O.T. But a thought/question about terrorism and war

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Anybody else think Clinton and our politicians in general are just asking for China, Russia, Iraq, etc . . . to attack us, either formally or through terrorism? I mean, we just can't keep our noses out of other people's business. And yet, (at least in the polls) the American public continues to support "peacekeeping" actions. If no one has stopped people in the Kosovo region from fighting for 1000s of years, why do we think we can now? If we couldn't resolve the Vietnam . . . I could go on for what, oh, the last 50 years or so. . .

Note that even Gary Bauer - from what I see, the most conservative/reasonable of the top ten - supports these "peacekeeping" actions - at least when I looked at his website.

-- robert bright (roosterbos@go.com), January 13, 2000


I don't know about you, Robert, but I cannot and will not stand by and watch innocent people get killed. I'd have to step in and do what I could, even jeopardizing my own safety in the process.

If you watched someone being harmed or murdered, wouldnt you do something to help? Would you turn and blind eye and say "that's not MY problem"? It's an ethical choice.

I'm not so sure that is the U.S. reasons for becoming involved, but I'd like to think so.

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Harmed or murdered is one thing, Kosovo and Vietnam and the like are entirely different. Clinton said that 100,000 to 200,000 people had been killed in the genocide in Kosovo, and thus convinced the Congress and American people to back his little "distraction". Yet, the official U.N. reports have shown (lsat I saw) 2,500 dead bodies - tragic, but hardly a genocide. And since we went in, the sides have reversed and the previous "victims" are now victimizing the previous killers. Hmmm. . . my point is that you can't win in these ethnic and ideological conflicts - AMERICANS (including myself) DO NOT UNDERSTAND the thousands of years of history and hatred that is causing these conflicts. After all, our history is only 200+ years, whereas theirs . . .

-- robert bright (roosterbos@go.com), January 13, 2000.

I don't think that there is any question about the agenda of the Clinton Administration. The only real questions are: do we still have a choice? Is there still a chance to turn it around? And by extension: is there a potential leader who still cares and hasn't been subverted or bought?

Sadly,-and here I weep for the Republic as well as my family and friends, I don't think there's much hope. I think that our fate has already been decided.

-- chairborne commando (what-me-worry@armgeddon.com), January 13, 2000.

re: "at least in the polls" We know that the "news" is selectivly reported. Do you doubt that the public is selectivly polled? I don't agree with what these polls show, most people I know don't agree with the information they present. We are being told what "everyone else" thinks because it influences our reactions.

-- grannyclampett (don'thave@clue.com), January 13, 2000.

Cinloo, Oh puhleeeeze, the U.S. armed forces kill and maim innocent people whenever they go anywhere to "keep the peace" I dont care how "smart" they say the bombs are, they still kill amd maim people who are just trying to stay out of the way. They have not come up with any proof at all that more than a few hundred people were murdered in Kosovo before Uncle Sam went over and bombed them back into the 60's. now many, very many innocent people are homeless, starving, having problems with their basic utilities, their homes and possesions have ben burned. People are dying by the thousands daily in some countries, but unless they posses resources that make it worth it, does uncle sam go to their aid? hell no. if it aint a profitable venture, it wont make the 5:00 news. Chinese and Russian leaders have said in the last month that WAR with the U.S. is inevadable because of our arrogant, buttinsky Government. Do you think for a minute that they mean to draw our soldiers out of this country to have this war? Does chinese operation of the Panama Canal even cause you to raise your eyebrows? I can see it already, why must you be so negative? think good thoughts and everything will be all warm and fuzzy for everyone. I have had all the airy fairy everything is wonderful and its just gonna get better crap I can take. open your eyes and for christ sake, take off those rose colored glasses. Just because we havent seen war on the mainland US since the civil war, dosent mean it will never happen. it actually increases the odds that our turn is coming up.

Got KI?

Laurie in Idaho

-- Laurie in Idaho (laurelayn@yahoo.net), January 13, 2000.


I have to respond to your post. You must be unaware of the stats that have come out of Kosovo. Refer to Robert Bright's post. We've been had! If we really cared so much as a nation, then we would do something about the killing and slavery going on in Sudan!!! Thousands have been killed in the civil strife but there little for us to gain as a nation so little is done.

-- Martin (mrobazek@wausau.com), January 13, 2000.



-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Unfortunately, the US is still employing the strategies of the past. They don't seem to take into account that the US is becoming vulnerable to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons terrorist attack from smaller countries and terrorists such as Bin Laden. We made a lot of additional enemies with the bombing of Serbia and we may well pay for it in the future.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Chairborne commando, I think you got it pretty well nailed. Clinton can't say more than two sentences without inserting the word "Global". Dennis Hastert is coming out as a closet NWO man, shouldn't be surprised I guess. Little George Bush is just another chip off the old globalist block. Gore is an outright socialist, Bradley is a communist, Trump is a scumbag who'll go to the highest bidder. Robertson is already selling out his principles to get votes. That leaves Alan Keyes, and if he were by some miracle to get elected he'd be dead in a month. This party has been scripted and cast, all that's left is the love scene and the civil war.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 13, 2000.

I can't remember who said this but it was someone really respected in high places, like Dwight D. Eisenhower or Alfred E. Neuman or somebody...

"There's nothing like a good war to get the economy going again"

(I swear, I remember that someone said that sometime in the past 250 years or so....)


-- Ric (ice163@worldnet.att.net), January 14, 2000.

Nikoli Krushev said: "...This party has been scripted and cast, all that's left is the love scene and the civil war."

Love scene? I thought we just had that in the oval office with the cigar...never mind.


-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.


Your statement proves true in real life, but you can insert your own ending if you are President. "There's nothing like a war to . . .:

. . . distract from adultery . . . . . . distract public and also convince them to allow implementation of gun control . . . . . . etc . . .

On this topic and U.S. Government/world ploitics and finance, I highly recommend books by Richard J. Maybury. His "Uncle Eric" series is written as three to five page letters to his nephew, are really easy to read, and add much insight into what has been going on in the world. Books available at Amazon.com and other places.

I quote from "The Thousand Year War in the Mideast", Chapter One - Terrorism or retaliation.

"[regarding Iraq-Kuwait and other mideast wars] "Terrorism" is part of this war. For centuries, the US was not involved. One reason, obviously, is that the US is a very young country.

Also, until this century, America was neutral and in most cases tried to saty out of wars in teh Old World. Thomas Jefferson referred to Europe as 'nations of eternal war,' and when we look at the wars in, for instance, the Balkans, it's hard to disagree.

But now our government leaders have turned deaf ears to the warnings of America's founders. They ignore the wisdom in George Washington's FAREWELL ADDRESS:

. . ."a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of a imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusion into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It also leads to concessions to the favorite nation or privileges denied to others, which is apt to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ough to have been retained, AND BY EXCITING JEALOUSY, ILL- WILL AND A DISPOSITION TO RETALIATE IN THE PARTIES FROM WHOM EQUAL PRIVILEGES ARE WITHHELD."

Washington called it retaliation, today's politicians call it terrorism.

There is an old saying:: "the first casualty of war is truth."


-- robert bright (roosterbos@go.com), January 14, 2000.

Cin, if Clinton, et al, were really so very humanitarian in their reasons for intervening, they would have begun not with Kosovo, but with various nations in Africa! Sunday's Washington Post insert color section had a very long, very painful story on the atrocities in just ONE African nation last year, leaving thousands of amputees whose arms were severed, and many others raped, dead, captured to serve in the rebel militias, etc. The conclusion of this article was that American politicians aren't interested in Africa's problems, and go where the [seeming] "glory" lies, like Kosovo.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 14, 2000.

"Follow the money" usually (eventually and sometimes an awful lot sooner) makes sense out of motivations of those for whom power is the only aphrodesiac that matters, among Westerners that is.

In the Balkans, there are mines (Krevenitza?) which produce tin, lead, etc. and which are the richest in Europe. Even better, oil companies have been positively craving a politically-stable pipeline route from the former Soviet block states. Next we'll see what happens with, is it Moldavia? Ditto Turkey.

I personally am not at all sure that many in DC can even grasp the idea that money doesn't solve everything, that China or the Sovs are entirely comfortable with the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear, chemical and/or biological war. Let alone that they might, possibly, conceivable, lie to Foggy Bottom...

In WorldNetDaily you can find a column by Nyquist; columns of his in the last 2 or 3 months get downright scary. For example, internal utilization of entirely salable goods such as natural gas and rare minerals has skyrocketed and exports dropped. For example, the campaign to move whole strategically-important factories underground has gotten new impetus. I've been able to corroborate some his assertions, via good old connect-the-dots over time. And now Putin's most interesting background. That we are hearing absolutely nothing from General Lebed (a fearless Russian bear of a mn who flat terrified the Congressmen whom he testified in front of some time back) tells me even more about Putin, his resources, and background.

China? Heck, I'm nowhere near getting my frazzled mind wrapped around Sun Tzu, after reading it rather more than once!

"Asking for" covers a whole lot of conceptual ground, no?

Off-topic? Not for me and mine. Our limited prep.s can be used in many different circumstances, by design.

-- Redeye in Ohio (cannot@work.com), January 14, 2000.

Redeye: My point exactly. The US does not understand the way these people think. To win in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Kosovo, Chechnya, the only winning option is guerrila warfare - that's how the other side it fighting, and that's how we fought and won in the revolutionary war. Unfortunately, today, winning by guerrila warfare requires that you kill everyone on the opposite side - even children, since they can carry guns and grenades in pop cans. I do not say this is right, merely point out that we are not willing to do this and the Russians and Chinese and Arabs have no problem with it. If the Russians listen to public opinion about Chechnya and aren't "full-bore", then they will more than likely end up with another Afghanistan. Anyway, thanks for all the inputs guys.

-- robert bright (roosterbos@go.com), January 14, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ