|
United States22883 Posts
On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 17:56 angelicfolly wrote:Taliban ruled the country. They supported Al Qeada. This is such a key thing you are not seeing. I wonder where did I say Afghan attacked us? I do quite remember only saying this. Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. We went after the people we where supposed to. What you don't get is that Taliban and Al Qaeda ruled Afghan, thus semantics. Again, we did go after the people who hit the twin towers. You would be kidding yourself if you think just taking out Bin Laden is just going to fix everything. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was BASED IN AFGHAN, which was SUPPORTED by the Taliban. To put it bluntly it's irrelevant what their nationalities are when their base of operations is primarily based and supported by the "local government". The rationale was it was war and we did NOT want another tragedy like 9/11, Which leads to another point. You really seem to forget that Al Qaeda did not want to stop killing Americans, and actually still to this day tries to. Hence if you really want this route preemptive. the explanation was given and it was a true one. You really think ,"asking nicely", that the Taliban would give Bin Laden over? You really think it's ok to kill 3000 civilians just like that, and then ask nicely for the guy? You really think we had no right to go after the ORGANIZATION that planned that? Honestly I have few words for this, and really at this point do not care for such polling. Frankly I do not find the killing of 3000 US Civilians (and mind you internationals) something that should be passed over like it was a everyday crime. It was an act of War and that's it. Actually it's not our job but the UN JOB to stop such things, but do they do it no. With that said, we do so provide humanitarian aid whenever possible. Hey it's not like the Taliban where not killing/enslaving the people... Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) What do you mean here? You appear to be stumbling over your own emphasis, so I'll try to correct you. 1. The Taliban did not attack us. Afghanistan did not attack us. A Saudi-based and Saudi-funded organization was likely responsible. Bin Laden himself bounced around numerous countries, many of which turned him away or were pressured to exile him. The fact that he found a home in Afghanistan Taliban speaks more to general nodding of the Taliban government to warlords and other thugs so long as its primary authority is not challenged. Bin Laden likely provided money or services for their hospitality, but to say that the Afghan government was run by international terrorists is very wrong. 2. You need to put your outrage when damage is done to Americans into context alongside the outrage of the entire Islamic world when America treats with dictators, bombs civilians, and refuses to take a moral high ground on Israel-Palestine. 3. No human life is worth any less than an American's. If you're even cognizant of the amount of blood on our hands, to call such "collateral damage" necessary if it means protecting American lives is nothing short of racist. 4. While the government would like us foaming at the mouth for revenge against Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in fact is a fictitious entity - a name invented by US intelligence to summarize the amalgamation of radical-Islamic groups that exist throughout Africa, the Middle East, and all the way Southeast Asia. These groups are vile in their own back yards, but at home we have more to fear from our own governments that would use the scourge of terrorism to distract the public from far more important domestic issues, all while feeding into a bloated military industry. You can also see this in Russia, Pakistan, and other traditionally oppressive regimes that have become our allies in the War on Terror. 5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers.
I think this is a very fair and well balanced post, although with 3. I wouldn't go as far as to call it racist (although some of it exists, to be sure.) It's a product of statism, and the reality is that no country is willing to give up that attitude at the moment, and I'm skeptical that they ever will..
|
On July 27 2010 17:58 L wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 17:11 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 16:08 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote:
This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better.
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. Yeah my opinion, but due note if you really want to play that, you remain on the same field as me. How so? I"m curious to why, but I do think I know what you're hinting at (in it being "immoral" and "unjust"). Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. Sorry again, but we didn't go over there to take over a country, if you would note that Taliban and al-Qaeda where not exactly enemies to one another. With that said, Just taking Bin-Laden out would not resolve the problem. Yeah, not much is going to come of this if you're seriously claiming Afghanistan attacked the US. I'll expand on this below. On July 27 2010 16:14 L wrote:On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote:
This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better.
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. How exactly was the war in afghanistan offensive OR preemptive? Additionally, most of the world had quite a different opinion than you did, according to the UN resolutions passed. The Taliban wasn't just hiding Bin Laden at the time when the attacks occured; they were ruling over a famine state dependent on foreign aid which was mass producing opium and heroin for sale abroad. The Taliban had been flouting international pressure for close to a decade, and when their poster child, the target of prior resolutions, attempted to fly planes into the economic, military and political nerve centers of the states, something had to be done. How wasn't the war in Afghanistan offensive or preemptive? Offensive - We assault a country. We were not defending ourselves as Afghanistan had not attacked us. A man, in Afghanistan as a "guest" (he has no citizenship after losing his Saudi), organizes a terrorist attack on the US, in which none of the hijackers are actually Afghan. How does this give us rationale to 'defend ourselves' against Afghanistan? Preemptive - If any part of the rationale mentions the possibility of another attack if we do not attack Afghanistan, it falls under preemptive. Why was there such urgency to attack? I don't see any other explanation offered. Now, as for popular opinion, there were polls done at the time which showed only three countries (US, Israel, India) of 37 surveyed supported war over diplomatic options { see here}. By the way, there was no UN resolution passed supporting the war. Obviously the resolutions condemned the attacks of 9/11, and supported bringing those involved in it's planning and execution to justice. They also offered support of a popular effort within Afghanistan for regime change. However, none supported war or the initial US invasion, and the UN only became involved after the Taliban was displaced. And the idea that the Taliban was so bad that it had to be disposed of is a troublesome argument. Now you're talking about war for supposedly humane reasons, which gets convoluted very quickly. Where do you draw the line? We should technically be intervening on humanitarian reasons in dozens of other countries if we accept the premise. There are so many other questions, too. Is the loss of innocent lives worth the potential gain in livelihood later? Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) Is it possible to succeed in such an endeavor, even if we were to somehow agree on the morality? The 9/11 attacks were not committed by a man. They were committed by an organization headed by said man. AQ's links to the Taliban were solid and well known; there had been UN resolutions passed 3 years prior to the invasion demanding that the Taliban cease aiding Bin Laden and stop funding AQ (with, might I add, drug money). These weren't random guests, and the Taliban knew what was going on. The 9/11 attacks weren't the only attacks committed by Al Qaeda, nor were they the only attacks committed while they were stationed in Afghanistan. The 1998 US embassy bombings, for instance, happened prior with much less fanfare. Over the course of 3 years, the Taliban systematically refused to revoke AQ's safe haven and offer Bin Laden and other top officers in AQ up for trial. The best part, however, is that the plan to execute the 9/11 attack commenced as a response to international diplomatic sanctions against Afghanistan. Diplomatic measures weren't just ineffective; they were incendiary. The nearly month long refusal from the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks were similarly not the result of any diplomatic failure; intelligence evidence suggests that the Taliban were actively using the time to shuttle Bin Laden to the Pakistan border. So no, this wasn't offensive. There was a first strike against the US which the US responded to. Diplomatically, the Taliban had been at the bargaining table for almost half a decade, then their proxy decided it was a good idea to attempt to symbolically neuter the world's lone superpower. Nor was it pre-emptive; The attack had been committed already. Not every war which takes place on the soil of another country is both offensive and pre-emptive. I frankly can't accept that for obvious reasons.
The problem in this situation is that any war is going to disproportionately affect the population of Afghanistan as compared to that of America. This is why I call it an offensive war and not a defensive one - my qualification involves the (especially innocent) loss of life that is undoubtedly going to occur on a large scale. This is especially the case when you consider what kind of shape Afghanistan and it's people were in at the time of the decision to go to war. Any amount of destruction a war would cause amplifies even the smallest of problems when you're already barely surviving.
If you're fighting to defend your life or to repel occupation, and your own resources are being destroyed by both sides, there is a lot more at stake - you can aptly call this situation a defensive war. Consider many countries in WWII and their plight, and compare that to the vague possibility that violent extremists taking refuge in a broken country might be able to orchestrate another makeshift attack on the literal military superpower of the world. This is why broad use of the term defensive war is a problem.
When we bomb the hell out of targets in another country from the air, and use vastly superior technology to kill people we are hardly threatened by, what do we have to lose? America is fighting completely upon the idea that if war was not brought to Afghanistan, the US would be attacked again - that is the supposed self-defense (otherwise this is revenge). This is a vague and troublesome argument, especially considering the nature of terrorist attacks, and how many of the 'foiled' plots since have come from within, planned by sympathetic US citizens, not by AQ. There is also the thought that if you are actually concerned with self-defense and 'fighting terrorism', the proper response is quite the opposite. Violence begets violence, and the key concern of these supposed 'enemies' is the US involvement in their affairs in the first place.
But, in the end, the decision for where the line was drawn is simply a result of power. It really has little to do with claims of state-sponsored terrorism, and is probably by and large a 'don't fuck with us' response - a 'how dare you slap the face of the emperor?!'. Consider this:
If America sponsored terrorism in, say, Nicaragua, and then later gave those same terrorists asylum, does Nicaragua have a case for war against the US? The logic used here would say they do, and would even be supported by a relevant court case. It's much more reasonable to assume that this is a power game, though. Obviously a small country with a devastated infrastructure could do nothing in response, regardless of what the US did to it. Even if it were backed by a large portion of the world, how do you match both the US' military spending (about equal to the rest of the world combined), and the alliance of NATO? You simply can't.
The same power game can be witnessed in the discussions following the release of these documents by Wikileaks. Just watch for whenever the term 'war crimes' is mentioned and note the dodgy responses. Everyone knows that only the winners - the ones holding power - are able to prosecute war crimes, and currently no one is in position to hold the US accountable.
|
i recommend you guys not to argue with angelic. hes pretty good at ignorance.
the wikileaks mostly confirmed information that has been out already. but as usual the American media does a pretty bad job informing the public.
i wonder if stations like PBS do a good job at telling the truth. too bad you cant watch their programs online from outside USA.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 27 2010 21:00 dybydx wrote:
i recommend you guys not to argue with angelic. hes pretty good at ignorance.
the wikileaks mostly confirmed information that has been out already. but as usual the American media does a pretty bad job informing the public.
i wonder if stations like PBS do a good job at telling the truth. too bad you cant watch their programs online from outside USA.
Contrary to popular belief, "American media" is not comprised entirely of cable news channels. In fact, the best and most popular newspaper in the world also happens to be American. Perhaps you've heard of the New Yorkshire Gazette or something along those lines.
|
On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:
5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers.
Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but our economy lost hundreds of billions as the result of the 9/11 attacks. Our country literally stopped functioning for a week. Planes were grounded, everyone was hunkered down in their homes and had to be encouraged to go out and shop. 1 million jobs were lost in the 4 months following 9/11. Our country was brought to it's knees by 9/11, so don't bring up the financial burder of the war without bringing up the financial burden of letting a terrorist organazation launch attack after attack and being unwilling to attack the country that is harboring them.
|
On July 27 2010 20:52 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:On July 27 2010 17:56 angelicfolly wrote:Taliban ruled the country. They supported Al Qeada. This is such a key thing you are not seeing. I wonder where did I say Afghan attacked us? I do quite remember only saying this. Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. We went after the people we where supposed to. What you don't get is that Taliban and Al Qaeda ruled Afghan, thus semantics. Again, we did go after the people who hit the twin towers. You would be kidding yourself if you think just taking out Bin Laden is just going to fix everything. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was BASED IN AFGHAN, which was SUPPORTED by the Taliban. To put it bluntly it's irrelevant what their nationalities are when their base of operations is primarily based and supported by the "local government". The rationale was it was war and we did NOT want another tragedy like 9/11, Which leads to another point. You really seem to forget that Al Qaeda did not want to stop killing Americans, and actually still to this day tries to. Hence if you really want this route preemptive. the explanation was given and it was a true one. You really think ,"asking nicely", that the Taliban would give Bin Laden over? You really think it's ok to kill 3000 civilians just like that, and then ask nicely for the guy? You really think we had no right to go after the ORGANIZATION that planned that? Honestly I have few words for this, and really at this point do not care for such polling. Frankly I do not find the killing of 3000 US Civilians (and mind you internationals) something that should be passed over like it was a everyday crime. It was an act of War and that's it. Actually it's not our job but the UN JOB to stop such things, but do they do it no. With that said, we do so provide humanitarian aid whenever possible. Hey it's not like the Taliban where not killing/enslaving the people... Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) What do you mean here? You appear to be stumbling over your own emphasis, so I'll try to correct you. 1. The Taliban did not attack us. Afghanistan did not attack us. A Saudi-based and Saudi-funded organization was likely responsible. Bin Laden himself bounced around numerous countries, many of which turned him away or were pressured to exile him. The fact that he found a home in Afghanistan Taliban speaks more to general nodding of the Taliban government to warlords and other thugs so long as its primary authority is not challenged. Bin Laden likely provided money or services for their hospitality, but to say that the Afghan government was run by international terrorists is very wrong. 2. You need to put your outrage when damage is done to Americans into context alongside the outrage of the entire Islamic world when America treats with dictators, bombs civilians, and refuses to take a moral high ground on Israel-Palestine. 3. No human life is worth any less than an American's. If you're even cognizant of the amount of blood on our hands, to call such "collateral damage" necessary if it means protecting American lives is nothing short of racist. 4. While the government would like us foaming at the mouth for revenge against Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in fact is a fictitious entity - a name invented by US intelligence to summarize the amalgamation of radical-Islamic groups that exist throughout Africa, the Middle East, and all the way Southeast Asia. These groups are vile in their own back yards, but at home we have more to fear from our own governments that would use the scourge of terrorism to distract the public from far more important domestic issues, all while feeding into a bloated military industry. You can also see this in Russia, Pakistan, and other traditionally oppressive regimes that have become our allies in the War on Terror. 5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers. I think this is a very fair and well balanced post, although with 3. I wouldn't go as far as to call it racist (although some of it exists, to be sure.) It's a product of statism, and the reality is that no country is willing to give up that attitude at the moment, and I'm skeptical that they ever will..
I think it goes beyond that particularly when talking about America. Since the Great Generation there's been a trend toward neoliberal global agenda, or "America knows best" and is a beacon of morality, etc etc. Kerry and Obama ran their elections with the promise of returning America to its place as a "moral leader," and yet Obama has done nothing to derail our wars, the police state, restore habeas corpus and the rule of law, etc etc. We still support dictators and crumby states where it suits our strategic needs best, so it's all just rhetoric intended to make the American people feel like they're helping the world when it's the farthest thing from the truth.
You hear politicians (Democrats and Republicans) espouse this "moral high ground" bullshit in line with "God Bless America" and there is nothing else to call it but fascist and racist when it is used against another people to legitimize atrocities, make war-crimes "necessary evils," and give us steal natural resources. It's fascist because it subjugates the world before our authority. It's racist because we do diminish the deaths of others as statistics, "collateral damage." or we give them labels.
The ratio of deaths (us vs them) is on the order of 1:1000, if that helps it sink in.
|
On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:
Bin Laden likely provided money or services for their hospitality, but to say that the Afghan government was run by international terrorists is very wrong.
bin Laden actually did provide services, in the form of guerrilla training and quite a deal of help during the Taliban's war against the Northern Alliance.
Good points all around, by the way.
|
On July 27 2010 21:21 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:
Bin Laden likely provided money or services for their hospitality, but to say that the Afghan government was run by international terrorists is very wrong.
bin Laden actually did provide services, in the form of guerrilla training and quite a deal of help during the Taliban's war against the Northern Alliance. Good points all around, by the way.
I meant just to get into the country, since so many other countries were denying him and there would be a diplomatic cost to anyone who took him. I think he was in Africa (forget where exactly) before that and had just been expelled, so he probably payed the Taliban out of his family's wealth in exchange for hospitality.
Yeah, he took a side in the country's internal struggle. But so did the numerous provincial warlords of the country, each holding their own militia and regional authority. The Taliban enacted strict religious codes, but true military power was (and still is) decentralized.
My impression of the politics prior to 9/11 (and I've read numerous articles from 2001) is that you had a point of resistance from the Northern Alliance, not making tremendous headway against the Taliban - but if there should ever be a power vacuum, there is no one warlord who could become a leader without an equally armed warlord from another province successively challenging that authority. The Northern Alliance held some popular mujahedin fighters (heroes of the Soviet campaign), but their leader was assassinated that very day - there is not much you can do overnight to democratize such a miserable place.
So the country is fragmented along power lines, and somewhat along ethnic lines (they have 3 major language-speaking groups if I recall accurately), but it just isn't appropriate to place Bin Laden alongside the longstanding contenders for power as though he's in bed with the government and pulling strings. He's just another guy with a militia (and a deep Saudi bank account).
|
On July 27 2010 21:06 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 21:00 dybydx wrote:
i recommend you guys not to argue with angelic. hes pretty good at ignorance.
the wikileaks mostly confirmed information that has been out already. but as usual the American media does a pretty bad job informing the public.
i wonder if stations like PBS do a good job at telling the truth. too bad you cant watch their programs online from outside USA. Contrary to popular belief, "American media" is not comprised entirely of cable news channels. In fact, the best and most popular newspaper in the world also happens to be American. Perhaps you've heard of the New Yorkshire Gazette or something along those lines.
in term of cable news, there are big names like CNN and Fox. Fox is more popular domestically and CNN internationally. Fox is totally trash news.
In term of print, USAToday is most popular but i think NYT is more reliable.
In term of most reliable news source in USA, I probably go with Reuters.
In term of overall reliability of news, I think BBC beats most American sources, except Reuters.
All that is personal opinion ofc.
|
Daily Show Folks. My News Source
|
On July 27 2010 21:46 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 21:06 Jibba wrote:On July 27 2010 21:00 dybydx wrote:
i recommend you guys not to argue with angelic. hes pretty good at ignorance.
the wikileaks mostly confirmed information that has been out already. but as usual the American media does a pretty bad job informing the public.
i wonder if stations like PBS do a good job at telling the truth. too bad you cant watch their programs online from outside USA. Contrary to popular belief, "American media" is not comprised entirely of cable news channels. In fact, the best and most popular newspaper in the world also happens to be American. Perhaps you've heard of the New Yorkshire Gazette or something along those lines. in term of cable news, there are big names like CNN and Fox. Fox is more popular domestically and CNN internationally. Fox is totally trash news. In term of print, USAToday is most popular but i think NYT is more reliable. In term of most reliable news source in USA, I probably go with Reuters. In term of overall reliability of news, I think BBC beats most American sources, except Reuters. All that is personal opinion ofc.
NYT sucks. They actually admitted they suck when they apologized for going along with the government propaganda in 2003.
Reuters and AP actually do field work, but it's mostly sterile and is passed on to secondary agencies to report or not report. Reuters may do a very important story, but the NYT may choose to not reprint it.
And you see this in a lot of big name papers when they're just reluctant to run a story on something of major relevance because it may be labeled as "liberal, anti-war, or un-American." The Post's recent expose on the bloated intelligence budget and expansive agencies was based on information they'd been sitting on for years.
And the senior "journalists" that get invited to White House press meetings are catered, wined, and dined, and ultimately so flattered to the point that they forgot everything they learned in the 4th estate.
BBC runs superficial stories - so they'll reprint the most relevant stories out of the American press, but they won't actually read between the lines. They're alright for international stories, where you otherwise wouldn't hear anything. Their science and technology sections are very soft, never worth reading - in general, I don't think the BBC knows how to write a hard-hitting story.
On July 27 2010 21:48 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
Daily Show Folks. My News Source
Once you get tired of Mr. Stewart's sarcasm, you'll realize he isn't actually delivering you any more news than the networks and you aren't watching a news supplement, just comedy. If he isn't careful he'll turn into David Letterman and completely lose all relevance. Colbert at least raises important issues that aren't being talked about in the mainstream, primarily through the diversity of guests that he invites.
I get my news from:
paper: only the liberal ones (L.A. Times, the (Washington) Post when they're trying, Guardian UK, Haaretz). The WSJ runs conservative op-ed columns, but their news reporting is very informative.
tv: msnbc has improved, C-SPAN is the only real news network (boring but the source of all information), PBS (but who cares they're old and boring), and Al-Jazeera or RT or something outlandish just to get a completely opposite spin on things (often out of touch with America, but in touch with the rest of the world).
radio: NPR (old people know everything) and DemocracyNow! (democracynow.org, I highly recommend their daily videos/podcasts)
web: truthdig, news.bbc.co.uk, fora, whatever you can find...
|
mmp,
1. Yes NYT has fucked up bad, but in term of daily papers, they are one of the better "mainstream all purpose" papers produced in USA.
2. on BBC. i dont think its their duty to "write hard hitting news". they are only suppose to report the facts. editorial and opinion pieces are different than news.
3. I get my news from Google :p I generally don't trust editorials and opinion pieces. I tend to read coverage from 1 American source and 1 non-American source.
|
Google doesn't do news. They reprint AP and other agencies and link you to news sites, all based on what you're already searching for. What makes Google News headlines is based on a formula you and I do not know.
As for BBC, I just think they're lauded for their impartiality - but you can't rely on them to challenge propaganda with "hard-hitting" stories, even when the facts are right there. People rely on the journalists to challenge propagandists by reporting the facts that are most relevant to the day's discussion. I don't trust BBC or NYT to do this, given their records.
|
On July 27 2010 20:39 Jibba wrote:
A thought occurred to me today, and it's a slightly depressing one. To those of you who think this leak is going to change the way wars are fought or will be a large burden on the US government, let me remind (or probably inform) you what happened when the Pentagon Papers were leaked: no one cared.
I think Ellsberg did a heroic thing at the time, but for all the fuss we make about it today, most of the public really didn't give a damn when the NYT first started printing them. The only reason it remained a story was because of Nixon's rage and ensuing Watergate scandal. Had the Whitehouse simply controlled the story, it would've died.
At this point, I'm at least happy that there's a venue to get this kind of information out anonymously. If you check up on the lives of past whistleblowers, they pretty much get their lives ruined by bringing these events to life.
Nothing, including thousands of Afghani civilian casualties, is going to stop the general public from being ignorant and stupid. There's many things that fuel the Iraq/Afghan conflicts, but facts aren't one of them. At this point most war supporters want to continue fighting in the middle east due to racism, or greed, or some fundamental belief that "America can do no wrong".
On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:
Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not.
No war is moral. No case can be made for a "revenge" war that cost the other side casualties that outnumber ours by a factor of 10. No case can be made for retaliating against 14 Saudi Arabians by attacking the country that they had spent some time in and maybe received training as well. No case can be made for laying siege to a country when the criminals in question would have just moved over to Pakistan anyway.
|
On July 27 2010 21:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:
5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but our economy lost hundreds of billions as the result of the 9/11 attacks. Our country literally stopped functioning for a week. Planes were grounded, everyone was hunkered down in their homes and had to be encouraged to go out and shop. 1 million jobs were lost in the 4 months following 9/11. Our country was brought to it's knees by 9/11, so don't bring up the financial burder of the war without bringing up the financial burden of letting a terrorist organazation launch attack after attack and being unwilling to attack the country that is harboring them.
Arent you ashamed that a country so big and so great, who sacrificed so much for many noble causes, could be brought to its knees by something so small as plane crashes ?
Bin Laden spent like a dozen guys and a few million dollars and in return he got you into a depression, into a war, and that made you lose amazing respect you had with the world.
The war in afghanistan isnt even against direct osama affiliates, i guess osamas plan had no chance of failure when you consider who was making the decisions back then.
I just amazes me how stupid obama is by pursuing this unachievable victory
|
On July 28 2010 00:38 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 21:13 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:
5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but our economy lost hundreds of billions as the result of the 9/11 attacks. Our country literally stopped functioning for a week. Planes were grounded, everyone was hunkered down in their homes and had to be encouraged to go out and shop. 1 million jobs were lost in the 4 months following 9/11. Our country was brought to it's knees by 9/11, so don't bring up the financial burder of the war without bringing up the financial burden of letting a terrorist organazation launch attack after attack and being unwilling to attack the country that is harboring them. Arent you ashamed that a country so big and so great, who sacrificed so much for many noble causes, could be brought to its knees by something so small as plane crashes ? Bin Laden spent like a dozen guys and a few million dollars and in return he got you into a depression, into a war, and that made you lose amazing respect you had with the world. The war in afghanistan isnt even against direct osama affiliates, i guess osamas plan had no chance of failure when you consider who was making the decisions back then. I just amazes me how stupid obama is by pursuing this unachievable victory
So small as plane crashes? Lol I know you know what happened on 9/11 so don't make it sound like a couple of planes crashed into a desert or something
|
On July 28 2010 00:38 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 21:13 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:
5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but our economy lost hundreds of billions as the result of the 9/11 attacks. Our country literally stopped functioning for a week. Planes were grounded, everyone was hunkered down in their homes and had to be encouraged to go out and shop. 1 million jobs were lost in the 4 months following 9/11. Our country was brought to it's knees by 9/11, so don't bring up the financial burder of the war without bringing up the financial burden of letting a terrorist organazation launch attack after attack and being unwilling to attack the country that is harboring them. Arent you ashamed that a country so big and so great, who sacrificed so much for many noble causes, could be brought to its knees by something so small as plane crashes ? Bin Laden spent like a dozen guys and a few million dollars and in return he got you into a depression, into a war, and that made you lose amazing respect you had with the world. The war in afghanistan isnt even against direct osama affiliates, i guess osamas plan had no chance of failure when you consider who was making the decisions back then. I just amazes me how stupid obama is by pursuing this unachievable victory
Economic troubles in the US and the rest of the world are not a result of the wars in the Middle East.
|
On July 28 2010 01:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2010 00:38 D10 wrote:On July 27 2010 21:13 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:
5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but our economy lost hundreds of billions as the result of the 9/11 attacks. Our country literally stopped functioning for a week. Planes were grounded, everyone was hunkered down in their homes and had to be encouraged to go out and shop. 1 million jobs were lost in the 4 months following 9/11. Our country was brought to it's knees by 9/11, so don't bring up the financial burder of the war without bringing up the financial burden of letting a terrorist organazation launch attack after attack and being unwilling to attack the country that is harboring them. Arent you ashamed that a country so big and so great, who sacrificed so much for many noble causes, could be brought to its knees by something so small as plane crashes ? Bin Laden spent like a dozen guys and a few million dollars and in return he got you into a depression, into a war, and that made you lose amazing respect you had with the world. The war in afghanistan isnt even against direct osama affiliates, i guess osamas plan had no chance of failure when you consider who was making the decisions back then. I just amazes me how stupid obama is by pursuing this unachievable victory So small as plane crashes? Lol I know you know what happened on 9/11 so don't make it sound like a couple of planes crashed into a desert or something
And we all know that if America really wanted Bin Laden they would have him by now already...
|
On July 28 2010 01:50 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2010 00:38 D10 wrote:On July 27 2010 21:13 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2010 20:45 mmp wrote:
5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but our economy lost hundreds of billions as the result of the 9/11 attacks. Our country literally stopped functioning for a week. Planes were grounded, everyone was hunkered down in their homes and had to be encouraged to go out and shop. 1 million jobs were lost in the 4 months following 9/11. Our country was brought to it's knees by 9/11, so don't bring up the financial burder of the war without bringing up the financial burden of letting a terrorist organazation launch attack after attack and being unwilling to attack the country that is harboring them. Arent you ashamed that a country so big and so great, who sacrificed so much for many noble causes, could be brought to its knees by something so small as plane crashes ? Bin Laden spent like a dozen guys and a few million dollars and in return he got you into a depression, into a war, and that made you lose amazing respect you had with the world. The war in afghanistan isnt even against direct osama affiliates, i guess osamas plan had no chance of failure when you consider who was making the decisions back then. I just amazes me how stupid obama is by pursuing this unachievable victory Economic troubles in the US and the rest of the world are not a result of the wars in the Middle East.
Not a direct result, at least. Diverting the money (and other resources) spent on war in the US budget toward domestic issues would go a long way toward easing the current economic problems we're having.
|
The problem in this situation is that any war is going to disproportionately affect the population of Afghanistan as compared to that of America. This is why I call it an offensive war and not a defensive one
So any war between Afghanistan and America is automatically offensive and thus unjustified? I can understand an unqualified "War is never the answer", but to state that nations need to have roughly equivalent penalties for going to war means that only long, drawn out conflicts like world war 2, or non-wars would be justified. That seems wrong on many levels.
This is especially the case when you consider what kind of shape Afghanistan and it's people were in at the time of the decision to go to war. Any amount of destruction a war would cause amplifies even the smallest of problems when you're already barely surviving. The immediate 'shape' they were in was directly caused by international sanctions placed on Afghanistan for their drug trade and their harboring of Bin Laden after the 1998 attacks.
What you don't seem to be putting together is that prior attacks from AQ are directly responsible for the situation of the citizens in Afghanistan, and that diplomatic avenues actually caused as much, if not more, suffering than the deaths which occured during the war.
If you're fighting to defend your life or to repel occupation, and your own resources are being destroyed by both sides, there is a lot more at stake - you can aptly call this situation a defensive war. Consider many countries in WWII and their plight, and compare that to the vague possibility that violent extremists taking refuge in a broken country might be able to orchestrate another makeshift attack on the literal military superpower of the world. This is why broad use of the term defensive war is a problem. This was never a fight to defend life and limb on a national scale, or an invasion of conquest to acquire mineral or natural wealth. It was a fight to dismantle AQ and those who supported them.
You could consider the actions of the police after a person has committed a crime 'offensive' and the attempts of the person to escape and fight back 'defensive'. If the police is acting unilaterally and outside their mandate, those adjectives would indeed apply. In the current situation, I might have agreed with you if there weren't multiple attacks on US citizens, an over the top symbolic plot to disgrace the nation, many years of obstinate refusal on the part of the Taliban, and a huge amount of ill gotten gains funneled into the organization by their hosts. Because of the above factors, I consider the war more than justified.
When we bomb the hell out of targets in another country from the air, and use vastly superior technology to kill people we are hardly threatened by, what do we have to lose? America is fighting completely upon the idea that if war was not brought to Afghanistan, the US would be attacked again - that is the supposed self-defense (otherwise this is revenge). This is a vague and troublesome argument, especially considering the nature of terrorist attacks, and how many of the 'foiled' plots since have come from within, planned by sympathetic US citizens, not by AQ. There is also the thought that if you are actually concerned with self-defense and 'fighting terrorism', the proper response is quite the opposite. Violence begets violence, and the key concern of these supposed 'enemies' is the US involvement in their affairs in the first place. What do we have to lose? Plenty. War is fucking expensive. War isn't 'bombing people from the air'. It is boots on the ground securing areas. It is lives lost and wealth lost.
The semi-cavalier attitude you've put up here is obviously a sham because if war really had no costs you wouldn't bother objecting.
As for the reasons for this war, it is more than revenge, but that's certainly a component. There haven't been any other attacks on US soil despite a huge amount of them being planned while AQ was training in Afghanistan; that alone tells you something. As much as I think homeland security as an investment is silly, I can't argue with the results. The effects of terrorist attacks on the US aren't just measurable in their death tolls; there were entire industries which bottomed out for years because of the psychological damage to people across the world.
But, in the end, the decision for where the line was drawn is simply a result of power. It really has little to do with claims of state-sponsored terrorism, and is probably by and large a 'don't fuck with us' response - a 'how dare you slap the face of the emperor?!'. Consider this: So? Obviously the line is drawn by those in power. That's what defines power.
If there's a 'don't fuck with us' response, it was because SOMEONE WAS FUCKING WITH US. Intentionally. Over many years. They had buddies who refused to turn them over. We considered them akin to the criminal and the aider and abettor. The argument here is almost 100% the same as if someone had stolen a TV and someone else decided to hide him. The only difference is that the Taliban were the sovereign force of a country and that bringing them to justice would involve higher collateral costs.
That said, that isn't the fault of the US. That's the fault of the Taliban for resisting. And not only at the time of the commencement of the war, but for the entire diplomatic period as well as well as after the war commenced. One might make the argument that america has no force to police entities on this level, but the same argument could be made of any organization (besides the UN which is highly ineffective and provoked the attacks in the first place). The role of the UN in the war isn't to be understated either; almost a fourth of nations of the world have a part in the UN contingent in Afghanistan.
Just to make a note; We aren't going after Pakistan despite knowing that they've been very hostile to us on the sole basis that they have nuclear arms. This is why Iran getting nuclear weaponry scares the shit out of us.
If America sponsored terrorism in, say, Nicaragua, and then later gave those same terrorists asylum, does Nicaragua have a case for war against the US? The logic used here would say they do, and would even be supported by a relevant court case. It's much more reasonable to assume that this is a power game, though. Obviously a small country with a devastated infrastructure could do nothing in response, regardless of what the US did to it. Even if it were backed by a large portion of the world, how do you match both the US' military spending (about equal to the rest of the world combined), and the alliance of NATO? You simply can't.
The same power game can be witnessed in the discussions following the release of these documents by Wikileaks. Just watch for whenever the term 'war crimes' is mentioned and note the dodgy responses. Everyone knows that only the winners - the ones holding power - are able to prosecute war crimes, and currently no one is in position to hold the US accountable. Nicaragua would indeed have a case, but it would depend on the actions of the US afterwards. If after a sizable body of evidence was presented that the organization was a terrorist one and that the US continued to give them asylum in the face of multiple UN resolutions demanding their forfeiture, then they would be bound. Obviously the US could simply refuse, and if they would you'd have to look at the reason why in order to attempt to draw some sort of moral equivalence. Would the US believe in the process of the Nicaraguan justice system, for instance? There are many other factors at play.
Sure no one's able to hold the US accountable (actually that's horrendously false), but does that mean that the US can't hold others accountable when they flagrantly do something wrong? You attempt to construct your position out of false analogies and careful avoidance of the factors which aren't the same in the liens you're trying to make.
A geopolitical fact should not justify the intellectual creation of a pariah state; you're just trying to turn the tables and allow unlimited provocation of the US for the sole reason that they are 'big'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
