Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
Funny how you created such a beautiful mix of names there. But you're wrong about at least one of them. Arya, I've read a lot of your comments about Iraq. You manage to duck out quite frequently when certain facts and questions are presented to you. Very few people can defend not going to war because they simply do not know enough about the region - they're "bandwagon fans". However, if it is in your view that war and violence are not acceptable, that that's a respectable position on its own.
How does everyone feel that groups like this get a ton of funding from outside sources? Outside sources could mean groups/charities/trusts/etc. with questionable ties from outside the US. Oh and I guarantee that a good chunk of their members are not US citizens as well - so at a public U.S. university, essentially whose views would be represented by such statements?
-Rudey
--Real
|
True i do not know the region well from a personal experience, which i doubt u do as well, but I do get information from sources which few people get. Not talking about CIA stuff, but other sources. Though the CIA info easier to get then u think. This is after all, the same agency that send arab speaking agents to Pakistan. Kinda like sending Japanese speaking agent to Korea. however, thinking bout it, i don't think any university, unless there is a majority vote from the students, staff, faculty and alumni, should consider themselve either pro or against the war. And since when does citizenship matter when they are espousing their view? or what funding? Should I silenced the local Young Republican or young democrat because i don't like both parties? Restricing the voice of anybody used to be accepted, back when the constitution only applied to White, Christian, Land Owning member of the staes. We have evolved, though our foreign policy have devolve. Many Organizations are funded by outside source., NYPIRG, AMnesty, Save the Baby.
Back to the topic, my main concern is the evolution of international law, which we have violated in many instances, such as the invasion of grenada. Talking to many diplomats, officially they'll say that they are with the US, privately they are more concerned that the US is doing the same thing they did to the League of NAtions, rendering it uselss (that debatable, as i see the security council as useless due to tis undemocratic system of veto, whicn ironically the US was against but the soviet was for in the formation of the UN) But as I and many have argued, international law only exist for those without a nuclear weapon.
And for the tyrans that i wrote, which on of them was a benelovent democratically elected leader? Suharto and his holocust of over 250,000 East Timorese (which we not only supported but funded and armed and trained. With the military back in power in that country, we want to start trainig them again. So much for beacom for democracy and freedom)? Noriega? (trained by School of America now changed to something else, but still functioning)? They are all tyrans, despotic, scumbags. But hey, they're our scumbag.