Real Life Mandarins

Is it foolish to believe that America is anywhere near perfect? That's an easy question to answer. Is it foolish to look upon world leaders as Gods instead of fallible human beings? That's a little tougher, but yes. And is it foolish to believe that America is not the global police force? Yes, it is. But America has always pushed to be the dominant superpower and world leaders, no big secret. I think that, in regard to totalarism, September 11th has made things such as George Orwell's 1984 and the various post apocalyptic futures a reality, whether we like it or not.

Originally posted by scheherazade
i for one am sure they knew about 9/11 (to be clear i think they get info on 10000's of terrorist threats, and so few materialize that i dont blame them for not reactingto the 9/11 possibility), and were HOPING it would happen, just because it gives them leeway to act, and makes people complacent to their actions.
Click to expand...

I see that you have put a lot of thought into your arguement here. I won't try to defend America from some of the claims you have made, but I will say that your claims of America killing the 5000 that died on September 11th as if they were flying the planes themselves, if you were to justify it, would mean that every person in the American intelligence agencies and all the military and law enforcement branches would have to have kept quiet by now. A likely scenario, you think? I've heard these claims before, by anti American protestors desperately trying to push their cause. I'm not saying you are like this, on the contrary some of your comments such as what you say about the gun laws is very good. But this is where I heard these comments before. And the threats of September 11 would have been told to military, law enforcement, intelligence agencies and possibly even the media, and I just can't see all those people betraying innocent lives live that.
 
well ya, if albanians are in a serbian town, and you bomb the town, you're bombing albanans. the point was to repell them from serbian territory -in that instance-. the idea i stated was very generalized. kurds are in iraqi territory, and the us/un isnt repelling them, but nudging them on.

its all how you look at it anyways. borders change and cultures dont stay in sync with those changes. at one point in time poland spanned from the baltic to the mediterranean, and from germany to russia. does that make all the nations in there today ex-polish? you wouldnt think so. really any situation you can take a prespective on by just using another point in time as your reference. at 'this point in time', the kurds and iraqis are in -iraqi- territory (politically). so in essence, iraq can treat them any way it likes. thats the right of being on your own land. for all it matters the kurds are lucky iraq hasnt told them to get out or be shot. and if they create grievances with iraq, they can expect to be treated maliciously. sure the nice thing for iraq to do would be to kelp the kurds out, but the world isnt a nice place. and if you put things into prespective the kurds suffer little. if the US wants to really help the oppressed, let them look deeper into africa. the things that are going on in there make the kurd situation look like a hotel stay. when the US says its going to iraq to free its people from oppression, its a very sick and saddening joke. what would you think if you heard that, and you were a tootsi? or any other of the many cultures in this world under _real_ oppression. its barbary to even use such an excuse.

similarly, kuwait and britain may have had relations, but it was after ww2 that britain arranged the 'creation' of a kuwaiti 'political' state and government. in essence solidifying their influence. again a time reference. before 48 it was still the same land, same people, but borders changed. and borders are what determine right and wrong in the political spectrum. once there is a line in the sand, you dont cross it. even if you've been crossing so long as you've lived. however britain mingled with kuwait, it was always at risk of influence from the greater territory. once kuwait has a line around it, it was safe to work with britain without interfearance, and britain was safe to accellerate and secure its projects. if you were to compare it to something, it would be like putting a verbal agreement into writing. in essence both are the same, but you cant argue with one of them.

-scheherazade
 
phillip < no one had to keep quiet. they wouldnt have to do anything but their jobs as usual. the status quo in the world is that a lot of places dont like the US, and a lot have loud mouths spewing off about how they're gonna do this and that. so the government knows lots of threats are coming (like 9/11 specifically), but most these threats dont materialize. CIA can do its job investigating them, but it doesnt know which ones will actually materialize. threats are all around, who's to know that 9/11 was to happen, and not some other threat. its like in karate films where there are mirage figures. one person is real, and the rest are images. the defender doesnt know which of the figures will hurt him when they attack, cause only one is real. in respect to terrorism, few go through with their plans. so really i doubt the government was looking for 9/11 (specifically), they were just looking for _something_ (a non-specific-'9/11', aka a terrorist strike). a hijacking would do fine. maybe a car bomb. or another embassy bombing, etc. just something to empower them, and make the president look GI JOE on tv. thats all. the more our government looks like its doing something, the more happy people are, and the less attention they pay to problems like the economy. just imagine how unpopular the president would be today if he hadnt had the war on terrorism. people would eat him alive on the economy.

as a funny note, gore was right. the 'lock box' turned out the better idea.

-scheherazade
 
Originally posted by scheherazade
i for one am sure they knew about 9/11 (to be clear i think they get info on 10000's of terrorist threats, and so few materialize that i dont blame them for not reactingto the 9/11 possibility), and were HOPING it would happen, just because it gives them leeway to act, and makes people complacent to their actions.
Click to expand...

I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that you didn't mean that America hoped that a tragedy on the scale of September 11th would happen. Also...

Originally posted by scheherazade
saddam and bin laden are ENEMYS. why would al qaeda want to have anything to do with saddam.
Click to expand...

We've been hearing a lot that they were both equally responsible for September 11th. Where did you hear they were enemies? If true, it would give a lot of credence to what you say, and, if it could go public, would stop a war with Iraq based on what America said is not right\untrue\lies\whatever you want to believe.
 
i heard about it listening to NPR. apparently before bin laden moved to afghanistan, he was offered stay in iraq. though this turned sour after saddam tried to use al qaeda for himself. bin laden felt saddam was inviting him just to use al qaeda and subvert bin ladens power. so he went to afghanistan, apparently with a grudge on saddam.

i havent seen any texts on this personally, though it was a couple hour long discussion of that situation among scholars and historians, so i'm sure there is some historical merrit.

its also the kind of thing that doesnt fit well with the administrations current plans. its enough that they down play that aspect, and have 'experts' that come on and say that there might be a connection between saddam and terrorism, and that if he can terrorize his 'own people' he can terrorize others, and if him and al qaeda both terrorize others, they could do it cooperatively, blah blah blah... a couple more conjectures and saddam and bin laden are in bed together. and with the 'rage' over 9/11, who's to care if its true or not? we just want some ass kicking. The argument is pretty much "my gosh al qaeda and saddam are both 'bad', they must be workign together! no way saddam would NOT be behind 9/11, he hates us! its just impossible that someone else could do something bad to us, _without_ saddams help... after all, he hates us!"... (no really, listen to the people talking on TV, they sound just like this) though luckilly the iraq sitaution doesnt add up and a good amount of people here can see that (along with most the rest of the world).

also notice how bush asks for somethig else once he gets what he asks for, or realizes he made an idiot of himself?

iraq must be attacked cause its 'bad'
(most the world says wtf are you crazy)
iraq must allow inspectors
they allow them
iraq must disarm

the last one is the part that gets me. they are a soverign nation. they can bear arms just as well as any other nation. should WE disarm if saddam says 'hey you, you have weapons of mass distruction' ? you know the answer would be 'shut up we can do what ever we want'. so why the hell cant iraq say 'shut up we can do what ever we want'. bush is basically asking iraq to do what no nation should ever have to do.

also, did you know that the US has been sending diplomats to egypt to censor egyptian TV? apparently some documentary series on the history of israel says some things that the US doesnt like being said... namely the jewish religious docrtrine to inhabit the earth (that it says so in their texts, not even that this is what they're doing, just that is says it somewhere). funny how they want that censored while they make muslim culture look invasive and oppressive on their own TV.

-scheherazade
 
So...what do you propose? I know how you feel, my country's government is a shambles as well, with outright lies and coverups too. Plus one woman who disagrees no matter what's done. (like, says no to fighting terrorism when everyone else agrees to, and yes when everyone else doesn't). But I know that violent terrorist actions will make me as bad as they are. So, what do you do? Do you have any ideas?
 
pursuade the masses to stop paying taxes. that is the way to make any government listen. nonviolent, and it has fairly immediate results. though it only works well in places where the people in the government are stealing from the state. richer countries usually have already wealthy leaders.

in that case, you find out what business they are in and you boycott it. they will then listen to you to restore their income.

-scheherazade
 
We've been hearing a lot that they were both equally responsible for September 11th. Where did you hear they were enemies? If true, it would give a lot of credence to what you say, and, if it could go public, would stop a war with Iraq based on what America said is not right\untrue\lies\whatever you want to believe. [/B]
Click to expand...


It's pretty simple logic. Saddam is a secular dictator. He was left in power after Gulf War I because he made a nice buffer against the radicalism of Iran.

Osama bin Ladin is the redical's radical in terms of Islam. In his mind you're either with him, or your with the infidels. (Swithch infidels to terrorists and you've got our fearless leader.) As I have stated REPEATEDLY, Saddam is a SECULAR dictator. Meaning, that a populist Islamic uprising of people who are drivin by faith to the point that they do not care about their own lives, scares the living hell out of him! Therefore it follows that if any Alk'aida operatives were "hiding" in Iraq, they'd be hiding from Saddam's boys.

Get it?

scheherazade- Do you have any idea how many oil based products you use every day? Let's start wit the plastic in your keyboard, and end with your means of transportation to and from work/school. Oh you walk? Are the soles of your shoes leather? Cuz if they're rubber...
It's pretty much impossible to boycott BushCo. anywhere but at the ballots, but as they showed in 2000, that's pretty meaningless anyway.

I've got a challenge for everyone here. Your homework is to think up at least one reason why this war with Iraq is a bad idea. It can be anything from, "Osama's stil alive and we should get him because he's more dangerous and he killed 3000 Americans on American soil..." to, "I don't think Bush should put his oil profits over the welfare of our servicemen."
Think hard, if the reasons come easily, maybe, just maybe you might want to reconsider the wisdom of this endevour.
 
scheherazade....WTF were you thinking when you put that the gov HOPED 9/11 would happen!!! you say Iraq has the right to WMDs!!!??? ain't no way the gov wanted 9/11 to happen. you know why. cause if they did and it ever came out (and believe me, when dealing with the pres, everything eventually comes out), they wouldn't just be tried and thrown in jail, there would be lynchings and a whole lot more! as for Iraq, you want a psychopathic homicidal dictator like Saddam with the most powerful weapons the world has ever seen. question..do you think Hitler was right? cause i gaurentee that if Saddam ever gets enough WMDs (and with people saying what you're saying, he will) the war he will start will make WW2 look like 2 kids fighting over some candy.
 
I really wish we hadn't coined the term "Weapon of Mass Destruction." It sounds like a term the government decided upon to instill the sentiment of war upon people. It's similar to "Homeland Security." THAT sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. We must protect the Homeland!
 
well, remember that the term WMD was made back during the Cold War, if i remember correctly. back then, the people really worried about a war. it wasn't untill the mid 80s that both sides realized that the other really didn't want to start a war. and how does Homeland Security sound like something out of Nazi Germany? Hitler only worried about protecting Germany when he got his ass kicked in the battle of britian, and even then, would you want a leader who didn't give a shit about the security of your country?
 
Go to a teach-in forum if you're in college. They'll explain everything there, ranging to how it sounds like something out of Nazi Germany to why the war resolution with Iraq would cause more harm than good.
 
a) likelihood of saddam having any MAD weapons, nil
b) britain did not "win" the battle of britain, nor did the germans try to win it. hitler had ordered a fullscale war with russia, the pittiful remnants of v2 forces in europe and luftwaffe, not needed in russia were sent against us, which we managed to stave off by throwing everything we had, we "won" because hitler wanted us to surrender, he respected the british. finally the germans ploughed through russia, only falling back as winter slowed their attack, the communists managed to muster enough forces to hold them beyond st petersburg and finally because of the d-day landings and the following campaigns.

and finally, despite the pathetic american propaganda, bin laden and hussein dislike each other, bin laden doesnt like hussein because hes not religious, and hussein doesnt like bin laden because he has been attracting far too much attention to arab states recently and also because bin laden pointedly refused to help fund hussein.

this "war on terrorism" isnt about terrorism at all its about expanding the US's oil stock, and with the recent cahnge of mind by the russians, can almost guarantee that the ural oil fields (a territory which putin has been wanting to expand) suddenly get a lot busier and that russia gets a shitload of cash from the states to help restore its flagging economy. an economy which despite being stuck in what is technically pre industrial era squallor for the majority of the population, has funded the largest number of MAD weapons in the world. if u want a real threat then russias huge cash bonus' from the states and george bush' tiny little peanut of a brain are the 2 things you should be looking at.
 
hate to break it to ya buddy, but hitler only orderd the attack on russia when he did cause he failed in attacking britian. and though by what they did it doesn't look like it, the german high command actually did try to win the battle of britian, it's just they didn't work well together and general goring (sp?) was incompetant. also, their priorities kept shifting, from bombing radar sites and airfields, to cities, etc. and the V2 rocket wasn't availible until 1944 i believe. the pitiful remnants of the luftwaffe were because of the battle of britian and the subsequent russian campaign and it was at stalingrad where the germans were stopped then forced back (yes they were stopped at leningrad, aka st. petersburg, but the attack started at stalingrad was the attack that freed leningrad)
and how do you get the war on terrorism to be to boost US oil stock. last time i checked, afganistan didn't have any oil and where else have we attacked in the war on terrorism. the war against iraq is different that the war on terror, and though i disagree with those who say that war is for the oil, i can at least understand where they are comming from.
the weapons are WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) MAD is the policy used during the cold war for said weapons. MAD stands for Mutual Assured Distruction.
and finally, yes you are right. Hussein and Bin Laden don't like each other, but I'm sure that to strike at the United States, they would be willing to put aside their differences for a while to cause as much damage as they can to my country. and why is money going into russia a threat. if anything, it would allow russia to stabilize it's economy and mabye pay its military to reduce the risk that some colonel would sell a nuke just to get money.
 
Originally posted by scheherazade
pursuade the masses to stop paying taxes. that is the way to make any government listen. nonviolent, and it has fairly immediate results. though it only works well in places where the people in the government are stealing from the state. richer countries usually have already wealthy leaders.

in that case, you find out what business they are in and you boycott it. they will then listen to you to restore their income.

-scheherazade
Click to expand...

That seems like a decent idea. But would the aim of such a boycott to be to stop anti terrorist actions altogether?

Originally posted by Ender
(Swithch infidels to terrorists and you've got our fearless leader.)
Click to expand...

Almost. Shrub doesn't believe that everyone who does not side with him is a terrorist. But he was pushing for a nuclear attack on the afternoon\evening of September 11th.

Originally posted by Ender
Get it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I get what you're saying. Saddam is basically a coward. Binladen isn't (well...) and that diffirence in how far they are willing to go is part of the problem between them.

Originally posted by Ender
I've got a challenge for everyone here. Your homework is to think up at least one reason why this war with Iraq is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I do have one idea. If actions on Iraq is meant to get rid of Saddam, then there are covert ways to do it. Metal Gear's FoxDie virus, Syphon Filter's...uh, Syphon Filter, are they real? What about someone with a Tabun capsule in their mouth cracks it open when they are with Saddam? The guy would already have temporary immunity to the Tabun, of course. Or, send in the Special Forces. Yeah yeah, all that crap we see them do in the movies is nothing like real life, but they could do something.

Originally posted by Aries
scheherazade....WTF were you thinking when you put that the gov HOPED 9/11 would happen!!! you say Iraq has the right to WMDs!!!??? ain't no way the gov wanted 9/11 to happen. you know why. cause if they did and it ever came out (and believe me, when dealing with the pres, everything eventually comes out), they wouldn't just be tried and thrown in jail, there would be lynchings and a whole lot more!
Click to expand...

:)

Originally posted by Aries
as for Iraq, you want a psychopathic homicidal dictator like Saddam with the most powerful weapons the world has ever seen. question..do you think Hitler was right? cause i gaurentee that if Saddam ever gets enough WMDs (and with people saying what you're saying, he will) the war he will start will make WW2 look like 2 kids fighting over some candy.
Click to expand...

The start of the prophosised apocalypse.

Originally posted by RiotAct218
I really wish we hadn't coined the term "Weapon of Mass Destruction." It sounds like a term the government decided upon to instill the sentiment of war upon people.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right.

Originally posted by Aries
Hitler only worried about protecting Germany when he got his ass kicked in the battle of britian, and even then, would you want a leader who didn't give a shit about the security of your country?
Click to expand...

Like Binladen? I know I wouldn't.

Originally posted by Aries
hate to break it to ya buddy, but hitler only orderd the attack on russia when he did cause he failed in attacking britian. and though by what they did it doesn't look like it, the german high command actually did try to win the battle of britian, it's just they didn't work well together and general goring (sp?) was incompetant. also, their priorities kept shifting, from bombing radar sites and airfields, to cities, etc. and the V2 rocket wasn't availible until 1944 i believe. the pitiful remnants of the luftwaffe were because of the battle of britian and the subsequent russian campaign and it was at stalingrad where the germans were stopped then forced back (yes they were stopped at leningrad, aka st. petersburg, but the attack started at stalingrad was the attack that freed leningrad)
Click to expand...

That little history lesson sonds right from my memory.

Originally posted by Aries
and how do you get the war on terrorism to be to boost US oil stock. last time i checked, afganistan didn't have any oil and where else have we attacked in the war on terrorism. the war against iraq is different that the war on terror, and though i disagree with those who say that war is for the oil, i can at least understand where they are comming from.
Click to expand...

It's stipid to think it's about oil. What about all the oil that'll be used in the war? No, I still firmly believe it's anti war\anti America propoganda.

Originally posted by Aries
the weapons are WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) MAD is the policy used during the cold war for said weapons. MAD stands for Mutual Assured Distruction.
Click to expand...

Of course, Bush wanting a nuclear attack on Afghanistan indicates he may have some. Hey, what can I say? I'm the devil's advocate and personal mercenary.

Originally posted by Aries
and finally, yes you are right. Hussein and Bin Laden don't like each other, but I'm sure that to strike at the United States, they would be willing to put aside their differences for a while to cause as much damage as they can to my country. and why is money going into russia a threat. if anything, it would allow russia to stabilize it's economy and mabye pay its military to reduce the risk that some colonel would sell a nuke just to get money.
Click to expand...

And it's happened. Numorous times, without going into detail.
 
aries < iraq has a right to have any kinds of weapons it desires, on its own land. its not the US' right to tell any other nation what it can or cant do on their own land. and saddam is not crazy. people say he's crazy cause he made war. so what, if thats a reason to be crazy then a good few of our presidents were insane.

and sensibly, iraq never actaully DID anything to the US. and know what? they CANT. they have no navy. they cant get over the atlantic. the have no air transport for their troops. they cant get ANYWHERE. a nation like this can hardly be called a 'ww3 maker'. remember WW2 was started by a technologically advanced nation with huge ability to move, unlike iraq. that and the regional nations aren't worried about saddam, and hey are RIGHT THERE. why would someone across the ocean be troubled. the damage iraq would do is more on the terrorism scale, and i dont think they would do that. it would just give the US cause to invade them. this is another reason why i am sure iraq did no terrorism, and the US only wants to dream up that they did. most intelligence agencies agound the world know when something is cooking. and somehow only the US one has any suspection of saddam and terrorism. AND if they had real proof, they wouldnt need to wait for approval to go in there and do anything. not a single nation would object to retaliation. but guess what? there is a world of objection. why? cause its smoke and mirrors.

oh ya, hitler couldnt invade britain. he had no ship transports. they were in the process of building, so he air raided them, and gave up cause you cant win with just air. so he didnt really 'lose' to britain and run off to russia. and history notes, that hitlers air raids almost whiped out birtains air defense power completely. if hitler hadnt changed pace he would have had britain open to air invasion.

though what is a WW3 maker is the US. the US was warned by israel that if during the war israel sustained any attacks, it would respond with nuclear force (O, btw, its OK for israel to have nukes, while saddam cant even have gas... hmm...). Now what would nations in the region do if someone NUKED one of them or their neighbors. i dont think they would like it. the US stands to CREATE WW3 by going in there and stirring things up. You dont go in among a crowd that doesnt like you and start picking a fight.

similarly, the taliban never actually DID anything to the US either.
taliban was guilty of letting bin laden stay there. and who is the US to tell others who they can or cant be friends with. what, like we have to be friends with the US? feck that! i dont _have_ to be friends with anyone, and i can be with whoever i like. its nothing more than a bad attitude to turn on anyone who's not friends with you and friends with someone you dont like. the afghan war was a revenge war. it wasnt thought out. it was just 'blow up shit to make people happy'. al qaeda and bin laden were ther'official' targets, but they are guerillas. the US knows well enough it cant kill them. they went in there and killed who the KNEW had nowhere to run. the taliban. the ez target so they could show progress and how great their military is on TV. how GREAT their ability to kill other people is. how GREAT it is how they ruin homes. how GREAT is is to make war.
imo there is nothing GREAT about making war. and its sick how on TV its made to be some adventure. but thats just my little opinion.
(although the taliban was a POS, and i dont care if they were removed, even if it were unfairly. and most anyone i talked to that was from the region says it was a good thing, regardless of how it was done.).

-scheherazade
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka

It's stipid to think it's about oil. What about all the oil that'll be used in the war? No, I still firmly believe it's anti war\anti America propoganda.
[/B]
Click to expand...

And, I'm sure you think the oil companies give it to the military with no charge out of the goodness of their hearts.

In war there is always money to be made, and since the advent of the mechanized army most of that money is going to come from the things that make that army run. Gasoline, Diesel, motor oil, lubricant for tank treads, jet fuel for airplanes-oh yeah, and armaments. Expect Lockheed, Raytheon and Texas Instruments stock to go up.

While not accusing the administration of executing, planning, or having prior knowledge of 9/11-it's pretty damn convenient for them. Before, Bush's legitimacy as pResident was questioned daily, now that is a non-issue. Look at the legislation he has been able to shove through congress or to block. The HSA and the USA PATRIOT act would never have been possible before 9/11. Military spending is now a #1 priority whereas before it was on the post-Cold War choping block. (Someone please tell me how the Joint Strike Fighter is going to protect me against a guy with a box cutter.)


This is what Bush said, I hope it was bluster, but with this guy I can't tell:
"Nations must choose, they are with us or with the terrorists."
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1935644.stm


This is the message (It may not be what you're saying literaly, but it seems to be between the lines.) I'm getting from some people here:
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/silencio.jpg
am I very far off?

I'm faily certain that eventually there will be some backlash against the loss oc constitutional rights.
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/ashcroft.jpg
I just hope I'm not in a gulag somewhere when it happens.
 
Originally posted by Ender
This is the message (It may not be what you're saying literaly, but it seems to be between the lines.) I'm getting from some people here:
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/silencio.jpg
am I very far off?
Click to expand...

Only traitors speak out against war. Well...I am sure that there would be people who would believe that. But my beliefs would be more that those who speak out against fighting terrorism, full stop. Those who speak out against defending your country, full stop. And then, I still wouldn't say they are traitors. Hell, I don't want war either. But the United Nations, who I have no problem with being the world's police force (better to have united countries working for peace labeled as facist, as those who label them as such would look just plain dumb), had given the ultimatum for Iraq. It was Iraq's decision to make, and I am glad they made the right one.

Also, just something I've thought of. Palistinions celebrated the September 11 attacks. The Taliban and other terrorist organisations celebrate their actions that result in the killing and harm of innocent people. Those who fight terrorism do not celebrate their victories, and consider the loss of innocent life, regardless of nationality religion or beliefs, tragic. There are those in the Middle East who enjoy combat and killing. And yes, that may be a generalisation, it's true. There are. Those who fight terror find nothing to celebrate in death. They fight to defend their country and their loved ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top