NATO offers support...

Post #8,615 by Yendor 9/12/01 1:13:29 PM Reply	NATO offers support... [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/nato.us/\|CNN story] For the first time in 50 years, a NATO Member state has been attacked on its own soil. The reason for creating NATO in the first place has now come to bear, and our allies are ready to support us. -YendorMike "The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics or the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy
Post #8,716 by bconnors 9/12/01 6:30:51 PM Reply	Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? Weren't they created so that countries could work out differences in conference rooms and court rooms instead on in battlefields? Wasn't the goal to have countries come a little closer together and be a true world community? SO WHY IN THE HELL HAVEN'T THEY DONE JACK SHIT SO FAR???? No denounciations of terrorism, no pledging to help NYC, no comdemning the people who planned and perpetrated these acts, etc. What the fuck good are they? BConnors "Prepare for metamorphosis. Ready, Kafka?"
Post #8,721 by Andrew Grygus 9/12/01 6:38:08 PM Reply	They're still figuring out how to blame it all on us - and make no mistake, they will. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,723 by Yendor 9/12/01 6:46:17 PM Reply	Evacuated ...from their building. Both of the last two days. -YendorMike "The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics or the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy
Post #8,747 by wharris2 9/12/01 9:28:25 PM Reply	Evacuated, maybe. But they'll still blame us. 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 #8,761 by TTC 9/12/01 10:16:30 PM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? > Weren't they created so that countries could work out differences in conference rooms and court rooms instead on in battlefields? Wasn't the goal to have countries come a little closer together and be a true world community? > > SO WHY IN THE HELL HAVEN'T THEY DONE JACK SHIT SO FAR???? > > No denounciations of terrorism, no pledging to help NYC, no comdemning the people who planned and perpetrated these acts, etc. What the fuck good are they? > BConnors > "Prepare for metamorphosis. Ready, Kafka?" So now the UN is suddenly a big shot? What happened to the UN's decision NOT to bomb Yugoslavia? Or to end the Iraqi's "no fly zone"? Nothing personal, but America has been the greatest bully/coward. Ignoring the rest of world when it pleases itself. Using unmanned missiles/bombs to bomb the shit out of other countries that somehow doesn't buy the US brand of democracy/human right BS. Don't act surprised that this happened. As Inthan put it so bluntly, US asked for it. It's sad. For the victims, and their family, but somehow folks in the US conveniently forget that when their high-tech missiles/bombs lights up their targets in Yugoslavia and Iraq for instanance, that there are victims and they have their family too.
Post #8,765 by wharris2 9/12/01 10:24:58 PM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? The object of war is to kill people and break things. The U.S. has for the past ten years or so, in its "military actions", been devoted to scaring things, and making hopeful passes at targets. No wonder some terrorist organization (whoever they are) decided to bash us bad. We need to stop bombing asprin factories and get down to real business. Otherwise... well, look for Amtrak to return to profitability, and Greyhound to advertise: "Look, ma, no bombs". 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 #8,780 by TTC 9/12/01 10:58:34 PM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? Sure, go ahead and justify all you want about your "terrorist action" against two sovereign states (Yugoslavia and Iraq) that the UN deemed not a thread. That's 180+ nations! But of course, the US knows better, and of course, it COULD. When did UN sanction an attack on Yugoslavia? Hasn't the UN sanctioned "no fly zone" over at Iraq expired long ago? What was the latest bombing of Iraq (not too long ago, remember?) about? On WHOSE authority? For WHOSE interest?
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.
Post #8,824 by admin 9/13/01 8:54:05 AM Reply	Two trains collided in Utah this morning. Freight train and a passenger train. No word as to the cause yet. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #8,773 by addison 9/12/01 10:40:37 PM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? US asked for it. It's sad. For the victims, and their family, but somehow folks in the US conveniently forget that when their high-tech missiles/bombs lights up their targets in Yugoslavia and Iraq for instanance, that there are victims and they have their family too. And in each of those actions, the governments were warned, and the populace told, and the strikes attempted to be as surgical and as military as possible. Not with commandeered Serbian civilians on board, cutting up women, and then aiming for tens of thousands of civilians. But you're right - the US has asked for it. By not continuing "all the way through" when the rest of the world got squeamish. In Serbia, in Iraq. Of course, what do you blame the Serbs who raped and pillaged for? What do you blame the Iraqi's who raped and pillaged for? Addison
Post #8,782 by TTC 9/12/01 11:10:10 PM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? > US asked for it. It's sad. For the victims, and their family, but somehow folks in the US conveniently forget that when their high-tech missiles/bombs lights up their targets in Yugoslavia and Iraq for instanance, that there are victims and they have their family too. > > And in each of those actions, the governments were warned, and the populace told, and the strikes attempted to be as surgical and as military as possible. > > Not with commandeered Serbian civilians on board, cutting up women, and then aiming for tens of thousands of civilians. > > But you're right - the US has asked for it. By not continuing "all the way through" when the rest of the world got squeamish. In Serbia, in Iraq. > > Of course, what do you blame the Serbs who raped and pillaged for? > > What do you blame the Iraqi's who raped and pillaged for? Addison, what US gotten on 11th Sept was ONE DAY! Imagine for a change that continuing for a week, a moth, a year, a DECADE. That's what Iraq got. It lost the war. The UN and the coalition decided that that's IT. US chose to go it alone. "Enforcing" what wasn't justified by the UN and the rest of the world. Bombing as and when the US government and MILITARY "BELIEVE" there was a threat to its interest. No, I'm NOT condoning the terrorist acts. But look at it from a DIFFERENT angle, from the CIVILIANS in Iraq, Yugoslavia. How big is the DIFFERENCE you tell me.
Post #8,783 by addison 9/12/01 11:20:34 PM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? what US gotten on 11th Sept was ONE DAY! Imagine for a change that continuing for a week, a moth, a year, a DECADE. 10000 people dead a day? No. Civilian's being targetted? No. That's what Iraq got. It lost the war. And has not kept its end of the bargain to end the war. The UN and the coalition decided that that's IT. That's bullshit. US chose to go it alone. Lies. "Enforcing" what wasn't justified by the UN and the rest of the world. Bombing as and when the US government and MILITARY "BELIEVE" there was a threat to its interest. When the Iraqi's BROKE THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY AGREED TO, that STOPPED THE WAR - the examination of weapons plants, incursions on certain zones, and most importantly - not shooting at Allied planes. If you're going to troll, you've got to do better. But look at it from a DIFFERENT angle, from the CIVILIANS in Iraq, Yugoslavia. How big is the DIFFERENCE you tell me. Which civilians in Yugoslavia? the ones being slaughtered by the Serbs? Oh, not those, huh? What civilians were targetted? Not which ones were put next to military targets - which ones were TARGETTED? The difference is huge. The difference is that the government was warned, and then the military was targetted. Had this attack been made with Military planes - against military targets, you'd have a point. Or more of one. Addison
Post #8,813 by TTC 9/13/01 6:34:46 AM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? > When the Iraqi's BROKE THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY AGREED TO, that STOPPED THE WAR - the examination of weapons plants, incursions on certain zones, and most importantly - not shooting at Allied planes. > Is there a UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE within Iraq? No. But there's one decided by US, over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Tell me who the "aggressor" is in this case? Did UN sanctioned any attacks on Yugoslavia? No. But there's one decided by NATO, spearheaded by the US. Enthic cleansing? Where are the proofs now? [link\|http://members.nbci.com/yugo_archive/19991019stratfor.htm\|http://members.nbci...stratfor.htm] Just look at the reactions of most media's reporting. Jumping to conclusions that it was Arab nationals involved with no evidence, just speculations. And then trying to justify nuking countries that have known ties with terrorists, without ONCE mentioning that US actually provided most of the training and armaments. If that's NOT ties, what is? So should the US nuke itself?! Oh no, the US is the poor victim here, wrongly targetted by fanatical terrorists funded and supported by the fanatical Moslem countries in the Middle East. Yup. Excuse me while I go barf. In no way have I said that I agreed with the ACTIONS of the terrorists. But tell me again US does not see it coming.
Post #8,819 by Andrew Grygus 9/13/01 8:39:05 AM Reply	You are excused - go barf your guts out. If the U.S moves to prevent some country from slaughtering their neighbors, then "world opinion" says we are interfering with their devine right to slaughter their neighbors. In Iraq the "no fly zone" unjustly interferes with Sadam's devine right to slaughter Kurds - how very bad of us. If we stand by and do nothing, then "world opinion" acuses us of doing nothing as thousands are slaughtered. No matter what we do "world opinion" says we are wrong, so we have to do what we feel is the best we can do under the circumstances and "world opinion" can suck rocks. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,829 by TTC 9/13/01 9:22:01 AM Reply	Re: You are excused - go barf your guts out. > No matter what we do "world opinion" says we are wrong, so we have to do what we feel is the best we can do under the circumstances and "world opinion" can suck rocks. This is exactly the kind of arrogant attitude that most view the US. "We think this is the best. We will do it. Fuck the world."
Post #8,834 by Andrew Grygus 9/13/01 9:36:15 AM Reply	And you give us what alternative? There are two sides to every situation. No matter what we do, including doing nothing, "world opinion" says we are wrong and everything is our fault. "World opinion" is always the offended side, because the other is being quiet. This guarantees you will hear nothing but bad and never good about us. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,840 by TTC 9/13/01 9:56:10 AM Reply	Re: And you give us what alternative? > There are two sides to every situation. No matter what we do, including doing nothing, "world opinion" says we are wrong and everything is our fault. "World opinion" is always the offended side, because the other is being quiet. This guarantees you will hear nothing but bad and never good about us. On the contrary. The enormous contribution of the US in WWII was greatly appreciated everywhere. The leadership that the US took w.r.t. the liberation of Kuwait was roundly applauded. It was immediate, decisive and effective. The NEGATIVE portion comes about when US acts with only US interest in mind. Kyoto (sp?) treaty. NMD. Nuclear testing.
Post #8,836 by addison 9/13/01 9:43:44 AM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? Is there a UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE within Iraq? No. But there's one decided by US, over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Bullshit. You're lying. And I've already told you why. Did UN sanctioned any attacks on Yugoslavia? No. But there's one decided by NATO, spearheaded by the US. I've asked you before - which civilians should have been protected? If you're going to troll, you need to do lots better. Addison
Post #8,848 by TTC 9/13/01 10:08:21 AM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? > Is there a UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE within Iraq? No. But there's one decided by US, over Iraq's sovereign airspace. > > Bullshit. You're lying. > > And I've already told you why. I've been unable to find any UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE info. Perhaps you can help me out. > Did UN sanctioned any attacks on Yugoslavia? No. But there's one decided by NATO, spearheaded by the US. > > I've asked you before - which civilians should have been protected? > You tell me... which side do you choose to believe/help... by WHAT criteria? [link\|http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-09-10/diary.asp?imsg=2\|http://slate.msn.co...y.asp?imsg=2] [link\|http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/keller10.html\|http://www.lewrockw...eller10.html] [link\|http://www.salonmag.com/news/feature/2001/09/12/blowback/index.html\|http://www.salonmag...k/index.html] > If you're going to troll, you need to do lots better. If I were trying to JUSTIFY the actions, I would try to do better. I'm NOT. I'm pointing out the obvious, the "WHY" that many still refuse to acknowledge.
Post #8,854 by addison 9/13/01 10:23:17 AM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? I've been unable to find any UN sanctioned NO FLY ZONE info. Perhaps you can help me out. Unlikely. You're here to troll. What were the condititions that Iraq agreed to for cessation of the UN actions against them? You tell me... which side do you choose to believe/help... by WHAT criteria? You didn't answer my question. Not surprising. Because the heart of your argument is misdirection. I've asked you before - which civilians should have been protected? In Yugoslavia and Iraq, what civilians should have been protected, and where were civilians targetted and by who? Addison
Post #8,858 by TTC 9/13/01 10:40:07 AM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? > You tell me... which side do you choose to believe/help... by WHAT criteria? > > You didn't answer my question. Not surprising. Because the heart of your argument is misdirection. > > I've asked you before - which civilians should have been protected? > > In Yugoslavia and Iraq, what civilians should have been protected, and where were civilians targetted and by who? [link\|http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-09-10/diary.asp?imsg=2\|http://slate.msn.co...y.asp?imsg=2] The attacks are sad, he said, a tragedy. But then he got to the heart of the matter, not only for him but for many Macedonians who resent what they regard as American support for ethnic Albanian rebels. "Now you have experienced what terrorism is like," Ivo said. "Now you can understand what terrorism does, and you should do something about it, especially in Macedonia. You should condemn the Albanians. It's clear you're helping them. Even a child knows that." His friends nodded their heads in agreement. The rebels are terrorists, they believe, killing civilians and policemen, yet America coddles them, even supplying them with weapons (a popular belief). Maybe, the students added, the assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon will serve as a wake-up call. "Terrorists have never attacked America with this much devastation," Ivo noted. "America now should see what terrorism is really about and stop it everywhere." The feelings of Ivo and his friends are not unusual. There is no satisfaction in Skopje about the attacks on America\ufffdnone of the grotesque spectacles, seen on television, of Palestinians and Libyans celebrating the attacks. The expressions of condolence here are sincere, but there is, underneath it all, a strong belief that America has imposed its will on the Balkans in ways that are neither wise nor fair and that America should not be surprised that its actions overseas have brought deadly results to the homeland. The same belief exists in Serbia, which experienced a 78-day U.S.-led bombing campaign in 1999, and it exists among nationalists in Croatia who resent U.S. pressure to extradite war criminals to the Hague. The sourness surfaces not just in the talk of ordinary citizens but in media commentaries, too. All you need to do is pick up today's issue of New Macedonia, a pro-government paper. "The attempt by western countries to treat Albanian terrorists as human rights fighters gave them a clear field for seven months of terror against Macedonians," the main commentary states. "The difference between yesterday's attacks on the United States and the attacks of Albanian terrorists in Macedonia is just in the capacity and power of their action." In other words, Now you know how we feel. Can you tell with CERTAINTY that the Albanian were indeed the victims? Or do you simply dismissed all the abv as official Yugoslavia's propoganda? If you still want to insist that I'm trolling, so be it.
Post #8,860 by addison 9/13/01 10:42:45 AM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? [link\|http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-09-10/diary.asp?imsg=2\|http://slate.msn.co...y.asp?imsg=2] Which has WHAT to do with the BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA? Which is what you were talking about. But you won't stay on topic... which is an indication that yep, you're here to troll. Addison
Post #8,863 by TTC 9/13/01 10:51:58 AM Reply	Re: Where the Hell is the U.N. right now? > [link\|http://slate.msn.com/diary/01-09-10/diary.asp?imsg=2\|http://slate.msn.co...y.asp?imsg=2] > > Which has WHAT to do with the BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA? > > Which is what you were talking about. > > But you won't stay on topic... which is an indication that yep, you're here to troll. > > Addison > If you don't know what MACEDONIA has to do with the bombing of Yugoslavia, what are you basing your "beliefs" that the bombing of Yugoslavia was justified? I rest my case.
Post #8,866 by addison 9/13/01 10:57:48 AM Reply	Better hold that case. If you don't know what MACEDONIA has to do with the bombing of Yugoslavia, what are you basing your "beliefs" that the bombing of Yugoslavia was justified? You were blathering that the bombing of yugoslavia, and the harming of civilians, was "no different" than the WTC bombing. Now you're talking about something else. The only thing you've stayed constant on was that the US is bad, evil, and we suck. I guess you would have liked being under Japanese Suzieranity much better. Stupid us. No, idiot, you've got a looong way to go to lecture me. Addison
Post #8,917 by Steven A S 9/13/01 2:25:09 PM Reply	Two words: "Essential Harvest" Look them up. In fact I will for you: [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/europe/easterneurope/macedonia/\|Washington Post] This is a NATO sponsored mission, but the US is part of it. The interview you quoted said >The rebels are terrorists, they believe, killing civilians and policemen, yet >America coddles them, even supplying them with weapons (a popular belief). Of course you believe it because you want to believe the worst of the US, but the "Essential Harvest" mission is all about 1. taking weapons AWAY from the rebels 2. Giving rights back to them That is official information, not just the word on the street! ~~~)-Steven----
Post #8,903 by jb4 9/13/01 1:43:06 PM Reply	You need to be careful, parenthesis boy... ...you're starting to sound (and even write) suspiciously similarly to the style of one Michel Merlin. And you know in what regard we all hold his missives.... (Or maybe you don't...in which case consider that we hold the opinions of the common ground slug in higher regard.) jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #8,911 by ChrisR 9/13/01 1:59:36 PM Reply	Identity? The only person that I know that speaks in one sentence paragraphs and shouts words and phrases is one Khasim - aka Brandioch - aka TTC.
Post #8,915 by admin 9/13/01 2:05:58 PM Reply	Naw. Remember TT Chua? Regards, -scott anderson
Post #8,977 by TTC 9/13/01 8:22:43 PM Reply	Re: Naw. > Remember TT Chua? > Regards, -scott anderson Yes, that's me. And once again for the record. I do not CONDONE the terrorist actions. Hell no. I totally sympathize with all the victims and their family. Perhaps I should have said that in the very first place. But I assumed that it was a given. Nevermind though. The fact remains that there ARE many actions that the US has done that MANY do not view it purely as US trying to uphold peace and security. You can argue till your face is blue and call me whatever names, but that DOES NOT change the fact. I listed ISSUES, and ACTIONS that many believe that the US acted because of its own interest. Iraq and Yugoslavia being two of the primary ones that comes to ones mind in recent time.
Post #8,979 by addison 9/13/01 8:37:26 PM Reply	Re: Naw. I listed ISSUES, and ACTIONS that many believe that the US acted because of its own interest. Iraq and Yugoslavia being two of the primary ones that comes to ones mind in recent time. And said that because we killed civilians there (not targetted - pains NOT to target them) - to stop them killing others (who apparently you're all in favor of wiping off the face of the earth), that condones the attitude. You listed half-truths and the sort of propaganda that the radical muslims use to incite people. Condone it, don't, I don't give a good damn. You're no better. Addison+
Post #8,980 by addison 9/13/01 8:46:10 PM Reply	Oh, yeah. The fact remains that there ARE many actions that the US has done that MANY do not view it purely as US trying to uphold peace and security. You can argue till your face is blue and call me whatever names, but that DOES NOT change the fact. I listed ISSUES, and ACTIONS that many believe that the US acted because of its own interest. Iraq and Yugoslavia being two of the primary ones that comes to ones mind in recent time. You never bothered to address the issue about the hatred the US engendered in the Pacific keeping the Japanese from conquering you as a slave country. (Who seem to think it was really unfair that they weren't allowed to have a empire, and wanted the area around you) I guess we really screwed up there, huh? What utter utter bastards we are. Addison
Post #8,956 by jb4 9/13/01 6:35:06 PM Reply	Scorecards....getcher Scorecards here.... [...]one Khasim - aka Brandioch - aka TTC. OK, I'll bite...how do you keep track of the various aliases of the players? Where is the scorecard vendor? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #8,873 by Steven A S 9/13/01 11:26:49 AM Reply	Military vs Civilian targets >Addison, what US gotten on 11th Sept was ONE DAY! Imagine for a change that >continuing for a week, a moth, a year, a DECADE. US military is targeting AA guns and missle turrets in Iraq. They've also in the past targeted weapons factories (primarily chemical). These are military targets. There are NO civilians when involved with these targets. Anybody manning a missle turret, or building those weapons is for all intents and purposes a military target. Military is trained to handle the probability that they could get killed in battle. Civilians on the other hand (whether flying home to see family or do business, or businessmen going about their business:buying or selling or whatever, including selling the very products you are so proud of exporting to us) especially when they are nowhere near a military base or outpost, expect to be safe (even more so when not in a declared state of war). In Iraq those targets were known by them to be potential targets. If the roles were reversed, the US would have pulled the innocents away from target areas so they wouldn't be hurt; Iraq went as far as ensuring their "innocents" were IN harms way just so they could turn around and say "look what the evil infadels have done". This obviously works well since they seem to have fools like you believing that Iraq was the victim. The only victims were those innocents they forced into being human fodder in or near their installations. They were victims of their own government, and what's worse, is they're made to believe they're doing it for their god. ~~~)-Steven----
Post #8,817 by Another Scott 9/13/01 8:31:47 AM Reply	Unanimous UN SC resolution yesterday. [link\|http://www.un.org/NewLinks/\|UN New Links] A UN representative yesterday said the Secretary General issued a strong statement of condemnation, and the Security Council passed a unanimous resolution (1368) condemning the attacks, offering support, etc. [link\|http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm\|SC Resolution 1368] The Security Council today, following what it called yesterday\ufffds "horrifying terrorist attacks" in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, unequivocally condemned those acts, and expressed its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and Government of the United States. Council members departed from tradition and stood to unanimously adopt resolution 1368 (2001), by which they expressed the Council's readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the attacks of 11 September and to combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with its Charter responsibilities. In a related provision, the Council called on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of those terrorist attacks and stressed that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring them would be held accountable. Also by the text, the Council held that any act of international terrorism was a threat to international peace and security.\ufffd It also called on the international community to redouble its efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Council resolutions.\ufffd [...] It's unpresidented. The followup, of course, will be most important. Cheers, Scott.
Post #8,821 by Andrew Grygus 9/13/01 8:45:32 AM Reply	Yes, follow-up is critical . . . . but that's a good start. Of course TTC will tell us the Security Council isn't the "real U.N." and the rest of the members say we deserved this and more. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,830 by TTC 9/13/01 9:23:23 AM Reply	Re: Yes, follow-up is critical . . > . . but that's a good start. > > Of course TTC will tell us the Security Council isn't the "real U.N." and the rest of the members say we deserved this and more. Oh great, now you're putting words into my mouth.
Post #8,845 by Andrew Grygus 9/13/01 10:01:12 AM Reply	Well, you're pretty predictable . . . . why should we wait? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,850 by boxley 9/13/01 10:14:08 AM Reply	Freedom is not free without loud dissent. thanks completely disagree with you of course but appreciate your trying to make us stop and think a little harder. thanx, bill why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them? Randy Wayne White
Post #8,857 by TTC 9/13/01 10:28:55 AM Reply	Re: Freedom is not free without loud dissent. thanks > completely disagree with you of course but appreciate your trying to make us stop and think a little harder. > thanx, > bill Disagree with? The "Why" it happens? That the US "asked for it"? I would like to know what you're disagreeing... :) Thanks. PS. US is indeed a great country, with a lot of great people. But some of its actions in the recent years have further shown its arrogance and disdain on the world's opinion.
Post #8,865 by ChrisR 9/13/01 10:53:46 AM Reply	"world opinion" PS. US is indeed a great country, with a lot of great people. But some of its actions in the recent years have further shown its arrogance and disdain on the world's opinion. You seem to have some knowledge of what "world opinion" is. Care to give us an example of where the world has stood up and told the U.S. to stop any particular action? "World opinion" seems to be mostly apathetic when it comes to these matters. Serbia? Most of Europe supported the action in Yugoslavia, with only the Chinese dissenting - and that was a very muffled dissent. Iraq? The world opinion was that Iraq should be monitored for production of nuclear and chemical weapons, but they were unable to come to a consensus on how to carry that out. So how many nations have stood up in the last few years and given the U.S. the ultimatum that they need to let Iraq be "free". Again, some criticism here and there when it's convenient for their own ends, but where's the outcry that the U.S. is openly disdaining? Palestine? The situation is really rather simple. Set up a Palestinian homeland and let Israel live in peace (or vice versa, which is where the situation is hung up). Beyond the Arab nations - which seem to use the issue more for political gain, than any seeming cry for peace and prosperity - which nations of the world have condemned the U.S.? It is one thing to say that the U.S. sometimes goes beyond what "world opinion" is willing to do. It is quite another to say that the U.S. is saying fuck you to the rest of the world. You obviously have a skewed sense of judgement about how the world is reacting to U.S. actions. Instead of placing the blame on the U.S., why don't you tell the rest of the world to get it's shit together and speak with a clear voice - since you seem to weld the power of "world opinion", it shouldn't be too difficult for you to whip the rest of the world into consensus?
Post #8,868 by TTC 9/13/01 11:10:36 AM Reply	Re: "world opinion" Kyoto Accord, NMD, Nuke testing. Need I go on? Giving US the ultimatum? Who dares? Even the UN has to quietly wait for the US to pay its membership dues. I will suggest you go to the following site... [link\|http://www.antiwar.com/\|http://www.antiwar.com/]
Post #8,871 by Another Scott 9/13/01 11:26:40 AM Reply	Let's consider your list. Hi TT, Kyoto Accord, NMD, Nuke testing. Need I go on? Yes, we can consider those. Kyoto: 1 country has ratified the Kyoto protocols. 1. Romania? There's lots of political bluster about the US decision to withdraw from it, but you don't see other countries putting it on their law books either. And there's good reason to believe that even if it were implemented it would make little difference except take a huge amount of money from other causes which would save far more lives - like improving the water supply in poor countries. See, e.g., the new book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He says even with full implementation, it'll delay the predicted 2 degree global warming over the next 50 years (as I recall) by 6 years. NMD: The US has not withdrawn from the ABM treaty. It, along with the Constitution and all other treaties, is still the supreme law of the USA. There have been discussions about building a NMD system, and discussions about withdrawing from the ABM treaty. But there's lots of opposition to those actions in the US. And with the actions on Tuesday, it's certainly possible that those in government will consider that maybe NMD isn't worth the money right now. Nuke Testing: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Apparently there have been statements that Bush made along the lines of he'd accept more Chinese testing, but I don't know the details nor how that affects your argument. There would be strong opposition in the US to resumption of nuclear testing. I don't think you're making a strong case with the arguments you've presented thus far. Yes, the US has, with the benefit of hindsight, done bad things in the world. Different choices could have been made in many cases. But your broadside is misplaced, IMHO. Cheers, Scott.
Post #8,874 by ChrisR 9/13/01 11:27:25 AM Reply	Cowardice? Kyoto Accord, NMD, Nuke testing. Need I go on? Typical troll. Shift the issue away from the original issues into a wholly different set at the drop of a hat. The Kyoto Accord is global warming issue, not U.S. intervention. NMD is a domestic policy that has yet to be implemented - though it is being bandied about. Nuke testing - yep we've been exploding nuclear bombs all over the world. Not one of these fucking issues has a damn thing to do with what happened at the WTC. But I guess that don't matter to a troll. You use the tragedy of others to spread your own agenda. Giving US the ultimatum? Who dares? So you are basically saying that the rest of the world has no backbone? Of course, that's what started this thread. The U.N. is little more than an opinion poll, where member states can't seem to agree on any action other than slaps on the wrist like economic sanctions and sermons.
Post #8,884 by boxley 9/13/01 12:56:22 PM Reply	sniff, wipes me eye just like the old days on IWE :) why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them? Randy Wayne White
Post #8,940 by pwhysall 9/13/01 4:00:26 PM Reply	Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #8,867 by bluke 9/13/01 11:07:36 AM Reply	Think about who the UN members are Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, N. Korea, Cuba, China, Nigeria, Pakistan etc. Unfortunately these kinds of countries(dictatorships and sponsors of terror) make up the majority of the UN. This is why the UN Rasicm Conference in Durban was such a joke. The leaders of all the dictatorships came and made speeches about human rights.

Welcome to IWETHEY!