Spain is pulling out

[Infanteer]

It‘s hard to compare Iraq‘s situation with the one‘s of France,Belgium and Holland.

I‘m not, if you didn‘t notice, Spain is the topic of conversation here.

Since when do Americans care about a nations people? Only if it coincides with their own national best interest

Your painting with a broad brush here and assuming that economics (ie oil) is the only thing that factors into US interests. American history and geography have a large part to play in determining this as well (as they do in any states foreign policy). The ideas of global superpower and standard bearer for liberty and democracy can factor in as well.

Why else would the US send troops to Somalia? Kosovo? Bosnia? What economic incentives have recently driven the US evangelist community to back the AIDS/HIV struggle in Africa?

I mean their are alot more tyrannical dictators in the world. Why saddam why not north korea?

...do you see funds or training bases for Al Qaeda coming from Kim Jong Il? One shouldn‘t bite off more then they can chew.

That‘s what bothers me the most about Americans nowadays that they can‘t admit when their wrong.

Thats what bothers me about the protest crowd. They can never admit that the US (and the West in general) might be right.

 

[1feral1]

So if the US do nothing, soon everybody would be saying where are they?

The world is a more safe place with the US, and its a better world with what they have done.

It was/is about stopping Saddam for supporting and/or supplying/aiding any Islamic terr organisation, from possiblly setting off a WMD of somekind in any of our cities. Do the WMD exist, I am sure they did, and still might, but they may have been buried, or trucked out to an Iraqi ally. Time will tell on this.

It also lets any other greasy shytehole nations who are aiding terr orgs, they might be next.

N Korea can still be talked to, and there is talk ongoing right now. It wasnt N Koreans who bombed NYC, or Bali, or Madrid was it! It was Islamic extremists.

Sounds like a little bit of anti-Americanism from ya Engr CPL??

The US saved thousands of lives for us all during WW2 ending the war much sooner than if not involved, and stopped the war in the Pacific with Fat Boy and Little Man.

The have stopped the spread of Communism through out SE Asia, South America, and aided in Somalia, Grenada, Bosnia, and other places, not forgetting the Cold War and possible invasion of the west by the Russians.

Fact: Iraq has been liberated from Saddam, Europe was liberated from Hitler, although both wars started differently, the outcome was the same. Victory, and the bad boys taken out. So how can you call them different?

Only technology has changed for our benifit, and the benifit of less civvy casualties, say compared to Allied fire bombings of Dresden (one night 10‘s of thousands burnt to death in firestorms), German Blitz on London, and other big centres which were leveled in WW2. In other times the city of Baghdad would have been one giant K-Mart parking lot.

So as I said, if the US did nothing and later WMDs of some kind were used on Toronto, London, or Sydney, and they had come form direct Iraqi sources, what would you be saying then? Gee why didnt the US go in and sort it out back in 2003?

Regards,

Wes

 

[1feral1]

Hey Infanteer, ever had good ole Australian Bundy overproof Rum? Mate, I could have a few drinks with ya!

And for those so ‘leftly‘ inclined, our ‘watermellon‘ friends (green on the outside, red on the inside)you can discuss us ‘realists‘ over a warm beer and a few joints in the lefty corner of your uni pub.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Infanteer]

The objective is to convert or conquer the infidels.

I‘ve seen a good arguement that states that Al Qaeda‘s opposition to the US seems to be based around American policies. American support of Israel, American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, American support for moderate regimes in the Middle East, etc.

This "policy-based" arguement of the problem is all fine and dandy, lets compromise and alter the policies in order to end the war.

How can we, as Westerners, realistically expect to withdraw support for the right to exist of a liberal, democratic state in a sea of authoritarianism? How can we expect to abandon petroleum, so important to our way of life? How can we, as democratic citizens, be expected to abandon a large percentage of the earth‘s people to the ignorance of fundamentalism?

If you have an answer to these questions, by all means, give me an answer.

Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles in 1938 by kick-starting the war machine.

Actually, it broke it in 1935 with the remilitarization of the Rhineland.

They were even allowed to go so far as to invade Poland to ‘claim what was taken from them‘ after the First World War. Only after repeated offensive actions did the rest of Europe become entangled in war.

No, England and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland on September 1, 1939. This was after repeated occurances of expansion under the threat of force in Europe.

Not trying to knock you, but you should try to ensure your basic history is correct if your going to use it in your arguement.

Full United Nations support is required

What do we do if we don‘t get it? "Universalism" is nice, but it shouldn‘t override a more realistic "particularist" outlook.

 

[Engineer Corporal]

Alright enough garbage talk. Me being a History Major as well I come across alot of good papers so please take a read.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/A%20Global%20Threat%20for%20the%2021st%20Century.htm

I would love to hear your arguements so we can continue this battle of wits. Incased is a complete List of References if you doubt any of the material.

 

[Exodeus]

Infanteer,

I was refering to the Jihad (the ‘conquering of the infidels‘)

Poland was the last ‘drop in the bucket‘, if you will, that caused England and France to declare war. I didn‘t word it quite right in my first post there, but that‘s what I was getting at. My notes said 1938...but the remilitarization of the Rhineland in ‘35 does make more sense.

As I mentioned, it was an ‘ideal‘ proposal. Obviously there won‘t be ‘full UN support‘, but I think we agree that continued military force will be required to suppress the terrorist threat (it will probably never be destroyed).

If we cannot aquire (somewhat) universal international support, we can‘t hope to suppress terrorism (or any guerilla threat) on the international level.

Just to jump back to your first point here, I‘ve heard the same argument, and I don‘t doubt it‘s validity. On the other hand, the US has become a more convenient target due to their involvement in the Middle East. Do you really think that modifying policies will end hostilities? On the other hand, are we (the Western World) to sit back and watch the Middle East destroy itself in the name of the ‘Holy Land‘?

Finally, to answer your question(s): we can‘t (but I don‘t think that‘s what I was getting at).

 

[Exodeus]

(Oh, I forgot to mention...)
By all means, don‘t hesitate to correct me. I‘m not writing by memory here - not that it‘s an excuse for error, but I‘m trying to make the best point that I can without having to spend hours on research.
If anything, it‘s better to be wrong. That way I (and whoever else) can learn something.

Thanks again,
-Dave

 

[Gunnar]

The war isn‘t about oil. Besides, if it were about oil, that would be about Iraq, not the vast wasteland of Afghanistan. And even if it were about Afghanistan, it isn‘t about Afghanis. It‘s about terrorists, who happen to be making use of poor, backwards, undeveloped countries to train in.

I am tempted to suggest the only remedial course of action is to explain it in terms usually used for pacifists:

When approached by the pacifist, listen to his views. Allow him to explain why the non-violent approach is uncivilized, has never really solved anything, and how violence only begets violence. Then, without warning, punch him in the face.

If he reacts violently, call him on it. Point out all the points listed above, and show that if he really believed in that viewpoint, he would not react in that manner. Then, when he agrees and fully understands what you mean, punch him in the face.

(Note that if he walks away, you must prevent him from leaving, ask him why he challenges your right to express your feelings and/or cultural identity through physical means, that you feel repressed, that he should stay to hear your side of the story, that you were only trying to make a point, that you‘re sorry....then punch him in the face!)

Keep talking/punching in this manner until he gets the point: SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE WILL PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE UNTIL YOU MAKE THEM STOP. They may listen to your arguments, they may discuss things rationally with you, but they‘re gonna keep punching you in the face as long as you let them.

The terrorists want to keep punching you in the face. They‘re not really interested in your arguments or rationale, unless it gives them a rest for their bruised knuckles. Spain has shown the terrorists that they are true pacifists, and are truly willing to keep getting hit forever. Whether a life of getting hit is a good one or not is left as an exercise for the reader. Note also that the US has pointed out in no uncertain terms that they are not willing to keep getting hit, and that those who hit, get hit back UNTIL THEY STOP.

All arguments, in order for there to be a winner, have to rest on some common principle that you recognize as truth...when one of you expresses the truth more clearly, you understand who is wrong. If neither one of you is entirely sure, or you recognize the possibility of error, you can compromise. The issue the terrorists have is not one on which you can compromise. In their mind, you are an evil, evil creature who must convert or die. If you compromise a little bit, then you‘re a not as evil creature who must die. Notice the last part. YOU MUST DIE. You can‘t meet them half way, or reason with them: they operate on different principles that you. They will not recognize any argument you put forward, and any compromise is seen as a win for their side. They see themselves as messengers of GOD. You aren‘t. Therefore, you are wrong. You will surrender to the almighty, or you will perish. There is no option.

The only way to answer a black and white argument of this nature is with an equally black and white argument. Example:

Tiger: I am hungry. You are food. You will die to sustain me.

Man: I am man. I have a gun. My purpose in life is not to be your food. You will die if you try it.

Tiger: I am hungry. Attack!

Man: Bang!

(Or, you could compromise, and offer the poor tiger just a leg. Which one?)

====

Now compare and contrast:

Terrorist: I have the one true word of God on my side. You are evil, and must die, or you must agree with me.

Civilized Man: I respect your belief in a higher power, but unfortunately, I can‘t agree with your assessment of my moral status. You seem to think I should bow down to your dictates and/or religion regardless of how I feel about things. I don‘t think I can help you out there, pal.

Terrorist: If you do not do as I say, I will kill you, and random women and children. I will be a brave martyr if I kill loads of women and children...it‘s so terribly manly. My cause is just, and I will die for my cause.

Civilized Man: Well, since you put it that way, if you try to kill me, or my women and children, I will kill you, or die in the attempt. Because my life is worth preserving, as is the life of those I care for, and I am willing to die so that they may live for my cause.

(Or, you could compromise, and let just one of your kids die. Which one?)

====
Terrorists need to be burned out root and branch. Your religion and belief structure are your own affair. However, when you choose to enforce your belief system on me, at my expense, then you are a threat which must be eliminated. You don‘t have to agree with society‘s rules: You can steal, rape and murder if you like. However, society reserves the right to defend itself, and put you in jail, or destroy you. There is no other option.

Nemo me impune lacessit.

 

[George Wallace]

Originally posted by Engineer Corporal:
[qb] Alright enough garbage talk. Me being a History Major as well I come across alot of good papers so please take a read.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/A%20Global%20Threat%20for%20the%2021st%20Century.htm

I would love to hear your arguements so we can continue this battle of wits. Incased is a complete List of References if you doubt any of the material. [/qb]

Well now. I‘ve had a look at your paper and in my day it would have been graded with a big fat Freddie. The layout would not have been accepted, but most of all it would have been considered plagiarism. You have a short list of References, all from the Net, but nowhere have you footnoted any of your sources and given them the credit they deserve.

BRYNN EVANS[qb]
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin states it correctly: â Å“'The United Nations cannot be ignored'â ? (Boston, Europe Shifts Focus). The last time countries acted outside the international governing body (the League of Nations at the time), the peacekeeping organization fell apart. In the 1930s, Japan, Germany and Italy acted out of self-interest, disregarding the mission of the League of Nations â “ subsequently, World War II occurred. Interestingly, the United States had never joined the League, some say causing a weakness in the organization from the beginning (The League of Nations), but the independent actions of these few powerful nations were enough to topple the League. When we examine what has been going on today, it is surprising to see the similarities between United States' actions and that of the Axis powers before World War II.

Will the United States' continued disregard for international cooperation through discussions and joint resolutions in the U.N. be the ultimately death knell for that organization? Will the balance of power in the world become so badly skewed that the U.S. finds itself at war with virtually the rest of the world? Will unrestrained U.S. military power, used unilaterally, cause a new nuclear arms race throughout the world? In trying to make the nation safer, through pre-emptive military force, has the U.S. made itself more hated and threatened?

[/qb]

Brynn hasn‘t understood anything of what he/she wrote and would have been caught up by his/her Prof on the interview to discuss the paper.

The similarities between the USA of today and Germany and Japan in WW II are nonexistant. Germany and Japan were both aggressively invading peaceful nations to build their ‘empires‘. The USA is not invading peaceful nations. The Americans have only gone into places that are already in turmoil. In WW II the USA was not the only ‘World Super Power‘; Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, and England all shared that power more than the US. With the collapse of Communism and the failure of the Socialist systems, we are left with quite a void. China does not have the abilities, nor the reputation, to fill a role of Peacekeeper, Peacemaker or World Policeman. The US does.

Your paper sucks. It has nothing original and no real meat. It is a collection of ‘cut and paste‘ statements from the Net and ended with more questions than thought. Sorry, I rate it an "F".

GW

 

[George Wallace]

Bravo Gunnar

GW

 

[1feral1]

Engr CPL, I reckon its you with the garbage talk, unless you have whitnessed Islamic aggression first hand (like I have), and felt the pain of a neighbour‘s death, when she was vapourised in a deliberate Islamic bomb blast, then shut your gob! Your paper is something I wouldnt even light the stove with,yet alone wipe my arse.

You can have all the reports, papers, graphs, and even the video and t-shirt, but unless you have experienced ‘the topic‘ first hand, smelled it, tasted it, feared aand respected it, then forget it.

I would expect that paper to be written for some Commie Prof, who smoked hemp in his spare time. IKt slmost idiotic and completrly worthless. Somehting that I ENTIRELY disagree with full stop.

Question is, if it wasnt for America, where would you be right now? Speakig japanese, russina, or german. Take your pick.

You should thank your lucky stars, you got em as neighbours.

I do however believe in free speech, but you are lucky you can write what you want. In other countries even right now, you would be rounded up, and shamlessly shot or imprisoned.

I am beginning to get a wee tad disgusted here.


OUT - Wes

 

[Exodeus]

...I think Gunnar explained what I was leaning towards ‘slightly‘ (more like, exponentially) better than I did with respect to the terrorist attitude...

 

[winchable]

It‘s fun to throw around words like "Jihad"

 

[Engineer Corporal]

Say what you will I‘m not here to change any of your opinions, because that‘s all they are. This is a forum and showing points of view is what it is all about. I show the big picture and where the world is heading. I have no intention of even considering what things you have seen in your life wes. Nor would I prolly want to. What I am trying to point out is that the future is not all cheery full of victory over terrorism. I know none of you agree with most things I have said but that‘s not the point of a forum.

Dismissing the paper as things strung together from the internet I do have a problem with. Research papers are not suppose to be your own work. Your suppose to use other published information(books). Using those sources you use them to make a coherant arguement, or to prove a point. Just because you don‘t agree with something does‘nt make it stupid.
In the end the Americans will continue their crusade against everyone that they consider evil. It really does‘nt matter, all they are doing is meeting violence with violence and thinking they can beat every "rogue state." Install democracy under a point of a gun is pure heresy on what democracy stands for.
All they will end up doing is unite the islamic people against them. In doing so play right into osama‘s hands.

Situation is turning into a vietnam of a sort. Stop saying that the terrorists hate us and start saying WHY do the terrorists hate us? In only that statement will you find the real weapon in destroying them. Invading every country who supposedly has WMD or supports terrorists will only fuel their cause and there are endless recruits willing to blow themselves up to get back at the people who have invaded their country.

It‘s just like the mafia you can‘t kill everyone. One day some cousin or brother of someone you killed will kill you. Why do I say this? I don‘t want to wake up one morning and see a U.S. city a crater that some nuke created by a man who is getting back at the states for invading his country and killing his children by a stray bomb. The most dangerous people in the world are the ones with nothing to lose.

 

[1feral1]

I think you should turn in your kit mate. Forum or not, and whatever your opinion is, you should hang your head in shame.

In the real world in theatre, with your attitude, I reckon you would be a good candidate for a serious fragging, so keep that body aromour on, and sleep soundly, wrapped in your kevlar blanket.

OUT!

Wes

 

[George Wallace]

Dismissing the paper as things strung together from the internet I do have a problem with. Research papers are not suppose to be your own work. Your suppose to use other published information(books). Using those sources you use them to make a coherant arguement, or to prove a point. Just because you don‘t agree with something does‘nt make it stupid.

Research papers are supposed to be your own work, researched and backed up by other sources. If all you do is gather information and paste it together, you have done nothing worth grading. Part of an education is to learn how to think, not cheat. Poor work deserves a poor grade.

It‘s just like the mafia you can‘t kill everyone. One day some cousin or brother of someone you killed will kill you. Why do I say this? I don‘t want to wake up one morning and see a U.S. city a crater that some nuke created by a man who is getting back at the states for invading his country and killing his children by a stray bomb. The most dangerous people in the world are the ones with nothing to lose.

You don‘t get it do you? They want to kill us? That is okey for them to do in their eyes. If we kill or injure any of them then it is "Vendetta" time. Don‘t you see it is a loose/loose situation with them unless they are taught to not hate. They are fanatics still in the Dark Ages. Human Rights and Civil Rights, etc mean nothing to them. Women are chattels in their eyes.


GW

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Engineer Corporal,
Stop saying that the terrorists hate us and start saying WHY do the terrorists hate us? In only that statement will you find the real weapon in destroying them.

They hate us because we are not like them. We will not bow to their laws, nor accept their rule. In their mind, we convert or die. That‘s the bottom line and the crux of the whole argument. No half measures or discussion. While the leaders like Osama MAY have alterior motives, the foot soldiers don‘t. I for one will not stand by while they FORCE their creed on me or mine. I am human and have the right to choose. I also agree with the others, pack up your kit, and take a hike. I don‘t want you taking me out of a mine field layed by your buddies.

 

[1feral1]

Comrad Engr CPL - I said this in a past post somewhere. These Islamic terrorists value DEATH as much as we value LIFE.

They will continue to believe of the award of 70 virgins and rivers of wine, making themselves martyrs by the convenience of killing innocent civvies, of one which one day may be someone in your family, after all, you as I and others here, we are the Infidel, and in their eyes, we must be killed.

No where is safe, including Canada. Any western nation be where they may, its at risk. I am sure there are sleeper cells in the metro areas of any large Cdn city.

You can go on with your lefty uni-speak political paper on the ‘evil USA‘, and share it with the other watermellons, but you have not hoodwinked me or the majority of others here in this thread.

You should also question your own effectivness in the CF, and your political beliefs, as maybe a yr or two in a country which supports terror would wake you up to the real world.

You know what they say about Cruise missiles, "if you hear it, your ok, if ya don‘t you are dead", so choose your ‘new‘ country carefully.

BTW, you call it an American Crusade against ‘what they think is evil‘ I reckon what they think is evil, is evil, and if left unattended, it will end up hitting us hard somewhere along the road.

Remember its east vs west, not east vs USA. We are all in shyte up to our eyeballs, and yo seem to want an excuse to blame the USA for whats going on. Alls I want is victory and to live in a place where I dont have to worry about someone blowing up my 9am train into the Sydney CBD.


OUT
Wes

 

[FlightSergeantRose]

Originally posted by Wesley H. Allen, CD:
[qb]


I think this ‘boy‘ (with no life expereince)is just a troll on this site, deliberatly stirring up things. So, go home and play with your hotwheels.

When you have the maturity, and expereince to say what you do, maybe then I‘ll give ya the time of day.

Wes [/qb]

Allen, I am not the one that stirred things up, at least it was not my intention. When I saw that people were calling the Spanish cowards, I took offense to that and wrote what I felt was right. Just because I have not been in the army for 15 years does not disqualify from making my opinion heard.

I can guarantee you that if we sat down together and talked, you would not think that I am a ‘boy‘ at all. I also bet that you would find me mature, as other ‘adults‘ I have talked to about these sorts of things have told me themselves. I believe that I am well informed, sure I make mistakes, everyone does.

I am surprised to see people attack me directly. Many basing their attacks on the fact I was a cadet 4 years ago. I wonder how many years I have to be out of cadets until the cadet attacks stop. . . maybe I should have lied about my age and background and said I have been in the infantry for 5 years or something.

I am proud of my service in AirCadets, and if you people want to call me ‘boy‘ because of it then go ahead. I am 22 by the way, if that makes any difference. It only shows your ignorance; obviously none of you guys had the pleasure of being a member of a well-run cadet squadron as mine was. If any of you were in my squadron your tune would be much different.

Anyways, I would be more then happy to discuss this or anythng else with any of you guys in person if any of you are in the Thunder Bay area. I prefer talking face-to-face much more then writing posts over complicated stuff like this since I would have to write a book to cover everything.

 

[Tyrnagog]

Here is a link to a very well written editorial from the globe and mail...

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040316.wxluttwark/BNStory/Front/

I think he says it all, when it comes to Spain and the goings on of the last week.