|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2002 : 17:51:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Ever heard of the "War on Drugs"? It has the same fundamental flaw: You can't win it!
If you make war on a city, a people or a nation with a clear objective in mind you can always hope to achive it.
With the "War against Terror" you are fighting a sympton not the cause and your treatment makes it even worse. But if the decision-makers mis-identify the cause like "They attacked us because they are evil." or "They hate us because of our freedoms.", you have no hope of achieving anything.
Is a war on drugs really the same as a war on terrorism? The drug problem, as such, is a user problem. The supplier is out to make a buck and both parties want the "war on Drugs to fail" The police are an outside third party trying to stop the relationship the other two want.
Call me cynic, but I don't think that everyone involved in fighting the war on drugs on the side of the governments actually wants to win the war. They seem to be quite content with the way things are.
quote:
The war on Terror, at least has the hope of success in that the 2 parties see each other as enemies. Not that I actually think there is too much hope that the war on terror will be successful. There is even a reasonable chance it will fail totally and produce even more terrorists.
The problem is that they don't make war on a clearly defined group of people. They don't make war on Osama Bin Laden and a handful of other named Terrorists. They don't even make war on Al-Kaida or something like that. They make war on an ill-defined abstract concept.
There is a difference between 'War against Terrorists' and 'War against Terrorism' not to mention the oxmoronic 'War on Terror'.
There is a dictionary defintion out there for the term Terrorism that one could use at this point to show, that it is not something that you can make war on. Unfortunetly Terrorism has come to mean everything that people want it to mean, so there would not be much of a point.
|
 |
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2002 : 10:20:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Call me cynic, but I don't think that everyone involved in fighting the war on drugs on the side of the governments actually wants to win the war. They seem to be quite content with the way things are.
Just as governments are quite content to make massive amounts of money in taxes off the "legal" drugs, them being alcohol, cigerettes and even gambling which is a kind of addictive pastime as well.
Does this make them just as bad as they guy who sells me a joint at the local pub after I've had too many beers to know better? I'd think that they are probably worse. Peddle off peoples weaknesses. They are as addicted to the money as the addicts are addicted to the drug.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2002 : 12:40:32 [Permalink]
|
I voted for Bosnia, but I believe it was Somalia. I speak from direct experience. I was there, I went to RIP (Ranger Indoctrination Program- the torture to get in to the 75th) with a couple of guys who never made it back. I also knew Michael Durant (160th SOAR pilot that was captured) and can name a bunch of friends with purple hearts from it. I know this topic.
The entire operation was a two-fold crap-bag. Bush wanted to dump a mess in Clinton's lap and Clinton wanted to appease all those black voters that got him elected. The Somalians, and for that matter me and my compatriots, were nothing more than pawns in that political arena.
We were not there to feed hungry people. That is an utterly stupid concept. It's a desert. Unless we made it another state and continued dumping millions of dollars a day into shipping food there, it could not possibly have an effect. Maybe Clinton had plans for a terraformer.
Myth: Somalia had no food*
Truth: There is actually quite a bit of argriculture there, near the coast. If there was no food before the UN stepped in, how did they survive prior to that?
Myth: Somalia was suffering under an environmental difficulty.
Truth: yes, there was a drought, however, the Somali's believe, just like the Ethiopians in the 80's, that for religious purposes, crops shouldn't be planted at regular intervals. Seven years I believe, but I could be off on that. They caused their own misery.
Myth: Somali's were grateful for the help.
Truth: Much like what set Bin Laden off (non-muslim presence in muslim land), the Somali's were offended by the presence of "christians" in thier land. Somalia was a Russian outpost for many years and they oppressed the people badly.
Myth: We were there to hand out food.
Truth: we were there to provide armed escort for UN food relief convoys. The UN convoys had come under attacked and the UN troops simply could not handle it. They were armed, but poorly trained.
Myth: Operation Restore Hope was a humanitarian effort
Truth: The Humanitarian medal was originally to be issued for the participating soldiers. However, it was later revoked and the Armed Forces Exeditionary medal was issued. This is because Restore Hope became a combat mission and the brass wanted to "preserve the integrity of the Humanitarian medal."
Somalia is a perfect example of how humans refuse to accept man as an animal. For instance, in Somalia, you would see several dozen children for every adult you encountered. These are people who's religion (and perhaps more directly, their ignorance) prevented any attempt at birth control. I liken this to spiders having a few hundred offspring because only a few survive. So was the case in Somalia.
In fact, I contend they HAD TO DIE in masses. The population simply exceeded the food supply. It's a basic law of nature ignored by humans. They overbred in a desert. High mortality is a no-brainer.
But the entire operation was really just an excersize in American public relations. Clinton had just gotten elected with a large percentage of minority votes, and there was speculation that the US only helped white, european countries in need. Once things turned for the worse, we couldn't lose face and pull out. Which of course we did anyway, but not until we lost some damn fine soldiers.
Somalia, and the loss of my friends there is the only thing on this earth that will wrench a tear from my callous heart. Not for the dumb bastards too stupid to not breed like roaches then stop planting food. No, for those brave men who died, needlessly, all so Clinton could have some political points with American blacks.
As an aside- I hold Colin Powell and Dick Cheney PERSONALLY responsible for the deaths of my friends. Those two refused to allow AC-130 Spectre gunships in Somalia. They are tremendously destructive and could have changed the Oct 3-4 raid's outcome entirely. However, Powell didn't want to seem like the US was a bully using that much firepower. QUOTE "It's not the best imagery on CNN" Un fucking quote. I pray for 5 minutes alone with Powell in a locked room.
Bear that in mind when you watch Blackhawk Down. Which I refuse to watch. I buried them, I don't really need to see a Bruckheimer version of their deaths.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2002 : 13:33:35 [Permalink]
|
The very concept of "Nation-Building" (NB) is fatally flawed, and the US officially abandoned it in the 90's.
NB assumes firstly that America knows what's best for everyone, and that we have the authority to impose our will on other nations.
Saddam thought he knew what was best for Kuwait. Milosovic assumed he knew what was best for Kosovo. Hitler knew what was best for Europe. All assumed they had the right to enforce their visions. All were wrong.
America has no right to enforce our ideals on other countries, regardless of how evil they may be. Under this line of reasoning, it would perfectly acceptable for European countries to invade the US to end capital punishment. Something they claim is a human rights violation.
In effect, NB is merely expanding the US by invading (strange that PEACE-keeping is only accomplished thru military force) the country in question, usually under the guise of the illegal and equally oppressive UN, and either forcing the leadership to capitualte to our rules, or by removing the leadership altogether and replacing it with a US puppet. Iran is a perfect example of the latter. Hostages paid for that policy with 444 days of their lives in '79-80.
NB is a function of empire, not democracy. Like ancient Rome, we conquer the land then tell the people how much better it is to be a citizen of our empire rather than their own. We allow them freedom to elect government, as long as it's one we approve of. Selected from candidates the US chooses. That is not democracy.
In an era where our own country is becoming a socialist welfare state, we spend enormous resources and often times American lives, in the NB pursuit. More money went into Restore Hope per day than we spent on the homeless in America in 6 months. (That factoid was aired by CNN in 1993- I don't know the source of the numbers-sorry).
To be quite the isolationist, I believe we should fix America first. We play the world's cop at the expense of our own citizenship. Somali's were better fed than America's homeless veterans. Children in third world countries beat our own in standard testing of basic science, history, math, and yes-English! Why are we wasting money on establishng a school system in some gawdawful sand trap when we seem perfectly happy with our own children's ignorance?
Any attempt at NB will only succeed if we trample the rights of the people until they agree with everything we say. Why not just call it another state? We certainly weren't going to allow the president of Afghanistan to choose, say, communism as a platform, even if he felt it was the best path for his people. We've shown that the wishes of other countries will only be respected if they parrot the US. This is our idea of world democracy- you can choose whatever view you want as long as it's ours.
History has shown that these 'leaders' are generally hated by the populace, and considered nothing more than the puppets they really are. Again, look at Iran. As soon as the US stepped back from total control of the Shah (who had death squads and tortured countless dissenters with US approval), he was quickly overthrown by popular unrest. Money, time, lives, and moral legitimacy all wasted.
Wars should be fought for homeland defense, or defense of an ally. We did not enter into war with Germany in WWII because of his treatment of the Jews, who had suffered for years prior to our entrance in the war. We went because we have European allies whose borders were violated. It's history revisionism to claim it was on moral grounds.
Even our rebuilding of Germany and Japan was really just snatching up countries as property to be kept out of the Soviet's hands. It wasn't a philanthropic endeavor.
Nation Building, in any situation, is a waste of time and resources at best. And a thinly veiled version of standard invasion and occupation of a foreign country at worst.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
