Prepare to fight!

akatoro · Post by **akatoro** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:45 pm

Yes but the American military openly refused to abide under any laws concerning eventual faults made during servitude such as, raping women, killing children, pillaging and so on.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:51 pm

akatoro wrote:How do you achieve world peace with force?
Conquer or unite the countries? What would happen then?
The world would be called USA.

If it was called Sweden, would that make you happy? If the world is unified, allied, and stable, first under force, then under diplomacy, this is bad...how?

A benevolent, long term occupation force (yes, that is possible) can provide stability from internal threats, and allow a country to grow into a stable nation. Go in, establish a military government accountable to the government(s) backing the occupation, send in foreign aid (which is done anyhow), and make sure it is used as it was intended, i.e. to feed and help the people, not to line some dictator fuck's pockets and feed his military. You can begin educating the people, and eventually, pass control on to whoever they elect as a leader. What about the government of the country being occupied? Quite often, there is none, or it has a tenuous hold at best. The people would probably welcome a stable government.

Instead, the big nations pretty much give out aid that quite often does not go to its intended recipients.

Now, let's hear YOUR plan for peace.

Mroni · Post by **Mroni** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:00 pm

akatoro wrote:Yes but the American military openly refused to abide under any laws concerning eventual faults made during servitude such as, raping women, killing children, pillaging and so on.

Raping women and killing children thats a good one. Are you reffering to stuff that happened in korea which we apologized for. Accidents happen. Rape is not an accident and anybody caught doing that is surely court martialed. What your saying is if it was a bunch of swiss soldiers over there for 50 years not one rape would occur? Thats ridiculous bad eggs are everywhere.

Mr Oni

akatoro · Post by **akatoro** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:02 pm

I have no plan for peace. People solve their own problems best.

Other countries do NOT need your support. Who is making them poor? The international companies - most of which are HQ'd in the US. Commercially they make the country of origin unable to earn any money on their own products. Just take Africa as an example. They export lot's of coffee beans but since it was colonized by the French (amongst others) they get almost no money in return for their products.
- And if they would get money they would NOT spend it on guerilla warfare as some of you might think. Is it really such a wonder why the locals hate the white farmers so much?

And I would not be happy if it was called Sweden, USA, Iraq or Japan. Let it be. I'd hate to see everything as one big community. And I really don't think that Bush has peace in his eyes when he's dropping them bombs.

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:16 pm

Yes, there were quite a few war protestors out the other day. They went about expressing their opinion in mostly a good way. It goes to show that there are two sides activelly invovled and expressing what they think is best for this country (as any person should be allowed to express their opinion about the country they live in, and how the country is run).

Just to bring perspective back, though.

Most of the protests have been organized by ANSWER, a front group for the Workers World Party, a socialist organization. This group, which is using the protests to further their political agendas:

» supported the Chinese government's 1989 Tienanmen Square Event
http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

» supports the "socialist" North Korean dictatorship of Kim Jong Il
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0425.php
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0509.php
Makes you wonder how many people are actually well informed about what they do, when so many of the protestors are complaining about the US's focus on Iraq and not doing anything about North Korea.

» and views Iraq's Saddam Hussein as a beacon of anti-imperialist resistance
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/iraq0125.html
In the article comments are made about the US such as "In a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, Clark denounced U.S. policy toward Iraq. This is genocide, he said." Though there is no military action against Iraqi civilians.
Nothing was said about what happens to protestors of Saddam.

» defends the genocidal Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/larry0228.php
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/milosevic1108.php
They seem to think Slobodan was just misunderstood. I hoped they had made these statements before the massive gravesites and conclusive proof of genocide was found, but they actually made it afterwards. That, and the fact that they still have those pages up for people to see is disturbing.

It's not that I disagree with the protestors, it's just that things aren't always as they seem. Most people didn't bother to look at what they were supporting, they just went because they don't want war. The apathy of people to research anything occurs everywhere (not just the US) as can clearly be seen by looking at the vast majority of people yelling their opinions to anyone that will listen without thinking or questioning them (wether it is for or against war/economic policies/trade relation/anything else.)

I personally don't think the US should use any military aggression (war) in Iraq, but I also think that military aggression in Iraq is much more unlikely that most people make it out to be. Instead of calling countries/people good or evil, people need to find information and form an opinion based on facts, not emotions/other peoples opinion/it's what their party stands for.

Jace Tsunami · Post by **Jace Tsunami** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:23 pm

akatoro wrote:How would World Peace be achieved? By the American military and government?
How is the American way the best way? Does everyone have to be americans to be 'normal', peaceful and live in a friendly world?

Mr. Bush said in his election speech that he would strive for peace and a safe country. But as soon as the needle fell he wanted war eventhough a massive folkopinion didn't want war, he still went on with it.
- Could it be that he did it to safekeep his role as the President and make himself look good and like 'a man of action'?

Dubious IMO.
If I could I would remove the rod up the ass of the rod up his ass.

I never said that we're doing it the right way, but the american goal is peace none the less, not domination.

I know the country's going about it all wrong, if you actual read all the dispute we typed before which you revived, then you'd know I side with misty and I think our government is crap, but they are not trying tot ake over the world. They're just doing a horrible job of bringing it together

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:09 pm

akatoro wrote:I have no plan for peace. People solve their own problems best.

Sure. It'd be nice if they would, though. Does this also mean that you think that the genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia is OK, and should not be stopped?

akatoro wrote:Other countries do NOT need your support. Who is making them poor? The international companies - most of which are HQ'd in the US. Commercially they make the country of origin unable to earn any money on their own products. Just take Africa as an example. They export lot's of coffee beans but since it was colonized by the French (amongst others) they get almost no money in return for their products.

But Africa isn't colonized any longer. And how does Africa's former colonial history make them earn any less for coffee beans NOW? If anything, now that they're independent, they should be making more money, since they can keep any profits they make and set their own prices. The corporations are keeping prices down? Maybe, but without the corporations there, who will they sell their beans to? The country next door, who also grows coffee?

akatoro wrote:- And if they would get money they would NOT spend it on guerilla warfare as some of you might think. Is it really such a wonder why the locals hate the white farmers so much?

I'm sure they wouldn't. The big problem is that the warlords who DO spend money on guerilla warfare cause havoc, untouched. Why can't the people get the money? Because the people don't have the stability to make money.

As for the white farmers, I don't see where they tie in to anything, but yeah, they're so bad, operating farms that actually work and employing people who know what they're doing. In Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), one Robert Mugabe, leader of the pseudo-Communistic revolution and war against BIG BAD white rule, took over many farms and gave them to the native people. Good, you say? No. He gave them, in usual Communist cronyism, to high ranking, loyal soldiers and officers, most of whom know little or don't care about farming. The result? Zimbabwe is currently having a food crisis. Not to say that the African people are stupid and incompetent, incapable of handling their own problems, but going with the working status quo is better, in my opinion, than shaking the tree for power, vanity, and crony rewarding, instead of trying to do good.

akatoro wrote:And I would not be happy if it was called Sweden, USA, Iraq or Japan. Let it be. I'd hate to see everything as one big community. And I really don't think that Bush has peace in his eyes when he's dropping them bombs.

No, Bush doesn't really have peace in his eyes (whether he really has anything behind his eyes is open for debate, too, but that's neither here nor there...

). Essentially, though, you're for peace, but only by using more of the same, mostly failed methods that have been used ofr decades? You'd rather not see world unity and the potential for peace?

akatoro · Post by **akatoro** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:12 pm

Raping women and killing children thats a good one. Are you reffering to stuff that happened in korea which we apologized for. Accidents happen. Rape is not an accident and anybody caught doing that is surely court martialed. What your saying is if it was a bunch of swiss soldiers over there for 50 years not one rape would occur? Thats ridiculous bad eggs are everywhere.

No, the swiss would be trialed for their severe errors in a UN court and the nation of which the victim lived in would have a big part to play.
If it was held within the US.. No big punishment - no comment

Flint the Dwarf · Post by **Flint the Dwarf** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:44 pm

These topics develop too quickly. And people say way too much to remember it all.

Alright...

Government is like religion. Everyone sees it differently, and when it's organized it doesn't work. But why not? Because of society, society doesn't want it to work. Society, ironically, is too independent to be able to rely on any form of organization. The organization that we have has to be pretty much scattered so people aren't unhappy. And that is especially bad when the US still sees itself as the police state. We feel the need to destroy something and then rebuild it our way. We would just destroy it (since we're bastards

), but we have to rebuild it so some other country doesn't and then get support against us. Ideally, the US would love to control everything but I don't think they are capable of that.

I think kthuluh's pretty close to this, but no one likes the idea of armed forces even if they are peaceful. Which they really can be. But people are too diverse for government.

Mroni · Post by **Mroni** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 9:56 pm

akatoro wrote:
Raping women and killing children thats a good one. Are you reffering to stuff that happened in korea which we apologized for. Accidents happen. Rape is not an accident and anybody caught doing that is surely court martialed. What your saying is if it was a bunch of swiss soldiers over there for 50 years not one rape would occur? Thats ridiculous bad eggs are everywhere.
No, the swiss would be trialed for their severe errors in a UN court and the nation of which the victim lived in would have a big part to play.
If it was held within the US.. No big punishment - no comment

And you are totally wrong. It all falls under diplomatic immunity and the ability of us to protect our soldiers abroad. If sweden had soldiers overseas and they commited a crime they would be trialed by sweden thats how international law works.

Mr Oni