demands were met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price.


That was a well executed plan, even if it didnt meet its achieve the last and bit. I wish I could see my President/PM stand up and declare something like that (and mean it too) against some of the issues that we are facing for quite some time. [ Well, Okay, I will refrain from bragging India and Visa to this thread for now! ]
Yeah, IMHO if Bush administration had handled the Iraq case the same way as they handled Afghan issue, this world would have been a better place to live in.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
If building a consensus prior to invading a sovereign nation is not your idea of a justification then I am speechless.


The concensus was already there, and it was to be found in a smoking pile of rubble in New York City, the face of a scarred and burnt-out pentagon, and a pile of twisted metal and human remains in a quiet field in Pennsylvania.
Your statement was that the President used Taliban oppression as a justification for action in Afghanistan. I have shown this is clearly not true. Now you are trying to say that "building a concensus" is the same thing as a "justification", which aside from being untrue, is not what your original statement was which I refuted.
Btw, how is Michael Moore-esque one personal attack, let alone two?
 
Grow a forest with seedballs and this tiny ad:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!