Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vector on March 30, 2002, 01:20:47 PM
-
"BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Hizbollah group warned on Saturday that its fighters would not sit idle while Israel laid siege to Palestinian cities and forced its way into the headquarters of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.
Speaking hours after Hizbollah guerrillas attacked seven Israeli positions in a disputed border area, the group's deputy secretary-general Naeem Kassem said the attack was proof that Israel would pay dearly for its assault on the Palestinians."
Hezbollah started its attacks against Israel again. Now situation is different than 20 years ago, hezbollah is now part of the Lebanese government. Also, Syria and other hezbollah supporters have had lots of time to deliver more and more Russian weapons, so probably hezbollah is stronger than ever. It is still hard to believe that this attack is approved by Lebanese government, more likely, it seems that as usual, leaders has no control over their groups. Arafat has lost its authority to hamas and other radical groups long time ago. He is just a doll keeping "innocent" Palestinians shield clean for western countries. And obviously succeed as UN demands Israeli forces to withdraw from ramallah. What exactly has UN said about Palestinians terror against the Israel? I can't recall any strong statement. UN is just group of wussies fearing to anger Arabic nations.
Lebanon surely made bad mistake allowing Palestinians to attack Israel from Lebanon. Then it made even bigger mistake for taking Hezbollah to their government. Now Israel is about to occupy Lebanon again. It's already too late to try to kick hezbollah and other radicals from Lebanon. Hezbollah, hamas and others has already occupied Lebanon. Radicals have turned Lebanon to their battlefield. I feel sorry for Lebanese people, they are obviously facing hard times again.
If we look at this situation in separated areas;
1. Sharon is against the wall.
He promised to stop terrorist attacks inside the Israel and so far he has failed. He is losing his credibility in Israeli peoples eyes. If he want to be in lead, it is time to act.
2. According to above, if Israel occupies more Palestinians areas, how will other nations act?
- Arabic nations: I think they do nothing but strong protests against Israel.
- USA: I think they do nothing except protests.
3. According to above, if Hezbollah starts to attack against Israeli civilian targets with rockets?
Most likely Israel will occupy Southern Lebanon (again) and make it their buffer area. How will other countries act?
- Arabic Nations: No acts (except protests)
- USA: No acts (except protest), could move fleet near Israel if USA starts its attacks against Iraq.
- Lebanon: No acts (except protest), maybe nominal, figurative resistance. Hezbollah will do more stronger resistance & attacks.
- Syria: Probably will occupy Eastern or Northern Lebanon to make it their buffer area and to keep their supplies running to Hezbollah. No acts against Israel, they have learnt their lessons already.
- Iraq: big question mark. But if USA starts its attack to Iraq, it probably will make some acts against Israel.
- Iran: Supports Hezbollah, but I doubt in other way than supplying weapons.
Opinions / views?
-vector
-
Powell said the the US has "Grave Concerns" regarding Israeli military actions against Arafat's compound. Isn't this diplomatic speak for back the f#$% off?
-
Yes it is, after all, this critical situation is delaying USA's Iraq actions, too hot situation to start another crusade.
Btw it's interesting if Powell said that. According to Reuters; " Bush called on both sides to find a way to peace but he placed the onus for the latest violence on the Palestinians, saying he understood Israel's decision to defend itself and making no call for Israeli forces to withdraw from Arafat's Ramallah compound, which they invaded on Friday."
I see some conflicts between their statements.
-
If Lebanon was invaded again Syria would be involved. Lebanon now is really just a Syrian puppet goverment.
Since Syria is now a UN security council member they could reasonably expect the UN to support thier defense against Israeli aggression in the area. This would mean, at the least, withdrawal of US support militarily, holding of all funds outside of Israel and possibly permission for Syria to buy NATO military equipment and supplies to replace any delapidated Soviet crap they still hold onto for lack of replacements.
In short: Invading Lebanon will never happen again. At the most you will see raids and airstrikes. Never a campaign to create a buffer zone. Even if they tried the worst enemy would be the people who remember the slaughter of the SLA supporters and members when Israel decided to betray them and pull out without trying to give them options to leave. Odd isn't it- that we are so concentrated on the Palestinian noise that the Hezbollah and Syrian factions in southern Lebanon managed to "pacify" 3-4 million people who were involved in the SLA before Israel left?
Wonder how many years before THOSE mass graves come to light.
I think Isael should just agree to give up the land. Screw the settlements of 4,000 people in a city of a qurter million Arabs. They bought a BAD INVESTMENT.
Even better- while pulling out murder Yasser and every whoopee palestinian leader you can, claim "so sorry about that" and ask Jordan if they will step in and take control of the area again.
Hmmm, Jordan owning the west bank again. Yummy. Betcha they would jump at the chance again too.
-
Originally posted by Sclew
This would mean, at the least, withdrawal of US support militarily, holding of all funds outside of Israel..
I have to disagree with this. There must be really important reasons for US to stop supporting Israel. US don't want to close their only door to middle east, atleast not right now when war against terrorism is running.
In short: Invading Lebanon will never happen again. At the most you will see raids and airstrikes. Never a campaign to create a buffer zone.
I agree that invading whole Lebanon again is not what Israel is after. However, I can imagine the need of buffer zone quite easily. Think rocket attacks to Israeli cities. Hezbollah drives with their vans, stops, launches and drivers away. Nothing that IDF or IAF can do. They don't have any supporters inside the Lebanon (or atleast very little), so they can't get any info about these attackers and Israel won't strike randomly. What are the options?
when Israel decided to betray them and pull out without trying to give them options to leave.
That is not excatly the truth, Israel expressly gave a possibility to major part of the DFF soldiers (with their families) to leave Lebanon when they were withdrawing. Possibility to go Israel or some other near country and offered money too. Major of the DFF soldiers stayed in Lebanon regardless of Israeli offer facing the consequences. IIRC not many of them were killed by hezbollah.
-
at least i got to see arafat tell c. amanpour to shut the f*** up when she started talking over him. what a guy, submachine gun in one hand cell phone in the other, tanks at his door and not even a quiver in his voice.
-
I have "Grave concerns" about Sec. Powell. He had far more to do with us not finishing off sadam, than most people realize. I saw an interview with him. In which he, as much as said, that he lost his stomach for killing Iraqis on that road back to Baghdad.
-
If looked at from a 3rd person perspective... Israel is doing the same the US & allies are doing in Afghanistan. Both got hit by terrorrists hitting civilian targets. Both are responding to it. Only difference is, Israel has been at it for decades.
This whole thing is a mess.
-
Clearly the Palestinians and Israelis are involved.
Clearly the "Arab League" states have taken a "strong position".
Clearly the US is and has been taking "strong positions" (to no avail) with both the Palestinians and Israelis.
....and the rest of the world? What up with that?
See, NOBODY really wants to touch this "tar baby" (see Uncle Remus stories if that's unclear). Because it's a true, universe-class mess and once you touch it, you're stuck to it.
.... but they sure all love to criticize, don't they?
-
Originally posted by easymo
I have "Grave concerns" about Sec. Powell. He had far more to do with us not finishing off sadam, than most people realize. I saw an interview with him. In which he, as much as said, that he lost his stomach for killing Iraqis on that road back to Baghdad.
Last I checked, the goal of Desert Storm was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. That mission was accomplished. Once that goal was achieved, there was no need to keep killing the Iraqi military - they probably would have been safer in cardboard boxes than in tanks, so superior was the US in that action. Powell knew when to stop, and kudos to him for that.
-
I have to disagree with this. There must be really important reasons for US to stop supporting Israel. US don't want to close their only door to middle east, atleast not right now when war against terrorism is running.
And there would never be a better reason than a member of the Security council of the UN defending itself and a sattelite state from an act of aggression. Perhaps you missed the fact that Syria IS a UN security council member now? Not to mention that the latest rockets were launched from Syrian lands not Lebanese.
That is not excatly the truth, Israel expressly gave a possibility to major part of the DFF soldiers (with their families) to leave Lebanon when they were withdrawing. Possibility to go Israel or some other near country and offered money too. Major of the DFF soldiers stayed in Lebanon regardless of Israeli offer facing the consequences. IIRC not many of them were killed by hezbollah.
What you say is 1/2 the story. YES they gave the chance to them- then they pulled out WEEKS BEFORE THEY PLANNED! There were thousands caught in the middle of that pullout as the Hezbollah chased them out, nipping at thier heels and locking the border the second they left. And while DFF soldiers were given a chance to resettle there was no offers of money or concrete plans of what to do with them.
your assumption that most were not killed by the hezbollah is almost completely linked the the "IIRC" you put in there. The newspeople weren't there so you didn't hear about it. Like I said- one day those graves and stories won't be repressed anymore. I look forward to hearing exactly what DID happen.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
at least i got to see arafat tell c. amanpour to shut the f*** up when she started talking over him. what a guy, submachine gun in one hand cell phone in the other, tanks at his door and not even a quiver in his voice.
Is there anywhere I could see this interview on the web? I did not know he had any communication except phone since locked in the compound.
-
Ispar. One thing they thought in terms of, in WW2, was the more ruthless we were. The sooner the war would end. Saving more lives in the long run.
Had Bush Sr. ignored then Gen. Powell. Much of what has happened, in the last year, might well have not happened. Here and in Palestine.
Its like cutting out a cancer. There is no pleasant way to do it. But its better to get rid of it.
-
The reason Bush Sr didn't finish saddam off was fear of islamic fundamentalists taking control of Iraq.
The power vacuum would have to filled by someone and saddam hasn't left anyone alive in his country who could fill it.
Now his dipshit of a son wants to erase the black mark off his families reputation.
Eventually the truth about the low life character of the Bush family will come to light.
I'll be around to gloat and say "I told you so". ;)
-
This was such an odd thing. Pulling up short. That I looked into this quite a bit over the years. I read a number of things. And I taped two TV interviews that made it pretty clear what happened. I watched them very carefully. One was with Bush, the other i mentioned. Powell and Bush's stories were surprisingly consistent. Bush, in trying to sound presidential, took the responsibility. And did not name the "advisers" that led him to the dicision. But from what he said, what Powell said, and what i read elsewhere, it was clear that he did not want to make the same mistakes as LBJ. So he took the advice of his top general. The Saudi princes wanted to placate their people. And pushed for Bush to back off. Others in the region, including surprisingly, the Kuwaitis. Pushed for the same thing. But in the end it was Powell's lack of back bone that swung this thing the wrong way. Thousands have died since then as a result. With more to come.
Dont think for a moment that the people over there think we were being civilized. Sadam, in speech's, has said many times that we didn't have the guts to go into Baghdad. THAT is what they belive over there. It is a historical fact, that when an enemy perceives a weakness. They attack. That is what has happened. And why it happened.
Needless to say. Clintons laughable attempts at playing commander in chief made things even worse.
-
easymo, it's been said that the US should not be the world's policeman. I don't think that what we did in Iraq back in 1990-91 was wrong, in the sense that we removed Saddam from Kuwait. Nor am I naive enough to believe that we acted solely out of the goodness of our big American hearts; there was a huge oil source at risk in Kuwait; Kuwait itself is not a particularly pleasant place to live. Small countries invade and fight each other all the time; the US rarely steps in with as much force as it did for Desert Storm.
I believe that if we thought that Saddam and Iraq were a credible threat to our security, we probably would have finished the job. But once he was out of Kuwait, there was no reason to waste more American lives. We established no-fly zones, Operations Northern and Southern Watch, and figured that the problem was contained. There just wasn't any need to bring the regime down, since there wasn't much it could do once we had Iraq in a stranglehold.
I won't be sorry to see Saddam gone, but I'm not at all happy that we are planning to attack Iraq, either. I'm concerned about casualties of course, but more so about the aftermath - what will happen, not only within Iraq, but in the surrounding area? It may not be pretty.
-
Ispar,
I've flown with a few F/O's that were in Desert Storm and flew the sorties against "the highway of death" in A-10's. They tell me that after the intial attacks by the first two guys in on the column that it was mostly killing machinery, not men.
The said most of the vehicles were "un*ssed" by the Iraqis as soon as the aircraft rolled in. They saw LOTS of them running away into the desert, off the road. The vehicles were the targets, not the fleeing crews.
Just thought you might like to hear a different version than what the news media put out.
What will happen in Iraq in a "aftermath"?
What happened in Germany and Japan after WW2? What's happening now in Afghanistan? The US.. and one would hope the rest of the world that is SO concerned about the poor everyday "Achmeds" in Iraq right now... will try to establish a new government in Iraq that is actually more concerned about feeding and medically caring for its own people rather than building weapons of mass destruction with the oil money. Well, that's MY guess anyway.
... and before we hear anymore about the US "fighting only for oil"... let's discuss for a while just where the bulk of the oil producing nations would be without the "petrodollars" that have come their way over the last 50 years.
Did I miss the CNN report where the Kuwaitis welcomed the Iraqis with open arms and celbrations? I don't remember the Saudis preparing any "Welcome Home Saddam Our Arab Brother" banners either.
Yeah, we use way too much oil, agreed. In return, they get way too much of our money. Like most trade, it's mutually beneficial or it wouldn't continue/exist. OPEC has their own organization to "mangage" oil prices... why is that, you think?
If some US technogeek invents a way to get cars to run on unfiltered seawater tomorrow, how do you think the OPEC states would react?
-
Toad, did I say that our motivation was purely oil? No. Did I say that Kuwait was content to be occupied? No. Was oil a major consideration when ordering Desert Storm? Of course it was! There were other things at work there, but oil is always a huge motivation in the Middle East. No use trying to avoid it.
I frankly don't care about the machine/man ratio of Iraqi casaulties. Woohoo, great, they have less tanks, yay, etc... it doesn't really matter does it? As you said, they were mostly abandoned when the crews realized that thier choices were to run - or get pasted.
As to establishing a new government... well, you know that it's not simple. We had a huge advantage in Germany - similar culture and people that were by and large fed up with the war in general. It doesn't work that way in the Middle East, necessarily. We'll see, won't we? I suspect that it'll be a bit more difficult to set up a caring government in Iraq than Germany. It is very likely to be seen as an attempt by the US to establish a puppet government, and control over the people in the region. And certainly, the goal is to install something friendly to the US. That makes sense, but could also be asking for trouble.
And don't forget that UN sanctions have helped contribute to a lack of medical and other funds to Iraq. It's a trade-off - Hussein gets more money for WMD. The people get better care. It sucks, but then, so will a war. Especially if the Arab League makes good on their words and decides to fight back. Even the superpower US is unlikely to be able to stand alone against the Arab world, and from the noises being made in the UN right now, the US will have to stand along against the Arab world if we move against Iraq. Who knows what happens then. Another draft? Damned if I am drafted to fight this war... it isn't going to happen.
-
Oh, I agree that "oil is always a huge motivation in the Middle East."
What never seems to get mentioned is that it is a huge motivation for BOTH the consumers AND the producers. That often gets overlooked, doesn't it.
I wasn't talking about Israeli casualties.. you might want to edit your post.
I was talking about Iraqi casualties with respect to your statement:
Ispar: Once that goal was achieved, there was no need to keep killing the Iraqi military - they probably would have been safer in cardboard boxes than in tanks, so superior was the US in that action. Powell knew when to stop, and kudos to him for that.
We didn't keep killing them. In fact, in the latter part of the "war" we were giving them the opportunity to un*ss the vehicles before we destroyed them. This happened on the "highway" and also out in the desert with the Abrams and the Apaches quite a bit before the end of the war. Films of same at Ft. Leavenworth Command and Staff training school.
My point, and where I disagree with Powell and you too I guess, is that we could have almost totally removed Iraq's war making machinery in another few days or so. Even to the point of taking Baghdad. They were in full rout, abandoning their vehicles as soon as an Apache or an A-10 showed up. We should have maximized that opportunity. We didn't. Would have made a big difference in the post-war era, IMO. Especially to the Kurds we allowed to get slaughtered.
Establishing a new government won't be simple? Really? Few things worth doing are easy, don't you agree? Japan's culture was totally unlike ours when the occupation began... was MacArthur's task easy? Do you think that one turned out fairly well?
Of course, if it won't be EASY... perhaps we shouldn't even try right?
The goal would be to install something that actually took into account the will of the people of Iraq, IMO.
It would be to give them an infrastructure that made daily life a pleasurable thing, a thing not to be wagered lightly again at the whim of a dictator.
Were we to achieve this and, as is our usual wont, to rebuild their country to the point that it COULD provide them with a decent lifestyle, I'd hope they'd remember us fondly.. but perhaps not. You just never know, do you? Seems to have worked out OK with Germany and Japan though, especially when contrasted against the punitive style practiced post WWI.
The UN sanctions are the cause of Iraq's lack of medical funds and food shortages? Really?
UN worried by Iraq's failure to spend oil income (http://www.inc.org.uk/English/news/2001/180101IraqOil.htm)
"...The director of the oil-for-food programme, Benon Sevan, said that in the last six-month phase of the programme, Iraq had applied for imports worth 4.265 billion dollars, barely half its allocation.
...Iraq had applied for only 83.61 million dollars of health supplies, against 624.75 million dollars allocated to that sector in phase eight, he said.
Applications for education totalled 21.58 million dollars, against 351.50 million dollars budgeted under the distribution plan.
The figures for the water and sanitation sector were 184.76 million dollars out of 551.16 million, and 22.75 million out of 600 million allocated for the oil industry."
Gee... it sure seems like there's money there for health and stuff.. but Saddam's not asking for it. Wonder where else they might be spending the money.... maybe you can figure it out for me. Or at least tell me again why it is the fault of the US.
Lastly, the Arab League goes to war against the US to save Iraq? Puh-leeze. The last time the "Arab League" went to war against anyone, they went to war against little ole Israel. We all know how THAT turned out too.
Another thing.. Bekaa Valley ring any bells? It would be WORSE against us... and airpower is key to the air/land battle.
They won't go to war to "save" Iraq. Probably try to cut off our oil though. :) At least until their own economies tanked right along with ours. That two way trade again... so co-dependent, isn't it?
Bloodshed though? I'll bet you a dollar to a dogturd and hold the stakes in my teeth... no war with the Arab League.
Besides, all that truly needs to be done to avoid ALL of this... ALL that needs to be done is for Iraq to truly allow UN weapons inspectors unfettered access to what they want to see.
Then US intervention becomes unnecessary and unsupportable.
THERE is where you should focus your concern. The ball is in THEIR court. This juggernaut is very easy to stop.
-
Originally posted by ispar
Another draft? Damned if I am drafted to fight this war... it isn't going to happen.
Almost forgot this...
I would never expect you to submit to a national draft. Not from what you've written previously.
You also know, or should know by now, what I think about that.
Here's those two quotes to go to sleep by:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mill
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." --George Orwell--
Sleep well. :D
-
I'm sorry, I meant to say "Iraqi", not "Israeli."
I agree that the use of oil is motivational for both parties. The very reason that they get away with the massive prices they set for oil is that America is a very willing customer. There's something about oil that tends to break down scruples. Come to think of it, it's probably the most profitable raw materials industry in the world, no?
I won't touch on the empty vehicles theory. I do agree that any possible reduction of Iraq's ability to make war is a good thing.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't bother trying because it will be difficult, I'm just making a note. We should remember that in order to end the war with Japan we needed to give them a massive shock, which frightened the government enough to surrender. In World War II this was the atomic bomb and Russia's invasion of Manchuria. What do we do this time around? Many of these people are not unlike the Japanese were in that they are willing to sacrifice their lives, and fight to the death. I will grant that I have no idea of what the reaction of the typical Iraqi citizen or soldier will be to US invasion. Certainly, they tended to choose flight over martyrdom during Desert Storm. Has that changed? I don't know.
Israel has the huge logistical advantage of being nearby to its battlegrounds. I don't think the US would lose a war against the Middle East, but it would be a very expensive victory.
A good point was made earlier. We aren't going to eliminate the problem by attacking it head on with military power, because we create more terrorists everytime we kill them, particularly in their native lands. I don't know what we can do, but this is not necessarily a real solution.
Finally, I'll just say I do know how you feel about my position on the draft and warfare. I will also say that while I am afraid of being shot at, and I do not wish to die, I would be proud to die for my country, or any cause I strongly support. But I will not do so with a rifle in my hands, or supporting military action in any way. That's how I feel about it, and I'm sure you are very aware of that. It's fortunate that I live in a country where I can make that choice.
I'm praying that Saddam Hussein will agree to let the inspectors back in... but I'm afraid that that isn't going to happen.
-
WHOAH! I just saw that bolded quote, Toad!
I'll leave YOU with THIS thought: There are more ways to fight than with violence, and there are more ways to support or defend a cause than by fighting. There are plenty of causes I passionately support. There are many causes I will fight for. There are a few causes I would be willing to die for. There are NO causes that I will fight for in a way that would involve violent action, and there is no violent action by others that I will support, directly or indirectly if I can help it.
Think what you will about that; but misjudge me as a coward and I assure you, you are incorrect.
-
Draft? I thought we had more than enough volunteers that the draft wouldn't be needed again?
I'm just curious why some people keep mentioning the draft and that it might be re-instated(?) for the Iraq attack if it happens.
And Ispar, you do know you can serve this country in the military without carrying a weapon? I believe it's religious something er other.. has to do with religion, I forget exactly what it's called. But basically it states you do not have to carry a weapon if your religion is against it. I know someone who did this, served as medic in Vietnam but refused to carry a weapon.
-SW
-
Don't worry Ispar.
Since the very beginnings of humankind, there have been those who volunteered stand between danger and the rest of the tribe; between danger and the other ones that were either unwilling or unable to do so.
They're standing there still.
Sleep well.
-
I know... for now, no draft is needed. In all likelihood, it won't be needed. But if it is, well... that's what I'm talking about.
SW, I know that it is possible. However, it is still in direct support of military action. I would be proud to serve in the capacity of a medic, treating soldiers, but only if I am completely unconnected with the military. The military is still the military. I believe that we have too narrow a definition of service to one's country. There are many more ways to serve than in a military capacity - and no, I am not talking about politics or government work. Do you see where this is coming from? I'm sure that you'll think I'm crazy, but this is how I feel, as I've said many times. To each their own, right?
-
cc Ispar, I was just saying.. I didn't know if you knew about that.
EDITED BELOW PARAGRAPH
I don't quite understand why you wouldn't serve for the military, maybe because it's just "the military".. I dunno. I would, but that doesn't mean I'm the better person... just that I would serve if asked or needed.
Different strokes for different folks, not gonna hold anything against ya for your beliefs.
-SW
-
Toad, Toad, Toad. It's amazing how effectively you can convey contempt over the internet. It's disappointing, really, to be in my place. But I've tried and tried to explain my position, and it won't make you revise your opinion of me. Nothing I can do about that. I hold no grudges, and have little but respect for those that serve in our military. It's too bad that that respect seldom runs both ways. I'm glad that my worth as a person will not be determined by my willingness to fight in or with an army, or by those such as you that believe such unwillingness constitutes a weakness in my character.
If there were no armies, there would be no need for armies to guard against them. But there are, and thus we have them. And THAT is one of the great tragedies that stretches back to the beginning of humanity. You sleep well yourself, Toad. And tell me what difference there is between you, the cheerleader, and me the dissenter, in anything but our ideology. Don't tell me about what you did back in the day; that was before now, and you served your piece. I am younger than you are, I have not had my time yet. Tell me, what difference are you making beyond your oh-so-easy "yes" vote? I'd be interested to hear if you actually believe that it is so much harder and more virtuous to be in support than in opposition in the world of today. Resolve is easy to come by for those not on the line, like us. The real trial is by fire, and I will choose my own way of walking into it, thank you very much.
-
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
...Ben Franklin. 1759
Ispar, I consider you beneath contempt. Sorry.. thats just the way it is. Too many have gone before us, have stood up to be counted as men (or women) and have walked down that stony path to defend essential liberties; here and abroad.... yet you would have us all lay down to be trodden upon, to throw away all the sacrafices, past and present as unworthy and unneeded.
... yer just a useless parasite in my eyes. You have no honor, no soul, no reason for consuming air or resources.
But, hey; thats just my opinion; I could be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
...yet you would have us all lay down to be trodden upon, to throw away all the sacrafices, past and present as unworthy and unneeded.
You have an amazing talent for roadkill Hang. Take that as you may - it's just the way it is, after all. You can do whatever you want; I'll walk my own path. Tell me, would you have called Ghandi weak too, because he did not lead a violent rebel movement against the British. Yes, a different situation and a different time. And yet, it seemed impossible. It worked. There are more ways to fight than by violence, and Ghandi was a master. He was also a man of incredible strength. The path of peace is not weak, and it is not easy, and if you believe that is the path of cowardice, than I can only pity your blindness.
"I object to violence, because while it may appear at first to do good, the evil that it does is permanent" (paraphrased)
-Mahatma Ghandi
-
Argue your pacifist roadkill to the invader who stands upon your doorstep who is himself armed; deadly serious, and intent on your immenent death, and your wife and daughters demise after rape.
You entire life is built upon freedoms bought with the blood of others.. you insult their sacrafice.
Thats the world.. and you preach from the losers pulpit.
-
Hang, if making that comparison isn't roadkill, I don't know what is. WHEN that person stands on my doorstep, it won't be because of anything I did. It might be because someone or something else pissed him off. When he appears on my doorstep, I will do everything I can to avoid violence. If that does not appear to be an option, the son-of-a-squeak is dead, if I can get him before he gets me. That's a far cry from support of military action, and THAT'S the real world, not some roadkill nightmare world where the only way to have any value is to pick up a gun and go off to some distant country that's pissed us off. Maybe they've pissed us off because we pissed them off first; whatever. But the idea that that is going to make me and my liberties safer, is complete roadkill. For every person you kill, there is always going to be someone else that you're pissing off enough to make them want to kill you, too. The idea of war making the world a better, freer place is simply a ridiculous notion. EVERY "necessary" war in recent history has been the unavoidable result of a previous war. You can trace much of the conflicts we have today back to WWI, even before.
Hang, you can take your holier-than-thou assessment of the value of my beliefs and shove them up your ass. You might have to remove your head first, though. I don't give a damn about what your opinions on the matter are; I don't hold them against you. What I do hold against you is your incredible arrogance and presumption. Have a nice day.
-
Ghandi was more than willing to DIE for his beliefs. His non-violent revolt was no where near non-confrontational. Check it out.
-
The likes of Ghandi, and Martian L. King are extraordinary in one obvious way. Their rarity.
Passifist often claim that they are willing to die for their beliefs. Knowing full well that the odds of them being called upon to do so are very slim.
Historically, the odds for a soldier going into combat are much, much higher.
Comparing the courage of a passifist, and a soldier is ludicrous.
-
And neither was a passifist. There is a big difference between nonviolence and passivism. There was nothing passive about MLK either.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ghandi was more than willing to DIE for his beliefs. His non-violent revolt was no where near non-confrontational. Check it out.
I said it already; there are more ways to fight than with violence. Ghandi is proof of that. There is simply no way to avoid confrontation.
I suggest you read what I have said more carefully. I do not want to die for my beliefs; but I would be willing to do so if ever the possibility is there.
easymo, it is not so ludicrous. A soldier risks death; a pacifist faces and risks different things. Courage is required for both.
If I were to become a soldier, it would not be courageous; it would be a surrender. Many people that commit suicide are not really afraid to die; would you call them courageous in their decision to die?
-
What I do hold against you is your incredible arrogance and presumption.
Well now.. I'm no less arrogant or presumptous than Ben Franklin, Thomas Payne, or any one of several hundered million other less voicifierous or famous, but no less patriotic souls that trod the ground for freedom around, past and and in FRONT of the likes of you, back thru history.. but if you say so, then I'll accept it as a compliment.
And thank you. I guess it goes without saying, that we also stand to defend your right to say it.. and wonder how long it'll take yiou to admit that right is a gift, paid for in blood, by many far further up the food chain than you and your ilk.
-
I had one of those war dreams last week. It was like one of those over used movie scenes. Sweat pouring off me, the shakes, a feeling of deep depression that lasted for days. This in spite of the fact that I haven't been in combat in 3 decades.
Tell me ispar. Other than being called a chicken toejam. What do you risk.
-
but I'll reply to one of Ispar's questions.
Ispar:"And tell me what difference there is between you, the cheerleader, and me the dissenter, in anything but our ideology."
Just this: On September 12, 2001, I called up the Kansas ANG and for the second time in my life volunteered to be put on active duty. To serve my nation as its leaders saw fit to use me.
...and that, for me, is all the difference in the world.
Sleep well.
(They took my name and told me they'd call if they needed me. No, they haven't called yet.)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
You entire life is built upon freedoms bought with the blood of others.. you insult their sacrafice.
Well said, Hang.
-
What do I risk easymo? As yet, not my life. I do risk my pride. I risk being misjudged my those that presume to know more of what is right than I. I risk being called a coward, though I have said REPEATEDLY that death is of no issue. I will die for my beliefs, which means that I will NOT die with a gun in my hand, fighting for something that I believe to be wrong. I risk the grinding into the dirt of my character and my spirit, simply because I WILL NOT STAND for something that I percieve as an injustice. I risk the devaluation of my morals by people who have no knowledge of myself, and no respect for my ideals, and no conception of my understanding of the sacrifices that have allowed me to be what I am today.
No, it isn't much yet easymo. It hasn't been my life. It hasn't been my family or home, but those risks are growing everyday. You and other vets have been through hell and earth and then back again, and I respect that immensely because I have no conception of what hell really is. I am much younger than you are. If I wanted to call up and volunteer my services, I would be told to come back in a year for being too young! There are things that I can do though.
There is not a day that goes by that I don't thank whatever it is that is responsible for me being an American and free to determine my own values and my own beliefs. Spit on those that have come before? Hardly! Sacrifices have been made by many, many more than just those with the guns. How many battles did Benjamin Franklin fight? What about Martin Luther King, Jr.? How many people did MLK have to kill to earn the respect that his name commands today? Finally, tell me how an unwillingness to kill for my country constitutes a lack of love for my country, an unwillingness to do the right thing, a hatred for my fellow Americans, my forefathers, and tell me how all this constitutes a hatred for my FELLOW MAN!?
There is a lot ahead of me, and a lot that I will do to try and help my country, and much that I wish to do to serve not just Americans but those that I have to share the world with.
Where did this start, anyway? Oh, that's right. For any man to make war upon any other man is unjust, and so I UTTERLY reject it. I don't care if you are American, French, German, Lebanese, Iraqi, or green - you put that diddlying sword DOWN. My attitide does not allow for trampling or somehow disregarding and spitting on those that have fought and gone before. I am not passive, I am actively peaceful. Confrontations happen, yes. But they should never be solved through violent conflict.
I will say it again. I love this place. I will do whatever I can to make this nation a better place. I wish, when the opportunity comes, to go to where I can help, be it Iraq, Argentina, Colombia, or wherever. I will NOT go anywhere with a gun in my hands, because that is not what is needed. Good things can be done for people and for America without the use of military power and without support of military power. I am very sorry if you still choose to continue fulfilling this apparent deep psychological need to establish superiority. You certainly don't seem to be comprehending any of what I have said. That's just too bad for me, I suppose. Obviously, you are simply too wrapped up in your own illusions to truly read and understand me. Either that or you just don't care. It's too late now though, because this entire message is completely incomprehensible, I'm willing to bet. Tsk tsk, how sad this is.
-
<<>> -Ispar
If you see me in one of the arenas partipating in an effort to take one of your country's bases, I hope you use words instead of bullets to convince me to do otherwise. Heh heh
I'm surprised you participate in a game such as this, which glorifies all that you are against. Even crabgrass kills in the name of land and survival and I'm not so sure crabgrass is as mindless as some segments of mankind. ;-)
In the political arena, it's different than on the personal level. If a country messes up, there is no mommy and daddy (or police) to run to for help. If the USA miscalculates by laying down its arms, there is no second chance. You are a gambling man, sir.
-
I play is because it is fun Steven. It has about as much reality as a game of tag. There is nothing at stake in AH, whatsoever.
That's exactly the point Steven. We are not crabgrass. I eat meat. I think PETA needs a collective head-soaking. Humans are animals only in the biological sense. We ought to know better than to kill off our own species. It's more complicated than that, but that's about what it amounts to. Hypocrisy? I suppose. We humans are hypocrites by nature. I can live with that.
-
Steven, have I posted anything but on the personal level? I do not support the military action, and I will not participate. I would rather we did not become engaged in a conflict, but what can I do? I can only help pick up the pieces... donation, medicine, peacemaking, etc.
-
I don't care if you are American, French, German, Lebanese, Iraqi, or green - you put that diddlying sword DOWN.
make me.
'cmon, lil unarmed pacifist man; MAKE ME.
get the point?
Untill you get armed, determined and fediddlein dangerous, you ain't gonna be anything but a slave without the protections granted to you, GIFTED TO YOU by the good folks that DID and now DO stand and FIGHT.
Without the process of armed conflict nothing that you have today would be yours. Nothing. Not even your life..
NOW, TODAY, the freedoms of this nation are ours to enjoy only for as long as we maintain an armed force whose mission is to keep the peace in an armed hostile world, to seek out, identify and destroy any who would threaten that peace. Thats the mission. Right now, today; tomorrow, and in to the forseeable future.
There may very well be a day when no army is required.. when no cops are required, when the guardians of civilization can be permitted to, nay be bade to lay down their swords... but that day will not come in my lifetime, nor in yours.
In the meantime, there are plenty of jobs open for mine field sweepers.. a job that's right up your avowed alley for it requires skill, exceeding paitience, humility, courage.. you will measurably improve the quality of lives in your new neighboorhood... you can be a hero, maybe even a martyr, no gun required.
May your God bless you, and keep you safe. Good Luck.
-
Ispar,
I have been drinking so maybe I misread your points. But I did come away thinking you'd stated you wish there was no military and would never hold a gun. But if you converted everyone in this country to your thinking, we'd probably be in a bad position in this country. Dying for your belief does you no good because your belief dies with you...it's better to make the other person die. ;-)
And, like I pasted above, you wrote:
<>>
Yeah, it is unjust. But if someone makes war on the USA, who do we run to?
<>
So, a baby-seal-clubbing game or a wife-beating game is okay as well? It's just a game and not real. Or how about the "shoot-race-X" game? There are many, many people who seriously think what we do here in Aces High is some bad stuff by making light and playing war. I'm not so sure someone with your stand should be "playing" war. You confuse me.
But I'm glad to have you here.
-
Steven, have I posted anything but on the personal level? I do not support the military action, and I will not participate. I would rather we did not become engaged in a conflict, but what can I do? I can only help pick up the pieces... donation, medicine, peacemaking, etc.
-
Sorry Hang, missed that post. I'm not saying that we should just do away with our military, right now, and wait for the hammer to fall. That would be idiocy. However, I am going to direct my energies toward that ideal world you describe, rather than fighting. I'm sure you would be happy to have me sweep mines, wouldn't you, though?
We're never going to get rid of police. We need them and their courage, and always will. We likely will never be able to dispense with a military, but we can do far, far better in the future, I hope. In the meantime, I will not support any military action, directly or indirectly. Yeah, I wish there was no military. Is that viable? No, not right now. Someday, I can hope. Even if not in my lifetime. Maybe you can understand my position now. Maybe not. It doesn't really matter in any case. If you don't... you don't.
-
Hey old vet guys. I have a question I've wondered about since shortly after Sept. 11. A bunch of you guys called the recruiters and tried to sign up again.
Did you really think they would you take you? No offence intended, aren't some of you looking retirement square in the face?
-
However, I am going to direct my energies toward that ideal world you describe, rather than fighting. I'm sure you would be happy to have me sweep mines, wouldn't you, though?
Mine sweeping and disposal is a critical task, much needed, requiring folks of temperment and disposition that are well within your avowed ideals. Last time we had this conversation, i suggested you become a navy corpsman, another highly needed job, that contributes to the best ideals you so stridently avow.
So? Whats your play? Protest weenie, ragged t-shirt and sandels, pursuing the lil braless vacant eyed peace groupies? Or real work, with a purpose, that saves lives, preserves life?
Henh. send me a postcard, pacifist.
-
"Did you really think they would you take you? No offence intended, aren't some of you looking retirement square in the face?"
Some Grecian formula can do wonders:) However you cant get around finger prints :(
It may seem silly to you. But some men had come to kill Americans. That is unacceptable. I was pissed off big time. I still am. Unlike some folks, I would dearly love to set my front sight blade on a cave pigs. My frustration at being to old to get a shot at it, is no laughing matter.
-
Thrawn,
What the Kansas ANG unit I called does is what I do for a living.
Flying multimotor jets from A to B anywhere in the world. Yeah, I thought I could be of some use.
The ONLY difference is that they aerial refuel other jets on the way. In my youth, I went through Tanker crew training, the first step to flying Recon models of similar aircraft. I could still do it, I'm quite certain; that's not what they were looking for however.
They WERE actively taking names of us old guys because they, at that time, envisioned an "air bridge" operation sort of like what happened in Desert Shield/Storm. They figured they were going to need lots more pilots capable of simply flying the cruise portions of the mission while the Active Duty crews slept on board. Basically the "augmented crew" concept with us old pharts as the augmentees.
As it was, the military went a different route than DS. So, the crews they had were sufficient.
BTW, the poor guy answering the phone and taking my details down said that he'd had literally over a hundred phone calls from guys like me already... and this was in the afternoon of Sept 12.
-
Hang, I wasn't knocking what you suggested. It is very useful and essential. But I'm laughing at the idea of you just sitting there hoping all the way that I make wrong step...
BOOM! No more ispar!
Meanwhile, back at the HTC O'club - "PARTY!!! Yeee-HAW!"
;)
-
You entire life is built upon freedoms bought with the blood of others.. you insult their sacrafice.
How many times has US been on defence? How many times US has been the attacker? Who is bying freedom with others blood? I really can't understand patriots...it's just form of nazims.
I wasn't very suprised about WTC incidence. I knew something alike was coming. That was simply because there were enough people who were totally pissed off about actions of US government. Think about it....is violence really the way to go, it all comes back to you. Don't you cry then?
Think about who made those snickers your wearing..some indonesian kid maybe? Who picked those bananas you buy from supermarket? Who made your jogging suit? And you talk about freedom. You are just parrots repeating that freedom roadkill propaganda you have been told since you were little.
USA is VERY, VERY far from freedom.
Or are other countries better to be kept poor producers with cheap production costs(i could say slavery)to keep up western well fare? As long as they don't own production facilites they don't get richer and labour stay cheap. Which equals cheap products in US/western markets.
Do you call this freedom? It's just new kind of slavery. For you..übermensch. :D
Sadly money seems to be highest priority for western governments and companies. Who would admit we are guilty?:)
Sorry my bad english, but chew on it. :)
-
Thanks for your considered responses.:)
-
Humans are animals only in the biological sense. We ought to know better than to kill off our own species.
How arrogant / naive is that?? Human beings *are* animals in every sense of the word. That is exactly why we need to be strong as a nation. Just like in the animal kingdom, the strong survive, the weak die out. You may think you're "above" all of that, but you're just deluding yourself.
-
Originally posted by koala
How arrogant / naive is that?? Human beings *are* animals in every sense of the word. That is exactly why we need to be strong as a nation. Just like in the animal kingdom, the strong survive, the weak die out. You may think you're "above" all of that, but you're just deluding yourself.
What is being strong as a nation? Enslaving others?
Or try to make world better place for everybody?
Latter isn't good business income wise...it's only good business humanity wise.
You must make sacrificices to help others.
How many in our world is willing to do that?
-
The concept that it takes the same courage to not fight for your country as it does to fight for your country is increadibly silly.
Of course it does not. Shame and fear are not the same thing. Swallowing shame is not equivilent to overcoming fear.
Your assumption that you will find the courage in need to defend yourself and your own is just as silly.
Do you believe in your way of life and want to protect it enough for your children and your countrymens children to risk all you will ever be to prevent someone like Adolf Hitler from changing it to match his vision of the world through force of arms...
Your mom may have told you that it takes more courage to turn the other cheek. Your mom was wrong. It takes no courage to leave the defence of your life to another. Do many men fight through a fear of shame? Perhaps. But they face the real fear in the end.
By the way. Did Ghandi disband the Indian army? And wasnt he lucky that he was facing the British not Adolf Hitler.
If a man with a club shows up at your door to beat you to death you will kick into pacifist hero mode and take him down. But if 120 men with clubs show up you will watch your neihbors go out to stop them and let them die to save your family?
There is nothing admirable about cowerdice. And nothing very interesting about the feeble defence of it.
....
Hey those arabs have taken control of this airliner and are going to crash it into a building, help us stop them..
No sorry cant do it. I will cheer you on from back here though, I feel it takes more courage to refuse to fight!
-
Illo, who's being enslaved?
Also, please detail for me the actions of the US government that made the WTC incident a legitimate response? What have we done that was sooo bad?
Thx.
-
Illo
I want to be sure I understand you.
Buying goods from poor counties is bad right?
It makes us Nazis right..
And for that, the destruction of the world trade center by religeos fanatics from rich oil producing countries is perfectly reasonable right?
I just want to be sure I understand you
-
Lol some of you guys sound like you watching too much TV News (CNN) :)
Why dont we speak of 25 Isreal students who spied US top secret before Sept 11. Almost every "Isreal Art Student" lived on same block of the terroist. Please do more research than watching TV that is mostly control by Jewish money ;)
Read articles by LaRouche.
I got few questions for you people
When was Isreal created?
Who lived there before there for past 2000 years?
How you like it I come to you house and say get out and i want make this my house you live on the backyard of my Neighbors??
Palestianians wants there homeland period. They have no life to live so they corner in ally by few bullies and getting there donut kicked.
Oh wait why are there no media in war area where all Isreal soldiers are controlling. Few attempted but they were shot by Isreal soldiers.
These are few of my what so called Knowldge on this middle east issue hope one day we will all live in peace?
Oh I forgot we in deep sh** in recession notice all attention on news is war in middel east.
We are all F**King sleeping wake the heck up and smell the coffee :)
-
Originally posted by bashwolf
I got few questions for you people
When was Isreal created?
Who lived there before there for past 2000 years?
From another thread:
THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE PALESTINE PROBLEM 1917-1988 (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/dpr/DPR_pp_1.htm)
"The origins of the Palestine problem as an international issue, however, lie in events occurring towards the end of the First World War.
These events led to a League of Nations decision to place Palestine under the administration of Great Britain as the Mandatory Power under the Mandates System adopted by the League. In principle, the Mandate was meant to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the League's Covenant, but in fact the Mandate's historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation."
But even that is really not far back enough......
Palestine: History (http://www.usd.edu/erp/Palestine/history.htm)
"Palestine stands alone among the Roman provinces in that here only there existed a national identity strong enough effectively to challenge Roman rule. That identity depended on a body of Hebrew religious writings that constituted a concrete locus for the formation of durable political and religious institutions."
In other words, the Romans didn't call one of the Palestinian provinces "Judaea" for nothing.
But even THAT really isn't far back enough....
HISTORY OF THE WORLD (http://www.lukemastin.com/history/ancient_middle_east.html)
-2500 Early Hebrew civilization in Israel area
-1400 Hebrews invade Canaan (Joshua)
-1300 Hebrew Exodus from Egypt under Moses
-1250 Israelites invade Palestine
-1020 Saul becomes King of Israel
-720 Assyrians invade Palestine
So, all this "this land is YOUR land, this land is MY land" stuff is pretty silly isn't it?
I mean, how far back can one go with the "my land" argument "logically" :rolleyes: used to justify the slaughter?
<..and this isn't true of just Palestine either... we can all instantly think of a few other recent examples.>
Clearly, Israel as a state isn't going away. They have worked hard and made the desert bloom. They're ready to fight to the death to keep it. Pushed to the edge, they've got nukes and I think they'd use them. So, as I said upthread, one would think the Arabs would have learned to quit poking them with the "violence stick".
Clearly, the Palestinians deserve the same opportunity the Israelis got. A state of their own and aid to get it going. They'll have the advantage on not being instantly assaulted by five different armies on the declaration of their statehood, too. It may need UN Peacekeepers again on the border for a while, but I'd wager that would be to keep all the would-be moron Arab "martyrs" out of Israel, not to keep Israel out of a legitimate Palestinian state that truly renounced violence..
BUT... dwelling upon who owned what land over the last 3000 years has got them nowhere and is totally non-germane to the current situation.
They HAVE to learn to live together or they'd better be ready to all die together.
So, there's been Hebrew civilization around Israel since around -2500 BCE.
You tell me "who owns the land" ... then tell me what difference it makes NOW, please.
-
<<>> -Illo
Someone is in serious need of an economics course or two. Just remember, "cheap" and "poor" are relative. No one is being chained to the sneaker table as per demands of the USA and please show me if these "slaves" have an opportunity cost which exceeds what they earn in the sneaker factories and then you'll have a case. Yes, this relationship benefits the USA but it also benefits these poor people as well and as an end-result, the economic pie increases for all. There is an equilibrium, but the cheaper those sneakers are, the more sneakers we can actually purchase and thus more "slaves" are employed to make the sneakers while their earnings also increase. I guess you'd have them do what... sell bananas on the street corner? Outside monies coming in is a VERY good thing for these or any people. Disposible income also gets spent and sometimes that goes for items made outside the USA as well as in the USA.
<<>>
I respect anyone who can speak and write more than one language. I'm really sad you think we deserved such an attack.
-
Toads,
Dont get me started with British they went all over the World splitting nations for exmple Pakistan was created back in early 50's know India and Pakistan at it (both have nukes). They left all the mess including the sitatuon in middle east.
Oh I wish i was in another world that is much more peacefull than the one we Live in :(
Peace in middle East :)
-
Nuke em both.
-
Hi illo!
No need to apologize for your 'poor' english.. in fact it is quite good!
I am so very sorry I cannot tell you in your own language what a fool you are..
What is being strong as a nation? Enslaving others?
... and I am at a loss for words... in any language. But hell, that ain't ever stopped us ugly americans in the past has it?
Son.. look to the east.. there's where your former enslavers reside. Oh.. wait, sorry I forgot, those guys were yer 'pals' for awile wern't they? Around the time they were killin off millions of 'dissenters' and such, wasn't it? Then again, in 1948, you fellas hopped right into the soviet tent, didn't yah? And not a shot fired that time as I recall. Yah just folded up like a weak lil puppet, and bowed to your new masters.
Possibly I have your ancestors mixed up... or do you? Never mind.. don't mind me, just go right on thinkin the USA's policy is to enslave your world.
-
Bashwolf,
The English aren't the issue.
You were telling us the Jews don't "own the land".
I think there's some evidence that there was Early Hebrew civilization in the Israel area around -2500 BCE.
So who has the truest claim to the land?
What's your answer?
My answer is: It doesn't matter.
Israel is there now and they aren't leaving.
Palestine is there now and they deserve their own state.
The two are going to have to learn to live togther.. and they're not doing very well at it... either one of them.
-
The one constant we have always been able to depend on, from the Europeans. Is jalousie. Well, pal we are rich and powerful. And we will grow even more so as time gos by.
I was sent to my war on a commercial airliner. Think about that. a nation so wealthy they can afford to ship PFC,s around on commercial flights.
The message here is a simple one. DONT diddly WITH US.
-
Originally posted by ispar
What do I risk easymo? As yet, not my life. I do risk my pride. I risk being misjudged my those that presume to know more of what is right than I. I risk being called a coward, though I have said REPEATEDLY that death is of no issue. I will die for my beliefs, which means that I will NOT die with a gun in my hand, fighting for something that I believe to be wrong. I risk the grinding into the dirt of my character and my spirit, simply because I WILL NOT STAND for something that I percieve as an injustice. I risk the devaluation of my morals by people who have no knowledge of myself, and no respect for my ideals, and no conception of my understanding of the sacrifices that have allowed me to be what I am today.
No, it isn't much yet easymo. It hasn't been my life. It hasn't been my family or home, but those risks are growing everyday. You and other vets have been through hell and earth and then back again, and I respect that immensely because I have no conception of what hell really is. I am much younger than you are. If I wanted to call up and volunteer my services, I would be told to come back in a year for being too young! There are things that I can do though.
There is not a day that goes by that I don't thank whatever it is that is responsible for me being an American and free to determine my own values and my own beliefs. Spit on those that have come before? Hardly! Sacrifices have been made by many, many more than just those with the guns. How many battles did Benjamin Franklin fight? What about Martin Luther King, Jr.? How many people did MLK have to kill to earn the respect that his name commands today? Finally, tell me how an unwillingness to kill for my country constitutes a lack of love for my country, an unwillingness to do the right thing, a hatred for my fellow Americans, my forefathers, and tell me how all this constitutes a hatred for my FELLOW MAN!?
There is a lot ahead of me, and a lot that I will do to try and help my country, and much that I wish to do to serve not just Americans but those that I have to share the world with.
Where did this start, anyway? Oh, that's right. For any man to make war upon any other man is unjust, and so I UTTERLY reject it. I don't care if you are American, French, German, Lebanese, Iraqi, or green - you put that diddlying sword DOWN. My attitide does not allow for trampling or somehow disregarding and spitting on those that have fought and gone before. I am not passive, I am actively peaceful. Confrontations happen, yes. But they should never be solved through violent conflict.
I will say it again. I love this place. I will do whatever I can to make this nation a better place. I wish, when the opportunity comes, to go to where I can help, be it Iraq, Argentina, Colombia, or wherever. I will NOT go anywhere with a gun in my hands, because that is not what is needed. Good things can be done for people and for America without the use of military power and without support of military power. I am very sorry if you still choose to continue fulfilling this apparent deep psychological need to establish superiority. You certainly don't seem to be comprehending any of what I have said. That's just too bad for me, I suppose. Obviously, you are simply too wrapped up in your own illusions to truly read and understand me. Either that or you just don't care. It's too late now though, because this entire message is completely incomprehensible, I'm willing to bet. Tsk tsk, how sad this is.
The entire problem here is the number of "I's" and "Me's". Your part of a society ispar. No matter how much you try and justify a pacifist attitude, it's still a matter of you expecting to benefit from the blood of others. Even THAT is a moot point because you know well that the day you decide to become a draft dodger, you become a criminal and you WOULD be denied those benefits. I don't care either way whether you would volunteer to participate or not, I respect your decisions and I'm IN the military, however when it becomes a requirement set forth by law, then your just another criminal... and you've lost LOTS of rights and gained nothing more than contempt from me, not that it matters.
-
Originally posted by illo
I wasn't very suprised about WTC incidence. I knew something alike was coming. That was simply because there were enough people who were totally pissed off about actions of US government. Think about it....is violence really the way to go, it all comes back to you. Don't you cry then?
illo
Please do this. Find a bar where Marines from the U.S. Embassy hang out off duty and please share your thoughts...please. They'll help you understand a few of your questions.
-
There are courageous pasifists. They've gone to the west bank and risking the same bullets and bombs that the soldiers and civilians there are risking. They are being wound, I not sure if any have died yet. They are not safe at home posting on this bbs.
Anywho.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Monday linked Iran, Iraq and Syria to the terror attacks on Israel, accusing the three nations of "inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing."
At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld offered a searing indictment of Iran, Iraq and Syria as supporters of a terrorist "war on civilization."
Whee!
:(
-
Originally posted by Tumor
illo
Please do this. Find a bar where Marines from the U.S. Embassy hang out off duty and please share your thoughts...please. They'll help you understand a few of your questions.
I have no doubt about that. :D
-
Dont get me started with British they went all over the World splitting nations for exmple Pakistan was created back in early 50's know India and Pakistan at it (both have nukes). They left all the mess including the sitatuon in middle east.
Splitting groups of people who hate each other up into seperate countries is better than having them live together.
It's the unresolved issue of who controls Kashmir and the number of Moslems living in India, and the Hindu nationalists who hate the Moslems, that cause problems between India and Pakistan. Having the two as one country would make things much worse, as the recent wave of killings between Moslems and Hindus within India demonstrate.
Likewise the Israel Palestinian problem. The fact that Israel has been actively settling the West Bank and Gaza means the people are intermingled, the Israelis can't leave, the Palestinians can't have a homeland, and there can't be peace until there is a clear seperation between them.
-
Tumor does U.S have a embassy in Libya, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria or Somalia and if yes how brave would those marines be in a bar in those countries?
You think they would like to teach couple lessons there too?
-
btw any news about those five palestinian police men who were found in Ramallah? I heard they were propably shot when they were on their knees....
Edit:
"Israeli soldiers shot dead five Palestinian policemen in cold blood in Ramallah, Palestinians said.
Israeli soldiers shot dead five Palestinian policemen in cold blood in Ramallah, Palestinians said. They said the policemen were found on Saturday, after Israeli tanks had rolled into the West Bank city and smashed into the headquarters of the Palestinian President, Yasser Arafat.
Israel was also racked by more violence, with suicide bombings in Haifa and Tel Aviv, a police sergeant killed stopping two would-be attackers from entering the country, and Lebanese guerillas firing mortar rounds at a border military outpost.
If there had been any hope that the latest bloodletting would give either side pause, that vanished when Israelis and Palestinians pointed to the day's events as a reason to strengthen their resolve and press forward with the fight.
Palestinian sources said yesterday that Israel had ordered the evacuation of all Palestinian security offices, compounds and posts in the Gaza Strip.
"It seems that a wide operation in the Gaza Strip is imminent, both from the air and ground," a source said.
Employees of international aid organisations had reportedly been asked to leave Gaza.
Palestinian officials said four security officers had been shot dead yesterday at a social club in southern Ramallah that Israeli forces took over .
The Palestinian Red Crescent said Israel was preventing ambulances from evacuating Palestinians killed and wounded by Israeli gunfire in the streets of Ramallah. "Each time the ambulances have been stopped by soldiers, who have threatened our crews with guns," a Red Crescent spokesman said.
A senior Palestinian negotiator, Hassan Asfour, said the five policemen found on Saturday had been "executed in cold blood. This is a clear example of the collective execution policy adopted by the Israeli Government against the Palestinian people."
An Israeli Army spokesman said soldiers entered the building after Palestinians opened fire from inside and threw a grenade at the force outside.
"There was an exchange of fire at close range, and as a result the gunmen were killed and two soldiers moderately wounded."
Residents said the policemen's bodies had been found in a building that Israeli troops seized on Friday. A Palestinian cameraman who filmed the policemen said he saw no weapons on them, suggesting that they were unarmed or that Israeli soldiers had taken their arms away.
In the United States, President George Bush pointedly did not add his imprimatur to a resolution the United Nations Security Council passed early on Saturday - and which the US supported - calling on Israel to withdraw its troops from Mr Arafat's compound.
"I fully understand Israel's need to defend herself; I respect that," Mr Bush said. "As she does so, I urge that their government, the Israeli Government, makes sure that there is a path to peace as she secures her homeland."
In Israel, the anger was palpable at the scene of the Tel Aviv suicide bombing, the third in four days. "Kill Arafat," people chanted near the charred remains of My Coffee Shop, a popular gathering spot on Allenby Street.
The cafe was packed when a young man entered and set off his bomb, killing himself and injuring 32, five of them critically.
The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is affiliated with Mr Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility.
The attack came even as Israeli tanks and soldiers had spent a day searching and arresting Palestinian men inside Ramallah. The message to Israel seemed clear: its military cannot stop militants from entering the country, almost at will.
Israel vowed to press even harder. A call-up of 20,000 reservists, the largest mobilisation since Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, was expected to continue yesterday.
Israel also sent tanks back into the West Bank village of Beit Jala after Palestinians fired a mortar shell into Gilo, a Jewish settlement on the outskirts of Jerusalem. No-one was injured in the attack on Gilo."
----------------------------------------------
I would like to have more info about this one but as you know Israel doesn't let news.groups or photographers in Ramallah. Guess they don't want world to see what's happening there.
-
Quote from BBC:
"Several British protesters are acting as "human shields" against possible Israeli military action in the Palestinian territories.
The protesters entered several Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank - from where several suicide bombers have hailed - on Monday night.
They made the move hours after nine foreign activists, four of them Britons, were injured when Israeli soldiers opened fire at a peace march near Bethlehem."
Easy targets eh ?
Doesn't look too good:
OIC: Israel dragging mid-east into war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1904000/1904654.stm)
Doesn't look too good; Part Deux:
Arab countries bring Saddam back into fold (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/29/1017206152581.html)
-
This was in the news: Syria sends 20,000 soldiers more to Lebanon.
-
Don't worry; the Finns will jump into this diplomatically and get both sides to sit down together over a meal. 2 hours later Sharon and Arafat will come out holding hands and singing "we are the world". ;)
AND WE ALL FALL DOWN! Jan. 3, 2001
Clinton-Arafat talks end without agreement on U.S. peace proposal (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/03/mideast.01/)
"Major differences remain
Although Clinton's proposals were never officially made public, reports indicated that they envisioned an independent Palestinian state covering 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Additionally, it is believed the proposals included Palestinian control over Haram al-Sharif, a Muslim holy spot in east Jerusalem, known to and revered by Jews as the Temple Mount.
In exchange, the Palestinians were to drop their demand for a right of return for Palestinian refugees -- and their descendants -- who fled or were driven out of Israel when it was founded in 1948.
Initially, the Israeli government indicated it was prepared, with reservations, to negotiate on the basis of Clinton's proposals, but the Palestinians declared they needed more details.
Too bad eh? Now it won't stop again until they're all swimming in blood. Maybe next time.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Tumor does U.S have a embassy in Libya, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria or Somalia and if yes how brave would those marines be in a bar in those countries?
You think they would like to teach couple lessons there too?
...YOU have never met a U.S. Marine, that is quite apparent :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
This was in the news: Syria sends 20,000 soldiers more to Lebanon.
Because the Syrian's have a very good memory.
-
Toad my my thinking is this,
Isreal will not leave or give up the country nor will Palestianins. They will not live in peace till end of time than no one cares because we all be dead than. If up to me they should split up 2 holiest place to each religion accordingly. Its funny i know Palestian in US and who works for Jewish and they both get along fine :)
-
Oh boy! this is not looking good we going into middle east all out war.
-
Originally posted by bashwolf
Oh boy! this is not looking good we going into middle east all out war.
Huh? Seriously, I'm confused... you just heard some news or something?
-SW
-
Toad, the offer Arafat turned down was not as good as claimed.
90% of the West Bank was offered to the Palestinians, but it was broken up into several sections split by Israeli control points, to ensure security for the settlers who were to remain. All border crossings between Palestinian territory and Jordan and Egypt were to be under Israeli control.
You can see some of the issues behind it here
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gushshalom1.html
http://mondediplo.com/2000/09/08campdavid
http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/views/articles/telhami/CHjanuary2001.htm
(Lifted from another board)
-
Originally posted by easymo
The one constant we have always been able to depend on, from the Europeans. Is jalousie. Well, pal we are rich and powerful. And we will grow even more so as time gos by.
I was sent to my war on a commercial airliner. Think about that. a nation so wealthy they can afford to ship PFC,s around on commercial flights.
The message here is a simple one. DONT diddly WITH US.
Easymo, I also was shipped off to "our" war on a commercial jet liner, spent a years' tour and was shipped back home... What were your feelings on the plane ride over there as opposed to the plane ride home? On the way over I was scared and aprehensive. On the ride home I was bitter, sad and angry. At no time did I feel proud that my nation was able to transport us on a commercial jet complete with Stewardesses and then bring us home the same way.
On the contrary, it made me question our reasons for being there in the first place, and it made me believe my "rich and powerful" Nation was not above lying to the public back home or covering up atrocies. Basically I felt like I had been sent to a weird and twisted nightmare for a year and had woken up, shaking from a bad dream. Had we had to answer to the same standards the Nazis had to answer to after WW2 many of us would have been hung as war criminals, I'm ashamed to say, but at the time it seemed like the only thing to do.
As an American I don't aspire to have the "richest, most powerful Nation on the Planet, striving to become even richer and more powerful." I'd prefer to be part of a Nation that works for peace and justice for ALL peoples of the world, the same as we strive for those goals with our own citizens. And if we truly are the "richest, most powerful nation on the Planet" we have a responsibility to be the world's PEACE keepers. Only as a last resort should we EVER commit our children to die halfway around the world.
It's amazing we have the pro-Israeli crowd justifying what the Israelis are doing, the pro-Palestinian crowd justifying what the Palestinians are doing, and the pro-peace crowd being railed against by both sides as being unrealistic. "Realistic" is having a friend die in your arms. "Realistic" is shooting someone in cold blood to exact revenge. That's real, now how many of you think you could live that and then be OK with your children flying off to the next war 30 years later?
Agree, disagree or be indifferent, but what do any of you see as a satisfactory conclusion to this whole terrible mess? The destruction of Israel? The murder and expulsion of all Palestinians from the region? Because every time someone points out the option of peaceful coexistance so many of you dismiss it outright as being impossible. I don't think ANYTHING is impossible...even peace.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Huh? Seriously, I'm confused... you just heard some news or something?
-SW
I just heard from news that Egypt has broke off its relations to Israel. However Egypt didn't broke off diplomatic relations.
Hezbollah has attacked again.
What next..?
- Israel makes a revenge strike against Hezbollah (in Syria?)
- and next..?
-
Hmmm that is quite scary Vector.
Thanks for the info!
-SW
-
I'm curious about the route your flight took. Could you tell me about it.
-
Originally posted by easymo
I'm curious about the route your flight took. Could you tell me about it.
Sure, Easymo. We flew out of Travis AFB, California, refueled in Anchorage, Alaska, and I can't remember if we refueled in Japan or Okinawa next, it was one of those going over and the other one coming back, I'm 99% certain it was Japan but I wouldn't swear to it, and we landed at Bien Hoa Air Base, slightly North of Saigon. I believe it was a United Airlines flight, but we switched planes in Japan to another carrier (or Okinawa, but jogging my memory I'm sure it was Japan) so I'm not sure as to the actual carrier. I do remember the total flight time was 21 hours, though.
Coming bacy we flew into Clark AFB in the Philippines, stayed about a week and then flew into Travis AFB via either Okinawa or Japan, 99% certain it was Okinawa.
-
Oh...the ride home was a military flight...no stewardesses. I went slightly over a year without seeing an Anglo female.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't worry; the Finns will jump into this diplomatically and get both sides to sit down together over a meal. 2 hours later Sharon and Arafat will come out holding hands and singing "we are the world". ;)
Maybe if U.N peacekeepers and negotiators in middle-east could succeeded better in their task maybe there would be couple buildings more in N.Y ;)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Toad, the offer Arafat turned down was not as good as claimed.
Well, how good did it have to be to be a better solution than strapping dynamite to the torso of a kid that hasn't even begun to live yet and sending him into a crowded restaurant and having him blow himself up?
Beyond that there's the irrefutable evidence that blowing up Israeli restaurants seems to draw a strong Israeli military reaction rather than an Israeli attempt to negotiate.
IMO, you take the deal, get what you can; then continue to negotiate for what you want.
Either that or strap dynamite to your torso and assure the continuance of the senseless slaughter with NO progress towards your statehood and ultimate goals.
-
Definately Japan going over and Okinawa coming back via Clark AFB in the Philippines. I remember buying two bottles of Wild Turkey 101 at the duty free liquor store in Okie.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Maybe if U.N peacekeepers and negotiators in middle-east could succeeded better in their task maybe there would be couple buildings more in N.Y ;)
Staga, there is absolutely NO justification for the WTC attacks that I am aware of. Perhaps you can shed some light on this and explain to me exactly why nearly 3,000 people were murdered?
-
Good post elfenwood.
This stuff is not easy.
-
Ah, don't pick on Staga. He's a Finn. :)
When the stuff has truly hit the fan somewhere in the world, when bullets are flying and people are dying, has the cry ever gone up to "Send for the Finns!"
He's just cracking wise from high up in the bleachers... like so many others.
-
"Easymo, I also was shipped off to "our" war on a commercial jet liner, spent a years' tour and was shipped back home... What were your feelings on the plane ride over there as opposed to the plane ride home? On the way over I was scared and aprehensive. On the ride home I was bitter, sad and angry. At no time did I feel proud that my nation was able to transport us on a commercial jet complete with Stewardesses and then bring us home the same way. "
First. I should explain where I came from. To put things in perspective.
I had 7 Uncles that were WW2 vets. My dad was a bit famous for his exploits in the Korean war. When I was a boy. It was common, at family gatherings, to hear these men talk about their wars.
I was not drafted, I inlisted. And I volunteered for Vietnam. My expectations,and reactions, might be different from someone who had been called up, and was doing his duty.
My overriding memory of the ride over is boredom. I also went by way of Alaska. (something about the cerviture of the earth. Still doesn't make any sense.) It was a very Loooong flight.
Coming back. Nothing but pure joy, at going back to the world.
I took being on an airliner for granted. Never gave it a thought at the time. The reason I pointed this out, is when the Euro's are busy USA bashing, they always mention our wealth. Like this is a weakness of some kind. I like to remind them how that wealth might be employed. If, for example, we were to get pissed at some little toad hole like Finland. We might just erase it from collective memory
-
Toad hole? Toad hole? FORKING TOAD HOLE????
Leave me out of this! :D :D :D
I can think of other hole types you could substitue though. :D
-
Originally posted by Staga
Maybe if U.N peacekeepers and negotiators in middle-east could succeeded better in their task maybe there would be couple buildings more in N.Y ;)
Dunno about that, but what I know is that Finnish peace keepers were very much liked in both sides of the conflict in the middle east. Which is very good indication as Finnish ppl are known to be as kindred people of Israeli's, like a relative country. Finnish politicians should have kept more strongly attitude after Finnish mandate ended in Lebanon.
Finally I see the light in the tunnel, Finnish minister stated that Finland must stand up and take more strong position in the middle east peace process. What ever that means I don't know, but I really hope that Finland has still respect in both of the sides eyes.
Toad, what comes to US influence to Palestinians, it's zero and you know it. Palestinians will listen more this little nation called Finland than mighty US and that my friend is tough for you, just try to live with it ;)
What comes to flying bullets, yes I agree with you. Finnish politicians has too careful attitude to conflicts. But don't you dare to think a slighest second that finnish ppl don't get ready when it's time... read the WWII history if you have doubts...
-
Easymo, I also had 2 uncles in WW2, one was wounded a week after the Normandy landings, and one Uncle who served in Korea.
I made it "sappy" by saying I was angry coming home because it wasn't until after I got home and started working with a Vets group called Swords to Plowshares in San Francisco that I got pissed off- the ride home was, indeed, a happy occasion, even if they did make me stow my Wild Turkey 101 until we hit Travis.
I took what you said out of context and I apologize for using you as a foil for my political rant. What you were doing was defending our Nation and that is commendable. Obviously all of us would prefer a peaceful solution to the Middle East situation and most of us are aware of the potential for a regional conflict escalating into WW3.
-
Originally posted by Vector
... Finnish minister stated that Finland must stand up and take more strong position in the middle east peace process.
Good! I'm all in favor of it. Obviously, the current state of involvement isn't getting anywhere. Adding Finland might help, can' hurt. Good for him!
Palestinians will listen more this little nation called Finland than mighty US and that my friend is tough for you, just try to live with it ;)
I certainly hope they do. I know they don't listen to us, simply because we actually supported the UN resolution that made Israel a state and because we have acutally supported them over the years.
Finland, of course, has pretty well stayed away from openly and loudly supporting Israel.
I assure you, it's not tough for me! We've done the best we could. I'm glad you folks are finally going to jump in here.
But don't you dare to think a slighest second that finnish ppl don't get ready when it's time... read the WWII history if you have doubts...
Oh, I know of your WW2 history. Finns can and will fight and fight hard for Finland. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, I know of your WW2 history. Finns can and will fight and fight hard for Finland. ;)
Well, you have a point in there. ;)
I am still counting on Finnish effect on middle east. It's still in their memories, so why to waste this moment? That's what I can't understand.. what are we waiting for?
-
Toad my friends and co-workers have been in U.N forces in Suez canal, Cyprus, Golan heights and in Lebanon.
My point was there has been U.N forces from around the world in middle-east trying to keep those maniacs away from each other and while doing that risking their own lifes.
What did U.S do in that time? Sold more weapons to Israel.
I'm just wondering if grenades and bullets Israel shot to my co-workers base were made in U.S ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
What did U.S do in that time? Sold more weapons to Israel.
But they are selling even more weapons to Egypt (which broke off relations to Israel today) than to Israel..? That's interesting thing to remember when considering US relations to middle east. No offence, just stats. Should I ask what is the reason for selling fighters and other weapons to Egypt?
-
Originally posted by Staga
My point was there has been U.N forces from around the world in middle-east trying to keep those maniacs away from each other and while doing that risking their own lifes.
What did U.S do in that time?
Depends on when exactly you're talking about. Most of the time, we were keeping our active presense at a minimum, in an attempt to prevent direct Soviet involvement. During the early 80's we were being blown up in Lebenon. But I guess those dead marines don't count, since they weren't killed by american made weapons. It's very very very silly to suggests the US has not participated in attempts to settle this dispute. And as Vector said, we shovel money at Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, and Kuwait as well. (although I have no idea about direct military aid to Egypt)
-Sikboy
-
I know Finns have participated in UN Peacekeeping opeations around the globe. I also know Finland sent no troops to Desert Storm, correct?
Allow me to ask a few questions. Your answers would then allow me to answer those you just posted.
Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as the UN defined it prior to the '48 statehood?
If the answer to that is "yes" do you think that Israel WOULD now exist if the US HAD NOT supported Israel militarily and economically?
If you support Israel's right to exist, what support did Finland offer in '48, '56, '67 and '73 when their survival was in doubt?
Yes, you've sent UN Peacekeepers and they may well have been attacked with weapons made in the US. I don't know.
I do know we generously gave Israel the means to insure its own survival over many past years. Lord knows how much of our stuff they have and how much of our stuff they copied and now make themselves.
Point is we DID give them the means to fight for their survival. I'll readily admit that.
What did Finland do for them during those moments of crisis?
Enlighten me.
-
People always ask why does America support Isreal. Doesn't it seem resonable to think that we would support the only democracy in that region? Especialy through the years of the cold war when the domino theory was in full effect.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I do know we generously gave Israel the means to insure its own survival over many past years. Lord knows how much of our stuff they have and how much of our stuff they copied and now make themselves.
:D
That generously cracked me up :D
So far as I know, US has gave Israel their great support, no doubt of that! But Israel has left from your leash long time ago and you foolish US ppl still don't get it! :D
And Lord knows how much you have supported Egypt...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Good post elfenwood.
This stuff is not easy.
Uh...It's MISTER Elfenwood to you Pongo.
-
it will come to you.
We give to both Israel and then Egypt. Go figure, huh?
Think about it.
Here's some help... what Arab nations have recognized Israel?
Here's some more help... where where the Camp David accords signed? And why weren't they signed in Helsinki?
hmmmmmmmmmm.... go figure.
..and you're right. Like I said not far up thread: Israel can stand on its own now, and should. We've "got it" but it will be slow to change given the nature of US politics. But it will change.
-
Hmmm go firuge from where you get your OIL?
OIL is THE word.
But anyway, it's not 1:30 am here and I have to be in work within 6 hours so I got to get some sleep now, but very interesting discussions you made toad and I'm looking for some more in tomorrow!
-vector
-
Lets see Toad:
There were no Finnish troops in desert-storm. Maybe because that really was not a peace-keeping operation.
IMHO Israel does have a right to exist but they do NOT have a right to do what nazies did in WW2: conquering "Lebensraum" (you know this term?) from neighbor countries.
Would Israel exist without support from U.S? I don't know. Do you ?
What did Finland do during those crisis?
Hmm that's a hard one: Since 1956 50,000 Finns has served in U.N peacekeeping operations (military observers, peacekeeping forces and civilian polices) which is about one percent of our whole population right now.
Finland has participated in 16 of 34 U.N peacekeeping operations.
AFAIR in U.S lives about 265million people so I'm sure you've been participated in more operations than us.
Actually I'm really interested to hear if you have somekind of numbers?
-
16 hour work day behind so I'm too tired to do calculations. Maybe Toad would search population numbers of these countries and calculate percentage of people participated in peacekeeping operations?
-
btw friend told me that those peacekeepers from Ghana were great guys and shortest of them was 6 feet tall :D
-
IMO, you take the deal, get what you can; then continue to negotiate for what you want.
Isn't that what happened at Oslo?
It was supposed to be the start of a process leading to the formation of a Palestinian state. At the time of Oslo, 125,000 Israelis lived in settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
By 2000, there were over 200,000, and a similar number in settlements in East Jerusalem.
Talking is all well and good, but realistically it's not going to get the Palestinians anywhere.
(Not that I approve of their current tactics, anymore than the Israeli response)
-
Toad: Interesting reading (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/LJD.htm) for you and me too.
Same site: Water and war in middle east (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/AH.htm).
-
where where the Finns serving in 98?
-
Pongo that's hard to find but at that time frame some of our troops were in Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Hertzegovina and southern Lebanon.
Current U.N operations (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/cu_mission/body.htm)
Completed U.N missions (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/co_miss.htm)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Toad: Interesting reading (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/LJD.htm) for you and me too.
This is a very interesting article. I thought it was a very fair treatment of the subject. But I think that this goes a very long way to explaining why the United States should provide support via defense obligations under NATO and other treaty regimes, as opposed to direct involvement with "peacekeeping" troops. In essense, the US "WarFighting" army allows others within the NATO umbrella to maintain "PeaceKeeping" forces. Just a thought.
Not at all sure how this relates to the US role in the middle east though. (haven't read the second article yet)
-Sikboy
-
Staga, do you feel that Finland(or the other counties) in your list have some moral supperiority over the US because they have thier conscripts on UN tours? Vs the US putting its professional soldiers in harms way as peace makers?
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
In essense, the US "WarFighting" army allows others within the NATO umbrella to maintain "PeaceKeeping" forces. Just a thought.
-Sikboy
Actually, you could see it as the opposite. Canadian Forces took over US peacekeeping duties in Bosnia, so the US could have more personel in Afghanistan.
-
That's a very good point Thrawn. The only suggestion that I have is that when national interests dictate, ANY nation would most likely choose to withdraw from Peacekeeping activities and divert those units to the war front.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
That's a very good point Thrawn. The only suggestion that I have is that when national interests dictate, ANY nation would most likely choose to withdraw from Peacekeeping activities and divert those units to the war front.
-Sikboy
Hells ya.
-
Note to self.
Toad hole is politically incorrect insult. Must come up with new hole.
Sorry toad.
-
Oh, I know of your WW2 history. Finns can and will fight and fight hard for Finland.
lol!
And there's the rub, ain't it. For Finland. And Swedes for Sweden, as long as they can stay neutral and make money from whoever happens to be winning.
I'm with Toad.. we did the job for the last half a century; stared down the soviets, saw europe thru it's reconstruction and restoration.. time for somebody else to stand up at the plate. I'd love to see the noble swedes and the proud finns settle the middle east problem.. after all; the prevailing winds that will carry the fallout if they fail will sweep over their countrys.. not ours.
When the stuff has truly hit the fan somewhere in the world, when bullets are flying and people are dying, has the cry ever gone up to "Send for the Finns!"
You, Toad; are the master. I salute you!
-
The US was making plenty of money off of Europe, before they got involved in WW1 and WW2. The US didn't join either war until they were personally attacked. US for the US if they will.
What war did the US enter this century that wasn't in their own best interests, as far as the political thought at the time is concerned.
Please, don't automatically stick me in american-haters column. Think about it then stick me in that column.:D
-
What war did the US enter this century that wasn't in their own best interests, as far as the political thought at the time is concerned.
nato?
korea?
vietnam?
middle east?
mogidishu?
-
Originally posted by Staga
16 hour work day behind so I'm too tired to do calculations. Maybe Toad would search population numbers of these countries and calculate percentage of people participated in peacekeeping operations?
Those numbers are suspect. I think they have a VERY narrow consideration of what they consider "contributors".
For one thing UN peacekeepers in Cyprus and the Princess Pats in Croatia equalled well over 300 listed here for canada.
In the PP history book I have it lists in '98 as having 250 ppl in Bosnia alone, and there were Vandoos there as well.
IIRC Candain contribution to UN peacekeepers has not fallen below 1500 bodies for years now. It was bad enough that in the mid 90's we started sending reservists to rotate out non-combat personnel.
-
Read this it will shed some thought with current situation here and abroad.
http://larouchein2004.net/strategic_update_main.htm
Very Interesting stuff poeple please read with open mind.
Thank You
-
Or are you saying we openly supported Israel since '48 just to curry favor with the rest of the Arab oil-producing nations? ;)
Once again, why weren't the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel signed in Helsinki in 1979?
Why didn't Jordan and Israel sign the Washington Declaration in Helsinki in 1994?
We haven't done enough in the Middle East peaceMAKING process? Who has done more?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Lets see Toad:
There were no Finnish troops in desert-storm. Maybe because that really was not a peace-keeping operation.
Exactly. On the one mission that had the probably most agreement and suport world wide... the Finns would not join the coalition.
Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, The United Kingdom, and the United States.
But not.. of course.. Finland.
IMHO Israel does have a right to exist but they do NOT have a right to do what nazies did in WW2: conquering "Lebensraum"
Agreed. And you'll find I've said that long before this in several different threads.
Would Israel exist without support from U.S? I don't know. Do you ?
[/b]
Yeah, I think so.. .the Israelis themselves admit as much, particularly with regards to '73. The Arabs would have conquered them without US arms along with financial and military support. Remind me again what the Finns gave them to fight with during all those wars?
Yes, Finland does support peacekeeping operations. I've never said they didn't. Those are the missions to keep an established or semi-established peace, correct?
Nothing like Desert Storm, right? Where everyone agreed to actually fight a common foe?
[/b]AFAIR in U.S lives about 265million people so I'm sure you've been participated in more operations than us.
Actually I'm really interested to hear if you have somekind of numbers? [/B]
Most happy to oblige!
Start with keeping the peace in Europe after WW2. In fact, there's STILL something like 30,000+ troops in Germany just in case. You know, in case something really popped in a place like.. say.. Bosnia or something.
Then you can go to this page to see where US troops are currently stationed around the world as of Sept 2001.
ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY REGIONAL AREA AND BY COUNTRY (http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m05/hst0901.pdf)
Here's the short story though (that's just under 1.4 Million deployed world wide, a little over a quarter of a million in Foreign Countries):
-
The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history. (http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/deploy/info/info_intro.shtml)
Which will give you information on our deployments all over the world. Just click on the links.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Talking is all well and good, but realistically it's not going to get the Palestinians anywhere.
I think most rational folks think talking and getting SOME gains is better than blowing yourself up in a restaurant.
Do you really think that when this bloodletting has run its course they're going to get THAT much better of a "deal" than the one they were offered without the bloodletting?
They got something out of Oslo, didn't they? Yeah, the Israelis are in violation and no one has the brass to put them in their place.. not even the US.
But then it's our problem and fault alone right? The rest of the UN can wash its hand and pretend it wasn't there in '48, right? (and I KNOW how many voted, thanks, compared to today's roster).
I love the way the rest of the world runs around wearing their "I wasn't there, you didn't see me and you can't prove a thing" patch when talk turns to the establishment of Israel as a nation-state.
(Maybe the Finns can force the Israelis to give up the conquered territory? ;) )
So, as I said before, Israel needs to give up the conquered territory. The rest of the world is going to have to somehow assure them it is safe to do so. Going to be very, very hard to do.
-
Yes, one could see it that way.
However, be realistic.. who really has major warfighting capability these days?
You can use one rather larger military that has trained together, has common equipment and doctrine for the warfighting force or you can make up the same size force from many, many more sources and try to integrate them as you go to fight.
Makes more sense to use the small units as the peacekeepers and the large unified force as the warmaking machine doesn't it?
Afghanistan may herald a new era, however.
-
There is a point at which you mind is so open your brain falls out. I would suggest avoiding that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, one could see it that way.
However, be realistic.. who really has major warfighting capability these days?
You can use one rather larger military that has trained together, has common equipment and doctrine for the warfighting force or you can make up the same size force from many, many more sources and try to integrate them as you go to fight.
Makes more sense to use the small units as the peacekeepers and the large unified force as the warmaking machine doesn't it?
Afghanistan may herald a new era, however.
Yep.
That's orginally why the US didn't want Canada in a ground role in Afghanistan. To many headaches with the intergration. And that's after all the NATO exercise we've kicked your bellybutton in...I mean that weve been in together.
And I agree, if I'm a country that's getting picked on, I would want the US to help me out.
If the there's a need for peace keepers they always ask Canada. If our friends and allies call, we're there. I just thought of one expection, and that's Vietnam.
-
after all the NATO exercise we've kicked your bellybutton in.
Yeah, you guys must be... well, have to be... expert at small unit tactics. ;)
(j/k)
-
Hehe... easymo if you haven't done it already, I'd march that baby down to the local trademark office.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Staga, do you feel that Finland(or the other counties) in your list have some moral supperiority over the US because they have thier conscripts on UN tours? Vs the US putting its professional soldiers in harms way as peace makers?
Nope; Who or what ever will work for help keeping peace is good but IMHO it has to happen with mandate from U.N.
-
U.N ... NATO = US doing 90% of whatever/wherever while the rest of the world feels it's doing its fair share by splitting up the remaining 10% ...
-
Toad I was expecting to see how many people were involved to U.N operations and not how many soldiers were occupying countries like germany ;)
Maybe between Israel and Lebanon/west bank should be U.N forces in two layers: U.S blue-barets sitting in their bunkers waiting when next shell from Israel artillery hits their positions and troops from Poland, Bangladesh, Ireland, Fiji, Finland and Nepal drinking tea with Lebanese villagers in their houses and flirting with their women ;)
-
btw what NATO/U.S did in KFOR-operation in Kosovo/Serbia etc. was great work.
It was really a pleasure to see how that coalition strike back against a country which was slaughtering innocent civilians and conquering "lebensraum".
Now I wonder if same would work in middle east ? Would be nice to see from tv how missiles launched from NATO planes are blowing few Merkavas to pieces ;)
-
Originally posted by Staga ]Toad I was expecting to see how many people were involved to U.N operations and not how many soldiers were occupying countries like germany
I'm sure the Germans love this phrase
Maybe between Israel and Lebanon/west bank should be U.N forces in two layers: U.S blue-barets sitting in their bunkers waiting when next shell from Israel artillery hits their positions and troops from Poland, Bangladesh, Ireland, Fiji, Finland and Nepal drinking tea with Lebanese villagers in their houses and flirting with their women ;)
Yeah, I'm sure the Troops along the DMZ for the past 50 years probably find that pretty funny too. Yeah, it's all beaches and Mai Tais. While my Service in a foreign country was a positive experience with little danger, It's sad to see it trivialised here. Oh well
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy we had russian bases in here (I was living in one when serving my time in army, dam cold place in winter) thought original owners left over 80 years ago :)
Edit: I don't have my dictionary with me so if there's better word than "occupying" please let me know. Maybe renting a flat? :)
-
if you're in the military... anyone's military... and you're NOT wearing a Blue Beret on an "official UN peacekeepin mission"...
then you are not contributing to world peace or peacekeeping?
Just want to be sure I understand you.
-
Staga
I would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall when you were convinced and indoctrinated to hate Jews. It would have been facinating to watch. Anyone that can equate the actions of Isreal vs the Palastinians with the idealologys of your former friends and allies of the Third Reich is just anti semetic. It is so crazy that listing the attrocities that were commited by the germans vs anything that is or has happend in Palistine is just assinine.
You are a facinating combination of jeolosy and hate.
-
Toad this is something that confuses people: Are U.S troops around the world for helping countries they're in or helping U.S itself.
By acting under blue flag and with mandate from U.N it's easier to people of those countries to understand those troops are there to help them and not the country they're coming from. That's why I would like to see those operations are under command of U.N.
If one of the sides can doubt that those forces are biased that's pretty bad thing for those troops and for operation itself.
Pongo quit using dope; It does bad things to your brains :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Toad this is something that confuses people: Are U.S troops around the world for helping countries they're in or helping U.S itself.
By acting under blue flag and with mandate from U.N it's easier to people of those countries to understand those troops are there to help them and not the country they're coming from.
Our troops in Korea were sent there by UN Mandate, and stay there through treaty agreements with the Government of the Republic of Korea. Our presense in Japan and Germany are also dicated by treaty obligations. These are all mutually benifitial, considering that the current regimes within each of the countries is democratic they MUST be mutually benifitial. I'm a fan of the UN, but it is an organization that is struggling to find itself in the post cold war world. I certainly don't share your altruistic view of UN actions.
-Sikboy
-
Colin Powell otw to the middle east:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1911000/1911421.stm
Thumbs up to Mr.Powell.
From BBC By Barnaby Mason;Diplomatic Correspondent :
"American support for Israel at this moment makes the United States once more a target of popular anger.
In the words of one Arab commentator, it pushes Arab and Muslim opinion into the hands of the hardliners.
An oil embargo against the United States, advocated by Iraq, is improbable.
But the radicalisation of ordinary Arabs may increase the numbers of those willing to take part in attacks of the kind endorsed or planned by Osama Bin Laden.
In other words, many European governments think that President Bush's Middle East policy is working against his own proclaimed war on terrorism."
Turkish news agency Anatolia:
Prime minister Bülent Ecevit is accusing Israel for a genocide of Palestinians (http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=5590).
btw Israel and Turkey made a military co-operation deal in 1996 and it doesn't look good if your allie is accusing you about genocide or does it?
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw Israel and Turkey made a military co-operation deal in 1996 and it doesn't look good if your allie is accusing you about genocide or does it?
Considering it's Turkey we're talking about the Irony of the statement is just too much to bear. I honestly don't think the Turks know the meaning of the word. And as a NATO member, Turkey is VERY familiar with allies accusing IT of genocide.
-Sikboy
[edit] in case you don't follow this stuff, here's something from the US congressional Record http://www.csce.gov/crs_csce.cfm?crs_id=105
-
You're absolutely right. Where did you guys found these allies of yours ?
-
Sikboy that's very nice banner on your link :)
-
The UN countries sent troops to that war as I recall. U.S. troops initially but joined by those from 15 other nations: Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, Canada, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxemburg.
hmmmm... no Finland in there either. ;)
So, Staga, if I read that answer right you're saying only UN operations can be considered true Peacekeeping missions? Correct me if I'm wrong.. and I'm sure you will. :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
You're absolutely right. Where did you guys found these allies of yours ?
In the real world... same place you guys found the USSR. :)
-
Fixed it. And as for our allies, I'm just as happy in NATO as you are out of it. :rolleyes:
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, Staga, if I read that answer right you're saying only UN operations can be considered true Peacekeeping missions?
Not necessary but is there a specific reason why those operations couldn't be handled by U.N?
Were/are troops ready to stay there next twenty-thirty years if needed?
Who made the decision to send troops and is/was his successor willing to keep troops there even if political pressure against it begins to be a burden in his back?
That's why I prefer U.N operations 'cause peacekeeping operations could take decades and they shouldn't be dependable of ANY political issues like gathering votes for elections or changes in one nations leadership.
I hope I was clear enough this time :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
I hope I was clear enough this time
What is clear is that you've redefined the argument to fit your stance. At first you seemed to take the position that the US hadn't done enough for Peace in the Middle East. Then it was US hadn't towed its line for Peacekeeping. Now it's that you prefer UN sponsored peacekeeping initiatives to other unilateral/bilateral/multilateral arrangments. Good job.
-Sikboy
-
He can sing as well as dance.
really.. very talented.
:)
-
.... a little softshoe music, Maestro, because I agree with Hangtime. :)
But, what Sikboy said.
You can't trust us to stay? LOL.
The Fulda Gap? About 57 years there, eh? Maybe time to go though.
The Korean DMZ? 50 odd years and more to come?
:D
I think we can stick with it as well as the UN, thanks.
Hey, think of this... they signed the Camp David Accords and the Washington Declaration in the US! Man that took a while, eh? Nearly 50 years to get Egypt and Jordan to sign peace treaties with Israel! And signed in the US... wow... I guess we do stick with the job a while. In fact, we're still in there, talking to the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Upsets you that the US doesn't put massive numbers of troops under non-US commanders? Try to remember that we're the guys that have probably done the best at achieving the most with the fewest casualites on our side. Maybe that's why we're the way we are? Historically, if you look at the times US troops have been under foreign command the results for our troops haven't been to sterling.
Yes, there is the US political process to consider and the 4 year term of the Presidency. However, don't forget that the UN changes its mind as well. UN missions have, can and will end before the "final goal" is achieved also.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hey, think of this... they signed the Camp David Accords and the Washington Declaration in the US! Man that took a while, eh? Nearly 50 years to get Egypt and Jordan to sign peace treaties with Israel! And signed in the US... wow... I guess we do stick with the job a while. In fact, we're still in there, talking to the Israelis and the Palestinians.
mmmkay but maybe you should change your tactics or put some AA missiles to protect high buildings.
-
Originally posted by Staga
mmmkay but maybe you should change your tactics or put some AA missiles to protect high buildings.
What a dick :rolleyes:
-
Well thats what happened eh?
-
Originally posted by Staga
I thought some of you wanted to turn this to mud-slinging contest when I watched your recent posts?
You're acting like a child Staga
-
Yes, that's what happened.
Because, unlike some other countries we could discuss, we at least were involved and trying for a settlement instead of sitting on the sidelines, ducking their heads down into their collar and making sure their "Israeli Statehood: I wasn't there, you didn't see me and you can't prove a thing" jacket patch was showing off well to the Arab nations.
:D
Guess we should wait until somebody else does all the heavy lifting on peacemaking and then offer to send a few thousand peacekeepers?
:D
Mudslinging? Don't forget to wash your hands before you dine, Staga. Oh, and take off that dirty shirt as well. Heck, you might as well go shower. :)
-
pass the Finn a shovel.. to dig his hole any deeper, he's gonna need more than fingernails.
-
Originally posted by Staga
mmmkay but maybe you should change your tactics or put some AA missiles to protect high buildings.
That was out of line.
-
he'll probably be doing a lot of editing anyway if he goes back and rereads this. ;)
-
Staga,as much as I'm not eye to eye with Sikboy, Thrawn and Toad on the Mideast situation and the need for deployment of American troops globally, and as much as my viewpoint is much closer in principle to yours than theirs, after your missile comment I'm glad you're not an American, and I'm glad they are. I can disagree with them and still get along with and respect them- I can agree with you and not respect you even a little bit.
-
....I'm glad you're not an American, and I'm glad they are. I can disagree with them and still get along with and respect them- I can agree with you and not respect you even a little bit.
Damn.. yer scarin me.... kumbuyah next? ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Staga,as much as I'm not eye to eye with Sikboy, Thrawn and Toad on the Mideast situation and the need for deployment of American troops globally, and as much as my viewpoint is much closer in principle to yours than theirs, after your missile comment I'm glad you're not an American, and I'm glad they are.
Holy Crap!!! I've been annexed!!:eek:
You can only WISH someone as cool as me was a filthy Yank.:cool:
My american hockey team bellybutton kicking genes are staying right here.:D
-
...it's the essence of being American. The ability to fight like cats and dogs amongst ourselves and yet pull together instantly when we need to.
It's one of the things that makes us ... us. :)
... and one of the things not everyone understands about us, IMO.
-
what? yah mean you miserable canucks ain't in america?
yep.. yer fediddleed. or we are. henh. any way we can talk you into goin back to wherever the fek it is you came from?
;)
-
English wouldn't take us, that's why we're stuck with you as neighbours.:(
;)
-
what? you mean, after all those years of undying loyalty and servitude to the crown, all you guys earned was englands undying antipathy?
;)
-
OK, no more Mister Nice Guy. First Pongo implies I'm somehow "soft," Thrawn fools me into thinking he's American because he posted during a rare lucid moment, and Hangtime implies we should have a campfire sing-a-long! From now on I'm going to be the same old insufferable jerk that trolls every issue, insults every poster and gets squelched more often than Staga says something stupid.
This thread sucks. Let's talk about something light- like dead homeless people.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
This thread sucks. Let's talk about something light- like dead homeless people.
Taste like chicken
-
That sentence was out of the line thought it was same time true too, sorry.
Next time I'll say "everything is fine and working well, no reason to be worried" :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1909000/1909296.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1912000/1912229.stm
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/5418.php
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/5460.php
-
OK everybody! SWITCH!
Lemme see here... what exactly do those articles have to do with the US efforts towards peace in the region? Or did you just want us to know that the situation is a mess? Oh, wait, maybe you're back to saying that it's all Israels fault? Sheesh, these articles, while in better taste, are just as pointless as posting pictures of dead arabs. :rolleyes: wiggle wiggle wiggle.
-Sikboy
PS: If you think the policy dicisions in the middle east justify the sept 11th attacks, you're nuts. Surely they predicated the attacks, much like the embargo against Japan predicated the attack on Pearl Harbor. However neither of these policies IN ANY WAY justified the violent responses.
-
From now on I'm going to be the same old insufferable jerk that trolls every issue, insults every poster and gets squelched more often than Staga says something stupid.
too late. besides, you think you got some exclusive on being insufferable, being a jerk or being insulting? henh. pal, you got more competition than you realize. or are you already a politician?
:D
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw friend told me that those peacekeepers from Ghana were great guys and shortest of them was 6 feet tall :D
I agree, they were really cool guys :)
What comes to peacekeepers height, Fiji's had huge mens and had reputation to be with really hot temper, I tend to agree..
But we had a arm-wrestling competition between all countries and the winners were:
Mens: Finland
Womens: Finland
:D
From your table, I've seen peacekeeppers from Poland, Ireland, Ghana, India, Nepal, Fiji, France and Sweden (not in list) and I must say that out of those (even though Swedish guys and gals were great too, really professionals) I'd say the most liked in Finnish Battalion were the IRISH! Boy they were something different! :D
This thread has grown way too long and way too much pissing contest, perhaps someday I actually even read it. But for now, I'm drinking BEER and I don't want to write more here (I'm not drunk enough).
-vector
-
Originally posted by Vector
I agree, they were really cool guys :)
What comes to peacekeepers height, Fiji's had huge mens and had reputation to be with really hot temper, I tend to agree..
But we had a arm-wrestling competition between all countries and the winners were:
Mens: Finland
Womens: Finland
-vector
Which was truly amazing, considering the same Finnish woman won both the women's AND men's competition!
-
:D Dream on!! :D
-
nightmare, more likely.
-
"I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
;)
-
Another fine quote from history; This one is from medieval rabbi Levi ben Gershom:
"A peace that comes from fear and not from the heart is the opposite of peace."
-
HOLY COW!!! :eek:
I disappear for a couple days and just LOOK what happens! Wow...
Sorry, I just have a little note for Tumor: You are absolutely right, Tumor/Sturm/Sachs, whatever name you're going by this week... I AM a member of society. And my responsibility as a member of society extends well beyond my own backyard. A pity that you don't seem to understand that. "We" need to find a way to coexist with "them." We need to somehow find a way to end the threat of terrorism without either laying waste to half the world, or leaving ourselves pitifully vulnerable to continued attack. I don't see any of that happening in the near future, with or without the measures we are taking now, and that's really too bad.
Carry on, everyone. :)
-
Just for you, ispar....(http://www.somethingawful.com/features/ww2propaganda/ropekid-liberals.jpg)
-
edit, sorry
-
Incredible artistry Hang :rolleyes:.
-
Don't think for a minute that he did that himself, Ispar. He simply learnt how to use the 'Attach file' function of the BBS. ;)
-
There is an "attatch file" function on the BBS?? How do I use it???
-
There isn't an "attatch file" function on the BBS.
-
Can someone attatch a pic of that big Finnish mama that beat all those men at armwrestling?
-
can someone attach that picture of the russian hockey player beatin her brains out with a hockey stick??
;)