Cantr II Discussion Forum

To avoid adding a topic to "society" I'm responding here...

SekoETC wrote:

Nick wrote:You still dont get the point. Stop saying "they".
Let me guess, youre the type that things anyone with olive skin works for Al Qaeda.

Actually, no. I was in a demonstration against the war in Iraq, I think in that case the Americans were begging for what happened. Too bad when the attack came it was on civilians in the towers, so sympathies were all on yankees. It's a tricky situation, no side is better than the other. If Americans can oppress people in Iraq and Afganistan it's not alright, but if they don't watch over things in there, the local government will do the oppression for them. So nobody can win.

Well, first question is...what were americans doing to Al Qaeda or anyone they claim to represent? We weren't invading anyone at the time.

Terrorists prefer to target civilians, for obvious and practical reasons. If you actually think the terrorists are in the right, why do you care who they hit?

Finally, where do you get the idea that the US wants to oppress anyone? Set up governments that will favor it, certainly. Force in human rights somewhere near UN standards, maybe. Oppress people? That doesn't benefit anyone in any sense.

The concern about local government in Iraq is that it will fall within a week of pulling out US troops. That may or may not be true, but I've never heard concerns that the new Iraqi government will be oppressive.

From what I've heard that might be more accurate in Afghanistan, where the 'new government' seems to be nothing more than the old border warlords expanded into the rest of the county, so far as I've heard. Although I haven't heard anything out of Afghanistan in a long time.

I don't think the war in iraq was justified politically, and I don't think it or the war on terror (insofar as that exists) are being fought effectively. But I can't process the idea that the other side in either war has any moral position at all.

Well, first question is...what were americans doing to Al Qaeda or anyone they claim to represent? We weren't invading anyone at the time.

Al Qaeda wants Western presence out of the Middle East.
There are more ways to invade than by armed soldiers. The Western way of life is growing stronger in the Middle East and fundamentalist like them hate Western culture.
And it wasn't like the talibans and the Americans were friends before 9/11.

Terrorists prefer to target civilians, for obvious and practical reasons. If you actually think the terrorists are in the right, why do you care who they hit?

The same question can be asked to people who support the war in Iraq.
You can obviously be pro war without wanting civilians killed, so why shouldn't it be able to go the other way around?

Finally, where do you get the idea that the US wants to oppress anyone? Set up governments that will favor it, certainly. Force in human rights somewhere near UN standards, maybe. Oppress people? That doesn't benefit anyone in any sense.

No governments want to opress their people. Oppression is what it comes to when a government doesn't have the support of it's people but carry on against their will. Many Iraqis see the American presence as oppression...

From what I've heard that might be more accurate in Afghanistan, where the 'new government' seems to be nothing more than the old border warlords expanded into the rest of the county, so far as I've heard. Although I haven't heard anything out of Afghanistan in a long time.

Yeah...you got to repay your allies in some way.
Don't forget that the talibans were viewed as freedom fighters not that many years ago.
It's a bit funny that USA doesn't seem to mind all the oppressive assholes in power all over the world until they start being a problem to USA. Then, not before, it is suddenly time to liberate the poor people of those countries...

Pirog wrote:

Well, first question is...what were americans doing to Al Qaeda or anyone they claim to represent? We weren't invading anyone at the time.

Al Qaeda wants Western presence out of the Middle East.
There are more ways to invade than by armed soldiers. The Western way of life is growing stronger in the Middle East and fundamentalist like them hate Western culture.
And it wasn't like the talibans and the Americans were friends before 9/11.

Observe context:

SekoETC wrote:I think in that case the Americans were begging for what happened.

I know (somewhat) why Al Qaeda wanted to attack America. I don't know what America did that anyone not a radical fundamentalist terrorist would have regarded as grounds for military (or military-like) retaliation.

Pirog wrote:

Terrorists prefer to target civilians, for obvious and practical reasons. If you actually think the terrorists are in the right, why do you care who they hit?

The same question can be asked to people who support the war in Iraq.
You can obviously be pro war without wanting civilians killed, so why shouldn't it be able to go the other way around?

Well, technically terorists are civilians...they aren't military personnel, which is the only traditional alternative.
You can be anti-war in iraq, anti-war in afghanistan, maybe (though this one seems deluded) anti-war on terror without wanting anyone to get hurt. But you can't say that America was begging for an attack without saying that killing civilians is justified. Those are what was available to attack.

Pirog wrote:

From what I've heard that might be more accurate in Afghanistan, where the 'new government' seems to be nothing more than the old border warlords expanded into the rest of the county, so far as I've heard. Although I haven't heard anything out of Afghanistan in a long time.

Yeah...you got to repay your allies in some way.
Don't forget that the talibans were viewed as freedom fighters not that many years ago.
It's a bit funny that USA doesn't seem to mind all the oppressive assholes in power all over the world until they start being a problem to USA. Then, not before, it is suddenly time to liberate the poor people of those countries...

Well, actually you don't...the nice thing about being the only serious force in the country is that you can screw any local allies you may have if need be. But they did pretty much just pay the warlords with the country, probably so that Bush could move on with his warpath without the ballast of propping up a new government...

The US use of Human Rights as an excuse for acts of pure self-interest is neither funny nor surprising. What it is is stupid, since it totally discredits the country while fooling no one.

Observe context:

Ah...totally missed that.

I know (somewhat) why Al Qaeda wanted to attack America. I don't know what America did that anyone not a radical fundamentalist terrorist would have regarded as grounds for military (or military-like) retaliation.

That depends how you see it. The cultural imperialism is as real a threat to the ones hating Western culture as armed forces are...but the only way to respond to it for poor and marginalized groups is by using violence. Personally I don't think 9/11 was justified, but I can see how some persons can.
You have a point in that you have to be a fundamentalist to react so strongly, but then again you have to be a fundamentalist to reason like Bush does too...

Well, technically terorists are civilians...they aren't military personnel, which is the only traditional alternative.

I would say that Al Queda functions as military personnel.
Calling them non-combatants just because they doesn't use uniforms is a bit hollow to me...
Where is the line drawn between a soldier and a civilian? I don't think we can meassure these things with Western terms...

Well, actually you don't...the nice thing about being the only serious force in the country is that you can screw any local allies you may have if need be.

I have a problem with calling such Wild West tactics of running into town, shooting up the saloon and then leaving without accomplishing more than killing your enemies serious

Pirog wrote:

I know (somewhat) why Al Qaeda wanted to attack America. I don't know what America did that anyone not a radical fundamentalist terrorist would have regarded as grounds for military (or military-like) retaliation.

That depends how you see it. The cultural imperialism is as real a threat to the ones hating Western culture as armed forces are...but the only way to respond to it for poor and marginalized groups is by using violence. Personally I don't think 9/11 was justified, but I can see how some persons can.
You have a point in that you have to be a fundamentalist to react so strongly, but then again you have to be a fundamentalist to reason like Bush does too...

I hardly think that any part of American culture is as dangerous as tanks, fighter-bombers, and assorted infantry hunting you...but maybe some people have different priorities...
If they want to keep American culture out of their lives, they can do that for themselves. If they want to keep it out of their country, that's up to their government (though I know the US puts on trade pressure if anyone tries to block it...)
Killing people for selling things just doesn't pass by my standards, anyway (and they were really doing that at a lengthy remove...). Killing people for killing people for selling things...that I can agree with.

Too right about Bush, though. I don't know if he bothers to deny it.

Pirog wrote:

Well, technically terorists are civilians...they aren't military personnel, which is the only traditional alternative.

I would say that Al Queda functions as military personnel.
Calling them non-combatants just because they doesn't use uniforms is a bit hollow to me...
Where is the line drawn between a soldier and a civilian? I don't think we can meassure these things with Western terms...

Well, traditionally, and I expect international law is running behind, the world is divided into uniformed, government-owned militaries, which are fair game for attack but receive POW protection, and civilians,who are more or less covered according to local law. Which makes terrorists police business.

Pirog wrote:

Well, actually you don't...the nice thing about being the only serious force in the country is that you can screw any local allies you may have if need be.

I have a problem with calling such Wild West tactics of running into town, shooting up the saloon and then leaving without accomplishing more than killing your enemies serious

Well, actually, if all you want in the town is for your enemies to be dead, that seems like a serious tactic to me. If you claim to have other goals, but only end up killing your enemies, then there's a problem.

But by "only serious force" I meant...you drive into town in an armored car. Everyone else has revolvers. You now have no practical obligation to anyone in the town, since they're in no position to make demands. Not nice, but true.

I hardly think that any part of American culture is as dangerous as tanks, fighter-bombers, and assorted infantry hunting you...but maybe some people have different priorities...

It is if that culture is changing your home into something that will be turned against you.
And I'm not so much talking about selling things as for the actual American lifestyle and their hyper-capitalism.

Well, traditionally, and I expect international law is running behind, the world is divided into uniformed, government-owned militaries, which are fair game for attack but receive POW protection, and civilians,who are more or less covered according to local law. Which makes terrorists police business.

Yes, I know that...after the war in Afghanistan we also got that third category of "non-combatants" who were robbed of all their human rights.
But although I take strongly to following international law this part is very unfair...I doubt that the Afghanistan army would even afford to put all their soldiers into uniform.

Well, actually, if all you want in the town is for your enemies to be dead, that seems like a serious tactic to me. If you claim to have other goals, but only end up killing your enemies, then there's a problem.

But didn't USA officially go in there partly for liberating the people?

But by "only serious force" I meant...you drive into town in an armored car. Everyone else has revolvers. You now have no practical obligation to anyone in the town, since they're in no position to make demands. Not nice, but true.

Ah, I see...well, there you certainly have a point.

Pirog wrote:Al Qaeda wants Western presence out of the Middle East.

They want much much more than that. Getting us out it just the first step. The ultimate goal is the replacement of all secular goverments in the world starting with the middle east to be overthrown and replaced with fundamentalist dictatorships.

Al Qaeda had very little to do with Iraq they are sepearate issues. Bush needs to lose the election.

Er. Um. If your planning on voting for Bush don't go and vote he will win anyway. Yeah. Don't mind me I'm off to vote now. For Bush. Ah. Yeah Right.

Meh wrote:

Pirog wrote:Al Qaeda wants Western presence out of the Middle East.

They want much much more than that. Getting us out it just the first step. The ultimate goal is the replacement of all secular goverments in the world starting with the middle east to be overthrown and replaced with fundamentalist dictatorships.

Exactly, that's their real purpose, but with the focus on Iraq it seems that few if any people actually realize that, people seem to be forgetting that Al Qaeda isn't just in the Middle east, they in about 40 countries all over the world and they're doing the exact same thing in those countries as they are in Iraq.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if we come to find out that certain governments are funding them behind everyone's backs like France, Russia and a couple others were doing behind the UN's back by trading food for oil with Saddam and in doing so broke the very UN sanctions that <i>they helped create</i>, they even had oil fields set aside especially for them. And then people wondered why those countries didn't want to help in Iraq, at least we don't have to wonder anymore, they weren't cowards (maybe), they just didn't want to ruin their little backdoor deal.

the oil for food program wasn't secret.
sanctions have a funny way of starving the people without really impacting the government much. the oil for food program was supposed to help relieve the people without ever involving cash that the iraqi government could use to buy weapons and such. what is saddam hussein going to do with tons and tons of food? obviously a convienent side effect was getting iraqi oil out of the deal. i mean who would want to fully cut off a country with the most valuable natural resource around?
but then arises the question, who gets all this cheap oil? that's where controversy arose.

I never said it was secreat, but it also wasn't completly leggit and I believe it affected those countries decision about Iraq and affected the way the UN handled Iraq (the countries involved were all full time members of the UN).

They want much much more than that. Getting us out it just the first step. The ultimate goal is the replacement of all secular goverments in the world starting with the middle east to be overthrown and replaced with fundamentalist dictatorships.

Sure, but I don't think they would suicide bomb themselves if we pulled out of the Middle East.
Our goal of overthrow all fundamentalist countries and exchange their rule with democracy and Western life style isn't less sinister...it's just a question of perspectives.
They hurl themselves as bombs on us because they are desperate. It is self defence in their eyes.

I never said it was secreat, but it also wasn't completly leggit.

Really?
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/index.html

Okay, I should have said "compelty thought out", but here's the way I see it. Saddam needed food for his country no matter what, but, if he's getting food for the oil then that means that instead of spending whatever money he had for food actually on food, he could instead channel that money into other areas probly resulting in little or no net loss, so therefore anyone dealing with him is helping him further his plans whether they're giving him money or not.

Pirog wrote:

They want much much more than that. Getting us out it just the first step. The ultimate goal is the replacement of all secular goverments in the world starting with the middle east to be overthrown and replaced with fundamentalist dictatorships.

Sure, but I don't think they would suicide bomb themselves if we pulled out of the Middle East.
Our goal of overthrow all fundamentalist countries and exchange their rule with democracy and Western life style isn't less sinister...it's just a question of perspectives.
They hurl themselves as bombs on us because they are desperate. It is self defence in their eyes.

It depends on what you mean by "themselves". I belive there are multiple groups that would hurl bombs at each other.

MSNBC wrote:Barra and other insurgent leaders said the "genuine resistance" is a disciplined force that restricts its attacks to military targets, chiefly U.S. forces. It is motivated, they say, by Iraqi nationalism and humiliation over what it regards as a foreign occupation.

"The others," Barra said, "are Arab Salafis who claim that any Iraqi or Muslim not willing to carry arms is an infidel. They are the crux of our ailment. Most of them are Saudis, Syrians" and North Africans. Salafism is a strain of Islam that seeks to restore the faith to the way it was in the days of the prophet Muhammad, 14 centuries ago.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6229305/

ephiroll wrote:Okay, I should have said "compelty thought out", but here's the way I see it. Saddam needed food for his country no matter what, but, if he's getting food for the oil then that means that instead of spending whatever money he had for food actually on food, he could instead channel that money into other areas probly resulting in little or no net loss, so therefore anyone dealing with him is helping him further his plans whether they're giving him money or not.

See, between the limited Iraqi economy, the other sanctions, and the fact that he can only get foreign currency (no one outside Iraq wanted Iraqi currency) meant that food for oil should have left him with nothing to buy weapons with.

THe shady bit is that some countries or organizations (I can't point fingers, but I'm sure someone can) apparantly used the oil for food program to cover oil-for-cash or possibly oil-for-arms trades.

Anyway, I don't think he would be likely to burn his funds that could be used on weapons, luxuries, etc. to buy food for the people, whatever the circumstances.

What should be and what is are normally two entirely different things. I don't think that that oil for food program accomplished a single thing that it was sopposed to. After all, currency isn't the only way to pay for anything, just because other countries wouldn't take his currency doesn't mean that he couldn't use gold, silver, diamonds or other precious metals and gems to buy what he wanted on the black market or from any country will to take those things as "payment". Plus, those items have the advantage of being almost impossible to trace, metals can be melted down and recast and gems can be recut, making them unrecognizable as the originals.