Also...
I think some people believe the US has brought its terrorism problems on itself. By hypocritical policies in the ME.
Now it wants to do more damage but this time get a bunch of other countries who have not brought terrorism on themselves to back them and join in. This may bring terrorism on them too by association so they shy away from it.
I think some people believe the US has brought its terrorism problems on itself. By hypocritical policies in the ME.
Now it wants to do more damage but this time get a bunch of other countries who have not brought terrorism on themselves to back them and join in. This may bring terrorism on them too by association so they shy away from it.
Question...
How many countries can claim not to have not experienced some form of terrorism within their own borders whether committed by outsiders or insiders?
Without downplaying the consequences and severity of the actions, I suspect that there are very few.
To dismiss US policies as warmongering or oil-based neglects the facts and history of this country's involvement in world affairs, however inconsistent or unintelligable to those from other countries. WW2 was well underway before the US entered, as was WW1. Perhaps the Civil War can be reduced to the popular and overused term "terrorism" at Ft. Sumter. And the American Revolution as the terrorism of tea or taxes, take your pick.
Personally, as an American, I greatly enjoy reading this thread and prefer see current events around the globe as a continuum of unfinished business accelerated by disparities of wealth and prosperity just as WW2 resulted from WW1, the Balkans likewise, and to the same degree the ME as the unresolved affairs of colonial Europe or even Alexander the Great's problem. I would wish the discussion was less jargonized and more analytical as a way of determining the real ways to resove things peacefully.
Sincerely,
DV
How many countries can claim not to have not experienced some form of terrorism within their own borders whether committed by outsiders or insiders?
Without downplaying the consequences and severity of the actions, I suspect that there are very few.
To dismiss US policies as warmongering or oil-based neglects the facts and history of this country's involvement in world affairs, however inconsistent or unintelligable to those from other countries. WW2 was well underway before the US entered, as was WW1. Perhaps the Civil War can be reduced to the popular and overused term "terrorism" at Ft. Sumter. And the American Revolution as the terrorism of tea or taxes, take your pick.
Personally, as an American, I greatly enjoy reading this thread and prefer see current events around the globe as a continuum of unfinished business accelerated by disparities of wealth and prosperity just as WW2 resulted from WW1, the Balkans likewise, and to the same degree the ME as the unresolved affairs of colonial Europe or even Alexander the Great's problem. I would wish the discussion was less jargonized and more analytical as a way of determining the real ways to resove things peacefully.
Sincerely,
DV
Jeff R said:
You are quite right. An alternative view means Un-American.
Yes... America is our saviour.. freedom justice and the American way is the path; truth and the light; god bless America... why would anyone want to fly aircraft into our buildings? Apple pie and Playboy...
Burgers
Consumption
Insular
Columbine
We will enforce.. no one else has the might blah blah blah
Stryder said:
Stryder: With all respect, you have begun to lapse into incoherence.
traderbam said:
Other countries don't have terrorism problems from the Middle East?
How does a hijacked French airliner barely foiled from flying into the Eiffel Tower sound? Algerian terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda-Middle East enough? Three hostages shot. Christmas Eve and
Christmas Day, 1994.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/635213.asp?cp1=1
This is just to set the record straight. I do not advocate an invasion of Iraq at this time. Reasons later.
Why bait someone on these issues? Get to the point.
Lots of things to dislike in lots of countries.
The exportation of actual violence as an act of desperation or evil intent should not be trivialized against cultural issues.
Reminded of the slogan, "if you want peace, work for justice".
So where is the justice in all of this? Do the Iraqi people benefit justice from SH? Any justice in NK lately? Palestinians and Israelis?
Lots of things to dislike in lots of countries.
The exportation of actual violence as an act of desperation or evil intent should not be trivialized against cultural issues.
Reminded of the slogan, "if you want peace, work for justice".
So where is the justice in all of this? Do the Iraqi people benefit justice from SH? Any justice in NK lately? Palestinians and Israelis?
I appreciate the well presented posts of Pinkmouse and Traderbam. Thank you.
I can't say the reasons given are all rational from my viewpoint over here, but I understand what you are saying.
I will start by apologizing for the "jealousy" issue. I did not mean to offend or rile anyone, just that many here do look at countries like France, in particular, as a "has been" country who is thwarting our plans merely to make itself feel it is still relevant. Right or wrong, it is a feeling and a lot of people feel we have been betrayed by them many times now and are pretty upset.
I agree with Trader, to a point, regarding the Israel/Palestine issue. For political gain over here, we support the Jews more than we should, and the Palestinians less than we should. But, we tend to see the Jews as the underdogs - a tiny country surrounded by terrorists who routinely try to kill their citizens. We don't generally see Israel deliberately try to kill women and children, but we often see the Palestinians do this. I do think your suggestion "that the US made a gesture of policy fairness" is a good one. I have thought of that myself. With the Jewish vote over here, though, it might not happen. I guess we need more Arab-Americans over here to even things out before we will be able to make that happen.
Bush may come on a little strong. Hey, he is from Texas! 🙂 But sometimes you need a leader who will tell it like it is and not pussy-foot around. I mean, why not tell it like it is? If something looks like crap and smells like crap, why not call it crap? Why spend paragraphs describing it in some fancy, non-offending words? Just call it what it is. I guess a lot of people find this uncivilized - after Clinton, I find it refreshing. But, this does seem to be an American thing - telling it like it is. In business, my company frequently deals with foreign companies, and they sometimes drives us nuts with their protocols and unspoken rules of negotiation. We just want to make the deal and get on with the program, but they will spend hours and hours nitpicking the tiny details that don’t mean squat! I guess this relates to our cowboy past – something people is socialist countries can’t understand.
Pinkmouse is generally correct that we get involved only when it is to our benefit. I mean, why else would we get involved? What if Bush told the US people he was going to send in troops to die for some reason in which the US would not benefit? We need a reason to put our troops in harms way. Would any European countries send in people to do battle when there was no benefit to their country? Actually, in Viet Nam, we went in to simply slow down the spread of communism. Viet Nam had nothing to offer us, other than a place to stop the commies. Sure we were trying to stop them for our own benefit, but I think it helped the rest of the free world, too. And don’t forget, we gave the Panama Canal up – that was hardly to our benefit.
True about most of the UN peacekeepers being non-US. But, other countries rarely will send in troops where there is a reasonable chance they will be shot at. Indeed, history shows the non-US peacekeepers don't do much at all. The US goes in, gets shot at, routs out the bad guys, and then the rest of the countries will then come in to show how much they are doing. Which isn’t much. Plenty of people have been killed and raped while UN Peacekeepers didn’t do a thing to help.
Regarding Afghanistan, remember it was the Russians who leveled their country! Would you rather the Taliban remain in charge there and continue to subjugate the women? The Taliban is now in Pakistan as the US was too concerned about world opinion to go in and get them. See, we don't totally flaunt world opinion and go invading countries whenever we want! Give us some credit for that, ok! 🙂
Have we brought terrorism on ourselves? Well, are you justifying terrorism? Are you saying 911 was a justifiable thing? Are you saying it is ok to murder innocent people, including children? I am sure you are not, but what can justify terrorism? The US does not go in and kill innocents! If we did, why have we spent billions on smart weapons technology? No other nation in history has been so concerned about civilian deaths than the US. The terrorists seek to kill anyone they can. We only seek to kill those who would do us harm. Have our policies resulted in the deaths of innocents? Well, perhaps. Certainly, lots of innocent Iraqi children have died who would not have if the sanctions were not enforced. I, however, blame SH himself. If he would simply have kept his word and done what he said he would do, there would have been peace in Iraq a decade ago. He is instead counting on the world backing down due to the poor state of the people, blaming the US, even as he lives in luxury and continues to build palaces.
I understand other countries fearing terrorism against themselves for supporting us. We feel this is one reason some countries are not supporting us now - they fear terrorism if they do, even though they feel the US position is morally correct. I am concerned, too. I can only hope that having a free Iraq will eventually help lead to stability in the region, though I admit the short term stability will be compromised, especially in a long war if many Iraqi's are killed.
These are some great posts. Very educational. I still haven’t heard a rational rebuttal to my fear that SH will go after Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and cause mass instability in the ME if we fail to hem him now. Let’s look long term here, not just short term.
I can't say the reasons given are all rational from my viewpoint over here, but I understand what you are saying.
I will start by apologizing for the "jealousy" issue. I did not mean to offend or rile anyone, just that many here do look at countries like France, in particular, as a "has been" country who is thwarting our plans merely to make itself feel it is still relevant. Right or wrong, it is a feeling and a lot of people feel we have been betrayed by them many times now and are pretty upset.
I agree with Trader, to a point, regarding the Israel/Palestine issue. For political gain over here, we support the Jews more than we should, and the Palestinians less than we should. But, we tend to see the Jews as the underdogs - a tiny country surrounded by terrorists who routinely try to kill their citizens. We don't generally see Israel deliberately try to kill women and children, but we often see the Palestinians do this. I do think your suggestion "that the US made a gesture of policy fairness" is a good one. I have thought of that myself. With the Jewish vote over here, though, it might not happen. I guess we need more Arab-Americans over here to even things out before we will be able to make that happen.
Bush may come on a little strong. Hey, he is from Texas! 🙂 But sometimes you need a leader who will tell it like it is and not pussy-foot around. I mean, why not tell it like it is? If something looks like crap and smells like crap, why not call it crap? Why spend paragraphs describing it in some fancy, non-offending words? Just call it what it is. I guess a lot of people find this uncivilized - after Clinton, I find it refreshing. But, this does seem to be an American thing - telling it like it is. In business, my company frequently deals with foreign companies, and they sometimes drives us nuts with their protocols and unspoken rules of negotiation. We just want to make the deal and get on with the program, but they will spend hours and hours nitpicking the tiny details that don’t mean squat! I guess this relates to our cowboy past – something people is socialist countries can’t understand.
Pinkmouse is generally correct that we get involved only when it is to our benefit. I mean, why else would we get involved? What if Bush told the US people he was going to send in troops to die for some reason in which the US would not benefit? We need a reason to put our troops in harms way. Would any European countries send in people to do battle when there was no benefit to their country? Actually, in Viet Nam, we went in to simply slow down the spread of communism. Viet Nam had nothing to offer us, other than a place to stop the commies. Sure we were trying to stop them for our own benefit, but I think it helped the rest of the free world, too. And don’t forget, we gave the Panama Canal up – that was hardly to our benefit.
True about most of the UN peacekeepers being non-US. But, other countries rarely will send in troops where there is a reasonable chance they will be shot at. Indeed, history shows the non-US peacekeepers don't do much at all. The US goes in, gets shot at, routs out the bad guys, and then the rest of the countries will then come in to show how much they are doing. Which isn’t much. Plenty of people have been killed and raped while UN Peacekeepers didn’t do a thing to help.
Regarding Afghanistan, remember it was the Russians who leveled their country! Would you rather the Taliban remain in charge there and continue to subjugate the women? The Taliban is now in Pakistan as the US was too concerned about world opinion to go in and get them. See, we don't totally flaunt world opinion and go invading countries whenever we want! Give us some credit for that, ok! 🙂
Have we brought terrorism on ourselves? Well, are you justifying terrorism? Are you saying 911 was a justifiable thing? Are you saying it is ok to murder innocent people, including children? I am sure you are not, but what can justify terrorism? The US does not go in and kill innocents! If we did, why have we spent billions on smart weapons technology? No other nation in history has been so concerned about civilian deaths than the US. The terrorists seek to kill anyone they can. We only seek to kill those who would do us harm. Have our policies resulted in the deaths of innocents? Well, perhaps. Certainly, lots of innocent Iraqi children have died who would not have if the sanctions were not enforced. I, however, blame SH himself. If he would simply have kept his word and done what he said he would do, there would have been peace in Iraq a decade ago. He is instead counting on the world backing down due to the poor state of the people, blaming the US, even as he lives in luxury and continues to build palaces.
I understand other countries fearing terrorism against themselves for supporting us. We feel this is one reason some countries are not supporting us now - they fear terrorism if they do, even though they feel the US position is morally correct. I am concerned, too. I can only hope that having a free Iraq will eventually help lead to stability in the region, though I admit the short term stability will be compromised, especially in a long war if many Iraqi's are killed.
These are some great posts. Very educational. I still haven’t heard a rational rebuttal to my fear that SH will go after Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and cause mass instability in the ME if we fail to hem him now. Let’s look long term here, not just short term.
Germany still shipping cyanide to Iraq
the dirty little secrets, in yesterday's press, Germany is overwhelmed by their pecuniary interests.
oh well, Europe in the post Judeo-Christian era -- you guys will really like sharia law.
the dirty little secrets, in yesterday's press, Germany is overwhelmed by their pecuniary interests.
oh well, Europe in the post Judeo-Christian era -- you guys will really like sharia law.
a) cyanides are commen in every school lab. Nothing special on them. Do you want to stop selling NaCl to iraq to?
b) I didn´t sell anything to iraq. What a mess - must be the reason why i´m still poor.
c) Amerika - no sorry not all citizens of the USA - but Mr Rumsfeld himshelf sold missiles and biological weapon material to his friend Hussein in iraq some years ago.
b) I didn´t sell anything to iraq. What a mess - must be the reason why i´m still poor.
c) Amerika - no sorry not all citizens of the USA - but Mr Rumsfeld himshelf sold missiles and biological weapon material to his friend Hussein in iraq some years ago.
KCN
Colin Powell asks at a NATO meeting recently "Is there a single one among you whose security services say that Iraq is not harboring weapons of mass destruction?" No one raised their hand, not Germany, France or Belgium.
KCN or NaCN -- yeah, Iraq uses it to support their vast dyestuffs and agrichemical production industries.
Colin Powell asks at a NATO meeting recently "Is there a single one among you whose security services say that Iraq is not harboring weapons of mass destruction?" No one raised their hand, not Germany, France or Belgium.
KCN or NaCN -- yeah, Iraq uses it to support their vast dyestuffs and agrichemical production industries.
And Germany (DeGussa) has sold items (at a huge profit) to the Iraqi's for nuclear purposes that even the Germans knew were not going to be used to generate electricity.
This notion that the US is the only country acting on economic issues is pure BS.
SteveA
This notion that the US is the only country acting on economic issues is pure BS.
SteveA
Chirac and IRAQ's nukes
Chirac's relationship with Hussein goes back before the French sold to IRAQ the nuclear plant which the Israeli's blew up 20 years ago -- OH, were you not aware that the (probably, but no one is really saying) the Mossad blew up the reactor shortly before it was completed while still in France -- yet the IRAQ'S were so anxious to get their hands on it they accepted it in a damaged state.
Chirac's relationship with Hussein goes back before the French sold to IRAQ the nuclear plant which the Israeli's blew up 20 years ago -- OH, were you not aware that the (probably, but no one is really saying) the Mossad blew up the reactor shortly before it was completed while still in France -- yet the IRAQ'S were so anxious to get their hands on it they accepted it in a damaged state.
You are right about this.
I think its wrong to discuss propaganda arguments what country sold how much material to iraq, made how much profit, how dangerous is the material etc. Its not the point. Changes nothing. And not the Cyanides nor Rumsfelds missiles he sold are reason for war.
And a good reason for what is called anitamerikanism (it isn´t antimamerikansm) is for us Bush and his gang behave not like good politicians. We can´t see much difference between Bushs policy and that one of any bad guy dictator around. He acts against laws and makes his own law. We consider him more dangerous than those arabians because he is political nearer and more powerfull.
A result is, if in europe some terrorist attac will happen now - for europeans Bush will be fault on this because it would be in his interest to force us to war and he was the one who forced arabs to bring terror to us. Less intelligent politics is nearly not possibe.
Just to make it clear: every nation in diskussion sold mess to Hussein: first reactor from russian, but it wasn´t usefull for weapons. Second sold by france. Germany sold more production technics to iraq, which could be used for different pupose- civil ir military. USA sold weapons system and cultures of material for producing biological weapons to iraq. This is the way it went - i´m sure and full of hope nobody in the bord nor the most people of these countrys are involved in this trading.
None of the above should use this as an argumnet against the otherone - he makes only himshelf ridicolous.
Lets leave this away it can´t lead to good argumentation or understanding.
None of the above should use this as an argumnet against the otherone - he makes only himshelf ridicolous.
Lets leave this away it can´t lead to good argumentation or understanding.
Jeff R said:
why apologize if that is the way you feel? i am curious, however, just when was the US 'betrayed' by France? when they surrendered in WW2? as has been pointed out, you weren`t even involved in the war when they were forced to surrender.
or is it now, when they refuse to automatically rubberstamp whatever misguided foreign policy currently being promulgated
by an increasingly bellicose US?
once upon a time, probably far away and in neverneverland, the stated US policy was a committment to the right of others to self-determination. that has proven to be just so much more propagandizing and empty rhetoric. are your supposed allies not to enjoy a basic right that you so often use as a justification for attacking other countries? perhaps the french (et al) will be allowed to disagree with you once you invade them and garrison some troops there thus ensuring their right to self-determination.
Jeff R said:
israel is no longer the underdog of the middle east. in fact, it is generally accepted that israel possesses nuclear weapons and the ability and determination to use them should their country ever again be in danger of destruction.
many israeli politicos were former 'terrorists' themselves (of course, because they are your allies we should call them 'freedom fighters'). correct me if i am wrong but menachem begin belonged to the 'sturn gang'. which is a group that was held responsible for an explosion in an hotel (amongst many other nasty things) which left many british soldiers as dead as dead can be.
it is also one of the supreme ironies of history that a people with as unfortunate a history as the israelis should, in their turn, visit misfortune and suffering upon another people.
"Colin Powell asks at a NATO meeting recently "Is there a single one among you whose security services say that Iraq is not harboring weapons of mass destruction?" No one raised their hand, not Germany, France or Belgium."
Yes but this is a typical example of manipulation. The question can only have one answer: dunno. Proving a negative is always difficult or impossible, that's why it is incumbent upon us to prove a positive: that Iraq does indeed have WMD.
It is like having a murder suspect on trial and asking the members of the jury whether they can categorically say that the accused is not capable of harming others. If they say "dunno" then is he guilty?
Yes but this is a typical example of manipulation. The question can only have one answer: dunno. Proving a negative is always difficult or impossible, that's why it is incumbent upon us to prove a positive: that Iraq does indeed have WMD.
It is like having a murder suspect on trial and asking the members of the jury whether they can categorically say that the accused is not capable of harming others. If they say "dunno" then is he guilty?
Jeff R said:
yes! it is so annoying to have to deal with the cultural idiosyncracies of those darn foreigners! you would think that they had hundreds of years of history or something to make them behave the way they do. sheesh!
actually if your president would 'tell it like it is', which is not - as you imply - an american thing, many people would be less confused as regards to your countrys' reasoning and intentions.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.