TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Anti War
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Anti War
Are you against the war in afghanistan, and against war in general?
Well, I would like your help. please send an email to [email protected] if you would like to contribute to an antiwar effort.
thanks.
Yeah, I guess you could lump me into this category.
I think I make my stance pretty clear in these two threads:
God Bless Us!
Oh To Be a Kabulian! (Which includes, unofficially, the longest post ever 
)
So yeah, put me down. I'd like to help.
Frankly i'm for the efforts.....
I understand your guys angle, but someone has to act as a world police... i refuse to sit idly by and let this shit happen.... and no, "talks" ain't gonna fix it.
I understand the US did something to create their anger in the first place, but the 9.11 attacks were ridiculous.
Maybe the methods we are using to get to the Taliban are not the most moral, but were their methods of getting "revenge" on US moral??? nope.
BTW - of course i'm for it... i'm employed by the US Government! I'd be outta a job otherwise 
-ABT-
i understand the sentiment that pacifists have, but the reality is that war is an essential facet of human existence, people that live in the West have forgotten this.
As long as there are humans there will be War. It is an inevitability. In response to this a pacifist would say, well nothing will ever change with that kind of attitude.
My response to that is: EXACTLY. Nothing ever truly changes. There was a very strong pacifist movement at the turn of the 20th century. It didnt stop World War 1. The Western powers in the 1930's cut back on defence spending, the shadow of World War 1 still fresh in the minds of most people. Did that stop war. No it meant the Western powers were ill-prepared for World War 2.
As for any claim that the United States should be world policeman. I thought that the United Nations was supposed to do that. If the United States actually supported the United Nations and respected international law(which it has nothing but contempt for)rather than undermine it at every turn, then perhaps the United States would enjoy more popular support for its actions in Afghanistan than it does.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert i understand the sentiment that pacifists have, but the reality is that war is an essential facet of human existence, people that live in the West have forgotten this. As long as there are humans there will be War. It is an inevitability. In response to this a pacifist would say, well nothing will ever change with that kind of attitude. My response to that is: EXACTLY. Nothing ever truly changes. There was a very strong pacifist movement at the turn of the 20th century. It didnt stop World War 1. The Western powers in the 1930's cut back on defence spending, the shadow of World War 1 still fresh in the minds of most people. Did that stop war. No it meant the Western powers were ill-prepared for World War 2. As for any claim that the United States should be world policeman. I thought that the United Nations was supposed to do that. If the United States actually supported the United Nations and respected international law(which it has nothing but contempt for)rather than undermine it at every turn, then perhaps the United States would enjoy more popular support for its actions in Afghanistan than it does. |
Yeah I'm with ABT. I don't think anybody is in favour of war but sometimes there's no other option. It's often the only thing that can be done to protect your people and uphold your beliefs. And in some situations war is preceeded by years and years of violence and unrest which isn't just going to die out. At least war will usually sort things out once and for all.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert As for any claim that the United States should be world policeman. I thought that the United Nations was supposed to do that. If the United States actually supported the United Nations and respected international law(which it has nothing but contempt for)rather than undermine it at every turn, then perhaps the United States would enjoy more popular support for its actions in Afghanistan than it does. |
Woo! Looks like I started something interesting. Good.
Britain showed it's support early, and so did canada. But what needs to be realized is that just because a country supports something does not mean that all it's people do. I know for a fact that there is STRONG antiwar movement in canada, even as we sent 750 troops to afghanistan the other day. As well, there are peace marches in britain, thousands of people, representing the feelings of many more.
with george bush's with us or against us attitude, no country can afford to "officialy" not support this war. But the citizens are getting more and more pissed off.
here we go again ....
I support the war in Afghanistan....as most people know......and i will also support the war in Iraq and Somalia..when they come forth......
Because of this War , Afhanistan has become a BETTER place to live then it was under Taliban rule...THATS a FACT.....and u can thank the war for this......
Pacifists in general are not realists........there will NEVER be a world without war..it is impossible aslong as Religion, Money, Greed, and Power are around....you get rid of all 4 things and maybe you have a slight chance of a world without war...but even then it is most likely impossible...
I knew you'd be along eventually tiesto14
I respect your opinion, thanks for sharing, please let's keep this civil.
I believe that all the wars are because we believe in different Gods. If no one believe in goods, then ... Will there be wars? Difficult answer!
RavingLunatic... ...you know me...you and i are debating pals..
jlosada --
War...you are right has to do with God...not just different gods but different beleifs....
but even if there was no religion...you still have money, power , greed and hate to go to war over...war is not going anywhere.,,it will and can never happen....of course we all want a peaceful world but thats not a reality nor will it EVER be...
"I believe that all the wars are because we believe in different Gods. If no one believe in goods, then ... Will there be wars? Difficult answer!"
Yeah that opinion is kind of popular but thats atheistic propaganda Seriously I think religion's got not a lot do with human confilcts. I bet that some Neanderthals who lived in their caves also hit each other when one tribe wanted more meat form the kiled Mammouth than the others...
HUmans are after all animals, sad but true. The failure of Communism prooves it in my opinion. The socialism just cant be maintained in a world of jealousy , egoism and power seeking. The animalic - bigger eats smaller species - capitalism on the other hand succeeds.
Now what is war? Some politiciain once defined it as a continuation of politics with different means/methods. No, dont get me wrong, I think it is the last step that should be made but Im conveinced that there ARE and have been justified and necessary wars throughout history.
Hitler for example. Chamberlain tried, gave up czecoslovacia and got the invasion of Poland and the Holocaust back. I just try to imagine who "talks" would have looked like then..."Listen Hitler, leave the Jews alone get outta Paris and Poland, forget Russia..please? please please pretty please with cherrys on the top?"
When have pacifists EVER changed minds of militarists?
What is a justified war? A self-defending war. Switzerland invades Austria? 
Here we go then 
..Nothing agains u swiss guys here 
But i hope that u get my point. A simpler example. Some1 enters your house and says "hi there , thats mine now" or just comes to you pulls a knife and wants your money. If u have a, lets say aistol, with you..What will you do?
LOL....LOL......LOL....LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL
look at the web site name that RavingLunatic gave,,.....
[email protected]
thats a funny name for a site about pacifism....thats an OXYMORON.....those 2 words contridict each other....
LOL LOL LOL LOL
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 here we go again ....I support the war in Afghanistan....as most people know......and i will also support the war in Iraq and Somalia..when they come forth...... Because of this War , Afhanistan has become a BETTER place to live then it was under Taliban rule...THATS a FACT.....and u can thank the war for this...... Pacifists in general are not realists........there will NEVER be a world without war..it is impossible aslong as Religion, Money, Greed, and Power are around....you get rid of all 4 things and maybe you have a slight chance of a world without war...but even then it is most likely impossible... |
TranceGiant
I AGREEEEEEEEEE......FINALLYY I AGREE WITH SOMEONE.....WOOOO HOOOOO...
GOOD JOB
Im just afraid that Ive provoked a new longest post ever by Renegade
But i enjoy his essays, hes some smart fella 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TranceGiant A simpler example. Some1 enters your house and says "hi there , thats mine now" or just comes to you pulls a knife and wants your money. If u have a, lets say aistol, with you..What will you do? |
except that the US will not drop a nuke, there is too much valuable oil in the region.
Nice Story Spad..nice but DIFFERENT . Do you think that im inventing examples for fun? I said on purpose that this guys enters your house surprisnigly while lets say.. while youre watching TV in your living room, pulls a pistol and wants ya to leave the what he calls "HIS house from now on". Just in order to gain new territory, have your cd's or whatever..
I repeat that VIOLENCE is the very last measure, but completely abonding it is just dangerous as well. History repeats itself, and as much has our civilization has achieved, it cant change the human itself. (again egoism greed jealousy and fear) Yes the human rights, The United Nations Organisation, Democracy, Emancipation, free speech...Very nice but has not a lot to do with basic instincts of our species. I , too, think that the Democratic Western will collapse in some hundred years as the resistance against the globalisation will grow more and more. What happened in Russia 100 years ago is gonna happen in bigger dimensions as for the Third World against the Western World..
But thats another story 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TranceGiant What happened in Russia 100 years ago is gonna happen in bigger dimensions as for the Third World against the Western World.. But thats another story |
The war is good and just not only for obvious reasons but also as a reflection of the fact that the world has finally become aware of a global threat it hasn't perceived before. Who knows what kind of a bigger, more dangerous catastrophe could have been in the making, by these fanatics...?
United they were much more dangerous. Now at least their camps are destroyed and their units are disintegrated, many senior terrorists were killed. As a side effect, Afghanistan is a better place.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Eugene The war is good and just not only for obvious reasons but also as a reflection of the fact that the world has finally become aware of a global threat it hasn't perceived before. Who knows what kind of a bigger, more dangerous catastrophe could have been in the making, by these fanatics...? United they were much more dangerous. Now at least their camps are destroyed and their units are disintegrated, many senior terrorists were killed. As a side effect, Afghanistan is a better place. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RavingLunatic Oh god. this is exactly what they want you to think. exactly what most people think. that "terrorism" is a huge threat we have to stamp out. It's impossible! may as well try to eliminate jealousy, or anger! it just isn't possible. and the more you attack them, the more they feel justified in attacking back. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TranceGiant Nice Story Spad..nice but DIFFERENT . Do you think that im inventing examples for fun? I said on purpose that this guys enters your house surprisnigly while lets say.. while youre watching TV in your living room, pulls a pistol and wants ya to leave the what he calls "HIS house from now on". Just in order to gain new territory, have your cd's or whatever.. |
This is something someone sent me. just thought some people might like to read it.
>Subj: Enron-gate, and worse
>Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002 6:04:56 PM
>
>Please distribute this to everyone you know. It was written by William Pitt, a teacher in Boston (www.willpitt.com) and it describes two scandals which have the potential to uproot a certain noxious Bush now occupying the Oval Office.
>
>HELL TO PAY
>
>"Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Samuel Johnson
>
>Some time just before January 7th, 2002, an asteroid capable of pulverizing a good-sized nation flashed through the void, passing perilously close to Earth. Had it struck our planet, the impact would have had global consequences. The energy of the strike would have been equivalent to the explosion of a number of large atomic weapons. From the media perspective, it would have been the biggest story since the extinction of the dinosaurs.
>
>At some point in the next six months, a small, darkened corner of George W. Bush's consciousness will wish the thing had hit us. The apocalypse he and his fundamentalist buddies have been waiting for would have been at hand, and a number of potentially calamitous questions about to be put to his administration would have been avoided.
>
>Sadly for him, the planet spins on. Beneath the unpierced stratosphere, the electronic beams of news agencies like CNN and the Associated Press have begun to spread like a widow's web from city to city and house to house. Carried on this invisible wind are rumors of doom, negligence and greed. Each and every one of these rumors lead inexorably back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which will soon be issuing significant numbers of visitor passes to lawyers if the pattern holds much longer.
>
>Whichever part of the nation that never heard of the energy giant Enron Corporation has recently been introduced to the company in odious context. The story thus far is nothing less than astounding: Enron, a company valued in the billions on Wall Street, suddenly filed for the largest bankruptcy claim in the history of the known universe. 4,000 employees were abruptly shown the door after having been barred from dumping the company stock, meant to fund their retirement, while it was worth something. Meanwhile, Enron
>executives in the know were able to dump the stock, back when it was the gold standard on the Street, for a cool $1 billion.
>
>Apparently, Enron was ailing for quite a long time. The aforementioned executives were able to maintain the mirage of financial viability by
>stuffing the debt into what are called 'off-balance-sheet partnerships.' In essence, each of the executives built personal banking bunkers and hid what has been revealed to be staggering Enron debts within them, keeping fact that the company was hemorrhaging money off the publicly displayed balance sheets. This maintained the company's credit rating, and allowed it to continue doing business.
>
>This went on for four years, which means several things. It means most of the Enron executives were aware of and/or actively participating in this highly criminal and irresponsible activity. It means the stockholders, including 4,000 loyal Enron employees, were lied to. It probably means that the executives knew the stock value was doomed when they bailed out and cashed in several months ago. It means they let their employees lose the retirement funds they believed were growing within their Enron stock portfolios. It means a lot of people got screwed by a pack of sharp operators who didn't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
>
>All this could simply be chalked up as yet another story of corporate greed run amok, until the umbilical political and financial connections between Bush and Enron are illuminated. Enron's capo, Kenneth Lay, was perhaps the best financial friend George W. Bush has ever known. Lay and a number of Enron employees essentially bankrolled Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign, going so far as to lend Bush an Enron corporate jet for trips between whistle stops. Before Bush got White House stars in his eyes, he worked very closely with Enron on energy policy in Texas.
>
>This close connection led to the Bush administration's hiring of a number of influential individuals within Enron's orbit for important government positions:
>
>- Thomas E. White, Bush's Secretary of the Army, was once Vice-Chairman of Enron Energy Service, and held millions in Enron
>stock;
>
>- Presidential Advisor Karl Rove owned as much as $250,000 in Enron stock;
>
>- Economic adviser Larry Lindsay leapt straight from Enron to his current White House job;
>
>- Federal Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick did the same;
>
>- SEC Chairman Harvey Pitts was hand-picked by Kenneth Lay for the position, due to his notorious aversion to governmental regulation of any kind.
>
>There are some thirty one Bush administration officials who had a line item for Enron in their stock portfolio, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It is fair to say that the woebegone corporation held, and continues to hold, enormous influence over the day-to-day machinations of Federal government policy. One wonders if Bush's recent gutting of the Clean Air Act, a decision designed to improve the fortunes of companies like Enron, was the brainchild of people with deep connections to the energy industry.
>
>The trail of influence left by Enron leads also to the scabrous heart
>ventricles of Vice President Dick Cheney, who admitted recently to six separate meetings with Enron executives while formulating the Bush
>administration's energy policy. Cheney, a former executive of the Halliburton Petroleum interest, was in charge of creating this policy. For reasons soon to be exposed by subpoena, Cheney refused to detail the specifics of the creation of this policy, which included the multiple Enron meetings.
>
>The General Accounting Office was preparing to sue Cheney to reveal this information when the September 11th attacks took place. Those subpoenas may be dusted off and mailed within a month. In the meantime, the Justice Department is preparing a serious criminal investigation into the collapse of Enron. The democratically-controlled Senate is planning hearings on the matter as well. Columnist Robert Scheer has referred to the Bush administration's involvement in the Enron debacle as "Whitewater in spades." One wonders if "Watergate" would be a more appropriate comparison.
>
>Bush's own dealings within the energy industry carry a disturbingly familiar echo to the Enron situation: once upon a time, he was a high-ranking officer of a petroleum interest called Harken Oil. On June 22, 1990, Bush sold his Harken stock and made $848,560, earning him a 200% profit. One week later, Harken announced a $23.2 million loss in quarterly earnings and its stock dropped sharply, losing 60 percent of its value over the next six months. Bush made a bundle while the other investors lost millions. Harken was Enron in miniature, and might have served as a warning to the American people if the press had chosen to pay any attention to it during the 2000 Presidential campaign.
>
>There is a school of thought, espoused primarily by Republicans, that any investigation into potentially dishonorable or illegal actions by the Bush administration is tantamount to treason. We are at war, undeclared though it may be, and Bush must be free to prosecute this war vigorously, so as to defend our freedom and bring the murderers of American civilians to justice. If reports recently aired on CNN have any credence, however, Bush and his people may well have to answer for actions that make the Enron catastrophe look like a jaywalking offense, actions that led directly to the incredible carnage in New York and Washington, D.C.
>
>In 1998, during the Clinton administration, the U.S.-based energy concern Unocal canceled plans to exploit massive natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan. They had planned to run a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, where the natural gas could have been processed for Asian and Western energy markets. The idea was scuttled after Clinton ordered the cruise missile bombing of Afghanistan in response to a terrorist attack upon U.S. embassies in Africa which were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden. The pipeline would have had to pass through Afghanistan, and Unocal was given the message in Technicolor by Clinton's people that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was not to be given any sort of financial boon.
>
>Apparently, the Bush administration found no moral dilemma in dealing with the Taliban to get to the gas. Immediately upon their arrival in Washington, a vigorous courtship of the Taliban was undertaken by Bush's people. In fact, if former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is to be believed, the Bush administration had a vested interest in strengthening and stabilizing the Taliban regime, because a stable regime would compel investors to revive the Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline deal.. The Taliban, demon of the moment, was the Bush administration's idea of a 'stable' government. Stable enough,
>anyway, to see the pipeline through.
>
>The connections between Bush and the Taliban became so close that the Taliban went so far as to hire an expert on U.S. public relations named Laila Helms, so as to smooth the way between the two regimes. Meetings between the two nations continued at a high level, the last of which occurred in August, scant weeks before the September 11th attacks. All of these actions were taken to exploit the vast energy reserves in Turkmenistan for the benefit of American energy corporations.
>
>The cozy relationship between Bush and the Taliban frustrated the
>investigative efforts of former Deputy Director of the FBI John O'Neill.
>O'Neill was the FBI's chief bin Laden hunter, in charge of the investigations into the bin Laden-connected bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, the destruction of an American troop barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the African embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack upon the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
>
>O'Neill quit the FBI in protest two weeks before the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. He did so because his investigation was hindered by the Bush administration's connections to the Taliban, and by the interests of American petroleum companies. O'Neill was quoted as stating, "The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it." After leaving the FBI, O'Neill took a position as head of security for the World Trade Center. He died on September 11th, 2001, trying to save people trapped by the attack, when the towers came down on top of him. The irony in this, simply, is horrifying.
>
>In essence, the Federal agent who knew more about bin Laden than any living American was kept from investigating terrorist threats against this country. He was hindered because the Bush administration was desperate to cultivate the favor of the Taliban, who held terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in great esteem, so as to gain access to lucrative natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan.
>
>If these allegations prove true, Bush and his friends allowed this affinity to hamstring investigations that could have thwarted bin Laden's September plans. If these allegations prove true, everything since September 11th has been a massive cover-up operation in which American soldiers and thousands of Afghan civilians have died. If these allegations prove true, the Bush administration has the blood of thousands of American civilians on its hands.
>
>If these allegations carry even the faintest whiff of credibility, George W. Bush and members of his administration stand in taint of high treason and murder.
>
>On November 7th, 2000, a clear majority of Americans came to the conclusion that George W. Bush was unfit to govern this nation. For a variety of dark and controversial reasons, that conclusion was thrown over. Sometime soon, if the media's electronic web continues to carry these sordid stories of corruption, greed and death, the American people will come to fully understand the consequences of that failed election.
>
>It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for political and financial gain. It is quite another to coddle and court a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations in the process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources. The former cost a number of people their retirement funds. The latter has cost thousands of people their lives. One is criminal. The other is abominable. George W. Bush is deeply implicated in both. There will be hell to pay.
>
>
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.