Marching against Al Qaeda - what a joke

gandalf

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
:rolleyes:

Tsk tsk, so cynical. How little you know the American people.

Care to elaborate on that comment please. We are not all obviously as enlightened as you!

Gandalf.

ronano

Originally posted by sovtek
When's the last time America pumped billions of €'s to build infrastructure and when did you last vote in an American election or referendum?

Erm explain to me what you're truly trying to get at here because i fail to see how your post relates to what he said

sovtek

Originally posted by ronano
Erm explain to me what you're truly trying to get at here because i fail to see how your post relates to what he said

I'd think it's fairly obvious.

An Fear Aniar

Originally posted by bug


to answer the original posters question, I definitley wouldnt call myself a leftist, but I would have to say there isnt much we can do unless the americans/brits suddenly, miraculously stopped meddling in middleastern affairs and pulled out. But thats not going to happen, so we can sit by and watch it all unfold, the cycle of violence that it is, and.. dodge the bombs.

Well done, Bug. You're the only one so far who has tried to give me an alternative rather than just supplying the usual Student's-Union-type AmeriKKKa-bashing.

So, you feel that the best way to put an end to atrocities like 9/11 and Madrid is for the US and Brits to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs?

What exactly were these countries doing there pre-9/11 which was so awful that it warranted a deliberately targeted slaughter of innocent civilians on 9/11??

Are you thinking of Israel?? Because it seem to me that helping Israel to survive in hostile region is a good thing.

Anyway, let's hear some constructive alternatives rather than this negative "Bu$h is Hitler" nonsense.

MrPinK

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Are you thinking of Israel?? Because it seem to me that helping Israel to survive in hostile region is a good thing.

The Israelis are armed to the teeth, including with WMD's. They don't need help surviving. What they do need is international pressure to fully commit to establishing a Palestinian state and bringing peace to the region.

dathi1

What exactly were these countries doing there pre-9/11 which was so awful that it warranted a deliberately targeted slaughter of innocent civilians on 9/11??

You mean one country?? USA: Not much besides backing IDF slaughter, SLA in Lebanon, supporting the occupation against UN 242, Regan's forte in Beirut, Feeding both sides of the Iran/ Iraq war. Iran Contra / Oliver North, Backing Sadam, Backing the Saudis. Backing the Kuwaiti "Royal" family, Backing every despotic oil rich regime that was to hand to the detriment of their populalations. Its just been Kill kill, rape rape, Oil oil and occupying Zionists good / Arabs bad, good guys / bad guys etc. I could go on.

seriously ..besides the hideousness of the crime..when the first plane when into tower 1...where you surprised?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Are you thinking of Israel?? Because it seem to me that helping Israel to survive in hostile region is a good thing.

Why?

xm15e3

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar

What exactly were these countries doing there pre-9/11 which was so awful that it warranted a deliberately targeted slaughter of innocent civilians on 9/11??

We developed their oil fields and allow them to be nationalized

We supply Egypt with $2B annually in foreign aid, for not being as terminally F'd as their neighbors.

We supply defense systems to the Saudis, we buy their oil providing them with their ONLY source of wealth, and until recently defended Saudis with our blood and treasure while imposing in-human restrictions on our military (no beer) so as not to offend the locals Mufdies.

We continually demand restraint from Israel for attacks we would retaliate for in a genocidal fashion.

Lets face it, we're pure evil.

BTW, Pinochet was the only good dictator we supported. Alande got what he deserved.

mr_angry

You're the only one so far who has tried to give me an alternative rather than just supplying the usual Student's-Union-type AmeriKKKa-bashing.

Well, to be honest, it doesn't look from your original post as if you were really looking for a debate on rational solutions to the problem:

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
They'll be laughing their sandals off at thousands of left wing pantywaists waving banners saying inane stuff like "arms are for hugging, not for fighting" and "Bu$h = Hitler".

Unfortunately, these guys have to be dealt with the old fashioned mediaeval way, as their speech and actions indicate.

And besides, when has anyone on this thread equated Bush with Hitler? From what I can see, there are a lot of people criticising his military and foreign policies. I would go as far as to say legitimately criticising his policies, but then again, that is a matter of opinion. Thats a far cry from calling him Hitler though.

As for Israel - I'm happy to see the state of Israel survive and prosper... as long as it is not at the expense of another legitimate community of people, be they another state, or Israel's own population.

[Edit]
Is there an English / sane translation for the above post?
[/Edit]

sceptre

Originally posted by xm15e3
BTW, Pinochet was the only good dictator we supported.

And for various economic reasons that led to people starving if they didn't manage to get shot first you get no points there either:p

therecklessone

Originally posted by xm15e3
and until recently defended Saudis with our blood and treasure while imposing in-human restrictions on our military (no beer) so as not to offend the locals Mufdies.

My God you're right. I demand the Security Council of the UN be convened immeadiately!

:rolleyes:

xm15e3

Originally posted by sceptre
And for various economic reasons that led to people starving if they didn't manage to get shot first you get no points there either:p

Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade. During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform was strengthened when the democratic government of Patricio AYLWIN - which took over from the military in 1990 - deepened the economic reform initiated by the military government. Growth in real GDP averaged 8% during 1991-97, but fell to half that level in 1998 because of tight monetary policies implemented to keep the current account deficit in check and because of lower export earnings - the latter a product of the global financial crisis. A severe drought exacerbated the recession in 1999, reducing crop yields and causing hydroelectric shortfalls and electricity rationing, and Chile experienced negative economic growth for the first time in more than 15 years. Despite the effects of the recession, Chile maintained its reputation for strong financial institutions and sound policy that have given it the strongest sovereign bond rating in South America. By the end of 1999, exports and economic activity had begun to recover, and growth rebounded to 4.4% in 2000. Growth fell back to 2.8% in 2001 and 1.8% in 2002, largely due to lackluster global growth and the devaluation of the Argentine peso. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, putting pressure on President LAGOS to improve living standards. One bright spot was the signing of a free trade agreement with the US, which will take effect on 1 January 2004.

xm15e3

Originally posted by therecklessone
My God you're right. I demand the Security Council of the UN be convened immeadiately!

:rolleyes:

SAVAGES!

therecklessone

Originally posted by xm15e3
Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade. During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform was strengthened when the democratic government of Patricio AYLWIN - which took over from the military in 1990 - deepened the economic reform initiated by the military government. Growth in real GDP averaged 8% during 1991-97, but fell to half that level in 1998 because of tight monetary policies implemented to keep the current account deficit in check and because of lower export earnings - the latter a product of the global financial crisis. A severe drought exacerbated the recession in 1999, reducing crop yields and causing hydroelectric shortfalls and electricity rationing, and Chile experienced negative economic growth for the first time in more than 15 years. Despite the effects of the recession, Chile maintained its reputation for strong financial institutions and sound policy that have given it the strongest sovereign bond rating in South America. By the end of 1999, exports and economic activity had begun to recover, and growth rebounded to 4.4% in 2000. Growth fell back to 2.8% in 2001 and 1.8% in 2002, largely due to lackluster global growth and the devaluation of the Argentine peso. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, putting pressure on President LAGOS to improve living standards. One bright spot was the signing of a free trade agreement with the US, which will take effect on 1 January 2004.

All of this makes excuses the behaviour of Pinochet and his cronies after they seized power?

At what point would you suggest the US stops supporting murderous dictators and their regimes? When economic performance dips below a certain level? Or are human rights and democratic principles not for sale?

the_syco

Hehehe.

Damn hippies. March against Al Qaeda? And what will that do?

Nothing.

If they wanted to be liked by you sponge heads, they wouldn't have blown up the trains in spain, the planes in America, or the cars, trucks, etc in Iraq.

I'm pro-US. Not pro-Bush. Just pro-US. I want US to kick the sh*t out of every country that has Al Qaeda in it.
Do I care about all these starving people? Not much.
Were the Iraq's starving before the US came along? Dunno. No-one was allowed to check.
If America gets out of Iraq, will it become self sufficent? No f****in way.

shotamoose

Originally posted by the_syco
I want US to kick the sh*t out of every country that has Al Qaeda in it.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and, probably, Spain and the UK? Great idea!

mr_angry

America itself springs to mind. The assumptions seems to be that all Al Qaeda members are living in caves, and only come out to attack us poor Western folk. The fact is, most of these people are well-educated people living comfortably in major cities around the world. They just happen to share the vision that the world needs changing, and lots of bloodshed is the best way to go about achieving their aims.

Much like several people on this thread. You should really ask yourselves how far removed you are from the likes of Al Qaeda, albeit on the other side of the 'fence'.

sceptre

Originally posted by xm15e3 quoting someone else
<snip>During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform

I haven't time to write yet another critique of the experiment of Friedman's minions (especially since you just appear to have cut and pasted your entire post from somewhere (I suspect the CIA World Factbook from last year) without attributing your source - without cutting the last line of your post about a future event on 1 January 2004) so I'll offer this link as a reasonable rant about the Chicago School's shenannigans in Chile. It seeks to explain (and in my view does a reasonable job) in explaining why the economics was bollocks.

You can call me a pinko socialist if you like but I couldn't give a crap about Chile's sovereign bond rating while most of the people who live there can't afford sandwiches with meat in them.

If you come up with your own arguments (and words) I'll be happy to explain why Chile exposed the fundamental weaknesses in Friedman's economic theory at some future date. In the meantime, we've a policy of source attribution here - if you get a paragraph from someone else, say it isn't yours.

An Fear Aniar

Originally posted by dathi1
You mean one country?? USA: Not much besides backing IDF slaughter, SLA in Lebanon, supporting the occupation against UN 242, Regan's forte in Beirut, Feeding both sides of the Iran/ Iraq war. Iran Contra / Oliver North, Backing Sadam, Backing the Saudis. Backing the Kuwaiti "Royal" family, Backing every despotic oil rich regime that was to hand to the detriment of their populalations. Its just been Kill kill, rape rape, Oil oil and occupying Zionists good / Arabs bad, good guys / bad guys etc. I could go on.

seriously ..besides the hideousness of the crime..when the first plane when into tower 1...where you surprised?

In all of those instances you mention, the Soviets were just as active in the region. The Americans were 100% right to get in there and get involved, the world is a much better place now that the Soviet menace is gone.


So all those incidents you mention are 1980's vintage or earlier except the supporting of Israel which happen to believe is a good and justified cause. Israel is the only democaracy in the entire region and has been subject to repeated unprovoked attacks since 1949. These attacks, in the form of terrorist atrocities are continuing to this day. You see, the Arabs wanted to drive the entire Jewsih nation into the sea, but they're slowly starting to learn that Israel is here to stay. The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a state of their own, most are refugees from Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Yasser Arafat himself is Egyptian.

But I digress. So did anything happen say, between 1990 and 2001 which might be seen to justify the 9/11 atrocity??

bonkey

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
the world is a much better place now that the Soviet menace is gone.

What menace? You mean the menace of an alternate political system?

Do you realise, for example, that not a single emergence of socialism and/or communism has managed to fall of its own accord in teh 20th century? That - without exception - every single one's demise involved the US.

Or do you mean the stupid arms-race that the US and the USSR egged each other into, and that US-apologists would now have us believe was entirely not their fault, despite the fact that they were the ones who started it? That menace?

Or maybe it was the Western expansion of the USSR where they annexed several post-war nations by deciding to instill communist governments? Lets not forget that this only occurred after the US had done the same in Greece, so here, the menace would seem to be one that the US initiated.

So all those incidents you mention are 1980's vintage or earlier except the supporting of Israel which happen to believe is a good and justified cause.

Ahh. I see. So the people in the ME are just going to look at it and say "well, my grandfather lived through hell, and my father, and now me, and its all because of the games your nations played out on our soil....but hey - thats ok. You say you've stopped now, so I should just suffer these despotic regimes that you support (or put in power and now no longer support) and hold no grudge against you, because you say its in the past?"

That makes a load of sense. Just like the argument you seem to be making that because Israel is - in your eyes - a good cause, it is not one of the reasons for strife. The english occupied Ireland for hundreds of years, after which we gained independance. Do you think those fighting what they saw as the occupation of their land gave a flying fsck whether or not someone thought the occupation "was a good cause". If a foreign nation were to suport the English in Ireland, we didn't say "oh well, thats ok...they think the English have a good cause". We said "they're helping those who have stolen our land."

And before someone gets up on their high horse by misunderstanding what I'm saying......I'm not saying you shouldn't support Israel. Whether you do or not is not relevant to the point I'm making. I'm saying that saying "its a good cause" does not mean that it is not a source of contention for those in the area who disagree with the existence of teh Israeli state, and right or wrong is a reason for much of the anti-US sentiment in the region.

Israel is the only democaracy in the entire region

Albeit one which denies the vote to certain groups of citizens for no reason other than their religious belief.

Tell me...would you call it democratic if the Irish government declared in teh morning that only Catholics could vote in Ireland?

But let me guess? Its ok for Israel to be called democratic whilst not really having full democracy, because its a good reason to support it?

Also, should we bring up the list of democratically elected governments that the US has helped overthrow to show how shallow this line of argument is ?

and has been subject to repeated unprovoked attacks since 1949.

Just like the Irish subjected the English to unprovoked attacks for several hundred years after they decided they owned our land, yes?

The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a state of their own, most are refugees from Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Yasser Arafat himself is Egyptian.

I see. And how many Israelis were born in Israel? The Palestinians have as much of a right to a state fo their own as the Israelis. The very agreement which brought the Israeli nation into existence also recognised the right of a Palestinian state to exist. Are you saying that this agreement should not be honoured? Or that it is right to only honour the convenient part of it?

But I digress. So did anything happen say, between 1990 and 2001 which might be seen to justify the 9/11 atrocity??

Lets see....

US sanctions, bombing, etc. on Iraq. The vast number of military bases created by the US during the Gulf War which remained in the region. The US support of the Saud regime - one of the most oppressive in the world, apparently - including the location of a US base on Saudi land. Increased US presence, and influence in the ME region.

These are the main factors - particularly those related to Saudi Arabia - which apparently turned OBL against the US, and he had the (US-Supplied) training, along with the money (from a rich Saudi family) and the conviction (whether you believe it to be religious or not makes no odds) to actually go and do something about it.

Does it justify 9/11? No, it doesn't. Nothing can justify an action like that. Does that mean we should just write 9/11 off as an inexplicable act by maniacs? No - not if we ever wish to understand what is happening, which is essential to being able to resolve the issue.

There were reasons. There were provocations. Whether we agree with them or not, or like them or not, they exist. Saying "but its in the past" is worthless if your opponent disagrees.

jc

monument

Originally posted by the_syco
Do I care about all these starving people? Not much.

What about the starving people in the US? You do know that church soup kitchens are now feeding what would be condenser average people in the US?

xm15e3

Originally posted by monument
What about the starving people in the US? You do know that church soup kitchens are now feeding what would be condenser average people in the US?

Where on earth did you get that from? The only people starving in America are teenage girls from middle class families with eating disorders.

xm15e3

Sceptre- My mistake, I'll post references next time: that was from the CIA WFB.

As for Chile and Pinochet, no one said the transition was painless. Not only did they make a rapid transition, but they did it with hard core classic liberal (Von Mises) philosophy. They paid forward for what they are now enjoying.

Alande had, and still has his supporters. Mainly the ethnic native north..go figure, just like most South American Marxists. The better educated and more prosperous South tends to be pro-Pinochet.

Why I say he is the only "good" dictator we've supported is that he built the foundation for their economic advance (detractors ignore this, and concentrate on the numbers during the transition. About as fair as blaming high interest rates on Jimmy Carter). And that, unlike Castro and others, he fallowed through with his initial promise of a return to democracy within 20 years. He left peacefully, at the will of the people. BTW, isn't interesting how Pinochet is a Mass Murderer (2000 dead during a revolution) and Fidel is a "Revolutionary" (13-30K Dead).

In Pinochet's words, he was a solder sworn to protect the constitution of his country, and that he did. Our military takes a similar oath, and if hard core Marxists did in the US as Alende tried in Chile, we would have coup and civil war also. If we we're lucky.

Interesting link:
http://www.economiaysociedad.com/carta11_ingles.html

The left hates Pinochet only because their team lost. Che Guevara was a much more violent individual

bonkey

Originally posted by xm15e3
Where on earth did you get that from? The only people starving in America are teenage girls from middle class families with eating disorders.

Sure, and there are no poor or homesless either, right?

/me points at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html and suggests that you give up with propaganda.

xm15e3

Originally posted by bonkey
Sure, and there are no poor or homesless either, right?

/me points at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html and suggests that you give up with propaganda.

Nice Straw man.

Sure there are homeless, most are either voluntary or are those that should be institutionalized. Poor in America means having only 1 TV and no DVD player.
The only people going hungry are the ones that would rather jack up then buy food for themselves of their kids.

Propaganda? Gee, sorry if reality ain't what you've been told. Keep an open mind, and lose the cynicism

Zombrex

Originally posted by xm15e3
Interesting link:
http://www.economiaysociedad.com/carta11_ingles.html

Just so people know, that interesting article you linked to was written by Pinochet's Minister for Labour :rolleyes:

BattleBoar

Well, both of yuo are right...sort of. It depends on your definition. If you take the, "on average" poor, then xm15e3 is correct:

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

In many ways, on average, america's "poor" live far better than any other "poor" in the world.

However, to say that there are no hungry people in the US is clearly wrong:

Overall, some 567,000 children, or 0.8 percent of all children, were hungry at some point in 2002. In a typical month, roughly one child in 400 skipped one or more meals because the family lacked funds to buy food.

Zombrex

Originally posted by xm15e3

Sure there are homeless, most are either voluntary or are those that should be institutionalized. Poor in America means having only 1 TV and no DVD player.
The only people going hungry are the ones that would rather jack up then buy food for themselves of their kids.

You have actually been to the USA right??

Acording to the US Census about 32 million Americans lived in poverty in 2002 (and no, poverty isn't defined as not owning a second TV) and about 14 million of them lived in "severe poverty."

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-153.html

There is estimated to be about 500,000 homeless people in America

http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5711.html

xm15e3

Originally posted by BattleBoar

However, to say that there are no hungry people in the US is clearly wrong:

There aren't people going hungry in the US for reasons other than their, or their parents, chosen life style.

BTW, a pan handler in the US can take in $40K a year..tax free.....and government paid health care.. To be under the poverty level, you have to work under minimum wage, or part time minimum wage.

We're not living in Eutopia, but it is a very comfotable place to be poor.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Wicknight
You have actually been to the USA right??


You could say I know something about the place. And your right, there are plenty of Americans living under the "poverty level" according to the US census, who actually own two TVs and a DVD player. A majority of them also smoke more than a pack a day, at $4.00 a pack no less.