 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Inter-Empire Political Discussion Thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
I think Exar has a very good point:
We can all agree that terrorism is bad and that we should take actions against those supporting terrorism.
The 1 million dollar question is who are the terrorists ?
Aren't we causing terror in Iraq (i'm from Denmark who supports the attack/invasion) ?
In my mind this is the toughest question, who should decide what is right and wrong. As it is the western part of the world is "in charge" and therefore we make the rules, but we should be aware that with being the international watch dogs comes responsibility. We have to respect the opinions and religions of others.
I can't make up me own mind on whether the aggressions against iraq was needed or if the problem could have been solved in another way.
Disclaimer: i fully support the Danish (and those of other nations) troops in Iraq and where ever their governments choosed to send them.
         
| |
|
Iraq was a mistake or not? I don't know, the only thing I know is that was done already and now we have to deal with the consequences, I believe that all the troops need to step out of the main cities and let the iraqui police and military handle the situation.
| |
|
#27
by Veteran Gerakken - 4/7/2004 11:39:33 PM
| 4-I oppose to a american intervention in Cuba, Fidel doesnot have that many more years left and after he dies, Cuba will change.5-I am right now an American citizen, so my motherland now is not longer Cuba but USA. The way the USA received me, treated me and helped me have made a huge impact in my life, to the point that if any day I am called to serve in any front, I will answer yes |
|
Thank you for your point of view. As someone who lived there and made it out to the USA, your point of view is quite important to understanding the situation there. Sadly, I do not see much hope after Fidel dies. The people who do control the guns will either be Fidel's relatives seeking to continue the dynasty or some general leading a coup to also take absolute power. Unless, of course, there is some sort of intervention whether it be overt or clandestine (think arming the Contras type of thing). I don't envision any home grown democracy movements getting any UN Peacekeepers to help them make a representative government there.
On other topics: The nuclear club. Well, despite how hard certain governments try to contain nuclear proliferation, a determined country or group with the resources and some half decent personnel will get nukes. The price of maintaining peace has always been high, but when a normally two bit state with little to interest the US (think North Korea) gets them, the price of peace skyrockets. We can only pay off so many people for so long. Eventually, we either got to take our ball and go home (even if that means consequences) or take the next tyrannical despot that truly can threaten us directly out. Kim's number won't be up anytime soon, though. The President of the USA has already shot his bolt in Iraq. It was kind of one or the other. We can't handle more trouble on that kind of scale for quite a while now.
Saddam was just a practice run. He was an easy target being locked in a box with few friends and limited resources already. We could have ignored him for a good while longer, but for whatever reasons there really were, off to topple Saddam we go. But whether it was intended or not, Iraq did have the interesting consequence of drawing the Jihadi away from America and back toward the Arab world. Congress was already balking at the cost of homeland security and our government was engaged in a smoke screen saying they will protect us (eventually) while knowing that even if the funds were fully committed that another 9/11 could happen at any time. In the short run, the Al Queda types were too busy fighting power struggles due to holes in the higher leadership from the Afghanistan campaign and trying to score brownie points with the radical muslims back home by fighting the infidel invaders of Iraq to attack America again.
The bad news is the long term. Iraq is just serving to recruit and train a whole new wave of Jihadi. Worse yet, the leadership squabbles have been resolved and sympathizer movements have made alliances with each other so that now they can wage terrorism in the Western World again. (As recent events in Spain have shown.) The Iraq distraction was only a flash grenade. The benefits have subsided and now there is a well trained and fully prepared enemy hydra once again seeping out of the woodwork and infiltrating Western countries. To put it in militant Islam terms, kill invaders in Iraq and go to heaven, or if direct conflict is not your idea of a decent Jihad, hide in the enemies' midst and strike when they least expect it. The best of both worlds to an insurgent of any stripe.
Last topic for now: American terrorism in the Revolutionary Era. Yes and no. Ambush troops marching along the trail? Yes. Steal supplies and disrupt commerce? Yes. Kill officers, spread mayhem through raids and use deception? Yes. Run into farmhouses and use human shields, hoping the other guys won't shoot or destroy the farmhouse? Not a common course, no. Fire into crowds of unarmed civilians assembled in the market square doing nothing more than shopping? No. The true terrorist prefers civilian targets. They will gladly hit any soft targets of opportunity to cause fear in the populace.
There is a difference between fighting dirty and using terrorism. Wars with armies are about objectives. Fanatical terrorists are about ideals. One may be able to negotiate with an army, but one cannot negotiate with fanatics. An army has predictable limits in tactics, troops, supplies, etc. Terrorists will use any extremes and are very nebulous. You do not know what their limits are. A terrorist attack can look brutal but only be a probing attack for something much bigger later, or be relatively minor but represent the full extent of the group's capabilities at the moment. Not a very elequent explanation, I know, but the best I can do on short notice right now.
    
| |
|
| Iraq was a mistake or not? I don't know, the only thing I know is that was done already and now we have to deal with the consequences, I believe that all the troops need to step out of the main cities and let the iraqui police and military handle the situation. |
|
Dont want to step on your toes Renegade but think of this;
The Probelem with that though is the Iraq military and police are not clearly ready for the task at the moment. Can you imagine the corruption, violence and fighting going on if the USA and her allies said lets pull out now and hand the control over to them. The USA went into Iraq to take out a dictator and liberate it. You dont do something like that and do a half @ss job. That will only bring more hatred in the long run if the USA pulls out to early, even though the Iraqies are screaming out for the USA to leave. Im glad the USA and her allies went in and did what it had to do. In the long wrong if the USA perservies it will hopefully bring more stability in the middle east. The USA might have a few hidden agendas but in the bigger pitchure, in the long run, it was the right thing to do IMO, and Im Australian.
NK is a very scary thought though. The world needs to keep an eye them, specially when there leader says things like there not afriad to use nukes if they desire.
   
| |
|
| . Not a very elequent explanation, I know, but the best I can do on short notice right now. |
|
It was quite good Gerakken. Thank you.
| There is a difference between fighting dirty and using terrorism. |
|
I agree with your description, but from this line, I ask, where is the line? Where exactly do you draw the line between fighting dirty and terrorism. I am forced to bring up Israel again, because I see it as the best example. To you, or anybody, is this terrorism, or just defense? I simply asking for opinions.
| Saddam was just a practice run. |
|
This is what I see Iraq as. Bush used it as a practice target run, to get the forces to see some real action before another run on one of Bush's enemies, such as Iran, or North Korea, or possibly another Arab country. Bush needed an easy target, and that was Iraq.
| one cannot negotiate with fanatics. Terrorists will use any extremes and are very nebulous. You do not know what their limits are. A terrorist attack can look brutal but only be a probing attack for something much bigger later, or be relatively minor but represent the full extent of the group's capabilities at the moment. |
|
I agree, terroism is a real threat. It must be eliminated because it is an enemy that is hard to see and hard to find. I do not believe that we can currently effectively defeat terrorists with the technology and training our militaries currently have. Terrorism is the war of the future, conventional war is becoming more and more impossible as the number of people to run deadlier and deadlier machines decreases. Now, we even will have the Preadator drones with Hellfire missles, and Tomahawk missles. No need for pilots. Fighting war simply isn't possible the way it used to be. The biggest troop engagements in Iraq were between nothing bigger than regiment size forces, nothing bigger. We are too technology based to fight the way we did anymore. We must evolve our technology to win against the terrorists.
   
| |
|
| NK is a very scary thought though. The world needs to keep an eye them, specially when there leader says things like there not afriad to use nukes if they desire. |
|
I think the bigger problem is not that they have nuclear weapons, but make no mistake that is a problem. The problem is that they probably have missles now that can reach the West Coast of the USA. That gives them power over us, becasue they can threaten us. Threatening the troops stationed over there, or our allies in Asia is just not as bad as the threat coming to your home.
| |
|
#31
by Veteran Gerakken - 4/8/2004 2:24:19 AM
| I agree with your description, but from this line, I ask, where is the line? Where exactly do you draw the line between fighting dirty and terrorism. I am forced to bring up Israel again, because I see it as the best example. To you, or anybody, is this terrorism, or just defense? I simply asking for opinions. |
|
That is not a pretty conflict. It is older than Western History and perhaps should not be looked at in quite the way the USA is looking at the Al Queda types waging their more modern form of Jihad against us.
The Palestinians are engaged in a war of terror. They have no means of fielding an effective combat force that one could call an army. They do not have the command and control structure even if the army existed to wage a war of territory. They have no large constant supply of trained troops or equipment to wage a guerilla war of attrition. They have no effective means of infiltrating the enemy lines with a large enough force to wage an insurgency from within Israel. Therefore they can only resort to either sporadic resistance from within their territory on the defensive or striking against Israeli targets of opportunity via terrorism on the offensive.
Normally at this point a people are at the verge of defeat. A resistance movement is one possibility, but a key factor that separates a resistance movement from a terrorist front is the choice of targets. In a resistance, you go after police, military, and political targets. The goal is to try and shake the occupier's hold on the area. In a terrorist front, you go after the civilian body count. Guess which the various Palestinian militant movements have chosen?
Now onto the Isreali side. They are engaged in a de facto war against the Palestinian territories. Forget occupation, forget self-defense, forget the American pipe dream of two separate states that respect each other's existance. That is all an illusion right now. Until the war is won, none of those three are possible. The problem is that the world will not accept that this war is happening. They do not want the impression that a full fledged conflict is raging even when it is. So the war must end first and that requires negotiation. Problem: there is no real Palestinian Authority to negotiate the peace treaty with!
Arafat does not have the authority to negotiate. He faces a hard enough time trying to form a cohesive front among his various militant groups. Worse yet, a group like Hamas, who could start a civil war and take over most of Gaza single-handedly, wants no part in accepting a Jewish state. They want nothing less than total victory. So there is no one on the other side for Sharon to talk to who can get the job done. This is why he now favors throwing up a wall. Since peace can't be negotiated to end the war, call it an armistice and draw a new DMZ in the sand. They stay on their side, I stay on mine so to speak.
Guess what? Drawing a line and calling it even did not solve the Korean crisis of 50 years ago. We are still stuck there and the tensions are still mounting. The unfinished business needed to be finished and it wasn't even if we would have lost. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will go much the same way if the Sharon wall is built in my opinion. A temporary stop, but nothing resolved. The two sides will just fester on their sides of the wall, waiting for the day to finish it.
| |
|
| I think the bigger problem is not that they have nuclear weapons, but make no mistake that is a problem. The problem is that they probably have missles now that can reach the West Coast of the USA. That gives them power over us, becasue they can threaten us. Threatening the troops stationed over there, or our allies in Asia is just not as bad as the threat coming to your home. |
|
well it takes a madman or a one with no fear of reprisal of the nuclear counterstrike, afterall that's what tnw's are now, they are protection from nuclear strikes.
one thing to keep in mind too is that history is decided by the victor.
Now i'm going to talk about another controversey, and i will say right now i won't stand for flaming, and hate, i will not stand for prejudism like that, and i don't think anyone else will, either.
how many are familiar with the gay marriage issue that has been raging here in cali?
first of all i will say i am a heterosexual supporter of gay marriage.
i would like to refute a few things:
a quote by bush first (not exact) ""it disturbs me that the free thinkers and liberals support gay marriage"
first off, why does it disturb him and others?
is it because it involves love between two people of the same sex?, is it because marriage is seen as a very christian design, which prohibits homosexuality? regardless of the fact that marriage has been performed throughout time for 5000 years (or was it 3000) of recorded human history, and marriages can be performed by more then priests, rabbi's and reverends etc.
because they are endless beauracrats and the law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman?
BAH! i say.
to the first i say prejudism get the **** out of this thread, out of this country.
to the second, separation of church and state, another thing on that why am I an aetheist allowed to get married if say my wife was religous? and a gay couple can't, i'm an aethiest am i not a bigger insult to you?
to the third, that's what amendments are for, at some point we deemed it necessary that some things in the constitution don't work and so they need to be changed, you don't want things to change, go somewhere they don't, this country is a result of change.
for those of you who think economically, people have to pay to get a marriage license and if i'm not mistaken isn't there a marriage tax? 
how much more would we bring in if it was legalized?
I have friends who are homosexuals, and one of my very best friends is a hermaphrodite (don't be ignorant and stupid, i'm not talking cartmans mom here, i'm talking this person is a man with breasts, and combinations of female and male muscle groups and a slightly deep feminine voice) she feels best as a female, and that's what she thinks of herself is, but her birth certificate says male, so she could never marry her boyfriend under current provisions. and really who does it hurt? (and for the religious, i won't accept because god said so as a valid oppinion as it's not pure fact, at least not to everyone maybe to you)
i'll tell you who it hurts all the lesbian and gay couples out there who wish to express there love as a bond.
on this subject she had this to say:
"im not sure how to say it but it upsets me that people consider homosexuality wrong and even if it is it doesn't hurt anyone and there is no grounds for treating homosexuals like they are less then human by takeing their rights away everyone else is able to enjoy"
I would like to see her find the happiness she wants, and to grow old with her lover, give me a GOOD reason we should allow this to happen.
a bit long winded but i've said my peace, it's calm now cause it's late at night, i now await the storm of controversy, the hating flamers, the voices of support, and the hopefully sensible arguments. 
 
| |
|
Ya know this whole thread reminds me of a story. It seems the guv of Alabama was in a press conference when a reporter piped up. "So are you an Auburn guy or an Alabama Guy?"
The Guv responded. "Son, I didn't get elected by answering questions like that."
  
| |
|
Thank you for bringing another good controvercy into the fold.
Now I am with XGE. I am a heterosexual supporter of gay rights. Why, because we are all equal. I really don't see a difference between homosexual and heterosexual people, besides who they are attracted to. Aren't they still contributing members of our society?
I have also seen the other side of this war. I live in the Bible Belt, Tennessee, an area near the heart of conservatism. And so I have friends, very dear friends, who are blatenly apposed to gay marriage. The two best points of this I have happen to be from women, but don't take that any way. Also, both women are very religious, and I, like XGE, an a sort of athiest, or at least I am not a churchgoer and I try to stay out of religion. But, to the point at hand. One of these women is so against homosexuals, that she simply will not accept them. She will not watch Lord of the Rings, she simply hates it. Why? Because Sir Ian McKelland(sp?) is gay. No other reason. And that is it, because of that, she won't touch it. She also recently found out one of her friends from years past has come out, and her response was "Well, I'm glad I didn't know that when I knew him. I would have never talked to him." End of discussion to her.
The other girl, she also simply hates the idea that homosexuals get married, because she says that it destroys the idea of marriage. She wasn't quite moveable on any of this either, and unfortunately, it was too long ago for me to remember much more.
My question is why is this allowed to happen? The first women, this is really the first flaw I have found in her, and I am very close to her, and have known her for years. She simply is the perfect Christian. I'm fairly certain that if there was written somewhere in the Bible to go jump off a cliff at such an age, that she would do so.
This kind of extremesm is harmful to society. Why denounce people for something that they cannot control. If I remember this correctly, you cannot choose if you are a homosexual or not. Who are we to judge them if that is the case. We can also turn this part of the argument around, if the person is willing to believe that it is genetic, which I have not found. If it is genetic, then God has decided to do it, therefore there is a reason, and we should not denounce them for it.
I will not go on with this, because I know I have already said enough to start quite an interesting discussion. Let me make one thing clear. I base what I think upon science, therefore upon evidence. Support what you say with evidence, and your point will be better represented with evidence.
| |
|
good words abt, good words
| We are too technology based to fight the way we did anymore. We must evolve our technology to win against the terrorists. |
|
i had a thought on this, perhaps far superior counter-intelligence and covert operations are in order: discover, evaluate, and prevent by any means without large scale military engagements? (i know there are agencies already meant to do this but it seems they aren't doing there job, although i don't know what the limits are)
| Ya know this whole thread reminds me of a story. It seems the guv of Alabama was in a press conference when a reporter piped up. "So are you an Auburn guy or an Alabama Guy?" The Guv responded. "Son, I didn't get elected by answering questions like that." |
|
ehhh? am i the only one who didn't get the joke, what's an auburn guy and an alabama guy, do you just mean that he doesn't answer stupid questions? or that no one wins?
| I would like to see her find the happiness she wants, and to grow old with her lover, give me a GOOD reason we should allow this to happen. |
|
thats meant to say "i would like to see her find the happiness she wants and to grow old with her lover give me a GOOD reason we shouldn't allow this to happen." but for some reason there is no edit button.
| I will not go on with this, because I know I have already said enough to start quite an interesting discussion. Let me make one thing clear. I base what I think upon science, therefore upon evidence. Support what you say with evidence, and your point will be better represented with evidence. |
|
abt, i dont' think that matters as this is a thread made for intersting discussions, a voice is a voice, you should go on as you please, the title should tell people to expect that, if they don't then they shouldn't be participating.
| |
|
| I am forced to bring up Israel again, because I see it as the best example. To you, or anybody, is this terrorism, or just defense? |
|
Strapping a load of explosives to your body, jumping on a bus full of kids and blowing the whole damn lot sky high is terrorism! Executing a missile attack to take out the leader of the group that perpetrates these sort of atrocities seems like a reasonable response to me.
As for the whole Israeli-Arab conflict, I think Gerakken has surmised it entirely correctly and eloquently and I do not feel the need to add any more.
@Exar and Aarberg - I wish everyone had the same attitude as you - that when a country decides to got to war, regardless of whether you agree with it, that you provide 100% support for the troops representing your country.
| |
|
|
|
To those who support homosexuality, you need to understand one little detail yoiu left out of your speech, God and truly Christians don't hate homosexuals, they hate homosexuality, why? because is sin. In the book of Leviticus 18:22 God said that man sleeping with man is sin and abomination in front of the eyes of God.
God wants every person to be saved, John 3:16 is very self explanatory
For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
So does God discriminate homosexuals, the answer is no. Does God hate homosexuality the answer is yes.
Lets go to the plain basis, no religion involved
MAN+MAN=NOTHING
WOMAN+WOMAN=NOTHING
MAN+WOMAN=LIFE CHILD COME TO LIFE
That is the bottom line, if all the Earth population will decide to be homosexual or lesbian, life will cease to exist after one generation. Then is homosexuality OK? The answer is NO!!!
DO we Christian suppose to hate gays or lesbians, the answer is NO, we should show them, explain to them and care for them. Because they are in sin as we were in our past before Christ redeemed our souls. Sin is sin and that is a fact.
Now in another point Israel vs Arabs
That is war that has been fought since the beginning of the ages when Abraham disobeyed God and fathered Ishmael. So this war is going to keep raging until Jerusalem is surrounded by the troops of the Antichrist and the Jews will stop trusting in their own strength and will seek God's face, then they will realize that the answer is Christ, read Revelation and you will see the details there.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Cubans has been for so many years under the influene of castro that is like they are under some kind of spell, but as soon he dies, the spell is going to be broke. The day he passed out at the Revolution square, hundreds of people took the streets because they though that he had died. So as soon as he is out of the scene, the communism is over in Cuba. Now what comes next will be still to see, there is a lot of anger in Cuba to those who spy for the government amount the neighborhoods and everyone knows who they are, in my neighborhood we knew who were the colaborators and spies and many of them have a black list of people that are going to be linch as soon as Fidel dies. There is going to be a civil war in Cuba when he dies, but is going to be a war against all the communist and those who have hurt so many people during thiese years. There is going to be blood everywhere. Too much hate in the hearts of the Cubans against the government.
| |
|
|
|
Yes his brother Raul, but many people say in Cuba that he is gay and the military doesnot like him.
| |
|
|
|
90% of the military is against him, 90% is just plain people from the street draft into service, and they earn like 0.07 cents a week (talking in US dollar exchange) and they are forced to serve for 3 years, we are always try to invent some kind of weird illness to get away from draft, they discharged me, they say I was unfit (mentally unqualified to serve in the forces)
and I went laughing all the way into the gate saying, yes yes I am nuts!!! 
| |
|
|
|
| That is the bottom line, if all the Earth population will decide to be homosexual or lesbian, life will cease to exist after one generation. Then is homosexuality OK? The answer is NO!!! |
|
Just how likely is that renegade? Among non-human species that have homosexuals, entire species don't ever express that trait, i wouldn't see much reason why humans would be differen't, in the end the closest thing to that would be the entire population could be bi-sexual, big difference in the context of what you said.i support homosexuality, doesn't mean i'm going to become on. and if the human population was ever in danger of such a thing there is always artificial insemination.
plus you don't speak for all christians either, there are groups that are more and less strict, and there are groups who interpret the bible differen'tly.
and two, i think the issue was gay marriage, that just speaks of your stance on how your religion feels about homosexuality, which you may think is the same but it isn't i can remeber several people in the news who say they don't like homosexuality, but they support gay marriage because they beleive strongly in the rights of the people.
| Does Castro have a number 2 that he has tried to groom as a successor who would try to keep communism? |
|
you know if you have read the communist manifesto or really have learned anything about it, it's actually not a bad form of government, it's very idealistic and can work wonders for its people, but through history it's been used the wrong way and has been given a bad name, not to mention it's even worse because of all the anti-communism US propaganda in the 60's, if karl marx saw how his ideals have been used, he would be rolling in his grave.
| 90% of the military is against him, 90% is just plain people from the street draft into service |
|
Hey here in the US because i wouldn't be accepted into the armed forces normally due to health concerns, does that give me protection from US Conscription?
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
