View Full Version : 300,000 dead in Sudan. Why aren't we liberating them?
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 09:08 PM
Well, why aren't we?
Dynasty
04-07-2005, 09:45 PM
They're dead. No point in liberating them now.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 09:55 PM
I am obviously referring to the Sudanese who are alive and suffering.
Sorry, I don't see the need for grammatical humor when we are talking about human genocide.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 10:01 PM
Maybe because you are fighting another war.
[censored]
04-07-2005, 10:02 PM
Are they a threat to their neighbors, could they destabilize the region, cause econimic turmoil though out the world, do they have a history of aggression and conflict with the US?
These things are not black and white.
It is a tragedy though and it would be nice if the UN would actually do something productive for once.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 10:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It is a tragedy though and it would be nice if the UN would actually do something productive for once.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I wonder if somebody has placed a one-way mirror around US because so many people does not manage to look outside, you included.
The UN has actually worked in several decades in Sudan and saved a lot of people, US on the other hand??????
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 10:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Are they a threat to their neighbors, could they destabilize the region, cause econimic turmoil though out the world, do they have a history of aggression and conflict with the US?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is referred to as Liberation Iraqi freedom (or whatever BS it was labeled, no?)
And the whole region is f'ed up, nothing to do with Iraq, and no to all your other questions.
We have been given two reasons:
1) Iraq was a threat to the US (we all know it was not true)
2) Liberating them from a Sadam's reign of terror
The world economy has never been brought into it, and as I have said in previous posts, I would support a war for oil if the US said it was necessary for the survival of our country.
A history of aggression means nothing also, see Libya.
I want to know why a genocide is occuring (plus massive rapes and imprisonment of young women for being adulterous as a result of these rapes) and the US isn't batting a goddamn eye. If we want to be the world police then we need to be the world police. If we want to do things based upon our own agenda, fine, just say so.
I don't like being lied to.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 10:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It is a tragedy though and it would be nice if the UN would actually do something productive for once.
[/ QUOTE ]
The UN is there, attempting to do what it can. However, the conservatives in the US are intent upon destroying the UN. As the UN has slowly lost power, they have lost their ability to act in situations like this.
Good thing the US appointed UN person will help... Oh wait, he doesn't believe in the UN, now does he?
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 10:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like being lied to.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are being lied to, it is what the rest of the world has discovered, and this is why the relationship between US and many other countries has become so tense.
A lot of countries actually try to build a better world, as naive as it might seem.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 10:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You are being lied to...
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you captain obvious. Why are you lecturing me about things I am obviously implying?
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 10:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are being lied to...
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you captain obvious. Why are you lecturing me about things I am obviously implying?
[/ QUOTE ]
I was on tilt /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 10:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are being lied to...
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you captain obvious. Why are you lecturing me about things I am obviously implying?
[/ QUOTE ]
I was on tilt /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, i am on tilt because these matters were discussed and solved in Europe. It works fine on the European continent now. In Asia it is discussed and mainly solved. In Latin America it starts to be solved.
In US the discussions seemed to have just started, and this is the reason why there is no world-scale solution.
My harsh and honest claim: "If the US public would be more aware of such matters, they would elect another president (not Kerry either), the UN would function, the Sudanese government would never dare to kill those 300,000 (it would be suicide for them)."
Did not mean to lecture you but this whole subject makes me kind of pissed.
We agree on almost everything though.
You put too much faith in the military power of the UN blue helmets.
And don't hate on Kerry. He's 10x better than those right-wing, Christian nuts that you have in Scandinavia. Man, those guys are dumb. Aren't you embarrassed?
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 10:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
He's 10x better than those right-wing, Christian nuts that you have in Scandinavia. Man, those guys are dumb. Aren't you embarrassed?
[/ QUOTE ]
FYI, in Norway they are way left of Kerry (no kidding). It is weird however to have a priest as Prime Minister in a very secular society. They have some wierd ideas, but the majority in the Parliament stops it, so it is not put into real-life.
I don't like far left pols. I don't like far right pols.
Kerry is center-left. I like that about him.
Stan the man
04-07-2005, 10:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry is center-left.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bullshit, Kerry is right wing.
By the way Europeans don't like Kerry. He is better than Bush, but so what? He is a tool.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 10:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry is center-left.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bullshit, Kerry is right wing.
By the way Europeans don't like Kerry. He is better than Bush, but so what? He is a tool.
[/ QUOTE ]
He is right wing by European standards. He is left wing by American standards. He should find some island in the Atlantic (there he would be center-center and elected president)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry is center-left.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bullshit, Kerry is right wing.
By the way Europeans don't like Kerry. He is better than Bush, but so what? He is a tool.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. Keep out of our politics.
And F vanhanen.
You don't know jack [censored] about Kerry.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 10:59 PM
Can you please stop hijacking my post? People are dying, girls are being raped and imprisoned for it and you are talking about John [censored] Kerry. Grow up.
edited for caps lock anger management issues
WTF do you want me to do about it? Does writing this post make you feel like you're actually doing something to help? We aren't sending troops there. They have no oil.
This thread is useless.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 11:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Can you please stop hijacking my post? People are dying, girls are being raped and imprisoned for it and you are talking about John [censored] Kerry. Grow up.
edited for caps lock anger management issues
[/ QUOTE ]
It is related. Look deeper. The solution to the Darfur-like crisis lies in Washington.
Stan the man
04-07-2005, 11:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't sending troops there. They have no oil.
[/ QUOTE ]
Americans only care about money.
No oil = no money, so who the hell care about Sudan?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't sending troops there. They have no oil.
[/ QUOTE ]
Americans only care about money.
No oil = no money, so who the hell care about Sudan?
[/ QUOTE ]
STFU.
The ADMINISTRATION only cares about oil. That doesn't mean that all Americans do. I certainly don't.
So stop with your stupid generalizations.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 11:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am useless.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fixed your post.
You are a goddamn jackass. I am asking conservatives a question and your just polluting it with blubbering about what could have been. Jesus, stay out of my threads if you're going to act like a child.
zaxx19
04-07-2005, 11:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Americans only care about money.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt say only...perhaps predominantly would be a better word.
BTW, other than kiss the Arab League's(who hasnt seen fit to seriously censor Sudan over this genocide) ass and sell weapons to Sudan whats has Europe done for the Black Sudanese??
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 11:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't sending troops there. They have no oil.
[/ QUOTE ]
Americans only care about money.
No oil = no money, so who the hell care about Sudan?
[/ QUOTE ]
STFU.
The ADMINISTRATION only cares about oil. That doesn't mean that all Americans do. I certainly don't.
So stop with your stupid generalizations.
[/ QUOTE ]
His statement is a grave overgeneralization. However, I think here, 95% would agree with him. It shows how [censored] up image you have in the world now.
This is something that destroys international cooperation and thus makes crisis like the Sudan crisis much harder to solve.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 11:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
whats has Europe done for the Black Sudanese??
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. I don't know the answer so I am interested.
MelchyBeau
04-07-2005, 11:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Americans only care about money.
No oil = no money, so who the hell care about Sudan?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sudan has oil.
[ QUOTE ]
Proven Oil Reserves ( Oil and Gas Journal ; 1/1/05E): 563 million barrels
Crude Oil Refining Capacity ( Oil and Gas Journal ; 1/1/05E): 121,700 barrels per day (bbl/d) at three Refineries: El Gily (50,000 bbl/d); Khartoum (50,000 bbl/d); Port Sudan (21,700 bbl/d)
Oil Production (2003E): 271,000 bbl/d (2004E): 343,000 bbl/d
Oil Consumption (2004E): 91,000 bbl/d
Net Oil Exports (2004E): 252,000 bbl/d
[/ QUOTE ]
source (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html)
Melch
You ask a flawed question.
We didn't go into Iraq to liberate.
We went there to find the WMDs; that was the official reason given, at least.
zaxx19
04-07-2005, 11:19 PM
NOTHING.
As long as its not Jewish people doing the killing they dont care.
Plus, its only black people. Europeans never have been big on those guys. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
And they wouldnt dare anger their Arab friends by taking on an Arab nation for the piddley crime of killing, raping, and enslaving hundreds of thousands(perhaps millions) of people.
Better to concentrate on some wall in Palisrael that protects civilians from Suicide bombers.
Cant you see the logic?
zaxx19
04-07-2005, 11:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
We went there to find the WMDs; that was the official reason given
[/ QUOTE ]
When was this pronounced as the "official" reason for going to Iraq?
You said it. Now prove it.
Remember the OFFICIAL REASON AND THE SOLE ONE.
Not one of the reasons or the predominant reason.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 11:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whats has Europe done for the Black Sudanese??
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. I don't know the answer so I am interested.
[/ QUOTE ]
Europe misread the situation. They put their effort into making peace between the muslim government in Northern Sudan and the Southern christian guerilla. This seems to have been successful and ended one war. An arab moslem group outside government control escalated a conflict with black moslems. The Sudanese government not longer busy with fighting in the South, started giving some support to arab moslems. I guess it took Europe a bit by surprise that two moslem groups would clash so severely against eachother.
[ QUOTE ]
Remember the OFFICIAL REASON AND THE SOLE ONE.
[/ QUOTE ]
These are not mutually exclusive.
This was the main reason given by Bush in his SOTU address of January 03.
Felix_Nietsche
04-07-2005, 11:26 PM
is this just a back-handed attack on Bush43 and his decision to invade Iraq?
sirio11
04-07-2005, 11:27 PM
This is the kind of liberations wars I'm totally for
But some of the conquerers (and their followers) in this country (US) dont care about human lives. They just care about power.
[ QUOTE ]
is this just a back-handed attack on Bush43 and his decision to invade Iraq?
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo.
And it wasn't even that clever.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 11:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
is this just a back-handed attack on Bush43 and his decision to invade Iraq?
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously. I also what some sort of reasoning though. I fail to see the difference.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 11:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Bingo.
And it wasn't even that clever.
[/ QUOTE ]
Stop pouting.
About what?
About how you're not even much of a liberal, and howhalf your purpose on here seems to be to suck up to and find common ground with all of the conservatives?
Oh, what a brilliant post, adios.
Oh, that idea doesn't sound half bad, BGC.
Nah.
BCPVP
04-07-2005, 11:39 PM
Better question: what specifically has the U.N. done to end the genocide?
Aren't we always being blamed for being the "World Police"?
Now you're asking for us to perpetuate that...
If the U.N. puts together some sort of peacekeeping force, I'd be all for it. But I haven't seen that happen as of yet...
Is it the U.S. that must always take the initiative?
__________________________________________________
Question for Dead: would you support a peacekeeping effort (comprised of many countries) in the Sudan? I ask because of your stated position on Bosnia...
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 11:40 PM
1) I am glad that I don't let a label define how I think about things. I don't blindly follow ideas based upon what I am "supposed" to think. If someone who I normally disagree with makes a valid point in a discussion, I will let them know.
2) Please find me ONE post where I have ever agreed with BGC on a political matter. It has never happened.
3) Your worth is derived by "how much of a liberal" you are? You are a complete joke. You alienate everyone you speak with. You spout complete [censored] out of your ass just because you think you are supposed to. You are the exact same as BGC, just more whiny.
4) You are pouting because another "liberal" is tired of you making us look like fools all the time.
sirio11
04-07-2005, 11:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And they wouldnt dare anger their Arab friends by taking on an Arab nation for the piddley crime of killing, raping, and enslaving hundreds of thousands(perhaps millions) of people.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel the need to make those stupid statements?
[ QUOTE ]
Question for Dead: would you support a peacekeeping effort (comprised of many countries) in the Sudan? I ask because of your stated position on Bosnia...
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't support US funding or troops. I don't think it's proper.
BCPVP
04-07-2005, 11:42 PM
Explain
I am somewhat of a non-interventionist when it comes to international military/peacekeeping efforts.
Tsunami relief is ok by me though.
thatpfunk
04-07-2005, 11:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Better question: what specifically has the U.N. done to end the genocide?
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too though... You can't continuously undermine and attempt to tear down the UN, attacking countries when we please, and then ask for UN help when it is convenient.
All I am merely asking is: if the US can validate our invasion of Iraq through the claim that we are liberating their people, why is it not consistent?
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 11:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we always being blamed for being the "World Police"?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not blaming the US Administration for being the "World Police". The world needs a "World Police", but is has to be a World Police with credibility and you have lost all your credibility for decades to come.
However I blame the US Administration for obstructing a real "World Police". The prelude to the Iraqi war put this work 15 years back.
zaxx19
04-07-2005, 11:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel the need to make those stupid statements?
[/ QUOTE ]
Whats stupid about it>?
Im honestly asking.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel the need to make those stupid statements?
[/ QUOTE ]
Whats stupid about it>?
Im honestly asking.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah.
What's stupid about it? Do you condone the Arabs killing all the people there?
BCPVP
04-07-2005, 11:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am somewhat of a non-interventionist when it comes to international military/peacekeeping efforts.
[/ QUOTE ]
So basically, you're an isolationist.
Could you further explain?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am somewhat of a non-interventionist when it comes to international military/peacekeeping efforts.
[/ QUOTE ]
So basically, you're an isolationist.
Could you further explain?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, an isolationist wouldn't support foreign aid.
A lot of my positions can't be boxed in.
I oppose military intervention, but have few problems with non-military intervention(food, health care, etc).
Arnfinn Madsen
04-07-2005, 11:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am somewhat of a non-interventionist when it comes to international military/peacekeeping efforts.
[/ QUOTE ]
So basically, you're an isolationist.
Could you further explain?
[/ QUOTE ]
With your current administration it would be a blessing to the world if you would isolate further.
BCPVP
04-07-2005, 11:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
All I am merely asking is: if the US can validate our invasion of Iraq through the claim that we are liberating their people, why is it not consistent?
[/ QUOTE ]
1) In case you didn't notice, we've been at war for a couple years. It seems that a lot of the troops have served multiple/extended tours of duty and are probably a bit fatigued from the fighting.
2) Liberation wasn't the only reason we went into Iraq.
Now, I agree that we should be doing more. But the "blame-the-U.S.-for-everything" act is getting old.
BCPVP
04-07-2005, 11:57 PM
Ok, but I'd still like a real explanation of why you wouldn't support it. It's kind of like if you lived next door to someone who you knew was beating/murdering his wife and kids, aren't you a bit culpable if you do nothing to stop it?
No I'm not culpable. But, yes, if I knew it was happening, I would go over there and shoot him.
If you had wanted to go fight Saddam then I'd have no problems with that. Go knock yourself out is what I'd have said. What I DO have a problem with is using our military for that purpose.
thatpfunk
04-08-2005, 12:01 AM
I feel like we could be doing something though. Fundraising, aid, public donations, public outcry, support for UN action, support for European action, saying "Sorry our plate is quite full right now, I hope someone can help these poor people, etc."
I just feel that as far as genocides go, this is pretty low on the radar.
zaxx19
04-08-2005, 12:04 AM
Which other "Genocides" is Europe busy attending to?
Felix_Nietsche
04-08-2005, 12:04 AM
I'm not a big fan of invading countries JUST to 'liberate' them from tyranny... To me that is not a good enough reason... We tried to keep the Vietnamese free but found that they weren't as motivated towards their own freedom as we were...
Iraq deserved to be invaded for three reasons:
1. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
2. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
2. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
If we learned anything from history, allowing a former foe to violate a peace treaty without consequences results in future problems with COMPOUND INTEREST... The Roman Empire at its height, understood basic human nature and enforced treaties/pacts with force if necessary. After making a few examples of liars/cheats, then they rarely had to use force in the future. Iraq(Saddaam) needed to be overthrown for violating the terms of the armistice....
All the stuff about liberating their people is a secondary or even tertiary reason at best... But, it sounds good to say in a speech. Doesn't matter to me what language they choose to use as long as they punish people who lie/cheat the USA...
As for Sudan, if we want to help them, then arm the victims of the violence. The peace-loving muslims committing the genocide will be less enthusiastic if their victims shoot back...
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 12:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I feel like we could be doing something though. Fundraising, aid, public donations, public outcry, support for UN action, support for European action, saying "Sorry our plate is quite full right now, I hope someone can help these poor people, etc."
I just feel that as far as genocides go, this is pretty low on the radar.
[/ QUOTE ]
Credit to Colin Powell though for making a serious, diplomatic attempt to solve it (I guess Bush-puppet Rice gives a fvck).
The funds are sufficient and the UN has enough food. The problem is a military one. As experts see it, troops on the ground is the only solution.
thatpfunk
04-08-2005, 12:07 AM
Notice the comma, the quote would be from the US stating our plate is full.
zaxx19
04-08-2005, 12:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As for Sudan, if we want to help them, then arm the victims of the violence. The peace-loving muslims committing the genocide will be less enthusiastic if their victims shoot back...
[/ QUOTE ]
see- The State of Israel.
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
BCPVP
04-08-2005, 12:08 AM
USAID fact sheet (http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/countries/sudan/fy2005/darfur_he_fs27_04-01-2005.pdf)
BCPVP
04-08-2005, 12:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No I'm not culpable. But, yes, if I knew it was happening, I would go over there and shoot him.
If you had wanted to go fight Saddam then I'd have no problems with that. Go knock yourself out is what I'd have said. What I DO have a problem with is using our military for that purpose.
[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't make sense. You would actively go and stop someone from abusing/killing people next door, but you won't do it (or support it) internationallly? Please clarify
thatpfunk
04-08-2005, 12:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Iraq deserved to be invaded for three reasons:
1. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
2. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
2. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will not argue about this, I will not even read a response to this, but we both know this is complete BS.
thatpfunk
04-08-2005, 12:16 AM
That is nice to see BC.
Uh-oh, I'm agreeing with someone not liberal /images/graemlins/ooo.gif Dead might yell at me again!! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Felix_Nietsche
04-08-2005, 12:18 AM
"I will not argue about this, I will not even read a response to this, but we both know this is complete BS."
************************************************** *****
LOL...this is one of the most bizarre responses to one of my posts I've seen. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
What ever you do....DO not READ THIS! /images/graemlins/smile.gif
thatpfunk
04-08-2005, 12:19 AM
Just cause I don't want to get into an argument where neither of us is going to convince the other of anything and it just gets pointless.
[ QUOTE ]
That is nice to see BC.
Uh-oh, I'm agreeing with someone not liberal /images/graemlins/ooo.gif Dead might yell at me again!! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
LOOK. YOU ARE SUCH A TRAITOR. OMGOD!
PhatTBoll
04-08-2005, 12:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iraq deserved to be invaded for three reasons:
1. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
2. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
2. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will not argue about this, I will not even read a response to this, but we both know this is complete BS.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that he's not telling the truth or that you don't think the reason is enough to start (continue?) a war over?
PhatTBoll
04-08-2005, 12:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, i am on tilt because these matters were discussed and solved in Europe. It works fine on the European continent now. In Asia it is discussed and mainly solved. In Latin America it starts to be solved.
[/ QUOTE ]
What matters are you talking about exactly?
lehighguy
04-08-2005, 01:35 AM
Because the right used up all its political capital on Iraq. And the Democrats can't support it because they have posistioned themselves as anti-foriegn involvement/ isolationist/anti-war.
Felix_Nietsche
04-08-2005, 01:55 AM
"However, I think here, 95% would agree with him. It shows how [censored] up image you have in the world now."
**************************************************
Americans re-elected George Bush...
This should give you an idea of how much the USA cares about its "image"... We are not trying to win a popularity contest...
As far as I'm concerned, the USA has the best government in the world and most other countries are f***-up. And based on the long lines of people wanted to leave their country and immigrate into the USA, it seems many people agree with me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
You can like the USA or hate the USA. It does not matter to most Americans and it will certainly not disturb our breakfast. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
But most Americans are not cowards (like the Spanish who elect an appeaser because of terrorism) and after 9/11 we are going to kick some a$$ and we don't care whether you approve or disapprove.... After Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and NORWAY are on our "to do" list. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
After we invade Norway, we are going to kidnap all your good looking women and leave you our ugly ones. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Cyrus
04-08-2005, 02:25 AM
We Texas oil boys understand only black gold.
Sudan has black and bit o' gold but no black gold.
(Lame, I know..)
Stan the man
04-08-2005, 02:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Americans re-elected George Bush...
This should give you an idea of how much the USA cares about its "image"... We are not trying to win a popularity contest...
[/ QUOTE ]
Good image = more $$$ in the long run.
[ QUOTE ]
it seems many people agree with me.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have no idea.
[ QUOTE ]
But most Americans are not cowards (like the Spanish who elect an appeaser because of terrorism) and after 9/11 we are going to kick some a$$ and we don't care whether you approve or disapprove....
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but 9/11 was a joke. Never heard of WW2?
Edge34
04-08-2005, 02:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but 9/11 was a joke. Never heard of WW2?
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever you're implying by this, I think you really should reconsider ever posting again. Ever.
Or a better idea, go buy a gun and rent a bullet, if you get my drift.
Stan the man
04-08-2005, 02:52 AM
9/11:
I agree that it was a horrible terrorist attack and it was wrong, but You get what you order!
[ QUOTE ]
go buy a gun
[/ QUOTE ]
Not possible in Finland. In Finland (like in Norway, in Sweden etc.) we have good society. We don't need guns.
Edge34
04-08-2005, 02:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
9/11:
I agree that it was a horrible terrorist attack and it was wrong, but You get what you order!
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely retarded. I'm not even going to waste time arguing this with you, you're so wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
go buy a gun
[/ QUOTE ]
Not possible in Finland. In Finland (like in Norway, in Sweden etc.) we have good society. We don't need guns.
[/ QUOTE ]
1) Good society? And that implies that we don't or something? I'd like to see from your POV, but I don't think I could get my head that far up my ass. EDIT TO ADD: Maybe something is being lost on me through your English. I could be wrong, that I will admit.
2) OK, no guns...Find yourself some rope and something really high up to tie it to...or something like that. That is, if you don't understand how stupid you made yourself look based on the first part RE: 9/11. You knew what I meant anyways.
Gamblor
04-08-2005, 03:15 AM
cause it ain't jews who is killin them
if they was arab the un would be all over that [censored]
Stan the man
04-08-2005, 03:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Good society? And that implies that we don't or something?
[/ QUOTE ]
YES!
Link (http://www.mercerhr.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1173105;jsessionid=411KJQKNQUT2ACTGOUGCHPQKMZ0QYI2 C)
World-wide quality of life survey
United Kingdom
London, 14 March 2005
Luxembourg scores highest for personal safety and security; Baghdad scores lowest
Canadian cities top the rankings for safety and security in North America
For overall quality of life, Geneva, and Zurich rank top; Baghdad scores lowest
Luxembourg ranks as the world’s top city for personal safety and security, according to a quality of life survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The city scores 122.5 followed by Helsinki , Bern, Geneva, and Zurich which take joint second place with scores of 120.
Scores for personal safety and security are based on relationships with other countries, internal stability, and crime, including terrorism. Law enforcement, censorship, and limitations on personal freedom are also taken into account. (See Notes below for details.)
Cities are ranked against New York as the base city, which has a rating of 100. The analysis is part of a worldwide quality of life survey, covering 215 cities, to help governments and major companies to place employees on international assignments.
In the US, Honolulu, Houston, Lexington, San Francisco, and Winston Salem rank highest in joint 45th position with scores of 104. Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Portland, and New York all follow in 58th place with scores of 100. The lowest scoring city in North America is Atlanta, ranked 90 with a score of 90.5, due to street crime and burglary.
What does POV mean?
[censored]
04-08-2005, 03:28 AM
You of all people should now that just because they were not publically stated does not mean that those were the reasons for going to war. You may not like it, but the war was sold using the arguements that the public would most accept but those were not the only reasons. The lake of these are why we are not involved in the sudan. It comes to interests of the US, this is how wars are decided always have been always will be.
I always think that many (not all, maybe not you) of those who are so concerned about what is going on the Sudan would turn and protest the minute any military action was taken. They would deride America's involvement in the affairs of others as US Imperialism and bitch and moan about the lose of life from military conflict.
As for the UN, any involvement by that institution has and will continue to be ineffective. I believe they are still unwillingly to even label it as genocide and take any serious actions against the government including sanctions.
I would be most interested in any actions they have taken so please post any along with sources that you know of
chabibi
04-08-2005, 03:46 AM
Dead,
was american intervention in WWII okay?
thatpfunk
04-08-2005, 05:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Quote:
Iraq deserved to be invaded for three reasons:
1. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
2. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
2. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1.
I will not argue about this, I will not even read a response to this, but we both know this is complete BS.
Are you saying that he's not telling the truth or that you don't think the reason is enough to start (continue?) a war over?
[/ QUOTE ]
Those the technical reasons that we were *able* to go. I do not think it is *why* we went. I would find anyone incredibly naive if they believes it to be so.
thatpfunk
04-08-2005, 05:57 AM
I hope to god you're being facetious.
zaxx19
04-08-2005, 06:08 AM
Do you seriously think DEAD knows what facetious means? /images/graemlins/confused.gif
nicky g
04-08-2005, 06:45 AM
My 2 cents:
Noone, including the US, the UN, the EU, and my local neighbourhood watch association, are doing enough about Darfur. The African Union has at least sent peacekeepers but they are apparently pretty ineffective, and it is a shame that in such a situation the poorest countries with the least to spare have to be relied on. The UN is crippled regarding the matter as China would veto any resolution authorising serious action, which is a fine reason to reform the Security Coucnil and get rid of ALL vetoes (yes, that includs the US) an institute a two thirds rule or something similar instead.
What rankles people about the Sudan/Iraq thing: regardless of the so-called "real reasons" the administration had for invading Iraq (which have magic powers of mutation every time on e of them is undermined), many pro-war-ists, including some here, not only justified the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds but repeatedly vilified the anti-war movement as supporters of Saddam, claiming that by opposing the war they were effectively advocating the continuation of his policies, and then listing (long) past large-scale atrocities such as the Kurdish Anfal campaign. And yet clearly when the adminstration they support does not deem a situation invloving crimes againt humanity such as Sudan worthy of intervention, such rules no longer apply and it is not considered a moral outrage to oppose military intervention there.
This despite the facts that:
- there was no Darfur or Anfal style mass atrocity occuring in Iraq at the time of the invasion, with human rights organisations Saddam was executing at most annual numbers in the low hundreds (atrocious, but not comparable to Anfal or worth a war that cost tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars that could have probably saved far more lives if better spent in a short period, and that has seen the violent mortality rate actually rise compared to pre-war Iraq) and nor was Saddam in a serious position to ever attempt one again;
- there is (or at least very recently has been) a campaign in Darfur which has seen the death of many thousands of people, due to crimes against humanity and starvation caused by displacement in a short time;
- these people's heroes, the people from whom they take their lead in such matters, are the very people who were not only not remotely interested in intervening to prevent Saddams's actions against the Kurds but were actively supporting him at that time, and were complicit in the torpedoing of various UN and US congress denunciations of him.
- these people are often the sort who would like to see the entire UN abolished, objecting to it not only in practice but in principle, and yet complain when it doesn't act in these kinds of siutations; they think Ameican power is a far more positive force and one which should be relied on rather than the UN, and yet when America decides not to get involved in such a tragedy, they complain the US can't do everything and bleat about UN inaction. They hate the idea of a collective organisation that imposes any limits on American power, but as soon as something comes up that America can't be bothered to deal with, the UN should step in to sort it out.
While I'm not in favour of an Iraq style war in Sudan (toppling the government etc), but rather the movement of the issue way up the international community's list of prioirties and some sort of muchmore serious peacekeeping action, it seems clear that even that kind of intervention there would at least have directly saved far more lives than that in Iraq. And yet the people who shouted loudest about the importance of removing the monster Saddam on the gorunds of saving lives are curiously silent when the adminsitration from which they take their cue demonstrates little interest in a far more serious humanitarian situation.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"However, I think here, 95% would agree with him. It shows how [censored] up image you have in the world now."
**************************************************
Americans re-elected George Bush...
This should give you an idea of how much the USA cares about its "image"... We are not trying to win a popularity contest...
As far as I'm concerned, the USA has the best government in the world and most other countries are f***-up. And based on the long lines of people wanted to leave their country and immigrate into the USA, it seems many people agree with me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
You can like the USA or hate the USA. It does not matter to most Americans and it will certainly not disturb our breakfast. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
But most Americans are not cowards (like the Spanish who elect an appeaser because of terrorism) and after 9/11 we are going to kick some a$$ and we don't care whether you approve or disapprove.... After Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and NORWAY are on our "to do" list. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
After we invade Norway, we are going to kidnap all your good looking women and leave you our ugly ones. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, it is your country and I see that your image is not important. However what I point out is that this image creates a problem. You don't want to cooperate with the police if you believe the police chief is corrupted and lame.
nicky g
04-08-2005, 08:36 AM
Also note that the UN has taken some action to prosecute those involved in Darfur via the International Cirminal Court (see here (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/737/re6.htm) ). Who is the most significant and active opponent of the court? The Bush administration, supported by the pro-war, anti-UN crowd. A clear instance of wanting the UN to step in where the US can't be bothered, but refusing to allow it the tools to do so because those could limit American power in some way. The pro-war right doesn't want an effective UN, it wants a proxy body that can deliver minor American policy goals on America's behalf.
zaxx19
04-08-2005, 09:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Also note that the UN has taken some action to prosecute those involved in Darfur via the International Cirminal Court
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Oh Dear G-d stop.....I really cant breathe.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Some of us for the war in Iraq are quite upset that the U.S. is doing nothing about Darfur.
Your take on the U.N. is correct and it illustrates why the U.N. is an absolutely worthless organization as it stands now.
Now, does the hypocrisy run both ways? For those who shouted that we need to follow the U.N. in Iraq, - do they think we should act unilaterally or do they think we should say, "well, it sure sucks that 300,000 are dead but we need to follow the U.N. and if that means 300,000 unneccessary deaths, well thats the price we should accept".
nicky g
04-08-2005, 10:24 AM
"Your take on the U.N. is correct and it illustrates why the U.N. is an absolutely worthless organization as it stands now."
I don;t agree. I think it is an organisation that is constrained from fulfilling anything like its potention as it stands now. It has done plenty of good work.
"Now, does the hypocrisy run both ways? For those who shouted that we need to follow the U.N. in Iraq, - do they think we should act unilaterally or do they think we should say, "well, it sure sucks that 300,000 are dead but we need to follow the U.N. and if that means 300,000 unneccessary deaths, well thats the price we should accept". "
It's ultimately a similar question to whether you should break the law if you think it's morally justified to. Clearly there comes a point when you should; on the other hand your own insistence on others following the law (sticking to treaties etc) will become totally hollow. Has that point been reached yet in Sudan? I really don't know, partly because I don't know enough about the situation there, and there might be alternatives that would succeed without breaking the law (eg a major peacekeeping force). It's a purely academic point though, as the US has no more intention of doing anything serious about it than anyone else.
In the long term the question should be "how do we take these decisions?" Plenty of people accuse the UN of being worthless in its current state but they would never give up the US veto for example, and can;t therefore seriously expect other countries to give up theirs. As I said, it's no good complaining about UN inaction while depriving it of the ability to become more active. If it's useless what does it get replaced with? An organisation dictated to by the US?
Felix_Nietsche
04-08-2005, 10:53 AM
"You don't want to cooperate with the police if you believe the police chief is corrupted and lame."
************************************************** ********
Then don't cooperate... If needed the USA will handle things alone. And other countries which view terrorism as a threat, are welcome to join the USA or not.
The UN, France, Germany, Russia, etc... took bribes from S.Hussein via the oil-for-food program and illegally sold military equipment to Iraq. These countries used the UN to block the USA from enforcing sanctions against Iraq. Each UN vote was designed to maintain the status quo so they could continue to make money illegally....
And you imply the USA is corrupt!!!???
If helping people like S.Hussein violate UN sanctions is an example of cooperating with the USA, THEN PLEASE STOP COOPERATING WITH THE USA...
With 'friends' like these...who needs enemies...
nicky g
04-08-2005, 11:50 AM
Trolls like you are making this forum a complete waste of time. You've occasionally demonstrated in the past that unlike most of your ilk you can actually contribute something vaguely intelligent, so please do, or get lost.
zaxx19
04-08-2005, 12:00 PM
Im a troll bc I made fun of the UN??
lighten up.
nicky g
04-08-2005, 12:07 PM
No, because you made your umpteenth thousand post that contributed absolutely nothing, the latest in a never ending series of posts that contain nothing more than "yeah right" or "please don't confuse them with actual facts" or "are you done yet?" or whatever. Make a proper argument or post something informative for once.
zaxx19
04-08-2005, 12:14 PM
Ah, so you are the ultimate arbiter of value in posting.....
Now I understand.
mackthefork
04-08-2005, 12:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"You don't want to cooperate with the police if you believe the police chief is corrupted and lame."
************************************************** ********
Then don't cooperate... If needed the USA will handle things alone. And other countries which view terrorism as a threat, are welcome to join the USA or not.
The UN, France, Germany, Russia, etc... took bribes from S.Hussein via the oil-for-food program and illegally sold military equipment to Iraq. These countries used the UN to block the USA from enforcing sanctions against Iraq. Each UN vote was designed to maintain the status quo so they could continue to make money illegally....
And you imply the USA is corrupt!!!???
If helping people like S.Hussein violate UN sanctions is an example of cooperating with the USA, THEN PLEASE STOP COOPERATING WITH THE USA...
With 'friends' like these...who needs enemies...
[/ QUOTE ]
All you are doing here is regurgitating propaganda spouted by right wing news organisations, I can't see the point, do you really believe the reasons were this cynical. Much more likely is Iraq was never a threat, some good has certainly come of the war though.
I would say I don't think the US is corrupt, but most politicans are, they have their own financial agendas to follow, they may act on behalf of countries but their actions do not reflect the will of their people.
Mack
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 12:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You don't want to cooperate with the police if you believe the police chief is corrupted and lame."
************************************************** ********
Then don't cooperate... If needed the USA will handle things alone. And other countries which view terrorism as a threat, are welcome to join the USA or not.
The UN, France, Germany, Russia, etc... took bribes from S.Hussein via the oil-for-food program and illegally sold military equipment to Iraq. These countries used the UN to block the USA from enforcing sanctions against Iraq. Each UN vote was designed to maintain the status quo so they could continue to make money illegally....
And you imply the USA is corrupt!!!???
If helping people like S.Hussein violate UN sanctions is an example of cooperating with the USA, THEN PLEASE STOP COOPERATING WITH THE USA...
With 'friends' like these...who needs enemies...
[/ QUOTE ]
All you are doing here is regurgitating propaganda spouted by right wing news organisations, I can't see the point, do you really believe the reasons were this cynical. Much more likely is Iraq was never a threat, some good has certainly come of the war though.
I would say I don't think the US is corrupt, but most politicans are, they have their own financial agendas to follow, they may act on behalf of countries but their actions do not reflect the will of their people.
Mack
[/ QUOTE ]
In my analogy I meant that the police chief pursues the interest of the police force, not the general public.
vulturesrow
04-08-2005, 12:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You don't want to cooperate with the police if you believe the police chief is corrupted and lame."
************************************************** ********
Then don't cooperate... If needed the USA will handle things alone. And other countries which view terrorism as a threat, are welcome to join the USA or not.
The UN, France, Germany, Russia, etc... took bribes from S.Hussein via the oil-for-food program and illegally sold military equipment to Iraq. These countries used the UN to block the USA from enforcing sanctions against Iraq. Each UN vote was designed to maintain the status quo so they could continue to make money illegally....
And you imply the USA is corrupt!!!???
If helping people like S.Hussein violate UN sanctions is an example of cooperating with the USA, THEN PLEASE STOP COOPERATING WITH THE USA...
With 'friends' like these...who needs enemies...
[/ QUOTE ]
All you are doing here is regurgitating propaganda spouted by right wing news organisations, I can't see the point, do you really believe the reasons were this cynical. Much more likely is Iraq was never a threat, some good has certainly come of the war though.
I would say I don't think the US is corrupt, but most politicans are, they have their own financial agendas to follow, they may act on behalf of countries but their actions do not reflect the will of their people.
Mack
[/ QUOTE ]
In my analogy I meant that the police chief pursues the interest of the police force, not the general public.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ridiculous analogy. OF course America is giong to prioritize foreign policy actions that help our interests most.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 12:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You don't want to cooperate with the police if you believe the police chief is corrupted and lame."
************************************************** ********
Then don't cooperate... If needed the USA will handle things alone. And other countries which view terrorism as a threat, are welcome to join the USA or not.
The UN, France, Germany, Russia, etc... took bribes from S.Hussein via the oil-for-food program and illegally sold military equipment to Iraq. These countries used the UN to block the USA from enforcing sanctions against Iraq. Each UN vote was designed to maintain the status quo so they could continue to make money illegally....
And you imply the USA is corrupt!!!???
If helping people like S.Hussein violate UN sanctions is an example of cooperating with the USA, THEN PLEASE STOP COOPERATING WITH THE USA...
With 'friends' like these...who needs enemies...
[/ QUOTE ]
All you are doing here is regurgitating propaganda spouted by right wing news organisations, I can't see the point, do you really believe the reasons were this cynical. Much more likely is Iraq was never a threat, some good has certainly come of the war though.
I would say I don't think the US is corrupt, but most politicans are, they have their own financial agendas to follow, they may act on behalf of countries but their actions do not reflect the will of their people.
Mack
[/ QUOTE ]
In my analogy I meant that the police chief pursues the interest of the police force, not the general public.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ridiculous analogy. OF course America is giong to prioritize foreign policy actions that help our interests most.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously yes, I just claim that when Bush pretends to be the police chief with high morale, it is hypocricy.
vulturesrow
04-08-2005, 01:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously yes, I just claim that when Bush pretends to be the police chief with high morale, it is hypocricy.
[/ QUOTE ]
When did Bush claim to be the Chief of Police? And acting in the best interests of the United States (which by the way, is what the President is supposed to do) and being a moral leader are not mutually exclusive things. I see that the European wackos love the words hypocrite and hypocrisy just as much as our native bred ones.
We can agrue forever about whether the U.N. is worthless or not. that isnt particularly interesting. However, the second part of your commentary raises several interesting topics.
When does one allow concience and/or personal (or group) morality to overide established laws, especially when one views the law as the basis for a civilized society? How does one turn away from atrocity under the cover of the law? Can you really weigh law and morality?
[ QUOTE ]
f it's useless what does it get replaced with? An organisation dictated to by the US?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not a world government? Several leading thinkers argued for such a government in the fifties in order to avoid the eventual use of nuclear weapons.
Another option is simply nothing at all. Why must their be a body such as the U.N.? Why not simply have regional or global alliances (e.g., NATO) based on common interests?
mackthefork
04-08-2005, 01:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When did Bush claim to be the Chief of Police? And acting in the best interests of the United States (which by the way, is what the President is supposed to do) and being a moral leader are not mutually exclusive things. I see that the European wackos love the words hypocrite and hypocrisy just as much as our native bred ones.
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely you can do better than calling people idiots and wackos just because they don't agree with you. meh
Mack
zaxx19
04-08-2005, 01:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Another option is simply nothing at all. Why must their be a body such as the U.N.? Why not simply have regional or global alliances (e.g., NATO) based on common interests?
[/ QUOTE ]
A forum with representatives fromt hose organizations, where they could talk and work on a limited slate of things(like say UNICEF-IMF-arms control) would be adequate.
A world Goverment is centuries if not millenia away.
Start small. Make it effective. Then perhaps expand on cooperation.
vulturesrow
04-08-2005, 01:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When did Bush claim to be the Chief of Police? And acting in the best interests of the United States (which by the way, is what the President is supposed to do) and being a moral leader are not mutually exclusive things. I see that the European wackos love the words hypocrite and hypocrisy just as much as our native bred ones.
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely you can do better than calling people idiots and wackos just because they don't agree with you. meh
Mack
[/ QUOTE ]
In order to indulge my pedantic tendencies, I might point out that I didnt call him an idiot. And I dont think he is whacko because he disagrees with me (there are liberals on here that I disagree with that I dont consider whackos). I think he is whacko because of the totality of his posts that I have seen so far. I then note this similarity between him and our American whackos whose use of the word hypocrite is near Pavlovian.
mackthefork
04-08-2005, 01:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In order to indulge my pedantic tendencies, I might point out that I didnt call him an idiot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Haha I knew you were going to say that, I almost deleted it, but then decided it was needed. FWIW I like to hear what people have to say, even if i disagree, I am not arrogant enough to assume everyone else is wrong and I am the font of all knowledge, anyone who is, is a bit silly.
Mack
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 02:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another option is simply nothing at all. Why must their be a body such as the U.N.? Why not simply have regional or global alliances (e.g., NATO) based on common interests?
[/ QUOTE ]
A forum with representatives fromt hose organizations, where they could talk and work on a limited slate of things(like say UNICEF-IMF-arms control) would be adequate.
A world Goverment is centuries if not millenia away.
Start small. Make it effective. Then perhaps expand on cooperation.
[/ QUOTE ]
In reality a lot of this is happening based on free trade-organizations. I guess both EU and NAFTA and other organisations will expand further. This has proven to be very effective peacekeeping as trade makes countries more dependant upon eachother.
[ QUOTE ]
I hope to god you're being facetious.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you seriously think DEAD knows what facetious means? /images/graemlins/confused.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I've tried to be nice to you but it is obvious that you are retard who tries to suck off so many people on here. It is seriously getting old.
Your posts make you look retarded. Did you even graduate high school? Is your IQ above 50? I'm not joking. Your posts are also hell to read.
[ QUOTE ]
Dead,
was american intervention in WWII okay?
[/ QUOTE ]
If we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, there is a very good chance that Hitler wouldn't have become Fuhrer and, as a result, there wouldn't have been a WWII. We did our damned best to humiliate Germany after WWI as well.
The U.S. likely could have prevented WWII and the Holocaust had we just kept our noses out of the The Great War.
johnc
04-08-2005, 05:18 PM
It's very sickening to constantly have tolerate the barage of the bleeding liberals crying accolades for some HOMOGENOUS Scandanavian country and how wunderful the Socialist life is and how wunderful it is to have health care, blah, blah, blah. Well, Dutch boy, let's get something straight, your country, however great it is for you is just that - great for you. Application of your myopic standards is a rampant disease that has spread all through the ranks of the "progressives"/liberals/socialists of your ilk. Your eutopian solutions will not work any better than Bush's will in Iraq. Bottomline, stop lying to yourself out of anger towards the US and start realizing that the solutions we need are EXTREMELY complex and will require a complete revamping of our way of thought and TOTAL abandonment of personal political agendas.
Great post.
I'm sick of hearing about how [censored] perfect the Scandinavian countries are.
BCPVP
04-08-2005, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, there is a very good chance that Hitler wouldn't have become Fuhrer and, as a result, there wouldn't have been a WWII. We did our damned best to humiliate Germany after WWI as well.
The U.S. likely could have prevented WWII and the Holocaust had we just kept our noses out of the The Great War.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wasn't it the Europeans who wanted to impose the heavy reparations? I thought it was Wilson who didn't want to go as far as they did, but did so in order to set up the League of Nations. So therefore, it wasn't the U.S.'s fault. I could be wrong.
Either way, we entered WWII because of the Japan, not because of Germany.
Dead, are you a pacifist?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, there is a very good chance that Hitler wouldn't have become Fuhrer and, as a result, there wouldn't have been a WWII. We did our damned best to humiliate Germany after WWI as well.
The U.S. likely could have prevented WWII and the Holocaust had we just kept our noses out of the The Great War.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wasn't it the Europeans who wanted to impose the heavy reparations? I thought it was Wilson who didn't want to go as far as they did, but did so in order to set up the League of Nations. So therefore, it wasn't the U.S.'s fault. I could be wrong.
Either way, we entered WWII because of the Japan, not because of Germany.
Dead, are you a pacifist?
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan attacked us because Roosevelt was pushing them around, telling them not to go into Manchuria, etc. He also cut off US exports to Japan.
I have no problem with the government using our military to defend our borders from foreign aggressors. I do have a problem with us going out in the world and seeking out trouble, as we always seem to do.
As to the question of whether or not I am a pacifist, I am when it comes to the use of our military.
If someone was threatening my life on the street, and I was armed, I would have no problem blowing their brains out, from a moral standpoint.
I do have a problem with going over to a foreign country and dropping bombs that we know will kill innocent civilians.
I guess this makes me a pacifist, since one definition of pacifist is "someone who is opposed to the practice of war". Some pacifists also are committed to non-violence in society in general, but I don't share this view. I support the death penalty for murderers, for example.
But, yeah, I guess I am somewhat of a pacifist.
Might I add that it is quite refreshing to have an actual political discussion in this forum, without it devolving into an insult-fest. It is probably because Zaxx and Jaxmike are absent from this exchange. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 05:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Great post.
I'm sick of hearing about how [censored] perfect the Scandinavian countries are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to brag, but Norway was ranked as "best quality of life" at the two last surveys. Beats US on most indicators.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great post.
I'm sick of hearing about how [censored] perfect the Scandinavian countries are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to brag, but Norway was ranked as "best quality of life" at the two last surveys. Beats US on most indicators.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but do you have hot strippers? Was that a quality of life indicator? It should be.
I'd rather live in Denmark. They hid their Jews in their houses during the Holocaust, and saved something like 98% of them. How did Norway do on that?
johnc
04-08-2005, 05:43 PM
Please don't brag. It's a much simpler task to run a homogenous society such as Norway. Norms, values, belief systems, all those aspects of life that Americans struggle with due to extreme diversity, are basically the same - everyone's on the same page. True diversity is non-existant in Norway therefore your statement is non-applicable based upon the lack of connection to American society.
BCPVP
04-08-2005, 05:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Japan attacked us because Roosevelt was pushing them around, telling them not to go into Manchuria, etc. He also cut off US exports to Japan.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ever looked into the history of what the Japanese did to the Chinese in Manchuria? Since they are our exports, I think we should be able to cut them off to whomever we feel like whenever we feel like it. Japan tried to cripple the U.S. navy so that they could rape and pillage the Pacific to their hearts content. Hardly the situation you describe.
[ QUOTE ]
As to the question of whether or not I am a pacifist, I am when it comes to the use of our military.
If someone was threatening my life on the street, and I was armed, I would have no problem blowing their brains out, from a moral standpoint.
I do have a problem with going over to a foreign country and dropping bombs that we know will kill innocent civilians.
I guess this makes me a pacifist, since one definition of pacifist is "someone who is opposed to the practice of war". Some pacifists also are committed to non-violence in society in general, but I don't share this view. I support the death penalty for murderers, for example.
But, yeah, I guess I am somewhat of a pacifist.
[/ QUOTE ]
What if a foreign country attacked us with a conscripted military? Those fighting would essentially be civilians guilty of nothing except living in the wrong country. Would war be acceptable then?
[ QUOTE ]
Might I add that it is quite refreshing to have an actual political discussion in this forum, without it devolving into an insult-fest. It is probably because Zaxx and Jaxmike are absent from this exchange.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't feed the trolls... /images/graemlins/cool.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Ever looked into the history of what the Japanese did to the Chinese in Manchuria? Since they are our exports, I think we should be able to cut them off to whomever we feel like whenever we feel like it. Japan tried to cripple the U.S. navy so that they could rape and pillage the Pacific to their hearts content. Hardly the situation you describe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan didn't really attack us because of the cut off exports. it was more because of Roosevelt's verbal bullying, imo.
[ QUOTE ]
What if a foreign country attacked us with a conscripted military? Those fighting would essentially be civilians guilty of nothing except living in the wrong country. Would war be acceptable then?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if they invaded our country, I say that we should have the right to kill them. I don't know if I would, but I'm sure that some other Americans would take care of those foreigners.
BCPVP
04-08-2005, 05:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Japan didn't really attack us because of the cut off exports. it was more because of Roosevelt's verbal bullying, imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. You don't start a war because some leader says mean things. Japan was going to start hurting due to the lack of oil that we cut from them. So they tried to destroy the entire U.S. Pacific fleet so that they could have free reign to plunder the Pacific. I don't know where you got that bizarre version of history, but I'm fairly sure it's wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, if they invaded our country, I say that we should have the right to kill them. I don't know if I would, but I'm sure that some other Americans would take care of those foreigners.
[/ QUOTE ]
Describe to me the difference between the conscripts that are hypothetically attacking and other innocent civilians?
[ QUOTE ]
Describe to me the difference between the conscripts that are hypothetically attacking and other innocent civilians?
[/ QUOTE ]
Contrary to the opinion of some on here, people don't have to become conscripts.
If there was a draft for the war in Iraq, I would go to jail or go to Canada. I wouldn't fight in a war I didn't believe in.
And if people believe in the war and are conscripts then we should have no problem killing them.
And if they don't have stones enough to not fight in a war they don't believe in, then what does it matter anyway?
BCPVP
04-08-2005, 06:01 PM
I was thinking something along the lines of forced conscription like the pre-war regular Iraqi Army (Not the Fedayeen, sp?). Why do they deserve to die any more than other civilians?
I would rather die than go to Iraq and kill innocent people. That is the moral thing to do. Of course I would rather just run away to some remote island.
I can't even hit someone who hasn't done [censored] to me. How am I supposed to take a rifle in my hands and go kill people who I have no beef with?
BCPVP
04-08-2005, 06:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I can't even hit someone who hasn't done [censored] to me. How am I supposed to take a rifle in my hands and go kill people who I have no beef with?
[/ QUOTE ]
You're dodging the question. Assume you were face to face with an Iraqi regular (pre-war, hypothetically of course). He's part of the military that's attacking the U.S. (again, hypothetically). Why does he deserve death, at your hands or at others', any more than an Iraqi civilian?
Because he came over here to destroy our country and its institutions.
That makes him different from an Iraqi civilian over there. The location is crucial.
Here's a question for you:
How can you fault the Iraqis for fighting back against the US soldiers? Lots of them believe that they are defending their country from a foreign invader that wants to mistreat them? We are the aggressor there.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 06:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great post.
I'm sick of hearing about how [censored] perfect the Scandinavian countries are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to brag, but Norway was ranked as "best quality of life" at the two last surveys. Beats US on most indicators.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but do you have hot strippers? Was that a quality of life indicator? It should be.
I'd rather live in Denmark. They hid their Jews in their houses during the Holocaust, and saved something like 98% of them. How did Norway do on that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Various,
There was some police that was cooperating with the Germans and that led to Jewish deportations. On the other hand, a lot of people risked their life to help jews escape to Sweden.
[ QUOTE ]
There was some police that was cooperating with the Germans and that led to Jewish deportations.
[/ QUOTE ]
How nice. Stupid Aryans.
No, it's pretty clear that your country did far worse in their efforts to protect Jews.
Does that bother you? Are you one of those people that believes the Jews continue everything in America? What is your opinion of Jews? I'm curious. And leave Israel out of it.
I want to know your opinion of Jews in general.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 06:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Please don't brag. It's a much simpler task to run a homogenous society such as Norway. Norms, values, belief systems, all those aspects of life that Americans struggle with due to extreme diversity, are basically the same - everyone's on the same page. True diversity is non-existant in Norway therefore your statement is non-applicable based upon the lack of connection to American society.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, have you ever been here? In my city lives immigrants from all the world. Different religions, cultures etc. A huge moslem population among them. When I walk from my home to the center more than half the people I see are not Norwegian.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 06:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was some police that was cooperating with the Germans and that led to Jewish deportations.
[/ QUOTE ]
How nice. Stupid Aryans.
No, it's pretty clear that your country did far worse in their efforts to protect Jews.
Does that bother you? Are you one of those people that believes the Jews continue everything in America? What is your opinion of Jews? I'm curious. And leave Israel out of it.
I want to know your opinion of Jews in general.
[/ QUOTE ]
The majority of the population worked against the Nazis, but somehow the Nazis got a good grip on the police and that was bad.
My opinion of Jews: Nothing particular, neither positive or negative. Have never spoken to any Jewish people (there is very few living here).
I am under the impression that their lobby in the US must be strong and that they have disproportionate power, but I don't believe in the conspiracy theories of secret Jewish networks (those theories are dangerous, and contributed a lot to the Holocaust).
[ QUOTE ]
My opinion of Jews: Nothing particular, neither positive or negative. Have never spoken to any Jewish people
[/ QUOTE ]
You're speaking to one right now. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[ QUOTE ]
I am under the impression that their lobby in the US must be strong and that they have disproportionate power
[/ QUOTE ]
If you are referring to the Israeli lobby, please be aware that a large chunk of the Israeli's lobby support comes from evangelical Christians who are very pro-Israel(more so than many American Jews, in fact).
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 06:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My opinion of Jews: Nothing particular, neither positive or negative. Have never spoken to any Jewish people
[/ QUOTE ]
You're speaking to one right now. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[ QUOTE ]
I am under the impression that their lobby in the US must be strong and that they have disproportionate power
[/ QUOTE ]
If you are referring to the Israeli lobby, please be aware that a large chunk of the Israeli's lobby support comes from evangelical Christians who are very pro-Israel(more so than many American Jews, in fact).
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah,
Here too a lot of the rightwing christians strongly support Israel.
However, FYI Israel is very unpopular here, but I don't think that it has turned into antisemittism as people are still aware of the Holocaust.
[ QUOTE ]
However, FYI Israel is very unpopular here, but I don't think that it has turned into antisemittism as people are still aware of the Holocaust.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Progress Party(Fremskrittspartiet) is quite anti-semitic, and it seems to me like they have a pretty steady level of support(~20%).
The Jewish population is incredibly tiny, you're quite right about that. There are only 1,720 Jews in Norway, out of a total population in Norway exceeding 4.4 million.
That's not even .03% of the population. Some of the music imported into Norway is quite anti-semitic.
The Fatherland Party(Fedrelandspartiet) is also quite anti-semitic, as is the Norges patriotiske enhetsparti (Norwegian Patriotic Unity Party).
After World War II anti-Semitism was seldom expressed openly in Norway. However, in the last few years neo-Nazi groups, which had previously focused on opposing immigration, have been publicly espousing anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. It's quite disturbing to me.
The looting of Jewish assets during the Second World War received very little attention in Norway until 1995. Norwegian authorities have done very little to help the Jews recover their property after the war, despite the fact that significant amounts of money were found in bank accounts.
They also gave the Norwegian Holocaust war criminals very lenient punishments.
"There have been some incidents with school children. Some Jewish children were told they would not be allowed to attend a birthday party because of Israeli actions. When there were anti-Semitic incidents at school, Jewish parents discussed this with some school principals who supported the aggression. One told a Jewish girl to remove her 'provocative' Magen David."
Keep in mind that the Magen David(translates to Star of David) is not exclusively an Israeli symbol. It is a symbol of Judaism, the Jewish religion.
The small Jewish community in Norway is very courageous. link (http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-10.htm)
BCPVP
04-08-2005, 06:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Because he came over here to destroy our country and its institutions.
That makes him different from an Iraqi civilian over there. The location is crucial.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. Someone forced to fight is somehow less deserving of life than someone who hasn't yet been forced to fight...
[ QUOTE ]
How can you fault the Iraqis for fighting back against the US soldiers? Lots of them believe that they are defending their country from a foreign invader that wants to mistreat them? We are the aggressor there.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some have legitimate grievances (accidental deaths). Many do not. Many of them are foreign fighters or are being led by foreign handlers. Zarqawi is a good example. He's not an Iraqi, yet he's fighting against the U.S. because he wants to kill Americans. Then there's the Saddam supporters...
The thing is, the vast majority of our boys most likely do not mistreat the Iraqis. I'm doing a report on the rebuilding of Iraq, and from the info I've found, we've done so much for the Iraqis that isn't shown in the media it is absurd. But I'm reminded of the saying "If it bleeds, it leads."
Another (random) question for you Dead. Does Saddam deserve the Death Penalty, even under our standards?
[ QUOTE ]
Saddam deserve the Death Penalty, even under our standards
[/ QUOTE ]
That is for the Iraqi people to decide. My opinion is irrelevant.
Edit: Well, I think that it is irrelevant, but my personal belief is that, yes, he does deserve the death penalty.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 06:56 PM
Hi,
Some of your claims are correct and some are wrong, so I will comment each:
[ QUOTE ]
The Progress Party(Fremskrittspartiet) is quite anti-semitic, and it seems to me like they have a pretty steady level of support(~20%).
[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. They actually support Israel. They are anti-immigrants and anti-moslem.
[ QUOTE ]
The Jewish population is incredibly tiny, you're quite right about that. There are only 1,720 Jews in Norway, out of a total population in Norway exceeding 4.4 million.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was quite tiny also pre-war. It was part of the Norwegian constution earlier that jews were not allowed to enter the country.
[ QUOTE ]
That's not even .03% of the population. Some of the music imported into Norway is quite anti-semitic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some of the music made here is anti-semitic. That's even worse. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif
[ QUOTE ]
The Fatherland Party(Fedrelandspartiet) is also quite anti-semitic, as is the Norges patriotiske enhetsparti (Norwegian Patriotic Unity Party).
[/ QUOTE ]
They support Israel strongly. You have mentioned 2 of the most Israel-pro parties as anti-semitic, so your source here is not credible.
[ QUOTE ]
After World War II anti-Semitism was seldom expressed openly in Norway. However, in the last few years neo-Nazi groups, which had previously focused on opposing immigration, have been publicly espousing anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. It's quite disturbing to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is an ongoing debate of freedom of speech vs intimidation of groups (it is a difficult subject). They are not large in numbers.
[ QUOTE ]
The looting of Jewish assets during the Second World War received very little attention in Norway until 1995. Norwegian authorities have done very little to help the Jews recover their property after the war, despite the fact that significant amounts of money were found in bank accounts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it is true.
[ QUOTE ]
They also gave the Norwegian Holocaust war criminals very lenient punishments.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is by no means correct. Many of them were sentenced to death or long imprisonment.
[ QUOTE ]
"There have been some incidents with school children. Some Jewish children were told they would not be allowed to attend a birthday party because of Israeli actions. When there were anti-Semitic incidents at school, Jewish parents discussed this with some school principals who supported the aggression. One told a Jewish girl to remove her 'provocative' Magen David."
Keep in mind that the Magen David(translates to Star of David) is not exclusively an Israeli symbol. It is a symbol of Judaism, the Jewish religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is not good that it happened. I have also heard that people hide that they are Jewish.
[ QUOTE ]
The small Jewish community in Norway is very courageous.
[/ QUOTE ]
Courageous, why? Is there a need for it?
johnc
04-08-2005, 07:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Lol, have you ever been here? In my city lives immigrants from all the world. Different religions, cultures etc. A huge moslem population among them. When I walk from my home to the center more than half the people I see are not Norwegian.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose that's the sad mentality of many non-Americans. You look around and see Norwegians and "non-Norwegians". Strikes me as a rather "us and them" way of looking at the world. We don't have to be born here, or be a certain race, religion, or whatever to be called "American". Racism and all its many forms is to Americans a very sensitive and painful issue - we know it and recognize that its insidious presence is everywhere (I read it in your words). However, it's very difficult to relate these issues that we deal with everyday and our ultra-senstivity towards those issues with those whose exposure to all that is American is filtered through the Euro-propaganda mill much as the political rhetoric is through our so-called media. Lack of trancendence above and beyond the spectures of all of our prejudices condemns us, humanity, to much of the same.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 07:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lol, have you ever been here? In my city lives immigrants from all the world. Different religions, cultures etc. A huge moslem population among them. When I walk from my home to the center more than half the people I see are not Norwegian.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose that's the sad mentality of many non-Americans. You look around and see Norwegians and "non-Norwegians". Strikes me as a rather "us and them" way of looking at the world. We don't have to be born here, or be a certain race, religion, or whatever to be called "American". Racism and all its many forms is to Americans a very sensitive and painful issue - we know it and recognize that its insidious presence is everywhere (I read it in your words). However, it's very difficult to relate these issues that we deal with everyday and our ultra-senstivity towards those issues with those whose exposure to all that is American is filtered through the Euro-propaganda mill much as the political rhetoric is through our so-called media. Lack of trancendence above and beyond the spectures of all of our prejudices condemns us, humanity, to much of the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are way off target here. Immigrants here say they don't face much racism.
BadBoyBenny
04-08-2005, 07:30 PM
Do you think we could do that without a draft? We are already overspending on our current conflicts.
Why aren't we doing anything about Uganda?
Why didn't anyone do anything about Rwanda?
There's too many messed up places in the world. The US has to deal with them within our means and in the order our leadership percieves to be the most important to our national interests. Sorry, but morality has no place in international affairs, the stakes are just too high to practice anything but national darwinism.
johnc
04-08-2005, 07:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You are way off target here. Immigrants here say they don't face much racism.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was actually refering to you - but I guess you just don't quite get it.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 07:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are way off target here. Immigrants here say they don't face much racism.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was actually refering to you - but I guess you just don't quite get it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Further off target. I have worked actively voluntarily within an anti-racism organization.
After the war when war criminals were judged, the courts did not pay much attention to what had happened to the Jews. Levin says: "An artist in Norway is now presenting an installation about a policeman who had been in charge of transporting the Jews to Auschwitz. He was later condemned to a prison sentence. When he was released, he once again got his job with the police. In 1965, when he went into retirement, he was praised for his work - including the five years during the war."
Bruland adds: "The lack of compensation and restitution after the war must be seen as part of a larger picture. After the war many key perpetrators in the destruction of the Jews were either not convicted, or received greatly reduced sentences. In autumn 1942, a Jewish couple, Jacob and Rakel Feldmann - carrying valuables and money - were killed by two Resistance members while trying to escape to Sweden. In 1947 the two murderers admitted their crime, but claimed it was to avoid detection of a refugee route to Sweden. They were not convicted.
"The German Wilhelm Wagner, Eichmann's representative with the head of the German Security Police in Oslo, was first condemned to death, which was later commuted to a life sentence. Then in 1948 he was expelled and returned to Germany where he worked for a bank. There he was very popular, as he wrote wedding songs for the employees.
"In the late 1950s Norway held talks with the Federal Republic in Germany about compensation for former prisoners in German concentration camps. In these negotiations the Norwegian government used the number of Jewish deaths from Norway as a means of increasing the sum paid by Germany.
"Later however, Parliament refused compensation to many Jews for several reasons. One was that a number were not Norwegian citizens. Others were rejected because of how the authorities assumed the order of deaths among Jews during the war, which was unfavorable to the survivors. Also, sisters were not allowed to receive the compensation due their brothers and vice versa. The small Jewish communities argued that either the law should be changed or the communities should receive the compensation, but to no avail.
"For many decades, the subject of the Holocaust was not on the curriculum at Norwegian universities. With some exceptions - for example the work of the criminologist Per Ole Johansen - hardly any research into the fate of the Jews during the war was undertaken until the mid-1990s. In Norwegian public opinion, the memory of what happened to the Jews is connected to the Germans. The Norwegians were portrayed as innocent bystanders, although it was the Norwegian police which hunted down Jews, including children."
From the link earlier.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:08 PM
Again, your source seems to be of medium quality.
[ QUOTE ]
After the war when war criminals were judged, the courts did not pay much attention to what had happened to the Jews. Levin says: "An artist in Norway is now presenting an installation about a policeman who had been in charge of transporting the Jews to Auschwitz. He was later condemned to a prison sentence. When he was released, he once again got his job with the police. In 1965, when he went into retirement, he was praised for his work - including the five years during the war."
Bruland adds: "The lack of compensation and restitution after the war must be seen as part of a larger picture. After the war many key perpetrators in the destruction of the Jews were either not convicted, or received greatly reduced sentences. In autumn 1942, a Jewish couple, Jacob and Rakel Feldmann - carrying valuables and money - were killed by two Resistance members while trying to escape to Sweden. In 1947 the two murderers admitted their crime, but claimed it was to avoid detection of a refugee route to Sweden. They were not convicted.
"The German Wilhelm Wagner, Eichmann's representative with the head of the German Security Police in Oslo, was first condemned to death, which was later commuted to a life sentence. Then in 1948 he was expelled and returned to Germany where he worked for a bank. There he was very popular, as he wrote wedding songs for the employees.
[/ QUOTE ]
These examples may be right, but in general the sentences were harsh. Remember that in Norway death penalty is considered inhuman, yet after the war a paragraph that allowes death sentence to traitors in war was used to sentence some people.
[ QUOTE ]
"In the late 1950s Norway held talks with the Federal Republic in Germany about compensation for former prisoners in German concentration camps. In these negotiations the Norwegian government used the number of Jewish deaths from Norway as a means of increasing the sum paid by Germany.
"Later however, Parliament refused compensation to many Jews for several reasons. One was that a number were not Norwegian citizens. Others were rejected because of how the authorities assumed the order of deaths among Jews during the war, which was unfavorable to the survivors. Also, sisters were not allowed to receive the compensation due their brothers and vice versa. The small Jewish communities argued that either the law should be changed or the communities should receive the compensation, but to no avail.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is mostly right.
[ QUOTE ]
"For many decades, the subject of the Holocaust was not on the curriculum at Norwegian universities.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just complete BS.
[ QUOTE ]
With some exceptions - for example the work of the criminologist Per Ole Johansen - hardly any research into the fate of the Jews during the war was undertaken until the mid-1990s.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also complete BS.
[ QUOTE ]
In Norwegian public opinion, the memory of what happened to the Jews is connected to the Germans. The Norwegians were portrayed as innocent bystanders, although it was the Norwegian police which hunted down Jews, including children.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mainly true.
Even discounting the ones that you say are complete BS(and I'll take your word for it since you are from Norway), there is plenty of stuff that you said is true for me to conclude that Norway does not exactly have a sparkling record when it comes to defending the rights of the Jewish population there.
Perhaps they could take some lessons from the US approach. it is not tolerated here as much. We have lower levels of anti-semitism here, while the virus of anti-semitism seems to be spreading out all over Europe. I have heard many stories about how the graves of Jews in cemeteries were vandalized by people, teenagers I think.
It is quite frightening.
And I'm not saying that US policy on anti-semitism is great. It's far from perfect. But it's better than the policies in a lot of European countries.
Better yet, instead of emulating us, you could emulate Denmark.
"Denmark has been considered an exception in the history of the Holocaust. In most other countries occupied by the Germans during World War II, governments, administrations, and people helped the Nazis to persecute, seize, and transport Jews to the death camps. This was not the case in Denmark. Here the government tried to protect the Jews, and when the German raid on the Danish Jews started, the population stood up and helped most of the Jews escape to neutral Sweden."
And I wasn't aware that the death penalty in Norway was considered inhuman. I don't consider it inhuman. I consider it inhuman to let war criminals like the Nazis live.
Do you disagree?
If there were still police from that era alive in Norway today, and it had been proven that they had contributed to the murder of lots of Jews, would you oppose their execution?
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Even discounting the ones that you say are complete BS(and I'll take your word for it since you are from Norway), there is plenty of stuff that you said is true for me to conclude that Norway does not exactly have a sparkling record when it comes to defending the rights of the Jewish population there.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you look at it historically, you are right. Today, I think they are well protected. I.e. the Israeli and American embassies are the only ones that is constantly under police protection.
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps they could take some lessons from the US approach. it is not tolerated here as much. We have lower levels of anti-semitism here, while the virus of anti-semitism seems to be spreading out all over Europe. I have heard many stories about how the graves of Jews in cemeteries were vandalized by people, teenagers I think.
It is quite frightening.
[/ QUOTE ]
The stories about graveyards etc., I guess, is mainly from France and Germany, it is not a euro-wide problem as far as I know. However there is very much hatred towards Israel in most of Western Europe and this makes it socially accepted to critize Israel harshly in public. This might spill into anti-semittism, but IMO it has not done such in a substantial scale yet.
As the US has an image problem in Europe, Israel has an even worse one. I don't see any quick solution, but the current politics of Israel does not win many followers (I guess that jews living outside Israel suffer a bit from this).
To me, blaming all Jews for Israel's policies(and this seems to be what many in Europe and around the world are doing) is no different from blaming all Muslims for the terrorist acts that happen to be committed by Muslims. Europe roundly condemns the latter, but not the former.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And I wasn't aware that the death penalty in Norway was considered inhuman. I don't consider it inhuman. I consider it inhuman to let war criminals like the Nazis live.
Do you disagree?
[/ QUOTE ]
FYI, the paragraph allowing death sentence in war time was removed in 1974.
I think the death penalty is inhuman.
[ QUOTE ]
If there were still police from that era alive in Norway today, and it had been proven that they had contributed to the murder of lots of Jews, would you oppose their execution?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would oppose it very strongly.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To me, blaming all Jews for Israel's policies(and this seems to be what many in Europe and around the world are doing) is no different from blaming all Muslims for the terrorist acts that happen to be committed by Muslims. Europe roundly condemns the latter, but not the former.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
Interesting.
What would you recommend should happen to those police/Nazis?
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting.
What would you recommend should happen to those police/Nazis?
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting question, I border between life imprisonment and pardoning.
Life imprisonment to show that it is not acceptable, and justice can always haunt you.
Pardoning due to the fact that we need to move on.
johnc
04-08-2005, 08:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are way off target here. Immigrants here say they don't face much racism.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was actually refering to you - but I guess you just don't quite get it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Further off target. I have worked actively voluntarily within an anti-racism organization.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a factor of whether I'm on target or not. The picture I see of your approach towards racism has a definite text book smell to it, meaning you seem to know what not to say but your threads with Dead (too numerous to quote) point to some major leaks in your way of thinking, specifically antisemitism, and with your overall grasp of the concept in general. It's one thing to talk and discuss racism in intellectual circles but we Americans (I'm repeating myself) must deal with the legacy of prejudice that cuts to the fiber of who we really are and how we define ourselves as human beings. Read a book, surf the net, find out all you can about it, but don't profess to be some all-caring, altruistic, work of perfection, and least of my teacher on the topic unless you've truly dealt with diversity in its extreme firsthand (I'm sorry but Norway's not diverse enough to qualify).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting.
What would you recommend should happen to those police/Nazis?
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting question, I border between life imprisonment and pardoning.
Life imprisonment to show that it is not acceptable, and justice can always haunt you.
Pardoning due to the fact that we need to move on.
[/ QUOTE ]
PARDONING? Are you shitting me? There is no statute of limitations for murder in Norway, is there?
Sorry to be blunt, but that just sounds ridiculous to me.
Life imprisonment I can understand. Maybe you would understand the situation more if it had been your family that was devastated by the Holocaust. I lost many relatives in the camps.
Pardoning murderers to me just seems unconscionable to me. Unconscionable.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are way off target here. Immigrants here say they don't face much racism.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was actually refering to you - but I guess you just don't quite get it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Further off target. I have worked actively voluntarily within an anti-racism organization.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a factor of whether I'm on target or not. The picture I see of your approach towards racism has a definite text book smell to it, meaning you seem to know what not to say but your threads with Dead (too numerous to quote) point to some major leaks in your way of thinking, specifically antisemitism, and with your overall grasp of the concept in general. It's one thing to talk and discuss racism in intellectual circles but we Americans (I'm repeating myself) must deal with the legacy of prejudice that cuts to the fiber of who we really are and how we define ourselves as human beings. Read a book, surf the net, find out all you can about it, but don't profess to be some all-caring, altruistic, work of perfection, and least of my teacher on the topic unless you've truly dealt with diversity in its extreme firsthand (I'm sorry but Norway's not diverse enough to qualify).
[/ QUOTE ]
You imply that I am racist for critizing Israel. I don't accept brutal regimes, whether it is run by jews, moslems or christians.
[ QUOTE ]
You imply that I am racist for critizing Israel.
[/ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, I've been called anti-semitic by some on here for criticizing Israel.
But I am Jewish. You, on the other hand, are not. So your comments will always be taken with more suspicion than mine, especially since you don't seem very eager to condemn the crimes against the Jews, perpetrated by the Norwegians who aided the Nazis.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't accept brutal regimes, whether it is run by jews, moslems or christians.
[/ QUOTE ]
Me either.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
PARDONING? Are you shitting me? There is no statute of limitations for murder in Norway, is there?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is 25 years, after that you can confess and not be punished; so if this would happen they would be pardoned. If it is morally right? I am not sure.
[ QUOTE ]
Life imprisonment I can understand. Maybe you would understand the situation more if it had been your family that was devastated by the Holocaust. I lost many relatives in the camps.
[/ QUOTE ]
My condolences.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 08:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You imply that I am racist for critizing Israel.
[/ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, I've been called anti-semitic by some on here for criticizing Israel.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just shows that it is a sensitive subject, and a conflict that will probably last for a while (understatement).
[ QUOTE ]
It is 25 years, after that you can confess and not be punished; so if this would happen they would be pardoned. If it is morally right? I am not sure.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it could possibly be morally right. Time may help heal wounds, but the past cannot be erased, no matter how much some would like it to be.
[ QUOTE ]
My condolences.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. Of course I am not the only one. I'm sure the other Jewish people on here also lost relatives(Gamblor, Zaxx, etc.)
And let's not forget the 5 million non-Jews who were also killed(Communists, gays, Gypsies, the disabled, etc.)
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 09:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it could possibly be morally right. Time may help heal wounds, but the past cannot be erased, no matter how much some would like it to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
FYI though, Norway has worked actively to make the International War Crimes-tribunal to be higher than national law, but the Republicans mess it up.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it could possibly be morally right. Time may help heal wounds, but the past cannot be erased, no matter how much some would like it to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
FYI though, Norway has worked actively to make the International War Crimes-tribunal to be higher than national law, but the Republicans mess it up.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with making an international war crimes tribunal higher than national law. I think it would undermine our(America's) sovereignty.
America has always been good about giving out harsh sentences anyway.
johnc
04-08-2005, 09:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You imply that I am racist for critizing Israel. I don't accept brutal regimes, whether it is run by jews, moslems or christians.
[/ QUOTE ]
Racism falls into two catagories: 1) primarily based upon hatred such as was seem by the Nazis where a active, violent role was taken by the oppressor ( or the KKK in the US); and 2) based upon ignorance where passivity is expressed. You fall under the 2nd catagory. Here's an example of part of what I'm refering to:
Dead posts:
[ QUOTE ]
If there were still police from that era alive in Norway today, and it had been proven that they had contributed to the murder of lots of Jews, would you oppose their execution?
[/ QUOTE ]
You reply:
[ QUOTE ]
I would oppose it very strongly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your opposition to the death penalty, however, in this case, I sense you're hiding behind it.
mackthefork
04-08-2005, 09:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting question, I border between life imprisonment and pardoning.
Life imprisonment to show that it is not acceptable, and justice can always haunt you.
Pardoning due to the fact that we need to move on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Pardoning is not acceptable in my opinion.
Mack
mackthefork
04-08-2005, 09:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that's the sad mentality of many non-Americans. You look around and see Norwegians and "non-Norwegians". Strikes me as a rather "us and them"
[/ QUOTE ]
Hardly seems a crime to call someone whos not Norwegian, a non Norwegian. I thought the US had had some pretty serious problems with racism in its recent past. There are plenty of idiots over here but mostly people don't give a [censored] where you came from or what colour you are.
Mack
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 09:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You imply that I am racist for critizing Israel. I don't accept brutal regimes, whether it is run by jews, moslems or christians.
[/ QUOTE ]
Racism falls into two catagories: 1) primarily based upon hatred such as was seem by the Nazis where a active, violent role was taken by the oppressor ( or the KKK in the US); and 2) based upon ignorance where passivity is expressed. You fall under the 2nd catagory. Here's an example of part of what I'm refering to:
Dead posts:
[ QUOTE ]
If there were still police from that era alive in Norway today, and it had been proven that they had contributed to the murder of lots of Jews, would you oppose their execution?
[/ QUOTE ]
You reply:
[ QUOTE ]
I would oppose it very strongly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your opposition to the death penalty, however, in this case, I sense you're hiding behind it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is almost an insult /images/graemlins/mad.gif.
To your info there was a violent neonazi group here with about 150 members in the mid 90s. It was a rumour going that they planned to attack a building containing an anti-racism organization among other organizations. I went there to participate in the defence and did not leave even after receiving death threats.
I have attended to anti-nazi marches that has been organized here as well.
Would I do this if I would be that ignorant? /images/graemlins/mad.gif
On a scale from 1 to 100 of atrocities (100 points is the worst), I think Holocaust is 100 while Israel's abuse of Holocaust to justify terrorizing the Palestinians is 2. It is still a atrocity and completely unacceptable.
I have NEVER heard Israel invoke the Holocaust as a reason to abuse the Palestinians.
Please show me a link for that assertion.
And if the Holocaust is a 100 score on a scale of 1-100, I would give the Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians about a 20. It's certainly not as low as 2.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 09:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have NEVER heard Israel invoke the Holocaust as a reason to abuse the Palestinians.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not directly, it would be political suicide, but it is underlying in Israeli rhetoric that the world owes them something due to Holocaust. If it is so, then give jews a part of Germany as compensation; the palestinians did not conduct the Holocaust.
I'm not going to comment as to the reparations, because that is an incredibly complex issue that I am not well-versed on.
I don't think that you can say that Israel feels that it can abuse the Palestinians because the Holocaust occurred. Israel does what it wants just because. And it wouldn't be political suicide. Likud is popular in Israel. And it's not like any European nation would attack Israel. Not with the US government backing them.
The ideal solution for Israel would be for there to be ONE state. If this can't be done, then two is the next best solution.
thatpfunk
04-08-2005, 09:39 PM
You are psychotic.
[ QUOTE ]
You are psychotic.
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 09:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that you can say that Israel feels that it can abuse the Palestinians because the Holocaust occurred. Israel does what it wants just because. And it wouldn't be political suicide. Likud is popular in Israel. And it's not like any European nation would attack Israel. Not with the US government backing them.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think any nation would attack Israel (Iran could maybe launch a symbolic missile attack, but even this is unlikely). I guess their enemies prefer to fund terrorist groups.
[ QUOTE ]
The ideal solution for Israel would be for there to be ONE state. If this can't be done, then two is the next best solution.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't the jews be outnumbered and lose power?
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't the jews be outnumbered and lose power?
[/ QUOTE ]
That is one of the concerns about the one state solution. The Jews might then be in danger.
Perhaps a two state solution is best.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 09:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That is one of the concerns about the one state solution. The Jews might then be in danger.
[/ QUOTE ]
It shows the hopelessness of this conflict. I agree that palestinians might be tempted to revenge.
In good news Ariel Sharon shook hands with the Syrian president today /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is one of the concerns about the one state solution. The Jews might then be in danger.
[/ QUOTE ]
It shows the hopelessness of this conflict. I agree that palestinians might be tempted to revenge.
In good news Ariel Sharon shook hands with the Syrian president today /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
The Syrian president, Bashar Assad, is an anti-semite. He may want to help the Palestinians, but it helps no one when he throws around comments like "the Jews killed Jesus", and other bullshit.
So what you have is a war criminal shaking hands with an anti-semite. Progress? I think not.
If Israel had a Prime Minister like Yitzhak Rabin, maybe progress could be made. We were much closer to peace back in the early 1990s. Sadly, some right-wing Israeli took matters into his own hands and killed Rabin.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-08-2005, 10:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Syrian president, Bashar Assad, is an anti-semite. He may want to help the Palestinians, but it helps no one when he throws around comments like "the Jews killed Jesus", and other bullshit.
[/ QUOTE ]
They still shook hands, must have been an absurd moment.
[ QUOTE ]
If Israel had a Prime Minister like Yitzhak Rabin, maybe progress could be made. We were much closer to peace back in the early 1990s. Sadly, some right-wing Israeli took matters into his own hands and killed Rabin.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it was sad. Much of that negotiations were going on here, I know a few who took part. They were honestly optimistic at the time.
daryn
04-09-2005, 02:35 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I'm sorry, but 9/11 was a joke. Never heard of WW2?
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever you're implying by this, I think you really should reconsider ever posting again. Ever.
Or a better idea, go buy a gun and rent a bullet, if you get my drift.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think you are supposed to buy the bullet (obviously way cheaper) and rent the gun. i think you made this error before sometime, and i meant to respond.. but somehow didn't.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but 9/11 was a joke. Never heard of WW2?
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, I knew you were a shithead, but this just takes the cake.
Boris
04-09-2005, 03:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
These things are not black and white.
[/ QUOTE ]
some might argue otherwise.
mackthefork
04-09-2005, 06:23 AM
And the most posts ever in a thread award goes to Dead, who ironically isn't although his fingers are slightly shorter than they were yesterday.
Mack
Cyrus
04-09-2005, 12:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Proven Oil Reserves ( Oil and Gas Journal ; 1/1/05E): 563 million barrels
[/ QUOTE ]
I will take that figure at face value, although it's inflated (some other time about that, maybe).
Divide 563 million by number 7 to get a rough conversion into tons (metric). That makes for roughly 80 million tons. Divide that by 400,000 to get a feel for the number of ships (ULCCs) that you need to haul that shit out. That's 200 ultra large crude carriers.
I somehow do not think that the United States of America would ever consider going to war over one year's supply (and probably less).
Cyrus
04-09-2005, 12:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The barage of the bleeding liberals .... some HOMOGENOUS Scandanavian country ... the Socialist life is wunderful ... Application of your myopic standards is a rampant disease that has spread all through the ranks of the "progressives"/liberals/socialists of your ilk ... Your eutopian solutions will not work ... The solutions we need are EXTREMELY complex.
[/ QUOTE ]
What an ignorant rant.
FYI, Scandinavian countries are not socialist (it's easy to use names you do not understand but you are also using the word "myopic" in the same post and it's funny!). They are however consistently ranked by people from and outside Scandinavia as the countries with the highest marks in quality of life.
And they are not homogenous. In fact, their immigration problems are more current than America's!
That pretty much leaves your rant with as much value as a used tampon.
[ QUOTE ]
The solutions will require a complete revamping of our way of thought and TOTAL abandonment of personal political agendas.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. Starting with a hundred federal buildings going down, no doubt. (BTW, it's utopia; not that it matters.)
Cyrus
04-09-2005, 12:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Iraq deserved to be invaded for three reasons:
1. Violating the armistice ending Gulf War #1 [repeated thrice]
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you even have an idea what is an "armistice"?
[ QUOTE ]
Allowing a former foe to violate a peace treaty without consequences results in future problems with COMPOUND INTEREST...
[/ QUOTE ]
Before you whip out your interest calculations, please enlighten us about the United States-Iraq Peace Treaty. Should be very entertaining. (Let me get a Coke first.)
[ QUOTE ]
The Roman Empire at its height, understood basic human nature and enforced treaties/pacts with force if necessary. After making a few examples of liars/cheats, then they rarely had to use force in the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's very opportune that you are bringing up the Roman Empire. (Neo-cons rarely go one day without shooting themselves in the foot once! I call 'em The Hobblin' Freaks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif)
History relates that the Romans were not going after Britons or Gauls for being "liars" or "cheats" but in order to conquer them, pure and simple. And the Romans were not fixated upon "destroying Carthage" (Et memento—delenda est Carthago!) because Carthaginians were violating some peace treaty. They wanted to annihilate Carthage because it existed.
By all means, please proceed with your analogies of Rome to the United States... /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[ QUOTE ]
We tried to keep the Vietnamese free but found that they weren't as motivated towards their own freedom as we were.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, America tried to destroy Vietnam (more bombs dropped than the whole World War II combined) in order to save it. Thanks but no thanks.
In a few days you will have a chance to recollect (big time) about Vietnam. On April 30, 1975, the North Vietnamese Army, mostly teenagers and young men and women, conquered Saigon. A tank crashed through the gates of the presidential grounds and the Vietnamese flag was hoisted on the palace rooftop - and the war was over. The Vietnamese people, for the first time after a forty-year struggle against French and Americans, were free to rule over their own house. In the process, they kicked imperialist ass to high heaven. The Vietnam Veterans Against The War did not rejoice that day.
Somewhere deep inside that world-class psycho mentality that pervades modern-day American foreign policy from the time the Cold War started, that April day stings.
Cyrus
04-09-2005, 12:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have NEVER heard Israel invoke the Holocaust as a reason to abuse the Palestinians. Please show me a link for that assertion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/185984488X/qid=1113065083/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-1510409-7104939)
Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520245989/qid=1113065083/sr=2-4/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_4/102-1510409-7104939)
[ QUOTE ]
And if the Holocaust is a 100 score on a scale of 1-100, I would give the Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians about a 20. It's certainly not as low as 2.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're a decent man, D. A rarity these days. Being Jewish and able to empathize with the other side is examplary!
I agree with you about the general ranking (numbers are irrelevant) but for a different reason. I do not think that Israeli cruelty towards the Palestinians approaches the (colossal) Nazi cruelty towards "inferior races" (Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc) as much as the 5 to 1 analogy implies. No, it's the fact that it's Jews who perpetrate those crimes that makes the crimes so much worse!
You'd expect (I'd expect) the Jews to be the shining light towards tolerance and peace instead of being worthy antagonists of all the butchers in History before them. (But, let's face it: You can't be a "great nation" without having tons of blood in your hand.)
Thanks for your kind words.
But I find your last paragraph a little bit insulting.
[ QUOTE ]
You'd expect (I'd expect) the Jews to be the shining light towards tolerance and peace instead of being worthy antagonists of all the butchers in History before them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Change Jews to Israelis and it's fine. But that part of your post just sounds awful.
More Jews live in the US than in Israel, last I checked. I have nothing to do with Israel. But I read your last post and it sounds like you're trying to spread around some collective guilt.
Maybe it's just semantics, but it really rubs me the wrong way.
I shouldn't be held morally responsible for the crimes of Israelis any more than a Muslim living in New York City should be held responsible for the crimes of the nineteen Muslim hijackers on those planes that flew into the WTC.
And thanks for posting those book links! I do stand corrected on those points. I'll have to pick the Finkelstein one up. I probably wouldn't if the author didn't have a Jewish sounding name. Sounds stupid I know, but so many of these books just sound anti-semitic, and if I know that it's Jewish author who wrote it, it makes me feel better.
Let's not forget that a man like Chomsky is Jewish as well. He has nothing in common with the Zionists that run Israel, other than his Jewish heritage.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-09-2005, 01:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You'd expect the Jews to be the shining light towards tolerance and peace instead of being worthy antagonists of all the butchers in History before them.
[/ QUOTE ]
You should not include all jews, but it disappoints me as well that the nation suffering the most during the last big war is such an obstacle to lasting world peace.
Cyrus
04-10-2005, 01:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Change Jews to Israelis and it's fine. But that part of your post just sounds awful.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know. But I don't see Israelis, in this, I see Jews. The nationality on the passport does not matter to me. When I see the Jews (of Israel, America or Upper Volta) supporting atrocities aimed at a specific people, atrocities that include that people's de-humanisation, deprivation of basic human rights (such as dignity), deportation or physical elimination, then I am profoundly revolted.
Hitler did not send Israelis to the death camps. He sent Jews.
The Jews should have become our world's moral compass after World War II. (Adorno said it all better than I can ever hope to.)
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting those book links!
[/ QUOTE ]
Allow me, then to also recommend, in a slightly different vein, the books of Jewish-Italian Primo Levi. He survived a death camp and wrote, among others, "If This Is Man". Try him, he writes about things that support my claim that the suffering suffered by the Jews in WWII would have otherwise given them that universal moral leadership I'm talking about.
jokerswild
04-10-2005, 01:12 PM
1. not enough US forces: Bush needs a draft.
2. Israelis won't invade for the USA: Bush still has to sell a draft.
Benal
04-10-2005, 01:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, why aren't we?
[/ QUOTE ]
Simple, no oil.
Arnfinn Madsen
04-12-2005, 08:50 AM
South Sudan reaches donor target
After 21 years of war, southern Sudan is one of the poorest parts of the world
The United States has pledged some $850m (£449) to help rebuild southern Sudan after years of war, at a donor conference in Norway.
The US pledge means the conference target has been passed, sparking a round of applause in the hotel hall.
However, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick warned that the separate conflict in Darfur should end.
United Nations chief Kofi Annan urged delegates to pledge money without strings, as the need was so serious.
He said two million people needed food in a "matter of weeks".
The target of $2.6bn had been set to fund the return of refugees and to build infrastructure in southern Sudan, which was neglected and destroyed by 21 years of civil war, leaving it one of the world's poorest areas.
'Genocide'
In addition to the $850m, the US also promised $900m depending on support from the congress.
Mr Zoellick warned that the US would not be able to fully support the deal to end war in the south if fighting continued in Darfur but that did not dilute optimism at the meeting in Norway.
"Preliminary calculations show that we have been able to cover the shortfall of $2.6bn," said Norwegian Development Minister Hilde Frafjord Johnson.
"I think that's worth an applause already," she said, triggering clapping around the conference hall in an Oslo hotel attended by 60 nations.
January's peace deal between the Muslim government and Christian and Animist rebels in the south envisaged a power-sharing government and a division of oil revenues.
The US says the Sudan government backs Arab militias accused of widespread atrocities against black African Muslim groups in the western region of Darfur.
Some 180,000 people are believed to have died from disease and hunger and more than 2m have been forced from their homes in what the US calls a genocide in Darfur.
The Sudan government denies backing the Janjaweed militias and blames Darfur's rebel groups for starting the war two years ago.
Oil money
Mr Annan, the UN secretary general, urged donors to make sure they actually paid up, saying: "Pledges are good, but cash is better."
MAJOR DONOR PLEDGES
US: $850m
EU: $765m
UK: $545m
Norway: $250m
Netherlands: $220m
"All the people of Sudan want clean water, food for their families, schools for their children, proper healthcare, and the prospect of development," he said.
The $2.6bn demanded from foreign donors represents one-third of the total sum needed - much of the rest of the money is expected to come from revenues from Sudan's largely unexploited oil fields.
Meanwhile, the World Food Programme says some 200,000 people who have fled fighting in Darfur for Chad are in urgent need of food aid.
Chad has suspended its mediation efforts in Darfur, after accusing Sudan of trying to destabilise it with a 3,000-strong force near their common border.
Chad last year brokered a ceasefire between the government and Darfur's rebels but this has not ended attacks.
adios
04-12-2005, 11:02 AM
Typical situation. Of course the U.S. is right to withhold aid to a corrupt government that actively supports genocide. Giving the money to such a government with no strings attached doesn't mean the money gets to those who need it. Has the Eurozone sent in their check yet? Send in the troops? How many troops is the Eurozone willing to commit?
pryor15
04-13-2005, 04:58 AM
no name recognition. no oil.
nanoCRUSHER
04-13-2005, 10:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proven Oil Reserves ( Oil and Gas Journal ; 1/1/05E): 563 million barrels
[/ QUOTE ]
I will take that figure at face value, although it's inflated (some other time about that, maybe).
Divide 563 million by number 7 to get a rough conversion into tons (metric). That makes for roughly 80 million tons. Divide that by 400,000 to get a feel for the number of ships (ULCCs) that you need to haul that shit out. That's 200 ultra large crude carriers.
I somehow do not think that the United States of America would ever consider going to war over one year's supply (and probably less).
[/ QUOTE ]
That's overstating it. Put simply, we use 20 million barrels of oil/day. So, 563/20 = about 29 days of oil for us. Not economical if we're gonna have to spend billions of dollars "liberating" a country. Iraq has 200x that, making a war-for-oil more economical (but just as sleazy).
Cyrus
04-14-2005, 04:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Put simply, we use 20 million barrels of oil/day. So, 563/20 = about 29 days of oil for us. Not economical if we're gonna have to spend billions of dollars "liberating" a country.
[/ QUOTE ]
I should have stated "production" instead of "supply". Thanks for the correction.
fimbulwinter
04-14-2005, 07:32 PM
Because we have not had previous wars against their country.
fim
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.