C
Carl
TAKE YOUR PETTY QUARREL SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH XP.
PHOOEY
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH XP.
PHOOEY
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
David Candy
I agree with Leythos. All families of Australian, United Kingdom, and yankee service personel should be legit targets. Also anyone who voted Labour in the UK, Liberal in Australia, and Republician in the US should also be legit targets. They support the war crime of Aggression (a US invention) and they are aware that who they voted for/who they married are engaged in murder in Iraq.
Never thought I'd see eye to eye with Leythos.
Still as the US refuses to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty I suppose anyone can attack the US. They certainly seem to be asking for it.
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/06/07/1118123836066.html (Stops being free in 5 days)
The US reneging on the non-proliferation treaty is an incitingly dangerous move, writes Richard Butler.
A LITTLE over five years ago, during his first presidential election campaign, George Bush promised to deliver US policies of unalloyed selfishness. That was a year before September 11, 2001, after which he ensured that all policies were dominated by the need to wage the war on terrorism, no matter what distortions or excesses that might create.
As for the rest of us, Bush declared - in what became known as the Bush doctrine - the principle that those who are not with the US are against it.
This is both unenforceable and undemocratic. Governments around the world, with notable exceptions such as the Howard Government, have made the latter point strongly.
At the end of May the US refused to allow the review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to carry out any substantive work. It did this because it is no longer prepared to fulfil its obligations under that treaty and it wanted to expunge undertakings on nuclear disarmament it had given at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences.
The US made clear that it wants other states, especially the remaining "axis of evil" states - North Korea and Iran - to meet treaty obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet it refuses to fulfil its symmetrical obligation of progressively eliminating its own nuclear weapons.
In fact, the US is violating the treaty by developing nuclear weapons. The other four official nuclear weapon states - China, Russia, France and Britain - did not stand up against the US position at the review conference. They hid behind the US.
Most of the 180-odd non-nuclear-weapon states members of the treaty despaired the US stance. A leading lobby group of these countries, the New Agenda Coalition, was vocal in condemning the conduct of the conference. Australia was a member of this coalition before the Howard Government took office.
While the US says its policy is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, its actions ensure that nuclear weapons technology will proliferate. This will be profoundly dangerous to all, including the US.
The US policy at the conference emanated from the White House, but naturally someone had to think of it, strategically. That was the man who until recently was Deputy Secretary of State with responsibility for arms control, John Bolton, who has now been nominated by Bush to be the US ambassador to the UN.
Daryl Kimball, of the US Arms Control Association, has written that "the arrogant and clumsy US strategy" at the review conference was Bolton's brainchild.
Having met and spoken with Bolton on a number of occasions, I find this report credible. In a public debate I took part in with him in New York, shortly before his appointment to the State Department, he banged his fist on the table declaring that "there is no such thing as international law, there is only national sovereignty".
Bolton was giving voice to the notion that had become popular in Republican circles: US exceptionalism, the idea that since the US had become the sole superpower it was above international law.
When Bolton was appointed to be in charge of arms control at the State Department many commentators talked about "the vampire having been put in charge of the blood bank", such was his known attitude towards arms control.
A similar consideration has been raised during the US Senate's hearings on Bolton's nomination to the UN: what sense is there in sending to the UN a man who has been so hostile to everything it stands for. Bush has said: "The reason I picked Bolton is that he's a no-nonsense kind of fellow who gets things done and we need to get something done in the United Nations."
The US Senate will most likely vote on Bolton this week and narrowly confirm him. The chances of his getting anything done at the UN, other than perhaps to further destroy aspects of its work, would seem to be near to zero.
As is repeatedly proving to be the case with Bush Administration policies, their effect is often to worsen the problem they are seeking to cure, such as in Iraq.
The US action at the NPT Review Conference exceeds even this example. The US insistence on everyone else fulfilling obligations under the treaty while rejecting its own will weaken adherence to it, encourage nuclear weapon proliferation and increase the possibility of the acquisition of nuclear weapon technology by terrorist groups - exactly every outcome nobody wanted, including, so it says, the US.
This is very dangerous to Australia's security but nowhere have John Howard and Alexander Downer said so and one can only wonder what they have said, if anything, to our US friends.
Richard Butler was the Australian ambassador to the United Nations from 1992-97, chairman of the UN Special Commission to Disarm Iraq 1997-99,, Diplomat in Residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York 1999-2001.
Never thought I'd see eye to eye with Leythos.
Still as the US refuses to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty I suppose anyone can attack the US. They certainly seem to be asking for it.
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/06/07/1118123836066.html (Stops being free in 5 days)
The US reneging on the non-proliferation treaty is an incitingly dangerous move, writes Richard Butler.
A LITTLE over five years ago, during his first presidential election campaign, George Bush promised to deliver US policies of unalloyed selfishness. That was a year before September 11, 2001, after which he ensured that all policies were dominated by the need to wage the war on terrorism, no matter what distortions or excesses that might create.
As for the rest of us, Bush declared - in what became known as the Bush doctrine - the principle that those who are not with the US are against it.
This is both unenforceable and undemocratic. Governments around the world, with notable exceptions such as the Howard Government, have made the latter point strongly.
At the end of May the US refused to allow the review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to carry out any substantive work. It did this because it is no longer prepared to fulfil its obligations under that treaty and it wanted to expunge undertakings on nuclear disarmament it had given at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences.
The US made clear that it wants other states, especially the remaining "axis of evil" states - North Korea and Iran - to meet treaty obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet it refuses to fulfil its symmetrical obligation of progressively eliminating its own nuclear weapons.
In fact, the US is violating the treaty by developing nuclear weapons. The other four official nuclear weapon states - China, Russia, France and Britain - did not stand up against the US position at the review conference. They hid behind the US.
Most of the 180-odd non-nuclear-weapon states members of the treaty despaired the US stance. A leading lobby group of these countries, the New Agenda Coalition, was vocal in condemning the conduct of the conference. Australia was a member of this coalition before the Howard Government took office.
While the US says its policy is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, its actions ensure that nuclear weapons technology will proliferate. This will be profoundly dangerous to all, including the US.
The US policy at the conference emanated from the White House, but naturally someone had to think of it, strategically. That was the man who until recently was Deputy Secretary of State with responsibility for arms control, John Bolton, who has now been nominated by Bush to be the US ambassador to the UN.
Daryl Kimball, of the US Arms Control Association, has written that "the arrogant and clumsy US strategy" at the review conference was Bolton's brainchild.
Having met and spoken with Bolton on a number of occasions, I find this report credible. In a public debate I took part in with him in New York, shortly before his appointment to the State Department, he banged his fist on the table declaring that "there is no such thing as international law, there is only national sovereignty".
Bolton was giving voice to the notion that had become popular in Republican circles: US exceptionalism, the idea that since the US had become the sole superpower it was above international law.
When Bolton was appointed to be in charge of arms control at the State Department many commentators talked about "the vampire having been put in charge of the blood bank", such was his known attitude towards arms control.
A similar consideration has been raised during the US Senate's hearings on Bolton's nomination to the UN: what sense is there in sending to the UN a man who has been so hostile to everything it stands for. Bush has said: "The reason I picked Bolton is that he's a no-nonsense kind of fellow who gets things done and we need to get something done in the United Nations."
The US Senate will most likely vote on Bolton this week and narrowly confirm him. The chances of his getting anything done at the UN, other than perhaps to further destroy aspects of its work, would seem to be near to zero.
As is repeatedly proving to be the case with Bush Administration policies, their effect is often to worsen the problem they are seeking to cure, such as in Iraq.
The US action at the NPT Review Conference exceeds even this example. The US insistence on everyone else fulfilling obligations under the treaty while rejecting its own will weaken adherence to it, encourage nuclear weapon proliferation and increase the possibility of the acquisition of nuclear weapon technology by terrorist groups - exactly every outcome nobody wanted, including, so it says, the US.
This is very dangerous to Australia's security but nowhere have John Howard and Alexander Downer said so and one can only wonder what they have said, if anything, to our US friends.
Richard Butler was the Australian ambassador to the United Nations from 1992-97, chairman of the UN Special Commission to Disarm Iraq 1997-99,, Diplomat in Residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York 1999-2001.
L
Leythos
Leythos said:On 6/9/05 20:48:02, Leythos wrote:
I give my government the benefit of doubt in the case of
terrorists,
"The Downing Street Memo are actually minutes from a meeting that
occurred [snip memo]
Seen it a while ago - don't believe it fully.
LOL! After all this time, you still believe that the Bush Admin wasn't
creaming in their pants to invade Iraq.
I can't believe the depths of denial that you Rightards live in.
Why do I have to be a "Right", can't I be independent and have beliefs
that follow my OWN ideals without being told what to follow?
L
Leythos
It's the same kinda thing as two wrongs make a right.
All you are doing with the Eye for an Eye thing is stooping to the
terrorists level. You have become what you despise.
To put it in Star Wars terms, you have turned to the Dark Side of the
Force, except in your case you are more like Dark Helmet from
SpaceBalls, than like Darth Vader.
Not quite the same, if you can't see the difference between holding
people that are assumed to be terrorists and killing thousands or
chopping heads off, then I feel sorry for you.
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:Leythos said:On 6/9/05 20:48:02, Leythos wrote:
I give my government the benefit of doubt in the case of
terrorists,
"The Downing Street Memo are actually minutes from a meeting that
occurred [snip memo]
Seen it a while ago - don't believe it fully.
LOL! After all this time, you still believe that the Bush Admin
wasn't creaming in their pants to invade Iraq.
I can't believe the depths of denial that you Rightards live in.
Why do I have to be a "Right", can't I be independent and have beliefs
that follow my OWN ideals without being told what to follow?
You hold beliefs that moderates don't. And you certainly are not on the
left.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Leythos
"David Candy" <.> said:I agree with Leythos. All families of Australian, United Kingdom, and yankee service personel should be legit targets. Also anyone who voted Labour in the UK, Liberal in Australia, and Republician in the US should also be legit targets. They support the war crime of Aggression (a US invention) and they are aware that who they voted for/who they married are engaged in murder in Iraq.
Never thought I'd see eye to eye with Leythos.
You don't see anything with me, sarcasm is not seeing ete.
[snip]
As for the rest of us, Bush declared - in what became known as the Bush doctrine - the principle that those who are not with the US are against it.
This is both unenforceable and undemocratic. Governments around the world, with notable exceptions such as the Howard Government, have made the latter point strongly.
Ever hear the term - If you're not part of the solution then you are
part of the problem? That's what I live by.
At the end of May the US refused to allow the review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to carry out any substantive work. It did this because it is no longer prepared to fulfil its obligations under that treaty and it wanted to expunge undertakings on nuclear disarmament it had given at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences.
The US made clear that it wants other states, especially the remaining "axis of evil" states - North Korea and Iran - to meet treaty obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet it refuses to fulfil its symmetrical obligation of progressively eliminating its own nuclear weapons.
In fact, the US is violating the treaty by developing nuclear weapons. The other four official nuclear weapon states - China, Russia, France and Britain - did not stand up against the US position at the review conference. They hid behind the US.
Most of the 180-odd non-nuclear-weapon states members of the treaty despaired the US stance. A leading lobby group of these countries, the New Agenda Coalition, was vocal in condemning the conduct of the conference. Australia was a member of this coalition before the Howard Government took office.
While the US says its policy is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, its actions ensure that nuclear weapons technology will proliferate. This will be profoundly dangerous to all, including the US.
It's sad that you think that the US (and several other countries) having
retained Nukes or developing smaller nukes in order to eliminate the
need for the large nukes, makes us more of a threat. Any reasonable
person knows that anyone that can assume power will assume power and all
countries seek power. Nukes would continue to be possessed b by
countries that don't currently have them in order to use them as a power
/ tool to get what they want. Countries that don't have the ability to
control their nukes are a threat to all the world.
The US policy at the conference emanated from the White House, but naturally someone had to think of it, strategically. That was the man who until recently was Deputy Secretary of State with responsibility for arms control, John Bolton, who has now been nominated by Bush to be the US ambassador to the UN.
Daryl Kimball, of the US Arms Control Association, has written that "the arrogant and clumsy US strategy" at the review conference was Bolton's brainchild.
Having met and spoken with Bolton on a number of occasions, I find this report credible. In a public debate I took part in with him in New York, shortly before his appointment to the State Department, he banged his fist on the table declaring that "there is no such thing as international law, there is only national sovereignty".
Bolton was giving voice to the notion that had become popular in Republican circles: US exceptionalism, the idea that since the US had become the sole superpower it was above international law.
When Bolton was appointed to be in charge of arms control at the State Department many commentators talked about "the vampire having been put in charge of the blood bank", such was his known attitude towards arms control.
A similar consideration has been raised during the US Senate's hearings on Bolton's nomination to the UN: what sense is there in sending to the UN a man who has been so hostile to everything it stands for. Bush has said: "The reason I picked Bolton is that he's a no-nonsense kind of fellow who gets things done and we need to get something done in the United Nations."
The US Senate will most likely vote on Bolton this week and narrowly confirm him. The chances of his getting anything done at the UN, other than perhaps to further destroy aspects of its work, would seem to be near to zero.
Nothing gets done at the UN that isn't bought or paid for by some means.
The UN is about as corrupt as most large Union's, if not worse.
As is repeatedly proving to be the case with Bush Administration policies, their effect is often to worsen the problem they are seeking to cure, such as in Iraq.
As it appears, things are getting better in Iraq, sure, you see some
nasty things going on currently, but, for the vast majority it's getting
better - but you won't see those reports on CBS or CNN. Try talking to
people in the field some time.
The US action at the NPT Review Conference exceeds even this example. The US insistence on everyone else fulfilling obligations under the treaty while rejecting its own will weaken adherence to it, encourage nuclear weapon proliferation and increase the possibility of the acquisition of nuclear weapon technology by terrorist groups - exactly every outcome nobody wanted, including, so it says, the US.
This is very dangerous to Australia's security but nowhere have John Howard and Alexander Downer said so and one can only wonder what they have said, if anything, to our US friends.
Richard Butler was the Australian ambassador to the United Nations from 1992-97, chairman of the UN Special Commission to Disarm Iraq 1997-99,, Diplomat in Residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York 1999-2001.
What would be nice is if these quotes contained unbiased information.
K
kurttrail
Carl said:TAKE YOUR PETTY QUARREL SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH XP.
PHOOEY
LOL! Take the squirrel out of your butt, it needs to breathe oxygen,
and cannot survive only on your methane.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Leythos
Leythos said:Leythos wrote:
On 6/9/05 20:48:02, Leythos wrote:
I give my government the benefit of doubt in the case of
terrorists,
"The Downing Street Memo are actually minutes from a meeting that
occurred [snip memo]
Seen it a while ago - don't believe it fully.
LOL! After all this time, you still believe that the Bush Admin
wasn't creaming in their pants to invade Iraq.
I can't believe the depths of denial that you Rightards live in.
Why do I have to be a "Right", can't I be independent and have beliefs
that follow my OWN ideals without being told what to follow?
You hold beliefs that moderates don't. And you certainly are not on the
left.
But I don't follow either side or group, I consider it to be an insult
to be put in one or the other group.
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:Not quite the same, if you can't see the difference between holding
people that are assumed to be terrorists and killing thousands or
chopping heads off, then I feel sorry for you.
Don't forget us the bombing and killing all the innocent bystanders too!
Iraq didn't attack us! Afghanistan didn't attack us! Al Qaeda attacked
us!
How many innocent eyes have we taken for each one Al Qaeda took on 911?
Now I know you don't understand that, and I do pity you, because you
can't see how far you have fallen. If there is a God, you and all that
support the Bush Administration will have a special place in Hell. If
you are lucky, there is no God.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
K
kurttrail
Alias said:Some reason you want the entire world to be blind?
Alias
Misery loves company.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:Leythos said:Leythos wrote:
On 6/9/05 20:48:02, Leythos wrote:
I give my government the benefit of doubt in the case of
terrorists,
"The Downing Street Memo are actually minutes from a meeting that
occurred [snip memo]
Seen it a while ago - don't believe it fully.
LOL! After all this time, you still believe that the Bush Admin
wasn't creaming in their pants to invade Iraq.
I can't believe the depths of denial that you Rightards live in.
Why do I have to be a "Right", can't I be independent and have
beliefs that follow my OWN ideals without being told what to follow?
You hold beliefs that moderates don't. And you certainly are not on
the left.
But I don't follow either side or group, I consider it to be an insult
to be put in one or the other group.
--
Consider yourself insulted then!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
D
David Candy
Richard Butler was a popular figure in the US when he talked about disarming Iraq. But when addressing yankees he also made the point of talking about disarming the US (which is part of the NNPT) and I've heard him say "they used to look at me blankly, not understanding".
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
=================================================
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
=================================================
Leythos said:"David Candy" <.> said:I agree with Leythos. All families of Australian, United Kingdom, and yankee service personel should be legit targets. Also anyone who voted Labour in the UK, Liberal in Australia, and Republician in the US should also be legit targets. They support the war crime of Aggression (a US invention) and they are aware that who they voted for/who they married are engaged in murder in Iraq.
Never thought I'd see eye to eye with Leythos.
You don't see anything with me, sarcasm is not seeing ete.
[snip]
As for the rest of us, Bush declared - in what became known as the Bush doctrine - the principle that those who are not with the US are against it.
This is both unenforceable and undemocratic. Governments around the world, with notable exceptions such as the Howard Government, have made the latter point strongly.
Ever hear the term - If you're not part of the solution then you are
part of the problem? That's what I live by.
At the end of May the US refused to allow the review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to carry out any substantive work. It did this because it is no longer prepared to fulfil its obligations under that treaty and it wanted to expunge undertakings on nuclear disarmament it had given at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences.
The US made clear that it wants other states, especially the remaining "axis of evil" states - North Korea and Iran - to meet treaty obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet it refuses to fulfil its symmetrical obligation of progressively eliminating its own nuclear weapons.
In fact, the US is violating the treaty by developing nuclear weapons. The other four official nuclear weapon states - China, Russia, France and Britain - did not stand up against the US position at the review conference. They hid behind the US.
Most of the 180-odd non-nuclear-weapon states members of the treaty despaired the US stance. A leading lobby group of these countries, the New Agenda Coalition, was vocal in condemning the conduct of the conference. Australia was a member of this coalition before the Howard Government took office.
While the US says its policy is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, its actions ensure that nuclear weapons technology will proliferate. This will be profoundly dangerous to all, including the US.
It's sad that you think that the US (and several other countries) having
retained Nukes or developing smaller nukes in order to eliminate the
need for the large nukes, makes us more of a threat. Any reasonable
person knows that anyone that can assume power will assume power and all
countries seek power. Nukes would continue to be possessed b by
countries that don't currently have them in order to use them as a power
/ tool to get what they want. Countries that don't have the ability to
control their nukes are a threat to all the world.
The US policy at the conference emanated from the White House, but naturally someone had to think of it, strategically. That was the man who until recently was Deputy Secretary of State with responsibility for arms control, John Bolton, who has now been nominated by Bush to be the US ambassador to the UN.
Daryl Kimball, of the US Arms Control Association, has written that "the arrogant and clumsy US strategy" at the review conference was Bolton's brainchild.
Having met and spoken with Bolton on a number of occasions, I find this report credible. In a public debate I took part in with him in New York, shortly before his appointment to the State Department, he banged his fist on the table declaring that "there is no such thing as international law, there is only national sovereignty".
Bolton was giving voice to the notion that had become popular in Republican circles: US exceptionalism, the idea that since the US had become the sole superpower it was above international law.
When Bolton was appointed to be in charge of arms control at the State Department many commentators talked about "the vampire having been put in charge of the blood bank", such was his known attitude towards arms control.
A similar consideration has been raised during the US Senate's hearings on Bolton's nomination to the UN: what sense is there in sending to the UN a man who has been so hostile to everything it stands for. Bush has said: "The reason I picked Bolton is that he's a no-nonsense kind of fellow who gets things done and we need to get something done in the United Nations."
The US Senate will most likely vote on Bolton this week and narrowly confirm him. The chances of his getting anything done at the UN, other than perhaps to further destroy aspects of its work, would seem to be near to zero.
Nothing gets done at the UN that isn't bought or paid for by some means.
The UN is about as corrupt as most large Union's, if not worse.
As is repeatedly proving to be the case with Bush Administration policies, their effect is often to worsen the problem they are seeking to cure, such as in Iraq.
As it appears, things are getting better in Iraq, sure, you see some
nasty things going on currently, but, for the vast majority it's getting
better - but you won't see those reports on CBS or CNN. Try talking to
people in the field some time.
The US action at the NPT Review Conference exceeds even this example. The US insistence on everyone else fulfilling obligations under the treaty while rejecting its own will weaken adherence to it, encourage nuclear weapon proliferation and increase the possibility of the acquisition of nuclear weapon technology by terrorist groups - exactly every outcome nobody wanted, including, so it says, the US.
This is very dangerous to Australia's security but nowhere have John Howard and Alexander Downer said so and one can only wonder what they have said, if anything, to our US friends.
Richard Butler was the Australian ambassador to the United Nations from 1992-97, chairman of the UN Special Commission to Disarm Iraq 1997-99,, Diplomat in Residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York 1999-2001.
What would be nice is if these quotes contained unbiased information.
L
Leythos
"David Candy" <.> said:Richard Butler was a popular figure in the US when he talked about disarming Iraq. But when addressing yankees he also made the point of talking about disarming the US (which is part of the NNPT) and I've heard him say "they used to look at me blankly, not understanding".
Yea, I can see that blank look, amazed that you and others would want us
to give up something that keeps others from attacking.
Sort of like outlawing guns, then only criminals would have them - and
without a police force to protect them (the nukes would be the police)
the bad guys would build them and walk all over the unprotected people.
Much the same way that criminals with guns walk all over the people that
don't have guns.
How about all the Rwanda women and children without a means to defend
themselves that were attacked by people with weapons....
The Chinese have already stated they will invade the US within 30 years,
what do you think is stopping them or anyone else from invading anyone
else?
D
David Candy
F&ck, you are an idiot.
G
Gerhard Fiedler
You got the time line wrong, after we were forced to notify Iraq of our
intentions, in order to be PC, that's when the trucks started moving -
I really don't seem to understand what you are trying to say. A few
questions to make your point clearer to me:
- Did the administration know (by the time they sent troops to Iraq, not by
the time some politician said something) that the WMDs had already been
transported from Iraq to Syria (which seems to have been what happened,
according to you)?
- If the administration did not know, why did you not tell them?
- If the administration did know, why did they send troops to Iraq to
neutralize WMDs that they knew were not in Iraq anymore but in Syria at
that point?
- If they knew, wouldn't that have been a massive disrespect of our troops
and their lives -- sending them in harm's way to do something they knew
wasn't possible (finding WMDs in Iraq)?
Gerhard
G
Gerhard Fiedler
I think there is a way to recover, but it starts with education and
commerce.
I can agree with that.
Unluckily, pretty much all administrations seem to put their faith more in
military actions, support and pressure (whether open or covert) than in
peaceful efforts to further education and commerce.
And that's a big part of the current problem.
Gerhard
G
Gerhard Fiedler
Actually, I do believe in an eye-for-an-eye, as do many of the countries
where those terrorists come from. What's wrong with giving them some of
their own actions? Don't start the fight if you are not willing to lose
the battle.
See, that's apparently where you and I (and hopefully a few more) disagree.
For me, peace is a worthwhile goal, not vengeance. It's pretty much a
historic fact that vengeance -- between people, families, countries --
doesn't lead to anything worthwhile; at least if you don't see body bags as
something worthwhile in and by itself.
For me, any counter-terrorism measure needs to be evaluated on its effect
to contain or prevent terrorism, not on its effectiveness WRT vengeance.
"An eye for an eye" doesn't provide in itself any effect in terms of
deterring or preventing terrorism. Nor in creating justice.
It's merely vengeance. And we will make only progress when the people
living for vengeance (on both, or better, all, sides) are getting fewer and
fewer.
Gerhard
L
Leythos
I really don't seem to understand what you are trying to say. A few
questions to make your point clearer to me:
- Did the administration know (by the time they sent troops to Iraq, not by
the time some politician said something) that the WMDs had already been
transported from Iraq to Syria (which seems to have been what happened,
according to you)?
During the 30 days warning, where we were unable to do anything due to
the UN asking us to wait, there were many convoys to Syria, since there
were no inspectors permitted (or even there) it's only speculation as to
what came out of those suspected sites.
The moving of trucks does not mean that all items were moved, how much
was moved, or the exact contents, but it sure (to me) seemed like a
great indication of what was suspected.
- If the administration did not know, why did you not tell them?
I was no aware of it myself until after the combat started. I suspect
that the Military powers were fully aware, as it was military hardware
that took the images. How would you and others have reacted if we had
attacked Syria too? What if we found all those nasties in Syria, would
you have said GOOD JOB?
- If the administration did know, why did they send troops to Iraq to
neutralize WMDs that they knew were not in Iraq anymore but in Syria at
that point?
Where did I say they knew EVERYTHING was moved out? All we have is
images of trucks (lots) being loaded with something and taken to Syria,
not the specific contents, and we can make some reasonable assumptions.
It was still assumed that there were reasons to continue with the plan
for Iraq. Don't forget, WMD's include biologicals which can be stored
in very small places.
- If they knew, wouldn't that have been a massive disrespect of our troops
and their lives -- sending them in harm's way to do something they knew
wasn't possible (finding WMDs in Iraq)?
You seem to have confused the idea that Trucks took masses of WMD's to
other countries with the idea that we believed that they took EVERYTHING
to other countries - that would have been a stupid assumption. Nowhere
have I suggested that it was all moved, that there are not still WMD's
in Iraq, that it was the only reason we went into Iraq. I don't know if
you noticed the buried jet-fighters in sand or other places in the
middle of nothing where things were buried in sand....
L
Leythos
I can agree with that.
Unluckily, pretty much all administrations seem to put their faith more in
military actions, support and pressure (whether open or covert) than in
peaceful efforts to further education and commerce.
And that's a big part of the current problem.
One of the first things we rebuilt, other than utilities, were their
schools, then brought in supplies for them, etc.... There is more money
spent rebuilding the country (by the time we're done) than the combat
phase.
L
Leythos
See, that's apparently where you and I (and hopefully a few more) disagree.
For me, peace is a worthwhile goal, not vengeance. It's pretty much a
historic fact that vengeance -- between people, families, countries --
doesn't lead to anything worthwhile; at least if you don't see body bags as
something worthwhile in and by itself.
You took it wrong again - Peace is first in my goals, but I'm not stupid
enough to believe that someone that hates my family for being American
is going to accept Peace if I offer a hand of friendship. You should
hear what's being said in private in mosques, have you forgot that
they've said ALL AMERICANS NEED TO DIE?
For me, any counter-terrorism measure needs to be evaluated on its effect
to contain or prevent terrorism, not on its effectiveness WRT vengeance.
"An eye for an eye" doesn't provide in itself any effect in terms of
deterring or preventing terrorism. Nor in creating justice.
I choose to look at it like a rabid dog - you can't cure it, you can't
reason with it, it acts in a manner we consider irrational, and 99% of
the time you deal with it by killing it before it hurts/kills you. In
this case we have a group of peoples that have sworn, in public, to kill
every American and they believe they will be rewarded for doing it -
that their GOD will reward them for each American they kill. How do you
reason with someone like that?
It's merely vengeance. And we will make only progress when the people
living for vengeance (on both, or better, all, sides) are getting fewer and
fewer.
Again, how do you reason with someone that believes they must kill you
in order to get their highest religious rewards?
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.