Filmmaking for peace...

[MovieStuff]

<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

[digvid]

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

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

[redrice]

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

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

[redrice]

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


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

[Alex]

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

[chas_ucla]

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.


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

[MovieStuff]

Ahhhh. Looks like we back in bidness.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

<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

[Dominic3]

[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).]

[redrice]

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

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