Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 10, 2012, 06:47 PM   #51
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
But that isn't the situation. Young guys are continually eating up the propaganda about 'protecting their country' and signing up.

But 'your' country isn't under attack. 'Your' country is invading other territories often with economic interests at heart. I'm sure if it was, (marc) would happily join the forces.

As it stands it's ridiculous. Young guys dying for an elite to get rich.

If they live they get to kill a few guys defending their own country, a bunch of innocent civilians in their own country, then return home for a pat on the back and some woolly talk about honour.
This is always a touchy subject. "My country, right or wrong", has been a watchword in the past.

I would be forced to agree with most of your post, if only the U.S. would admit that these foreign adventures are for monetary/strategic gain. Either that, or they finally admit that the U.S. is actually engaged in another Holy War, but this time against Radical Muslims.
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 06:49 PM   #52
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Afghanistan attacked the US?
With the Taliban?

citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 06:55 PM   #53
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
With the Taliban?

Afghanistan attacked with the Taliban?
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 06:57 PM   #54
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Afghanistan attacked the US?
You really need me to explain this to you? Were did the Taliban hang out and defacto control? Think...
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 07:01 PM   #55
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
This is always a touchy subject. "My country, right or wrong", has been a watchword in the past.

I would be forced to agree with most of your post, if only the U.S. would admit that these foreign adventures are for monetary/strategic gain. Either that, or they finally admit that the U.S. is actually engaged in another Holy War, but this time against Radical Muslims.
Yep, getting a pipeline built through Afghanistan is the US's worst kept secret. And look how many have lost their lives over it. Sickening.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
You really need me to explain this to you? Were did the Taliban hang out and defacto control? Think...
Yes, please explain it to me. Starting with who attacked the US.
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 07:01 PM   #56
firestarter
macrumors Demi-God
 
firestarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Afghanistan attacked the US?
No, the US sent the CIA to train and arm the Taliban so that they would attack Russians.

Oh wait... The Russians are our friends and the Taliban have always been the bad guys.

So confusing...
firestarter is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 07:05 PM   #57
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
no, the us sent the cia to train and arm the taliban so that they would attack russians.

Oh wait... The russians are our friends and the taliban have always been the bad guys.

So confusing...
:d
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 07:05 PM   #58
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
You really need me to explain this to you?
Just looking for a little more precision.

citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 07:14 PM   #59
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
You really need me to explain this to you? Were did the Taliban hang out and defacto control? Think...
Let me guess, although I've only held this opinion for the last 10 years, PAKISTAN!!

What do I win.

I'm sure, some time in the future, if you check Wikipedia under "duplicity", you will find a picture of a map of Pakistan

Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
No, the US sent the CIA to train and arm the Taliban so that they would attack Russians.

Oh wait... The Russians are our friends and the Taliban have always been the bad guys.

So confusing...
Well, ya' see, it's all about bedfellows, and which partner gives you the most gratification. (See Saddam Hussein.)
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 03:58 AM   #60
Happybunny
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
It's not the Brits are smarter, it's just that we're a lot more cynical about government propaganda - and we have a lot less of the machismo and blind militaristic support that exists in the US.
I would like to take issue with the highlighted text.

While this might be true when measured against the US, when measured against civilized countries you are not that much different to the USA.
Just look at many articles in that paragon of truth the Sun, about 'OUR BOYS' or how the 'SAS what won it' . This is even carried on when the subject is a football game, the war has to be brought into the headline. The amount of times that 'Top Gear' mentions the war, uses military equipment for no real reason. You do not find this kind of behavior common in other countries.

Not so long a go there was a thread on this forum about the Falklands, nearly every post by a Brit was tinged with sabre rattling.

The sickening speed with which Mr T Blair, rubber stamped George 'W' illegal war of 2003, was an eye opener here in mainland Europe.
Are you still looking for WMD?
The old words of General De Gaulle that Britain is always the US's errand boy.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'

Last edited by Happybunny; Jun 11, 2012 at 06:19 AM.
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 05:37 AM   #61
Happybunny
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squadleader View Post
You should be banned.....
Truly the concept of freedom of speech, just passed you by.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 05:51 AM   #62
Squadleader
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Avalon Hill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
Truly the concept of freedom of speech, just passed you by.

At least understand the concept before regurgitating your ignorant use of it..It does not apply here..
Squadleader is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 06:14 AM   #63
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
I would like to take issue with the highlighted text.

While this might be true when measured against the US, when measured against civilized countries you are not that much different to the USA.
Just look at many articles in that paragon of truth the Sun, about 'OUR BOYS' or how the 'SAS what won it' . This is even carried on when the subject is a football game, the war has to be brought into the headline. The amount of times that 'Top Gear' mentions the war, uses military equipment for no real reason. You do not find this kind of behavior common in other countries.

Not so long a go there was a thread on this forum about the Falklands, nearly every post by a Brit was tinged with sabre rattling.

The sickening speed with which Mr T Blair, rubber stamped George 'W' illegal war of 2003, was an eye opener here in mainland Europe.
Are you still looking for WMD?
The old words of General De Gaulle that Britain is always the US's errand boy.

It's true, we can agree that the UK does have a high level of support for the military. But I can't put it on the scale of the US general populace. The bravado Firestarter mentioned earlier in the US is something we can't really relate to in the UK. You would have to go to the far East to see that sort of idolatry.

Polls usually put the US in the top 3 worldwide for public support of military action. One example..

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
A large-scale 37-nation poll of world opinion carried out by Gallup International in late September 2001 found that large majorities in most countries favored a legal response, in the form of extradition and trial, over a military response to 9/11: Only in three countries out of the 37 surveyed – the United States, Israel, and India – did majorities favor military action in Afghanistan. In the other 34 countries surveyed, the poll found many clear majorities that favored extradition and trial instead of military action: in the United Kingdom (75%), France (67%), Switzerland (87%), Czech Republic (64%), Lithuania (83%), Panama (80%), Mexico (94%), and other countries
That said. Both Bush and Blair did get re-elected after Iraq. That for me is one of the most troubling facts of the past decade. A telling insight into how voters are still easily manipulated and/or unwilling to hold leaders accountable.
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 06:19 AM   #64
Happybunny
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
While this might be true when measured against the US, when measured against civilized countries you are not that much different to the USA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
It's true, we can agree that the UK does have a high level of support for the military. But I can't put it on the scale of the US general populace. The bravado Firestarter mentioned earlier in the US is something we can't really relate to in the UK. You would have to go to the far East to see that sort of idolatry.

Polls usually put the US in the top 3 worldwide for public support of military action. One example..



That said. Both Bush and Blair did get re-elected after Iraq. That for me is one of the most troubling facts of the past decade. A telling insight into how voters are still easily manipulated.
I think I already covered this.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 06:24 AM   #65
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
I would like to take issue with the highlighted text.

While this might be true when measured against the US, when measured against civilized countries you are not that much different to the USA.




I think I already covered this.
Alright maybe you did.. WWDC day, who can read politics with a straight head
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 08:14 AM   #66
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
First of all, I'm not in the habit of defending the U.S.'s war record over the last 10 years. My major contention is that you should not be picking on soldiers who support the war effort. They are in the worse position to judge and refuse to fight. The psychology is that they really want to help whoever they are fighting for, like supposedly the Iraqi people. At least that is what they say in public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
It's not the Brits are smarter, it's just that we're a lot more cynical about government propaganda - and we have a lot less of the machismo and blind militaristic support that exists in the US.
That could be true. As I said previously, I believe a draft would help in this regard. Sharing the pain through sacrificing your children would make a larger % of the populace think twice about foreign adventures. I don't understand why there is not a revolt right now regarding the cost of the war and what it's impact on our economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
Either that, or they finally admit that the U.S. is actually engaged in another Holy War, but this time against Radical Muslims.
My perspective is that the Holy War is being waged by fringe religious terrorist groups. The Capitalists just want to make money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
Let me guess, although I've only held this opinion for the last 10 years, PAKISTAN!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
Afghanistan attacked the US?
Oops. When the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan, that was the country the Taliban controlled, and Al-Quaeda was based with their blessing. This is why we went there. After the attack on the World Trade Center, by Al-Quaeda a group who hung out in Afganistan, a counter attack seemed reasonable. This is the problem when you are attacked by terrorist organizations. You can either let their hostile host countries shield them or you can attack. The WTC attack was too large to ignore. However U.S. foreign policy even under Obama has taken it well beyond what I consider reasonable.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.

Last edited by Huntn; Jun 11, 2012 at 09:01 AM.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 08:38 AM   #67
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squadleader View Post
At least understand the concept before regurgitating your ignorant use of it..It does not apply here..
I believe it does apply here.

Banning speech, preventing ideas from ever seeing the light of day is IMO violating free speech.

Could you explain why banning someone, for saying something you vehemently disagree with (that is within the TOS), is not a violation of free speech?
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 09:08 AM   #68
kavika411
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alabama
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Could you explain why banning someone, for saying something you vehemently disagree with (that is within the TOS), is not a violation of free speech?
Arn /= United States Government

Or are you using the phrase "free speech" obtusely?
kavika411 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 09:25 AM   #69
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
When the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan, that was the country the Taliban controlled, and Al-Quaeda was based with their blessing. This is why we went there.After the attack on the World Trade Center, by Al-Quaeda a group who hung out in Afganistan, a counter attack seemed reasonable.
Reasonable? In order to avenge 2,400 American deaths at the hands of men trained in your own flight schools, you bombed the hell out of a hundred thousand Afghans, and the Taliban are still in control of most of the country.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 09:32 AM   #70
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
Reasonable? In order to avenge 2,400 American deaths at the hands of men trained in your own flight schools, you bombed the hell out of a hundred thousand Afghans, and the Taliban are still in control of most of the country.
What should the response have been, in your opinion?
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 09:36 AM   #71
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Free speech can appear to be a sticky wicket at times, but it's good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
Reasonable? In order to avenge 2,400 American deaths at the hands of men trained in your own flight schools, you bombed the hell out of a hundred thousand Afghans, and the Taliban are still in control of most of the country.
You are entitled to your opinion, but what are you implying regarding the bolded text? Just curious, where are you from?
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.

Last edited by Huntn; Jun 11, 2012 at 09:42 AM.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 09:37 AM   #72
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Clearly I don't speak for Skunk, but cutting a deal to extradite Al-Qaeda operatives would have been no.1. The Taliban can be dealt with, and the Taliban are not Al-Qaeda.
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 09:37 AM   #73
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler
What should the response have been, in your opinion?
Extreme and sustained diplomatic pressure, and, if that failed, a targeted assassination of Bin Laden himself.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 09:40 AM   #74
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
Extreme and sustained diplomatic pressure, and, if that failed, a targeted assassination of Bin Laden himself.
Fair enough. I wonder if that would have worked. I'm not convinced The Taliban would have handed over Al Qaeda.

Last edited by leekohler; Jun 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM.
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 09:45 AM   #75
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Fair enough. I wonder if that would have worked.
The alternative certainly hasn't.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
You are entitled to your opinion, but what are you implying regarding the bolded text? Just curious, where are you from?
I'm implying that the people of Afghanistan, even the Taliban, had little to do with 19 foreigners flying planes into tall buildings. Exemplary punishment is outlawed under the Geneva Conventions.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Surge and under-voltage protection iMacLeaner iMac 6 Jan 10, 2014 08:01 AM
Surge protectors kenglade iMac 23 Nov 25, 2013 10:52 PM
Surge protectors. aPple nErd iMac 45 Jun 12, 2013 12:54 PM
How much surge protection do I really need? c073186 Community Discussion 12 Jan 30, 2013 08:17 PM
RMBP Surge Protector LFCYNWA MacBook Pro 3 Jun 17, 2012 09:53 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC