If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Arif Khokar wrote: >> If they were *that* dissatisfied with the status quo, they >>would have eventually overthrown him (which would not have resulted in >>the destruction of vital infrastructure as the bombing did). > They tried. With ill-advised outside encouragement. The sentiment should build up from the inside. When the time is right, the revolt will succeed. > Mass murder was the result. Bush the elder did not support > the revolt by keeping SH's military out of the air. The revolt was > crushed. Which is a consequence of our government attempting to affect change without knowing the real situation on the ground. Allowing reforms to take place at their own pace is much safer and less destructive than revolts and war. >>Some would say that that would have not been possible for a long time, >>but one need not look very far to see how easily governments without >>support are overthrown. The Shah of Iran, the King of Iraq, the King of >>Afghanistan, the King of Libya, etc. > Which is why a dictator or monarch has to make sure to line the right > pockets and enough of them. Keep people affraid. Kill anyone who could > take power. Even the most tyrranical leaders don't last forever. Change does not take place instantaneously, but it doesn't take an infiniite amount of time either. > Also control information and image. That occurs to a great extent in this country as well. [Haiti Politics, Aristide, and US intervention] > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n08/farm01_.html > > The author doesn't really support any of it well, but I am not familiar > with it enough to dispute it. I wonder why anyone in the US government > would give a you know what either way. It would seem that the government only wants leaders who won't stand up to them. Whether that leader is democratically elected, or a dictator is not relevant it appears. >>>>Regardless, that doesn't mean we had any >>>>obligation or interest to overthrow a government and destroy >>>>infrastructure (which is taking this side of forever to rebuild) just >>>>because of a figment of our government's imagination. >>>I cannot determine where this inserted arguement is coming in from. >>>The effective-one-party system in the USA has been for getting rid of SH >>>since about 1997. >>Note that I did not refer to either party in my statement. > I know. I also stated I don't know where this is coming from. It's just an example of government intervention breeding more terrorism. >>The WMD was a figment of the government's imagination since they used >>the "common knowledge" argument without any hard evidence. > My personal favorite is the alien technology reason . But seriously, > it's probably something more involved than we will know for at least > decades. It may be a simple as establishing a large sphere of influence in the middle east and beyond. If they went through with overthrowing the Syrian and Iranian governments, and establishing friendly governments, our country will have a lot of influence from Israel all the way to Afghanistan. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Brent P wrote: >> In article >, Arif Khokar wrote: > >>> If they were *that* dissatisfied with the status quo, they >>>would have eventually overthrown him (which would not have resulted in >>>the destruction of vital infrastructure as the bombing did). > >> They tried. > > With ill-advised outside encouragement. The sentiment should build up > from the inside. When the time is right, the revolt will succeed. It just might take decades. >> Mass murder was the result. Bush the elder did not support >> the revolt by keeping SH's military out of the air. The revolt was >> crushed. > Which is a consequence of our government attempting to affect change > without knowing the real situation on the ground. Allowing reforms to > take place at their own pace is much safer and less destructive than > revolts and war. Once the decision was made to get SH out of kuwait, there was no turning back. This was going to go on until SH was taken out. It should have been done sooner than later. Supporting internal forces would have accomplished that. I was of the opinion that not finishing it was a bad thing in gulf war 1, I believe it now. >> Which is why a dictator or monarch has to make sure to line the right >> pockets and enough of them. Keep people affraid. Kill anyone who could >> take power. > Even the most tyrranical leaders don't last forever. Change does not > take place instantaneously, but it doesn't take an infiniite amount of > time either. Sometimes they are just replaced by other tyrranical leaders. It may take centuries. >> Also control information and image. > That occurs to a great extent in this country as well. Of course. The US is heading towards tyranny. > It would seem that the government only wants leaders who won't stand up > to them. Whether that leader is democratically elected, or a dictator > is not relevant it appears. Same mentalty here at home. It doesn't matter so long as the person in the suit does what he is supposed to. Look at the political process, ever notice how selective the enforcement is? Right now I am wonder who King Daley ****ed off. >>>The WMD was a figment of the government's imagination since they used >>>the "common knowledge" argument without any hard evidence. >> My personal favorite is the alien technology reason . But seriously, >> it's probably something more involved than we will know for at least >> decades. > It may be a simple as establishing a large sphere of influence in the > middle east and beyond. If they went through with overthrowing the > Syrian and Iranian governments, and establishing friendly governments, > our country will have a lot of influence from Israel all the way to > Afghanistan. Could be. Lot's of could bes. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote: >Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> You assume the people had that choice. They didn't. Governments can be >> and are maintained by force. > >And they can be overthrown by force from within. Provided those opposed to the government can accumulate and effectively use sufficient force. Saddam Hussein's government was quite good at preventing this. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote: >Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> There will always be injustice and there will always be terrorism. >> And terrorists will continue to claim they are simply reacting to injustice >> -- but they may well be lying. > >The same applies to the government that pleads ignorance. To believe (as you've claimed) that the destruction of the WTC was due to the unjust actions of the United States in placing bases in Saudi Arabia depends on a number of dubious assumptions 1) That the terrorists acted because of the bases in Saudi Arabia 2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust 3) That the terrorists were the wronged parties or acting on their behalf -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote: >Brent P wrote: >> In article >, Arif Khokar wrote: > >>> If they were *that* dissatisfied with the status quo, they >>>would have eventually overthrown him (which would not have resulted in >>>the destruction of vital infrastructure as the bombing did). > >> They tried. > >With ill-advised outside encouragement. The sentiment should build up >from the inside. When the time is right, the revolt will succeed. Or be crushed and all those involved imprisoned or killed. Right doesn't make might. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> To believe (as you've claimed) that the destruction of the WTC was due > to the unjust actions of the United States in placing bases in Saudi > Arabia depends on a number of dubious assumptions http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...udiarabia.html > 1) That the terrorists acted because of the bases in Saudi Arabia "...and Saudi-born Osama bin Laden cites the U.S. military presence in his homeland as a reason for his hatred of America." > 2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust "...the presence of American forces here has long been an irritant for Saudi rulers facing strong anti-American sentiment among a growing and increasingly restive population." > 3) That the terrorists were the wronged parties or acting on their behalf See above. A quick Google search came up with many articles supporting my assertion. Another example: http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...rticleID=78760 "The presence of Western troops in the kingdom since the 1991 war has irked many Saudis, already angry over perceived U.S. support for Israel. Their presence has been seized upon by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden as a rallying cry for attacks. Asked if the kingdom would ask these troops to leave to appease domestic public opinion, Prince Saud said Riyadh would consider it once "circumstances change". He did not elaborate." |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Arif Khokar > wrote: >>>You assume the people had that choice. They didn't. Governments can be >>>and are maintained by force. >> >>And they can be overthrown by force from within. > Provided those opposed to the government can accumulate and > effectively use sufficient force. Saddam Hussein's government was > quite good at preventing this. So is our government. Your point? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote: >Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> To believe (as you've claimed) that the destruction of the WTC was due >> to the unjust actions of the United States in placing bases in Saudi >> Arabia depends on a number of dubious assumptions > >http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...udiarabia.html > >> 1) That the terrorists acted because of the bases in Saudi Arabia > >"...and Saudi-born Osama bin Laden cites the U.S. military presence in >his homeland as a reason for his hatred of America." Assuming you believe bin Laden. I see no reason to. (He's cited OTHER reasons, too, such as US support of Israel.) >> 2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust > >"...the presence of American forces here has long been an irritant for >Saudi rulers facing strong anti-American sentiment among a growing and >increasingly restive population." Still looking for the _injustice_. Irritation of the Saudi rulers doesn't equate to injustice. >> 3) That the terrorists were the wronged parties or acting on their behalf > >See above. No evidence of wrong to the terrorists. No evidence of wrong to anyone. No evidence that the terrorists were acting on any but their own behalf. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote: >Matthew Russotto wrote: >> Arif Khokar > wrote: > >>>>You assume the people had that choice. They didn't. Governments can be >>>>and are maintained by force. >>> >>>And they can be overthrown by force from within. > >> Provided those opposed to the government can accumulate and >> effectively use sufficient force. Saddam Hussein's government was >> quite good at preventing this. > >So is our government. Your point? That the continual rule of the government of Saddam Hussein was NOT the free choice of the people of Iraq; rather, it was imposed upon them by Saddam's effective use of force against those who opposed him. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Assuming you believe bin Laden. I see no reason to. (He's cited OTHER > reasons, too, such as US support of Israel.) The only 3 countries that I know of that support Israel are the US, American Samoa, and Micronesia. We supply Israel the majority of its armaments which they regularly use in densly populated areas. In any case, I'd be more inclined to believe Bin Laden over the US government. Bin Laden has no motive or reason to lie at this point in time. The US government on the other hand ... >>>2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust >>"...the presence of American forces here has long been an irritant for >>Saudi rulers facing strong anti-American sentiment among a growing and >>increasingly restive population." > Still looking for the _injustice_. Irritation of the Saudi rulers > doesn't equate to injustice. So, only the rulers' opinions count, and not the people? Why are you in favor of liberating one country, but perfectly willing to ignore the sentiments of the population in a bordering country? > No evidence of wrong to the terrorists. No evidence of wrong to > anyone. No evidence that the terrorists were acting on any but their > own behalf. Lots of evidence that you're being obtuse. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drive Train Damaged $$$$$ ?? | popeyeball | Jeep | 4 | March 29th 05 05:00 PM |
problem with 94 Grand Caravan ES all wheel drive | Mike Hannon | Chrysler | 0 | January 16th 05 10:30 PM |
Honda Passport - "Power" and "Winter" drive switches | ajpdla | Honda | 5 | November 5th 04 03:32 AM |
93 Civic stalling at stop in drive | Apurba Mukherjee | Honda | 3 | October 21st 04 02:44 PM |
92 Accord stalling at stop (in drive) after warm | eric | Honda | 2 | October 17th 04 11:17 PM |