GameBanshee Forums

I don't care what Ivan thinks one way or another, I just ask for one thing:

A resolution for all those who died on Sept 11, and an attempt to prevent the act from occuring again.

As others have said, bombing is not a good choice, but is the only viable one that has been presented. Show me something else.

Originally posted by Tom:
<STRONG>Revenge and Hatred breeds more revenge and hatred.

What you said is not cold hearted - its mad.

Kill them all. kill the children so they don’t grow up remembering their fathers killers. kill the mothers so they dont have children.

Please Please dont think like that. many people feel hurt - angry. this is how it starts. look at northen ireland an endless cycle of violence. how are we making progress? negotiation, patience and understanding. The Middle east? a higly trained army backed by the USA are still fighting after soon fifty years. no end in sight. do you really think that conflict can be won by the gun?
</STRONG>

Call me mad then. I sit here and read all day long how this is the US's own fault. How everything is the US's fault. If my country is going to blamed...it might as well get down and dirty.

I'm about to the point where I wish ... No I will not put what I was thinking.

I see no point in continuing this ..... I have saw no plans put forward where the US can come out looking even decent. Every option will look bad.

(1)Bombs= Bad , People will die.

(2)Sanctions= Bad , People will and are dying. You know what is really sad. The one's who call for this, two or three years down the road start hollering about the children. This is the nice way of not getting anything done. The only thing it does is kill the innocent children.


(3)Leave them alone= Bad , this one....I guess if you consider a plane load of people hitting a building at 345 mph bad. Some consider this justice....or something not to consider. I figure....if they did it once...they will do it again.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Call me mad then. I sit here and read all day long how this is the US's own fault. How everything is the US's fault. If my country is going to blamed...it might as well get down and dirty.

I'm about to the point where I wish ... No I will not put what I was thinking.

I see no point in continuing this ..... I have saw no plans put forward where the US can come out looking even decent. Every option will look bad.

(1)Bombs= Bad , People will die.

(2)Sanctions= Bad , People will and are dying. You know what is really sad. The one's who call for this, two or three years down the road start hollering about the children. This is the nice way of not getting anything done. The only thing it does is kill the innocent children.


(3)Leave them alone= Bad , this one....I guess if you consider a plane load of people hitting a building at 345 mph bad. Some consider this justice....or something not to consider. I figure....if they did it once...they will do it again.</STRONG>

I think i should reply to this as i have said that US FP is to blame in words.
However that does not mean that the attacks on the US were just or valid.
Neither is the faults of US FP justification for killing so many innocents.
The US should change its FP but attacking the people of the US will not do that.
And they should not be targetted.

And i guess my plan of handing over the proof and getting the islamic people on the side of the US, doesn't bring the US on the moral high ground as well as it having a decent image.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>
And i guess my plan of handing over the proof and getting the islamic people on the side of the US, doesn't bring the US on the moral high ground as well as it having a decent image.</STRONG>

And the first thing they would say..

"The Evil Americans made all this up"

Do you really think if proof was shown that they would believe it? No they will not. It has been hammered into their heads the US is out to get them. For some hairbrain reason they think I want to come and convert them. I could care less who, what or it that they believe in. But on the other hand...I'm a devil because I don't believe in what they do.


Nice thoughts...but in my opinion...totally unrealist.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>And the first thing they would say..

"The Evil Americans made all this up"

Do you really think if proof was shown that they would believe it? No they will not. It has been hammered into their heads the US is out to get them. For some hairbrain reason they think I want to come and convert them. I could care less who, what or it that they believe in. But on the other hand...I'm a devil because I don't believe in what they do.


Nice thoughts...but in my opinion...totally unrealist.</STRONG>

Again like i said to Xandax don't let the minority take the majority hostage.
A majority of muslims don't hate americans or the US.
They have more respect for them then for their own govts.
I would see the proof and judge for myself.
The Fundo's can't discredit the proof if it is valid and remain credible in the eyes of the majority.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>
The US should change its FP but attacking the people of the US will not do that.
And they should not be targetted.
</STRONG>

Now for this.

1. I will not bow down to terrorist.


But to be fair ...please state what changes need to be made.

Also please state how these changes will..IYO be done.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>It has been hammered into their heads the US is out to get them. For some hairbrain reason they think I want to come and convert them.</STRONG>

You can thank Dubbyah, who made a big play out of one of his demands to the Taliban being the return of American missionaries who had snuck into Afghanistan to convert the "heathens," under cover of other business. (Nor was the possible penalty upon being caught hidden in any way. It is stated openly in Taliban law, and on the US Department of State's warning about travel in Afghanistan: all attempts to convert followers of Islam from the Way of the Prophet will result in charges that could lead to death.) Dubbyah reinforces the bedrock of his rightwing at home, at the cost of convincing some of the world that the US is led by Christian fundamentalist fanatics who demand right-of-way for their missionaries to convert, everywhere.

It's a sad business, no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Now for this.

1. I will not bow down to terrorist.


But to be fair ...please state what changes need to be made.

Also please state how these changes will..IYO be done.</STRONG>

Ok i am not sure about what the first couple of lines mean before "but to be fair"
Could you explain it?

A. I would like the US to use an even handed policy when talking about Human Rights.
Saudi has an autocratic and barbaric regime.
Yet Pakistan gets dumped on for not having a democracy.
That is just one example.

B. If you discuss human rights you should use it as a universal standard no matter who the nation is.
Thus both Israel and the PLO should be lambasted for what they do.
And both should be forced to come to the peace table.
Same with Saudi and Egypt.
NO SANCTIONS.

C. Take out saddam heck use the PAkistani ISI if you have to but kill the bastard!
Don't let the people suffer for his crimes.
Ok that ain't realistic, but get rid of the sanctions and produce a opposition against Saddam.

And overall be fair and have an even handed policy.
Also policies should be country specific and not region specific.

How to do them is easy, just change the way FP is conducted.
I can't be more detailed than that as i have no idea how the State Dept works.
Hope that answers your questions.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Again like i said to Xandax don't let the minority take the majority hostage.
A majority of muslims don't hate americans or the US.
They have more respect for them then for their own govts.
I would see the proof and judge for myself.
The Fundo's can't discredit the proof if it is valid and remain credible in the eyes of the majority.</STRONG>

I believe there is proof Bin Laden was involved in the planning of attacks on two embassys and a destroyer. But as I said...this doesn't matter.

"The Evil Americans made up the evidence"

There was proof here. But this wasn't enough to get him extridited. People walk thru the streets with his picture on their shirts...cheering. And you want me to have compassion for them? People who cheer at the deaths of not only my country's servicemen and women...but have a full blast party to celebrate the death of 4000 plus people?

I'm sorry...my compassion is at an end.

I'm not aware much of the news.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>
Ok i am not sure about what the first couple of lines mean before "but to be fair"
Could you explain it?.</STRONG>

It means any change now...will be seen as bowing down to terrorist. Simple, the crashed 4 airplanes and killed 4000 plus people and get a change in policy.

Now say blanky blanky wants something done his way. He says" I crash plane and get my way"

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>

How to do them is easy, just change the way FP is conducted.
I can't be more detailed than that as i have no idea how the State Dept works.
Hope that answers your questions.</STRONG>

Yes it answers it. You don't have a answer. The State Dept does. The FP is to try and keep peace and a stable oil supply. Instead you want the US to change to a policy where peace cannot be kept and the oil supply is up for graps.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Yes it answers it. You don't have a answer. The State Dept does. The FP is to try and keep peace and a stable oil supply. Instead you want the US to change to a policy where peace cannot be kept and the oil supply is up for graps.</STRONG>

Ok so let me get this straight - My points of equality and an even handed policy in the middle east is not a good idea?
Why?
If oil is up for grabs does that mean people in saudi or Kuwait don't have the rights for basic human rights.
People complain about the issue of women rights in Afghanistan.
But in Kuwait women can't work or vote either.
Just because there is oil there, it is acceptable to deal with the Kuwaiti govt.
I am extremely confused by your reply.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Ok so let me get this straight - My points of equality and an even handed policy in the middle east is not a good idea?
Why?
If oil is up for grabs does that mean people in saudi or Kuwait don't have the rights for basic human rights.
People complain about the issue of women rights in Afghanistan.
But in Kuwait women can't work or vote either.
Just because there is oil there, it is acceptable to deal with the Kuwaiti govt.
I am extremely confused by your reply.</STRONG>

I will comeback and answer this...as soon as the other post is answered by you.

Fair.

Which one?
The one where you have no compassion for these people etc or ?????

Happy Evil:
I dont understand. 1=10?
If so, then a question...
Would you rather lose one finger or ten?

I say 1 life is not more or less important than 10. Because you cannot atribute valors. It is life. Totally diferent from a finger. A finger is something, a life is everything.
Everything to someone.
It is complicate to explain.
Is better to sacrifice one life or ten?
One?
I Forgot to say that this life you sacrificate was your own life.
And now you no longer exist.
For you now is like if all the lives things, feelings, ... .... .. . are dead. Because you are dead. The world end. End for you.
But you are happy because you save 10 lifes? You cannot be happy anymore.

Understand?

One life is everything, not something you can quantify.

Happy Evil:
You can justify killing citizens with the conclusion that you are handicapping their ability to wage war by disrupting their war production. In essence, kill their people so they cant produce the devices that will kill ours. War is nasty business indeed.

Yes, you can justify your evil act in lots of ways.
Do you going to believe in it?
My conscience don't aceept this kind of justificative.

Happy Evil:
You have to remember the object of a war is to win. The Japanese sent hundreds of dangerous, though not very effective, balloons filled with bombs into the US via the East West jetstream. The balloons were launched from the main islands. The idea was to terrorize and kill civilians with direct blasts and the subsequent fires. The balloons did not achieve any major success and were largely kept secret by the US government.

I don't say they were saints.
They do lots of mistakes. Atrocities.
Maybe if they have the bomb they will drop it on USA.
If I have the bomb I will never drop it anywhere.
One error don't justify the other.

Quark:
Ivan, please show me a "good" path, one that will 1)work and 2)does not harm civilians.
That's all I ask.

Do you wait for an awnser.
It is dificult.
Of course it is very dificult. Otherwise we are not dialoging.
I think I don't have a solution.
Especially because the responsible for the terrorism is already dead, they are suicide.
The responsible for think and persuate the suicide terrorists(maybe Bin Laden) is very well hided. Hided in the midle of lots of civilians. Coward.
Very Coward.
I don't have a solution. I don't know what to do. I know what not to do. Is something. Not enough. I know.

I know that we are diferent. I know we are not coward. I know we should not be coward. I know we should not commit atrocities.

Your question, I don't know.

Lazarus:
@Quark: You should be aware that Ivan is 100% against ANY kind of intervention - that goes for any country under any circumstances. You can check out the "Attack on Afghanistan" thread (it's buried a bit now, but its around), where he details his opinions very well (page five).
@Ivan: let me know if the above description of you does not fit right.

Yes, it fit right.
But as you I think the responsables for that act must be punished by the USA laws. Not the Afgan people. Not the Taliban. He should be punished. And the others who are involved in the event.

But he is hidding, Taliban help him. Civilians are around. My 100% of conviction is not 100%. I have lots of doubt about my convictions. Especially in this complicated case. As I say for Quark, I don't know how to proceed. I don't have to know how to proceed in this kind of situation. I can help, with my opinions.

Lazarus:
It is the Taliban's right and obligation to protect their people - not the United States. This applies equally to the use of the atomic bomb in WWII: we did it to save AMERICAN lives. That was our respsonsibility. Japanese lives were NOT our respsonsibility. And lets not forget WHO started that war of aggression.

Is our responsability to don't kill inocents lives. You are not in War against Afeganistan. They don't do nothing against USA.
This is why I'm against this War.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Which one?
The one where you have no compassion for these people etc or ?????</STRONG>

Yes the one with Bin Laden and the proof of his planning the attacks on the two embassies and the destroyer.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Ok so let me get this straight - My points of equality and an even handed policy in the middle east is not a good idea?
Why?
.</STRONG>

It depends on what you mean by equality.

If you have 5 countries together.

Lets call them:

(A) Country with 5 billion supply of oil.

(B) Country with 1 Billion supply of oil.

(C) Country with no oil.

(D) Country with 5 billion supply of gas.

(E) Country With 1 billion supply of gas.


In your equality you would want all these treated the same. Take (A) country because it doesn't believe in allowing women to work, or men to smoke, the US is suppose to do what? Not buy oil from them? Instead do with out oil. Or should the US comdemn the way country (A) treats it's people and still buy the oil?


Country (B) see's the US not buying oil from country (A) and decides to raise the price of it's oil. Is this wrong? No it is not. Supply and demand. But is it in the best interest of the US to pay more?

Now we have country (C), seems country (D) (The aggressor) is in a dispute with country (C) over land. Should the US back country (C) because they are not the aggressor. In backing country (C), country (D) will..1. Cut off the supply to the US. 2. Raise the price of their gas to try and force the US to their side. You say, but gas at a higher price from country (E). Seems country (E) doesn't deal with the US. The US got on to them about the human rights issues in their country. So we are know in a spot where we have to get both country (C) and (D) to talk..meaning deals will have to be worked out. Deals both sides will not like, but will go along with. The gas then follows....till 6 months down the road (C) and (D) start again. More deals will have to be installed...with country (D) knowing it will get the better deal because of it's gas. Country (C) will know this and balk, even though the US could just said..Country (D) do what you want. Does the US do this? No they try and work a deal out. A deal just like before...one both (C) and (D) will hate, but will go along with.


Can you see equality working here? The US has to watch out for it's self first, the other countries after this. The deals cut will be in the interest of the US with as little fallout to the other countries as possible. Is this fair? Well is it fair to the US not to look out for it's self? Shouldn't a country think of it's self first? Most countries do, should the US be different? Just because we are the US means we have to give more?

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>...<snip>...Yes, it fit right.
But as you I think the responsables for that act must be punished by the USA laws. Not the Afgan people. Not the Taliban. He should be punished. And the others who are involved in the event.

But he is hidding, Taliban help him. Civilians are around. My 100% of conviction is not 100%. I have lots of doubt about my convictions. Especially in this complicated case. As I say for Quark, I don't know how to proceed. I don't have to know how to proceed in this kind of situation. I can help, with my opinions.

Is our responsability to don't kill inocents lives. You are not in War against Afeganistan. They don't do nothing against USA.
This is why I'm against this War.</STRONG>

Well, you respond to your own point exactly as I would: you say that Osama is the one responsible. My answer is that he was aided and abbetted (sp?) by the Taliban. The US did in fact request that the Taliban simply hand over Osama, but they refused. As Weasel states: they asked for proof, but I think we all know that whatever proof we may have put in front of them, they simply would not have believed it. So, we now have to go through the Taliban to get to Osama. Again: it is NOT our respsonsibility to save Afghani lives. That is the respsonsibility of the Afghani government. They could have avoided this had they simply handed over Osama, but they refused. Now that nation will pay a price for sins of the government they have allowed to gain and keep power.

Weasel: I'm with you on the self-interest of national foreign policy. One thing that almost no one - anywhere - is willing to say is that a nation should act in its own self-interest.

Lots more could be said about that, but I guess I'll wait for a few flames to respond to...

Quark writes:
I don't care what Ivan thinks one way or another...

In that case, you don't need to tell him so. You're getting pretty close to flaming, here. I would request that you take a deep breath, think about the fact that you're in a friendly discussion, and back off, please.