We are others! My country and all the rest. We are all independant nations as well. And the US does push policies on us. Actualy, that very rarely happens to be with military.

Back in 1991, when the cold war just ended... Up to then, we were a socialist country. Neutral, as in not a Soviet ally, but socialist all the same. With the end of the cold war, when all around us socialist regimes crumbled (including our own) we were left with a choice: do the same or remain isolated. Become a European North Korea, and starve. We chose what we chose, and even though its not very good, its better than the punishment of isolation would have been. The isolation from the so-called free world, headed by the US, and we chose the capitalist system. The leader of the capitalist world, and the strongest capitalist nation is and was... The US. Not much of a choice there.

The main fallacy in your post is that we can choose not to deal with you. Its a very globalised world. A single nation cannot be what it is without the others. And if that globalised world is a capitalist one, why, then you have the rule of the strongest. In this case, the US.

Yes, you should expect to be attacked. As I said (and gave examples), the US is far from the innocent, peace loving nation that its made out to be. The US supported Israel throughout its existance. Which means supporting the genocide over Palestinians. It means supporting Israel in its crusades against its Arab neighbours (see the 6 day war and the Lebanon war). The US first supported Hussein, then denounced him in 1991, when he started thinking with his own head. Ffs... Those are all real historic facts!

Now, if you were an Arab and a Moslem, what would you think of that? What would your reaction be?

And if Americans are all good and nice and peacefull... Well, why do the terrorists target America? Maybe they dont like hamburgers?

Or, if you were occupied. Imagine that someone, some real or fictional enemy invades the US... How would you feel about that? No matter the political conditions before and after the invasion, how woul you feel with foreign troops on your streets, curfews, rationed everything... And thats the least of it! My grandparents survived the Axis occupation when they were kids. Another attempt was made in 1991, when I was 2. I think I can safely say that dictatorship is preferable to war. Infact, it can be preferable do "democracy", but thats another matter.

And dont even get me started on what the Vietnamese and Latin Americans must think of you...

Now, as far as Yugoslavia goes, we fell apart ages ago. Im only having it in my profile today, because 25th of may was a Yugoslav holiday. 

East vs. West: I explained at the beginning. We do what we have to do. We lost control of our economies to West European and American companies, and we in effect have to do whatever you want us to. And that is what we are sick of.

		ronhartsell wrote:
		Rights without consideration of others??...who are the others??...we are a free and independant nation apart from all others...we have allies which happen to be the majority of the free world, including Israel and parts of the Middle East...what we have are policies that we defend, not push upon...we have never, ever declared war and attacked another country first, we always have reacted, huge difference...expect to be attacked??...why should we expect to be attacked??...if you don't agree with our policies, then don't deal with us...we're not gonna twist your arm and call you names, it's a choice...just remember that violent choices result in further violence...what behaviour are you talking about??...are you saying that when attacked that we don't have the right to defend ourselves??...we have to take it on the chin??...we only lost 3,000 on 9-11??...that number multiplies if we let it go...and it's 3,000 too many, not 1 of those souls was at war with any of the aggressors, or those who died in the aftermath of that day...if Yugoslavia were to be invaded by terrorists for no apparent reason, would you turn us away if we came to your defense??...if your countries military began killing and torturing it's own ppl, would you not accept our help??...you are off the mark with our intentions on foreign soil...we are very much a peaceful nation, but we are a big nation who have always been willing to help others out if possible, but we do not police the world unless it actually attacks us...BTW, what's going on in Afghanistan is not a declared war, nor would we be there without that governments consent...sure they were a lot worse, but remember what I said, they hadn't attacked us, which is vitally important...you're right, NATO shouldn't have authority of the world, I am in total agreement with you on that, but it is a buffer...and what is it that the West is telling the East to do??...play nice??...you don't think that we're not tired of the Middle East (including Israel) of being a permanent war zone??...and remember, entitlement is not given, it's earned, and we earned our right to establish our own laws and policies if that is what you mean by entitlement...and don't think for 1 second that if N Korea or China or Russia did what happend on 9-11 that we wouldn't respond to them as well...but even those countries governments aren't that foolish, and we would have plenty of support on a global effort to deal with them as well...      _strat_ wrote: Well, if you just take your rights without consideration of what that might mean to others, then you can expect to be attacked. Now, many nations had the same beginnings as yours. Many actualy came from the same empire you did. Does that mean that Ireland, India, Pakistan, much of Africa, and practicaly all of Middle East are also entitled to the same behaviour that the US practices? Does that mean that that is an entitelment of all nations that have gained independance from other nations? No, if there was no NATO, the world would be pretty much the same... If I recall, Iraq and Afghanistan were both solo projects of the so-called "coalition of the willing". And NATO should not have any authority in the world. That means that the East has to do what the West tells us to. And we are sick of it. The closest we gotten so far is the UN, which does a fairly good job at equal representation, although it has very little power to actualy do anything. And it isnt true... America has been involved in the M. East in one way or the other since the end of WW2. Israel, Iran, rise of the Taliban... All those things happened way before 9/11. And they were all alot worse than 9/11.      ronhartsell wrote: We gave ourselves the right to set them...we faught for those rights when we faught ourselves out from under British rule...and no, we don't suffer from the Napolean or Roman or Hitler complexes where we must occupy and rule all the world, not even close...the birth of our Nation was based on our desire to have total and complete freedom in all aspects of life, and we paid the price with blood...not all countries were able to do that against England, but we did, and now that we have it we will never give it up, and we will battle those that try to take it from us OR  threaten to!!!...again, who gives a shit what NATO does, we honor the sanctions they impose, we pretty much give it what it asks for, but we're not the only ones...if there was no NATO (or some other type of global police) where would everyone get together to opine??...come to decisions on global issues??...NATO by far is not perfect, I think it hurts the US more than helps, but if not, then there's chaos...if anything, I don't think NATO does enough...keep in mind Strat, we attack those that attack us, no the other way around...      _strat_ wrote: And whos in charge of NATO? And even if NATO was the world police, would that be any better? Who gives the right to the US (or NATO) to be the world police? Now, innocent victims, there are plenty, and on both sides. What strikes me as incredibly hiporytic is that western victims are obviously worth more. September the 11th, how many people died? 3000? Compared to the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan thats not very much. Compared to the 60 years of oppresion and suffering of the Palestinians, its just a joke. Yet, no one ever thought of starting a "war on Israel" (save its Arab neighbours) over it. And of course... Yes the world knows your polcies and what happens if we violate them. Again, who gave you the right to set them?      ronhartsell wrote: We don't give a shit about being the world's police...that's what NATO's for...and don't forget about those 2 buildings that were decorated with airplane and body parts...that's why we're there...and if we let 1 get away with it, then any piece of shit with an agenda will try to do the same...any self respecting country with the ability to defend itself would/has done the same thing...I don't give a shit if it is North Korea, China, Russia, Central America...whomeverthefuck...I don't care, you hit me and I'm gonna hit you back 10 times harder, you threw the first punch!!!...Messing with the population???...groups like that don't exist without support, they must be hid (cowards) and fed, and it's not like their side is the only side with innocent victims, it's just that that's there forté, and it usually extends to hurting their own ppl as well as everyone else's...as for dropping bombs, we have laser guided missiles, we hit what we aim for with a great deal of accuracy...and of course we've done wrong, no country has a perfect record, but we defend ourselves and we do it with effect...we don't want to fight, so when we do, we try to make our actions decisive and with intent...the World knows our policies and they are extremely fair, so those that choose to violate them already know what's coming next      _strat_ wrote: And the "terrorists" have shown that you cant go around punching them in the mouth and get away with it. Even if you are an American. Now, am I supposed to believe that invading Afghanistan did not "mess" with the population? Come on. And even if allies do leave (which Im guessing will happen at one point or another), they will leave behind the puppet government, with its military, and the thing will go on. Besides, "give them, and we leave" is nothing but extortion. Worse, its bullying. Id like to see what would the allies do if N. Korea would be harbouring those terrorists. Or Russia, or China. Anyone with a decent military. In any case, since we are talking about muslim terrorists... What about western terrorists? You, know, the people in planes that drop bombs, and most of the time dont even care what they hit? And the people who order them to do that? Sorry, but no one can be the judge here. And that is exactly it. The attitude that somehow "we" cant do wrong. That "our" soldiers are always on the right side. And worst of all, that America has the right to call good from bad, and act as the worlds policeman.      ronhartsell wrote: Strat, Afghanistan's borders are a safe haven for known terrorists, which is why our troops are there...not messing with the civilian population, but looking for specific individuals...if they don't want us there, help us find them and we will leave...end of story!!!...if you choose to call that an invasion, fine, but it is what it is...you don't go and punch the USA in the mouth and expect to get away with it...no matter WHO or WHERE you are!!!      _strat_ wrote: Invasion is as correct as can be. For better or for worse, Afghanistan got invaded.  As for liberation... That makes me laugh everytime I hear it. An army comes in, kills a whole lot of people, installs a puppet government, and thats liberation? There are liberators in Afghanistan, to be sure. The Taliban, and no one else. And as bad and medieval as they may seem, I hope they will win in the end.      Head banger wrote: invasion isnt the right term.  going in to kick out terrorists and give the country back to the rest isnt conquoring it.  its realy  liberating it.      _strat_ wrote: I agree, actualy. I mean, it looks like your troops are doing something worthile, at least. IDK, I dont want to be the judge here, but it beats the hell of our troops, that are there just to patrol, and fulfill NATOs desires. Thats what I find the most offensive, really. Our army is based on generations of guerrila fighters, who resisted foreign occupation, and now they are helping in an invasion? Perverse.      Becks wrote: Strat, I too oppose the war in Afghanistan, what I found offensive was this girls view which was entirely wrong - she has no idea what our troops actually do there, and saying that my husband, in a round about way, is a murderer, was offensive to me. The fact of the matter is, New Zealand troops are not there in a combat role, they are there to help the local people. And by all accounts, the locals are grateful for this help. I will not go around denouncing the work that they are doing when it is so desperately needed and welcomed. You are entitled to your opinion, we just happen to have slightly differing views, LOL!      _strat_ wrote: First of all, let me say that I have absolutely no desire to offend Becks or her husband. I think of her as a friend, and I hope politics wont come between it. But I have to respond to this. I am not gratefull, not even a little bit. I oppose the war in Afghanistan, with this oh so precious freedom, that is brought up so often, and that is not the result of NATOs actions in Afghanistan.  Frankly, whats offensive is this "in your name" attitude, that the soldiers are there in our name, fighting for us... Even if we not only dont care for it, but we also dont want it. We have military there. Granted, not much, but theyre there... Doing pretty much what the New Zealanders seem to be doing. Patroling a relatively peacefull province, and not getting exposed. Fine. The problem is that they are there representing us. I cannot be gratefull for that. What I am is offended.      joedraper wrote: Becks, that girl is just ignorant! Nobody has the right to judge anyone and push their views onto anyone else. I know it's hard not to react but pay her no heed.  You and your husband sacrifice so much so that others may have peace of mind and a safe, free world to live in. I may not have any desire to have a military life but I'm thankful to God for those who do.  Those who put their lives on the line for strangers, the least those 'strangers' could be is grateful!      Becks wrote: A girl at hockey pissed me off tonight real bad, thinking she can comment on what our military does in Afghanistan when she has no fuckin clue I was talking to another girl on my hockey team (who is in the airforce) and mentioned that Craig had been in Afghanistan. This other girl heard and asked what he was doing there, I said 'Fixing the optical equipment and things like that' and she said 'Oh so they can go and kill people' me and the airforce girls were like um NO! And this stupid girl started going on about how murder is illegal here, but it's ok for soldiers to do it over there etc.  Me and airforce girl were like um no it's provincial reconstruction (although admittedly, they would kill someone if they were in immediate danger) and stupid girl was like 'well I have a differing view'. WTF kind of view is that?! When it is entirely WRONG and pretty offensive to those of us who have family who have served. Silly cow. In case any of you are wondering, New Zealands role over in Afghanistan is patrolling and helping the local people rebuild. Not so much out hunting for Taliban, although the patrolling that is done is to ensure security of the province - no front line conflict for our troops where they are. Although if the shit hit the fan where they are, they would become front line troops etc. Edited at: Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:37:05 AM

We are others! My country and all the rest. We are all independant nations as well. And the US does push policies on us. Actualy, that very rarely happens to be with military.

Back in 1991, when the cold war just ended... Up to then, we were a socialist country. Neutral, as in not a Soviet ally, but socialist all the same. With the end of the cold war, when all around us socialist regimes crumbled (including our own) we were left with a choice: do the same or remain isolated. Become a European North Korea, and starve. We chose what we chose, and even though its not very good, its better than the punishment of isolation would have been. The isolation from the so-called free world, headed by the US, and we chose the capitalist system. The leader of the capitalist world, and the strongest capitalist nation is and was... The US. Not much of a choice there.

The main fallacy in your post is that we can choose not to deal with you. Its a very globalised world. A single nation cannot be what it is without the others. And if that globalised world is a capitalist one, why, then you have the rule of the strongest. In this case, the US.

Yes, you should expect to be attacked. As I said (and gave examples), the US is far from the innocent, peace loving nation that its made out to be. The US supported Israel throughout its existance. Which means supporting the genocide over Palestinians. It means supporting Israel in its crusades against its Arab neighbours (see the 6 day war and the Lebanon war). The US first supported Hussein, then denounced him in 1991, when he started thinking with his own head. Ffs... Those are all real historic facts!

Now, if you were an Arab and a Moslem, what would you think of that? What would your reaction be?

And if Americans are all good and nice and peacefull... Well, why do the terrorists target America? Maybe they dont like hamburgers?

Or, if you were occupied. Imagine that someone, some real or fictional enemy invades the US... How would you feel about that? No matter the political conditions before and after the invasion, how woul you feel with foreign troops on your streets, curfews, rationed everything... And thats the least of it! My grandparents survived the Axis occupation when they were kids. Another attempt was made in 1991, when I was 2. I think I can safely say that dictatorship is preferable to war. Infact, it can be preferable do "democracy", but thats another matter.

And dont even get me started on what the Vietnamese and Latin Americans must think of you...

Now, as far as Yugoslavia goes, we fell apart ages ago. Im only having it in my profile today, because 25th of may was a Yugoslav holiday. 

East vs. West: I explained at the beginning. We do what we have to do. We lost control of our economies to West European and American companies, and we in effect have to do whatever you want us to. And that is what we are sick of.

		ronhartsell wrote:
		Rights without consideration of others??...who are the others??...we are a free and independant nation apart from all others...we have allies which happen to be the majority of the free world, including Israel and parts of the Middle East...what we have are policies that we defend, not push upon...we have never, ever declared war and attacked another country first, we always have reacted, huge difference...expect to be attacked??...why should we expect to be attacked??...if you don't agree with our policies, then don't deal with us...we're not gonna twist your arm and call you names, it's a choice...just remember that violent choices result in further violence...what behaviour are you talking about??...are you saying that when attacked that we don't have the right to defend ourselves??...we have to take it on the chin??...we only lost 3,000 on 9-11??...that number multiplies if we let it go...and it's 3,000 too many, not 1 of those souls was at war with any of the aggressors, or those who died in the aftermath of that day...if Yugoslavia were to be invaded by terrorists for no apparent reason, would you turn us away if we came to your defense??...if your countries military began killing and torturing it's own ppl, would you not accept our help??...you are off the mark with our intentions on foreign soil...we are very much a peaceful nation, but we are a big nation who have always been willing to help others out if possible, but we do not police the world unless it actually attacks us...BTW, what's going on in Afghanistan is not a declared war, nor would we be there without that governments consent...sure they were a lot worse, but remember what I said, they hadn't attacked us, which is vitally important...you're right, NATO shouldn't have authority of the world, I am in total agreement with you on that, but it is a buffer...and what is it that the West is telling the East to do??...play nice??...you don't think that we're not tired of the Middle East (including Israel) of being a permanent war zone??...and remember, entitlement is not given, it's earned, and we earned our right to establish our own laws and policies if that is what you mean by entitlement...and don't think for 1 second that if N Korea or China or Russia did what happend on 9-11 that we wouldn't respond to them as well...but even those countries governments aren't that foolish, and we would have plenty of support on a global effort to deal with them as well...      _strat_ wrote: Well, if you just take your rights without consideration of what that might mean to others, then you can expect to be attacked. Now, many nations had the same beginnings as yours. Many actualy came from the same empire you did. Does that mean that Ireland, India, Pakistan, much of Africa, and practicaly all of Middle East are also entitled to the same behaviour that the US practices? Does that mean that that is an entitelment of all nations that have gained independance from other nations? No, if there was no NATO, the world would be pretty much the same... If I recall, Iraq and Afghanistan were both solo projects of the so-called "coalition of the willing". And NATO should not have any authority in the world. That means that the East has to do what the West tells us to. And we are sick of it. The closest we gotten so far is the UN, which does a fairly good job at equal representation, although it has very little power to actualy do anything. And it isnt true... America has been involved in the M. East in one way or the other since the end of WW2. Israel, Iran, rise of the Taliban... All those things happened way before 9/11. And they were all alot worse than 9/11.      ronhartsell wrote: We gave ourselves the right to set them...we faught for those rights when we faught ourselves out from under British rule...and no, we don't suffer from the Napolean or Roman or Hitler complexes where we must occupy and rule all the world, not even close...the birth of our Nation was based on our desire to have total and complete freedom in all aspects of life, and we paid the price with blood...not all countries were able to do that against England, but we did, and now that we have it we will never give it up, and we will battle those that try to take it from us OR  threaten to!!!...again, who gives a shit what NATO does, we honor the sanctions they impose, we pretty much give it what it asks for, but we're not the only ones...if there was no NATO (or some other type of global police) where would everyone get together to opine??...come to decisions on global issues??...NATO by far is not perfect, I think it hurts the US more than helps, but if not, then there's chaos...if anything, I don't think NATO does enough...keep in mind Strat, we attack those that attack us, no the other way around...      _strat_ wrote: And whos in charge of NATO? And even if NATO was the world police, would that be any better? Who gives the right to the US (or NATO) to be the world police? Now, innocent victims, there are plenty, and on both sides. What strikes me as incredibly hiporytic is that western victims are obviously worth more. September the 11th, how many people died? 3000? Compared to the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan thats not very much. Compared to the 60 years of oppresion and suffering of the Palestinians, its just a joke. Yet, no one ever thought of starting a "war on Israel" (save its Arab neighbours) over it. And of course... Yes the world knows your polcies and what happens if we violate them. Again, who gave you the right to set them?      ronhartsell wrote: We don't give a shit about being the world's police...that's what NATO's for...and don't forget about those 2 buildings that were decorated with airplane and body parts...that's why we're there...and if we let 1 get away with it, then any piece of shit with an agenda will try to do the same...any self respecting country with the ability to defend itself would/has done the same thing...I don't give a shit if it is North Korea, China, Russia, Central America...whomeverthefuck...I don't care, you hit me and I'm gonna hit you back 10 times harder, you threw the first punch!!!...Messing with the population???...groups like that don't exist without support, they must be hid (cowards) and fed, and it's not like their side is the only side with innocent victims, it's just that that's there forté, and it usually extends to hurting their own ppl as well as everyone else's...as for dropping bombs, we have laser guided missiles, we hit what we aim for with a great deal of accuracy...and of course we've done wrong, no country has a perfect record, but we defend ourselves and we do it with effect...we don't want to fight, so when we do, we try to make our actions decisive and with intent...the World knows our policies and they are extremely fair, so those that choose to violate them already know what's coming next      _strat_ wrote: And the "terrorists" have shown that you cant go around punching them in the mouth and get away with it. Even if you are an American. Now, am I supposed to believe that invading Afghanistan did not "mess" with the population? Come on. And even if allies do leave (which Im guessing will happen at one point or another), they will leave behind the puppet government, with its military, and the thing will go on. Besides, "give them, and we leave" is nothing but extortion. Worse, its bullying. Id like to see what would the allies do if N. Korea would be harbouring those terrorists. Or Russia, or China. Anyone with a decent military. In any case, since we are talking about muslim terrorists... What about western terrorists? You, know, the people in planes that drop bombs, and most of the time dont even care what they hit? And the people who order them to do that? Sorry, but no one can be the judge here. And that is exactly it. The attitude that somehow "we" cant do wrong. That "our" soldiers are always on the right side. And worst of all, that America has the right to call good from bad, and act as the worlds policeman.      ronhartsell wrote: Strat, Afghanistan's borders are a safe haven for known terrorists, which is why our troops are there...not messing with the civilian population, but looking for specific individuals...if they don't want us there, help us find them and we will leave...end of story!!!...if you choose to call that an invasion, fine, but it is what it is...you don't go and punch the USA in the mouth and expect to get away with it...no matter WHO or WHERE you are!!!      _strat_ wrote: Invasion is as correct as can be. For better or for worse, Afghanistan got invaded.  As for liberation... That makes me laugh everytime I hear it. An army comes in, kills a whole lot of people, installs a puppet government, and thats liberation? There are liberators in Afghanistan, to be sure. The Taliban, and no one else. And as bad and medieval as they may seem, I hope they will win in the end.      Head banger wrote: invasion isnt the right term.  going in to kick out terrorists and give the country back to the rest isnt conquoring it.  its realy  liberating it.      _strat_ wrote: I agree, actualy. I mean, it looks like your troops are doing something worthile, at least. IDK, I dont want to be the judge here, but it beats the hell of our troops, that are there just to patrol, and fulfill NATOs desires. Thats what I find the most offensive, really. Our army is based on generations of guerrila fighters, who resisted foreign occupation, and now they are helping in an invasion? Perverse.      Becks wrote: Strat, I too oppose the war in Afghanistan, what I found offensive was this girls view which was entirely wrong - she has no idea what our troops actually do there, and saying that my husband, in a round about way, is a murderer, was offensive to me. The fact of the matter is, New Zealand troops are not there in a combat role, they are there to help the local people. And by all accounts, the locals are grateful for this help. I will not go around denouncing the work that they are doing when it is so desperately needed and welcomed. You are entitled to your opinion, we just happen to have slightly differing views, LOL!      _strat_ wrote: First of all, let me say that I have absolutely no desire to offend Becks or her husband. I think of her as a friend, and I hope politics wont come between it. But I have to respond to this. I am not gratefull, not even a little bit. I oppose the war in Afghanistan, with this oh so precious freedom, that is brought up so often, and that is not the result of NATOs actions in Afghanistan.  Frankly, whats offensive is this "in your name" attitude, that the soldiers are there in our name, fighting for us... Even if we not only dont care for it, but we also dont want it. We have military there. Granted, not much, but theyre there... Doing pretty much what the New Zealanders seem to be doing. Patroling a relatively peacefull province, and not getting exposed. Fine. The problem is that they are there representing us. I cannot be gratefull for that. What I am is offended.      joedraper wrote: Becks, that girl is just ignorant! Nobody has the right to judge anyone and push their views onto anyone else. I know it's hard not to react but pay her no heed.  You and your husband sacrifice so much so that others may have peace of mind and a safe, free world to live in. I may not have any desire to have a military life but I'm thankful to God for those who do.  Those who put their lives on the line for strangers, the least those 'strangers' could be is grateful!      Becks wrote: A girl at hockey pissed me off tonight real bad, thinking she can comment on what our military does in Afghanistan when she has no fuckin clue I was talking to another girl on my hockey team (who is in the airforce) and mentioned that Craig had been in Afghanistan. This other girl heard and asked what he was doing there, I said 'Fixing the optical equipment and things like that' and she said 'Oh so they can go and kill people' me and the airforce girls were like um NO! And this stupid girl started going on about how murder is illegal here, but it's ok for soldiers to do it over there etc.  Me and airforce girl were like um no it's provincial reconstruction (although admittedly, they would kill someone if they were in immediate danger) and stupid girl was like 'well I have a differing view'. WTF kind of view is that?! When it is entirely WRONG and pretty offensive to those of us who have family who have served. Silly cow. In case any of you are wondering, New Zealands role over in Afghanistan is patrolling and helping the local people rebuild. Not so much out hunting for Taliban, although the patrolling that is done is to ensure security of the province - no front line conflict for our troops where they are. Although if the shit hit the fan where they are, they would become front line troops etc. Edited at: Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:37:05 AM