Stupid Americans

[de_ira]

My God, if there ever was a stupid nation it definetly has to be the Americans. I do not usually generalize or stariotype nations - but my God, those idiots forced me. Anybody that believes that this Crusade against World Terrorism is anything more than a flagrant disregard for everything holy in this World like: human rights, justice, freedom, democracy ... is a MORON capital M, O, R, O, N.

I would even go so far as to make a litle analogy with WWII. If you know your history, you will remember that Hitler, like the people who control that idiot of a president (you know who I mean) invented a reason to start WWII. He had his own troops dress in polish uniforms and break into a radio station and say Polish propaganda, he did this because he was facing a great economic recesion if he didn't. Because even then Wars always made people money. Hundreds of factories are working, industry is profiting. He didn't, however, count that the French and British would declare war on him, thus effectively spoiling his plans for economic prosperity. Because it's one thing to attack a country and have all the fighting done there, and it's another to have your own cities bombed.

At this point, regardless of my oppinion that 9-11 was a horrible human catastrophy, I cant help wondering if the US govt planed it all the time or knew about it but did nothing. I mean think about it :
1) They financed Osama Bin Laden for fighting the Soviets, the weapons and recourses were given to him by the CIA

2) If they weren't attacked, they couldn't go to war - even back in 1999 they jumped at the first chance to end the war because the governments of Germany, Spain, England etc were fearing being overthrown, because the public dissaproval of the war. The only reason they want ot war in 2001 was because they had a legit exuse - they were attacked first

3) They desperately neaded the wars in '99 '01 and they desperately nead this war, otherwise their economy is going to go down the toilet


And now they didn't have the common decency to make up a better reason or to plant some baned weapns. And while it may do wonders for their economy we just can't keep leting the US kill hundreds or even thousands of civilians everytime they have a recesion, 'coz face it sooner or latter they are going to run out of small Asian and African countries then they are goin to have to turn to S. America and then to YOU. FIGHT THE POWER!

[Rikbe]

Maybe stupid, but they will win. Something the past 1400 years the Arabs were not able to do.

[Carl_Long]

I'd like to get your opinion on two articles (not from American papers):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,886360,00.html

If you read those articles, I would like to then ask you why you find the prospect of the Americans removing Mr. Hussein from power so unpalatable.

thank you.

[Carl_Long]

(you will have to cut & paste the links in to get the correct articles)

[de_ira]

I agree that Saddam Hussein may not be the most innocent person in the World. In most likeliness he'll burn in hell for what he did, but even if he was the unholy one himself, it wouldn't be important. The level of Saddam's guilt is totally irrelevant to the argument at hand. Yes - he shouldn't rule over anyone. Yes - he has to pay for his crimes. Yes - we don't like him, and Yes- we want to get rid of him. But, gentlemen, none of these reasons give anybody the right to start a War. Are we as a Civilization and a Society so blinded by our hatred for this man - who has done nothing to us personally - that we are willing to ignorantly say "Yes, all means are justified by our holly cause"?!

He will finally be arrested in a couple of month's time and he will be leashed of his freedom for the rest off his natural life. But while he is rotting in a cell somewhere alongside Milosevic, we will one day have to look our posterity in the eye and explain to them just what kind of fumes we have been inhaling when we allowed this to happen. In order to bring one man, who is living and committing some crimes somewhere far away, to justice we are ready to go to War, while in the meanwhile the murderers and rapists in our own countries go free. Maybe the death toll will be a couple or a dozen - but who can say at this point that it won't be hundreds or, god forbid, thousands. US troops are going to kill thousands of innocent people just to bring one man, or a couple of men, to justice. One dead civilian is a dead civilian too many. And what's more, in all of our "righteousness" we casually gave our selves the right to make that kind of human sacrifice instead of the people which are going to get killed. How would you like it if somebody decided that you are worth sacrificing for some goal without consulting you? They talk of smart bombs. How precise can a 10 TONE bomb be? Who are you kidding? I said it before I'll say it again. Between 1,000 and 1,500 civilians were killed in the '99 bombing compared to the less than 300 soldiers. And this was a war "NOT AIMED AT THE SERBIAN PEOPLE BUT RATHER AT THE MILOSEVIC KILLING MACHIENE". Afghanistan had an ever worse bombs dropped to civilians killed ratio.

This War is going to kill between 1,000 and 2,500 civilians another 2,000 to 5,000 people are going to be crippled or scared for life, and another 1,000 - 2,000 children are going to be left parentless. How many people are going to suffer psychological damage, some of who will never get over it, is anyone's guess. All of these casualties in two to three months time. No matter how ruthless, Saddam's regime never did that kind of damage in that short of a period. Gandhi used to say:' What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?'

The Same Thing happened in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Innocent people suffer the most. They bombed the oil refineries in Yugoslavia to stop the Milosevic War Machine - and the civilians are the ones who end up queuing for gas, and the military had stocks for months. The suggar plants got hit, and guess who qued again. The day somebody manages to explain to me how a factory which produces suggar can qualify as a military target I'll be monkey's uncle. The bridges got hit - the army found a way arround this, but the civilians had to drive for dozens of killometers more and waste gas wich they didn't have, nad guess who paid to get those bridges rebuilt? Do you know how many soldiers got killed when the hospital for pregnant women and babies got hit? Do you know how much has Milosevic suffered because of the economic sanctions? How much do you think, he had over a 100 million dollars - he didn't give a rats ass, but the average Yugoslav pay fell under 15$, and the inflation reached 1000% per day in the early nineties. Everytime the West decides to do something - the inocent people get hurt the most.

Afghanistan. Do you know what heapened to all of the Afghan fighters which were imprisoned? Did you hear of a single trial being held for any of them? Do you believe any of them are ever going to be free? How many of them were just defending their country and had nothing to do with Al Queda? How many of them are descent people, people we would admire if we had the priviledge to get to know them under different circumstances? And that idiot said that the Iraqis are breaking the Geneva Conventions by taking pictures of the imprisoned US soldiers!

And while the Dow Jones index rises, and the prices of US stocks skyrocket, the selflessness of this millitary intervention is only obvious to the people of the US. The rest of us know that while the Iraqi people will finally have the control over their oil, they wont be able to do anything with it but pay the US for "freeing" them and for rebuiding their country for the next 20 years.

In conclusion: We all agree that he's a bad man. But as the old saying goes: there's more than one way to skin a cat. And I, for one, say that the US has to find a way wich wont get so many inocent people killed!

PS -British news pappers are seldom any better than US ones!

[kebrown]

As an American, I am not sure that I agree with this war either. However, diplomacy does not always work and you Europeans should know the price that comes with appeasing dictators.

Additionally, I would like to say that I think it is absolutely reprehensible and completely ignorant for you to suggest that the US government allowed or planned an attack on its own soil, one which cost thousands of lives, American and otherwise.

To the argument that the civilian lives at risk make a war morally unjust I say even if 5,000 civilian lives are lost, countless more civilian lives are saved. Not only does Saddam Hussein torture and murder his own people, he has proven himself over the last 30 years to be extremely aggressive. He has provoked wars in Iran, Kuwait, with the Kurds, and attempted to provoke war with Israel during the Gulf War.

On the other hand, I do think that diplomatic channels could have been pursued a bit further. That is not to say that I believe a diplomatic solution would have worked, but I feel that these peaceful options should always be exhausted before going to war.

There is a limit to how much negotiation and diplomacy are really helpful. How would the 20th century, and indeed the world today, look if Europe and the US had stopped Hitler after the invasion of Poland or the annexation of Austria? Millions of lives would have been saved, the horrible genocide of that regime never would have occurred, and Eastern Europe would not have had to live under the incredible hardships and oppression of 50-plus years of Soviet rule.

We would all like to live in a world where there is complete peace, but we don't. Sometimes the few must be sacrificed for the good of the whole.

I also want to say out that I agree with the poster who pointed out the treatment of Afghani prisoners in US custody. Our current Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are playing dangerous games with the Constitution and I believe that those men should either be charged with a crime or set free. Either way, the US has a proud history of due process and the current government is putting a large blemish on that tradition.

[de_ira]

When will you people finally get it? Your opinion – that more diplomatic measures should have been exhausted before resorting to war and that war should be the last resort, with all due respect for you and your views, is stupid and childish. Violence is NEVER justified, not even as the last resort. For those not blinded by hatred, and not driven by blood thirst, there is always a better way. And the ‘You Europeans should know the price of getting rid of a dictator’ remark is out of place. But I do not resort to mumbling my views without evidence and historical perspective. I can think of four good examples of getting rid of dictators without bloodshed – of the top of my head, and they are as follows:

1) India, and Gandhi – where it all starts. Gandhi is perhaps the first man to say no to violence, and to look for a non-violent way out. India was a colony since the XVII century, when she was invaded by the Portuguese – I think. And before that India was ruled by the Arabs for two centuries and by the Mongols for a century. All of this means that the Indian people were under foreign rule for over 600 years by the XX century. All of that time spent under persecution and foreign domination and they still did not resort to all out war – which they could because even then there were about 200 million men of age to bare arms. But, never the less, they did not resort to violence. They engaged in peaceful protest and boycotts. It took them another 50 years but they finally got their freedom and managed neither to kill any Brits nor to get any of them killed in the process of their liberation.
2) Chile, the seventies or eighties (I’m not sure). Pinochet came to power as a result of a military cue. He was a general or something like that, so he had a lot of loyal troops. He killed the president and took power. Countless murders, kidnappings and tortures of free minded people who disagreed with him took place after he rose to power. Years and years of oppression enraged the people of Chile, but not to the extent that they would engage in combat with the military. Instead they protested peacefully. Like in India before, dozens were arrested, but this did not undermine the resolve of the people. They continued with public pressure until Pinochet agreed to hold a referendum in order to determine whether he should stay in power or not. The people of Chile overwhelmingly voted for Pinochet to go, and so he did.
3) South Africa, 1984. – 1986. A law saying that blacks (a great majority in South Africa) do not have the same rights as the white people (the rights to vote and to be voted for, the rights to ride in the same parts of buses etc.) was in place. The black people got fed up. They boycotted the shops in the cities (owned by white people) and only bought stuff in shops in the suburbs (owned by black people). The result – in ten days time the white people pressured their government to do something. At one moment the president of South Africa said that they are all Communists and that they are preparing for a revolution and a violent uprising, because “that’s the only way Communist get power”. This gave him a right to use the army on them if they tried violence. And even though there were a lot of angry young black men, the older and more vise leaders of the movement forced them not to turn violent. And surely enough, the first free elections in which blacks could vote and be voted for was held in ’85 or ’86 in which Nelson Mandela and the leader of the black freedom movement ran against each other.
4) Serbia 2000. Milosevic was in power for twelve years (first president of Serbia and later president of Yugoslavia) he stole votes in 1996. Actually the opposition won local elections, and he did not acknowledge this, and declared the votes null and void. The Serbian people rose against this in peaceful protests (peaceful until Milosevic sent police to beat them). Eventually the public pressure forced him to acknowledge the votes and the election. So the opposition got power in local city governments. He would have been out of power by ’98 or ’99 but somebody exhausted all diplomatic alternatives and bombed Yugoslavia. For three months the people of Yugoslavia were bombed and as I said before we ware the ones that suffered the most. Milosevic used this to portray Western leaders as monsters and sponsors of Albanian fanatics which kill Serbs for pleasure. And you know what 99.9999999% of the people believed him. After the war it took another year and a half to get rid of him in a, believe or not, peaceful uprising. Again elections were held for all levels of power: local, state and federal. Milosevic stole votes and the people got fed up. Yes some fires were set, and some windows got broken, but nobody was killed nor fired at. Nobody was beaten. This all was possible because the Kolubara Coal Mine went on strike and the country was shutting down. Eventually Milosevic admitted that he lost the elections and was later sent to the Hague for war crimes, which is a whole other story, one of which I am not so proud as I am of this one.

So you see – grasshopper, violence and strength are really weaknesses.

“Peaceful opposition to evil is the best way to fight evil” - Mahatma Gandhi


And the 9-11 self attack comment is not that uncomprehencable, diferent things run the World then you think - grasshopper.

[Rikbe]

Originally posted by de_ira
When will you people finally get it? Your opinion – that more diplomatic measures should have been exhausted before resorting to war and that war should be the last resort, with all due respect for you and your views, is stupid and childish. Violence is NEVER justified, not even as the last resort.

If violence is never justified, why is there so much violence and atrocities in Muslim countries? Do you protest against the 100 000 Algerians that were killed by fundamentalists? Did you protest against the killings in Nigeria, the cicil war in Macedonia, the Muslim terrorsts in India and Indonesia?
What about the stoned women in many Muslim countries? Isn't that also violence?
WHat did you do after 9/11? Protesting against violence or did you dance in the street?

If war is the only mean to eleminate violence, it is justified.

For those not blinded by hatred, and not driven by blood thirst, there is always a better way. And the ‘You Europeans should know the price of getting rid of a dictator’ remark is out of place. But I do not resort to mumbling my views without evidence and historical perspective. I can think of four good examples of getting rid of dictators without bloodshed – of the top of my head, and they are as follows:

Gandhi, Pinochet, Milosovic, South Africe did not threat other countries with WMD. They did not support terrorism.

[kebrown]

First of all, the word is "coup d'etat"; a "cue" is something you play billiards with.

Second, Pinochet's regime in Chile was backed Chilean military forces and by foreign interest (embarrassingly enough by the American government, which for some reason felt that he was better than his leftist predecessor). It was a bloody and tyrannical dictatorship; thousands of people disappeared and their whearabouts have never been made public. Is it right that these types of things should have gone on for 20 years? Yes, Pinochet vacated leadership of his country peacefully and democratically, once international opinion and domestic protests made it inevitable. However, should the Chilean people have had to suffer this way? Shouldn't the international community have helped them? Does Saddam Hussein, who is much worse than General Pinochet, appear to you to be the type of man who will abdicate peacefully?

As for India, it became independent in 1947 and while Mr. Ghandi's protests may have helped the process, much of it had to do with the situation of post-WWII Great Britain and the feasability of maintaining overseas colonies. Around this time, 13 years later began the decolonization of Africa, by violent means in the case of the Portugese colonies, by non-violent means in other colonies, and simply by mutual agreement in some cases.


I do not know much about the Serbian situation, but I certainly doubt that Milosevic was about to be removed from power based on fair democratic methods.

Nonviolent resistence and protest certainly is a powerful tool, but with the exception of South Africa, I am not convinced that in any of the cases you mentioned this type of resistence would have been effective if used alone. Chile may be another example, but it is a shame that we allowed 20 years to go by for the process to work. I believe that if you lived in a country like Iraq, you would be on your hands and knees begging for UN or American forces to come in and liberate you. Sometimes force is necessary.

[imported_iluminado]

It is quite interesting that, like in the case of Pinochet replacing democratically elected (but too left for his own good) Salvador Allende, it is in fact the US that bares much of the responsibility for supporting the long reign of Saddam, the once loved, but now infamous and terrible "axis of evil" dictator. Perhaps, instead of waging war to "liberate" innocent people after years of US sponsored attrocities, the US government should let freedom reign in the world and not displace it by supporting evil dictators and puppet-regimes to serve its own interests.