US to invade Iraq?

Hobbes

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,610461,00.html

Baz_

Opposition by Blair and French President Jacques Chirac may not be enough to dissuade the Americans. One European military source who recently returned from General Franks's headquarters in Florida said: 'The Americans are walking on water. They think they can do anything at the moment and there is bloody nothing Tony [Blair] can do about it.'

I think this paragraph from the story says it all. It's one thing to take actions like the war on afghanistan, when there is international consensus, but now America think they can start attacking anything they are opposed to. This is rediculous. There is something very scary about this. It's almost like Bush is being told who his enemies are and he just says "attack them". I used to think Bush was a puppet, but now, it's looking like he definitely is.

American

If Hussein was involved in the anthrax attacks in the United States, or if he were close to procuring nuclear bombs, which he intended to use to gain control of countries around him, in contravention of the cease-fire agreement his government signed with the U.N. alliance at "end" of the Gulf War, then would there be justification for attacking him and removing him from power?

BTW, our President is nobody's puppet.:-)

chernobyl

Originally posted by American
BTW, our President is nobody's puppet.:-)

Hes a puppet to the American voter and public opinion, but since Bill o Reilly gives Bush a "thumbs up" the nation will too..."the no spin zone"....yack.

Hobbes

Originally posted by American
If Hussein was involved in the anthrax attacks in the United States,

I thought they already proved that the Anthrax came from US military labs.

American

Originally posted by Hobbes


I thought they already proved that the Anthrax came from US military labs.

Nothing's proved. There was a lot of lax security during the Clinton administration and the method for producing the anthrax may have been stolen. Plus, the Ames strain used to be mailed around the world for veternary research, including some to Iraq.

The U.S. is busy cleaning out Afghanistan right now, so what you hear about anthrax may be misdirection as they don't want to fight two wars at once.

Time will tell.

Jaden

"If Hussein was involved in the anthrax attacks in the United States, or if he were close to procuring nuclear bombs, which he intended to use to gain control of countries around him, in contravention of the cease-fire agreement his government signed with the U.N. alliance at "end" of the Gulf War, then would there be justification for attacking him and removing him from power?"

1. The Anthrax strains, as pointed out by Hobbes, were in fact American in origin. Why are there labs in the states dealing with this stuff?

2. What use has the United States for it's Nuclear weapons stockpile? Does it not exist as a threat to other nations?

Rule one of medicine says that "If you can't make it better, then don't make it worse".

This is an axiom that the makers of U.S. foreign policy should abide by.

bonkey

Originally posted by American
If Hussein was involved in the anthrax attacks in the United States, or if he were close to procuring nuclear bombs, which he intended to use to gain control of countries around him,

First off, how would you prove that he was involved?
Secondly, how would you prove he is developing nuclear weapons.
Thirdly how would you prove that he intended to use (them) to gain control of countries around him , or for any other purpose.

Of course, if the level of proof offered is as <sarcasm>solid</sarcasm> as the proof offered for bin Laden's guilt, then sure we have nothing to worry about.

The simple fact is this. The US did not remove Hussein from power at the end of the Gulf War, for a variety of reasons. He, unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan, is the recognised government in Iraq. The US will find it incredibly difficult to get the world's support on an action like this in comparison to the relative ease with which they got the world to fall into line with the Afgan action.

If, on the other hand, the US is going to try and do this "secretly", as they have done in so many cases in the past, it is a completely damning scenario - the US will once again be ousting a legitimate government they disgree with in favour of putting a govt of their own choosing in to place.

jc

American

Originally posted by chernobyl

Hes a puppet to the American voter and public opinion, but since Bill O'Reilly gives Bush a "thumbs up" the nation will too.

You are confusing our current President with the last one, who did run his administration by polls. Bush is his own man, who believes in right and wrong, and when right and wrong aren't a factor, he goes with what he believes from the facts to be most efficacious. He's a practical man and objective when right and wrong aren't in the picture.

Most people in my country don't know who O'Reilly is because they are not able to get Fox News Channel. I had to get a DISH to be able to get Fox. And if you read O'Reilly's latest book you see he doesn't cut the President any slack.

American

Originally posted by bonkey


Of course, if the level of proof offered is as <sarcasm>solid</sarcasm> as the proof offered for bin Laden's guilt, then sure we have nothing to worry about.
jc

The proof on bin Laden is solid. Hussein, I don't know what they've got.
But if someone tries to kill us with anthrax and nukes, we won't care about public opinion around the world, we will take them out and talk to you later about why we didn't care to die.

September 11 caused a lot of Americans to believe in the right of self defense, including pre-emptive self defense if necessary.

The air in New York City is people.

Shinji

Oh dear, a Dubya fanboy. Well, I suppose someone must like him - after all, he did secure a significant amount of the vote, even if it wasn't exactly what might be called a "majority" in any other democratic nation in the world...

Bush is his own man

I have yet to see the man make a single action which doesn't smack of the influence of big American business and the US military. The environment? Geopolitics? The welfare of the poor, either in the US or elsewhere? Nah. Bush doesn't believe in any of that hippy nonsense.

who believes in right and wrong...

... As long as someone else is around to tell him which is which every now and again.

It's obvious that you're no fan of Clinton, yet here was a man who was respected around the world as a statesman of great stature. It takes a particularly petty mind to allow the revelations about the mans personal life to tarnish his achievements elsewhere - sadly, much of the USA is made up of such petty minds, and one can't help but feel that Clinton's reputation internationally is much stronger as a result. Bush, on the other hand, is an international laughing-stock; the world considers him an idiot, and he's yet to do anything to disprove us.

Hobbes

Originally posted by American
Plus, the Ames strain used to be mailed around the world for veternary research, including some to Iraq.

The strain according to news sites here was in fact of a military grade. Anyone with basic biology skill can make anthrax. The Military grade stuff however is the inhaled form and has the spores under a certain size (40microns?).

It's not something you can just get (yes you can get Anthrax spores from a US company for testing).

Btw the USA is the top producer of Anthrax in the world and has the largest stockpile of it (enough to kill every human on this planet twice).

And you think Nuclear weapons are scary.

American

Originally posted by Shinji

It's obvious that you're no fan of Clinton, yet here was a man who was respected around the world as a statesman of great stature. It takes a particularly petty mind to allow the revelations about the mans personal life to tarnish his achievements elsewhere

Clinton, a sociopath, will go down in American history as our most corrupt President. You don't know about anything except the sexual harrassment and rape. Many of us over here also know about the widespread kickback graft and the ignoring of fundamentals of national security for bribes. He is the reason Gore lost and Bush won. The heartland of America was sickened by him.

OTOH, President Bush will find a place in the American heart near President Lincoln, and has been gaining respect among world leaders since his first trip to Europe as President. As they get to know him better, the cliche's about him from the socialist dominated press tend to fall away.

bonkey

First off, could we avoid this breaking down into a "Bush vs Clinton" or "Bush : good/bad" thread, and try and stay on topic

Originally posted by American
The proof on bin Laden is solid. Hussein, I don't know what they've got.

I'm not going into the "bin Laden proof" thread after asking other to keep on-thread, but I'm interested in how you know its solid, when the actual condemning facts have never been released to the public. So your solid proof boils down to "they told us it was solid, so it must be".

But if someone tries to kill us with anthrax and nukes, we won't care about public opinion around the world, we will take them out and talk to you later about why we didn't care to die.

And if America did this without very solid proof, it would prove that it cares nothing about justice being done, and only about justice being seen to be done.

As a matter of interest, what right does the US, the largest possessor of nuclear and biological weapons have to tell the rest of the world "you cant have them cause we dont like you" ??? Exactly when did you get appointed world rulers?

And before you go on about your right to self defence....would you support the rest of the world attacking the US in self defence because the US has nukes, bio weapons, and is the most militarily active nation in the world?

jc

jc

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Jaden
1. The Anthrax strains, as pointed out by Hobbes, were in fact American in origin. this stuff?

REALLY??? And you know this HOW exactly?

adnans

Originally posted by Gargoyle


REALLY??? And you know this HOW exactly?

the U.S. Army laboratory that is the main custodian of the virulent strain of anthrax used in terrorist attacks distributed the bacteria to just five labs in the United States, Canada and England, according to government documents and interviews.

from here

adnans

American

Originally posted by bonkey
So your solid proof boils down to "they told us it was solid, so it must be".

bin Laden has been convicted in other terrorist attacks, like the bombings of our embassies in Africa and the bombing of the Cole. And foreign leaders, like Tony Blair, shown the evidence on bin Laden in the killing of almost 4,000 people on our soil, have said it would stand court scrutiny.

Exactly when did you get appointed world rulers?
When the Soviet Union fell apart. Nature abhors a vacuum.

would you support the rest of the world attacking the US in self defence because the US has nukes, bio weapons, and is the most militarily active nation in the world?
The U.S. isn't attacking you and has no plans to do so, unless I am talking to Saddam Hussein.
We have no reason to believe you are going to attack us. We have every reason to believe Hussein will. He has gassed his own people. He has shot scuds at Israel when they were not part of the Alliance against him in 1990-1. He invaded another country Kuwait and looted it.
So far the U.S. in my lifetime has a decent track record of not annexing countries it went to war with. Japan and Germany are free.
We don't want Afghanistan, we want bin Laden and al-Qaida. There's a good chance Afghanistan will end up in better shape than ever after we help rebuild after this war, like Japan and Germany did.
jc [/B]

Jaden

bin Laden has been convicted in other terrorist attacks, like the bombings of our embassies in Africa and the bombing of the Cole. And foreign leaders, like Tony Blair, shown the evidence on bin Laden in the killing of almost 4,000 people on our soil, have said it would stand court scrutiny.

Well, if they said so, it MUST be true. Jasus, what were we thinking? Imagine not believing a politician.....


Exactly when did you get appointed world rulers? When the Soviet Union fell apart. Nature abhors a vacuum.

ROFL. The stupidity of this statement requires no rebuttal.
The U.S. isn't attacking you and has no plans to do so.

Why not? We have terrorists here, loads of them. I'm sure if you carpet bomb Belfast, you'll get a fair few of them. Would that not be a legitimate tactic in the war against terrorism? Did Bush not say "We will fight terrorism where-ever it exists"?

Japan and Germany are free.

The U.S. needs them to be. Without the above, you'd all be driving crappy cars and using crappy electronic consumer goods.

Incidently, both countries show what happens when a successful and powerful country elects an idiot leadership, who manipulates the population into following them.

Now, where has that happened recently?


edited by Bonkey to remove American-insulting comment

bonkey

Originally posted by American
bin Laden has been convicted in other terrorist attacks, like the bombings of our embassies in Africa and the bombing of the Cole. And foreign leaders, like Tony Blair, shown the evidence on bin Laden in the killing of almost 4,000 people on our soil, have said it would stand court scrutiny.

These are the same nations who sided with the US in a military action before such evidence was allegedly produced? Their standpoint is no longer impartial as they are essentially justifying their own actions. Whether they are right or not does nto matter - they are not impartial enough to be acceptable as sources of validation.

Nor, by the way, were the people who came up with these statements lawyers. They are definitely not experts in US law, further adding doubt to their credibility when they say it would stand up in court.

Finally, exactly when did the word of foreign heads of state supercede "due process" in the American legal system? Proof has not been produced - it has been claimed to exist. An open court of law cannot be held because it would mean divulging this proof, which cannot be done. Therefore, it sitll boils down to the same argument - we must simply trust those in charge when they say "trust us - he's guilty - honest." Whether or not they are correct is immaterial - they are unwilling to prove in a court of law that he is guilty and this is what I cam criticising them for.

As for the mentioning of numbers of dead - spare me the media-like melodrama. I am aware of the scale of the events, and also that it has no bearing on your argument whatsoever.

As for bin Laden being convicted in previous crimes - one of the basic tenets of the American legal system is that while facts such as this can be used to illustrate the character of the person under trial, it has no legal bearing on the case in hand. Again - complete misdirection.

So far the U.S. in my lifetime has a decent track record of not annexing countries it went to war with. Japan and Germany are free.

You did not go to war with Japan and Germany. You joined an alliance of other nations who were already at war with the Axis forces. Also, as a matter of interest, if you (or the Alies, more correctly) didnt annex nations, exactly where did East and West Germany, and East and West Berlin come from? I coulda sworn that there wasnt two nations there before the war.....

There's a good chance Afghanistan will end up in better shape than ever after we help rebuild after this war, like Japan and Germany did.

This is not a justification for invading a foreign nation. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

At the end of the day, your stance boils down to a very simple one : American has the right to invade/threaten/overthrow any country or government it feels threatened by. Forgive me if I disagree - I would like to think that the last few centuries of bloody confliuct around the globe would have taught us that violence has never solved anything.

I'm also interested in seeing you hold this high and mighty stance if the US is ever threatened by a nation with a credible military - one which you cannot walk over as easily as the Iraqi or Taliban forces. I wonder if your belligerence will be so forthcoming then?

jc

JustHalf

Originally posted by bonkey
Forgive me if I disagree - I would like to think that the last few centuries of bloody confliuct around the globe would have taught us that violence has never solved anything.

Ahem.

World War II - a problem solved with violence.

Shall I continue?

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
Ahem.

World War II - a problem solved with violence.

Shall I continue?

Please do. I would have thought that the word "WAR" in "World War II" would have indicated that it was a problem caused by violence, not one solved by it.

Your case in point also falls down because it would tend to illustrate that the way to solve a problem is to start a war and then lose it. If this were the case, then war would pretty much die out overnight, because I cant think of any rational reason a nation would start a war purely in order to lose.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by Gargoyle
REALLY??? And you know this HOW exactly?

I saw it on CNN as well as a few other news channels over a month ago.

Basically military grade Anthrax has some form of signature which helps them to track it to it's source. They have known for some time that it's nothing to do with the sept 11, and I believe they think it is another home grown terrorist group responsible.

In regards to the other topic, there is no way in hell Bin Laden will stand trial, least of all in a public trial. So all this "We have evidence that can stand up in court" means dick if your not going to have a fair trial to present the evidence.

JustHalf

Originally posted by bonkey
Please do. I would have thought that the word "WAR" in "World War II" would have indicated that it was a problem caused by violence, not one solved by it.

Yes, I realised the problem with that a few minutes after posting. I'm not going to edit my post, but read it as:

WORLD WAR II - Solving a problem with violence

Originally posted by bonkey
Your case in point also falls down because it would tend to illustrate that the way to solve a problem is to start a war and then lose it. If this were the case, then war would pretty much die out overnight, because I cant think of any rational reason a nation would start a war purely in order to lose.

I don't understand, unless you're saying that Germany was the first to declare war. (I don't think they were, at least not on any of the Allied countries)

American

Originally posted by Jaden


Did Bush not say "We will fight terrorism where-ever it exists"?

He said we would fight terrorism of global reach.
Therefore, as long as the IRA plans only to bomb Belfast and not New York City, we will not go after them.
However, the citizens of the U.S. seem to be less tolerant lately of their friends that send money to the IRA.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

I'm also interested in seeing you hold this high and mighty stance if the US is ever threatened by a nation with a credible military - one which you cannot walk over as easily as the Iraqi or Taliban forces. I wonder if your belligerence will be so forthcoming then?
jc

Under those circumstances you get a Cold War, like the one we 'fought' for several decades with the Soviet Union before it felll apart.

Belligerence is your choice of words, but it is not totally inaccurate. When your nation is threatened with weapons of mass destruction, a mentality that understands you must be prepared for war is important, a mentality that understands you need to warn your adversary of consequences is important, and a mentality that knows it must defeat someone that refuses to stand down from calling for your destruction is important.

American

Originally posted by Hobbes

The strain according to news sites here was in fact of a military grade.
Just for clarification, there are three things that make a pile of anthrax spores weapons grade.
1. refinement so that spores are of inhalation size, which I believe is around 10 microns, not 40.
2. processing with a noncaking agent like a powder or coating with a substance that makes the spores easily able to float around in the air.
3. a particularly lethal strain, and more specifically, one that has been developed to be resistant to antibiotics.

The letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy from Trenton, NJ, met the first two criteria, but not the third. The letters sent to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw and the Editor of the NY Post did not meet the second criterion.

Anyone with basic biology skill can make anthrax.
Yes, but to produce a couple weapon's grade vials of it, you need very sophisticated facilities, or the first death will be your own.

yes you can get Anthrax spores from a US company for testing
That used to be true, but several or more years back the regulations were tightened so that you had to prove your bona fides as a veterinary research or a human immunization research facility before you could get it any longer.

Hobbes

Originally posted by American
Therefore, as long as the IRA plans only to bomb Belfast and not New York City, we will not go after them.

Quite a few terrorist organisations train others (ref: US Military terrorist Db). The IRA for example have been caught training terrorists in other countries (eg. Spain, E Germany, Indonesia).

American

Originally posted by Hobbes


Quite a few terrorist organisations train others (ref: US Military terrorist Db). The IRA for example have been caught training terrorists in other countries (eg. Spain, E Germany, Indonesia).

Spain and Germany have been cooperative in shutting down the networks in their countries. And Indonesia is in process of asking for help in controlling its terrorists.

Jaden

Quick Quiz.

1. Where is the Trinity test site, and what is it's importance in world history?

2. Nagasaki and Hiroshama. Who did what there?

3. The Bikini atoll. Why is it worth mention is history?

4. Who started the nuclear arms build up, ergo, the "Cold War" as it was known?

Red Moose

Originally posted by Jaden
Quick Quiz.
2. Nagasaki and Hiroshama. Who did what there?

Wasn't that the whole Pearl Harbor thing? If they didn't bomb those cities, perhaps many many more would have been killed; it was a like a shock-stop, as in "Holy ****ing **** they'll kick our asses let stop being a bunch idiots"

4. Who started the nuclear arms build up, ergo, the "Cold War" as it was known?

I think teh development of the inital Hiroshima bombs, etc., kicked off the USSR to compete with them. The stories that abound go that USSR spies stole the technology or something like that, and that were always behind in tech terms because the scientists had already defected to the USA.

So goes what I've read anyway.....

Robbo

The air in New York City is people.

Really? Back here in Ireland, it still appears to be a 80:20 mix of carbon dioxide, oxygen and some other goodies thrown in there.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Robbo


Really? Back here in Ireland, it still appears to be a 80:20 mix of carbon dioxide, oxygen and some other goodies thrown in there.

Newsflash, atmosphere is almost 80% Nitrogen. If its 80% CO2 there, you guys need to stop talking so much.

American

Originally posted by Jaden
Quick Quiz.

1. Where is the Trinity test site, and what is it's importance in world history?
The United States tested the first nuclear weapon there during World War II. I believe it is in New Mexico.

2. Nagasaki and Hiroshama. Who did what there?
You are probably referring to the United States under President Truman dropping atomic bombs on these cities in Japan that produced munitions and housed military complexes, acts which caused the immediate unconditional surrender of Japan, who sneak attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
Kyoto was taken off the list of possible cities because of its cultural treasures.
The U.S. loses in taking Iwo Jima and other Japanese islands preparatory to taking the mainland were in the tens of thousands of Marines killed.
The estimates for the losses on both sides for taking the Japanese mainland were one million dead if done by conventional warfare.
It is therefore estimated that 3/4 million people survived World War II, Pacific Theatre, because the bombs were dropped.
The former Japanese government was a vicious regime. Tell me about the Rape of Nanking. Tell me about the Bataan Death March. We'll talk after you own up to those facts.

<b>3. The Bikini atoll. Why is it worth mention is history?</b>
Hydrogen bomb blew it to kingdom come.

4. Who started the nuclear arms build up, ergo, the "Cold War" as it was known?
The human race, the same group that started the build up of spears, of catapults, of muskets, of machine guns, of bomber planes.
There were two competing systems of government on the planet, one of which, communism, was expansionist in its vision. The other, the U.S., was a representative democracy, a Republic, using regulated free enterprise system of capitalism as its economic engine. These two systems joined in a competitive struggle that led to many advances in sciences, not just a nuclear arms race.
With the essential defeat of the communist system, the arms race is winding down. President Bush has unilaterally begun to cut nuclear weapons by the thousands, and President Putin of Russia is going to be doing the same.

chernobyl

Originally posted by American


Most people in my country don't know who O'Reilly is because they are not able to get Fox News Channel. I had to get a DISH to be able to get Fox. And if you read O'Reilly's latest book you see he doesn't cut the President any slack.

That is true, but out of the millions who watch news channels and current affairs programmes in the prime time slot, BOR beats every other programme 2:1, which means that even if FOX is not being carried on all cable neworks, then most certainly the Factor and even Hannity and Colmes is being boradcasted, and if O Reilly reaches that amount then i think he is reaching the siginificant audience.

Hobbes

Originally posted by American
Spain and Germany have been cooperative in shutting down the networks in their countries

Erm ETA and red Faction (among others) are very much alive. North Ireland/England have been trying to shut down terrorist organisations for years and they are still here (same with Spain and Germany)

. And Indonesia is in process of asking for help in controlling its terrorists.

Linkage? The only thing I have heard about Indonesia is that the US plan to invade it too as a possible terrorist country.

Hobbes

Originally posted by American

Originally posted by Jaden
Quick Quiz.
4. Who started the nuclear arms build up, ergo, the "Cold War" as it was known?

Actually it wasn't the nuclear arms race that started the Cold war, but it was the generated by the effect of the Cold War.

The initial problem was over the dividing up of Germany after the war, followed by the Vietnam war which strained relations.

What finally triggered the full cold war (eg. Berlin Wall) was the shooting down of a US spy plane over Russia.

The US had developed a spy plane that could fly well above the range of convential fighters and they thought because it couldn't be hit they could do what they like. However the Russians had developed a new missile system that downed the plane while it was deep in the USSR. The Russian president made the US president out to be a complete liar to the world press when he showed proof of them spying after they said they weren't.

Shortly after that the Berlin Wall went up (under a year I think)

The next major point was the Cuban Missile crisis which could of been avoided altogether if the US had orginally given aid to Cuba when they first approached the US. After Castro being told more or less to go Fuk himself on live US TV (because he threw out the organized crime in his country) he went and asked the Russians for help.

Cause and effect.

American

Originally posted by Hobbes

Actually it wasn't the nuclear arms race that started the Cold war,
What finally triggered the full cold war (eg. Berlin Wall) was the shooting down of a US spy plane over Russia.

I definitely remember drills in elementary school where I was taught to hide under my desk in the event of a nuclear attack (stop laughing; we really did this pretending it would help) well before the U2 was shot down. Seems to me if you are drilling for a nuclear attack, you have a war footing, cold, freezing, polar, whatever you want to call it.


The next major point was the Cuban Missile crisis which could of been avoided altogether if the US had orginally given aid to Cuba when they first approached the US. .
I don't buy this. Castro was a communist before he took over Cuba, and he still is, in spite of Russia abandoning the system. It was the excuse he used at the time, but it was phony.

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
I don't understand, unless you're saying that Germany was the first to declare war. (I don't think they were, at least not on any of the Allied countries)

I believe that if you check your history books, WW2 started when Germany invaded Poland. So, yes, I believe I was saying that they started it.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by American


He said we would fight terrorism of global reach.
Therefore, as long as the IRA plans only to bomb Belfast and not New York City, we will not go after them.

Oh - so when he said "of golbal reach" what he actually meant was "affecting America"? Al Qaeda arent "of glabal reach" either - last I checked they hadnt attacked Ireland. or Russia. Or countless other nations.

Also, I believe that if you check back you will find that Bush first declared war on terrorism. He then stated that "terrorism, by definition, is international in nature", showing us his fine grasp of exactly what terrorism is about, as well as the beginnings of the American intent.

Now, as we hear murmerings about what is possibly after Afghanistan, we discover that all the countries suggested as the next targets of US "anti-terrorism justice" break into two groups : Iraq and Other Al-Qaeda Strongholds.

Interestingly, Bush and his administration, through the media, have tried to brainwash us since they invaded Afghanistan that cracking that stronghold would essentially decapitate and render ineffectual the international group known as Al Qaeda. Funny how all bar one of the top candidates for US attention next are also Al Qaeda strongholds. Some slight contradictions in what we are being told perhaps?

So - American - given that your obviously the staunchest pro-US supporter here at the moment....

1) Did the atttacks on Afghanistan cripple Al Qaeda or not?

2) If so, why are other Al Qaeda strongholds being talked about as possible "next targets"? If not, then why is there so much press about the success in Afghanistan???

3) Why is the only terrorism the US have expressed an interest in that coming from Al Qaeda, and from Iraq?

4) Exactly what constitutes international terrorism, of global reach? Is it just a pretty name for Osama bin Laden, or is there any substance behind this platitude.

I'm just curious...

jc

Robbo

There were two competing systems of government on the planet, one of which, communism, was expansionist in its vision. The other, the U.S., was a representative democracy, a Republic, using regulated free enterprise system of capitalism as its economic engine

By that token, the US system *isn't* expansionist. I believe that a little thing called "manifest destiny" is part of the same Republican marketing pamphlet you preach from. It predates WW2.

JustHalf

Originally posted by American
With the essential defeat of the communist system, the arms race is winding down. President Bush has unilaterally begun to cut nuclear weapons by the thousands, and President Putin of Russia is going to be doing the same.

American, the cuts called for by Bush are pathetic in comparison to ones called for by Clinton. We shall ignore the exact numbers of weapons to be affected, and concentrate on the effects on the weapons.

Under Clinton's ideas, the warheads would be destroyed. Bush will merely removed the warheads, and deactivate the bomb. It will take only a few months to return all of these weapons to fully operational status.

Bush will also not allow Russian inspectors in to verify that the weapons are put beyond use. None at all. If I was him I'd at least have a token tour of the facilities.

Jaden

Hmmm.

Enemy makes first strike, Caught with pants down. Reprisal attacks after declaration of war.

This describes, albeit in summary, the situation as regards Japan on the 40's and Afghanistan in the 00's. Surely the solution should be the same then?

Why not nuke Afghanistan? After all, civilian casualties are inevitable in war. A few nukes will scare the bejasus out of the primitive Afghans, just like it did with the Japanese. It will also serve as a warning to other Terror States (like Ireland).

As appointed world leaders, surely it is within the power of the United States to unleash a nuclear strike against a third world country? Who could stop them? The U.N.?

The reason that the States won't nuke the Afghans, is that today, unlike 60 years ago, they aren't the only ones with weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to be a bully, when other boys have the same sized stick as you.

Japan, by the time of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was very near capitulation. American forces were on the verge of a Japanese mainland invasion, and had crippled Japanese air defences. It was only a matter of time.

Under the guise of ending the war quickly, the detonated nuclear weapons above the skies of civilian cities. The motive for such an attack was clear, and even hinted at in a previous post of Americans, - Revenge.

The United States never forgave the Japanese for Pearl Harbour. Even though the losses there were just a drop in the ocean to the losses incured in the rest of world war two. And rightfully so, it was a terrible attack. But let's call a spade a spade, Hiroshima was a revenge attack. Japan had hurt the states, and they were going to pay dearly for that.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

Bush and his administration, through the media, have tried to brainwash us since they invaded Afghanistan that cracking that stronghold would essentially decapitate and render ineffectual the international group known as Al Qaeda. Funny how all bar one of the top candidates for US attention next are also Al Qaeda strongholds. Some slight contradictions in what we are being told perhaps?

Two problems with the above statement.
1. Bush has been very straight with us (U.S.) that this will be a long effort and be multidimensional (much more than merely military action) and involve more countries to eradicate al-Qa'ida than just the main nest in Afghanistan.
I suggest you read his speech to the joint session of Congress from 9-23. It's all there.
2. Brainwashing you "through the media"? What media do you get brainwashed by? What media submits Bush brainwashing meekly to your mind?

So - American - given that your obviously the staunchest pro-US supporter here at the moment...
Which is why I am here, to answer questions about how Red Country Americans feel about things.

1) Did the attacks on Afghanistan cripple Al Qaeda or not?
We're not done yet. More than bin Laden, we have to get Hawaziri, of whoever that Egyptian is that does all bin Laden's clever thinking for him. If we don't get him, we've only put a temporary crimp in them, not a major cripple, in terms of risk for another devastating attack on U.S. noncombatant citizens.

2) If so, why are other Al Qaeda strongholds being talked about as possible "next targets"?
Like the Hydra, it can grow another head if you don't destroy the body as well, is our assessment. And we don't know what instructions sleeper cells are working under or how self motivating they are. We are learning as we are going. It is a work in progress.

If not, then why is there so much press about the success in Afghanistan???
We have no control over the press. They like film at 11. There's film now, so it plays.

3) Why is the only terrorism the US have expressed an interest in that coming from Al Qaeda, and from Iraq? As we say here in the U.S. (baseball parlance) There is al-Qa'ida, Iraq, and a player(s) to be named later. We are interested in a lot of players. But they have an out. There is the Bush Doctrine subclause. If you stop now, all prior sins will be forgiven. If you keep trying to kill Americans or harbor those that are trying to kill Americans, you are a player to be named later.

4) Exactly what constitutes international terrorism, of global reach? They have the means and the desire/will/plans to attack our noncombatants on our soil. Also, Americans don't like sneak attacks on our soil. We tend to go bomb people to glass who do that to us, although we did forgive the Brits, but that was more like an argument with your Dad after you have moved out of the house.[/B]

Hobbes

We tend to go bomb people to glass who do that to us,


And that is what amazes me with regards to the US stance on Terrorism.

Terrorism is not an army you can just attack, or country you can bomb.

You kill a terrorist you make his family and friends possible terrorists.

With that only outcome the only way to stop terrorism is to determine the cause for it and remove it. However some people seem to equate that to killing everyone involved rather then looking at the deeper cause.

JustHalf

Originally posted by bonkey
I believe that if you check your history books, WW2 started when Germany invaded Poland. So, yes, I believe I was saying that they started it.

Britain declared war on Germany on September 3rd, 1939. WW2 started AFTER Germany invaded Poland, and only began when Britain declared war on Germany.

Britain started the war.

Germany provoked them by their violent territorial expansion - but they did nothing to Britain itself.

Britain started the war.

I'm glad it did.

bonkey

Originally posted by American
Which is why I am here, to answer questions about how Red Country Americans feel about things.

America is a Red Country??? I thought the USSR were the Reds

(Sorry, couldnt resist.)

1) Did the attacks on Afghanistan cripple Al Qaeda or not?
We're not done yet. More than bin Laden, we have to get Hawaziri, of whoever that Egyptian is that does all bin Laden's clever thinking for him. If we don't get him, we've only put a temporary crimp in them, not a major cripple, in terms of risk for another devastating attack on U.S. noncombatant citizens.

Rubbish.

From day 1, the US fingered bin Laden as the chief suspect. They asked the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. They stated on going in to Afghanistan that they were there to get bin Laden.

Now, all of a sudden, you want us to believe that bin Laden is not actually that important, and not the organiser who created Al Qaeda as we have previously been told, and that Hawaziri is actually the main man?

And taking your "hydra" argument in point 2, you also are more or less admitting that these guys arent important, because in fact if you take them out, another will spring up to take their place.

So, in fact, these guys arent all that important. They are replaceable "heads" of an operation, and it is the operation itself which is the problem....whcih leads us to point 2 :

2) If so, why are other Al Qaeda strongholds being talked about as possible "next targets"?
Like the Hydra, it can grow another head if you don't destroy the body as well, is our assessment. And we don't know what instructions sleeper cells are working under or how self motivating they are. We are learning as we are going. It is a work in progress.

A lovely mix of fact and fiction.

Yes, I agree completely - taking out bin Laden and Al Qaeda's Afghan stronghold will make a dent in the overall terrorist umbrella which is Al Qaeda, but it will not stop them.

However, given that you admit to not knowing enough about the sleeper cells, how can you claim that your course of action is a good one? Without that information, surely you are increasing the risk of reprisals from cells which you are simply unaware of. More importantly, if you cannot assess their threat, and cannot find them, exactly how will stomping on Al Qaeda's main centres effect these groups at all? And these groups are the real threat.

As for learning as you're going....you cant be serious? America just comitted itself to a war in Afghanistan, and possibly further armed conflicts, and yet it isnt quite sure how its going to get from here to the end? If this is the case, how can you have any confidence that what youre doing is even a good or smart approach?

If not, then why is there so much press about the success in Afghanistan???
We have no control over the press. They like film at 11. There's film now, so it plays.

Sorry - I was talking about the televised daily updates from the Pentagon - the people running the show, and what they say, live, to the world's press.

When I can see Rumsfeld or some rear-Admiral stand up live and tell us all how well things are going, I tend to not attribute it to the press and/or the control you have over them. Granted, they always have to temper this with "there's still a long way to go", but lets face it....the press arent deciding its a success for themselves. They are being told by Tony Blair on this side of the water, and Mr. Rumsfeld and others in the US.

As for "we have no control over the press"...

Are you in government, that you can refer to the US governments influence over the press in the first-person? Also, I seem to recall comments being made from both US and UK governments about the non-broadcasting of bin Laden footage for some mythical security reasons. Uh-huh. No control. Right.

We are interested in a lot of players. But they have an out. There is the Bush Doctrine subclause. If you stop now, all prior sins will be forgiven. If you keep trying to kill Americans or harbor those that are trying to kill Americans, you are a player to be named later.

This agrees really well with Bush's "there will be no nogotiation, period" statements, oft-repeated when rumours were surfacing of less-extreme Taliban factions who wanted to reach an agreement after the attacks started.

You cant have both.

As for "if you stop now". Sheah. Right. Excuse me, but when was the last time the US believed Iraq when it said something like that. Last time I checked, there were still embargoes left right and centre.

Surely Mr. Bush means "if we believe you when you tell us that you have stopped....". This doesnt fill me with much hope. The US has given itself a mandate to threaten nations for having terrorist affiliations, and the burden will be on those nations to prove their innocence. Guilty till proven innocent - yeah, thats a great system.

4) Exactly what constitutes international terrorism, of global reach?
They have the means and the desire/will/plans to attack our noncombatants on our soil.

Thank you. You prove my point perfectly.

America is not interested in combating international terrorism, or terrorism, or "terrorism with a global reach" or any other euphemism you choose. American is interested in fighting anti-American terrorism from a foreign source.

Explain to me again why they wanted the world on board to help fight terrorism alongside them, when its only "our onncombatants on our soil" which matter.

jc

JustHalf

Hobbes.

The first problem was the partition of Germany... you are correct in that.

I imagine the Korean war also pissed of the USSR, but I'll just order your points.

The spy plane, a U2 spy plane, was shot down on Mayday, 1960.

Next to occur was the creation of the Berlin wall on the night of August 13, 1961.

Then there was the Cuban Missile crisis (1962), followed by the Vietnam war (1968)

American

Originally posted by Hobbes

You kill a terrorist you make his family and friends possible terrorists.
You kill a deranged killer with his knife to the throat of your daughter and you make his family and friends possible killers.
But you still have to take the deranged killer out right away. Then you turn and deal with the family and friends.


With that only outcome the only way to stop terrorism is to determine the cause for it and remove it. However some people seem to equate that to killing everyone involved rather then looking at the deeper cause.

The deeper cause? Man is sinful. Man, unchecked by restraints of laws and civilization and restraints of conscience and fear of God or not positively motivated to love by being instructed in a religion that teaches love of others, man is capable of great evil.

But if you don't first defend yourself, you're not going to be able to look at much of anything.

You have fanatical religious schools (funded by the Saudi monarchy in its Faustian bargain with the devil in its bosom trying to keep power) teaching every pilgrim and every child their Wahabi concept of life, and teaching virulent anti-American, anti-infidel poison in the package.
Is the solution to stop funding the religious schools and have the Saudis start public education?

Is the solution for the U.S. to drill in our "wilderness" preserves and coastlines and become able to do without MidEast oil, letting the people in the MidEast topple their oligarchies soaked rich in oil money but not sharing it sufficiently with their people, and wait till they find their own way to their own feeling of self-determination, and then reestablish relations with them....like is happening in Iran.

joev

Originally posted by Jaden

Under the guise of ending the war quickly, the detonated nuclear weapons above the skies of civilian cities. The motive for such an attack was clear, and even hinted at in a previous post of Americans, - Revenge.

Actually, I saw one of these expose documentaries (possibly Equinox) sometime last year that presented recently uncovered evidence that points to an even more sinister motivation.

There were no need for the Japanese bombs to be dropped. The US were on the verge of defeating the Japanese. The true reason was that the military heads wanted to assess the true impact and real effect of an atomic weapon on a civilian population.

I always find it ironic that people are so 'hot' about the Holocaust in WWII but completely forget that the US massacred over 1.5 Million Japanese civilians in 2 days... and left a legacy of horrific suffering, illness and death for tens of millions more over the intervening 56 years.

People are appalled at 11.Sept attacks, and rightly so, but If Hiroshima and Nagasaki have shown us anything it should be to view with a *very* critical eye any action that is carried out in "self defence" or "national interest" by the US.

Let he who is without a mass-murders history cast the first stone.

joev.

bonkey

Originally posted by American
You kill a deranged killer with his knife to the throat of your daughter and you make his family and friends possible killers.
But you still have to take the deranged killer out right away. Then you turn and deal with the family and friends.
[/b]

If you think that terrorists are nothing more than "deranged killers" than this discussion is pointless. You are completely ignoring the reasons behind the terrorism. These reasons, ultimately, will be the only path to true resolution.

American is taking the attitude of "peace through superior firepower".

Alternately - "we will make them too afraid to attack us". Ah - that would be terrorism wouldnt it - using fear itself as the weapon.

The deeper cause? Man is sinful. Man, unchecked by restraints of laws and civilization and restraints of conscience and fear of God or not positively motivated to love by being instructed in a religion that teaches love of others, man is capable of great evil.

Oh please. So you believe that there is simple line of progression from :
1) Man is sinful
2) Therefore, these people attack America

Ignoring the absurdities of your assertion that religion and law will somehow check the first of these, do you honestly believe that the second point follows directly from the first? That somehow, America is hated by god or just plain unlucky that these sinful people happen to hate it.

Would it not be more plausible to think that perhaps there may be a tangible, non-philosophical set of reasons as to why a large number of nations in the Middle East bear a large amount of animosity to the US?

Should this be plausible, it is not too great a stretch of the imagination to assert that a large contributor to this animosity may be American in origin - most notably the US foreign policy for the Middle East in the last few decades?

And perhaps, just perhaps, it may be a thought worth persuing that a change in US foreign policy to a more egailtarian and balanced approach to the Middle East may just pay off some dividends?

Nah - screw it - you're right. You're better to go in with gunbs blazing and blame them for everything. After all, if they fight back, you always have bigger guns. Thats the right way to peace. Yeah.

Is the solution for the U.S. to drill in our "wilderness" preserves and coastlines and become able to do without MidEast oil, letting the people in the MidEast topple their oligarchies soaked rich in oil money but not sharing it sufficiently with their people, and wait till they find their own way to their own feeling of self-determination, and then reestablish relations with them....like is happening in Iran.

Oh give me a break. Their "oligarchies soaked rich in oil money" are there because nations like the US handed them the oil money to get soaked in. And now, for some bizarre reason, you want the credit for helping to remove these people from power and putting a "better" structure in place? Perhaps you could just have gotten it right first time....or at least admit that getting it wrong is a large contributor to the current anti-US climate in the ME.

A second step may be to reexamine US foreign policy and foreign aid structures, in particular as applied to the ME.

A third step may be to stop intervening in foreign nations affairs to make them more amenable to American interests.

jc

American

Originally posted by bonkey

America just comitted itself to a war in Afghanistan, and possibly further armed conflicts, and yet it isnt quite sure how its going to get from here to the end? If this is the case, how can you have any confidence that what youre doing is even a good or smart approach?
Same problem that faced us at the beginning of World War II, right after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. WE muddles along.

As for "we have no control over the press"...

Are you in government, that you can refer to the US governments influence over the press in the first-person?
True Americans understand that they are the government and responsible for it and must be watchful of it. The government is not some lofty ethereal body; it is "WE THE PEOPLE" and right not especially we are feeling pretty e pluribus unum.

Also, I seem to recall comments being made from both US and UK governments about the non-broadcasting of bin Laden footage for some mythical security reasons.
Mythical? The possibility that bin Laden was sending coded messages to sleeper cells via these video transmission was very real.
Many Americans have been pretty upset at how much the media has risked putting our cause and our soldiers in harms way by over reporting things we don't want to know because we don't want the sleeper cells to be communicated with nor do we want bin Laden to know what we are up to.
And so what if we asked the media to show restraint? Nobody was threatened with prison if they didn't comply, just public revulsion and a drop in ratings.


Thank you. You prove my point perfectly.

America is not interested in combating international terrorism, or terrorism, or "terrorism with a global reach" or any other euphemism you choose. American is interested in fighting anti-American terrorism from a foreign source.
Why was that so hard for you to figure out? We are in this for self defense, but it will help other countries while we are at it.

Explain to me again why they wanted the world on board to help fight terrorism alongside them, when its only "our noncombatants on our soil" which matter.
It is mutually beneficial. We wipe them out, then they aren't around to blow up your Chunnel or your Eifel Tower or kill Prince William or whatever evil might occur to them to cause distress to infidels. You help us get this over quickly and world economic markets begin to improve sooner.
Your leaders understand this, or they wouldn't be playing ball with us.