Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Urchin on March 17, 2003, 01:25:23 PM
-
Honestly. This whole post 9-11 world seems ass-backwards.
Let me try to formulate these thoughts into some kind of rational and coherent essay and then you guys can tell me whether or not I'm full of toejam or not.
Fact: Before 9-11 Americans really didn't worry to much about having open, and rather porous borders. Illegal immigrant? Not really a problem.
Fact: Before 9-11 Americans really didn't worry to much about terrorists in general, or terrorists that hate American in particular.
Fact: There really, honestly, isn't any country in the world that poses a threat to the U.S. militarily. You could make a case for China, but as far as I know they don't have I.C.B.M.'s and they don't have much of a Navy- so a billion screaming Chinese aren't going to come invade America any time soon.
Fact: The only REAL threat is that of a small cell of terrorists infiltrating into a city with some sort of NBC weapon, and causing a huge amount of casualties and damage.
Fact: (I think) One consequence of invading Iraq (and or North Korea) will be to alienate the rest of the world even MORE towards America- isolating the U.S. diplomatically and possibly economically.
So, to sum up, the only REAL threat as I see it is that a small group of terrorists could in fact aquire NBC weapons- most likely from a rogue state such as North Korea, Iraq, or possibly Russia (either by theft or simply buying it on the 'black market'). I can see two ways to deal with the threat. The first way is to invade Iraq and or North Korea and secure their weapons, and maintain a sizable occupation army for an indefinate amount of time (which will likely get unpopular very quickly globally, and slightly less quickly domestically), perhaps setting up a puppet government that is friendly to the U.S. Of course, this will have some consequences, such as an increased chance of terrorism abroad and at home (people pissed off because American troops killed their dear old grandma, etc., not to mention 'Arab solidarity' in the case of Iraq), and possibly a spreading war (in the case of North Korea, and possibly Iraq but I doubt it).
Or, the United States could simply secure its borders. No more open borders along the Canadian and Mexican borders. Build a fence, or a wall, or whatever, station guards there with checkpoints at every road, sensors covering the rest of the border with patrols and helicopters patrolling the borders. Increase security at airports at home, and especially flights in foreign countries coming TO America. Same with ships- increase security in ports with ships headed to America, increase Coast Guard patrols along the coast.
In other words, make it very very hard for a group of terrorists to bring a weapon of any kind into the country. Hell, you could even make a nice list of suspected terrorists that couldn't GET into the country. You wouldn't have to arrest them or shoot them or anything, just turn them away. Don't even let them get on the plane, or the boat, or whatever.
Wouldn't it be easier to nuetralize the delivery system rather than to try to nuetralize the weapons themselves?
Anyway, just kind of wanted to share that with you guys, maybe get some opinions.
-
Its all about Jews and Muslims. Jews and Muslims......
-
What about the planes flying into the US from foreign nations?
Who's going to pay to upgrade and tighten the sercurity service at Guyana international airport?
We have not been able to seal off the borders from Drug runners. How can we do it against anything else?
As much as I like the idea, I just don't think you can seal such large borders.
Look at the Mexican border. Think that's sealed? Drive by Home Depot any morning, and see how many illegals are there waiting for a contractor to pay them less than minimum wage.
-
sorry , your "facts" are not facts but your opinions
-
Urchin, you cannot be an isolationist. Know why we sent our boys to fight so far away in Europe in WW2?....So we wouldn't be fighting it here.
You can't stop everyone from coming into the the U.S. All it takes is a small amount of poison in several water supplies to kill hundreds of thousands. Read the "Ricin,iraq, and georgi markov" post.
Listen, 9/11 is just a sign of things to come if we don't act.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Listen, 9/11 is just a sign of things to come if we don't act.
and even when we do act, but at least we will have acted not not stood around and twiddled our thumbs...
It's a Brave New World ...
-
John9001: I suppose you are right about that.
About being an isolationist, yea, I guess I am. Muck- who is going to pay for conquering Iraq and occupying it for who knows how long? We are. Would it be more expensive or less expensive to seal the borders and upgrade security at any airport with flights to America? I honestly don't know, I'm guessing less but I could be totally off the mark.
We haven't sealed off the borders from drug runners because we haven't tried. Honestly. Put me in charge of sealing the borders, and they'd be a damn sight more tight then they are now. Would they be completly sealed, with no 'leaks'? It's hard to say to be honest. It is really just a matter of money. Put a layered barb-wire fence along the whole border, with guards/patrols/helicopters patrolling along it, and you could likely strangle the people smuggling in drugs- it just wouldn't be profitable enough. Do the same thing with the coast, except substitute a massive Coast Guard presence for the guards and such that you would have on land.
It seems to me that we are on a course of action that has no endpoint. A 'War on Terrorism' doesn't have any clear goals... we don't know about all the terrorists out there and we never will. For every Mohammed Al'Sabir (or whatever) that we kill, 3 more will take his place. So, whats more expensive? Killing every Arab male that *might* be a terrorist and setting up a massive 'protectorate' in the Middle East with several million troops garrisoning it, or just securing our borders?
Honestly, I'm not being a smartass or anything- that is what I think it will come down to. I don't hate Muslims or Arabs, or Germans or Koreans, or anyone else that dislikes America. But if people and or nations are considered a 'threat' to our security just because they don't like us, where will it stop? Will there be one global government with the United States at the fore, and the United States army occupying every country on Earth to keep them 'friendly'?
-
Well Urchin if you believe the Euro Trash and American left wing degenerates then we will make up the cost of getting rid of Saddam by stealing the Iraqi oil which is reported as 2nd only to Saudi Arabia.
As for the Iraq invasion causing more terror against us well we will get attacked anyway and we have been attacked anyway.
Getting rid of Saddam wont stop terrorists from attacking us but it will prevent Saddam from the possibility of supplying wmd to them. But imho more importantly what getting rid Saddam will do is show the rest of those governments who have supported terror that the US wont sit back and wait to be hit.
Regardless of what you see on TV no terror group is gonna whup up wmd in a cave some where. They cant create weaponized biological and chemical weapons to the degree that it poses a threat to thousands. The cant put together a bath tub nuke. They can certainly cause panick and terror with small attacks like the anthrax in the mail incident of the same type of fear that the sniper attacks generated. A more real threat from a terrorist is a "dirty bomb". But a terrorist like immediate effects and a direty bomb will cause panick but its effect on human life is limited and takes a long time to show up.
But we wont wake one Sunday to see a mushroom cloud over NY or chicago unless these terrorist get state support.
Saddam is an easy target and in the perfect position to be made an example of. We know hes a bad guy, a threat to his people and to his neighbors and has used wmd on Iran and his own people.
We know he has had wmd, we know he has attempted to create or acquire more. Right now he is the logical target for a pre-emptive strike.
Then we can look at a post war Iraq. Iraq is a secular, plural society. No doudt their are hatreds amoungst various groups. But Iraqis are well educated and of all the countries in the region Iraq has the greatest potential to become a true liberal domocracy.
But it will take some work. If successful and if the US can be seen as "liberators" and not occupiers to moderate muslims in the region it may help better the US position.
Theres a thousand other reasons why getting rid of Saddam is a good thing. But this type of action is a new thing for Americans. It signals a serious shift in the world order and in our relations with the world. It makes a lot of folks feel uneasy. But if it goes quick and painless then that will go along way in helping to shape a better future.
Dont believe the folks who claim "war is bad" or inhumane. The humane thing to do would have been to get rid of Saddam a lot sooner. The UN has numbers that predict the % of deaths caused by its own sanctions. The majority of these deaths are women and children. Saddam isnt using the money he earns from the oil for food program to feed his people. The UN knows this. The numbers of deaths every year caused by the sanctions excedes what is predicted to occur in the current invasion and far excedes the deaths from gulf war 1.
A medium estimate is 500,000 deaths over 10 years if we keep the satus quo. Again the Humanitarian thing to do is get rid of Saddam. This isnt the "reason" the US will get rid rid of him but it should be enough to answer the pacifists hippy "give peace a chance" degenerates.
Theres no way we can lock up our borders and keep all the bad people out. That wont happen. I am not an isolationist but I feel we should start bring our troops home from places like Europe and the Far East. Its obvious the host nations dont want them there any way.
I personally am opposed to this invasion but there a real "arguement" for it that has nothing to do with warmongering, blood for oil, Bush is Hitler in chaps or any of that left wing roadkill.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Its all about Jews and Muslims. Jews and Muslims......
roadkill
-
Urchin .... and what about to ask for that freaking reason....Whats their motivation ???
of course, you can trust, that Islam is evil
What about to educate people instead of brain washing by propaganda ?
What about to show them real world intead of sending them to kill someone or bomb them ?
-
ohh look another well thought out Euro trash arguement......
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
roadkill
Camelshit, actually.
-
Originally posted by Batz
ohh look another well thought out Euro trash arguement......
what a original argument
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
Urchin .... and what about to ask for that freaking reason....Whats their motivation ???
Their motivation is jealousy and hatred wrought by ignorance.
You will have no more luck convincing terrorists that their enemies really aren't their enemies than you would have convincing a neo-nazi that Hitler was completely full of it.
It's naive to think you can talk to them, the ones from that region of the world who know better are *NOT* terrorists. The dumbshits that are fighting out of pure ignorance *ARE* terrorists, and you will *NOT* succeed in convincing them otherwise.
Just the same as white power hate groups.
But if you think you can teach them otherwise, then by all means, you go on ahead and do so.
-SW
-
im tired of that pointless whinning about religion so eat this lames and try to imagine, that you are only one, who have problems with multi religion ethnics
IRAN.: Predominantly Islamic; mostly Shi'ite, with a minority of Sunnis. Many Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians also live in Iran.
Iraq.: 97% muslim (islám)
over 60% siite
less that 37% sunite
3% christians
Jewish - cca 2.500
Sudan .: islám 70%, small local religions 25%, christian 5%
China .: buddhismus, taoismus, islam, christian
Finland .: protestants (luteranske) - 85,3%
pravoslavné (dont know how to translate this one)- 1,1%
katholic - 1% obyvatelstva
Swiss .: 44% katholic, 37% protestants, 8,% else
France .: Katholic, Muslims, Protestants, Jewish
US.: Protestants 60,3%
Katholic 26,2%
Ortodox 2,0%
Jewish 2,0%
Islam 0,5%
Eastern (asian) 0,7%
atheists 8,3%
so we can say, that only few ners on this BBS have problem with multi religious community, coz world appear to be quite well mixed
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It's naive to think you can talk to them
aha ... im not wondering, that they are keeping shot your airplanes, while you basicaly arent able to talk with them
those people have some problem and level of their act is same as level of their feel of hopeless ...
ok ok keep ignore them, but dont be surprised, that we do not support you, coz we may listen more carefuly
and dont try to blame, that you will not listen someone whos trying to shot you, or i gonna laugh till morning
-
Yeah... I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
Extremist groups are extreme for a reason- because they can not be talked to or reasoned with.
If you believe otherwise, you are just as ignorant as they are.
-SW
-
and who told it to you ??
Collin Powell ? :D
-
Damn! You got me there.
In case you wanted to know: Yes, you are dumber than dog toejam.
-SW
-
nice post batz.
thanks. sums up how i feel about it.
your style and content reminds me of a guy i used to have a blast with here on these boards.. are you wotan?
-
Yes Hang, he is Wotan.
-
Yes I was/am Wotan
-
O I L = American economy
-
what's the point eaglecz?
that America doesn't listen?
or that people (those you're referring to that want to speak with America) are too lazy/uneducated to go through the proper channels?
There will always be a huge group of people in the world that think their problems are caused by America (or whichever country happens to be in power and causing their hardships)
instead of accepting responsibility for themselves.
There will always be a group of people that hate whichever country is in power (America for now) and have no clear idea, other than to bash whom they see as the problem, how to help themselves.
Which are you?
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
"Listen, 9/11 is just a sign of things to come if we don't act."
Actually. You've just magnified the chances even more for another 9/11 and worse. The US and Uk have made enemies of moderates now. Before it was just the radicals.
Oed
Well Oed, I would rather flush them out now than let them fester here longer. BTW, those "radicals" took out the WTC and the Pentagon. What do they have to do to be more than just radicals, kill a few hundred thousand instead of 3k?
Listen, the Arab world could care less what these radicals do to America, so they will not take care of the problem. So we have no choice but to act.They have bombed night clubs in other countries, we did not act.They moved on to bombing embassies(spell?)in other countries, we did not act. Then they moved on to skyscrapers.... in our country. I don't want to see what they will attempt next. We cannot sit and watch any longer.The time has come to act.
-
This is not an anti-American Post. I like Americans.
But the world did not change Sept 11. Its a nice convieniant thing Policiticians like to spout and people like to believe, but Post Sept 11 is exactly the same as Pre-Sept 11. Just now, Americas eyes are open to it.
Your isolation has both Strong Pro's and Cons. Your now living in the world the rest of us live in. Nothing more. Sept 11 was a devastating attack but compared to events in Asian Countries, the Baltic states and Europe it was a fire cracker.
Your pride was hurt and you have the means to gain revenge but the world didnt change. Only America did.
The bad guys have always been there.
-
Actually Spook, your wrong, it "started" (hit home) in 1993, Justice was served, we went back to sleep. Now some handsomehunkes kicked the Giant awake.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
This is not an anti-American Post. I like Americans.
But the world did not change Sept 11. Its a nice convieniant thing Policiticians like to spout and people like to believe, but Post Sept 11 is exactly the same as Pre-Sept 11. Just now, Americas eyes are open to it.
Your isolation has both Strong Pro's and Cons. Your now living in the world the rest of us live in. Nothing more. Sept 11 was a devastating attack but compared to events in Asian Countries, the Baltic states and Europe it was a fire cracker.
Your pride was hurt and you have the means to gain revenge but the world didnt change. Only America did.
The bad guys have always been there.
Well, the rest of you choose to live in that sort of world. We in the US choose to change it. That's what makes us different.
-
Honestly, it is the 'changing it' part that has me most uncomfortable.
For instance, it is OK to invade and occupy Iraq to replace the government there with one that is more 'friendly' towards us. A pretty sizable portion of the U.S. population seems to agree with this statement.
But when it comes to the "Why is it OK?" part, you get some odd (to me anyway) answers. I'll quote some stuff from Wotan here to try to make a point.
"Getting rid of XXXXX wont stop terrorists from attacking us but it will prevent XXXXX from the possibility of supplying wmd to them. But imho more importantly what getting rid XXXXX will do is show the rest of those governments who have supported terror that the US wont sit back and wait to be hit. "
"XXXXX is an easy target and in the perfect position to be made an example of. We know hes a bad guy, a threat to his people and to his neighbors and has used wmd on YYYYY and his own people. "
"
A medium estimate is 500,000 deaths over 10 years if we keep the satus quo. Again the Humanitarian thing to do is get rid of XXXXX. This isnt the "reason" the US will get rid rid of him but it should be enough to answer the pacifists hippy "give peace a chance" degenerates.
"
"Dont believe the folks who claim "war is bad" or inhumane. The humane thing to do would have been to get rid of XXXXX a lot sooner. The UN has numbers that predict the % of deaths caused by its own sanctions. The majority of these deaths are women and children. XXXXX isnt using the money he earns from the oil for food program to feed his people. The UN knows this. The numbers of deaths every year caused by the sanctions excedes what is predicted to occur in the current invasion and far excedes the deaths from gulf war 1. "
You can replace the XXXXX with just about any names. Castro in Cuba for instance, why aren't we invading Cuba and replacing it with a 'democracy' that is more friendly to the U.S.?
Or possibly more to the point, why aren't we putting China to task over their CONSTANT 'human rights abuses"- I believe they are every bit as bad as Iraq personally. North Korea, same story. Why are we putting up with their roadkill? We know at there are a half million Koreans in labour camps in North Korea... who knows how many have died there.
Why Iraq? Will America only bully toejampot little Third World countries with no big friends? Or, on a more frightening note, will Bush decide that North Korea and China need "regime changes" too?
I can understand the rationale behind trying to link Iraq with terrorism. It just doesn't have the 'ring of truth' to it for me. Iraq is a SECULAR state.... the terrorists we are after are fundamentalist- the two mix like oil and water. Was Saddam sad when he heard of 9-11? Of course not, that would be stupid- but was he involved with it at all? I, personally, don't think so.
And that, to me, means the only reason we are invading Iraq is to replace the government because it happens not to like us. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. One day not to far down the road, France, Germany, and Russia may be sitting in the U.N. Security council debating Resolution 85462345, and whether or not they are willing to go to war with the United States to force them to "disarm".
-
new world order, my friend.
Iraq is only the first step.
One day not to far down the road, France, Germany, and Russia may be sitting in the U.N. Security council debating Resolution 85462345, and whether or not they are willing to go to war with the United States to force them to "disarm".
i hope to live to see the day those rat diddlyin bastards try.
-
Urchin- you think it'd be the same today if, after the year of threatened US led military action, Saddam had disarmed and proven it?
If nothing else, 12 years of giving UN inspectors the run around has proven he is not disarmed and will not disarm.
This makes him a threat to neighboring countries, who are our allies.
Lots of other reasons may be feel good, or hearsay. But this is a very good reason, I'm sorry you can't see it as one... but it is the best reason to get rid of a mad dictator who has no desire to comply with a world organization- the UN.
-SW
-
i agree...it will prolly alienate us for awhile, but i think in the long run it will work out. they will still want our products, and we will still want theirs, and finally they will hopefully become so americanized that they no longer feel anything but love for us.
and we for them.
-
Urchin Saddam gives money to Hamas and other "fundamentalist" terror organizations.
Khadafi gave money to the IRA.
Terror makes strange bed fellows.
Theres nothing really confusing about it. America through economic engagement, the so called "global market," isnt just about getting products for cheap. By engaging Nations and making them apart of this global market you open opportunities for more engagement. This what we have done with China.
The world wont turn on America as long as we remain engaged economically. It cost to much to run an empire and it cost to much to fight a war on the scale it would take to defeat the US.
The rest of the world wont turn on America because we dont threaten the whole world. The world is better off with America remaining strong.
But along with the shift in policy toward the Bush Doctrine the US will maintain techically superior weapons. But we have a thing called "nuclear deterent". No country or coalition of countries could possibly think they could challenge the US.
Saddam is a viable target for the implementation of the Bush Doctrine for the reason I mentioned above.
The President and folks around him believe that Saddam or any of those Nations mentioned in Bush's axis of evil speech may turn to terror organizations to strike the US.
Either we sit and wait and hope it never happens or we take preventative and pre-emptive action to protect ourselves. 9/11 showed just how much some will go to kill Americans.
So we take out Saddam, we loose a few fair weather friends short term and we free the Iraqi people and work for a liberal democracy in Iraq.
So what if we are wrong and Saddam never really would have used wmd. We still win.
On top of this dont under estimate the weight that this message will send to the rest of the world.
The war on terror and terror groups will continue. But if countries that in the past harbored terrorists realize that it may mean their demise maybe they will be less likely to aid them.
This only limits the capability of these groups. But we will still go after them.
-
5000 Iraqi children die each month due to sanctions. 500,000 under 10 since 1993. And there are those who wish to continue the policy?
How can they sleep, knowing that during their eight hour rest, 47 more will perish.
>arithmatic edit
-
"Sacrifices must be made"
-translated last words of Otto Lilenthal
now there's an ironic sig under the circumstances.
i guess your gonna trot the 'starving children' noise around now in every thread, mcgroin?
answers the same. sanctions didn't work. saddam got palaces, france germany and russia got oil deals and arms contracts.
so now were going to get saddam.. and the 'starving children' will get the food they should have gotten, that we sent, that saddam waylayed and resold into the blackmarket.
the suffering will be over soon.
pick a new sig line, or drop the 'sacraficing the children' roadkill.
-
Only a few threads, Hangtime.
My point is that the policy GWB is following may be more humane than following endless sanctions. Kofi Anan said today he wishes that the present crisis could have been resolved peacefully, but it seems sanctions are anything but peaceful.
It seems I am on your side on this issue, sorry I wasn't more clear.... and I started using Otto's last words as an avaition reference, after Columbia. If you are not familiar with the the story, Lilenthal was the foremost avaition authority prior to the Wright Brothers, and when he crashed his glider in 1896 and was mortally wounded, he was asked whether the effort was worth his life and he replied with his last words.
Though it may be misinterpreted as some sort of callous attitude, it is just meant as an understanding that all things have consequences, and some short term hardships may be outweighed by long term payoffs.
-
my mistake.. and i'm sorry i leaped again without looking. i seem to be getting testy lately... must be something i ate.
i'll go back to the rubber walled room quietly.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
my mistake.. and i'm sorry i leaped again without looking. i seem to be getting testy lately... must be something i ate.
i'll go back to the rubber walled room quietly.
yes hang...I've noticed that too...very very aggressive responses.
Saddam had 12 years.....he mis-played his cards......now he gonna pay for it.....
but don't forget....Black an White(4 or against us) Foreign Politics does NOT work.....
but I agree on a few points Urchin has made.....
Urchin....
Why Iraq? Will America only bully toejampot little Third World countries with no big friends? Or, on a more frightening note, will Bush decide that North Korea and China need "regime changes" too?
good point urchin.....
-
Originally posted by SLO
Will America only bully toejampot little Third World countries with no big friends? Or, on a more frightening note, will Bush decide that North Korea and China need "regime changes" too?
No, we only bully sh*tpot little Third World countries that have invaded their neighbors, slaughtered their own people in genocidal campaigns and proceeded to research, build and deploy Weapons of Mass Destruction while ignoring UN Security Council resolutions against doing that for over 12 years.
But I'm not surprised you haven't noticed that.
China and NK? Who knows? Do you know if the UN Security Council will pass resolutions directing them to disarm for the next 12 years? That would be a considerable factor, I think.
:p
-
A recent editorial in the local paper made a point about those who would "betray an ally for the sake of a dictator".
Puts the spotlight right on the issue, I think.
No one wants this war. It's more than clear that Hussein has ignored the SC resolutions for over a decade. Blitz just put out an 89 page list of disarmament issues that remain to be addressed. 89 pages after more than a decade of work by the UN to disarm him.
Then there's 1441 and its unanimous passage more than 4 months ago. With just a small amount of progress since then. 89 pages remaining.
When the question was finally called there were those who would rather side with a dictator than an ally.
There seems to be quite a lot of that shown on this BBS as well.
-
Toad......
Yes he's been lyin for the past 12 years.....but ya knew that...right?....so why the big hurry now....is there a mortal danger to America now...or is the bush govr. applyin the new preemptive doctrine.
as for genocide(more like mass cruelty....thats a terror regime)....use of Wmd's(against Iranians in Kurd territory....and crushing the kurd uprising).....he was losing(the war with Iran)....he used his last recourse....do I agree with said course.....of course not
but lets not forget China, Korea....have had a bad human rights violitions too.....by.....Terror...surpr essions....force of arms(Tin. square remember)
as for research...pretty much every country has a RIGHT to do it.....ya did it....so can others.
see Toad...ya gotta understand 1 point thats NOT important to Americans like yourself...but which is VERY important to Canadians like me.....
we do not have a military able to cross oceans and attack any at OUR will....so we do have to use the ONLY recourse at our disposal......UN
you on the other hand have NO need of the UN......
by you discarding the UN to apply your new PREEMPTIVE DOCTRINE....puts the rest of us in a sensitive spot.....
I don't wanna agrue.....just hope you understand OUR pov on the UN issue.......
Wish your boys safe journey....Hit em fast...Hit em hard
-
Originally posted by SLO
Yes he's been lyin for the past 12 years.....but ya knew that...right?....so why the big hurry now....
You recall SC resolution 1441 last November, correct? It was spelled out to him that it was a "last chance". Now you're nearly 1/2 a year farther down the 12 year long road... not exactly a big hurry is it?
I don't approve of it without the UN SC clear backing, but it was also clear that France wasn't going to budge. Heck, they said that outright. So I'm not suprised Bush is going ahead.
But to characterize this 12 year journey, in light of 1441 the last 5 months as a "big hurry" is just ....... a joke.
Originally posted by SLO
as for genocide(more like mass cruelty....thats a terror regime)....use of Wmd's(against Iranians in Kurd territory....and crushing the kurd uprising).....he was losing(the war with Iran)....he used his last recourse....do I agree with said course.....of course not
Like so many others, you have failed to do your homework. The fight against the Kurds absolutely qualified as genocide. Estimates range from 100,000 to 180,000 Kurds killed, men, WOMEN and CHILDREN. All means, including WMD, used to kill them.
Please do a bit of research on "Anfal" in a search engine and read particularly what Human Rights Watch had to say about it.
Your "mass cruelty" shows the depth to which you do not understand what happened during the Anfal.
This does not adress the murder and torture that goes on in his prisons. Including reportedly torturing children in front of their parents.
Originally posted by SLO
but lets not forget China, Korea....have had a bad human rights violitions too.....by.....Terror...surpr essions....force of arms(Tin. square remember)
No indeed! Let us not forget!
Let us not forget that China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto capability.
Should we choose to engage them on the items you mention and threaten "serious consequences" in a resolution against them if they fail to comply, do you think they'll veto it?
If so, will Canada put her massive military at our disposal if the US decides to invade China after the veto?
I'm guessing that'd be "no"; how about you?
North Korea? I think you'll get your chance to show your views again here real soon.
It's the UN blue flag that flies over the Korean DMZ. The UN IAEA has referred NK's violation of and susequent pull out from the Non Proliferation Treaty to the UN Security Council to deal with. This is the way the IAEA works.
Now, what do you think the SC will do? Particularly in light of the SC's recent actions.
I'll wager the US is going to let the SC take the lead on NK just to make a clear point. The SC will do NOTHING; it can do NOTHING. There is no "spine" in the SC.
The SC has authorised the use of force two times. Once in Korea when the Soviets were boycotting and in the Gulf last time.
The SC couldn't reach an agreement to use force in the Balkans when the slaughter was indisputable. It took an illegal use of NATO forces by Clinton to militarily intervene there.
Once again, it will be the US that resolves the NK problem, most likely thorough paying the blackmail price. Which really won't resolve anything. After all, that's what Clinton did in the Agreed Framework and they almost immediately violated that with a uranium enrichment program.
Originally posted by SLO
by you discarding the UN to apply your new PREEMPTIVE DOCTRINE....puts the rest of us in a sensitive spot.....
Yes. it does.
You have to decide to trust and stand with a longtime ally that has come to your aid EVERY time you asked OR you have to decide to stand with a dictator that has attacked his neighbors, used WMD against them and his own people and conducted a genocidal operation against a minority group in his own country that resulted in 100K-180K deaths of men, women and children.
Apparently that is a "tough decision" for some of our "allies".
-
explain the diff. in killing 100 000 in 1 week with Wmd's.....and 100 000 in 6 months by arms......
Canada never...I REPEAT NEVER needed your help when it came to defending my country....you presume too much.....
and yes we will help with our MASSIVE military if ya do tango with china....or 3 ships and our arsenal of BB guns will be great against the chinese:eek:
I gotta go soon....will ask more tommorrow.....unless basement is finished an i can plug me puter back...then i'll ask more soonish...
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE....
here try this:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SLO
Canada never...I REPEAT NEVER needed your help when it came to defending my country....you presume too much.....
You Canadians weren't/aren't part of the Commonwealth?
I did indeed presume you were. And our record of aid to the Commonwealth is well known.
No comment as to the confirmed genocide in Iraq I see.
The same folks that oppose the Iraq operation would be absolutely ballistic about going against China. You know it, too.
And, of course, no response to the the clear choice YOU have. Stand with a longtime trusted ally or stand with a genocidal dictator.
It doesn't seem so tough for you, given what you've posted the last few weeks. It's pretty clear you were able to make a choice.
As for your 100,000 remark, it's not really clear to me.
If you're referring to the Anfal, it was a long, drawn out operation that was specifically designed to kill Kurdish men, women and children using all available weaponry. I take it you have not read the Human Rights Watch 13 Chapter discussion of it that is posted on the web.
So, in that light, I can make no sense of your remark.
Unless it is that if you kill 100K in one week with WMD and 100K in 6 months using conventional arms..... then you can I assume use WMD to kill 2,400K in 6 months using WMD, a much greater total than by conventional arms.
-
Originally posted by SLO
Toad......
see Toad...ya gotta understand 1 point thats NOT important to Americans like yourself...but which is VERY important to Canadians like me.....
we do not have a military able to cross oceans and attack any at OUR will....so we do have to use the ONLY recourse at our disposal......UN
you on the other hand have NO need of the UN......
Wish your boys safe journey....Hit em fast...Hit em hard
Don't mean to interject here, but Canada has another recource, and an invaluable resource. Look south my friend. Any attack ever made on Canada would be viewed as an attack on the USA. We are friends that will never leave you, unlike some of those that hold positions on the UNSC and could veto any multilateral support.
-
Just something I found that seems rather appropriate...
-
LOL Math what is that link, I cant read it! ROFLMAO read the small print around the "UN" seal :)