I want tw's thoughts on...
...the tension between Turkey and the US, considering the potential genocide resolution and Turkish anger over the Kurds.
Thank you.
Well they're potentially days away from an invasion of Iraq... turns out, they want to fight the kurdish terrorists over there so they don't have to fight them at home.
I just want to see how he balances this: one of our strongest allies in the Middle East (particularly militarily) against a horrible atrocity committed during WW1.
1915 - GET OVER IT!
The Turks are only whiskers away from being Arabs themselves, and it shows. It's obviously the heat that sends people fruitloop.
Sigh. We may be able to civilise them if we get them in the EU, trouble is - they have to become civilised before we let them in. Catch 22.
Wolf put it in a very good way on the Bosque the other day...a way in which I hadn't thought about it:
I can understand the ire, for Armenians denying the deaths at the hands of the Turks as being genocide is like denying the Holocaust for Jews.
Apparently, 1.5 million Armenians died...that's nothing to throw a stick at. And to me, calling it a genocide just ain't that big of a deal. Look at what the Germans did to the Jews. And we love them again.
[tw]Top management determines that ME must be in rubble by a tuesday in November. Not enough to have KGB angry must be against Turkish secret police as well. Mental midgets run up score instead of kneeling with 32 seconds left.[/tw]
You left out brown shirts TW.
I still don't know what "big dic" means.
it means tw is against k's.
I can understand the ire, for Armenians denying the deaths at the hands of the Turks as being genocide is like denying the Holocaust for Jews.
It's time for the Armenians, and the Jews, to get over it.
It's time for the Armenians, and the Jews, to get over it.
If we can tell the Armenians to "get over" the deaths of 1.5 million, and the Jews to "get over" around 6 million ... Bruce, can you tell me what it will take for the US to "be over" September 11?
This is a serious question:
when will it be "time" for the US to "get over" September 11?
I was thinking about this when I saw the recent thread of the 9-11 memorial motorbike ride.
Yes, it was shocking, a dreadful crime that killed around 3,000 people. I agree that some action was justified and necessary. Since then, we've (I say "we" despite being Australian) knocked over the Talleban, chased AQ into the caves, hanged Saddam ... are we done yet? Surely this cannot be used as a grounds for unilaterally attacking countries
indefinitely.
I repeat, this is a serious question. What is it going to take for the US to give that grim nod of satisfaction, dust off the hands, and decide it has been dealt with? I guess the capture or death of Osama would be on the list ... what else?
I want to know how far this ride is going to go.
PS: I'm trying to make this as non-inflammatory as possible. Let me emphasize: I believe strong action
was appropriate in response to September 11. I am asking for people to try to spell out
what goals we need to achieve so that we are satisfied.When will Australians be over the Bali bombings? Our people still flock there in droves every year to remember. Fair enough. What about when Amrosi is finally shot? Will that be enough for us do you think Zen?
Edit: Personally, I'm over it, but lots of Australians aren't. Maybe I'm over it because I didn't have anyone I loved killed there. Who knows. Maybe I just realize that you can't live in the past forever. At some point you have to start looking ahead instead.
Touche!
For me, I'm over it. The perpetrators have been caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced. I'm satisfied. I don't need to see the executions. Anyway, I'm opposed to the death penalty and would rather see life in prison. So I consider it settled. How about you?
Personally I object very strongly to Australians using the number 88 in reference to this. There were (at least) 202 people killed, of whom 88 were Australians. I've read and heard people complaining "they murdered 88 Australians". This seems to me to imply that the speaker doesn't give a damn about the 114 non-Australians.
Likewise I have read reports about an Indonesian anti-terrorist department called "Squadron 88", which was supposedly set up with Australian support, and acts without due process or proper oversight. I don't know if this is true or not and haven't been able to find out. Again, if there is such a thing, it should be called Squadron 202.
We should count people, not passports.
EDIT: Just saw your edit. Response noted.
There's a difference between remembering as we do with Gallipoli and the Somme, and being motivated to take action about it.
Yes, I consider it settled. I too am against the death penalty and would prefer to see him and his cohorts imprisoned for life however, we all know how 'secure' Indonesian prisons are, so that's the only issue I have.
I think it's terrible that people refer to the number 88. I agree that it's insensitive to the other people who were killed.
I think Bruce's remark was a misfired joke, myself. Bruce, hon, you know where the smilies page is...
Or Bruce will. But I think this one is more over the top than what Bruce normally does. Funny how much it sounds like something LJ would write -- if he thought that way.
If LJ's views on genocides were "get over it, you people." Some are willing to ascribe infinite prickishness to LordJim, but I'm not yet convinced.
I think Bruce's remark was a misfired joke, myself. Bruce, hon, you know where the smilies page is...
Wrong, they should get over it.... 9-11 too.
Adjust policy and actions to prevent recurrences, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth, is not productive.
The, Oh dear, pity poor me, generations later, is bullshit.... as terrible as it was, unless it happened to you, and maybe even if it did, move on.
... are we done yet? Surely this cannot be used as a grounds for unilaterally attacking countries indefinitely. ...
I think Dick CHeney has said that if there's a 1% chance of the US being attacked again, we should take action - including ignoring the constitutional rights of US citizens.
Wrong, they should get over it.... 9-11 too.
Adjust policy and actions to prevent recurrences, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth, is not productive.
The, Oh dear, pity poor me, generations later, is bullshit.... as terrible as it was, unless it happened to you, and maybe even if it did, move on.
Do we still observe Armistice Day?
We can't keep observing old attrocoities. We have to make room to observe the genocide of the Tutsis and Darforians/ites! :right:
I really like the fact that tw has not posted in this thread yet. It amuses me.
Wrong, they should get over it.... 9-11 too.
Adjust policy and actions to prevent recurrences, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth, is not productive.
The, Oh dear, pity poor me, generations later, is bullshit.... as terrible as it was, unless it happened to you, and maybe even if it did, move on.
Well, the Jewish folks seem to want us to remember. I think that's why there's all those holocaust memorials, etc. "Lest we forget" doesn't seem to have had much of an impact, though, what with Cambodia's Killing Fields, Sri Lanka, the "disappeared" of Argentina, the awful civil war in Rwanda - on and sadly on.
I think what we should remember and try to change if we can is man's inhumanity to man. Sadly, there will always be ethnic conflicts. Maybe someday, enough people will finally get the idea that its not nice to kill or torture one another based on ethnicity or race or creed. I know, I'm a hopeless dreamer. But someday maybe?
You say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one...
What about sierra leon and other diamond countries in Africa?
I watched a doco on this last night and although I knew what happened/s there is attrocious, it still makes me sick when I see things like that again.
I want to know why the US doesn't step into those situations. If they want to go and make Iraq free, why can't they go and make sierra leon free? What's the difference? The RUF are just as much terrorists as AQ or any of the rest.
Someone, please tell me what the fucking difference is before I blow a gasket.
I really like the fact that tw has not posted in this thread yet. It amuses me.
Maybe we need to throw in the following words:
Israel
Bush
Economist
dichead
Sharon
MBA
What about sierra leon and other diamond countries in Africa?
I watched a doco on this last night and although I knew what happened/s there is attrocious, it still makes me sick when I see things like that again.
I want to know why the US doesn't step into those situations. If they want to go and make Iraq free, why can't they go and make sierra leon free? What's the difference? The RUF are just as much terrorists as AQ or any of the rest.
Someone, please tell me what the fucking difference is before I blow a gasket.
Why the fuck doesn't Australia step in and do something about it?
We weren't the ones that ran off to liberate Iraq although we were pretty quick to jump on the bandwagon. I'm sure we'd do the same again...and will continue to do so in the future, and in this case, I would support the move because I would consider it to be more altruistic although I'm sure there'd be some profit in there.
Did you know that Angola (another conflict diamond nation) is one of the richest countries in the world as far as natural resources go? Why not save them? I'm sure there'd be benefits.
However, the question I asked was, what's the difference? Can you tell me that?
We don't need no stinkin' diamonds.
Hmmm...that's not what the consumer says...
They're not a big deal to us as a whole though, which is why it took us forever to deal with the former Yugoslavia...they had nothing we could really use/take.
We like that black gold.
Well, Angola has a lot of natural gas under all the diamonds and other gems on the surface. I'm sure once the black gold runs out, there'll be a push to go grab all the natural gas. It's good as fuel too.
I have a list of things for us all to "get over".
If you don't like the list...well......
:)
I really like the fact that tw has not posted in this thread yet. It amuses me.
I return to find a thread without any cohesive points? Where is there something logical or factual to reply to? If ever the expression "on topic" had no meaning ...
I just want to see how he balances this: one of our strongest allies in the Middle East (particularly militarily) against a horrible atrocity committed during WW1.
Well, Angola has a lot of natural gas under all the diamonds and other gems on the surface. I'm sure once the black gold runs out, there'll be a push to go grab all the natural gas. It's good as fuel too.
Natural gas is too bulky and hard to ship.
I just want to see how he balances this ...
Obviously that is not the topic. Apparently the real topic of that post is found in its replies and discussed at length. Anything I might add has already been posted.
So Bruce, what you're saying is that in your view, it really has nothing to do with liberating anyone and everything to do with getting their oil, and if they don't have oil, the US and associates don't care?
[Zoidberg]
I return to find a thread without any cohesive points? Where is there something logical or factual to reply to? If ever the expression "on topic" had no meaning ...
[/Zoidberg]
Natural gas is too bulky and hard to ship.
Australia exports natural gas to China by ship. Huge compressed-gas tankers full of it.
It's shippable.
It's shippable, anything is shippable.
A LNG tanker exploding in the port of Newark, NJ, would kill an estimated 8 million people. Oil is relatively safe.
A LNG tanker exploding in the port of Newark, NJ, would kill an estimated 8 million people.
LNG is routinely shipping into Boston. It is that dangerous which is why Boston does a security shutdown with each LNG ship.
NJ desperately wants to build an LNG terminal in Delaware Bay (south Jersey) to meet demands. Obviously LNG in Newark makes less sense. America, one of the world's largest producers of natural gas, must import so much LNG within the next decade as to be 5% of America's supply. America requires twice as much energy to do the same work compared to any other nation. NJ has so many more McMansions to heat and so many electric power plants dependent on natural gas.
That NJ LNG port is being killed by Delaware. Strangely Delaware owns the entire Delaware Bay up to sand on Jersey's beach. In a last ditch effort to build an LNG port in a mostly rural area, NJ has filed suit in the US Supreme Court. Will the court decide based upon what is necessary or simply enforce the law? Delaware is more concerned with the safety of Clayton DE than with natural gas supplies needed by NJ and the rest of NE United States.
The energy appetite is causing the tradeoff of risk. If there were cheap oil available, they wouldn't do that.
The energy appetite is causing the tradeoff of risk. If there were cheap oil available, they wouldn't do that.
Yes, cheap oil is
one possible solution. I hope there are others because "cheap oil" is rapidly approaching a status somewhere between "hen's teeth" and "rocking-horse shit".
And I love it when a thread drifts
back. So, with the Kurdish region being one of Iraq's most productive oil regions, and that oil being mostly sent through a pipeline
through Turkey ... cheap oil? GOOD LUCK!
IMHO ... Kurdistan is a natural nation, a geographically continuous area filled (mostly) with one group of people unified by language, culture and religion, who believe themselves to be such a group. But it has been carved up amongst Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. Tensions will continue to simmer here until these four nations cede their claims to the territory and stop keeping the Kurds when the Kurds don't want to be kept.
Ah, but what would that do to Iraq? Yeah, problem...
Yes, cheap oil is one possible solution. I hope there are others because "cheap oil" is rapidly approaching a status somewhere between "hen's teeth" and "rocking-horse shit".
That's what I was saying. LNG, is much more trouble, so it makes sense to go for the oil first. We can absorb Canada and Australia, even Angola, later.
Tensions will continue to simmer here until these four nations cede their claims to the territory and stop keeping the Kurds when the Kurds don't want to be kept.
Or the Kurds are eliminated.
That's what I was saying. LNG, is much more trouble, so it makes sense to go for the oil first. We can absorb Canada and Australia, even Angola, later.
Or the Kurds are eliminated.
Mmmmmmyeahhhhh, genocide, I suppose that would work too.
But now that we have hanged Saddam, who's gonna do the slaughtering?
Bruce please tell me that your tongue was firmly in your cheek for all of your post. Drop in a ;) or something, please.
Minds of men fashioned a crate of thunder,
Sent it high into the blue;
Hands of men blasted the world asunder;
How they lived God only knew!
Souls of men dreaming of skies to conquer
Gave us wings, ever to soar!
With scouts before And bombers galore. Hey!
Nothing can stop the Army Air Corps!
Bruce, you're scaring me.
Although one thing could stop the US air corps... if they run out of cheap oil ... and their planes can't fly! Ha! :p Who's laughing now?
But saturation bombing the area, last resort, you know, it'd mess up all the oil infrastructure.
How about a neutron bomb? :skull: kill all living things and do minimal damage to hardware...
Seriously, though, how about weaning ourselves off fossil fuels?
Yeah, the weaning will happen. But the strongest and richest, will be the last to wean, unfortunately.