Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on August 06, 2002, 07:38:07 PM
-
Does US Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? (http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf)
1998 According to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, terrorism is the most important threat the United States and the world face as the 21st century begins. High-level U.S. officials have acknowledged that terrorists are now more likely to be able to obtain and use nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons than ever before.
Yet most attention has been focused on combating terrorism by deterring and disrupting it beforehand and retaliating against it after the fact. Less attention has been paid to what motivates terrorists to launch attacks. According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, a strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. President Clinton has also acknowledged that link...
-
Instead of asking that way, maybe: "Is our involment overseas the right thing to do?" If we do the right thing, and terrorists attack, should we just cower back from them?
-
We may well be the richest, most powerful nation on earth. That means that any action, or for that matter, any inaction is garunteed to piss somebody off.
-
Originally posted by easymo
We may well be the richest, most powerful nation on earth. That means that any action, or for that matter, any inaction is garunteed to piss somebody off.
That fits... according to the article, 33% of all terrorist attacks are aimed at the U.S.
-
Does US Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?
Sandman, that is exactly the goal of terrorisim... to try to make a country think its policies breed terrorism, and implying that if you change your policies, the killing of innocents and destruction of property will stop.
Only terrorists can breed more terrorists, and that is exactly what is taking place.
Let me ask you one: Do you think the Islamic religeon is a cultural environment and philosophy that provides a breeding ground for terrorists???
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Let me ask you one: Do you think the Islamic religeon is a cultural environment and philosophy that provides a breeding ground for terrorists???
No more than a christian one.
-
No more than a christian one.
You don't see a connection between Islam and terrorism???
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
You don't see a connection between Islam and terrorism???
I DO!! Those damn Islamic Irish have been blowing half of Ireland for years!!:mad:
-
Is that it, Thrawn? :)
-
I agree! America must withdraw from the world stage... we must not get involved in world politics and must be isolationists. That way we will never have to go to war again...
BTW
It's all America's fault always! And the WTC was attacked by white-haired buddhist Norwegian grandmothers working for Mossad.
:rolleyes:
-
Uhh folks.
Terrorism comes in two basic flavours.
There's the "Let's make a name for ourselves and our movement by fighting geopolitical power number n." where n < 3.
Then there's the
"Life here is so bad, the only form of resistance anybody will notice is if we futilely attack the power oppressing us and draw attention to our cause."
Both these approaches are fundamentally neutral to the cause involved. After all, the logic of any particular position has to be independent of any individual's illogical actions.
For example, if I (heaven forfend!) bust into a maternity ward, and slaughter babies in a pattern that spells out "America is the home of the Free" and head into the ICU ward for "Unless you believe in Christ, you shall not be saved", that atrocious action does not invalidate the message. All it says is that I'm an inhuman amazinhunk, period.
The distinction still exists. The Hezbollah condemned the WTC attack. That doesn't make them saints; it just suggests their attitude towards slaughtering innocents is different.
Now, yeah, if you don't think US international policy screws some people over, you haven't been paying attention to the news. If you think US international policy can ever not screw over someone undeserving of being screwed over, you're a democrat or republican of the worst kind.
If you think isolationism is the key, consider the fact that we're paying $1.40 /gallon for gasoline right now, and complaining of the high prices. (for those of you in europe, that's .40 euros / litre).
The price at the pump has been a major political objective since the Carter administration.
(yeah sure, it's more than that, but we can spell that out too).
Don't mistake me -- I don't condone any terroristic action; nor do I consider legitimate many state-sanctioned forms of slaughter. But we can't lick an enemy we don't understand. (unless of course, you want to tell me that that whole "vietnam" thing was the lack of fighting resolve of the american people against a legitimate threat to its national security)
Dinger
author of "What color is your amazinhunk?"
-
Gunthr - Oh yeah. The Koran is full of overt encouragement for terrorism. It's sooo obvious where they get their self-righteous belief. Damn that Mohammed!
Get a shrecking clue. These people aren't interested in religion - they want territory, influence and power. Religion is a romantic cover story to give strength to their cause and unite a people - which seems to have completely fooled idiotic Westerners like yourself.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Get a shrecking clue. These people aren't interested in religion - they want territory, influence and power. Religion is a romantic cover story to give strength to their cause and unite a people - which seems to have completely fooled idiotic Westerners like yourself.
Quit talking about Christians and Catholics, what about the Muslims? ;)
-
Well I know the Philippines better knock off that world domination stuff. Or they will send more terrorist over there.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Gunthr - Oh yeah. The Koran is full of overt encouragement for terrorism. It's sooo obvious where they get their self-righteous belief. Damn that Mohammed!
Get a shrecking clue. These people aren't interested in religion - they want territory, influence and power. Religion is a romantic cover story to give strength to their cause and unite a people - which seems to have completely fooled idiotic Westerners like yourself.
The Koran, Sura 5, verse 85, describes the inevitable enmity between Moslems and non-Moslems:
"Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans."
Sura 9, verse 5, adds:
"Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem [of war]." Then nations, however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought "until they embrace Islam."
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I agree! America must withdraw from the world stage... we must not get involved in world politics and must be isolationists. That way we will never have to go to war again...
BTW
It's all America's fault always! And the WTC was attacked by white-haired buddhist Norwegian grandmothers working for Mossad.
:rolleyes:
MAN! I just knew it had to be them!!! Thanks for showing us the light! hehe ;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The Koran, Sura 5, verse 85, describes the inevitable enmity between Moslems and non-Moslems:
"Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans."
Sura 9, verse 5, adds:
"Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem [of war]." Then nations, however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought "until they embrace Islam."
[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who enter into a treaty with you.
[9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.
[9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.
[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.
[9:7] How can the idol worshipers demand any pledge from GOD and from His messenger? Exempted are those who have signed a peace treaty with you at the Sacred Masjid. If they honor and uphold such a treaty, you shall uphold it as well. GOD loves the righteous.
It goes on but I'll stop.
-
Get a shrecking clue. These people aren't interested in religion - they want territory, influence and power. Religion is a romantic cover story to give strength to their cause and unite a people - which seems to have completely fooled idiotic Westerners like yourself.
- Dowding
I confess, it appears that I've been completely fooled...
-
Phewww! Good thing we have super intelligent western liberal progressives like Dowding here to inform us that indeed the current spate of extremism prevalant in certain Islamic communities has not contributed in any way to the recent terrorist attacks around the world!
Thanks Dowding! Now lets get to the real terror culprits those Buddhist Norwegian Grandmothers working for Mossad. :rolleyes:
-
Not every intervention breeds terrorism. When US went to liberate European democracies against nazi occupation, no one seemed to mind much (except french, maybe).
When we support Israel, we risk terrorism but that is at least a worthy cause.
But when we conspire with corrupt medieval monarchs to keep our troops on "holy" land offending majority of population and when we support said monarchy against its people - and against our own principles of democracy - we get deserved hate.
Some muslims may be more likely to commit violence - that particular religion and customs it supports do facilitate militancy. Nevertheless, it's not the case of them trying to invade and convert us - rather keep us out of their affairs.
Saving their monarchies from their own people or even from Saddam Husein is not worth our soldiers' lifes.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
But when we conspire with corrupt medieval monarchs to keep our troops on "holy" land offending majority of population and when we support said monarchy against its people - and against our own principles of democracy - we get deserved hate...
.Saving their monarchies from their own people or even from Saddam Husein is not worth our soldiers' lifes.
I'm not sure I follow you Miko. In the 12 years between the Iranian revolution and the Gulf war, I do not believe that there was ever a serious challenge to Emirites. And during this time, there was no US military presense in the region beyond our Bases in Turkey, and the 6th fleet. And there was no public support in the US for the Arab nations. It could easily be argued that cooperation with the United States does not help protect the Monarchies, bur rather, causes them internal problems (some by their own design) which threaten their rule. The only "protection" we seem to grant them is vs. Iraq, not their own citizens.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by miko2d
But when we conspire with corrupt medieval monarchs to keep our troops on "holy" land offending majority of population and when we support said monarchy against its people - and against our own principles of democracy - we get deserved hate.
Deserved hate huh? So how does it feel to hate your own country? Never mind, go smoke a joint and put your head back up your ass.
-
Sorry if my point wasn't made succinctly enough. I'll try again.
Evil acts committed in the name of a religion do not make that same religion inherently evil. Nor does it make all followers of that religion inherently evil. Religious scripture is by definition imprecise and vague and open to a vast amount of interpretation.
Northern Ireland, The Balkans - all contain examples of extremist violence committed by Christian followers, with incitement by religious leaders (particularly in the FY).
So how does it feel to hate your own country? Never mind, go smoke a joint and put your head back up your ass.
Great comeback, Hortlund. Superb to see an intellectual heavyweight at work!
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Sorry if my point wasn't made succinctly enough. I'll try again.
Evil acts committed in the name of a religion do not make that same religion inherently evil. Nor does it make all followers of that religion inherently evil. Religious scripture is by definition imprecise and vague and open to a vast amount of interpretation.
Northern Ireland, The Balkans - all contain examples of extremist violence committed by Christian followers, with incitement by religious leaders (particularly in the FY).
Great comeback, Hortlund. Superb to see an intellectual heavyweight at work!
Thanks :)
What about a religion (Islam) that actively encourages its followers to go to war against non believers? Would that be good or bad?
-
Sorry if my point wasn't made succinctly enough. I'll try again.
Evil acts committed in the name of a religion do not make that same religion inherently evil. Nor does it make all followers of that religion inherently evil. Religious scripture is by definition imprecise and vague and open to a vast amount of interpretation.
Northern Ireland, The Balkans - all contain examples of extremist violence committed by Christian followers, with incitement by religious leaders (particularly in the FY).
- Dowding
I certainly understand that point, Dowding, and I agree.
I simply observe that it seems that most of the terrorism in the world today is committed by muslims quoting from the Koran.
What I havn't observed is a definitive Islamic condemnation of terrorism by Islamic leaders. Am I wrong about this?
-
screw em
tired of trying to make everybody happy
lets build bigger bombs & cap their arses
-
I think that we need to be careful when assigning labels to the Muslim faith. What is the relationship between Islam and Terrorism? In oder to understand this, I think we need to understand the relationship between Islam and Autocratic rule. Why is it that there are so few cases of the Islamic republic? We can look at Iran as one that might happen in the future. Pakistan managed to have free elections until 1999. But what is the real relationship here.
Islam is based in a region where self rule (in the modern nation state sense) is relatively new. With the decolonization of colonial terrirories in South Asia and the Middle East, all of a sudden these peoples were supposed to rule themselves. And guess what? Strong men grabbed the reigns of power, and thanks to the fact that they were sitting on all that oil (and in the post WWII world, everyone knew how important this was). So, the west was cool with this. And not just America mind you, everyone was happy with this arrangment. Just so long as they don't get too cozy with the Soviets.
Anyhow, I certainly don't fully understand the relationship between democracy/islam/terrorism, but I'm not ready to say that Islam is any more likely to breed terrorists than any other religion. I believe that there are other factors at play, and that if you swapped out Islam for Judeism or Christianity, you would likely have the same result.
-Sikboy
If anyone is curious about freedom in the middle east (and the world for that matter) check out http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/index.htm ) You might question their motives, but hte data is pretty interesting.
-
Foreign US Intervention causes terrorism? Hell yeah!
The JFK was anchored at Tarragona harbour, not far from here and I wanted so bad to take a tour, but couldn't (US troops are in a state of high alert or something like that), so now I'm maad, very maad... and I'm going to... going to...
...weep and whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine :p
Daniel
PS: Yes, flying over it was forbidden as well :D
-
Seems some people are hell bent on being commited to a cause... sometimes any cause. The worse the conditions... the more people of that mentality.
I maintain the belief that if any sovereign intervention serves to stop a war/revolution/feud... terrorism will soon follow. People were ready to kill before... they'll still be ready to kill. Its just that they have a new target to focus on. Hopefully, with time... they'll be able to get back to killing the people they were trying to kill in the first place.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I'm not sure I follow you Miko. In the 12 years between the Iranian revolution and the Gulf war, I do not believe that there was ever a serious challenge to Emirites. And during this time, there was no US military presense in the region beyond our Bases in Turkey, and the 6th fleet. And there was no public support in the US for the Arab nations. It could easily be argued that cooperation with the United States does not help protect the Monarchies, bur rather, causes them internal problems (some by their own design) which threaten their rule. The only "protection" we seem to grant them is vs. Iraq, not their own citizens.
OBL was our friend untill past the Iraiqi affair. I am pretty sure he believed that Irak-Kuwait conflict was their internal affair and that we - US - used it as a pretext to place our troops in the region - and keep them there since to supposedly protect Saudi Arabia from the same Iraq.
If Iraq never posed threat to SA, that makes our stay there even less valid.
The goal of OBL and his followers was to topple corrupt princes and establish people republic - based on religious principles but kind of democracy nevertheless.
One of his issues was that the princes exploited the oil that was supposed to belong to teh whole people and sold it for nothing (there were times of $8/barrel where he though good price to be much more) and waste the proceeds on whoring and gambling.
Our support of the monarchy linked to obvious financial gain due to exploiting resources of subjugated saudi people was one reason he and many others became our enemies.
The second reason is that continuing presence of infidels (our troops) on their land is considered a sacrilege.
If we only pulled out 1991 or even never went there, left saudis to their own devices and stopped interfering with their fight for freedom and religious hotspots, he would have likely still been our friend - maybe even as a president of Saudi Arabia.
OBL did not give rats bellybutton about palestinians and Israel, neither did he have any reasons to like Iraq or accept its help in anything.
Deserved hate huh? So how does it feel to hate your own country? Never mind, go smoke a joint and put your head back up your ass.
If I hated my own country, I would not have worried much about correcting the wrongs it does or mistakes it's about to make.
I guess you miss that the hate I referred to was from the people we help opress and exploit - despite our own principles.
We support dictatorships, we get to suffer hate of their people.
I bet even in your country there were plenty of people who loved it and still disliked the fact that it served as a base for nazi industry.
When your own king Charles XII wanted to engage in foreign military adventures, your own parliament actively resisted him, denied funding and happily deposed him after the disasterous campaighn in Ukraine. Where those people traitors or patriots?
I do not see you volunteering to join the fight in the Middle East, so excuse me if I do not feel the need for us to do so either.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The goal of OBL and his followers was to topple corrupt princes and establish people republic - based on religious principles but kind of democracy nevertheless.
If this is anything like what they have in Iran, then it is a sham, where the elected have little real power, and it is concentrated in the upper tier of the Church. I wouldn't call it even a "Kind of Democracy"
I believe that you give the fundamentalists too much credit. And I still wonder what demensions this unrest took on between the time of the Iranian revolution, and the US presense. It sounds like you contend that they would have been overthrown without the US moving in there.
The one flaw I find in your reasoning (in my opinion of course) is that if this is truly the problem, then why Isn't OBL trying to overthrow the Saudi Government now? Why direct this anger at the US, and go through elaborate schemes to crash airliners into buildings, instead of staging unrest within Saudi Arabia, with the goal of assuming the leadership. This has been the pattern for getting rid of colonial powers in the past, and it has worked all through the 20th Century. Although I can see the point you are trying to make, considering 1978 in Iran, it's hard for me to believe this.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by miko2d
When your own king Charles XII wanted to engage in foreign military adventures, your own parliament actively resisted him, denied funding and happily deposed him after the disasterous campaighn in Ukraine. Where those people traitors or patriots?
1) We did not have a parlament back then.
2) Carolus XII was one of the most popluar monarchs Sweden has ever had. The people and the soldiers loved him. The low and middle class nobles loved him. The high class nobles disliked him.
3) The King remained king until his death in 1719. Poltava was in 1709. (see separate thread soon to follow)
4) If there had been such persons as the ones you are trying to describe, they would have been traitors, yes.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I'm not sure I follow you Miko. In the 12 years between the Iranian revolution and the Gulf war, I do not believe that there was ever a serious challenge to Emirites. And during this time, there was no US military presense in the region beyond our Bases in Turkey, and the 6th fleet.
-Sikboy
We've been in Saudi since 1979.
-
"If we only pulled out 1991 or even never went there, left saudis to their own devices and stopped interfering with their fight for freedom and religious hotspots, he would have likely still been our friend - maybe even as a president of Saudi Arabia. "
You don't really believe that do you? BTW, how do you rationalize the deliberate targeting of civillians? Is that justified?
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
The one flaw I find in your reasoning (in my opinion of course) is that if this is truly the problem, then why Isn't OBL trying to overthrow the Saudi Government now? Why direct this anger at the US, and go through elaborate schemes to crash airliners into buildings, instead of staging unrest within Saudi Arabia...
That is a good question. Do we really support saudis to such extent as to make overturning them impossible? Did he want to achieve greater popularity first? Was he so much offended by the presence of US troops on the sacred soil? Anything else?
OBL was not a fool and knew what he was doing. Even if he is dead, he is way ahead of the game that he was playing.
Anyway - this whole area is a huge snakepit. No reason to get involved. If we feel so bad for the people (most of whom would cut our throats) - why not offer asylim to dissidents. We would gain willing and productive - even well educated people who appreciate our way of life. It would cost much less to settle them here than the military expences and casualties/terrorism damage. In a year or two they would pay taxes and contribute to economy.
The rulers would be happy to be rid of troublemakers and at the same time due to loss of brains their technological progress would be slowed and our facilitated.
All the jews and palestinians I saw here are wonderfull people and have no problem with each other. If we offered them a piece of some desert and extended immigration visas, we would gain another 6-7 millions of productive citizens. The fanatics on both sides who want the land for religious reasons would then be welcome to slaughter each other.
The amount of money we spend each year to help them would probably pay for the whole operation.
Hortlund: Carolus XII was one of the most popluar monarchs Sweden has ever had
Apparently not for a few years he was hiding out in Turkey...
The low and middle class nobles loved him.
Same here - enough patriotic trash willing someone else to shed blood for something they don't understand.
I bet iraqi love mr. Hussein too...
The high class nobles disliked him.
Those probably were smart enough to realise in advance that such adventures would prove the downfall of their country - as they surely did.
If there had been such persons as the ones you are trying to describe, they would have been traitors, yes.
Nice sentiment. In our country showing dissent, voting for more than one candidate and creating new laws daily (which assumes there was something wrond with the country to need a change) is not considered traitorous activity - at least for now...
I am surprised that with such views you oppose Hussein rather than admire him - glorious military leader, gets his army exterminated and his country devastated much like C. XII, does not tolerate dissent...
miko
-
Originally posted by Tumor
We've been in Saudi since 1979.
Are you refering to our use of Saudi Arabia as a staging point during the Iranian Hostage crisis?
Obviously you are in a better position to know than I am, so was this a prolonged stay of a large number of troops? Honestly, I'm not familiar with the details of this presence, fill me in.
-Sikboy
(wonders if Tumor will unsquelch him)
-
miko, please this is getting embarrasing. Although I'm somewhat flattered that you have learnt enough of Swedish history to know about Carolus XII, your knowledge seems to be somewhat lacking in some areas.
First, the reason why the high nobility disliked him was because his father had performed the greatest reduction in Swedish history. The nobles lost something like 90% of their lands to the crown. Most of the high nobility tried to use the young king as their pawn or tool if you will, to get their lands back. When the young king went to war however, those hopes were shattered.
The war took a very long time too, Sweden was in a constant state of war from 1700-1721.
The reason the king was "hiding out" in Turkey was because of the loss at Poltava. Take a look at a map over 1709 Europe. Go south from Poltava towards Turkey (this is the king and roughly 1000 men trying to avoid capture by tzar Peter by running to the closest ally, Turkey). Find a town called Bender on a map. (It is in the Moldavia area). Now, deduct 4 years from the kings stay in Turkey (because during that time he wanted to convince the Sultan to ally against Russia), then try to figure out how to get to Sweden with minimal escort without passing through Poland, Sachsen, Brandenburg, Denmark or Russia. There is the reason why the king stayed so long in Turkey.
Take a look at what you wrote:
When your own king Charles XII wanted to engage in foreign military adventures, your own parliament actively resisted him, denied funding and happily deposed him after the disasterous campaighn in Ukraine. Where those people traitors or patriots?
Now, since the kings word was law, anyone actively resisting is in effect committing treason. Anyone trying to depose the king is guilty of high treason. Both kinds are traitors. Your problem is that you are trying to compare a 21st century situation with a 18th century situation, it cant be done.
And no, I hate Hussein, but for some reason you seem to be one of his biggest fans in the western world. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by majic
"If we only pulled out 1991 or even never went there, left saudis to their own devices and stopped interfering with their fight for freedom and religious hotspots, he would have likely still been our friend - maybe even as a president of Saudi Arabia. "
You don't really believe that do you?
OK, I shoudl have put "for freedom" in quotes - no doubt OBL would have been an oppressive bastard too. All those freedom fighters and colonialism-fighers end up worse than before to their people. Who cares - he was not looking for a fight with us untill 90s.
BTW, how do you rationalize the deliberate targeting of civillians? Is that justified?
How do I rationalise the gravity? You throw up a brick, you better have enough brains to get out of it's fall - civilian or not.
I subscribe to the view that the nature does not have rewards or punishments - just the conseqenses.
We went into the snake pit - we exposed our civilians to danger. We failed to protect them.
If we wanted to fight someone who would not have harmed our civilians, we should have messed up with someone civilised, not homicidal fanatical bastards.
It's not even whether our intervention was just - it's also whether we are up to the task. I do not believe competence of our democratically elected government to conduct such operations. They will never be good enough, our intelligence will never be good enough, our society will never be defended enough - it's just not compartible with our democratic way of life.
Do I want to live in a police state just so Kuwait could be free of Iraq? The hell I am.
So far we are only reacting, not acting on any intelligence.
If Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were a problem, how come we only learned about that when he invaded Kuwait - where he did not use any? Israelis blew up his reactor way before that but we continued to supply him with weapons and tech.
If our actions in SA caused OBL to openly declare war on us, how come we only now tightening our security? How come we waited so long to start a hunt for him? His intents were in papers. We did not know his capabilities? Why? Our intelligence was bad? Than why did we got involved there with bad intelligence?
France decalred war on Germany while having it's flank completely open. They were stupid enough to expect germans to honor the neutrality of the neighbouring countries? Who is to blame? Germans, for sure - but they were known bastars way before.
Japain attacked US while having fraction of it's industrial capacity and being behind in technology - who should they blame they got firebombed and nuked? US for being too resourcefull?
BTW - Japain attacked a clear military target, in return we quite deliberately went targeting their civilians - does it bring and analogies to you mind?
Same with us. Did we expect OBL to abide by Geneva conventions? How about after he tried to blow WTC up the first time? After they blew the embassies? The US ship?
Hortlund: miko, please this is getting embarrasing. Although I'm somewhat flattered that you have learnt enough of Swedish history to know about Carolus XII, your knowledge seems to be somewhat lacking in some areas.
Well, I am in my office and my history books are at home - I may misplace a fact or two. The last time I read about your country's history was probably 20 years ago.
Now, deduct 4 years from the kings stay in Turkey (because during that time he wanted to convince the Sultan to ally against Russia),
He was defeated at Poltava in 1709. He persuaded Ahmed III to declare war on Russia in 1710. What is that? Half a year? A year? One and a half? Not four.
That russo-turkish war was over in 1711. Turks had to fire up his house to kick him out.
then try to figure out how to get to Sweden with minimal escort without passing through Poland, Sachsen, Brandenburg, Denmark or Russia
If he salied through India, Sumatra, around South America and across atlantic, he woudl have circumnavigated the globe in less than four years. If he traveled incognito - like russian tzar did in Europe, he woudl have been home in a matter of weeks. Could it be he was not entirely welcome?
Such a brave figher did not have problem doing just that - passing through the enemies' lands and getting through the actual front lines to help defend some besieged fortress.
And no, I hate Hussein, but for some reason you seem to be one of his biggest fans in the western world.
Here is one place we agree. It's just that I know enough of history to hope that we can replace him with anyone better - or that the cost to our society in blood, money and most importantly lost liberties is worth it.
There are worse bastards all over the place. Idi Amin is Saudi's guest. Duvalier lives in Paris. Mugabe starves his people. Why not blow the hell out of those first? Apparently we have nothing better to do.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
He was defeated at Poltava in 1709. He persuaded Ahmed III to declare war on Russia in 1710. What is that? Half a year? A year? One and a half? Not four. That russo-turkish war was over in 1711. Turks had to fire up his house to kick him out.
[/b]
Well, the problem was that Sweden was not mentioned in the Turkish-Russian peace. That is why it was important to C.XII to stay in turkey and try to persuade the Sultan to attack the Russians again. He succeeded too, in december 1711 there was a new war, and then another one in October 1712. Nothing good came from those wars though, but the King kept on trying. 1713 the Bender debacle, but the King stayed in Turkey until September 1714.
If he salied through India, Sumatra, around South America and across atlantic, he woudl have circumnavigated the globe in less than four years. If he traveled incognito - like russian tzar did in Europe, he woudl have been home in a matter of weeks. Could it be he was not entirely welcome?
Such a brave figher did not have problem doing just that - passing through the enemies' lands and getting through the actual front lines to help defend some besieged fortress.
[/b]
Problem would be that if he tried that "sail around the world" option, he would have been out of the world politics during those 4 years, and that is a risky trip indeed. It would most likely have ended with his capture at the hands of the Danish fleet though.
There are worse bastards all over the place. Idi Amin is Saudi's guest. Duvalier lives in Paris. Mugabe starves his people. Why not blow the hell out of those first?
Neither of those people have weapons of mass destruction.
-
For the Record Miko, what weapons did we supply Saddam with? I was under the impression that his arsenal was built on Soviet and French weapons.
-Sikboy
-
"BTW - Japain attacked a clear military target, in return we quite deliberately went targeting their civilians - does it bring and analogies to you mind?"
You have a good point there, but (and this subject is way too involved to do it justice here) the Japanese did deliberately attack civilians where they could (China). I can see both sides of the argument for and against our bombing during WWII, but current weapons tech allows us not to deliberately target civilians today.
I understand your argument as a whole, but I feel we cannot be isolationist.
"If we wanted to fight someone who would not have harmed our civilians, we should have messed up with someone civilised, not homicidal fanatical bastards. "
Unfortunately, those are the people we have to "mess with".
-
Originally posted by majic
"I understand your argument as a whole, but I feel we cannot be isolationist.
It doesn't have to be that black or white... There's an alternative to isolationism.