What went wrong with the US-allies relations?

[yehudi]

I would like to study the question of "What went wrong with the US-allies relations"?

Going beyond simplistic explanations and usual insults, of course


Here is a starting source, http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030331/EIRAQ/TPComment/Editorials


'There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish in the world without the sustained co-operation of its allies and friends in Canada and Europe."

This quote won't sound to many like the Bush administration; it sounds like the perspective of a California Democrat or an ideological critic of American unilateralism. But the quote is the White House's official viewpoint, as put forward last September in the ground-breaking National Security Strategy, which detailed the concept of pre-emptive action against America's enemies.

The document, which is a blueprint for U.S. foreign policy after Sept. 11, deals with the need for alliances among like-minded democratic countries as well as the emerging threat from failed states and from terrorist organizations backed by rogue states.

So what went wrong? How is it that the United States is fighting against Saddam Hussein with the active support of only the British military and an Australian contingent? And how is it that, not even two weeks into this war, there are growing doubts about the coalition's goals and strategy?

The fact that U.S. soldiers are virtually alone is not solely the United States' fault.

The fatal flaw of what might be called the peace camp -- led by France and Germany but also including millions globally who opposed invasion -- is that it has no strategy to confront what may be the world's most despicable regime. It has good intentions and invariably expresses repugnance for Mr. Hussein's tyranny, but it ultimately opposed almost any realistic policy aimed at consigning him to history, whether it was sanctions or the threat of war to force disarmament or war itself. A cult of impotence.

(.. cont.)

[yehudi]

The White House, however, made things worse by flubbing its leadership role in building alliances.

President George W. Bush didn't speak with French President Jacques Chirac for weeks as the United Nations desperately sought a compromise to the Iraq crisis. Secretary of State Colin Powell hunkered down in his Washington office instead of crisscrossing the globe. On the eve of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, secretary of state James Baker met Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz to try one last time to avoid war. Mr. Aziz is now deputy prime minister; he didn't meet Americans this time.

In the end, the current U.S. administration just may not have cared enough about building a real coalition, ignoring Mr. Bush's own statement in the security strategy document that "no nation can build a safer, better world alone." Hubris may have been common, too, as U.S. military planners prepared for war. Or so it now seems, amid greater opposition than expected from Mr. Hussein's forces.

Some of the setbacks -- the need to bring in more troops to deal with things such as overstretched supply lines -- probably will be temporary, including a pause in fighting. The lack of a northern front on anything near the scale of the attack from Kuwait in the south has been a problem, though not a fatal one. Critics might want to sheath their Vietnam comparisons for the time being; among other things, Saddam Hussein is no Ho Chi Minh.

But should the Pentagon be surprised about a suicide bombing, with more threatened? U.S. officials have warned for months that terrorists are likely to use such tactics in the United States. Why wouldn't they be used, then, against U.S. troops in the Middle East?

Likewise, other deadly actions such as the faking of surrenders and the use of human shields should have been better anticipated. Asymmetrical warfare, as it is known, is common when the militarily weak seek advantage -- consider the Palestinians and Israel.

We reluctantly supported the invasion of Iraq because of Mr. Hussein's continuing threat to international stability and his failure to live up to UN resolutions regarding disarmament. U.S. military might could end decades of repression within Iraq and set that country on a new course.

The Pentagon cannot now grow indignant about Iraqi tactics, as seemed the case yesterday as U.S. strategists fended off skepticism about battle plans. The strategists need to adjust as necessary.

The country's political leaders also should begin working to rebuild transatlantic alliances -- not for the fighting but for the period after the fighting. There will be a "reckoning," as British Prime Minister Tony Blair said last week. But Mr. Blair also is correct in advocating a major role for the UN, and possibly NATO, too, when the fighting is over.

Mr. Bush remains disturbingly unclear about how he envisions postwar Iraq to be governed. He should realize that a war fought largely alone should not be followed by a peace secured in the same fashion. That will only make his goals more difficult to achieve.

[Mediocrates]

Sadly though the EU stopped short of proposing anything constructive. They spent all their political capital getting to "NO" and didn't go any further. They may grit their teeth over te shape of postwar Iraq but they haven't brought anything to table except to obliquely grasp on to their share of the oil for food program.

Other than that I can't think of any concrete political or social plan they've brought other than throwing rocks at everything else.

As far as tactics - those are things learned in the field and you know it. The same day that fake surrendering cost American lives, an American gunner intentionally destroyed a Syrian van that dis not stop near a bridge and was considered a possible bomb threat. The regional commander said publically "That soldier did everything perfectly it is not his job to determine the quality of the field intelligence he gets." There is nothing you prime a field situation with vis a vis the logistics of handling surrenders.

As far as that indignant huffing, that's just Rummy doing his thing. No one is 'outraged'.

[yehudi]

.

About "rebuilding the transatlantic alliance", I have one thing to add: I do not think the problem started with the debate over wether to start a new Gulf war or not.

There was something before.

I think europeans (we) feel the US are acting more and more unilaterally and kind of "abandonning" us. There have been disputes on several occasions:
- when the Kyoto treaty failed, there was the feeling that the major earth-wide problem we have with global warming was not tackled. What is happening now is that Europe is going to take costly measures alone and they will be inefficient without a support of the entire world.
- disputes over trade barriers are not always in favor of the US, far from it. Like with the latest steel taxes imposed by Bush (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2889757.stm). In the french-speaking world there is a strong opposition to cultural goods becoming products like any other. Our feeling is that "culture is not a merchandise".
- globally I think there is the feeling that Europe is less and less important when the US take a decision. This lead us to just do the same. The US is now even actively undermining a fragile Europe (typically, the "old " vs."new" EU thing).

More and more the US are acting completely unilateral. The present war is a total delirium in my eyes (believe it or not I am still deeply unable to find how waging a war like this can in any way fight terrorism).

The present Bush administration is probably the worst in US-EU for a long long time. In my opinion, this guy really has a problem. The father was really competent in world affairs (even if I disagree with his policy, he was ambassador to the UN for a long time and had acquired skills), but the son is competent only in baseball (and talking with god probably).


I understand the trauma of the WTC was terrible, but running amok is the worst thing to do. Invading Afghanistan and placing and american-friendly administration was justified but invading Iraq is just a catastrophy. And every day the war last makes things worse.
Actually being wrong on the "Godspeed" war wish would have made me wrong but it would have been marvelous. I would have been very glad to apologize.


To get back to US-EU relation, there might be strongers logics at work that explain the divorce.
As for a possible beneficial (cough cough) effect of the war, I think it will considerably weaken the US and maybe push them to listen more to the rest of the world. But a weak world leader might very well turn out a bad thing as threats like WMD become more and more worrying.

And there are very strong convergence factors: linked economies, democracy, a relatively regulated free market economy... and probably even more.





PS : As for the present situation - France and Germany acting together it is really a wonderful thing. And I think the UK are doing a fine job too trying to calm down things. But allying with Russia is very very very disturbing
PS2 : I do not understand the expression "Godspeed" war. Does this mean trying to enroll God in the war?
.

[minusthejihad]

When the hell did independent countries like France and Germany decide to throw away their sovernty and become one anti-American nation called the EU?

Why do all European countries have to be pressured to play along? Why can't France be France and let Old Europe be their own countries? I know these are all rhetorical questions, but it just seems so funny when you break it down to the simplest form.

Also, I think every single day of this war is a step closer to a safer free world free of terrorism. Everyday, more militants get killed, more operatives get caught or exposed, and America and the UK find more proof of the connections between Saddam's regime and terrorism that Israel has been pointing out for so long. Simultaneously, Americans see every day, just what kind of demons Islamic fundamentalism produces, and understand what Israelis go through each day.

Iraq will hopefully be the first democratic Arab country soon!

[Mediocrates]

Why is an alliance important yehudi? What basis would one me maintained along? Why not just accept that your interests and ours diverge.

What value does such an alliance have?

[Revkha]

France, Germany and Canada can snub their nose and pout at the U.S. because they know that U.S. will be there for them if they were indeed severely threatened. The citizens of the U.S. are a caring, forgiving and generous people. And this generosity is given via the sweat of our brow (taxes). We have a pretty good track record of coming to the aid of countries in need. We will continue to do so. And the world knows it.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Revkha
France, Germany and Canada can snub their nose and pout at the U.S. because they know that U.S. will be there for them if they were indeed severely threatened. The citizens of the U.S. are a caring, forgiving and generous people. And this generosity is given via the sweat of our brow (taxes). We have a pretty good track record of coming to the aid of countries in need. We will continue to do so. And the world knows it.


Could you give us a list of such generous actions towards world oppresed countries. While doing it, could you also try to rule out the one where other motives such as business, or business, or business could be considered as the reason for the action.
Then can you also mention what is the source of what you call your taxes? I mean how did this money entered the country in the first place?

[Mediocrates]

Seriously - what's the upside to your alliance?

[mimil]

Originally posted by minusthejihad


Also, I think every single day of this war is a step closer to a safer free world free of terrorism. Everyday, more militants get killed, more operatives get caught or exposed, and America and the UK find more proof of the connections between Saddam's regime and terrorism that Israel has been pointing out for so long. Simultaneously, Americans see every day, just what kind of demons Islamic fundamentalism produces, and understand what Israelis go through each day.

Iraq will hopefully be the first democratic Arab country soon!

They got married and had many children and all countries lived happily ever after ...
ZZZZzzzz ZZZZzzzzzz ...
OK I guess he fell asleep let's go and blast Syria.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Could you give us a list of such generous actions towards world oppresed countries. While doing it, could you also try to rule out the one where other motives such as business, or business, or business could be considered as the reason for the action.
Then can you also mention what is the source of what you call your taxes? I mean how did this money entered the country in the first place?

Are you retarded? No, sorry, your not even out of high school obviously.

[minusthejihad]

OK, I'll explain.

1. Countries pursue interests, people pursue interests. It's not all done for righteous reasons. Can you name any countries that have lent even a 4th of our aid and military help for "righteous reasons". This is so stupid, it shouldn't be debatable.

2. Um, taxes. OK, let's start from square one. Ah, nevermind. If you are trying to imply that we export products around the world and import products and that taxes and tariffs acrue, then you are absolutely right!

[mimil]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Are you retarded? No, sorry, your not even out of high school obviously.

Perhaps you could answer my question. I'll be glad to spend some time and energy investigating and studying a little about the content of such a reply. Hopefully this will help me complete my high school curriculum.

[mimil]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
OK, I'll explain.

1. Countries pursue interests, people pursue interests. It's not all done for righteous reasons. Can you name any countries that have lent even a 4th of our aid and military help for "righteous reasons". This is so stupid, it shouldn't be debatable.

2. Um, taxes. OK, let's start from square one. Ah, nevermind. If you are trying to imply that we export products around the world and import products and that taxes and tariffs acrue, then you are absolutely right!

So then why do you mention about anything moral in your statment? Shall I quote again ?


The citizens of the U.S. are a caring, forgiving and generous people. And this generosity is given via the sweat of our brow (taxes). We have a pretty good track record of coming to the aid of countries in need. We will continue to do so. And the world knows it.

America as failed, exactly because of the reason you give, to create anything esle than business relations. If they think they will get support from such action and that such behaviour creates bonds, well, they might have a couple of surprises.

Just wondering, I don't know if you are married, but if so do you do it to have a hole to F and someone to clean your house, business being business, you could take care of the garden and repair the car in return. If you are powerfull enough, you could have some new Holes to F, and could hire someone to do the gardening. If so don't expect to be either loved or respected in return.

[JustPat]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense, but how is an alliance of 49 countries acting unilaterally?

[mimil]

Originally posted by JustPat
I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense, but how is an alliance of 49 countries acting unilaterally?

Could you provide the list ?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by mimil
Could you provide the list ?
Try the CentComm site. They have provided it.

[mimil]

u.s. exaggerates relative size of iraq alliance
by Jonathan Wright, Reuters - March 21, 2003

U.S. leaders say they are proud of the alliance they have assembled against Iraq, even in comparison with the broad alliance the United States assembled for the war to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a news conference on Thursday: "The coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991."

But the facts put out by the administration itself suggest otherwise.

In 1991 at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries.

In 2003 the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain and Australia. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries.

U.S. officials have named 33 countries which support the U.S. invasion of Iraq but this includes countries which are providing overflight and basing rights and which are giving only diplomatic or political support for the invasion.

President Bush said on Wednesday that 35 countries have chosen to "share the honor" of supporting the campaign but U.S. officials could not name more than the 33.

Do you know that France also authorized the US to flight over his territory?

Do you realize that many countries are pseudo-supporting to avoid economic "serious consequences"?

Do you consider the support of Japan as a relevant support? They support but do not want to be involved in any manner

Do you consider the support of Poland as a relevant one when they send 200 support troops?

Do you consider even Spain being a relevant support? Jose Maria Aznar his having some major political problems at home. He hasn’t send either many help in the gulf region.

As I already mentioned the support claimed by the US is similar to France saying they have the support of Monaco and maybe Belgium.

[cerulean]

Strangely, Canada has not yet come out in support of the war, yet it has troops and equipment that are engaged on the coalition side. I wonder how many other countries are in that odd category.

[mimil]

Originally posted by cerulean
Strangely, Canada has not yet come out in support of the war, yet it has troops and equipment that are engaged on the coalition side. I wonder how many other countries are in that odd category.

Canada is like the small fish always following the big shark and surviving from his left over. The day the fish decides to live the shark, it is about time the shark wonder what a hell he is doing.

[JustPat]

You didn't answer my question. How is a 49 member coalition acting unilaterally? Let's just include those who have troops on the ground. How is a multinational force a unilateral action?

[mimil]

Originally posted by JustPat
You didn't answer my question. How is a 49 member coalition acting unilaterally? Let's just include those who have troops on the ground. How is a multinational force a unilateral action?

Today in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot1_032803.html

May 23, 2002 against terrorism:
http://www.useu.be/Terrorism/EUResponse/May2302DefenseTerrorismCoalition.html

How many country in the world?
191 (Members of the UN)

Given the discussion in previous post, and the fact that the only super power is the one leading the event, maybe its hard to defend it is a totally unilateral action, but is also hard to talk about a multilateral intervention

[michael]

Well one simple exercsie would be to take away the US personnel and equipment and see what you have left.

Go one step further and take away the British forces. Now see what you have - less than 2000 Austalians.

That's a multilateral coalition???

Best to refer to it as it really is: an Anglo-American force.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by mimil
Today in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot1_032803.html

May 23, 2002 against terrorism:
http://www.useu.be/Terrorism/EUResponse/May2302DefenseTerrorismCoalition.html

How many country in the world?
191 (Members of the UN)

Given the discussion in previous post, and the fact that the only super power is the one leading the event, maybe its hard to defend it is a totally unilateral action, but is also hard to talk about a multilateral intervention
Based ln such faulty logic, the US is the only country left in the world. I guess we can pretty well do as we please.

Get real. Not only can the US not act independent of its allies, times like these show who our real friends are.

[Salim]

Let's have a look at some of these willing states:

Italy: no military support, only deployment of troops, and Berlusconi promised that Italian bases are not used for direct attacks, thats why he got serious political problems recently, when 1000 parachutists landed in Northern Iraq

Denmark: recently reduced his its small military support due to the opposition. But there is one submarine heading to the gulf.

Holland: no military support

Spain: is currently facing the biggest problems, because the vast majority is against the government. They sent 9000 soldiers for humanitarian tasks.

Poland: sent 200 special forces, 20% of the population support this war.

Ireland: recently changed its position, now it doesn't endorse this war any more.

Czechia: president Václav Havel will be retireing real soon, his
follower condems this war.

Croatia: provided the coalition with its airspace, but president Stipe Mesic condemned this war and called it illegal.

Slovenia: denied that it was supporting the war.

[mimil]

Originally posted by JustPat
Based ln such faulty logic, the US is the only country left in the world. I guess we can pretty well do as we please.

Get real. Not only can the US not act independent of its allies, times like these show who our real friends are.

I am not too sure I understand your first point.
As for the second, here is the latest list of US real friends:

Turkey, we can all see in the news, that is a really good friend of yours.

Afghanistan and Kuwait, that's great friends!! Quite recent one also.

Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Japan, Latvia, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Uganda, and Uzbekistan: Do you know where those friends live? Do you know them that well? How often have you visited them lately?

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, Poland, the good friends of Eastern Europe, long date friends also. Always in for a joke those ones.

We are left with, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain who just got a little upset with some very long term friends, with which they have had a long history of interactions, cold and warm times, and are trying to show them they are a little annoyed.



Not only can the US not act independent of its allies

How much do you believe in this ??

[JustPat]

Originally posted by mimil
I am not too sure I understand your first point.
Sorry, I cannot say it any plainer.


Originally posted by mimil
As for the second, here is the latest list of US real friends:
Turkey, we can all see in the news, that is a really good friend of yours. Afghanistan and Kuwait, that's great friends!! Quite recent one also. Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Japan, Latvia, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Uganda, and Uzbekistan: Do you know where those friends live? Do you know them that well? How often have you visited them lately? Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, Poland, the good friends of Eastern Europe, long date friends also. Always in for a joke those ones. We are left with, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain who just got a little upset with some very long term friends, with which they have had a long history of interactions, cold and warm times, and are trying to show them they are a little annoyed.
Quite a unilateral action!


Originally posted by mimil
How much do you believe in [the US not operating independent of its allies] ??
Completely

[Alfred]

Many countries supported the Allies during World War II but did not provide troops.

We do not need troops from other countries.

The more troops you have from foreign countries, the more complex are the logistical aspects.

The Brits have the best Army in Europe....therefore they are not a hindrance to our forces. They have many common technologies. They also speak English.

The Aussies are a light Spec Ops force only and can use our logistical assets.

Same for the Polish


The German military is becoming outdated.....and would prove a logistical problem.

The Russian military is logistically incompatible with the US.

The French are un-trustworthy. First off, they would leak our secrets to the enemy (like Kosovo)...and we would not trust them to be behind us. Additionally, they would have their own agenda and would go off on their own. They also do not speak a world recognized language:)

The Swedes and the Dutch.....well, they are good peace keepers...unless someone shoots at them.


Did I leave anyone out that you are concerned about?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
When the hell did independent countries like France and Germany decide to throw away their sovernty and become one anti-American nation called the EU? I'll do my best try to answer when I can. This question is not simple.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Why is an alliance important yehudi? What basis would one me maintained along? Why not just accept that your interests and ours diverge.

What value does such an alliance have?
Medio, this is the second time you are actually reducing my thread to absolutly nothing. Some kind of 'ground zero'.... This is really the "let's apply decisive force thing"

This is pretty shattering actually ...I have to think about it


But as a parallel I would ask you if you think the alliance between Israel and the US is usefull and how. If not, my whole "alliances between nations things" has to be reconsidered.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Alfred
The Swedes and the Dutch.....well, they are good peace keepers...unless someone shoots at them.
Also, I've heared these armies exist only between 9:00AM and 5:00PM. Working days only. Also, they consume HUGE vollumes of alcohol, which can become a bit of a logistical problem within "allied" arab dictatorships (like Arabia or Kuwait). These armies can hardly call the police, in case of an enemy attack outside working hours...

There hebrew term for such soldiers is "chocolate soldiers", who melt in the sun. (or "sugar soldiers", who disolve in water, in rain).


Originally posted by Alfred

Did I leave anyone out that you are concerned about?

Yes! us!!!
Rumer has it, that Israel helps the US in intelligence (we have our own spy sat), spy drones, avionics, elctronic warefare drones, smart bombs (like the AGM-142 popeye), close quarters warfare tips, and maybe even army courses!

[Alfred]

Ooooops...

You are right. Sorry.

Israel: Logistically compatible, excellent soldiers, and many speak English.

However, we cannot use them much for political reasons.

Musn't have every Moslem in the world up in arms you know:)

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Alfred
Ooooops...
You are right. Sorry.
Israel: Logistically compatible, excellent soldiers, and many speak English. However, we cannot use them much for political reasons. Musn't have every Moslem in the world up in arms you know:)
Muslims up in arms ... LOL!!! :D

[Revkha]

Originally posted by JustPat
.... times like these show who our real friends are.

So true, so true. and in the words of our first president -- "There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation" - George Washington

[Revkha]

Originally posted by mimil
They got married and had many children and all countries lived happily ever after ...
ZZZZzzzz ZZZZzzzzzz ...
OK I guess he fell asleep let's go and blast Syria.


Mimil -

Reading through some of your posts on the various threads is like looking at myself in the mirror when I was in my 20's. However I was far more confrontational than you are. A degree of skepticism is healthy. A constant dose of skepticism is hazardous to one's physical and mental well-being and prevents a measured/balanced review/analysis of information.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Revkha
Mimil -

Reading through some of your posts on the various threads is like looking at myself in the mirror when I was in my 20's. However I was far more confrontational than you are. A degree of skepticism is healthy. A constant dose of skepticism is hazardous to one's physical and mental well-being and prevents a measured/balanced review/analysis of information.

Dad is that you?
Dam it really sound like it :)
You got that right I am in my 20's. Moreover I agree with you that I am far to skeptic and that it does affect both my physical and mental health.
I am working on it, but still find it hard as I still discover how much I have been fooled and manipulated throughout my education. Wounds from the past are also hard to heal.
Hopefully it won’t turn into vinegar, but rather to good wine (even so you might not like this kind of wine). Thanks for your nice post.
Cheers !

[mimil]

Originally posted by Revkha
So true, so true. and in the words of our first president -- "There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation" - George Washington

Don't you the say in the end of your quote the total opposite of what you say in the begining?

I hate this quote specially beacuse it sounds like one of the following:

"There can be no greater error than to expect real favors from human to human"

"There can be no greater prospect than when you calculate upon real favors from human to human"

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Rumer has it, that Israel helps the US in intelligence (we have our own spy sat), spy drones, avionics, elctronic warefare drones, smart bombs (like the AGM-142 popeye), close quarters warfare tips, and maybe even army courses!


There is a US Aegis cruiser off the coast of Tel Aviv now coordinating missile defence among multiple Arrow-2 and Patriot batteries. The Aegis ship has already tracked a dummy launch from California, demonstrating coordinating telemetry from multiple earth stations & space.

[peacelover]

Are France and Germany not entitled to their opinions?

Should they be forced to want this war, even if they do not see it as being in the best interests of the world?

[Salim]

Yesturday i read quite an amusing comment whose main statement was that the USA have kind of "overeducated us", and now it's all coming back. :)
/naively waves the flag of peace

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Salim
Yesturday i read quite an amusing comment whose main statement was that the USA have kind of "overeducated us", and now it's all coming back. :)
/naively waves the flag of peace


No, I think the Germans have over-pacified themselves since WW2. I fully understand why war in general and the military in particular were targeted for intense re-education; but I think your leaders (past and present) have done too-good of a job. They have gone too far, and that can be a danger.

My trips to Germany have disapointed me a bit not because Germany wasn't a beautiful country, but because I saw that the German soul appeared to be missing in the people I spoke with.

Many on this board...being Jewish...probably think that is a good thing. With their history I can understand why they would want a neutered Germany.

But I think that Germany has greatness in her that could almost equal that of the British; if Germany regained its soul.

That is why I am so sorry that German has chosen France as her partner for the future. France is very militaristic yet has no muscle. They dream of past glory and expect Germany to provide the muscle to get them there.

Germany will suffer again with that approach.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Alfred
No, I think the Germans have over-pacified themselves since WW2. I fully understand why war in general and the military in particular were targeted for intense re-education; but I think your leaders (past and present) have done too-good of a job. They have gone too far, and that can be a danger.

My trips to Germany have disapointed me a bit not because Germany wasn't a beautiful country, but because I saw that the German soul appeared to be missing in the people I spoke with.

Many on this board...being Jewish...probably think that is a good thing. With their history I can understand why they would want a neutered Germany.

But I think that Germany has greatness in her that could almost equal that of the British; if Germany regained its soul.

That is why I am so sorry that German has chosen France as her partner for the future. France is very militaristic yet has no muscle. They dream of past glory and expect Germany to provide the muscle to get them there.

Germany will suffer again with that approach.

Some much Bull in a single post is almost frightening. Why don’t you go and see Mr Schroder to expose him your point of view? You guys lack of identify, where are the Germans of the past proud and fierce in the face of enemy, where are the Germans barbarian of the past? You guys really don’t know where you are in pain. For 50 years we have heard that this must be part of the past, today you say that they lack a little bit of aggressive pulse. All this because they found an ally in France.

Sure let’s go for it, let the German get an army back, let them split out of Europe, let the good time of the Reich come back and with it the central Europe empire. Let the French English and German start their legendary quarrels all over again. That will sure strengthen the American position. Such statement literally makes me puke.

You really sound like a Maoist. Threw the world and chaos to better arise as a leader.

[Alfred]

My goodness Mimil......relax, have a beer, think of Bill Clinton...


There is a difference between feeling confident and regaining your soul and pride in your country and invading other countries.

Americans and Brits love their country and salute their flag. They have pride....but they are mature cultures that do not invade other countries for plunder and greed (despite what you have been reading).

Germany can join that club too. But Germans shun their flag and have very little love for their country...at least the Germans I have met. That is pacification gone too far. You may end up with a backlash some day. Just as Hitler was a backlash to Versailles.

France is too egotistical and immature to join that club...as they would try to conquer the world if they "only had power." That may be a bit of an exaggeration but probably not too far off.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Alfred
My goodness Mimil......relax, have a beer, think of Bill Clinton...


That is surely supposed to be a joke. Or shall I understand again that if I am not with you I am against you. Of course let’s relax and leave world decision to people like you. Why don’t I go somewhere and grow cucumbers so that one day one mad leader like you can come and enroll me in a fight I never wished for.


Originally posted by Alfred
There is a difference between feeling confident and regaining your soul and pride in your country and invading other countries.

Americans and Brits love their country and salute their flag. They have pride....but they are mature cultures that do not invade other countries for plunder and greed (despite what you have been reading).

Germany can join that club too. But Germans shun their flag and have very little love for their country...at least the Germans I have met. That is pacification gone too far. You may end up with a backlash some day. Just as Hitler was a backlash to Versailles.

France is too egotistical and immature to join that club...as they would try to conquer the world if they "only had power." That may be a bit of an exaggeration but probably not too far off.

Again, the definition of moral values. Pride, the love of the flag, Germany used to love their flag, so did Japan, and so do America today.

Let’s have a look at what some people say of what you seem to call the noblest of all values:

pride [praýd]
noun
excessive self-esteem

Pride of face is obnoxious; pride of race is vulgar; but the worst pride is the pride of grace!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sin of pride is the sin of sins; in which all subsequent sins are included, as in their germ; they are but the unfolding of this one. -- Archbishop Trench.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people are proud of their humility. -- Beecher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pride requires very costly food -- its keeper's happiness. -- Colton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pride, of all others the most dangerous fault,
Proceeds from want of sense, or want of thought.
-- Roscommon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a man has a right to be proud of anything, it is of a good action done as it ought to be, without any base interest lurking at the bottom of it. -- Sterne.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is this paradox in pride, -- it makes some men ridiculous, but prevents others from becoming so. -- Colton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reality, there is perhaps no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, stifle it, mortify it as much as you please, it is still alive, and will every now and then peep out and show itself. -- Franklin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men say, "By pride the angels fell from heaven." By pride they reached a place from which they fell! -- Joaquin Miller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. -- Franklin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. -- Proverbs 16:8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he could only see how small a vacancy this death would leave, the proud man would think of less of the place he occupies in his lifetime. -- Legouve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think half the troubles for which men go slouching in prayer to God are caused by their intolerable pride. Many of our cares are but a morbid way of looking out our privileges. We let our blessings get mouldy, and then call them curses. -- Beecher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When pride and presumption walk before, shame and loss follow very closely. -- Louis XI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can there be pride in a contrite heart? Humility is the earliest fruit of religion. -- Hosea Ballou.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In beginning the world, if you don't wish to get chafed at every turn, fold up your pride carefully, put it under lock and key, and only let it out to air upon grand occasions. Pride is a garment all stiff brocade outside, all grating sackcloth on the side next to the skin. -- Lytton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pride is a vice, which pride itself inclines every man to find in others, and to overlook in himself. -- Dr. Johnson.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An avenging God closely follows the haughty. -- Seneca.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charity feeds the poor, so does pride; charity builds an hospital, so does pride. In this they differ: charity gives her glory to God; pride takes her glory from man. -- Quarles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proud man is forsaken of God. -- Plato.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pride is concerned with who is right.
Humility is concerned with what is right."

Ezra Taft Benson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“We are too prone to accept the activities in which we engage as accomplishments of our own, not giving the slightest amount of credit to the One who blessed us with health, strength, opportunities, inspiration, and the ability to achieve. We feel that we individually made the accomplishment through our own superior brain power or physical strength. What conceited fools we mortals are!”

Milton R. Hunter, BYU Speeches, Dec. 15, 1964, p. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pride is a very misunderstood sin, and many are sinning in ignorance."

Ezra Taft Benson (LDS Speaker's Sourcebook, Aspen Books 1991, page 340)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identity
"Having faith in the plan of salvation includes steadfastly refusing to be diverted from our true identities and responsibilities. In the brief season of our existence on earth we may serve as a plumber, professor, farmer, physician, mechanic, bookkeeper, or teacher. These are useful activities and honorable designations; but a temporary vocation is not reflective of our true identities. Matthew was a tax collector, Luke a physician, and Peter a fisherman. In a salvational sense, 'so what!'"
Neal A. Maxwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When we become satisfied with what we have accomplished, we begin to deteriorate... Let us not meet the fate of the bricklayer, who from a high scaffold stepped back to admire his work."

N. Eldon Tanner, "Walking in Obedience to the Commandments," Ensign, Feb. 1972, 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alfred]

Originally posted by mimil

Again, the definition of moral values. Pride, the love of the flag, Germany used to love their flag, so did Japan, and so do America today.



Yes Mimil, excessive pride is bad.....as attested in your list of quotations.

But you are being a zealot to think that all pride is bad. It is excessive pride that is bad. You can be proud of your accomplishments...proud of your children, your father, your mother, your country.

I mentioned "love" of country....you mention Nazi invasions. The two are not equal. I mention pride in your country and respect for the flag and you bring up Tojo.

The Germans feel the same way. You have made my argument, and they will never be great with this attitude. That is why they push for the EU....perhaps they can be "proud" of the EU, because they cannot be proud of thenselves.

That is why America and the UK are great countries. Because we love our country and have pride in our accomplishments...yet are humbled by our Judeo/Christian heritage. Our countries have made mistakes however.

But I dare you to find another country in history that has done more good and has controlled its power as much as has America. America is not perfect, and it has made errors. But far fewer than any other major power on this earth.

You have missionary zeal but you need a bit more seasoning and grey hair to make these broad accusations against my country. Believe it or not your opinion on many things will change in the next 25 years. I was the smartest man in the world at 20...yet each year I learn more and more.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Alfred
Yes Mimil, excessive pride is bad.....as attested in your list of quotations.

But you are being a zealot to think that all pride is bad. It is excessive pride that is bad. You can be proud of your accomplishments...proud of your children, your father, your mother, your country.

I mentioned "love" of country....you mention Nazi invasions. The two are not equal. I mention pride in your country and respect for the flag and you bring up Tojo.

The Germans feel the same way. You have made my argument, and they will never be great with this attitude. That is why they push for the EU....perhaps they can be "proud" of the EU, because they cannot be proud of thenselves.

That is why America and the UK are great countries. Because we love our country and have pride in our accomplishments...yet are humbled by our Judeo/Christian heritage. Our countries have made mistakes however.

But I dare you to find another country in history that has done more good and has controlled its power as much as has America. America is not perfect, and it has made errors. But far fewer than any other major power on this earth.

You have missionary zeal but you need a bit more seasoning and grey hair to make these broad accusations against my country. Believe it or not your opinion on many things will change in the next 25 years. I was the smartest man in the world at 20...yet each year I learn more and more.
You have no clue how good it feels when you make statement like this. Why? Because they are more moderate, with more compassion, with more compromise. Of course America is not all bad. Of course America did some great things. Shall I forgive and just be quiet when I feel they are not? I don't see the reason. Today I feel they are doing out of too much pride, and are doing great damage to a lot of noble institutions, bringing in bombastic concepts to make it look more relevant. I can assure you that the Germans are regaining faith in what they do, not because they agree with you, but because they oppose something they feel shouldn't have been done. Or I least it is how I see it.

As for being a missionary, well sure I need more gray hair, this period of history is surely helping to get my first ones. I also agree that my opinions will change over the course of years. And so what? Am I simply to acknowledge it and be quiet and refuse my right to speak and vote? Isn’t it a duty to use them in order to preserve them?

[michael]

Mimil makes the simple pont that it is the duty of concientious people everywhere to speak out. That is paritcularly true when those people, like ourselves, live in relatively free democracies , where in doing so we do not run the risk of serious personal harm. As states are not moral agents, it is the duty of their citizens to restrain state power and so reduce the suffering of its' victims.

Alfreds' challenge to find a country that "...has controlled its power as much as has America" is indeed difficult. There are only a few examples of such unrivalled military power as the US now has. However, the future is, as always, uncertain and the US is clearly entering a new phase in the maintainence of its global dominance. This will be marked by more Iraq-style crusades, in which the US will project its military and economic might wherever and whenever, it, and it alone, chooses.

As some of you will point out, this is nothing new in history. The US is not the first, and will probably not be the last, imperial power.

There is a however a new and hopeful development. As the New York Times put it (as best I can remember) "there are now 2 superpowers, the US and global public opinion."

[Alfred]

You are right that we are not finished...but you are wrong as to the reason we will continue with our "crusade."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
North Korea


Are the countries on our "watch" list, as they are the countries that have attacked us over the past 20 years. After years of fecklessness, we finally have the national will to fight back.

How many countries have attacked Singapore? Australia? France? Germany? The UK?

Because you have not been attacked as we have you do not understand our rage. And because you have not been attacked you seem to bring up endless reasons (other than the real one) why we are fighting this war.

Australia, with the Bali attack should be starting to understand our rage.

America has said "enough is enough" and the European do not like it. We have to say "sorry" and move on.

So, yes. There is more to come.

We will handle each of these countries in a different way. But the goal is to force them, if necessary, to stop tyring to kill Americans.

But the difference between America and most other powerful countries is that the only territory we ask for, from the countries we liberate, is enough ground to bury our men who died liberating these countries.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Alfred
You are right that we are not finished...but you are wrong as to the reason we will continue with our "crusade."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
North Korea


Are the countries on our "watch" list, as they are the countries that have attacked us over the past 20 years. After years of fecklessness, we finally have the national will to fight back.

How many countries have attacked Singapore? Australia? France? Germany? The UK?

Because you have not been attacked as we have you do not understand our rage. And because you have not been attacked you seem to bring up endless reasons (other than the real one) why we are fighting this war.

Australia, with the Bali attack should be starting to understand our rage.

America has said "enough is enough" and the European do not like it. We have to say "sorry" and move on.

So, yes. There is more to come.

We will handle each of these countries in a different way. But the goal is to force them, if necessary, to stop tyring to kill Americans.

But the difference between America and most other powerful countries is that the only territory we ask for, from the countries we liberate, is enough ground to bury our men who died liberating these countries.

What are you talking about? You mean French didn't have their share of terrorism? Singapore has never been threatened? Where do you live? Do you look at the world once in while or you are in an overprotected American cocoon?

You really believe such action will serve you? That it will stop them from attempting to kill Americans, you must be joking. The effect is the opposite one. It will create more incentive to fight them, and it will create more terrorism, it won't make it vanish. Especially when you take all those decision alone.

I don't know how you can be so confident, look outside your window, see how much support there is outside. Even if you don't agree with it, you must comply with the fact that continuing to deny it will not serve your purpose. You are losing a great deal of both credibility and compassion for what happened on 911. This only out of pride and because you fail to admit your media, governments and others institutions are keeping you away from realities

[Alfred]

Really? Which country outside of Japan has been attacking Singapore? And why are you not doing something about it?

The French did do something about Algeria....hundreds of thousands of dead Algerians can attest to that.

You are still in the dream world of "if we are nice they will leave us alone." That does not work when people are willing to die to kill you. You have to hit them first.

That is the lesson we learned Sept 11. Especially in the age of nukes in the hands of terrorists.

But relax. There is no way to convince you of this, so I will no longer try.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Alfred

But relax. There is no way to convince you of this, so I will no longer try.

Is that supposed to be the reason why the US is doing everything on its own?

Singapore has pressure from many surrounding Muslim countries. They have some issues with Malaysia ever since they became independent in the 60's.

France made a mess in Algeria, a mess that took more than 30 years to clean out. And the wounds are still open.

I believe that you are doing a mistake, because of your country position, far from everybody, apart from the rest, in the North-American continent, with no clear view of the realities of our world. Bombing everyone, what a big deal to you the consequences, you are so far away from everything, so overprotected. Well, then I cannot have any other position than telling you that the rest of us will suffer from your actions, and that therefore I more than strongly oppose them. You are creating the future threats, in the name of peace. When so many are trying to create bonds, you send bombs.

Don't expect flowers in return.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by mimil
When so many are trying to create bonds, you send bombs.


We are not bombing the whole world...

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
North Korea

These countries are NOT trying to send us flowers. They have killed, are killing, and will kill Amerians. What is so difficult to understand?

As far as the rest of the world? These are the only countries we are upset with. If you want to defend them then that says more about you than about the USA

If the "world" as you say, will hate us for defending ourselves, then there is nothing we can do about it. Thank God we are a big enough country to not have to follow what the world demands of us.

I am beginning to understand how the Israelies feel.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Alfred
We are not bombing the whole world...

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
North Korea

These countries are NOT trying to send us flowers. They have killed, are killing, and will kill Amerians. What is so difficult to understand?

As far as the rest of the world? These are the only countries we are upset with. If you want to defend them then that says more about you than about the USA

If the "world" as you say, will hate us for defending ourselves, then there is nothing we can do about it. Thank God we are a big enough country to not have to follow what the world demands of us.

I am beginning to understand how the Israelies feel.

Ever wonder why they do it? I don't defend those countries on a political level, I don't agree with your point, what is so hard to understand?
I am telling you that you are killing them right now, that you have attempted to kill them before and that you will also attempt to do so in the future. It will surely not stop them from attempting to do so in return. And here we are assuming that protection is indeed the motives. The world doesn’t hate you for attempting to defend yourselves, the world is blaming you for you poor judgement of a situation and the selfishness in which you have sunk in order to solve the issues. How hard is that to understand? The world is also questioning your motives, your agendas as it is called. You fake to ask the rest of us what we thought, most told you and you are upset that they didn't overwhelmingly gave you total support. It's a tough job to convince and to be a civilized country. And this why it is valuable. What is so hard to understand?

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil

You really believe such action will serve you? That it will stop them from attempting to kill Americans, you must be joking. The effect is the opposite one. It will create more incentive to fight them, and it will create more terrorism, it won't make it vanish.


Please prove this with any sources.

As far as I see it to this day:

1. Israel has only lessoned the frequency of terrorism since the start of the IDF operations into the territories

2. America has lessoned our frequency of terrorism since 9/11. Remember, 9/11 was not the first attack against America by Muslim fundamentalists. Please remember 2 embassy bombings, the Cole attack, the Marine barracks in Lebanon and other places, the first trade center attacks.

Now please show me at least 2 examples where a nation fought back instead of appeased (like, say France - seriously, nothing personal) that resulted in more terrorism against their people.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Ever wonder why they do it? I don't defend those countries on a political level, I don't agree with your point, what is so hard to understand?
I am telling you that you are killing them right now, that you have attempted to kill them before and that you will also attempt to do so in the future. It will surely not stop them from attempting to do so in return. And here we are assuming that protection is indeed the motives. The world doesn’t hate you for attempting to defend yourselves, the world is blaming you for you poor judgement of a situation and the selfishness in which you have sunk in order to solve the issues. How hard is that to understand? The world is also questioning your motives, your agendas as it is called. You fake to ask the rest of us what we thought, most told you and you are upset that they didn't overwhelmingly gave you total support. It's a tough job to convince and to be a civilized country. And this why it is valuable. What is so hard to understand?

I know this is the oldest cliche, but "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Point is, I wouldn't blame another country for doing the same in ourt position. After all, you don't live here, you haven't lost friends and family to terrorism, and you surely haven't had the daily terror warnings and have had to change your whole life around because a bunch of fools have called for Jihad against your country. If they had, you would be in a different situation to judge. But you haven't and no offense, to you or the world, but it doesn't matter what you think. It matters to the people who are in the crosshairs and their vantage isn't only different, its more prerogatived.

[mimil]

I have had my good share of lost of life, even so it hasn't been through terrorism. And I do understand the reaction toward the threat. Probably I do not have any idea what it feels like to be in Israel today living with that threat upon your head as a Damocles’ sword. I simply question the motives and the relevance of the applied remedy. What is the motive, vengeance? Reprisal? Security? From previous discussions I have come to agree that the threat must be removed, but can't agree with the way it was done.

Again, what I do question most is the cause to effect factor. The threat is there but the causes are hardly addressed. It's too late anyway for this war, but it's not too late for the others. As Elk mentioned, someone somewhere will have to make a move towards a peace and reconciliation. The more we solve the issue through war, the more this time will be long to arrive. What I am also most uncomfortable with is the way we are forced to believe to the exposed reason for this conflict.

I know most of you think my ideas reflect pure weakness that is irrelevant to the actual situation. How did we get to that situation in the first place? How can we avoid getting there in the future? With more Wars? By killing thousands and assuming that possibly among the lot there is a possible terrorist?

Why can’t the Iraqi people say the exact same thing after the war.


Point is, I wouldn't blame another country for doing the same in ourt position. After all, you don't live here, you haven't lost friends and family to terrorism, and you surely haven't had the daily terror warnings and have had to change your whole life around because a bunch of fools have called for Jihad against your country. If they had, you would be in a different situation to judge. But you haven't and no offense, to you or the world, but it doesn't matter what you think. It matters to the people who are in the crosshairs and their vantage isn't only different, its more prerogatived.


What will you tell them, hey, we are not to blame, Saddam is. Basically you would give them the same answer I just gave you.

As for the justification of this war, I seriously doubt that the US will attempt any military intervention in North Korea, even so they also represent a far greater threat to the US. Terrorism is a tool used to achieve other goals that internal security.

Next time such events come around, avoid having too dirty hands and maybe you’ll find a way out different that burning a nation to ash.

[michael]

Originally posted by minusthejihad

Now please show me at least 2 examples where a nation fought back instead of appeased (like, say France - seriously, nothing personal) that resulted in more terrorism against their people.

No hard task.

Since you mentioned the French - Algerian nationalists eventually took the fight to mainland France with metro bombings and the like, only after a long and bloody fight in Algeria itself. Guess what happened after the French left Algeria? - no more bombs on the metro.

Libya: 1-2 years after the US bombing of Tunis we had Lockerbie and the bombing of the Pan Am flight.

Nicaragua: after US funding of the contra rebels who attacked civilian targets, Nicaragua fought back with the law. It took the US to the World Court and won. How did the US respond - with increased support to the contra terrorists (Iran-contra scandal).



The attacks in New York are in interesting from the point of view of "Ever wonder why they do it? -(mimil)"

The rhetoric is that " they hate our freedoms".

Just remember that these are the same people who fought against the Russians in Afganistan. Imagine the reponse if the former USSR had come out and said the mujahideen was fighting the USSR because "they hate our freedoms".

As usual, there are some legitimate grievences lurking at the bottom of these fanatical acts. The reason for the attacks in New York were made perfectly clear a decade earlier by Osama bin Laden, when he declared the US the new enemy for stationing troops in Suadi Arabia and supporting un-Islamic regimes in the region. New US bases in Iraq and a US installed Govt is unlikely to reduce the growing influence of these groups.



I'm quite curious about the claim by Alfred that N. Korea and Libya "are killing, and will kill Amerians". When did this recently happen?

And does this mean that since Kuwaitis are killing US soldiers based in Kuwait (2 or 3 attacks in the last 6 months), that they can expect the same?

[elke]

But Lybia is the perfect example of what happens when adequate force is applied to punish terrorism - it stopped right after the 1986 (I think) raid on Lybia. The lesson learned is that terrorism cannot thrive without support from governmental entities. Ergo, convince governments of countries that terrorism is a bad idea, that it will invite retribution, and it magically diminishes or disappears.

In Kuwait, the government is jumping through hoops to prevent and arrest the terrorists - as is the general population, seemingly.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by elke
But Lybia is the perfect example of what happens when adequate force is applied to punish terrorism - it stopped right after the 1986 (I think) raid on Lybia. The lesson learned is that terrorism cannot thrive without support from governmental entities. Ergo, convince governments of countries that terrorism is a bad idea, that it will invite retribution, and it magically diminishes or disappears.

In Kuwait, the government is jumping through hoops to prevent and arrest the terrorists - as is the general population, seemingly.
Most people have no idea what was in store for Uncle Mo. We had Seals off the beach whose mission was to capture him and take him to the US to stand trial as a terrorist. Intel said he wasn't at the beach. The bombing of his house was Plan B. Plan B was quite effective, including the leverage in the Lockerbie incident.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by elke
The lesson learned is that terrorism cannot thrive without support from governmental entities. Ergo, convince governments of countries that terrorism is a bad idea, that it will invite retribution, and it magically diminishes or disappears. Magical isn't it ?

This is the crux of the matter actually. To quote but one exemple, in Europe we've already had non-governental terrorism (brigades rouges). These where guided by (revolutionnary communist) ideology. So the assumption is wrong.

Tomorow's terrorism will still be based on ideology, and it will use Weapons of Mass Destruction like biologocal weapons. I have a friend working on that kind of research and she told me how easy it is now to mix "fièvre thyphoide" with "variole" and "peste". It will be much easier in the years to come.


God help us all (or whomever). You put the world into a very very dire situation with this war. Very very bad.

[elke]

Originally posted by yehudi
Magical isn't it ?

This is the crux of the matter actually. To quote but one exemple, in Europe we've already had non-governental terrorism (brigades rouges). These where guided by (revolutionnary communist) ideology. So the assumption is wrong.

Tomorow's terrorism will still be based on ideology, and it will use Weapons of Mass Destruction like biologocal weapons. I have a friend working on that kind of research and she told me how easy it is now to mix "fièvre thyphoide" with "variole" and "peste". It will be much easier in the years to come.


God help us all (or whomever). You put the world into a very very dire situation with this war. Very very bad.

US has had its share of domestic terrorism also, albeit not as much as in Europe. To some degree, you are right: there would be "home-grown" terrorism, so long as there are wackos who believe that the end justifies the means.

However, the European domestic terrorists have acted in cahootz with the state-sponsored ones, such as the German Communists with PFLP in the '70s. There is also some evidence that Timothy McVeigh was somehow involved with the MidEast terrorists. What it boils down to is this: we can cross our arms and say that "there would be terrorism no matter what we do", - and do nothing; or we can fight what we can, and destroy the infrastructure of the terorism to the best of our ability. If nothing else, the latter would diminish the frequency - and possibly, the severity as well, - of the terrorism to come.

The fact of the matter is that there are no "good choices" in this. Regardless of what is believed to be at the very root of the problem, the real root is in the place where human psychology and morality converge: namely, the psychopatic behavior exhibited by the terrorists. To date, we do not have a magic pill to give to psychopaths, in order to make them into normal human beings - or indeed, even to predict who is and who isn't one prior to their actions. However, we can minimize their technical abilities by destroying the training camps, the potential WMD that they can acquire, and the money supply that they must have, which comes from governments who sponsor them.

[mimil]

Originally posted by elke
However, we can minimize their technical abilities by destroying the training camps, the potential WMD that they can acquire, and the money supply that they must have, which comes from governments who sponsor them.

Yes, but we can also simply deduct from the current actions that we are not addressing the issue, we are just attempting to cut a link which is a resilient one. As was mentioned, there is little chance that the military action will continue in the Middle East. The current actions are also serious of consequences, especially because they spread the seeds for future terrorism.

Who is the enemy of this war? Saddam alone? Surely not, what seems more likely is that it is the Arab in general, not to say the Muslim world or even Islam, not that small corpuscle of wako named terrorists. It seems that everything is slowly drifting into one single meaning. It would be interesting to compare the amount of dead who did represent a threat to the amount of the overall death toll since 911.

What kind of answer do we propose, kill all the Arabs? Kill all the Islamic? Insane, such an argument is purely insane. First because it cannot be achieve, secondly because an attempt to achieve it will only create the incentive for other to try the same in reprisal.

Israel, and I have come to understand it better is the probably the current hottest point on the planet. Jewish people have a long history of exile and persecution. What do we see arising from it, disdain at best, hatred toward the Arab, mix feelings toward Europe and disdain toward the rest of the world. Israel has to realize something, the Arab won’t disappear, they won’t vanish one day, they won’t change their religion, and they will not change their culture. With this hypothesis in mind, how can we possibly find hatred as the answer to the issue?

Furthermore, it is an impossible dream to attempt to keep technology to a group of nation that is supposed to work together. First it has failed to be proved right has the said nations never come to agree in the first place. The world will always be multi-polar, people trying to protect their interest, with the spread of technology we will not be able to prevent WMD from popping up all over the planet.

We have to find alternatives, and those alternatives are surely not to be expected from politicians. Their job is to protect a nation’s interest, it is totally incompatible with human interactions issue that we have faced, are facing, and will face if the people, and not the leaders, fail to address them.

Are we to wait until all other alternatives are exhausted before we start acting wisely.

[elke]

It is always tempting to simplify situations, in order to "take them in" and understand what is happening. However, when it's done, it is important to realize that the very act of simplifying makes the analysis incomplete, and therefore - inaccurate.

Operation Iraqi Freedom will not stop terrorism across the globe. In and of itself, it will remove one of the regimes that sponsors terrorism, has the capability to sell/give away WMD, and allow Iraqis to live like human beings, being in control of their own fate. However, you are right - it will not solve the problem of terrorism once and for all. I don't think anyone believes that.

However, it well may start a domino effect throughout the world that reduces the global problem of terrorism to the level of street crime. Ultimately, that's the real goal of this enterprise.

[Northlander]

In and of itself, it will remove one of the regimes that sponsors terrorism, has the capability to sell/give away WMD, and allow Iraqis to live like human beings, being in control of their own fate.

That you do not know yet.


However, it well may start a domino effect throughout the world that reduces the global problem of terrorism to the level of street crime. Ultimately, that's the real goal of this enterprise.

That is your goal. Maybe not Bush´s goal. Also the domino effect is very uncertain. It builds on the assumption that the terrorists get the message that USA is not to be messed with. I think they did know that before 9-11 too and that did not deter them. They managed without Saddam earlier and they will manage without him now.

Its even possible that there will be a huge increase in new people signing up for Al-qaeda or newer organisations that you have not yet seen. Much harder to defend against that.

Btw, any news on the real brains behind 9-11? Found them yet?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by elke
US has had its share of domestic terrorism also, albeit not as much as in Europe. To some degree, you are right: there would be "home-grown" terrorism, so long as there are wackos who believe that the end justifies the means. About the "wacko who believe that the end justifies the means", I guess you know who I'm thinking of. What is done now in Iraq is exactly an example of what should never be commited in the name of Liberty.


...And it is a very good thing France is saying 'no' to this war because it shows the developping world that western world values are not about "killing people by the thousands", even to get a dictator down, or fight terrorism or impose democracy or 'get the oil'. (War goals are unclear anyway.)

I guess you could agree on the beginning of my statement, Elke. At least western countries opposed to war are safekeeping the values I hope we share.



Originally posted by elke
The fact of the matter is that there are no "good choices" in this. Regardless of what is believed to be at the very root of the problem, the real root is in the place where human psychology and morality converge: namely, the psychopatic behavior exhibited by the terrorists.
Yes "there are no good choices", not even mine. But some choices are worst than others.


I could agree with you and concede this war might be very powerful indeed dissuading state terrorism (though that still be argued - e.g. N. Korea or what Northlander said).


But even you could admit that it worsens gravely the problem of "non-state terrorism", since for millions 'to be a hero' now is to kill americans by any means. (add that up with Homemade chemical/biological WMD).

Yes I said a 'hero', not a 'psychopath'. 99% of the time psychopathology is a totally erroneous concept to understand terrorism.


And worst of all, after the next big terrorist act against americans/brits/australians there is gonna be dancing in the streets again.

It will just be a more worldwide event now.

.

[michael]

Originally posted by elke
But Lybia is the perfect example of what happens when adequate force is applied to punish terrorism - it stopped right after the 1986 (I think) raid on Lybia.

Sorry, you're mistaken.

Lockerbie happened after the US bombing of Libya.

That was near the end of Ronald Reagans' "War on Terror" which was declared in 1981 (yes, the latest W.O.T. isn't even an original idea).

[michael]

Originally posted by elke


There is also some evidence that Timothy McVeigh was somehow involved with the MidEast terrorists.

What it boils down to is this: we can cross our arms and say that "there would be terrorism no matter what we do", - and do nothing; or we can fight what we can, and destroy the infrastructure of the terorism to the best of our ability. If nothing else, the latter would diminish the frequency - and possibly, the severity as well, - of the terrorism to come.

However, we can minimize their technical abilities by destroying the training camps, the potential WMD that they can acquire, and the money supply that they must have, which comes from governments who sponsor them.

There's nothing like a good conspiracy theory, and the alleged link between McVeigh and Iraq is one of them. This has been completely debunked but raised its head again after Sept 11. One of the main charges is that McVeigh meet with the Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines. Just one small problem - he never visited the Phillipines. Nichols did once.
Seems you can't keep a good conspiracy theory down!

As for "diminishing..frequency", and to "minimise their technical abilities" these are absolutely necessary.

But to take this suggestion seriously, this needs to be applied where ever, and to whom ever, this is true. The recent record suggests that Western Govt. responses to terrorism are very limited, mostly to those percieved as enemy states. The often far greater use of terrorism by the powerful, is excluded from such suggestions. Nicaragua is a clear example of this and more recently, Colombia, where terrorism and human rights abuse are mounting, along with increasing US military aid to the Colombian Govt. This is often claimed as a responsive measure, but studies of aid patterns have shown a strong and positive correlation between US aid to repressive regimes and human rights abuses.

The idea of limiting technical abilites is fair enough. But, again, if we are serious we have to recognise that the 5 biggest arms traders are the 5 members of the Security Council, with the US the giant among them with almost 50% of the worlds arms trade.

The most dangerous weapons require very high levels of technical sophistication, mostly available from Western countries and companies. Take Iraq - it sourced its' biological materials, in vast quantities, from the US, Britian amd Germany.

International agreement on limiting the availablilty of such technology would help to limit "technical abilities", but that is proving difficult. An agreement to strengthen and implement the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention - effectively blocked in July 2001 by the US. Chemical Weapons convention? - signed but the US is continuing to develop new agents, in violation of the treaty.
Nuclear NPT - one of the main, and seeminlgy ignored parts of the non-Proliferation Treaty, is that all member states are to move towards complete nuclear disarmament. This would surely help - if it ever happens.
On this point it is interesting to note the response to Pakistan (military dictatorship) over its recent nuclear brinkmanship with India - an exulted position in the coalition against what... ?? - terror, of course!

So Elke makes some very valid points, ones that, if taken seriously by everyone, really would make a difference.

This leaves the one factor most stubbornly ignored, for very good reason, by the 'there is no reason' brigade. That is, the real (and perceived) injustices that are the fuel of support for many of these terrroist acts.
Some call this 'apologetics', but it is just a question of sanity. If something happens, you naturally ask why to see how it may be prevented in the future, particlarly when "technical abilites" promise even worse atrocities than those of the past.

[yehudi]

just a remark : the thread is very interesting but maybe we should move our conversation elsewhere.

the thread subject is : "What went wrong with the US-allies relations?", so the topic we are tackling now should be someplace else (be it only for the sake of people wanting to state their opinion who wouldn't find us).

Or there's already an existing thread somewhere we should read and amend?.

[elke]

Originally posted by michael
There's nothing like a good conspiracy theory, and the alleged link between McVeigh and Iraq is one of them. This has been completely debunked but raised its head again after Sept 11. One of the main charges is that McVeigh meet with the Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines. Just one small problem - he never visited the Phillipines. Nichols did once.
Seems you can't keep a good conspiracy theory down!

Actually, the ties I was referring to had nothing specific to do with Iraq or Abu Sayyef. There was a TV program on one of our "Discovery" channels (science and humanities, non-fiction) that described some meetings Mr. McVeigh has allegedly had with some MidEastern characters. The purpose of the meetings and the identity of the characters were not revealed in the program.


As for "diminishing..frequency", and to "minimise their technical abilities" these are absolutely necessary.

But to take this suggestion seriously, this needs to be applied where ever, and to whom ever, this is true. The recent record suggests that Western Govt. responses to terrorism are very limited, mostly to those percieved as enemy states. The often far greater use of terrorism by the powerful, is excluded from such suggestions. Nicaragua is a clear example of this and more recently, Colombia, where terrorism and human rights abuse are mounting, along with increasing US military aid to the Colombian Govt. This is often claimed as a responsive measure, but studies of aid patterns have shown a strong and positive correlation between US aid to repressive regimes and human rights abuses.

The idea of limiting technical abilites is fair enough. But, again, if we are serious we have to recognise that the 5 biggest arms traders are the 5 members of the Security Council, with the US the giant among them with almost 50% of the worlds arms trade.

The most dangerous weapons require very high levels of technical sophistication, mostly available from Western countries and companies. Take Iraq - it sourced its' biological materials, in vast quantities, from the US, Britian amd Germany.

International agreement on limiting the availablilty of such technology would help to limit "technical abilities", but that is proving difficult. An agreement to strengthen and implement the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention - effectively blocked in July 2001 by the US. Chemical Weapons convention? - signed but the US is continuing to develop new agents, in violation of the treaty.
Nuclear NPT - one of the main, and seeminlgy ignored parts of the non-Proliferation Treaty, is that all member states are to move towards complete nuclear disarmament. This would surely help - if it ever happens.
On this point it is interesting to note the response to Pakistan (military dictatorship) over its recent nuclear brinkmanship with India - an exulted position in the coalition against what... ?? - terror, of course!

So Elke makes some very valid points, ones that, if taken seriously by everyone, really would make a difference.

This leaves the one factor most stubbornly ignored, for very good reason, by the 'there is no reason' brigade. That is, the real (and perceived) injustices that are the fuel of support for many of these terrroist acts.
Some call this 'apologetics', but it is just a question of sanity. If something happens, you naturally ask why to see how it may be prevented in the future, particlarly when "technical abilites" promise even worse atrocities than those of the past.

IMO, you are right in that this process needs to be world-wide, in order to be effective. The fact is, though, that "a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step". To take that analogy further, that journey may involve various modes of transportation, from walking to super-sonic jets.

The war in Iraq is the equivalent of the jet: it is inprecise (even with the precision weapons, many people have died in the process); it is costly, and it will only get you so far. However, it will take you the farthest in the shortest period of time.

The next step is to rebuild Iraq into a free, prosperous country, living in dignity and peace, free from bloody internecine conflicts. If this is accomplished, many things will fall into place: for example, this may embolden the Iranian pro-Democracy movement, which seems to be gaining strength and voice at grassroots level, to take the reigns of government from the Mullahs. It may also help the currently feeble Egyptian pro-Democracy movement to grow in size and power, and may germinate similar movements across the Arab/Muslim world, where they do not currently exist (or exist underground, to where we don't even hear about them).

As far as the Security Council powers are concerned: hopefully, they have learned the lesson that "the enemy of my enemy is not neccessarily my friend". Hopefully, the experience of the past is used to better the future, and no despotic government will be fully welcomed by any of the Western democracies, with no strings attached. It may be wishful thinking, but I firmly believe in what my signature states: namely, that "history tells us that men and nations behave wisely, once they have exhausted all other alternatives". I believe we have exhausted all other alternatives now.

[elke]

Originally posted by yehudi
About the "wacko who believe that the end justifies the means", I guess you know who I'm thinking of. What is done now in Iraq is exactly an example of what should never be commited in the name of Liberty.

...And it is a very good thing France is saying 'no' to this war because it shows the developping world that western world values are not about "killing people by the thousands", even to get a dictator down, or fight terrorism or impose democracy or 'get the oil'. (War goals are unclear anyway.)

I guess you could agree on the beginning of my statement, Elke. At least western countries opposed to war are safekeeping the values I hope we share.

Yes "there are no good choices", not even mine. But some choices [B]are worst than others.

I could agree with you and concede this war might be very powerful indeed dissuading state terrorism (though that still be argued - e.g. N. Korea or what Northlander said).

But even you could admit that it worsens gravely the problem of "non-state terrorism", since for millions 'to be a hero' now is to kill americans by any means. (add that up with Homemade chemical/biological WMD).

Kim Jong Il flaps his gums, but not much comes out. Apparently, it's not even clear whether he actually has the nukes or not.

One of the lessons of history is that acquisition of liberty is never bloodless. There has never been a revolution that did not claim lives, not even economic (such as Industrial Revolution and IT). It seems to me that the stance taken by the French, Russians, and Germans can indeed be called "appeasement", - or, in other words, "not in my back yard". Therefore, I am not so sure that these countries "preserve our values": these countries do not wish to defend them.


Yes I said a 'hero', not a 'psychopath'. 99% of the time psychopathology is a totally erroneous concept to understand terrorism.

And worst of all, after the next big terrorist act against americans/brits/australians there is gonna be dancing in the streets again.

It will just be a more worldwide event now.

I disagree with this, heartily. I think psychopathology has a lot more to do with terrorism than is currently realized. Wounded pride and resentment are part of the psychological makeup of human beings everywhere, yet terrorism as a response is not.

[Johnny Yuma]

Reports are out that what are thought to be mobile bio-chemical labs were built by the French. The underground complex, where the evidence of weapons grade plutonium was found, was built by the Russians over the last five years.

The equipment is easily explained, according to Hans Blix. It is nothing more than a food preparation vehicle. :confused: What kind of delicacies need to be handled by remotely operated pulleys? French cuisine?

According to investigators, it has brine pumps and heating and cooling devices. Perhaps it is a mobile shrimp farming operation? :rolleyes:

Perhaps the undergound complex where the plutonium was found is really a factory for making smoke detectors, or sensors used for finding fractures in oil pipelines? Or, maybe, it was a meat processing plant? Or, maybe, it is exactly what it appears to be; a place where Iraq had moved the plutonium to after it was removed from the reactor prior to Israels' bombing, and the very place it was pursuing its nuclear weapons program? :eek:

The evidence mounts, as to why methinks the lady doth protest too much...

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
[B]Reports are out that what are thought to be Try to be very very precise with this Johnny.

This idea of france installing biological warfare material in Iraq under embargo is a tremendeous accusation.

If you are proved wrong with that will you broadcast your apologies? Will they really compensate for the harm you are doing now?

.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
Try to be very very precise with this Johnny.

This idea of france installing biological warfare material in Iraq under embargo is a tremendeous accusation.

If you are proved wrong with that will you broadcast your apologies? Will they really compensate for the harm you are doing now?

.

You're right. All fifteen of the vehicles are not bio-chem labs. We all know what a good sense of humor the French have. They saved Jerry Lewis' career, after all.

The evidence will show that they are actually mobile amusement trucks. The area behind the false wall is filled with stuffed animals and the occasional Saddam Hussein plush doll. The trucks are then taken out to remote areas where bored soldiers operate the pulley systems to try and pick up the plush toys and drop them into the bins. If they manage to get it in the right bin, the toy comes sliding down a chute and into the hands of the joy-filled soldier.

Sometimes, these vehicles are taken on the road to the cities and towns where they are having street festivals, and occasionaly, to schools for the amusement of children; but not to those children that have been incarcerated for not joining the Baa'th party. They reserve special amusements, for them.....

Most everyone is familiar with Russian vodka. Seeing as how alcohol is looked on with disdane in the Middle East. It was a secret underground potato farm and distillery. The evidence of residual radiation was simply to stave off mold and fungi from the harvested potatos, until they could be used in the production of spirits.

So... I humbly apologize for my misinterpretation of the apparent dual-use facilities and vehicles.

[elke]

Originally posted by Northlander

That you do not know yet.

No, I do not. However, "nothing ventured, nothing gained". One of the facts of life is Newton's Law of Inertia "A body in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by another body". This works in physics, and also in human affairs: left to his own devices, Hussein's stepping down and dismantling the Baath apparatus of his own accord, has roughly the same probability quotient as the proverbial prisoner actually escaping through the wall of his prison cell.


That is your goal. Maybe not Bush´s goal. Also the domino effect is very uncertain. It builds on the assumption that the terrorists get the message that USA is not to be messed with. I think they did know that before 9-11 too and that did not deter them. They managed without Saddam earlier and they will manage without him now. Its even possible that there will be a huge increase in new people signing up for Al-qaeda or newer organisations that you have not yet seen. Much harder to defend against that.


Maybe it's not Bush's goal; however, he seems to be accomplishing just that regardless. Incidentally, what is the evidence that it isn't his goal?

Saddam is a peg in a wheel. There is plenty more to do, nothing surer. I don't know where you are getting the idea that anyone thinks that it's over once Hussein is gone?

Nothing is certain in this world, we have to act based on the best information available, in the best way we can think of. It doesn't mean that mistakes will not be made - we have made plenty in the past. However, by far the stupidest thing we can do is nothing .

Threats need to be handled as they appear. No one can protect against the unknown. That's the daftest argument yet, if you can even call it that. Al Qaida - or other organizations like it, - will get theirs. All in its good time.


Btw, any news on the real brains behind 9-11? Found them yet?

Yes, apparently the "big brain" in custody is singing, which is why we haven't seen any attacks on US soil. Where have you been that you don't know that??? :confused:

[Alfred]

I went to the local Salt Lake City Gun Show today...

What caught my eye was almost too good to be true....

I was shocked, pleased and almost euphoric...

It was wonderful.

Before my eyes lay the manifestation of all I have been saying for months.

Before my eyes was the culmination of the ages...

I bought it and eagerly went outside...

Alone, in an almost spiritual manner I knelt....

I cleaned and purified the sacred home of my new joy...

Reverently I placed it upon its sacred mantle...

I stood back and admired it...

It said everything I could say...

For the world to see,
I leave nothing to chance
My new sticker proclaimed.....

"First Iraq then France"

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by yehudi
Try to be very very precise with this Johnny.

This idea of france installing biological warfare material in Iraq under embargo is a tremendeous accusation.

If you are proved wrong with that will you broadcast your apologies? Will they really compensate for the harm you are doing now?

.


Actually no it's not a tremendous anything- it's called dual use technology and the great beauty is that you can always claim you're making bug spray or cosmetics or industrial solvents. Point in fact French pharmaceutical companies own 25% of Syria's bio/chem weapons infrastructure outright and in the open. (source is CSIS.org). This was engineered to secure the over 6 billion dollars the Syrians owe the French/German banks for financing Russian weapons purchases.

And so goes/went Iraq.

[michael]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
The underground complex, where the evidence of weapons grade plutonium was found, was built by the Russians over the last five years.

Perhaps the undergound complex where the plutonium was found is really a factory for making smoke detectors, or sensors used for finding fractures in oil pipelines?


Or perhaps some people find some stories so irresistable that they're too good not to be true.

This is the Associated Press (April 10) report on the 'find';

"Tuwaitha contains 1.8 tons of low-grade enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium.

The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal at least until early this week, when the Marines seized control of the site.

The U.N. nuclear agency's inspectors have visited Tuwaitha about two dozen times, including a dozen checks carried out since December, most recently on Feb. 6. It was among the first sites that IAEA inspectors sought out after the resumption of inspections on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year break."

and on the marines actions at Tuwaitha;

"What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted,''

[michael]

I'm having trouble understanding a seeming paradox of the US. I'm sure one of you will be only too happy to try to explain it.

The US holds dear it's own soverignity and of late has been increasingly prepared to use it as an arguement against any number of international treaties/conventions may may impinge upon this in any small way, eg. Kyoto Agreement, the International Criminal Court etc.

This seems to be held as a principle of great esteem, particluarly by those of a more conservative political bent. Yet it is these very same people who are most supportive of a US invasion of another soverign state, which totally violates this same principle.

Your help is appreciated.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
I'm having trouble understanding a seeming paradox of the US. I'm sure one of you will be only too happy to try to explain it.

The US holds dear it's own soverignity and of late has been increasingly prepared to use it as an arguement against any number of international treaties/conventions may may impinge upon this in any small way, eg. Kyoto Agreement, the International Criminal Court etc.

This seems to be held as a principle of great esteem, particluarly by those of a more conservative political bent. Yet it is these very same people who are most supportive of a US invasion of another soverign state, which totally violates this same principle.

Your help is appreciated.

I think the term you should have used, instead of paradox, is contradiction. Paradox, although a contradiction, is more properly used, when something can't be or is impossible to exist, usually simultaneously, but does exist. A simple contradiction is something that can exist, except it has opposite truth values.

Yes. We hold our sovereignity dear. Most nations do; even brutal dictatorships. However, the form your argument takes is... that because a nation is sovereign, another sovereign nation shouldn't wage war against it. The premises behind this war are: A) To remove weapons of mass destruction, B) Remove Saddam Hussein and his totalitarian regime from power, and C) Liberate the people of Iraq, along with helping them set up a representative government.

You argue that the sovereign nation of the United States -a government of and by the people- should not remove the sovereign government of Saddam Hussein - a brutal, repressive, totalitarian government- and liberate the people of Iraq. Is that what you are arguing? Which is less moral; A) Remove the government and liberate the people, or B) Leave the government in place and stand by and watch the people be brutalized?

I'm thinking that you have not understood the unstated premise of not involving oneself in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, and that is: It is not cricket for one sovereign nation to involve itself in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation, unless that sovereign nation fits a long list of criteria; non-representative governments, totalitarian states, state sponsor of terrorism, purveyor of weapons of mass destruction, ad naseum.

Can you think of any legitimate reasons for one sovereign nation to involve itself in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation, or does "sovereignity" convey a right to to do whatever that nation wants to do, without exception, within the confines of its own borders?

[michael]

I don't think you quite explain the situation.

The regime is bad, therefore its removal is of greater importance than its sovereignty - fair enough.

But my understanding of the US position is the exact opposite of this.
Lets take the ICC as an example. The US objects because it feels it's sovereignty takes precedence over this, which seems to represent a strengthening of international order. In fact the very area the ICC could have a role may be a place like Iraq and prosecuting the regime leaders.
In essence, these international treaties serve to set some limits on sovereignity, where a higher purpose is served. A potential list of such things you suggest as;
"non-representative governments, totalitarian states, state sponsor of terrorism, purveyor of weapons of mass destruction, ad naseum".
The US seems to understand this principle(limits on sovereignty), as your rationale for the war suggests, yet rejects this argument when applied to itself.

If, as I think you seem to suggest, you don't accept that
"sovereignty convey[s] a right to to do whatever that nation wants to do, without exception, within the confines of its own borders", then we agree.

And so I find myself still bemused by the paradox.
(paradox - a seemingly self-contradictory statement that is or may be true )

[Mediocrates]

It's a matter of capability isn't it.

Countries are willing to fork over their own sovereignty to transnational bodies like the UN and the ICC, The World Bank, The IMF, NATO, SEATO, al Qaeda, Hezbollah as well as domestic unelected bodies, think tanks, lobbyists because of their inability to manage any meaningful progress, change, defense, help on their own.

The real paradox is that those very same countries who clap and cheer for the ICC are themselves least likely to be subject to it. But more importantly while they may cheer these transnational bodies as tools to impose their own agendas on other countries are the least likely to be subject to the policies of other bodies designed to instill change along non confrontational axes.

For example Syria wants the ICC because it never will submit to it, itself. While the "Club of Rome" wants to impose IMF rules they themselves would never submit to.

Moreover I don't see France or Germany - being in violation of their own financial laws for EU membership being kicked out.

Odd, doncha think?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
I don't think you quite explain the situation.

The regime is bad, therefore its removal is of greater importance than its sovereignty - fair enough.

But my understanding of the US position is the exact opposite of this.
Lets take the ICC as an example. The US objects because it feels it's sovereignty takes precedence over this, which seems to represent a strengthening of international order. In fact the very area the ICC could have a role may be a place like Iraq and prosecuting the regime leaders.
In essence, these international treaties serve to set some limits on sovereignity, where a higher purpose is served. A potential list of such things you suggest as;
"non-representative governments, totalitarian states, state sponsor of terrorism, purveyor of weapons of mass destruction, ad naseum".
The US seems to understand this principle(limits on sovereignty), as your rationale for the war suggests, yet rejects this argument when applied to itself.

If, as I think you seem to suggest, you don't accept that
"sovereignty convey[s] a right to to do whatever that nation wants to do, without exception, within the confines of its own borders", then we agree.

And so I find myself still bemused by the paradox.
(paradox - a seemingly self-contradictory statement that is or may be true )

I believe you said that you would wait until you were directly attacked or the eminent threat of attack posed itself, then and only then you would consider it a reason to go to war. Is that not correct?

The difference is that if you wait until NBC are used, the game's over before you have time to mobilize your defense. That's the distinction that seems to be overlooked in all these discussions. It makes the argument of direct attack or eminent threat, moot.

An example of what a paradox is, is.....in the chain of causal relationships where the cause comes before the effect, and nothing can cause itself; the glass case in the museum doesn't break until the looter throws a brick through it, in other words.... :rolleyes: If you have an infinite regression of cause and effect, nothing can exist, because nothing can cause itself; but things exist. Ergo, a paradox.....