The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So...anyone following the news, especially Sky, CNN and Fox, will probably have noticed that there's major hints that a conflict with Iraq, led by a US/UK led force, is becoming a distinct possibility.
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
>The notion of "we leave him alone he leaves us alone" does not take into account his own motivations. in the west then this model does kinda work, but Iraq is not part of Europe or a friednly state we're having slight disagreements on.
You're saying he won't use them, yet why does he need them, if he's as trustworthy and saintlike as you are making him out to be then doesnt he realise hes making the whoe middle east unstable ?
Ok, first off I have never described Saddam Hussein as 'trustworthy and saintlike'. The words I used were 'despot' and 'tyrant'.
The point I made was this: Iraq has no need to use WMDs unless Saddam's power is threatened. He has used chemical weapons on two occasions: during the Iran-Iraq war (when he was our ally!) and against the Kurds, who do not support him. His use of scud missiles against Israel during the Gulf War was the act of a desperate leader trying to buy bargaining power. Saddam is a man who values his own position above the lives of others, and he will not make the kind of suicidal attack you suggest that he will. By backing him into a corner with military action (especially if it is on the Bin Laden dead-or-alive model) we increase the risk that he WILL have nothing to lose and may well use whatever WMDs he has. The idea that he will use his last breath to order a genocidal attack is laughable: the man is an egotist, will he really want to be remembered for ensuring Iraq's destruction?
Secondly, I am not skirting around the Kurdish issue. I have already stated my opposition to Saddam's domestic tyrannies. Equally, however, I oppose Turkish repression of its Kurdish population; Turkey's status as a valuable NATO ally, though, means this is rarely talked about in the western media. I am unsure about the situation of allied POWs in Iraq - this is not something I have heard anything about. If prisoners are being held by Saddam Hussein, however, then their value as bargaining tools will increase with military action - attacks may well endanger their lives.
>you...offer no plausible solution for any conflict other than "negotiate". Brilliant.
This is simply not true. My belief is that negotiation should be the first resort; your solution is always to threaten and then attack. My approach to eliminating terrorism and hatred of the west is to tackle the injustice at the root of these problems. The west takes out far more than it puts into the Third World (or as we are now supposed to call it, the 'developing' world): poverty and injustice are not being reduced but intensified by current international policies.
It leaves the problem of what to do with the current generation of hostile leaders, yes, but negotiation and good-will do more to ease these problems than bombs. Libya - despite your unbacked assertion that it is laughing its head off - has become a part of the international community, prepared to hand over a terrorist suspect to the jurisdiction of a Scottish court. Extremists can acquire and maintain support because their anti-western sentiment fits with the experience of everyday life: Iraqis for example suffer from sanctions that ban medicines etc, while the leadership continues to live in luxury and release propaganda blaming America over all else for their people's poverty. Convince people that the west takes their welfare as a priority and these despots will lose support and power.
>You're problem is that your assuming everyone who read Chumsky e.t.c. should draw the same conclusions as the author
Again, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. You dismissed the work of Simms on Bosnia simply because of his perceived political outlook. At no point did you criticise his argument or question his evidence. If you haven't read his book then fine, but to lump him together with Chomsky (whose politics are markedly different) is lazy and dishonest. It is also unfair to say that I expect everyone to take the same interpretation from the same book. We clearly took different views on Shawcross, and I never mentioned Chomsky except to defend him against blanket accusations of being anti-American.
>Lastly, any remote military enthusiast will tell you two things;
1) The first attacks will not be announced.
2) The first attacks will eliminate the WMDs simultaneously.
So now we know where these WMDs are? This is pure fantasy. The military is not infallible; the intelligence services are clearly not infallible. The only reliable source of information comes from UN weapons inspectors: even among this group there is disagreement! If we already know what these WMDs are and where they are stored - to the extent that we can eliminate them with the first strike - then the justification for war (banning UN weapons inspection teams) is completely bogus. In fact there is no need for war at all, is there? We can just bomb the WMDs. Except that wouldn't satisfy the military 'enthusiasts' who crave the sight of bombers and missiles pounding the enemy into the dust.
>The notion of "we leave him alone he leaves us alone" does not take into account his own motivations. in the west then this model does kinda work, but Iraq is not part of Europe or a friednly state we're having slight disagreements on.
You're saying he won't use them, yet why does he need them, if he's as trustworthy and saintlike as you are making him out to be then doesnt he realise hes making the whoe middle east unstable ?
Ok, first off I have never described Saddam Hussein as 'trustworthy and saintlike'. The words I used were 'despot' and 'tyrant'.
The point I made was this: Iraq has no need to use WMDs unless Saddam's power is threatened. He has used chemical weapons on two occasions: during the Iran-Iraq war (when he was our ally!) and against the Kurds, who do not support him. His use of scud missiles against Israel during the Gulf War was the act of a desperate leader trying to buy bargaining power. Saddam is a man who values his own position above the lives of others, and he will not make the kind of suicidal attack you suggest that he will. By backing him into a corner with military action (especially if it is on the Bin Laden dead-or-alive model) we increase the risk that he WILL have nothing to lose and may well use whatever WMDs he has. The idea that he will use his last breath to order a genocidal attack is laughable: the man is an egotist, will he really want to be remembered for ensuring Iraq's destruction?
Secondly, I am not skirting around the Kurdish issue. I have already stated my opposition to Saddam's domestic tyrannies. Equally, however, I oppose Turkish repression of its Kurdish population; Turkey's status as a valuable NATO ally, though, means this is rarely talked about in the western media. I am unsure about the situation of allied POWs in Iraq - this is not something I have heard anything about. If prisoners are being held by Saddam Hussein, however, then their value as bargaining tools will increase with military action - attacks may well endanger their lives.
>you...offer no plausible solution for any conflict other than "negotiate". Brilliant.
This is simply not true. My belief is that negotiation should be the first resort; your solution is always to threaten and then attack. My approach to eliminating terrorism and hatred of the west is to tackle the injustice at the root of these problems. The west takes out far more than it puts into the Third World (or as we are now supposed to call it, the 'developing' world): poverty and injustice are not being reduced but intensified by current international policies.
It leaves the problem of what to do with the current generation of hostile leaders, yes, but negotiation and good-will do more to ease these problems than bombs. Libya - despite your unbacked assertion that it is laughing its head off - has become a part of the international community, prepared to hand over a terrorist suspect to the jurisdiction of a Scottish court. Extremists can acquire and maintain support because their anti-western sentiment fits with the experience of everyday life: Iraqis for example suffer from sanctions that ban medicines etc, while the leadership continues to live in luxury and release propaganda blaming America over all else for their people's poverty. Convince people that the west takes their welfare as a priority and these despots will lose support and power.
>You're problem is that your assuming everyone who read Chumsky e.t.c. should draw the same conclusions as the author
Again, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. You dismissed the work of Simms on Bosnia simply because of his perceived political outlook. At no point did you criticise his argument or question his evidence. If you haven't read his book then fine, but to lump him together with Chomsky (whose politics are markedly different) is lazy and dishonest. It is also unfair to say that I expect everyone to take the same interpretation from the same book. We clearly took different views on Shawcross, and I never mentioned Chomsky except to defend him against blanket accusations of being anti-American.
>Lastly, any remote military enthusiast will tell you two things;
1) The first attacks will not be announced.
2) The first attacks will eliminate the WMDs simultaneously.
So now we know where these WMDs are? This is pure fantasy. The military is not infallible; the intelligence services are clearly not infallible. The only reliable source of information comes from UN weapons inspectors: even among this group there is disagreement! If we already know what these WMDs are and where they are stored - to the extent that we can eliminate them with the first strike - then the justification for war (banning UN weapons inspection teams) is completely bogus. In fact there is no need for war at all, is there? We can just bomb the WMDs. Except that wouldn't satisfy the military 'enthusiasts' who crave the sight of bombers and missiles pounding the enemy into the dust.
unknown kernel wrote:
>I believe that the best way to ensure they remain unused is to not invade his
> country, nor to bomb it into the ground. Nothing is more likely to provoke him
> than a direct military challenge to his power.
Circular thinking, and this is another form of reasoning that wouldn't pass at undergraduate level. The notion of "we leave him alone he leaves us alone" does not take into account his own motivations. in the west then this model does kinda work, but Iraq is not part of Europe or a friednly state we're having slight disagreements on.
You're saying he won't use them, yet why does he need them, if he's as trustworthy and saintlike as you are making him out to be then doesnt he realise hes making the whoe middle east unstable ?
Lastly, any remote military enthusiast will tell you two things;
1) The first attacks will not be announced.
2) The first attacks will eliminate the WMDs simultaneously.
If the military campaign achieves this then Saddam can then be removed with ease as his ownly ace will be gone, and the allies haveproved the Iraqi army is no match for them, and I doubt many Iraqi troops will be too keen to participate in the creation of a new "highway of death", as it was termed during the Gulf war.
>I believe that the best way to ensure they remain unused is to not invade his
> country, nor to bomb it into the ground. Nothing is more likely to provoke him
> than a direct military challenge to his power.
Circular thinking, and this is another form of reasoning that wouldn't pass at undergraduate level. The notion of "we leave him alone he leaves us alone" does not take into account his own motivations. in the west then this model does kinda work, but Iraq is not part of Europe or a friednly state we're having slight disagreements on.
You're saying he won't use them, yet why does he need them, if he's as trustworthy and saintlike as you are making him out to be then doesnt he realise hes making the whoe middle east unstable ?
Lastly, any remote military enthusiast will tell you two things;
1) The first attacks will not be announced.
2) The first attacks will eliminate the WMDs simultaneously.
If the military campaign achieves this then Saddam can then be removed with ease as his ownly ace will be gone, and the allies haveproved the Iraqi army is no match for them, and I doubt many Iraqi troops will be too keen to participate in the creation of a new "highway of death", as it was termed during the Gulf war.
Well I'm sure the very small amount of people here are sick of seeing us both rip up each otehrs arguments so;
1) you're very good at countering my arguments, but offer no plausible solution for any conflict other than "negotiate". Brilliant.
2) I never said I did not read Chumsky, but you can indeed get any work you want to be backed by an academic of some sort. The UFO boks, whilst questionable, were not by "madmen" - you're words not mine. They were questionable but had alrge holes in their informaton or massive assumptions. You're problem is that your assuming everyone who read Chumsky e.t.c. should draw the same conclusions as the author, and that is something that even a GCSE student could not get away with in an exam. I prefer to think for myself, rather than follow what I read to the letter.
3) Might is right ? That again is your conclusion of my arguments which to a degree is true. Military power is the only way to bring about peace, but not always the use of it - it does however need to exist to be of any use whatsoever, and there must be a proven history of it being used or it is again useless. War in Afghanistan was the first step to a true peace, everywhere, a far as possible. The West at last took a stand and said "We're not taking, we won't back down, and we will hunt the terrorists to the ends of the earth".
4) Saddam is almost certainly going to do something on his deathbed, if hes dying then what has he to lose ? He has a proven track record of abusing his own people - I notice you continually skirt around the issue of Allied POWs held by him and his use of nerve gas against the Kurds......
5) A surgical war doesnt appear to be in the Pentagons book this time, so don't worry about that. A nice safe " hit anything that moves with artillery and massed ground troops backed by air support" campaign looks the most obvious when you see the map on CNN of US deployments. Again, you are criticising my ideas on Iraq without offering any valid ones of your own, apart from dont bomb....
1) you're very good at countering my arguments, but offer no plausible solution for any conflict other than "negotiate". Brilliant.
2) I never said I did not read Chumsky, but you can indeed get any work you want to be backed by an academic of some sort. The UFO boks, whilst questionable, were not by "madmen" - you're words not mine. They were questionable but had alrge holes in their informaton or massive assumptions. You're problem is that your assuming everyone who read Chumsky e.t.c. should draw the same conclusions as the author, and that is something that even a GCSE student could not get away with in an exam. I prefer to think for myself, rather than follow what I read to the letter.
3) Might is right ? That again is your conclusion of my arguments which to a degree is true. Military power is the only way to bring about peace, but not always the use of it - it does however need to exist to be of any use whatsoever, and there must be a proven history of it being used or it is again useless. War in Afghanistan was the first step to a true peace, everywhere, a far as possible. The West at last took a stand and said "We're not taking, we won't back down, and we will hunt the terrorists to the ends of the earth".
4) Saddam is almost certainly going to do something on his deathbed, if hes dying then what has he to lose ? He has a proven track record of abusing his own people - I notice you continually skirt around the issue of Allied POWs held by him and his use of nerve gas against the Kurds......
5) A surgical war doesnt appear to be in the Pentagons book this time, so don't worry about that. A nice safe " hit anything that moves with artillery and massed ground troops backed by air support" campaign looks the most obvious when you see the map on CNN of US deployments. Again, you are criticising my ideas on Iraq without offering any valid ones of your own, apart from dont bomb....
Belldandy wrote:
>Wrong, the mujahadeen are a tribe/band of people linked by religion and common alliance- they have existed for ages. Bin Laden's Al Queda is a group formed through money and has no real history.
Mujahedeen are not a tribe. The definition is 'holy warriors'. You're just skirting round the issue here. The mujahedeen I am referring to are, as you well know, those who fought the Soviets as cold war proxies. These fighters were proponents of radical Islam, and came from a huge number of countries to join the war. This was by no means an organic Afghan movement. American funding was integral.
As for Bin Laden, his links with the first Afghan war are not 'sketchy' as you call them. He was a fundraiser and active fighter for the mujahedeen. The source of this information is CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/binladen.profile/) - not an organisation known for promoting left-wing conspiracies. The Khost tunnel complex was built in 1986; by which time, yes, Bin Laden was a successful businessman. But I fail to see your point here. Most foreign fighters came from affluent backgrounds: they had access to education in hardline Islamic thought; were angered by the foreign presence in their own countries; and had the means to travel long-distances to fight for their beliefs. This doesn't preclude CIA funding, which as far as I'm aware is not subject to means testing. That American funding was important to the Afghan resistance is undeniable; but so are the facts that Bin Laden was an important part of that resistance, and that the movement drew its fighters from across the Islamic world. It was not a movement of national or tribal liberation, but a religious movement given succour by a US blinded by cold war paranoia.
American and Afghan citizens have both suffered as a result.
>Yes, Iraq may hit us with a first strike, but we can reduce every square inch of Baghdad and any military target we choose via anything from cruise missiles to nukes. That is worth more than any treaty.
>Heavy handed ? maybe, but when you cosider Israel could potenitally wipe Palestine from the face of the earth its restrained.
These two quotes do a good job of showing up your position for what it is: the belief that might is right. You seem to think that: Whatever injustice may exist in the world, however much anger the actions of our governments create, and however long we selectively apply international law in accordance with our national intersest; as long as we are militarily superior then we are safe, and we will win. This is incredibly depressing. You need only the smallest amount of empathy to see why the US-UK alliance has become such a target for frustration. Is there even a possibility that the solution might be non-military, that perhaps we should be dealing with terrible poverty and inequality, instead of bombing the people (and despite your protestations huge numbers of innocent civilians are killed) and infrastructures of the world's poorest nations?
>You can write a book about anything and get someone to back it up, I sued to have about 40 odd books all swearing blind UFO's existed e.t.c. I've got one claiming the germans are flying saucers out of Greenland, another one that fairies exist, all works by professors - yet absolute rubbish.
Right. Who are these 'professors', what are these books? Are you seriously trying to compare the work of respected scholars, like Chomsky and Simms, to that of intellectually bankrupt conspiracy theorists? The fact is that, in academia, you CAN'T get anyone to back up anything. Your own line of logic (I refuse to engage or debate the work of Chomsky, because I once read a book on UFOs by a madman) wouldn't have got past the first reading, and would be a source of ridicule in a schoolboy essay, let alone at undergraduate level or above.
>Honestly, if you believe hes got no WMDS then this is completely a waste of time.
I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein is developing WMDs, but I believe that the best way to ensure they remain unused is to not invade his country, nor to bomb it into the ground. Nothing is more likely to provoke him than a direct military challenge to his power. As you say, he is ageing - he will go soon enough, and I doubt his deathbed will be used to issue orders for mass slaughter; but let's not bolster his support by killing civilians in a 'surgical' war.
>Wrong, the mujahadeen are a tribe/band of people linked by religion and common alliance- they have existed for ages. Bin Laden's Al Queda is a group formed through money and has no real history.
Mujahedeen are not a tribe. The definition is 'holy warriors'. You're just skirting round the issue here. The mujahedeen I am referring to are, as you well know, those who fought the Soviets as cold war proxies. These fighters were proponents of radical Islam, and came from a huge number of countries to join the war. This was by no means an organic Afghan movement. American funding was integral.
As for Bin Laden, his links with the first Afghan war are not 'sketchy' as you call them. He was a fundraiser and active fighter for the mujahedeen. The source of this information is CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/binladen.profile/) - not an organisation known for promoting left-wing conspiracies. The Khost tunnel complex was built in 1986; by which time, yes, Bin Laden was a successful businessman. But I fail to see your point here. Most foreign fighters came from affluent backgrounds: they had access to education in hardline Islamic thought; were angered by the foreign presence in their own countries; and had the means to travel long-distances to fight for their beliefs. This doesn't preclude CIA funding, which as far as I'm aware is not subject to means testing. That American funding was important to the Afghan resistance is undeniable; but so are the facts that Bin Laden was an important part of that resistance, and that the movement drew its fighters from across the Islamic world. It was not a movement of national or tribal liberation, but a religious movement given succour by a US blinded by cold war paranoia.
American and Afghan citizens have both suffered as a result.
>Yes, Iraq may hit us with a first strike, but we can reduce every square inch of Baghdad and any military target we choose via anything from cruise missiles to nukes. That is worth more than any treaty.
>Heavy handed ? maybe, but when you cosider Israel could potenitally wipe Palestine from the face of the earth its restrained.
These two quotes do a good job of showing up your position for what it is: the belief that might is right. You seem to think that: Whatever injustice may exist in the world, however much anger the actions of our governments create, and however long we selectively apply international law in accordance with our national intersest; as long as we are militarily superior then we are safe, and we will win. This is incredibly depressing. You need only the smallest amount of empathy to see why the US-UK alliance has become such a target for frustration. Is there even a possibility that the solution might be non-military, that perhaps we should be dealing with terrible poverty and inequality, instead of bombing the people (and despite your protestations huge numbers of innocent civilians are killed) and infrastructures of the world's poorest nations?
>You can write a book about anything and get someone to back it up, I sued to have about 40 odd books all swearing blind UFO's existed e.t.c. I've got one claiming the germans are flying saucers out of Greenland, another one that fairies exist, all works by professors - yet absolute rubbish.
Right. Who are these 'professors', what are these books? Are you seriously trying to compare the work of respected scholars, like Chomsky and Simms, to that of intellectually bankrupt conspiracy theorists? The fact is that, in academia, you CAN'T get anyone to back up anything. Your own line of logic (I refuse to engage or debate the work of Chomsky, because I once read a book on UFOs by a madman) wouldn't have got past the first reading, and would be a source of ridicule in a schoolboy essay, let alone at undergraduate level or above.
>Honestly, if you believe hes got no WMDS then this is completely a waste of time.
I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein is developing WMDs, but I believe that the best way to ensure they remain unused is to not invade his country, nor to bomb it into the ground. Nothing is more likely to provoke him than a direct military challenge to his power. As you say, he is ageing - he will go soon enough, and I doubt his deathbed will be used to issue orders for mass slaughter; but let's not bolster his support by killing civilians in a 'surgical' war.
unknown kernel wrote:
Differentiating between the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden's
> current group is dishonest: both are radical Islamic organisations, both are
> committed to terrorism.
Wrong, the mujahadeen are a tribe/band of people linked by religion and common alliance- they have existed for ages. Bin Laden's Al Queda is a group formed through money and has no real history.
>The difference is in their chosen targets: the
> Mujaheddin attacked Soviet republics (and, by the way, I oppose Russian as well
> as American imperialism) and was supported, funded and armed by the CIA;
> Al-Quaeda attacks western targets and is pursued by the CIA. Why the double
> standard?
Again the mujahadeen are not a terrorist group......mujahadeens are part of groups but they themselves are not as a whole.
>Either you oppose terrorism or you don't. As for Bin Laden: he was a
> MEMBER, and a prominent one, of the Mujaheddin organisation.
They are a tribe.....and the links are sketchy at best.
> The CIA has pretty
> direct links with the man himself - it funded the Khost tunnel complex (a huge
> munitions store) which was constructed by Bin Laden's engineering company.
Erm it has people claiming it has links but real hard evidence ? Khost has become a munitions store, and again this is contradictory, you're saying they funded a millionaire ??
> The
> years of 'justified' intervention in Afghanistan did nothing for the people of
> that country, and by concentrating and encouraging Islamic fundamentalism,
> contributed a great deal to the current threat to the west.
With no Western help the soviets would have stemarollered the Afghans, and continued to push into surrounding areas. They reach india and all of a sudden you have WW3. It was the lesser of two evils.
> No politicians, or
> their apologists, have been brave enough to admit this.
Their is nothing to apologise for, it was the cold war, and it was potentially the soviets or the west. Anything, which cold help us stop the soviets was in our interests, and the interests of freedom.
>Libya may well be developing WMD (again your
> sources are highly partisan; the CIA is, after all, a political organisation),
> but why is it that only the west can be trusted with such weapons?
Source is the Federation of American Scientists which includes those outside the US. Not the CIA, by the way you're quoting CIA stuff as well but not claiming thats biased... The west does not threaten its neighbours without real cause.
> Most western
> countries continue to develop nuclear capabilities (Bush only recently tore up
> the ICBM treaty,
ICBM treaty was another cold war scrap of paper. Treaties mean nothing if you do not have the tactical means to back them up. We need the capability to respond to the threat of otehr nations who are less responsible. I guess you'd have been against the atom bomb back in the 40's eh ?
What it comes down to is that WMDS, in the west, remain a final deterrant and a last option in a conflict. Yes, Iraq may hit us with a first strike, but we can reduce every square inch of Baghdad and any military target we choose via anything from cruise missiles to nukes. That is worth more than any treaty.
> and your own posts refer frequently to tactical, low-yield
> nukes) and are prepared only to enforce international treaties on chemical and
> biological weapons against weaker states.
Iraq invaded Kuwai overnight, and required the largest ground force since ww2 to dislodge it. That you're idea of weak. Your assuming that these deveoping nations are weak - they arent. Surprise is all they need.
>My own position is that of opposing all
> WMD proliferation - in Tripoli or in Washington.
I respect that, but in my opinion it doesnt work. Nukes stopped world war 3 back in the cold war.
>As for your dismissal of the
> Irish peace process: this is pure cynicism. Extremists will not be erased
> overnight and tensions between communities will subside only gradually.
British and Irish civlians and soldiers are being killed, thats fact, noy cynicism. A ceasefire means a ceasefire, not a "we'll shoot at you but you leave us alone" treaty. Overnight ? Get the locations of every weapons cahce and cell in Ireland, give them to UK special forces and I guarantee you overnight that they'll be gone by sun rise....
> But
> real political progress is being made, and arms decommisioning goes ahead.
Whilst inoocents die. Some peace eh?
> The
> point is that the next generation of potential terrorists will not have the same
> environment of absolute injustice in which to flourish.
er yeah right. Did you see Holy Cross earlier in the year and last year ? Yeah that atmospheres really changed, instead of shooting soldiers were threatening school kids, they are so not going to hate others......again a false peace while innocents suffer.
>Afghanistan is still
> massively unstable. You cannot hope to use it as a case study for a few years
> yet.
Its under control, in far faster time than the UN has ever managed with less forces. Unstable ? I think not, as recent events show, any attempt to dislodge NA/US forces is met by massive retalition air strikes. That countrys stable.
>All I can say is that regimes artificially transplanted into a
> society do not have a high success rate.
Regimes are a creation of soceity and as such are not natural, Afghanistan is simply at the beginning of a process that happened hundreds of years ago in many places.
>Right: a country can take action against those who commit illegal acts.
> What illegal act have the refugees killed in bombing raids committed? The
> children gunned down in the street? The people protesting with stones not guns
> at Israeli occupation? What rights do the Palestinians - denied a country by
> ILLEGAL occupation - have to self-defence? Israel has every right to protect
> itself against suicide bombers; but Sharon's every action has been heavy-handed,
> provocative (you seem to forget his role in instigating the intifada) and
> bloody.
The palestinian terrorists hide in their own civlians, they cause the deaths, when your in the street you cannot easily distinguish a stone from a grenade, and a stone can kill. If you dont want to get hurt get out of the street. Heavy handed ? maybe, but when you cosider Israel could potenitally wipe Palestine from the face of the earth its restrained.
>You seem to arguing without having read the documents I pointed you
> toward. And had you read the Shawcross book that you use to back up your own
> arguments, then you would have found the following quote: "It was the
> United States, above all nations, which had resisted attempts to mount an
> international intervention in Rwanda."
You are not going into the details of WHY the US resisted. Quotes alone can be used for anything. The documents show US unwillingness to commit to antoher potentially "hilarious" UN mission. I say the US had a problem with the UN, not the mission as a whole.
>These
> authors are not charlatans. Their work is subject to peer review like any other
> academic's. The scholarship of both is immaculate, referencing not hearsay or
> paranoia but government papers. If you are going to dismiss the evidence of
> these authors solely on the basis of their political views (which are very
> different) then there is little point having an objective argument.
You can write a book about anything and get someone to back it up, I sued to have about 40 odd books all swearing blind UFO's existed e.t.c. I've got one claiming the germans are flying saucers out of Greenland, another one that fairies exist, all works by professors - yet absolute rubbish. These peoples books are well written, but in a post modern cold hard politically correct uncaring style. They are distorting history and rewriting it in retrospect. Every soldier who has died in places like bosnia and somalia is dishonoured by them. They offer critisicsm, but no solutions that work. You yourself advocate peaceful conflict resolution. How do you get Iraq to that ? How would you have gotten the Taliban to that ? The argentinians to that ? The soviets to that in Afghanistan ?
>There is no agreement on
> how far along Iraq's WMD programme is. There is no proof that he would attempt
> to use them on his neighbours. Saddam is a despot, but also a realist: he knows
> as well as anyone else that unleashing chemical weapons on Israel would be
> suicidal. Dictators are prepared to murder only so long as it keeps them in
> power. And one final point: the only people to have used WMDS are democratic,
> western politicians. Perhaps it is the tyrants who should be considering a
> pre-emptive strike on us?
If you belive that Iraq has no WMDS then this is entirely pointless. Saddam has used WMDS on the Kurds, his own people. We have used them once in Japan, to end a war that was tearing the world apart. Saddam is ageing, and maybe dying, hes not going to slip into the twilight. Honestly, if you believe hes got no WMDS then this is completely a waste of time.
Differentiating between the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden's
> current group is dishonest: both are radical Islamic organisations, both are
> committed to terrorism.
Wrong, the mujahadeen are a tribe/band of people linked by religion and common alliance- they have existed for ages. Bin Laden's Al Queda is a group formed through money and has no real history.
>The difference is in their chosen targets: the
> Mujaheddin attacked Soviet republics (and, by the way, I oppose Russian as well
> as American imperialism) and was supported, funded and armed by the CIA;
> Al-Quaeda attacks western targets and is pursued by the CIA. Why the double
> standard?
Again the mujahadeen are not a terrorist group......mujahadeens are part of groups but they themselves are not as a whole.
>Either you oppose terrorism or you don't. As for Bin Laden: he was a
> MEMBER, and a prominent one, of the Mujaheddin organisation.
They are a tribe.....and the links are sketchy at best.
> The CIA has pretty
> direct links with the man himself - it funded the Khost tunnel complex (a huge
> munitions store) which was constructed by Bin Laden's engineering company.
Erm it has people claiming it has links but real hard evidence ? Khost has become a munitions store, and again this is contradictory, you're saying they funded a millionaire ??
> The
> years of 'justified' intervention in Afghanistan did nothing for the people of
> that country, and by concentrating and encouraging Islamic fundamentalism,
> contributed a great deal to the current threat to the west.
With no Western help the soviets would have stemarollered the Afghans, and continued to push into surrounding areas. They reach india and all of a sudden you have WW3. It was the lesser of two evils.
> No politicians, or
> their apologists, have been brave enough to admit this.
Their is nothing to apologise for, it was the cold war, and it was potentially the soviets or the west. Anything, which cold help us stop the soviets was in our interests, and the interests of freedom.
>Libya may well be developing WMD (again your
> sources are highly partisan; the CIA is, after all, a political organisation),
> but why is it that only the west can be trusted with such weapons?
Source is the Federation of American Scientists which includes those outside the US. Not the CIA, by the way you're quoting CIA stuff as well but not claiming thats biased... The west does not threaten its neighbours without real cause.
> Most western
> countries continue to develop nuclear capabilities (Bush only recently tore up
> the ICBM treaty,
ICBM treaty was another cold war scrap of paper. Treaties mean nothing if you do not have the tactical means to back them up. We need the capability to respond to the threat of otehr nations who are less responsible. I guess you'd have been against the atom bomb back in the 40's eh ?
What it comes down to is that WMDS, in the west, remain a final deterrant and a last option in a conflict. Yes, Iraq may hit us with a first strike, but we can reduce every square inch of Baghdad and any military target we choose via anything from cruise missiles to nukes. That is worth more than any treaty.
> and your own posts refer frequently to tactical, low-yield
> nukes) and are prepared only to enforce international treaties on chemical and
> biological weapons against weaker states.
Iraq invaded Kuwai overnight, and required the largest ground force since ww2 to dislodge it. That you're idea of weak. Your assuming that these deveoping nations are weak - they arent. Surprise is all they need.
>My own position is that of opposing all
> WMD proliferation - in Tripoli or in Washington.
I respect that, but in my opinion it doesnt work. Nukes stopped world war 3 back in the cold war.
>As for your dismissal of the
> Irish peace process: this is pure cynicism. Extremists will not be erased
> overnight and tensions between communities will subside only gradually.
British and Irish civlians and soldiers are being killed, thats fact, noy cynicism. A ceasefire means a ceasefire, not a "we'll shoot at you but you leave us alone" treaty. Overnight ? Get the locations of every weapons cahce and cell in Ireland, give them to UK special forces and I guarantee you overnight that they'll be gone by sun rise....
> But
> real political progress is being made, and arms decommisioning goes ahead.
Whilst inoocents die. Some peace eh?
> The
> point is that the next generation of potential terrorists will not have the same
> environment of absolute injustice in which to flourish.
er yeah right. Did you see Holy Cross earlier in the year and last year ? Yeah that atmospheres really changed, instead of shooting soldiers were threatening school kids, they are so not going to hate others......again a false peace while innocents suffer.
>Afghanistan is still
> massively unstable. You cannot hope to use it as a case study for a few years
> yet.
Its under control, in far faster time than the UN has ever managed with less forces. Unstable ? I think not, as recent events show, any attempt to dislodge NA/US forces is met by massive retalition air strikes. That countrys stable.
>All I can say is that regimes artificially transplanted into a
> society do not have a high success rate.
Regimes are a creation of soceity and as such are not natural, Afghanistan is simply at the beginning of a process that happened hundreds of years ago in many places.
>Right: a country can take action against those who commit illegal acts.
> What illegal act have the refugees killed in bombing raids committed? The
> children gunned down in the street? The people protesting with stones not guns
> at Israeli occupation? What rights do the Palestinians - denied a country by
> ILLEGAL occupation - have to self-defence? Israel has every right to protect
> itself against suicide bombers; but Sharon's every action has been heavy-handed,
> provocative (you seem to forget his role in instigating the intifada) and
> bloody.
The palestinian terrorists hide in their own civlians, they cause the deaths, when your in the street you cannot easily distinguish a stone from a grenade, and a stone can kill. If you dont want to get hurt get out of the street. Heavy handed ? maybe, but when you cosider Israel could potenitally wipe Palestine from the face of the earth its restrained.
>You seem to arguing without having read the documents I pointed you
> toward. And had you read the Shawcross book that you use to back up your own
> arguments, then you would have found the following quote: "It was the
> United States, above all nations, which had resisted attempts to mount an
> international intervention in Rwanda."
You are not going into the details of WHY the US resisted. Quotes alone can be used for anything. The documents show US unwillingness to commit to antoher potentially "hilarious" UN mission. I say the US had a problem with the UN, not the mission as a whole.
>These
> authors are not charlatans. Their work is subject to peer review like any other
> academic's. The scholarship of both is immaculate, referencing not hearsay or
> paranoia but government papers. If you are going to dismiss the evidence of
> these authors solely on the basis of their political views (which are very
> different) then there is little point having an objective argument.
You can write a book about anything and get someone to back it up, I sued to have about 40 odd books all swearing blind UFO's existed e.t.c. I've got one claiming the germans are flying saucers out of Greenland, another one that fairies exist, all works by professors - yet absolute rubbish. These peoples books are well written, but in a post modern cold hard politically correct uncaring style. They are distorting history and rewriting it in retrospect. Every soldier who has died in places like bosnia and somalia is dishonoured by them. They offer critisicsm, but no solutions that work. You yourself advocate peaceful conflict resolution. How do you get Iraq to that ? How would you have gotten the Taliban to that ? The argentinians to that ? The soviets to that in Afghanistan ?
>There is no agreement on
> how far along Iraq's WMD programme is. There is no proof that he would attempt
> to use them on his neighbours. Saddam is a despot, but also a realist: he knows
> as well as anyone else that unleashing chemical weapons on Israel would be
> suicidal. Dictators are prepared to murder only so long as it keeps them in
> power. And one final point: the only people to have used WMDS are democratic,
> western politicians. Perhaps it is the tyrants who should be considering a
> pre-emptive strike on us?
If you belive that Iraq has no WMDS then this is entirely pointless. Saddam has used WMDS on the Kurds, his own people. We have used them once in Japan, to end a war that was tearing the world apart. Saddam is ageing, and maybe dying, hes not going to slip into the twilight. Honestly, if you believe hes got no WMDS then this is completely a waste of time.
Belldandy wrote:
>At the time of Russia's little foray into Afghanistan (to put it lightly) the Cold War wasn't over, Afghanistan offered the West a unique oppurtunity to get its hands on vital Russian weapons and armour - involvement in Afghanistan in that period was justified, though at no point was Bin Laden sent arms.
Differentiating between the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden's current group is dishonest: both are radical Islamic organisations, both are committed to terrorism. The difference is in their chosen targets: the Mujaheddin attacked Soviet republics (and, by the way, I oppose Russian as well as American imperialism) and was supported, funded and armed by the CIA; Al-Quaeda attacks western targets and is pursued by the CIA. Why the double standard? Either you oppose terrorism or you don't. As for Bin Laden: he was a MEMBER, and a prominent one, of the Mujaheddin organisation. The CIA has pretty direct links with the man himself - it funded the Khost tunnel complex (a huge munitions store) which was constructed by Bin Laden's engineering company. The years of 'justified' intervention in Afghanistan did nothing for the people of that country, and by concentrating and encouraging Islamic fundamentalism, contributed a great deal to the current threat to the west. No politicians, or their apologists, have been brave enough to admit this.
>Libya is laughing its head off. In Ireland people are still dying, last years attacks on MI5 and the BBC plus the two bridges, and continued violence in Ireland and the UK prove that the ceasefire is laughable, a sham, an illusion of peace at the best. Negotiation is buying time for the terrorists to disperse and rearm, and they will come back to hit us.
Libya may well be developing WMD (again your sources are highly partisan; the CIA is, after all, a political organisation), but why is it that only the west can be trusted with such weapons? Most western countries continue to develop nuclear capabilities (Bush only recently tore up the ICBM treaty, and your own posts refer frequently to tactical, low-yield nukes) and are prepared only to enforce international treaties on chemical and biological weapons against weaker states. (For instance see the hardly radical Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the problems of US Presidential veto: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/ cmselect/cmfaff/407/40702.htm NOSPACE) My own position is that of opposing all WMD proliferation - in Tripoli or in Washington.
As for your dismissal of the Irish peace process: this is pure cynicism. Extremists will not be erased overnight and tensions between communities will subside only gradually. But real political progress is being made, and arms decommisioning goes ahead. The point is that the next generation of potential terrorists will not have the same environment of absolute injustice in which to flourish. The process pioneered by the Major (a right-wing politician who I am perfectly willing to applaud on this) government has been the most successful since the start of the Troubles.
>The route away from violence is only possible by wiping out terrorism, and it does stop a cycle of killing - Afghanistan being a case study...Violence is ending because violence was used.
Afghanistan is still massively unstable. You cannot hope to use it as a case study for a few years yet. I hope that the country will move away from warlordism, but it is too early to tell. All I can say is that regimes artificially transplanted into a society do not have a high success rate. Yes, the Al-Quaeda fighters are dead, but the vast majority were not Afghans: what has the bombing campaign done to erase the political and social conditions in which terrorists are forged?
>Contradictory. You're saying at first Israel is wrong to use force, but then your saying it uses force against terrorism, an illegal act. A country, by right, is allowed to take actions against those who commit illegal acts.
Right: a country can take action against those who commit illegal acts. What illegal act have the refugees killed in bombing raids committed? The children gunned down in the street? The people protesting with stones not guns at Israeli occupation? What rights do the Palestinians - denied a country by ILLEGAL occupation - have to self-defence? Israel has every right to protect itself against suicide bombers; but Sharon's every action has been heavy-handed, provocative (you seem to forget his role in instigating the intifada) and bloody.
>The US is not the only member of the Security council, nor is it the sole contributor to the UN. In 1993, Somalia, the UN criticised the US for its operations and tactics. The UN did not want to get its hands dirty - read "warlords and peacekeepers" by Willaim Shawcross, it catalogues failure after failure of the UN. If the UN had a more deicsive stance for Rwanda, instead of a "hmm lets watch the bodies pile up and not get hurt" policy then maybe the US and UK would feel willing to get involved.
You seem to arguing without having read the documents I pointed you toward. And had you read the Shawcross book that you use to back up your own arguments, then you would have found the following quote: "It was the United States, above all nations, which had resisted attempts to mount an international intervention in Rwanda."
>Simms book is one of many, including Noahm Chunmsky, authors who have a found a niche writing their own version of history in favour of anti US sentiment- its considered trendy in the academic world, so sells, gets headlines, and makes everyone happy.
These authors are not charlatans. Their work is subject to peer review like any other academic's. The scholarship of both is immaculate, referencing not hearsay or paranoia but government papers. If you are going to dismiss the evidence of these authors solely on the basis of their political views (which are very different) then there is little point having an objective argument.
>I Keep repeating this....IRAQ IS DEVELOPING WMDS, IT WILL USE THEM AGAINST ITS ENEMIES, IF IT ATTACKS ISRAEL ITS WORLD WAR 3 TIME.
There is no agreement on how far along Iraq's WMD programme is. There is no proof that he would attempt to use them on his neighbours. Saddam is a despot, but also a realist: he knows as well as anyone else that unleashing chemical weapons on Israel would be suicidal. Dictators are prepared to murder only so long as it keeps them in power. And one final point: the only people to have used WMDS are democratic, western politicians. Perhaps it is the tyrants who should be considering a pre-emptive strike on us?
>At the time of Russia's little foray into Afghanistan (to put it lightly) the Cold War wasn't over, Afghanistan offered the West a unique oppurtunity to get its hands on vital Russian weapons and armour - involvement in Afghanistan in that period was justified, though at no point was Bin Laden sent arms.
Differentiating between the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden's current group is dishonest: both are radical Islamic organisations, both are committed to terrorism. The difference is in their chosen targets: the Mujaheddin attacked Soviet republics (and, by the way, I oppose Russian as well as American imperialism) and was supported, funded and armed by the CIA; Al-Quaeda attacks western targets and is pursued by the CIA. Why the double standard? Either you oppose terrorism or you don't. As for Bin Laden: he was a MEMBER, and a prominent one, of the Mujaheddin organisation. The CIA has pretty direct links with the man himself - it funded the Khost tunnel complex (a huge munitions store) which was constructed by Bin Laden's engineering company. The years of 'justified' intervention in Afghanistan did nothing for the people of that country, and by concentrating and encouraging Islamic fundamentalism, contributed a great deal to the current threat to the west. No politicians, or their apologists, have been brave enough to admit this.
>Libya is laughing its head off. In Ireland people are still dying, last years attacks on MI5 and the BBC plus the two bridges, and continued violence in Ireland and the UK prove that the ceasefire is laughable, a sham, an illusion of peace at the best. Negotiation is buying time for the terrorists to disperse and rearm, and they will come back to hit us.
Libya may well be developing WMD (again your sources are highly partisan; the CIA is, after all, a political organisation), but why is it that only the west can be trusted with such weapons? Most western countries continue to develop nuclear capabilities (Bush only recently tore up the ICBM treaty, and your own posts refer frequently to tactical, low-yield nukes) and are prepared only to enforce international treaties on chemical and biological weapons against weaker states. (For instance see the hardly radical Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the problems of US Presidential veto: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/ cmselect/cmfaff/407/40702.htm NOSPACE) My own position is that of opposing all WMD proliferation - in Tripoli or in Washington.
As for your dismissal of the Irish peace process: this is pure cynicism. Extremists will not be erased overnight and tensions between communities will subside only gradually. But real political progress is being made, and arms decommisioning goes ahead. The point is that the next generation of potential terrorists will not have the same environment of absolute injustice in which to flourish. The process pioneered by the Major (a right-wing politician who I am perfectly willing to applaud on this) government has been the most successful since the start of the Troubles.
>The route away from violence is only possible by wiping out terrorism, and it does stop a cycle of killing - Afghanistan being a case study...Violence is ending because violence was used.
Afghanistan is still massively unstable. You cannot hope to use it as a case study for a few years yet. I hope that the country will move away from warlordism, but it is too early to tell. All I can say is that regimes artificially transplanted into a society do not have a high success rate. Yes, the Al-Quaeda fighters are dead, but the vast majority were not Afghans: what has the bombing campaign done to erase the political and social conditions in which terrorists are forged?
>Contradictory. You're saying at first Israel is wrong to use force, but then your saying it uses force against terrorism, an illegal act. A country, by right, is allowed to take actions against those who commit illegal acts.
Right: a country can take action against those who commit illegal acts. What illegal act have the refugees killed in bombing raids committed? The children gunned down in the street? The people protesting with stones not guns at Israeli occupation? What rights do the Palestinians - denied a country by ILLEGAL occupation - have to self-defence? Israel has every right to protect itself against suicide bombers; but Sharon's every action has been heavy-handed, provocative (you seem to forget his role in instigating the intifada) and bloody.
>The US is not the only member of the Security council, nor is it the sole contributor to the UN. In 1993, Somalia, the UN criticised the US for its operations and tactics. The UN did not want to get its hands dirty - read "warlords and peacekeepers" by Willaim Shawcross, it catalogues failure after failure of the UN. If the UN had a more deicsive stance for Rwanda, instead of a "hmm lets watch the bodies pile up and not get hurt" policy then maybe the US and UK would feel willing to get involved.
You seem to arguing without having read the documents I pointed you toward. And had you read the Shawcross book that you use to back up your own arguments, then you would have found the following quote: "It was the United States, above all nations, which had resisted attempts to mount an international intervention in Rwanda."
>Simms book is one of many, including Noahm Chunmsky, authors who have a found a niche writing their own version of history in favour of anti US sentiment- its considered trendy in the academic world, so sells, gets headlines, and makes everyone happy.
These authors are not charlatans. Their work is subject to peer review like any other academic's. The scholarship of both is immaculate, referencing not hearsay or paranoia but government papers. If you are going to dismiss the evidence of these authors solely on the basis of their political views (which are very different) then there is little point having an objective argument.
>I Keep repeating this....IRAQ IS DEVELOPING WMDS, IT WILL USE THEM AGAINST ITS ENEMIES, IF IT ATTACKS ISRAEL ITS WORLD WAR 3 TIME.
There is no agreement on how far along Iraq's WMD programme is. There is no proof that he would attempt to use them on his neighbours. Saddam is a despot, but also a realist: he knows as well as anyone else that unleashing chemical weapons on Israel would be suicidal. Dictators are prepared to murder only so long as it keeps them in power. And one final point: the only people to have used WMDS are democratic, western politicians. Perhaps it is the tyrants who should be considering a pre-emptive strike on us?
unknown kernel wrote:
America may not negotiate with terrorists but, where convenient,
> it is perfectly happy to collaborate with them. Who, after all, armed Bin Laden
> in the first place?
CIA armed the mujahadeen, not Bin Laden's Al Queda. A majority of weapons in Afghanistan are locally made copies of Russian weapons, made in India and Pakistan. Obviously some American weapons will have fallen into the wrong hands, but they wre supplied to the Mujahadeen. At the time of Russia's little foray into Afghanistan (to put it lightly) the Cold War wasn't over, Afghanistan offered the West a unique oppurtunity to get its hands on vital Russian weapons and armour - involvement in Afghanistan in that period was justified, though at no point was Bin Laden sent arms.
> And how do we explain the warm official welcomes that have
> been extended to IRA figureheads over the years, and the legality there of
> fundraising for a paramilitary organisation?
Maybe if our intel agencies got off their collective behinds and gathered some proof of these peoples activities the Americans would have done something, we knew people were guilty as sin, but couldn't prove it, neitehr could we definitively prove funds were going to Paramilitaries, sure we knew they were, but proof...er no.
> All in the past you might say -
> except that the same tradition is extended to training and funding of Columbian
> death squads NOW. The point is that curtailing terrorism in general needs
> negotiation. Progress is being made in Ireland; and Libya - once a state that
> did support terrorism - has been brought into the international fold through
> negotiation not bombing.
Which is why they are developing WMDS;
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/bian/ bian_jan_2002.htm#6 (REMOVE SPACE)
Libya is laughing its head off. In Ireland people are still dying, last years attacks on MI5 and the BBC plus the two bridges, and continued violence in Ireland and the UK prove that the ceasefire is laughable, a sham, an illusion of peace at the best. Negotiation is buying time for the terrorists to disperse and rearm, and they will come back to hit us.
>The fact is that terrorism cannot be explained away by
> 'evil': it has social causes and is fed by wider >political injustice.
Terrorists, by definition, are trying to obtain political goal through illegal violence. They gave away their right to negotiate once they comitted their first act. The west should not let itself be bombed to negotiations.
> Extermination of every last terrorist will never work without addressing these
> issues - it didn't work in Ireland, it is demonstrably not working in Israel.
> Taking a civilian life should never be acceptable, but we cannot ignore the fact
> that popular support for terrorist groups draws on genuine grievances and a
> feeling of disenfranchisement. Instead of joining an endless cycle of killing,
> we should be looking for a route away from it.
By taking military action a country demonstrates that it does not give in to terror, it does not let its citizens be murdered in order to bring about negotiations. A civlian is not a civilian when they are holding an AK47, a misconception from the real life events in Mogadishu 1993. you have a weapon, of any sort, and you are a target, end of story. If an enemy chooses to suround him/her self with civlians then he holds no reagard for them, and would sacrifice them with no regard. there is no popular support for terrorism, most countries it originates from are dictatorships who have rejected democracy, and all have oppostion groups which are the West's key to toppling them. Saddam Hussein isnt popular in private, but he holds all the guns, figuratively..... The route away from violence is only possible by wiping out terrorism, and it does stop a cycle of killing - Afghanistan being a case study. There are thousands of Taliban/Al Queda who, unless tehy return as ghosts, are most definitely not going to be killing anyone. The Northern Alliance controls all setllements with US/Allied backup in key areas. Violence is ending because violence was used.
>At no point did I say
> that Palestinians were blameless. I said that Israel is >in violation of UN
> security resolutions because of its occupation of Palestinian land.
The UN cannot protect Israel - they have no option, as I said, the UN is weak. You only made reference to the Israelis, I'd say the Palestinian sucicde bombers probably breached a few hundred UN resolutions too, ya think ?
>why
> single out Iraq for violating international law but tolerate the practice in
> friendly nations?
I Keep repeating this....IRAQ IS DEVELOPING WMDS, IT WILL USE THEM AGAINST ITS ENEMIES, IF IT ATTACKS ISRAEL ITS WORLD WAR 3 TIME.
>And it is not because the US back Israel that I consider them
> in the wrong: it is because of their occupation of the West Bank, and their own
> use of overwhelming military force to fight terrorism.
Contradictory. You're saying at first Israel is wrong to use force, but then your saying it uses force against terrorism, an illegal act. A country, by right, is allowed to take actions against those who commit illegal acts.
> It is only because
> Israel is a nation-state that its actions are tolerated: the invasion of refugee
> camps, the rounding up and numbering of Palstinian men, routine extra-judical
> killings, the terrible toll on civilian life. This is terrorism on a far
> grander and more sinister (because it is so widely endorsed) scale than anything
> Palestinian groups can muster.
Maybe if the Palestinians stopped sending suicide bombers into Israel and killing Israles soldiers in cold blood then the Israelis might feel more inclined to stop these acts, which are retaliatory. Who declared intafada (spelling is wrong I know) 18 odd months ago, the Palestinians. I'd say thats provocation.
>The UN, while hardly
> blameless in its handling of the Rwandan situation, at least called for action.
> It was the Belgium government and the Clinton administration that lobbied for
> inaction. This is not just left-wing paranoia but fact based on US documents:
> you should read the papers at
> http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html for proof of this.
The US is not the only member of the Security council, nor is it the sole contributor to the UN. In 1993, Somalia, the UN criticised the US for its operations and tactics. The UN did not want to get its hands dirty - read "warlords and peacekeepers" by Willaim Shawcross, it catalogues failure after failure of the UN. If the UN had a more deicsive stance for Rwanda, instead of a "hmm lets watch the bodies pile up and not get hurt" policy then maybe the US and UK would feel willing to get involved.
> On
> Bosnia, it was again the supposedly humanitarian governments of the west that
> ignored warnings of genocide, this time the British government was culpable.
> Brendan Simms' book 'Unfinest Hour' details this pretty comprehensively.
Well;
1) Simms book is one of many, including Noahm Chunmsky, authors who have a found a niche writing their own version of history in favour of anti US sentiment- its considered trendy in the academic world, so sells, gets headlines, and makes everyone happy.
2) Yes, we as a country did not get involved. We got involved in 1999 to worldwide condemnation. We got involved in afgahanistan to yet more condemnation. We joined hte Americans in calling for an invasion of Iraq in 1991 to yet more condemnation. The international community is scared of action, and who can blame us for shying away from it. The US is criticise for its alliance with Israel, you say so yourself, yet you wanted the Uk to help in Yugoslavia, on whose side, and which was the "right" side. Again this is contradictory, in one country you are saying ther should be no involvement, yet in another that there should - when both these countries have broken laws !
America may not negotiate with terrorists but, where convenient,
> it is perfectly happy to collaborate with them. Who, after all, armed Bin Laden
> in the first place?
CIA armed the mujahadeen, not Bin Laden's Al Queda. A majority of weapons in Afghanistan are locally made copies of Russian weapons, made in India and Pakistan. Obviously some American weapons will have fallen into the wrong hands, but they wre supplied to the Mujahadeen. At the time of Russia's little foray into Afghanistan (to put it lightly) the Cold War wasn't over, Afghanistan offered the West a unique oppurtunity to get its hands on vital Russian weapons and armour - involvement in Afghanistan in that period was justified, though at no point was Bin Laden sent arms.
> And how do we explain the warm official welcomes that have
> been extended to IRA figureheads over the years, and the legality there of
> fundraising for a paramilitary organisation?
Maybe if our intel agencies got off their collective behinds and gathered some proof of these peoples activities the Americans would have done something, we knew people were guilty as sin, but couldn't prove it, neitehr could we definitively prove funds were going to Paramilitaries, sure we knew they were, but proof...er no.
> All in the past you might say -
> except that the same tradition is extended to training and funding of Columbian
> death squads NOW. The point is that curtailing terrorism in general needs
> negotiation. Progress is being made in Ireland; and Libya - once a state that
> did support terrorism - has been brought into the international fold through
> negotiation not bombing.
Which is why they are developing WMDS;
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/bian/ bian_jan_2002.htm#6 (REMOVE SPACE)
Libya is laughing its head off. In Ireland people are still dying, last years attacks on MI5 and the BBC plus the two bridges, and continued violence in Ireland and the UK prove that the ceasefire is laughable, a sham, an illusion of peace at the best. Negotiation is buying time for the terrorists to disperse and rearm, and they will come back to hit us.
>The fact is that terrorism cannot be explained away by
> 'evil': it has social causes and is fed by wider >political injustice.
Terrorists, by definition, are trying to obtain political goal through illegal violence. They gave away their right to negotiate once they comitted their first act. The west should not let itself be bombed to negotiations.
> Extermination of every last terrorist will never work without addressing these
> issues - it didn't work in Ireland, it is demonstrably not working in Israel.
> Taking a civilian life should never be acceptable, but we cannot ignore the fact
> that popular support for terrorist groups draws on genuine grievances and a
> feeling of disenfranchisement. Instead of joining an endless cycle of killing,
> we should be looking for a route away from it.
By taking military action a country demonstrates that it does not give in to terror, it does not let its citizens be murdered in order to bring about negotiations. A civlian is not a civilian when they are holding an AK47, a misconception from the real life events in Mogadishu 1993. you have a weapon, of any sort, and you are a target, end of story. If an enemy chooses to suround him/her self with civlians then he holds no reagard for them, and would sacrifice them with no regard. there is no popular support for terrorism, most countries it originates from are dictatorships who have rejected democracy, and all have oppostion groups which are the West's key to toppling them. Saddam Hussein isnt popular in private, but he holds all the guns, figuratively..... The route away from violence is only possible by wiping out terrorism, and it does stop a cycle of killing - Afghanistan being a case study. There are thousands of Taliban/Al Queda who, unless tehy return as ghosts, are most definitely not going to be killing anyone. The Northern Alliance controls all setllements with US/Allied backup in key areas. Violence is ending because violence was used.
>At no point did I say
> that Palestinians were blameless. I said that Israel is >in violation of UN
> security resolutions because of its occupation of Palestinian land.
The UN cannot protect Israel - they have no option, as I said, the UN is weak. You only made reference to the Israelis, I'd say the Palestinian sucicde bombers probably breached a few hundred UN resolutions too, ya think ?
>why
> single out Iraq for violating international law but tolerate the practice in
> friendly nations?
I Keep repeating this....IRAQ IS DEVELOPING WMDS, IT WILL USE THEM AGAINST ITS ENEMIES, IF IT ATTACKS ISRAEL ITS WORLD WAR 3 TIME.
>And it is not because the US back Israel that I consider them
> in the wrong: it is because of their occupation of the West Bank, and their own
> use of overwhelming military force to fight terrorism.
Contradictory. You're saying at first Israel is wrong to use force, but then your saying it uses force against terrorism, an illegal act. A country, by right, is allowed to take actions against those who commit illegal acts.
> It is only because
> Israel is a nation-state that its actions are tolerated: the invasion of refugee
> camps, the rounding up and numbering of Palstinian men, routine extra-judical
> killings, the terrible toll on civilian life. This is terrorism on a far
> grander and more sinister (because it is so widely endorsed) scale than anything
> Palestinian groups can muster.
Maybe if the Palestinians stopped sending suicide bombers into Israel and killing Israles soldiers in cold blood then the Israelis might feel more inclined to stop these acts, which are retaliatory. Who declared intafada (spelling is wrong I know) 18 odd months ago, the Palestinians. I'd say thats provocation.
>The UN, while hardly
> blameless in its handling of the Rwandan situation, at least called for action.
> It was the Belgium government and the Clinton administration that lobbied for
> inaction. This is not just left-wing paranoia but fact based on US documents:
> you should read the papers at
> http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html for proof of this.
The US is not the only member of the Security council, nor is it the sole contributor to the UN. In 1993, Somalia, the UN criticised the US for its operations and tactics. The UN did not want to get its hands dirty - read "warlords and peacekeepers" by Willaim Shawcross, it catalogues failure after failure of the UN. If the UN had a more deicsive stance for Rwanda, instead of a "hmm lets watch the bodies pile up and not get hurt" policy then maybe the US and UK would feel willing to get involved.
> On
> Bosnia, it was again the supposedly humanitarian governments of the west that
> ignored warnings of genocide, this time the British government was culpable.
> Brendan Simms' book 'Unfinest Hour' details this pretty comprehensively.
Well;
1) Simms book is one of many, including Noahm Chunmsky, authors who have a found a niche writing their own version of history in favour of anti US sentiment- its considered trendy in the academic world, so sells, gets headlines, and makes everyone happy.
2) Yes, we as a country did not get involved. We got involved in 1999 to worldwide condemnation. We got involved in afgahanistan to yet more condemnation. We joined hte Americans in calling for an invasion of Iraq in 1991 to yet more condemnation. The international community is scared of action, and who can blame us for shying away from it. The US is criticise for its alliance with Israel, you say so yourself, yet you wanted the Uk to help in Yugoslavia, on whose side, and which was the "right" side. Again this is contradictory, in one country you are saying ther should be no involvement, yet in another that there should - when both these countries have broken laws !
Belldandy wrote:
>Stated position of the US and Uk - "we do not negotiate with terrorists" Both countries have demonstrated that time and time again.
America may not negotiate with terrorists but, where convenient, it is perfectly happy to collaborate with them. Who, after all, armed Bin Laden in the first place? And how do we explain the warm official welcomes that have been extended to IRA figureheads over the years, and the legality there of fundraising for a paramilitary organisation? All in the past you might say - except that the same tradition is extended to training and funding of Columbian death squads NOW. The point is that curtailing terrorism in general needs negotiation. Progress is being made in Ireland; and Libya - once a state that did support terrorism - has been brought into the international fold through negotiation not bombing. The fact is that terrorism cannot be explained away by 'evil': it has social causes and is fed by wider political injustice. Extermination of every last terrorist will never work without addressing these issues - it didn't work in Ireland, it is demonstrably not working in Israel. Taking a civilian life should never be acceptable, but we cannot ignore the fact that popular support for terrorist groups draws on genuine grievances and a feeling of disenfranchisement. Instead of joining an endless cycle of killing, we should be looking for a route away from it.
>And the Palestinians are little angels who do know wrong ? Dont make me laugh ! Both sides here are to blame, ut because Israel is backed by the USA you instantly decide that Israel is the bad guy. The current situation in Israel and Palestine is due to the Paelstinians reknewing attacks on Israeli civlians.
At no point did I say that Palestinians were blameless. I said that Israel is in violation of UN security resolutions because of its occupation of Palestinian land. It has persisted in building settlements in these areas, increasing Palestinian anger and putting the lives of its own citizens at risk. My point was this: why single out Iraq for violating international law but tolerate the practice in friendly nations? And it is not because the US back Israel that I consider them in the wrong: it is because of their occupation of the West Bank, and their own use of overwhelming military force to fight terrorism. It is only because Israel is a nation-state that its actions are tolerated: the invasion of refugee camps, the rounding up and numbering of Palstinian men, routine extra-judical killings, the terrible toll on civilian life. This is terrorism on a far grander and more sinister (because it is so widely endorsed) scale than anything Palestinian groups can muster.
>You want an organisation responsible for massive civlian deaths, look no further than the UN !
The UN, while hardly blameless in its handling of the Rwandan situation, at least called for action. It was the Belgium government and the Clinton administration that lobbied for inaction. This is not just left-wing paranoia but fact based on US documents: you should read the papers at http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html for proof of this. On Bosnia, it was again the supposedly humanitarian governments of the west that ignored warnings of genocide, this time the British government was culpable. Brendan Simms' book 'Unfinest Hour' details this pretty comprehensively.
>Stated position of the US and Uk - "we do not negotiate with terrorists" Both countries have demonstrated that time and time again.
America may not negotiate with terrorists but, where convenient, it is perfectly happy to collaborate with them. Who, after all, armed Bin Laden in the first place? And how do we explain the warm official welcomes that have been extended to IRA figureheads over the years, and the legality there of fundraising for a paramilitary organisation? All in the past you might say - except that the same tradition is extended to training and funding of Columbian death squads NOW. The point is that curtailing terrorism in general needs negotiation. Progress is being made in Ireland; and Libya - once a state that did support terrorism - has been brought into the international fold through negotiation not bombing. The fact is that terrorism cannot be explained away by 'evil': it has social causes and is fed by wider political injustice. Extermination of every last terrorist will never work without addressing these issues - it didn't work in Ireland, it is demonstrably not working in Israel. Taking a civilian life should never be acceptable, but we cannot ignore the fact that popular support for terrorist groups draws on genuine grievances and a feeling of disenfranchisement. Instead of joining an endless cycle of killing, we should be looking for a route away from it.
>And the Palestinians are little angels who do know wrong ? Dont make me laugh ! Both sides here are to blame, ut because Israel is backed by the USA you instantly decide that Israel is the bad guy. The current situation in Israel and Palestine is due to the Paelstinians reknewing attacks on Israeli civlians.
At no point did I say that Palestinians were blameless. I said that Israel is in violation of UN security resolutions because of its occupation of Palestinian land. It has persisted in building settlements in these areas, increasing Palestinian anger and putting the lives of its own citizens at risk. My point was this: why single out Iraq for violating international law but tolerate the practice in friendly nations? And it is not because the US back Israel that I consider them in the wrong: it is because of their occupation of the West Bank, and their own use of overwhelming military force to fight terrorism. It is only because Israel is a nation-state that its actions are tolerated: the invasion of refugee camps, the rounding up and numbering of Palstinian men, routine extra-judical killings, the terrible toll on civilian life. This is terrorism on a far grander and more sinister (because it is so widely endorsed) scale than anything Palestinian groups can muster.
>You want an organisation responsible for massive civlian deaths, look no further than the UN !
The UN, while hardly blameless in its handling of the Rwandan situation, at least called for action. It was the Belgium government and the Clinton administration that lobbied for inaction. This is not just left-wing paranoia but fact based on US documents: you should read the papers at http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html for proof of this. On Bosnia, it was again the supposedly humanitarian governments of the west that ignored warnings of genocide, this time the British government was culpable. Brendan Simms' book 'Unfinest Hour' details this pretty comprehensively.
unknown kernel wrote:
First the idea that
> the US/UK axis would only use nuclear weapons as retailiation is now sadly
> wrong. The US, in plans endorsed by Donald Rumsfeld, is now considering the use
> of nuclear weapons against targets that can withstand conventional attack, or in
> the light of 'surprising military developments'.
For starters the battlefield nukes have only been recently requested and as such are not, officially, available. The time frame required to producesuch weapons means that its unlikely they could be ready for use at this moment. Rumsfeld did suggest some plans, but Bush has clarified that they remain a retaliatory weapon. The use of weapons against hard targets has been up for debate since the Gulf War but the newly developed Daisy Cutter and Uranium tipped weapons make it an almost unecessary weapon. Again, the targets only actually become "targets" once was breaks out - meaning that some group/country has to first attack the US.
>Judging by Blair's current
> spineless approach to US will, the chances of British opposition are slim.
I disagree with that, I think this is the first time we have seen Blair act like a leader, Europe (mainland) is becoming spineless and like America in the 30s - isolationist. Basically the UK has two friends, the USA andsome of Europe - I know which side I'd trust more.
>This is probably the most frightening development in international
> affairs since the end of the cold war: nothing is more likely to make those
> countries on an American hit-list develop and use whatever weapons would give
> them a little bargaining power.
Stated position of the US and Uk - "we do not negotiate with terrorists" Both countries have demonstrated that time and time again. Iraq may be threatening other countries but which parts of Iraq ? Becausein Iraq there is going to be generals not totally loyal to Saddam who've seen Afghanistan retaken by the Northern Alliance and the Allies in a few months, and they're going to know that the same could happen to their country. the idea of countrys developing their weapons to counter this new position of the Americans is a bit bizarres. The targets - China, north Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and the rest, already have weapons programmes in place - China, Korea and almost certainly Iraq have nuclear capability or soon will have. All have biochemical weapons and toxins. They have the weapons now, and arent going ot surrender them. it may be frightening, but we shouldn't let that emotion deter us from sorting this problem out, because then our children,and many other generation, will also be frightened. Bin Laden wanted to frighten the world on 9/11 but thats backfired - sure some are scared - but he united a divided America and brought many countries together with the USA - there has never been a better time to end the threat of terrorism than now, the terorrists started this in the early 20th century, and nows the time to finsh them off in the 21st century.
> The message it sends to civilians is also
> likely to create a new generation of terrorists.
Again this is fear. People want to join terrorist groups ? Fine, we'll take them all on, and keep on attacking and hunting them down. Look at the British and American citizens who went to Afghanistan, all dead/captured.
Second, why of all the
> middle-eastern dictatorships choose Saddam Hussein as a pariah. No one denies
> he is a horrible despot, but his contemporaries in the region run regimes just
> as undemocratic and barbaric.
He's developing WMDs and won't allow inspectors to see them, he's hiding something, he's expressed a desire to reinvade Kuwait, he is holding allied POWS (suspected to be) from the Gulf War, he has threatened Israel, he has killed thousands of the Kurdish people, he has tried to break the sanctions the UN imposed, he offers rewards to his troops to shoot down allied fighters and kill their crews. Need I go on ?
>Oil, perhaps?
Nope. Iraq may have oil, but it needs to sell it, especially as the UN has embargoed Iraq. Iraq can threaten friendly oil producing countries, and our allies.
>The invasion of Kuwait was
> settled by the Gulf War (and the punitive years of >bombing campaigns)
You say this like it was a bad thing ? Those punitive years of bombing were partly to stop him slaughtering the Kurds.
>; Israel,
> on the other hand, still occupies Palestinian land (in >violation of UN
> resolutions) and regularly kills civilians in an attempt >to impose its rule.
And the Palestinians are little angels who do know wrong ? Dont make me laugh ! Both sides here are to blame, ut because Israel is backed by the USA you instantly decide that Israel is the bad guy. The current situation in Israel and Palestine is due to the Paelstinians reknewing attacks on Israeli civlians. This issue isn't black and white, however one Palestinian group has declared that it won't respect any ceasefire, when Zinni is proposing one....which in turn means the Israeli's wont either. Israels response is heavy handed, but with us both sitting hundreds of miles away its hard to have a real understanding. As I see it, the Israelis fear losing their homeland and their population - after all the world ignored them over 60 years ago - but the Palestinians also feel the same way, and both sides want the same land.
> It
> seems that only America's enemies are bound by >international law!
Maybe, but you have to consider who imposes international law, namely the UN. Its failed, Rwanda, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Chechenya - its a weak organisation marred by infighting, political squablling and indecision. go back to the Balkans campaign in 1999. Whilst the UN fought against itself in New York UK and US elements of NATO attacked Milosovic's forces and tried to end the killings. They acted. The UN has lost all respect and is a force to be laughed at. Its very commendable, as I've said, being political, but when you have nothing to back up that negotiation with you are lost. America and the UK may not always be flawless but they act, with good intentions at worst. The UN sits back and waits for fighting to stop, America and the UK go in regardless. You want an organisation responsible for massive civlian deaths, look no further than the UN ! Those international laws that some hold os much faith in have been designed by so many countries, each wanting their own concession, that they are useless. Like the criminal laws in the UK, they are laughed at. Radovan Karadzic has evaded capture for ages, do yuo thik he fears international law ? I doubt it, after all the UN has no mandate to get him. NATO at least tries, and American and the UK have expressed a desire, numerous times, to go after this man in a method the UN would most certainly consider illegal, but the Milosovic trial is becoming a joke - is tis what we want when we get Karadzic as well, him denying crimes so obviously comitted ?
This is a new cnetury, and the Cold War rules of engagement don't work anymore. The new enemies of the West don't care for our self imposed laws, or our poitics. If we want them stopped then its time to throw the rule book away and just get them, by any means possible.
First the idea that
> the US/UK axis would only use nuclear weapons as retailiation is now sadly
> wrong. The US, in plans endorsed by Donald Rumsfeld, is now considering the use
> of nuclear weapons against targets that can withstand conventional attack, or in
> the light of 'surprising military developments'.
For starters the battlefield nukes have only been recently requested and as such are not, officially, available. The time frame required to producesuch weapons means that its unlikely they could be ready for use at this moment. Rumsfeld did suggest some plans, but Bush has clarified that they remain a retaliatory weapon. The use of weapons against hard targets has been up for debate since the Gulf War but the newly developed Daisy Cutter and Uranium tipped weapons make it an almost unecessary weapon. Again, the targets only actually become "targets" once was breaks out - meaning that some group/country has to first attack the US.
>Judging by Blair's current
> spineless approach to US will, the chances of British opposition are slim.
I disagree with that, I think this is the first time we have seen Blair act like a leader, Europe (mainland) is becoming spineless and like America in the 30s - isolationist. Basically the UK has two friends, the USA andsome of Europe - I know which side I'd trust more.
>This is probably the most frightening development in international
> affairs since the end of the cold war: nothing is more likely to make those
> countries on an American hit-list develop and use whatever weapons would give
> them a little bargaining power.
Stated position of the US and Uk - "we do not negotiate with terrorists" Both countries have demonstrated that time and time again. Iraq may be threatening other countries but which parts of Iraq ? Becausein Iraq there is going to be generals not totally loyal to Saddam who've seen Afghanistan retaken by the Northern Alliance and the Allies in a few months, and they're going to know that the same could happen to their country. the idea of countrys developing their weapons to counter this new position of the Americans is a bit bizarres. The targets - China, north Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and the rest, already have weapons programmes in place - China, Korea and almost certainly Iraq have nuclear capability or soon will have. All have biochemical weapons and toxins. They have the weapons now, and arent going ot surrender them. it may be frightening, but we shouldn't let that emotion deter us from sorting this problem out, because then our children,and many other generation, will also be frightened. Bin Laden wanted to frighten the world on 9/11 but thats backfired - sure some are scared - but he united a divided America and brought many countries together with the USA - there has never been a better time to end the threat of terrorism than now, the terorrists started this in the early 20th century, and nows the time to finsh them off in the 21st century.
> The message it sends to civilians is also
> likely to create a new generation of terrorists.
Again this is fear. People want to join terrorist groups ? Fine, we'll take them all on, and keep on attacking and hunting them down. Look at the British and American citizens who went to Afghanistan, all dead/captured.
Second, why of all the
> middle-eastern dictatorships choose Saddam Hussein as a pariah. No one denies
> he is a horrible despot, but his contemporaries in the region run regimes just
> as undemocratic and barbaric.
He's developing WMDs and won't allow inspectors to see them, he's hiding something, he's expressed a desire to reinvade Kuwait, he is holding allied POWS (suspected to be) from the Gulf War, he has threatened Israel, he has killed thousands of the Kurdish people, he has tried to break the sanctions the UN imposed, he offers rewards to his troops to shoot down allied fighters and kill their crews. Need I go on ?
>Oil, perhaps?
Nope. Iraq may have oil, but it needs to sell it, especially as the UN has embargoed Iraq. Iraq can threaten friendly oil producing countries, and our allies.
>The invasion of Kuwait was
> settled by the Gulf War (and the punitive years of >bombing campaigns)
You say this like it was a bad thing ? Those punitive years of bombing were partly to stop him slaughtering the Kurds.
>; Israel,
> on the other hand, still occupies Palestinian land (in >violation of UN
> resolutions) and regularly kills civilians in an attempt >to impose its rule.
And the Palestinians are little angels who do know wrong ? Dont make me laugh ! Both sides here are to blame, ut because Israel is backed by the USA you instantly decide that Israel is the bad guy. The current situation in Israel and Palestine is due to the Paelstinians reknewing attacks on Israeli civlians. This issue isn't black and white, however one Palestinian group has declared that it won't respect any ceasefire, when Zinni is proposing one....which in turn means the Israeli's wont either. Israels response is heavy handed, but with us both sitting hundreds of miles away its hard to have a real understanding. As I see it, the Israelis fear losing their homeland and their population - after all the world ignored them over 60 years ago - but the Palestinians also feel the same way, and both sides want the same land.
> It
> seems that only America's enemies are bound by >international law!
Maybe, but you have to consider who imposes international law, namely the UN. Its failed, Rwanda, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Chechenya - its a weak organisation marred by infighting, political squablling and indecision. go back to the Balkans campaign in 1999. Whilst the UN fought against itself in New York UK and US elements of NATO attacked Milosovic's forces and tried to end the killings. They acted. The UN has lost all respect and is a force to be laughed at. Its very commendable, as I've said, being political, but when you have nothing to back up that negotiation with you are lost. America and the UK may not always be flawless but they act, with good intentions at worst. The UN sits back and waits for fighting to stop, America and the UK go in regardless. You want an organisation responsible for massive civlian deaths, look no further than the UN ! Those international laws that some hold os much faith in have been designed by so many countries, each wanting their own concession, that they are useless. Like the criminal laws in the UK, they are laughed at. Radovan Karadzic has evaded capture for ages, do yuo thik he fears international law ? I doubt it, after all the UN has no mandate to get him. NATO at least tries, and American and the UK have expressed a desire, numerous times, to go after this man in a method the UN would most certainly consider illegal, but the Milosovic trial is becoming a joke - is tis what we want when we get Karadzic as well, him denying crimes so obviously comitted ?
This is a new cnetury, and the Cold War rules of engagement don't work anymore. The new enemies of the West don't care for our self imposed laws, or our poitics. If we want them stopped then its time to throw the rule book away and just get them, by any means possible.
Hum.
I havn't read any of the posts except the first, but that one was enough to make me think.
I was against you, Belldandy, until the line "We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq".
Hum.
I feel American.
I havn't read any of the posts except the first, but that one was enough to make me think.
I was against you, Belldandy, until the line "We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq".
Hum.
I feel American.
Page: