Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who should be our next Commander in Chief?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Sir,

    Christine,

    As a former Officer of an Allied army, I can assure you that your soldiers hold themselves more accountable than you ever imagine. The USArmy went after Abu Gharib with no holds bar. Relatively speaking what happenned at Abu Gharib is child's play compared to the PoW courses that I've been on. No non-Western army would think anything out of the ordinary here. Abu Gharib is an issue because the USArmy made it an issue and that should serve to reassue you of your soldiers' professionalism.
    _______________________________________

    I am not arguing about it, I agree that we do hold ourselves more accountable than anyone outside of the military can imagine. THIS was written to me, nevertheless it represents how some people view the current administration and our role ( military) in world affairs. What you mentioned about the POWs, no question about it...but whose fault is it? The Media for taking sides and not mentioning what happens on both sides? I have no idea, bottom line most military support Bush and his administration and most likely will vote for him. What is ironic, is that on the other hand a lot of people outside the military will vote against Bush because of our " well being" and to supposedly bring the troops back from Iraq. It ain't going to happen, regardless who wins.

    Comment


    • #77
      Colonel,

      I don't contest your assertions.

      I am talking about eliminating INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM - the raison d'Ítre for 9/11 and US involvement in this war against terrorism and the fallacy so to say of violating the military principle - Selection and Maintenence of Aim.

      Remember Hitler's fiasco when he turned midstream to Kiev in 'Op Barbarossa'?


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Confed999
        Except the Iraqi Kurds, the imprisoned adults and children, a large segment of the southern Iraqis, and the 4 million refugees. I guess they don't count to your "friend" though...
        Confed 999: is the 4 mill refugees number from what happened in the late 80's or because of present situation? I didn't know this fact and I am curious to learn more about it. Thanks!!

        Comment


        • #79
          Colonel,

          No democratic country's army would do a Abu Gharib.

          The difference between the US and other countries is that the US can dictate terms and shrug aside any international objections, if any. Other countries cannot. They will be slapped with sanctions and internationally ostracised.

          If we had a free hand against the terrorists being exported to our country like the US has in Iraq, our problems would be over in no time.

          But we are worried about international opinion and the bleeding heart pinkos within who are looking for brownie points from the West and are also financed by the West.


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #80
            I have nothing against Bush. I dislike Cheney. He has got a simple man like Bush in a conundrum.

            Cheney is a sly coot. Firing the gun over Bush's shoulder and acting smug like a sick cat who has lapped up the milk clandestinely.


            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

            HAKUNA MATATA

            Comment


            • #81
              The point I was trying to make was that in every country, the leaders try extremely hard not to force a vote by bullet. You can be oppressive but not oppresive enough that your people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to kill you.

              Thus, the decisions non-democratic leaders make are at least tolerable to the people he rules. He can never make those decisions intolerable.
              What causes revolution is not so much oppression, but rising expectations. If the dictator makes concessions to the people, but then repeals some of them that could trigger a revolution. A competent dicatorship with an adequate secret police and using the occasional purge usually does not have to fear a revolution unless he triggers it by being too mild.
              Last edited by ZFBoxcar; 18 Aug 04,, 21:05.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Christine
                Confed 999: is the 4 mill refugees number from what happened in the late 80's or because of present situation? I didn't know this fact and I am curious to learn more about it. Thanks!!
                Both... Iraqis have been fleeing Iraq since Saddam and his pals started making life tough. There are tons of sites/news available on the web detailing their existance. There is a large community of Iraqis in the mid-western US, I believe. Somebody here probably knows where so I don't have to look it up, maybey they'll post it. ;)

                http://www.untoldiraq.org/ is one of the sites claiming to speak for the Iraqis.

                http://www.indict.org.uk/index.php has been taking crimes against humanity depositions from Iraqis for years. People going to others to report crimes, is a call for help.
                No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                  What causes revolution is not so much oppression, but rising expectations. If the dictator makes concessions to the people, but then repeals some of them that could trigger a revolution. A competent dicatorship with an adequate secret police and using the occasional purge usually does not have to fear a revolution unless he triggers it by being too mild.
                  There are two modern day examples each supporting our different PoV. I think you will agree with me that there is no greater oppression than genocide. The Cambodians did not rise up (your point) but the Rwandans did (my point).

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    There are two modern day examples each supporting our different PoV. I think you will agree with me that there is no greater oppression than genocide. The Cambodians did not rise up (your point) but the Rwandans did (my point).
                    But genocide is almost always an oppression of the majority against the minority. My PoV is in regards to the oppression of the majority by a dictator. Genocide, or oppressing of minorities gives the majority populace of a feel of superiority, or at least relief that they are not the ones being massacred.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                      But genocide is almost always an oppression of the majority. It is far harder to fight because it does not effect a majority that is usually living in denile or is just happy it isnt them being killed. I thought we were talking about oppressing a whole nation, which is what my PoV was about.
                      The Cambodians were killing themselves. The Mongols were in a minority in every country they conquered. The Ming in China was the majority when they overthrew the Yuan (ie the Mongols). The Nazies were everybit the minority when they try to kill the Slavs.

                      Can you cite me your examples so that I may understand where you're coming from?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        The Cambodians were killing themselves. The Mongols were in a minority in every country they conquered. The Ming in China was the majority when they overthrew the Yuan (ie the Mongols). The Nazies were everybit the minority when they try to kill the Slavs.
                        I admit I don't know anything about Cambodia, but how is it possible to commit genocide against yourself? I was under the impression that by definition genocide had to be against a different ethnic/religious group, otherwise it is massmurder. I'm honestly not trying to play semantics, but it is an important distinction for the point I am trying to get accross.

                        Okay, an example of what I'm talking about is the Soviet Union. They took everything the Communist Party did to them. They never resisted, they never rose up...neither did the other peoples of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (except Hungary, but the only reason that was conceivable was because they were a distinctly different nation from the rest and they still felt nationalism keenly) UNTIL, Gorbachev started opening the system up. But at the same time he tried to control the pace of reform. And he refused to call in the tanks when the people of the Warsaw Pact broke away. It was a refusal to be brutal that caused revolution (albeit relativly peaceful in this case).

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                          I admit I don't know anything about Cambodia, but how is it possible to commit genocide against yourself? I was under the impression that by definition genocide had to be against a different ethnic/religious group, otherwise it is massmurder. I'm honestly not trying to play semantics, but it is an important distinction for the point I am trying to get accross.
                          It was communists vs non-communists and innocent children (uncorrupted by age and counter-revolutionary ideas) brainwashed into killing the old.

                          Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                          Okay, an example of what I'm talking about is the Soviet Union. They took everything the Communist Party did to them. They never resisted, they never rose up...neither did the other peoples of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (except Hungary, but the only reason that was conceivable was because they were a distinctly different nation from the rest and they still felt nationalism keenly) UNTIL, Gorbachev started opening the system up. But at the same time he tried to control the pace of reform. And he refused to call in the tanks when the people of the Warsaw Pact broke away. It was a refusal to be brutal that caused revolution (albeit relativly peaceful in this case).
                          If you were to take a look at the entire history of the USSR, you would see that there was a drastic improvement in life before the Tzars and after the Tzars. The Communist Party (as it did in China) and even through the likes of Stalin, who is without a doubt on par with Hitler and old Genghis, he dragged Russia kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.

                          I would argue the collapse of the USSR stated at the death of Leonid Brezhnev, not so much as rising expectation but the lack of strongmen with the will and support to keep the empire together. Brezhnev would have tossed Yeltsin into a gulag without a 2nd thought.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Any informed person with a brain and a heart will vote for Kerry, or at least against Bush.
                            John Kerry has a Plan to Give Tax Breaks to Corporations who Keep their Companies in the U.S. Kerry is a thinking man, that knows that most political issues are complicated (nuanced). Also he realizes that rich can live without tax cuts, but the rest of us might actually need it. And health care should be a right not a luxury.
                            ____________
                            Support the Change
                            Alexey @

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              It was communists vs non-communists and innocent children (uncorrupted by age and counter-revolutionary ideas) brainwashed into killing the old.
                              Just because they are "brainwashed" does not mean they do not hold the capacity to think. They simply refuse to do so.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Praxus
                                Just because they are "brainwashed" does not mean they do not hold the capacity to think. They simply refuse to do so.
                                When coming to killing a fellow human being, you really do not want to think about it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X