...
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.
AK> So it was Lee's fantasy. ;)
Let's just say Lee has a lot of fun around here. When he starts
sending you recipes, though, hit the next button immediately.
Some of them should be outlawed as crimes against humanity.
...
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.
AK> Taliban was created by the US as a weapon against the
AK> USSR, as well as Bin Laden, who was, one time, a
Not the Taliban, more Bin Laden's friends. The Taliban started
with an Afghan Cleric outraged at the corruption of the
warlords. His group would have been OK if they had brought and
end to the oppression of the warlords, but instead he changed
one oppressor for another.
AK> welcomed person for the US. That's why a Bin Laden's
AK> trial has always been impossible and he was killed.
I suspect Bin Laden had too close a relationship with some
American politicians, esp among those most prominently shouting
about terrorism.
AK>
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.
AK> Lee's words is like the situation about Travor Martin's
AK> case. Did the guard-killer win over Travor Martin when
AK> he attacked him? The same situation was when American
AK> invaded in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not a
AK> victory; it was a crazy lawless violence.
All true.
AK> Another example -- suppose, you want to rob a bank. You
AK> penetrate into it, kill guards. But there is no money in
AK> the bank at that time. Can you consider yourself a
AK> victor?
If you get away without being killed or caught. Like landing an
aircraft. Pilots have often told me, a landing you walk away
from is a good landing.
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.
AK> It is not correct, by a simple reason - Saddam had never
AK> refused to sell Iraqi oil for the US. Vice versa - on
The US did not invade to get the oil, but to control the oil.
A group called the Project For A New American Century wanted to
take the oil and use it to break the Saudi control of OPEC. Big
oil wanted control of the oil also, but not to break Saudi
control. Big Oil had more power.
Dick Cheney and a number of other Bush officials, including his
brother Jeb Bush, were signatories to the PFANAC principles. But
Cheney supported the Project, but got his money from oil.
AK> the ground of weapon of mass destruction possession the
AK> US refused to buy oil from Iraq by imposing strict
AK> sanctions against that country.
Like I said, it was not the oil, but control over the oil.
...
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.
AK> You said, you don't have a special police force in the
AK> US which is trained to disperse people's rallies? I saw
Not Military.
AK> myself how violently were dispersed the people from
AK> "Occupy Wall street" movement.
Those were local police, not military.
...
BK>> Doesn't matter. The only govt that will give it up is a govt that
BK>> would be able to handle it decently.
AK> Well, imagine that NSA says one day: we want to implant
AK> to all the people special GPS chips, and this will make
AK> possible to defeat all crimes. If you are not against
AK> defeating all crimes you will agree with the chips
AK> implanting.
If that happens it's time for the revolution.
AK> But the people who want feel themselves free
AK> will say another words - let some crime be. We will not
AK> fight it at the expense of our freedom. Freedom is more
AK> important. We will fight in in some other ways.
That is an old American saying. Those who will trade freedom for
security deserve neither.
AK> Which way? Well, let take the terror attack against the
AK> US in 2001. How it was possible to prevent such attacks?
AK> Easily! All the doors to pilot's cabins have to be
AK> closed, and no prostitutes should be allowed to seat on
AK> pilots laps and take photos. Before the terrorist act it
Yep. And that was known before the attack.
AK> was almost like this. But this simple measure makes it
AK> impossible to repeat 2001 style attacks by using
AK> passenger planes. Sound order and responsibility is
AK> better than blanket surveillance.
Yep. You don't trade a thousand lives for one. Or even a hundred
lives for one.
And if the terrorists know they can't succeed they won't try.
BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn
... Veni, Vidi, Veranda (I came, I saw, I sat down on the porch)
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)
|
