Bertie condemns Bombing

yankinlk

I hope that Berties words spoken from Bushland never reach the rest of the world.

Last week I thought, Ireland is safe enough, even with old georgie coming for a visit, but now on the one day the world focuses on Ireland - Bert has to speak up about a bombing in Iraq. Maybe it won't go further than local radio (i hope) or maybe it gets picked up... a risk either way, why take it?

bonkey

Originally posted by yankinlk
I hope that Berties words spoken from Bushland never reach the rest of the world.

I'd say your chances are somewhere between slim and none on that one.

Last week I thought, Ireland is safe enough, even with old georgie coming for a visit, but now on the one day the world focuses on Ireland - Bert has to speak up about a bombing in Iraq. Maybe it won't go further than local radio (i hope) or maybe it gets picked up... a risk either way, why take it?

Yeah - a lot of people seem to have this "we're not on anyone's radar" belief as well, but I don't know how accurate that is. I know that when Shannon was made available for US use during the invasion-buildup, it was widely known - and widely unpopular - in the Arab nations (I have an Irish friend living in Bahrain who quite literally believed it had put her life in danger).

I'm not suggesting for a second that we should hide our heads under rocks, but in fairnes....what is it with politicians that they can't ever seem to limit themselves to what is relevant to the event in hand when making public statements???

I'm wracking my brains trying to figure out the connection between St. Patrick's Day and bombings in Iraq, and I'm just coming up blank.

jc

uberwolf

ah yes, the leaders of the free world met yesterday. George US leader and Bertie the incumbent EU leader. I feared watching their combined oratory skills on one podium, I really did. No one to distract from it. Bertie may be more dangerous than we think. We were thanked for our support in the war on terror. Way to put a red dot on our foreheads.

dahamsta

Speaking of incumbent EU leaders, what's the deal with Prodi? According to Europa, "the President of the Commission is appointed by the governments of the Member States, and then approved by the European Parliament". He seems to be around forever though, is there no limit to his term or terms?

I'd like to see that back of this smug little git.

adam

sceptre

Originally posted by dahamsta
He seems to be around forever though, is there no limit to his term or terms?

I think it's a maximum of two terms of 10 years each but I'm not too sure about that. Delors was around from when I was born or thereabouts till when Prodi <cough> took over.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
I couldnt' believe that he made this quote.

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists"

Why? Force has never been successful in eliminating a terrorist threat (or at least - no-one on this forum has ever been able to provide examples of when it has, despite being reasonably frequently asked for them) , so what possible reason do we have to believe that this time will be different?

Even the nation who is leading the War on Terror knows it has no way of knowing if it is making things better or worse, despite Bush's frequent speeches insisting that "we are winning the War on Terror". Rumsfeld pointed out in his famous internal memo that they - the US - lacked the means of determining whether or not they were creating more terrorists than they were removing.

Also, CNN has had articles several times where anti-terrorism experts have pointed out that since the start of the War on Terror, terrorist activity around the world has increased.

So - lets put all of those facts together :

1) We have no way of knowing if we are increasing or decreasing the numbers of terrorists.
2) We do know that terrorism is on the increase, and there is a strong correlation between this and the War on Terror.
3) We know of no previous situation where force has been the answer in dealing with terrorists.

Right, so lets, all become Muslim then.

Because thats clearly the only other possibility.

Its the old "A or B" fallacy again. Because someone rejects A, you want us to believe that there is only one other option?

Coming from someone who's claiming that Prodi's comment was unbelievable, thats a bit rich, don't you think?

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Why? Force has never been successful in eliminating a terrorist threat (or at least - no-one on this forum has ever been able to provide examples of when it has, despite being reasonably frequently asked for them)

[devils advocate]
Does the bay of pigs count?
[/devils advocate]

MeatProduct

Originally posted by daveirl
I couldnt' believe that he made this quote.

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists"

Right, so lets, all become Muslim then.

I really don't see how more death is a solution. Bush seems to use some highly advanced maths that I am too uneducated to understand:

They killed 3000 of ours
We kill at least 5000 of theirs (not even theirs technically)
And now we're even

So killing an extra 5000 after the tragic death of 3000 people helped somehow?

That kind of logic is one that belongs to the extreme-macho mentality and frankly comes across as rather silly.

Haven't thousands of years experience taught the human race anything? Death is not the answer.

The suggestion of becoming Muslim was a very strange remark.

Nick

BattleBoar

Unfortunately, US policies in the region during the cold helped create people like Osama bin Laden. It took years after the cold war to realise that the enemy of my enemy is *not necessarily* my friend. Once the 9/11 attacks took place, however,I don't really see that there could have been any other solution than war in Afghanistan unless the ruling Taliban were willing to allow an external force to come in and arrest and/or kill the terrorists and destroy their training camps.

What reason would there be for Al Queda to stop their actions if they were allowed to freely recruit and train as they had been doing before with no reprecussions?

MeatProduct

I would certainly agree with much of what you said. However there are other ways of dealing with terrorism:

A thorough examination of foreign policies that may cause upset within nations

Targeting leadership rather than 5000 innocent civilians

Negotiation with "terrorists". Being a terrorist is rather easy these days. For example many people on this forum are terrorists because they are anti-US policy. Since people happen to be upset with sanctions on their country they automatically become terrorists because it is anti-US policy.

I'm sure if the US really wanted they could have assassinated Osama and Sadam a long time ago. I don't think anyone can argue the capability of the US to carry out those kind of covert attacks.

Nick

BattleBoar

Well, supposedly Clinton made a couple of attempts on Osama. Unfortunately, he was trained by the very best CIA agents in how to stay low, how to stay hidden, how to conduct guerrilla operations, etc. He was not an easy man to kill. As for saddam, if you believe the stories, he stayed buried in his palaces most of the time to avoid detection as well as using many look-alikes. I would have been all for assasinating at least Osama but I once they know they are a target, that task is pretty difficult.

I won't argue with the thorough examination of foreign policy either argument. The US policy never seemed to change when the cold war ended...long overdue due for an overhaul. Maybe it's changing now...it takes a lot to switch from a policy of propping dictators to promoting democracy and free-market economies, and if I was in the middle east, I'd probably not believe US intentions were genuine either. Hell, I'm in the US and I wonder if they really have learned? We're still backing the Saudi royals, and Saudi Arabia is the number one source of funding for wahabbi Islamic teaching. Time will tell I suppose...but no doubt Bush and family have far too many Saudi connections for me to be comforatble with.

But on 9/11, the line was crossed, and unless the Taliban were willing to allow forces to operate within their borders against terrorists, there wasn't much choice in the actions that were taken. Of course its terribly unfortunate that 5000 people died, and precision weapons fortunately meant the number was relatively low in comparison to civilian death tolls in similar previous operations. But once the initial attack occured, the US had a duty to protect it's citizens from future attacks. . The obvious first move in that duty was to eliminate the training grounds and support structure that Al Queda currently enjoyed.

Sparks

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Of course its terribly unfortunate that 5000 people died

And right there your argument crossed the line from rational to sociopathic.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by BattleBoar

But on 9/11, the line was crossed

I would argue that the line had not only been crossed, but had been raped by the US with their apalling sanctions on Iraq. You might recall when the dark queen herself, Madeleine Albright, had to admint in 1996 that US sanctions on Iraq were responsible for the deaths of around half a million children. If you haven't vomited from that then this is sure to do it, this was her comment : "we think the price is worth it". Yes, she said that to Lesley Stahl on CBS. If you want to argue line crossing there is no way you can support the US government and win.

Nick

MeatProduct

but no doubt Bush and family have far too many Saudi connections for me to be comforatble with.

It's amazing that this is not something that is all over the press. Bush went on about how they would hunt down the companies that supported terrorism yet the Bush family has plently of money in dodgy operations that both directly and indirectly support terrorism. Just an oversight I'm sure.

Nick

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
And right there your argument crossed the line from rational to sociopathic.

Why? In war, people die. It sucks. That's why it's war. There's no more blunt way you can say it.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Why? In war, people die. It sucks. That's why it's war. There's no more blunt way you can say it.

Who has the right to kill? Bush? A government? A country? Bush thinks he is on the morale high ground. Nobody has the right to kill anyone for any reason. These are powers attributed to gods. For good reason in my opinion because humans are incapable of true "morale" judgement as evidenced by the US governments past and present.

Sparks

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Why? In war, people die. It sucks. That's why it's war. There's no more blunt way you can say it.

It's also why war isn't the best option in virtually every case.

And that's seperate to the fact that your argument is that the US policy in it's "War on Terror"(tm) has been successful, whereas in fact it has not.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by MeatProduct
I would argue that the line had not only been crossed, but had been raped by the US with their apalling sanctions on Iraq.Nick

Sorry, I don't accept that. Sanctions != The attack. Saddam was provided with the terms by which he could have ended the sanctions imposed on Iraq and chose not to do so. Yes, it's really bad that people died as a result of those sanctions, but ultimately the blame for them lies with Saddam. Don't forget that Saddam's attack on Kuwait was the precursor to the sanctions, which were applied by the UN I might add.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Sorry, I don't accept that. Sanctions != The attack. Saddam was provided with the terms by which he could have ended the sanctions imposed on Iraq and chose not to do so. Yes, it's really bad that people died as a result of those sanctions, but ultimately the blame for them lies with Saddam. Don't forget that Saddam's attack on Kuwait was the precursor to the sanctions, which were applied by the UN I might add.

And who put Sadam in power and gave him funding?

Why should America decide they should put sanctions on Iraq anyway? Is it because they have more guns? Because they have the most WMDs? Once again its the macho-man attitude from the US government. The big boy with the stick dictating who has fun and who gets beaten on in the playground.

Nick

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
It's also why war isn't the best option in virtually every case.

And that's seperate to the fact that your argument is that the US policy in it's "War on Terror"(tm) has been successful, whereas in fact it has not.

I never said the war on terror had been successful, I said that the attack on Afghanistan was a requisite first step in eliminating the immediate threat following the 9/11 attacks. And I certainly never said war is always the best option. I don't like having words put into my mouth.

MeatProduct

Sanctions != The attack

When you use sanctions in the legal sense then I would agree with you. But the US were not legal in the way they carried out their sanctions. For starters they destroyed water supplies, illegal, and other vital infrastructures that are vital for living, also illegal. They didn't allow Iraq to import water filter equipment so they could clear their water so that many children got very ill. This isn't on the news funnily enough.

Nick

Sparks

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Sanctions != The attack.

Well, obviously, since the sanctions were on Iraq and Iraq didn't carry out the WTC attack....

BattleBoar

Originally posted by MeatProduct
And who put Sadam in power and gave him funding?

Why should America decide they should put sanctions on Iraq anyway? Is it because they have more guns? Because they have the most WMDs? Once again its the macho-man attitude from the US government. The big boy with the stick dictating who has fun and who gets beaten on in the playground.

Nick

The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It was kept after the war as leverage for disarmement.

MeatProduct

Why should sanctions cause death anyway I wonder? Sanctions should make things difficult economically, not kill about 500,000 in the space of 5 years.

Nick

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, obviously, since the sanctions were on Iraq and Iraq didn't carry out the WTC attack....

Please read the initial context of that quote.

MeatProduct

Can you imagine if 500,000 children died in the US? What would happen then? Genuine question.

Nick

BattleBoar

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Can you imagine if 500,000 children died in the US? What would happen then? Genuine question.

Nick

I think we have a misunderstanding as to the nature of this discussion. I'm not advocating the deaths of 500,000 children. I'm saying that Saddam carries the ultimate responsibility for it.

MeatProduct

BattleBoar,

Of course I don't think you would support that. I know your point, it's a good one, however I think it is misinformed. We must agree to disagree here because there is no solution to this one.

You think Sadam is responsible for the deaths of about 500,000 children in his own country

I don't.

I was genuinely wondering what would happen if such a issue were to arise in the US. Don't answer that though cause I have just realsied that we have gone off the topic of this thread.

Maybe we should start one for this subject?

Nick

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by daveirl
What Prodi should have said, is it's clear that force can't be the only weapon in our arsenal for dealing with terrorism.

And that, I think virtually everyone here will agree with...