 Autor |
 Posten
|
 |
|
Haseeb
beigetreten: Apr 21, 2003
Beiträge: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: Afghanistan
Province/State: Kabol
Stadt: Kabul
|
Re: reply
April 5, 2005 - 11:00 AM
|
|
“congrats for your admission in Harvard!”
“Haseeb your going to Harvard? CONGRADULATIONS - that great. Boston is a great town especially for college - there are about 6 major colleges in the City - you should have alot of fun and learn alot.”
Thanks guys, it seems I am going there for the class of 2010. But, I still have to sort out some stuff before it is certain. Luke , I have heard a lot about Boston and I am looking forward to it. No doubt , I will learn a lot and of course enjoy a lot.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Haseeb
beigetreten: Apr 21, 2003
Beiträge: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: Afghanistan
Province/State: Kabol
Stadt: Kabul
|
Re: reply
April 5, 2005 - 11:03 AM
|
|
“I disagree on 3 points - Karzi is of course an Afghani, but he is also Washington's man - they origonally appointed him - Karzi also used to work for one of the Bush families Oil companies - hate to break it to you.”
“As to Karzis connection - http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1149
but it is the UNOCAL connection you mentioned.”
Ok, see man these two links and your claim above have no connection. And I would put my money on the Pulitzer price winning work of Steve Coll (http://www.pulitzer.org/index.html) – I am all praise to the amount of research this man has put in writing Ghost Wars. In his book, Coll concludes that there are no evidence suggesting Khalilzad accepted the offer from UNOCAL –and it dismisses the claims that Karzai was working with UNOCAL. However, I can point to one possibility and that is: we have realized that one way to guarantee the security of our country is to attract foreign investment of high scale. I think this is a working policy as long the government knows what it is doing , the government in Kabul is pursuing it actively and this leads me to believe that Karzai may have been involved in drawing large oil companies to invest in the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. But this is merely an assumption I am making.
So , there is nothing as him being a “bush family oil company” employee, or if there was any pre-9/11 connection between him and the Bush family. However, he did have contacts like Richard Armitage (Under-sec of State). Trace back those contacts and it will again lead to the one-time warnings this man (Karzai) was sending about the potential dangers of empowering extremists.
“But if you want to critisize the Administraition in its handling of Iraq - the real critisism is as follows.
Rumsfield's and idiot - he thought only of how to win the war and not the peace - Powell had the right idea all along and no one listened to him.
You see Rumsfield wanted a light and small, technologically based invasion force that presented a small target and could move quickly.
This was very smart strictly in terms of the invasion.
But what was very stupid was to ignore Powell when he suggested that we back up the initial invasion force with a much larger police force which would stabilize the country after the fall of Saddam and impose order.
There were thousands of tons of munitions sitting in dumps which were not secured -
- now those munitions are being fired at US and Iraqi troops.”
Luke , the world does not see it this way and should not. For the world it doesn’t matter if Rumsfeld is “idiot” and Powel is smart – what matters is where your polices land and what they cause. The people who form those policies are more of your internal concern, the world does not see the mess created in Iraq as Rumsfeld’s mistake – it is simply a US mistake.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 5, 2005 - 11:55 AM
|
|
Haseeb - you seem very cynical when it comes to the actions of my government - but not when it relates to your own.
let me make this simple - why do you think Bush appointed Karzi in the first place?
Simply for the Afghani's sake? I doubt this very much. When Washington makes such an appointment they have their own concerns in mind as well.
If Karzi's only connection to the US government was to critisize their actions then Washington would never have appointed him.
They did so because he had collaborated with the Bush family previously - they knew him and felt comfortable appointing him to the position - I think this is self evident.
As for the "mess in Iraq" - I think if you talk to the Iraqis on this site they will explain to you that things have gotten much better for them since Saddam was removed from power.
We can debate how the descision to remove him from power was executed - which is the Rumsfield/Powell debate - but the descision to remove Saddam I do not beleive was a mistake.
That is your opinion - not mine.
I also have a problem with the timing of the invasion - I thought it could have been better prepaired - but in the end the removal of Saddam was to the benefit of Iraqis - and this basic descision was neither Rumsfields or Powells.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 6, 2005 - 01:24 AM
|
|
Your right - there is no difference between 2000 and 20000 - but these are not the numbers we are dealing with -
There is certainly a difference between 13000 and 70 which are the actual numbers we are talking about.
at the peak of the Cold War America had about 7000 warheads and Russia had about 6000
India and Pakistan don't have thousands of nuclear weapons India has about 30 and Pakistan it is beleived might have as many as 50.
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/4637/terr29a.html
Russia and the US each had thousands - there is really no comparison in arms escalation.
I know you live close ot the India/Pakistan conflict - and I am certainly not trying to belittle it or minimize it -
there is no way to minimize the damage that could be wrought by 60 or 70 nuclear weapons -
But that pales in comparison to the damage that thousands of Nuclear weapons would cause - including largescale climate shifts due to the massive amount of radioactive materials kicked up into the atmosphere.
- the conflict between Russia and the US was between superpowers with much bigger arsinals and spread out over the entire world. It was a far larger conflict - it is not even a serious question.
Now I am certain that things are very tense between India and Pakistan - I never said they weren't. I mentioned Hoopes because you claimed my ideas about the Cold War were exaggerated by the media, and they are not.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
beigetreten: Dec 10, 2003
Beiträge: 55
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 25
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 6, 2005 - 10:32 AM
|
|
>The confrontation between the US and Russia was much >bigger and more dangerous then the conflict between India >and Pakistan -
Luke, The tension between India and Pakistan had been almost high else worse. Worst than it was between USSR - USA if you ask a SOuth Asian! South Asia is a highly populated area and can cause heavy damage while i dont think the damage will be just limited to South Asia due to the gravity of a nuclear impact.
>Neither the Indians nor the Pakistanis have the >capaibility of causing the devistation that the US and >Russia might have wrought.
How can we bet on it ? I dont think that 2000 nukes or 20000 nukes can make a big difference since you dont need much nukes to destroy the world. The nukes the India and Pakistan have right now can cause a CONSIDERABLE destruction to the world.
Also, the world does not have any real fact on how many nukes both countries are having. This is an open secret to many South Asians. US was not able to monitor the second nuclear experiments done by the Indians before Indians declared officially.
>Also the Cold War was ideological - so it had the ability >to spread and be fought out amongst proxy's -
>The Kashmire Conflict is essentially a land war over >territory - so it isn't spreading anywhere - it just >between the two of them.
Looking the alies of India and the ones of Pakistan, there is a fair chance of other countries getting involved. Because a nuclear war will be having impacts on countries such as China and Russia.
>Russia was moving Nuclear arms into Cuba - The US moved >them into Turkey.
>I don't see India and Pakistan moving Nuclear weapons >around into other countries so as to threaten eachother.
You can not compare everything within an identical context!
Try to estimate how close the countries are located, do you think the nukes need to be moved around ?
When it comes to threatening, you will understand what happened during few years back between two countries after Indian Parliament got attacked.
>about 6 months ago I visited my mother in an alternative >medicine hospital - at this hospital I met Hoopes an 86 >year old man - who was the Undersecretary of the Airforce >(#2 man) during The Kennedy administraition.
>He was litterally in the room with Kennedy during the >Cuban Missile crisis and had a front row seat to this >crisis.
>So when he tells me we came a inch from Nuclear disaster I >believe him.
Luke, if you meet anybody who served as an advisor for indian air force after the Indian Parliament got bombed by terrorists who India alleged as backed by Pakistan, he would clearly tell you how close the two countries were close to a nuclear disaster!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
beigetreten: Dec 10, 2003
Beiträge: 55
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 25
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 7, 2005 - 09:22 AM
|
|
>Your right - there is no difference between 2000 and >20000 - but these are not the numbers we are dealing with ->There is certainly a difference between 13000 and 70 which >are the actual numbers we are talking about. at the peak >of the Cold War America had about 7000 warheads and Russia >had about 6000 India and Pakistan don't have thousands of >nuclear weapons India has about 30 and Pakistan it is >beleived might have as many as 50.
Luke, nobody right now know how much nukes the INDIA and the PAKISTAN are having. Obviously it would be smaller than what USA and USSR had but it can obviously cause huge amount of destruction to the world.
And in reality, if a nuclear war break out in Asia, China and Russia would sure to intervn with China - Pakistan friendship VS Russia- Indian friendship. WHo knows what the end result would be ?
Even in your article, its only ASSUMED, no clear evidence what so ever.
>including largescale climate shifts due to the massive >amount of radioactive materials kicked up into the >atmosphere
Lets assume that India and Pakistan have nukes around 100 as like your article had ASSUMED,
THose 100 nukes can cause largescale climate shifts as well..
>It was a far larger conflict - it is not even a serious >question
Looking at the population in Asia, I dont think you can call a nuclear conflict in Asia less that something happening between USSR and USA.
>I mentioned Hoopes because you claimed my ideas about the >Cold War were exaggerated by the media, and they are not.
Actually i did not claim that cold war was "just" exaggerated, but i am saying that the cold war threat was nothing much than the conflict happening in India and Pakista time to time.
At times its hair inch before going to war, at times its oceans far.
But its no excuse to arm and train radical extremist groups which can cause destruction to the world in future. That is my main point!
Anyway, the threat of real destruction did not begin with the cold war but as the nuclear weapons were first experimented and implemented.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 7, 2005 - 11:28 AM
|
|
Udara - yes actually there are some pretty good estimates as to how many Nukes India and Pakistan have - and if they had thousands beleive me people would know.
And as I said - I am not minimizing the conflict between India and Pakistan - many lives are at stake obviously - I am simply saying that the Cold War was bigger, involved more countries, more people, in more places around the world.
I think you seem to be forgetting that China WAS involved in the Cold War - they were allied with the Soviets - their communist - in fact going into Vietnam had alot more to do with China than Russia.
There is really no arguing around the FACT that the India/Pakistan conflict - while very dangerous, has not spread throughout the world and does not present the same kind of danger.
You reolize that the Cold War was fought out between East and Western Europe, between America and Cuba, between the Israelis and the Arabs, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Korea. I know many of those conflicts also have domestic factors but the Cold War played a role in all of them.
I am not sure what we are arguing about - are you seriously trying to say that the Kashmire issue has taken on the same dimensions as the Cold War? It clearly has not.
As for the point at which the debate began - About how Russia was drawn into Afghanistan and the stirring up of Radical Islamic elements.
Couple things - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc were going to financially and otherwise support this regardless of what America did.
And I don't think you can entirely blame America for Russia descision to invade Afghanistan - that was their choice. And Russia - being Communist was also an atheistic philosophy - so the backlash from conservative Muslims is rather predictable.
Had America not been involved the Radical movement in Afghanistan would probably have been weaker - Russia might still be there, who knows?
And yes I would have preferred a solution which did not stir up insane religious fundamentalists - I think we can agree.
But as I was looking through Quotes from Martin Luthar King this morning and found one that fits this discussion rather perfectly.
"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem."
- Dr. Martin Luthar King Jr.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Haseeb
beigetreten: Apr 21, 2003
Beiträge: 15
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: Afghanistan
Province/State: Kabol
Stadt: Kabul
|
Re: reply
April 8, 2005 - 01:51 AM
|
|
Originally posted by luke
Haseeb - you seem very cynical when it comes to the actions of my government - but not when it relates to your own.
Luke , I am not “cynical” – but I am critical. And I think I have every reason to be critical of your administrations policies. You very well know how broad the reach of your policies are and how greatly they effect the lives of each individual on earth. The fact that “Rumsfelds is an idiot” is annoying – you know he shapes policies and those policies affect my life and yours and we have to be aware of it.
Luke, it again brings us to the fact that your administrations always think shortsighted. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense of the United State of America , when signed the authorization of new tactics for interrogating Camp X-ray detainees may have thought it is one of the many documents he signs everyday. But, you know how big an impact that signature has had on the global view towards the US? – You cannot tell it, because these stories mostly do not reach your borders. Every released detainee who goes back to his home (and obviously most of them are from Middle East) tell the stories of the ways they were treated in Camp X-ray .The stories they tell really do not generate anything but hatred of US. (Many were released from Camp X-ray after finding no evidence against them – some were there even only because they drove some potential “enemy combatant” in their taxi). Who helps generate those stories? - Your policies.
In addition, I think I have been fair in criticizing my own government elsewhere on TIG. Actually, on local level I am more of a critic of the administration then a supporter as I may look on this forum. However, for us unfortunately comparative quality matters, not absolute. The current administration in Kabul has been one of the most effective units during the past thirty years and it deserves support – and I of course know that the recent effectiveness is all because of the aid the international community is providing us (I remain thankful to them).
Originally posted by luke
If Karzai’s only connection to the US government was to criticize their actions then Washington would never have appointed him.
They did so because he had collaborated with the Bush family previously - they knew him and felt comfortable appointing him to the position - I think this is self evident.
Luke, I would once again suggest your read about this matter. In 1990, while the Dr.Najibulla government in Kabul was about to fall – the international actors involved in Afghanistan had two options. One- call a traditional Loya Jirga (Grand Council of Elders) , elect a transitional administration and change the command in Kabul peacefully (Dr.Najib was offering to step down in favor of a “moderate” and “broad based” government ) This proposal which was laid out by moderate Afghans including Karzai “liberal art jerk offs-as Bearden called them” , called for national elections in the soonest possible time.
The second option was the one laid by the Pakistani intelligence with the blessing of CIA.(And you can read about it, don’t claim that the CIA was not involved in it) .It called for a take over of Kabul by forces of Gul-Budin Hekmatyaar.(Now he is one of the most wanted man on US list , a man of something around 10.millions dollars) . You really would not want to know which of the proposals your addmistration (the lead player being the CIA) supported.
The current transition of Afghanistan is modeled after the proposal of 1990 (The one by the moderate factions) – it seems to be working even though the ground to implement it is harsher than it was 1990. Don’t you think rejecting the first proposal in 1990 was a mistake? (The US did stand on the way of that roadmap (if you would call it)-do not doubt that, you can read “Fragmentation of Afghanistan” by Barrnet Rubin if you wanted to). I do not think if I need to explain to you the consequences of that mistake – the destruction of Afghanistan during 1992-2001 and 9/11 for me have roots in those decisions. Imagine, what if Osama had not managed to use Afghanistan as his secure base for years? You know this may seem ridiculous, but it really was a matter of choice between “liberal arts jerk offs” and extremist fighters for those of your administration who were concerned with the Afghanistan policy. They chose to approve the extremists –Edward McWilliams , a state department official dealing with the Afghan Jihad in Islamabad was dismissed as being “baselessly anti-Hekmatyaar” by others in the Islamabad Embassy.
Some diplomats in the State Department (e.g. Edwards McWilliams) were terrified about the way the CIA were running the affairs, not a new thing, however. The State Department has always come up with different approaches –the problem with SD is that they cannot win support for their agenda. Vietnam during 1946-1955 and the attitude certain State Department officials had towards US policy also later turned out to be a wise approach than that the one the US took.
Luke, you keep on claiming Karzai’s connection with the Bush family. Bro, please come up with proofs. The two links you provided above had nothing to prove what you are claiming. Connecting Karzai with Bush family is a new claim – I would love to see if you have grounds to base it on. If there is anything as “self evident” – then would you doubt it if I claim Bush Junior did not even know the capital of Afghanistan , let having connections with and Afghan in Afghanistan aside. I am not claiming that, however, I would never put my money on –Bush Junior knew the capital of Afghanistan before 9/11.
Originally posted by luke
As for the "mess in Iraq" - I think if you talk to the Iraqis on this site they will explain to you that things have gotten much better for them since Saddam was removed from power.
We can debate how the descision to remove him from power was executed - which is the Rumsfield/Powell debate - but the descision to remove Saddam I do not beleive was a mistake.
That is your opinion - not mine.
I also have a problem with the timing of the invasion - I thought it could have been better prepaired - but in the end the removal of Saddam was to the benefit of Iraqis - and this basic descision was neither Rumsfields or Powells
.
You neglect the importance of the execution manner of the decision to remove Sadam from power - and the timing of the operations, by simply appealing to emotions and popularity that the decision to remove Sadam was not a mistake. Ok, granted that removing Sadam by the United States was not a mistake – I am sure you agree that it could have been done in a much better way. In a much cost effective way (human and capital cost), and why it did not happen so? – The administration rushed to war, they got themselves involved in two conflicts in places where they know very less about. This mistake provided Al-Qaeda and other extremists a breeding ground (Iraq) and a recruiting slogan (the loudest being Abu-Gharib). It did, right? So let us conclude that a little more thought into the policies of your administration, and a little more foresight and vision can make amazingly great differences on the face of the earth. And Luke, does what I say sound” cynical” – I think I am being sympathetic than “cynical”.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 8, 2005 - 02:14 AM
|
|
I know the execution could have been better - that is why I brought up the Rumsfield/Powell debate.
You dismissed this as unimportant, but I think when it came to the execution of the conflict - had the Administraition listened to Collin Powell more and Rumsfield less - the situation in Iraq would be better now.
Rumsfield thought only of winning the "War" - the initial conflict - Powell had more foresight - besides suggesting that we be more patient and build a stronger international coalition - which we certainly should have done -
Powell also wanted more troops on the ground directly following the fall of Saddam's regeime to secure lose weapons dump, and promote law and order. The chaos that followed the fall of Saddam it seem cost both US and the Iraqis - and could have been largely avoided.
Because Powell urged Wisdom, Caution and Planning he was an outcast in the administration - particularly due to Cheany and Rumsfield.
I think it is obvious that the occupation was poorly planned - it seemed at times like the Administration was making things up as they went along - things like how to transition the Iraqi police force and Army could certainly have been thought through more carefully.
As for Karzai - I don't think it is really a new claim that Karzai had a connection to the Bush's and consulted on the Oil Pipeline running through Afghanistan
I am certainly not saying that he was their lackey ortheir boy - just that he had dealt with them in the past.
As for 90' - Haseeb - understand that in my view it was a great mistake on the part of the US to essentially ignore Afghanistan after the Russians left it.
After Russia left US lost interest - it was not that we were actively building up groups like the Taliban so much as we just didn't care who took over the country, or what happened to it.
When we were fighting the Russians it seemed important, After the Cold War was over Afghanistan was just another country in Asia with little valuable natural resources, the American Government had other priorities.
In the meantime countries like Pakistan and Iran were had their hands in the pot, and Bin Laden was making himself at home.
I certainly agree with you that America should have stayed enguaged after Russia left and tried to promote democracy THEN instead of just after the problem had bitten us in the ass.
Frankly I wish America was more enguaged NOW.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
beigetreten: Dec 10, 2003
Beiträge: 55
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 25
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 8, 2005 - 11:47 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Haseeb
[QUOTE]Luke, I would once again suggest your read about this matter. In 1990, while the Dr.Najibulla government in Kabul was about to fall – the international actors involved in Afghanistan had two options. One- call a traditional Loya Jirga (Grand Council of Elders) , elect a transitional administration and change the command in Kabul peacefully (Dr.Najib was offering to step down in favor of a “moderate” and “broad based” government ) This proposal which was laid out by moderate Afghans including Karzai “liberal art jerk offs-as Bearden called them” , called for national elections in the soonest possible time.
The second option was the one laid by the Pakistani intelligence with the blessing of CIA.(And you can read about it, don’t claim that the CIA was not involved in it) .It called for a take over of Kabul by forces of Gul-Budin Hekmatyaar.(Now he is one of the most wanted man on US list , a man of something around 10.millions dollars) . You really would not want to know which of the proposals your addmistration (the lead player being the CIA) supported.
The current transition of Afghanistan is modeled after the proposal of 1990 (The one by the moderate factions) – it seems to be working even though the ground to implement it is harsher than it was 1990. Don’t you think rejecting the first proposal in 1990 was a mistake? (The US did stand on the way of that roadmap (if you would call it)-do not doubt that, you can read “Fragmentation of Afghanistan” by Barrnet Rubin if you wanted to). I do not think if I need to explain to you the consequences of that mistake – the destruction of Afghanistan during 1992-2001 and 9/11 for me have roots in those decisions. Imagine, what if Osama had not managed to use Afghanistan as his secure base for years? You know this may seem ridiculous, but it really was a matter of choice between “liberal arts jerk offs” and extremist fighters for those of your administration who were concerned with the Afghanistan policy. They chose to approve the extremists –Edward McWilliams , a state department official dealing with the Afghan Jihad in Islamabad was dismissed as being “baselessly anti-Hekmatyaar” by others in the Islamabad Embassy.
Some diplomats in the State Department (e.g. Edwards McWilliams) were terrified about the way the CIA were running the affairs, not a new thing, however. The State Department has always come up with different approaches –the problem with SD is that they cannot win support for their agenda. Vietnam during 1946-1955 and the attitude certain State Department officials had towards US policy also later turned out to be a wise approach than that the one the US took.
> As for 90' - Haseeb - understand that in my view it was a >great mistake on the part of the US to essentially ignore >Afghanistan after the Russians left it. After Russia left >US lost interest
I guess we all agree now that 9/11 is a result of narrow mind US foriegn policy with other factors!
cheers,
Udara
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 9, 2005 - 01:46 AM
|
|
hah! actually I think 9/11 was a result of a racist and fundamentalist religious philosophy and the work of mad men.
Just because America exploited them 20 years ago doesn't mean that America created either the philosophy or the mad men.
It just means they should have dealt with them differently.
Cheers!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
David
beigetreten: Apr 28, 2004
Beiträge:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 28
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Enugu
Stadt: Enugu
|
Re: reply
April 9, 2005 - 03:53 AM
|
|
We can definitely live in Peace with Muslims,I t is just that people have to understand that whatever they are doing they shouild put religion aside so that they can have a clear head and do more instead of bringing in religion in religion and be more sentimental about most of the stuffs that should not.
This guy from Tunis that brought this Topic is among the young that cares for this generation,The only limitation was the expression which I could not understand much.
It's just that we have to change our orientation concerning our thinking and reasoning.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
beigetreten: Dec 10, 2003
Beiträge: 55
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 25
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 9, 2005 - 12:31 PM
|
|
> actually I think 9/11 was a result of a racist and >fundamentalist religious philosophy and the work of mad >men. Just because America exploited them 20 years ago >doesn't mean that America created either the philosophy or >the mad men. It just means they should have dealt with >them differently. Cheers!
Luke today Americans are supporting Latin American murderers even after the cold war in many human rights abuses in South America. Look at the school of Americas!
If tomorrow if they turn against America and cause destruction to American interests, can you just blame them for their evil, mad and racists acts ? Afterall, you too had been funding and helping them days back!
>"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one >problem brings us face to face with another problem."
>
>- Dr. Martin Luthar King Jr.
"Unwise decisions always lead to destruction"
- Lord Buddha, Dhammapadha
cheers,
Udara
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
beigetreten: Dec 10, 2003
Beiträge: 55
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 25
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 11, 2005 - 01:09 AM
|
|
Actually Ganesh bro, we are discussing things related to the context of the title of the discussion.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
beigetreten: Feb 13, 2003
Beiträge: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Geschlecht & Alter: Männlich, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 11, 2005 - 01:23 AM
|
|
While that is true Udara -
to begin Russia and Britan, and India all have their own problems living in peace with Muslims -
but more to the point - I would listen to our friends here - you have always been VERY focused on critisizing America, and do not seem to have equal concern for other powers in the world.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
