THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:

...
Quit telling me to think for myself; its getting on my nerves. As for your links; didn't bother with it yet; doubt I do.

I will just stipulate you think anything I come up with is Sorosaists related and leave it at that. Since I stipulate it; there is no need to keep repeating it every time I post something either from myself or a news article. Just feel free to ignore my post if you can't restrain yourself from repeating yourself.

Revel,
First,
please think about why
my statement
--think for yourself--
is getting on your nerves.

Second,
I will post what I think I am obliged to post.

Third,
I think I am obliged to post and do whatever other ethical and moral
thing ican do to promote truth.

Fouth,
Revel, I think I am obliged to tell you:
think for yourself.

I'll tell you why it is getting on my nerves; you get a phrase in your head and you'll repeat it like a broken record and it stiffles up the thread with your repetitions of the week.

0 Replies

ican wrote :

Quote:

I don't feel obliged to you in particular, nor to anyone else in particular. I feel obliged to the human race in general.

earlier ican wrote :

Quote:

I will post what I think I am obliged to post.

feeling obliged TO POST isn't quite the same as feeling obliged to the human race in general , isn't it ?

i have noticed in many earlier posts that you do not always seem
" obliged to the human race in general " .
as a matter of fact you seem quite prepared to have large groups of the human race killed outright , don't you ?
so you seem to set yourself up as the arbiter as to who should be permitted to be a member of the human race and who should not .

i have difficulty understanding why in today's world - the 21st century -
one member of the human race - one who seems to well educated and well-read - would want to kill large numbers of the human race that don't agree with his view of the world .
hbg

merriam-webster

Quote:

obligated
One entry found.

obligate[1,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1ob·li·gate
Pronunciation: \ˈä-blə-ˌgāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ob·li·gat·ed; ob·li·gat·ing
Etymology: Latin obligatus, past participle of obligare
Date: 1533
1 : to bind legally or morally : constrain
2 : to commit (as funds) to meet an obligation

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

ican wrote :

Quote:
I don't feel obliged to you in particular, nor to anyone else in particular. I feel obliged to the human race in general.

earlier ican wrote :

Quote:
I will post what I think I am obliged to post.

feeling obliged TO POST isn't quite the same as feeling obliged to the human race in general , isn't it ?

i have noticed in many earlier posts that you do not always seem
" obliged to the human race in general " .
as a matter of fact you seem quite prepared to have large groups of the human race killed outright , don't you ?
so you seem to set yourself up as the arbiter as to who should be permitted to be a member of the human race and who should not .

i have difficulty understanding why in today's world - the 21st century -
one member of the human race - one who seems to well educated and well-read - would want to kill large numbers of the human race that don't agree with his view of the world .
hbg

merriam-webster

Quote:
obligated
One entry found.

obligate[1,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1ob·li·gate
Pronunciation: \ˈä-blə-ˌgāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ob·li·gat·ed; ob·li·gat·ing
Etymology: Latin obligatus, past participle of obligare
Date: 1533
1 : to bind legally or morally : constrain
2 : to commit (as funds) to meet an obligation

The fact that large numbers of people are killed, some of which are going to be innocent and non participating men, women, and children, is what makes war an enormous, profound, and indefensible obscenity.

The only thing worse is an inability or unwillingness to particpate in war so that innocent and non particpating men, women, and children are targeted and killed with impunity. In such cases, the absence of war is not peace.

I don't know Ican personally, but he has been consistent in that nobody at all will be killed when people allow each other to live in peace and that this is the ultimate goal of all peace loving people. To accuse him, or anybody who agrees with him, of wanting to kill large numbers of human beings is a distortion of what has been said and/or intended.

0 Replies

hbg, I agree with your last post. Fox doesn't know what she's talking about; ican has said we must eliminate xxx. When asked to identify who the al qaeda is, he's goes mum. He blames the al qaeda for the killing of innocents by the US for hiding amongst them. That's about as tortured a rationale as outright justifying killing innocents.

0 Replies

Now that Bush is leaving in one year, he can say that "progress in Iraq" with conditions.

Bush cautious about progress in Iraq Which likely president will bring our troops home?

0 Replies

fox wrote :

Quote:

I don't know Ican personally, but he has been consistent in that nobody at all will be killed when people allow each other to live in peace and that this is the ultimate goal of all peace loving people. To accuse him, or anybody who agrees with him, of wanting to kill large numbers of human beings is a distortion of what has been said and/or intended.

looking at iraq and the middle-east , afghanistan and pakistan specifically , i think one might want to find out why many of the people living in those countries are resorting to violence both against invaders from western nations and against some of their own people and governments .

the NATIONAL GEOGRAHIC article dealing with PAKISTAN (posted under the PAKISTAN thread) gives a good insight into why some of the poorest people turn to the taliban or al qaeda for help : corrupt and oppressive governments often propped up by western governments .

the backlash against the western nations by islamists is what we experience now , and it is certainly deplorable .
the seeds for those bloody actions by these groups (called either terrorists or freedom fighters) have been sown for centuries by western nations (starting with the british and the french - and now being continued by even more western nations ) .

is it really that surprising that many people in the middle-east deeply resent the intrusion by foreigners ?
their natural resources are being taken out of their countries - sometimes in agreement with compliant but dictatorial governments of their own (such as saudi-arabia) .

imo western nations and their governments should be providing a calming influence in the middle-east ... instead they often bring even more violence .

i don't know if you recall what happened in iran starting in the early 1950's . P.M. mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in 1951 , later the shah of iran fled , a military coup - supported by western governments - overthrew the elected government , the shah returned only to have to flee again some years later .
now of course there is a fairly doctrinaire islamist government in charge !
not surprising at all imo .

(consider reading "all the sha's men - an american coup and the roots of middle-east terror" by stephen kinzer .
another good book about the middle-east is : "the carpet wars - from kabul to baghdad - a ten-year journey along ancient trade routes " by christopher kremmer)

imo opinion the more violence we bring to the middle-east the more violent the reaction will be .

think of all the good work that could have been done with the billions-upon-billions of dollars now being spent on the war .
those goods works might have had a lasting impression upon the poor people of the middle-east . i doubt that bombs and grenades will bring them much happiness .
of course , that's just my opinion and i realize that many will disagree with my opinion - so be it .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

fox wrote :

Quote:
I don't know Ican personally, but he has been consistent in that nobody at all will be killed when people allow each other to live in peace and that this is the ultimate goal of all peace loving people. To accuse him, or anybody who agrees with him, of wanting to kill large numbers of human beings is a distortion of what has been said and/or intended.

looking at iraq and the middle-east , afghanistan and pakistan specifically , i think one might want to find out why many of the people living in those countries are resorting to violence both against invaders from western nations and against some of their own people and governments .

the NATIONAL GEOGRAHIC article dealing with PAKISTAN (posted under the PAKISTAN thread) gives a good insight into why some of the poorest people turn to the taliban or al qaeda for help : corrupt and oppressive governments often propped up by western governments .

the backlash against the western nations by islamists is what we experience now , and it is certainly deplorable .
the seeds for those bloody actions by these groups (called either terrorists or freedom fighters) have been sown for centuries by western nations (starting with the british and the french - and now being continued by even more western nations ) .

is it really that surprising that many people in the middle-east deeply resent the intrusion by foreigners ?
their natural resources are being taken out of their countries - sometimes in agreement with compliant but dictatorial governments of their own (such as saudi-arabia) .

imo western nations and their governments should be providing a calming influence in the middle-east ... instead they often bring even more violence .

i don't know if you recall what happened in iran starting in the early 1950's . P.M. mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in 1951 , later the shah of iran fled , a military coup - supported by western governments - overthrew the elected government , the shah returned only to have to flee again some years later .
now of course there is a fairly doctrinaire islamist government in charge !
not surprising at all imo .

(consider reading "all the sha's men - an american coup and the roots of middle-east terror" by stephen kinzer .
another good book about the middle-east is : "the carpet wars - from kabul to baghdad - a ten-year journey along ancient trade routes " by christopher kremmer)

imo opinion the more violence we bring to the middle-east the more violent the reaction will be .

think of all the good work that could have been done with the billions-upon-billions of dollars now being spent on the war .
those goods works might have had a lasting impression upon the poor people of the middle-east . i doubt that bombs and grenades will bring them much happiness .
of course , that's just my opinion and i realize that many will disagree with my opinion - so be it .
hbg

I don't necessary disagree with all your opinion as there are some truths in it. Nevertheless I come from a different point of view which admittedly is probably both exaggerated and tainted by frustration. However, here it is:

Despite almost immeasurable enormous quantities of benevolence and/or aid and/or assistance and/or accommodations provided to other peoples of the world, I think trying to buy friendship through benevolence has netted the USA very little in either good will or gratitude. It seems that those we try to assist and/or do business or live in cooperation with most are the ones who resent us the most and/or hold us in the highest contempt.

And all that one way good will has done little or nothing to alter antisocial tendencies of the recipients. Attempts to help the people of brutal dictators generally mostly enriches the dictators and empowers them to oppress the people more. The people will never know that help was offered or, even if they receive some of it, the dictator takes the credit for it.

On the other hand, while I don't recommend it as a general diplomatic policy, some of our most staunch allies are countries that we once helped blast or bomb into submission and are now among the world's most free and peaceful places.

It would therefore not be unreasonable to assume that defeating ones enemy offers a greater assurance of peace and amicable co-existance than does largesse or pacifism.

I think what Ican and others have been saying is that for some tyrants determined to control their world and subjugate all the people to it, reasonableness and accommodation are seen as weakness to be exploited. The only thing so far that seems to stop them are bombs, bullets, or forcing rule of law on them.

To reduce that to be evidence of an unqualified desire to kill large numbers of people is a mischaracterization.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
I don't feel obliged to you in particular, nor to anyone else in particular. I feel obliged to the human race in general.

earlier ican wrote :

Quote:
I will post what I think I am obliged to post.

feeling obliged TO POST isn't quite the same as feeling obliged to the human race in general , isn't it ?

i have noticed in many earlier posts that you do not always seem
" obliged to the human race in general " .
as a matter of fact you seem quite prepared to have large groups of the human race killed outright , don't you ?
so you seem to set yourself up as the arbiter as to who should be permitted to be a member of the human race and who should not .

i have difficulty understanding why in today's world - the 21st century -
one member of the human race - one who seems to well educated and well-read - would want to kill large numbers of the human race that don't agree with his view of the world .
hbg

merriam-webster

Quote:
obligated
One entry found.

obligate[1,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1ob·li·gate
Pronunciation: \ˈä-blə-ˌgāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ob·li·gat·ed; ob·li·gat·ing
Etymology: Latin obligatus, past participle of obligare
Date: 1533
1 : to bind legally or morally : constrain
2 : to commit (as funds) to meet an obligation

The fact that large numbers of people are killed, some of which are going to be innocent and non participating men, women, and children, is what makes war an enormous, profound, and indefensible obscenity.

The only thing worse is an inability or unwillingness to particpate in war so that innocent and non particpating men, women, and children are targeted and killed with impunity. In such cases, the absence of war is not peace.

I don't know Ican personally, but he has been consistent in that nobody at all will be killed when people allow each other to live in peace and that this is the ultimate goal of all peace loving people. To accuse him, or anybody who agrees with him, of wanting to kill large numbers of human beings is a distortion of what has been said and/or intended.

There are many places where Ican advocates genocide as an answer to peace.

Here is one example.

It seems to me since the time of crusades; the west has attempted to conquer and occupy the Middle East in the name of "peace". It never works in the long run no matter how many people are killed in process. I think we should just butt out of all their business including setting up leaders we hand pick and contributing to Israel and then I bet there would be more of a chance for peaceful relations between the US and Arabs in general.

Of course you disagree and its ok, but Ican has advocated "exterminating Arabs" on numerous postings.

0 Replies

fox wrote :

Quote:

And all that one way good will has done little or nothing to alter antisocial tendencies of the recipients. Attempts to help the people of brutal dictators generally mostly enriches the dictators and empowers them to oppress the people more. The people will never know that help was offered or, even if they receive some of it, the dictator takes the credit for it.

see afghanistan !
even canada's military commanders have stated quite openly that much (all ?) of the aid money never reaches the ordinary afghan people in the remote (and poorest) areas . even the afghan army has seen very little of the money .
so the afghan soldiers do not receive their pay and start to "collect" money from the villagers !
yet western governments continue to give money to the afghan government - most of that money is pocketed by the "so-called" leaders .
(see the AFGHANISTAN thread) .

so why are we surprised when the people turn to the taliban and al qaeda for help ?
what should the poor people do ? let their families starve ?
hbg

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
I don't feel obliged to you in particular, nor to anyone else in particular. I feel obliged to the human race in general.

earlier ican wrote :

Quote:
I will post what I think I am obliged to post.

feeling obliged TO POST isn't quite the same as feeling obliged to the human race in general , isn't it ?

i have noticed in many earlier posts that you do not always seem
" obliged to the human race in general " .
as a matter of fact you seem quite prepared to have large groups of the human race killed outright , don't you ?
so you seem to set yourself up as the arbiter as to who should be permitted to be a member of the human race and who should not .

i have difficulty understanding why in today's world - the 21st century -
one member of the human race - one who seems to well educated and well-read - would want to kill large numbers of the human race that don't agree with his view of the world .
hbg

merriam-webster

Quote:
obligated
One entry found.

obligate[1,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1ob·li·gate
Pronunciation: \ˈä-blə-ˌgāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ob·li·gat·ed; ob·li·gat·ing
Etymology: Latin obligatus, past participle of obligare
Date: 1533
1 : to bind legally or morally : constrain
2 : to commit (as funds) to meet an obligation

The fact that large numbers of people are killed, some of which are going to be innocent and non participating men, women, and children, is what makes war an enormous, profound, and indefensible obscenity.

The only thing worse is an inability or unwillingness to particpate in war so that innocent and non particpating men, women, and children are targeted and killed with impunity. In such cases, the absence of war is not peace.

I don't know Ican personally, but he has been consistent in that nobody at all will be killed when people allow each other to live in peace and that this is the ultimate goal of all peace loving people. To accuse him, or anybody who agrees with him, of wanting to kill large numbers of human beings is a distortion of what has been said and/or intended.

There are many places where Ican advocates genocide as an answer to peace.

Here is one example.

It seems to me since the time of crusades; the west has attempted to conquer and occupy the Middle East in the name of "peace". It never works in the long run no matter how many people are killed in process. I think we should just butt out of all their business including setting up leaders we hand pick and contributing to Israel and then I bet there would be more of a chance for peaceful relations between the US and Arabs in general.

Of course you disagree and its ok, but Ican has advocated "exterminating Arabs" on numerous postings.

Revel, I haven't followed every thread or any thread in its entirety for some time now as my time has been limited for a number of reasons. Ican can of course speak for himself, and I won't presume to speak for him, but I have followed his reasoning long enough to know without any qualification that he has not advocated 'exerminating Arabs' on any post, much less multiple posts.

He HAS on many occasions advocating exterminating those who are determined to exterminate or subjugate others as peace won't be achieved through any other means. His reasoning, explained much more wordily than I am doing here, is that if we must choose between killing the innocent or killing the bad guys who want to kill the innocent, the best plan is to kill the bad guys.

At least that is my perception and how I understood it. If you can show me differently with a quote of his in context where he advocated genocide of any kind, that could change my perception. Be careful to check the context though because the context is always the defining proof.

0 Replies

revel, Thank you for posting the link to ican's "Palestinian Arabs are not human" statement.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

fox wrote :

Quote:
And all that one way good will has done little or nothing to alter antisocial tendencies of the recipients. Attempts to help the people of brutal dictators generally mostly enriches the dictators and empowers them to oppress the people more. The people will never know that help was offered or, even if they receive some of it, the dictator takes the credit for it.

see afghanistan !
even canada's military commanders have stated quite openly that much (all ?) of the aid money never reaches the ordinary afghan people in the remote (and poorest) areas . even the afghan army has seen very little of the money .
so the afghan soldiers do not receive their pay and start to "collect" money from the villagers !
yet western governments continue to give money to the afghan government - most of that money is pocketed by the "so-called" leaders .
(see the AFGHANISTAN thread) .

so why are we surprised when the people turn to the taliban and al qaeda for help ?
what should the poor people do ? let their families starve ?
hbg

Exactly. So what are our options when the government won't allow benefactors to deal directly with the people? We have to take out the Taliban and put good people in charge in order to help the people, or let the people continue to subsist on what the Taliban gives them while they endure the most restrictive human rights on the planet. It is as simple (and difficult) as that.

The UN food for oil during the 12 years of Iraqi sanctions was supposed to provide food and medicine and other necessities for the people. They saw very little, if any of it, while Saddam and his cronies were magnificently enriched. By the most conservative estimates, at least 50,000 Iraqis died from severe malnutrition or lack of critical medicines during that time. This is the dirty little secret the anti-war and/or anti invasion people don't want to think about. As poor as some areas remain to this day, and despite the pockets of violence, the people are no longer starving.

I have worked closely with Church World Service and World Vision, two organizations that have sometimes been able to get into dictator run countries and distribute food, clothing, medicine, books, etc. directly to the people when government workers or other agencies were not allowed. The stories the workers tell are heart wrenching and they know that no matter how much they take in, many people are never reached. The enormity of the needs is overwhelming.

So they are torn. Would it be better for a richer and more benevolent power to invade at a high cost of loss of life, but the warlords would be thrown out and the people fed? Or is the status quo the better way?

These are not easy choices for those of us who abhor war.

0 Replies

Foxfrye wrote:

Quote:

At least that is my perception and how I understood it. If you can show me differently with a quote of his in context where he advocated genocide of any kind, that could change my perception. Be careful to check the context though because the context is always the defining proof.

(from the previous left link)

Quote:

1.The Palestinian Arabs are not a race of humans; they are a group of humans who celebrate those of their leaders who advocate and attempt the destruction of Israel.

2. So I theorized: Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs. In other words, Israel will not get some peace by successfully negotiating with the Palestinian Arabs, because the Palestinian Arabs have shown they will not keep their negotiated agreements with Israel.

3. So, the alternatives available to Israel to finally get some peace appear to me to be either Israel voluntarily exterminates itself (which is obviously not an acceptable alternative to the Israeli humans), or Israel exterminates the Palestinian Arabs (which is obviously not an acceptable alternative to the Palestinian Arab humans).

Context:

Ican says Palestinians are not a race of humans but are a group of humans who... Then he says Israel will not get peace by negotiating with Palestinians but only by exterminating them because Palestinians will not keep their negotiated agreements with Israel. (as though Israel has never broken any agreements)

I suppose you think since Palestinians brought it on themselves it is ok to exterminate them in order to bring peace to peaceful loving people who really abhor violence.

0 Replies

Just received a letter from a friend of mine who lives in the Pacific Northwest who is more familiar with the Israel-Palestinian issues of today. He informs me that there is more going on in the background than is being revealed through the media, and he is optimistic about Palestine.

If and when Israel "faces the South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," the state of Israel will begin to flounder, because not many in this world approves of apartheid or ethnic cleansing. When people hear "democracy," they expect equal treatment and opportunities - not walls and check points to restrict free movement.

I hope my friend is right.

0 Replies

fox wrote :

Quote:

So what are our options when the government won't allow benefactors to deal directly with the people? We have to take out the Taliban and put good people in charge in order to help the people, or let the people continue to subsist on what the Taliban gives them while they endure the most restrictive human rights on the planet.

foxfire :
you seem to agree that it's the governments - in such places as iraq and afghanistan - that are the problem since they do not allow their people to receive the aid money being supplied to their governments .
those two governments seem to have been vetted and approved by the western nations , if i'm not mistaken .
certainly when i hear the canadian prime minister and the U.S. president speak , they have praise for those two leaders .
do our leaders not hear and read what the people on the ground are reporting ???

you suggest taking out the taliban , but the taliban are helping the poor villagers . so you want to deny them any help and let them and their families starve ???

have you had a look at the postings under the heading of AFGHANISTAN , DOES IT STILL MATTER ? (see link below)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't want to mess up this thread completely so i'll just post a few lines from the last post on the AFGHANISTAN thread and leave it at that .
hbg

Quote:

"We have lost and success is unlikely".

says former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown who has been negotiating terms for a new role in Afghanistan co-ordinating the international effort and its links with the Karzai government - a job locally nicknamed the "super gorilla".

paddy ashdown's full report :
REPORT ON AFGHANISTAN

link to AFGHANISTAN thread :
AFGHANISTAN

0 Replies

Kindly excuse me please.
Just curious.
Is Iraq the main subject of the future president?
I beg all the rational Americans to make this one subject as the main issue .
The other issues are normal in any xyz country. But Iraq is a home made mistake of BUSH and the next occupant of the WH should make amend.
Most of the corporate media had manipulated the civilian deaths of the sleeping mothers and sisters of Iraq.
Their country had been demolished, devasted for no legal reasons.
None of the CHANGE HOPE candidates care to address this barbaric banal abysmal unchristian behaviour

"By 2009, the elected fifty-fifth US president may refer to that humanitarian argument - perhaps with the help of some mortality numbers - and conclude that invading Iraq was not such a great idea, and that nation-building can be accomplished and democracy exported without military intervention.

One of the deaths in Iraq was that of Sergio Vieira de Mello, a man with inalienable humanitarian convictions and immense peacemaking capacities (see "A world of dignity", 24 August 2003). He died - with twenty-one others, many of them United Nations colleagues - on 19 August 2003 in Baghdad. In his life, he made a difference both to entire populations trapped in war-zones and to anonymous individuals who by chance crossed his hectic path here and there. His immense legacy represents a Socratic standard that can provide fine-tuned answers to a key question: not how to end the numbers game in Iraq and elsewhere, but how to use what we know about numbers to begin politics and stop the killing."
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/iraq_handover/numbers_game_revisited

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Foxfrye wrote:

Quote:
At least that is my perception and how I understood it. If you can show me differently with a quote of his in context where he advocated genocide of any kind, that could change my perception. Be careful to check the context though because the context is always the defining proof.

(from the previous left link)

Quote:
1.The Palestinian Arabs are not a race of humans; they are a group of humans who celebrate those of their leaders who advocate and attempt the destruction of Israel.

2. So I theorized: Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs. In other words, Israel will not get some peace by successfully negotiating with the Palestinian Arabs, because the Palestinian Arabs have shown they will not keep their negotiated agreements with Israel.

3. So, the alternatives available to Israel to finally get some peace appear to me to be either Israel voluntarily exterminates itself (which is obviously not an acceptable alternative to the Israeli humans), or Israel exterminates the Palestinian Arabs (which is obviously not an acceptable alternative to the Palestinian Arab humans).

Context:

Ican says Palestinians are not a race of humans but are a group of humans who... Then he says Israel will not get peace by negotiating with Palestinians but only by exterminating them because Palestinians will not keep their negotiated agreements with Israel. (as though Israel has never broken any agreements)

I suppose you think since Palestinians brought it on themselves it is ok to exterminate them in order to bring peace to peaceful loving people who really abhor violence.

Read the rest of the context, Revel. Neither Ican nor I have ever suggested that it's 'okay to exterminate the Palestinians'. Put what he is saying in the context and you'll see that.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

fox wrote :

Quote:
So what are our options when the government won't allow benefactors to deal directly with the people? We have to take out the Taliban and put good people in charge in order to help the people, or let the people continue to subsist on what the Taliban gives them while they endure the most restrictive human rights on the planet.

foxfire :
you seem to agree that it's the governments - in such places as iraq and afghanistan - that are the problem since they do not allow their people to receive the aid money being supplied to their governments .
those two governments seem to have been vetted and approved by the western nations , if i'm not mistaken .
certainly when i hear the canadian prime minister and the U.S. president speak , they have praise for those two leaders .
do our leaders not hear and read what the people on the ground are reporting ???

you suggest taking out the taliban , but the taliban are helping the poor villagers . so you want to deny them any help and let them and their families starve ???

have you had a look at the postings under the heading of AFGHANISTAN , DOES IT STILL MATTER ? (see link below)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't want to mess up this thread completely so i'll just post a few lines from the last post on the AFGHANISTAN thread and leave it at that .
hbg

Quote:
"We have lost and success is unlikely".

says former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown who has been negotiating terms for a new role in Afghanistan co-ordinating the international effort and its links with the Karzai government - a job locally nicknamed the "super gorilla".

paddy ashdown's full report :
REPORT ON AFGHANISTAN

link to AFGHANISTAN thread :
AFGHANISTAN

Hamburger, almost all international policy results in some unintended consequences. So whatever brought about unintended circumstances is a nonsequitur when it comes to making appropriate decisions re the consequences we have so that we can intentionally move forward to achieve more good consequences than bad ones.

In my rather long life now, I have never seen a war of any kind conducted in which there were not criticisms for activities or decisions leading up to the war, in which terrible and costly mistakes and miscalculations were not made, and in which there was not ample armchair quarterbacking about coulda - woulda - shoulda.

You can discuss the plight of people under the thumb of oppressive dictators or totalitarian regimes. And you can discuss the cost of life and peace in acts of war. What prompted this was whether one member was proposing genocide on a group as a solution and, in my opinion, to think that the member was proposing that is absurd.

I accept that your sentiment is to back the Taliban who forbid international aid to help the people but they help the people. If I took your words at face value, you prefer the Taliban to those who think the people deserve better,. Of course with that point of view, you consign those people to a miserable existence, total lack of personal freedoms, and crushing poverty forever. I didn't suggest taking out the Taliban. I do know that is the only reasonable hope the people have to be free.

I have always known of those who think that the definition of peace is the absence of armed conflict. I just think there is more to it than that.

Do our leaders listen? Yes. And they hear all manner of ideas and theories and criticisms and hopes and fears and proposals and threats and the probability of various outcomes. And they have to dissect all that to arrive at the best possible decision. But they are human. And sometimes they are going to get it wrong.

0 Replies

Foxfrye wrote:

Quote:

Read the rest of the context, Revel. Neither Ican nor I have ever suggested that it's 'okay to exterminate the Palestinians'. Put what he is saying in the context and you'll see that.

The rest of what he said was about the Iraq war not about exterminating Palestinians as a means of Israel achieving peace.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2506830#2506830

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
When are you going to realize that with our command structure, we are likely going to fail?

No matter whether you think that attacking Iraq was the right decision or not - an attitude which is somewhat meaningless given your propensity for racism towards Arabs, as advanced in the Israel WW3 thread - you must realize that the group who have been running the war are incompetent. And I mean that fully: they are without competence in matters of either war or diplomacy.

Cycloptichorn

In the "Israel WW3 thread":
cicerone imposter wrote:

Why Israel will not have peace until they realize military might is not the answer.

ican711nm wrote:
Malarkey! Every agreement the Israelies negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs is followed by the Palestinian Arabs committing more mass murder of Israelies. The truth is, the Palestinian Arabs negotiate with the Israelies for only one reason: to fool the Israelies into thinking the Palestinian Arabs do not really want Israel destroyed, and thereby to fool the Israelies into relaxing their defenses.

Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You may not be a bloodthirsty racist, Ican, but you write words as if you are. I find it to be despicable.

Then here in this thread you again illustrate your despicable propensity to malign me:Cycloptichorn wrote:
...given your propensity for racism towards Arabs, as advanced in the Israel WW3 thread...

1. The Palestinian Arabs are not a race of humans; they are a group of humans who celebrate those of their leaders who advocate and attempt the destruction of Israel.

2. So I theorized: Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs. In other words, Israel will not get some peace by successfully negotiating with the Palestinian Arabs, because the Palestinian Arabs have shown they will not keep their negotiated agreements with Israel.

3. So, the alternatives available to Israel to finally get some peace appear to me to be either Israel voluntarily exterminates itself (which is obviously not an acceptable alternative to the Israeli humans), or Israel exterminates the Palestinian Arabs (which is obviously not an acceptable alternative to the Palestinian Arab humans).

Cycloptichorn wrote:
... you must realize that the group who have been running the war are incompetent. And I mean that fully: they are without competence in matters of either war or diplomacy.

Yes, the group who have been running the war have been incompetent. I perceive competence and incompetence to be relative and not absolute attributes. In the absolute sense, all humans are incompetent; that is, all humans are fallible. So the question I seek to answer is: what group of humans do I think is probably more competent than the present group at learning from their mistakes and succeeding in Iraq? So far, I have not discovered such an alternative group. Until I do discover such an alternative group I will support the current group and try to get them to do what I think will allow them to learn from their mistakes and succeed in Iraq.

It would be an even greater display of incompetence than we have seen thus far, if the current group or any replacement group were to quit trying to succeed in Iraq.

No matter how much you dress up a sows ear it is still a sows ear. But nevermind; it is what it is whether you admit it or not.

0 Replies

FANATIC-EXTREMISTS
The people I want exterminated are fanatic-extremists. They are fanatic-extremists about knowingly mass murdering civilian non-murderers. For example, the Palestinian Arabs--not the Israeli Arabs--refuse to support the UN's 1947 resolution partitioning Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, and refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. What the Palestinian Arabs do support is knowingly mass murdering Israeli, civilian non-murderers.

People who are fanatic-extremists about knowingly mass murdering civilians are CLASS A fanatic-extremists.

People who are fanatic-extremists about exterminating CLASS A fanatic-extremists are CLASS B fanatic-extremists.

I am a CLASS B fanatic-extremist.

People who oppose both CLASS A fanatic-extremists and Class B fanatic-extremists are CLASS C fanatic-extremists.

CLASS C fanatic-extremists remain such until they are threatened by CLASS A fanatic-extremists. Then they immediately convert from CLASS C to CLASS D fanatic-extremists. They do this by blaming CLASS B fanatic-extremists for causing the CLASS A fanatic-extremists to directly threaten CLASS D fanatic-extremists.

CLASS D fanatic-extremists also blame the victims of CLASS A fanatic-extremists for causing CLASS A fanatic-extremists to victimize their victims.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know