I think that most of the wars in Middle East and Africa are fault of our European ancestors.Colonialism.Our ancestors didnt give a shit where they drew the borders there. :bow:
Printable View
I think that most of the wars in Middle East and Africa are fault of our European ancestors.Colonialism.Our ancestors didnt give a shit where they drew the borders there. :bow:
Mm, good point PJ. I know that during the Civil War, it was unbalanced since the North had a lot of factories while the South had most of the farms. Perhaps the industries wouldn't work that well if they were divided up into ethicnic states.
same thing everywhere in the world, including Europe, the rulers of states never really care about the ethnicity of the subjects within their states. When some of those ethnicities decide that their culture would be better of in a state of its own or in the same state as their brethren acrooss a border then the rulers tend to get nasty.
You know there are more Kurds then Finnish people.Our forefathers took our independancy by force.And economically speaking.If you look how Northern countries like Sweden,Norway and Finland are doing you should also think that small can be beatiful too. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
I believe that small countries can do very well and are also very good at keeping small cultures thriving. However, a lot of bigger countries(U.K., France, Spain etc.) that contain many different smaller nations (as in ethnicity not nation state) do not like this one bit.
I'm a big fan of the smaller countries. I was just suggesting that a reason why the Kurds of Iraq are unlikely to get their own state at the moment is because of the amount of angry Turks, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians that will kick up a stink about it.
I was mainly talking about any existing industries. I mean, perhaps the Kurds get all the good farmland while another place would get all the good industuries, thus making the split impractical. This is doubtful, as I know nothing about the industries in Iraq or were they're located, but it's an example.
If my memory serves me correctly Scottish have self government.And the Irish already have their own country except Ulster(Northern Ireland).Why British have to have an foothold on Ireland?I think that Scottish too have their own country in future 50 years.About Basks.There you can see where terrorism grows. Only reason that ETA exists is that there is Bask people that nor Spain or France have not given freedom.If US is after liberty they should create national states in middle east.You have to have National state befofe you can join somekind of union. :bow:
saying stuff like "bring it on" (as Bush said to Muslim insurgents) and always declaring any opposition to the USA as "evil"; and the USA proudly thumping it's chest any time it captures or kills insurgents...in my view, all that certainly qualifies as picking a fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
as for them blowing up civilians "not fighting back": maybe it is not to me and you . but to them, it is fighting back. my point was that everybody knew the types of things that Al Qaida does prior to the London attack. therefore, for everyone to panic and be in shock & hysteria when London gets attacked (as they did), is illogical and unreasonable. London chose to engage in a war. the other side hit London back. everyone knew it was coming sooner or later.
as for the suggestion i should go move away and fight with them: i am not Muslim, therefore i feel no compelling reason take up Jihad. and i don't necessarily approve of everything they do. i simply understand why they are angry and vehemently hateful of those nations that are trying to steal Islam from them.
most like to think of secularists as "good" and those who truly believe in Islam as "evil". i disagree with that assessment. we are not better than them, in my view.
There is a lot of blurring of lines going on, but I think the simplest definition is:
Terrorism = irregulars attacking civilian targets simply to incite bloodshed and/or terror.
This gets hazy when there is an attack on a military target with "collateral damage" and civilians are killed who were not the targets.
The bomb attack on the USS Cole would qualify as more of a military strike (by irregulars) in my mind. (Hey, I don't agree with them, and as irregulars they would/should be subject to summary execution, but they did stick to a military target.) The Afghan war vs. the Soviets was a fairly standard rebellion against a coup. Terrorism was most certainly part of it, but the struggle itself was legitimate.
Chechnya is interesting. Russia was flat out wrong in launching the first war with Chechnya. The Russian army got its butt kicked. That wasn't terrorism by the Chechens. However, after gaining some autonomy, the Chechens began carrying out terrorist attacks on their neighbors. So the Russians went back in. What an absolute mess. When the Chechens target civilians, it is terrorism. When they target the military, it is rebellion. I had sympathy for them the Chechens the first time out, but I have none for them now.
Now I can get myself into trouble here...but attacks on true military targets in Iraq are not terrorism. They do have some flavor of terrorism because of the way they are conducted, and mainly because they are often done by men posing as civilians. As such they are in a reprehensible category of irregular warfare that at one time was subject to summary on the spot execution (and should be again.) The hostage taking, the attacks on civilians, assassinations, etc. are indeed terrorism.
So while I'm inclined to say let's hunt down and execute the insurgents targeting our forces, I'm not inclined to call them terrorists for attacks on our forces. When they attack civilians, they get the terrorist label. In many cases they are indistinguishable and attacking both, and are therefore simply terrorists.
Well said i couldnt agree with you more. ~:cheers:Quote:
So while I'm inclined to say let's hunt down and execute the insurgents targeting our forces, I'm not inclined to call them terrorists for attacks on our forces. When they attack civilians, they get the terrorist label. In many cases they are indistinguishable and attacking both, and are therefore simply terrorists.
“The reason Al Queda hates the US and the UK is because we humiliated Hussein in the first Gulf War”: Rubbish: Before the 1st Gulf War, Iraq was a secular state… Saddam killed the high ranking Imams… Al-Qa’ida is made mainly by Saudis.
The Taliban were trained and educated in the Madrasa in Pakistan, main allies of the US in the Region. Osama Bin Laden was happy to have his revenge on Saddam, doubly happy because it was done by an other enemy (they killed each other, less job to do), and couldn’t hind his joy for the beautiful new training centre where every frustrated and fanatic anti-US/Westerners will be able to kill… ~:cheers:
“How does helping them get rid of a soviet occupation give them justification to attack us”: Pz, never try to find logic in terrorism (what we call logic, especially the religious one. They kill you to save your soul, remember Torquemada and the Holly Inquisition?). But, unfortunately, the US chooses the wrong ally in helping the resistance against the Russians. The CIA agreed to eat with the Devil, and to equip him. All the good fables for children know how it finishes. :dizzy2:
Al-Qa’ida attacked the US despite the help against the Soviet, because for Osam (who, I repeat, isn’t Afghan and never fought against the Spetnatz himself but smuggled and sold weapons), the first degree of evil is atheism, the second degree is to be polytheists and the third to be Non-Muslim. The fault (or mistake) of the US was to underestimate Osama’s fanatism and to fail to see he will turn against them. As a Saudi (Wahhabit), no non-Muslim should be allowed on the Holly Land of Saudi Arabia, land of the Mecca. So, the American became a legitimate target…
“No, in fact, just tell me what we did to them to cause them to feel their attacks are justified”: Just the fact that we exist (we, me included, French) is enough for them. They are racists, intolerant. They are fanatic, sacrificing others lives and avoiding carefully going to martyrdom themselves… They are the Old Men in the Mountain… :devil:
“To get rid of base support we spread democracy and economic prosperity in the Middle East”: Well, unfortunately, it isn’t so easy. Robespierre, quiet famous in France said one day the People don’t like armed prophet… That was just before France started wars to spread revolution in Europe to get rid of tyranny and to free other countries without theirs agreement on the matters. It finished in 1814 and 1815 in Waterloo…
Osama Bin Laden was one of the richest men on Earth. In 1995, when bombs exploded in the subway in Paris and Lyon, the culprits were not from the poorest emigrates but were well educated and successful students and businessmen for emigration and newly converted… Development isn’t the only key, nor democracy…
“Rich, poor, young, old, there's only two things that unite these people 1) They're Wahabbist and 2) They want the rest of the world to be”. The Islamists in Indonesia aren’t… The Hezbollah in Lebanon isn’t. Nor is the Sudanese Government which imposed the Sharia upon the Christian and polytheist minorities…
That is where, in my opinion, we are mistaken. They aren’t Muslim, they are Nazi. They have an idea of the world based on superiority and inferiority. Their view date from the Old Ottoman Empire, where to be Muslim means to rule and the others just left with the possibility to live if they submit and pay the price for their life, but denied from every right.
The Iraq war didn’t create a recruitment field for Ben Laden. The occupation and all the events during the so-called interim-period did. Paul Bremer created a “state” where all the rules can’t be changed by the future elected government. No way will they be able to decide to be something else than a so-called liberal economy, they won’t be able to renegotiate the oil contract, etc…
I worked in the Kurdish area after Desert storm Operation and Provide comfort, and the Kurds succeeded (too well for the Turkish taste) in self government without any foreign troops on their soil, protected from Saddam retribution by the Denied fly Zone. So, yes, the Bremer administration was set-up just for the plunder of Iraq and the juicy repartition of contracts between the thieves… This politic was just a fertilizer spread on a good rich terrain. I admit it was a real concern that the Shiites could have overrun Iraq with the help of their Iranian cousins and brothers, reason why Saddam was allowed to save his Republican Guards during the 1st Gulf War and to crush the revolt in Basra.
“In fact, its become very questionable whether the US ever had anything to do with Osama”: No, it isn’t. The US used him to buy and smuggled weapons, as an intermediary. He belongs to one of the most powerful family of Saudi Arabia, strong US ally. ~D
“Are Chechen fighters terrorists?” Yes, they are, but also murderers, kidnapers. The fact they Russians are hardly better isn’t an excuse.
“I believe that small countries can do very well and are also very good at keeping small cultures thriving. However, a lot of bigger countries(U.K., France, Spain etc.) that contain many different smaller nations (as in ethnicity not nation state) do not like this one bit”: All these countries are Democracies were all these nationalist parties lost all elections. See Corsica in France, the Corsican clearly stated they wanted to stay French, like in Canada when the majority of the French Canadians stated they preferred to stay in Canada than to become independent.
Do not mix will of violent extremists (or less violent like in Canada) and will of the majority in Democracies. :book:
What to do to end this mess? Negotiate with the nationalists insurgents; give real power to the Iraqi Government, judge Saddam as soon as possible in a real court, not this masquerade… Will it work? No idea, but let’s try…
I was just saying that multinational democracies don't give up the territory of smaller nations easily. In the future if the Kurds all voted for independence would the main Iraqi govt. be willing to grant it to them? They could easily say "well, this is a democracy and only a minority want an independent Kurdish state so it would be undemocratic to make one". A very similar thing happened when the Spanish Basques overwhelmingly supported a constitution that was different to that implemented after Franco's death: the excuse was basically "well, this is a democratic country and the majority of its people did not vote with you".
Nationalist parties do not necesarily gather all the votes of those who want greater degrees of independence and cultural recognition: just look at the ranks of the different unionist parties of the U.K. Consider the referenda held on the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly: both gained majority support and were implemented by a unionist party. I don't think that the votes for nationalist parties in different democracies really demonstrate the level of support for self determination and cultural survival.
Sorry, I do blabber on. Anyway, some English people in the media, actually some amongst the general public and the political elite, were furious that the Scots and Welsh wanted a more significant say in their own affairs.
Contrary what others may have said, I, for one, do not believe the mere expression of opposition to appeasement is prima facie evidence of intoxication.
I, however, will go beyond the mere opposition of appeasement.
We have suicidal enemies who are doing everything they possibly can to kill us. If we allow them, sooner or later, they will. We need to kill as many of them as we can as soon as we can, but ultimately, the solution is deterrence. Not easily obtained. But because something is not easy does not mean it is not the solution.
But we have done it before. We turned an entire nation of maniacal, suicidal Kamikaze fanatics into surrender monkeys in a period of three days. How? By vanquishing them. Utterly and totally. Convincing them in no uncertain terms that everything they held to be of importance faced certain annihilation if their behavior continued.
By contrast, today's terrorists understand that their families will be financially, and enormously, compensated for their selfless heroism. They have no fear whatsoever, (much less than any metaphysical certitude) that the Fallujahan home in which their mothers and baby sisters occupy is destined to become a tinderbox. They instead send their families away (along with their Al Qaeda leadership) and get the glorious, ultimate, house-to-house jihad with the Marines they seek in the first place.
The terrorists are not supermen and they are not animals; they are human beings. As were the Japanese, they are capable of anguish, grief, pain, suffering, and ultimately despair and disillusionment like any other human beings when properly inflicted. IMO, those are indisputable human truths; but you can't be worried about civilians. Indeed, civilians must be the targets. We are alive today in large part because our predecessors like FDR, Truman, and Generals Curtis LeMay and Hap Arnold had the courage to face those terrible decisions head on. We intentionally, and willingly inflicted suffering upon millions of civilians as a fundamental core strategy of unconditional surrender and total victory.
Call me evil, just as bad as them, whatever. But make sure you call those heroes evil as well. Because they did what they had to do to win.
And ask yourself if you want to win or lose? And none of this "If we do this, we let the terrorists win" crap. I'll define winning and losing very simply: Do you want your children to live or die? Because yesterday was merely another reminder that they are coming to LA, they are coming to DC. They will use WMD on our civilians when they get them. And our children are going to die.
I'd never, ever call that winning. I will say it: if you kill innocents, then you've lost, and you're as bad as them. Basic surivival isn't enough. If you do so, then you're no better than animals, killing each other for a next meal.
Yeah, I'm a wus, a bleeding heart. But it is never, ever, ever ok to kill innocents. What you are advocating will turn every last Muslim against us. It would turn the average Joe Muslim into a suicide bomber. It would make everything that they say about us true. And in the end, if we did somehow win, it wouldn't be worth it. Because while your children might be alive, countless of other innocent children would be dead.
And about Japan: the people who ordered the destruction of those innocents should have been tried, and locked up indefinetly. They were murders, pure in simple in my eyes. That includes the Presidents.
how the hell did I get so off topic???
Why i get ignored?Do you americans think that i am pro terrorist In my country i am an right winger,but for your standards im leftie. :bow:
Well its because you have a low post count and your from Finland for Petes sake!!!! What do you expect? ~DQuote:
Why i get ignored?
Seriously if your speaking of this
Yes there has to be a common bond. In most of these countries instead of a bond they have a genuine hatred of anyone who dosent believe or is of the same race as they .It may go back to theri still a tribal society.Quote:
If US is after liberty they should create national states in middle east.You have to have National state befofe you can join somekind of union.
You know so much Finland is the only coyntry that has beaten soviet union in convetnional war not once butt twice.If we are so little you are insulting us by your size.
I prolly went more off topic than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
Steppe, you are one of my very favorite posters here. Your thoughtful purity is always evident, but your naivety always astounds me.
Gawain which race are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Saudi Arabian Arabs or Kurds or Persians or Malaysians or ...
Demographics for Iran for instance:
Persians (51%), Azerbaijan Turks (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), Arabs (3%), Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmen Turks (2%), Qashqai Turks, Armenians, Jews, Assyrians and others.
Papewaio is correct if you look at Switzerland there are German speaking Swiz speaking ,French speaking ,Italian speaking kantons.And they all get along pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I didnt insult Finland. It was a joke. Please accept my apologiy if I offended you. I admire the Finns. Hey no nation has people who speak more languages than the US. But you need a common language.Quote:
You know so much Finland is the only coyntry that has beaten soviet union in convetnional war not once butt twice.If we are so little you are insulting us by your size.
AllQuote:
Gawain which race are you referring to?
Im sure most of them speak German or some common language. Hell we got more people and ethnic groups in New York City alone than they do in all of Switzerland. ~DQuote:
Papewaio is correct if you look at Switzerland there are German speaking Swiz speaking ,French speaking ,Italian speaking kantons.And they all get along pretty well.
A historical side note:
Which wars were those? Thanks..Quote:
You know so much Finland is the only coyntry that has beaten soviet union in convetnional war not once butt twice.If we are so little you are insulting us by your size.
Sorry, but that is just too naive. If you eat, you kill innocents, they just aren't human innocents (at least, I hope not. ~D ) If it is a war of survival then winning is winning, period. If you, your culture, and your people are dead, it really doesn't matter if you fought honorably. That doesn't mean one must strive to be barbaric or brutal--and it can be counterproductive. (WWII WAS about survival.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Innocents do die in war, no matter what efforts are made to avoid it. If anybody tried to conduct a war without killing any innocents they would be pathetically easy to beat. Strap a few innocents to your tanks, put one on board each bomber, place a couple in each of your own potential target zones, and with each artillery battery and company, then walk right over the enemy who would not engage. See the calculus? You simply cannot artificially tie your hands like that. It doesn't work, it will be manipulated by enemies who have no moral restraint. There is no such thing as a truly civilized war. The closest you can come to that is in some ancient and classical times when champions were chosen and fought in lieu of the respective armies. It worked when everyone played by the same rules and the stakes were small (border disputes and the like)...it didn't work for the Gauls vs. the Romans. It would not be used for "winner takes all."
About WWII Japan, those atom bombs saved hundreds of thousands of lives if not millions (most of them Japanese civilians who would have starved before an invasion or before any peace agreement, not to mention all our POW's who were slated for execution), and by their example probably BILLIONS of lives by avoiding WWIII. Those people you condemn as murderers saved many lives. Try them? Better to pin more medals on them for having the guts to make the tough decisions. After the bombs were dropped was no longer any illusion of how devastating a fully modern war could and most likely would become. The whole concept of antiseptically clean war is a dangerous illusion. If anything, the concept makes the idea of war as a standard policy tool easier to accept, and that is not a good thing.
In WWII, most of the bombing of the civilian centers was an effort to reduce/disrupt arms production by killing the workers. Bombing factories was not working (it inflicted too high a cost on the bombers and the precision really wasn't there yet.) Like it or not, winning was the most important part of WWII. There are notable exceptions, but destroying the cities was an attack on the infrastructure of the enemy nations. Both the Japanese and German regimes operated with institutionalized racism and both had succeeded in brainwashing a rather large proportion of their populations *at the time.* The war was of a dirtier nature, one of race/ethnicity rather than just nations. It was not a war of choice for the allies, it was a war of survival pressed upon them.
Having said all that, I still mourn for and sympathize with those innocents or civilians. I am interested in hearing the stories of survivors and I have compassion for them and their loss. It was a horrible waste and it should not have happened. A quote from Golda Meir before the peace talks with Anwar Sadat is appropriate here, "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours."
On a side note, people like to go off on Sherman/Sheridan/Hunter in the ACW--I don't get it. If you look at Sherman's "total war" it was not really that horrific. It was a logistical approach to war and in some ways quite humane--destruction of property and foodstuffs rather than humans. This was standard scorched earth, minus the traditional slaughter of civilians. In many ways it was similar to a siege, but on a massive scale, and mobile. One might argue that the anger at Sherman only persists because he really ticked folks off by destroying or taking all their stuff, while leaving them alive to suffer and be mad about it! ~;)
I'll close with this: I'm coming to the conclusion that the true measure of a nation is not as much how it won a war, but what it did after it was victorious. Was the world better for the victory? Would it have been better for the world had the other side won instead? Were the conquered properly treated after capitulation? (A LOT of emphasis on this last point as it is most often the answer to the other questions as well.)
Not really a single common language. They have multiple common languages. I haven't been there, but my father-in-law teaches some university courses there every few years and we discuss it, fascinating place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Similar is Singapore. English is used as a sort of common language, but depending on where you are or what your are doing you might be more likely to hear Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil. The majority of the population is ethnic chinese. And English wasn't sufficient at times. I enjoyed listening and participating in the true melange of languages that were used in the workplace at the production floor level. There are so many multi-national companies and expats that you can hear virtually anything when walking down the street (French, German, Italian, and many others from Eastern Europe or Northern Europe--Spanish was rare though.) It is one of those places where you wish you knew a dozen languages rather than just being somewhat familiar with a couple.
Soviiet Union attacked Finland in Winter war 30.11.1939 and peace was made 13.3.1940.Finland attacked Russia 26.6.1941 and another peace was made 5.9.1944.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Because we happen to live in a democracy and the majority of people in Ulster like it like that. The Scots have always had equal status to the English....the clue is in the name UNITED kingdom. Not the Kingdom of England incorporating Scotland and Wales. *sigh* how many more times *sigh*Quote:
Why British have to have an foothold on Ireland?I think that Scottish too have their own country
Ok back on topic.
In the 70's and 80's the IRA launched a bombing campaign on the mainland. Although they achieved some 'successes' they ultimatley failed. Why? Because they didn't have the base support on the mainland that they had enjoyed in Ireland (Eire and Ulster)....
However they did have a recognised political agenda...the formation of a nationalist/marxist state in Ireland (go figure all the Yanks who dug deep for Noraid)
Like it or not, at some point someone is going to have to talk to these people to get this sorted. I'm aware that lots of posters won't like this. It is a fact. History shows that terrorists CAN be defeated with the support of the population but there has always been a round of dialogue to finish it off completely.
Uncomfortable and grating as it is. :bow:
Because we happen to live in a democracy and the majority of people in Ulster like it like that.
Apache , don't you mean the poeple in Northern Ireland , there are more than 6 counties in Ulster ~:)
Thats not what hes saying. Hes saying targeting civilians is always wrong and I agree. If they are killed by colateral damge is another matter entirely.Quote:
Innocents do die in war, no matter what efforts are made to avoid it. If anybody tried to conduct a war without killing any innocents they would be pathetically easy to beat.
So that Japanese and Germans according to you were justified in their war crimes as well as us. There were still rules of war even in this conflict .Quote:
If it is a war of survival then winning is winning, period. If you, your culture, and your people are dead, it really doesn't matter if you fought honorably. That doesn't mean one must strive to be barbaric or brutal--and it can be counterproductive. (WWII WAS about survival.)
Well, I guess that's what being young is for, before I get all cynical. ~;)Quote:
Steppe, you are one of my very favorite posters here. Your thoughtful purity is always evident, but your naivety always astounds me.
And I also guess that's why I'm never going to be in charge of any sort of government, because I won't make choices like that.
And I know that views like your own and Red Harvest aren't particullary rare, nor are you monster for thinking that way. I just could never bring myself to support the murder of innocent civilians (happy Harvest? ~;) ).
edit: Thank you Gawain. Yes, I do know that innocents die in war. And that is certaintly horrible, but it is totally different than killing innocents for the sole purpose because they are non combatants.