Jump to content

KrustyKidd

Member
  • Posts

    2,493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KrustyKidd

  1. I definitely agree with you Riff. The world cannot go on this way. You are theorizing on the assumption that profit is the motivating factor in all actions by western society. In my previous posts with Hugo I explained that profeteering was a byproduct of aid and political transformation is a byproduct of economic profiteering. Both require a stable environment. This environment is acheived through various ways, none of them being the country in need of aid having an egomanic torturer as head of state. Especially one who had a history of invasion. Another recent example would be one that harbours known enemies of the country that has the ability to give aid as was Afganistan. Violent and oppresive? Dealing with Al Queda, Taliban and Saddam one would have to be violent. Oppresive because it is a violent world and to walk in that neighborhood you want to keep your back secure until you have new freinds. As for atrocities being worse than Pol Pot or Idi Amin I would beg to differ but realize this; Canada being 1/10th the size of the US has done virtually nothing to aid the world save stay out of it's way. Also realize that progress cannot be made anywhere until dictators, religious fanatisism and racial bigotry is removed. No matter how liberal one wishes a country to be nothing changes until it changes and change to a pre feudalistic society sometimes take radical means. I suppose that would mean might makes right but know any other countries that do that and then move in with a aid program, building contracts, free elections, trillions of $ in aid and so on and forth? I know you are not America bashing and I am not defending them (in this post anyhow) but the world will not change because you or I wish. Dramatic events will have to occur, some are good and some not so good. In the end water will find the level it needs to enable co- operation in managing food, energy and environmental sources to give us all the things we need. The key thing is stability. Stability and trust so that resources can be shared and stability and co-operation so that international scientists can work together on non WMD programs and get on with finding new sources of energy etc. Saddam and Al Qeda do not promote stability, N Korea does not promote stability, Iran does not promote stability. Scientists without guns to their heads and motivated by fame, money and aiding the human race produce results. A twentieth century free society can mass produce those results. A people in slavery hepped up by religeous fanaticism cannot. Nor can people who are etching out sustinence day to day. I appoligize for the double post. Computor glitch.
  2. Hugo, I don't think I misunderstood, we are on the same line but on different tracks is all. America has proven by political process, stability, economics and military might that their way works. Time after time it is the example for the era. Third world nations flock to gain money from them and all in return they desire is some form of payback whether it be political, military (bases or landing rights) or economic. Many do and many do not. In the end with the comming of age of these third world Nations their dependancy on America will lesson for whatever reason, be it closer ties with another first world nation or sucesses of their own. They then become an ally, not a liability and that is in everyones interest. If that is acheived then America will have done what it really wnats, become a simple member of a world that has it's shit together. Right now it is on top and only wishes to get stuff done and seems to be the only one that can or is willing. It's lonely and they sure would like to have freinds. The transition to become a world power would not be one of military might, economics or political alliances but rather a combination of all. To have that spread out to more nations is very desirable to the Americans so I imagine they are looking forward to the day Japan takes their place. Fading away to them would mean taking on a European work week and getting more time on the links.
  3. America has no intention of being the world's policeman. It has a vested interest in certain areas of the world however. Though I seriouly doubt that they care one way or the other whether or not the people of any particular region wave the stars and stipes or their own flag. At one time China was the most advanced civilization on earth. The reason why there was never a great Chinese renaissance in world exploration was a simple philosophy; why go someplace else when you are already there? This is what America faces. They have a political system that revolves around a highly motivating element; money and trade. You do this and I give you that. It is a society that no matter what, continues to build by always moving forward. Money flows much like liquid taking on the form of the container. It never sits under a mattress doing nothing but rather fills every nook and cranny and moves to areas where there is none to take advantage of opportunities. All this forward momentum allows the federal government to fund a huge military. While the military takes on mamoth endevors such as Afganistan and Iraq the economy keeps on rolling. Make no mistake, they can do a lot of these before the economy grinds to a standstill. When somebody says “neo colonialism” I take it they imply the US is trying to take over a country and use them and the resources for little or no compensation. There is no profit from this. Lack of stability is the greatest threat to profiteering, A stable environment is in everyone’s interest. Looking at America and the innovation, high quality of life and prosperity there is no motivating factor to colonize any unwilling country. To do so threatens profit without any return. However, the world is a dangerous place with many jealous people who wish to retain the old ways of feudalism while trying to attain the status of American power and prestige. These are a threat to America’s interests and subsequently the US. To counter this the US can either plan or react. Planning is in the form of aid, economic stimulus and maintaining good relations with other governments. Reacting is responding to threats by military intervention, aiding dictators who may be the lessor of two or even three or four evils, or in the case of Iraq simply removing one that may or may not have been a freind at one time. In any case it is of no interest for the US to try to remain anywhere to colonize a country. In the last couple of centuries the impetus for Europe to conquer and colonize was economic, political and religious. They intended to stay in order to prevent anyone else from owning it. Not many goodies went to the Indians or natives of Africa for sure. Nobody set up independent governments for them, nobody tried to allow them to keep their culture. They did so despite attempts to squash the old ways. To call an American intervention in a country that was a threat to not only her interests, but those of the region’s and subsequently the free world (and most of the non free world) colonialism is wrong. It is aid and economic gain is a possible by product. Nobody intends on staying anywhere but rather fixe the problem and return the country to the people. Hence your concern that they would over extend themselves like the British is not applicable here.
  4. Rise up and get taken out. Might still makes more right than bending over and getting it from behind. A million Bin Ladens = a million bullets. As well we have unusual aid in the war on terror; every country that formerly did nothing and now doesn't want to be accused of aiding and abetting terrorists. That has probably been the most positive result of US military actions scince 9 11.
  5. "Giving aid to the enemy" I belvee was in reference to the fact that Saddam knew in his heart of hearts that the US was going to cave under the overwhelming pressure of world opinion and not attack. He pointed this out during the Dan Rather interview. If he didn't have real reason to think this then maybe things would have turned out different. Canada made a decision by indecision not comming up with anything tangible until the very end. Too late for the USA who were calling the shots. By then they would listen to nobody but Britain. The window for us to have anything other than a minor role on the begining of the century was lost for the second time. The first was when instead of ofering unconditional aid to NYC Cretien waited to "evaluate" what aid we could give the USA. They needed moral support, rescue teams and so on and he had to take half a week to figure something out? Remember, that was 11 and 12 September before any talk of military action took place. Enemy, of course not. A bit player perhaps but nothing sinister. Our influence is uniquely inconsequencial.
  6. I agree with you Mod that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. He was however, in the wrong place at the wrong time, wagging the wrong finger. Iraq was instrumental in the war on terror. A rogue regime with a ruler the Americans wanted out, a reason to justify it, and situated geographicly near other possible areas they may wish to move afterwards. Two other observations are that Iraq was pretty much on her own in the Arab world and would not be as sorely missed as say Egypt or Syria. As well, taking him out sent a message of American might and resolve to other countries such as Syria and Iran. As for American intelligence failing; sure, they could have done better but who would have thought? These guys could have hijacked those planes with garrots made of shoelaces or laptops used as maces. It was more imaginative than fiction you have to admit. I too find fault on the intelligence community but to lay blame soley on them is pointing the canons in the wrong direction. I also agree with you on the US getting out soon. They owe Iraq nothing but that is something they want to do in order to promote stability and a PR exercise.
  7. Hi Ned. I never said it would be painless and non violent. That is why a real military is required. You move in with the army and set up factories, hospitals, governments and take out what you can. In return you give stability and a form of government for the people to work with. Sure cheap labor exists today but who can get beyond the graft, corruption and warlords? If it isn't profitable to a western nation then they won't do it, simple as that. What I am talking about is not five companies getting together here with an advisory board but a country the size of France negotiating with and taking bids from five hundred ISO companies over ten years. Along with a half million soldiers and a few hundred billion dollars of government money move in. It's absurd sure, so is genocide.
  8. Not discontent Riff, envy. For Canada to send a medical unit on the ground would mean a lot. I deal with Americans day to day and like it or not they all back the troops and whether they are for or against they all want allies. We were not an ally. Not an ally to your peace buddies who had family there nor my war pals. In short, none of us were there. I hope they will not get bloodied as they are brave men from a brave country showing their true coulors; aiding a freind. I envy them because they have proved they are friends with a country that has nothing to do with them save purpose. Hoping they can make the world a safer place. However misguided or wrong, they stand for something. More than waffeling Canada does. In a confused bar fight you must side with your best friend, if you don't then better find new freinds amogst the crowd that is too scared to back anybody up, and in a hurry because the world is a big ugly place. They may not be big but rest assured Poland will be able to old her head up when the stuff goes downhill for her, especially around the EU tables. America then had many allies such as the ones you speak of Including AL Queda, Iraq, France, Germany, Russia and Canada. They have welcomed inputs on terrorism from many sources including people and scientists who are now just beginning to speak in Iraq. The real search for the pieces of the whole puzzle are just begining. Before your chickens are counted you should wait till the eggs are even laid. One last question; if in two years, five or whatever the US admits that nothing was ever found in Iraq in the way of WMD, will you hate Poland? Will you go on and on about how they were duped and should be ostricized in the economic and political world? Doubt it. Rest assured though that if they ever need anything, one single thing, they will get it from the USA. Noble Canada though will pay full fare. BC (Bring Cash) Still working on the oil falicy? The price hasn't plumetted yet and the supply lines are as secure as they were a decade ago. So where is the purpose in that?
  9. Ned, it could be more than theoretical. The promise of a country with cheap labor, natural resources and a new market to take over is very tempting for a western nation. So tempting in fact that given the go ahead by an exasperated UN I can't think of any non military reasons not to do it. To those who would balk at taking advantage of these poor people we are talking life and death here not who gets hosed for a two by four contract. Besides, for UN approval a plan of sorts would be required with a rough timeline for when they would be brought into phases of economic and social prosperity. Of course in order to do this a counry would need to have considerable wealth and more of a military than two divisions and some snowmobiles but the carrot is there. Getting to your racisim concern they are joining us and not us to them so citizenship is not a problem. As for breaking away and falling back into chaos that is why we have the social rebuilding taking place alongside the economic injection. I suppose that in colonial times "economic rape" could be the word used but the return is not intended to be rule but rather eventual self rule.
  10. QUOTE "From USA today Aug 1 2003 "Polish troops leave to repay debt" "About 2,000 Polish soldiers left Thursday for Iraq after President Kwasniewski told them they have a "political and moral debt" to pay to the west from decades of communist rule. "We are not a world power. We are not looking for easy profits, nor access to oil." he told the soldiers. Poland will be in charge of a 9,200 strong division in central Iraq made up of troops from 22 nations." KK If I recall they also sent a few hundred troops during the war as well. Sure wish we had've. Also from the same paper: "US probes new leads on weapons" "Iraqi scientists and documents from Saddam's regime are leading investigators to new sites suspected of being part of Iraq's program to produce banned weapons." "The active deception program is truely amazing once you get inside it," said Advisor Donald Kay "We have people who participated in decieving UN inspectors now telling us how they did it. It is not something that is easy to unwrap." KK Jury's still out. Lots of time to still insert foot in mouth.
  11. "Married" on a questionaire? Havn't seen that one so far. Seen "In case of emergency" and "NOK" but not that. I understand Pellaken and his desire to have gays counted as full majority citizens but he must also realize that all situations are different. The government gets a quick fix from minority causes. (Read Craig's initial post.) The gay marrige issue is not an issue, they are simply a hanger on to a whole list of immigrants, Francophones, working women, animal activists, anti smokers, pro smokers (MJ acivists), MADD and so on and forth. They don't care for the people, only the votes. Congratulations, gays are now legal. Big deal. Just like Craig said, it is only an errosion of the traditional moral foundations upon which the basic unit is founded on. Good for gays? No it is not. The reason why is that they are simply on the errosion train now. Nothing means anything. If they had the backing of normal people then over time it would reach a stage where it was something that would last. However, as it is, nobody takes it seriously except the Government, you know, the ones who make legal gun owners criminals and criminal MJ possesors legal . To anybody that cares to look at questionaires that ask if you are married. They then look at spouses name and see the name of a guy (if you are a man and woman if you are a woman) and go hmmmm, it means you are a freak and a homo. Nothing has changed except gaining the resentment of the silent majority. The ones that counted you as a fellow citizen in the first place. Nothing like a government to tell us right from wrong. Mind control? I used to hate gays, pot smokers and terrorists. Now I hate farmers with duck hunting tools (410 shotguns) cigarette smokers, Presidents of countries that we depend on for our livelyhood and all polititions that are not corrupt. Funny world.
  12. We are talking survival vs genocide here not "sistahs doing it for themselves." The same going for economic control Fixing the brakes on a runaway train is achievable, but only once you have the thing under control then stop it. I proposed separating the areas/countries and those that wanted to attach themselves idealogicly, and possible politicaly and economicly to a western counrty or combination of same may make it more managable. To take it on as an idealogical problem is disaster for sure, it is more than that. Historical, tribal, pre medival, mass igonorence. As for economics; you can hand them a dime and it's gone to buy weapons. Build a well and it's taken over by a gang. Send a shipload of aid and the President sells it on the street. It's too big as a whole and results are required, that counts out single countries and the United Nations. You are right about the common currency, why not the Euro? This problem is too big for America anyhow. Good topic Craig, it is the next generation of crisis for the world I believe now that the Arabs are tip toeing around the west. Fast Ned, sure. Liberia is as messed up as it gets. However my solution or starting point is not a mass influx of aid on the world's part to ONE SINGLE country but rather a negotiated multi- nation plan to, in effect take over countries en mass.
  13. I believe that the continent is too entrenched in chaos, violence and tribal racism to be tackled as a whole. Whether it be by communism, capitalism or simply mega handouts from the UN. I would propose letting the governing power each country petition the UN on it's own for a country to foster it as a proctectoriate. Once negotiations are in place then for example Canada would be free to place Canadian law in place along with troops to secure an accepting Congo. Open Canadian businesses with cheap labor and resourses and slowely bring the economies together. It may sound colonialistic and far fetched but I didn't see anything else that jumped out at me that would work. Simply throwing it into the idea pool.
  14. Sir Riff, hate to break the bad news to you but Canada did, and has not made the US look bad. We have about as much to do with their view of the world as Belgium or Italy does. Don't think we count for anything to them, especially now. They will never listen to anything we have to say, that opportunity was gone when Cretien took a week to offer help after 911. Without going into your list of lies just wondering; based on your obvious impartial opinion, when Bush gave all these details and you origionally believed them, were you for the war? Just wondering as now these items seem to be the only thing standing between US bad and US the greatest thing in the world to you. "and stop supporting dictators would help." Sir Riff, also wondering which half of the world we are not going to support now seeing as how every second third world country is a dictatorship. Are we going to invade all the ones Cretien says, the ones you say or the ones that have proven to have WMD and have shown a history of invading of our trading partners and run a 25 million person gulag? BTW, when did Saddam get rid of all the WMD the UN inspectors documented? Don't know? Hmmm, maybe they are still there but surely that never crossed your mind.
  15. Mod, of course it is all going to make sense now. The FBI and the rest of the inteligence agencies have gone over all files with a fine tooth comb with all the key words of a search engine; Arab, unshaven, paid cash, box cutter purchases, flight schools, 767, WTC, etc etc. That is an obvious thing to do and will after the fact tell you what you already know. Prior to 911 what were the key words that they might have used? Known terrorists, embassies, military, NBCW, Sudan, Libya, Syria , AK47 and try this one; terrorist groups and members. Try it, punch it into a search engine along with all the rest of the words that you can possibly think of that connect terrorists with anything. Out of the millions of bits of information you get I'll bet you lunch you cannot predict any detail out of the next twenty terrorist acts commited other than they are by an Arab male (s) and against the west in some way. Go for it, help the free world out . Quote: The 9/11 attacks were first and foremost a failure of American security. Mod, you gotta be hard core Liberal to say something like that. Next you'll be calling for a class action suit against the airlines on behalf of the terrorists for not topping the tanks up with something more exposive and hotter burning to allow them to kill more people. Poor fellows, don't ever lay blame with the criminal. After all, there is no rape victims, only girls that allow guys to shove their penises into them after they plead to be beaten and kidnapped. Then the poor fellows are left with scraped knuckles and bruised knees. No such thing as a thief, only foolish, bourgeois and more fortunate people who do not guard their possesions with locks, guns, dobermans and guards. (LOL, all the things a Liberal detests.) The poor victim just happened to enter the wrong house and whoops! The TVs, computors and all just jumped into their arms! Better to blame somebody else instead of the perpetrator, he is, after all, something the Liberal must try to find a reason for. An excuse, something to coddle. Let us know when and where and by who and against whom the next terrorist act will happen. The innocent women and children (Ooops, I mean the guilty western women and children of capitalistic war mongers) should get some warning.
  16. Pre emption does not have a critical mass formula. Rightfully so it has a lot of human values attached to it. Loyalty, economics, fear, pride, survival, compassion, anger, religion, consience, philosophy, history and so on. To be able to give it a catch all equation is unrealistic. Each situation demands it's own method of reconing. China does not go into Taiwan for reasons of fear and economics. To do so it knows it will smart from Taiwan for sure and will be unlikely that the US will allow it to get away with the prize. If by some cahance they may then they will suffer economicly from ostrasization from not only the US but a good part of the world. Same with the Russians. America didn't have this concern in recent history as they still power the economic world so what can China or Russia do to them? How would you have stopped 9 11? You must be the only person on the planet who was not totally shocked that something like this happened. Nobody was prepared for it and if the US had started arresting and interrogating Middle Eastern men prior to on a tip you would be right on the human rights bandwagon condemming this unreasonable action. As for WMDs there has been a sophisticated deception regieme in Iraq for years and to not be able to come up with anything is not unrealistic. I'm estimating that less than 15% of the area of Iraq and people that have to be interviewed has been covered. Plans for nuclear reactors found buried in a scientists garden should have alerted you to that. That's a long way from saying that WMD do not nor ever did exist. What was there one day was gone an hour later. The Iraqi's knew of sattilites and survielence. They also knew the WMD programes were targets. Did you think they leave everything lying around waiting to be discovered and targeted? Saddam was a threat for the longest time. He was occupied with an enemy of America's for almost a decade and rather than take on two adversaries it made more sense to let them take on each other. Your solution ? Take a time machine out of the closet and go back a hundred years and bring medival Islam into the twentieth century against their will and avoid all the problems of their encounters with the British, German and Turks? It had to happen some way at at some time. It happened this way and that's the cards that were dealt. To say that we should have done it differently is hindsight and has little bearing on what should be done next time as the cards have fallen. Foriegn dependence on oil is my own conspiracy theory. Reason; when the oil is gone in the middle east America still has theirs. Survival. Right or wrong they will have it long after others do not. Name any country that can stop reacting to immediate threats and make long calls with precision. If that were the case then all sorts of difficulties would have been averted. Hitler, concentration camps, Palistine and partition, Korea, Afganistan in the 70s. To expect anybody to tell the future while trying to stamp out brush fires the globe over is unrealistic. I know that you are intelligent and believe the world should be better. It's a difference of choices and motivation that you do not like. If there was no such thing as corporate America then it would be replaced with corporate France or Germany or China or ... If we were not buyng oil off the people of the middle east they would be starving, withut medicine. The whole area would be like Afganistan as other than carpets not much is made there for worldwide consumption. In my closet I have shirts made in Taiwan, tools from China, France etc, but not one widget or snibbet from any Arab country.
  17. "The situation with Hitler is different because in that sense he had a clear and intense drive to take over surrounding territory and was in a position to do it. Saddam was no threat to the US or his neighbors and had no capability to do serious harm beyond his boarders as the initial stage of the war showed. Americas' long term interests are not being served here." Mod, were we to wait until he was a better armed foe? It would be a much fairer fight I suppose to wait for him to reinvade Iran and Kuwait or poise to move into Saudi with Nuclear weapons/ Anthrax/ Mustard or nerve agent or get that Supergun project resurected. Then we would have a better armed bully to take on so that more who were opposed would be happy. Happy that more of our soldiers would die and the Liberal battle cry would not be "where are the WMDs? But; "Why didn't the Bush administration do something about it earlier?" Think for a moment what would have happened if the administration had come to the UN with proof (that they could not show at the time) that a terrorist element with worldwide cells was planning a major strike on US soil. After telling the Taliban unsucessfullly to stop harboring this element It asks the UN permission to go into Afganistan and nutralize Al Queda. The UN says no but the US goes in anyhow and nothing is found but some run down training camps. No plans, no 747s ready to fly into buildings. Nothing. The above scenario of course never happened but if it had the US would be in the same position as it is now with Iraq. However as we all know the US did not do this and instead is dammed for not stopping 19 men from commiting the horrendous murder of 3000 people at the WTC. I would take it that the latter is the more prudent course for any government to take? Chamberlain took it and he was ...... right? Wait till Pearl Harbor is attacked? What is the line that divides action and firm ceasation of aggressive military buildup from inaction and sticking your head in the sand with a thumb in your mouth? If there is a line then as a westerner I would rather my government be firmly on the side which best protects our immediate situation with an eye to the future rather than duct tape murderous regiemes in the hopes they will not be angered by us in the hope of securing us in the future.
×
×
  • Create New...