Talked to a Turkish Immigrant....

[Timber Loftis]

Oh, and MagiK, as for rebuilding destroyed infrastructure, let us not forget who benefits from that. Before the bombing in Kosovo was over, German and British construction companies were pestering their governments to secure rebuilding rights. Just trying to keep you honest, here, it's not all humanitarian. Carpetbaggers will always come in after the s**tstorm ends.

[quote]Originally posted by Spelca:

So if your house got destroyed it would all be okay as long as they'd pay to rebuild it? Not to mention that human suffering cannot be measured in dollars. These people are already so hurt that war would totally destroy them. Many people will be traumatised... But I know I know... precise weapons and stuff. Yet people still die, don't they? They still miss. And little kids end up without their parents and their legs. For your information I have spoken to A LOT of Iraqi people, and yes, they do want to get rid of Saddam, but they don't want their country under war. I have also spoken to our Serbian family friends before the bombings and they also wanted to get rid of Milosevic, but not by bombing. And that was one of the worst things that happened to them. They were crying on the phone to us every day because they were so scared. So I don't think you should judge what a nation thinks by talking to one of them. I don't think anyone would like it when their country would get attacked, and everyone would like to try other alternatives first.

First off, you didn't read my post very well. I talked to "one" Turkish immigrant, there were dozens of other middle eastern business men there as well, from turkey, from iraq, from iran, from Jordan. This is a small business persons organization for people from the middle east, to help each other succeed.

Secondly you have not answered the question put to you time and time again.
"What would you do?" You are very good at saying what not to do, but you give no solution that would actually work to solve the problem. So answer the question...worry about reletively few collateral casualties or worry about the hundereds of people who will die every day under the current regime?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oh, and MagiK, as for rebuilding destroyed infrastructure, let us not forget who benefits from that. Before the bombing in Kosovo was over, German and British construction companies were pestering their governments to secure rebuilding rights. Just trying to keep you honest, here, it's not all humanitarian. Carpetbaggers will always come in after the s**tstorm ends.

Sorry didn't mean to leave out the other nations that would profit too. I am not trying to say war isn't good for business. I think Germany and France will have quite a lot of "rebuilding" contracts after all is said and done as well.

[Wutang]

Actually if the US and UK do go into Iraq alone, I'm not sure if many French nor German companies will be awarded in the post war rebuilding plans.

I see those contracts mainly being awarded to US and UK firms.

Spelca - bombings aren't humanitarian at all, but neither is maintaining status quo on Iraq. UN sanctions needs to be lifted quickly but that isn't going to happen while Saddam's around.

[ 03-10-2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Spelca: I have also spoken to our Serbian family friends before the bombings and they also wanted to get rid of Milosevic, but not by bombing. And that was one of the worst things that happened to them. They were crying on the phone to us every day because they were so scared. So I don't think you should judge what a nation thinks by talking to one of them. I don't think anyone would like it when their country would get attacked, and everyone would like to try other alternatives first.[/QB]

P-A-L-E-A-S-S-E-E.

We bombed there for reasons you may not understand. Have you ever done a 6 month peace keeping mission there? I Have! As soon as you deconflict, and turn around those folks are back in each others face. We bombed them because we told them to stop. If you don't we will make you. Guess what, we bombed. Then again, and again, and again. Guess what? We did less damage in 6 months of heavy precision bombing than what they do when we leave sector. Why. Because THEY HATE EACH OTHER! Ask your Serbian friends if they would like to go home to a Albainian lead township. Please do, and please post the real answer. Then ask an Albainian if they would live in a Serb ruled town. The answer is, not no, but they would kill one another before they would.

I did a joint patrol with some Swed's and Norweign's, very interesting folks. Very professional soldiers. We all had the same view. If we leave, or turn our backs, they would kill one another again.

So, by bombing (precision) we take out all of the stuff saddam does not want you to know he has. That is why some buildings make a big bang when hit. Recall DS, a F 117A (Stealth A/C) dropped a precision guided bomb in downtown Bagdad, shown on the A/C to target camera. All of the reporters were screaming. Why? Because it went into the front window of a car dealership. Do you recall what was next? The whole damn block disentergrated. Why? Munitions plant! Why? Because he is a very evil and decietful person.

Do I want to return to the sands of Iraq? I already wear one combat patch, from the sands of Iraq! If it will save the lives of civilians, and prevent another 9/11 event. Then yes.

I ask you. What do you propose we do?

Felix

Thanks for the input Felix, I ended up out of the Service before the 91 campaign and Kosovo so am not quite as well versed in the on the ground point of view of the Serbian thing.

Edit: A lot of the "Give Peace a Chance" crowd forget that it isn't always the "military" doing the bombing and killing. They also conveniently forget the rape and torture and dehumanization of various ethnic groups by other ethnic groups in that region.

[ 03-10-2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Felix, not that it means anything coming from a civvy, but I salute you.

[Rikard_OHF]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: not to mention a country which accepts orginanisations like the Ku Klux Klan which imho is the Christain version of a Jihad organisation

Can you show me any federal governmental person, agency or organization that supports the Klan?

On the other hand, the last time I heard the Klan had a right to their opinion same as anyone else....in theory..but lately only gays, lesbians and NAMBLA actualy seem to have that right. You cannot under the US constitution prohibit the Klan and its members from existing nor can you dictate what they think....

All in all your bringing the Klan up is rather suspect and probably flamebait since the clan has nothing to do with Turks, Iraq or the on going war. [/QUOTE]I'm not saying that the US goverment Supports the KKK
I'm saying they Accept it and not forbit it
In Holland ANY orginastions that feeds hate towards a group of people is Forbidden
In Holland the KKK would not have the right to exist
Also gays should have every bit of right that hetro's have
Thats in you're own constitution and in the consititution of almost every western country

And my post was a reaction on you 3rd point and Spelca's reaction on that
and it was meant, not to flame america, because I dont
but it was meant as an eye opener
to show you how easily people can turn to extreemism

[Rikard_OHF]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Spelca, you keep saying that. Is your solution "do nothing" or do you have a proposal? We can't stop him from killing his own because war is killing. Okay - I get your point, though I respectfully disagree. What should we do, then? Quick - 100 people are currently dying whilst you think on it. Quote: Originally posted by Rikard_OHF: not to mention a country which accepts orginanisations like the Ku Klux Klan which imho is the Christain version of a Jihad organisation

A.) [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]
B.) [img]graemlins/troll.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE]Maybe it was a bit offtopic
but it was not ment as a flame bait, it was meant as an eye opener

[Timber Loftis]

Rickard, given the Hollandese context, I can better understand why you posted what you did.

Let me correct some misperceptions on your part. Advocating dictatorships or hate or love or whatever is fine in the USA. The constitution dictates that Freedom of Speech is paramount, and even the unpopular voices are generally protected. The notion being that if someone cannot advocate hate, then the society cannot learn from the dialogue between haters and lovers, so to speak. And, anyone on this forum must admit the dialogue, however repeititve, is in and of itself a source of knowledge and learning.

In short, being forbidden from stating an unpopular opinion does not educate nearly as much as being allowed to say it and then being universally derided for saying it.

Thus, in the USA Saddam could talk all he wants. He just would be forbidden from acting in ways that harmed others. The same is true for the KKK. To forbid them from speaking their mind is, in the American mindset, worse than any hate the speech really creates.

On the gay issue (homosexual, not "happy"), I first note it's very off-topic. Second I note that I am proud to have helped research and draft bits of Vermont's Civil Union law which permits gay "marriage." That said, I note it is NOT protected undert he constitution, and that I can make a very good argument as to why it's not protected under the US Constitution in the same manner that religion and skin color are.

The US Supreme Court has created a test for what constitutes a "protected characteristic" under the 5th and 14th Amendments. Gays pass part of the legal test (e.g. traditionally discriminated against) but have a hard time passing others. For instance, is sexuality a "inalienable characteristic?" Maybe - maybe not. I know gays who have been gay since grade school when they prayed themselves to sleep at night that they didn't have these feelings. Then, I've known 35 year old divorcees who suddenly decided to switch from AC to DC one day. As well, does being gay mean you are necessarily discriminated against in the modern day? Well, again, that depends. Many gay persons have turned their sexuality into a real money-maker, for instance.

Finally, I'll note that you should take care in naming protected classes/characteristics willy-nilly. For instance, once being gay is protected, how long until transsexuality is protected? If that doesn't offend you (and for me, it doesn't), what about bigamy and polygamy. What about fetishes. So you're born with a fecal fetish - do we protect it as a constitutional right? No, I'm not comparing homosexuality to fecal fetish, I am merely showing you the parade of horribles (no jokes about rainbow flags or short shorts in the parade, I promise )that can come passing your way if you are not exceedingly careful in what you legally protect.

In the European world we live under John Locke's one great promise of society: Give up 1 right - the right to harm others - and we can fairly keep all our other rights and live in harmony. However, how far we take the notion of "harm others" can be a problem. Striking with a fist = harm. But what about name-calling? If we define the "harm" too greatly, we've in effect limited other rights - ones we won't supposed to give up. Travel too far down that path and one day you may just find out you've made it illegal to hurt someone's feelings. What realm of silliness have we entered then?

[ 03-10-2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]