negotiate with terrorists

[Ralphis]

m0l0t0v said:

Hopefully the EU will be strong someday, so we won't have to suck up to the US anymore...

Yea, I can't wait to see your fourth reicht rise.

[Sharessa]

Fourth riecht? :P

[deathbringer]

Hopefully britian will be strong one day, so it doesnt have to suck up to the EU or the US, that is what i thought UKIP wanted, but it turns out they just want to suck bush's cock even more than blair

[m0l0t0v]

Yea, I can't wait to see your fourth reicht rise.

Actually, I always considered the US to be the fourth reich. After WWII the UN was founded as an instrument to prevent an other WW. It was suppost to make unilateral intervention impossible.

After the USSR ended the US was the only superpower in the world. Since then US has abused its power and systematically undermined the UN for its own interest.

What this world needs IMO is another superpower; one that can temper the US. Europe seems like a logical choice...

[etimmerAZ]

m0l0t0v said:

Hopefully the EU will be strong someday, so we won't have to suck up to the US anymore...

Only when the rest of Europe starts to lick the French's balls. The EU will only work when it become the FU (French Union [Or Fuck U]). They and the Germans keep on pushing the rest of Europe around. The EU is a wonderful idea, the problem is that when national interests get involved each government's are different enough that toes are stepped on. When the EU becomes powerful then they will be percieved just as bad as the US and then China will invade.

m0l0t0v said:

Actually, I always considered the US to be the fourth reich.

Holy crap! Not even the French would say something as stupid as that. I know I should be nicer, but that comment was just too much. Look and see what the Nazi's did. Don't make light of it.

[Mr. NobodX]

etimmerAZ said:

Holy crap! Not even the French would say something as stupid as that. I know I should be nicer, but that comment was just too much. Look and see what the Nazi's did. Don't make light of it.

Look at the FIRST reich, then at the SECOND reich before you post idiocy like this post... I stand my case.

[deathbringer]

Wasnt the Second reich Napoleon?, i suppose (according to the BBC series 'Hornblower'..heh) that he was honourable enough to the people he conqured. And IIRC The First rich was the Vikings, who wherent nice at all..or maybe it was the Romans, in which case there are quite a few paralells with US Foriegn policy, such as things like "Our way is the right way, the only way people can live in 'peace' is if we invade and FORCE them to"

[Ichor]

First Reich - Holy Roman Empire
Second Reich - Kaiser Germany
Third Reich - Nazi Germany

[fodders]

Mr. NobodX said:

Look at the FIRST reich, then at the SECOND reich before you post idiocy like this post... I stand my case.

Yeh the nazis tortured their prisoners, executed many and were intent on wiping out a race of people. Oh hang on, who does that remind me of?

[etimmerAZ]

Mr. NobodX said:

Look at the FIRST reich, then at the SECOND reich before you post idiocy like this post... I stand my case.

Thanks for making my point.

fodders said:

Yeh the nazis tortured their prisoners, executed many and were intent on wiping out a race of people. Oh hang on, who does that remind me of?

Good point. Damn Portugal and the Dutch.

[Captain Red]

Ralphis said:
Yea, I can't wait to see your fourth reicht rise.

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAAAA!!

[The Ultimate DooMer]

m0l0t0v said:

What this world needs IMO is another superpower; one that can temper the US. Europe seems like a logical choice...

It certainly does....if only there weren't so many divisions within (not to mention the language barriers), and of course the desire of France and Germany to rule it all. Basically, we don't stand a chance at the moment. China isn't developed enough yet, but it will be eventually (so we might end up with three superpowers, omg WW3).

[m0l0t0v]

There is this theory, that WWIII is already going on. Since the ending of the 2d WW the US has attacked 50 countries (Vietnam, North-Korea, Cambodia etc.) and killed millions of (innocent) people.

It all depends on your definion of 'World War' whether you regard this systematic mass-murder as WWIII or not. So far the US has only attacked countries far weaker than itself (that couldn't strike back), so many people argue it's not truely a 'war' but merely 'íntervention'.

[MaximusNukeage]

m0l0t0v said:

[propaganda]AMERIC4 IS TH3 GR3AT SAT4N ARRRGHHH! AND MUST B3 DESTR0YED!!!!!@@[/propaganda]

Fact: america is NOT perfect, not even close. bush's leadership is shit and has led america down a darker path than almost ever before.

Fact: abu ghraib happened. soldiers 'tortured' prisoners.

Fact: americans are a war like people. and are greedy and self serving. thats how we got to be the most powerful.

Fact: we undermine the UN, the IMF and other things to server our intrests

Fact: america is not the only country that wants to further its own policies at the risk or others.

Fact: the UN is habitually manipulated by its member nations. for many reasons, primarily to block action in areas where certian nations have former colonial intrests, or current economic intrests.

Fact: abu ghraib is the only incedent in iraq where america has performed 'torture'. and it was quite possibly not an act of government policy. however fucked up the government is currently.

Fact: america bombs civilian areas if there is believed to be enemy assets in the area. conncurantly, however, we try to prevent and minimise collateral dammage through the use of smart weapons. war is horrible and anathema.

Fact: the premise for the war in iraq has proven in fallacious. there is no WMD, or any connection to muslim terrorists.

Fact: terrorists specifically target civilians for their attacks, have no respect for human life, and decapitate innocents without remorse.

Fact: negotiation with the enemy shows weakness. one should never show their enemy weakness. by agreeing to negotiate one sends the message that terrorism works and is the answer to any problem with the west. it shows that they can bring us to our knees at their whim.

it would be imprudent to allow the kind of scum that terrorists are to have that power over you, your people, and most importantly your nation.

[Black Hand]

MaximusNukeage said:

Fact: terrorists specifically target civilians for their attacks, have no respect for human life, and decapitate innocents without remorse.

More like they do it with pride... Just not enough pride to show their faces while comiting the act I suppose.

[Captain Red]

every thing MaximusNukeage said is true, but I'd like to add my 2 cents to some of it...

MaximusNukeage said:
Fact: abu ghraib is the only incedent in iraq where america has performed 'torture'. and it was quite possibly not an act of government policy. however fucked up the government is currently.

It almost certainly wasn't directly an act of government policy. It’s probably got a lot to do with the US
Drumming into people's heads that terrorists are evil sub human monsters who are hell bent on destroying everything the free world holds dear. Now, the US military was starting to feel pretty stupid for not finding the badass weapons there government said where there, so some guards felt justified in doing what they pleased. Add to that, that a lot of the inmates weren’t terrorists, and where being held without trial, you have a very messy situation.

[myk]

MaximusNukeage said:
it would be imprudent to allow the kind of scum that terrorists are to have that power over you, your people, and most importantly your nation.

Basically they are like nasty cunning adopted children intent of selfishly getting away with something in a situation they consider they are being being denied their needs or desires. It's all about how to deal with the issue; plus in the complexity of it all political and social groups vie for different strategies and solutions. To mention extremes, you've got people afraid to be targetted by terrorists, you've got groups that certainly see this as a perfect scenario to increase military and economic weight in the area of the terrorists... which holds lots of todays equivalent to gold.

Is there a western policy to "end with" terrorism? Not really, since, on one hand that's not possible through enforcement, because that is the main justification for terrorism in the eyes of "terrorists," and on the other, the need to erradicate terrorism is purely circumstantial. You get touched by their activity somehow, then you feel the need to do something about it, and the different groups are affected in many different ways that often lead them to those very different ways of facing it.

From a diplomatic point of view terrorism is a form of negotiation between those who finance it, and those who back counter-terrorism financially. You hurl planes or bombs into a building, we bomb some country. And this basically affects and moves the societies involved. The leaders and the capitals that hold them in their seats may be knocked down a bit, but they know what they're doing... perhaps some guy too deep into terrorist ties could get nailed once in a while, or some politician may lose an election and fall into disgrace for leading a bad military campaign, but they'll rarely starve, go to jail, or die due to this. They'll probably return a few years later, even. Like, where's Osama after that huge military campaign to catch him? He's okay enough... they don't spen so much film on him nowadays, be we can assume the arab prince is still in business.

So in the end, what does it mean when we say "terrorists should not have power over us"? Is it something as flat and narrow as saying "no" to anything that the terrorists espose as a cause? Well, yeah, since this is the justification for moving into (again and again) the Middle-East militarily and economically... in that case, naturally and materially enough, you can see how terrorism is a western asset of colonization. We need evil terrorists in order to put soldiers and businessmen in arabian oilfields and such. Try doing that without a moving justification and you'll see what happens... not enough hot-headed people to hail and provide an invasion, not enough wailing mothers to inspire the necessary retaliation.

[Mordeth]

Ichor said:
First Reich - Holy Roman Empire
Second Reich - Kaiser Germany
Third Reich - Nazi Germany

No. Roman Empire (not the Holy Roman Empire) and French Empire (Napoleon).

[Ichor]

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Google Search Results

[Mordeth]

Hm?

* Error detected - please reboot universe *

[m0l0t0v]

Fact: abu ghraib is the only incedent in iraq where america has performed 'torture'. and it was quite possibly not an act of government policy. however fucked up the government is currently.

People are also being tortured on Guantanamo Bay.

Fact: america bombs civilian areas if there is believed to be enemy assets in the area. conncurantly, however, we try to prevent and minimise collateral dammage through the use of smart weapons. war is horrible and anathema.

Those 'smart weapons' still killed 5000 civilians in Serbia.
The US usually doesn't use 'smart weapons' though. In the last decade it has used 'depleted uranium ammunition', napalm, clusterbombs and daisycutters.

[propaganda]AMERIC4 IS TH3 GR3AT SAT4N ARRRGHHH! AND MUST B3 DESTR0YED!!!!!@@[/propaganda]

I'm not saying it should be destroyed. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be ruling the world by itself. No country should have that kind of power.

[etimmerAZ]

m0l0t0v said:

Those 'smart weapons' still killed 5000 civilians in Serbia.
The US usually doesn't use 'smart weapons' though. In the last decade it has used 'depleted uranium ammunition', napalm, clusterbombs and daisycutters.

No no no. Those smart weapons are not smart enough to go kill on their own. ;) Yet.

Sure war is horrible. But the Americans are not nor will they be the _only_ nation that kills civilians. Russia, England, Norway, etc have killed innocent people at some point and will kill them again at some point. Heck I am sure if it comes down to it the EU would bomb the hell out of another nation. During that bombing they would also kill civilians.

I guess I have to agree with everyone here, war sucks.

[DooMAD]

etimmerAZ said:

...Heck I am sure if it comes down to it the EU would bomb the hell out of another nation...

Heh, I doubt any of the EU members could ever reach an agreement to do that. We'd all be long dead by the time a decision is made.