a moral dilemma

Originally posted by SLY
... It seems like manKIND will never learn how to be KIND. (no offence to anybody here)

True enough. We don't disagree on everything. :)

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
We don't disagree on everything. :)

:)

Originally posted by PonyOne
...Nothing is sacred in the middle east these days, ironically enough.

Now there's a sad, twistin' truth! :(

a few lil questions:

The intention to reduce dangerous weapons on this planet is technically a very good one - no doubt about that. BUT.. why are certain nations forced to disarm while others (in most cases those who force them) allowed to keep their weapons? a bit unfair, dont you think? And also a bit unbalanced. One could think it its some sort of cold war - but only the other way round. Disarming is good, but only if everyone disarms completely. But there is the problem - how can you be sure that everyone realy disarms completely? Even with the best inspections you can never be sure that there isnt some sort of secret underground facility stuffed with dangerous arsenals. What remains is fear. so it would be only logical for every nation to PRETEND that they have disarmed and keep a few lil warheads somwhere - just for the worst case. I guess the chances for peace on this planet are pretty weak, arent they? I think everyone has to disarm, because - where is the proof that some wierdow gets in the position to use them? remember hitler? it can happen everywhere - even in the US. so the main question from this is: why do some have to disarm whilst others do not?

----

Speaking of Afghanistan, iraq and violation of humanity etc..
i just recently saw footage on TV about what happened in afghanistan and interviews with survivors. US troops have captured heaps of afghan people - taliban and non-taliban. Some of those prisoner-transports have been just mass-executed and burried in massgraves somewhere in the desert without the knowledge of the public. others have been put into huge trucks and instead of delivering them to a prison they placed the trucks in the midst of the desert at extreme temperatures and went away. survivors have reported that they licked eachothers prespiration to survive - some died in the heat and the others (50+ people) where locked with the dead in the truck. Very humain if you ask me.. not more humain than the things Saddam does.

Thats basically what i mean - its easy to follow someone who preaches big speaches from TV-stations telling ppl about the bad things that happen in other parts of the world and that they have to be stopped (everyone else is bad and we have to stop it - arrogance?).

The disadvantage is that one cannot determin whats realy going on, for you do not sit in the secret rooms of the presidents and politicians after the press is gone, to know what they realy are seeking for. aswell as you arent in the location where it happens to see whats realy going on. you only see pics of troopers who return in victory - yay! we have won! lets get drunk. Who gives you the assurance that the thing that uncle sam wants you to fight for is realy WORTH fighting and dying for?

[Edited by Azrael on 02-10-2003 at 01:06 AM]

“A detailed year-end review found that the U.S. war ‘has returned to power nearly all the same warlords who had misruled the country in the days before the Taliban’; some Afghans see the resulting situation as even ‘worse than it was before the Taliban came to power.’ . . . The return of warlordism is a dangerous sign, as was the announcement by the new Justice Minister that the basic structure of sharia law as instituted by the Taliban would remain in force, though ‘there will be some changes from the time of the Taliban. For example, the Taliban used to hang the victim's body in public for four days. We will only hang the body for a short time, say 15 minutes.’ Judge Ahamat Ullha Zarif added that some new location would be found for the regular public executions, not the Sports Stadium. ‘Adulterers, both male and female, would still be stoned to death, Zarif said, `but we will use only small stones',’ so that those who confess might be able to run away; others will be ‘stoned to death,’ as before. . . . As the year ended, desperate peasants, mostly women, were returning to the miserable labor of growing opium poppies so that their families can survive, reversing the Taliban ban. The UN had reported in October that poppy production had already ‘increased threefold in areas controlled by the Northern Alliance,’ whose warlords ‘have long been reputed to control much of the processing and smuggling of opium’ to Russia and the West, an estimated 75% of the world's heroin. . . . U.S. and British intellectual opinion, across the political spectrum, assured us that only radical extremists can doubt that ‘this is basically a just war.’ Those who disagree can therefore be dismissed, among them, for example, the 1000 Afghan leaders who met in Peshawar in late October in a U.S.-backed effort to lay the groundwork for a post-Taliban regime led by the exiled King. They bitterly condemned the U.S. war, which is ‘beating the donkey rather than the rider,’ one speaker said to unanimous agreement. . . . The U.S., [Afghan opposition leader] Abdul Haq said, ‘is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world. They don't care about the suffering of the Afghans or how many people we will lose. And we don't like that. Because Afghans are now being made to suffer for these Arab fanatics, but we all know who brought these Arabs to Afghanistan in the 1980s, armed them and gave them a base. It was the Americans and the CIA. And the Americans who did this all got medals and good careers, while all these years Afghans suffered from these Arabs and their allies. Now, when America is attacked, instead of punishing the Americans who did this, it punishes the Afghans.’”
Lakdawala lecture, New Delhi (Noam Chomsky, ZNET, December 30, 2001)



[Edited by Azrael on 02-10-2003 at 01:51 AM]

.. and another very interresting quote from Noam Chomsky on the Gulf War that can be imposed on what is happening today:


The gulf war tells you how a well-functioning propaganda system works. People can believe that when we use force against Iraq and Kuwait it's because we really observe the principle that illegal occupation and human rights abuses should be met by force. They don't see what it would mean if those principles were applied to U.S. behavior. That's a success of propaganda of quite a spectacular type.

[...]

Let's take the question of the reasons for the war. Reasons were offered for the war. The reasons are: Aggressors cannot be rewarded and aggression must be reversed by the quick resort to violence. That was the reason for the war. There was basically no other reason advanced. Can that possibly be the reason for the war? Does the U.S. uphold those principles, that aggressors cannot be rewarded and that aggression must be reversed by a quick resort to violence?... Has the U.S. opposed its own aggression in Panama and insisted on bombing Washington to reverse it? When the South African occupation of Namibia was declared illegal in 1969, did the U.S. impose sanctions on food and medicine? Did it go to war? Did it bomb Capetown? No, it carried out twenty years of "quiet diplomacy." It wasn't very pretty during those twenty years. In the years of the Reagan-Bush administration alone, about a million-and-a-half people were killed by South Africa just in the surrounding countries. Forget what was happening in South Africa and Namibia. Somehow that didn't sear our sensitive souls. We continued with "quiet diplomacy" and ended up with ample reward for the aggressors. They were given the major port in Namibia and plenty of advantages that took into account their security concerns. Where is this principle that we uphold?... No reason was given for going to war. None. No reason was given for going to war that could not be refuted by a literate teenager in about two minutes. That again is the hallmark of a totalitarian culture. It ought to frighten us, that we are so deeply totalitarian that we can be driven to war without any reason being given for it and without anybody noticing it or caring. It's a very striking fact.

[...]

...The fact of the matter is, this [Iraq] was a Third World country with a peasant army. It is now being conceded that there was a ton of disinformation about the fortifications, the chemical weapons, etc. But did you find anybody who pointed it out? Virtually nobody. That's typical. Notice that this was done one year after exactly the same thing was done with Manuel Noriega. Manuel Noriega is a minor thug by comparison with George Bush's friend Saddam Hussein or George Bush's other friends in Beijing, or George Bush himself, for that matter. In comparison with them, Manuel Noriega is a pretty minor thug. Bad, but not a world class thug of the kind we like. He was turned into a creature larger than life. He was going to destroy us, leading the narco-traffickers. We had to quickly move in and smash him, killing a couple hundred or maybe thousand people, restoring to power the tiny, maybe eight percent white oligarchy, and putting U.S. military officers in control at every level of the political system. We had to do all those things because, after all, we had to save ourselves or we were going to be destroyed by this monster. One year later the same thing was done by Saddam Hussein. Did anybody point it out? Did anybody point out what had happened or why? You'll have to look pretty far for that.

Notice that this is not all that different from what the Creel Commission did in 1916--1917, when within six months it had turned a pacifistic population into raving hysterics who wanted to destroy everything German to save ourselves from Huns who were tearing the arms off Belgian babes. The techniques are maybe more sophisticated, with television and lots of money going into it, but it's pretty traditional. I think the issue, to come back to my original comment, is not simply disinformation and the Gulf crisis. The issue is much broader. It's whether we want to live in a free society or whether we want to live under what amounts to a form of self-imposed totalitarianism, with the bewildered herd marginalized, directed elsewhere, terrified, screaming patriotic slogans, fearing for their lives and admiring with awe the leader who saved them from destruction while the educated masses goose-step on command, repeat the slogans they're supposed to repeat, the society deteriorates at home, we end up serving as a mercenary enforcer state, hoping that others are going to pay us to smash up the world. Those are the choices. That's the choice that you have to face. The answer to those questions is very much in the hands of people exactly like you and me.

interresting, no?

Originally posted by Azrael
others have been put into huge trucks and instead of delivering them to a prison they placed the trucks in the midst of the desert at extreme temperatures and went away. survivors have reported that they licked eachothers prespiration to survive - some died in the heat and the others (50+ people) where locked with the dead in the truck. Very humain if you ask me.. not more humain than the things Saddam does.

I would just like to note that the Afghanistan campagn occured primarily in the Winter of 2002-2003. Afghanistan is a cold place in the winter months. I've said it before, I'll say it again, the critics often have just as many alterior motives as those they criticise.

If you want to talk about the ethics of holding Taliban/Al Quida forces indefinately in Cuba, and that they're subject to military tribunals, that's another matter entirely.

Originally posted by SLY
I still can't accept that invading such a weak country on the other side of the world that can never attack you under any circumstances can be some sourt of self defense.
I still can't see what else can Iraq afford to do other than opening everywhere in their country for inspectors , to be said that they're fully co-operating with the UN.
(The U.S. can claim that Iraq is trying to hide something forever anyway , but this doesn't make Iraq guilty for hiding something)
And I still see that the U.S. government is taking war as some kinda easy business for lots of reasons, like trying new weapons , proving their domination and supremacy on the world , keeping their army in action , etc. till they prove otherwise.

I'm sure that if they realy wanted to change life & the regiem in Iraq gradualy & peacefully they could , as they could force Iraq to make lots of contributions before . (e.g. opening presidential sites for inspections )

I still wish & pray that the U.S. government change their attitude in the last moment or to find out that they were just using military threats for more contribution from Iraq.

Peace. [/B]

If you want to hear more ways for Iraq to comply with the weapons inspections, read the statements weapons inspectors have made.

The only thing to get any results so far is the credible threat of force, and the results they've produced are minor concessions designed by Saddam Hussein to buy himself some time.

So you don't agree with the US government's position because "it just can't be right," but you have no solid information to rebut its statements nor counterproposals that will actually work...

You know, if this doesn't go well, I could easily end up being drafted and killed in this war. I'd really like to hear some credible arguments against action here, but I'm not. I'm mostly hearing a combonation (and not neccessarily here, I'm on a lot of other forums too) of "America wants to do this, so it must be bad" and "I just don't think war is ever justified under any circumstances." It's actually becoming depressing for me to realize that I haven't heard any arguments against removing Saddam Hussein that give meaningful examples of his cooperation, peaceful plans that work, or evidence/arguments that come close to proving the Bush administration wrong on this. Instead I see name calling and accusations that don't fully ad up.

Considering that none of us have any real say in what happens in the next few weeks, how much time I'm spending here when I should be doing stuff at home or practicing, and that the debate is getting decidedly repedative, I'm bowing out of this thread. I just want to say I don't hold anything against anyone who's participated in this so far, but "the thrill is gone."

Politicians messed up the Vietnam War by not letting the generals do their job, Clinton did hardly anything right in his years as prez, but Bush will fix all of this.
LIBERALS SUCK!

Look dude , it's not just a moral issue , it's about logic too .
The situation now is that there is no war , so in order to start a war , you need REALY GOOD reasons , proves & evidence of violations ... But what's happening is that the U.S. is flipping it over , they want Iraq to do prove that there were no violations in order to to prevent the war.

And what any viewer can admit , Iraq has responded quite nicely till this day ... They accepted ALL the UN resolutions including the last one, they're co-operating nicely with the inspectors (ok, Blix said they're willing to see more co-operation but he didn't say that Iraq isn't co-operating , he also asked for time to finish his job) , opened presidential sites for inspections (this was never allowed before, and previous UN resolutions didn't demand opening these sites from Iraq) , and today they accepted U2 flights over Iraq to help the inspections and to prove that they got nothing hidden anywhere.

As everybody can see , the U.S. government is always coming with new requirements from Iraq , just in order to attack once Iraq refuses to comply with any of these... On the other hand , Iraq is doing their job , and they're making all they can do to fulfill these requirements... And now that the U.S. has SOLD OUT of new ideas, they claim that Iraq is just wasting time , and they will accept nothing less than changing the regiem (something the U.S. is quite sure that Saddam would never accept).
I don't know why can't you see that the U.S. government is just playing games and their only goal is invading Iraq , with or without international approval , whether Iraq is found guilty or not.
Believe me this has got nothing to do with WMDs or Saddam's regiem , it's just something on the american agenda that we cannot see now.

Here's a new one : I've just heard that some Iraqi opposition leaders are offering the U.S. HALF the funds of Iraqi oil after removing Saddam.
Pretty reasonable, isn't it? Specialy that the U.S. economy isn't in the best shape , so from where the hell are they supposed to fund such a big war without more declines in the U.S. economy ?

If the U.S. realy wanted a peacefull solution , they'd try to force Iraq to make some political corrections , democratic elections with the UN supervision begining with the parliament... Not ORDERING Saddam to step out , and saying "and by the way , there's no negotiation" (qoute from Mr. Bush) ... Dude , does this sound like a man who is ready for a peacefull solution ?

This thread could go on for ever,but nothing is going to change.Arguments have gone back and forth,crap has come from both sides of the divide.....
Some pages back,Rask "vowed" to do his "damndest" to make sure the Bush admin. regrets it if they did something he felt was wrong with regard to oil or something.
Now he says he knows isn't going to influence what happens over the next few weeks....so what was that about doing your damndest?
Beyond expressing our opinions,there's nothing more to this.Even if we slugged it out and I,say,eventually won(won here,on the gtricks database,not on the ground)it doesn't have any real effect anywhere else.
And I hate doing things whose consequence I don't see(which is why,for example,lately I'm soooo out of sex for the **** of it-pun intended).
So I'm quitting this too.
It's been nice.I've learnt some things I didn't know,it was mentally(I love stuff that is mentally engaging).
The philosopher in me isn't up today,so,adios.
I'll keep reading tho',just to see what people are saying.
Btw,today I'm 24.It's evoking a mixture of emotions,but I really don't feel like discussing them here.

Originally posted by kingdavid
This thread could go on for ever,but nothing is going to change.
Beyond expressing our opinions,there's nothing more to this.Even if we slugged it out and I,say,eventually won(won here,on the gtricks database,not on the ground)it doesn't have any real effect anywhere else.

No dude - if people stop thinking and talking about what is going on, then we are just mindless sheep following the masses to whichever goal we might be lead to. Silence and acceptance without thinking is the worst thing that could happen to a society.

Originally posted by kingdavid
..... Some pages back,Rask "vowed" to do his "damndest" to make sure the Bush admin. regrets it if they did something he felt was wrong with regard to oil or something.
Now he says he knows isn't going to influence what happens over the next few weeks....so what was that about doing your damndest?...

As I ppointed out earlier, every form of government has a certain amount of disconnect between 'the will of the peolple' and what actions are taken by that government. Rask is quite right to understand that he is unable to have much influence over the events of the next few weeks. But, because government is elected, and because representatives who piss on the populace don't get re-elected, no government is going to go against public opinion on fudamental issues. Polls have shown that the American public supports military action only if it is justified. If it turns out to be a ploy to grab Iraqi oil fields, it will be a long time before any Republicans see the inside of an elected office. And you can be sure they know that.

I just know there will be all sorts of arguments about how the public could be misled, etc., etc. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill...Democracy is a bloody mess. The only reason it is worth the effort, is that it is infinitely better than anything else!

Originally posted by kingdavid
Some pages back,Rask "vowed" to do his "damndest" to make sure the Bush admin. regrets it if they did something he felt was wrong with regard to oil or something.
Now he says he knows isn't going to influence what happens over the next few weeks....so what was that about doing your damndest?

I said this thread has no impact on anything that's going to happen in the next few weeks.

But if US oil companies do end up owning Iraq's oil fieldswithout having to pay Iraq or Iraqi owners their fair value, I will do everything in my power to make sure that G.W. Bush and his cabinet regret it to the end of their days. Yes, this thread is pretty much meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but getting out on the streets, campagning, voting, and trying to raise awareness makes HUGE differences in the real world.

Oh, wait... I'm American, I must be wrong.

PonyOne - Totaly agree dude .


Fellas , isn't this the longest thread uptodate here ?

Originally posted by PonyOne
..."it's pointless, this is a guitar forum, shut up!"

You're putting words in my keyboard(:) ).I didn't say that now,did I?
On the contrary:
"It's been nice.I've learnt stuff I didn't know...I'll keep reading to see what people are saying..."etc etc.
My point was there's nothing new being said,by either side of the floor.
I mean,rask says Iraq isn't allowing B2 overflights(like there's anything Saddam would do about that).Someone counters that satelites can pick out a car's number plate.So who's telling the truth?And so on.
When there's nothing new coming up,I dedcide to quit.
Why are you acting like this is page number 2 on this thread?It's closer to 32,and if you like,you can look em up and see how often you see that thing about what you do to,with,for a woman blah blah blah.
That's me.
If I didn't think this was a place to discuss other stuff besides guitar,why would I have participated for so long?
Your(Pony and Rask) reaction tends to reinforce my feeling that at this point in the life of a thread,cynism tends to set in:
"I'm not American,I can't be right"
Now where the hell did that come from.
Cynicm(sp).
When cynicm sets in,I set out.
That back and forth tends to wear you down after some point.

[Edited by kingdavid on 02-13-2003 at 02:34 AM]

About lobbying and stuff:
Loads of people are right now lobbying against this war.
I want to see how effective this is going to be.

What do you think..

How believable/likely are topics like mass-controll and global conspiracy?

How much controll does "one" actually have of the society, respectively to what extent is it possible to controll a society without it being aware of?

There are those who say that such a mass-controll must be extremely complicated and backed up by a huge machinery of thousands of people knowing about it and keeping it confident. therefore thats rather far-fetched and not very likely.

But is it realy that complicated? does it realy require such a big machinery?
Isn´t it more likely that the hundredthousands who aid the goal of spreading half-truths and propaganda are not even aware of doing so?

"Everyone has his/her own opinnion"

... is that realy true? Everyone - well - allmost everyone has an opinnion - that is surely true. but how much of it is realy his/her own? Part of it is - no doubt - but what about the rest?

One should think about the following questions:


How much of my opinnions, of my points of view, of my view of life in general is based on things that i´ve actively wittnesed by myself, on personal experiences? and how much of it is based on "facts" that i´ve heard/seen in the massmedia?

How difficult is it REALY for a rich and powerfull minority (which undoubtably exists) - thus for only a few - by providing enough money and/or preasure (both very convincing arguments in a kapitalistic society), to induce the big media-companies to slightly alter those above mentioned "facts" in a way that is advantageous for that minority?

Of what practical use could a selectively misinformed society be for this minority? What use could someone have of directing our opinions in a certain way?

How likely is it, that an object that has been conditioned that way passes on his/her opinions/viewpoints to the next generation? as a teacher in school maybe?

I think it is time to rethink ones views under those aspects. Maybe you begin to realize how easily we swallow the media fast-food without thinking. I´m sure that afterwards we will look a bit more critical to what we hear and see. the big conspiracies are not as top secret as everyone thinks. ironically enough they are hidden where we lease expect it - in public.

For somebody who is willing to use his brain (which is also a question of maturity) and not accepting everything the way it seems to be, it is very easy to see what is realy going on. but it seems that the majority is too lazy to activate their brains - of course it is much more comfortable to swallow little pre-fixed pieces of information with the mind in stand-by mode.

How far away are we from a totalitarian State? In a totalitarian state there is something like a Truth-ministary - a facility that determines what has to be true and what hasnt. what do we trust in most? is it the media maybe..

what this has got to do with the thread? quite alot!

Although this thread probably won't have a significant direct impact on mass-media or government officials , but it's realy nice to say you're opinion and see other opinions and criticism on yours .

If everybody is like "hey , it's just a guitar forum" ... This is total indifference , cuz everybody has the right to say his opinion in public and discuss it as long as it doesn't turn to personal abuse , and this thread was pretty nice & clean .

What would be so cool with democracy if everybody is negative about discussing his opinion with others?
Actualy , discussions like this is what make importance for the public opinion ... This helps spreading truth, & make some people change their minds , and somehow it may have an impact on the governments through elections , strikes , media , etc.