Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

and the world was silent
breeze Posted: Mon May 16 00:22:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  500 people died yesterday in Andijan, Uzbekistan fighting for democracy and a better life, trying to free innocent people from the prison and trying to get rid of the tyran president who has been violating human rights for the past 15 years he has been the president... and the world was silent. No country decided to intervene, let comment, on military shooting innocent people on the square, who were fighting for democracy... Official deaths announced by president - 10. BBC and Associated Press reports more than 500...

USA has military bases in Uzbekistan on the border with Afghanistan, hence it didn't favor regime change.. It didn't want democracy there. Not now at least. So White House decided not to comment on this and just look at another side when this was happening.

Russia denounced those people as "radical extremists and terrorists", since they just signed new treaties with Uzbek President, so they also do not favor regime change...

So much for the fight for human rights and democratization? I know it's the reality of life, but it just makes me sad... just had to let it out.


 
antartica Posted: Mon May 16 01:14:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yea... i was trying to catch you online on this...
*sigh*...is a sad sad world we live in


 
iggy Posted: Mon May 16 01:20:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  amen.



 
Mesh Posted: Mon May 16 03:10:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Its sad that some tyrants are allowed to exist because they're beneficial to certain powerful nations. Only when they no longer benefit certain powerful nations does their brutality come to be of any importance to any nations who can do anything about it.


 
Mark Posted: Mon May 16 06:03:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  heh... the media didn't report anything about it here (as far as I know), guess the media is really fcked up. Just like the world we live in...


 
beetlebum Posted: Mon May 16 06:20:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm so sorry. It must be hard (albeit somewhat fortunate) to be so far away at a time like this. I don't even know what to say. I hope family and friends are okay.


 
beetlebum Posted: Mon May 16 06:43:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, I hate to comment on how shite humans can be, but honestly, now that everyone on GT knows, will anyone do anything about it? We all talk in rather objective, ambiguous terms... like, why is America so repressive and so fickle in her causes? On a macro level, I suppose this is safe terminology. But on a micro level, the real question is, who here will do anything about it?

My guess is not much-- this isn't to say (AT ALL) that I think that it is shameful... we only have so much time and we only have so much energy. I just grow weary of people finding so much wrong with the world, but never doing anything about it. (Breeze, this was not directed at you!! I think you just made me think about the broader issue of individual responsibility in international situations.) Sometimes situations preclude us from taking action (or our efforts would be futile) but I think effective action grows from repetitive futile political efforts most of the time.

Blah. In America, did you know that grassroots lobbying organizations have shown that even seven non-uniform letters to a congressman or woman can change his or her vote or cause him or her to take up a cause? But no one writes because it is too time consuming and perhaps most are too apathetic. My point is: I don't think that Uzbekistan will experience regime change unless individuals outside Uzbekistan take responsibility, or the people within persevere. Without broad support, the international climate is too fragile right now.

In defense of the White House's lack of comment... I know this sounds shitty, because I would like for nothing more than for Bush to give Putin and Karimov the finger. However, Bush's visit last week to Russia was quite a funny dance to watch-- celebrating the end of the war with Putin, but then visiting former soviet satellites and renouncing Communism, something Putin, despite his rhetoric, still believes in. I think the White House is trying to be careful, because we need Russia as an ally in dealing with North Korea (a rather scary situation) but I also think that we're weary of Putin himself and we are trying to send him a clear message without causing former/current Communist countries to band together in an us v. them return-to-cold-war mentality. I think that this international relations dynamic has most officials more on edge than the public realizes... and that perhaps the White House knows that speaking out against Uzbekistan could alienate Putin (in many ways) giving us more trouble than we can handle right now. This isn't an excuse... it's just more a reflection on the current situation.

Also, Breeze, from what you know, do you think that Karimov will be able to maintain his totalitarian regime for much longer? I know that he has made it clear that he will maintain order using any necessary force, but I also read somewhere that northern parts of the country have fallen into a sort of anarchic state. I was just wondering what you feel and think about the whole thing, America's lack of action aside. (Sorry to be so long-winded, but I don't even know anyone from that region, and I'd love to know what you think if you have the time.)



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 06:53:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It was all over the news here.
IT was the lead story on Fox News and the Drudge Report.

If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?
After the backlash from the Afghan and Iraq ventures, why would any American president want to go to bat for anyone else ?
Most Americans have never heard of Uzbekistan, you must understand that.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 09:28:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wolffie said:
>heh... the media didn't report anything about it here (as far as I know), guess the media is really fcked up. Just like the world we live in...

Strange. All over the news here.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 09:37:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?

Indeed, yet they seem to be quite picky about those they do help, don't you think?

Read this today in a newspaper (though it was from a few days ago, I have it right here, so I'm just quoting it, not making things up):

War on Iraq is about oil.

The Iraqi war "has nothing to do with democracy or anything like that, but has everything to do with oil". The quote is attriubted to an economic advisor of the white house, John Rutledge. The man spoke this friday at a conference of the Bank Degroof in the Hotel Metropole in Brussels. "750 billion dollars is needed to pump up the 10 million barrels a day that will be needed to sustain the extra demand of China and India. But that money will only be made available by investers when we reduce the risk of their investment to a minimum. And that risk lies mainly in the Persian Gulf", says Rutledge. "That is why there will always have to be somebody stationed with an army in Iraq. The Gulfregion is simply too crucial to be let out of hands. This is about oil, not democracy." (WDP)


 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 09:38:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?
>
>Indeed, yet they seem to be quite picky about those they do help, don't you think?

If that would be the reason why America isn't invading this time, they would have stopped at Afghanistan.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 09:48:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?
>
>Indeed, yet they seem to be quite picky about those they do help, don't you think?
>
>Read this today in a newspaper (though it was from a few days ago, I have it right here, so I'm just quoting it, not making things up):
>
>War on Iraq is about oil.
>
>The Iraqi war "has nothing to do with democracy or anything like that, but has everything to do with oil". The quote is attriubted to an economic advisor of the white house, John Rutledge. The man spoke this friday at a conference of the Bank Degroof in the Hotel Metropole in Brussels. "750 billion dollars is needed to pump up the 10 million barrels a day that will be needed to sustain the extra demand of China and India. But that money will only be made available by investers when we reduce the risk of their investment to a minimum. And that risk lies mainly in the Persian Gulf", says Rutledge. "That is why there will always have to be somebody stationed with an army in Iraq. The Gulfregion is simply too crucial to be let out of hands. This is about oil, not democracy." (WDP)
>
Got any evidence or just opinion ?



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 09:49:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?
>
>Indeed, yet they seem to be quite picky about those they do help, don't you think?
>
And why wouldn't anyone be picky about where they put their sons and daughters in harms way ?


 
addi Posted: Mon May 16 10:15:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Got any evidence or just opinion ?

An advisor to U.S. presidents, an economic, financial and investment strategist, and a dynamic lecturer and author, Dr. John Rutledge has spent his professional life active in both academics and government policy, as well as a manager of money in both mutual funds and private equity. He is currently Chairman of Rutledge Capital, an economic advisory firm and acts as an advisor to the Bush White House on both the dividend tax cut and rebuilding Iraq, among other issues. In addition, Dr. Rutledge is Chairman of the Advisory Boards of B.V. Group, a venture capital, hedge fund and real estate investment firm and Saugatuck Capital, a private equity firm.

As a lecturer, Dr. Rutledge speaks on global economics, financial markets, investment strategies, the impact of technology on the economy and strategies for owning and growing the value of business. He is author of a regular column in the American Spectator on the intersection of ideas from science and economics and has written the Business Strategy column in Forbes for more than a decade. In 1980-81 he served on the Reagan transition team as one of the principal architects of the Reagan Economic Plan.

The author of two books and hundreds of articles, Dr. Rutledge has testified before many Congressional Committees and has advised government officials in the US, UK, Ireland and Kuwait.

Dr. Rutledge holds a B.A. from Lake Forest College and a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He began his career on the faculty of Tulane University and Claremont McKenna College.

Hmmm...maybe he knows a little more than the average joe.
: )

and it's not a particularly novel insight into our foreign policy. It should be evident that if Iraq was not sitting on oil rich resources, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded...they'd be viewed as just another Uzbekistan; "too bad really, but it's their problem" mentality




 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 10:44:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Hmmm...maybe he knows a little more than the average joe.
>: )
I can agree with that statment, but he still has only given his opinion, no evidence.
>
>and it's not a particularly novel insight into our foreign policy. It should be evident that if Iraq was not sitting on oil rich resources, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded...they'd be viewed as just another Uzbekistan; "too bad really, but it's their problem" mentality
>
That's a load of BS.
Would you care to apply that logic to our venture into Kosovo ?


 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 11:03:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And why wouldn't anyone be picky about where they put their sons and daughters in harms way ?

Call me crazy but I'd think that Iraq/Afghanistan is a bit more dangerous than Uzbekistan.


 
addi Posted: Mon May 16 11:11:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I can agree with that statment, but he still has only given his opinion, no evidence.

That's true, at least none that I've read to this point (it may be out there). My point is that not all opinions are of equal merit. Rutledge has worked under two conservative administrations. He's not a left-wing liberal with some hidden agenda. Maybe he just feels the need to stop all the bullshit and tell it like it is.



>That's a load of BS.
>Would you care to apply that logic to our venture into Kosovo ?

Yes, I would : )
Because there was a Democrat, and not a conservative Republican in office. Read link for Clinton's justifications for our involvement:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/clinton.kosovo/transcript.html


 
Mesh Posted: Mon May 16 11:20:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Caspian Sea.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 11:43:29 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>I can agree with that statment, but he still has only given his opinion, no evidence.
>
>That's true, at least none that I've read to this point (it may be out there). My point is that not all opinions are of equal merit. Rutledge has worked under two conservative administrations. He's not a left-wing liberal with some hidden agenda. Maybe he just feels the need to stop all the bullshit and tell it like it is.
>
>
>
>>That's a load of BS.
>>Would you care to apply that logic to our venture into Kosovo ?
>
>Yes, I would : )
>Because there was a Democrat, and not a conservative Republican in office. Read link for Clinton's justifications for our involvement:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/clinton.kosovo/transcript.html
>
Omygosh, the democrats save the world !
If a republican had said the same thing, the press would turn over every stone twice looking for the hidden agenda.

Still, can anyone provide evidence that this war is about oil ?
All I've seen are opinions.


 
breeze Posted: Mon May 16 11:46:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?

There was an outcry from people to the U.S. asking them to stop the human rights violations in Uzbekistan several times. Petitions, letters from political prisoners, mass demonstrations. Last week there was a demonstration in front of the U.S. Embassy, where people were asking for their support and stop the suffering. U.S. representatives decided to close their eyes on it, as they did many times before. The peaceful demonstration that consisted mainly of women and children from poor rural areas was suppressed by police force that same night..

During the last OCSE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) conference in Tashkent in 2004, all members, but one said they will stop all financial aid to Uzbekistan government (note: not non-profit and humanitarian organizations) until the human rights violations would continue. The only member who didnít join the statement was U.S.A.

Looks like when the assistance _is_ actually needed, White House decides not to notice it. Itís logical considering the interests the U.S. government has in the region. They donít want to lose the military base, they paid high price for to the Uzbek government. Itís just not in their interests and I doubt it will be anytime soon.



 
breeze Posted: Mon May 16 12:11:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>Also, Breeze, from what you know, do you think that Karimov will be able to maintain his totalitarian regime for much longer? I know that he has made it clear that he will maintain order using any necessary force, but I also read somewhere that northern parts of the country have fallen into a sort of anarchic state. I was just wondering what you feel and think about the whole thing, America's lack of action aside. (Sorry to be so long-winded, but I don't even know anyone from that region, and I'd love to know what you think if you have the time.)
>


He was able to maintain the regime for the past 15 years, and honestly I think itís just like a sitting on a bomb. At some point it will blow out, I just donít know when, but the events of the past year show that people are starting to lose the patience. Even though the civic education is not really high in the country and people often donít know their rights, many now understand that something has to be done to stop it. But being a human rights activist in my country is equivalent of committing a suicide. The few people that I knew were human rights activists were imprisoned, disappeared or had to leave the country asking for political asylum elsewhere, since they were threatened to be killed. We have presidential elections coming up in 2007 and I wonder how itís gonna work out, since we have no opposition whatsoever and the only candidate that might appear out there seems to be the Presidentís daughter...


 
addi Posted: Mon May 16 12:20:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Still, can anyone provide evidence that this war is about oil ?
>All I've seen are opinions.

Let me ask you this then.
If it didn't have anything to do with oil tell us in your words Bush's reasons for invading Iraq. I would like to know what you really think about it.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon May 16 12:26:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  One could, if they so wanted, argue the connection between the caspian sea oilpiplines running through the balkans. I've read some stuff about it. Personally, I dont think it was about Oil.


And of course, we all know it was because of Clinton and that stained dress anyways. :)


 
Mesh Posted: Mon May 16 13:32:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Those things I read about the whole "Oil Connection" in the kosovo war, I read while it was actually going on. I'd be damned if I could find any of it now.

They didnt present enough evidence for me to consider the claims grounded in reality. However, someone who, from the start, wanted to believe it was about Oil had all the evidence they needed to convince themselves they were right.


I dunno, I dont think Kosovo was completely huminitarian and altruistic, but I dont think it was about Oil either. At least, if Oil did have any part in the decision, I think it was a small one, and there were other hidden agendas being served. But thats what I think about any humanitarian intervention really. Sure, humanitarianism might be one of the reasons for some of the interventions of times past, but they were more likely only part of the reason, and a subterfuge for other secret reasons. That may just be the pessimist and the cynic within me.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon May 16 14:16:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It was all over the news here.
>IT was the lead story on Fox News and the Drudge Report.
>
>If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?
>After the backlash from the Afghan and Iraq ventures, why would any American president want to go to bat for anyone else ?
>Most Americans have never heard of Uzbekistan, you must understand that.

this is the most hypocritical posh i've ever heard. to admit that the PR backlash would be enough to prevent a US intervention would be the same as to say we made a wrong decision to go into Iraq and afghanistan. is that what you really want to be saying here?


 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 14:18:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>If it didn't have anything to do with oil tell us in your words Bush's reasons for invading Iraq. I would like to know what you really think about it.

To save the world ofcourse. Who else is going to do it now that mighty mouse is retired?

The WMD's were there and there was the direct connection between Saddam and Bin Laden (what's the last thing anybody heard about him by the way?). The fact that the invaded countries have oil in them or have important oil pipeline locations is just a mere coÔncidence, as is the fact that other countries who could do with the "help" but aren't getting it don't have any resources worth mentioning. We just like the camelfuckers and towelheads better than those rice crappers so we're not "freeing" the latter, what other explanation could there be?

And we're sure that North Korea is making ballistic nukes, so what's the use of invading that country when you merely suspect another one of doing the same, right?

Are you saying that you dare doubt the good intentions and selfless altruistic nature of the American (or any) government? Afterall, it's the right and duty of America to enforce it's will upon the world. And those damned frogs, krauts and other Euro-trash pink homo-loving infidel pussies better obey every command, because we saved them over half a century ago with no profit of our own and from the very start things were heating up, without them ever showing their gratitude.

You're not just bying into the fact that Bush is an intelligent hero out to save mankind instead of filling his pockets, and those around him? How unpatriotic of you! You must be a communist nazi-pig! Consider your family's phones tapped unless they've already been shot in a war they were indoctrinated to believe in or don't even want to fight because of their own moral values.

Expect your ass to be sent to Guantanamo to be kept there without a trial for as long as the government damn well pleases. If you're lucky you won't get the death penalty. And if you do you can still sue the company making the injections for making them lethal.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 14:20:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>It was all over the news here.
>>IT was the lead story on Fox News and the Drudge Report.
>>
>>If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?
>>After the backlash from the Afghan and Iraq ventures, why would any American president want to go to bat for anyone else ?
>>Most Americans have never heard of Uzbekistan, you must understand that.
>
>this is the most hypocritical posh i've ever heard. to admit that the PR backlash would be enough to prevent a US intervention would be the same as to say we made a wrong decision to go into Iraq and afghanistan. is that what you really want to be saying here?
>
No, I was point out the hypocrisy in the people bitching about our interventions elswhere and then complaining because we didn't intervene on their behalf.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon May 16 14:25:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Asswipe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>It was all over the news here.
>>>IT was the lead story on Fox News and the Drudge Report.
>>>
>>>If the US had intervened, do you imagine there would have been an outcry from the rest of the world that we should mind our own business and stop the imerialism ?
>>>After the backlash from the Afghan and Iraq ventures, why would any American president want to go to bat for anyone else ?
>>>Most Americans have never heard of Uzbekistan, you must understand that.
>>
>>this is the most hypocritical posh i've ever heard. to admit that the PR backlash would be enough to prevent a US intervention would be the same as to say we made a wrong decision to go into Iraq and afghanistan. is that what you really want to be saying here?
>>
>No, I was point out the hypocrisy in the people bitching about our interventions elswhere and then complaining because we didn't intervene on their behalf.

I KNOW, and it's completely flawed because it negates your original stance on foreign policy involvement.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon May 16 14:41:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>addi said:
>>If it didn't have anything to do with oil tell us in your words Bush's reasons for invading Iraq. I would like to know what you really think about it.
>
>To save the world ofcourse. Who else is going to do it now that mighty mouse is retired?
>
>The WMD's were there and there was the direct connection between Saddam and Bin Laden (what's the last thing anybody heard about him by the way?). The fact that the invaded countries have oil in them or have important oil pipeline locations is just a mere coÔncidence, as is the fact that other countries who could do with the "help" but aren't getting it don't have any resources worth mentioning. We just like the camelfuckers and towelheads better than those rice crappers so we're not "freeing" the latter, what other explanation could there be?
>
>And we're sure that North Korea is making ballistic nukes, so what's the use of invading that country when you merely suspect another one of doing the same, right?
>
>Are you saying that you dare doubt the good intentions and selfless altruistic nature of the American (or any) government? Afterall, it's the right and duty of America to enforce it's will upon the world. And those damned frogs, krauts and other Euro-trash pink homo-loving infidel pussies better obey every command, because we saved them over half a century ago with no profit of our own and from the very start things were heating up, without them ever showing their gratitude.
>
>You're not just bying into the fact that Bush is an intelligent hero out to save mankind instead of filling his pockets, and those around him? How unpatriotic of you! You must be a communist nazi-pig! Consider your family's phones tapped unless they've already been shot in a war they were indoctrinated to believe in or don't even want to fight because of their own moral values.
>
>Expect your ass to be sent to Guantanamo to be kept there without a trial for as long as the government damn well pleases. If you're lucky you won't get the death penalty. And if you do you can still sue the company making the injections for making them lethal.


I dont know yet, but that may just be the funniest thing I read all week. We'll see come next Sunday.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 15:06:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>>No, I was point out the hypocrisy in the people bitching about our interventions elswhere and then complaining because we didn't intervene on their behalf.
>
>I KNOW, and it's completely flawed because it negates your original stance on foreign policy involvement.
>
How does pointing out anyone's hypocrisy affect my stance on foreign policy ?


 
breeze Posted: Mon May 16 15:29:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The death poll reached 700...

"If the reports of more than 700 deaths since Friday hold true and if Uzbek forces were behind the killing - as most reports indicate - it would be some of the worst cases of bloodshed involving a government's troops and civilian demonstrators since the massacre of protesters in China's Tiananmen Square in 1989."

- CBS News

"Although human rights groups have accused Uzbekistan's autocratic government of systematic use of torture in its police stations and prisons, Western governments' criticism has been muted because Tashkent is considered an ally in Washington's "war on terror," hosting a US military base on its territory."

- Associated Press



 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 15:55:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>How does pointing out anyone's hypocrisy affect my stance on foreign policy ?

Because you're saying that the US isn't moving in now since it would have a backlash with people saying you should butt out, yet that didn't stop America from invading Afghanistan and Iraq, or are you saying nobody expected the backlash from Iraq?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 16:29:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>How does pointing out anyone's hypocrisy affect my stance on foreign policy ?
>
>Because you're saying that the US isn't moving in now since it would have a backlash with people saying you should butt out, yet that didn't stop America from invading Afghanistan and Iraq, or are you saying nobody expected the backlash from Iraq?
>
No, that is not what I said, you put words in my mouth. I merely posed a question.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 16:31:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A question can be the same as any other statement when it's in a certain context, so yeah hif, I do think that was what you were saying.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 16:32:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And if that is not what you said, what's holding the US back now?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 16:41:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And if that is not what you said, what's holding the US back now?
>
That is most definitely not what I said.
As for what's holding us back now ?
Oh I don't know, maybe diplomacy ?
Maybe the fact that it doesn't affect our national security at this time.
Maybe we just don't like Uzbekistan. (no offense to you Breeze, just a stupid response to a stupid question)
Who knows right now ?
Why aren't you doing anything about it ?


 
FN Posted: Mon May 16 16:51:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Maybe the fact that it doesn't affect our national security at this time.

Yeah, Iraq most certainly did.

>Why aren't you doing anything about it?

I never pretended to be the judge and executioner of the world.

And as America seems to see it as it's duty to protect and save people from a dictarship regime like Saddam's, it seems to see itself in that role.

The judge seems to be corrupt though.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 17:48:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Maybe the fact that it doesn't affect our national security at this time.
>
>Yeah, Iraq most certainly did.
>
>>Why aren't you doing anything about it?
>
>I never pretended to be the judge and executioner of the world.
>
And yet seem more than ready to be the judge of America.

>And as America seems to see it as it's duty to protect and save people from a dictarship regime like Saddam's, it seems to see itself in that role.
>
you see it that way because you ignore what you don't want to hear.
I have posted several times, the reasons stated by America, why they went to Iraq, and every single time you ignored all but the WMD issue.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 17:49:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Maybe the fact that it doesn't affect our national security at this time.
>>
>>Yeah, Iraq most certainly did.
>>
>>>Why aren't you doing anything about it?
>>
>>I never pretended to be the judge and executioner of the world.
>>
>And yet seem more than ready to be the judge of America.
>
Should be "and yet you seem more than ready to be the judge of America"


 
Ahriman Posted: Mon May 16 19:57:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The crisis in sudan seems like it should be getting some intervention or has everyone forgotten because it's Africa.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon May 16 20:03:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I recall quite a few people some time ago, several months or more, pushing for some sort of intervention in Sudan. Even some Senators. I remember watching C-SPAN one morning and they had Senator Brownback(?) on there presenting a case for intervention, and they got a flood of calls in support, and there were several groups as well pushing for intervention.

Obviously, nothing was done, and a month later Sudan kind of just fell off the radar. Like you said, forgotten because its africa, or something.




If everyone just came to their senses, and pledged allegiance not to a nation, not to a religion, not to a tribe, not to an ethnicity, but instead to ME, then we wouldnt have these problems.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon May 16 20:08:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Sudan ?
Well the UN has been there for a long time now, doing the same good things that they always do.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon May 16 20:11:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Which is to say, next to nothing.


 
kurohyou Posted: Mon May 16 22:40:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't think you could say that either the war in Kosovo or the war in Iraq were carried out for one sole purpose, be that purpose humanitarian, or oil.

A single action can have multiple objectives and often does. That came action can have much broader consequences than expected or anticipated. Thus the need for compassion, foresight and understanding is necessary before making any decison, be it a governmetal decison or a personal one. I don't believe that neither example which has been presented here had a sole purpose, despite the PR or media spin, from whatever side it may come from. Nor were were they thought through completly before they were embarked upon.

I'm a believer that those who are stronger need to protect those who are not as strong, and therefore believe that some intervention should take place. But not only in Uzbekistan, but in any part of the world where these types of things are being seen, be it Africa, Asia or the Middle East. The catch to that is that America on its own, doesn't have the military resources to cover every humanitarian violation out there, even if we weren't strung out in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I believe that as some point a global shift in thinking needs to take place. A shift away from violence as an answer. Violence begats violence. You can quell a rebellion, or stop an insurgency in the short run. But the ideas which bred that action to begin with will remain. And while it may go away for a while, it will still grow, until it is strong enough to raise its head again, and then you are back to where you are now, only maybe you've bought yourself 10 or 15 years, if that.


On a related note. We all sit here and debate this as a political topic. We have the advantage of distance, and space, an advantage which those who have family and friends over there do not have. I don't know what it must be like to watch these events unfold, but Breeze, I'm keeping you and your family in my thoughts, as I'm sure many of us are.

For what it's worth...


 
Silentmind Posted: Tue May 17 00:11:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  When people actually want democracy, America ignores it. When America feels a people need democracy, they force it.


America is an economic power, and a military power in decline. Economically, they are failing. Foreign investment is declining, not increasing and this is the first sign that a country is in decline. So the Americans do two things. They create conflicts to distract the people from the domestic problems they face. Secondly, they try and stimulate growth by going into areas like Iraq that hold economic potential. They attempt to force foreign trade. This method has been tried throughout history, and has failed.


 
sweet p Posted: Tue May 17 00:13:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Disasters.
Planet Earth is a fucking sad place.
: (


 
mat_j Posted: Tue May 17 05:59:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The Sudan ?
>Well the UN has been there for a long time now, doing the same good things that they always do.

Cleaning up someone elses mess... hey i ain't pointing no fingers!


 
addi Posted: Tue May 17 07:08:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sweet P said:
>Disasters.
>Planet Earth is a fucking sad place.
>: (

sigh

planet earth is a fucking sad place..full of fucking sad people. The things we justify in the name of our chosen god.
I'm talking about christians and muslims and hindus and jews...every last damn one of them.
I'm talking about Americans and Belgians and Sudanese and Brazilians...the whole fucking planet.

As i write this very post there is some mother holding her child about to be killed out of ignorant hatred somewhere in the world.

I'm generally an optimistic person with a positive outlook on life, but sometimes it's just so fucking overwhelming that you can't ignore it. We rise to such great heights; We sink to such unimaginable lows as a species.

I sit here typing this morning with my Starbuck's coffee, a refrigirator full of food, a car, my health, money, toys...completely separated from the horrors thousands of people are facing today. I'm clueless about what pain and how the agony of just existing really is for so many people.

bleh


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 17 07:11:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Sweet P said:
>>Disasters.
>>Planet Earth is a fucking sad place.
>>: (
>
>sigh
>
>planet earth is a fucking sad place..full of fucking sad people. The things we justify in the name of our chosen god.
>I'm talking about christians and muslims and hindus and jews...every last damn one of them.
>I'm talking about Americans and Belgians and Sudanese and Brazilians...the whole fucking planet.
>
>As i write this very post there is some mother holding her child about to be killed out of ignorant hatred somewhere in the world.
>
>I'm generally an optimistic person with a positive outlook on life, but sometimes it's just so fucking overwhelming that you can't ignore it. We rise to such great heights; We sink to such unimaginable lows as a species.
>
>I sit here typing this morning with my Starbuck's coffee, a refrigirator full of food, a car, my health, money, toys...completely separated from the horrors thousands of people are facing today. I'm clueless about what pain and how the agony of just existing really is for so many people.
>
And nothing has changed since the dawn of time and it won't change because that is human nature.
People have always been full of hate and ignorance.
The only difference now is 24 hour news so we can see it as it happens and people say "what's happened to our world" ?
Nothing has happened, it's always been that way.


 
addi Posted: Tue May 17 07:32:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Nothing has happened, it's always been that way.

I know, hif. The downside of advanced communication technology. In the past it went on and people not in the immediate area were oblivious to it, at least for awhile. Now we heard about every damn tragedy two minutes after it happened from the most remote corners of the planet.

I'll snap out of it..it's just that sometimes I am embaressed to be a human.


 
FN Posted: Tue May 17 07:53:43 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>I dont know yet, but that may just be the funniest thing I read all week. We'll see come next Sunday.

Funny because it's true?


 
FN Posted: Tue May 17 07:59:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And nothing has changed since the dawn of time and it won't change because that is human nature.
>People have always been full of hate and ignorance.

That much we agree on, and it's not that what's bothering me either. It's the fact that, in this case America, is trying to make itself look like something it's not: the selfless altruistic saviour of the world with only the general good in mind. If from the very start the tone would have been "we want the oil/whatever so we're going to take it, and if some people get "liberated" because of it, that's a nice bonus too", instead of the other way around, I would have had much less problems with the whole thing, and I mean that. I just get irritated by that fake holiness thing Bush is trying to put across.


 
addi Posted: Tue May 17 08:07:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I just get irritated by that fake holiness thing Bush is trying to put across.

amen

*and i'll add that every time i read the word "irritated" from you, chris, i smile
: )


 
kurohyou Posted: Tue May 17 10:31:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I'll snap out of it..it's just that sometimes I am embaressed to be a human.

Well said. Sometimes it is embarassing.




 
DanSRose Posted: Tue May 17 13:52:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This is why I'm depressed.

I blame God directly, if one exists. If not, that's fucking scary. Responibility is fucking scary.

funny, but there's a story like this in the new Chuck Palahniuk


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 17 14:32:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>>That much we agree on, and it's not that what's bothering me either. It's the fact that, in this case America, is trying to make itself look like something it's not: the selfless altruistic saviour of the world with only the general good in mind. If from the very start the tone would have been "we want the oil/whatever so we're going to take it, and if some people get "liberated" because of it, that's a nice bonus too", instead of the other way around, I would have had much less problems with the whole thing, and I mean that. I just get irritated by that fake holiness thing Bush is trying to put across.
>
Too much penis envy from the Belgian contingent.


 
FN Posted: Tue May 17 15:40:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Too much penis envy from the Belgian contingent.

It's not because there are a lot of dicks over there that anybody here suffers from penis envy, although I'm sure you'd like that to be the case.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]