Another War?

[Kotsu]

Imagine if they were having a tennis match (the major was the most recent event in Australia to include a world-wide setting right?) and they bombed the colleseum or whatever in Sydney, Australia. 10,000 + people dying all because the people in the middle east are too radical to base their actions as civilized as the rest of the world. What do you think you would do? I'm sure, if shit hit close to home, you would want to do whatever it takes to preserve the safety of yourself and the ones you love. As I said before, even I don't agree with my views but in all due honesty the only way to solve the problem is to be as radical as the enemies in which you fight. Otherwise, they'll do what it takes to kill you and your cause. You, on the otherhand, will not do what it takes. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the humanity for which you stand to save the humanity in which you protect.

 

[Lukas]

You have obviously not heard of the events in Bali.

However, I shall participate in your scenario, if it will amuse you. In such a case, I would want those responsible to be held accountable and preferably be punished within their rights as human beings - to demonstrate that although they would stoop to barbaric acts, I would not.

What I would not do, is create a some kind of huge charade about governments harbouring terrorists, so that I may target an entire country, as opposed to the individual group who is responsible. I would not then try to use the situation to embroil a neighbouring nation into the ordeal merely because well... I don't like them or because they have invisible WMDs or because they look like they could use some democracy or something. Furthermore, I would not then try to just eradicate the entire religious denomination to which said perpetrators belong to from he face of the planet simply because I have the means, and golly it would just really simplify things a whole lot.

Amused yet?

Oh but no, you've convinced me. Yes, that Hitler fellow was really on to a bright idea with genocide. Why deal with all these Jewish people when you can just gas them, no?

 

[K. Ishitar]

There are two problems

A: The ones I love and would/will protect are humans. To destroy those that hurt our nation I have to point my gun at my homeland and my Muslimyin and eventually at myself because I am Muslim. I do not know them personally but I do feel that not all are represented because bad things get more attention than the good. You would pay more attention to a kamikaze by islamist extremists than an Iman resolving issues with a Preacher. Some people hurt others because they are scared and want to live out their short life, it's been done before the only thing that makes this different is that they have changed the name of the mask that they wear. They being hypocrites and the mask the front(usually good) they defile

B: America is the only nation invloved with this war it is far from being on a world war scale humanity's threat is not in question, if it was then yes to a well defined extent I would agree with more rash and crass action. The other nations are watching and making their plans if they have to get involved so far they do not. It is relatively safe in comparison to previous wars on a worldwide scale. France is in war with the Ivory Coast correct? Or was it wasnt put on the radar as life threatning, we can snuff out bastards, there is still some faith to be invested in surgical searching(in lack of the more formal term)

 

[Reauland]

I'd like to genuinely thank you for clearing that up. In my experience, generalizations are the ugly stepsisters of stereotypes

Now, in the spirit of civilized discourse, come, let us reason together.

Here's something that I'd really like to address:

And again I use the pronoun "you" capriciously. I know that John Smith from Florida has absolutely no bearing on say the atrocities of Abu Ghraib - he was probably as repulsed by them as I was.

Not only was John Smith so appalled by what he saw there, he, along with his fellow American citizens, actually saw fit to retroactively make sure that this wasn't an institutionalized practice, which is the reason why the very instant that he first saw the photos, he and all the rest of us Americans jumped into our time machines and set up the tables so that such activities would cease to be legal, accepted practices among our armed forces.

My point here is that it is not, has not, nor ever shall be an institutionalized practice for our soldiers(fighters, etc,) to mistreat or otherwise abuse prisoners. I most fervently wish I could say the same of our opponents. When compared to the beheading videos, the Abu Ghraib footage comes off looking about as horrendous as a frat party(though I've been to some pretty bad ones in my time . . .), and in cases like this, extremity of offense does matter to me, as I'm sure it matters to most people.

Were you also repulsed when you saw the British soldier being forced to wear the hijab? If not, might I ask why?

Bear in mind - that's not exceptional treatment we're seeing from the Iranians. That's how they as a whole are choosing to do things, not some isolated instance where things have had time to get out of hand over a course of many months.

I'm afraid I'll have to pick this up from home, but I must say I'm looking more forward to this discussion than I have to many a conversation on this forum in quite a while.

 

[meeze]

Not only was John Smith so appalled by what he saw there, he, along with his fellow American citizens, actually saw fit to retroactively make sure that this wasn't an institutionalized practice, which is the reason why the very instant that he first saw the photos, he and all the rest of us Americans jumped into our time machines and set up the tables so that such activities would cease to be legal, accepted practices among our armed forces.

My point here is that it is not, has not, nor ever shall be an institutionalized practice for our soldiers(fighters, etc,) to mistreat or otherwise abuse prisoners. I most fervently wish I could say the same of our opponents. When compared to the beheading videos, the Abu Ghraib footage comes off looking about as horrendous as a frat party(though I've been to some pretty bad ones in my time . . .), and in cases like this, extremity of offense does matter to me, as I'm sure it matters to most people.

I'll disagree here. John Smith just cares if it makes front page news around the world. Look at Rodney King, people were appalled (sp) by police brutality. Now you don't hardly ever hear about it. Do you think it stopped? No.

There are plenty of sources out there that attest to the US using unhumanitarian practices well before this, especially in central/south america. John Smith keeps his blinders on until it smacks him accross the face with global protests, other than that, he'll be happy working his 9-5 with his wife, 2 kids and his dog.

 

[Reauland]

I hear ya Meeze, and to an extent I agree. Where we differ is in Joe Sixpack's reaction. I believe that when we do get smacked in the face with an injustice being carried out, be it by the police or by our soldiers, we tend to demand that some heads roll, and 9/10 times, heads do.

Would you be willing to agree that there's a huge difference between a country whose citizens have a problem with brutality and set down laws against it, versus a country that doesn't seem to have any reservations about it, or at least those who do are denied a voice in government?

In response to Eliott's post(sorry I had to cut short my response earlier)

I of course mean the United States government - who somehow, amidst all their righteous crusading, still manage to profiteer from the war-mongering industry.

From the tone of that phrase, I take it that you believe that the sole, overarching reason for our presence in Iraq is so that the good ole boy network that exists between our elected officials and government contractors can make a buck. Well, that's one of Oliver Stone's favorite bogeymen - the Military/Industrial Complex. If that's really the case, if that's truly what you believe, let me point out a couple of things.

It is absurdly easy in this country to skim obscene amounts of cash with little danger or consequence of getting caught. Ever. Most of the truly gifted embezzlers, scammers, and conmen are never caught here, and the ones that do spend what amounts to a pimple of a sentence in posh, federal penetentiaries that have about as much in common with punishment and confinement as your average day spa. So, as the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat . . . or scam a stockholder.

So your position is that these good ole boys deluded a majority of a congress of elected officials, a majority of the American public, fed them a lot of high-minded rhetoric, faked evidence(and not even very convincing evidence either . . . I think with the impressive amount of funds, connections, and influence already at their disposal, they could have done a much more convincing job if it were fabricated), started a war, further destabilized an already volatile region, jeopardized the reputation of an entire nation in the eyes if the international community . . . just to make a buck?

I don't know who you've been listening to, but if he hands you some Kool-Aid . . . don't drink it.

Yes, there are greedy people with a lot of fingers in a lot of pies in this bloody mess, but misallocation of funds/resources is an unfortunate and inevitable result of war's chaos. I simply find it nigh unto impossible to believe it was the sole driving force behind our decision to go to war. Let's not forget that it was Hussein's own steadfast refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions that ever led the intelligence community to believe that he had some ace up his sleeve to begin with, not to mention the fact that media spin notwithstanding, evidence of his continued biological and chemical programs was eventually unearthed.

As to this:

I would not then try to use the situation to embroil a neighbouring nation into the ordeal merely because well... I don't like them or because they look like they could use some democracy or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been border disputes and at least one past conflict between Iraq and Iran(in which the U.S. backed Iraq, very much picking what I believe to have been the lesser of two evils at the time) long before even the Gulf War. Is this embroiling of which you speak when we crept into Iran under the cover of darkness, kidnapped massive numbers of its people, trained them in the use of military weapons like rocket launchers, automatic weapons, and explosives; then turned them loose in Iraqi territory all so we could kill them and call them "insurgents?"

Meanwhile, Iranians and North Koreans starve while their leaders never miss a meal, command whole fleets of limousines, and this happens in Pakistan:

The Pakistani leader proposes legislation reducing the number of male witnesses necessary for a woman to accuse a man of rape from three down to just one. Public outrage is such that it prompts protests in the streets.

There are much worse things afoot in the world than us evil Americans.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't blindly swallow everything I hear either. I second-guess our policies and actions on a daily basis, and I applaud you for doing the same. Truth be told, I believe that the real story lies, as it's wont to do, somewhere between our opposing views.

I'll pick this up again at some point over the weekend, and I'll lay out to you (and to anyone else who cares to read it ) what I think it is that's really going on in Iraq/Iran

For now, it's time to play.

 

[meeze]

I hear ya Meeze, and to an extent I agree. Where we differ is in Joe Sixpack's reaction. I believe that when we do get smacked in the face with an injustice being carried out, be it by the police or by our soldiers, we tend to demand that some heads roll, and 9/10 times, heads do.

Would you be willing to agree that there's a huge difference between a country whose citizens have a problem with brutality and set down laws against it, versus a country that doesn't seem to have any reservations about it, or at least those who do are denied a voice in government?

Heads didn't roll in the iraq prison thing. Only one ranking officer was prosecuted, the people who took the pictures of "the only murder" at the prison were the ones to get in trouble, not the people who were conspiring to cover up that murder.

America doesn't want to know that shit like that goes all the way up the power structure, they want to think that it was the night shift fucking around when no officers were around.

They even offered full amnisty for any evidence turned in dealing with the illegal activities going on in that jail.

Over and over again, something bad happens, a statement is made, they show a few people going to jail, and thats it. There is no one challenging who it is going to jail, blinders I tell you.

 

[Lukas]

In response to Eliott's post(sorry I had to cut short my response earlier)

Quite alright.

From the tone of that phrase, I take it that you believe that the sole, overarching reason for our presence in Iraq is so that the good ole boy network that exists between our elected officials and government contractors can make a buck. Well, that's one of Oliver Stone's favorite bogeymen - the Military/Industrial Complex. If that's really the case, if that's truly what you believe, let me point out a couple of things.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the fact that the United States usually benefits economically from the production of armaments and supplies. I don't believe I possess the indignant gall to say it's the sole, overarching reason for your (excuse me once again) presence in the region - but lets not be facetious and deny that such an interest in the lucrative war industry exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been border disputes and at least one past conflict between Iraq and Iran(in which the U.S. backed Iraq, very much picking what I believe to have been the lesser of two evils at the time) long before even the Gulf War. Is this embroiling of which you speak when we crept into Iran under the cover of darkness, kidnapped massive numbers of its people, trained them in the use of military weapons like rocket launchers, automatic weapons, and explosives; then turned them loose in Iraqi territory all so we could kill them and call them "insurgents?"

Meanwhile, Iranians and North Koreans starve while their leaders never miss a meal, command whole fleets of limousines, and this happens in Pakistan:

The Pakistani leader proposes legislation reducing the number of male witnesses necessary for a woman to accuse a man of rape from three down to just one. Public outrage is such that it prompts protests in the streets.

There are much worse things afoot in the world than us evil Americans.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't blindly swallow everything I hear either, I second-guess our policies and actions on a daily basis, and I applaud you for doing the same. Truth be told, I believe that the real story lies, as it's wont to do, somewhere between our opposing views.

I think you may have misunderstood my post here. I was responding to the hypothetical situation posed to be my Kotsu. The two nations I refer to are Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. I admit I made a mistake in my chronology in regards to the WMDs, I believe they were provided as reason to invade Iraq not Afghanistan. I'll correct that now.

 

[meeze]

So your position is that these good ole boys deluded a majority of a congress of elected officials, a majority of the American public, fed them a lot of high-minded rhetoric, faked evidence(and not even very convincing evidence either . . . I think with the impressive amount of funds, connections, and influence already at their disposal, they could have done a much more convincing job if it were fabricated), started a war, further destabilized an already volatile region, jeopardized the reputation of an entire nation in the eyes if the international community . . . just to make a buck?

I don't know who you've been listening to, but if he hands you some Kool-Aid . . . don't drink it.

Yes, there are greedy people with a lot of fingers in a lot of pies in this bloody mess, but misallocation of funds/resources is an unfortunate and inevitable result of war's chaos. I simply find it nigh unto impossible to believe it was the sole driving force behind our decision to go to war. Let's not forget that it was Hussein's own steadfast refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions that ever led the intelligence community to believe that he had some ace up his sleeve to begin with, not to mention the fact that media spin notwithstanding, evidence of his continued biological and chemical programs was eventually unearthed.

Iran has done much more than Iraq ever has to give the US a reason to invade, but since Iran plays ball, we leave them alone. Iraq wasn't cashing out GW so we went in and turned that country upside down.

The US has a history of keeping volatile regions in constant chaos in order to position ourselves and companies to make more money. We even backed Neo-Nazis in Argentina I believe in the 80s. We've assasinated political leaders in order to put in our people. Things haven't changed all that much, except the brown people we're going after now don't speak spanish.

Most things the US did in the past never was reported on US television, because John Smith uses the "don't ask don't tell" motto.

 

[Kotsu]

Shit, I never said America was the kindest country in the world. I said we were the greatest country in the world. But jumping in even further; Hitler had it wrong. Let me identify this for you...
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I'm not saying kill everyone in the world that's islamic. I'm saying, just the middle east. Even then, since I seem to have to repeat myself 4 times to get it through your thick skull: I don't agree with it. But god damnit, it is the only fucking way to end the conflict there. So here's what I'm saying to you: Pick your flowers and prance in the fields. The real men are here to protect you so that you can sit on your ass and play video games.

In such a case, I would want those responsible to be held accountable and preferably be punished within their rights as human beings - to demonstrate that although they would stoop to barbaric acts, I would not.

The ones I love and would/will protect are humans.

EVery human is different. Every human has the capability to ruin another, to take another's life, to create atrocious acts of evil. Simple fact is that if you can not fight the evil, then you can not fight the battle. It's a good thing there is no draft because you two would be more of a liability then a help. You don't have the stones to accept the fact that you have to kill to make a difference in the war. If they drafted me right now, blown out knee's and all (The reason they won't take me in the military), and told me to get those 15 British officers out by whatever means necessary... You bet your ass that I would gun down Iranians, cut them up, whatever. But at the expense of my life, I would fight tooth and nail for the people of my country and it's allies. That's patriotism, that's nationalism, that's what it means to be an American. Those of you who continue to cry about war need to pad those tears, put a tampon on in your mouths since you're just being pussies, and support the god damn troops. I'd rather not have the alternative; the pussies of America win and we pull out. The Middle east implodes on itself and the evil takes control again. Then, they prove me right and pwn the shit out of the weaker countries through acts of terror. Terror is a tactic after all, it is not a formal military (Note: That is why this is not a war). So when Australia, Canada, France, etc. all get beat to shit, the first person that would be there is America. We'll be the first people to save your asses, because history repeats itself.

 

[Lukas]

Shit, I never said America was the kindest country in the world. I said we were the greatest country in the world. But jumping in even further; Hitler had it wrong. Let me identify this for you...
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I'm not saying kill everyone in the world that's islamic. I'm saying, just the middle east. Even then, since I seem to have to repeat myself 4 times to get it through your thick skull: I don't agree with it. But god damnit, it is the only fucking way to end the conflict there. So here's what I'm saying to you: Pick your flowers and prance in the fields. The real men are here to protect you so that you can sit on your ass and play video games.

Don't think you can call me out on an issue of semantics. I somehow find it ironic that the very definition you provide (from dictionary.com, I'm assuming) undermines your argument. Genocide does not only refer to the extermination of a religious denomination, sport, but also to a national, racial, political or cultural group. Guess what? I wasn't refering to Islam. I was refering to your proposed genocide of an entire region, based on their political influence on the world. You identify the Middle East as a sole entity - its people being part of one collective, national identity which you deem necessary to eliminate because of the manner in which this identity affects you. Your objective would be "the disintegration of the political and social institutions" of the region. That's genocide, moron.

But please, go on saying that you don't like the concept of geocide, but that it's somehow necessary to achieve some warped notion of stability. You're a real humanitarian, wiping your hands clean in such a manner - hey, maybe Hitler didn't like splattering his boots with Jewish blood, but it was all for what he believed was a greater cause, no? You disgust me.

Yes, we're all completely grateful that all you "real men" are here to defend us all. Obviously the only way to be a "man" or to defend your beliefs is to massacre people, how silly of me not to realise. You've shamed me and my flower-bearing ways. You've angered me so that I should purchase a gun and go and kill some people so that I can (like your fine self) momentarily feel like I have a penis.

EVery human is different. Every human has the capability to ruin another, to take another's life, to create atrocious acts of evil. Simple fact is that if you can not fight the evil, then you can not fight the battle.

Oh thank you very much for clearly delineating the axis of good and evil in the world. Here I was thinking that such matters were far more complex and not necessarily so black-and-white.

It's a good thing there is no draft because you two would be more of a liability then a help. You don't have the stones to accept the fact that you have to kill to make a difference in the war. If they drafted me right now, blown out knee's and all (The reason they won't take me in the military), and told me to get those 15 British officers out by whatever means necessary... You bet your ass that I would gun down Iranians, cut them up, whatever. But at the expense of my life, I would fight tooth and nail for the people of my country and it's allies. That's patriotism, that's nationalism, that's what it means to be an American. Those of you who continue to cry about war need to pad those tears, put a tampon on in your mouths since you're just being pussies, and support the god damn troops. I'd rather not have the alternative; the pussies of America win and we pull out. The Middle east implodes on itself and the evil takes control again. Then, they prove me right and pwn the shit out of the weaker countries through acts of terror. Terror is a tactic after all, it is not a formal military (Note: That is why this is not a war). So when Australia, Canada, France, etc. all get beat to shit, the first person that would be there is America. We'll be the first people to save your asses, because history repeats itself.

Tampons? Pussies? Do you seriously lack so much confidence in your masculinity that you need to play the disgustingly incorrect "you weak, you is woman" line. If there were a draft, I would protest the war and refuse to enlist, as I am a strict pacifist - guess what... it's my right as an Australian. If opting not to murder innocent people on the other side of the planet whom I don't even know somehow makes me a woman (I don't thoroughly understand how this logic functions) then so be it. From this particular post, I realise that your paltry arguments do not even deserve my attention - as they are both juvenile and completely detached - but I'll humour you nonetheless.

I won't support a government funded massacre, no matter how many times I'm told to "support the troops" on fox. Australia has reaped absolutely minimal benefit from involving ourselves in America's fruitless pursuits for "justice" and "freedom". In fact one may argue that we have done nothing but place ourselves in a more precarious position within the global community. So, pardon the departure from conversational decorum, but take your "greatest country in the world" bullshit and shove it.

 

[Kotsu]

Looks to me like I struck a nerve, huh? Too bad the world isn't based on debate, it's based on the one cardinal rule that has exists since the dawn of man: Take what you want. If you want peace, you take out what's preventing it. You don't "talk" your way into it. That just doesn't work, and history proves that. Talking only delays the inevitable. Also, I didn't call you a woman. I called you a pussy. A wuss... More defined: A coward. You're a pacifist and won't fight for your country, then shut the fuck up and enjoy your undeserved freedom. Freedom is a gift at the expense of the lives of others. Freedom is not free. If America was a group of pacifists we would still be a country ruled and owned by England. All I can say is that god we weren't. Pacifism is an excuse for the cowards not willing to give their lives for a greater cause. If most of australia is similar to you, you may want to figure out a way to defend yourself. No one fears cowards, they take advantage of them. And yes, once again I'm not saying you're a woman. There's millions of women out there with more stones than you, that will fight for those who need fighting for. Also, here is what Australia has gotten from helping America. A continued alliance and appreciation as well as trade, money, help, and support. You can't put a price on that. Not when I can't reasonably see your country holding it's own in a war. That's why they sent a small amount of troops to support America in it's battle against terrorism. Because, as I said before, the sacrifice of few for the benefit of many is in fact worth it.


Also, to clarify what I was saying earlier about the genocide definition since I'm at work and clearly distracted (that's why I have a lot of incomplete thoughts)... Hitler had it wrong because he persecuted a religion. I believe, when a region puts the world at risk, the only way to end the risk is to end the region. Genocide, in that sense, is the only option you have for an end.

PS: On a side note, those who protest wars should be in jail. Period. Get a fucking job, go to fucking school, make a real contribution to society. Spend your time constructively, because the freedom to defy your own government is the first step towards deliberate anarchy. In choosing anarchy, you've made a crime against your country. In that, you should be imprisoned. That's my take on it; so if you were drafted and avoided and protested instead... If I was your draft officer, I would hunt you down and see to it that you're in jail. Shit, I'd spend my personal time away from work doing that. As I said, your freedom is not free. It's at the expense of your cooperation with your government.

 

[K. Ishitar]

Kotsu, you assume that I'm not for the war that is incorrect. I dont like it because it is a cess pool of right and wrong and its muddy waters.

I'm for the war because my people Muslims and Americans need protection. I may not know the Muslims in the Middle East but I know that they are my people like my Americans.

I have to ask you a question, you said that every human has the potential of evil which is correct and that the Middle East is a swarm of it? Ok if we look at our own nation, doesnt that mean we do no harm or do no evil? Ever look at our own crimes and problems and thing that they in comparison to our modern counterparts is atroucious? So shouldnt someone snuff our lights out with bombs because others believe we can't improve? That's what your saying or very strongly implying.

The Middle East is hardly modern and doesnt have the neccesary tools to improve as America has but abuses to a certain extent, but hell we should give up and nuke everyone including those who are innocent and blood free because we're fucking America coming to save with a Bible in one hand and a Missle launcher in another. How untrue and how imperialistic....

Lastly I should say this most strongly

You said once that if you are overpowered by another country you should conform or become obsolete. You were saying this about the United States taking on the Middle East. The two powers pale in comparison with the US being the more powerful.

So...if the rest of the world were to join in some alliance and wage war to with the USA and tell them to conform to their religion, culture, and standards.

Would you conform or die? According to you should conform.

How ironic that you say we are liablities if we are at war and imply we have no patriotism. It seems yours lasts as long as your side is the seemingly most strong while mine resides indefinitely.

Arguing about the war and against it isnt a sign of liablity we know our rights we know what we must do if we go over there if we feel strongly about then it is without a doubt that we can fucking defend our country.

Where the hell is yours(patriotism) if someday in the near future the USA is outgunned with the order of Convert, Conform, or die?

 

[Kotsu]

I never said the under dog can't win. I'd fight until the death for my country and way of life, just as I would expect the middle eastern countries that are the problem would do as well. I'm not telling people to change their religion or anything like that. I'm telling them to change their lifestyle's and political views/actions. That's the conformity that I implied, not anything else. Also:

Shit, I never said America was the kindest country in the world. I said we were the greatest country in the world.

That's two posts up.

Ok if we look at our own nation, doesnt that mean we do no harm or do no evil?

I know we're not the kindest country in the world. We're up there in charity though. Sri Lanka, Ethopia, etc... All I'm saying is that people can be anything they want to be if they set their minds to it. If they set their minds to killing, they will kill. If their minds are on creation, then they will create and innovate. Set your mind on helping, and you can make a difference to someone. However, set your mind on changing the world, and it's the hardest of all to achieve. That's when you have to do something radical, regardless of how rational that it is. Some changes are bad, some changes are good. The only problem is we're on polar ends. America is on one side and a large part of the middle east is on the other. The UN's speech to deaf ears has gotten us no where, and the only way to remove the polar sides is to eliminate the other side. Otherwise, like everything, they can not co-exist. Positive and Positive will always move away from eachother and it's only a matter of time until it tears the structure apart.

 

[Reauland]

Hi guys. Hope you all had a great weekend

In response to Meeze:

I disagree somewhat on Americans not wanting to know what dirty pool we might be playing around the world. As examples, I cite both you and myself. After all, we know there's some pretty heinous crap that's been conducted in the name of "keeping the world safe for democracy," and we care about it. That leaves only two possiblities:

1) We are the sole Americans who care, or

2) At least some other Americans do.

More to the point, yes, sadly those far enough away from some of the brutal activities we've been discussing escape punishment by maintaining plausible deniablility, but in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict, after the uproar and the riots, wasn't the old Chief of Police/Commissioner tossed out on his ear?

I guess what I'm really getting at is simply this:

With as anti-establishment as the media in this country tends to be, don't you think we'd be hearing more about police brutality if it really was an institutional practice across the country? I do, though I freely admit I could be wrong.

Lastly, as far as Rodney King goes, after all the uproar died down, wasn't he later arrested for running a red light, refusing to pull over, tested positive for PCP?

In Response to Eliott

Ahh, my apologies. Looking back over the thread I can see now that I got the replies crossed up. As promised, here's my theory on what's really going on behind the scenes. It also speaks to some of what Meeze was saying earlier:

Hypothetical

What if U.S. intelligence had, some years ago, uncovered evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear arms program, but going public with it would compromise whatever intelligence-gathering asset had provided the information in the first place? For the sake of this hypothetical, allow me also to assume that, justified or not, they feared that the Irani government wouldn't have any reservations about making this technology readily available to extremist groups.

What if the only way that they could even begin to approach the problem was to attack it from the flank, so to speak?

What if everything we were told concerning WMDs applied only somewhat to Saddam's regime, but was spot-on accurate about what was going on in Iran? In short, what if it was a paste-up job, where you could essentially substitute in "Iran" everywhere Iraq was mentioned?

What if the Iraq war was the U.S. government's attempt to kill two birds with one stone: oust Saddam(not the nicest guy in anyone's book), and to provide U.S. forces a strategic point of offense to stage into Iran if it became necessary?

Let's not forget the Basij either. The U.S. military would be hard-pressed to deal with out and out human wave attacks like those with which the Iraqis were confronted in the Iran/Iraq War. Our only recourse would be to resort to carpet bombing that would undoubtably be effective, but also cause massive civillian casualties.

Unless we could find a way to deal with them piecemeal . . . insurgents anyone? And consequently, doesn't Iran happen to be flanked by both Iraq . . . and Afghanistan?

I find this scenario to be plausible mainly for this reason:

Is it easier to believe that one of the (if not simply the) best trained, best equipped, best organized militaries the world has ever seen went in half-cocked and undermanned, overthrew the Baathist Iraqi government and didn't bother to secure the borders because they "goofed," or because they were acting on information that, for whatever reason, must remain privileged?

 

[Sirelrohir]

Looks to me like I struck a nerve, huh? Too bad the world isn't based on debate, it's based on the one cardinal rule that has exists since the dawn of man: Take what you want. If you want peace, you take out what's preventing it. You don't "talk" your way into it. That just doesn't work, and history proves that. Talking only delays the inevitable. Also, I didn't call you a woman. I called you a pussy. A wuss... More defined: A coward. You're a pacifist and won't fight for your country, then shut the fuck up and enjoy your undeserved freedom. Freedom is a gift at the expense of the lives of others. Freedom is not free. If America was a group of pacifists we would still be a country ruled and owned by England. All I can say is that god we weren't. Pacifism is an excuse for the cowards not willing to give their lives for a greater cause. If most of australia is similar to you, you may want to figure out a way to defend yourself. No one fears cowards, they take advantage of them. And yes, once again I'm not saying you're a woman. There's millions of women out there with more stones than you, that will fight for those who need fighting for. Also, here is what Australia has gotten from helping America. A continued alliance and appreciation as well as trade, money, help, and support. You can't put a price on that. Not when I can't reasonably see your country holding it's own in a war. That's why they sent a small amount of troops to support America in it's battle against terrorism. Because, as I said before, the sacrifice of few for the benefit of many is in fact worth it.


Also, to clarify what I was saying earlier about the genocide definition since I'm at work and clearly distracted (that's why I have a lot of incomplete thoughts)... Hitler had it wrong because he persecuted a religion. I believe, when a region puts the world at risk, the only way to end the risk is to end the region. Genocide, in that sense, is the only option you have for an end.

PS: On a side note, those who protest wars should be in jail. Period. Get a fucking job, go to fucking school, make a real contribution to society. Spend your time constructively, because the freedom to defy your own government is the first step towards deliberate anarchy. In choosing anarchy, you've made a crime against your country. In that, you should be imprisoned. That's my take on it; so if you were drafted and avoided and protested instead... If I was your draft officer, I would hunt you down and see to it that you're in jail. Shit, I'd spend my personal time away from work doing that. As I said, your freedom is not free. It's at the expense of your cooperation with your government.

I love it when some idiot comes with the freedom isnt free bullshit. Here's a newsflash for you. People in the middle east could give 2 shits about our freedom. If you honestly think thats what this war is about then you've been brainwashed. I absolutly adore the fact that 'hitler had it wrong' but you somehow have it right; ITS THE SAME THING. You know, if you would poll the majority of the world, i would be willing to bet that we're on top as the region that is putting the world at risk.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/03/america/NA_GEN_World_Views_of_Bush.php

So our closest allies rank our president up there with the axis of evil

http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

Non scientific poll, a bit out dated, but interesting none the less.

So, using your logic, we should be nuked since the majority of our allies (and most likely the world) find us as the biggest threat?

Do you want to know why people over there hate us? It's not because we are 'free'. Japan is free; Brazil is free; Mexico and Canada are free; But i dont ever hear about terrorists going after any of these guys. Want to know a fact? The VAST majority of terrorist attacks in the states are by white americans; whether its PETA or some right wing psycho that thinks God told him to blow up an abortion clinic. Of course, since our current administration wants war, its in their interest to keep people afraid of people that are different from them.

Here are why people over there hate us:

1) Isreal/Palestinean conflict- doesnt need to be explained; But a suggestion to fix this (and alot of other things) would be campaign finance reform.

2) The fact that we support corrupt/brutal goverments that suit our purposes. We support the Saudi's (monarchy), Jordinians (monarchy), Egypt (president for life; recently banned opposition parties), Kuwait (monarchy), the gulf states (monarchies). We dont support the Palestineans, who actually elected people democratically. We supported Iraq in the 80's.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

LOLOL

We also support Isreal which is a 'democracy' in which a certain religion gets special treatment over others.

3) The fact that we have army bases there. What would you do if China decided to put a base in Maryland? gogo Red Dawn, right? Wolveriiiiiiiiiines! Patrick Swayze is a terrorist!

4) Oh, and lets not forget.. they hate us because of what we do with their oil, which by the way is what this war is about. This is all about imperialism. The only reason it is becoming about ideology is because certain people, on BOTH sides, want it to be about that.

Contrary to what you might believe, not supporting this war is not un-patriotic. In my opinion, your the bigger pussy for being led around like a sheep and not thinking for yourself. You keep talking about people undermining the government... well since both the house and senate are democrats, well, who's being undermined exactly? Seems to me that alot of people spoke out during the midterm elections; are you saying the majority of Americans are wrong? Or would you rather people just not think and believe everything they are told by our lolpresident?

Here's a question for you kotsu. What are we going to do when Iraqi's democratically elect a Shiite fundementalist to be their prime minister? What happens when this person allies with the Iranians? There are already close ties within both governments. We gonna invade them again? Oh wait, we could just use your plan and nuke em! Yeah, that will teach them to not get invaded by us! Lol, the only stones you have are in your head.

Edit: I overlooked the funniest thing he said. People that protest should be jailed; So basically you dont want people 'free' to express their values if it doesnt match yours? Isn't that how it is in places like Iran, North Korea, and communist China? I mean I could be wrong but im pretty sure thats how they do things in those countries.

As for not being drafted.. Your damn right that i wouldnt want to go fight for some asshole at Shell Oil, Haliburton or Lockheed/Martin so their stocks could go up 20 cents. Here's a great way to support our troops... how about they get significant stock options from whatever companies stand to gain from this war? I mean what better way to support them then to give them financial security when they get back, right? Or should that security only go to Bush's and Dick 'I shot my friend in the face and got him to apologize' Cheney's CEO buddies?

If they drafted me right now, blown out knee's and all (The reason they won't take me in the military), and told me to get those 15 British officers out by whatever means necessary... You bet your ass that I would gun down Iranians, cut them up, whatever.

Gogo John Rambo! You do realize that rambo helped the taliban in Rambo 3, right?

 

[Dayner]

the Isreal/Palestinean conflict is like the 80% of reason of why arab hate the "west"

fix this and the jihadist wont have anymore reason to fight

alot of Islamic militant groups use this conflict as way to Recruit new jihadist

 

[Sharpe]

There's only one way to "fix" it like Iran, Syria and co want it, and thats to wipe Israel off the map. I can never see that happening.

Also looky here.

Andrei Uglanov, in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty Nedeli", wrote that an attack is slated to last for twelve hours from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

Citing Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff, Uganov stated that the first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

Uglanov's article was re-issued by Russian outlet RIA-Novosti, who sought verification from retired Russian Colonel General, Leonid Ivashov.

Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview, stating "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran...We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place... Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,"

Ivashov is now the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

The AP and the Jerusalem Post, however, failed to mention the retired General's comments, instead simply stating "The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as myths."

 

[RoM]

Since the war's all about oil and all ... anyone mind telling me where the fuck it is and why oil prices are at an all time industry high?

Oh right, tension ... insecurities ... blah blah blah.

Meanwhile no oil, no finances from oil to support the war, no nothing to do with oil at all coming our way. The US's biggest foreign oil importer? Canada. Let's invade them, eh?

Way to peg the wrong motivation on the right people because you watch too much CNN.

I'm not for the war, i am for clearly understanding wtf is going on instead of taking a shot in the dark and believing all the bullshit hype about oil.

They hate us because we're there to hate.

They hate us because we haven't been able to stop fucking with how they do shit since the crusades.

 

[Reauland]

I'm not for the war, i am for clearly understanding wtf is going on instead of taking a shot in the dark and believing all the bullshit hype about oil.

They hate us because we're there to hate.

They hate us because we haven't been able to stop fucking with how they do shit since the crusades.

Seconded.

Sharpe's on the money too, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as the sacrosanct "will of the people" goes, let's step back and look at the repercussions of not only abandoning this war too early, but also telegraphing to our opponents when we plan on leaving. I may not know the reasons this whole bloody mess got started, and I might or might not agree with them all if I did, but one thing's clear to me:

Abandoning Iraq as it currently stands would be unconscionable, tantamount to the same sort of fair weather colonialism that Europe engaged in for centuries, only on a much smaller time scale. Just look how well that worked out in places as far-flung as the Congo, Rwanda, and Viet Nam.