Topic: "War" in afghanistan right thing to do or not.
started by: ic0n0
Posted by ic0n0 on Jan. 05 2002,00:50
I am trying to get a feel for how people feel about the war, i have been watching the news and reading some 3rd party sources and i am not totaly convinced this was the right thing to do, but i do think we needed to do something. But i do think going into afgahnistan to help the opressed people there was a good act.
Posted by veistran on Jan. 05 2002,03:42
my opinon is not represented by the options, I'm of the opinion that the attention the gov is giving to the Afgahni's plight is good, but that it took as long as it did to get the gov's attention is bad. I'm further split on the war, it's good in that somethign had to be done, and they've been very restrained about it. However, I'm not wholly convinced it's targetting the best targets, yet at least.
Posted by Spydir on Jan. 05 2002,04:41
have you heard about these flyers they're dropping over there? They show "americanized" osama pictures and crap. It pisses me off that they're that fucking stupid. The people who came up with the idea, that is. Fucking idjuts
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 05 2002,05:22
are you talking about propaganda flyers? they worked great during desert storm. More iraqi conscripts surrendered then were killed. According to Sun Tzu, that is the ultimate achievement 
as for the war in general, how could it have been considered a bad idea in retrospect in any possible way? we should have gone in there in '93, this whole mess could have been averted.
I think our next target will be iraq. Saddam has too much power for his agenda. If his regime is not taken out, it is only a matter of time before we get nuked.
Posted by veistran on Jan. 05 2002,07:43
I love < STRATFOR >.
Posted by rachmoninov on Jan. 05 2002,07:45
I dont believe this war is for the better. Some dude (wow im technical) said a quote about WWII which I think this describes this war, the quote being (in not exact words), "that this war sets us back to the crusades". I think thats exactly whats happenin. Even though its not over the same thing i.e. holy land, but it has the same prinicpal i.e. defending our culture and trying to put it as the greatest on on this earth by force.
Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Jan. 05 2002,14:54
shouldnt you be a bit more worried about the two nuclear powers of pakistan and india being ready to blow each other to kingdom come! the taliban is pretty much finished and osama is under more of a manhunt than a war. only one americans been killed so its hardly a big problem now
Posted by Spydir on Jan. 05 2002,19:36
leave it to DKB to finally get the damned point across
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 06 2002,00:33
rachmoninov you dumbass
Posted by Non on Jan. 06 2002,01:10
I am curious where you got that quote rachmoninov... not to put you on the spot if you just made it up, but I was wondering who said that and in what context...And since our western culture is far superior to the afghans < "goat polo" > playing, apathetic, almost primative "culture", it should be forced upon them.
Posted by Wolfen on Jan. 06 2002,01:12
Again...!This is the second poll I have ONLY LOOKED AT! Why does it state that I have already voted?
Posted by Non on Jan. 06 2002,01:18
By "ONLY LOOKED AT!" do you mean you clicked the "View results, Null Vote" button? because that will register as a "null vote" so you are not influenced by other opinions...
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Jan. 06 2002,01:38
| Quote |
| rachmoninov you dumbass |
That's why I love you, Catknight. No brakes to ad-hom city.
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 06 2002,04:49
whiskey you know I don't normally flame people outright. I actually had a good argument typed up in response. But then I re-read his post, re-read mine, looked back at his, slapped my head and posted that. Hopefully he wasn't being serious or he didn't mean to put a lot of thought into that because otherwise it sounds really ignorant. This stuff has been covered TONS since september 11th.
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 06 2002,04:55
| Quote (rachmoninov @ Jan. 05 2002,02:45) |
| I dont believe this war is for the better.[1] Some dude (wow im technical) said a quote about WWII which I think this describes this war, the quote being (in not exact words), "that this war sets us back to the crusades".[2] I think thats exactly whats happenin. Even though its not over the same thing i.e. holy land, but it has the same prinicpal i.e. defending our culture and trying to put it as the greatest on on this earth by force.[3] |
just for you whiskey.
[1] All wars are for the better. For the better of whom is the question you have to ask. WWII was for the better of the entire world, especially the jews. The crusades were better for europeans, who didn't want to be conquered by the ottomans. This war, is better for EVERYONE except the Taliban. If you still have sympathy for the Taliban, re-read my previous post.
[2] This war set no one back to the crusades. This war brought forward the people of afghanistan FROM the crusades. If you are going to argue for fact, you can't argue from opinion.
[3] We are only enforcing our culture to the extent that basic civil rights and democratic governments are better then facist, murderous, corrupt regimes.
Posted by Spydir on Jan. 06 2002,05:35
... I'm saying the same damned thing I said right after this whole bullshit thing started (9/11): We should just stay the fuck out of other people's business.You know that annoying guy who you work with? The one that's always trying to help you out, by grabbing you some paper when you're printers almost out, or picking up lunch for everyone, and refilling your fountain pen, and stuff? It seems nice at first, but then he just keeps doing it, and he goes a little bit more and more. Like picking up your kids from school, even though you never mentioned what school they go to, which tells you he did a little research on his own?... Yeah, that's America. We need to get the fuck out of everyone else's business.
Now, i've refrained from doing this for a long time, CK, but right now I feel I have to say it... REPUBLICAN!
Oh, I feel better now...
Posted by Hellraiser on Jan. 06 2002,06:07
Isn't he a she?
Posted by Spydir on Jan. 06 2002,06:49
sure, why the hell not?
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Jan. 06 2002,08:20
| Quote |
| ... I'm saying the same damned thing I said right after this whole bullshit thing started (9/11): We should just stay the fuck out of other people's business. |
I think the whole 'state-sponored terrorism' thing kind of made it our business. Well, it's either that or the fact that those who attacked us reside in Afghanistan.
You have a point, though. If we had never gotten involved in the mideast to begin with (namely taking sides in Israel v Palestine), 9/11 would have never happened. I'm not saying the side we take is for better or worse...I'm just saying it's the direct cause of all this mess. Whether inevitable or not.
Posted by kornalldaway on Jan. 06 2002,15:19
| Quote (CatKnight @ Jan. 05 2002,00:22) |
| as for the war in general, how could it have been considered a bad idea in retrospect in any possible way? we should have gone in there in '93, this whole mess could have been averted. |
US shouldn't have trained those terrorist and given them weapons and funds when russian was fighting their war with afganistan. but they did, and what do you know, now they are eating their own shit.
of course i am nto saying that anybody deserved what happened on september 11, but all the top terrorists have been all trained by US special forces, they have been given weapons and money by the US government no too long ago. and now US can't even find OBL. well that's no surprise, he and some of his men have the kind of training that almost nobody else in US millitary does.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jan. 06 2002,19:24
Most of the industrialized world has some form of a democratic government, and of course we feel our government type is better that is just a natural feeling people have toward things in their own culture. But I certainly don't think forcing a democratic system on other cultures not ready for it works to well. We have tried that before in many cases and have faild. For democracy to work you need to have a more open culture and as close to a free market economy as possible. For democracy to work you also need an informed populace and a large middle class with wealth so that they have something to lose, so they would be Compelled to vote for canidates that were rational. So what I am saying is that Afghanistan is not ready for democracy and won't be for a long time. I am not saying the people in Afghanistan are not worthy of democracy rather I am saying until their situation radically changes democracy will fail. It is also somewhat arrogant to assume that everyone in Afghanistan wants democracy, most people I believe would be satisfied with law and order. (That is why the tailban was so successful) To "force" a western style democracy on them would be wrong, that would just be another example of cultural imperialism.
Posted by Spydir on Jan. 06 2002,21:09
whiskey@throttle: You got half of what I was thinking. If we never got involved in the beginning, it wouldn't have happened. I also feel that if people make us get involved (like if sept. 11 happened for no reason what so ever) then we absolutely need to go kick some ass. It's my philosphy on life: You don't do shit to me, I won't do shit to you. You fuck with me, I fuck with you.Now, I don't always hold true to this, but it's just a stupid thing I came up with one day. There are situations that the American gov't (and people, if you want to go there) didn't get involved when we should have. WWII, for example. We waited until people dropped bombs on us. We should have started kicking stupid-hair-cuts-and-goofy-mustaches ass long before that. I feel we should step in as a mediator though, not guntoating-"go ahead and fuck around"-rat-tat-tat-yo america the world has come to hate. We should have jumped into the whole Iraq thing years ago and just said "Hey fucknuggets. You need to calm the hell down, put those bombs away, and learn to deal with life. pricks" and stepped right back out.
Now, for this whole taliban thing... ("What? Is there some sort of... towely-ban?") We should take a little bit of word in the whole thing, but DKB is right. The whole thing's over with. We need to go ahead and get out of there. And that's the final word, dammit!
There, that's my long post for the day. Woo-hoo, I think I actually made some level of sense for once.
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 07 2002,05:39
| Quote |
| namely taking sides in Israel v Palestine |
wtf?
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Jan. 07 2002,06:01
yup
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 07 2002,17:52
| Quote (whiskey@throttle @ Jan. 07 2002,01:01) |
| yup |
wtf?
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Jan. 07 2002,18:53
Still confused?See, David, there's this thing called the news. You read it, or watch it, and it gives you information. Sometimes, they even post transcripts of what people say. Check it out:
| Quote |
| from < http://www.thedailycamera.com/news/terror/nov01/04abin.html > Al-Jazeera news coordinator Ali al-Kaabi, in Qatar, said the tape was made in the past week, but he did not know exactly when. If that is the case it would be the first bin Laden tape that was recorded after the U.S. air strikes began Oct. 7. Bin Laden's statement appeared to be aimed at Arab leaders who have called for international efforts to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Bin Laden made only brief references to Afghanistan in the 20-minute videotape, and asked: "Who was responsible for the partition of Palestine in 1947?" On Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly approved the partition of Palestine, which allowed the creation of the state of Israel. "Today, without any evidence, the United Nations issues decisions supporting the oppressive, tyrannical and arrogant America against those oppressed who have emerged from a ferocious war at the hands of the Soviet Union," he said, referring to the Afghan struggle against the Soviet occupation of 1979-89. "The whole West is supporting this unjust, ferocious campaign" against Afghanistan, bin Laden said. "No evidence proves that what happened in America (is related to) the people of Afghanistan, and the people of Afghanistan have nothing to do with this, but the campaign is going on, exterminating civilians including children, women and innocents." |
I think that speaks for itself, no?
OBL has said numerous other things about Israel and the US in the past as well. In fact, so has every other Arab terror group out there. That seems to be their MO. "Get the US out of our land / topple the pocketbook of our biggest enemy," they always say. It's not exactly a mystery.
p.s. - be sure to reply with another, "wtf," as to secure your place in the halls of impeccable wit
Posted by Spydir on Jan. 07 2002,19:52
see, that's why I love this board... that last line, woo, pure detnet right there
Posted by ic0n0 on Jan. 07 2002,20:44
Originally what was Palestine was to be split between a Jewish state and an Arab state according to the UN. But the British who controlled Palestine at the time left early and left a power vacuum and the militant Zionists took over. The UN did not create Israel the Jewish people created Israel with American support. Right or wrong that is how it happened. Soon after Israel was created all it’s enemies (5 or 6 nations) invaded and the newly created state of Israel and the Israelis managed to fight them all of once again with American support (not to diminish the effort of the Jewish people but American support was key). So the goal of two states was never realized. So really this isn’t the fault of the Jews or the Palestinians it’s the British.Note: this is an oversimplification so don’t attack me for not being specific or not being historically accurate.
Posted by Non on Jan. 07 2002,21:06
Yeah the "Six-Day War". Isreal laid down some serious ownage.< A HISTORY OF THE ISRAELI - PALESTINIAN CONFLICT >
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Jan. 07 2002,21:10
Wow...that's a really cool and well-organized site.Thanks for the link, Non.
Posted by uncreative on Jan. 07 2002,21:21
hmm what's that quote?"The best way to win a nuclear war is not to play"
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 08 2002,03:08
WTF YOU FOOL! Do you realize you are using UBL's statements, as well as the statements of other TERRORIST organizations, to help support your so-called argument? Don't you see anything even remotely wrong with this? You are taking extremely biased and outright factual LIES to support your argument, while completely ignoring and pushing away the TRUTH. Well Whiskey, here is the TRUTH.In 1947, the british left the area palestine. Israel and the arabs living in the area were to split the land and create two states. As soon as the british left, every single arab nation in the area (egypt, jordan, syria, etc), gang banged the newly created state of Israel. The Israelis, even though most of the people there were death camp refugees, against tremendous odds, won the war. In subsequent wars after, Israel won again and again. Israel acquired the gaza strip and the west bank area during wars which the arabs initiated.
| Quote |
| Bin Laden's statement appeared to be aimed at Arab leaders who have called for international efforts to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. |
What he means is, end the conflict by eradicating all jews. The Israeli's, many times, offered peace and everything the palestinians wanted, which arafat rejected. THE ONLY THING PREVENTING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE THE ARABS WHO CONTINUE THE VIOLENCE.
| Quote |
| Bin Laden made only brief references to Afghanistan in the 20-minute videotape, and asked: "Who was responsible for the partition of Palestine in 1947?" |
The British. If you want to go even further back, it was the Jordanians who had control over that land for many many years. During that time, the "palestinians" never asked for ther own state, nor sent suicide bombers to Jordan.
| Quote |
| "Today, without any evidence, the United Nations issues decisions supporting the oppressive, tyrannical and arrogant America against those oppressed who have emerged from a ferocious war at the hands of the Soviet Union," he said, referring to the Afghan struggle against the Soviet occupation of 1979-89. |
tyrannical oppressive americans? as opposed to the democratic, peaceful taliban?
| Quote |
| exterminating civilians including children, women and innocents. |
we have done no such thing. it is infact the arabs who eradicate women and christians.
ic0n0 -- no militant zionists took over israel. they set up a parliamentary democracy. otherwise your post is close to accurate.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jan. 08 2002,04:57
Ck they were militant and Zionist.Main Entry: mil·i·tant
Pronunciation: -t&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : FIGHTING
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : COMBATIVE <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>
They were armed and were willing to use force so therefore they were militant. They had to fill the power vacuum left by the British (to secure law and order) and were compelled to use the weapons they had to do so. But the thing that is over looked is that the majority of the population of Palestine was Arab before the first war and most of them felt Threatened by people they considered there enemies and left the land (Many forced) that they had been living on for hundreds of years. One again I am not anti-Jewish but the Palestinians need to be compensated for the loss of property at the very least. The German and Austrian governments compensated the Jewish people in Europe after the war for forced labor and loss of property why shouldn’t the Palestinians be given the same right?
Zi·on·ism (z-nzm)
n.
A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.
The Jewish people in Palestine were certainly Zionist not even you CK would deny that, it wouldn't make sense for a person to be fighting for a Jewish state not to be a Zionist that would be contradictory.
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 08 2002,05:57
when did I say they weren't zionist? they were only militist in that they established an army to defend themselves and were engaged in wars. by that definition, all nations would be militant, making the label pointless.
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Jan. 08 2002,06:16
What the...What the hell is going on here?!
…
Scotty?
I’m thinkin’ she’s a-gonna blow, Captain! She can’t take much more of this!
Spock! Say something!
This is highly irrational. It defies even the reaches of the Vulcan mind.
It’s obvious the situation is intense.
Yes, but I was talking about him, Captain.
Interesting, Spock. Analysis?
Aye, Captain. I’ll put his post under the scanner.
| Quote |
| WTF YOU FOOL! Do you realize you are using UBL's statements, as well as the statements of other TERRORIST organizations, to help support your so-called argument? |
He goes astray from the start, Captain. And then there’s this:
| Quote |
| Don't you see anything even remotely wrong with this? You are taking extremely biased and outright factual LIES to support your argument, while completely ignoring and pushing away the TRUTH. |
???
Ha! I love it when he says:
| Quote |
| You are taking extremely biased and outright factual LIES to support your argument, while...pushing away the TRUTH. |
He’s, “pushing away the truth.” It’s very emotional.
And a powerful zinger into the heart of his retort:
| Quote |
| Well Whiskey, here is the TRUTH. |
Bam! Slam it down, muthaphucka!
Then follows the so-called 'content' of CK’s post. Look at this -- after Whiskey quotes a FUCKING NEWS ARTICLE HE READ, he posts some support to an earlier argument. It is then that CK attacks, in a fashion best compared to that of an explosive, touchy penis in the grasp of moist vagina.
Yes Spock, I know it well.
| Quote |
| from OBL's own mouth, as transcibed in the news article Whiskey posted "Today, without any evidence, the United Nations issues decisions supporting the oppressive, tyrannical and arrogant America against those oppressed who have emerged from a ferocious war at the hands of the Soviet Union," he said, referring to the Afghan struggle against the Soviet occupation of 1979-89. |
To which Catknight replies,
| Quote |
| tyrannical oppressive americans? as opposed to the democratic, peaceful taliban? |
This is funny, seeing how WHISKEY SPECIFICALLY SAID HE DIDN’T HAVE A FUCKING OPINION ON THE MATTER, but simply WANTED TO POINT OUT WHAT OSAMA HIMSELF SAYS HIS FUCKING MOTIVES ARE.
Jesus Christ, Spock! Slow down a wee bit!! You’ll bust a gasket!!
Yes Spock…calm…down. None of it makes sense. Whiskey was merely posting a fact that, a) he read in multiple news sources, and b) heard straight out of Osama’s own mouth. For some reason this Catknight character thinks that since Whiskey reiterated Osama's motives in his post, he somehow supports the Taliban!! In reality, Whiskey was just proving his argument (i,e - Osama is pissed at the US mainly because of America's role in the Israel v Palestine conflict).
Hahahahahahaha.
Moral of the story: READ > COMPREHEND > POST.
not,
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Jan. 08 2002,06:22
Lemme take a quick sec and repost what I originally wrote:| Quote |
| You have a point, though. If we had never gotten involved in the mideast to begin with (namely taking sides in Israel v Palestine), 9/11 would have never happened. I'm not saying the side we take is for better or worse...I'm just saying it's the direct cause of all this mess. Whether inevitable or not. |
Note the bold. I added it for effect. Why? Because that's the part where I say I am neither supporting nor denoucing the US's involvment with Israel. However, I am stating merely that I think (with pretty solid evidence to support me) that 9/11 is a direct result of other people's opinions of our involvement and aid to Israel (other people = the terrorists).
Capeche?
Posted by ic0n0 on Jan. 08 2002,06:32
Right on Whiskey! CK what I am saying is that by the definition of the word militant the people who setup the government of Israel were militant, they used weapons! That doesn't make the word nil that is just an example of militant behavior since there was no legitimate government in the area one would have to use force to get ones way and force in this case would involve fighting and military action therefore they were militant. Once again that doesn't make the word meaningless because it is perfect example of the god damn word, why isn't that clear! 
take that and shove it up your ass.
Posted by Non on Jan. 08 2002,08:54
| Quote |
| BY Spock This is funny |
ic0n0 -- we all know how a dictionary works, I however chose not to use one.
| Quote |
| no militant zionists took over israel. they set up a parliamentary democracy. |
w00t! to Whiskey@throttle for the entertaining post.
Posted by CatKnight on Jan. 08 2002,17:39
er...
take us out of here, number one.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jan. 08 2002,18:52
I'm busy!
nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e' !
Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Jan. 08 2002,19:03
or what you'll ravish me?
i might
Posted by Spydir on Jan. 08 2002,20:16
crack = bad. mmmkay?
Posted by whiskey@throttle on Jan. 08 2002,20:49
| Quote (Dark Knight Bob @ Jan. 08 2002,11:03) |
| or what you'll ravish me? i might |
If not you, then mEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Posted by ic0n0 on Jan. 13 2002,10:35
m00
Posted by Spydir on Jan. 14 2002,01:40
I poop on your head!
Posted by editor on Jan. 14 2002,07:45
Lesse; how about we end the Palestine/Israel conflict for good (make Jerusalem an international city?), fish out the terrorists in the area, without threatening state sovereignity, and bug out for home...any takers?