some of my thoughts...

[method77]

These past years, we have been witnesses of some big hits -terrorist acts- against innocent humans in Bali, NY, London, Egypt and Madrid (just to mention a few). I am not talking about the other terrorist acts that the "peacekepers" commited in Iraq and some other parts of the world which they call war. I'm mentioning only the above hits and try to compare the reactions of the "civilised world".

I am getting the impression that some lives are worth more than others. When NY was hit, the whole world changed. Wars started, antifreedom laws were passed and many innocent paid for that hit (which I strongly condemn) and also paid with their lives, Mr Bush's madness. In London, things were handled with a lot more thought by Mr Blair but as we see, laws will be passed and innocent(?) still are been killed. In Madrid the same. Everybody helped the Spanish people, goverments are united against the enemy and more laws were passed in the name of terrorism.

BUT...

In Bali, I didn't see the big heads of the world call for a war against terrorism and the enemy of freedom. I didn't see the rich countries help them. I didn't see mr Bush, Mr Blair or my Prime Minister come out and threaten those bastards.

In Egypt the same. A few days after London, they were hit with more casualties and Egypt didn't even want the Iraq war. The same by the leaders. They just told the spokesman to speak for them and that was it. No laws passed to "protect" them. No changes in policies.

I'm not trying to be racist or start a war here but I was just wondering...

Is the British, American, French, Greek or any other western life worth more that the rest of the planet's lifes?

<_>

[The Hunter]

I have similar thoughts while reading the news every morning. There are many atrocities that are either ignored, or skimmed over by politicians, who only seem to respond to those that will give them the greatest publicity.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Make the world a better place...

Just not in my back yard.

[Ken]

other terrorist acts that the "peacekepers

I guess it depends on your definition or "terrorism"

I don't particularly believe that the actions of the United States military and other nations currently occupying Iraq are considered terrorism by definition (at least my definition).

Maybe some of the Geneva violations (such as the secret jails, and the already disclosed bullshit) could be stretched to say "terrorism", but I look at terrorism as more or less a mix of physiological warfare and guerilla warfare, such as car bombing, suicide bombing, kidnapping, murder, shooting of innocent people such as Iraqi volunteer police (there’s no excuse for that). The U.S. is guilty of Geneva violations, and of falsifying justifications for a preemptive war, but not of terrorism.

It would be too much of a stretch to agree with your comment.

[Ken]

Is the British, American, French, Greek or any other western life worth more that the rest of the planet's lifes?

Actually you're on to something.

There is a working double standard in place.

For instance, I don't see anyone rushing to free the Chinese people from their dictatorship (or any other nation with a non-democratic form of government). Many western countries are allied with nations in the Middle East that sport dictatorships/kings/religious fundamentalists (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

Lot’s of nations in Central and South America were/are exploited by the United States. Many peaceful revolutions were put down with the help of the United States government in the past, only to see dictatorships and such take their place as leaders of nations (see the Somoza regime and the support that the U.S. gave to it). It was one destabilization campaign after another in sovereign nations. The CIA are/were truly bastards of a great magnitude.

Most problems in Africa were/are ignored, especially by the United States (the Rwandan genocide is a prime example).

Nobody comes out and says it, but many western governments’s foreign policy is biased towards strategic importance, and perhaps even race/cultural importance.

[Ken]

Interesting side read here about the CIA.........

http://www.connix.com/~harry/secret1.htm

[Malicious Intent]

It probably has more to do with the value of economies than lives.

An attack on London is an attack on the world economy, the Egypt attack is an attack on - well, i dont want to say it in case it gives the impression I think that way.

[Kooperman]

Is the British, American, French, Greek or any other western life worth more that the rest of the planet's lifes?

The answer is no...all lives are equally important....except to politicians. When politics is involved, all human equality, love and kindness are thrown out the window, and the only thing that matters is political expediency and perpetuating the authority your organization enjoys. But religion also has a say in this as well....does anybody really think that the Christian leaders in the U.S. or elsewhere actually weigh the life of a Rwandan child trying to survive in the streets at the same value as an American child sitting in a McDonald's?

[Ken]

It probably has more to do with the value of economies

That's what I meant by strategic importance.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Kill one man, and you're a murderer. Kill 100,000, a king. Kill them all, and your god.

[slum_goddess]

Is the British, American, French, Greek or any other western life worth more that the rest of the planet's lifes?

absolutely not, dude (what the Hunter, MI and Kooperman said). and i believe we're the terrorists AFA Iraqis are concerned.

[slum_goddess]

A "growing number of unarmed civilians killed by American troops" is attributed to efforts by soldiers to protect themselves from suicide attacks, and a victim's widow is quoted as saying that "after they killed my husband ... I want to blow them all up." from shots to the heart of iraq

hmmpf...'why do they hate US?' indeed.

[Excrement_Cranium]

But you don't get it guys. Look, all these civillian casualties are necassary to give them they life WE want other people to have. To give them the freedoms WE think they need. They are so poor and uneducated that some of these people are actually happy in poverty, unlike citizens of our western civilizations who are unhappy if they can't afford HBO. These people shouldn't be happy to starve to death, they should be outraged that they can't afford a Caddilac. And if you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Oklahoma I can part with reaaaaaal cheap.

Edit: Yes, I know I misspelled Cadillac, oh well.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Excrement_Cranium

[Shawn]

OMG!

You spelled "real" wrong too. Could this be an aneurism?

[ASUmusicMAN]

Yeah, ok. So we're pushin' some of our ideals on them. Wrong? People are going to bitch either way. We go in and try to help people and everyone bitches about the way we do it (which IMO is probably the *most* harmless of the options. Perfect no. But most harmless, yes), and then you look at Africa, and we just let them be and people throw rock concerts and have huge shit fits about how we ignore them. So either way, as a leader/politician your going to eat shit from people.

Also on the life thing, I understand where most are coming from, but I also understand/empathize with our leaders. Look if i'm leader of the US here's my priority of protection.

A) my citizens

B) my damn citizens

C) ally citizens

D) everyone else

I'm pretty sure that the people in charge have a similiar stance on priority of life.

[Kooperman]

Also on the life thing, I understand where most are coming from, but I also understand/empathize with our leaders. Look if i'm leader of the US here's my priority of protection.

A) my citizens

B) my damn citizens

C) ally citizens

D) everyone else

I'm pretty sure that the people in charge have a similiar stance on priority of life.

If that's the case, why are 1,700 of our soldiers dead....especialy when it has become clear that the Bush administration lied about WMD in order to put all of those people in harm's way?

Also, you forgot the top-ranked group in the priority of protection:

A-1-A) Haliburton executives

[ASUmusicMAN]

I don't understand why we would be over there if we weren't there combatting terrorism. Yes, mistakes have been made, but I honestly believe that we are over there to root out and kill all terrorists.

War is not something taken lightly, and even if Bush is as evil as people claim I don't think he'd send people over there just for Haliburton.

[Kooperman]

I don't understand why we would be over there if we weren't there combatting terrorism.  Yes, mistakes have been made, but I honestly believe that we are over there to root out and kill all terrorists. 

War is not something taken lightly, and even if Bush is as evil as people claim I don't think he'd send people over there just for Haliburton.

If fighting terrorism was the goal, and it was certainly the goal all of the public committed to, then why did we call off the search for Osama Bin Laden in order to invade Iraq, where there were NO terrorists. The terrorists appeared AFTER we invaded the country. Bush suddenly decided Bin Laden wasn't worth the trouble after we got enough troops in the area to go after Saddam and the oilfields.

That's an old trick called bait-and-switch....sell somebody something they want with a vigorous and sincere approach, then, at the last minute, switch the sales pitch to something YOU reallly want to sell, using any means you can to close the deal...honestly or deceptively.

[Malicious Intent]

It's funny how we are only there to root out terrorists now. First WMD, then because Sadam was evil and liberating the Iraqis is a nice thing to do, now we are searching for terrorists - what is going to be our next reason for being there when it dawns on people that there were no terrorist before, but now we are creating them? How about we go back to the beacon of liberty which will show everyone in the middle east how great democracy compared to blowing yourself up? That was a nice one.

It is funny how the debate has moved on here. Although Blair sometimes tries half-hearted to defend the war when pushed, his staple line is that he did what he thought was best at the time - although he stops short of saying what he did at the time was wrong.

The London bombs rekindled the debate, but Blair first said there was no connection, then said there may have been, but that in no way justifies what they did. He hasn't once said we are in Iraq for this exact reason. Would have been kind of embarrassing when he found out they were home grown!

This lack of anyone trying to justify the war means we have all moved on. Blair took his punishment in the last election and now the debate has moved onto how we are going to make best of a bad situation and how bad the stain on british history it will be.

I will never forgive Blair for taking us to war, but he is near as damn to honesty that it was a mistake as a politician can get.

Perhaps Blair thinks the British are too close minded to hear that the war was a good idea, so doesn't try - but more likely is that both Bush and Blair know what they did was wrong, but only Bush is left trying to convince people otherwise.

[DudeAsInCool]

I don't understand why we would be over there if we weren't there combatting terrorism.

I wish this were the case. Who isnt against fighting terrorism?

Saddam Hussein was an evil man--but his military operation was in shambles after the first gulf war and his military machine never recovered. Yes, he should have been gotten ridden of, but it should have been a worldwide effort, not a US/UK coup. But...it had nothing to do with the war on terror or 911--that's all Bush rhetoric to stir up the masses.

The truth is that the Bush Jr. Administration is made up of a leftover cabninet from Bush, Sr, who have been angling to finish the job in Iraq that the father never completed. Wolfowitz, the current head of the World Bank, drew up a plan to invade Iraq in the 90s, with the intention of installing a democracy in the Middle East that they hoped would spread. Had they made it part of Bush's platform when he was running for President, or if he had come clean to the American plublic about the administration's intentions, that would be another story.

So they used 911 and then baited the UN and the public about WMDs when they had little evidence of such--now it may be true that the CIA had bad data--however, given the Wilson incident in Niger, it was pretty clear that the administration was fishing for reasons to support the insursion into Iraq. In fact, this is what the Prosecutor is investigation in addition to the uncovering of a CIA operative.

Worse yet, those of us who saw through the plan have been branded unpatriotic, unamerican, etc, when the fact is, we didnt want to see any needless loss of American soliders or Iraqui civilians.

All this incursion has done is to ignite the religious fundamentalists in the Middle East, and bring the terrorists who werent there before to Iraq. And as Kooperman noted, what happened to going after Bin Laden and the real terrorists.

FYI--the Bush administration no longer calls it 'the war on terror':

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/26/news/terror.php

[Excrement_Cranium]

I think that covers it. Saddam should have been removed the first time, rather than getting the people to rise up against him, and then pulling out on them.

I think the deal with "giving" people democracy has one fatal flaw. The US fought for our own independance, we fought for our own democracy. Most of the changes in China have been fought for by the Chinese people. When the bulk of the citizens decide that they want a change, supporting them is one thing, doing the job for them when they didn't ask for it is the complete opposite.

[slum_goddess]

does anyone really think we'd be fighting terrorists in Iraq (those terrorists we made) if there wasn't any oil there?

forcing our brand of 'democracy' down their throats is just a side project.

[Excrement_Cranium]

does anyone really think we'd be fighting terrorists in Iraq (those terrorists we made) if there wasn't any oil there?

forcing our brand of 'democracy' down their throats is just a side project.

Hey, sure... why not just like we went to war with.....

er......

um......

hmmmm.

Vietnam! Yeah, that's it. There was no oil in Vietnam, and we were going to give them freedom and stuff... look how well that's turned out. OH, and Korea! See how well they are doing? Yeah... it's not about oil....

And I never end up with dingleberries.

[slum_goddess]

And I never end up with dingleberries.

too much information!