Hi, BOB KLAHN!
I read your message from 14.08.2013 02:19
AK>> ;=) Well, well, who doubts around the world that American history
AK>> books tell that the Vietnam war was victorious for the US?
AK>> Propaganda doesn't allow the opposite, especially if the opposite
AK>> is humiliating.
BK> Actually, American history books do not describe Vietnam as a
BK> victory for America. And we know the US lost the war. Not all know
BK> it, but most of us do.
So it was Lee's fantasy. ;)
AK>> But in this case the USSR had won the Afghan war, too. The USSR
AK>> had won the war, victoriously left the country, and Afghan
AK>> government forces, then, shamefully lost everything, fighting with
AK>> the Taliban resistance.
BK> The Taliban did not exist before the war, nor was the Taliban the
BK> resistance. The Warlords won the war, then corruption gave the
BK> Taliban the opening to take over.
Taliban was created by the US as a weapon against the USSR, as well
as Bin Laden, who was, one time, a welcomed person for the US. That's
why a Bin Laden's trial has always been impossible and he was killed.
AK>> Victory -- is a situation when an invading side gets what it
AK>> wanted before the invasion. We know what the US
BK> True, and what Lee said is also true.
Lee's words is like the situation about Travor Martin's case. Did the
guard-killer win over Travor Martin when he attacked him? The same
situation was when American invaded in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It
was not a victory; it was a crazy lawless violence.
Another example -- suppose, you want to rob a bank. You penetrate
into it, kill guards. But there is no money in the bank at that time.
Can you consider yourself a victor?
AK>> declared before each invasion. The US invaded into Afghanistan to
AK>> catch Bin Laden, the US invaded in Iraq to destroy its stockpiles
AK>> of weapon of mass destruction.
BK> The US invaded Iraq to control the oil. The rest was lies.
It is not correct, by a simple reason - Saddam had never refused to
sell Iraqi oil for the US. Vice versa - on the ground of weapon of mass
destruction possession the US refused to buy oil from Iraq by imposing
strict sanctions against that country.
LL>>> thought. When the soldier returns home, he/she often has no help
LL>>> or support from his/her (military) family. The former soldier is
LL>>> left to defend for himself/herself a way of life he/she has long
LL>>> forgotten.
AK>> First of all, I told of a host of servicemen whose task is to
AK>> suppress popular meetings and movements. To
BK> Not in the US.
You said, you don't have a special police force in the US which is
trained to disperse people's rallies? I saw myself how violently were
dispersed the people from "Occupy Wall street" movement.
AK>> It was an allegory, I repeat it. I tried to explain why resistance
AK>> in high tech future will be doomed to defeat. That is why we
AK>> should not use this high technology to spy on everyone now.
BK> Doesn't matter. The only govt that will give it up is a govt that
BK> would be able to handle it decently.
Well, imagine that NSA says one day: we want to implant to all the
people special GPS chips, and this will make possible to defeat all
crimes. If you are not against defeating all crimes you will agree with
the chips implanting. But the people who want feel themselves free will
say another words - let some crime be. We will not fight it at the
expense of our freedom. Freedom is more important. We will fight in in
some other ways.
Which way? Well, let take the terror attack against the US in 2001.
How it was possible to prevent such attacks? Easily! All the doors to
pilot's cabins have to be closed, and no prostitutes should be allowed
to seat on pilots laps and take photos. Before the terrorist act it was
almost like this. But this simple measure makes it impossible to repeat
2001 style attacks by using passenger planes. Sound order and
responsibility is better than blanket surveillance.
Bye, BOB!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.debate 2013
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
* Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)
|
