|   An encouraging word... | Bianchi4Me
Nov 2, 2001 11:05 PM | | Thought this might give folks a lift...
AN ENCOURAGING WORD
Below is an e-mail from a young ensign aboard the USS Winston Churchill
to his parents. (Churchill is an Arleigh Burke-class AEGIS
guided-missile destroyer, commissioned March 10, 2001, and is the only
active U.S. Navy warship named after a foreign national.)
"Dear Dad,
"We are still at sea. The remainder of our port visits have all been
cancelled. We have spent every day since the attacks going back and
forth within imaginary boxes drawn in the ocean, standing high-security watches, and trying to make the best of it. We have seen the articles and the photographs, and they are sickening. Being isolated, I don't think we appreciate the full scope of what is happening back home, but we are definitely feeling the effects.
"About two hours ago, we were hailed by a German Navy destroyer,
Lutjens, requesting permission to pass close by our port side. Strange, since we're in the middle of an empty ocean, but the captain acquiesced and we prepared to render them honors from our bridgewing. As they were making their approach, our conning officer used binoculars and announced that Lutjens was flying not the German, but the American flag. As she came alongside us, we saw the American flag flying half-mast and her entire crew topside standing at silent, rigid attention in their dress uniforms.
"They had made a sign that was displayed on her side that read, "We
Stand By You." There was not a dry eye on the bridge as they stayed
alongside us for a few minutes and saluted. It was the most powerful
thing I have seen in my life. The German Navy did an incredible thing
for this crew, and it has truly been the highest point in the days since the attacks. It's amazing to think that only half-century ago things were quite different.
"After Lutjens pulled away, the Officer of the Deck, who had been
planning to get out later this year, turned to me and said, 'I'm staying Navy.'
"I'll write you when I know more about when I'll be home, but this is it for now!"
"Love you guys."
And here's a picture of what that scene looked like: |
| What a great way to start the day!Thanks!nm | Untense
Nov 3, 2001 4:08 AM | | . |
| why do you persist | gra_vy
Nov 3, 2001 5:08 AM | | I truly respect you for all your work around here, and this is in no way intended at you personally or anyone else for that matter, consider it collective food for thought, and try to think about it as thought provoking rather than argumentative, please try.
I understand from your perspective and 95% of people here who are American that this stuff really brightens your day, but take someone else's viewpoint and imagine how bad it makes us feel to know you guys are still stamping your international authority on small and lesser terrorists than yourselves.
"The Anglo-American attack on Afghanistan means that America's economic wars are now backed by the perpetual threat of military attack on any country. That is a truth the modern imperialists will not spell out."
I'm not American and I'm not Afghani or of any background you'd feel free to stereotype or typify, but I've been reading a little further than conventional newspapers would allow joe punchclock to read, and I'm really, really uncertain that any of you guys know what's going on. And it scares the living cr@p out of me because either
1)none of you know the deceit and power games your govt plays on a daily basis by writing off countries and economies into the ground, an influential finger in everybodys' pies so to speak
2)you do know and you're proud of it
3)you do know and you don't care
4)you don't know and you don't care
Where's Gregg when you need him, I hate this stuff, but why do you start it.
PS Churchill was a gimp, but you guys owed them at least that from the Diego Garcia thing no doubt. |
| How come I'm not exposed to the <i>real</i> truth... | "Joe Punchclock"; MD a.k.a.
Nov 3, 2001 6:16 AM | | Where is all of this real information? I thought that I lived in what's described by many as the freest country in the world. Is my government really taking such great pains to hide the truth from me? Even when nearly all information, and news, and the so-called truth is actually accessible right here at my finger tips, via the Internet. Where did you hear or read about the truth? How do you know that it really is the truth? How come I don't really know the truth? About 90% of my television viewing time these days is nothing but the news. Why is the truth being hidden from me? How come it seems that only those from outside of the States can get the truth? Am I really not free? Until you or others can really convince me that your sources of information are any more credible than my sources, then I guess that the answer to your question is, at least from me, #4. |
| why do you persist | Kapusta
Nov 3, 2001 6:42 AM | | gra_vy,
I am an American, and I do understand your point, but I would not expect to get a very informed discussion of this here. This is a mountain bike forum, not a political one.
I think it is a combination of #1, #3, and #4. Our role in the world it not such a black and white issue. We do/have supported many brutal, repressive, undemocratic regimes, and in other cases (perhaps more importantly) we are percieved to. On the other hand, we try to do a lot of good in the world as well. Anyone who has spent time in America will realize that, as a people, we mean very well in the world. There is a fine line between helping people and tinkering with governments. Between respecting a countries sovernty (sp?) and turning a blind eye. You can't keep everyone happy.
We are in charge of the most powerful country (militarily, economically, and culturally) in the world, and as citizens of a democracy, have an obligation to stay as informed as possible. Many people in the world would give anything for the freedom of access to information that we take for granted. I share your fear of Americans (myself among them) being under-informed about the current situation. 95% of the news we hear is about Anthrax and the effort in Afghanistan to get one man. Afghanistan IS a real problem, (and I do support our effort) but it is only part of the problem. I even wonder if, on a larger scale, it is a symptom of a larger problem. Part of dealing with the larger problem may involve modifying the way we deal with the world around us, and that will involve taking a hard look at some of the things we have done or do. That is not an easy thing to do, but I think we can/will rise to it. The first thing I hope we do is acknowlege the price we and others pay for our oil addiction.
Our role in the world is very complicated, gray. Many of our actions seem inconsistant, or contradictory. Some times they in fact are, but other times they are the result of very complicated circumstances, requiring complicated responses. The fact that we are currently dropping bombs and food on the same country illustrates this.
As for the original post, it did brighten my morning. Is is good to know that our freinds and allies are with us on this. It is the only way THIS part of the problem can be dealt with.
Kapusta |
| Churchill?--Man, read ALL your history! | TNC
Nov 3, 2001 8:48 AM | | Wow, what a statement. Just being able to articulate eloquent rhetoric doesn't make it right. Churchill's contributions to mankind far outweight any of his human frailties that all of us are capable of--read your "whole" historical accounting of Churchill's life. And your comment in that same sentence that uses the term, "you guys"--I think that fairly well indicates your true feelings about this current conflict and possibly "your" place as an American. Not everything about this current conflict, or others past or future, will be totally correct or perfect. But to consider this horrendous act, and our response to it, as part of an imperialist act is about as uninformed an opinion as I can imagine. |
| I'm sorry people acting with compassion upsets you... | Bianchi4Me
Nov 3, 2001 1:16 PM | | The point of the story is that in a time of tragedy former enemies were able to come together in understanding. Here you have two nations that were bent on mutal self-destruction 50 years ago, now allies and coming together in mourning.
I'm not sure why you'd want to try to twist a story like that into an opportunity to vent more hatred (like we don't have enough already?) but it's your priviledge.
I'm sorry that it upsets you so much to see people from different countries acting with compassion and understanding. Since MTBR is an international forum, and is all about helping other people and working together to solve problems, you must find it difficult to spend much time here at all. |
| I'm sorry people acting with compassion upsets you... | gra_vy
Nov 3, 2001 2:55 PM | | Acting on compassion is one thing, as long as its informed. I love this site because of its international aspects, its your ethnocentric rhetoric that pushes me further away. It's hard not to get an American bias from any of the messageboards, but I don't look for it and I don't really care, as long as its about bikes!
I'm trying hard not to assume for someone else. I agree 100% with Kapusta that the circumstances dealt with on a daily basis are beyond complicated, but I'd really like to see more trasparency from the government and from the media who are allowed to cover such events. Since that will never happen until after the conflicts have been finalised, it's up to the individual to look. So Joe Punchclock, if you want that information, take a deep breath and go look for yourself, that's inner strength, and it's not my job.
*PEACE*
PS I'm not the one twisting this story and I don't ever want a war, I just want people to think about these things for themselves, that's all. |
| Put up or.... | mtncranker
Nov 3, 2001 3:43 PM | | You were asked where we could find the "truth" you referred to. Instead of responding in a positive and helpful manner, you say, "Go look for it yourself...it's not my job."
Yeah, right. You accuse, then refuse to support your accusations.
You have not helped your cause. Post again when you're able to defend your accusations. |
| Just ignore this guy | xerxes
Nov 3, 2001 7:33 PM | | he obviously has a second rate mind and doesn't even know it. People like that always have a superiority complex and can never back up their assertions. He isn't worth the effort. The passive aggressive posture just kills me. "PEACE" |
| info on war ive been given | ishmael
Nov 3, 2001 8:06 PM | | this might not all fit here..i have another article by the same author with more US history in it if you want it...
article by Indian feminist author Arundhati Roy
War Is Peace
The world doesn't have to choose between the Taliban and the US government.
All the beauty of the world-literature, music, art-lies between these two
fundamentalist poles.
Arundhati Roy
Oct 18
As darkness deepened over Afghanistan on Sunday, October 7,2001, the US
government, backed by the International Coalition against Terror (the new,
amenable surrogate for the United Nations), launched air strikes against
Afghanistan. TV channels lingered on computer-animated images of Cruise
missiles, stealth bombers, Tomahawks, 'bunker-busting' missiles and Mark 82
high-drag bombs. All over the world, little boys watched goggle-eyed and
stopped clamouring for new video games.
The UN, reduced now to an ineffective abbreviation, wasn't even asked to
mandate the air strikes. (As Madeleine Albright once said, "The US acts
multilaterally when it can, and unilaterally when it must.") The 'evidence'
against the terrorists was shared amongst friends in the 'Coalition'. After
conferring, they announced that it didn't matter whether or not the
'evidence' would stand up in a court of law. Thus, in an instant, were
centuries of jurisprudence carelessly trashed.
Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed
by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's resistance
movements-or whether it's dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognized
government. The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and
Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world.
Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against,
the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington.
People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed.
Governments molt and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to
shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as
ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead. On both
sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the
actions of their own governments. Unknowingly, ordinary people in both
countries share a common bond-they have to live with the phenomenon of
blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on
Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in
America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts.
There is no easy way out of the spiraling morass of terror and brutality
that confronts the world today. It is time now for the human race to hold
still, to delve into its wells of collective wisdom, both ancient and
modern. What happened on September 11 changed the world forever. Freedom,
progress, wealth, technology, war-these words have taken on new meaning.
Governments have to acknowledge this transformation, and approach their new
tasks with a modicum of honesty and humility. Unfortunately, up to now,
there has been no sign of any introspection from the leaders of the
International Coalition. Or the Taliban.
When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said, "We're a
peaceful nation." America's favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also
holds the portfolio of Prime Minister of the UK), echoed him: "We're a
peaceful people."
So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is Peace. Speaking at
the FBI headquarters a few days later, President Bush said: "This is our
calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most free
nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that
reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will
not tire."
Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with-and
bombed-since World War II: China (1945-46, 1950-53); Korea (1950-53);
Guatemala (1954, 1967 -69); Indonesia (1958); Cuba (1959-60); the Belgian
Congo (1964); Peru (1965); Laos (1964-73); Vietnam (1961-73); Cambodia
(1969-70); Grenada (1983); Libya (1986); El Salvador (1980s); Nicaragua
(1980s); Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998);
Yugoslavia (1999). And now Afghanistan.
Certainly it does not tire-this, the Most Free nation in the world. What
freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of speech,
religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual preferences
(well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful things. Outside
its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate-usually in the
service of America's real religion, the 'free market'. So when the US
government christens a war 'Operation Infinite Justice', or 'Operation
Enduring Freedom', we in the Third World feel more than a tremor of fear.
Because we know that Infinite Justice for some means Infinite Injustice for
others. And Enduring Freedom for some means Enduring Subjugation for others.
The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest
countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all
of the world's weapons, they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of
mass destruction-chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most
wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and
human rights violations in modern history, and have sponsored, armed, and
financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have
worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war. For all its
appalling sins, the Taliban just isn't in the same league.
The Taliban was compounded in the crumbling crucible of rubble, heroin, and
landmines in the backwash of the Cold War. Its oldest leaders are in their
early 40s. Many of them are disfigured and handicapped, missing an eye, an
arm or a leg. They grew up in a society scarred and devastated by war.
Between the Soviet Union and America, over 20 years, about $45 billion worth
of arms and ammunition was poured into Afghanistan. The latest weaponry was
the only shard of modernity to intrude upon a thoroughly medieval society.
Young boys-many of them orphans-who grew up in those times, had guns for
toys, never knew the security and comfort of family life, never experienced
the company of women. Now, as adults and rulers, the Taliban beat, stone,
rape, and brutalize women; they don't seem to know what else to do with
them. Years of war have stripped them of gentleness, inured them to kindness
and human compassion. They dance to the percussive rhythms of bombs raining
down around them. Now they've turned their monstrosity on their own people.
With all due respect to President Bush, the people of the world do not have
to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of human
civilization-our art, our music, our literature-lies beyond these two
fundamentalist, ideological poles. There is as little chance that the people
of the world can all become middle-class consumers as there is that they'll
all embrace any one particular religion. The issue is not about Good vs Evil
or Islam vs Christianity as much as it is about space. About how to
accommodate diversity, how to contain the impulse towards hegemony-every
kind of hegemony, economic, military, linguistic, religious, and cultural.
Any ecologist will tell you how dangerous and fragile a monoculture is. A
hegemonic world is like having a government without a healthy opposition. It
becomes a kind of dictatorship. It's like putting a plastic bag over the
world, and preventing it from breathing. Eventually, it will be torn open.
One and a half million Afghan people lost their lives in the 20 years of
conflict that preceded this new war. Afghanistan was reduced to rubble, and
now, the rubble is being pounded into finer dust. By the second day of the
air strikes, US pilots were returning to their bases without dropping their
assigned payload of bombs. As one pilot put it, Afghanistan is "not a
target-rich environment". At a press briefing at the Pentagon, Donald
Rumsfeld, US defense secretary, was asked if America had run out of targets.
"First we're going to re-hit targets," he said, "and second, we're not
running out of targets, Afghanistan is..." This was greeted with gales of
laughter in the Briefing Room. By the third day of the strikes, the US
defense department boasted that it had "achieved air supremacy over
Afghanistan". (Did they mean that they had destroyed both, or maybe all 16,
of Afghanistan's planes?)
On the ground in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance-the Taliban's old enemy,
and therefore the International Coalition's newest friend-is making headway
in its push to capture Kabul. (For the archives, let it be said that the
Northern Alliance's track record is not very different from the Taliban's.
But for now, because it's inconvenient, that little detail is being glossed
over.) The visible, moderate, "acceptable" leader of the Alliance, Ahmed
Shah Masood, was killed in a suicide-bomb attack early in September. The
rest of the Northern Alliance is a brittle confederation of brutal warlords,
ex-communists, and unbending clerics. It is a disparate group divided along
ethnic lines, some of whom have tasted power in Afghanistan in the past.
Until the US air strikes, the Northern Alliance controlled about 5 per cent
of the geographical area of Afghanistan. Now, with the Coalition's help and
'air cover', it is poised to topple the Taliban. Meanwhile, Taliban
soldiers, sensing imminent defeat, have begun to defect to the Alliance. So
the fighting forces are busy switching sides and changing uniforms. But in
an enterprise as cynical as this one, it seems to matter hardly at all. Love
is hate, north is south, peace is war.
Among the global powers, there is talk of 'putting in a representative
government'. Or, on the other hand, of 'restoring' the Kingdom to
Afghanistan's 89-year-old former king, Zahir Shah, who has lived in exile in
Rome since 1973. That's the way the game goes-support Saddam Hussein, then
'take him out'; finance the mujahideen, then bomb them to smithereens; put
in Zahir Shah and see if he's going to be a good boy. (Is it possible to
'put in' a representative government? Can you place an order for
Democracy-with extra cheese and jalapeno peppers?)
Reports have begun to trickle in about civilian casualties, about cities
emptying out as Afghan civilians flock to the borders which have been
closed. Main arterial roads have been blown up or sealed off. Those who have
experience of working in Afghanistan say that by early November, food
convoys will not be able to reach the millions of Afghans (7.5 million
according to the UN) who run the very real risk of starving to death during
the course of this winter. They say that in the days that are left before
winter sets in, there can either be a war, or an attempt to reach food to
the hungry. Not both. As a gesture of humanitarian support, the US
government air-dropped 37,000 packets of emergency rations into Afghanistan.
It says it plans to drop a total of 5,000,000 packets. That will still only
add up to a single meal for half-a-million people out of the several million
in dire need of food. Aid workers have condemned it as a cynical, dangerous,
public-relations exercise. They say that air-dropping food packets is worse
than futile.
First, because the food will never get to those who really need it. More
dangerously, those who run out to retrieve the packets risk being blown up
by landmines. A tragic alms race.
Nevertheless, the food packets had a photo-op all to themselves. Their
contents were listed in major newspapers. They were vegetarian, we're told,
as per Muslim Dietary Law(!) Each yellow packet, decorated with the American
flag, contained: rice, peanut butter, bean salad, strawberry jam, crackers,
raisins, flat bread, an apple fruit bar, seasoning, matches, a set of
plastic cutlery, a serviette and illustrated user instructions.
After three years of unremitting drought, an air-dropped airline meal in
Jalalabad! The level of cultural ineptitude, the failure to understand what
months of relentless hunger and grinding poverty really mean, the US
government's attempt to use even this abject misery to boost its
self-image, beggars description.
Reverse the scenario for a moment. Imagine if the Taliban government was to
bomb New York City, saying all the while that its real target was the US
government and its policies. And suppose, during breaks between the bombing,
the Taliban dropped a few thousand packets containing nan and kebabs impaled
on an Afghan flag. Would the good people of New York ever find it in
themselves to forgive the Afghan government? Even if they were hungry, even
if they needed the food, even if they ate it, how would they ever forget the
insult, the condescension? Rudy Giuliani, Mayor of New York City, returned a
gift of $10 million from a Saudi prince because it came with a few words of
friendly advice about American policy in the Middle East. Is pride a luxury
only the rich are entitled to?
Far from stamping it out, igniting this kind of rage is what creates
terrorism. Hate and retribution don't go back into the box once you've let
them out. For every 'terrorist' or his 'supporter' that is killed, hundreds
of innocent people are being killed too. And for every hundred innocent
people killed, there is a good chance that several future terrorists will be
created.
Where will it all lead?
Setting aside the rhetoric for a moment, consider the fact that the world
has not yet found an acceptable definition of what 'terrorism' is. One
country's terrorist is too often another's freedom fighter. At the heart of
the matter lies the world's deep-seated ambivalence towards violence. Once
violence is accepted as a legitimate political instrument, then the morality
and political acceptability of terrorists (insurgents or freedom fighters)
becomes contentious, bumpy terrain. The US government itself has funded,
armed, and sheltered plenty of rebels and insurgents around the world. The
CIA and Pakistan's ISI trained and armed the mujahideen who, in the 1980s,
were seen as terrorists by the government in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
While President Reagan posed with them for a group portrait and called them
the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers. Today,
Pakistan-America's ally in this new war-sponsors insurgents who cross the
border into Kashmir in India. Pakistan lauds them as 'freedom fighters',
India calls them 'terrorists'. India, for its part, denounces countries who
sponsor and abet terrorism, but the Indian army has, in the past, trained
separatist Tamil rebels asking for a homeland in Sri Lanka-the LTTE,
responsible for countless acts of bloody terrorism. (Just as the CIA
abandoned the mujahideen after they had served its purpose, India abruptly
turned its back on the LTTE for a host of political reasons. It was an
enraged LTTE suicide-bomber who assassinated former Indian prime minister
Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.)
It is important for governments and politicians to understand that
manipulating these huge, raging human feelings for their own narrow purposes
may yield instant results, but eventually and inexorably, they have
disastrous consequences. Igniting and exploiting religious sentiments for
reasons of political expediency is the most dangerous legacy that
governments or politicians can bequeath to any people-including their own.
People who live in societies ravaged by religious or communal bigotry know
that every religious text-from the Bible to the Bhagwad Gita-can be mined
and misinterpreted to justify anything, from nuclear war to genocide to
corporate globalization.
This is not to suggest that the terrorists who perpetrated the outrage on
September 11 should not be hunted down and brought to book. They must be.
But is war the best way to track them down? Will burning the haystack find
you the needle? Or will it escalate the an |
| thanks for the article... | free-agent
Nov 4, 2001 8:35 AM | | where did you find it? I have a few alternative news sources on the web, but I haven't come across this article.
I agree that people need to set aside the emotions and truly think about ALL aspects of the "war" on Afghanistan. The other day in my gym I heard a group talking about nuking the whole country (I didn't bother to interject). It made me sad because these "adults" had no idea what they were talking about, and that is the kind of cr@p that children are constantly exposed to during times like this. I am trying to find out what Noam Chomsky has to say about the goings-on, but I would guess that it would be very similar to this article.
later |
| praise the lord | ishmael
Nov 4, 2001 3:27 PM | | im glad to hear some sanity...ive posted two articles by this woman on roadbikereview and the backlash i got was disturbing...ive been called everything feminine and told to get out..they all want the instant gratification of bombs exploding..i just might leave, its their war not mine..all the flags,this supposed unity in the face of adversity, and that new found expression "god bless america" seems more like a war chant to me...i really believe that almost all americans are in the dark and need to see other viewpoints as to what the country does...bush makes it out that skeletor is over there and we have the magic sword of justice.. i think history will show us again that we cant continue on our present path... maybe its only when war comes home to us will we see what war is...dont get me wrong, im anti- bin lauden, but im sure this isnt the way to solve the problem, if only it were that simple... ive got another article by her, if you want it write me since im not sure if it'll fit, the one you read has been cut too..johnfrancismurphy2000@yahoo.com |
| praise the lord | Hank
Nov 4, 2001 3:54 PM | | Arundhati Roy is kind of anoying. She's a second rate fiction writer and comes off as a whiney liberal in her political writing, which is pretty weak stuff. I agree with her sentiment in general, but she's not giving any viable alternative solutions. Instead she says "It is time now for the human race to hold still, to delve into its wells of collective wisdom, both ancient and modern." What the hell does that mean? Look, no one liked bombing. No one. The Bush administration knows they're taking a hell of a gamble with this bombing campaign--they're trying to smoke bin Laden out, and they know they have a limited amount of time before world opinion turns totally against them. But they learned in Somalia that sending in the Special Forces doesn't work too well, either. And they seemed to have just learned that again:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash33.htm
It's a bad situation all the way around, and it will probably get worse. The situatin with Israel and Pakistan is very scary. But Arundhati Roy isn't exactly offering constructive criticism. It's just knee jerk war is bad stuff. Yes, war is bad. |
| Ethnic cleansing/communism makes much more sense.... | Dean
Nov 4, 2001 5:19 PM | | now list the reasons the U.S. fought these wars. |
| cause | gra_vy
Nov 3, 2001 10:11 PM | | I don't have a cause, I don't have to, you have the cause and you don't even know it. You are representative of your own country's greatest asset, the unknowing public who assert their own national superiority on everybody else without hesitation. What's worse it that you care so little about the very possibility that you are unwilling to actually look through the system you've been brought up to love and be nurtured by and try and take in internationally objective view. You are told what the let the media tell you, you hear what they let you, you see the images they let you see. My news is old news, its current news and its yet to come. I challenge you to look for yourself, your reluctance to even consider it says a lot.
Just this morning I read in the NEWSPAPER (unusual but excellent) how American AC130 gunships circled around a small Afghani village and dropped the first bomb around 11pm then as the villagers ran outside to see what was happening, they were all (35 in total) massacred by machine gun fire by the gunships. These are civilians. The gunships came back the next night and fired into the houses. The rest of the villagers left the next day. You want civilian casualties, or 'collateral damage', check back to the days of massacres of CIVILIANS authorised or with the full support of the CIA or other govt associates of Nicargua (~3300), Somalia(~8000), Panama(~10000), Cambodia(~750,000), Iraq (~250,000 direct and some ~550,000 indirect as a result of famine, epidemics due to infrastructure destruction in direct opposition to the Geneva Convention). BTW, most of these figures are merely estimates by your CIA, actual figures are thought to be much higher in many cases, but when do you really stop counting the cost of indirect influence?
Xerxes, funny guy, "you kill me OJ!". What can I say, I've got a complex, but it's not superiority, it's almost comical that you can say it, but I leave it with your country.
Peace, whether you like it or not :( is what everybody including me wants |
| Then why are you arguing? | heff®
Nov 3, 2001 10:57 PM | | Mike simply posted a pic.......showing, as he said, goodwill between two nations that just 50 or so years ago were blowing the SNOT out of each other. If that's not a picture of peace, I don't know what is.
Neither I, nor the majority of members of this board, condone what's going on, but it happens. It's happened for thousands of years.
My question for you.......you claim you want peace. WHY are you trying to inflame people here? You say you read a newspaper article. Maybe you did. Maybe it's similar to another one. Do I think the media tells the truth on most counts? No. Do I believe half of what I see regarding a military operation? No. Do I think the press, of ANY nation, has any idea what's going on? Not a chance. Having been in the US Military during two incindents (Panama and the Gulf War), I can tell you for a FACT that the info the press has is mostly bogus.
But what I really think, is you need to keep your mouth shut on certain things. You're right, this is a bike board, it should be strictly bikes.
I think that you get your knowledge second and third hand from newspapers who don't have a clue in the first place........I think if you're NOT THERE, then don't TELL ME what's happening there. When you're sitting at Ground Zero, tell me what you see. Otherwise, can it.
Oh, and since well over half of this board's posters are from other countries (yeah, alot of Canadians, but still), and the general feeling is goodwill, and........golly gee, PEACE, then WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT?? If you can't appreciate that other countries and their citizens feel for us, for a change, get lost.
I also think you have some sort of complex. When you can't accept an offer of support and sympathy, for what it is, then you've got a problem.
Now drop it.
heff® |
| ask someone else | gra_vy
Nov 4, 2001 3:54 AM | | bottom line:
my venting has absolutely nothing to do with the deepest sympathy I hold for every person affected by what happened, and it never will.
question yourself and others from time to time, but look beyond how it affects you personally and try to redefine the problem without your cultural bias.
to quote the rage "at least I'm f*cking trying, what the f*ck have you done?!"
I'm done. |
| Again... | MD
Nov 4, 2001 2:08 AM | | ...Until you or others can really convince me that your sources of information are any more credible than my sources, then I guess that the answer to your question is, at least from me, #4. |
| mtbR an international forum-Hmmm, interesting perspective | Observer
Nov 3, 2001 5:47 PM | | Thats an interesting perspective you have of MTBR Bianch4me.
I always saw MTBR as an American forum with some intertional participants.
I guess it's a bit like is the glass half full or half empty.
Observer (one of the international group) |
| Who turned on your computer for you? | Coolhand
Nov 5, 2001 6:18 AM | | As it seems clear from you post that you clearly lack the brains to do so yourself. Sad little hateful man. |
| Jus' stirring up the flames... nm | Dirt Pilot
Nov 3, 2001 7:22 AM | | |
| |
