It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pirhanna
The "alternative" was voting for McCain and Palin.
There is zero way I was going to even consider that kind of insanity.
But yes, Ron Paul is right. He usually is.
Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I didn't vote for Obama or McCain. Bush wrecked this country and has soiled our image to the rest of the world. We need to fix it and increasing the amount of soldiers in Afghanistan like Obama is doing isn't going to solve anything.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SeventhSeal
Ron Paul has some very nice sounding ideas, the problem is that nearly none of them are practical. It's very easy to criticize, but he never puts forth how he would do the things he'd do.
How would he mobilize an immediate withdrawl from all military bases around the world? Would he just allow North Korea to step into South Korea?
And frankly, I've found some of his ideas downright stupid.
You can have change and hope, the problem is that you can't expect things to change right away.
I want change, I just know that it takes time.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I didn't vote for Obama or McCain. Bush wrecked this country and has soiled our image to the rest of the world. We need to fix it and increasing the amount of soldiers in Afghanistan like Obama is doing isn't going to solve anything.
I'm sorry, but how are we going to handle the conflict that is actually legitimate without increasing troop levels? The Taliban could have a resurgence if we don't change something about our strategy in Afghanistan, and most of those troops are being brought over from Iraq, so it's not like we're pulling them from our rectum.
We need a solution to that conflict, unfortunately it will be covered in blood.
Originally posted by pirhanna
The "alternative" was voting for McCain and Palin.
There is zero way I was going to even consider that kind of insanity.
But yes, Ron Paul is right. He usually is.
Originally posted by Returners
He answered this already. Its not our damn problem. Pull our troops out immediately.
Let the idiots in Afghanistan and Iraq make their own government.
Let the Korean people decide whether they wanna reunify through peaceful means or through war.
Originally posted by Returners
The Taliban are not our problem.
The Taliban are the LEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan before the USA took them out of power and installed their fake democracy.
Bunch of muzzies want to live under Sharia law? then let them
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Returners
Originally posted by Returners
He answered this already. Its not our damn problem. Pull our troops out immediately.
Yes, because we could really do that overnight
Pulling out troops from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would destabilize things, turning Afghanistan into a narco state worse than Columbia of days past (or turning it back over to the Taliban) and placing Iraq into a state of civil war.
Both of which would be our fault.
We broke the situation, we caused the vast majority of the problems they have today. We now have a responsibility to those nations to create stability after destabilizing it.
And frankly, I hate to see such bigotry. "The idiots" in Afghanistan and Iraq? You mean the ones we've been systematically victimizing since the 80s?
We'd be the heartless idiots if we pulled out now. Bush may have made a massive mistake, but we're supposed to be adults voting in this country, and adults are responsible for their mistakes.
And the other fact is that we have no idea what sort of states would emerge from the ashes in Iraq and we don't know how the conflict in Afghanistan would end. The majority of experts would agree that it would have nothing to do with the people though.
Haven't you heard of the concept of 'blowback'?
Let the Korean people decide whether they wanna reunify through peaceful means or through war.
Yes, because I really think that North Koreans have a voice...and that Seoul wouldn't be bombarded immediately.
A war between North and South would be inevitable without a foreign power bolstering the South, as the North is insanely belligerent and unstable.
[
Until they finance terrorist groups that target civilians in our nation and its allies.
The Taliban are the LEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan before the USA took them out of power and installed their fake democracy.
Wow, further bigotry from you, not surprised though. The problem is that the majority of the people of Afghanistan don't want to live under the Taliban, they were forced to. The Taliban had the military resources necessary to impose its extremist will on the people.
Originally posted by Returners
Why are we fighting in these countries now?
The people we are fighting in Iraq are angry that we went into their country, bombed the hell out of it and killed their beloved leader. The former government that we overthrew is fighting to take it back.
The people we are fighting in Afghanistan are angry because we did the same thing, we killed their beloved leaders and now their former government is fighting to take it back.
So why don't all these saddam lovers and the Taliban lovers go vote instead of fighting?
BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED BY THE USA in order to get one of their candidates LEGITIMACY and thus the social contract needed to rule a country.
Clearly the only way to install any form of government in any of these countries is to let them install it themselves. These people are fighting instead of voting because they don't trust the USA.
Again read up on Osama Bin Laden's speech explaining WHY AL QUAEDA WILL NEVER ATTACK SWEDEN and WHY THEY CHOOSE TO ATTACK THE USA
Look people have the right to make their own government, If people don't like their government or the direction their country is going it is THEIR RIGHT to take up arms and overthrow the government. If the North Koreans really did hate Kim Jong so much they would have offed him long ago just like the French guillotined Louis XVI, just like the Russians butchered the Tsar, just like the chinese expelled Chang Kai Shek.
Korea is ONE COUNTRY so let the Korean people choose who they would rather want Kim Jong or the president of south korea. Whichever leader that wins is the leader that has the support of the people.
]
Again look at why the Twin towers were targetted. Heres a copy of Bin Ladens speech
They attacked US because WE ATTACKED THEM FIRST
www.worldpress.org...
The Taliban are the LEGITIMATE government of Afghanistan before the USA took them out of power and installed their fake democracy.
I'm sorry, but how is a government that rules by force and terror legitimate? How is a government that gives no voice to half of its adult population legitimate? How is a government that outlaws even the practice of all but one religion legitimate? How is a government that doesn't derive its power from the people legitimate?
Wrong if these people don't want to live under the Taliban, then why are they hiding the Taliban from the USA? Why do Afghanistan women and children keep these mujidhadeen well fed. Why do these Afghanistan people refuse to tell the CIA where these people are hiding despite how much money we try to bribe them with?
Why can't we fight the Taliban? Because they hide behind civilians. Why don't the civilians rat them out?
This is the same thing that happened in Vietnam 95% of the population hated the USA, so no matter how many vietcong we killed more just kept coming. Because every year the population gave birth to many kids who picked up guns to fight the imperialists, every year vietnamese farmers would find wounded vietcong fighter and give them shelter and nurse their wounds back to health, every year these people who go to vietcong head quarters and tell them where our bases are and where our patrols are and where are our supply routes.
If these people did not want to live under the Taliban then there would BE NO INSURGENCY
Originally posted by pexx421
i have to say, in response to madnessinmysoul, that it was the US invasions that exploded iraq into civil war, and it was the US invasions that TURNED afghanistan into a narco state.
Further, it is the US constantly trying to manipulate outcomes in other countries that have made the situation as bad as it is today. From overthrowing mossadegh and installing the shah, to arming and training OBL and the mujahideen, to arming iraq and iran and instigating war between them. And of course the travesty in vietnam.
It is our belief that we can manipulate situations and societies in other countries, that often winds up in devastation and chaos, and then comes back and bites us on the (hidden expletive deleted by madnessinmysoul)
Yes, we left vietnam, and there was a period of cleansing....which, not to minimize it, wasnt nearly as horrific as the things WE did to that country....and they managed to pull themselves together ON THEIR OWN, establish a government, and have a workable economy and foreign policy now.
Im sure that us being in iraq and causing 1.2 million casualties and 4 million refugees is only considered a fair trade for stability by people like....saddam.
I would imagine that the people there....the ones who havent left and arent dead....are not extremely grateful for this form of "stability" and "democracy" that we have brought them.
Nor, i would presume, are the afghani's terribly greatful for the "stability" and "democracy" we are bringing them in the form of bombing wedding parties, assassinating random folks, and torturing civilians. Oh, lets not forget how we happily include them in our target practice for kicks now too.
Originally posted by SeventhSeal
We aided Afghanistan to fight off the Soviets. We invade Afghanistan and they use the same weapons we aided them with against our soldiers. Many years later, we're training them to use more and new weapons.
My question is: Do we not learn from history?
Stop aiding these countries with weapons. Like someone else said, the Taliban are not our problem.
Reagan said it best when he realized you can't rationalize with the Middle East when it comes to warfare. There is no convincing anyone. They will fight to the death.
Leave Afghanistan and leave Iraq. If we want to help a nation that's in trouble, we should know where to begin:
But of course, the US will never benefit from involving themselves with North Korea. There is no oil and no profit to be made. Israel finds them not to be a threat.
It's all about the Middle East and Israel's influence over us.
Meanwhile, millions will continue to suffer and die at the hands of Kim Jong Il.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Ron Paul has some very nice sounding ideas, the problem is that nearly none of them are practical. It's very easy to criticize, but he never puts forth how he would do the things he'd do.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Returners
Originally posted by Returners
Im not even going to bother to answer all of your claim since they all revolve around the argument that the government is illegitimate and everybody wants democracy and Freedom.
Who are you to say what government is illegitimate?
Who are you to say that every human being on the planet wants democracy?
How would you feel if during the Cold War the Soviet Union invaded the USA and claimed that the USA government was illegitimate because it was bought out by EVIL CAPITALISTS. And that every human being deserved economic equality?
In the eyes of the Muslim world the USA government is illegitimate because they commit acts against Allah and the Koran.
And you claim that the revolutions in Tsarist Russia and KMT China happened because of openness? and the reason why people don't overthrow the Taliban or Kim Jong is because they exercise totalitarian controls?
You must really be an ignorant American, Tsarist Russia and KMT China in the past were MANY TIMES more totalitarian and oppressive than modern day North Korea. And they managed to overthrow their leaders by their own will.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by Returners
I never said that everyone wants democracy and freedom, I merely stated that the Taliban regime wasn't legitimate and Saddam's wasn't either, though I guess and argument could be made that it teetered between the two.
I simply stated that we have to fix the messes we made and not force people into a bloody civil war to create their government. We shouldn't be taking a primarily military role, but we should still be doing a lot to fix things.
I'm a rationally thinking being, that should mean that I'm someone to say something about any issue that I can discuss rationally.
Who are you to say what government is legitimate? You've provided no standard for legitimacy, I've provided a clear one: you don't have to use force to maintain rule.
When and where did I say that? I'm simply saying that you can't repress 1/2 of your population because they have different reproductive organs, you cannot have 'rape rooms' set up to punish women, you cannot prevent women from gaining education, you cannot punish those who get out of line with violence.
I'm quite sure that everyone wants security and safety and the majority of the say in how their life goes. They may not care for choosing their rulers, but they do care about living their lives.
You seem to be considering a world where anyone who ever doesn't like their government is immediately capable of armed revolt.
You know what, armed revolts haven't exactly brought about good things historically. There's been only one good example and it wasn't a conflict against a brutally repressive regime, it was a conflict that sprung up over a legal conflict regarding taxation.
They would have been wrong. Aside from the fact that such an invasion is farce, as such action would have caused catastrophic nuclear annihilation, there weren't any instances of violent repression like there were in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You're trying to bring up a lot of false examples.
To a small minority. There's no evidence that the majority of people in the Islamic world views the US government as illegitimate. They may view some of their actions as such, but only the hard liners would actually say that the US government is actually an illegitimate entity that doesn't represent the interests of the people on some level.
Um...not openness, but the possibility of intellectual exploration. Lenin had to learn about communism from somewhere, didn't he?
What? I'm sorry, but I'd actually like to see your measure of oppressiveness. PKR is two lies and a truth, it's Korean but it's no People's Republic. North Korea doesn't allow the exploration of ideas. Lenin had access to communist literature, so did Mao. Nobody in North Korea has access to information that the state doesn't allow. It has complete control over education.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama's ideas sounded good too
Originally posted by Returners
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SeventhSeal
Ron Paul has some very nice sounding ideas, the problem is that nearly none of them are practical. It's very easy to criticize, but he never puts forth how he would do the things he'd do.
How would he mobilize an immediate withdrawl from all military bases around the world? Would he just allow North Korea to step into South Korea?
And frankly, I've found some of his ideas downright stupid.
You can have change and hope, the problem is that you can't expect things to change right away.
I want change, I just know that it takes time.
He answered this already. Its not our damn problem. Pull our troops out immediately.
Let the idiots in Afghanistan and Iraq make their own government.
Let the Korean people decide whether they wanna reunify through peaceful means or through war.
Originally posted by Returners
Wheres your evidence? If the Taliban was not legitimate how the hell did it end up the winner of a mass civil war?
Do you even understand the resources needed for a civil war not to mention the resources needed in order to win one? Clearly the Taliban had a LOT of Afghanis sending their sons to fight for the Taliban, giving them information about the enemies location, and giving them supplies.
And you realize that Saddam gained his position by winning a bloodless coup right?
en.wikipedia.org...
Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. Al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and deputy chairman of the Baathist Revolutionary Command Council.
Saddam was widely popular amongst the Iraqi people for his modernization programs
Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, effective politician.[25] At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.
Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions, together with the brutality of the conflict that this had engendered, laid the groundwork for postwar rebellions. In the aftermath of the fighting, social and ethnic unrest among Shi'ite Muslims, Kurds, and dissident military units threatened the stability of Saddam's government. Uprisings erupted in the Kurdish north and Shi'a southern and central parts of Iraq, but were ruthlessly repressed.
Whats your definition of force? Every country has standing riot police to "control" the people
Again different cultures, different people. The people in India will say you can't have a society that condones eating cows because they are holy. The people in Pakistan will say you can;t have a society that condones eating pork etc...
Again you are using OPINIONS instead of facts
Its a hypothetical, why is some country invading your country, overthrowing your current government and installing a government similar to theirs instead of yours not okay, but its okay to use military force to invade undemocratic countries to make them democracies?
No majority of them view Americans as brainwashed idiots with a government controlled by big oil thus why they claim that the USA government is illegitimate. Just as the Americans claim that Muslims are brainwashed idiots because of their religion
Um...not openness, but the possibility of intellectual exploration. Lenin had to learn about communism from somewhere, didn't he?
The book was banned in Russia,
speaking of democracy or communism in Tsarist Russia ended up in an IMMEDIATE DEATH SENTENCE.
Marx's ideas were spread through word of mouth. If the North koreans truly hated Kim Jong and wanted a democracy there should be no reason why what happened in Russia and China won't happen in North korea.
Alexander II (1818-1881) attempted some genuine reforms, notably by freeing the serfs in 1861, relaxing Press censorship and making education more liberal. But when educated Russians took all this as their cue to demand democracy, Alexander took fright. He reimposed repression, threw liberals out of the universities and had thousands of suspected revolutionaries sent into exile in Siberia.
Tsarist Russia and KMT China were just as totalitarian communist literature was banned in Russia.
Communist literature was banned in Tsarist Russia
Tsarist Russia also had secret police
www.bbc.co.uk...
Tsarist Russia was every bit as totalitarian as present day North korea, even more so because many under Tsarist russia were denied education while in North Korea the literacy rate is 99%
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama's ideas sounded good too
such as?
What were his ideas that sounded good out of curiosity?