Filmmaking for peace...

Instead of operating in old paradigm style(there is a winner and a loser and nothing else, the time prior to Septembery 11th!!!)Let's move on to where everyone and everything can benefit from sharing....which is the basis of this forum. It is a time to share good things and put positive things out there....especially now. We reap no benfit from criticizing each others opinion....we only waste one anothers breath, and ultimately lose out on the opportunity we've been given. The opportunity is the freedom to express the gift that we can pass on to the next 7 generations. My gift to my child is the fact that I do documentary stories that have people striving for peaceful existances in this changing time. I can only speak through my actions and for myself. Political discussions are like chaff and flare....they distract from the real issue. The real issue is that we are now a world without borders. The world is now a real time place....things across the globe are now in suburban america's backyard....and we must discuss them like adults. Putting hateful statements out there only feeds a very old and ancient machine that is no longer needed. We have the ability to create changes by implementing alternative energy. It's possible here and now....it's just a choice. I've done research on powering things up and solar power has come a long way....as well as electromagnetic power generation....these are proven means of alternate power generation. Tesla had operating models as far back as the turn of the century.....the problem at that time was JP Morgan and his friends had a monopoly on copper mines at the time so they pushed for electricity generation that was based on negative grounds and copper wiring....now we have the opportunity to implement cold electricity. If you do your research or email me I will send you a link to people who have dedicated their lives to this. Ultimately we cannot afford to have a foreign and domestic policy dictated by energy interests when the solution is evident here and now....change energy policy. We need a manhattan project that purely addresses the energy concerns of not only this country...but the world. That's responsible action.

Peace and Light,

Scott
ww.worldharmonyunlimited.com

------------------

Scott -

Are you saying that our attacks on Afghanistan have something to do with our energy policy???

- digvid

------------------

Scott -

Unity and harmony among all people is a great thing. I personally take great pleasure in associating with people of different races, nationalities, religions, etc., and learning about them. In fact, my wife and I are of different races, and her parents are immigrants from another country with a significant Muslim population.

Also, I think we are fortunate to live in a country that allows us to appreciate diversity. Please realize though that we had to ***fight*** in order to win this privilege. Also, the people we are fighting now are denying this privilege to their citizens. Osama bin Laden doesn't just want America out of the Middle-East. He wants to see the people of Israel scattered, and he wants to see one ruling authority, modeled after the Taliban, over all Muslim nations. Maybe you should send some of your peace films to him. Please pardon me if I seem disrespectful, but I think we are being dangerously naive if we think for one moment that we can reason with or have peace with bin Laden or like-minded people.

- digvid

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by digvid:
I think we are being dangerously naive if we think for one moment that we can reason with or have peace with bin Laden or like-minded people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that. I am all for loving anyone that doesn't want to kill me on sight.

Roger

Dominic3 -

Glad to hear this from you. I can assure you that almost every American is extremely grateful for the UK's help (and moral support) at this time. It is reassuring to have strong allies that help us instead of blame us!

- digvid

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Nocella:


The real issue is that we are now a world without borders. The world is now a real time place....things across the globe are now in suburban america's backyard

Peace and Light,

Scott
ww.worldharmonyunlimited.com
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be the crux of the issue...If I can live on a mountain and provide for my family, Must I be forced to adopt Western "Improvements"?



------------------
Alex

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
That may be the crux of the issue...If I can live on a mountain and provide for my family, Must I be forced to adopt Western "Improvements"?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not. But if you choose to live on a mountain and CAN'T provide for your family, is it the fault of the west for achieving where you have failed? Must we bring our aspirations down to the lowest common denominator because some societies embrace ideals that repress individuality and frown on rewarding hard work and progressive thinking?

The countries that bitch about living in dirt NOW lived in dirt for thousands of years BEFORE there was any such thing as the United States and, certainly, long before the concept of "the west" was ever coined. We shouldn't be chided for progressing and achieving while other countries have chosen a different path. After all, no one forced these countries to embrace the philosophies that govern their way of life. You either adapt to an ever changing world or you get left behind. Tough.

Roger

But isn't the problem that we in fact will not leave them behind. We will make them be a part of the new world whether they want to or not.

American Companies do use cheap labor in many parts of the world, and resources too.

Inevitably, Captain Kirk would surmise that perhaps we have broken the prime directive and influenced other cultures that didn't want our influence.

------------------
Alex

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

we hear a lot in the west about freedom. but we don't hear much about justice, until it's time to go and bloody someone else's nose. perhaps that's why islam is so much more attractive to much of the world than our over-sold and over-priced post-christian-atheism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Peter!

Well, you were doing pretty good until this last paragraph. The attack on the World Trade Center not only had nothing to do with religion, but was an attack against a non-military target for no purpose other than to make a statement. As such, one can not equate the loss of innocent life in the east due to justified military responses against military targets where collateral damage is an unfortunate side effect with the 5000+ lives lost at the WTC from an unprovoked act of aggression. The U.S. at least TRIES to minimize the loss of human life, both with warning and more discrete targeting while the terrorists' sole goal is to take out as many of us as they can and then children dance in the streets when they do. After all, we are the "devil", remember?

Now, the sad truth is that all this nonsense is about a bunch of dirt and who gets to claim it. Personally, I could care less but I DO think that the U.S. has given far too much preference to Israel over Palestine. If I were a Palestinian, I think I would be pissed off, too.

But what defines "civilization" and how does one respond to the loss of land and home, etc? I mean, let's face it, there is no place on earth that did NOT once belong to someone else. When the U.S. was trying to help the people of Kuwait regain their land, I thought to myself,"Wait a minute. How far do we push this concept of "original land owenership?" I mean, we didn't exactly ASK the indians and other native Americans if we could have this land that we now call our home. It was, like every other country in the world, established through violence, war and aggression of some kind. Every civilized country on the face of the earth including Belgium, Peter, once belonged to someone else that lost it through aggression.

So, therein lies the problem, in my opinion. How retroactive do we allow this concept of 'original land ownership' to go? At some point, the losers have to accept that land lost is land lost and get on with their lives and try to make a productive future with what they have. The British once dominated most of the world and have since been confined to their modest sized country. The Romans suffered the same fate not to mention what happened with Germany after WWII.

I am sorry for the "injustice" that happens to everyone in the world but, at some point, you have to suck it up and take your losses if you want to join the rest of humanity on a civilized level. Is it fair? It's as fair as it's going to get.

So, in reference to your previous statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

You seem incapable of imagining that rational people can ever put the common good before their own. Or that one could ever reasonably expect them to give up their own silly little private ambitions, just for a moment, and think about what their egotism is doing to the world - and what their kind of life is doing to others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps that is something that is better preached to Osama and his friends. After all, their "silly little private ambitions" obviously have no merit or

A) They would have the majority of the Muslim world praising them instead of condemning them

and

B) They wouldn't be wasting their lives fighting over a worthless piece of dirt that Osama could, with all his emmense wealth, turn into a productive country where his people could prosper and live in the peace that the Koran embraces.

But then, Osama wouldn't get to play soldier, now would he? The same with Saddam. He's a fat man in a country of starving people. Yet, to hear him tell it, that's OUR fault. If the terrorists had no other means to help their people than to strike out at their repressors, then I would say they have a legitimate beef. However, Osama not only has the financial means to help make his country prosperous though non violent ways, he has the intelligence and influence to make a difference. The fact that he CHOOSES a more violent path is what makes him no different from any other criminal, in my book.

More to the point at hand, the attack on the United States had nothing to do with religion as illustrated by the countless violations of the Koran that Osama and company commits on a daily basis. These guys are nothing but a bunch of opportunistic gangsters that have hijacked a nobel religion and use it as an excuse for their own, hypocritical agenda much as the militant Muslims in this country did in the seventies. It has been said before, but I agree: These terrorists have about as much in common with the Muslim religion as the KKK does with Christianity (and I am not religious in the least).

Beyond that, Peter, I agree with a lot what you wrote.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited October 13, 2001).]

Man, as I read down all the posts I respond in my my mind to many of them , but by the time I'm at the bottom I just no longer have the energy to say that much.
In trying to stay in the spirit of this forum I will say that I would love to see some Iranian Film of recent years. Wong Kar Wai who made Chunking Express said he has been influenced by tham lately and I'm willing to give them a shot.
I would say however that there is little doubt in my mind that if the state disaproved of the content these films would never see the light of day. Imagine how many other great filmmakers there are in Iran and other countries who's work we'll never see because of government cencorship.
One of my favorite filmmakers right now is Jiang Yi Mao. His films have been China's entry as best foriegn film at the Oscars yet they are BANNED IN COMMUNIST CHINA. Did someone mention hypocracy before?
I'm living in China right now and I can't wait to be able to go home to buy his films there, cause I can't here.
You know, the U.S. gets crapped on for the bad things we do both abroad and at home.Some of it is disserved, some vey much not. We catch a lot of it because the worlds eyes are always upon us waiting for anything to complain about. Our dirty laundry is hanging for all to see and sniff, yet so many other country's laudry is hidden away in the closet growing ever smellier ever more disgusting. If a woman tried to make a film in Afghanistan saying that, She'd be stoned to death before the opening credits were over. But let's not forget The mpaa gives X ratings to sex but not violence.
Slavey still exists in Africa. But lets not forget that the U.S. had it after most other countries had outlawed it and then payed a horrible price in the form of 600,000 deaths to free them.
Young girls are circumsized in third world countries effectivley removing their ability to enjoy sex.
But let's not forget that the U.S. Are big meanies and end up booted of the U.N.'s council on human rights leaving countries like Lybia, China, Iran, Sudan,Viet nam, and Cuba to make decisions on such matters.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge employed teenage torture squads to unleash horrer on people who were doctors or just wore glasses because they were too educated.
But lets not forget the U.S. went into Southeast Asia to try to keep people from from this fate.( I know people will tell me all about how Viet Nam wasn't about that , although no one complains about us helping South Korea stay free.)
The Japanese plugged up the Yangse River in Nanjing in 1937 with 300,000 dead Chinese citizens many of whom were women who were not to old nor to young to be raped to death along with tortured and mutalated.(the Japanese still mostly deny this ever happened)
But lets not forget that they were stopped, after much advance warning, buy an atomic bomb. Well two actually.
I'm just saying the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on bad deeds nor good ones either. But ask an immigrant why they came to theU.S. and you may get many diferent answers but they still came here more than any other place, even from the countries that we've done so much wrong to.
I have to go, I hear the secret police knocking at my hotel door.
That reminds me, When I had Pro 8 send me four rolls of film here in China, It took weeks in customs, cost me $100 in import taxes and every box was opened to make sure there was no porno hiding inside, which will get you more than an X rating here, it will get you in jail, or worse.


------------------
PRM

Imagine for a moment you were a crack dealer, now read back your post, and substitute the word crack for Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Ultimately, we use 25% of the world's resources in America, but we only have 5% of the world's population...so our way of life CANNOT be followed everywhere else in the world.

And I agree, it is time to shoot some film.

------------------
Alex

Listen, all this arguing about the "evil" spreading of American capitalism comes from a basic misunderstanding of the concept on the part of third world countries:

These people are living as they have for thousands of years, barely surviving in harsh physical and political situations, but all of a sudden, they see glimpes of the wealth and advances that western society enjoys, along with better healthcare, etc., and they are jealous.

So they complain about it, and ask us to help their situation.
Well, guess what?
We are more than happy to share the ideals and concepts that will help a people become better off like we are: hard work and enginuity, and all the other things that make a capitalistic society work.

Well, that's not what they want. They just want us to send them the cash, and expect nothing in return!
"Give us the goodies, don't make us "be western".
So they bitch (just like some of you) that we are trying to Americanize them, and why won't we just help them, etc. etc,.
So they take over our businesses that we have built in their countries, that provide jobs for them, or just blow them up because they're evil "American symbols" like the KFC in Pakistan. (I'm sure the workers there are thrilled now that they can't work there anymore and feed their families.).
Well money doesn't just grow on trees over here, it's come from hard work and enterprise, and they just do not get it at all.
I've known people from all over the world, and had in-depth discussions with many friends from the former Soviet Union, and they said they were shocked when they got here, because they thought it was going to be just like home: the government giving you stuff, but here, you would get more stuff!
They soon found out, that everyone has to work hard, try to do things better, etc.
And Alex, these evil corporations are merely providing a product that people are buying, including yourself.
Do you want some huge government agency to provide all of our products and services so corporations won't victimize us?
Like the governemnt doesn't have it's own form of exploitation of it's "customers".
Spend the afternoon in the DMV, if you want to get a taste of how it is when corporations are not the ones providing the products.

Matt Pacini

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Listen, all this arguing about the "evil" spreading of American capitalism comes from a basic misunderstanding of the concept on the part of third world countries:

These people are living as they have for thousands of years, barely surviving in harsh physical and political situations, but all of a sudden, they see glimpes of the wealth and advances that western society enjoys, along with better healthcare, etc., and they are jealous.

Matt Pacini
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The key word is "glimpses". Are they glimpses, or the first inroads by Western Civilization to increase revenue in foreign countries where we are not welcome because inevitably, we permantly change their culture.

------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 14, 2001).]

hi roger!

"The same with Saddam. He's a fat man in a country of starving people. Yet, to hear him tell it, that's OUR fault."

it is our fault as well as his: we completely destroyed the infrastructure of irak - completely and utterly. and then we prevented the regime from importing lots of the stuff they need to rebuild the country, in terms of providing basic public hygeine, on the grounds that it is 'dual use', i.e. because soldiers need clean water and basic medicines, civilians cannot have them either.

saddam has a lot of money, and has benefited enormously from the situation: but even if he spent all the money he has which has not been frozen, he would not be able to buy the basic supplies he needs to prevent his people dying, because we have placed an embargo on them.

maybe fewer people would have died: but the numbers would still be in the hundreds of thousands. we are co-responsible. it is not, him or us. we are doing this to the iraki people together.

when a whole string of senior career buraeucrats resign on a matter of principle, then i think that's a sign that something is seriously wrong.

"If the terrorists had no other means to help their people than to strike out at their repressors, then I would say they have a legitimate beef. However, Osama not only has the financial means to help make his country prosperous though non violent ways, he has the intelligence and influence to make a difference. The fact that he CHOOSES a more violent path is what makes him no different from any other criminal, in my book."

this is just not true. on the one hand, most of his assets have been frozen, so he has no access to his wealth. on the other hand, the saudi regime is one of the most oppresive in the world, and the main reason it has not been violently overthrown is because we continue to fund them, by buying the oil they have stolen from their people, and by providing them with arms, so that they can continue to arrest, torture and murder dissidents, while they themselves live like mafiosi. which is what they are.

to pretend that we are against organised crime, while we continue to deal with the middle eastern leaders as friends - 'moderate, sensible Arabs" as tony blair recently called them - is simply ridiculous.

"...their "silly little private ambitions" obviously have no merit or they would have the majority of the Muslim world praising them instead of condemning them"

most muslims in the street that i have met despise terrorists for their violence, yet admire them for standing up to the united states, which is perceived as supporting regimes which oppress them, - not only israel, but most of the regimes in the region. this kind of schizophrenia just goes with the territory.

hi dominic:

"Look around the world , this concept of a morality based upon physical force is precisely why the world is a twisted mess."

i agree entirely - i just disagree with your interpretation of who is doing the initiation.

roger, again:

"The same freedom that lets you CHOOSE to be an editor instead of a dirt farmer."

i'm not sure people really have that choice. in those parts of the world were subsistence farming is still a viable choice, because there are real communities to provide mutual support networks, and real traditions so that people can learn how to farm so as to get the best from the land, those who want to remain on the land are subjected to a combination of terror and bribery to make them stop. and in those parts of the world in which we are 'free' to make that choice - if we have the money to buy land, which few people in europe do - the infrastructure which would make a small-scale local rural community viable is just not there any more, because it has been torn up.

there's more to freedom of choice than absence of coercion. if i lock you in a video store, then tell you you're free to eat anything you like, i'm not really giving you much of a choice, am i?

hi digvid:

i understand the point you want to make about the history of palestine/israel, and there's just one aspect of that i want to comment on:

"1880 - sparsely populated area"

i've read a lot of the 19th century accounts by european travellers to palestine. they rest on the same prejudices which can be found in any pre-colonial account of lands to be conquered - i.e., there are not many people, and the ones that are there are not doing much to make the land productive.

after europe had been through the enclosures and the agricultural revolution, we lost the ability to see other forms of agriculture, and the other forms of economic and social organisation that go with them. this 'blindness' was the pre-condition for enrolling well-meaning people in what turned out to be missions of destruction and extermination. i say that thinking of the west indies, not of palestine. but the mindset which made each of these colonisations possible was the same, even if the way in which they were conducted, and the resistance they met with, were different.

"Despite claims to the contrary, America is not "propping up" any regime in the Middle-East. There is currently no government in any Middle-Eastern country that was installed by the United States."

the cia were instrumental in bringing the Baath party to power in Irak back in 1963, while without the assistance of the UK and the US, the house of saud would certainly not have survived this long.

egypt is the largest recipient of US aid after israel: they spend most of it on police and army to keep the people down. without that money, the government of mubarak would probably have been overthrown during the gulf war.

but these are just details: the real issue is that if the West did not have such a thirst for other people's natural resources, in particular oil, the power politics and interests would simply not be in place for local tyrants to play us off one against the other, and gain our support for their sordid little schemes. it is our desire to get what they have on the cheap which tilts the balance in their favour, and against the people and democracy.

hi again digvid:

"Are you saying that our attacks on Afghanistan have something to do with our energy policy???"

of course: most of the world's known untapped natural resources are in central asia, and afghanistant is in a crucial strategic location. but that's not the real problem. the real problem is that if there were democratic governments in the middle east, they would charge the US a lot more for oil, because they would want to build hospitals and roads with the income, and not just buy private jets and porn videos and flamethrowers, like the current gang. and if the price of oil rose substantially, the US would no longer be a super power - it would be just another country, like portugal, or maybe new zealand. and it is the fact that this is intolerable to the US leadership - even if many americans would be quite happy with it, if they thought about it - which is the cause of much of what is currently wrong with the world. (of course, we europeans are no better - we're just poorer and less extraverted).

"Please pardon me if I seem disrespectful, but I think we are being dangerously naive if we think for one moment that we can reason with or have peace with bin Laden or like-minded people."

the taliban have been bending over backwards (behind the scenes - you won't see this on CNN) for an accommodation with the US for the last 2 years, and the US has behaved exactly as they have towards irak: every time the taliban give the administration what they want, the administration shifts the goal posts, and refuses to recognise what they have done.

and as for your aside, roger: "I am all for loving anyone that doesn't want to kill me on sight":

i don't think for a minute that bin laden is the master criminal the media make him out to be - his network is too diffuse and too decentralised for that to make any sense. he's more like the madeline albright of fundamentalism, than the colin powell or the george bush. but supposing that he were to get what he wanted, then i think he would have quite enough on his plate without taking pot shots at random americans.

stil i'm just glad that your leaders have such wonderfully double standards - otherwise, you might have been supporting spain in bombing raids on london when we refused to extradite pinochet - a man with far more blood on his hands than osama bin laden. but then, i guess the fact that he talked about free markets while he murdered people makes him so much less threatening?...

roger, again:

"The countries that bitch about living in dirt NOW lived in dirt for thousands of years BEFORE there was any such thing as the United States and, certainly, long before the concept of "the west" was ever coined."

no, that's not true - at least, not in the sense you seem to mean. of course, the US didn't invent the modern world. but your so-called 'multinational' companies are now the main force driving the worlwide onslaught on people who 'live in dirt'. before the West generated the concept, those people were farmers and hunters, and where they were free from the interference of others' greed and power, enjoyed lives of extraordinary richness, when compared to our own. that's why we have, as a whole, not just destroyed such societies, but generally been forced to lie about them after they were gone.

to talk about other civilisations in such dismissive terms is not just a detail: it's the ROOT of the problem.

"if you choose to live on a mountain and CAN'T provide for your family, is it the fault of the west for achieving where you have failed?"

yes it is, if we in the west only 'achieved' by taking your land, your oil, your rubber; by burning down your villages and flooding your valleys; and by supporting your local warlords and turning them into business tycoons, who took your land from you, and made you beg for work, because now you had to buy what before you could make for yourself.

just read the world bank report: it's still happening, in india, in africa, etc etc.

all good wishes,

peter



------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

Roger wrote:
"The same with Saddam. He's a fat man in a country of starving people. Yet, to hear him tell it, that's OUR fault."

Peter replied:

Saddam has a lot of money, and has benefited enormously from the situation: but even if he spent all the money he has which has not been frozen, he would not be able to buy the basic supplies he needs to prevent his people dying, because we have placed an embargo on them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, Peter, you casually leave out the most important point here: WHY were Saddam's assets frozen and WHY is there an embargo? Just for us to be mean? Hell no! He was using his resources to support terrorism across the globe. If here were to fold camp and leave, stop supporting terrorism OR use his considerable wealth as a benevolent benefactor for his people, then the assets would not need to be frozen and the embargo would be lifted. And, by the way, these "punishments" were enforced INSTEAD of bombing the crap out of his country. Again, despite all the frozen assets and the embargoes, he doesn't seem to be losing weight as fast as his people do.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

Roger wrote:
"If the terrorists had no other means to help their people than to strike out at their repressors, then I would say they have a legitimate beef. However, Osama not only has the financial means to help make his country prosperous though non violent ways, he has the intelligence and influence to make a difference. The fact that he CHOOSES a more violent path is what makes him no different from any other criminal, in my book."

Peter replied:

This is just not true. on the one hand, most of his assets have been frozen, so he has no access to his wealth. on the other hand, the saudi regime is one of the most oppresive in the world, and the main reason it has not been violently overthrown is because we continue to fund them, by buying the oil they have stolen from their people, and by providing them with arms, so that they can continue to arrest, torture and murder dissidents, while they themselves live like mafiosi. which is what they are.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, again, you've got the cart before the horse as far as the concept of frozen assets goes. His assets weren't frozen just for the hell of it on a whim, you know? He was using his money to fund terrorism instead of building schools and businesses and providing jobs. No matter how you slice it, he CHOSE to be a criminal. The infidels didn't make him one.

Beyond that, you are confusing the ethics of companies with national policy. It is not the job of the west to convert entire nations over to Christianity, Judiasm or Muslim. How they conduct their business with their money and their people is their business. If they embrace a religion that they also use to govern their people, that's their business. If they fail as a society for doing so, that's also their business. But, in the end, their people must live with the decisions made by their leaders or get rid of them, as we did with the British long ago. If we can do it in a short 200 years, there's nothing that these people can't do, as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

Roger wrote: "I am all for loving anyone that doesn't want to kill me on sight"

Peter replied:
i don't think for a minute that bin laden is the master criminal the media make him out to be - his network is too diffuse and too decentralised for that to make any sense.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, Peter, looking at the big hole in the ground where the WTC used to be, I sure am glad Osama isn't very organized. How comforting.

Roger

hi roger:

"No matter how you slice it, he CHOSE to be a criminal. The infidels didn't make him one."

i cant believe you said that.

1. he was trained and funded by the CIA, as even the CIA admit.

2. your conception of choice suggests to me you have no idea what it might be like to live in a police state. bin laden isnt interested, as far as we know, in charitable works; his original aim was to overthrow the government of saudi arabia. i think that that, in itself, is a perfectly reasonable aim.

if the US had helped him do that, instead of helping him fight the soviets, afghanistan might today have several million more inhabitants, and the WTC might never have been bombed and all those people killed on september 11.

"It is not the job of the west to convert entire nations over to Christianity, Judiasm or Muslim. How they conduct their business with their money and their people is their business."

how i wish that was true. but you must know that the rest of the world sees US national policy as ENTIRELY subordinated to US business interests, and the US as representing the power of money, not freedom and human rights.

so either the rest of the world is terminally stupid, or there is something your government is not telling you.

stay well,

peter

------------------

roger (also):

"With all due respect, Peter, you casually leave out the most important point here: WHY were Saddam's assets frozen and WHY is there an embargo?"

i don't see why this is the most important point. we are punishing a whole people for the actions of one man and the small gang of thugs around him. where is the justice in that? how does that make us any different from saddam himself, or ghadaffi, or bin laden?

peter

------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrice:
but your so-called 'multinational' companies are now the main force driving the worlwide onslaught on people who 'live in dirt'. before the West generated the concept, those people were farmers and hunters, and where they were free from the interference of others' greed and power, enjoyed lives of extraordinary richness, when compared to our own. that's why we have, as a whole, not just destroyed such societies, but generally been forced to lie about them after they were gone".

Peter, I fear your motive when you say that ,"they were free from the interference of others' greed and power, enjoyed lives of extraordinary richness" - this is utter nonsence. The civilisation you are defending was primitive collectivism and mysticism - there was no legal system defending human rights, no science, no reason etc., and as far as a life of "richness" is concerend they lived in poverty and disease - just compare their life expectancy figures with that of the west after the industrial revolution.

I have a solution for you Peter, why don't all the multi-national companies that you despise just stop creating anymore wealth and jobs for these nations you defend which have up until now been subsidised in wealth, science, technology, medicine and industrial development - then we will see how well these nations fair on there own living in a style of "extraordinary richness" that you so admire. No one is stopping you from setting up a multi- national corporation that creates huge amounts of wealth and jobs instead of criticisng those that do create the wealth in this world.

It sounds to me as though you want all the benefits of free market capitalism but without the cause. Intellectual freedom can not exist without political freedom, political freedom can not exists without economic freedom, a free mind and a free market are corollaries.

hi dominic:

"The civilistaion you are defending was primitive collectivsim and mysticism - there was no legal system defending human rights, no science, no reason and as far as a life of "richness" is concerend they lived in poverty and disease - just compare their life expectancy figures with that of the west after the industrial revolution."

i quite like the idea of primitive collectivism and mysticism: sounds like some of my favourite super 8 films....:-).

however, i think the rest of your sentence just betrays your utter ignorance of the past, and of the world outside the West. i've lived and worked in islamic societies, and in societies in which people had no money, where all labour was undertaken by hand, where the major activity was growing food for oneself and one's neighbours, and which would have rated in the bottom 2% of the UN's world poverty league.

i've seen lots of poverty in large cities, in europe as well as in the third world; but i've never seen anything i would call poverty in any rural society where people still have access to land and are able to provide for themselves.

i grant you, we have made huge progress with reducing infant mortality rates. but i think most of modern medicine is just an expensive and elaborate (primitive? mystical?) ritual which preys upon our fear of death (life expectancy rates at age 8 haven't actually changed at all in the last 100 years). and i also think you are confusing technological progress with spiritual progress.

i think people are free when they can provide for themselves, and don't depend upon faceless, anonymous forces, whether it is the State that you hate so much, or some corporation with its headquarters on the other side of the world, or a stock market trader in bangkok or new york, in order to get enough to eat that night for their families.

i also think people are more responsible when they draw only on the resources which they have to hand, and don't get accustomed to a way of life which depends upon them living off other people's natural capital. so i think mutual responsibility and freedom generally go together, and more of one means more of the other, whereas you seem to think they are polar opposites.

perhaps we just have very different experiences of life?

stay well,

peter



------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

Roger wrote:
"No matter how you slice it, he CHOSE to be a criminal. The infidels didn't make him one."

Peter replied:
1. he was trained and funded by the CIA, as even the CIA admit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what's your point? That all CIA agents are criminals? They may have trained him, but what he does with that training is the difference you ignore. There are no doubt porno movies shot in Super 8. I guess that means all who have training in shooting Super 8 are creaters of pornography? Your connection of the dots is a bit weak, Peter. Again, Osama is nothing more than a run of the mill criminal that happens to have money to back him. Take that money away and he's just a dirty, stinky guy with a chip on his shoulder and a fetish for machine guns. He has the means to do something positive without violence and he chooses violence. There is no amount of spin that you can do to justify that decision.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

2. your conception of choice suggests to me you have no idea what it might be like to live in a police state.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, what's your point? I don't know what it's like to wear women's underwear, either. Do you? Are you suggesting that Osama was forced to be a criminal? Are you suggesting that commiting acts of terrorism is the only tool available for one of the richest men in the world to help his people? Again, what he chose to do with his considerable wealth and influence is the difference. He isn't some destitute, down on his luck junky robbing someone because he's desperate and feels he has no choice. He has nothing BUT choices and he chooses violence and agression over progress, every time he's given a chance.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

bin laden isnt interested, as far as we know, in charitable works; his original aim was to overthrow the government of saudi arabia. i think that that, in itself, is a perfectly reasonable aim.

if the US had helped him do that, instead of helping him fight the soviets, afghanistan might today have several million more inhabitants, and the WTC might never have been bombed and all those people killed on september 11.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of 'maybes' there, Peter. The only thing that I know for sure is that he attacked a non-military target specifically to take out as many innocent 'infidels' as he possibly could. Besides, as I said before, at some point in time you have to just accept your losses and say,"This is what we have to work with. Now, let's move forward in a productive manner and join the rest of the civilized world." Osama and his people have always had that as an option. Again, a choice was made for a more violent and agressive path.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

Roger wrote:
"It is not the job of the west to convert entire nations over to Christianity, Judiasm or Muslim. How they conduct their business with their money and their people is their business."

Peter replied:
how i wish that was true. but you must know that the rest of the world sees US national policy as ENTIRELY subordinated to US business interests, and the US as representing the power of money, not freedom and human rights.

so either the rest of the world is terminally stupid, or there is something your government is not telling you.

stay well,

peter
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can I possibly stay well, Peter? I obviously live in a country that is so incredibly corrupted due to business and politics that you find it oppressive. Of course there are things that our government isn't telling us. What, we are the ONLY country on the face of the earth with governments that are concerned about business interests and a healthy economy and have things they consider vital to national security? I suppose the goverment of Belgium tells its citizens every little secret.

How the rest of an ungrateful world views the U.S. is a big part of the problem, in my book. These countries want the benefits of US intervention, assistance and technology but deny us the right to get pissed off and protect our own interests when threatened. In short, they want their cake and eat it, too. And, make no mistake, this goes for Israel and Arabs alike.

I think the only thing you and I might agree on is that I would like to see the U.S. just pull out of all other countries and let them duke it out on their own. THEN we'll see how things stand, economy wise. It doesn't need to be this complicated.

Roger

They don't want it? This remindes me of the stories we hear so often of a big new chain store running the mom& pop store out of business and how awfull it is, but the blame never rests on the consumer who started buying from the new big store. No it's all the big new stores fault even though the people wanted it.
BTW I'll often support the mom& pop place on the principal that I do get tired of
traveling and seeind the exact same places everywhere I go.
Anyway the same is true here in China where there are western fast food places popping up everywhere. Why? Is it American imperialism at work again? No, not when you see that the people love it. They can't get enough Kentucky Fried Chicken.Seriously I don't get it , Three on one block and it not enough.
We(America) use cheaper labor around the world.That's why I'm here. And they use cheaper places yet. Moving production to places where cost of living is less is done by everyone. The progress has moved through the Pacifiic rim and is moving toward India and will eventallly go into Africa and by the time it's in the West again ,we'll have an army of robots to do our work for us but they will revolt, of coarse, and then we'll all wonder why we used to fight with each other.
I'm going to shoot some K40 now.

------------------
PRM

Peter/redrice -

You missed the point of the "timeline" I posted. As I stated after the timeline, the point was that there are two sides to every disagreement. I wasn't trying to show that everything in the timeline was absolute fact. I was trying to show that both sides in the Arab/Israeli conflict have contributed equally to the problems at hand.

Please note also that America was not supporting Israel during the vast majority of these problems. Richard Nixon was the first American president to take active involvement in Israel. Previous administrations had held Israel at a distance to avoid angering Arab nations (yes, probably because we needed their oil).

I guess what offends me most about your arguments is that you say you are a pacifist and yet you make constant excuses for people like Osama bin Laden, who murder innocent people. Even if you somehow think that Americans are murderers too, how can you make subtle excuses for bin Laden?

One more thing: no one knows for a fact that American CIA trained bin Laden. America trained Afghani mujahadeen to resist a Soviet invasion, and bin Laden may have been among them. We did not train anyone to travel to some foreign country (even Russia) and run suicide missions, or to kill anyone other than invading soldiers. Your suggestion that America somehow made bin Laden what he is today is incorrect and offensive!

- digvid

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:
roger (also):

"With all due respect, Peter, you casually leave out the most important point here: WHY were Saddam's assets frozen and WHY is there an embargo?"

i don't see why this is the most important point. we are punishing a whole people for the actions of one man and the small gang of thugs around him. where is the justice in that? how does that make us any different from saddam himself, or ghadaffi, or bin laden?

peter
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To start with, and this is REALLY important to remember in the context of things: The U.S. is not REQUIRED to do business with or feed or aid ANY country on the face of the earth.

Okay? Preface that everytime you begin to write something about "world economics" or "U.S. responsibility" and it certainly changes the perspective on things.

Economic sanctions are the same thing that would happen if we stopped doing business with a given country. No more moola. No more jack. No more greenbacks. No more trade. No more benefits. In other words, they want us out of their lives? Well, here's what it tastes like not to have a cash customer like the U.S. Again, the countries that seem to bitch the most are the ones that gained the most by interaction with the U.S. economy. They think we're infidel dogs and don't want our business anymore? Fine, but careful what you wish for.

"Punishment" would be defined as taking something that rightly belongs to a given group. Nothing the U.S. has belongs to Saddam or his people. They have no 'devine right' to our products or our money or our aid. Like the sign in the window says,"We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

Economic sanctions are the best way of showing Saddam's people that he cares more about himself than he does for his constituency. Like Osama, he has the wealth and means to take care of his people if he was really concerned. He's not and that's all there is to it. We are not required to do business with them and, if they suffer because of his agression and politics, then that's Saddam's fault, not ours.

Again, I don't see Saddam losing any weight or sleep over the sanctions. He knows that he has enough wealth to see him though to his end years. Like Osama and Ghadaffi, both hypocrits and cowards, he's just playing 'soldier' instead of dealing with real life and death issues that his people have to navigate every day.

What single positive achievement has any of the three stooges you mentioned ever offered the modern world? We're talking about three of the richest men on the face of the planet and what have they done for humanity compared to their own selfish goals associated with playing 'soldier'? Then compare that to what the U.S has done for underdeveloped countries and victims of famine.

You can not see a difference between the actions of the US and Saddam, Ghadaffi or Bin Laden? Come on, Peter. You're just being argumentative, here.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited October 14, 2001).]

redrice -

---------------------------------------------
i also think people are more responsible when they draw only on the resources which they have to hand, and don't get accustomed to a way of life which depends upon them living off other people's natural capital. so i think mutual responsibility and freedom generally go together, and more of one means more of the other, whereas you seem to think they are polar opposites.

perhaps we just have very different experiences of life?
--------------------------------------------

The mere fact that you are subscribing to an internet service and leaving messages on this board indicates that you are depending on others for at least part of your existence. Or do you own your own internet service? Do you grow all the food you eat? Did you manufacture all your film and camera equipment????

Peter, I have to say that some of your arguments seem so scatter-brained and "out there" that they are exhausting to read.

I'm sure that being European you have a different outlook on things than I do. I understand that. But most of my friends (yes, more than 50%) are not from the United States, and I don't know any of them that think the way you do, or that make excuses for murderers like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. This includes friends/family from India, Pakistan, Holland, France, the Philippines, China, Japan, Jordan, Thailand, etc. I think that you need to look around you and get a dose of reality.

Stay well,

- digvid


------------------

With the incredible amount of knowledge and capasity for philisophical discussion, can nobody offer information on middle eastern film makers? Although i did enjoy reading the board, there were no addresses or names. I am slowely attempting to create a web page, if anyone has info send it to my email address [email protected]. maybe i could do something with the info.

Help out someone?!

------------------

A Quote from DigiDave which I strongly disagree with.....

"Peter, I have to say that some of your arguments seem so scatter-brained and "out there" that they are exhausting to read".

"I'm sure that being European you have a different outlook on things than I do. I understand that. But most of my friends (yes, more than 50%) are not from the United States, and I don't know any of them that think the way you do, or that make excuses for murderers like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. This includes friends/family from India, Pakistan, Holland, France, the Philippines, China, Japan, Jordan, Thailand, etc. I think that you need to look around you and get a dose of reality. Stay well",

- digvid

---------------------------------------------

If 80% of what Peter writes is brilliant, and 20% less so.....why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 15, 2001).]

hi roger:

"Economic sanctions are the same thing that would happen if we stopped doing business with a given country."

until a few months ago, i thought the same as you did - that the iraqi people were dying because of saddam's selfishness, not because of the sanctions imposed by your country and mine. then i began to read about what was happening.

economic sanctions are not the same as the US refusing to sell stuff to the iraqis. they are are like the US and the UK refusing to let the iraqis buy anything, from anyone, without our permission. that is a wholly different situation. as a result we have a stranglehold on the country: we dictate, in effect, what goes in and what comes out. we decide how much medicine is available, how much vital infrastructure gets rebuilt, and at what rate, etc.

of course if saddam wanted to chip in, that would help. but even the wildest estimates before the gulf war commenced, generally agreed by conservative US commentators to be exagerated, put his family fortune at only $20 billion. that is less than we have deliberately denied iraq in the last 5 years.

as michael parenti wrote recently:

"Things were supposed to get better when the sanctions were eased in 1996, allowing Iraq to make ?oil for food? sales. Since then, $32 billion in oil was sold abroad but only $8 billion worth of materials has reached Iraq, less than $5 or $6 a month per person. Another $10 billion has been allocated for ?war compensation,? in effect forcing the Iraqis to pay the costs incurred by the UN aggressors when destroying Iraq. Another $11 billion in cash sits in Western banks. Worse still, many essential things needed to rebuild the infrastructure?including the technological, medical, educational, communicational, and industrial systems of the nation?are still not available. Under the deleterious ?dual use? doctrine, many vital commodities and materials needed for humanitarian and civilian purposes are banned because they conceivably could also be used by the military: computers, components for electrical transmitters and water pumps, even glycerin tablets needed for heart ailments. (It would take millions of glycerin tablets mixed with nitrogen to make one small explosive.)"

(you can find the full article at www.zmag.org. i don't agree with everything parenti says, - 'UN aggressors' is deliberately contenious - but his figures seem to be largely based on those provided by UNICEF and the Red Cross, and are probably quite reliable. certainly, his information agrees in general with that provided by dennis halliday and other senior UN officials who have resigned in protest at the sanctions).

so in my opinion, our responsibility in the deaths of 1.5 million people in that country over the last 10 years is quite clear. and our refusal to 'care' about this is a major obstacle to our winning over 'the hearts and minds of the arab world', as tony blair would put it.

on the police state:

"Again, what's your point? I don't know what it's like to wear women's underwear, either. Do you? Are you suggesting that Osama was forced to be a criminal? Are you suggesting that commiting acts of terrorism is the only tool available for one of the richest men in the world to help his people? Again, what he chose to do with his considerable wealth and influence is the difference. He isn't some destitute, down on his luck junky robbing someone because he's desperate and feels he has no choice. He has nothing BUT choices and he chooses violence and agression over progress, every time he's given a chance."

i have lived in a police state. i have known people who have been tortured for trying to express their opinions, and who have spent the best years of their lives in jail. these people weren't poor; they weren't outsiders. their parents were diplomats, or successful businessmen. they simply happened to value justice more than material comfort. when they tried to do something about it, - not something violent, just expressing their opinions - they discovered just how limited their room for manoeuvre was.

saudi arabia doesn't need more hospitals and schools. it has hospitals and schools coming out of its ears. osama bin laden is above all a saudi nationalist. he doesn't want to share his money with his countrymen: he wants to replace the ruling family, whose idea of islamic observance is a night in a five star hotel with a bumper bag of cocaine and a few under-age prostitutes while their security forces torture suspected dissidents in the basement. (as you will remember, these are the 'moderate businessmen' we buy so much of our oil from. a similar group of goons run kuwait, for whose 'honour' we have killed so many iraqis.)

there are many things money cannot buy. freedom is one of them. and there are many circumstances in which the violence of the status quo is so great, that the only possible remedy to that violence is to take up violence oneself. american history might have been designed to illustate that truth.

this is not to justify the attacks on america. but unless we try and understand the world out of which such attacks are born, then we simply condemn more innocent people to die, in the US, in Europe, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

terrorism is never a solution. but the alternative to terrorism is not more 'business as usual'. and it is not terrorism wielded by the state, as the british did at dresden and the US did at hiroshima and nagasaki.

in this case, the alternative is letting the people of the middle east have a real say in their own destiny. my fear is that your country and my country will never willingly let that happen, because the cost to us - economically - would be too great. so we will continue to trade with corrupt dictators because we 'need' their oil, and because they agree to complain about the israelis to the UN, but never actually do anything to help the palestinians.
and because our governments refuse to pay that cost, i fear that we will all suffer from the greater violence that is yet to come, whether we agreed to those policies or not.

george bush put it very neatly, i thought, a few weeks ago, when he talked (i paraphrase) about wanting to get America back to being a country where 'flying is a way of life'.

that's the 'freedom' our governments put before all others. personally, it is not a freedom for which i would wish anyone to die.

good wishes,

peter

------------------

hi digvid:

no, i understood your point about the time line. i was just trying to say that some of the possible objections to it are more complex and more difficult to pin down that any simple opposition between israeli and palestinian perspectives. those objections go to the heart of western myopia about the rest of the world.

likewise, i dont know any arab who would deny that the arabs have had appalling leaders for the last 50 years, and that the palestinians have been sold down the river by almost every arab nation.

"I guess what offends me most about your arguments is that you say you are a pacifist and yet you make constant excuses for people like Osama bin Laden, who murder innocent people. Even if you somehow think that Americans are murderers too, how can you make subtle excuses for bin Laden?"

i'm sorry if i wasn't clear. i'm not a pacifist. and i'm not universally opposed to terrorism, tho i think that it is a very dangerous tactic, which can easily backfire, and i certainly dont support it in the present case.

i'm simply opposed to military action against afghanistan, because i think it is another example of us punishing a nation for the acts of a small group of people, and that that is exactly what the people who committed those attacks on the US want. they want the US to flail out at muslim states and movements, so that they can generate more support for the more extreme elements within their cause, and hopefully destablise central asia and get their hands on a few fully functioning nuclear weapons.

meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of innocent afghans will die this winter for lack of food and of the infrastructure to get food to them.

i don't want those deaths on the conscience of my people. i don't know how to stop them, but i am prepared to try anything that might work, short of taking other innocent lives.

good wishes,

peter

------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dominic3:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by redrice:
terrorism is never a solution. but the alternative to terrorism is not more 'business as usual'. and it is not terrorism wielded by the state, as the british did at dresden and the US did at hiroshima and nagasaki".

Peter, what a comment!
Why are you deliberately attempting to SMEER history?
The bombing at Dresden and Nagasaki ( and the current bombing in Afganistan) were acts of SELF DEFENCE not "terrorism". What kind of world would we be living in now had we not excercised that moral right of retalitory force?

I am very suspicious of your comments.
You claim you want peace and yet you oppose retalitory force in order to establish peace. You claim you support freedom and yet you support the initiation of government coercion.You claim you want a wealthy world for all and yet you support forced re distribution of private wealth and government control of material production rather than the voluntary exchange of value for value for mutual profit - capitalist wealth creation. You claim you support freedom and yet you ally yourself with cultures that deny human rights and enforce obedience, sacrifice, the subordination of the individual to "god" or "the state", censorship, property rights, faith over science and the subjugation of women.

What kind of world do you want???

You appear,at your best, to be offering the fradulent alternative between "individual human rights" versus "individual property rights" - as if one could exist without the other and at your worst, you uphold the very moral ideals of every totalitarian political system in history.




[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 15, 2001).]

hi dominic:

if you think that dresden and hiroshima were acts of self-defence, then i would hate to meet you when you were in an aggressive mood:-)

you might also want to read gar alperovitz's book on the diplomatic and security context surrounding america's decision to use the atom bomb. he has read through all the now-declassified correspondence, and argues convincingly that Truman had received solid intelligence indicating japan was ready to surrender. the decision to use the bomb was not the last act of the second world war, but the first act of the cold war. the US government took that decision because they wanted to establish once and for all the balance of power in the post-war world and deter the soviets from coming on to strong.

i'm sure this is a very unpopular theory in some quarters. but for alperovitz, it is the most plausible interpretation of the evidence we have, and he has read everything that is in the public domain, and is very even-handed.
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679443312/o/qid=/sr=8-1/ref=sr_aps_b_1_1/026-1073614-3286045"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679443312/o/qid=/sr=8-1/ref=sr_aps_b_1_1/026-1073614-3286045[/ame]

i was brought up in the uk, and i never heard anyone refer to the carpet bombing of dresden as anything other than a cause for national shame.

my definition of terrorism is deliberately targeting civilians in order to achieve military aims, by terrorising the population and breaking their will to resist. i think that covers all the cases we're discussing.

who started it, which you seem to think is so important, is a question best left to the children's playground.

good wishes,

peter


------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

until a few months ago, i thought the same as you did - that the iraqi people were dying because of saddam's selfishness, not because of the sanctions imposed by your country and mine. then i began to read about what was happening.

economic sanctions are not the same as the US refusing to sell stuff to the iraqis. they are are like the US and the UK refusing to let the iraqis buy anything, from anyone, without our permission. that is a wholly different situation. as a result we have a stranglehold on the country: we dictate, in effect, what goes in and what comes out. we decide how much medicine is available, how much vital infrastructure gets rebuilt, and at what rate, etc.

of course if saddam wanted to chip in, that would help.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah! What a HUGE understatement! Of COURSE if Saddam "chipped in" that would help. But "chipping in" isn't all about money, Peter. It's about being a memeber of society and operating within its laws. It's also about accepting that there are certain things about history that one simply can NOT change or reclaim through violence. Look, the U.S. auto industry got the living crap beat out of it by the Japanese. It really never has recovered. Detroit is not the king of the hill that it used to be in the world market. Should we start a terrorist campaign against Japan until they give us back control of the automobile market? We got beat in Vietnam by a group that had lessor technology. Perhaps we should revist that country now that we have better weapons?

Beyond that, you're description of the "strangle hold" on Iraq is simply incorrect. Saddam can get anything he needs from the world market. Not EVERY country refuses to do business with him; just the ones he has pissed off. Beside, let's pretend for a moment that you were correct and that NO country would do business with him. Now why would that be, I wonder? I can tell you that there are people I won't do business with because I find them dishonest or rude and, frankly, I don't care a lick what the consequences are for that decision. You're continued attempts to make the west responsible for everything are getting pretty silly, Peter.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

i have lived in a police state. i have known people who have been tortured for trying to express their opinions, and who have spent the best years of their lives in jail. these people weren't poor; they weren't outsiders. their parents were diplomats, or successful businessmen. they simply happened to value justice more than material comfort. when they tried to do something about it, - not something violent, just expressing their opinions - they discovered just how limited their room for manoeuvre was.
[/QUOTE

Gee, kind of sounds like America under British colonial law a couple of hundred years ago. Good thing WE did something about it instead of sitting on our duffs waiting to either be rescued or looking for someone to blame for our situation. If the citizens don't like their leaders, then they need to uprise and replace them.

Again, I am sorry for their situation but they have to deal with it. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. to rescue the world. We can where we can, but sometimes we can't. And when we try, as in the latest efforts in Afghanistan where we focus bombing on military targets AND airdrop badly needed food and medicine to the innocents there, people like you can only find fault.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrice:

this is not to justify the attacks on america. but unless we try and understand the world out of which such attacks are born, then we simply condemn more innocent people to die, in the US, in Europe, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you think that all poor, misunderstood Osama and poor, misunderstood Saddam and poor, misunderstood Ghadaffi want is a little respect? You think that a kind ear and a little sympathy will do the trick, eh? Here's a wake up call, Peter: These guys consider you and me the Devil Incarnate and pretty much consider our lives worthless, as illustrated by their statements and attacks. More to the point, they are liars and hypocrits from the word go. No one in their right mind is going to give consideration to such people. They can not be trusted, period. The only "kind ear" they want to see in yours or mine on a platter.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

terrorism is never a solution. but the alternative to terrorism is not more 'business as usual'. and it is not terrorism wielded by the state, as the british did at dresden and the US did at hiroshima and nagasaki.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dumb. These were military acts of defense in a war started by the Japanese and the Germans. I am beginning to realize you know very little about history, Peter.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

in this case, the alternative is letting the people of the middle east have a real say in their own destiny.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one "controls their own destiny", even in the most civilized of countries. We ALL must operate within the limitations that life forces on us, no matter how unfair that may be. If these people don't like their situation, then they need to change leaders, not the world around them. It's called "democracy" and simply pointing out that their religion doesn't allow for democracy doens't excuse their attempts to bring the rest of the world down to their level of underachievement. It didn't work in the USSR and it won't work in Afghanistan or Palestine. History has proven that over, and over.

They continue to support leaders that take their countries down a path of violence and aggression and incur the wrath of other countries that see past all the phony balogna and posing that goes on in the name of "religion" or some higher order. As I said, the U.S. went through the same thing long ago and managed to overcome it. The end result is that we are not a perfect society but at least we are a society where imperfection is not punishable by death.

Roger

Hello redrice -

I wanted to respond to some of your comments in this thread:

you said:
--------------------------------------------
i don't think for a minute that bin laden is the master criminal the media make him out to be - his network is too diffuse and too decentralised for that to make any sense. he's more like the madeline albright of fundamentalism, than the colin powell or the george bush. but supposing that he were to get what he wanted, then i think he would have quite enough on his plate without taking pot shots at random americans.
-------------------------------------------

Are you saying that you don't believe he was behind the Sept. 11 attacks? I believe he was, for several reasons:
1) He had already declared that it was his job to kill as many American men as he could
2) He had already made training/recruitment videos claiming responsibility for bombing the USS Cole in Yemen.
3) Suspects apprehended during the Kenya and Tanzania US embassy bombings claimed to be part of bin Laden's organization
4) After America finally retaliated for the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden released pre-recorded videos promising more attacks like the ones on Sept. 11.

redrice said:
--------------------------------------------
you might also want to read gar alperovitz's book on the diplomatic and security context surrounding america's decision to use the atom bomb. he has read through all the now-declassified correspondence, and argues convincingly that Truman had received solid intelligence indicating japan was ready to surrender. the decision to use the bomb was not the last act of the second world war, but the first act of the cold war. the US government took that decision because they wanted to establish once and for all the balance of power in the post-war world and deter the soviets from coming on to strong.
-------------------------------------------

Who can really say at this point whether Japan was ready to surrender or not? Consider that it took them nine days to surrender, even after both Horishima and Nagasaki were bombed. We killed more people during the war using incendiary bombs in Tokyo (which was constructed mostly of wood and paper at the time!) than with both atomic bomb blasts. The final result of using the bomb, as hideous as the bomb was, was that the killing/war stopped, and Japan and the United States were able to move on and have a relationship that benefited both. Today, Japan is one of our most dependable friends. And now that the war is long over, we have the peace and luxury to allow us to grieve for the people that died on both sides during the war. Americans do regret killing people in Japan with the bomb, but I think most feel it was a grim necessity.

redrice said:
--------------------------------------------
i'm sorry if i wasn't clear. i'm not a pacifist. and i'm not universally opposed to terrorism, tho i think that it is a very dangerous tactic...(other stuff)...but i am prepared to try anything that might work, short of taking other innocent lives...(other stuff)...my definition of terrorism is deliberately targeting civilians in order to achieve military aims, by terrorising the population and breaking their will to resist
--------------------------------------------

Let me get this straight: you are not universally opposed to terrorism, but you are opposed to the taking of innocent lives. Please name for me a terrorist action where innocent lives have not been taken.

redrice said:
-------------------------------------------
meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of innocent afghans will die this winter for lack of food and of the infrastructure to get food to them.
--------------------------------------------

These Afghanis were dying by the thousands before Sept. 11, and the United States was the biggest international contributor, in the form of money and food, to help keep them alive. They are in the midst of a terrible famine. Also, because of religious restrictions imposed by the Taliban, roughly half of the population cannot work (i.e., females) or even leave their homes to beg. This is why Pakistan and Iran had already been flooded with over a million refugees in the last six years or so.

redrice said:
-------------------------------------------
that is exactly what the people who committed those attacks on the US want. they want the US to flail out at muslim states and movements, so that they can generate more support for the more extreme elements within their cause, and hopefully destablise central asia and get their hands on a few fully functioning nuclear weapons
--------------------------------------------

I believe that you are correct in assessing bin Laden's goals in the region. However, I don't agree that US action there is going to destabilize Central Asia. Most of Central Asia and the Middle-East loathes the Taliban as much as the US does.

redrice said:
--------------------------------------------
i'm sorry if i wasn't clear. i'm not a pacifist
--------------------------------------------

If you are not a pacifist, under what conditions would you accept military action against another nation? bin Laden's group has been pestering us for several years now with various bombings and suicide missions. Now all indications are that he has murdered roughly 6000 people on our own soil. The government of Afghanistan harbors him and supplies him with land to train his terrorists, even though the United Nations twice demanded (before Sept. 11) that he be handed over to an international court for trial. We have tried on several occasions to take care of him without disturbing the Taliban's rule, or causing an all-out war. That's what the 1998 cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan were about.

- digvid

------------------

roger wrote:

"You're continued attempts to make the west responsible for everything are getting pretty silly, Peter."

you know perfectly well that i am not trying to make the west responsible for everything. i am just saying that we are jointly responsible for what is happening in many countries, because we have a great deal of power and influence. iraq is only the most obvious example of that.

if we don't have the humanity to put the lives of women and children before our desire for revenge upon saddam, even tho UN officials have stated that his regime is no longer a credible military threat to anyone, then we shouldn't be surprised if other people consider us morally dubious characters.

roger, i have repeatedly stated that most of the regimes in the middle east are corrupt dictatorships, and i have not once expressed support for religious extremists of any kind.

if i talk more about the faults of the US and the UK than about those of the Taliban or the House of Saud, it is because, as citizens of democratic countries, we can DO something about US policy and UK policy. and it is easier for us to do that, than it is for Arabs who will be arrested and tortured at the first expression of dissent.

of course, when their revolution does come, many of those arab countries will probably turn out no better than america did. but i guess, as democrats, we will just have to live with that...:-)

good wishes,

peter

------------------

roger wrote:

"You're continued attempts to make the west responsible for everything are getting pretty silly, Peter."

you know perfectly well that i am not trying to make the west responsible for everything. i am just saying that we are jointly responsible for what is happening in many countries, because we have a great deal of power and influence. iraq is only the most obvious example of that.

if we don't have the humanity to put the lives of women and children before our desire for revenge upon saddam, even tho UN officials have stated that his regime is no longer a credible military threat to anyone, then we shouldn't be surprised if other people consider us morally dubious characters.

roger, i have repeatedly stated that most of the regimes in the middle east are corrupt dictatorships, and i have not once expressed support for religious extremists of any kind.

if i talk more about the faults of the US and the UK than about those of the Taliban or the House of Saud, it is because, as citizens of democratic countries, we can DO something about US policy and UK policy. and it is easier for us to do that, than it is for Arabs who will be arrested and tortured at the first expression of dissent.

Your attitude that, 'well, they should just change their government like we did,' is really insulting. Egypt is the 2nd largest recipient of US foreign aid. The US embassy in Cairo is the largest in the world. Egypt is also a military dictatorship with rigged elections. When the people get mown down by guns paid for with your tax dollars as they try to change their government, what should we say to them? 'Sorry, bad luck, do try again'?

good wishes,

peter


------------------

Capitalism has no bounds.

Mix in shareholders who only care about the "bottom line"....spare the details mentality.

Wall Street crows incessantly about how "well" the Stock Market is doing...

A Media controlled by few that simply strokes Wall Street and the Entertainment Industry at the expense of True Diversity and other Cultures...

A Government that accepts donations from all of the above...

Factor in we have no way to even slow down the juggernaut of U.S. influence and insatiable need for resources from other lands....

The above does not spell a recipe for world-wide happiness, but it sure makes our lives quite nice in this country.

------------------
Alex

I find it ironic that a native of Belgium is whining about U.S. aggression...Peter, maybe you should talk to some of your older Belgian friends and relatives and ask how they felt about the evil U.S. "invading" Belgium during WW II to oust those peace-loving Germans who were no doubt restoring order out of chaos in your homeland.
Guess it was ok then, huh?
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Afghans feel the same way. Guess we'll find out sooner or later.


------------------

Ahhhh. Looks like we back in bidness.

Roger

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:
roger wrote:
"You're continued attempts to make the west responsible for everything are getting pretty silly, Peter."

Peter replied:
You know perfectly well that i am not trying to make the west responsible for everything.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Go back and take a look at your posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

I am just saying that we are jointly responsible for what is happening in many countries, because we have a great deal of power and influence.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Responsible?" You know what this reminds me of? When a good samaritan pulls someone from a burning car and accidently hurts that person's leg in the process. Then the injured party sues the good samaritan for all he's got. We have business interests in different areas of the world and have the right to defend ourselves and our interests. But don't confuse our being on the scene with a responsibility to do something. We could just as easily stand by and let the car burn, you know.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

if we don't have the humanity to put the lives of women and children before our desire for revenge upon saddam, even tho UN officials have stated that his regime is no longer a credible military threat to anyone, then we shouldn't be surprised if other people consider us morally dubious characters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, Peter! Let's play fill in the blank! Let's take what you wrote and do this:

"If we don't have the humanity to put the lives of women and children before our desire for revenge upon _THE USA_, even tho UN officials have stated that this regime is no longer a credible military threat to anyone _with honor_, then we shouldn't be surprised if other people consider _Osama, Saddam and Ghadaffi_ morally dubious characters."

That's a much better fit, don't you think?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:

Your attitude that, 'well, they should just change their government like we did,' is really insulting. Egypt is the 2nd largest recipient of US foreign aid. The US embassy in Cairo is the largest in the world. Egypt is also a military dictatorship with rigged elections. When the people get mown down by guns paid for with your tax dollars as they try to change their government, what should we say to them? 'Sorry, bad luck, do try again'?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bet, Peter. And again, and again, and again. 200 years ago, defiant Americans were mowed down time and again by guns bought by the British with tax dollars forced from the very Americans they were killing! Unfair, was it? You bet it was unfair. So unfair, in fact, that the Americans rose up and drove out their oppressors, despite overwhelming odds.

Quit making excuses for what these people CAN'T do for themselves. It's insulting to them and it's not our job to wipe everyone's butts.

Roger

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrice:
[B]hi dominic:if you think that dresden and hiroshima were acts of self-defence, then i would hate to meet you when you were in an aggressive mood:-)"

Peter, there is one essential philsophical point that you evade - Any innocent civilians injured or killed during a war as a result of those who are retaliating against the initiation of government force, (e.g the bombing of the WTC or Hitler's invasion of Poland and the mass murder of innocent Jews, or the Japanese murder of those at Pearl Harbour), are not the fault of the allies - their deaths or injuries are the fault of those that initiated the use of force in the first place.

And further points, if you care so much about humanity,
why do you ally yourself with the "innocent" Germans who stood back and knowingly allowed the murder of millions of Jews and supported militaristic aggression and murder?

Why do you ally yourself with the "innocent" Japanese who supported an Imperial Japanese dictatorship the bombing of Pearl harbour and the murder hundreds of thousands innocent Chinese?

Why do you ally yourself with Afgans who support the philosophy of their Mullahs and their tribal leaders who deny numerous individual rights?

Why are these people of more value than innocent Americans or British or other nationals at the world trade center?

Your so called "innocent" victims are not so innocent Peter.



[This message has been edited by Dominic3 (edited October 16, 2001).]

roger wrote:

-- "Responsible?" You know what this reminds me of? When a good samaritan pulls someone from a burning car and accidently hurts that person's leg in the process. Then the injured party sues the good samaritan for all he's got. We have business interests in different areas of the world and have the right to defend ourselves and our interests. But don't confuse our being on the scene with a responsibility to do something. We could just as easily stand by and let the car burn, you know.--

or you could just sell the guy with the lighter another can of petrol....

peter

------------------