Re: Isalm - to

July 29, 2005

Shaun,

" Maybe you should ask the Shia and Kurd population if we should have

ignored Saddam. Thats not the answer, evil flourishes when good men

do nothing. "

We should have ignored them. The Shia and Khurds were within the

country of Iraq. Therefore it was an internal problem and none of

our affair. They could have banded together and overthrew the regeme

but instead they wanted US help. We gave it to them, and now most

Muslims hate us, terrorists bombed us, the Shia and Khurds that we

employ in the new Iraqi army defect in droves, and are not providing

any thanks whatsoever for what we've done for them.

" What about the Sudan. Should the world say to them, your government

is killing you, we can do nothing to help. Don't think so. "

The biggest employer in the Sudan is the government, and the largest

segment of the population they employ is the Sudanese citizenry in

Sudanese Army jobs. The rebels also are composed of Sudanese. It is

the Sudanese people that are klling themselves. They made the mess,

they can clean it up.

" It funny an aspie talking about letting the bullies have their way.

As you know Tom, bullies never respond to kind words. In fact, it

makes for more attacks. "

Agreed, but if you steer clear of bullies, they won't touch you

unless they seek you out, in which case THEN you are well within

your rights to defend yourself.

" Now the Shia and Kurd are the minority of Iraqis, over 70%, should

we allow them to be continually persecuted? They have expressed

their desire by voting. Who is anyone to deny their right?

The Sunni are making hell for Iraq because they themselves want

power. "

And the majority of the people in the Iraqi army are from these

populations, yet they defect from it in droves. They have no

commitment to their own defense, and so why should we? I see no

point in making any further commitment to them if they are going to

defect at the first challenges against them. My people have spilt

enough blood for unappreciative people such as the Iraqis.

" I wonder where the world would be now if the USA stayed out of WW2.?

S. "

In a sort of earthly Nazi hell because no other country was willing

to risk themselves the way the US did during the D-Day. Every single

suppressed country could have banded their navies together and made

a similar invasion long before we did, and then pushed across Europe

to drice the Nazis back, but none of them did. So the US had to come

to the rescue.

50 years later as we liberate Iraq, France thumbs its nose at us

even though the only reason there IS a France is because the US

reovered it for them. And the Iraquis are thumbing their noses at

the US even as we speak.

Internal matters should be solved internally.

Now I said I wanted and end to this topic and here it ends. Or else!

Tom

Tom,

Maybe you should ask the Shia and Kurd population if we should have

ignored Saddam. Thats not the answer, evil flourishes when good men

do nothing.

What about the Sudan. Should the world say to them, your government

is killing you, we can do nothing to help. Don't think so.

It funny an aspie talking about letting the bullies have their way.

As you know Tom, bullies never respond to kind words. In fact, it

makes for more attacks.

Now the Shia and Kurd are the minority of Iraqis, over 70%, should

we allow them to be continually persecuted? They have expressed

their desire by voting. Who is anyone to deny their right?

The Sunni are making hell for Iraq because they themselves want

power.

I wonder where the world would be now if the USA stayed out of WW2.?

S.

July 29, 2005

OK, , my very very last words on this topic just to clear up the misunderstanding.

I wrote:

>> I really will not stay if you are going to continue JUSTIFYING the killing of millions of innocents, just because A FEW fanatical individuals did the same to some in the US, London and Spain.

replied:

> Again, I did not say nuke them for the London or 9/11 attacks. I was talking about a response if we were Nuked first. Retaliation in kind would be an option, but one we are not likely to use.

I understood perfectly well that you didn't say "Hey, let's nuke them." But you unequivocally implied that you might find it satisfactory (or some similar sentiment) if the Arabs were dumb enough to nuke Israel so that Israel would have a justifiable reason to retaliate and nuke them back; thus getting rid of as many troublemakers as possible in the Middle East (along with thousands or millions of innocents) without the US having to participate at all. Was I wrong in this interpretation of your words?

I really don't want to see anyone get nuked all and would not feel the leat bit of glee or enthusiasm over a nuclear war in the Middle East. It is REAL LIVING, FEELING PEOPLE we are talking about here, not targets in a computer game.

Inger - off for a swim now :-I

July 29, 2005

because my speech is being curtailed by the "powers" that be, I wont say anything besides SPOT ON.

S.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

Tom,

Yes talking about war and actually fighting it are two different things. Anyone who has read my posts over time will see that I prefer defending the homeland first and striking at the terro leaders and training camps, not whole countries. As I have said, Afganistan was justified because that country held Bin Laudin and vowed to fight to keep him safe.

I don't think think America is too arrogant or powerful. The fact is that Islam has always been a relgion of violence. When Mohammed died in the 700 AD range, Islam spread within 100 years more than Christianity had in 800. The reason for this was that Muslim warriors spread it by the sword. They conquored through Spain and nearly to Paris before they were defeated by Martel at Tours in 732. Had they not been stopped, all of Europe would have been muslim. It took hundreds of years of containment and fighting to drive them out of Spain again. They had also been active in Eastern Europe, reaching as far as Austria. War was constant there up through WW1. The Crusades were in part a response to this.

It is so frustrating to keep hearin that the US and England are solely to blame for things don ein the last 5 years. This mess has been going on for over a thousand years! We are only the latest in the line having to

1) Tell the Israelis that they must leave Israel, because the fact is, they stole the entire country. They claimed it because they say it is ordained by God that they should have it, but the Arabs have a God too, and they did NOT persecute Jews while they lived in Palestine.

The Isrealis did not steal Isreal. They were given a piece of the Palestinian Mandate byt the British after WW2, something done with UN support, though I don't recall the exact name and number of the agreement. Many jews had already settled there by then and had begun work on the land. Before the jews came, the land was largely desert or swamp. They worked the land and make it useful. Because of this and the Jews starting businesses, Arabs came. Because the British restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine for decades before WW2, arab immigration outpaced Jewish by 7 to 1. As the land was fallow, so was population scarce. It was the Jews making a go of it that attracted Arabs looking for jobs. Palestine would still be a backwater but for them.

As for stealing, most land was given to them by the UN and British or purchased legally by the Jews. They did capture a lot of land in war, but they were attacked first. As has been the case for all of human history, the winner takes the land. The Arabs have attacked and lost ground every time. Isreal has been giving land back trying to gain peace, but it is not working.

3) Jack up oil prices to $5.00 a gallon. That way the Arabs would make enough profit to keep their citizens in reasonable comfort and wealth while we would stop hogging it all and using it up.

This is a bad idea. The Arab countries already make a fortune on oil, but very little of it reaches the people. Most of it goes to the ruling families and more is siphoned off through the enormous corruption in those countries. One of the people in my class owned a company that worked with the Saudis. Every single person in the chain over there takes their cut. Contracts cost 2 or 3 times what they should because of this. Giving them more money for oil won't help the people at all, rather it will just bolster the bad regimes and funnel more money to the terrorists. Kuwait is making and effort and so Bahrain and Qatar, but the rest are not, especially not Saudi.

4)Become more isolationist and stop trying to cowtow to the demands of other world leaders to the detriment of the welfare of American citizenry.

I would agree here. The US often has to do the military hard work of the UN and Europe because they are unwilling. The EU let the killing in Bosnia go on for several years, even allowing the "Safe Havens" be turned in to concentration camps or the people their outright murdered, and did nothing. So the US had to come along and sort things out, which the Clinton administration sort of botched. Should have left that to the Euros: if they wanted to solve it fine, if they wanted another continental war, which was very close to happening before we stepped in, then that is fine too.

5) Dump and destroy all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Why not take the initiative?

Not practical at all. The US does not have bioweapons. We do limited research into defense against such weapons but have no stocks of them nor means to make them. WE do have some chemical weapons, which I don't think we will ever use. There are some non lethals that we could use, but the way UN policy is written, even that is likely to backfire. This even though in cases it would make more sense to hit an area with BZ (a non-lethal based on LSD that leaves people confused and passive and has also been shown to be next to impossible to die from) than flattening it with bombs and artillery. It would also be good for counter terror operations.

Getting rid of nukes would, however, be pointless. We tried setting the example in the 1970's both in nuclear and conventional terms, but the Russians went right on outbuilding us in terms of numbers and for that time, quality. Eliminating nukes now would have the same effect. China and North Korea would only laugh at us and see us as weaklings for doing that. The Muslim Terrorists would too. Weakness invites attack. I'm not saying that we will ever use nukes and that some of the older models couldn't be scrapped, but we can't get rid of them all altogether.

As for letting this topic lie for a while, that's ok with me. It was getting tiresome being accuses of supporting genocide for merely pointing out what could happen and why. Unfortunately, in the past, many of my predictions have come true.

Start your day with - make it your home page

July 30, 2005

In a message dated 7/29/2005 10:38:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, vze2txm3@... writes:

Yes, no planning to nuke countries on this forum. If you do launch a few nukes, please do not use this forum do do it.

Here it is again. I was not advocating nuking anyone. I was simply pointing out the probabilites of what could happen based on current policies. I would appreciate the "peace" wing laying off its attacks on me.

July 30, 2005

Well it seems my posts have not been read but those of my detractors have. So, now that I have been successfully tarred as a genocidal maniac what to do?

1) I could kiss the feet of my detractors in an effort to curry their favor and have the sentence lifted.

2) I can continue on as before.

3) I can play the role assigned me and really ham up my new Stalinist image.

4) I can leave the boards, not going to happen of my own choosing.

But for the last time stated emphatically and finally:

I do not support nuking anyone. I simply pointed out what could happen given the policy of nations today. I said that if a nation nuked another and was nuked in return, I would not grieve for them, though I would feel sorry for the victims of the initial attack. This would be especially true of another 9/11 attack where the innocent citizens of one nation were slaughtered by terrorists of another.

My detractors seem to think this makes me a monster. I on the other hand question why they place so little value on the lives of their country and cultural kin and so much on the lives of those who mean to destroy us.

July 30, 2005

In a message dated 7/30/2005 7:48:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

You really did indicate that you wouldn't exactly be sorry if they wiped each other out, and clearly stated that you thought the US should have invaded Iran first. This to me seems very much like propagating for killing and war.

This is the only point I will address here. No, I would not be upset if they kept their fighting to themselves. This does not, however, entail that they completely kill each other off. Rather, if the muslim went back to fighting each other like they have for most of their history instead of focussing on the West, then we would indeed be better off.

It is a catch-22 situation. The radical muslims are also attacking their own people and have been for some time. If we try to stop them, we play into their hands by making more moderate muslims angry at us. So the best thing to do is pull back to the sidelines and keep all the fighting in their home field and away from our people. Also not being in the middle east would take away the bulk of the argument the radicals have against the west. Let them claim victory if they want, those troops will be back home guarding the gates in case they come calling again.

I do believe that Iran was a better target than Iraq. The reasoning there is quite simple. After 1991, Sadaam learned that there were limits to what he could get away with. Further, he was beginning to see that he could gain all the money and power he wanted with his oil. Strange that he only realized that after he invaded Kuwait. Yes we would still have to watch him closely, but he wasn't much threat beyond his borders.

Iran, on the other hand, is a major state sponsor of terrorism. They fund groups in Lebannon, Palestine and elsewhere. Now they are making a strong bid to get nuclear weapons, which they have said they will use. The mullahs have a small and declining power base with a population weary of them. This makes it likely that efforts to remove them would have been well recieved. It still would not have been easy, but a greater threat to world peace would have been removed. Sadaam could have been kept in his box financily, the mullahs won't be so tractable.

Yes that is advocating war and yes people will die. In the big picture, however, it might well have been best in the long run. If the Iranian mullahs had been removed from power and the nuclear weapons plan stopped, millions of lives could have been saved in the future. By not risking a fe thousand lives in the near term we are set up for much worse in the future. Hopefully they will yet somehow be stopped before they do carry out their threat.

It is unfortunate, but we live in a world with nasty people in it. Those nasty people won't stop doing bad things unless they are stopped. There is still an option for Iran short of war. Stopping the Russians from finishing those nuclear plants and keeping certain devices away from Iran would be a major help. Tightening immigration and increasing intelligence regarding potential terrorists would also help a great deal. Failing that, however, things could turn ugly in the future.

I really don't think negotiations are going to work with these mullahs. We could pull out of the middle east and remove all the Jews from Isreal, but I don't think that would stop them. Part of it is that they have been selling their people hate for so long, in large part to distract them from how badly they were running the country and stealing all the money, that they are trapped by their own rhetoric. They can't back down even if they wanted to, which I don't think they do. So the only option is containment, which means not letting them have nukes and restricting trade, or removing the mullahs and their terror infrastructure.

Right now I think the world's capital for invasions has been spent. I also think that too many countries see too many rubles to be made selling dangerous technology. So the only thing to do is increase defenses on the home front and hope to catch the nukes before they can do harm. That and hope the Isrealis don't try to bomb the Iranian nuclear plant like they did Sadaam's back in the 1970's. That would really create a mess. Then again, the Iranians have lots of it underground and have heavy anti-aircraft weaponry around it, odd for a civilian project.

Lastly, I have not been in the military. However, I have studied military history and the related political and economic reason for many wars. There is a pattern to these things, many I should say as many as there are reasons to go to war. The terrorists are something new and something old. They have been refining their art on other muslims for centuries and now they are after us. We don't have the experience with it yet to fully appreciate what they can do.

When you look back and see how one small group, the Assassins, tried to rule the whole of the muslim world through terror, it is clear that we face a real problem. The Assassins actually did have a good degree of control because the muslim leaders, religious and secular alike feared being killed at any time. It took the British to finally put an end to them.

We've never faced a group like that. Sure some noisy and dangerous local groups like the IRA, but nothing like the Assassins. Most groups we faced didn't last overly long in the face of determined opposition. That the IRA lasted so long was more the exception than the rule.

July 30, 2005

Shaun,

Well stated and I agree. Perhaps my problem was trying to be too technical in my explanations. Yes sometimes violence must be used to end violence, but that is only the first step. In the case of radical islam and the dictators of Africa, there is a whole culture that must be undone as well. The muslims need to be persuaded by the moderates until the radicals have too few numbers to support them. This is beginning to happen in Iraq and especially in some western nations. This is a good thing, even if in the West the sentiment is born from self-preservation. If they keep the message up long enough, it will sink in and the bad guys will lose support.

In Africa, the Tribes need to be taught to stop fighting each other and to come together as a nation to share the various resources. That is much of the damage caused by the warlords that must be undone. Granted in some places they haven't really learned about nations yet because the old Colonial nations were draw for the convenience of the masters and not the tribes who lived there. Hard to get behind a nation like that. So it is definitely a long term project. For that long term, only a stronger outside army will keep the sides peacable long enough for them to see the benefits of peace and not constant fighting.

July 30, 2005

,

I read your posts that night too, I found nothing of what you said offensive nor did it associate you with condoning genocide or the like.

I think it is all quite juvenile. If you isolate those few sentences, it looks bad but they were taken totally out of context.

To sum up what you were saying:

That if Iran did obtain nukes and used them on Israel ( (which they may cause those Mullahs, as you say, are a crazy bunch of mo fo's who believe in the apocalyptic end game), not only that, they hate what the sunni arabs did to them via Saddam.) They aint the most stable people.

Now he was saying, if they obtain a nuke they may use it on Israel, if they did that, Israel would launch 5 back. Total destruction and barren earth to cure at a later date.

did NOT condone nuclear war, au contraire, maybe it's an english thing again.

Shaun.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

Well it seems my posts have not been read but those of my detractors have. So, now that I have been successfully tarred as a genocidal maniac what to do?

1) I could kiss the feet of my detractors in an effort to curry their favor and have the sentence lifted.

2) I can continue on as before.

3) I can play the role assigned me and really ham up my new Stalinist image.

4) I can leave the boards, not going to happen of my own choosing.

But for the last time stated emphatically and finally:

I do not support nuking anyone. I simply pointed out what could happen given the policy of nations today. I said that if a nation nuked another and was nuked in return, I would not grieve for them, though I would feel sorry for the victims of the initial attack. This would be especially true of another 9/11 attack where the innocent citizens of one nation were slaughtered by terrorists of another.

My detractors seem to think this makes me a monster. I on the other hand question why they place so little value on the lives of their country and cultural kin and so much on the lives of those who mean to destroy us.

Start your day with - make it your home page

July 30, 2005

Tom, feel free to put me on moderation, I want to clear up this misunderstanding with .

And pre-apologies to other members; just skip this post if you're fed up with this topic.

,

First of all, I think Stan was just trying to be humorous, so no need to take it personally.

As for your "detractors" there is only me, and I would not call you a genocidal maniac. I understand that you're upset over a culture encouraging suicide-killings of innocent people. So am I.

I just don't think the best way to deal with it is to nurture and spread the notion that they are ALL like that; that our own culture is all good and theirs is all bad when both have their benefits and limitations; or that a good portion of them being killed (by us or by each other) is going to solve the problem.

You really did indicate that you wouldn't exactly be sorry if they wiped each other out, and clearly stated that you thought the US should have invaded Iran first. This to me seems very much like propagating for killing and war.

You having a military background, I can undertand that you have been trained to view people as friends or enemies and to not be squeamish about swiftly disposing of the latter. I totally respect your right to have such sentiments, but this is not the place to propagate for them. You can create your own forum for that if you wish.

But I do not want to see you leave these forums. I very much appreciate your contribution here, admire your eloquence and vast and detailed knowledge on such a wide variety of topics and usually find you an interesting person to communicate with.

I know you are no monster; if I thought you were, I wouldn't bother talking with you at all. I just this once had to put my foot down when I thought you were going a bit too far. Is it not true that for a while there, you were working yourself up about this to the point where you really did forget that they are humans of flesh and blood over there, and that my pointing this out got you to at least stop and think about it for a second and somewhat temper your way of expressing yourself? That's all I wanted really.

As for "placing so little value on the lives of our country and cultural kin," have I said that I don't value Americans and their lives? My relatives, my BF and most of my online friends are American. I don't want to see a single American hurt by terrorists. But I don't want to see anyone else hurt either. I tend to think globally and view us all as brothers and sisters sitting in the same boat (= on the same planet). OK, so some cultures may POSSIBLY be A LITTLE more mature than others - perhaps in "2nd grade" - while others are still in "Kindergarten." But IF that is the case, then those who consider themselves SLIGHTLY more advanced also have a responsibility to not to act as if they are still in the sandbox.

For example by respecting other cultures and not meddling needlessly. I don't want to start up another war here, but terrorism is not born out of nothing.

The IRA was born out of being colonized and rather brutally repressed by the British,

The NAC from Apartheid, Indochina turning into communist Vietnam as a reaction to French colonization.

Though a bit undiplomatically put - and probably a very unsuitable topic for this list as we have many Jewish members of whom we are very fond and do not wish to insult - Tom did have a point about Israel (though you were correct about it being the British and the UN who short-changed the Palestinians and went back on their promise after first using them as allies). The US has actively supported Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and hardly anyone but Sweden has ever protested.

If I'm not mistaken, the US put Saddam in office in the first place? The US supplied the weapons to the Talibans? Bush had a company with Osama's brother? The US helped kick out the Shah, paving the way for the religious leaders to take over? That the Arabs are reacting like this is not something that just happens out of the blue because they are inherently evil and have nothing better to do than to blow up innocent civilians. The West has constantly been there meddling, trying to gain political, military and economical advantage of one kind or another and playing all sorts of chess games behind the scenes, and now these rather proud, temperamental - and yes, some also quite fanatical and uncompromising- folks have been pushed too far to reason with. They have been manipulated so much that they don't trust the West anymore - and rightly so! And now no one wants to lay in the bed they have let their own elected leaders make. If we choose more enlightened leaders next time, we'll be able to sleep better at night.

Oops, this turned into a bit of a rant. Sorry.

I accept whatever sentence our supreme judge chooses to give me.

I really will try to shut up now.

Inger

Re: Isalm - to

Well it seems my posts have not been read but those of my detractors have. So, now that I have been successfully tarred as a genocidal maniac what to do?

1) I could kiss the feet of my detractors in an effort to curry their favor and have the sentence lifted.

2) I can continue on as before.

3) I can play the role assigned me and really ham up my new Stalinist image.

4) I can leave the boards, not going to happen of my own choosing.

But for the last time stated emphatically and finally:

I do not support nuking anyone. I simply pointed out what could happen given the policy of nations today. I said that if a nation nuked another and was nuked in return, I would not grieve for them, though I would feel sorry for the victims of the initial attack. This would be especially true of another 9/11 attack where the innocent citizens of one nation were slaughtered by terrorists of another.

My detractors seem to think this makes me a monster. I on the other hand question why they place so little value on the lives of their country and cultural kin and so much on the lives of those who mean to destroy us.

July 30, 2005

OK, IF I really did misinterpret, I apologize.

Inger

Re: Isalm - to

,

I read your posts that night too, I found nothing of what you said offensive nor did it associate you with condoning genocide or the like.

I think it is all quite juvenile. If you isolate those few sentences, it looks bad but they were taken totally out of context.

To sum up what you were saying:

That if Iran did obtain nukes and used them on Israel ( (which they may cause those Mullahs, as you say, are a crazy bunch of mo fo's who believe in the apocalyptic end game), not only that, they hate what the sunni arabs did to them via Saddam.) They aint the most stable people.

Now he was saying, if they obtain a nuke they may use it on Israel, if they did that, Israel would launch 5 back. Total destruction and barren earth to cure at a later date.

did NOT condone nuclear war, au contraire, maybe it's an english thing again.

Shaun.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

Well it seems my posts have not been read but those of my detractors have. So, now that I have been successfully tarred as a genocidal maniac what to do?

1) I could kiss the feet of my detractors in an effort to curry their favor and have the sentence lifted.

2) I can continue on as before.

3) I can play the role assigned me and really ham up my new Stalinist image.

4) I can leave the boards, not going to happen of my own choosing.

But for the last time stated emphatically and finally:

I do not support nuking anyone. I simply pointed out what could happen given the policy of nations today. I said that if a nation nuked another and was nuked in return, I would not grieve for them, though I would feel sorry for the victims of the initial attack. This would be especially true of another 9/11 attack where the innocent citizens of one nation were slaughtered by terrorists of another.

My detractors seem to think this makes me a monster. I on the other hand question why they place so little value on the lives of their country and cultural kin and so much on the lives of those who mean to destroy us.

Start your day with - make it your home page

July 30, 2005

Last time I swear,

Inger, unfortunately most people have not evolved to your level. Of course what you say is true. But humanity is just not that evolved yet.( (Maybe NT's as opposed to others) what does NT mean by the way, I know the sentiment not the term.))

There are dinosaurs out there that believe that if they can kill, humiliate, terrorise, they can obtain power and set the course for the future.

People have refered the new "coalition of the willing" as the world police, what's wrong with that? I disagree with isolationism. We have built a multi cultural world, united euros, wealthy china, we cannot allow people who blantantly abuse others, to survive. Warlords in Africa must cease to exist. I know the golden three dont like the idea of brute force in justice, but i do. There must be uniformed rule of law and ultimately fiscal justice for everyone worldwide. What world would we be in if any despot with an army can conquer his neighbor.

Violence must be stopped and if need be, stopped by violence.

Then we can all move forward.

S.Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote: