| Author |
The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time. |
vckay
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 67
PM, WWW
|
What most people who disdain all those countries who have moved their troops/workers out of iraq in response to the dangerous situation there foot realise is that they would most certainly feel differently he it was their father/brother/close relative. Besides the rest of the world to put it bluntly grou profiteering as much from the situation as are the us and uk .so there is no reason why we should put our people in danger
This message was posted from a WAP device | |
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@vckay
Which country is it that you are from?
I would hardly have said that either the U.S. or the U.K. are profiting from Iraq, perhaps in a monetary sense, but even then the majority of the contracts to be won are actually being given out by the U.S. government so America is actually spending its own money.
You do make an interesting and very valid point in stating that someone may feel differently concerning the Iraqi situation if they had a relative or friend in danger there, but I can only agree with you to an extent. There is a global war being waged against terror at the moment, we do not have to like the leaders who are running that war, but we must realise that the only way to beat terrorists is to stand up to them combined with a strategy of destroying the root causes of terrorism.
The countries that pull their troops out of Iraq are not behaving cowardly, they are doing what they believe is best by their citizens; unfortunately it reinforces the terrorist's belief that they can and should achieve their goals through violence. War is a terrible thing and very unfortunately it means that sacrifices will have to be made and that people will probably die. I do not make that statement lightly or flippantly, it is simple fact.
There have been very few 'just wars', only WWII springs to mind, but I do believe that the War on Terror, despite the many flaws the West may have, is a just war. It is a just war because we are struggling to defeat an evil force bent on destroying our way of life, because we are faced with an enemy who kills randomly and indiscriminately, because we seek to protect freedom, because we seek to safeguard tolerance and because we do not want our world plunged into darkness.
The West may have many failings, but when it comes down to it we must stand together, a united front of goodness against the terrorist's evil. If we don't stand by those who need our help then who shall stand by us?
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2004-08-05 00:53 ] |
vckay
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 67
PM, WWW
|
Umm that was a very interesting speech you made there. I am from india, a country that has been fighting its own highly localised war on terrorists of possible muslim origin. What you foot realise is that there is no global war on 'terror' , each country fights to protect its own interests . Why else would america consort with countries (that the 9/11 commision hinted as involved in that incident) namely saudi arabia and pakistan. For my country to join your war would make no sense at all , we wouldnt
This message was posted from a WAP device |
vckay
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 67
PM, WWW
|
gain any economic or strategic benefits ( i don't see america waving any oil contracts or a permanent un seat in exchange for soldiers) whilst we would gain a new set of enemies who can easily attack us ( considering we are close by) and moreover who can easily attack vulnerable civilians ( there is a large indian populace in the middle east) besides alienating a sizeable already disaffected minority. On the other hand America,Australia and to some extent the u.k are not so vulnerable owing to their miniscule arab-muslim populace and the fact that they are not bordered by any muslim countries.Morever the worst comes to the worst you can quarantine all people of arab origin in prison camps ( as was done to japanese-americans during wwII). |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Hi Vckay ...
As an US Citizen who supports Bush I want to mention that I don't believe that just because a country, like the Philippines, pulls out of Iraq under terrorist threat means they are cowards or even bad in any way. I have posted in detail earlier in this thread that I understand that each country must do what it feels is in its best interest (as you've stated). But it cannot be simply dismissed that when terrorism succeeds in getting terrorist what they want, that it ultimately encourages terrorism.
And a problem in your logic about Muslims is that not all Muslims are fundamentalist extremists willing to use terror to further some cause. I'm still convinced that the vast majority of Muslims are unhappy that their faith is being used as an excuse to murder innocent civilians around the world. Every population has its extreme segments. Christians can look to right wing fanatics like Timothy McVey who killed so many innocents when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Just because McVey said he was doing the work of God (Jesus) by striking at the liberal US government (his own view) doesn't mean all Christians thought he was right.
The risk with this flaw in thinking is this truly global conflict can easily slip into what most would regard as a war between religions. Your analogy about Muslims being placed in concentration camps like the Japanese were in WWII would be correct except for one Major Glaring Flaw ... it wouldn't be Muslims (a religion) that would be interned ... it would be Arabs (a perceived race/ethnicity) that would be the target of profiling and exclusion ... if your vision became reality. This points to the fact that this war isn't between Islam and Christianity (or any other religion - even if the terrorists claim so) but a war between political extremists who would replace governments around the world with Tyrannical Islamic-based (not true Islamic) theocracies and the Peoples of the world who would have liberty and freedom. Whatever reason/cause they use to attempt to justify the terrorism, it is not acceptable.
Historically - it took a while for clear lines to be drawn in global conflicts, and I fear it will be the same this time. It took the US almost 4 years to enter into World War I. It was over a year (??) from the beginning of World War II before the US got directly involved. For a while the US was neutral and had Nazi visitors/guests/diplomats in Washington. The war on terror, unfortunately, is shaping up to be a totally global conflict. You may claim that it is not a global war as countries act only in their own interest - but that is the way it has always been. Eventually, after enough attacks have happened, and enough people have died, and enough countries have been threatened, and enough atrocities (like 9/11) have been committed against people who desire peace ... the lines will be drawn.
Some claim that terrorism is growing because the US is in Iraq. They actually think that if the US didn't go to war with Iraq that terrorism would not be as big a problem any more? Is that true? Is there any logic to this supposition? In India, the Kashmir is a real hot spot. But if terrorists attacked in an attempt to drive India out, would the logic say "don't strike back or do anything that might provoke them or we will just make them mad?" Really? When and where do you stand up and say "enough"?
When do you fight back? Is it after they have taken hostages and blew up civilian airliners in mid air? Is it after they have bombed embassies? Is it after they attack your military? Is it after they drive car bombs into your city and kill civilians? Is it after they fly airplanes into your buildings in your most populated cities slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians? If not then - when?
And after all of this - could they hate us more? After all of this can they get more mad at us? After all of this, will terrorists like this ever be the kind of people who will be not only willing to be at as well as trusted at a negotiation table? Honestly?
And Is Iraq really a new reason for them to recruit? Why not!!! Sure, they can go around to all those inclined to be extremists and say "look what they've done, those infidel dogs! They have taken Iraq. They must be expelled." But what about their terrorist actions? Like beheading people? Like 9/11? Like the USS Cole? Like Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scottland? Don't these also energize the extremist communities? And what about when these atrocities are successful, like the train bombings in Madrid? Does this not also give would be terrorists a shot in the arm? So when do we stop blaming ourselves for terrorists being terrorists and start standing up to people who would purposely target innocent civilians and slaughter as many as they possibly can? When?
The US decided 9/11 was when. For you - you'll have to decide when for yourself.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Cute picture Axxxr.
But isn't it strange that WMD had even President Bush's opponent, Senator John F. Kerry, convinced that preemptive war with Iraq was necessary ... all the time between Gulf War 1 and the Democratic Primaries just a few months ago?
Quote:
| 1997: Kerry Warned Senate Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities.
"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, p. S12256)
1998: Kerry Willing To Commit Ground Troops In Iraq.
KERRY: "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. ... [T]hen we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy." ABC’S COKIE ROBERTS: "And does that mean ground troops in Iraq?" KERRY: "I am personally prepared, if that’s what it meant." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)
1998: Kerry Said Saddam Had Chemical And Biological Weapons.
KERRY: "[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)
2001: Kerry Said Saddam Has Used WMDs And Is Trying To Secure Additional Weapons.
SEN. JOHN KERRY: "it is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)
2001: Kerry Says Saddam "Acted Like A Terrorist."
KERRY: "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)
2001: Kerry Says Need To Increase Pressure On Saddam.
KERRY: "I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)
2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror.
KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)
2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq.
"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)
2002: Kerry Calls Saddam A "Renegade And Outlaw."
"... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)
2002: Kerry Wrote Saddam Inviting Enforcement If He Does Not Comply With International Community.
"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)
2002: Kerry Said Iraq’s WMDs May Be Given Or Sold To Terrorist Groups.
"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)
2002: Kerry Said President Has Right To Act Unilaterally.
"But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect [sic] the interests of our country." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 9/17/02)
2002: Kerry Said US Has Right To Protect Our Security.
"If the UN fails to cooperate, ‘we always reserve the right to do what we need to do to protect our security,’ Kerry said." (Susan Milligan, "Confronting Iraq," The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)
2002: Kerry Voted For Iraq War Resolution.
(H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea) |
|
Source: KerryOnIraq.com
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
Check out JibJab.com
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-08-08 22:55 ] |
vckay
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 67
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-08-04 22:35:32, Patrick-in-CA wrote:
Hi Vckay ...
As an US Citizen who supports Bush I want to mention that I don't believe that just because a country, like the Philippines, pulls out of Iraq under terrorist threat means they are cowards or even bad in any way. I have posted in detail earlier in this thread that I understand that each country must do what it feels is in its best interest (as you've stated). But it cannot be simply dismissed that when terrorism succeeds in getting terrorist what they want, that it ultimately encourages terrorism.
And a problem in your logic about Muslims is that not all Muslims are fundamentalist extremists willing to use terror to further some cause. I'm still convinced that the vast majority of Muslims are unhappy that their faith is being used as an excuse to murder innocent civilians around the world. Every population has its extreme segments. Christians can look to right wing fanatics like Timothy McVey who killed so many innocents when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Just because McVey said he was doing the work of God (Jesus) by striking at the liberal US government (his own view) doesn't mean all Christians thought he was right.
The risk with this flaw in thinking is this truly global conflict can easily slip into what most would regard as a war between religions. Your analogy about Muslims being placed in concentration camps like the Japanese were in WWII would be correct except for one Major Glaring Flaw ... it wouldn't be Muslims (a religion) that would be interned ... it would be Arabs (a perceived race/ethnicity) that would be the target of profiling and exclusion ... if your vision became reality. This points to the fact that this war isn't between Islam and Christianity (or any other religion - even if the terrorists claim so) but a war between political extremists who would replace governments around the world with Tyrannical Islamic-based (not true Islamic) theocracies and the Peoples of the world who would have liberty and freedom. Whatever reason/cause they use to attempt to justify the terrorism, it is not acceptable.
Historically - it took a while for clear lines to be drawn in global conflicts, and I fear it will be the same this time. It took the US almost 4 years to enter into World War I. It was over a year (??) from the beginning of World War II before the US got directly involved. For a while the US was neutral and had Nazi visitors/guests/diplomats in Washington. The war on terror, unfortunately, is shaping up to be a totally global conflict. You may claim that it is not a global war as countries act only in their own interest - but that is the way it has always been. Eventually, after enough attacks have happened, and enough people have died, and enough countries have been threatened, and enough atrocities (like 9/11) have been committed against people who desire peace ... the lines will be drawn.
Some claim that terrorism is growing because the US is in Iraq. They actually think that if the US didn't go to war with Iraq that terrorism would not be as big a problem any more? Is that true? Is there any logic to this supposition? In India, the Kashmir is a real hot spot. But if terrorists attacked in an attempt to drive India out, would the logic say "don't strike back or do anything that might provoke them or we will just make them mad?" Really? When and where do you stand up and say "enough"?
When do you fight back? Is it after they have taken hostages and blew up civilian airliners in mid air? Is it after they have bombed embassies? Is it after they attack your military? Is it after they drive car bombs into your city and kill civilians? Is it after they fly airplanes into your buildings in your most populated cities slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians? If not then - when?
And after all of this - could they hate us more? After all of this can they get more mad at us? After all of this, will terrorists like this ever be the kind of people who will be not only willing to be at as well as trusted at a negotiation table? Honestly?
And Is Iraq really a new reason for them to recruit? Why not!!! Sure, they can go around to all those inclined to be extremists and say "look what they've done, those infidel dogs! They have taken Iraq. They must be expelled." But what about their terrorist actions? Like beheading people? Like 9/11? Like the USS Cole? Like Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scottland? Don't these also energize the extremist communities? And what about when these atrocities are successful, like the train bombings in Madrid? Does this not also give would be terrorists a shot in the arm? So when do we stop blaming ourselves for terrorists being terrorists and start standing up to people who would purposely target innocent civilians and slaughter as many as they possibly can? When?
The US decided 9/11 was when. For you - you'll have to decide when for yourself.
|
|
First and foremost, I wish to point out that my views in no way were meant to cause offence to the largely innocent muslim populace ( I apologise for any implied insult).I did not advocate that muslims in America be sent to concentration camps, It was merely one of the options that an american government might take ( considering that it has been done before) in the event of a major terror attack.
There have been various reasons why many countries ( that have been fighting terrorism long before lockerbie and 9/11 ) are reluctant to join the American war on 'terror'.
These include
-America's short sighted foreign policy.The US administration actively supported AND still supports the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia who have been very successful in exporting an extremist form of Islam ( which incidentally most muslims abhorr).
To make it short and sweet, American dollars are greasing the wheels that terrorists run on.
-America's amazingly convoluted policy in the middle east. I understand the american support for Israel in the fifties and the sixties.( Israel was a state made of brave men and women who fled a life of hardship to come to the chosen land and were besieged by enemies on all sides).But it is plain ridiculous to support them now. Israel to put it plainly is fighting a war which is against all american values.
-To pick an example which I will be more able to explain- America's policy in South Asia- I get America's support for Pakistan during the cold war, what seems strange is that the america's closest pals in the war against terror include a corrupt islamist dictatorship which had strong links with the Taliban, which has sponsored and continues to sponser islamic terrorism against India and many other countries in the region for over a decade.
So basically the Bush Administration is in cahoots with all the guys who are suspected of masterminding the WTC bombings.
Incidentally, you asked when our breaking point would be reached, as to when we would stop giving ground to terrorists and going after them. There are people in the Indian government who advocated that we do ( go after terrorists in training camps in pakistan) as the Americans have done in Iraq and Afghanistan but strangely it seems that America prefers to support the enemies of secular democracies who have always wished the American people well.I advise America to take a good hard look at its own foreign policy and then carefully choose allies for the war on terror (if it wishes for such an operation to be global)
i
/V/C/
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@vckay
Your point is somewhat convoluted and even flawed in places. The first major flaw in your statement is that Israel is fighting a war, which is direct contrast with American values. I would like to forward the idea that a war to protect one's people against extremists intent upon killing as many people as possible, irrespective of age, class, gender or any othe rmitigating factor is not something, which would be in contrast to American values. Ofc ourse Israel has committed many questionable acts in fighting the Islamic extremists, but I would like to point out that any nation, which is surrounded by enemies and is constantly in fear of attack, such as Israel is, may very well resort to desperate measures to protect itself; of course this does not excuse Israeli atrocities.
American alliances with undemocratic nations are what is known as 'being realistic'. America needs Pakistani support in the War On Terror, that support could be had by diplomatic means or it could be had through invasion to install a friendly government; I'm not surprised the U.S. has chosen the former method. One must remember that the U.S. or any other Western nation does not want to be seen as supporting Pakistan or India above the other thus fuelling the very tense situation that exists between the two nuclear powers.
U.S. foriegn policy is somewhat short sighted, but I think that we are at risk of being too harsh upon it, after all the end of the Cold War created a great deal of uncertainty and no nation really knew what to do anymore with regards to defining threats. The U.S. and the rest of the West is only now realising how to organise their foreign policies to suit the changes that have occurred over the past decade and a half.
There seems to be an awful anti-American culture at the moment, whereby the U.S. is blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world and it seems that it is fashionable to dislike America and American values. This is actually quite a sad state of affairs when one considers that it is chiefly due to the U.S. that democracy and freedom prevailed during the Cold War and we are able to have this very discussion.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
vckay
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 67
PM, WWW
|
My theory might be flawed but there is on denying the fact that the killing of a three year old child is against the values of 'any' country.my country is surrounded by enemies too, yet i dont see the army considering young children as legitimate targets.moreover the idea that america somehow made the world safe for democracy is just ridiculous. India was very close to the soviet uniono for most part of the cold war, yet consistently maintained its vibrant democracy. I cant say the same for other us allies
This message was posted from a WAP device |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@vckay
You make statements yet do not back them up with qualatative arguments. India is indeed surrounde dby enemies, Pakistan for one and China the other, however, India has been militarily superior to Pakistan ever since the two modern nations were create din 1947 and India has been little behind, if not the equal of China for much of the past fifty or so years. There are no other nations in that part of the world with the military capability to launch a sustained and protracted war against India and expect to win, or at the very least inflict sufficient damage as to render an Indian counter-attack inneffective.
Israel, on the other hand, is surrounded by several enemy nations with the capability to, at least, inflict serious damage, if not defeat Israel in a conventional war e.g. Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. In addition to this, Iraq, before the Coalition occupation, was also a serious threat to Israeli security for many years as Iran still is, even more so in fact when one considers that Iran may not be too far off building nuclear weapons of its own.
I did not suggest that killing children was defensible or in keeping with American values, in fact I believe I made quite the opposite point. Both Israelies and Palestinians have done some very nasty things to each othe rover the years so I don't think that eithe rof them can take the moral high ground; the point I was making was that Israel has had to resort to some very desperate measures that no Western democratic nation in recent times, would even consider using in order to ensure its survival. This isn't to say that that akes such methods acceptable, merely that it is a historical fact.
The U.S. has indeed defended democracy, without the U.S. the West would have had very litte chance of winning the Cold War and communism would no doubt have dominated the planet. I'm not quite sure what you think India could have done to stand against communism, even if it could raise an army of hundreds of millions, but I can assure you that the U.S.S.R. with its thouand sof nuclear missiles would have been quite able to obliterate India from the face of the planet. Interestingly Stalin had hoped of spreading communism to India during the Second World War; his idea was that if Indian rebels should topple the British Raj then he would be able to install a communist government. Thankfully the Raj didn't fall, India gained her independence and communism was defeated.
What the U.S. did was present the U.S.S.R. with an opponent just as strong as themselves, hence the stand-off, no other nation on Earth would have been able to do that, the French no longer had the capability to hold onto their empire and were engaged in bloody colonial conflicts throughout the Cold War whilst the British had very mcuh sacarficed their empire to defeat the Axis in WWII. Having said that there were no communist nations other than the U.S.S.R. with the capability to spread communism, the only other serious contender, China, can be discounted when one realises that China was very much inderior to U.S. militarily during the Cold War. The U.S. defeated the U.S.S.R. by outspending it, the communist bloc simply could not match the Western nations economically and found themselves trying to keep pace with an enormous military build-up that they knew would propel the U.S. ahead of them.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
vckay
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 67
PM, WWW
|
But my argument is indeed based on substantial facts.both pakistan and china are nuclear powers and conventional superiority fails to make a difference.moreover pakistan is fighting a low cost war involving religious fundamentalists which is difficult to counter.as for the us policy on israel, i never suggested that america move lock, stock and barrel to the palestine camp. I merely said that neutrality would help the issue more and probably allow the muslims to see america in a better light.
This message was posted from a T610 |
Sage
Joined: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 233
PM |
I understand if you delete this masseur  .
I won't go into much detail about my views on the war and politics as a whole, as much as i'd like to, but every nice government out there has become corrupt to a point, where I'm sorry to say, it has proven democracy DOES NOT work. First, let me be the first to say, IMO 9-11 was NOT committed by Al-Queda. I'll get tons and tons of hate mails and hate pm's for this but I'm sorry it wasn't. Think about it, when a terrorist organisation commits a deed (such as Al-Queda) they do it for a purpose, whatever that purpose may be. They will confess to having done the deed to have THEIR purpose attributed to THE DEED. If the U.S. hadn't said anything then no-one will have known what the terrorist attack was for (no purpose), so the deed will have been like nothing. The U.S. were the ones who attributed Al-Queda to the deed applying their purpose to it. Now stay with me here. Al-Queda denied the allegation which brings 2 possibilities:
1) They did it, regretted it denied it.
If this were the case they wouldn't have "bravoed" the deed.
2) They didn't do it.
Most likely this scenario.
Because noone ever did confess it was either a rogue group of people who lost everything in their life because of the US, some terrorist organistion who felt bad for what they did so just hid in shame, OR...
IF you are a big supporter of the American Government I urge you not to read this
The U.S. government committed the deed themselves, not realising how bad or underestimating the damage it would cause, using it as an excuse to
a.) Promote the Bush Administration. Remember he actually LOST the popular vote, so they needed the support.
b.) Go into the middle-east for the power the geographic location and oil brings.
c.) Creating a common enemy for the U.S. people and U.S. Government to bring them together.
d.) To be able to create and strike fear and terror into it's own people with unknown threats to be able to control them into submission (sounds like terrorism to me).
Now I'm not supporting terrorism, it's wrong in all shape, form and size (which is why I hate the American Government so much), but as "Al-Queda commiting this deed" was the U.S.'s primary and almost only reason to go into the middle-east it brings everything into perspective. It was america's greatest excuse! (I'm not even going to begin to say why they would want to be there. Oil. Geographic Power. Putting their own people into office (which they will do election or not). Helping their buddy countries.) whatever. Anyway, America killed countless Irawi's, strikes fear into every country every day, inflicts terror. Went to a country to make it better and made it infinitely worse, (WOW! THEY CAN WATCH TV! Too bad they are dead or are in prison or are in a war zone). They went into a country to find WMD's which were never there. Don't care about North Korea even though they claim to havbe WMD capabilities (because they have Japan for geographic power and North Korea has no oil). They will eventually plant WMD's in Iraq or on some other poor country to invade it. They obviously knew where Saddam was from the start, and took him in to boost early Bush campaign efforts (COME ON IF HE WAS HIDING IN A HOLE somewhere IN IRAQ how the hell did they come across it). They will take in Osama at the last second to boost campaign efforts (they probably have his body, will find him, or will pretend to have him). The U.S. goes through alot of trouble to trick it's people, but some of us are not impressed.
Even if this is all for real, the U.S. can't just go around bossing countries around and playing policeman. |
vckay
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 67
PM, WWW
|
Umm sage... I recommend a nice long vacation in a non democratic country like china where the shouting of catch-words like 'Free Tibet' and 'Taiwan independence' will evoke an instant response from the friendly local gestapo who will urge you to stay in their local equivalen of Abu Ghraib for some more eventful weekends.
This message was posted from a WAP device |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@vckay
I never mentioned that the U.S. should move to supporting the Palestinians, I would agree with you that objectivity is the key.
In mentioning China and Pakistan as nuclear powers one must also remember that both India and Pakistan have very small nuclear capabilities when compared with China; China itself has approximately the same nuclear capability as the U.K., which has a smaller nuclear capability than France, which has a smaller nuclear capability than Russia, which has a smaller nuclear capability than the U.S.A. Conventional arms do count for a lot, because two nuclear powers facing each other means of backing up threats save for nuclear weapons, which would result in both nations taking heavy casualties, so nuclear powers invest heavily in their conventional armed forces too.
I would like to agree with the points you made regarding sage, well aid old man.
@sage
I don't even know where to begin in responding to your post; you are of course perfectly entitled to your view because of the democracy, which apparently doesn't work, but I will have to disagree with you.
You offer very little hard evidence to back up your theory apart from claiming that the U.S. would benefit from oil and the creation of a common enemy to bolster U.S. power. Both of these claims are paper thin and can be quite easily countered when one considers the facts.
For the U.S. government to commit the 9/11 terror attacks and blame it on Al Qaeda would have required a conspiracy of Herculean proportions. Hundreds, if not thousands of people would have needed to be involved and each one of them would have had to keep quiet knowing that they were aiding a project to kill thousands of their countrymen and allies. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA and scores of other intelligence services would have needed to have been manipulated and fooled to ensure that none of them picked up on such a conspiracy and that they all beloved that it was Al Qaeda; in addition to this dozens of foreign intelligence services would have needed to have been fooled to make sure that Al Qaeda was blamed for the attacks. The U.S. government would then have needed to find suitably qualified Arabs to hijack the planes and commit suicide for the U.S. government by crashing the planes. The conspiracy would then have had to be maintained for the past three years with false intelligence being fed to U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies to maintain the idea that Al Qaeda committed the attacks, such false intelligence would have to be exceptional to fool every major intelligence agency in the world.
George Bush and his Administration would need to put measures in place to ensure that whoever became President after him would never find out about such a conspiracy, as you know the U.S. democratic system means that there will be a different President at least once every eight years, a measure designed to stop any one man from having that power too long. Such a cover-up would mean that the intelligence agencies in the U.S. would need to support President Bush in doing so, yet the heads of these agencies can be removed from office and new heads appointed, so some sort of method would need to be found to ensure that the current agency heads as well as their successors for the next fifty or sixty years at least would help keep such a conspiracy secret.
As I hope you can see, such a conspiracy would be almost certainly doomed to failure. The U.S. already had several enemies it could have cast in the role of the 'common enemy e.g. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, etc China would have made a much better enemy as the U.S. would have been able to direct a massive military build-up against China creating massive contracts for defence, much larger than those being issued at the moment. By invading the Middle East the U.S. has done very little to help its economic position as uncertainties push up the price of oil, which has a knock on effect across the whole economy. If the U.S. really wanted control of more oil so desperately then it could have set up new oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, or drilling stations in Alaska; both options come without having to commit thousands of troops to a war, maintain a conspiracy, suffer backlash of world opinion or see President Bush's approval ratings sliding. If anything the U.S. War On Terror has made it more difficult to obtain oil, certainly Iraq won't be producing oil at anywhere near the levels the U.S. needs for years yet, the infrastructure of the country has been wrecked and will need to be rebuilt, that is after an insurrection claiming the lives of hundreds of U.S. and Coalition troops has been put down.
Your statement regarding the fact that democracy apparently doesn't work isn't actually backed up with any form of evidence to say why you feel this way, perhaps your conspiracy theory is that evidence, if so it would seem rather flimsy evidence, but if not then I shall await your reply.
I would be interested to know, which form of government you would like to see in place of democracy; presumably one where freedom of speech is allowed, the leaders are chosen by the people to prevent tyranny and everyone is allowed a say in how their lives are run ... that sounds rather familiar to me.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-08-04 00:34
