So, I feel that the continuing military efforts by the UN over Iraq are justified. Saddam and his crew have it so ingrained in their heads that they can get away with whatever they want, from oppressing their own people to invading other lands. He's a very bad boy.

------------------
< http://www.pshosting.com/
>
fast and inexpensive web hosting and domain registration

quote:

---

Originally posted by DjSokol:
The thing is, I think we should stop fucking around with him and just kill him already.

---

The thing is that supposedly his son(s) are fucking insane. They are worried that if they kill him on of his sons will launch every fucking thing they have (convetional, chemical and nuclear) at everyone.

Fuel Air Explosives are almost as good as a nuke. level Baghdad and be done with the fucknuggets.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >

What UN are doing is torture to the Iraqi. They've been living in a constant warzone for many years now. Saddam might be insane, but the people aren't. Why bomb them instead of Saddam? Is it to drive Saddam out? Then your actions are called terrorism...

There's been bombings every other day in Iraq, ever since the Gulf War. If he is pissed at USA I can surely understand. And while knowing that USA is bombing him he sees military aircrafts loaded with weapons is flying around his capital city, I can understand the paranoya he must feel. So offcourse he pointed his antiaircraft at you. Everyone would. But instead of figuring out why (instead of even thinking about why), UN launched an attack. This is NOT good. This is a BAD move from the UN. Because EVERYONE knows that he wouldn't fire at the patrol if the patrol didn't fire at him. That would be stupid. And he isn't that insane. If he started the fire at any time against the USA/UN/Whatever...the world would be at his throat seconds after. And he wouldn't want that to happen.

I'm not justifying his previous actions, but I still believe that he has been tought enough of a lesson not to fuck up again. And shooting at him won't help ANYTHING. He'll just get more pissed at you. And if you keep it up he'll launch everything he's got against you and commit suicide. I think that the recent attack on his defence was dumber than shit. Nothing good could ever come from it. Even the americans that where interviewed by the danish reporters in washington told that it was nothing but a demonstration of power and new politics from George Bush.

And you US-military freaks. You actually have to see that the US can make mistakes from time to time if one can have a reasonable discussion with you. Not like Kuru that bites your head off if you say something bad about USA. And I know a few mistakes the USA have made. But I've never heard an american admit any of them. To give an example of a mistake I can say Hiroshima. And the second bomb was an even larger mistake than the first. You can't ever justify those, so don't go around thinking that USA only does "good stuff". You are just as big pigs in warfare than everyone else.

And again...I'm not on Saddams side, but I still believe that you have to obey human rights if you see yourself fit to judge others by them. And torturing the Iraqi is NOT obeying human rights. No matter if it's Saddam or USA. It's just as bad.

This message has been edited by Kolben on February 20, 2001 at 07:07 AM

quote:

---

simple solution: we kill him, put somebody smart in power (preferably a jew )

---

damn straight!

------------------
A Physics major asks "Why does it work?"
An Engineering major asks "How does it work?"
A Buisness major asks "How much will it cost?"
A Liberal Arts major asks "Do you want fries with that?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
Hmmm...Wolfguard...if someone in the US government did something bad, would that justify nuking USA?

---

if the usa contiuned to be stupid about it, yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
What UN are doing is torture to the Iraqi. They've been living in a constant warzone for many years now. Saddam might be insane, but the people aren't. Why bomb them instead of Saddam? Is it to drive Saddam out? Then your actions are called terrorism...

---

If the people of that country leave that fucknugget in power then they agree with what he does. They have not made a move to remove him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

There's been bombings every other day in Iraq, ever since the Gulf War.

---

Not every day. Only after weeks of warnings that the bombs will be droped unless the shit stops.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

If he is pissed at USA I can surely understand. And while knowing that USA is bombing him he sees military aircrafts loaded with weapons is flying around his capital city, I can understand the paranoya he must feel.

---

Wrong again fucknugget. the planes are there to keep him from bombing the people that are trying to fight against him and the people that want nothing to do with it at all. His own people. people in his country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

So offcourse he pointed his antiaircraft at you. Everyone would. But instead of figuring out why (instead of even thinking about why), UN launched an attack. This is NOT good. This is a BAD move from the UN. Because EVERYONE knows that he wouldn't fire at the patrol if the patrol didn't fire at him. That would be stupid. And he isn't that insane.

---

Wrong again Fucknugget. There has been anti-aircraft fire the entire time. The reason this was done is to keep SAMs from being able to track targets. Missles that can take down our planes where the AA guns failed. To keep safe the people, our people, that are trying to keep others from being bombed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

If he started the fire at any time against the USA/UN/Whatever...the world would be at his throat seconds after. And he wouldn't want that to happen.

---

And the world is not there now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

I'm not justifying his previous actions, but I still believe that he has been tought enough of a lesson not to fuck up again. And shooting at him won't help ANYTHING. He'll just get more pissed at you. And if you keep it up he'll launch everything he's got against you and commit suicide.

---

Now just before you said that he is not that insane. now you say this. Pick one and stick to it. Do you know any of the history of that area? Before kuwait he invaded Iran. The only group of people more nuts than he is. went on for 8 years with no gains at all. This is sane? he INVADED kuwait. a group of people that just wanted to keep their good life with money that came out of the ground they happened to live on. What right did he have. This lesson can end easy for him and his people. Step down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

I think that the recent attack on his defence was dumber than shit. Nothing good could ever come from it. Even the americans that where interviewed by the danish reporters in washington told that it was nothing but a demonstration of power and new politics from George Bush

---

Nothing new here. This has been going on every 2 or 3 months since 92. Its just the same old politics. we just want our pilots to come after every night of protecting his own people from him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

To give an example of a mistake I can say Hiroshima. And the second bomb was an even larger mistake than the first. You can't ever justify those, so don't go around thinking that USA only does "good stuff". You are just as big pigs in warfare than everyone else.

---

Lets see. i drop 2 bombs and end a war with a power that i did nothing to but attacked me anyway. I gave them lots of warning about the cities i was about to vaporise. The war ended a few days later and i did not have to expend any more of my people or totaly distroy his country to do it.

Just how is this a mistake?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

And again...I'm not on Saddams side, but I still believe that you have to obey human rights

---

but he does not? That is what you are basicly saying. If not for the no fly zones he would be bombing the women and children of the people that do not agree with him or just want to stay out of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:

if you see yourself fit to judge others by them. And torturing the Iraqi is NOT obeying human rights. No matter if it's Saddam or USA. It's just as bad.

---

But you see yourself fit to judge the US without having all the facts?
I judge them by there actions. ass soon as the no-fly zones go down he starts bombing his own people. That is what i judge him by. He is still in power, that is what i judge the people by.

Try this. get all your FACTS straight and come back and play.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
Explain that please. I don't know that phrase...

---

Lesser of two evils:

We could have invaded Japan. About 800,000 (EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND!) American troops had been/were being shipped into the Pacific theatre in preparation for the invasion. Even more were on the way.

You think Normandy was bloody? Hitler had to fortify the entire North Atlantic coastline, from France to Norway. We even managed to attack at a point he wasn't expecting. Japan had only to fortify their island. There are few positions that lend themself to defense like an island. The concentration of firepower on both sides would have been unbelievable. If and when their defenses would be breached, the Japanese would have faught to the very last dying man and woman to kill in the invaders. We knew they would; they had done it on every island the Marines had taken before. Cities would have been shelled and levelled, just like in Europe. Millions more would have died, fighting over that floating rock. The Japanese would not have surrendered until they were overrun. This was one choice, one evil.

Or, we could drop The Bomb. Hiroshima was a city of, what, 300,000? Three hundred thousand Japanese dead, instantly, and more from the radiation. An entire city and industrial complex annihilated in a heartbeat. Only a show of such totally overwhelming and undefensible strength would have caused a surrender. But the Japanese high command didn't even believe the reports of Hiroshima. They couldn't. Inferior foreigners could not have done such a thing so easily. So what other choices did we have? Go ahead with the invasion, which at a conservative estimate would result in TEN TIMES as many casualties? Or drop our other bomb, and hope they see reason?

The Nagasaki bomb was the only other one we had built. There wouldn't have been more atomics ready until 4-6 months later. It was a last gamble to force a quick end to the war, and save American lives. Once the atomic cat was out of the bag, it wasn't going back. So Nagasaki went up in flame.

And the Japanese surrendered. No invasion, no gigantic mounds of bodies piled up on the beaches, no shells raining down on Tokyo. The Pacific war ended with the death of less than a million Japanese.

So, there you have it. A million Japanese dead, or millions more dead including Americans. A bad choice, and a worse choice. I, for one, am glad we went with Bad.

This message has been edited by Vigilante on February 20, 2001 at 10:01 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolfguard:
Not every day. Only after weeks of warnings that the bombs will be droped unless the shit stops.

---

This message has been edited by ASCIIMan on February 20, 2001 at 10:09 AM

and we've spent the last nearly 56 years trying to make god damn sure it NEVER happens again. anywhere, by any country. saddam hussein is a dangerous tyrant. he bombs his own people at any chance he gets. he turns chemical and biological weapons on them, and he keeps them from adequate medical care. HE does these things. as long as saddam continues to violate human rights, he has FORFEITED any rights of his own.

case closed.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

I do not believe that anone should be allowed to nuke anyone.

The people in Iraq have no choice. They can't relieve him of the power. The way it usually are with dictatorships.

US HAVE bombed Iraq every other day. Provoked AND non-provoked.

If the patrols were there to help the people fight him, I don't get why no one fights him.

To Saddams defense I can only turn the picture around. If you have the right to keep your people safe, he has the right to keep his people safe. And I don't belive that he fired at this patrol. What would happen if you everyone removed their military from Iraq?

The world is not in Iraq now. Not the way I said. They aren't trying to kill him.

I never said that Saddam wasn't insane. I said that he wasn't that insane that he would jeopardise his and his peoples lives by doing stuff he couldn't even benefit from. Stop trying to twist my words please.

Are americans required to serve? I thought you voulenteered or something. And if you voulenteer, you must be prepared to get shot at in a war. Which is why my people don't have wars.

And it IS new politics to bomb so close to Bagdad. Almost in Bagdad.

About you throwing nukes. You can't see why that is wrong? Damn...this is fucked up. You had a war going on with the Japanese (both of your countries were to blame for that). Then to end the war you kill close to 1.000.000 people with 2 bombs. CIVILIANS! And other than this...up until today or even today they still can't live in those areas, without being exposed to radiation that cripples their babies. You destroyed the lives of MANY people, that didn't even care about the war. If you can't see that is wrong and unjustifiable then I can't talk to you. Then you are worse than Hitler, then you are worse than Saddam.

Reread what I wrote about human rights. You misunderstood!

I am not judging USA. I am judging the actions from both sides, where the latest action IMO was a mistake from USA.

For once Kuru got everything right. I agree with her post, but my main point in this debate is to try to show you that you have to explore your own actions before exploring others. Saddam might be insane, but this doesn't mean that we/you/un has to be insane too. Remember that it is his people that suffers. But there are reasons for his actions. There's always a reason for an action. It might not be a right reason and it might not be a fair reason. But before you can see his reasons, you have to be careful about your own moves. And most of you doesn't even look at his reasons to do something. You don't even try to understand him. And that converts this war to a war of hatred. Instead of a war of power.

No one seems to argue over me make prejudices about USA. Is this because they're true? I'll try again:
That you enjoy war so much puzzles me. It must be because you are feeling powerful. Noone would ever dare to attack USA, because of your military. But if USA played it by the book no one would want to. Your military must be because you know that you piss people off.
That you interfere in every war around I recently found out the reason for. When there's a war there's always money involved. And you somehow suck all that money out of it by selling arms, and keeping the wars going. And if you choose to help one of the sides, they'd be in debt to you forever.

quote:

---

About you throwing nukes. You can't see why that is wrong? Damn...this is fucked up. You had a war going on with the Japanese (both of your countries were to blame for that). Then to end the war you kill close to 1.000.000 people with 2 bombs. CIVILIANS! And other than this...up until today or even today they still can't live in those areas, without being exposed to radiation that cripples their babies. You destroyed the lives of MANY people, that didn't even care about the war. If you can't see that is wrong and unjustifiable then I can't talk to you. Then you are worse than Hitler, then you are worse than Saddam.
[/B]

---

I see that it was bad. I do not see that it was wrong, because it was necessary.

1 million deaths from two bombs is worse than millions of deaths from tens of millions of bullets, rockets, and shells?

"Civilians," is not entirely the correct word to use there, either. Every Japanese man on the island would have taken up gun and sword on the Emperor's order. They were honor and duty bound to do so. This is not the sort of enforced duty like mandatory military service in Denmark. This is the warrior spirit dating back to the samurai of feudal Japan.

You would be hard pressed to have found any Japanese (citizens of Imperial Japan, that is) that protested the war, or didn't believe it was their right to conquer. Many were racist to an extreme. The atrocities the Japanese army committed against the Chinese were easily the equal of any Nazi acts.

Damn, I'm way off on a tangent now. I don't feel like getting back on track at the moment...

Nuclear bombs? It would have been a mistake if they were dropped on Tokyo but they weren't, they were dropped on chief ship building cities. And after the first one went off the only mistake after that was made by Hirohito for thinking that the US wouldn't drop another one.

We're not abusing the people of Iraq, Saddam's doing that. There's a whole bunch of lefty divs that think we should stop the sanctions against Iraq because it's just affecting innocent people and that Saddam's still living rosy. Well, it is just affecting the innocent but if we stopped the sanctions they'd still be in a mess and Saddam would have a lot more money to build up his military.

What we're expecting is for the people of Iraq to rise up and dethrone Saddam but most of them are idiots, they seem to think that the US and Britain really do have the power to stop them from getting medical supplies and food, all we're doing is just not buying or selling with them and making sure that they don't go and attack neighbouring countries.

I'm glad we've gone back to doing something about Saddam's idiocy because it needs sorting out, I don't want to see war but we don't need to lose airmen for the sake of patrolling a no fly zone.
cheesr

we are the ones stepping in to make sure he doesnt start wiping out other countries. The US has a bad rap because we're the best at a lot of stuff. a lot of other countries are jealous cause we get our way most of the time. you should realize that if we wanted to, we could wipe out all of iraq. we could probably do it with no loss of US life too. but we havent. you should realize if we wanted to, we could probably take out saddam and all his top officials overnight. but we havent.my point is, everyone says the US is this horrible country because we stop other nations from having their way, but thats bullshit. you say your neutral. i disagree, from everything youve said, you are anti-US. you say we were wrong to drop the bomb in japan. you say we are wrong to stop saddam from overstepping his boundaries. you (i assume from what you say) think that saddam should be free to threaten anyone he wants. it would be one thing if they were empty threats, but he is very capable of carrying those out, and thats why we're so fast to act. the other reason is that bush thinks "well, my dad bombed saddam, so i can too!" but thats a whole different tangent.

For that matter, paintballs are probably too violent. Maybe we should launch a barrage of harsh language, and hope that does the trick.

And USA is the best at warfare. That's not something I'd be proud of IMO. I am proud of my peoples ability to work together and help eachother out. We're constructive minded, where lots american people are destructive. Many americans are selfcentered, where we in Denmark wish eachother the best. This is not anti USA. This is a personality you're entitled to have, but a personality that gets you trouble.

And if someone has got a weapon, USA believes that they must have an equivalent or bigger weapon. There are many countries like that, so the weapons gets bigger and better all the time. When do people realize that it's a waste of time and resources. Resources that should actually be spent on saving the global environment. In the end you could all have all the weapons you wanted but there wouldn't be anyone left to shoot. I think you've got your priorities wrong. Along with lots of other countries.

The reason why I talked bad about USA is because you think that USA never makes mistakes. No one is perfect. The human is only human, but when a human can't admit a mistake it becomes a twisted individual who thinks it is perfect. And too high thoughts about one self will put other people in misery if they care a bit.

This message has been edited by Kolben on February 20, 2001 at 04:50 PM

NUKE THE FUCKERS TILL THERES NOTHING LEFT BUT LITTLE SINGED MOUSTCHES THAT THEY ALL HAVE....THEN NUKE EM SOME MORE JUS TO MAKE SURE.

whats a little civilian casulty rate here and there

MMMMM...nuclear fission/fusion i lurv it!

Basically, Iraqi air defences were firing SAMS and AA fire at our jets today. Thankfully, after denting their air defense system, they weren't able to hit our pilots. The pilots did not return fire. The UN patrol collects the incidents and returns the favor in a more strategic way, closely matching no-fly zone infractions to strategic hits. Those radar sites last week were not firing at the planes. It was retaliation for earlier incidents, and directed in an effective manor to protect us.

It's a good thing that we took a break from all that bombing of random villages and homes last week to bomb some radar installations instead. I'm just glad our pilots came home.

------------------
Hey DKB shu'p with all that jibba jabber ya crazy foo!

Now, a final word about nukes. The Nazis were working on the exact same thing. Hell, jewish scientists fleeing europe were majoritry contributors to the manhattan project. They had plenty of ex-colleagues remain behind, though. America simply had more resources to pour into R&D.

Even without the atomic demonstration on Japan, Germany would likely not have finished their project before they were overrun by the Russians. Note, however, that those Russians undoubtedly captured the German research on the subject. Even if we had not launched a crash nuclear development program, or simply decided against using The Bomb, the technology existed and would be used. It was inevitable.

I could go on and on about the political climate and twists to MAD in such a hypothetical situation, but shit, I'm tired of talking to a brick wall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
Because EVERYONE knows that he wouldn't fire at the patrol if the patrol didn't fire at him. That would be stupid. And he isn't that insane. If he started the fire at any time against the USA/UN/Whatever...the world would be at his throat seconds after. And he wouldn't want that to happen.

---

Bullshit, he'd fire at us in a second. He has, and will continue to. He even threatned that he will retaliate against us for our bombings of those radar stations.

------------------
< http://www.pshosting.com/
>
fast and inexpensive web hosting and domain registration

The ones who weren't admitting that it was a bad idea were those in the US Administration at the time.

I'm already off-topic enough, and I don't claim to be a history buff when it comes to Vietnam. Wolfguard could probably offer a much better perspective than I could. I do know that in the company of people old enough to have lived through it, one does not assume it will be an easy topic of conversation.

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

One of the doctrines of Communism is to spread throughout the world. Communism was spreading outward from Russia, gobbling half of Europe, and working its way south through China and most of Asia. The idea was that a line had to be drawn in the sand. America needed to prove that it was willing to shed blood and lose its sons to stop Communism.

In a way, it worked. The soviet expansion pretty much ended there, and we got to go into Nuclear Arms race mode, which eventually ended in the late 80's, of course.

In a bigger way, it wasn't cool at all. I can't even imagine having to be over there. I'm old enough that I would now be a vet by now (22). I don't think I could deal with that. If the war hadn't ended in 1975, who knows? My dad graduated high school in 1975... he could have had to go over there.. unimaginable.

It was a horribly managed war, it had no clear objective, no exit strategy, nothing that Colin Powell would approve of. It was just a war of attrition between Russia and the US, fought in somebody elses backyard, and spending the lives of a lot of 'brown' people. It was another one of those lesser of two evil situations. It could have gotten a hell of a lot worse if Communism was all over Asia, Europe, and possibly Africa.

I will agree with you, though. If it wasn't bungled so horribly on an administrative/political level, the Vietnam War might have served a useful purpose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
You had a war going on with the Japanese (both of your countries were to blame for that).

---

um... excuse me? We had no plans to intervene in what was thought of as an Asian war. For that matter, we had no plans to intervene in the European war, either, even though Great Britain- our parent nation- was begging for our aid. We thought remaining neutral, like your country is, was The Right Thing To Do (tm). We also figured no one would be stupid enough to mess with the United States.

Then Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, which made it very clear that they weren't going to stop when they conquered all of Asia - they wanted to take over us, too.

So we stepped in to both wars at once (if Japan wanted us, we could be pretty damn sure Hitler did too), and a few years Germany and Japan were in Allied custody until we could be fairly certain they wouldn't try and take over the world again.

If you enjoy the fact that your nice, peace-loving country isn't under control of the Nazi party, well, it wouldn't have happened if the US (or the UK for that matter) had rolled over and said "hey, we don't want to fight, let's let those nice people that bombed us take over so we can have peace."

The American view is pretty much that peace is worthless without freedom. We don't compromise on such things.

As a US citizen, I'll admit a few mistakes on behalf of my country :

- remaining neutral throught the 1930's. We could have stopped Hitler a lot sooner than we did.

- the Vietnam war. Just about everyone here thinks it was terribly mishandled, and a lot of people think we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Things that weren't mistakes :

- developing nuclear weapons. We developed nukes because we knew the Germans were working on them, and OF COURSE we weren't going to let Hitler have a better bomb then us - you don't really thing we were going to let him win, do you?

- nuking Japan. At the time we had two bombs. A lot of people have said that we could've demo'd the bomb for them in a safe place - on an uninhabited island - but the technology was so new we couldn't be certain that either of them would work. We had to make them count.

- the arms race. The more you look at how the US ran the arms race, the more you realize that we mostly built up our weapons because we knew we could outspend the USSR, and the USSR would ALWAYS try and keep up with us. Eventually they went broke, the people revolted, and the Cold War ended.

Ask the former East Germans if the way we won the Cold War was bad and evil.

If someone could correct me if I am wrong. But, Kolben, the United States did not decide to begin anything or maintain anything with regards to Iraq. If memory serves me correctly, the UN decided to take action against Saddam and asked the US to take charge of said action because of our military strength. If my facts are correct, this would seem to point to the majority of the world backing the actions in Iraq.

Am I wrong here? It has been awhile since all this started, after all.

------------------
damage@detonate.net

"On a long enough timeline the survival rate for anyone drops to zero."
-Narrator 'Fight Club.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
the world hates USA for those things...

---

------------------
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
We're constructive minded, where lots american people are destructive. Many americans are selfcentered, where we in Denmark wish eachother the best. This is not anti USA. This is a personality you're entitled to have, but a personality that gets you trouble.

---

America was colonized with little help from abroad. When it took several months to even make it home for supplies, we sorta evolved into a "self-centered" (independent?) society. Sorry to tread on any toes on that count. Really.

We tried to stay neutral. We really did. This is another example of where we just can't win: we stayed out of WWI until we were faced with a threat (minding our own business), but we still "cost millions of lives by our hesitance."

In WWII, we tried again. But then Japan bombed us, and we declared war on them. Axis then declared on us, and we were in. From what I hear, Hitler didn't want us involved. Again, we managed to be the cause of death to millions of slaughtered Jews.

Now, we're the policemen of the world, whether we like it or not. It isn't ego, it's the fact that you aren't going to do it.

We intervened in the Balkans on account of genocide. And we're trying to keep Saddam from developing weapons of mass destruction. We'd also like to keep him from shooting down our planes. Is that so much to ask?

I thought not.

------------------
Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent.

I didn't ask you why you are "self-centered". I know why. And it's your way of life. And if YOU are happy about it, then it's fine with me.

But imagine the trust we have in each other in other countries. For instance. In the cafeteria on my school there's a cashregister with some money in it. If someone feel like it, he'll take the money and buy some food in the local supermarket. Then he'll fill the fridge in the cafeteria and put price-labels on the food. And when people takes something from the fridge, they'll put some money in the cashregister. This has worked in 20 years now, and there're no plans of ever changing the system. This is just an example of how good people gets along when helping eachother instead of only being selfish. In USA I wouldn't even try to make this work.

I'm not angry at you for being that way. It's your own choice. And I'm not even there, and I'm never going to be. But the war in Bagdad produces refugees. They don't go to USA. They're being scattered all over Europe. Denmark not at least. These people doesn't fit in in Denmark. They steal, they rape women, they sit on they're asses collecting welfare...because they can, because we've got very "gentle" laws and rules. And I'll be damned if we should change our (perfectly awesome) way of life, because someone is bombing a country in the Middle East.

So it's not like the war has no effect on us.

Nazi-demonstrations are not illegal in Denmark. But racism is. Once a former politician was put in jail for saying that black people were monkeys And nazism is an ideology that means that you shouldn't mix different cultures, because there'll always be inacceptance of general rules. That the nazis in Germany wanted Lebensraum had nothing to do with nazism. And the reason they killed jews was because they were screwing up Germany and people got pissed and wanted them all dead. I'm not even trying to justify them. They were wrong from the start, but everything has a reason.

And please stop trying to twist my words and make assumptions about stuff I haven't said.

This message has been edited by Kolben on February 21, 2001 at 02:29 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by LazyGit:
Okay, somebody up there wants to know why we didn't get rid of Saddam during the Gulf War. You'd have to go and ask General Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf that one and then you can join in with the entire British forces in being competely pissed off that the twat called everything off just outside Baghdad.

---

WRONG!

Norman did not stop the war. He was told to get the idiot out of kuwiat and push his forces to a point on a map. Once there he was to check in with the gov for more orders. Norm told the powers that be that if he was not allowed to finish the job he would retire on the spot.

He retired soon after the cease fire.

It was not his idea to stop. He is a grunt at heart. the ideals of a grunt in war? Your enemy is beat when you can stand on his neck.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >

Freedom has ALWAYS come at gun point.

Peace always comes after a fight for freedom.

Freedom has always been taken away at gun point.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
The concept of Vietnam is good for America. The implementation was horrible.

---

Not to make a big discussion of this, but since no one has mentioned it, drafting for that thing was just as horrible as the command over there! At least for all the banging-your-head-against-a-wall bullshit that was vietnam. Wolfguard's right, arms have to be taken up for freedom, but this wasn't about freedom, it was about politics. yeah, yeah, hindsight is 20-20, but as just another american i would feel betrayed if they told me that i had to go half way around the world and risk my life for that crap. but on the other hand, if i was in the army (or any other part of the armed forces) at the time, i'd go without thinking twice about it. i wouldn't like it, and i probably wouldn't want to go, but i'd live with it because that's the position that i put myself into.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy:
Look I see why we got involved in Kosovo, I think that was a good thing to do- it showed compassion (something I think a lot of people in the US dont have) why are we involved in the middle east? OIL, the US cares very little about what happens to the people over there- the US figures we have something to lose if Saddam sticks around or his sons come into power. Its not about the people or the principle its about the fucking profit as always.
Maybe Im wrong.

---

Why we got involved in kuwait? The people of a country who is in the UN asked for help when a little dictator took their country by force with the 4th largest army in the world.

It does not matter who we buy the oil from. It matters that these people wanted their county back. So, we went over there, reduced said army to the second largest in iraq, and returned the country to the owners because the UN decieded it was the right thing.

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
She's gone rabid, boys! I warned you!

---

she is not rabid, she is just trying to make a point.

The point is valid, even if the facts are wrong or not complete

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prometheus:
we sorta evolved into a "self-centered" (independent?) society. Sorry to tread on any toes on that count. Really.

---

Not to mention that American culture is largely evolved from British culture, with a lot of other bits mixed in. You can't really understand American culture without understanding the British.

I've read a couple essays that claim the English words "free" and "freedom" don't translate well into other languages. For example, the closest French words are variations on their word for "liberty," but "freedom" and "liberty" actually have marked differences in English. "Freedom" is an individual concept, i.e. you're free to do what you want, when you want, for whatever reason you want. Freedom is a felt thing, like riding a motorcycle on a summer evening.

"Liberty," on the other hand, has a sense of not being held captive. It has a tinge of politics and government that isn't present in "freedom." The word "freedom" has a lot of anti-government, anti-political, don't-bother-me sentiment attached to it.

It's a subtle, but important difference, especially considering how much American/British culture values freedom. A lot of European countries have laws against racist or pro-Nazi demonstration, whereas most Americans would find it appalling if someone proposed similar legislation here - because we have a profound belief that people should be allowed to speak their mind and do things their own way, even if those things repulse us.

It seems important, because a lot of European countries are really cynical about American intentions. We're not out to "liberate" the world, we're out to make sure the world is a free place where a body can do as he pleases, so long as he don't try to tell no one ELSE what he has to do.

At the moment, doing what you want requires a lot of oil, so we've got to make sure someone like Saddam Hussein doesn't go around being inconsiderate to his neighbors. I mean really, rolling tanks into Kuwait? That's fucked up. A lot of the Arab nations are glad we keep his ass in check - and by the way, the more the Middle East countries come to trust that the US isn't going to stand for them being invaded, the more they can work on getting along with each other. That would be cool.

Even if thats the case that they wanted their country back it still is a big selling point for the US to be there because of the oil- even if thats not the ONLY reason we are there.
I would hate to think my brother in law is putting his ass on the line to defend some oil thats all (even if he is a lousy jerk sometimes). All I know is that bombing the crap out of something does not necessarily make it go away or lead to the outcome you want. My feeling (its a feeling thats all) is that things can often be settled without resorting to violent means whether they be punching, hitting or bombing. I know Im just a stupid girl who is idealistic but whats the use of living if you dont have ideals or goals?
This is why I think Marx was right about communism. None of this shit would happen if we were all on the same footing- captialism breeds distruction and competition. We should foster a world where people are treated equally no matter what their talents or resources are....but thats just the way I feel about things. Feel free to flame

------------------
"I ated the purple berries...they tasted like burning"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy:
WG- flame me and then stick up for me - interesting - thanks thou

and

This is why I think Marx was right about communism. None of this shit would happen if we were all on the same footing- captialism breeds distruction and competition. We should foster a world where people are treated equally no matter what their talents or resources are....but thats just the way I feel about things. Feel free to flame

---

You had a good point. it was not a flame. just giving you more facts.
If im going to flame someone sooner or later in the flame im going to call them a fucknugget

and

You are very right about marx, but it goes against basic human nature. The fact is we cant just get along. sooner or later a fight will start...

------------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.< TeamWolfguard.com >

This message has been edited by Wolfguard on February 21, 2001 at 01:23 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
I know what freedom and free means.And we HAVE equivalent words all over most of Europe:
Denmark: Frihed
Sweden/Norway: Frihet
England: Freedom
Germany: Freiheit
Holland: Freihet
...and so on.

---

Old English (Anglo-Saxon) : Freodom. English has Germanic roots, just like all the other languages you quoted

Now that I think about it, the article I was referencing may have been specifically talking about French, and others derived from Latin roots. That's what happens when you go from memory instead of double checking your references. My bad. Sorry.

But the point is, American/English culture places a lot of emphasis on a concept of "freedom" as an individual concept, and we make a distinction between freedom from certain bad things (what we call "liberty"), whereas the Am/UK emphasis is on freedom to do things.

Is there a word for "liberty" in Danish / German / etc.? I'm not trying to say other cultures our inferior, or anything like that. I'm just curious, because the concept of individual freedom is the major narrative in American/British culture.

Have you seen American Beauty? What Kevin Spacey experiences in that movie is a very good example of what we call "freedom." It's also a very good critique of American culture in general.

If you know what I'm talking about, we have a common frame of reference.

It's neat that you guys can trust each other so much. While there are parts of the US where things are like that, most of it is not. However nice that would be for us, though, we believe that the rights of individuals are primary, and social / political rights are secondary.

That's why being racist is legal in this country. We feel the right of the individual to be himself and say what he thinks is fundamental, even if the vast majority of people disagree with him. He can walk around and call black people "niggers" and tell them he misses the slave days and not get arrested. But if he crosses the line and starts threatening people, or beating them up, he'll get thrown in jail because he is not trampling on someone ELSE'S right to be an individual.

I guess it is self-centered, but it's self-centered in a good way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy:
We should foster a world where people are treated equally no matter what their talents or resources are....but thats just the way I feel about things. Feel free to flame

---

no. We should try to make resource distribution more equitable, but we should not treat everyone equally regardless of talent.

I'll use myself as an example. I have spent countless hours learning about computers, so obviously I know a lot about them. Don't you think I should be rewarded for my effort, and treated better than a someone who has done nothing but watch TV all his life?

Should we force people like me to stop learning, so everyone will be more or less equal in their talents? Should we hold a gun to Mr. Lazy's head and make him work? That's more or less how you make Communism work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kolben:
They don't go to USA...
In USA I wouldn't even try ...

---

------------------
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
can we get back to nukin sadam!!!!

---

can we get back to nukin sadam!!!!

------------------
Hey DKB shu'p with all that jibba jabber ya crazy foo!

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

And about freedom and liberty.
We've only got the word 'Frihed', which covers both of your words depending on the situation. Actually I think that liberty originates from France, meaning freedom. Then you took it and made the meaning of it a bit more nuanced. But there are english words that can't be translated to danish, but we usually catch the meaning anyway. Like the 2 famous danish words 'hygge' and 'smørrebrød' doesn't tranlate to english, for instance.

This message has been edited by Kolben on February 22, 2001 at 06:39 AM

all : <guilt trip> okay, it's like 10 Americans against one lone Danish guy. That is not cool. I'd hate Americans too if I were him. Jeez.</guilt trip>

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

Getting back to the oil discussion, the US get's very little of it's oil supply from Kuwait. Europe, however, gets approximately 70\% or more of it's oil from Kuwait. That would give the potential for a madman to have control of ALL of Europe. That's more of Europe than Hitler conquered. That's alone makes me feel as though our actions there are more "preventative."

Also, just a tidbit of useless information! Hitler died in a ditch, covered in petrol on fire. THAT'S FUN!!!

------------------
damage@detonate.net

"On a long enough timeline the survival rate for anyone drops to zero."
-Narrator 'Fight Club.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
i bet it would work...

---

Until the civilisation found itself without enough resources to feed everyone, and without internal competition, everyone is brought down to the same level of poverty, then there is a revolt, and it would turn capitalist again.

Don't get me wrong, communism sounds nice on the face of it but I feel it relies upon the assumption that there will never be any lack of resources, and there will always be enough to feed, clothe, and house everyone. Seems like a pretty naive view to me..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy:
The truth is that who you think you are is not attributed to your "nature" but rather your "nurture" ie the environment in which you live. Competition on the scale that we are discussing is not part of human existence in the sense that it is natural

---

um, no. There is an enormous body of evidence showing that nature (your genes) has an awful lot to do with your personality. And it makes an awful lot of sense - as a very simple example, some children are naturally more energetic than others, even within the same family.

And competition among humans IS natural. "Primitive" tribes with little or no contact with the outside world have plenty of competitive spirit, as shown in their legends, ceremonies, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Observer:
One final note on Communism:
< Read this thread first! >

---

Chrissy, did you just choose to ignore the link I posted? That link goes to the "Governments" thread where you and many other people argued back and forth (shouldn't it be forth and back?) about Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and a lot of other forms.

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

------------------
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

i like living in a system in which individual freedom means everything and people aren't supposed to be classless drones like worker bees, all exactly the same and nobody better than any body else.

in communism, everybody has to do what's best for the 'collective' regardless of whether or not they really WANT to. so screw communism, and give me freedom. that itty bitty personal choice to do the thing i LIKE instead of the thing that benefits society the most.

it's absoultely asinine to start talkin about how communism is 'ideal'... communism totally ignores the ONE thing that is most important. individual freedom.

as far as nature vs nurture, separated twin studies (those studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised with no knowledge of each other) VERY strongly indicates that nature is the foremost determiner of human behavior, and that enviornment really has little to do with it.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

This message has been edited by kuru on February 22, 2001 at 11:28 PM

As for communism- It isnt going to happen any time in this century- we wont be alive to see it. The first thing that has to change is the way we teach our children to deal with the world. People are not "naturally" competitive, not to the extent you think they are. Heres an example from the animal world (since i know thats where this thread is going next) Squirrles do not find their food, hid it and wait for a scarcity of food then sell it to the highest bidder- do they? However in a capitalitic world we do just that...everyday we compete for "limited" resources- but how limited are they really? There is enough food, water, shelter etc for everyone its just that people dont want to take the time to redistribute the resources because it would mean that THEY personally would have less.

The distribution of wealth in post industrialized nations like the US, Australia, Canada and most of Europe is outrageous- our Gini scores are like .25 thats so low- 1 would be completely eagalitarian socitey. In other words the poorest people in this country (first world countries) are even more poor than in most THIRD WORLD NATIONS- Tell me something Bill Gates has billions of dollars- at what point do you no longer need to amass wealth? At what point do you start looking at your fellow man and say "Im have and he's a have-not" and stop caring? Maybe Communism isnt the way to go- perhaps it does limit individuality and has some other fundamental problems but there are other choices other than capitalism. Thats all Im saying

------------------
"I ated the purple berries...they tasted like burning"

1.Practicalist - We just go around, individually, fending for ourselves, doing whatever we need to do to survive.

2. The communist extreme, where absolutely everyone is like one big team, taking a "fair" share of the teams workload and resources.

I won't lie, I'm not neutral, I'd rather go to exteme 1 than extreme 2. The thing is that neither extreme is really best for us. As a species, we are phenomenal in our ability to team up in complex ways to achieve goals, but the other exteme ignores that the need to scale back gracefully if the production of the entire society is less than it's entire requirement.

In reality, we are, (and the ideal situation is) somewhere in the middle. We can team up, but not everyone works together, we work for our own living, but we have benefits for if we fail, and certain core elements (healthcare etc) are provided.

I think we're too far to the communist side of things at the moment - I think given some of the environmental difficulties the massive worlds populace is causing, an increase in the importance of economically justifying yourself should occur. I think there should be no benefits, as such, for when you're out of work or disabled, because you being out of work, or disabled, does not in any way improve anyone elses situation..

We need to be a bit more practicalist than we are now, I think. The trick will be to go in that direction without going too far.

This message has been edited by DuSTman on February 23, 2001 at 07:01 AM