Post #201,389
3/31/05 9:38:07 AM
|
"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
3/31/05 9:50:50 AM
|
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
3/31/05 11:15:26 AM
|
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
3/31/05 11:19:02 AM
|
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
3/31/05 11:53:37 AM
|
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
3/31/05 1:45:01 PM
|
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
4/1/05 10:49:22 AM
|
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
|
