Slightly Disturbing World News

[Zamtuk]

Saying that we can't trust the Russians sounds a lot like racism to me, especially since they've been nothing but good to us since their conversion to a democracy.

Furthermore, having ships in the Persian Gulf allows us to respond quickly to any situation through direct military action in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, or Somalia. These countries are viewed as legitimate threats by many. Additionaly, we can take indirect action toward basically any country in the region, from Afghanistan on out. There are a variety of uses for these ships, and they are not necessarily threatening.

Nukes that are aimed toward Russia can serve two purposes: Sitting there or nuking Russia. The analogy doesn't make sense.

Racist? No. Russian is not a race, it is an ethnic background. Russians are considered caucasian. Stereotyping, yeah i can see that. But looking at our past/present with them, I can't say that I'm too wrong. And their track record with us since democracy has been anything but peerless.

And what reason do we have for keeping nukes pointed at Russia anyhow? They are too poor to actually bomb. They couldn't retaliate as they sold all their weapons to other countries. The reason it is pointed to them is from the cold war. That is the goddamned fact of the matter. We didn't just now decide to point nuclear weapons at them "just in case." Though we have on the other hand decided to KEEP the weapons pointed to them, just in case. No it doesn't make sense at all, I agree, but our government isn't exactly flawless.

[Kelgar]

China is a superpower, but quite far from being anywhere even remotely close to being "THE" superpower. They are still very much a developing country. This fact becomes plainly obvious the farther out from the big cities you go (ie: Beijing, Shanghai).

[Denadeb]

Arguing without all the facts is pointless IMO and none of us here have all the Facts. All any of us can do here is speculate and go by past experiances.

Something that bothered me though was this quote.
Sueven

First of all, neither of those qualifies as a terrorist act. Aiding terrorists? Yes. But terrorism itself? No.

Reffering to this.
Chidoro

Well he has been accused of financing palestinian terror factions. He's also been accused of harboring al-qaeda members as well. Both have occured in the time frame between the gulf war and present.

Now this is a hypothetical situation but its relavent to your statment.

Lets say Bob pays Joe to kill Ted. Or Maybe Bob just bought the guns or knives or what ever and gave them to Joe so he can kill Ted.

From your statment Bob is not an accessory to the crimes.

Accessory- 1. A person not actually or constructively present but contributing as an assistant or instigator to the commission of an offense. 1b. A person who knowing that a crime has been committed aids or shelters the offender with intent to defeat justice.

Now I may be wrong but funding and sheltering known criminals is just as bad as being the one who performed the crime itself. You make it sound as if its not such a big deal. I could be wrong and maybe that wasn't your intention but it sure came across that way to me.

[Wulfran]

Saying that we can't trust the Russians isn't an argument I'll accept, especially since they've been nothing but good to us since their conversion to a democracy.

How do you say "don't bite the hand that feeds you billions in economic aid" in Russian?

Saying any nationality is inherently dishonest is as ignorant as any other racial/cultural stereotypes. But lets not kid ourselves about the friendship of the Russian people: it is in the best interests of the Russians to be as good a friend as they can to the USA and the rest of the Western World. If their interests are threatened, then you'll see a much cooler reaction.

[Sueven]

Zamtuk: I'm sorry for the angry nature of my original (unedited) post which you quoted. I was still pissed off at Chidoro, and let that attitude come through in my post to you, which you did not deserve. The edited version more accurately reflects my attitude.

With that said, I agree that the reason we have our nukes pointed toward them is because of residual cold war angst, which I think we have a lot of, and I believe shapes a good deal of our policy toward Latin America. However, although our intentions are, I honestly believe, not inherently threatening, the act (and especially the leaking of the information) of having them pointed toward Russia and China is threatening. Although I don't foresee us using these nukes, if I were a Russian, I would feel much better if they were pointed elsewhere.

Denadeb: No-one has all the facts, not even Dubya. If we had all the facts (ie, whether Iraq has or will soon have nukes, whether they plan to use them) then this argument would be worthless. Us not having the facts is what gives it a point.

My issue with your analogy is the motivating factor. In your first example at least, it is Bob who desires to kill Ted, and he uses Joe as a weapon. In your second example, the motives are slightly more ambiguous.

I believe a more accurate analogy would be the following: Ted rapes Joe's wife. Joe kills Ted. Bob hears about it, gives Joe a car to get out of the area, and says "I never saw you."

In this analogy, it is clear that what Bob did was illegal. Some, however, would believe that it was morally incorrect, while others would believe it was not.

While we may disagree with this interpretation of events, almost every arab nation that exists sees Israel as the metaphorical rapist.

I am not positive on this, but I believe that the vast majority of the "terrorist" money that Saddam gives out is given to the families of deceased suicide bombers. Because the dead bomber was often the sole breadwinner, Hussein attempts to help out the remainder of the family financially, as they tend to be ignored by the rest of the world. Additionaly, I believe (although I am again not positive on my recollection here) that Jordan, among others, does the same thing. Yet we don't view this as terroristic behaviour on their part.

I know that Saddam gives out this money, but I am not positive if anything further has been proven in terms of his relations with terrorism (and of course, in this case, calling the palestinian fighters "terrorists" is a relative term). If anyone has additional information, feel free to fill me in.

[Denadeb]

The money you speak of going to the familys is correct to an extent. The money is what lures the potential suicide bombers because they know if they do it there family will be better off. Its really a sad thing to be honest because in most cases these people only want better for there familys and they see this as a means of getting that so called better.

[Hammerstalker PE]

I think I can state with a large amount of certainty that if Iraq were to get nukes then Saddam WOULD not hesitate to use them period.

This is the same asshole that unleashed chemical warfare on a defenceless Kurdish population. this is the same asshole that launched SCUD missiles at Israel during the Gulf war.

What pisses me off more than anything is that GWB's dad was such a fucktard and didn't finish the job ten years ago.

[Chidoro]

bleh

[Chidoro]

While we may disagree with this interpretation of events, almost every arab nation that exists sees Israel as the metaphorical rapist.

I am not positive on this, but I believe that the vast majority of the "terrorist" money that Saddam gives out is given to the families of deceased suicide bombers. Because the dead bomber was often the sole breadwinner, Hussein attempts to help out the remainder of the family financially, as they tend to be ignored by the rest of the world. Additionaly, I believe (although I am again not positive on my recollection here) that Jordan, among others, does the same thing. Yet we don't view this as terroristic behaviour on their part.

I know that Saddam gives out this money, but I am not positive if anything further has been proven in terms of his relations with terrorism (and of course, in this case, calling the palestinian fighters "terrorists" is a relative term). If anyone has additional information, feel free to fill me in.

The killing of innocent people is indeed terrorism. It's funny you should think otherwise.

Even if Jordan is supplying the terrorists (which wouldn't surprise me given the history), they certainly haven't flaunted it and made public statements to that effect. Regardless, the fact still remains that Iraq is doing so and in doing so, they support terrorism.

The bombers are in their early 20's, they most certainly aren't the sole breadwinners (which is redundant) of their households. It's amazing that with enough proganda, even our brightest college minds have come to that incorrect conclusion.

The terrorists in that region continue to derail peace efforts knowing full well that once the Palestinians have statehood, they will become accountable for their actions. And to think such terrorism would end with the establishment of statehood is also naive. I'm afraid that all the countries around Israel just want its eradication. Efforts will continue from those countries until that goal is attained.

[Sueven]

I personally see the Palestinian groups being referenced as terrorist organizations. I'm just saying that there's room for debate.

And at the same time, I also see the Israeli civilian groups that murder Palestinians and raze their homes to be terrorist groups as well. The media doesn't talk about those nearly as much, though.

Sometimes bombers are sole breadwinners, sometimes they are not. There is no reason a man in his 20's can't be responsible for the well-being of his family, and sometimes he is.

[Wulfran]

I've seen reports (TV... al a CNN, 60 minutes and the Canadian versions) that the going rate for suicide bombers is about 25-50K depending on the organization sponsoring the "mission" and the target. Sometimes the bomber is the sole bread winner, but more often it is an elder son trying to provide wealth for his family. Yes the money is paltry by our standards but life is a lot cheaper over there when many palestinians are living in poverty. 25K goes a long way in that environment, as it would in other economically starved environments.

When Saddam, the government of Jordan, Syria, Libya or anyone else contributes to the families of the bombers what is the message they are sending? To me it reads "Go blow up the Israelis, the enemies of God, and we will look after your loved ones". These people are not be viewed as murderers, terrorists, fanatics or pariahs, even when they attack non military targets: they are lauded as heroes for killing Israelis.

As Aranuil's post showed, this is definately not a one way street and the Israelis are just as firm and nasty in their own way, but don't confuse what is in some cases state sponsored terrorism for compassion to widows and orphans...

[Denadeb]

Its deffintly not passion for the familys. These bombers as there called are normally recruited at young ages. They go through training most of the time and they are brain washed into thinking that they will go to heaven because they are doing Gods work. As its been said the money is the biggest factor in these bombings because 25k is like 5 years wages to these people if not more.

[Fallanthas]

Yes it has been going on for a long time. Unjustly. That's why international council was set up. Because the US can only act in it's best economic interests.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is kill anyone that is questionably a threat, because that is the only way to be safe right?

You are saying the United States is wrong for looking out for the economic (and security) interests of it's own citizens?


And I am correcting you, you are way wrong. Only when a disagreement reaches the point of effigy burning does millitary action become a viable option.

Truant, this is not a disageement over who gets the last loaf of bread in the store. This is a bare-knuckles battle with a head of state who wants to see western culture cease to exist. Basically because one day enough of his country will have access to outside information to show what a piece-of-shit he has been to his own people.


And paying the families of deceased bombers is compassionate? YOU RAVING DUMBFUCK! Who do you think is encouraging those breadwinners to go out and slaughter people? What fucking barrel did you gestate in that you cannot understand this? He isn't being compassionate. THOSE PAYMENTS ARE ONE OF THE MAJOR FACTORS PUSHING THE BOMBERS ALONG!!!


/afk a minute while I go take some drugs. I think I just blew something.

[Zamtuk]

Sueven, I agree completely. By the time I realized you edited your post, it was too late. And is this the first time two opposing arguments reach an agreement on this board?

[Truant]

Fuck's sake! this is getting rediculous...


Look, I'm aware that military force is a viable option...but ATM it's not the ONLY viable option.

War is a last resort, not the first option.

I'm done with this...

[Fallanthas]

First option?



Let me guess, you weren't around when we went through this mess almost eleven years ago?


This isn't remotely close to the first time Saddam has been reigned in. Nor is it the second. IF that's what you are basing your opinion on, you need to do some reading.