You won one war Mr. Bush, can you win one more?

Remove all ads!

You just don't give up, do you ? And what do you think IS that reason ? Do i need to explain the story again ?

If they don't have a reason, they'll find one. If it really was like you said, terrorism would have been negotiable. Most terrorists would have been normal criminals if they didn't have a "reason to fight" for a cause. Do you really think the IRA hitmen are going to be farmers, or shopkeepers if there ever should be peace in Northern Ireland ? Hell, they're in the killing business, it's the only business they know.

 

I don't agree. Throughout history, terrorism has been stopped, through solving the underlying political conflict. When was the las British victim of an Indian terrorist attack? Hm, British suddenly stopped to be victim of Indian terrrorism, as they finally give in and granted India home-rule.

And considering Northern-Ireland. The situation there can be attributed to 50 % Irish and 50 % British. The British, in my view, had their fair share in making things worse, not granting minimal rights to human beings and iirc, pro British terrorist groups have the biggest body-count in Nothern-Ireland. So, in my view, the British themselves did all to kill business in Northern-Irealand themselves, just like the Irish.
But the peace-agreements did better the situation at the beggining of the mid-90s. No one said it is easy, to end an very old conflict. But someone has to start. The main problem now seems to be, how stop the protestands from rioting and killing people.

How old is the conflict ? Old as the easter-rising, the civil-wars from the 19th century, Irish home-rule ?

The following is from BBC-History:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/

 

Some people, in the US even, say the US won't win another war because sooner or later they might end up bankrupt following their current path of action.

Interesting aspect. The cost of the iraq war has been massive .... blowing up things spending billions of US capital is not the smartest thing to found an empire on.

Even the washington posts had to admit that in a recent article.

More links here and here. I wouldn't wish that to the US but this is a point is worth to be kept in mind.

 

At Ragusa: The same was with the vietnam war (concerning costs, which the Americans could not pay).

Guess why Powell is touring in your country.

Hm, I thought about that one again. I think you're making a huge mistake, when you differentiate between secular and religious natinionalism. They are in the end the same. Secular thought is based on the philosophies of the Greeks and Romans. Religious thought is based on the holy scripture (which is the same for jews, christians and moslems, as Lessing showed). Big parts of the holy scripture are in the end nothing but archaic law books. There's no big difference in the foundings of the two thoughts. There are in the end the same, one claims the authority of rational thinking, the other the authority of spiritualism. But both want the same.

Now nationalism needs something to base on. Germans based their nationalism on a common language (a ridiculous Idea in my vies, as I stated before), other base ther nationalism on shared beliefs. Their is no big difference.

The reason why wars are waged. They are waged to win something. Why loose blood for absolute nothing ? And that's why my country was secure from the lunatic, which ruled your country. In my country, there is nothing but hills, cows. No ressources, no big industry, nothing. The best security a country ever had. Having no natural ressources and no big industry at all.

Therefore, Rallymama's thought is absolute right, why invest precious time and energy in something, you don't gain something from ? There is no international islamic conspiracy to conquer the world.

Well, you could quote some articles, which would support you're theory and convince me. But as things are, like they are now, I don't fear, that Indonesia and Singapore, Pakistan and Malaysia (Malaysia, truly Asia) join together to conquer the world.

I don't even think, that the only reason for existence of Chinese is to conquer North-America, as Conoleeza Rice's writings sometimes seem to indicate.

[ May 18, 2003, 15:48: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Pac man, I believe George Orwell once wrote "If you control the present, you control the future. if you control the past you dictate the present." It means that by allowing the looting of the Iraqi museams, they can wipe away an entire cultures history, and rebuild it in their own image, mainly large corporation, US sympathies, and oil with the price of nothing. The terrorists believe that the US are taking an advantage against people of the Islamic faith.

And have you noticed that many of the terrorists groups all feel "slighted" by the US? The Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghanis...the list is endless. In fact I'm surprised that the other so-called "rogue" states haven't started openly defying US policy.

 

Hm, the looting of the museums, as the whole looting which went on, was the product of very poor management. It was not intendent. They don't plan to wipe out the Iraqi culture. And the effort of the Americans (and others) to get that stuff back is sincere. The looting of the museum was a worst case scenario come true. They now got the title of "mongols" and I don't think they are happy about it. But the goodside of the whole thing is, there are still some Iraqi artefacts left in Museums all over the world. Mainly in the British museum. Hm, how did Iraqi stuff come to the UK ?

Sidenote: I am trying and trying and trying to get some flames on me, in vain. That's depressing.

Sidenote II: What the heck has McDonalds to do with it ? McDonalds is just an international company, there's nothing specific American about it, even if some Americans seem to think, that McDonalds has something specific American to it, but that's not the case. And others aim at the golden archers as target, because think, the same wrong thinking, the golden archers are somehow a symbol for America. It's just an international company, in reality owned by a lot of nationals, which makes a lot of advertising. McDonals themselves are not the reason for anything. But I think McDonalds would deserve a topic on its own.

Lol, I just learned the spelling of "Advertising". The development of my spelling is slow, but rest assured, there is some kind of development in my spelling. 10 years and it will maybe show results.

[ May 18, 2003, 17:35: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

RoKU - Then can you explain why they did not know that Hindus don't eat beef? Not meaning to be picky, but try "does" instead of "do do," someone may mistake that for McDonald's burgers.

 

Rallymama. I see your point. I meant majority rather than minority. But I propose, "should a majority muslim nation that wants to have an Islamic state be prevented from having one?"

I mean, if tomorrow most people in the US wanted a "Christian State" should they be prevented from having one? or a communist state? or a democratic state? or...or...or.

Why should we decide that for others? Is it bad that a particular group of people say, "no, we don't want you to be here anymore. Please leave."?

I don't remember many people objecting to that idea when India was partitioned, or when East Timor gained independence...

Bush can win many more wars and the US probably will continue to do so... I don't think that it will be such a healthy world if it does...