Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on November 16, 2001, 10:18:00 AM
-
Anyone else see the assembly of Texas school kids, Bush and Putin?
I watch the entire thing and thought it was great. Very down to earth and reassuring. Putin and Bush each gave a little speal then took questions from the kids.
If they replay it, it's worth the time.
-
Man it was freakin funny! Putin's crack about selling us Alaska was hilarious, as well as Bush's Texas in August / Sybiria in the winter joke. I really loved it when Bush told that studen to listen to his mother :)
It's good to see our leaders having a good time with each other. I just can't imagine Reagan and Gorby laughing and joking like this. Clinton was to worried about his next piece of arse to joke w/ Yelsin, and old Boris was too drunk (i think) to know where he was at!
One thing I must add. In my life I have met a lot of people. To this day, of all the men I have met that were "best friends" started out hating each other and ended up fist fighting only to learn "respect" for each other durring the fight. Afterwards, they are tight as brothers. I'm hoping that this is the relationship we can now forge with Russia, it should have been started 10 yrs ago, but once again Clinton was more worried about popsicle than he was about world affairs.
-
Doh!
I also more worried about popsicles than world affairs!
Whats the problem?
Okay, sure I be not US-President :D
Jv44 (Andreas)
-
I cracked up when the little girl ask the President if he was going to Russia, and if so, if he was going to take any kids with him?
The President responded. "Nooooo". You can tell he has kids :)
-
Udie - isn't this the same Clinton who tried to broker agreements in both Northern Ireland and Palestine? The same Clinton who is almost universally agreed to be 'instrumental' to the Good Friday Agreement? The same Clinton who's administration was heavily involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?
In comparison, you have George W. Bush. A man who is so concerned about world terrorism, he relies on the leader of another State to fly around the world rallying support. Who until very recently thought 'General' was a common first name for Pakistani leaders. ;)
George W Bush doesn't strike me as the master diplomat. In a few years? Maybe. Although it's good to see Russia and the US getting on so well.
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Udie - isn't this the same Clinton who tried to broker agreements in both Northern Ireland and Palestine? The same Clinton who is almost universally agreed to be 'instrumental' to the Good Friday Agreement? The same Clinton who's administration was heavily involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?
No it's the same Clinton who as a youth "dispised" the military then who as president used that military more times and on more diferent countries than any other president in our history. The same Clinton who any time his sorry bellybutton was in trouble on tv started bombing some other country, including an asprin factory in Afganastan. The same Clinton who could have ended this in 1993 when the WTC was first attacked. The same Clinton who let Sadam throw the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq. Yes the same Clinton who lied under oath at least 2 times in two diferent courts. I can see how far his diplomacy has gotten us in the middle east. Don't worry though I don't assign all the blame to him :)
In comparison, you have George W. Bush. A man who is so concerned about world terrorism, he relies on the leader of another State to fly around the world rallying support. Who until very recently thought 'General' was a common first name for Pakistani leaders. ;)
Dowding you are so completely wrong it makes me sick to read what you wrote and really pisses me off, but I shall try and keep my cool. IN COMPARISON [/b] We, the USA, have a President who is the son of a man who flew a TBM avenger fighting the Japanese in WW2. A President who's father was the head of the CIA, Vice President and President. A father that has first hand experience building world wide coallitions and I'm sure who wouldn't mind giving some advice to his son, the President.
In comparison we have a President who says what he means. It may not always come out perfect, but at least you don't have to parse every freaking word that comes out of his mouth to know what he's really saying. In comparison we have a president that set up an administration that has the most experienced foriegn policy team in the history of our nation.
In comparison I have a President who's best strength as that everybody keeps underestimating his abilities.
You know Tony Blair has been flying around the world helping to keep the coallition together, and for that I'm very proud of him and greatful. I wish you'd show some gratitude to what my president is doing to fight this war and maintain world peace instead of making fun of him.
George W Bush doesn't strike me as the master diplomat. In a few years? Maybe. Although it's good to see Russia and the US getting on so well.
We shall see.
-
Dont bother trying Udie its not worth it, the man just hates the USA.......
-
In my estimation, his opinion ranks right up there with hillary's. YAWN.
-
What Grunherz? No effing this, or commie that? And yes, I really do hate the US.
Fool.
Easymo - Frankly, your opinions count for little in my book too. A man who believes the opinion of an author of departure lounge fiction has some supreme, important insight into world events is living in a dream world.
Udie - You seriously believe politicians are born with convictions that are unchanged throuout their lives? For example, Tony Blair used to be a conservative in his youth and stood for election on those grounds. Now he's a champagne socialist. There's this guy Peter Hitchens who was actually a hard line Marxist in his youth - now he's as conservative as you could possibly be.
The same Clinton who any time his sorry bellybutton was in trouble on tv started bombing some other country, including an asprin factory in Afganastan.
You surely don't think only Clinton is guilty of this? It's a tactic as old as the hills.
The same Clinton who let Sadam throw the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq.
Well, I don't see what he could have done in this situation. He supported an embargo on humanitarian aid that has killed half a million Iraqi children in response (UNICEF figures), so it wasn't as though he wasn't trying.
Yes the same Clinton who lied under oath at least 2 times in two diferent courts.
Sure he lied. But the fact that an investigation was ever called which would put the President in that position, is quite interesting. It never happened with Kennedy, did it? And it's he highly likely he boffed Monroe while in office. She didn't keep her mouth shut either - it was a well know fact at the time.
I can see how far his diplomacy has gotten us in the middle east.
Prior to this year's violence, the Palestinians and Israelis were closer to an agreement than ever. In fact, the Israelis had made so many concessions that Sharon was able to win on that issue alone (after a little ethnic tension incitement).
The Palestinians had an amazing offer on their plates - they turned their noses up at it. And we are where we are now.
But the bottom line is - they are all the same. Only able to look at the bigger picture after their own interests are covered.
Dowding you are so completely wrong it makes me sick to read what you wrote and really pisses me off, but I shall try and keep my cool.
J-O-K-E Udie. Hence the smiley.
Are you saying you don't find that interview on Bush's knowledge of the world outside the US funny at all? The fact that the guy being interviewed is now the most powerful man on the planet, only makes it funnier.
Without him it still would be quite funny.
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
uhm, Dowding? There is NO embargo on
Humanitarian aid. Shall I assume that was a typo?
Tex
-
Dowding,
I feel sorry for ya man, you've been fed some socialistic propoganda and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. I'd respond to everything in your post but it would be a waste of both our times.
The only thing I think I must say is about Iraq. Saddam lost a war, actually the war never ended officialy, just an armasist or what ever. UN sanctions haven't killed one Iraqi ever, that blood is on Saddam's hands PERIOD. He gets aid money and suplies and gives it to his freakin army while his citizens go sick and starving. He uses the money he makes on oil we let him sell for humanitarian reasons on weapons and weapons research. Fact remains that he pulled enough toejam durring clintons term that we should have gone back and removed him then.
sad sad sad...
-
Wow dowding really has read his "I hate the USA" newsletters carefully, this half-million "muredered" by USA iraqi children line is exactly the same thing I hear over and over from all the USA hater communist amazinhunks.
Really Dowding you must let all us uneducated, unenligthtened neanderthal patriotic(dowding reads as: "baby killers") Americans in on the real "truth" and tell us where can we send for this "I hate the USA" newsletter, cmon dont keep all the good stuff to yourself.....
How did you put it? Oh yea, Fool.
-
Opinions are like amazinhunks everyone has one dowding?
-
Grunherz, after your description of genocide of Serbs in Krajna - your opinion doesn't count. I doubt that anyone can consider your nazi hallucinatiuons worth reading.
Being called a "commie" by you is a honour for any sane man.
-
Genocide...... Im sorry Boroda though nobody in our civil war was a perfect combatant the only people who commited systematic Gewnocide including concentration camps, murde4r factories and even rape camps were the Serbs. Im sorry that this bothers you but thats a fact, then they went and did it again in Kosovo.
You are full of toejam, and everyone on this BBS knows knows you are an unemplyed drunken unrepentant cpommunist amazinhunk who still thinks this is circa 1965 and is delighhtfully proud and boastful of your uncle killing "baby killer" US pilots in Vietnam with his SAM batteries.
Go to hell you whoopee wortheless piece of communist toejam!
-
GH, please define yourself: are you an American, Yugoslavian or Croatian? It's mandatory for a nazi to identify his nationality.
Tell us once again that the deportation of 350000 ethnic Serbs was a good idea. You can thank the US again for backing up Croatian zondercommanden.
Yes, I am proud of my Uncle, and hope he saved many lifes in Vietnam.
I am happy about the change of relations between Russia and US, but I still have some questions to the US government:
1) When Clinton, Allbright and other gangsters will be under trial for supporting terrorism in Kosovo?
2) When mr. Powell will finaly state that US unconditionaly supports Russian anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya?
-
Ah; once again; all the usual suspects have checked in..
..and as usual, we got all the stock knee-jerked indignant rebuttals.
We really need to empanel this group for a '10 questions' moderated (HA!) discussion.
I mean; chit; ain't nothin good on TV! :D
-
Boroda dont deny it. You have to know and agree that dowding is a misguided fool. If he doesnt like what the people of the fre world including his own country does then he can move somewhere else. I seems he would like a place like lets see china no afghanastan yes, yes that might be a good place.
p.s. Boroda i never knew russians could be so damn funny not only in that interview but in many others ive see on the sattelite.
-
Yes Boroda everyone does "genocide" except Serbs and communist era Russians (especially under Stalin), we all know the real perpetrator of all genocide is the USA.........
Idiot!
-
I was taking the piss, Grunherz, with the 'I hate America' comment. S-A-R-C-A-S-M. Get a damned clue. You see the world in shades of black and white; you're either one thing or the other.
Criticism must mean hate, praise must mean love?
Texter - do some searches on the internet. Gen up on Iraq. The embargo IS on humanitarian aid.
1) It HAS killed half a million kids
2) It HAS supplied Saddam with a stick to beat the West.
3) It HAS hardened Middle Eastern opinions regarding Western involvement over Iraq. They ALL detest the guy, but are angry over the treatment of Iraqi people.
Udie - I know it must be comforting to believe anyone who holds an opinion different to yours is either a) brain-washed; b) communist; c) both, but it simply isn't true.
To believe that the country you hold citizenship with is above criticism, incapable of making mistakes AND good natured in *every* policy is naive in the extreme. Its also not supported by the facts.
Opinions are like amazinhunks everyone has one dowding?
Your incisive wit simply takes my breath away. Surely you must be a writer for the Simpsons?
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Texter - do some searches on the internet. Gen up on Iraq. The embargo IS on humanitarian aid.
No, it is not. The fact that searches find places that say it is ill.uminates only the reading comprehension part of the program. Example for the clueless; without searching I'll wager I can find a page that says hitler isn't dead but is living in South America. I suppose you'll tell me that page is true because it's on the Internet?
Short answer, I've read the crap spewed by anti-americans in more places than the Internet and most times they remind me of eddie Haskell telling Mrs. Beaver that the Beav will be O! K! with him around watching over things.
Tex
let me know if I'm being too obtuse for you, it's a bad habit
-
OK Dowding we here in the evil USA are making a big mistake in Iraq...... (right, :rolleyes: )
Anyway since you obviously know better tell us how the USA should have handled Saddam in the past few years.
BTW please answer this question and try not to avoid it or change the subject. (I know ull try to change the subject, so take this as a friendly reminder)
Ok remember answer above question....
-
Texter - I'm talking about recognised non governmental organisations or international groups such as UNICEF. Not some bloke with a website, an agenda and time on his hands.
Saddam is certainly to blame for most of Iraq's problems, but the embargo is idiotic at best. And they have been a significant factor in the increase in mortality rate since the embargo began.
I did you a favour and searched the internet for the UNICEF report I mentioned earlier:
Results of the 1999 Iraq Child and Maternal Mortality Surveys (http://www.unicef.org/reseval/iraqr.html)
BBC report on how Saddam is capitalising on the embargo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_477000/477438.stm)
Report on US's recognition of ineffectiveness of Embargo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1191000/1191717.stm)
lol Grunherz. I don't see why I should be under any compulsion to explain anything to you, after the crap you spewed about me in several other threads. I've no intention with dignifying your posts wth an answer anymore. You're not worth the time or effort.
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
So in other words you have no idea about a better way to deal with Saddam, you can just squeak about how you think the evil USA is going about murdering children...
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Texter - do some searches on the internet. Gen up on Iraq. The embargo IS on humanitarian aid.
Since you can't seem to understand what you read I'll repost your own words here. Now go look at those pretty links you posted and refute my contention that you're wrong. I've read them. Have you?
clue: HUMANITARIAN!!!
Now, when we get on the same page, we MIGHT can have a logical discussion about why embargoes typically don't work. Think you can get there little tomato?
Tex
I only get nasty the second time someone repeats erroneous information.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
champagne socialist.
I've free caviar leftist for you if you want :)
-
HEY!
I just wanted to state the televised school kid interaction with the Presidents of the two most powerful countries in the world was a real joy to watch and experience.
Now get off my thread and start ur own! :)
-
Texter - do ANY research into the subject and you'll find that the sanctions are a de facto HUMANITARIAN embargo. DE FACTO. It is illegal to import or export anything (including medical aid or foodstuffs), outside the oil-for-food programme (which is wholely inadequate). Here's why it is a humanitarian embargo by another name:
In 1990, UN Security Council Resolution 661 was invoked, which prohibited the import or export of anything except foodstuff or medical goods. But considering 90% of Iraq's income came from oil exports, there was no practicable way for humanitarian aid to be bought.
In 1991, after the UN's own reports showed massive suffering inside Iraq, Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed. These allowed Iraq to sell $1.6 billion of oil every six months.
Now, the UN then deducted 40% of that amount in war reparations and UN expenses. This left less than half of the $3.6 billion the UN itself estimated the country needed as the minimum emergency needs. A tiny amount compared to the $22 billion required to build Iraq's infrastructure.
Saddam, in his wisdom, rejected this offer.
So the people of Iraq have been subject to wholly political wranglings between one slightly deranged dictator and the supposed representative of modern civilisation.
In 1996, the situation was reviewed and a new package drawn up. Iraq was permitted to sell $1 billion of oil over a 90-day (renewable) period in order to buy humanitarian supplies. All proceeds from such sales will be placed in a UN-controlled bank account, to which Iraq has no access. Of the $4 billion of revenues over one year, 30 percent will go towards reparations for the Gulf war, 15 percent will go towards humanitarian supplies for 3 million Kurds in northern Iraq, 5-10 percent will pay for UN operations in Iraq, and 5-10 percent will cover repair and maintenance of the oil pipelines--leaving about $1.6 billion for Iraq's remaining population of 18 million, less than $7.50 per person every month.
The various UN agencies have estimated that Iraq needs to import almost $4 billion per year in food and medicine alone - more than twice the amount allocated to humanitarian needs under the food-for-oil-deal.
Meanwhile, those wanting to donate humanitarian supplies outside the food-for-oil deal (such as NGOs, individuals etc) are at risk of prosecution. This is particularly true in the US.
-
Good.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Texter - do ANY research into the subject and you'll find that the sanctions are a de facto HUMANITARIAN embargo. DE FACTO.
Let's hear you say it then. "I was wrong" You can do it.
You do understand that you said earlier it was an embargo and finally admitted just now it wasn't REALLY an embargo but, according to you, APPEARS to be an embargo. (context my man, context)
as for the rest of your argument....
I have trouble finding any sympathy for Iraqis. Call it a personal fault or failure.
Tex
one question though, it's a UN plan but the US's fault? just checking...
[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: texter ]
-
Originally posted by texter:
I have trouble finding any sympathy for Iraqis. Call it a personal fault or failure.
Personal trouble AND failure.
-
I believe there is a new plan to deal with Iraq's leader in the works right now.
Shouldn't have to wait too long for its debut, either.
But I don't think Dowding is going to like this one either. :(
-
hummmm now we're talking about embargos, and saddams, and the lot...
what about cuba?. IIRC they are still under an embargo, and there is an (unlawful?) american law wich prohibited all commerce with Cuba.
I know, Castro is a piece of toejam, but,hell you MUST know a cuban to hear and understand wich is the situation there. Castro is living as a richman while his people starves under an one-sided embargo (wich, I think, was denounced by the UN as illegal)
...
-
Just to be more precise : I DON'T support any Saddam or Castro of any kind.
I feel sad to know that some human will die because of a "unlucky" birth.
As I Father I can't stand the idea that a little Boy/Girl is not likely to grow past 5 year just because of a dictator we contributed to put in place.
-
US-Cuban relations are never going to be "normal" as long as Castro is in charge/ is still alive.
You can debate it all you like but in the end it is simply what Henry Kissinger used to call "Realpolitik".
So the Cubans can either toss him out or wait for him to die. Then watch the relationship bloom; it will amaze you.
While this must all seem like an interminable delay to some, it's merely an eye-blink in the politics of time.
As far as the UN declaring a US embargo "illegal", I'd like to read more about that. Any link?
Straffo, don't forget sometimes a "dictator that we contributed to put in place" was still the best choice to be made at the time. Sometimes the choice is to support the lesser of two evils.
-
Here's an inneresting perspective on Putin's visit.
SCMP Business Section (http://columns.scmp.com/monitor/ZZZ4K4U81UC.html)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Straffo, don't forget sometimes a "dictator that we contributed to put in place" was still the best choice to be made at the time. Sometimes the choice is to support the lesser of two evils.
Sure it is.
In the case of Saddam he was usefull to put preasure on the Iranian and it was a well known fact (even in the 80's) that he never was a boy scout.
Foreign affair have some grey/dark sides and it's quite easy to critic a choice done 10/20 year before with insufisant or no knowledge of the future (as Forrest Gump said : toejam happen).
But I can't stop my critics :) it's my anachist side ;)
-
Toad -
Not illegal, just naughty ;) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/cuba/unvote/001109ap.htm)
-
So the UN doesn't like the sanctions?
The same UN that put SYRIA on the UN Security Council? Syria, despite being on the US terrorist sponsor list?
The same UN that voted the United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission? The same UN that gave Libya, Syria and Sudan seats in the commission during the past two years?
Libya, Syria, Sudan and Human Rights. There's a good one! That UN is some serious outfit!
This part is interesting though:
"The nonbinding, Cuban-drafted resolution"
Takes a lot of guts to vote for a non-binding resolution, eh?
:D
-
Originally posted by straffo:
Personal trouble AND failure.
you are welcome to your opinion sir.
Tex
looked in the mirror lately though?
-
Yup the same UN that sanctioned US action against Iraq too.
The same UN that imposed sanctions on Afghanistan in 1999 to force the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US.
The same UN that has had sanctions in place against Sudan since 1996
The same UN that sanctioned Libya.
That the UN doesn't like the sanctions in Cuba may be one of the reasons that the US was not re-elected (they weren't voted off, they just weren't voted back on).
Here's the full list of the 53 voters:
Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States of America, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.
I figure you have to annoy quite a lot of countries before you don't get relected.
Basically the UN does so much stuff you can make what you like of it - bit like the bible.
If the US gets approval from the UN it's all "the world is behind us" - if the UN doesn't support them, then the UN's been hijacked by islamic extremists or communists or nudists or whatever. Every government does this. But it's a sad indictment of US foreign policy in 2000-2001 to lose out on the Human Rights Commission to Sudan.
[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: -dead- ]
-
Agreed, Straffo.
believe there is a new plan to deal with Iraq's leader in the works right now.
Shouldn't have to wait too long for its debut, either.
But I don't think Dowding is going to like this one either. :(
Well the old one was sooooo successful. Tell me, is Saddam still in power? I'd assumed it was a foregone conclusion that the embargo had worked, you see.
I'm sure this 'new' one will hit the right target; just like 90% of cruise missiles deployed in the Gulf War.
-
"...The same UN that has had sanctions in place against Sudan since 1996....But it's a sad indictment of US foreign policy in 2000-2001 to lose out on the Human Rights Commission to Sudan."
Well, you can look at it as an indictment of US foreign policy or you can look at it as an indicator of the intelligence and/or common sense of the nations voting for Sudan and not the US. You take your pick, I'll take mine.
Dowding,
The old one was EXTREMELY successful. Unfortunately, somebody thought "100 hour war" sounded cool and quit right there. Until that time, it pretty well defined success.
Had that not happened, there'd have been no emabargo nor any need for one. We'd have been "nation building" in Iraq instead, IMO.
Somehow I don't think that there's going to be a defined timeline this time. It'll take as long as it takes.
I'm hoping the world has finally figured out that, like Adolph, there comes a time when we're all better off if we don't ignore Saddam any longer.
...and our cruise missiles are MUCH better now. In fact, we have a lot of things that we didn't have then and they seem to be working very well, thanks.
I personally don't think Iraq is next, however. I think we're going to the Phillipines next to solve that little rash of Islamic kidnapping. We've already sent SOF there.
[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
I was refering to the UN sanctions. They haven't persuaded Saddam to let the inspectors in, but have actually strengthened his position internally and won him new supporters in the region.
As for the Gulf War, there was no mandate from the UN to go all the way to Baghdad. This was because the coalition wouldn't agree to such a move and would have fallen apart. Too many uncertainties there.
I believe the US will be alone if it widens the 'war' to include Iraq. Blair has already put the brakes on that one. In fact, it seems Bush and Blair are heading for some sort of disagreement; Bush appears to want to have nothing to do with Afghanistan after Laden is 'removed' (Vietnam Syndrome); Blair was pretty much ready to send about 6000 crack British troops into Kabul last week as peace-keepers to try and bring some kind of semblence of civilisation to the place.
Suddenly, this week, in response to suggestions of a rift, there are overtures that the 100 troops of the SBS (Special Boat Service) at Bagrum airport are all that will be deployed. They would be removed once Laden is dead.
I still think Blair wants to commit those troops and 'not forget Afghanistan this time'. Bush wants to kill Laden and 'get the hell out'.
The question is: why cut down the trees but leave the seeds in the ground?
[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Originally posted by straffo:
Personal trouble AND failure.
heh, not much sympathy for the French either but I think that's an inherited virtue. ;)
Tex
-
I think you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
There's a problem right now with the Northern Alliance, as anyone with common sense could have predicted. Despite all their assurances to the contrary, it looks like they intend to be THE party in control of Afghanistan.
I don't think that's going to stand but right now I also don't think the "coalition" needs to put a large amount of ground troops into Afghanistan.
It may well come to pass that the NA is going to have to get slapped around a bit to make them behave. If so, it'll be like what you just saw, air power first. In that event, you don't want a bunch of coalition troops around to be targets. Just let the air rake them over for a while; they can't respond in any meaningful fashion.
Then, when the NA tanks and BMPs are all smoking and the horse herds are decimated ;) it'll be time for troops. Coalition first, then UN.
I hope it doesn't have to go that far but the NA isn't real high on my list of trustworthy organizations.
***
I have no reliable information, but my "gut" tells me the US is going to Iraq. It has to be done. If not us who? If not now, when?
If the rest of the world wants to play ostrich while Saddam builds up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, so be it.
It's time to take out ALL the trash. He's been a smelly pile of trash for quite some time.
Of course, maybe the populace of Iraq will decide it's easier to dump Saddam than to play the starring role in "Gulf War II: This Time We Mean It"
-
My attitudes and posts towards you aside Dowding, what would you do with Saddam?
-
Can you say "Doggie Treat" ??
-
Originally posted by texter:
heh, not much sympathy for the French either but I think that's an inherited virtue. ;)
Tex
grrrr ;)
I must apologise a bit ... I was upset tomorrow and you got a kind of "lost bullet".
But IMO you should not said things like that : how can we expect mercy if we are unable to show a single bit of mercy ?
I'm dreamer ... and I still believe that it the environement who build the behaviour/personnality of an human .
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
My attitudes and posts towards you aside Dowding, what would you do with Saddam?
Well ... (for me a least)
Nothing legal (*) (I just hate this guy)
(*) but nothing sexual either ... what do you think ... naughty boy ;)
-
The populace of Iraq is too scared to do a thing about Saddam.
The Iraqi army is the only place where any rebellion could begin and be carried through. But it hasn't worked in the past there either.
The Kurds have tried it and failed (twice in last 10 years). I doubt they'll trust a Westerner again in regards to that subject.
I believe Colin Powell himself was against going to Baghdad in '91. Mainly because of the fragile coalition, prospect of a large number of US casualties and the lack of any UN mandate. Perhaps he has changed his mind.
As for the NA? At least the Taliban brought some law and order to the place. Even if it was a perverted kind of justice.
The only thing good about the NA was the fact they were against the Taliban, and it was therefore politically expedient to support them.
Otherwise I would probably trust them as much as the IRA or UVF. Gangsters, the lot of them.
-
Otherwise I would probably trust them as much as the IRA or UVF. Gangsters, the lot of them.
I think I agree... when it comes time to set up the coalition government the US mediators should be equipped with .45's.
The first time a NA 'leader' makes the obligatory absurd demand, the Mediator should shoot him, and tell the NA people, "Send in the next NA representitive to the Coalition Government please." When the Pastuns make a ridiculous demand, have the Mediator shoot him, and tell the Pashtuns "You see how this is going... please send in your next representitive. Quickly, we wanna get this done by lunch."
-
Hangtime, is it a usual American way to solve problems? Or just special solution for peacekeeping operations?
I wonder how long such "mediators" will survive.
Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years, and withdrew becouse of a plain treason of Gorbachev and his "democratic-communist" friends. Using such methods instead of humanitarian, educational and technical aid will make "mediators" hang on the trees in 2 hours.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
[QB]
As for the NA? At least the Taliban brought some law and order to the place. Even if it was a perverted kind of justice.
The only thing good about the NA was the fact they were against the Taliban, and it was therefore politically expedient to support them.
[QB]
anybody else see the glaring contradiction in these 2 paragraphs?
Dowding, you are one baked individual. Are you crosseyed?
-
anybody else see the glaring contradiction in these 2 paragraphs?
There was meant to be. Think about it. With one group, we use humanitarian abuse as one of the the justifications (or in the very least a PR motivational tool) in the campaign for action. With the other, we ignore humanitarian abuse and give our support.
It's called political expediency. It is the reason why, in the space of 10 years, we can go from arming a dictator to bombing him into oblivion. It's all about concentrating on the smaller picture; short term gains based on knee-jerk reactions.
Crosseyed? No. Sick of the personal insults? Yes. But then again, insults are the last resort of the desperate and unimaginative.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
There was meant to be. Think about it. With one group, we use humanitarian abuse as one of the the justifications (or in the very least a PR motivational tool) in the campaign for action. With the other, we ignore humanitarian abuse and give our support.
It's called political expediency. It is the reason why, in the space of 10 years, we can go from arming a dictator to bombing him into oblivion. It's all about concentrating on the smaller picture; short term gains based on knee-jerk reactions.
Crosseyed? No. Sick of the personal insults? Yes. But then again, insults are the last resort of the desperate and unimaginative.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
The situations is more like on one side you have a diddlying bunch of barbarions who are hiding the man that killed 5000 people. Some of the others are actually the people we backed 20 yrs a go, the Mujahadin. Are they barbaric? yes by our standards I'd say they are, BUT they don't harbor people that knocked down the WTC and kill 5000 people.
and yes I think you are crosseyed.
-
Some of the others are actually the people we backed 20 yrs a go, the Mujahadin.
That's not much an argument for supporting them now, is it? You seem to be forgetting Bin Laden was CIA trained, too.
So what you're saying is that on the one hand we have barbarians and on the other hand we have... yes that's right - barbarians!
Not much of choice really, is it?
and yes I think you are crosseyed.
You said that before. My 'unimaginative' comment was spot on it would seem.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
You said that before. My 'unimaginative' comment was spot on it would seem.
man what are you some kind of idiot? I take it back your not crosseyed your completely blind my friend. What part of harboring the killers of 5000 dead Americans do you not understand? Are you really that dense or are you just trolling?
-
Read my posts again. I didn't disagree with the fact that the Taliban were/are harbouring Bin Laden - I was saying the NA are equally as bad. In every way. We shouldn't try to pretend the NA are somehow more humane than the Taliban, to justify our support for them. They're all greedy, self-serving bastards who couldn't care less about human rights.
I'm not particularly sharp, but in your hurry to 'vent', the above seemed to have passed your great intellect by. Chill.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
The world is not a static place. People change, situations change most everything changes and evolves.
The fact that we did or did not support someone or some group 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago is not in and of itself proof of anything. Not proof of wisdom nor proof of ignorance.
The bottom line is this: given any situation, you analyse it, review your options and make the best choice you can AT THAT TIME.
It may later prove out that it wasn't a real good choice or that it was, in fact, an excellent choice. You rarely, if ever, know the outcome at the moment you have to make the decision.
Triumphs result from such decision making. Disasters as well.
Those of you who like to "armchair general" 20 years after the fact... pah. You weren't there. You're second guessing the guy who was there, without the attendant pressures he had, without the "fog of war", without any RESPONSIBILITY for the results.
SOMETHING had to be done THEN. Plans were laid, choices were made. Some turn out, some don't. This leads to NEW situations and you have to make more choices... and so it goes.
Right now, SOMETHING has to be done about Saddam Hussein and his program that is developing and stockpiling weapons of mass distruction.
I'm pretty sure the US is going to do something.
All the rest will probably sit in the bleachers and complain. But they won't get in the game themselves. 20 years later, while they still sleep safe in their beds, they'll tell us how we could have done it better.
:D
-
Originally posted by straffo:
grrrr ;)
I must apologise a bit ... I was upset tomorrow and you got a kind of "lost bullet".
But IMO you should not said things like that : how can we expect mercy if we are unable to show a single bit of mercy ?
I'm dreamer ... and I still believe that it the environement who build the behaviour/personnality of an human .
Having met a few psychos with great parents I can't agree with your last comment completely. As for mercy, I agree with the concept but I'd like to quote from "Band of Brothers" a line that covers it better than I can say.
"You ignorant, servile wretches. What did you think you were doing?"
Granted it only partially applies to Iraq, where another "tribal" pattern is in full sway.
Tex
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
As for the NA? At least the Taliban brought some law and order to the place. Even if it was a perverted kind of justice.
Boy. You sure you meant to say that? I'll give you a break and let you try and explain.
aha, missed the "political expediency" part and I agree with that part. Still...
Tex
justice perverted, is not justice
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: texter ]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
"armchair general"
Sorry was in the Navy ;)
So I'm an "armchair amiral" :D
-
Texter - my comments were an example of irony, of the bitter, satirical variety.
I might have been taking the piss, too.
Toad - you imply that not only should blame be avoided, but the concept of responsibility should be ignored too. And how about accountability?
Where are the bounds which restrict the actions of our leaders?
I'm sorry, but I don't trust our leaders to hold our interests as paramount 100% of the time. One of democracy's greatest failings is its inability to provide for the long term view. Terms of government are so short while the true ramifications are not clear for decades after an event/decision.
The alternative? I don't know of one... yet.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
The alternative? I don't know of one... yet.
There's your problem.
You don't have a solution but you don't want to try to be part of anyone else's either. You just seem to want to complain about how those who are trying do a job you don't want perform. Admittedly you don't know how to do it any better.
I implied no such thing. People AND governments are both responsible and accountable for their actions. I've always said that.
However, this idea that there is always a "correct" or "perfect" choice is simply hogwash. Or the idea that "we knew he was a bad guy, we should never had anything to do with him at all". More hogwash.
Decode this one for me.
Prior to WW2, the intelligent world pretty much knew Stalin was a butcher and human rights disaster.
Yet the Western powers allied themselves with him against Hitler.
So, now should we flagellate ourseleves for sending him money, supplies, training, etc., etc.?
Especially since immediately after the war was over the West found itself in heated opposition to him?
Sort of parallels the Bin Laden situation, right?
Sort of parallels the present Northern Allliance situation now doesn't it?
There is a hierarchy of goals. In order to achieve your higher goals, you may have to delay fulfillment of lesser goals.
When we all got in bed with Stalin, we KNEW there would eventually be a day of reckoning. It was expedient to do so in defeating Hitler, however, so we did it.
Problem, decision, action. Ally with Stalin.
Which caused a new problem, new decisions, new action. The Cold War, alliances with more people we knew we'd have to deal with later.
Eventually though, the Cold War ended. Now we're dealing with the results of those decisions by...
Acknowledging the problem, making decisions and taking action...
Which will lead to... you guessed it.
Responsibility and accountability are part of the process. In fact, they are why the process continues unendingly. It seems every new "solution" results in either a new problem or an opportunity to achieve those lesser goals I mentioned that were delayed. The responsibility and accountability is shown in the determination and will to continue to struggle to achieve the goals.
-
Hi Toad,
Responsibility and accountability are part of the process. In fact, they are why the process continues unendingly. It seems every new "solution" results in either a new problem or an opportunity to achieve those lesser goals I mentioned that were delayed. The responsibility and accountability is shown in the determination and will to continue to struggle to achieve the goals.
Re sentence 1 & 3: That's very nice prose and all, but it doesn't actually seem to mean anything or make any sense. Please explain - seems to be doubletalk to me. Do you write corporate mission statements a lot, by any chance? ;)
Or simplify it for me by just pointing out who's responsible & accountable. And if they are accountable, who are they accountable to, and what sort of punishment/justice they can expect if they are found to have made mistakes. And what methods of redress & sorts of compensation the victims of these errors have.
Ta - oh and happy turkey day ;)
-
You just seem to want to complain about how those who are trying do a job you don't want perform.
Really? That's an awfully big assumption. And completely wrong. I applied to the RAF for officer training and was a month from going to RAF Cranwell for the 5-day OASC (Officer Aircrew Selection Centre), when I had an epileptic seizure. Unfortunately, the RAF don't allow epileptics to enter the service, even for the ground based jobs I had applied for. I might not have been accepted, but I would have liked the chance to try. I'd passed the first two interviews.
I agree that expediency is the nature of the world and cannot always be avoided. But there are times when it is necessary and when it is not. I don't believe you can equate the alliance with Stalin in a total war with the arming of the Afghans or Saddam in the 80s.
You cannot compare Stalin, the absolute ruler of a huge country with massive natural and human resources with some poxy bunch of warlords armed with ageing AK-47s and body odour. It just doesn't wash. Was the support of Stalin absolutely necessary to, in your words, achieve our goals? Yes. Was the arming, training and funding of Afghan warlords in the 80s, followed by abandonment, absolutely necessary to achieve our goals? I don't believe so.
Can you draw a line? Who's accountable if that line is crossed?
Bin Laden, IMO, is a legitimate target because he and his organisation does pose an obvious threat to my and my country's way of life.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Man Dowding keep it up, youre hiting all the important points....
BTW are you also a vegetarian?
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
Originally posted by -dead-:
Or simplify it for me by just pointing out who's responsible & accountable. And if they are accountable, who are they accountable to, and what sort of punishment/justice they can expect if they are found to have made mistakes. And what methods of redress & sorts of compensation the victims of these errors have.
Well, take a look around at which countries have answered the call since WW2.
Those that saw the problem, made the decisions to help and took action are the same ones acting today. They are responsible. The ones that simply complain from the bleachers obviously are not responsible. The ones who act are.
The nature of it is that no solution is perfect. Resolving or paritally resolving one problem seems to lead to another problem in the same area or allows the addressing of other lesser problems that were lower in priority in another area. I guess when we have a world-wide Utopia the job will be done. I'm not holding my breath.
Those that act are held accountable by themselves. For instance, many solutions were tried in Kosovo. The early ones failed miserably but those involved didn't walk away. They held themselves accountable to find an answer. Eventually, a "livable" answer was found.. for now.
The nations that sit in the bleachers and just complain also hold the acting nations accountable to some degree but it's the inner accountability that makes the difference.
When they make the mistakes the punishment is that they still have a problem to solve. :)
The victims of the mistakes? If a nation attracts the attention of the "action" part of the world community it probably deserves no redress. Action is the last resort and it's difficult to generate action as we've seen.
Perhaps an example of a nation that was the "victim" of a mistake would help me understand your point?
-
Well, Dowding, you're against taking action against Iraq, correct? Even though it's clear that they have trained terrorists in the camp South of Baghdad and that they continue to develop weapons of mass destruction?
I think the alliance with Stalin and the arming of the Afghans and Saddam are indeed all of the same coin. It was expedient to use some rather disagreeable people/factions to counter what was percieved as a greater threat. The only difference is in degree; the basic idea is the same.
The arming of the Afghans IIRC was intended to encourage an independent state where people could choose their form of government rather than have it imposed upon them. In short, a typical "Western" goal.
The abandonment of the Afghans after that war was over was a mistake, obviously. And, as I pointed out, it has led to the problem we are solving now. Assessment, decision, action... leading to assessment decision, action.
Just like in Iraq. I feel it's obvious that quitting the Gulf War at 100 hours was a mistake. Now, we'll have to revisit that problem and make an assessment, decision and action once again.
There ARE no permanent solutions at this stage of civilization, IMO. Constantly changing, ever evolving.
Anyone think all the problems are totally over in the former Yugoslavia? I don't. Assessment, Decision, Action once again most likely.
The permanent "perfect" solution to any of these problems is currently beyond the capability of World Society, IMO.
That's no reason to quit trying, however.
So we'll just have to keep doing the best we can.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Texter - my comments were an example of irony, of the bitter, satirical variety.
I might have been taking the piss, too.
Pass, but it's not an unknown tactic that you use there Dowd.
Tex
-
Well, take a look around at which countries have answered the call since WW2.
I am more ignorant than I had first assumed. What call? I may have been asleep during the meeting when they explained the whole "the call" thing. :o So may be you could indulge me and explain it to me.
Those that saw the problem, made the decisions to help and took action are the same ones acting today. They are responsible. The ones that simply complain from the bleachers obviously are not responsible. The ones who act are.
So as a precis: only those who act are to blame?
The nature of it is that no solution is perfect. Resolving or paritally resolving one problem seems to lead to another problem in the same area or allows the addressing of other lesser problems that were lower in priority in another area. I guess when we have a world-wide Utopia the job will be done. I'm not holding my breath.
So if acting by its very nature will result in an imperfect solution, why act at all? Why not let sleeping dogs lie?
I mean if you start off with an imperfect situation, and you act - you end up with an imperfect situation and dirty hands. But if you don't bother to act, you are left with an imperfect solution and clean hands.
Those that act are held accountable by themselves.
So in other words if a country does something bad, they have to smack their own wrist? And, I assume, by extension if someone murders someone in your family, they should be in charge of prosecuting and punishing themselves? Yup that seems just and fair :rolleyes: Or to take this into the current world - governments (and presumably terroist groups) should be accountable to no one but themselves.
For instance, many solutions were tried in Kosovo. The early ones failed miserably but those involved didn't walk away. They held themselves accountable to find an answer. Eventually, a "livable" answer was found.. for now.
A "livable" solution? The US refused to aid the UN peace keeping effort with any troops and then decided to ignore the UN arms embargo by running guns to a set of extremists who turned out to be rather nasty about 6 months down the line (surprise, surprise). I must have missed another meeting.
The victims of the mistakes? If a nation attracts the attention of the "action" part of the world community it probably deserves no redress. Action is the last resort and it's difficult to generate action as we've seen.
OK - lemme see if I have this one - if they are accused of being bad, they must be bad - otherwise no one would accuse them? And if they are accused then we don't need to bother with any time consuming trials or evidence or anything like hearing a defense.
Wow. Did you copy this stuff straight out of the Malleus Mallificarum ? Or is it from the transcript from some actual medieval witch trial? :eek:
Perhaps an example of a nation that was the "victim" of a mistake would help me understand your point?
OK let's go with the US - they have two major complexes that get hit by a terrorist organisation.
According to Toad: "If a nation attracts the attention of the "action" part of the world community it probably deserves no redress."
So they deserve this? And they shouldn't have a chance to whine or retaliate or seek redress? Is this what you are saying? Or did I miss another meeting?
Now assume the US seeks redress [despite "not deserving" it]- but according to the Toad doctorine: "Those that saw the problem, made the decisions to help and took action are the same ones acting today. They are responsible. The ones that simply complain from the bleachers obviously are not responsible. The ones who act are."
So the guys in the planes who drove them into the buildings are responsible. Not people who simply complain from the bleachers: ie anyone still alive.
So technically, they can't go after Osama Bin Laden - and indeed even if they did, we come up against the Toad doctorine again:
"Those that act are held accountable by themselves."
So Osama et al should prosecute themselves, and the US shouldn't do anything.
Is this right? Did I miss something? Surely Toad wouldn't mean that? It seems so unfair to the poor victims.
Which is strange, because the Toad Doctorine seemed so sound when we were assuming the victims weren't Americans...
...or did I miss a meeting again? What time are these meetings, anyway? ;)
[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: -dead- ]
-
Having fun dead?
The call? You're German right?
Was there a "call" in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland?
Yeah, all the nations can sit back and watch and let things go.
I guess YOU were satisfied with the way things went in the former Yugoslavia before anyone "outsiders" got involved. Should have all stayed out right?
I guees YOU were OK with the Iraqis taking Kuwait right? Should have all stayed out right?
No problems with the Soviet Union occupying most of Eastern Europe after WW2 right? No necessity for NATO and the Cold War right?
No problems with the slaughter of 2 million in Sudan right?
Sit in the bleachers and complain dead. ;)
-
Mr. Dowding....
Sitting in the cheap seats again I see.
You have introduced yourself, at least to me, as someone who by virtue of being uninvolved prefers to contribute by criticizing the United States and those of us who are her citizens, than to understand as most adults do, that the solutions we seek come at a price.
Talk is cheap my little European friend...until you can offer solutions which foster change rather than jealous, pissed off rants about others who make your life and the world you live in such a scary place, you might want to practice some restraint.
Oh...and by the way...kudos to your Mr. Tony Blair...perhaps if the character and leadership he has offered could inspire you, your posts might become slightly more digestible by those of us who live in the real world.
Tata!
-
Hi Toad -
Having immense fun, thanks. And all without the aid of being German. :D
So the call is from Poland 1939? So the countries we're dealing with are: Great Britain, France, India, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, with a tip of the hat to Iraq and Saudi Arabia for breaking diplomatic ties? Is this right? I'm a bit confused - cos in the first post where you mentioned the ever elusive "call" you said "which countries have answered the call since WW2".
And I'm still none the wiser as to what "the call" is exactly - get Germany out of Poland? Surely the Germans vacated Poland in 1945? Did I miss a news flash? Who has occupied Poland today? And with all these references to Sudan & Kuwait etc - surely you are referring to a call that was answered by the US as well? So it can't just be Poland 1939...
As to Yugoslavia, Sudan & Iraq / Kuwait - I'm always deeply touched to see how concerned the US is about human rights and democracy in countries with large oil reserves or proposed oil pipelines and anti-US governments. Truly wonderful to see such altruism in a country - most countries appear to just greedily protect and persue their own economic and political interests, and it is heart-warming to be assured by you that this is not the case with America.
As to the Soviet Union occupying most of Eastern Europe after WW2 - I must have missed a meeting again - because I appear to be labouring under the impression that NATO & the US were "sitting in the bleachers and complaining" about that one, and simply left the Soviet Union alone to do whatever it wanted to the people of Eastern Europe, until the people of the Soviet Union got fed up, and changed the system on their own.
Still I fear I may indeed be "sitting in the bleachers and complaining" about these things because I don't think your ever going to get me to accept that the concept of bombing/war for peace is anything other than a contradiction in terms. Nor will you get me to accept that running guns to civil war areas is going to shorten the conflict. And the more looking I do, the more I suspect that the US agenda abroad these days is almost entirely a cynical oil interest pill that's merely sugar-coated with human rights concerns to make it more palatable and easier to swallow for the public. Cheaper oil is not a not a cause I'm willing to kill or die for, but if that's your bag, kill away - as you so aptly point out: I won't stop you. ;)
-
Ah, sorry then. I thought that I recalled a post of yours that where you said you were a German living in Hong Kong? What citizenship do you hold?
Yes, I'd say Sept. 1, 1939 pretty well changed the world that way. Led to the formation of the UN, etc.; so now you have an International forum/force that will act in the interest of a more peaceful world.
"is heart-warming to be assured by you that this is not the case with America."
You're welcome! Anytime!
As to the Soviet Union occupying most of Eastern Europe "until the people of the Soviet Union got fed up, and changed the system on their own."
Yeah, right, that's it. So THAT's how it all worked out! I'll bet the other NATO countries felt that US involvement was entirely unnecessary after WW2. What a waste to have stationed troops in Europe so long!
You're the first historian I've read though that attributes the fall of Russian Communism solely to internal pressures. Let me know when you publish the book, I'd like to read that one too.
If you want to explain it all as oil interest, it's your choice. As I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, either.
There are "bad guys" in the world. And when the stuff hits the fan and folks start dying, where do people look for help? And who usually delivers the help? Prior to Sept. 11 which nation was the largest food donor to Afghanistan? Want to bet who be the largest donor after all this is over?
We'll just agree to disagree.
-
Oh, and here's the reply to your other epistle.
"I am more ignorant than I had first assumed. What call? I may have been asleep during the meeting when they explained the whole "the call" thing."
In many cases it’s "called" the UN. :) In some cases, a single nation has the responsibility and authority to act alone under the International Law of War and the Just War theory.
"So as a precis: only those who act are to blame?"
No, those who act are responsible, a subtle difference.
"So if acting by its very nature will result in an imperfect solution, why act at all? Why not let sleeping dogs lie?"
Well, when you’re laying on the table and the heart doctor says "-dead-, old son, you’ve got 4 coronary arteries that are 90% blocked. I can operate, but I’d probably only be able to get them 75% open. So, rather than an "imperfect solution", I’m going to do nothing and end up with clean hands. Of course, you’re going to die, but if I can’t find a perfect solution, I’m sure not going to settle for an imperfect one."
You’ll be OK with that, right? :)
"So in other words if a country does something bad, they have to smack their own wrist?"
Nope, not at all. A "bad" country is accountable to the injured party by the International Law of War and Just War Theory. Secondarily, there is the UN, as we saw in Iraq.
"A "livable" solution?"
Yes. The situation now is pretty stable compared to what went before. Milosevich is on trial as a war criminal and out of power. For now, it is "livable". Surely you don't propose that things are worse in the Balkans now?
"The US refused to aid the UN peace keeping effort with any troops and then decided to ignore the UN arms embargo by running guns to a set of extremists who turned out to be rather nasty about 6 months down the line (surprise, surprise). I must have missed another meeting."
In late 1994, UNPROFOR had nearly 40,000 troops.
You actually attribute the failure of the UNPROFOR to the lack of US troops?
Seems like 40K other UN troops ought to have been able to handle it. Or are you saying that without US involvement no UN peacekeeping operation can succeed?
Wait.. it was the Bosnian MUSLIMS that made UNPROFOR fail because they got arms from Iran, Turkey and Malaysia with US tacit approval? So the Bosnian SERBS were acting like perfect gentlemen in ’94 and they put no pressure on UNPROFOR or the Muslims?
"OK - lemme see if I have this one -"
Nah, you missed this one too. If they initiate actions that give cause under the International Law of War and Just War theory, they are subject to having war waged upon them . If they initiate actions that generate UN response, they best be ready to deal with that as well.
"OK let's go with the US - they have two major complexes that get hit by a terrorist organisation… Did I miss something?"
Yeah, you missed an act of war, according to International Law and Just War Theory. The organization in question is part and parcel of the Taliban ruling government of Afghanistan. The Taliban was given an opportunity to seperate itself from al-Qa'eda; they chose not to do so.
The guys in the planes who drove them into the buildings are part of al-Qa'eda, which is an ingrained part of the Taliban, with both monetary and political participation in that government. Thus, all are legitimate targets.
"...or did I miss a meeting again? What time are these meetings, anyway?"
Well one big meeting was held on September 1, 1939. That was sort of the one that got everyone’s attention. It really changed the world. You might have missed that I guess.
The most recent one was on September 11, 2001. It would have been pretty hard to miss this one. Seems like most of the countries in the world heard it.
Now it’s your turn.
Tell us all how YOU would resolve the Israeli/Palestinian problem? The UN mandated Israeli statehood in ’48... so you support that?
After all, you must have a workable solution that will totally prevent any more deaths?
So, tell us, how would you solve it? Feel free to discuss how any other countries and/or the UN are involved and working hard to solve the problem.
Everybody knows the US is involved and right now is trying to pressure both sides to find a solution. Bush has endorsed a Palestinian state. (No doubt because Israel and Gaza have enormous unannounced oil reserves, right? :) )
What’s your position/solution? Perhaps you can clarify the roles that other nations are playing in the search for peace in Palestine?
Or do you want to sit in the bleachers and complain on this one too? :D
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
-dead-
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? After all, it's unlikely to be the perfect solution.....
Northern Alliance looking for broad-based government (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/23/ret.northern.alliance.hopes/index.html)
"A top Northern Alliance official Saturday said he hopes an impending meeting between Afghan leaders and United Nations representatives will lead to "a fully represented, broad-based government....
Abdullah said there would be women representatives in the talks -- a departure from the Taliban regime, which kept women out of positions of power. "Women will be part of our delegation," he said..."
-
Originally posted by Rude:
Mr. Dowding....
Sitting in the cheap seats again I see.
You have introduced yourself, at least to me, as someone who by virtue of being uninvolved prefers to contribute by criticizing the United States and those of us who are her citizens, than to understand as most adults do, that the solutions we seek come at a price.
Talk is cheap my little European friend...until you can offer solutions which foster change rather than jealous, pissed off rants about others who make your life and the world you live in such a scary place, you might want to practice some restraint.
Oh...and by the way...kudos to your Mr. Tony Blair...perhaps if the character and leadership he has offered could inspire you, your posts might become slightly more digestible by those of us who live in the real world.
Tata!
bravo bravo!!
When I see post like this one and all the ones Toad posts it makes me wish I wouldn't have dropped out of high school and college. :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
ageing AK-47s and body odour. It just doesn't wash.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
That's a great line nearly spit the coffee on the keyboard there.
Questions:
Should we support the Northern Alliance to overthrow the taliban?
If so then are you going to blame us if the NA becomes odious some years down the road?
Leaving Iran, Serbia, Iraq, yada yada... out of it. What do we need to do (in your opinion) to solve the current problem in Afghanistan... or do you believe that there is "no" acceptable solution?
-
Glad you liked it MrBill.
Well, the line between what defines a Taliban fighter and an NA 'soldier' is about as blurred as it gets. Currently, huge numbers of native Afghani Taliban fighters have decided to switch sides because the going is tough in Kunduz.
The Taliban and NA are seemingly indistinguishable; the only separating charcteristic is that one side is losing and the other is winning.
As for what we should be doing in Afghanistan? My only beef is the intent to widen the 'war' to other States before the Afghan situation is sorted out. I'd prefer the West to concentrate whole heartedly on getting the country back on its feet with a decent government and plenty of aid in the area.
With this done, perhaps we will have shown the world our true intentions, and there will be more support (i.e. there will be actual support) for a wider campaign.
Well, Dowding, you're against taking action against Iraq, correct?
I'm against taking action against Iraq, at this moment in time (see above).
Rude:
Sitting in the cheap seats again I see.
No, I'm using a bulletin board on server for game. In addition to this, I'm putting forward my point of view on a topical issue of the day.
You have introduced yourself, at least to me, as someone who by virtue of being uninvolved prefers to contribute by criticizing the United States and those of us who are her citizens...
Well, considering I come from a country involved in the action in Afghanistan I think I have the right to voice my views. Despite the convenience you might enjoy in believing my comments are purely aimed at your country, that is not necessarily correct. But hey, it's easier than actually debating the issue, right?
Talk is cheap my little European friend...
Insults are cheap, my little American nest of vipers...
BTW, considering this is a BBS, 'talk' is always going to be a major part of the proceedings, wouldn't you agree?
...until you can offer solutions which foster change rather than jealous, pissed off rants about others who make your life and the world you live in such a scary place, you might want to practice some restraint.
Well, that's entirely your opinion and it's your perogative to voice it. I'll exercise my perogative to not pay a blind bit of notice.
It would seem to me that the only restraint you wish to see, is from posting comments you disagree with. I doubt it's going to happen.
Oh...and by the way...kudos to your Mr. Tony Blair...perhaps if the character and leadership he has offered could inspire you, your posts might become slightly more digestible by those of us who live in the real world.
Tony Blair has acted commendably in recent events. But his style of government centres around spin and 'front-end' - there's very little substance. The only reasons he and New Labour were re-elected was a potent combination of voter apathy and a piss-poor opposition.
BTW, Tony Blair is against widening of the war to Iraq.
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
My only beef is the intent to widen the 'war' to other States before the Afghan situation is sorted out.
I haven't seen any widening of the war as yet. Haven't seen anyone say we're starting out somewhere else in the near future either.
I've seen a pretty single-minded focus on removing the Taliban from power and searching for Bin Laden and his Merry Men.
Afghan groups are meeting in Germany next week to begin working out a form of government. The UN is going to be involved in that. Progress IS being made, albeit slowly.
There is, of course, planning and co-ordinating going on for the next phase and the next assignment. That's just good procedure.
"Intent" to widen the war? Baseless speculation.
[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Once when I was a boy. I saw a man setting on a park bench, talking to a squirrel. The man was quite animated. For his own part, the squirrel brought very little to the exchange. It seemed very odd, and I never thought I would see this again. But here we have toad doing the same thing. I still dont understand it.