State sponsored terrorism

quote:

---

The Vietnamese were waging a guerilla war against the United States.

---

Gene, I think you're trying to reinvent history here. The Vietnamese were fighting in their in their own country. Perhaps if the US had not involved itself in propping up an unpopular puppet regime then it might not have suffered a defeat. BTW, was American territory attacked? Were airstrikes made by Vietnamese warplanes on American cities? Was the US subjected to terrorist attacks?The image of the ugly American lives on.
I'm afraid that too many Americans are too willing to be manipulated by their government's propaganda and think that they fight for truth, justice and the American way rather than their own country's vested interests.

quote:

---

I expect you to know that before you participate in such a debate, especially since you should have remembered this sort of thing from the evening news, and I would not, but if you're behind, here:

​

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

---

I found that to be awfully weak evidence. First, where's the bayonetting of pregnant women? Second, this is just a statment put forth by someone in Senate debate. Senators say whacked out shit all the time.My own web search on this subject found very little support for this claim (although I found the 2nd or 3rd hand claim itself). I did find this:William Blum, Afghanistan 1979-1992"...Or a US congressman's charge in 1985 that the Soviets had used booby-trapped toys to maim Afghan children, the identical story told before about leftists elsewhere in the world during the cold war, and repeated again in 1987 by CBS News, with pictures. The New York Post later reported the claim of a BBC producer that the bomb-toy had been created for the CBS cameraman."Before making such an extreme claim, I'd hope you'd have better standards of evidence. Of course, if you have more such evidence, I'd like to see it. I certainly accept that the Soviets committed atrocities in war time (and I accept that the U.S. has committed atrocities in war time, and I certainly hope you do, too), but that sounds suspiciously like clumsy propaganda to me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

Ah, yes, but I never promoted Bush et al. to be objective experts.

---

Hah! Neither did I. Mammuthus thinks I'm some Bush-crazed nationalist when I'm not even a Republican. I just hope this country doesn't suffer another mass-casualty incident any time soon. All the anti-American sentiment I see in the world, even right here, isn't encouraging. [/B][/QUOTE]I heard an unusual comment from a moderate(?) definitely Democrat, talk show host here the other day in which he said that some folks won't be convinced by anything short of a mushroom cloud over Washington or Paris or Moscow.So, where do we draw the line of caution? Obviously, some think that we should root out the rats wherever they are and at any cost, and others are willing to wait and see if they reform. I think that if I were president, I would take this situation very seriously and I personally think that Clinton would be doing pretty much the same thing as Bush in this case, believe or not. I wonder how those on both the right and left fringes would be acting in that case... To have a major attack like 9-11 on your watch as president is an incredible insult, and how the president reacts will be historic.Actually, being pretty much of a moderate, I kind of like to sit back and watch the attacks on Bush and compare them to the righ-wing, religous fanatic, ditto-heads during the Clinton administration. In some ways the polemics are remarkably similar. There is a visceral hatred in both that really turns me off. If anyone thinks it's easy making these decisions they need a reality check.With that, I hope to end my participation on this thread. I wish to express my condolences to all who lost family and friends on 9-11 and in subsequent attacks such as that in Bali.

quote:

---

Oh please. Maybe we should ban metal bullets too. When we have wars without killing people then we can stop using cluster bombs

---

Cluster Munitions | Human Rights Watch"On 11 May 1999, Human Rights Watch called for a halt to use of cluster bombs by NATO forces. When the submunitions contained inside cluster bombs fail to explode as intended, they become in effect antipersonnel landmines. Because of the high "dud," or failure, rate of the submunitions, and because of the large number typically dispersed over large areas, they have proven to be a serious and long-lasting threat to civilians, soldiers, peacekeepers, and even clearance experts."

quote:

---

Our government exists to defend the Constitution of the United States. (I'm not making that up). If we have to back the occasional dictators to advance US security, that's fine by me.

---

2) So how do you think the people who live under those U.S.-backed dictators feel about us doing that? Do you think our patent disregard for them as we play our little "You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours" games might fuel a lot of anti-American sentiments in the long term? Those people have to LIVE in that dictatorship that we endorse or even create. What about them?You have made it clear that you don't particularly care about the human rights of non-Americans....and so the cycle of terror and war is fueled.Perhaps if an appeal to your morality doesn't have an effect, and appeal to your practicality will.Here's an example of why you may want to care about the human rights of non-Americans. You have brought up Iran several times. Why is Iran in the state it's currently in? It's because of a revolutionary movement which rose up against the U.S,-backed, corrupt government headed by the Shah. They rose up against everything the Shah stood for, which included, in large part, the U.S. If the U.S. was more concerned about the human rights of non-Americans, such as those in Iran, we probably wouldn't have the problems of anti-American sentiment there that we do now.1) It hasn't worked yet, and in fact has frequently proven to make things worse in the long term, so why do we keep doing it and why do you endorse it?2) It is a morally-bankrupt and utterly crass way to conduct foreign policy, particularly when the propagandists continually sell our actions in these nations as "aiding freedom-fighters", or "defending democracy". Since our leaders in Washington seem to have gotten so far away from what our great country was founded on and have basically given up on democracy as an ideal here at home, it's not surprising that they could care less about promoting or preserving it elsewhere in the world.3) We have removed legitimate, democratically-elected governments and replaced them with military dictatorships. This is anti-American and reprehensibly shameful.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-18-2002]

I'm not yet ready to make my follow up statement.I will post this link, to a vast source of non-mainstream information:
http://zmag.org/I subscribe to Z Magazine.Cheers,
Mooseps: I am scheduled to be doing a radio program (on WOJB-FM) this coming Friday, Nov. 22nd. It will start at 9:00 pm, U.S. central time. I may well be going until c. 4:00 am. I have not personally tested it, but the station webcast link is available at WOJB - HomeI am planning on largely recycling a program I previously did on KUMD-FM. The playlist of that program is available at http://www.lakenet.com/~mnmoose/cfo4.htm

Damn, you have good taste in music! If I'm around a capable machine, I'll tune in.

quote:

---

Oh please. Maybe we should ban metal bullets too. When we have wars without killing people then we can stop using cluster bombs

---

Sure. So America is allowed to violate the Geneva conventions?

quote:

---

The lives of friendly forces take priority over a reasonable number enemy civilian death. The Vietnamese were waging a guerilla war against the United States. Under the international rules of war, surrendering combatants in uniform must be treated as POWs. However, surrendering combatants not in uniform may be summarily executed as guerillas. Guerilla forces are not legitimate military and have no rights in war. Most of the sites where Agent Orange was sprayed were in combat zones, occupied by guerillas. Therefore use of the substance as a defoliant was justified, even though it was a known carcinogen. The only legitimate victims of Agent Orange were United States soldiers.

---

So what is a 'reasonable number' of civilian deaths to you? If you want to know, the estimated number of people killed in the Vietnam war was 3 million, most of them civilians. The US was helping the South vs the communist North? Lets just ignore the fact that they"killed tens of thousands of their 'allies', levelled half their forests, poisoned their environment and forced millions of them to leave their homes. There was no North Vietnam and no South Vietnam until the Geneva Conference in 1954 'temporarily' divided the country to await national elections two years later. The record is now clear that the Americans, secretly egged on by the Chinese, who feared a confident Vietnam, sabotages the prospect of elections for the good reason that they knew Ho Chi Minh would win hands down and unite the country. 'I have never talked with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs,' wrote former President Eisenhower, 'who did not believe that 80 per cent of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh'".--John Pilger, Hidden Agendas.

quote:

---

Okay, but I still don't see much corroboration of this number. It is still an estimate with probably political motives behind it. I personally don't believe the 'civilian' part of this. Just look at what 'civilians' do in the Middle East.

---

What do 'civilians' do in the Middle East? And if you don't believe that they're civilians, how about the 200 000 (conservative estimate) civilians killed in East Timor? You can't say that they were soldiers, as they didn't have any weapons at all.

quote:

---

In 1975 President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger met with Indonesia's corrupt strongman Suharto. Kissinger told reporters the U.S. wouldn't recognize the tiny country of East Timor, which had recently won independence from the Portuguese. Within hours Suharto launched an invasion, killing, by some estimates, 200,000 civilians.

---

--http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0133/ridgeway.php
How about 350 000 in Laos as a direct result of American led attacks? How about Bangladesh,

quote:

---

Using weapons supplied by the U.S., General Yahya Khan overthrew the democratically elected government and murdered at least half a million civilians in 1971. In the White House, the National Security Council wanted to condemn these actions. Kissinger refused. Amid the killing, Kissinger thanked Khan for his "delicacy and tact."

---

--http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0133/ridgeway.php

quote:

---

Well, if you think that a bunch of illiterate, ragtag soldiers are going to overthrow Saddam and replace him, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

---

Sure, and those people willingly wanted America to install Suddam Hussein as dictator? BTW, why do you think they're illiterate?

quote:

---

Ah, yes, but I never promoted Bush et al. to be objective experts.

---

So who/what would you propose as 'objective experts'? Lets say, Amnesty International, the World Food Organization, UNICEF?[This message has been edited by blitz77, 11-19-2002]

We aren't against America, per se, but what the government does.

G:
Terrorists have little to do with this. There has never been a time in American history when it was legal to call in bomb threats.M: Moose did not call in a bomb threat so this is a strawmanG: Freedom of speech has always had practical boundaries. This is one of them. All the terrorists have done is expose vulnerabilities to attack. Now that we see that the Pentagon and White House really could "disappear" one day to announce that it would be a Good Thing To Do is, at best, a foolish thing to do. It is also assinine and, since they actually were targets on 9/11, and a whole lot of people died that day, monstrously insensitive and unacceptable anywhere in civilized society.M: So you are claiming the right to dictate what is unacceptable? I hate the Ku Klux Klan but I do not deny they have a right to their opinions no matter how odious they may be. As long as they do not hurt anyone they should be free to be as stupid as they wish. A "civilized" society should be able to tolerate dissent...maybe one day the people who determine what is monsterously insensitive and unacceptable, in your view, decide the mormons have to go....it works both ways.G:
However, that you believe that Freedom of Speech would allow such a comment strikes me as terribly interesting. I do not know your nationality but I seem to remember your nation of residence.M: I am American, from upstate New York. I lived in the US until I was 28....lived in New York City for 2.5 years. I am half Spanish.G:
Germany has some of the most restrictive limits on speech and media in Europe. Hogan's Heroes had to be digitally edited before it would be legal to broadcast on German television. American war movies have to be similarly edited because they kindle offensive thoughts in the German public.M: Hmmm that's news to me. There is an incredible amount of porn and violence on television here. There are also regular documentaries on WWII with film footage that is very graphic i.e. piles of gassed jews..experiments that were done on jews etc. All of them place the blame (rightly) on Germany for the atrocities committed. As to American war movies...it depends...I constantly see John Wayne movies on tv...all the current war movies do make the rounds in German theaters.G:
Also, as I understand it, it is a crime to insult people in Germany. Perhaps you can debunk these as rumors or justify them as laws before we delve into American interpretations of the Freedom of Speech?M: LOL! a crime to insult people? It is practically a way of life here to insult people What you may be thinking of is that it is illegal to claim that the holocaust did not occur. This will get you fined or jailed...Jean Marie La Pen was arrested and fined for doing just that. However, gene, I will grant you that freedom of speech is more restricted here...I could sue you for telling me to F$%&k off for example or for flipping you the bird. I guess it is possible in the US as well but unlikely to happen...here it does.G:
Germany taught us about pacifism. Twice. Now we know that we have to keep an eye out for threats and (heaven forbid) sometimes strike preemptively.M: Actually, how can you apply pre-WWI or WWII Germany and the threats we are facing now? And if the US alone is allowed to premptively strike out at any military or economic power on the chance that they may someday be dangerous..how is this philosphically different from the 3rd Reich? It is also a form of dictatorship.M: Some people think the mormons are evil...should they be banned from public places?G:
Bad analogy.
This has nothing to do with what people "think" but what they say. If the LDS church announced that it believed certain US political and military infrastructure should be destroyed then the government would have to do something.M: Why stop with military...maybe the mormons by having a different christian worldview could be dangerous and someday might want to take over the government...so a premptive strike against mormons would be the only way to be secure...who will decide? Some beleive the mormons are dangerous...they have been persecuted in the past. My point remains, you are free or you are not.G:
Moose did not say the Pentagon or the White House should be "destroyed" but he did say that the world would be better if they went away. That's exactly what certain terrorists believe. His comments are tantamount to an endorsement.M: Nope, his stated opinion is his own whether you (or I for that matter) disagree with it. You can hate the government we have for completely independent reasons of those certain terrorists.G:
Strawman.I don't think the White House is benevolent. I think it's watching out for US (and Republican) interests. The first part of that is their job, what we put them there for. The second part is what we know they will do, and what any other party would do.If the administration were purely benevolent they would not be doing their job.M: Why is it a strawman and what evidence do you have that the government is looking out for US interests or even Republican interests for that matter?cheers,
M

quote:

---

So who/what would you propose as 'objective experts'? Lets say, Amnesty International, the World Food Organization, UNICEF?

---

Personally, I would add Human Rights Watch to that list, as well as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

[QUOTE][B]BTW, was American territory attacked? Were airstrikes made by Vietnamese warplanes on American cities? Was the US subjected to terrorist attacks?[/QUOTE][/B]I think Vietnam was a mistake. However, just because the US was not attacked does not make the war unjustified. Was the US attacked in World War I? Should we have waited until we were attacked in WWII?No and no.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]BTW, was American territory attacked? Were airstrikes made by Vietnamese warplanes on American cities? Was the US subjected to terrorist attacks?[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

I think Vietnam was a mistake. However, just because the US was not attacked does not make the war unjustified. Was the US attacked in World War I? Should we have waited until we were attacked in WWII?

​

No and no.

---

Gene, you seem to have completely missed the point. You make an assertion that Americans were subjected to a guerilla war. However it was only those foreign forces which were in Vietnam which were subject to military action. The Vietnamese did not attack the US, Australia or New Zealand, only their troops who were in Vietnam.BTW, the US was a late entry in both WW1 and WW2. Did the moral justification for engaging in war changed during the progression of the wars? Wasn't the pretext for US entry into WW1 the sinking of the Lusitania?And perhaps you could justify why another country should not make a pre-emptive strick on the US if it thinks that the US might pose a threat to its security as some time in the future.