Kofi Annan, Larry King

[JohnnyV]

There have been a few threads going around about war and international politics. I'd like to share some words of Kofi Annan, who was interviewed on Larry King last night and spoke very eloquently.

I don't remember the exact words, but Annan said something like the following:

When wars start, people worry a lot about the "original sin," or the first act responsible for causing hostility. They usually forget that later on, after wars escalate, most people don't remember the original sin. They only remember what they saw and experienced, so the country that does the most damage and shows the least mercy is the country usually seen as guilty. That is why escalation is so bad, and it is best to cease hostilities as soon as possible before they escalate.

Once it becomes a war, there is no winner. Even the victorious side loses. Because to lose a war is to lose everything, and to win, you have to do so many things, inflict such pain on innocent people, kill so many people with whom you have no actual argument, and destroy so much. Afterwards, even when you have won, you look back and think of everything you had to do, because it was a war, and every sane person wonders if it was ever worth it. It almost never is.....


Anyways, it was a beautiful interview. Another beautiful interview was with a retired American general who served in the Middle East for many years. I forgot his name, but he was talking to Wolf Blitzer and said something like the following:

What Israel is doing makes no sense. You cannot eliminate a terrorist group by force. They should have negotiated a prisoner swap, and written the incident off as one moment when the other side won something from them. In politics you usually have to choose between two bad options. War is always the worst.

J

[taz67156]

I honestly think some of the wars that the US has gotten into we shouldn't have been at in the first place or we should have gotten the job done the first time like in Iraq the first time we could have gotten Saddam but we didn't and the chance was there. the one we are in now is pointless cause people are getting killed that shouldn't be unless its a terrorist.

taz67156

[12voltman59]

It does get me in this whole "war on terror" thing---there seems to be this idea floating around that it is possible to somehow "stomp out terror by killing the terrorists."

It does at first glance to think this is so, but when you sit back and analyze it--this is an absolutely ludicrous idea.

All one does is simlply escalate the violence to where it is out of control... over in the mideast--all the Israelis have done is kill more Palestinian and Lebanonese civilians--deaths that the surviving members will mourn for years and deaths that must be met with retribution.

In terms of the current situation, while the Israelis and the Palestinians may want to "wipe" away the existence of the other--that is simply not possible.

The only way to resolve the situation is to recognize that fact and to find some way to peaceful coexistence---something all of this on this little rock zipping about in space had better learn as well--right now this is the only place that we have to call home--it would be much better for all if we could just learn to get along...

[chook]

Sorry to dissapoint you Volty but the average muslim extremeist doesnt think the way you do I personly believe that they are a cancer on society and should be wiped out in the same fashion and with the same mercy that they show us infidels. Maybe then they might realise that the world is absolutely sick of their bullshit.

Sorry but that is my opinion



Cheers Chook :bigrin:

[orsacchiotto]

.......the average muslim extremeist doesnt think the way you do .......

Sorry but that is my opinion



Cheers Chook :bigrin:


Is that "the average muslim who happens to be an extremist" or "the average extremeist who happens to be muslim"


Just a question

Cheers

Orsa

[biRooky]

First off Israel has done these so called prisoner swaps in the past once in the mid 90's wich freed a few of the 9-11 terrorists, and another in the 80's,, for a combined return of around 5-7 people and 3 bodies of civilians,, they had to give up a few thousand. When Israel in the past has had to go after the bad guys, they are then petitioned by the terrorists for a ceasfire,, and notice when the terrosists hit again it's bigger than last time? Rember this, even if the bad guys are beaten back to their holes when they loose, they eventually crawl back. If Israel looses,, then Israel is GONE. Because the bad gus want Israel destroyed and a smoking hole in the ground. Look up the
Islamic definations of Jews and infadels. Don't tell me when the radicals beleive those words you can rationalize with them. Also I doubt many folks have heard this,, but Hezbola is not allowing Innocent civilians out of the targeted areas Israel is hitting, nore are they allowing the Red Cross into those area to help with the evacuations. I'll bet dollars to pesoes they WANT those high civilan deaths to try to say Israel is doing random hits.
So Kofi Annan and the proven methods of the UN in their stellar methods of dealing with dictators and terrorists ( I guess the oil for food program and the prob in Darfur are just rare random acts) is the only way for peace, BULL. Peace is not the abcence of war, peace is what happens when the evil is kicked back into its place. Rember,, the father grounp to the UN gave Hitler all sorts of lands and bribes to play nice,, rember what happened when that was all said and done?

[teddyboy]

I agree with Chook and Birooky.

The Isrealis constantly face attacks on their citizenry by a bunch of baby and women killing Arab "Nazi's". They have the right to defend themselves they way we had the right to uproot the Taliban after 9-11.

By the way, political discussions on this site trouble me.

[12voltman59]

I agree in one way guys-but the fact --responding with violence is just what these people want--i don't know what the answer is but it is probably not with violence--

This whole thing with the radical muslims reminds me of the second Star Trek motion picture: "Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan"

I won't bore everyone with the details of the movie except to say that his character reminds me of the modus operanid of the radical, fundamentalist, Islalmists---it matters not who drew first blood--each and every slight to them is something that Khan and these folks must get revenge for.."I will avenge you," says Khan as his favorite dies in the final attack by the Enterprise against his stolen starship--of course Khan drew first blood by attacking and nearly destroying the Enterprise first.

Towards the end, as Khan is about to detonate a doomsday devise, his dialogue is taken from Shakespeare:
As Khan watches as the Enterprise tries to make good her escape he says: "From hell's heart I stab at thee...with my last breath I grapple with thee,,,"

Well guys--as I said--I do not have the answer to the conundrum these folks present---its a no win situation either way--while I know that we will meet their violence with violence or our own directed to them---this is not going to do anything to stop them--it just makes more martyrs for Allah and they can go rape their 72 virgins or what the fuck they say....

It is just my hope that we could find another way to deal with them---no--we will fight them and it will probably be just as Khan's ship was destined to oblivion--our society and theirs will fall into the void in a death grip---

[julie]

Is that "the average muslim who happens to be an extremist" or "the average extremeist who happens to be muslim"


Just a question

Cheers

Orsa

Gorgeous response Orsacchiotto... Welcome to the site :bigrin:

Julie :female:

[12voltman59]

It's interesting that this thread got picked back up----

I just heard an interview with some people identified as "military analyists" They are reporting that in the American Army--there is a very noticiable move by top level non-com and mid-level officers (second lieutenants, captains, majors, Lt. Colonels) who are now starting to leave the service at an increasing rate.

They mentioned an op-ed piece done by a recently retired top Army general whose service went back to the Vietnam era who wrote in the piece that he sees parallels with what is starting to take place now with the post-Vietnam era--chiefly that now--like then--the military is in danger of "breaking" --something that took many years to repair after Vietnam---and if the military "breaks" now-it will set back our military by decades.

But maybe that will be a good thing--we won't be able to do unwarranted "wars of choice" ---the only thing is---we won't be able to adequately protect ourselves against legitimate threats---

As far as what I said last summer in the post above--I stand by that--this war has been a foole's errand and this "war" in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster on all fronts in spite of the spin the Bush administration tries to put out.

And as far as the way to deal with Islamist terrorists are concerned--I stick by that too--the only way to totally wipe out the terrorist element in the Arab/Muslim world would be to nuke the entire region and destroy all life there, which of course would kill everyone and everything else on the planet. How reasonable is that?

We need to get energy independence here in the West so we can disentangle ourselves from the Mid-East---a place that does not like us much and for good reason--if we leave them alone in their part of the world--they won't have reasons to blow us up, at least anymore for we have more than enough to blow us up now for a few centuries or so--the Shiites and Sunnis are still at each other's throats over things that happened many hundreds of years ago...

And now we have probably made whole new masses of terrorists thanks to what we have done in Iraq---they might not take revenge on us now--its fine with them if their great-grandkids avenge them for they look at time far differently than we do in the West---

Like Kahn said in Star Trek III The Wrath of Khan: "There is an old Klingon saying that goes 'revenge is a dish best served cold!;"

It the whole mid-East blows up thanks to the neocon/Georgie boy folly in Iraq--my God--we will have the eternal enmity of everyone in that part of the world.

"From hell's heart I stab at thee--I grapple with thee till the end!"

[AstroGlide]

It has been always my feeling that the term, "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.

[biwords]

I'm with Chook, and anyone who wants to explore the subject further might want to begin with The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims by Dr. Andrew G. Bostom.

That said, there are certain subjects that are almost bound to provoke ill-feeling when discussed, such as abortion, feminism and the Arab-Israeli conflict...so having made my little book recommendation, I'll say no more...

[flexuality]

I agree with chook and biwords on this.

These extremists, terrorists, whatever you choose to call them, do NOT think like "we" do. They are not interesting in negotiating or talking.

To imply that Bush is trying to "dominate" the world is absurd. If the US wanted to dominate the world, they are perfectly capable of doing that, so my question would be....if that's the intention, then what are they waiting for?

If they are only in Iraq for oil, then again I ask...what are they waiting for?

Do you understand the teachings that these extremists are following? They are not interested in having the "infidel" back off and play nice, they are bound by their extremely literal interpretation of the Quran to destroy the "infidel."

And ANYONE who does not believe what they believe is the infidel. Period. No exceptions. I am talking about extremists here, not Muslims in general.

I hear and I read these "anti-Bush, anti-US" views and I keep asking myself the same questions.....do these people understand the teachings that these extremists are following? Have any of them read any of the Quran or even tried to learn about the terrorists view of things? Are they on the side of the terrorists??

These are not just "western" or "european" thinkers with a bug up their ass. They have no qualms about death, whether of others or their own. They do not want to "talk."

To pull out of Iraq and that area right now would be to invite the death of millions. These extremists are not going to just stop if the US backs off. They would like nothing better than to have the US pull out and get out of their way.

I agree that war is not the best solution to anything. I also believe that it is VITAL to know your players. It is naive, in my opinion, to assume that because WE don't want war that these extremists don't want war.

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln, when faced with many complaints about a certain general of his (I forget the name at the moment)in the Civil War. The complaints were mainly around what this particular general was doing and people did NOT like it or approve of it. Lincoln's reply to them was "At least he's DOING something."

[biwords]

Yes, & Ms. Ally Kat is the one to ask about this, but I think it was General Ulysses Grant, of whom Lincoln said, "But [at least] he FIGHTS!" or some such.

[flexuality]

Yes, & Ms. Ally Kat is the one to ask about this, but I think it was General Ulysses Grant, of whom Lincoln said, "But [at least] he FIGHTS!" or some such.

Sol knows the exact quote and who it was too....but he's at work and I can't ask him right now! :rolleyes:

[Long Duck Dong]

ulyssess s grant

“Every human being, of whatever origin, of whatever station, deserves respect. We must each respect others even as we respect ourselves.”

“The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on.”

“The friend in my adversity I shall always cherish most. I can better trust those who helped to relieve the gloom of my dark hours than those who are so ready to enjoy with me the sunshine of my prosperity.”

“There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword.”

“Let us have peace.”

Abraham Lincoln took notice of Grant in the west, a man who fought, and when those jealous of Grant's success and recognition tried to curb his advancement, claiming Grant had been drinking, and calling for his removal from command (vicious rumours mostly fueled by Grant's rivals), President Lincoln flatly stated, "I cannot spare this man! He fights!"

[Long Duck Dong]

wades in boots and all

I don't hold G bush responsible for the war.... simply cos he needed the support of the us goverment.... to blame G bush, is to say that he IS the us goverment

I don't hold the US responsible... to do so, is to say that ALL americans support the war...

I don't hold the muslims responsible... to do so is to say that all muslims want the war

what I will say, is that a group of people decided, for what ever reason, that the war was the path to take....then they used any war supporting reason to make it so..... it hasn't protected the us against terrorism.... its made them a bigger target... cos its pissed a number of people off, on both sides of the fence..... and at the end of the day, its the innocent that are the ones that will pay....

as a ex service man, I see war as stupid cos it accomplishes nothing...no country can gain thru loss....and no victory can replace those, lost and buried..

I know that people may argue the aspects of WW#2 and how peace was brought to the world... and I disagree.... we never got peace, we got a reprieve....and the fighting turned political.....

I remember something I saw on tv, about a computer game.... from the middle east, a war game with mid east armies fighting against the us invasion.....and how the us was fucked off over it.... and a person from the mid est said, * its ok for the us to have games featuring the us against germany, the mid east, russia etc, but the mid east is not allowed to feature the mid east against a us invasion "
the us representive said that * it will encourage a anti american stance "... to which the middle east representive said * and your games are doing what ???? *

[TaylorMade]

I agree with chook and biwords on this.

These extremists, terrorists, whatever you choose to call them, do NOT think like "we" do. They are not interesting in negotiating or talking.

To imply that Bush is trying to "dominate" the world is absurd. If the US wanted to dominate the world, they are perfectly capable of doing that, so my question would be....if that's the intention, then what are they waiting for?

If they are only in Iraq for oil, then again I ask...what are they waiting for?

Do you understand the teachings that these extremists are following? They are not interested in having the "infidel" back off and play nice, they are bound by their extremely literal interpretation of the Quran to destroy the "infidel."

And ANYONE who does not believe what they believe is the infidel. Period. No exceptions. I am talking about extremists here, not Muslims in general.

I hear and I read these "anti-Bush, anti-US" views and I keep asking myself the same questions.....do these people understand the teachings that these extremists are following? Have any of them read any of the Quran or even tried to learn about the terrorists view of things? Are they on the side of the terrorists??

These are not just "western" or "european" thinkers with a bug up their ass. They have no qualms about death, whether of others or their own. They do not want to "talk."

To pull out of Iraq and that area right now would be to invite the death of millions. These extremists are not going to just stop if the US backs off. They would like nothing better than to have the US pull out and get out of their way.

I agree that war is not the best solution to anything. I also believe that it is VITAL to know your players. It is naive, in my opinion, to assume that because WE don't want war that these extremists don't want war.

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln, when faced with many complaints about a certain general of his (I forget the name at the moment)in the Civil War. The complaints were mainly around what this particular general was doing and people did NOT like it or approve of it. Lincoln's reply to them was "At least he's DOING something."


:bowdown:

I am So. Freakin. Not. Worthy.


*Taylor*

[flexuality]

:bowdown:

I am So. Freakin. Not. Worthy.


*Taylor*

uummm.....I really have no idea as to what you're saying....?
What do you mean?

text....I could assume several different things here, but I think it would be better if I asked first.

[TaylorMade]

uummm.....I really have no idea as to what you're saying....?
What do you mean?

text....I could assume several different things here, but I think it would be better if I asked first.

It's a compliment to the erudition with which you made your statements.

*Taylor*

[flexuality]

It's a compliment to the erudition with which you made your statements.

*Taylor*
oh. **blush**um..thanx.

My erudition of compliments is sorely lacking. I thought at first you were being sarcastic.

Text.....gotta love it. ;)

[TaylorMade]

oh. **blush**um..thanx.

My erudition of compliments is sorely lacking. I thought at first you were being sarcastic.

Text.....gotta love it. ;)

It's okay. :)

*Taylor*

[flexuality]

LDD,

I agree that war is stupid.

It's horrible and ugly and in my opinion, it should be that way. It makes it something to avoid at all costs.

I'm not really making a statement on whether or not war is good, bad or whatever. I also agree that war does not bring peace, nor does lack of war bring peace.

I don't think that peace really is attainable anywhere...not completely. I mean, good grief, it's hard enough to get 6 people to agree on what to have for lunch!

But I do have to wonder if there is a war to stop someone like Hitler or some of these extremists, would that not result in FEWER deaths than to just let them continue? Particularly the people that want to rid the world of (in Hitler's case) non-arians....or (in the case of the extremists/terrorists following the literal interpretation of the Quran) infidels?

Most of the world's population is non-arian. And most of the world's population would fall under the extreme definition of infidels.

According to what both those examples believe, they're not going to stop until it's "mission accomplished."

As much as I hate war and killing and am opposed to shoving my beliefs down anyones' throat I guess I have to stop and realize that that is NOT the way people like that think.

I agree that perhaps the war has made the US a bigger target, but more in the perspective of making it a more publicized target. I believe that the extremists are using that to rally support for their "cause" and loving the media attention the US (and Britian now) are getting as being the "bad guys."

And it's having the effect of making an "enemy divided", probably the greatest tactic known to mankind.

No victory can replace those lost and buried in wartime. Nothing can replace those lost and buried when people do nothing to stop those who don't care one iota who they kill either.

I have no idea where the responsibility lies for any war. All I know is that if someone came into my home and tried to kill my child, I would fight.