No, there is plenty of support for

Post #201,384 by Arkadiy 3/31/05 9:19:36 AM Reply	No, there is plenty of support for "The War on Bin Laden" that is similar to "The War on Drugs". You know, the kind of war that's indistinguishable from "business as usual". Not any other kind. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #201,387 by jake123 3/31/05 9:26:48 AM Reply	I disagree I think there's a lot of support in the US for going after bin Laden, and even in the rest of the world. Canada did after all accompany the US into Afghanistan for just that reason. However, that's not what the US is doing now. The problem that GWB seems to be having is that at this late stage of the game, people are no longer willing to take the stated aim at face value; too many examples of words and deeds differing markedly in the last few years. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #201,389 by Arkadiy 3/31/05 9:38:07 AM Reply	"Going after bikn Laden" in the fashion of organized crime invetigation - yes. Bombing Saudi Arabia into stone age for financing Wahhabism - no. Do you _understand_ what war is? It's _not_ police action. It does _not_ involve proof, arrests or convictions. It's raw chaotic killing, extermination, conduct that in any other circumstances would be called a crime. The Afghan campain was indeed as close as we ever came to supporting a _war_. It was done mostly by Air Force and dollars. It was extremely limited in scope. We simply gave support to the less dominant faction in a civil war. No, I do not think support for Afghanistan qualifies as support for war. (Please keep in mind, I do not _want_ real support for war to materialize. It will set us back by hundreds of years, morally. And yet, it's inevitable, as long as bin Laden keeps his end of the proceedings) -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #201,392 by jake123 3/31/05 9:50:50 AM Reply	Sorry, you seem to be forgetting something I'm not from the US. Take a look at what Canada's been doing in Afghanistan over the last three or four years. The reason why we allied with the US on Afghanistan was because there was a clear and direct connection between the Taliban and bin Laden, which leads to a clear and direct connection between the Taliban and the events of September 11th. As such, war on the Taliban was justifiable, and we've had both Special Forces (TF2 is the name of the unit) as well as regular troops on the ground in Afghanistan since. The number one activity of the regular troops since their arrival has been removing land mines, and policing in Kabul. Why did we decide to take this on? After all, this represents a substantial chunk of treasure, and Canadian blood has been spilled in Afghanistan. And yet, there is no serious opposition to involvement there among the Canadian public. This is because the then government in Afghanistan had played a large role in enabling 9/11, if not actively supporting it. Furthermore, the goal of capturing bin Laden and bringing him to justice is a laudable one. Two years later, it was no longer clear that those were in fact the real goals of US policy, so no participation in Iraq. That is the current situation we see now, and unless and until the stated and apparent goals of US foreign and military policy come into accord again, I think there's going to be a lot of resistance in my country to helping your country out. And if there's a lot of resistance here to that, the kinds of resistance you can expect from those further away is going to be huge. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #201,416 by jb4 3/31/05 11:15:26 AM Reply	Sorry, you seem to be forgetting something Do you _understand_ what war is? It's _not_ police action. Maybe not where you're from, but here, it most assuredly is a police action, and has been for the last 60 years. Here's a hint: Of our last 7 wars in the last 60 years, how many have been accompanied with a formal declaration of war, as required by our Constitution? (You do remember that quaint appendage to our legal system, don't you?) If you can't keep up, take notes.... And, unlike jake123, I am an American! jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #201,417 by Arkadiy 3/31/05 11:19:02 AM Reply	Yes I did notice that no civilized coutry fought a real war for 50 years now, declared or otherwise. It does not make police action and war the same. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #201,428 by jb4 3/31/05 11:53:37 AM Reply	Maybe not in your mind probably becuase you have one, and ar enot afraid to use it. But for those in Washington, they most assuredly are the same thing. Why else, for example, would shitferbraind Rummy try to prosecute both Afganistan and Iraq on the cheap? Why wouldn't the US bomb Hanoi? why was there a Grenada? I can name that tune in two words: Police. Action. QED jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #201,451 by Another Scott 3/31/05 1:45:01 PM Reply	Eh? Nit. Why wouldn't the US bomb Hanoi? Um, the US [link\|http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1224-04.htm\|did] bomb Hanoi. Do you mean Pyong Yang or something? I can think of several things that you might have been trying to say there, but it might be better for you to clarify what you meant. Cheers, Scott.
Post #201,540 by jb4 4/1/05 10:49:22 AM Reply	IIRC... One of the main points of contention between the military (who, all differences aside, really did want to win the "war") and the politicos was that the US forces were enjoined from bombing Hanoi...or at least parts of Hanoi that would have put severe pressure on the North. The Military wanted to leverl the place...non-nuclearly, of course, but simply to reduce it to a picture resembling Dresden or Hamburg, so as to break the "enemy". The politicians would not allow that, so we ended up with what we got. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #201,388 by Silverlock 3/31/05 9:37:15 AM Reply	I agree "The War on Bin Laden" that is similar to "The War on Drugs". Just look how succesfull the War on Drugs has been. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #201,390 by Arkadiy 3/31/05 9:38:31 AM Reply	My point exactly. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #201,426 by Simon_Jester 3/31/05 11:48:57 AM Reply	Nod...point taken... but, my only comment was that Americans can and will support a true action to bring Bin Laden to justice (war/kidnapping/whatever). Furthermore, we could've rolled a wall of tanks across Afganistan with complete support. And, unlike the War on Drugs, there's a nice neat way to determine when you have "won" the War to get Bin Laden. You have him in custody. The problem isn't that we don't have the support...or that the action is impossible (War on Drug), the problem is that our Administration has decided that Bin Laden is no longer a threat and HAS STOPPED THE WAR. Kerry called him on it in the debates. He was a fool not to push it harder.
Post #201,434 by Arkadiy 3/31/05 12:08:45 PM Reply	Wall of tanks across Pakistan? That's where he is now, right? How about Saudi Arabia? That's where money is coming from. Do we have support for that? -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #201,437 by jake123 3/31/05 12:14:31 PM Reply	Not among the moneyed classes and they're they only people the administration is listening to right now. But, I don't think they really want to solve the problem. It would take a way a lever that can be used to manipulate the electorate. Not good from their point of view. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #201,395 by JayMehaffey 3/31/05 10:08:35 AM Reply	Define succesful "The War on Bin Laden" that is similar to "The War on Drugs". Just look how succesfull the War on Drugs has been. At getting politicans elected? It's actually worked pretty well. It's only if you make the mistake of defining the War on Drugs as having anything to do with reducing drug usage that it looks like a failure. I'm sure the War on Bin Laden will work the same way. Jay
Post #201,415 by Silverlock 3/31/05 11:03:53 AM Reply	Not a failure at stated purpose ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #201,459 by ben_tilly 3/31/05 2:36:15 PM Reply	I firmly believe that you're wrong about that I am strongly opposed to this administration's actions. Particularly in Iraq. However after 9/11 I expected there to be a formal declaration of war, a draft, and an all-out effort to demonstrate very clearly to bin Laden and anyone who wanted to shelter him that you Do Not Fuck With Us. Not only did I expect that but I would have supported it! (And where I was in NY, a good number of my co-workers expected a reaction like that from the USA.) After all that was our reaction the last time that someone managed to successfully attack the USA on US soil. (A minor incident named Pearl Harbour. You may remember it. I'd personally consider that a far smaller deal than taking out the 2 most economically important buildings in the USA, hitting our military headquarters, and attempting to take out the White House.) Then Bush came out and told us all to continue shopping. He further proceeded to take out Afghanistan in a fairly careless way and then proceeded to try to turn the public feeling into support for taking out Iraq. (Which had nothing to do with 9/11.) Yes, there was support for something more than treating this as business as usual. And if we had a real leader in the white-house, rather than an heir designated by the usual interests, we might have demonstrated that to the world. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #201,466 by Arkadiy 3/31/05 3:26:24 PM Reply	One of us is highly untypical. (and I think it's not me :) ) Not one person I know expected a formal declaration of war or, God forbid, draft. Yes, people expected "something". No, no one expected or supported the kind of intervention that Pearl Harbor triggered. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #201,478 by ben_tilly 3/31/05 4:33:33 PM Reply	Truly none? In the first few days as NYC went into a military lockdown, nobody that you knew had such expectations? That surprises me. I strongly suspect that if you talked to various people you'll find that some did think that - you just don't know that they did. I think that if you dug further into what people say now versus what they were saying as the shock was still settling in, that more of them were ready for extreme measures then than recall it that way now. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!