Well, I think it's pretty clear.

Post #8,785 by Andrew Grygus 9/12/01 11:38:27 PM Reply	Well, I think it's pretty clear. If the U.N. doesn't make a damned clear "resolution" condemning this attack by the end of the week, then there's one more building in New York that should be blown to rubble. Unlike most of the world we'd make damned sure everybody had a chance to evacuate before we blew it up. You and most of the world would, of course, interpret that as a sign of weakness. You say we should just stand aside while Iraq and Yougoslavia slaughter whole populations. Well we tried that in 1939, and we got balamed for that too. Fuck you and the pig you rode in on. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,812 by TTC 9/13/01 6:10:12 AM Reply	Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear. > You say we should just stand aside while Iraq and Yougoslavia slaughter whole populations. Well we tried that in 1939, and we got balamed for that too. Fuck you and the pig you rode in on. Big difference. In 1939, half the world was fighting the war. US choose, because of ITS interest NOT to get involved. It only do so when Pearl Habour was hit. Iraq and Yugoslavia, half the world was AGAINST the continued bombing by the US, but because of ITS interest, US persists. The Gulf War ENDED, according to the UN, in 1991. There's no UN sanctioned no fly zones, only those by US, because it COULD. As for Yugoslavia, [link\|http://members.nbci.com/yugo_archive/19991019stratfor.htm\|http://members.nbci...stratfor.htm] If you can't SPOT the difference, then I'm sorry. And in NO TIME have I said that the terrorists' action was JUSTIFIABLE. Just that it was something that US and its policies has been "begging for". And given the intelligence of the US military, which can mistake a Chinese Embassy as a potential target, we would all have great faith that all the buildings destroyed in Iraq and Yugoslavia were military facilities. Right. And I flew in on a pig.
Post #8,814 by gtall 9/13/01 7:58:29 AM Reply	Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear. I think that waiting for UN saction is more like Chamberlain waiting for Hitler to do the right thing. So rather than pointing out the U.S. got into WWII late, you might consider what would have happened if we'd not been so isolationist and gotten in earlier. Europe could have stepped on Hitler while he was still playing with his toy guns. But Europe decided they needed peace, and more peace and more peace...until it was too late. Japan was raping Manchuria in 1936 and we did nothing. It wasn't our problem, we said. We desired peace we said. Millions died but it wasn't our peaceful concern. Re Iraq. Lessee, Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people, launched a vicious war against Iran. And we did exactly what? Hell, we even helped the bastard. So we got repaid with Kuwait. So we get smart, roll them back. Now, do we (a) let them rebuild and get a really good chance at wiping out Israel which Saddam has pledged to do, or (b) keep our foot on their throat and hope that eventually they decide killing other people isn't such a wise idea, or (c) say fuck'em and plaster the country so they will never have the opportunity again. We've chosen (b). You seem to have chosen (a). How DO you live with yourself? Re Yugoslavi...errrppp..make that Serbia. It used to be Yugoslavia but then Milosevic came to power. He bankrupted the country, then he decided it would be really neat thing to have Serbia attack other parts of the country. Slovenia actually beat him. Croatia was next. When that failed, he found he had a problem with Bosnia. Bingo, a lot more deaths. So thrilled were we that we signed the SOB to the Dayton accords which, big suprise, led directly to Kosovo. He apparently found more muslims that were still alive. And the Serb people thought this was all jollly well because what were some dead mulsims to them. And the world looked on and said how sorry it all was, and gee, did we really have to stop that dear lovable Slobodan? He was a peaceful man, wasn't he? How far are you willing to go to refuse to take a stand? What indecency is too much for you? 4 million Jews, a few million Iranians, several thousand Kuwaitis, maybe a few more million Jews, a million or so Balkan people? Is there a line you are willing to draw? Or should we all just sit back and let "world opinion" find a way to cover its collective ass with the alibis and extenuating circumstances which they bravely tell us is because they value peace? Gerard Allwein
Post #8,832 by TTC 9/13/01 9:31:55 AM Reply	Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear. > I think that waiting for UN saction is more like Chamberlain waiting for Hitler to do the right thing. So rather than pointing out the U.S. got into WWII late, you might consider what would have happened if we'd not been so isolationist and gotten in earlier. Europe could have stepped on Hitler while he was still playing with his toy guns. But Europe decided they needed peace, and more peace and more peace...until it was too late. Japan was raping Manchuria in 1936 and we did nothing. It wasn't our problem, we said. We desired peace we said. Millions died but it wasn't our peaceful concern. > > Re Iraq. Lessee, Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people, launched a vicious war against Iran. And we did exactly what? Hell, we even helped the bastard. So we got repaid with Kuwait. So we get smart, roll them back. Now, do we (a) let them rebuild and get a really good chance at wiping out Israel which Saddam has pledged to do, or (b) keep our foot on their throat and hope that eventually they decide killing other people isn't such a wise idea, or (c) say fuck'em and plaster the country so they will never have the opportunity again. We've chosen (b). You seem to have chosen (a). How DO you live with yourself? > > Re Yugoslavi...errrppp..make that Serbia. It used to be Yugoslavia but then Milosevic came to power. He bankrupted the country, then he decided it would be really neat thing to have Serbia attack other parts of the country. Slovenia actually beat him. Croatia was next. When that failed, he found he had a problem with Bosnia. Bingo, a lot more deaths. So thrilled were we that we signed the SOB to the Dayton accords which, big suprise, led directly to Kosovo. He apparently found more muslims that were still alive. And the Serb people thought this was all jollly well because what were some dead mulsims to them. > > And the world looked on and said how sorry it all was, and gee, did we really have to stop that dear lovable Slobodan? He was a peaceful man, wasn't he? > > How far are you willing to go to refuse to take a stand? What indecency is too much for you? 4 million Jews, a few million Iranians, several thousand Kuwaitis, maybe a few more million Jews, a million or so Balkan people? Is there a line you are willing to draw? Or should we all just sit back and let "world opinion" find a way to cover its collective ass with the alibis and extenuating circumstances which they bravely tell us is because they value peace? > Gerard Allwein Why bother with UN in the first place? Why bother with ELECTION/DEMOCRACY? What the hell is all those HUMAN RIGHTS when you're NOT willing to listen to DIFFERING opinion?! Who gave US the right to ignore the rest of the world's opinion? Its nuke? Its MILITARY might? Know what a bully is? When the WORLD calls upon the US to act, what happens? It drags its feet if it doesn't suit its interest. But when the world ask the US to back off, I'll let Andrew complete the sentence... What kind of MORAL HIGHGROUND do you think you are standing on? I don't see you folks crying for nukes on US when Timothy McVeigh bomb the fed building, or did I miss something? He's not fanatical? Not a terrorist? No thousands of DEFENSELESS innocents killed, INTENTIONALLY? What double standard!
Post #8,841 by Andrew Grygus 9/13/01 9:56:13 AM Reply	When "The World" asks us to act . . . . what you're hearing is the loudest side on the issue. "The World" does not speak with one voice, never has, never will. We have to make our own decisions, and sometimes we think the loudest side is wrong. Then it gets even louder. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,842 by addison 9/13/01 9:56:29 AM Reply	Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear. Why bother with UN in the first place? Why bother with ELECTION/DEMOCRACY? What the hell is all those HUMAN RIGHTS when you're NOT willing to listen to DIFFERING opinion?! Who started the UN? Human rights? Considering you're claiming that the US is wrong for stopping mass genocide (Yugoslavia, Iraq), that's laughable. Democracy? Where are you from? I want to know if your country is democratic - AND if it helps other people. Who gave US the right to ignore the rest of the world's opinion? Its nuke? Its MILITARY might? Know what a bully is? Again - the US is standing in to protect the weak in these cases you're complaining about. The real question might be "Why isn't anybody else with us?" (And there are others). I don't see you folks crying for nukes on US when Timothy McVeigh bomb the fed building, or did I miss something? He's not fanatical? Not a terrorist? No thousands of DEFENSELESS innocents killed, INTENTIONALLY? Had McVeigh been a part of a much bigger body, where arrest was infeasible, I think you might have seen something else. Had he been financed by another country, you'd have seen something else. And McVeigh is dead. Killed with all the due process you can want. Of course, most of these countries you're defending - Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Middle East - HAVE NO DUE PROCESS. Well, there is one on paper. But nothing in reality. And reality is something I think you're very divorced from. Again, where are you from, and how much money did they get from the US last year? Addison
Post #8,852 by TTC 9/13/01 10:19:45 AM Reply	Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear. > Democracy? Where are you from? I want to know if your country is democratic - AND if it helps other people. > Singapore. Democracy, AFAIK, yes. Help, not much, but we try. > The real question might be "Why isn't anybody else with us?" (And there are others). That's exactly the question you have to ask. > Of course, most of these countries you're defending - Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Middle East - HAVE NO DUE PROCESS. Well, there is one on paper. But nothing in reality. Defending, I'm not. Again, I'm pointing out the obvious. You can choose to believe that everything that the US has done in Iraq and Yugoslavia is exactly that, protecting innocent civilians, preventing genocide. Many don't share that view. Many, especially those who are "involved" (much the same way as the victims' family are involved in the attack on America) view it as US terrorizing them. > Again, where are you from, and how much money did they get from the US last year? Singapore, the place where American Michael Fay was sentenced and had his sentence reduced due to political pressure from the US. But of course, we are the barbaric country for having canning and still have death sentences for murderers and drug traffickers. As to how much money, I am not sure, but US is definitely our largest export nation.
Post #8,855 by addison 9/13/01 10:26:49 AM Reply	Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear. The real question might be "Why isn't anybody else with us?" (And there are others). That's exactly the question you have to ask. It is. And usually the answer is because other countries don't want to get involved with the genocides. Like in Yugoslavia - where untold thousands of people were raped, tortured, slaughtered. And where was anybody? Like in Iraq, where the Kurds were being attacked - with chemical weaponry. Or is it OK for other countries to do that? We should vote in the UN and tell them to stop? Addison
Post #8,889 by gtall 9/13/01 1:19:17 PM Reply	Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear. "Why bother with UN in the first place? Why bother with ELECTION/DEMOCRACY? What the hell is all those HUMAN RIGHTS when you're NOT willing to listen to DIFFERING opinion?!" Indeed, why bother with the UN. This is the same UN that put Cuba on the human rights panel and kicked the US off. We have elections and democracy. Most of the rest of the world doesn't. That allows tin-pot dictators to act like they have some god-given mandate to do anything they like. No one said we weren't willing to listen to differing opinion. However, if listening requires we stop putting an end to dictators and terrorists killing innocent people, forget it. Listening doesn't requre we believe you, and it doesn't require that your opinions are in some sense equally valid as ours. Some opinions are simply wrong. "Who gave US the right to ignore the rest of the world's opinion? Its nuke? Its MILITARY might? Know what a bully is?" Oh, I don't know...call it revulsion to the crap that passes for "world opinion". Now if we were really a bully, we'd wouldn't be telling you to stop killing those nice innocent people down the road. We'd take your country and call it the 51st state. Have a sense of proportion. Where DO you get this world opinion from anyway? Nukes do not give us the right to ignore world opinion, but if the world opinion is something to effect that Israel should lay down its life so the Arabs can not live with infidels, well...I think you know our opinion of world opinion. " When the WORLD calls upon the US to act, what happens? It drags its feet if it doesn't suit its interest. But when the world ask the US to back off, I'll let Andrew complete the sentence..." So make up yer mind. Do you want us to act or not? Why should we do what YOU want us to? And given the flakey ideas out there about what America should or shouldn't do, you ought to be thankful we don't fly off the handle and do something rash everytime you guys get your tails caught in a crack. "What kind of MORAL HIGHGROUND do you think you are standing on?" How about this for a start: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." That's part of our Declaration of Independence. Explain to me me what exemplary nation has that built into their system? We may not get it right all the time, but at least we try. " I don't see you folks crying for nukes on US when Timothy McVeigh bomb the fed building, or did I miss something? He's not fanatical? Not a terrorist? No thousands of DEFENSELESS innocents killed, INTENTIONALLY?" I never called for nukes, and they wouldn't solve a terrorism problem anyway. Come to think of it, here's what we should have done after the Iraq tried to steal Kuwait. We should have told the fat boys in the robes that they would be living with their arab brothers in Saudi Arabia from then on. Then we should have told the Palastinians we have a country complete with oil just for them. And the hue and cry we would have had to endure for solving one of the world's more thorny problems would have been tremendous. Whining, crying, wimpering about American power. But we should have done it and told the rest of the world precisely what we thought of their opinions. To stop terrorists, you have do a lot of things. One is kill them when you find them. The other is to give people an economic future. Well, we import more than we export, so we're subsidizing a good part of global trade already. You might have noticed how the world's economy decided to take a dive in response to the US's slowdown. Foreign aid might work, which dictator do we give it to? Simply handing them money might work...the Spanish tried that during the 1600's. Took a lot of gold, it created an inflation and completely wrecked their economy. They never recovered until Franco bit the bullet. By the way, Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. You might note that is in the extremely past sense of the word. I think that just about sums up how American feels about terrorists, whether they are homegrown or those dear, peaceloving people jumping up and down for joy in the mideast because a lot of people in the US died. And those people were not just Americans. They came from all over. It is supposed to be a sin for a Muslim to kill another Muslim. Do yer think they sorted out the Muslims from the infidels or do you think they figured God would sort it out? Gerard Allwein
Post #8,985 by bepatient 9/13/01 9:44:02 PM Reply	Excuse me...but... And in NO TIME have I said that the terrorists' action was JUSTIFIABLE. Just that it was something that US and its policies has been "begging for". So you indeed believe that our actions in Yugoslavia and Iraq somehow rationalize an attack that was attempting to kill nearly 60,000 CIVILIANS? One...IRAQ has yet to comply with the UN resolutions allowing searches of their installations. And what real harm do flyovers of open desert really cause? And why don't you say equally that the British are equally "begging for it", as they are also patrolling these no fly zones. Maybe if conducted random bombing...and killed a few thousand civilians...I could belive this... A little irony...some of the celebrating Palestinian children were wearing Levi's. Everyone wants the advantages gained by this vast experiment in freedom called the United States.Everyone asks us to take sides, all ask for our assistance...all of the wealthy invest on our businesses...(including Bin Laden's own family....and much like the discussions we have in the politics forum...they at the same time resent our wealth and the power it has created. Your own country is only as successful as it is because of the volume of business it does with us. You are communicating in this forum largely because of this success. Is this arrogance? No. It is simply the truth. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #9,057 by TTC 9/14/01 7:13:26 AM Reply	Re: Excuse me...but... > And in NO TIME have I said that the terrorists' action was JUSTIFIABLE. Just that it was something that US and its policies has been "begging for". > > So you indeed believe that our actions in Yugoslavia and Iraq somehow rationalize an attack that was attempting to kill nearly 60,000 CIVILIANS? Rationalize? If I can rationalize it THAT way, I would be one of those terrorists, won't I? Have you CONSIDER the viewpoint of those in the countries that got carpet bombed? Even if it was indeed ONLY MILITARY facilities that got the brunt? You just need to look around at SOME of your fellow Americans who are calling for the eradication of an entire country for harbouring terrorists to see what kind of RATIONALIZATION you can expect similar "loonies" in the "victim" countries. > Your own country is only as successful as it is because of the volume of business it does with us. You are communicating in this forum largely because of this success. > > Is this arrogance? No. It is simply the truth. Never doubted that. And it's indeed the truth. And believe me, it's greatly appreciated. But not when you try to dictate how the country should be run. No thank you.
Post #9,058 by bepatient 9/14/01 8:01:39 AM Reply	Considered? Iraq was carpet bombed. And they had MONTHS to avoid it. And that bombing was conducted over open desert containing military installations that housed an elite armed force. Iraq started a war against a sovereign state. That state asked us for assistance...indeed they asked the world for assistance. Did Saddam actually believe that noone would come to the aid of Kuwait? I understand that they hate us. And the sentiment you here in the US is that WE would like to retaliate in kind...instead of in kindness. What that means...we will find those responsible..and we will strike them...and those that we can identify that assisted them...but we will NOT...nor have we ever, targeted large civilian gatherings. There are some people in this country that would like to see that change...and I cannot say that I blame them for feeling that way. But we won't change that. And the Afghan people and Iraqi people should thank Allah for that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #9,061 by Silverlock 9/14/01 9:09:37 AM Reply	Unbelievable but true. "Did Saddam actually believe that noone would come to the aid of Kuwait?" In a word, yes. He did believe that, or at least that the US didn't have a problem with him invading Kuwait. Why did he believe this? Because he essentially asked permission first and got a green light from our embassy in Iraq. I remember several different news stories where this came out after the fact. I'll see if I can find any links and post them in a follow-up. "Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." --Thomas Jefferson
Post #9,065 by addison 9/14/01 10:03:24 AM Reply	Well, Because he essentially asked permission first and got a green light from our embassy in Iraq. I don't think it was that clear cut. Apparently, there was 'something lost in translation'. Iraq thought he'd asked, and apparently the US didn't realise he had, didn't realise the answer indicated that. Addison
Post #9,066 by Simon_Jester 9/14/01 10:17:43 AM Reply	Either that... or we wanted to give him a green light so we could go in and attack.
Post #9,071 by Silverlock 9/14/01 11:07:20 AM Reply	No It was pretty clear cut. [link\|http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html\|article] [link\|http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1991/91-P22.html\|article] [link\|http://www.thestarsandstripes.com/arkin/secret/weekone.shtml\|article] [link\|http://www.booknotes.org/transcripts/10136.htm\|article] [link\|http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/apr98/features/saddam1.html\|article] a quote from the last article linked above-- "April Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein the understanding that the U.S. was going to stand aloof from the crisis," says Dr. Dwight Simpson, Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University. "In effect you could say, and this is one means of interpreting this, that the U.S. gave Saddam a sort of green light [to invade Kuwait]." April Glaspie has since been retired from the foreign service and has never made any comments with regard to this." "Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." --Thomas Jefferson
Post #9,178 by Another Scott 9/14/01 5:09:37 PM Reply	It wasn't "pretty clear cut" IMO. See, e.g., [link\|http://www.wwnorton.com/lenses/demo_historical_bg1.htm\|this] analysis: President George Bush had been receiving assurances from around the Arab world that the positioning of Iraqi troops along the Kuwaiti border was nothing more than Iraqi saber-rattling. President Mubarak of Egypt, King Hussein (no relation to Saddam) of Jordan, and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia all passed along this communication, in part, because they had been given this explanation by Saddam Hussein himself. The general message coming out of the Arab world portrayed the situation as an Arab dispute that would be resolved diplomatically. On July 25, 1990, the American ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, was summoned to meet with Saddam Hussein, who questioned her directly about America's position toward Iraq. During the meeting Ambassador Glaspie reportedly said, " . . .[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait . . . . We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via . . . President Mubarak [of Egypt].\ufffd Saddam responded that he had agreed to diplomatic meetings being set up through the efforts of Mubarak and had told the Egyptian president to \ufffdassure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them.\ufffd Saddam went on to tell Ambassador Glaspie, \ufffdThere, you have good news.\ufffd [Glaspie transcript, p.130, 133]. In Washington D.C., Richard Haass, the director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the United States National Security Council, was just completing an assessment of the situation in which he had laid out three possible scenarios for President Bush: (1) This Iraqi military movement was \ufffdmuscular diplomacy\ufffd; that is, Iraq was trying to intimidate Kuwait into a diplomatic compromise on oil production quotas and loan repayment; (2) Iraq was positioning itself to take a northern Kuwaiti oil field in an effort to raise the stakes and compel a negotiated settlement; (3) Iraq was preparing an all-out invasion and intended to occupy the entire country. Haass had already concluded that the third scenario was the least likely, and upon receiving a report from Ambassador Glaspie, he forwarded his report with a sense that the crisis was actually winding down (Interview with Haass). Most major leaders were convinced that an actual occupation was not going to happen given what Saddam Hussein himself had been saying. Thus, the full-scale occupation of Kuwait was seen in Washington and around the Arab world as the consequence of a major ruse on the part of Saddam Hussein. Their reaction to the invasion, therefore, was influenced by the sense among these leaders that they had been deceived. The seriousness of the Iraqi action, however, became more intense as Iraq's military forces began to head beyond Kuwait City toward the Saudi Arabian border. While American relations with Kuwait had been indifferent before the invasion, Saudi Arabia represented a key regional player and American friend. American regional economic and political interests relied on good relations with the Saudi royal family. The possibility of an attack on Saudi Arabia energized the Bush administration's national security team, and important decisions were made rapidly in the course of the first week of August. There's a big difference between being not expressing an opinion on how a conflict should be peacefully resolved with the help of a third party, and giving a "green light" to an invasion. Saddam apparently didn't understand that, or didn't care. But I don't think it would have deterred him anyway. He didn't spend years and billions assembling an army with 10,000 tanks to back down once he decided he wanted Kuwait. Cheers, Scott.
Post #9,228 by wharris2 9/14/01 10:05:38 PM Reply	"We have no opinion"? Saying "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts" isn't giving a green light? If I were Sadaam, my eyes would have lit up like a miniature Christmas tree at that. Bad choice of words. "We do not think highly of any aggressive moves on the part of any Arab state" might have sent an entirely different message. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as freedom], on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion; yet arms ... should be the last resource. - George Washington
Post #9,169 by bepatient 9/14/01 4:18:09 PM Reply	Give me a break. One statement from this person? Saddam had made up his mind to invade. After the invasion he was told to pull back. Again and again and again. He witnessed the massing of incredible force designed to repel his armies. He did nothing. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #9,170 by Silverlock 9/14/01 4:21:50 PM Reply	OK but what's your point? You saying that he did not ask what the stance of the US was? And that the response was, in effect, we don't care what arabs do to other arabs? Sure he may have been planning to invade no matter what. But he asked first and got a go ahead. "Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." --Thomas Jefferson
Post #9,171 by bepatient 9/14/01 4:29:36 PM Reply	I would not... ...consider that exchange a "go ahead". And my original post was a response to the carpet bombing comment made by our illustrious other poster. Like I said...US sentiment right now would support a random attack that killed thousands of civilians. We will not, however, do that. These leaders may view that as a weakness. I hope the people they rule realize that it is, instead, a blessing. Our actions against Iraq were actions against military targets in a time of war. A war we may have, according to you, been able to avoid at the diplomatic table. A war that Saddam had ample time to avoid simply by backing his tanks up some 100 miles....about a 3 hour trip. Instead...he watched a multinational force build for weeks. Did he think it would not be used against him? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #9,174 by Silverlock 9/14/01 4:44:51 PM Reply	So we disagree It appears to me that tacit permission was indeed given to Saddam to go ahead with his kuwait invasion. He may have decided against the invasion without the permission, but I personally doubt it. I think he was going to attack Kuwait no matter what. As far as retreating goes, I think he truly felt he could win so why would he retreat? Ludicrous in retrospect, but I think he was going from the history of our war in Viet Nam and expected a repeat. "Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." --Thomas Jefferson
Post #9,207 by TTC 9/14/01 8:25:45 PM Reply	Re: I would not... > And my original post was a response to the carpet bombing comment made by our illustrious other poster. Would it somehow change the overall US reaction if only it was only the Pentagon (a Military target)? Again. I am NOT justifying the rationale, there is NONE. Nada. These are the actions of fanatical loonies, from a RATIONAL point of view. Just taking Iraq as an example. To those in Iraq, civilians or lunatics or otherwise, their beliefs, regardless of whether RIGHT OR WRONG, based on truth or myth, whatever, is that no matter what they do, they will no longer be given proper sovereign right, with economic embargo and other sanctions, and with the US constantly trying to "make trouble" for them. Can you imagine bombs dropping over military targets in US for say its action over Cuba by say Iraq? [link\|http://www.leler.com/cuba/embargo.html\|http://www.leler.co...embargo.html] Yes, only military targets. What then? I can understand the grief and anger over the attack. But what the heck, the way you guys are reacting to my post, it's like I'm one of those ****ing lunatics who are somehow involved in the attack.
Post #9,223 by bepatient 9/14/01 9:43:13 PM Reply	Relax dude. I understand where you're coming from. We're not the most loved nation on the planet. And this has been covered over and over again. We're hated...but we're also the first asked for help. The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument. We've never been consistent in Middle East policy...or Far East policy...etc... However, our policies change due to the nature of our people and our government of the people. We have a short term view. What we want now will not be what we want 10 years from now. Other cultures have a problem identifying with that...much the same as we have difficulty identifying with cultures like the Chinese whose viewpoint encompasses history and long term thought. It would be helpful if everyone figured that out. Like us or not...we have to be dealt with...and this terrorist activity will only piss us off...and pissing us off can be very dangerous. I've a feeling you'll see just how dangerous in a very short time. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #9,245 by TTC 9/15/01 12:14:45 AM Reply	Re: Relax dude. > I understand where you're coming from. Thank you. It's definitely better than "who give a hoot what the world thinks" kind of reponses I've received. > We're not the most loved nation on the planet. And this has been covered over and over again. We're hated...but we're also the first asked for help. The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument. Kind of similar to the US laws on Monopoly. You've got to tread carefully. > It would be helpful if everyone figured that out. Like us or not...we have to be dealt with...and this terrorist activity will only piss us off...and pissing us off can be very dangerous. I've a feeling you'll see just how dangerous in a very short time. Hopefully that will not be necessary.
Post #9,213 by Ashton 9/14/01 9:10:57 PM Reply	I want to share your assessment. That is, I agree it would not be in our 'national character' to readily yield to (what the Hermann Kahn boys called) spasm war. What concerns me is the person serving as Selected Resident, his life-history and (whatever) relationship to Dad. This-all is coming too close to Greek tragedy; Son one-ups Dad: goes All the Way (no more wimpy Saddam mistakes of, stopping at the gates). Now throw in : Powell.. And John Ashcroft (re taking care of civil liberties 'at home' - during a decared 'emergency'). No of course I have no 'data' on the inner workings of Bushie IIs mind -- but recall how EARLY came into that steel-trap the phrase, (maybe a word altered, but I heard him say it) ..this will not stand. Can we ID the source for that? (We are not here dealing in this game with, FDR's Brain Trust - and we need actually more than that - given the Jihad and meta-Jihad overtones.) A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!