| Author |
The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
[quote]
On 2004-08-24 05:37:50, Patrick-in-CA wrote:
So - you think that a country that is unable (for lack of money, resources, intelligence, or training) to act against terrorist organizations within their borders is JUST AS GUILTY as states that use their national resources to fund, provide sanctuary, training, and political cover for terrorism? I guess I'll just have to disagree with you - I'm not sure how to argue against such an asinine assertion.
[quote]
Well you have made a good stab at it anyway. The U.S. can be accused of many things, but lacking resource sis not one of them! I do agree with you with regards to some states being unable to fight terrorism or to stop people supporting terrorism because of a lack of resources, in fact if you read my comments on the Palestine you would already know this. You made the statement that the Palestinian authority should try to reign in terrorism, to which I responded with the statement that they are unable to do so. I would recommend that those states, which cannot afford the necessary anti-terrorist measures, be given adequate resources so that they can.
[quote]
And, for your information, the US Government has never allied itself with the IRA in any way whatsoever - unlike the UK government agencies have with loyalist groups as you have stated. You also might want to keep in mind that it is difficult to find every penny gathered by private individuals and organizations that are raised for the benefit of the IRA. I admit that government agencies are frequently frustrating to deal with but your assertion that the US is doing nothing about the IRA is patently false. Please see this article (do a search for IRA). Even in an article critical of the United States you will find Quote:
| The governments of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland have been working together closely in the peace process for this region, with the help of the United States government. Indeed, the Real IRA has been placed on a list of organisations for which Americans can not legally raise funds. |
|
The only thing you can accuse the US government of is doing too little. To this charge - I agree. It is time to do more!
[quote]
I didn't claim that the U.S. government did directly support the I.R.A., I commented on how fundraising for the I.R.A. has been allowed for many years in the U.S. I am also not so unrealistic to think that making it illegal to fundraise for Republican groups in the U.S. would cut off all their money, but it would certainly help. If the U.S. government is working so hard to deal with the I.R.A. why were they allowed to garner support for all those years and why are Republican groups still receiving money from Americans today? I think that you may have underestimated the level of anger in the UK on this subject, people are genuinely angry over this. What upsets people so much is that we have remained loyal to the U.S. throughout the last sixty or so years, even when doing so has meant harsh criticism. The UK has fought in the War On Terror even though we do need to, Al Qaeda want to destroy America , yet we are one of Al Qaeda's most important targets, only behind the U.S. itself. Only last week several men were charged with plotting to use Radiological, Chemical or Biological attacks on the UK, the most serious type of terrorist attack imaginable. When Al Qaeda offered Europe a truce we did not take it, quite right in my opinion, opting to stick it out instead. Our European neighbours look at us as if we are fools, the Muslim world is turning against us because we have helped the U.S. and the U.S. itself seems almost indifferent to us. When Britons hear of Republican terror groups receiving funds from Americans it creates a great deal of resentment, this isn't a complex point, it is quite simple.
Both the UK and U.S. need to do a lot more to combat terrorism, they are both multi-cultural and both need to do a lot more to include Muslims into mainstream society. At the same time there needs to be a great deal of education on both sides; it seems rather fashionable in Britain at the moment to be anti-American and there is still a large section of the American population who dislike Britain for various reasons. Both of these opinions are based on complete tosh; anti-American feeling is more often than not displayed by left-wingers who do not actually have a reason, merely that it is the fashionable thing to do and that it sounds intelligent. Similarly anti-British feeling in the U.S. is more often than not based upon historical events, memory of which no living person can actually attest to, but which continue to define one's relationship with a country that the person has probably never visited or interacted with in any way.
[quote]
I have no problem with this at all.
[quote]
Jolly good!
[quote]
Ah but you did insinuate. You said that Israel has violated so many UN sanctions and alluded to human rights violations by bringing up the death of innocent children - all while failing to mention how the Palestinian terrorist groups targeting of innocent civilians while Israel targets, as best it can, military assets and high profile terrorist figures. Please remember there are two sides to this issue.
[quote]
No I didn't, you have taken it upon yourself to think that I did. Israel is in violation of several UN sanctions, on that I think we can all agree. If you read my posts you will see that I mentioned the fact that Palestinians target civilians in restaurants. I stated that Israel strikes at targets within civilian areas, thus almost ensuring the deaths of civilians. I understand that the Israelis have very little choice in this because they must defend themselves and to do so requires targeting terrorists who use civilians as protection, accidental or not, the end result is the same, people die.
One cannot really blame the Palestinians for fighting the way they do, they have no other means to hit back at Israel militarily. The terrorists know that the Israeli army would defeat them in a direct conflict, so they fight in the only manner that levels the field for them, using terror tactics. Terrorism is a vicious cycle, the terrorists usually start out by attacking the enemy's military, when that produces little result they expand their campaign to include civilians. This prompts their enemy to increase the force used against them, which prompts the terrorists to increase their terror campaign. Both sides are compelled towards a state of Clausewitzian total war. This can actually be seen happening in the Middle East, already the majority Israelis and Palestinians centre their lives around fighting one another and the majority of their resources are used for this very purpose.
I should also like to point out to you that I am in no way favourable to one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
[quote]
You have conveniently twisted this around to imply that Israel hits targets the same way the Palestinians do. You are blatantly wrong again. I repeat - it is the Palestinians who intentionally target civilians in busses, restaurants, and other non-military places with suicide bombers. Conversely, Israel goes after valid targets (even if they hide amongst civilians like cowards) and military assets (even if they are placed near civilian centres by leaders who don't seem to give a rat's a$$ about their own people). There IS a difference
[quote]
The Palestinian terrorists do strike at the Israeli military, although their level of success isn't all that great, hence the reason they target civilians most of the time.
The real problem on the Israeli side are the settlers, many of whom are very orthodox and do not believe in military service or paying taxes, yet expect someone else's son or daughter to fight and protect them being paid by someone else's taxes. These settlers do not want to move from the land they inhabit, despite the fact that that is one of the primary reasons there is so much conflict. They expect Israel to protect them and to maintain their tiny little communities in the face of terrorists killing lots of their countrymen. Many Israelis and many in the Israeli armed forces have very little love for these settlers as a result.
[quote
I believe my view of the relationship between the Saudi Royal Family and Terrorism is dead on. You may think the Royal family has no desire to deal with terrorists - and they don't - but that is completely different from being forced to deal with them. It is precisely for the reasons you state above:
- The Saudi Royal Family depends on Oil to say in power
- Terrorists can disrupt this oil supply if they want to
That is precisely why the Royal family has had to deal with terrorist organizations in their country -- TO KEEP THEM FROM CAUSING THE KIND OF HAVOC AND CHAOS WHICH WOULD THREATEN THEIR RULE. This is so obvious. You cannot deny terrorist organizations exist in Saudi Arabia, can you? The royal family is not powerful enough to expel them - so they have to find a way to keep the terrorists appeased. So, while not necessarily wanting to work with these organizations, they provide concessions and look the other way IN EXCHANGE FOR the terrorists allowing them to keep a firm grip on their rule of Saudi Arabia.
This will, however, change - as terrorists become more and more desperate to find safe harbor and Saudi Arabia is less and less able to hold oil reserves over the heads of western nations. I think it is a good thing.
[quote]
I understand your point, but I feel it to be wrong for several reasons, some of which I have stated previously:
Any clandestine relationship between the Saudi government and terrorists would almost certainly be discovered by Western intelligence agencies.
The Saudi Royal family is actually losing its grip on power. Foreign nationals are being urged to leave the kingdom by their governments, attacks on foreign workers have increased, foreign investment is at its most precarious for a number of years and the Saudi government is being made to look impotent to the rest of the world. If there is some sort of deal with terrorists it doesn't appear to be working terribly well!
The Saudi Royal Family rules with the support of the clerics, who are relatively moderate in outlook, perhaps not by Western standards, but certainly in comparison to the Taliban. These clerics, along with the Royal Family, have no great desire to see a fundamentalist Islamic state in the like of Taliban Afghanistan take root in Saudi Arabia. The clerics provide the Royal Family with its real support, far more powerfully than any terrorist organisation ever could, hence the Royal Family have to do everything in their power to keep the clerics on side.
The Royal Family know that the West will use whatever means necessary to ensure the survival of the Saudi Royal Family because it is a friendly power in the region and, more importantly, a friendly power in control of the most important oil reserve on the planet.
[quote]
Which is it??? We are responsible or we are not? It is a socialistic view that believes that just because one is well of they are responsible for everyone else who isn't. We may disagree and argue about this and who is ultimately correct - but it is a socialistic/liberal view. I happen to be conservative (right wing if you will). I believe charity is what people do volutarilly - not forced at the point of a gun or under threat of loss of liberty or property. I believe that individuals hold most of the responsiblity for their place in life. I holeheartedly reject the idea that somehow these terrorists will ever respond to kindness or charity on our behalf. The fact is no civilization has been as generous (in terms of percentage of their wealth OR actual monetary amount spent) than Western Civilizations - the United States in particular. THAT IS A FACT. Every year we give more money to world charity and benovelant interests than all other nations combined. And we do it despite the world criticizing us of being stingy, greedy, pigs. Well - I'm sick of it. We are a kind and generous people and we will continue to be. But WE were attacked. We were attacked long before 9/11. We tried and tried - gave and gave. It isn't our charity these fanitics want - it is our extermination. Tell me otherwise.
[quote]
Again I would recommend that you read my post, you will see that I am making two separate points. The West is responsible for the current level of terrorism because the West did not take the opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda at its inception, or to capture or kill bin Laden and other terrorist leaders a decade or so ago when they were still, relatively, powerless. As a result of this inaction Al Qaeda has been allowed to grow into what we see today, making it all the more difficult to fight. The West is, however, not responsible for the terrorist's motives, the actual driving factors behind the terrorist's actions.
I feel I should end this socialist thing, I am not a socialist, I would be considered right-wing in the UK, probably left-wing in the U.S. One is not responsible for another's problems just because one is wealthy, but one does have a duty to help those less fortunate than oneself, perhaps you might think this 'socialist' or perhaps you might think it human decency.
Throwing money at a problem is not the right way to go about it, the West has done this for far too long to the detriment of both the world's poor and those living in the West. Most of this wonderful aid you speak of it worthless; it has to be paid back with interest by nations unable to buy enough food for their people. Corrupt governments squander aid they receive on private jets and palaces, charities burn up large proportions of the cash donated to them on administration; the list could on. A far better option would be to tackle the root causes of poverty, give the poor the means to provide for themselves and to stop having to rely on charity. In the long run it will not only help millions, but it will save millions of pounds for Western governments, which can then be spent on improving services in the West.
I do not propose helping the terrorists; I propose helping those who are in danger of becoming terrorists. Opinions do not change overnight and it will probably take years for many in the Arab world to trust the West, particularly the U.S. The only other alternatives are to continue fighting these terrorists for decades to come or to invade the Arab world and systematically destroy their culture! Both of these options are completely unrealistic and preposterous, changing people's minds is the only way we will ever beat terrorism, if there are no more recruits then it cannot continue.
[quote]
And we have spent tens of BILLIONS of dollars and will spend HUNDREDS of BILLIONS more to do just that. Of course you won't recognize this, and the terrorists will care about this fact even less than you seem to. Roads are being built, schools are going up, infrastructure is being expanded, information is being desiminated - because of our money. Maybe a "Thanks" is in order instead of a bashing, back handed insults and resentment.
[quote]
Ignoring your personal comments for a moment I should like to point out that one doesn't give to receive. Terrorists certainly do care about Western aid, they want to disrupt it so as to keep people in poverty and misery, it is through poverty and misery that they are able to stir hatred and resentment.
Why is it that I won't recognise U.S. aid programmes? I don't actually recall saying this or commenting to this effect, but I would like to hear your reasoning. I would also like to hear your reasoning on why I don't care about these aid programmes, especially after having written as much as I just have on the need to provide for the world's poor, and after you labelled me socialist!
[quote]
What separates us from terrorists is the fact we want people to be free and we want to be free ourselves. That's it. Know why Hammas is so popular with Palestinians? Not only because they blow up Israeli civilians ... they also build schools and support communities. Terrorists do kind and compassionate things too. Just as long as you goose-step to their command. And if you want to give your money to people who are trying to kill you - that's your business. Just don't come to me and demand that I give them money too!
[quote]
You stated previously that you would like to see a Western style democracy/republic in Iraq, in effect what you are saying is that you want your version of freedom for the world, do correct me if I am wrong; I am working on supposition from your earlier comments. Some people do not want Western style freedom, some people want to live in theocracies, or absolute monarchies, that is their choice, that is their ultimate freedom, to choose how they want to live their lives, even if that means living under a system other than democracy, if they change their mind then I am quite sure they will, in time, overthrow the ruling regime as has happened countless times throughout human history.
Hamas are seen as heroes to the Palestinians; remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I would be quite correct in considering George Washington a disloyal rebel, yet to Americans he is a hero. Similarly King George III is seen as a benevolent and caring King in Britain, yet his reputation is obviously not so great in the U.S. The Palestinians see Hamas as being a means to strike back at oppression, yet in the West Hamas is regarded as a terrorist group with no respect for life. Hamas is able to operate because they have the support of the community, as you stated, rob them of that and they cannot function, they have no more willing martyrs and no more safe houses. To rob them of that support entails taking away the reasons why the Palestinians feel so resentful; poverty, Israeli occupation of their lands and poor education.
[quote]
What is so disgusting about this is WE (all of us) ARE DOING JUST THAT but you can't seem to see that.
[quote]
We are not; if we were we would be winning this war instead of losing it. All we are doing at the moment is delaying the inevitable; how long will it be before a terrorist manages to get through our defences and another atrocity is committed? Whilst Coalition troops march around Iraq hunting Iraqi insurgents who don't have the capability to strike at the West Al Qaeda is gathering its forces and preparing to strike. We must expand this war and engage the enemy on all fronts, we are superior to them in every way, by overwhelming them we can stretch their resources until they break. By smashing their military capabilities alongside a concerted humanitarian effort to win over the hearts and minds of the people who hate the West we can undercut their foundations. We cannot shy away from using military force where necessary, but just as Bismarck saw after the defeat of the Austro-Hungarians, if one is kind to one's enemy, one's enemy becomes one's friend.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC | |
|
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Let me begin this post by saying thank you again for the challenging and intelligent debate. If nothing else - you have indeed made me think. I appreciate it.
Second - I'd like to mention that sentiment by US citizens for British citizens is extremely high. I cannot think of one - not even on my liberal, anti-Bush college campus - who thinks the UK is anything but a great place with a great people. Many here might not understand how the UK runs, or much about the culture - but you rank real high in our esteem.
It appears we both agree on several points - even though we exchange posts in a way which makes it seem like we completely disagree.
You did make the direct assertion that a government that turns a blind eye to terrorist activities are just as guilty of one that would directly fund/support them. I disagreed. I assert, and you agree, that countries that are unable to deal with terrorism need help - not condemnation as states that support terrorism. I stand by that. And your assertion that the US has done nothing about the IRA/Irish Republican interests - I posted links to articles that showed otherwise. You may be upset that we haven't done enough or worked fast enough ... but you cannot claim that either the US has turned a blind eye to this situation or has supported Irish Republican causes. I continue to stand by my assertion.
I believe the US has a lot of work to do - internally as well as externally - to ensure that individuals and organizations within our borders are not funneling funds or support to terrorists of any type anywhere. The only thing you and I seem to have a difference with is to what degree the US has acted. I assert that we are working on doing something that we have never done before - and that is building an internal agency that is similar to M5 (I5 ... I forget). An agency that can gather intelligence internally/domestically while not stomping on the rights that US citizens hold very dearly. The FBI - by the way - has been a police/prosecuting agency ... not a domestic intelligence gathering agency. This has been set by and is still mandated by US Federal Law. Unfortunately, without such an agency it is hard to pinpoint such domestic targets and shut them down. The targetted groups/individual frequently fight in court and under our current laws evidence gathered by domestic intelligence is frequently thrown out. Additionally, freedom of expression - especially political expression - is extremely well protected by the US Constitution and it is very difficult to find a balance between allowing free dissent and protecting against clandestine private organizations that don't open their books for all to see or shout their activities from the rooftops. We are currently involved in a HUGE national debate about a set of laws collectively called "The Patriot Act". Many civil libertarians say it creates a police state. Conservatives argue they are necessary to protect us from terrorists. Point being - we do have a lot of work to do - and we must do it soon - and we have to get it right.
Tying this back to our discussion, however, does not take anything away from my position that any friend of terrorist organizations that would strike the US is itself an enemy of the US and therefore a legitimate target in my mind. Further - we completely agree that any state unable to deal with terrorists in is borders deserves and needs our full support.
Define Socialism for me. If it is what I think it is - then there is no argument that the statement "it is our responsibility to help the poor, as well as the right thing to do" is socialistic. The word responsibility is the part of this I take issue with. If I want to help - then I can help. But if it is my responsibility to help - then I must give - even if I don't want to. And who is going to make me give in a manner appropriate when I don't desire to? Society maybe? More taxes - heavier fees - redistribution of the wealth. All socialistic.
The United States is a mixed economy. We, compared to most European countries, are much more conservative/capitalistic. I happen to be one of those people over here who work to keep us from sliding too far to the "left". This doesn't mean that I believe pure and unadulterated capitalism is the right way to go. Our system is fluid and changing - I'm just one of those who work to keep it more on the free enterprise system.
What you seem to say is we need to target funds and efforts to educate societies and help them become self sustaining. I agree. You assert we are not doing it correctly - that our foreign aid (I wasn't talking about loans in my prior post) is misdirected and squandered. I also agree - to an extent. However - I ask you - are you making a suggestion of how we use our funds --- or are you going to put yourself in the position of telling us how we will use our funds? Once again - not even considering that which needs to be paid back in any way whatsoever - I assert that the United States gives more resources to global charitable causes than all other countries of the world combined (in both percent of gross national product and pure monitary amount). Does this make us perfect? Does this mean we are saints? No. But I'm always a little disapointed and upset about how people out there continually seem to conveniently dismiss this fact when they talk about the things they feel the US needs to do.
This ties into our discussion by what I understand is your position that if we (the United States) would have supported "the poor" in a different (yet unspecified) manner from how we have been - terrorist organizations would not have popped up (such as Al-Quaida) - that we might have "nipped them in the bud". If people around the world would know how to read and feed themselves maybe they wouldn't try to lash out in desperation and dispair. You also state that it isn't for Western Civilization to force our form of society upon people. So what do you say to the Taliban who closed their borders and refused to let aid in and kept their people ignorant and oppressed? What do you say about the Madrasas (I think that is how it is spelled) where the male youth of Saudi Arabia are taught that anything not of Islam is evil and must be destroyed? Would Amnesty International agree with you that countries that have Taliban(religious)/Saddam(Secular) dictatorships that oppress their people have a right to rule their people this way - that they wanted it this way because they don't rise up and change it themselves? Or maybe you're not asserting that. Maybe you would be in favor of changes ... but to some lesser degree? Who would make the change? Who decides to what extent a change is needed? How would they be implimented - by deplomacy? By force if that failed? How?
My point is, I agree with you that the people of a country should decide for themselves what kind of government/society they should adopt. Unfortunately in a global society, that is not always the reality. "Liberals" might advocate change to relieve the suffering of oppressed people. "Conservatives" might advocate change when it is generally agreed that the government of a rogue state threatens the national security and interests of other states. Point: Nobody ever simply says "keep your hands off and let them decide for and fight for it all by themselves". It's just not realistic. Unfortunately, the two political sides will criticize the other as imposers of their will over others in any situation. However, after 9/11, despite the fact that the foreign policy of the United States suffers from multiple-personality disorder, it was decided that if a nation-state is a sponsor of international terrorism they become the target of the US. This doesn't mean they get invaded immediately (note Iran, Yemen, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia). But these "targets" are getting special attention from us now and we will do everything we can to influence, change, or destroy the threats these nations pose to us. Our cowboy president, in a most undiplomatic/unstatesman like fashion declared a new "axis of evil". Will our nation suffer from a personality changeover and go for a different approach? Maybe - we will find out this November. But just keep in mind that the situation in Iraq, while admittedly far from ideal/perfect, still affords the people of Iraq the opportunity to go through the long, painful process of self determination. I hope it goes well. Once again - I believe the US will support whatever type of government the Iraqi people choose - just as long as it does not pose a threat as the prior did.
Oh - and for the record - personally I would like to see all nations have what I consider to be the benefit of a Democratically elected/Republican form of government that generally adheres to the will of the majority while effectively protecting the rights of the minority. Go ahead, call me jingoistic, but I do happen to believe western style democracy is the best form of governance in a world populated by flawed humans.
You assert that there is a difference between being responsible for terrorists because we allowed them to grow AND being responsible for terrorists attitudes? Are they not really one and the same? If we assumed the responsibility to address and fix the issues which planted the desperation and hopelessness in the minds of so many poor who later turned to terrorism as their only way out of their desperate situation, wouldn't terrorism have never come about? And If we were responsible for these things but didn't deal with them are we not culpable for their twisted and desperate attitudes ... that lead them to terrorism? Isn't it really the ingrained belief that anything western is evil and our existence is not to be tolerated? Are you sure terrorism would not exist if we simply dealt with the world's poor and uneducated in the "proper" (yet undisclosed) way? Does it have nothing to do with the existence of the thousands of years old conflict between Muslims and Jews? Or the over millennium old conflict between Christianity and Islam?
Once again - I completely agree with you in an unqualified way that a peace must be made in Israel. Unfortunately it is such a long standing and complicated issue. The settlements - while a contributing factor - is not the only (or main) issue. But what is the main issue? What is the key? Do you know!? I don't think I know. We hope to avoid wholesale bloodshead and we continue to search for the right combination of "things" or "issues" that may forge a real/lasting peace. But I think we would be extremely ignorant to assume that the deeply held religious beliefs of both sides isn't a MAJOR issue. And, unfortunately, there is little ability to address in a logical and peaceful manner the centurys old religious beliefs that keep so many irrationally hating the "other side". This is not so simple an issue - and we do not have the luxury of waiting around for the solution to it.
Additionally - I still reject the idea that Palestinian terrorists are morally equal in any way to the Israeli Army. Just because a group is "desperate" doesn't, in my mind, make it right that they use their own civilians as shields. And I reject the idea that it is okay for the Palestinians to target civilians for attack even if it is because their feeble attacks against legitimate government/military/command targets are fruitless. Further - in one of the prior posts I asked you to cite a resolution or an article (or anything reasonably credible) where Israel was found guilty of breaking international law (or UN Sanctions). I felt such an accusation would be easily backed up with a citation or two. In other words: I do not agree that they are as guilty as you continue to imply. What I've heard is the UN complain that Israel is so bad while completely ignoring the egregious atrocities committed by terrorists acting on behalf of the Palestinians.
And I will calmly thank you to not compare George Washington to terrorists. George Washington and the Continental Army did not use civilians as either targets nor shields.
Again we actually agree about the Saudis. I, like you, believe they do not want anything whatsoever to do with terrorists. I also agree with you that they are loosing their control of the country. I do disagree, however, with the idea that any tie between them and terrorists would most certainly be discovered by western intelligence. Do you mean the same intelligence services that said WMD were in Iraq? I do agree that the royal family uses clerics to maintain control - but I don't see how that negates the idea that the royals may have bargained with terrorist groups to prevent them from attacking their rule. And - yes, in the past western nations have supported the Saudi Royal Family as it maintained stability and a reliable supply of oil - I agree. However, this is why I assert it is good that Iraq may possibly supply a replacement for Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of harboring terrorist organizations - indeed the vast majority of the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorists where Saudi nationals. As long as the Saudis have control of enough oil to threaten the US and western nations, we will have a very difficult time getting to the real truth. Are there active terrorist organizations in Saudi Arabia that the Royal Family turns a blind eye to at a minimum? The situation is developing - I think only time will tell which one of us is ultimately right about Saudi Arabia.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Patrick wrote:
What is so disgusting about this is WE (all of us) ARE DOING JUST THAT but you can't seem to see that.
|
|
We are not; if we were we would be winning this war instead of losing it. |
|
Why do you think we are losing? Just because we are not "fighting" the way you think we should is no reason to assume we are not winning. And to judge winning or losing on a few major battles (which we have won - by the way) isn't a reliable indicator in the very long run. Is it the continued insurgence in Iraq that makes you think we are losing? The assertions by so many that more are being recruited for the terrorist cause? Just how do you determine your assertion?
Quote:
| All we are doing at the moment is delaying the inevitable; how long will it be before a terrorist manages to get through our defences and another atrocity is committed? Whilst Coalition troops march around Iraq hunting Iraqi insurgents who don't have the capability to strike at the West Al Qaeda is gathering its forces and preparing to strike. We must expand this war and engage the enemy on all fronts, we are superior to them in every way, by overwhelming them we can stretch their resources until they break. By smashing their military capabilities alongside a concerted humanitarian effort to win over the hearts and minds of the people who hate the West we can undercut their foundations. |
|
I shutter to think - but I'm not at all under the impression that the west - specifically the US - is safe from another major attack. In fact, I'm convinced we will suffer defeats in the future. We will be hit and we will be hit hard. I hope not - but I have no reason to believe otherwise. Otherwise - I agree with you 100% ... We need to engage them on all fronts. Stretch their resources, smash their military capabilities ... as well as reach out to the masses as best we can to undercut their foundations. The only thing you and I will do is possibly bicker about to what extent we think we can engage them, disagree as to what exactly are their military capabilities, and just exactly how to use our benevolent resources in the best way possible to allow for self rule while promoting as much freedom/tolerance/liberty as possible.
Again, thank you scotsboyuk, Sammy_boy, and everyone else for the interesting, challenging, and enlightening discussion. Hey people - maybe you could contact Axxxr and bring him into the discussion. Maybe you could convince him to actually make an argument on an issue and defend it like we have here - instead of simply posting ad hominem attacks, clipping/pasting web articles that mostly lack crediblity, and calling people who disagree with him/her names like racist.
Keep it coming people!
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
Check out JibJab.com
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-08-25 02:59 ] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-in-CA
I would like to ask you not to make personal attacks, it will do nothing save invite argument, not debate, but argument. I am terribley sorry if I sound awfully high and mighty, but I felt I had to make that point.
[quote]
On 2004-08-25 03:47:59, Patrick-in-CA wrote:
I assert that we are working on doing something that we have never done before - and that is building an internal agency that is similar to M5 (I5 ... I forget).
[quote]
It is MI5.
[quote]
Define Socialism for me. If it is what I think it is - then there is no argument that the statement "it is our responsibility to help the poor, as well as the right thing to do" is socialistic. The word responsibility is the part of this I take issue with. If I want to help - then I can help. But if it is my responsibility to help - then I must give - even if I don't want to. And who is going to make me give in a manner appropriate when I don't desire to? Society maybe? More taxes - heavier fees - redistribution of the wealth. All socialistic.
The United States is a mixed economy. We, compared to most European countries, are much more conservative/capitalistic. I happen to be one of those people over here who work to keep us from sliding too far to the "left". This doesn't mean that I believe pure and unadulterated capitalism is the right way to go. Our system is fluid and changing - I'm just one of those who work to keep it more on the free enterprise system.
[quote]
Socialism is a political theory calling for the equality of everyone in society and a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. We do have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves, each of us has a duty to aid our fellow man and make this world a better place to live in. Europe is not overtly socialist, but perhaps it appears so to Americans who hae a much less socialist society. Mot Europeans cherish the ideal of society looking after people, of the government providing and caring for everyone irrespective of their social stutus or wealth. The EU governments typically provide certain basic services to Europeans including, but not limited to:
Free health care for everyone regardless of the ability to pay.
Money for those unable to work or who are out of a job.
FRee housing for those unable to afford their own.
Free food for those unable to feed themselves.
Pensions for everyone upon reaching a pre-determined age.
Europeans look upon their governments as being responsible for providing he necessary facilities to look after everyone and to keep society running. Europeans typically pay many and high taxes (especially in the UK) to enable the government to provide these basic services. We set high standards for ourselves, therefore we believe that all of humanity should be able to enjoy the same high standard of living that we do. Everyone, not just the rich, has a duty to help others, every man woman and child is born with a responsibility to do all that they can to help others and make this world a better place.
This may sound very noble and probably a little on the fantastical side, but I will provide an example, the most potent example I can draw upon.
Britain and France both declared war on Germany in 1939 to aid Poland, a country that most of their peoples had never visited and knew very little about. After France had fallen Britain fought on alone even after a peace deal was oferred by Germany, which would have saved many British lives, it was decided that the best thing to do would be to fight on alone despite overwhelming odds and almost certain defeat. It was thought better to die trying than to take the easy option of giving in to monstrous evil. With invasion imminent the country still fought on, Britons were urged to 'Take one with you!' when the Germans invaded, better to sacrafice every man, woman and child in the UK than to allow the Nazis to dominate us, hopefully we would manage to do as much damage to them as possible before we were defeated. All of the sacrafice was in order to help a people that we had had almost no connection with in almost two millenia of recorded British history.
Even after allies joined our cause we still sacraficed everything we had to defeat the enemy, our lives, all our wealth, all our resources, and our Empire. We did not fight for our own gain, to be honest we were incapable of doing so, so much had been sacraficed for the war effort that we no longer had the capacity to acquire new posessions. Hundreds of thousands of Britons died to ensure the freedom of the world when we could have made peace with Germany and saved all those lives, not to mention our power and wealth.
Socialism and communism dictate to people what will happen, everyting is ordered and free will and individuality is stifled, just look at the old U.S.S.R. Everyone is 'equal' so that no matter how hard you work you will always be the same as everyone else. This is much different to realising one's responsibility to help one's fellow man and to offer what one can, not because one feels that it would be a good thing to do, not because one feels that one should be charitable, not because one feels that it will make one a better person, not because one feels that one is rich enough to help others, but because it is the human thing to do, because it makes someone else's life better, because it helps someone who cannot help themselves, because it makes someone else happy and becaue it is the right thing to do.
[quote]
What you seem to say is we need to target funds and efforts to educate societies and help them become self sustaining. I agree. You assert we are not doing it correctly - that our foreign aid (I wasn't talking about loans in my prior post) is misdirected and squandered. I also agree - to an extent. However - I ask you - are you making a suggestion of how we use our funds --- or are you going to put yourself in the position of telling us how we will use our funds? Once again - not even considering that which needs to be paid back in any way whatsoever - I assert that the United States gives more resources to global charitable causes than all other countries of the world combined (in both percent of gross national product and pure monitary amount). Does this make us perfect? Does this mean we are saints? No. But I'm always a little disapointed and upset about how people out there continually seem to conveniently dismiss this fact when they talk about the things they feel the US needs to do.
[quote]
Charitable acts are all very well and good, but you must ask yourself why so many people dislike and even hate the U.S. in spite of these charitable acts. Much of the world looks at the U.S. and sees a behemoth intent on doing whateve rit pleases regardless of anyone else and no matter hat the cost, a slong as it doesn't negatively effect the U.S.A. This view point is somewhat extreme, but in many respects there is an element of truth to it. The U.S. does follow very unilateral policies and it is hard for othe rnations not to feel resentment towards the U.S. in such circumstances. A prime example is the Kyto Treaty, the U.S. is one of aonly a handful of nations not to ratify this treaty because it would have a negative impact upon the American economy. To use the UK as an example, the Kytoto Treaty has been adopted and in fact the UK has actually committe ditself to going beyond the emmission reductions in the treaty. Now this isn't to say that the UK is perfect, but it is an example of how the U.S. is often perceived to look out for itself regardless of others. Of course every nation will have its own interests at heart, but there is also the wider community to be considered and many feel that the U.S. simply does not do this.
If we use Israel as an example, many Arabs point to how the U.S. gives Israel huge sums of money every year along with advanced weaponry, it is easy to see why the Palestinians feel resentful at this, why not provide the Palestinians with the same level of aid they might ask and then the Palestinians would not need to resort to terror tacticsbecause they could afford an army and a proper infrastructure so as to protect themselves and to reign in terrorists. In my own opinion the U.S. the U.S. would be better off cutting the level of aid to Israel, it would do a lot to restore Palestinian faith in the U.S. and it might just force both Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table with better attitudes.
[quote]
This ties into our discussion by what I understand is your position that if we (the United States) would have supported "the poor" in a different (yet unspecified) manner from how we have been - terrorist organizations would not have popped up (such as Al-Quaida) - that we might have "nipped them in the bud". If people around the world would know how to read and feed themselves maybe they wouldn't try to lash out in desperation and dispair. You also state that it isn't for Western Civilization to force our form of society upon people. So what do you say to the Taliban who closed their borders and refused to let aid in and kept their people ignorant and oppressed? What do you say about the Madrasas (I think that is how it is spelled) where the male youth of Saudi Arabia are taught that anything not of Islam is evil and must be destroyed? Would Amnesty International agree with you that countries that have Taliban(religious)/Saddam(Secular) dictatorships that oppress their people have a right to rule their people this way - that they wanted it this way because they don't rise up and change it themselves? Or maybe you're not asserting that. Maybe you would be in favor of changes ... but to some lesser degree? Who would make the change? Who decides to what extent a change is needed? How would they be implimented - by deplomacy? By force if that failed? How?
[quote]
It isn't unspecified, as I said before, give them the means to support themselves.
You have oversimplified my point; by providing better humanitarian aid and using military force against Al Qaeda years ago we could have destroyed them before they became a spowerful as they are today and helped to ensure that new terrorists are not recruited by taking away the pain and sufferring that underpins many of the reasons that people join terrorist organisations.
As I have aleady stated we all have a responsibility to help each other, in he case of the Taliban the international community should have acted in concert and much earlier, hopefully much bloodshed could have been avoided; if all else failed then the international community should have used military force to safeguard the safety and well-being of Afghanis. Such intervention doesn't mean that we have to turn Afghanistan into a democracy, it merely means that we should look out for one another and make sure people are not sufferring. For instance; the U.S. has the death penalty in some states and as rule of thumb EU nations will not deport anyone to the U.S., or any other nation, if there is a possibility that they may face the death penalty. Just because we do not agree with the U.S. system does not mean that the system should be abolished, what it does mean is that we will seek to do all that we can to protect people from something we consider to be unfair and unjust. The same would apply to the Taliban, if the Afghan people want to live in a religious theocracy then who are we to say that they can't? Where I feel that intervention is necessary is when people are sufferring.
As for the male youth of Saudi Arabia being taught that anything non-Isamic is evil, I am presuming that you consider the westernisation of Saudi Arabia to be a good step in stampig this out. At the risk of sounding incredibley flippant, perhaps if Saudi Arabia is more westernised then the male youth can be taught that homosexuality is evil and that anything non-Chrisitan is wrong as many are in American churches each week! Western societies share many of the same problems as societies in other parts of the world, making them more liek us isn't necessarily a good thing.
[quote]
My point is, I agree with you that the people of a country should decide for themselves what kind of government/society they should adopt. Unfortunately in a global society, that is not always the reality. "Liberals" might advocate change to relieve the suffering of oppressed people. "Conservatives" might advocate change when it is generally agreed that the government of a rogue state threatens the national security and interests of other states. Point: Nobody ever simply says "keep your hands off and let them decide for and fight for it all by themselves". It's just not realistic. Unfortunately, the two political sides will criticize the other as imposers of their will over others in any situation. However, after 9/11, despite the fact that the foreign policy of the United States suffers from multiple-personality disorder, it was decided that if a nation-state is a sponsor of international terrorism they become the target of the US. This doesn't mean they get invaded immediately (note Iran, Yemen, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia). But these "targets" are getting special attention from us now and we will do everything we can to influence, change, or destroy the threats these nations pose to us. Our cowboy president, in a most undiplomatic/unstatesman like fashion declared a new "axis of evil".
Oh - and for the record - personally I would like to see all nations have what I consider to be the benefit of a Democratically elected/Republican form of government that generally adheres to the will of the majority while effectively protecting the rights of the minority. Go ahead, call me jingoistic, but I do happen to believe western style democracy is the best form of governance in a world populated by flawed humans.
[quote]
Sometimes doing nothing is the best form of action, intervention can sometimes make a situation worse. Iran is a prime example; the EU has opened diplomatic channels with Iran as is receiving warm replies, the U.S. is decrying the Iranian regime as evil. The U.S. had a chance a few years ago under President Clinton to improve relations with Iran; Madelien Albright visited Iran and made an indirect apology for past U.S. transgressions against Iran, but it was never followed up and the chance was lost. Using force against Iran will achieve very little save for pitting the U.S. against a much more capable enemy than they faced in Iraq and with a lot less international support. Iran gave the U.S. tacitit support during the invasion of Afghanistan, yet President Bush branded them as part of an 'axis-of-evil'. People do not like sufferring and they will naturaly gravitate towards a system of government they are happier with. Did the West intervene in Eastern Europe when the peoples of Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, etc overthrow their communist masters and established democracies? For all the machinations of the Cold War it ended up being the ordinary people of the Soviet Bloc who overthrew communism.
Again I will disagree with imposing Western values upon people, especially since you now narrow those values down to be more American than Western. Six of the oldest democracies in the world are monarchies, including the UK, in fact most of the world's democracies were established by the UK and France, including the U.S. system, which was largely modelled on English ideas of liberty and freedom. Even at this Britain was unable to influence those nations after they had gained their independence, whether as fully independent nations or as Dominions, there was no mechanism of enforcing anything upon these nations. Why should any nation be forced to adopt the customs and practices of another? One could argue that the most successful form of government is a monarchy based upon the Roman Empire or that of Alexander the Great, I am presuming that you would not support the adoption of a direct monarch in the U.S. One can argue the benefits of many systems of government, but ultimately not everyone will agree.
[quote]
You assert that there is a difference between being responsible for terrorists because we allowed them to grow AND being responsible for terrorists attitudes? Are they not really one and the same? If we assumed the responsibility to address and fix the issues which planted the desperation and hopelessness in the minds of so many poor who later turned to terrorism as their only way out of their desperate situation, wouldn't terrorism have never come about? And If we were responsible for these things but didn't deal with them are we not culpable for their twisted and desperate attitudes ... that lead them to terrorism? Isn't it really the ingrained belief that anything western is evil and our existence is not to be tolerated? Are you sure terrorism would not exist if we simply dealt with the world's poor and uneducated in the "proper" (yet undisclosed) way? Does it have nothing to do with the existence of the thousands of years old conflict between Muslims and Jews? Or the over millennium old conflict between Christianity and Islam?
[quote]
Once again not undisclosed, help the poor to support themselves.
Allowing terrorism to prosper and being responsible for the motivation behind terrorism is not the same thing at all, I would have thought that plainly obvious. Allowing someone to rob a bank is different from being responsible for that person having no money so resorting to rob the bank. If we look to WWII we can now say, with hindsight, that we could have saved millions of live sif we had went to war against Germany earlier when the Wehrmacht did not have the capability to withstand the British and French armies, we could have prevented the growth of Nazism, but we wouldn't have been responsible for why Hitler hated Jews.
I don't believe that the majority of Arabs or Muslims believe that the West is evil, what they do believe is that the West is very biased towards Israel, and in some ways they would be correct. Muslims have no wish to see their relatives dead any more than we do, they do not want to fight anyone anymore than we do. The conflicts you mention are very old indeed, but if they really matter today then why don't Arabs call for the destruction of Germany, Spain, France, Italy or the other nations who sent Crusaders to fight Muslims in the Holy Land? One must remember that the current situation has only actually existed for forty or fifty years, the Arab world didn't hate the U.S. in the 1930's or the 1940's, they didn't hate the West then. Arabs allied with the British in WWI to oppose the Ottoman Empire, fellow Muslims, they didn't oppose the mainly Chrisitan British forces. One must understand why this situation has come about, because of the iSRAELI-Palestinian conflict, this issue is at the heart of the terrorist's cause. Many Muslims are incensed at what they see as U.S. bias towards Israel, they see the U.S. support their enemy so therefore the U.S. is their enemy.
[quote]
Additionally - I still reject the idea that Palestinian terrorists are morally equal in any way to the Israeli Army. Just because a group is "desperate" doesn't, in my mind, make it right that they use their own civilians as shields. And I reject the idea that it is okay for the Palestinians to target civilians for attack even if it is because their feeble attacks against legitimate government/military/command targets are fruitless. Further - in one of the prior posts I asked you to cite a resolution or an article (or anything reasonably credible) where Israel was found guilty of breaking international law (or UN Sanctions). I felt such an accusation would be easily backed up with a citation or two. In other words: I do not agree that they are as guilty as you continue to imply. What I've heard is the UN complain that Israel is so bad while completely ignoring the egregious atrocities committed by terrorists acting on behalf of the Palestinians.
[quote]
I didn't say it wa sok for Palestinians to target civilians, I merely stated that they do so because they have no other meaningful way of harming Israel, I deplore such actions just as much as you do. You may not regard Palestinian terrorists as moraly equal to the Israeli army, but the Palestinians and much of the Arab world do, it is all a matter of perspective. Just as most Britons regard the I.R.A. as terrorists many people regard them as freedom fighters.
The reason I did not quote any UN resolutions that Israel has broken is becaue they are very easy to find if one searches for them and since my post was a tad on the long side I felt that I should leave anything out that wasn't necessary.
You fail to realise the difficulty that the UN has with dealing with the atrocities committe dby Palestinian terrorists, Palestine is not a soveriegn nation as Israel is, it has very little control over the terrorists so I would say the UN is being realistic in not wasting its time with trying to make the Palestinian authority control terrorists over whom they have little or no power.
[quote]
And I will calmly thank you to not compare George Washington to terrorists. George Washington and the Continental Army did not use civilians as either targets nor shields.
[quote]
I didn't compare George Washington to terrorists, I used him to make a point about perspectives and I said that I would consider him a traitor and rebel, unlike you, who would obviously consider him a hero and freedom fighter. I also did not state that either George Washington or the Continental Army used civilians as targets or shields.
[quote]
Why do you think we are losing? Just because we are not "fighting" the way you think we should is no reason to assume we are not winning. And to judge winning or losing on a few major battles (which we have won - by the way) isn't a reliable indicator in the very long run. Is it the continued insurgence in Iraq that makes you think we are losing? The assertions by so many that more are being recruited for the terrorist cause? Just how do you determine your assertion?
[quote]
Have we caught bin Laden? Has Al Qaeda lost its ability to launch major attacks? Is the world any safer? The answer to all of these questions would be no, therefore we are not winning. Are we losing more and more of the freedoms we are fighting to protect? Are Al Qaeda still able to infiltrate Western nations? Are we still arguing amongst ourselves over how best to fight this war/ The answers to all of these questions would be yes, therefore we are not winning.
I do not see Iraq as having any major influence on the war on Al Qaeda, despite what the American media may think. I would also doubt very much that the war in Iraq has prompted many more people to join terrorist organisations than would have joined anyway.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
At the risk of being flippant:
Let's suppose then that the United States is indeed responsible for the rise of terrorist organizations because 1) We support the State of Israel with more money and materials than the people of the would be state of Palestine, 2) We do not provide the support that is properly targeted or sufficiently funded to help the poor of the world become self sufficient, 3) We didn't proactively attack terrorist organizations as soon as they were identified and too weak to do anything. However, we are not responsible for the extreme views terrorists have like hating everything western, wanting to see the US wiped off the face of the earth, or wanting to kill all Jews.
To correct the current situation, which was allowed to spiral out of control due to our (The United States) negligence in dealing with the aforementioned items, we need to 1) Show kindness and give generously to the people of the world so that they are able to support themselves, 2) reduce aid to Israel to the level that we provide to the Palestinians (even if this means they find themselves unable to defend themselves from attack from all the countries around them including the Palestinians) to show we like the Palestinians equally as the Israelis, 3) Go to the United Nations to obtain the necessary authority to do what we think is in our best interest so as to convince the rest of the world that we will not act unilaterally or without the consent of the world community because if the US does something on its own the rest of the world is threatened and feels the US is out of control.
Additionally - since the topic is the Iraq war - it only stands to reason that the US should prove to the world that we are not trying to colonize the world in a new imperialistic fervor by withdrawing all of our troops even if the provisional Iraqi government doesn't want that. I mean, it is rather evident to everyone that the provisional government there is simply a puppet of Washington anyway - so the only way to prove otherwise would be to simply walk out. Since the kind of freedom supporting government we want for them isn't what they necessarily want for themselves - the only way they will ever be able to determine for themselves is to remove our oppressive military and political presence. That way the people of Iraq can then be completely free to work out amongst themselves, without the overbearing US, what kind of society and government it wants for itself.
Next we could look for remnants of Al-Qaeda and other extremist Islamic terrorists that might attack the US and in order to prevent an incident like 9/11 from happening again we would crush them in a preemptive attack that would nip them in the bud and prevent them from growing. Of course we would get proper approval and permission from the UN prior to any preemptive action as we don't want the world to think us too much the bully who will do whatever it wants in any way it wants as long as it thinks it is in its best interest. Additionally we continue to spend more and more money supporting the worlds poor, who still have not quite yet learned how to be self sufficient, at the direction of the UN to allow the world community its proper say in how it should be done because the way the US had done it in the past was so incredibly misguided and ineffectual - being squandered and misappropriated and wasted.
Sounds like a great plan. I nominate you for President of the United States!
Sorry if this seemed like a personal attack - but I never called anyone any names. I just used parody to illustrate my point of view. I know this sounds a bit arrogant but I felt it necessary to make that point to avoid any misconceptions.
Further - in all seriousness - I obviously completely disagree with what you seem to be saying but I honestly do appreciate you discussing it with me.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-in-CA
Your 'parody' doesn't reflect my views at all; you have taken points I made and constructed a paradigm completely inconsistent with what I actually said. You have taken my points out of context and used them to fashion a ridiculous scenario, which would seem to suggest that my argument was silly. I certainly do not take this personally, but I feel that you could have made you point in a better fashion than this.
I should like to point out to you that I have previously stated, this is the third time, that the West is not responsible for the ideological hatred terrorists feel towards the West, you are merely reiterating my point.
I would also like to understand why you seem to be demonstrating a victimisation mentality, anyone reading your last post would assume that I had somehow attacked the U.S. and what it stands for. As you well know I made relevant points, which you may disagree with, but they were not attacks on the U.S., I was merely pointing out facts.
I also never mentioned at any time that troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, again you have constructed a situation totally misrepresentative of the points I actually made. I am in favour of Coalition forces remaining in Iraq, if for no other reason, to provide the security the new government needs to reach the stage that would allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government. I would also like to make it known to you that I did in fact support the invasion of Iraq, but more for the reason of removing Saddam Hussein from power because he was inflicting suffering upon his people; this is in keeping with an earlier point I made regarding just cause for intervention in a foreign country.
I have also not made nay mention of the U.S. trying to establish a new imperial order, for the reason that I do not believe that they are. Your comments would seem to suggest that I had made such an accusation.
Your points regarding the UN and world opinion are somewhat over simplistic in that they fail to take into account the actual workings of both the UN and the international community. I don't believe that I made any mention of the UN deciding U.S. policies; I suggested that the rest of the world sees the U.S. as acting selfishly in many areas. Whether one agrees that the U.S. does act in this manner is a moot point, other nations do see the U.S. as acting selfishly.
Whether you agree with me or not is a moot point, the U.S. does have great problems with many nations around the world and this will never change unless the U.S. does. The U.S. cannot make everyone like it through force alone, helping people and alleviating their suffering is much more likely to create a world where people do not view the U.S. (or other Western nations) as being imperialistic or simply interested in their natural resources.
As a bonus the replies seem to be getting shorter and more readable!
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI has evidence that a person who has been working at high levels in the Pentagon may be a spy for Israel, senior U.S. officials confirmed to CNN on Friday.
The suspect could have been in a position to influence Bush administration policy toward Iran and Iraq, the senior official said.
However, another government official said the suspect is "not in a level to influence policy."
"He is an analyst in an undersecretary's office," this official said.
A senior Pentagon official confirmed to CNN that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "had been made generally aware that the Justice Department had an investigation going on."
CBS News, which first reported the story, said the FBI had developed evidence against the suspect, including photographs and conversations recorded through wiretaps.
The network said the suspect has ties to two senior Pentagon officials: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.
Multiple sources have told CNN that the investigation is well along, and one government official described the evidence against the suspect as a "slam dunk case" and said "there has been no decision to prosecute the individual."
Officials said the suspect passed classified documents to Israel through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.
But AIPAC released a statement late Friday calling the news reports "false and baseless."
The statement said AIPAC learned Friday that "the government is investigating an employee of the Department of Defense for possible violations in handling confidential information."
A designation of the material as confidential would indicate a much lower level of secrecy than if it had been designated as classified.
AIPAC said it "is cooperating fully" with government authorities, including providing documents and information and making staff members available for interviews. Sources told CNN that two AIPAC employees have been interviewed in the case by the FBI.
"Neither AIPAC nor any of its employees has violated any laws or rules, nor has AIPAC or its employees ever received information they believed was secret or classified," the statement said. "AIPAC is an American organization comprised of proud and loyal U.S. citizens committed to promoting American interests. We do not condone or tolerate any violation of any U.S. law or interests."
Washington insiders note that it is not unusual for friendly governments to have access to certain classified information, so even if the allegations are correct, not everyone involved may have thought they were involved in espionage. Still, one U.S. source is calling the case "a very serious matter."
David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, denied the allegations.
"The United States is Israel's most cherished friend and ally. We have a strong, ongoing, working relationship at all levels, and in no way would Israel do anything to impair this relationship."
An Israeli official in Washington said the U.S. government has not contacted the Israelis about any such investigation.
Despite the close relationship between the two countries, espionage against the United States on behalf of Israel would not be without precedent. Former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard is serving a life sentence for passing classified material to Israel.
The Justice Department, speaking for the FBI, refused to comment, saying only, "We cannot confirm or deny the report."
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Yes, they are getting shorter and easier to read. That is nice. I'm trying to refrain from taking posts and cutting them up to respond for a while. After a few turns they get rather lengthy and the points get spread out all over the place.
I'm afraid that while I respect the mature and intelligent manner that you make your arguments I have expressed what I honestly feel your arguments boil down to. I have been told that conservative people are simpletons so maybe this is an expression of that (a little more sarcasm there) but I honestly don't see how your arguments about the US being liked in the world and our involvement with terrorism and Iraq come out any different than what I've summed up. Instead of telling me how I got what you said wrong maybe I'd be better able to understand a summation of your argument in your own words. Tell where you believe the US went wrong with Iraq, Terrorism, and the world community (if you believe we have gone wrong at all) and tell me what you think the US could/should do to make it better.
Thanks again ... I look forward to your post.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
This is what Americans really think of Iraqi's and Arabs.......
Town Hosts 'Wack the Iraq' Game
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New Jersey game called "Wack the Iraq where players fire paintballs at people dressed as Arabs, has drawn ire from Arab groups after the city failed to convince the operator to change its name this summer.
The City of Wildwood, a seaside resort in southern New Jersey popular with summer vacationers, said the game would continue to operate until the end of this summer holiday season, but would change its name when it returns next year, according to Fred Wager, commissioner of public affairs and public safety for Wildwood.
"We didn't like it because we were getting a lot of complaints about it," Wager said in an interview.
The game is being run by a private company under a license granted by the city.
Arab groups have voiced outrage at the name and the notion of killing Iraqis for fun, and had asked that the city shut the game down immediately. Instead, a compromise was reached to change the game's name for next summer.
The game targets teenagers, said Aref Assaf, President of the New Jersey chapter of American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "(The game) tells them to kill Arabs and that it is legal, and you can have fun doing it," he told Reuters.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks by al Qaeda, which killed almost 3,000 people, Arab and Muslim Americans have suffered a spike in discriminatory acts.
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Oh yeah? Well this is how the Brits treat the disabled ...
Bathroom ordeal for disabled man
Michael Neno cannot use the bathroom at his own home
Quote:
| A man claims he is being forced to use public toilets to wash every day because there is no disabled access to the upstairs bathroom at his home.
Michael Neno, 39, from Goole, is confined to a wheelchair with Multiple Sclerosis and is restricted to living in just one room.
He has criticised East Riding council for not finding him better housing.
But the council said his case was being handled in accordance with their housing allocation policy.
Mr Neno, who has lived in Goole for two years, said: "I want to live in a house that I can get to the kitchen, I can get to the bathroom, to the bedroom and go indoors and outdoors."
Currently living in privately rented accommodation in Fourth Avenue, Mr Neno said improvements to his current home were not an option.
He claimed he is being forced to use the nearby Tesco facilities for a wash and said the council had told him there was no alternative housing currently available in Goole. |
|
Or maybe this is one regrettable case and not representative of how the British treat all disabled in their country? Maybe Axxxr's inflammatory statement "This is what Americans really think of Iraqi's and Arabs....... " is just as ignorant a proposition as claiming that this unfortunate example is evidence about how all disabled are treated in the UK?
I've been told not to make personal attacks ---
Quote:
| scotsboyuk wrote:
@Patrick-in-CA
I would like to ask you not to make personal attacks, it will do nothing save invite argument, not debate, but argument. |
|
Scotsboyuk, this isn't directed at you - it's for everyone who participates in these boards.
I'm an American - so someone telling me how I and all other Americans feel is a direct personal attack. It makes me feel just as you might have felt if you were a Brit and someone told you that all Brits don't give a damn about their disabled citizens and shoved that news clip in your face as some kind of proof.
And since I'm the only one being told to refrain from attacks when my posts become pointed --- yet Axxxr's slanderous and blatant attacks get left alone, his Ad Hominem attacks are encouraged, his ugly stereotypes and labeling in broad strokes are applauded --- I'm beginning to think this kind of logic and thought is acceptable as long as this method of attack is being used by someone you agree with and against someone you don't.
I am not perfect. I have said as much in past posts. But for those of you who sand up on a box of moral indignation when people stereotype, slander, label, and attack others not for their actions but for what group of people they belong to - I caution you not to be two faced and hypocritical. Do you really believe that the existence of such an arcade game in the United States is evidence of how Americans feel about Iraqi's and Arabs? If so - then the Brits treat all their disabled extremely poorly. But if you don't - then I hope you will tell Axxxr what you think of his post as you would tell me if I posted such a thing. Consistency is all I ask.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Anti-war lobby puts IRAQ war cost ticker on public agenda
The United States anti-war lobby has unveiled an anti-war billboard in the most prominent intersection in America - New York's Times Square. The billboard features a constantly updated clock counting the cost of the Iraq war. The clock started at $134.5 billion and is increasing at a rate of $177 million per day, $7.4 million per hour and $122,820 per minute.
The unveiling coincides with the release of a new analysis of the cost of the Iraq war, detailing how the $144.4 billion earmarked for Iraq might have funded multiple projects to make American safer at home and stronger abroad.
In terms of a simple effective mechanism for highlighting an issue, we think this is an outstanding success.
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Achtung! Heil Bush Baby
President Bush might well have told the American people in a nationwide TV address, that "war is neither inevitable nor imminent” and that “the use of the military is [his] last desire," but then again, this man also once said that, “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”
Since December 1998, Iraq has failed to allow any weapons inspectors into the country, after previous inspectors had found and destroyed thousands of litres of concentrated anthrax and botulinum. Bush alleges that since this time, Saddam Hussein may have been constructing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, threatening the Middle East and the whole world. Given Iraq's past record, Bush assumes, even without evidence from inspectors, that Hussein has been preparing weapons. Bush claims that “the worst weapons are in the hands of the world’s worst leaders,” (anyone spot the irony there?) and that Hussein must be disarmed.
However, there seems an odd desire to sabotage any peace talks with Hussein. On July 4 2003 Kofi Annan began negotiating with Iraq over the return of UN weapons inspectors, and they were on the verge of agreeing. On the next day, the Pentagon leaked its war plan to the New York Times: a Pentagon official revealed the preparation of "a major air campaign & land invasion to “topple President Saddam Hussein”. The talks immediately collapsed. was George Junior taking revenge for Saddam’s assassination attempt on his daddy in 1993? By the same logic Bush will nuke the Simpsons next. Does Bush needs a boost in his popularity? His own election four years ago was hardly well supported, and his war on terrorism hasn’t been a spectacular success.
Today, Bin Laden is still free, and the “war on terrorism” has achieved nothing (as the Bali bombing proves). At least Saddam Hussein a hated enemy got caught, who would have been located and bombed without bothering with peaceful negotiations, giving Bush a bit of good publicity. Yet, this is not about Iraq. This is not about weapons of mass destruction. This is not about terrorism, or Saddam, or corrupt regimes. This is about the United States of America becoming a fully fledged empire, seizing sole global authority and responsibility.
Bush is trying to make the USA the sole superpower in the world, able to impose their military and financial might over all nations. Why the complete disregard for an exit strategy from Iraq? Because the USA plan never to leave. Permanent military bases will be created, and from this position of strength, the US will attempt to dominate the Middle East. Containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. This is why they continued to push for war.
The National Security Strategy was published a week after the September 11th terrorist attacks. It sets out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities." Essentially it lays out a plan for permanent US military and economic domination of every region on the globe, undeterred by international treaty: "The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia." To ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which US troops are already deployed.
Bush seems determined to declare war on the arab world,and gain complete control of the region.As always his loyal friend is our beloved Prime Minister, who will support him in his bid for American global dominance
The German foreign minister compared “Dubya” to Hitler, and it seems that this is an accurate comparison: “HEIL BUSH!”
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Who's Counting the Dead in Iraq?
by Helen Thomas
Quote:
| Remember the enemy body counts during the Vietnam War? Some of those U.S. tabulations were highly exaggerated in an effort to show gains on the battlefield.
Well, we don't do that anymore.
The Pentagon has meticulously reported the American fatality toll in Iraq, now up to 286. That number includes 183 deaths from hostile fire since the start of the war. It also includes 148 dead since May 1 when President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. A Pentagon spokesman said that 1,105 U.S. service personnel have been wounded since the war began.
That kind of numerical precision doesn't apply throughout Iraq. Trying to find the death count among Iraqis has proved to be mission impossible.
I asked Pentagon officials: ''How many Iraqis have been killed in this war?'' The answers were given ''on background'' -- meaning that the Pentagon spokesmen requested anonymity. The spokesmen were honest. They clearly were following orders from the policymakers when they replied that the Iraqi fatality toll was simply not our concern.
The reply to my first Pentagon call was: ``We don't track them (Iraqi dead).''
Weeks later I pursued the question and was told by a Defense Department official: ''They don't count. They are not important,'' meaning the casualty figures.
I later asked for an explanation of why there has been no attempt to find out the number of Iraqi war dead. A Pentagon officer patiently responded: ``In combat operations, we have objectives. We don't have an objective to kill people. Our objective was to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq.''
''If the Iraqis laid down their arms,'' he added, ''there was no problem. But if we have to go in by force to kill them, the numbers don't make a difference. It's not something we are concerned with.'' He said that U.S. forces used precision weapons to minimize the casualties.
''We achieved our military objective. We did not count'' the enemy dead, he said. ``It would be difficult at best to determine who was killed when dealing with soldiers on the ground.''
Various news organizations have come up with estimates of Iraqi dead that range from 1,700 to 3,000 persons. The heavy tonnage of bombs dropped on Iraq probably raised the civilian death toll higher.
An official at the U.S. Army Center of Military History acknowledged that the question of enemy fatalities ``is a bit sensitive to our people. We just don't face up to how many people were lost.''
Books at the history center refer to 50,000 Americans killed in World War I and some 250,000 Americans in World War II. Germany lost 1.8 million soldiers in World War I, and, as our archenemy in World War II, lost about 3.25 million people.
We do know, however, that in the Vietnam War 58,198 Americans died -- and many thousands more Vietnamese.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked this week whether President Bush knows how many people were killed and wounded in Iraq -- ''not just Americans but the total people killed and wounded in Iraq since the beginning of the war.'' He dodged the question, simply saying that Bush is ``well aware of the sacrifices that our troops have made and the sacrifices that their families are making with our troops over there in Iraq.''
On March 18, two days before the U.S. invasion, Barbara Bush had an interview with ABC-TV's Diane Sawyer.
''Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen?'' Mrs. Bush declared. ''It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?'' Maybe she is right, but I don't think so.
If we do not know or care about the human cost of war for the winners and losers, America will be forever diminished in the eyes of the world. |
|
[addsig] |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
This bloke should have a little one on one with Mike Moore......
************************************************
T. Bubba Bechtol, part time City Councilman from Pensacola, Florida, was asked on a local live radio talk show the other day just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
'If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery cables will
save one American GI's life, then I have just two things to say:
"Red is positive, black is negative" '
|
kimcheeboi
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Abducted by hot blondes to Les
PM |
shows how stupid some people can be...
I'd like to hook his scrotum up to a car battery; if it'll save one iraqi child's life.
[addsig] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-08-24 15:48
