Heads Off To Keep Little Muslim Girls

Legat · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Secondly these people are not being oppressed by America. Whether they realize it or not they have so much more freedom now then they did under Saddam, even you can agree with that. The only limited freedom Iraqi's have are the curfews and raids, which only take place because people keep fighting the American forces.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So? Somebody seemed to have forgotten to tell them.
I think it's not up to you to decide whether somebody should feel oppressed or not.
I honestly don't know how many people want the US occupation and how many don't, but the ferocity of the attacks against the coalition is extreme and more that just the doing of some few radical elements.

Also, I doubt that the majority of the people actually were complaining about their personal freedom. It merely were minorities that where oppressed by saddams regime.
What really **** them of was the Oil boycott that lead to mass poverty and economical collapse.....
And even the minorities don't want you there anymore. You know why? Because you provoked them into uprising in the first Gulf War and promised them to liberate the country. Then, you left and left them without support to get sloughtered by sadddams troops.

Do you honestly expect these people to trust you? Do you really do?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
No ones house is being bombed anymore, the major military operations have ended. The actually aerial bombardment was wrapped up fairly quickly, and although some civilian casualties did occur, it was fairly clean.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Some casualties? What do you consider some? Do you have numbers? Besides, the war is not over. "mission <i>is not </i>accomplished". I really find it funny how ameriacan leaders start wars and declare themselves to victors while the fighting goes on every day everywhere. Afghanistan is the same. Ever heard whats going on 50 miles outside of cabul? No? maybe you should try some foreing News channels....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
What you fail to mention in your ranting is that most Iraqi's killed since the US invasion have been killed by other Iraqi's in terrorist attacks that only hinder their own freedom and progress.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Maybe these people do not consider a puppet government of exilants living in the US and all oil refining handled by US corporates (which had been granted with the nessesary licenses before the war even started) as freedom and progress. Same political behavior (referred to as imperialism) happened to breake loose a revolution in Iran. Maybe we should learn from History...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
No matter who wins this election we are not leaving Iraq, this is hardly a Vietnam. We will stay and finish what we started, the sooner these rebels realize this the better.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So, you tell me you will stay there regardless of what the new governemt oppinions on this are. A government which US officials garanteed to grant "soverenity"? That is occupation my friend. You already invaded the country without UN sanction. Thats not nice you know...Iraq was bombed for doing so about a decade ago...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>the sooner these rebels realize this the better.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I will let this statement speak for itself...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We will stay and finish what we started</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

We will see about that.

reasa · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Sep 3 2004, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So? Somebody seemed to have forgotten to tell them.
I think it's not up to you to decide whether somebody should feel oppressed or not.
I honestly don't know how many people want the US occupation and how many don't, but the ferocity of the attacks against the coalition is extreme and more that just the doing of some few radical elements.

Also, I doubt that the majority of the people actually were complaining about their personal freedom. It merely were minorities that where oppressed by saddams regime.
What really **** them of was the Oil boycott that lead to mass poverty and economical collapse.....
And even the minorities don't want you there anymore. You know why? Because you provoked them into uprising in the first Gulf War and promised them to liberate the country. Then, you left and left them without support to get sloughtered by sadddams troops.

Do you honestly expect these people to trust you? Do you really do?

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Well I remember how the Goth kids at my high school used to feel "oppressed" because they had such hard, horrible lives....or they thought they did.
Just because someone "feels" oppressed does not mean they are. No matter what you do in life you will never have complete freedom, you will always be "oppressed" in someway. From Saddam Hussein to a Democracy, whose only hindrance is the ignorance of the people fighting it, is a MAJOR upgrade in freedom. If the people dislike their new government, they can say so, hell they can tell the government themselves, could they do the same under Saddam? However with any Democracy, if you try to fight the government using force you will be put down unless you can overwhelm it, which they can’t.

Heh if they want to be mad at anyone for crushing their economy as far as Oil is concerned, they should be mad at the UN and France for blatantly abusing the Oil for Food program. Besides, fighting us now is only going to hurt their new economy before it gets a chance to get going. They have the oil, they have the will, why should they let a minority of angry rebels destroy their chances of becoming a functioning, sovereign nation?
Do you think Al Sadar was/is fighting for the Iraqi people? No.
He's a greedy little **** wipe like the rest, they all want power, they all want a say.
He's just using the Iraqi's who are more then happy to be spoon fed his ****.
It's a shame they fall for it.

As for trust, they don't have to trust us, and I don't expect them to. They should however not bite the hand that feeds them. If the US were to leave now the Iraqi government is not ready to defend the country. It would most likely be taken over by Al Sadar and his gang. So then they would have a nice cozy dictatorship under a manipulative fanatical crazy man, who has no problem with ordering people to kill his "fellow" countrymen. Hmm sounds familiar.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some casualties? What do you consider some? Do you have numbers? Besides, the war is not over. "mission <i>is not </i>accomplished". I really find it funny how ameriacan leaders start wars and declare themselves to victors while the fighting goes on every day everywhere. Afghanistan is the same. Ever heard whats going on 50 miles outside of cabul? No? maybe you should try some foreing News channels....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well I didn't know Iraq and Afghanistan was "everywhere" but ok.
I know exactly what is going on in Afghanistan and in <b>Kabul</b> thank you. American troops are fighting, on and off, with war lords and drug barons, while hunting for Al Qaeda. Let’s face it, without the drug trade (opium) Afghanistan has no economy, that’s it, that’s pretty much all they have. The country is for all intents and purposes, a worthless **** hole. What we should do is attack Pakistan, where all the REAL terrorists are. Buts that’s another topic.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Maybe these people do not consider a puppet government of exilants living in the US and all oil refining handled by US corporates (which had been granted with the nessesary licenses before the war even started) as freedom and progress. Same political behavior (referred to as imperialism) happened to breake loose a revolution in Iran. Maybe we should learn from History...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You’re absolutely right, we should learn from history. What happens when we leave these power hungry oil rich countries all alone? Remember the Gulf War?
Not to mention the fanatical terrorist groups that will want to kill us no matter what, in their minds nothing but the destruction of every other religion and nationality will be enough. History has taught us that we simply CAN NOT ignore the Middle East.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, you tell me you will stay there regardless of what the new governemt oppinions on this are. A government which US officials garanteed to grant "soverenity"? That is occupation my friend. You already invaded the country without UN sanction. Thats not nice you know...Iraq was bombed for doing so about a decade ago...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well no, we would leave if the Iraqi government asked us to, as we have said.
What I meant was that we will not be forced out by rebels who want nothing but power for themselves, using the Iraqi people as their pawns. As for the UN, they are as greedy and self centered as any one government, and twice as worthless. I'm so sick of people bringing the UN up as if it means something in the real world. Besides, I know this will come off as arrogant, (because it is, but hey it's also true) we're America, we can invade a country. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I will let this statement speak for itself...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well I should hope so, I typed it for a reason.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We will see about that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Indeed.

Marine0I · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Sep 4 2004, 06:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Whow, you are getting very rhetorical here, but in general you are right.
Of course laws can be oppressive to an certain extent, even if they apply on all people alike.
But, to pick up your logic, any law is in its nature oppresive, as it prohibits or or enforces certain behavior.
Any law restricst your personal freedom. If you like to beat up people, you are screwed because that will most likely be prohibited by your countrys authority.

However, a government makes laws to ensure the safety of its people and to maintain civil order. The ideas of justice and order may vary greatly in other culures though.

As I explained before, religion is a somewhat problematic matter in France, because of historical reasons. State and religion are to be stictly seperated in France since centuries. In schools, religion is not officially tought. That idea seems out of date since in <i>most</i>( I highlight this to make sure I don't mean all. please don't start discussiona about Northern Ireland) european nations religion is not that much of an oppinionmaker as it was a few centuries ago. Back then, religious zeal was as common as now in islamic nations.

The recent outburst of religious motivated violence however, brought the matter back to public interest.
You must know that, few muslim women and even fewer little girls in european countries wore their "headgear" before just a few years.
It seams, with the terrorcrisis and Bushs "crusade" (a very, very very bad choice of word. This short centence mybe did more damadge than attacking Iraq...) there has begun a drastic radicalisation on many former liberal muslims. The headscarves are now worn more often, and many muslim fathers make their women and doughters to wear them, as well as many do it by themselves. It has become a way to "show your colors". To show not just religious believe but also a sign of political motivation. A worrying prospective.

The french government wants to keep the schools clean of political and religious conflicts.
Its anybodys own opinion to judge if that is right or wrong, so I don't want to convince you at all.

I personally think the law is righteous, but out of context and unessesary.
Also it's contraproductive, because it fuels the arguments of radical muslim elements.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
My point was that oppression comes in many forms, and just because it hits a lot of people doesnt make it fair.

I understand Frances atheistically based government - separation of church and state is fine. But here the state is coming down, not on the church, but on its members.

These kids in schools arent creating trouble - other kids are picking on them and calling them terrorists. The problem is not with the muslims, its with the French. Instead of taking steps to deal with it, they turn and strike out at the victims. If I believe I am sinning against Allah by not wearing my headscarf then what the hell am I supposed to do? I have to wear it, whereupon my teachers will come and ship me off home.

In America, as in Australia, you have the freedom to show your political motivation. If you wish to wear muslim clothes, you may. If you were a suicide bombers belt, then you will probably get lynched, but you have the freedom to do that.

France has taken it too far, especially in hunting down traditional (not to mention compulsory by the Koran) Muslim dress and outlawing it in schools. That law is in no way righteous - but definately out of context and completely superfluous. Freedom of expression is found in every Western country on the globe, and now the supposed "home of liberty and freedom" is the first to take it down.

Legat · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> History has taught us that we simply CAN NOT ignore the Middle East.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Long before your Nation ever existed, the Middle East was a centre of culture and sience, tolerant and open for foreingers.

History tells us only one thing. Nothing last forever, and great societies vane as quick as theiy arise.

What you call History is a period of less that half a century, in which western economical and political interests messed around in the middle east.

The British and later on the USA installed puppet governments and exploited the oil reserves that fuel <i>our</i> economies.

They are not Oil greedy. They <i>do not </i>need the Oil. We do.
They, <i>do not need us </i>or our idea of democracy. We do need them.

Al that matters for us is to keep the oil prizes down, for we know what happens if the OPEC rises them. I suppose you don't remember the oil crisis in the 70s, but that is the point at which US military operations in the middel east began to occur more and more frequent in the deparate attempt to sustain the status quo.

You can't just mess around with an entire political strucure in an foreing culture and hope to get away with that unscathed.

These aren't just some rebels. They are sick of being used as gasstations.

<span style='color:orange'>What the heck do you think the Boston Tea Party was??? Doesn't that somehow sound familiar? </span>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well I didn't know Iraq and Afghanistan was "everywhere" but ok.
I know exactly what is going on in Afghanistan and in Kabul thank you. American troops are fighting, on and off, with war lords and drug barons, while hunting for Al Qaeda. Let’s face it, without the drug trade (opium) Afghanistan has no economy, that’s it, that’s pretty much all they have. The country is for all intents and purposes, a worthless **** hole. What we should do is attack Pakistan, where all the REAL terrorists are. Buts that’s another topic.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh hell. Do you even have any idea what had happened to Afghanistan? Are you aware that this country was once a buityful and culturally rich country up until a few <span style='color:orange'>decades </span>(<i>edited for mistake. I wrote centuries which was not my intetion. </i>) ago?
Do you know that there was ongoing war there for about said decades? can you even imagine what these people there have endured?
No you cannot. because you are safe in your little home and have food and entertainement. These people have nothing. They do not even know how to grow crops anymore, all they are familiar with is <i>fighting for their freedom</i>. First against the russians, alter againt the taliban. They sold opium to by weapons to keep on fighting. Thats whats left of a culture that harboured an enormous amount of different religions and existed since ancient times! Don't you dare talk such about these people.
And don't tell me you liberated them because if Bin Laden would not have been suspected there you would have given a damn **** about it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well I didn't know Iraq and Afghanistan was "everywhere" but ok.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Then let me clarify my statement. Everywhere you get politically involved in any way in the middle east, there flurishes unrest and terrorism. Draw you conclusions, I don't really care.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You’re absolutely right, we should learn from history. What happens when we leave these power hungry oil rich countries all alone? Remember the Gulf War?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Wich gulf war are you referring to? The Iraq/iran war or the operationdesert storm?

Well the former was motivated by your government, which supported their former ally <i>Saddam Hussein</i> in their struggle for suppremacy in the gulf.

The latter was for liberation of Kuwait, which Iraq invaded. What few people remember is that Kuwait cross drilled to Iraqi Oil reserves and stole Iraqi Oil.
Iraq use that as justification to conquer Kuwait and use the financial gain to replace the losses from the Iran war
The Us tolerated the action until something happened. Im not shure what exactly it was that changed the relationship, maybe The US recognized that Iraq now had about a third of all known oil reserves in the area under its control....whow, that much oil isn't it?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>for the UN, they are as greedy and self centered as any one government, and twice as worthless</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I thinkyou still don't understand that the <span style='color:orange'>UN</span> <i>(again edited to clarify. I accidentially wrote US)</i> is no government. its a kind of parliament. Its not more than its members, so you should rethink your statement under that impression....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well no, we would leave if the Iraqi government asked us to, as we have said.
What I meant was that we will not be forced out by rebels who want nothing but power for themselves, using the Iraqi people as their pawns.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So? why is it then that there is still no UN mandate and UN administration in place as demanded by the Iraqi officials since begin of the occupation?

As for the rebels....Well, the Nazis called the resistance rebels, the Russians called the afghans rebels, now the chechens are rebels, the North called the south rebels...Darth Vader calls Han Solo a rebel.

go figure.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Not to mention the fanatical terrorist groups that will want to kill us no matter what, in their minds nothing but the destruction of every other religion and nationality will be enough.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Whow, thats intresting if you consider that US and allied Fleets are crusing in the regions since decades and US fighters fly over the gulf every day, while subsequently your President speaks about crusades.....
By the way,I remember a recent topic about Israel, where you claimed Israels wars are justified because of the threats of foreing leaders and military buildup on their boarders...well, maybe you were right....

I go off sleping now, its 2 am in the morning here, so if you find any more spelling errors you may keep them.

Legat · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My point was that oppression comes in many forms, and just because it hits a lot of people doesnt make it fair</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes I agree. As I said the descision is somewhat borderline. But I do not see it that problematic from a moralic point of view.

Besides, the headcraves is not actually a religious insignia that was set in stone by the Prophet Muhammed.
It was a law made by some muslim leader. I could look up for it if you are intretrested, atm I don't know the details exactly.

All in all, I consider the headcraves more a political symbol than actually a religious one. And as such it is displaying aradical form of bilieve that is higly oppresive against women.

The headcraves as such is an act of oppression so its again questionable from a democratic point of view.

ekent · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Sep 3 2004, 10:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ..more that just the doing of some ... radical elements. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That definately depends on your definition of radical. When an inclusive democratic government is set up in a country designed to facilitate conflict resolution between groups and a few groups decide to use force to resolve their conflicts, I'd call them radical because they are working outside the framework.

I'm not saying I won't make distinctions between al Sadr's Militia (who will clearly moderate their actions if it benefits their goals politically) and the foreign-led al Quida terrorists (who may give the appearance of moderation but just want to kill people), or even distinctions between al Quida and bandits who are only after money. I think that saying they're "more than just radical" is dismissing the rest of the country, who clearly want ALL violence to end.

Now as far as the original point of the thread,
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1297075,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1297075,00.html</a>
<a href='http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=France%20Hostages' target='_blank'>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ape...ance%20Hostages</a>
<a href='http://allafrica.com/stories/200409030684.html' target='_blank'>http://allafrica.com/stories/200409030684.html</a>

While I would personally consider the French law to be annoyingly oppressive (as opposed to dangerously oppressive), it's their right as a society to work out what laws they feel will serve them best. Just like it is our right as a society to do the same, for ourselves (re: Patriot act, DMCA, etc). I think it should be obvious that French foreign policy has clearly <i>not</i> gone unnoticed in the Muslim world and they have a huge amount of support which, so far, seems to have saved those two journalists. Compared to American foreign policy currently, I would consider that to be a success.

What also concerns me is that while Marine claims to have empathy for these French journalists, his righteousness with regards to the Iraq war seems to have dulled his empathy for the American soldiers over there. There's 150,000 soldiers in iraq and by most estimates, over 10000 wounded. Can you imagine a city in america where that many people were involved in violent crimes? I'm not very empathetic, myself, but those figures, and particularly scenes of wounded soldiers in veterans hospitals, are beginning to get to me.

reasa · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Long before your Nation ever existed, the Middle East was a centre of culture and sience, tolerant and open for foreingers.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yea, fundamentalist radical Muslims kind of ruined that for the area.
And hey don't blame America for originally messing up the Middle East, "The sun never sets" is responsible for those mistakes that we're still cleaning up today.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What you call History is a period of less that half a century, in which western economical and political interests messed around in the middle east.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

History has changed, things happen much more quickly. A half a century of "modern" history packs a much bigger punch then older history simply because of the advances we have made. Hell with the pressing of a few buttons, the world can change so completely in an instant that history would be irrelevant. You can not compare the going ons of the Persian Empire for example to the modern times of America.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They are not Oil greedy. They <i>do not </i>need the Oil. We do.
They, <i>do not need us </i>or our idea of democracy. We do need them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well I am a huge advocate of alternative energy, especially nuclear so we can once and for all let the Middle East rot in economic strangulation.
Which brings me to my next point, they DO need their oil, and in fact many Arab countries couldn't nearly sustain themselves without oil. Saudi Arabia for example thrives on its oil resources, along with Kuwait, and Iraq to a lesser extent.
So they do need us, to buy their oil.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Al that matters for us is to keep the oil prizes down, for we know what happens if the OPEC rises them. I suppose you don't remember the oil crisis in the 70s, but that is the point at which US military operations in the middel east began to occur more and more frequent in the deparate attempt to sustain the status quo.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Actually the oil "crisis" of the 70's was nothing more then Big Oil gouging the market like they do every year, with varying raised prices, around the beginning of the summer. You haven’t noticed the pattern? Or do you think oil wells work less in the summer? Even the most extreme estimates say we shouldn't run out of cheap oil until 30-40 years from now, and then we can worry about a real oil crisis. Not the one the oil companies create when they feel like they need more money...which is always.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What the heck do you think the Boston Tea Party was??? Doesn't that somehow sound familiar</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The DNC? <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh hell. Do you even have any idea what had happened to Afghanistan? Are you aware that this country was once a buityful and culturally rich country up until a few centuries ago?
Do you know that there was ongoing war there for about said decades? can you even imagine what these people there have endured?
No you cannot. because you are safe in your little home and have food and entertainement. These people have nothing. They do not even know how to grow crops anymore, all they are familiar with is <i>fighting for their freedom</i>. First against the russians, alter againt the taliban. They sold opium to by weapons to keep on fighting. Thats whats left of a culture that harboured an enormous amount of different religions and existed since ancient times! Don't you dare talk such about these people.
And don't tell me you liberated them because if Bin Laden would not have been suspected there you would have given a damn **** about it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh only a few centuries, well not much can change then.
Are you going to blame America for the Mongol Invasion?
Oh they know how to grow A crop, unfortunately it's a drug and illegal.
I was never a fan of staying and rebuilding Afghanistan, as I said before it's a worthless country. We should have moved on to Pakistan after Al Qaeda fled there, and set up base. To be honest I never really did give a damn about those people and I still don't.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I thinkyou still don't understand that the US is no government. its a kind of parliament. Its not more than its members, so you should rethink your statement under that impression....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Are you saying I don't know what my own country is? Or did you mean to say UN.
Ether way it doesn’t change the fact that the UN is a worthless organization.
It's kind of funny that individually members of the UN are very powerful countries with their own modern spheres of influence, and the ability to actually get things done, if they so choose. However, when you put them all together into one "unified" body they become the definition of ineffective, forceless, bureaucracy.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So? why is it then that there is still no UN mandate and UN administration in place as demanded by the Iraqi officials since begin of the occupation?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

See above comments about the UN. Also what makes you think the UN wants to help? As you said the UN is made up of separate countries, all of them capable of deciding on their own whether or not they want to do this or that. I doubt they would get more then token gestures from a few countries that never liked the war to begin with.

Legat · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yea, fundamentalist radical Muslims kind of ruined that for the area.
And hey don't blame America for originally messing up the Middle East, "The sun never sets" is responsible for those mistakes that we're still cleaning up today.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The Muslims were not fundamental or radical half a century ago. There were tribal wars and disagreement in various areas but that is traditional in muslim society, and was more affecting the poorer nomadic tribes than the big nations.
The fundamental movement started to occur in the 20th century and it was a reaction to ongoing intervention fom foreign nations.

The fundamentalism is not a fun part. It is a movement that aims to clense their countires from foreing influences.
You, as an american citizen should realize this and understand the nature of this sentiment, as your nations independence started with revolution against oversea domination.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well I am a huge advocate of alternative energy, especially nuclear so we can once and for all let the Middle East rot in economic strangulation.
Which brings me to my next point, they DO need their oil, and in fact many Arab countries couldn't nearly sustain themselves without oil. Saudi Arabia for example thrives on its oil resources, along with Kuwait, and Iraq to a lesser extent.
So they do need us, to buy their oil.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Your so called alternative energies are (exept of nuclear power) completely useless and overly expensive. Don't tell me about alternative energy, I'm German, our current government is emphasising alternative energy and I have to pay taxes for them....go to the "no more oil" thread if you want more on that.

If you cut on the oil reserves, you will have the economic crisis from hell. You do not seem to have the slightest clue about how our economy works and how its dependent on certain ressources.

the very moment the Islamic world would cut on the shipments, our stockmarkets would collapse. The first news of that occurance would make the shareholders sell oil related values like used toilet paper. The very next moment, all related industies get affected. Everything from automobile industry to plastic bags and gelly cream will get sold out and collapse. The private shareholders loose all their money, millions of small people will lose their vortunes.
The Bank houses will have to strike their losses, because credits granted to these economies will not be repaid. Their share values will drop to the floor too.
Many of them will collapse. If so, every customer of that bank is f***ed.
The insurance companies that have agreements with companies for loss replacements will invariably go bankrupt subsequently. The insurance companies insuring the insurance companies are next. Consumption will breake down, the prizes of all goods will fall to nowhere because nobody can afford luxories anymore. In contrary, prizes for neeserrities like medical supplies and food will rise as the people still must eat and the companies are aware of that...
You get an idea? It is irelevant if the oil lasts for another 40 years or not. Its the shareholders fear of losing their money that causes the crash.

I don't know where you take your illusions from, but keep em, ignorance is bliss.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually the oil "crisis" of the 70's was nothing more then Big Oil gouging the market like they do every year, with varying raised prices, around the beginning of the summer. You haven’t noticed the pattern? Or do you think oil wells work less in the summer?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Exactly. There you should take a minute and think about what a simple delay and raising of prizes did to our economy. If you still don't come to a conclision go back a few lines and read againmy paragraph about stockmarked dynamics.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>QUOTE
What the heck do you think the Boston Tea Party was??? Doesn't that somehow sound familiar

The DNC?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sorry, did not get that one. could you explain?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>QUOTE
Oh hell. Do you even have any idea what had happened to Afghanistan? Are you aware that this country was once a buityful and culturally rich country up until a few centuries ago?
Do you know that there was ongoing war there for about <span style='color:orange'>said decades</span>? can you even imagine what these people there have endured?
No you cannot. because you are safe in your little home and have food and entertainement. These people have nothing. They do not even know how to grow crops anymore, all they are familiar with is fighting for their freedom. First against the russians, alter againt the taliban. They sold opium to by weapons to keep on fighting. Thats whats left of a culture that harboured an enormous amount of different religions and existed since ancient times! Don't you dare talk such about these people.
And don't tell me you liberated them because if Bin Laden would not have been suspected there you would have given a damn **** about it.

Oh only a few centuries, well not much can change then.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That was actually my mistake. It should mean <i>decades</i>. As in the second sentence. It was late and I was tired. I was not talking about mongol invasion.
<i>--off topic--</i>
<i>In fact, that occurance was no really a harmfull experience compared to other things. The mongols were in fact quite liberal to the occupied nations, compared to rome or similar empires.
They had low taxes and the people were free of their religion. Also they could distribute their own goods and were able to join the monglos Army and even rise inranks and gain fame and riches.
The mongols gained much support in the occupied civilisations in very short amounts of time. The bad view about the mongols in History comes from chistian propaganda. Just an excourse in History.</i>

No, I was referring to the recent decades of ongoing war. When the country was invaded by the CSSR, was stripped of all riches and cultural achievements as century old palaces and towns were robbed and destroyed, and the people oppressed and terrorized.
The war for independece against the Sovjet Union (in which your country supported the Mudjaheddin and even Hollywood dedicated movies to the "galant people of Afghanistan" (quote from Rambo 3). Then, after the the Sovjet Union broke down, you left them to rot and the Taliban came and picked up the shards. One of the most brutal regimes in history arose is a few years of time and reinged in terror of constant executions for crimes like women working for their living as their husbands were dead. (women were not allowed to work, exept selling things like crops or fruits...)
Then, one again the Mudjaheddin fortified their positions in the nothern mountains to fight the taliban, again hoping for US support. Nothing came.
Up until an infamous terrorist named Osama Bin Laden was suspected to have found refuge with theTaliban. (a terrorist which was fomerly suppported by the US in the war against russia.....)
If Bin Laden would have been hidden with the Northern Alliance, you would have helped the Taliban instead.

Now, they deperately try to rebuild their nation with is virtually bombed to the stone age. There is no street, no electricity and no undamandged hous in most areas, an the drugbarons are left alone with their doings <i>because the ISAF is ordered to let them do so!</i> They are allowed because WE, and especially the US is not willing to put the efford in appeasing the land. Theres no oil there after all isn't it?

I do not blame America for the situation, I never said that, you did not cause it in the first place.
<span style='color:orange'>I blame <i>you</i> for insulting these poeple that have endured horrors that you could not even imagine in your worst dreams. I blame you for calling them worthless, because they are not the ones that put them in that position and took everything from them</span>.

And please don't keep refering to drugdealing, or I will look up for some Info on "Air America" and CIA operations fundings in Vietnam....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Are you saying I don't know what my own country is? Or did you mean to say UN.
Ether way it doesn’t change the fact that the UN is a worthless organization.
It's kind of funny that individually members of the UN are very powerful countries with their own modern spheres of influence, and the ability to actually get things done, if they so choose. However, when you put them all together into one "unified" body they become the definition of ineffective, forceless, bureaucracy.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, again, it was late. You are right, I meant UN.

The UN was proposed and enforced by your country. It was your counrys Idea to create a tool to appeace the world and to set standards applying for everyone.
whether that works or not is another story.
BUT, the reason why it does not work is becasue of their members lobbyistic interests.
The Allies of WW2 have ensured their dominance over the UN by the veto reglementation.
During cold war, the Sovjet union was the one that prevented the UN from doing any good but talking. Nowadays, its mainly the US government that bents and uses the UN to enforce their interests.
If its OK for the US, the UN gets a mandate and the bombs fall, if its not worth the trouble, nothing happens.
Once the UN does not apporve to US plans, like in the recent Iraq war, you tell them to go to hell and do it yourself, violating all the nice words with which you send your sons to Germany in WW2.
If you don't ge along with is as you wanted to, you come back and beg for money.

A nice example for US (and ohter members) attitude is Ruanda, where within few week several hundred thousands of civilians were mass murdered in civil unrest, hacked to death with machetes. A rate of genocide that not even the Nazis managed to equal.

The UN mandate was canceled, after the missions commander, a canadian General reported the obvious preparation for the ethnical clensing and expressed his intent to intervene. The UN did not approve because of their fear of another Somalia desaster.
So the operation was canceled. Yet, the general stayed in the country with a few hundred volunteers, without support except some shipments from canada and <i>against orders from UN high command</i>.

They did what they could do and reported the happenings to the world, while US officials spoke of "occasional acts of genocide", because actual genocide would have forced them to act because of UN laws.

These people, these soldiers were <i>real</i> heroes. They upheld ideals and stood for it with their lives. They did not just talk sweet about justice and freedom, they did what they were able to do to achieve it. (which was next to nothing sadly)
They did not stay there for their countries interests. They did not even do so for their families or to protect their homes. They did so because it was right to do so.

Legat · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That definately depends on your definition of radical. When an inclusive democratic government is set up in a country designed to facilitate conflict resolution between groups and a few groups decide to use force to resolve their conflicts, I'd call them radical because they are working outside the framework.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I did not intend to say these elements are not radical, of course they are!
I was rather trying to express that the actions are not the work of <i>small</i> radical groups.

They are well organized and supported and they operate extremely frequently and almost unharmed. In order to do so, you need a certain amount of support from the citizens, to ensure supplies and refuge.

These attacks are representing a larger base of supporters that the officials are willing to admit. The sooner the coalistion realizes that, the better for everybody involved. Your numbers about US casualties are the point I am referrign to. I really feel sad for those poor bastards. They were sent to a war and told the hell what good things they are doing, and it turns out the given reasons were lies.

Now, the world looks at them a the agressors n an unjustified war, and the people they intended to liberate do not want them there.
I see very troubling similarities to the Vietnam conflict, as well as between the actuall political developement in the midle east and int the far east back then.

In these times during the cold war, more and more small asian nations started to radicalize and fall tinto civil war and sozialistic dictatorship. Korea, Vietnam, Kambotcha (hows that spelled?)...

Something similar is happening here for similar reasons. Radical elements (now islamic fundametalists) opposing the foreing domination. I predict that similar civil wars (lets face it, that what we have right now) will break out in neighboring nations. We have started a fire that is going to burn the whole middle east.

reasa · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Sep 4 2004, 04:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your so called alternative energies are (exept of nuclear power) completely useless and overly expensive. Don't tell me about alternative energy, I'm German, our current government is emphasising alternative energy and I have to pay taxes for them....go to the "no more oil" thread if you want more on that.
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Well I mentioned nuclear power as my preferred choice for a reason.
You should be glad your government is using alternative energies, since you seem so worried about our oil resources.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>the very moment the Islamic world would cut on the shipments, our stockmarkets would collapse. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If the Islamic world cut off our oil supply, and by our I'll assume you mean the western world, things would become very bad for them. The American people would become far less peace loving when their economy is going into the shiter because some Arabs think they have a power over us. We would go in there, no matter who was president, and forcibly take control of the oil wells. That is of course if negotiations and the threat of doing that would not be enough. Your economic explanation was nice, but not necessary, most people know what will happen if we lose our oil supplies.
Besides a good war is always good for the economy, and I have a feeling once the western world controlled the oil supplies in the Middle East investor confidence would raise to a new high. Trust me it would not be just America taking part in this conflict, we all need the oil.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sorry, did not get that one. could you explain?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Meh it's not that hard to get, maybe you’re looking into it to hard trying to make a connection that isn't there.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, I was referring to the recent decades of ongoing war. When the country was invaded by the CSSR, was stripped of all riches and cultural achievements as century old palaces and towns were robbed and destroyed, and the people oppressed and terrorized.
The war for independece against the Sovjet Union (in which your country supported the Mudjaheddin and even Hollywood dedicated movies to the "galant people of Afghanistan" (quote from Rambo 3). Then, after the the Sovjet Union broke down, you left them to rot and the Taliban came and picked up the shards.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because we didn't care about them, Hollywood is hardly a good indicator of what the American Government or public is thinking. We didn't want the USSR to have a new piece of land. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. Although you do make a good point about how the west should not ignore the Middle East, and I don't think we will ever again.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now, they deperately try to rebuild their nation with is virtually bombed to the stone age. There is no street, no electricity and no undamandged hous in most areas, an the drugbarons are left alone with their doings <i>because the ISAF is ordered to let them do so!</i> They are allowed because WE, and especially the US is not willing to put the efford in appeasing the land. Theres no oil there after all isn't it?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Heh there’s nothing there. No oil, no crops, no resources of any kind, but mainly what concerns me is that there’s no more terrorists there. They have all fled to the relative safety and protection of Pakistan.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I do not blame America for the situation, I never said that, you did not cause it in the first place.
<span style='color:orange'>I blame <i>you</i> for insulting these poeple that have endured horrors that you could not even imagine in your worst dreams. I blame you for calling them worthless, because they are not the ones that put them in that position and took everything from them</span>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My worst dreams huh, well perhaps, but again I don't care, and nether do you.
Also I did not call them worthless I called their country worthless, and unless you can give me some reason to believe that there is anything worthwhile there, I will continue to think of it that way. I am not the one that invaded them and ruined their country, I am not responsible for how they live, I do not care.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And please don't keep refering to drugdealing, or I will look up for some Info on "Air America" and CIA operations fundings in Vietnam....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yea you go do that....but I'm going to call things what they are.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If its OK for the US, the UN gets a mandate and the bombs fall, if its not worth the trouble, nothing happens.
Once the UN does not apporve to US plans, like in the recent Iraq war, you tell them to go to hell and do it yourself, violating all the nice words with which you send your sons to Germany in WW2.
If you don't ge along with is as you wanted to, you come back and beg for money.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hmm well I still can't think of a good reason why the UN should hold any reins of the US, because if it weren't for us it would most likely collapse. Now I'm not quite sure what you mean by "violating all the nice words with which we sent our sons to Germany" but I would love for you to show me how what we do in the present changes the intents and reasoning’s for what we have done in the past, perhaps a graph or a chart?

The last line made me laugh, I think you mean it the other way around, usually it's UN members begging <i>us</i> for money.

Legat · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If the Islamic world cut off our oil supply, and by our I'll assume you mean the western world, things would become very bad for them. The American people would become far less peace loving when their economy is going into the shiter because some Arabs think they have a power over us. We would go in there, no matter who was president, and forcibly take control of the oil wells.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is about all I wanted you to say. Just think about that what you just said.

Then reconsider this:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Now I'm not quite sure what you mean by "violating all the nice words with which we sent our sons to Germany" but I would love for you to show me how what we do in the present changes the intents and reasoning’s for what we have done in the past, perhaps a graph or a chart?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

To prevent any ugly misunderstandings, I do <i>NOT</i> compare the US with the Nazis! Hell no. I just want to explain to you reasa, that your nation has set certain standards which it pretends to uphold. Those of freedom and democracy.
Your presidents never miss an opportunity to emphasise this. You installed the UN to preserve peace, you forced the european nations (even the allied ones) to abandon their colonies.
Yet, you don't act according to your standards. That dishonors the many soldiers that died for their counry and their ideals they wanted to preserve.

It is not that long ago, when your country was admired throughout the world by your allies and even some of your enemies. It's not that long ago when your country still was considered a place of freedom.

But I guess you don't care for that either.

reasa · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Sep 4 2004, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yet, you don't act according to your standards. That dishonors the many soldiers that died for their counry and their ideals they wanted to preserve.

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
In your mind perhaps, but I see it differntly as do many others I'm sure.
No country can stay the same, we move on, we change, for the better or for the worse. This in no way lessens the honor of those who died in the past, especially those who died during WW2. They did their job, Europe is free, the Nazis have been defeated and Japan as well. The decisons we make to day do not affect the past.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It is not that long ago, when your country was admired throughout the world by your allies and even some of your enemies. It's not that long ago when your country still was considered a place of freedom.

But I guess you don't care for that either.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yea...let’s see that "admiration" you speak of seems to spring up every time the world needs us to do something, be it help free them from the Nazi scourge, or prevent the Iron Curtin from encompassing their borders. "Admiration" for America looks more like "we need you to do this/protect this/pay for this/help with this".

And that I do care about.

Legat · September 2004

I will put it this way reasa. I do not know how old you are and what is your sozial standing.

But lets assume that the worst case szenario of a united fundamentalistic front in the middle east occurs, and US troops and their allies (and I totally agree with you that these allies WILL join your war) invade the midle east.

And in case the war is going to be costly like the current one in Iraq, which is quite possible, would you vonlunteer to join this war? Would you fight for cheap oil? Would you <i>kill</i> for cheap oil?

If there was any war in the past century that was actually righteous, than the war againt Hitler.
But what about oil? Is it just to wage war for cheap gasoline?

we are rambling off topic reasa, so I guess we agree on differnt oppinions here.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the nessesity of power and dominance. In fact, the UN may be a somewhat ineffective entity, but it serves and ever served one purpose.
Dominance for the most important members, and as that, even the US needs the UN. Believe me reasa, without the United Nations, the USA would have a hard time to stand its ground.
To secure our welfare, we need to either dominate our neighbors, or get along with them. The latter option was screwed, it does not really mattter who did it but it is too late to regret, so we move on to dominance. I forsee great conflicts and much bloodshed in the future.

Yet, I rather would see the world to be different and I like to believe that there are more people in the world that do so too.

Marine0I · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But lets assume that the worst case szenario of a united fundamentalistic front in the middle east occurs, and US troops and their allies (and I totally agree with you that these allies WILL join your war) invade the midle east.

And in case the war is going to be costly like the current one in Iraq, which is quite possible, would you vonlunteer to join this war? Would you fight for cheap oil? Would you <i>kill</i> for cheap oil?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I like to think that I would have the courage to sign up for military service and kill - yeah. I dont know how I'd actually go doing it, but I hope I wouldnt disgrace myself. But the problem is I dont see it being about cheap oil. The oil prices have gone through the roof since the Iraq war started - if the yanks wanted cheap oil they coulda just lifted the embargo's. They are not in Iraq just ladling out free oil to any tanker heading for the US - those oilwells are the soveriegn property of Iraq and the US are not stealing from them.

I believe its worth fighting for (and I stated this several times before the war) simply because there was a brutal murdering tyrant there that the US help set up - they were morally obligated to take him out. I do not believe the US needs the UN as much as the UN needs to US.

TommyVercetti · September 2004

I support France's decision to not support the illegit war in Iraq.

I wouldn't fight for the US unless the Continental Unites States itself was under attack by foreign nationals.

Oh, and I agree with Legat on pretty much every point.

I have a question for reasa, though: Why do you want to go to war with a nuclear power? Isn't that kind of signing the death warrant for the entire human race? In the Cold War, if the Russkies had launched a nuclear strike that saturated the US and I was in command, I wouldn't counterattack because that would mean the apocalypse. Guess I'm just a softie for human life.

Legat · September 2004

Well, the reason quoted most often in discussions about retstricting so called evil stated in their nuclear capability, is the the assumption that such stated would use them against their enemies (most notably, against NATO allies) without reason or provokation and without rational thought.

That, however is not the real reasion IMHO. I highly doubt even the most radical and fundamentalistic leaders would perform such an act of suicide, simply because they are not insane like we presume them to be. They are despotic opportunists. True fanatics are only their lowly followers that execute their orders.

Saddam did care **** about his people, but his people ensured his weahlt and about that he cared. Even if Saddam would have been capable of doing so, he never had attacked Israel with nuclear weaponry or with any other WMD because he knew the counterattack would have destroyed his country, his wealth and himself.

Nuclear weapons are not a real treat, because nobody actually dares to use them.
I talk about nations here, so don't start with terror organisations please.

Nuclear weapons only have one purpose. Causing fear. A single torpedo with a nuclear warhead can eliminate an enitre carrier task force without even needing to get close or actualy hit the target. A single airplane with a nuclear weapon and a pilot prepared to die can lay waste to an entire army. A small nuclear device fired by artillery can do the same. Why do you think the US did not invade Kuba in the first place, before the russian fleet arrived?
Because it was known that the CSSR had supplied Kuba with tactical nukes deployed by costal artillery. Any open landing operation would have ended in desaster.

Thus, nuklear weapons are the only means to ensure your soverenity as non NATO member. Have a nuke, and the UN leaves you alone. Best example: North Korea.

So if the UN would allow these nations to produce nuclear weapons, our influence in these particular nations and thus our grip on the gulf and its oil reserves would vanish.

I speak about <i>our</i> influence, TommyVercetti, because <i>we</i> are dependent on oil as much as the US. So whether you are US citicen or not does not matter. It's nice you agree with me, but in doing so, you should be aware that the rest of the wold is dependent on cheap gasoline as well as the US.
To say that the US is merely enforcing their interests is therefore hippocritical, because they do, infact, protect our interest as well.

Don't take that as an offense, TommyVercetti, I just want to express that things are not as easy as they seem.

The point is, that western dominance and manipulation of the gulf reagion has caused this radicalisation and shaped this agressive, anit-western form of Islam.

The Church has undergone similar developements during several medevial periods as a reaction to continous expanding of islamic influence. Times have not changed and we are not at all civilised. All we do is decorate our doings with nice words and set some limits to our cruelty.

KaMiKaZe1 · September 2004

So... French school policies... Yup.

Nemesis_Zero · September 2004

<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>

I'll have more time for the next weeks, so I'll keep a closer eye on this forum. I'd strongly suggest you learn to stick to the initial topic again, folks.

Heads Off To Keep Little Muslim Girls

Comments