In response to Sebbo: 1: http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0303/26/a06-119619.htm 2: As Sebbo said. 3: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,944752,00.html 4: http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/Leafcopy/585-6.html 5: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,954679,00.html 6: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,952579,00.html Maybe now you see why we're more dubious about a meglomaniac running the worlds only superpower than we are about a third world country dictator. Mal
Malino, thank you for the links! They come in quite handy to show some of the points I was making. To jackleg I do not agree on Malino's "megalomaniac" part, though. I refuse to believe that Bush is just that. I think he is a nice enough person, be it a bit short on grey matter and unable to oversee what kind of precedent he has set by invading Iraq. Mr. Bush has gone to war with the best of intentions, "a war to end all wars" so to speak. But let's think about what happened the first two times these words were spoken out. WWI - The entire world agrees the Germans and Austians are the bad guys, and with good reason, too! They attack and defeat germany and austria, thus creating a breeding-place for Adolf Hitler and his merry men. 18 million lives wasted. How many would've died if Emperor Wilhelm would've just won? I think a lot less.... WWII - Once more, the world attacks Germany. This time, 52 million lives are traded for four decades of impending nuclear doom and a couple of near-misses. Of course, Hitler was a terrible man and as he managed to kill 10 milion non-combatants in 12 years, I don't even want to think about what would've happened if noone did anything about him. But the fact remains the same... In the wake of WWII, a nuclear war could've broken out, killing EVERYONE on earth. Even if Hitler would've lived for another 20 years (he was around 40 when he became the Fuhrer) he would've been responsible for 32 million deaths. So, even though I'm not saying Hitler and Wilhelm should've been left alone, I do bid the US government to be REALLY careful. History has shown to have a great pleasure in suddenly jumping up and biting people that think they've done a good thing in the ass! The signal Bush's administration has given is that it is okay to do pre-emptive strikes without UN-intervention. This is a dangerous movement. At the same time, a precedent for using full military force to change a country whose system you might disagree with has been set. Right now it was a dictatorship. (I'm going to theorise a bit now!) Can anyone guarantee me the next move will not be directed against (for instance) muslims? I mean, in the USA public opinion is that EVERY muslim is a potential terrorist. So far the government have taken a less fanatical stance, but what if George Bush decides that the Islam is a threat to the "American way of life", democracy or christianity? You see, the Islam is a complex system of beliefs and cultures, has gotten some negative attention and is currently perceived as a threat. This might force Bush to invade Saudi-Arabia, as it is a theocracy. After all, a theocracy is completely unlike a democracy! After that, monarchies might be next. Or socialist states. Or countries like Holland and Belgium, where those who commited atrocities might be judged (even Americans). This brings me to another issue... How do you feel about Bush's position regarding the International Tribunal? First the US Army is used to apprehend war-criminals in Serbia who are subsequently sent to The Hague to stand trial before the International Tribunal. THEN, Bush says that if ANY american is EVER held to stand trial, he will use military force against Holland to release his countrymen! Oh, the UN passed a resolution stating that all it's members must abide to this tribunal. And when a Dutchman was charged with drug-trafficing, the Dutch Government was asked to hand this person over..... So I must say, your government does appear to be hypocritical after all..... What do you think?
Ummmmmm Considering the link Malin posted (which was posted earlier by Odi) related to an incident in 1980!!, and the US has been to war with Saddam since then (Gulf War) I hardly think you can say they We all know that the US courted Saddam way back, as they did Bin Laden, etc, etc. Frankly, it matters not a single jot now! All that matters is the problems we are facing, if the 'problems' ever existed, so please stop blowing the trumpet about something that happened 23 years ago as if it has any relevance now. Thanks -glas-
get some f'ing balls WMD- if you ask me, what you find here iessentially equals the force of a WMD. What WMD caused this disaster? Saddam. I'm glad some people have the balls to say, "no your not going to do this crap anymore," and stand behind it. Lem
muahahahahhahaha juaaaaaaaaaaaaahyahyahasyhayahya ROFL damn glas, i didn't saw ur logo... ur avatar.......... a piece of history! WTG!!!!!!!!!!! well we talk of this having a beer better than here! (tho u and me now that this way u understand me better -f***ng english-) BASMAN: wtg mate, u talk in a great way.... u just set up and show the arguments, i insult them... good cop, bad cop cause i'm feeding up of Aznar's Bush's and this sort of fascists......
As Rage Against the Machine, Machiavello, Sunt Tzu and other say..... "know ur enemy" and tho USA is not my enemy (mine is Aznar) i use to watch Fox news and Cnn lies, i mean, news.... and today i found such a funny thing......... LOL they were talking about security bugs in the arabia saudi police and security departaments... tryng to say that half of the strike was arabia's fault yeah it this has been bugs...... what are the twin towers and pentagon strikes?? they aren't secuurity bugs? or holes??? damn, tipicall... always the others do thing worst than us......
Re: get some f'ing balls Like I said, Lem, what is the difference between a mass-grave in Iraq and a mass-grave in North Korea? That the USA isn't going to do anything about the mass-grave in North Korea. And don't get me wrong, with good judgement as well! NK has nukes, delivery vehicles and the political will to use them. Also, the USA (though very mighty and powerful) are simply unable to stop every despot. But the problem is that the people in NK now expect to be "liberated" in exactly the same way.
Like I said, Glas: this is not really an argument and I only posted it to explain it's train of thinking. It IS one of the most common arguments against this specific war, albeit a false one. Philosophically speaking, all ethics go out of the window when your nation or your rule are at stake (Read "Il Principe" by Nicolo Machiavelli) as the good of the country goes above any morale or ethics-system. It's simply called "Real-Politik", like I said. The other points I made (Especially number 6) are still valid, though.
I dont doubt they were mate This is one argument however that just gets on my nerve. @ Ach: So you like my avatar? I just made it last night after I found an old disc with photoshop on it. And yeah, wait til we get a few beers down our necks next week, were going to have some 'friendly' discussions about politics -glas-
It's just to bad that you can see a little bit of ME in that avatar of yours! But anyways: Like I said, that argument is not valid. Should've stressed that, though BTW, I recently bought "Il Principe" by N. Machiavelli. I can warmly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy.
I've read parts of it, and many other authors, I had philosophy/sociology classes on high school (loved them). Indeed it's very interesting, specially how the people give away some of their freedom in suport to the goverment, trading it for security. But I don't like one thing about it, too much good/evil separation, imo there's not such thing as good/evil, just points of view.
I haven't read any discussion of ethics in "il principe" yet. It would seem that Machiavelli views ethics as subordinate to the country's well-being (which was one of the greatest causes for dissent, BTW). Good and evil have no meaning to him. As long as politics are discussed, that is..... Funny: According to the translation I'm reading now, the English expression "The Old Nick" (meaning the Devil) comes from the name Nicolo. Because of his un-religious and un-ethic works he was NOT a popular guy during the 17th and 18th century. Even so much so his name was used as the devil's name that man left quite an impression!
So many books to read...so little time... One that I would love to read too is Also Spreach Zaratrusta (Nietszche), but this is hardcore stuff, very dificult and dense reading, again, read parts of it.
Hey, I've read "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (in Dutch though) and I must say, it wasn't half as difficult as it seems. Nietzche was a gifted writer, I must say!
Have u ever read the edition commented by... Napoleon? Yeah, mister Bonaparte writted lots of notes on the sides of the Principe and there's an edition with all that comments.... and is just magnific it's like Maquiavelo saying something and napoleon: "oh, cool, i'll use it when i conquer italy (well, it was not italy, but to understand" and he agrees some stuff and lughts of other after reading it, highly recommended to eat this edition
damn, i agree FLA, very hard stuff.... this sort of books that u must read every sentence 2 or 3 times to take profit of it, but, anyway, great one... as everything made by Nietsche id u ever read something of Marx?
Of course! I read Marx and Engels' "Das Kapital" right after I read "Mein Kampf" (by mr. Evil himself: Adolf Hitler). My philosophy teacher told I should try to read them both and tell him what differences I found. Quite interesting, though.
wow i've tried, and i must read it before i finish the uni.... tho till i don't stop smoking joints i don't feel able to do such a thing
Marx is difficult, but gratifying. You do need quite a lot of historical, psychological and philosophical knowledge to fully appreciate his works though! As for Mein Kampf, I cannot reccomend it to anyone. I honestly don't understand why it is outlawed in Holland.... I mean, reading it will NOT make anyone a facist at all, it only shows what a nutcase Hitler was. I mean, after reading that book I really understood that the only thing more crzay then that fucker is finding Charles Manson eating Fruity-Loops on your front-porch! (Guess where I stole THAT remark!)
