Yet the rest of the world wasn’t attacked was it? America was. Why should we care what they think? All of these anti-war/anti-American countries are right. 9/11 is not there problem. It’s ours. And we’re dealing with it accordingly.
Nice talking to you.:wally
So, would any non-smartasses like to discuss the topic?
Iraq didn’t attack us.
No, Iraq just sponsors terrorism and the terrorists that attacked the United States. Our attack on Iraq is a direct result of 9/11 and our crackdown on terrorism. My point is that America was the only country harmed by 9/11 and it really doesn’t matter what other countries think. We are doing what is necessary to make sure this kind of attack does not happen again.
Torben, do you realize the various allegations you make (e.g. Iraq sponsors terrorism) are not demonstrated – they are merely treated as true by Americans thanks to the efforts of the US government?
You may want to read up on these issues rather than providing us with simplistic knee-jerks.
That’s far from proven. As we speak, U.S. forces are hard at work scouring Iraq for evidence of what you are saying, and so far are having a hard time coming up with much.
That’s what Bush said, but most of the world doesn’t see it that way, which is the whole point.
We got a lot more worldwide support for the Afghanistan invasion, because it was much more clearly a direct response to the WTC attack. The Taliban were protecting bin Laden; the connection to a known terrorist who was a direct threat to the U.S. on U.S. soil was much stronger.
With Iraq, the case made was much, much weaker. So weak, in fact, that it’s now being downplayed in favor of the specious argument that we had to “liberate the Iraqi people”. A lot of the rest of the world could easily see through the empty rhetoric that was used to justify the Iraqi invasion. And it most certainly does matter what other countries think. If we are belligerent towards our enemies, and alienate our allies, we will soon find ourselves alone and opposing the rest of the world, which is not a good position to be in.
Many would disagree with you. I find it more likely that we are increasing the odds of another attack.
The cite was a summary of the article from the New York Times. You may still be able to find the full article. Anyhow, the full article had specific dollar figures. Even thought it was on the op-ed page, specific numbers should be as accurate there as on the news page,
The oil for food has sold many billions of dollars worth of oil. The UN’s take has been over a billion dollars.
December, an opinion piece is simply not a valid cite, whether it has numbers in it or no. It is still on-line, but only for paying customers. I am reluctant to fire up the Visa to read a piece from the opinion page of any publication. Surely you can provide information of better quality than that? Or do you expect someone else to do the work for you??
Since I have previous experience with the cites you tend to bring to our attention, I Googled the name Claudia Rosett, the same one who wrote the opinion piece in the NYT you cited.
Well it seems Ms Rosett is a professional opinion page writer with a nasty little axe to grind. Do a search on this idiot woman and see for yourself the various biased rubbish she has written, regularly avoiding the real issues with a zeal that is hauntingly Decembrist. From what I have just read of this distasteful little toad, Rosett’s goal in writing seems to be the pursuit of an ethnocentric America uber alles philosophy in which the US and Bush are never wrong, and in which the UN is an evil second only to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and rogue states (!!). Oh, and the Red Cross, the international community, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with her are little better.
Avoid the opinion pages (of any slant) and you’ll be better off. Give me a real cite, one that supports that wisp of an argument of yours (and of Rosett’s – I’m guessing you’re a fan?).
Note that my earlier message about the UN and sanctions is still waiting.
I’ve seen very little evidence that disproves these “allegations”. If you think Saddam’s regime did not sponsor terrorism you are more stupid than you are naive. But since you seem to know more than my own government does why don’t you enlighten me? :rolleyes: Oh wait… You Don’t. Why don’t you pull your head out of your ass and get a clue before providing me with “simplistic knee-jerks.”
torben, you need to get the feel of this place. Here we require some support for our allegations and telling people to “pull your head out of your ass” is not how we operate in this forum.
As far as I know the US government has never directly and inequivocally accused Saddam Hussein and his regime of sponsoring the 9/11 attacks or any other terrorist attack directed against the USA. If you have any cites proving otherwise we would like to see them. What the US government has done is use vague phrases and innuendo to try to taint Iraq, and it has (obviously) worked with some people. But AFAIK, there has never been any firm, direct affirmation. To ask us to prove a negative is just silly and we try not to play silly games around here.
Okay, sailor, but what about the bounty money being paid to Palesteinian terrorists by Hussein?
Law enforcement is international as well as domestic, although it requires some of that “diplomacy” stuff that the Bushies scorn (making the world less safe, btw). Ideological motivations are also international - there are haters of the federal government in ample supply right here as well as overseas, and many of them even look like us. So I see no useful distinction there that you could explain to a grieving family visiting a bombed building site.
Why not? How much money do you think it takes to rent a cheap apartment and buy food for a few months, and pick up a few boxcutters? Hell, go to Canada first, like Atta et al., did, and claim refugee status and the *welfare payments[ start immediately. You don’t need a government to cover the cost, and you don’t even have to be rich (although Osama is). You just have to want it badly enough. I truly do not understand the need some, like you, have to find an easily-definable enemy with a name to fight back against, instead of simply trying to make an honest effort to understand the nature of the problem. Your approach makes you even more enemies without dealing with the ones who have already attacked you.
As for understanding interpersonal and international relations and economics from Gene Roddenberry, that’s at least as valid as learning them from Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand, isn’t it?
Thats fair enough. As you say, many countries have issues that are so important to them they are not willing to compromise. There’s a difference between that though and having a “we don’t care” policy where you refuse to compromise on all issues. A country can get away with saying “we don’t care” on a particular issue if it compromises elsewhere. To expect any country to be able to get its way on all issues, without any compromise at all though is something else.
torben:
[Moderator Hat ON]
torben, we do NOT allow comments like that in this forum. You can argue and debate without telling people they have anything up their ass.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Thank you, and I just want to add that I said the situation reminded me of the Star Trek episode. I didn’t say I learned the principle from Star Trek. I would think anyone who has lived on this planet any time in the last few thousand years would realize that violence tends to escalate. Attacking others does not make them want to acquiesce, but rather makes them want to fight back, especially when you are dealing with zealots willing to die for their cause. I didn’t learn this from Roddenberry; he just happened to illustrate the idea in a particularly clever way. [Or more precisely, the writer of that episode].
Yeah, what about it? Has the USA ever mentioned that as a justification? I don’t think so. And a good thing it is too because it would be a pathetic and laughable excuse. What’s your point?
“Muscular withdrawal”?
On second thought, that sounds like a birth control method for steroid freaks.
"Neo-realpolitik "?
Nah, too foreign sounding. Peoria will never buy it.
(For the ones who don’t like the policy: “Operation Fuck OFF”)
My favorite: “Trial Separation”
“Muscular withdrawal”?
On second thought, that sounds like a birth control method for steroid freaks.
"Neo-realpolitik "?
Nah, too foreign sounding. Peoria will never buy it.
(For the ones who don’t like the policy: “Operation Fuck OFF”)
My favorite: “Trial Separation”
- I think this name elicits an appropriate post-modern interpretation.
Make what you will of this.
Oil-for-food, official UN site.
The new oil-for-food plus is big business.
Interesting.
Just one other follow-up on december’s post. If you recall:
First, France doesn’t want to keep the sanctions. They came out in support of removing the sanctions.
Second, Blix hasn’t asked to go back into Iraq, he has said he and his team is ready, should the UNSC request they go (and further, he has announced he is retiring in June).
I am unaware of any statement by Russia as to whether they will or will not support the lifting of sanctions (feel free to educate me).
The same argument could be directed toward the US - that the US just wants the spoils of war - liberators, indeed. Not that I am now making that argument, btw. Just showing how silly it is.
And as for the oil for food program, Beagle’s post has sufficiently addressed that (if you think 2.2% is too high, show me a non-profit charitable organization that does better).
Now, how any of this, even if correct, would have help make your analogy more precise, I will never know. And frankly, at this point, I don’t care.