WARNING!!!
This thread contains serious discussion that may be hazardous to your health!
If you are under 14, a fanatic of any religion/viewpoint, or have been awake for over 12 hours, You'll do best to avoid reading it without adult supervision or while holding sharp objects! ;D
Since some threads have been going off-off-topic to discuss politics, especially in view of the war in Iraq, I thought I'll start one just for politics, so that innocent people wouldn't have to read a political post without a proper warning. 8)
For now, I'll wait a while and if no one posts here, I'll post something really contraversial to annoy people into posting ;)
The Politics Thread
I didn't say ALL those who oppose the war in Iraq are muslims. Some do so because they are are pacifists who oppose war in general, or just think that the USA should mind its own business and let the rest of the world kill itself, Like it did for the most of WW2 - then the US didn't enter the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor because they thought they shouldn't get involved in a European war, even though they knew jews were being slautered by the Nazies.
Even when the allied forces battled the Nazies at WW2, their first priority wasn't to bomb the death camps and hinder the Nazi efforts of destroying the jewish nation, but to secure more territory so that the Russians wouldn't get a hold of it. :(
This just goes to show that people will hardly ever fight to help others. I'm not fooling myself about the intentions of the US in this war - it's pretty obvious it's the oil they care about, like in the Gulf War. However, if they take down a tyrant who attacked my country in the process, you wouldn't see me crying over it ;)
I'm pretty sure they won't take down Arafat, Storm. :-/ At least not in this campaign.
I didn't mean Arafat... I meant Saddam. Arafat has little to do with the whole Iraqi situation, though the palestinians in the occupied territories are big fans of Saddam - he used to send money to families of suicide bombers, and bought himself many supporters there. :P
Lately we've been hearing very little of Arafat... I wonder if it's because the Israeli leadership declared him "Irrelevant" and now the media is following suit? :-/
It's been several years since Iraq sent Scuds to Israel, since then Arafat has been more than a pain in the ass for Israel, so a little voice in me said: let's see if she meant 'Arafat'. :D
Nah, it's just because the media have focused all its resources on Iraq. Even if Arafat were now to announce an important message, it would have to be pretty important to surpass the Iraq-focus.
BTW, when are the coalition forces going to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
I bet they hope to find something soon... otherwise they might plant some or just say he smuggled it all to Seiria :P
I'd like to see the US live up to its hype and actually allow people to freely choose their leader. If we put in an American puppet government, that might as well be just as bad as Saddam. Give the power back to the people and stop being the world's police, I say. Intervene only when necessary and not when business is threatened. God forbid J.D. Rockerfeller get another golden backscratcher.
Why are you showing Batman? I thought you were Superman...
Ah, well, I guess you're a fan of both of the director's superheroes.
:)
HAHAH! Well, Superman is who I try to be, and Batman just looks really cool. 'Sides, Cesar's Batman avatar looks dumb and Jim Lee owns anything Ty Templeton could concieve.
Hey, the war ended!
I hope that's actually true, it would be a bummer if Saddam Hussein came back to reclaim his stuff.
I didn't hear anything till today because my roommate's been playing video games on the tv for three days straight. ;)
No, Saddam is no longer on control. That does not mean the same as: the war has ended.
Yeah, I was talking to my dad, and he says there's two more cities left to control.
I agree with Kurt, the Iraqi should have the right to choose their own leader, I mean Bush claims this war is to free them from a tyrant. I'm not exactly against the war, but I'm not for it either. You can't stop wars, world peace is a dream, people are too different to get along permanently. I find it strange that some Iraqis support Saddam and seem to want him as their leader. I guess it's becasue they're brainwashed, and upset about the American invaders killing their people. How are we supposed to help the Iraqi nation if we kill their people, civilians, that just infuriates them. This war is far from over. Saddam is still out there. Once he and his son are dead, then things will calm down. I got sick of the news reports, I haven't watched news lately, so I'm a little out of the loop.
QuoteOriginally posted by Dragonstar
Saddam is still out there. Once he and his son are dead, then things will calm down.
I tend to disagree. The shi-ites (?sp) are organizing protest marches against the occupation of their land by US and UK-troops, whether Saddam be alive or dead. :-/
If they (US & UK) stay there much longer, they might be in for an unexpected surprise from them (shi-ites)... Indeed, leave Iraq for the Iraqis and (the US and the UK) get the troops out as fast as you can.
:'( I wish we could just pull out of the middle east and have nothing to do with those people. But now we're end too deep. Oil, it's all the damn oil fault! I KNOW that scientist have come up with other fuels, like hydro, solar and eletric power for our cars. If the companies wanted to they could develope transportation that does not require oil, and stop our dependency on oil. but it's all about money, the oil fatcats don't want to be put out of business. I knew this war would cuase more problems. Why are muslims so militant? 'Course, I'd be pissed too if strangers came over to my country and bombed my house and killed my family.
Re: Iraq
I wonder, now have the US left Afghanistan yet? And besides, do we have a stable government in that country yet? (apart from Kabul itself and even then...)
Indeed, the shi-ite factions are slowly rallying their 'troops' to seize power in the Southern part of Iraq. The Kurds already have their troops in the North of Iraq. So the longer the US and UK stay there and tally (sp?) with the formation of a real (and stable, I grant you that) Iraqi government, it will get harder and harder to keep the country together.
I don't know if the US is out of Afganistan yet, but I did say what I heard about the current regime in Afganistan on the religion thread.
I would like to correct a mistake I made on another post somewhere on this board.
I said there that the Americans didn't bother to bomb the Nazi's death camps since they were too busy securing the Nazi occupation territories from Russian takeover.
Today I watched a documentary about the Jews in WW2 and the US, and it was clearly shown there that the US was not at all interested in saving Jews in WW2, even after they knew what was being done to them in Nazi Germany.
The reason they didn't try to save those Jews is that they feared they might actually succeed, and will have to take in the thousands of refugees. They didn't want to import the "Jewish problem" any more than the European countries who refused to accept Jewish immigrants before & during the war.
The real reason that they didn't bother bombing death-camps was that these places had no strategic value for them.
The government agency for saving the jews, which was formed in the US after much hindrence from the state department, actually requested that the Allied forces bomb the death-camp Auscwitz. That request was refused, saying that the bombers coming from England can't reach that far into the occupied Poland, while in fact Allied forces planes coming from Italy were bombing distillaries not 70 km from that camp. Ironically, some of those bombs accidently hit the death-camp, killing 85 prisoners.
Dang. I did know that at one point, a ship full of thousands of Jews came into a US harbor and was turned away, so they ended up going back to Germany I think and got caught. So much for the whole "give me your tired, your hungry, and poor" phrase on the Statue of Liberty...
I guess that those words don't apply to the Jews...
I just re-checked that information on the "Yad Vashem" website, and I liked the way they put it there: "The Allied forces did not put the same energy and resolve to saving Jews as the Nazies did to murdering them".
Ach, like other counties, the idealism of our democracy is in reality based on hypocrisy and lies. America is suposedly a country of liberty, but for more than half of our history non-whites, women, jews, catholics and the poor have been denied their liberty. Just goes to show you what humanity is like. People care only about their freedom, when it comes to giving that freedom to others, then they lose then they are reluctant.
QuoteAmerica is suposedly a country of liberty
I has been anything but, since 9/11. Or so I heard, a safe distance away from the war and the US.
Law enforcement officials have been getting really paranoid, security has been tightened. It's mainly around airports and government buildings. I almost never fly, so I don't know what the airports are like now. I heard that foreigners and foreign born citizens are really getting hit the worse, a lot of their rights have been taken away, especially for those of Arabic or muslim origin. A lot of prominet muslims and people from the Middle East are complaining about their lack of civil rights. I recall speeches about some of our freedoms being taken away for the sake of security, well, how much freedom has to be taken away before America becomes like a police state? So far, though I don't think things are that bad. Perhaps thirty years in the future things, will be worse, already people seem to have lost the right to protest.
Yeah, I heard about Israeli citizens getting harassed and even arrested in the US because they come from the middle east :(
I wish I could say things were better here... here you have bag checks and metal detectors on almost every shop/mall/bus/building or whatever. Arab citizens are also getting the worse for it, not to mention palestinians of the occupied territories.
Double posting Storm? And yesterday I was unable to post. What is happening to this board?
P.S Even Israeli citizens (in the US)? I never got that bit of information.
Not intentionally. For some reason the forum was so slow that I wasn't sure if it's responding, so I clicked the "post" button over again... Anyway, It's gone now.
And YES, even Israeli citizens. I think it's because to the Americans, some Israeli citizens look just like Arabs ::)
QuoteOriginally posted by Storm
Not intentionally. For some reason the forum was so slow that I wasn't sure if it's responding, so I clicked the "post" button over again... Anyway, It's gone now.
I didn't mean you did it intentionally either. I've done it once before too, but since it's been moved it would seem the board is being more unreliable than before.
Some people quickly generalize, particulary by appearance. That's the main reason for my opposition to extreme fascist groups, they overgeneralize.
Copycat -
I've heard some stuff about the Belgians and the Congo.
Being a Belgian, could tell me what's that about? ???
The Politics Thread
I heard references to it in various places, I can't remember all of them. The most recent was someone saying on the media that after what the Belgians did in the Congo, they have no right to judge others. I would like to know what exactly it was that they did there to disqualify them (in that person's eyes) from being the world's guardians of moral.
I don't think anyone here really cares much about that universal jurisdiction law. It's more of an insult than anything else - the worst thing that could happen is that Sharon gets convicted of whatever it is he's blamed for, and won't be able to visit Belgium :-/
The Belgians just did what every other country did in their colonies, and that's exploit the colony's riches and its people.
And, there are some who say Belgium was involved in the assasination of its (first) prime minister not long after it was 'uncolonised', but that has never been proven (yet).
I found the following article on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4352642,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4352642,00.html)
It says there was an admitted Belgian involvement in that political murder.
Strange, I thought all the european countries gave up their colonies before or shortly after WW2...
Like I said, there was no 'smoking gun' but 'moral responsibility'. That doesn't mean Belgium played an active role in the assassination, it just means we feel responsible for the events leading to his death, but actually have nothing to do with it, other than letting them happen. It could well be Belgium civilians, or even military, were present at the execution, but no link to the Belgian government has been found.
You are forgetting the length of the reign of Baudouin, he was one of, if not the longest serving monarch. And he was strong under the influence under the former monarch, Leopold III, who couldn't return to the throne because of his involvement with the Germans. In that aspect, does it sound surprising Baudoin didn't give Congo its independence right away?
QuoteOriginally posted by copycat
You are forgetting the length of the reign of Baudouin, he was one of, if not the longest serving monarch. And he was strong under the influence under the former monarch, Leopold III, who couldn't return to the throne because of his involvement with the Germans. In that aspect, does it sound surprising Baudoin didn't give Congo its independence right away?
I'm not forgetting, since I never knew about it. ::)
I didn't realize Belgium has been a monarchy untill so recently. It does sound surprising that Belgium didn't leave the Congo right away - I would have thought after WW2 the european countries were too devastated to keep their grip on their colonies :-/
The Politics Thread
From what I know, both England and France couldn't hold on to their colonies... I don't believe they left them out of the kindness of their hearts.
QuoteOriginally posted by Storm
From what I know, both England and France couldn't hold on to their colonies... I don't believe they left them out of the kindness of their hearts.
Has any country ever 'released' a colony out of the kindness of their heart I wonder?
Yep, well maybe not by kindness but it's very near. England let go of Canada when it became too costly and it gave democracy to them.(England Giving Democracy in the olden days? :o )
How can a colony become too costly?
I thought Canada was still considered a territory... If it's not owned by England, who does? Or were they just spurned and are now a half-country, without the full status?
I think Canada can be considered as independant country. Now Australia, that's another matter....
Anyway, I've just learned an important lesson: If the pitbull (G.W.) Bush barks, the poodle Belgium takes a 180° turn and retreats, tail between its legs. Ho come? See next paragraph.
Alas, the universal jurisdiction is no longer universal. And all that was needed was a threat to move NATO away from Belgium, and a plea from the port of Antwerp telling us that American companies were diverting their traffic from that port, and behold, within days the 'universal' disappeared! :(
Copycat -
It's the golden rule again - he who has the gold, makes the rules. :P
You sound like you're mad about them canceling that law. I don't understand why. It's hardly enforceable anyway, and mostly serves people's political goals than any broad concept of justice.
But then, I might be wrong and you're just mad about the principle of it. ::)
I know the law was a joke, but at least it was funny to see who was being prosecuted and why... :D
The law has not been cancelled, it has been stripped of its universal-ness and is now just being local. At least that means the accusation concerning our Minister of Foreign Affairs can still go on... ;D
Your alternate assumption is right. It's the principle of it that I have problems with. I don't like it when Bush can dictate local affairs, even if they are universal. :-/