Non-American Dopers: Should your government give the U.S. carte blanche?

[mswas]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**But I think I might have a problem with this:

*Originally posted by mswas *
I hate to tell you guys but if the US tried to get involved and stop people here from giving that money, there would be a coup as it flies in the face of all the rights that we put in place to keep from becoming, well, Britain.

Care to explain ? **

Well besides the obvious hypocrisy of telling people which political group they can give money to. (Hypocrisy because of all we say about free markets and such, not that we don’t limit it in other ways.) There is also the manner of enforcement, and for them to enforce it even once the constitution must be shredded, because unless the person commits some other act of terrorism or major crime the government has no right to that information and even if they had it, would have to sit on it, because they don’t have the right to get involved in that persons finances. So unless the person announces it to the world, which I doubt many IRA supporters have, then there is no real way to catch them. Not to mention the slippery slope this would cause, because then the government could tell people which political causes they can pick and choose. So if people can’t give money that might go to the IRA, then they can’t give money that might go to the PLO. Then there is the matter that we support Taiwan in it’s fight against China so it’s ok to give to Taiwan in it’s fight but it’s not ok to give to Ireland in it’s fight against England? So many other limitations would come into play, and the United States would cease to be what it was based on this. In otherwords the government is more or less going to support who they need to strategically first, but if the overwhelming support of hte people was for the Irish, we would write England off in a second. The government cannot pick and choose the politics of it’s people, in this country anyhow. That flies in the face of the first amendment. I’m sure we could make some anti-terrorist sympathizer laws that would go into effect, and only be enforced politically most likely. It would be one of those laws that we use only when we need to nail some criminal on a charge other than the one we want them on. In otherwords the United States cannot completely turn it’s back on it’s heritage just to placate one of it’s allies. ESPECIALLY when that heritage is based upon NOT being that specific ally.

Erek

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by mswas *
Well besides the obvious hypocrisy of telling people which political group they can give money to. (Hypocrisy because of all we say about free markets and such, not that we don’t limit it in other ways.) There is also the manner of enforcement, and for them to enforce it even once the constitution must be shredded, because unless the person commits some other act of terrorism or major crime the government has no right to that information and even if they had it, would have to sit on it, because they don’t have the right to get involved in that persons finances. **

You know, as you appear to be American (you do use the phrase “we” fairly repeatedly in your post) you really don’t appear to know much about your country.Please look here.

You’ll notice that under US law, if a group has been defined as a Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the Secreatry of State, then:

[quote]
Effects of Designation
Legal [list=1][li]It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to provide funds or other material support to a designated FTO.[/li][li]Representatives and certain members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, can be denied visas or excluded from the United States.[/li][li]U.S. financial institutions must block funds of designated FTOs and their agents and report the blockage to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.[/list=1][/li]Other Effects [list=1]
[li]Deter donations[/li][li]Increase awareness and knowledge of terrorist organizations[/list=1][/li][/quote]
Do try to keep up with the laws of your country, before ranting on about them.

[daffodil]

Yes.

[glee]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**glee, you do know that 500 of your countrymen died in this attack, which for Britain is the worst terror attack ever. You still think this way? **

Yes, I know that. And it wouldn’t matter if it had been all Americans, because we’re all members of humanity.
So are Afghan civilians, who don’t have any control over their Government.
I repeat that the UK should fully support any legal action by the US to arrest these terrorists and bring them to trial.*
However ‘carte blanche’ means everything, including nuclear attacks on the five countries I mentioned (all defined by the US as state supporters of terrorism).
This would result in millions of civilian casualties.
Are you saying you would support that?

*incidentally, do you agree with my point that it would be (understandably) impossible to get a fair trial in the US, and we should use the International Court in the Hague?

Furt,
I think you’re over-reacting. America’s allies are saying that America should consult before launching actions that could be considered revenge, rather than justice.
It’s not clear what European troops are needed for, but European Governments are certainly fully co-operating over gathering evidence.

[rob_s]

*Originally posted by furt *
**

So much for mutual fucking defense. Nobody has asked anybody to do anything, and these cowards are falling all over themselves to run away.

I can no longer consider any of these 3 countries “allies” of the US in any real sense, even if they did send flowers. **

I didn’t see the US mobilising troops when the IRA were bombing Manchester and London through the 90s… But when it happens on US soil we are expected to come running…?

The US lends its support when it suits it to do so - fair enough I reckon, but at least admit that it is the case rather than pretending you are fighting for freedom and justice for all (I’d rather fight my own fights, ta very much).

You’ll notice that under US law, if a group has been defined as a Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the Secreatry of State, then:

I’ve not got a cite for this at the moment, but I seem to remember that the Real IRA were recently taken off the list of “terror groups” as part of the Good Friday agreement. There was some talk about them being put back on if arms decommisioning was stalled any more, but as it stands I believe that the laws quoted above no longer apply to the IRA.

Of course it’s daft to suggest that eveyone in the US supports the IRA, but as has already been said, it’s equally daft to suggest that all Afghans or Iranians support attacks on the US.

Perhaps a lot of the anti-American feeling in Europe at the moment is a fear that a newly elected (and untried) right-wing President may massively over-react. You might argue that given the events last week nothing is too extreme, but we’ve seen the US arse things up before (again, we are perfectly capable of arsing things up ourselves) - hence the increasing support for Colin Powell (sp.?) and his moderation.

[rob_s]

Grrr - my posts makes me sound like a bit of a tit I fear.

Soz.

Basically I think glee summed it up very nicely.

Let’s get it sorted but let’s try not to over-react.

There were pictures on the news last night of Afghan families fleeing to Pakistan out of fear of US reprisals. I guess some people might have seen future suicide bombers but I just saw frightened 5 year old children…

[dave99]

Canadian here, saying that our Government should lend all reasonable aid to the American effort to destroy the responsible terrorists, their network, and those who shelter them.

Only alarmists have raised concerns about nuclear weapons. As untested and naive as Bush might be, he is certainly not insane.

The mention of carpet bombing is also premature. Not only would that create another civilian genocide on the order of of the Vietnam bombings, it would be entirely ineffective against an enemy dug into caves. (Supposing, as is most likely, that bin Laden is the responsible party.)

While we’re at it, let’s drop this talk of bringing suspects to trial. This is not a bank robbery or mail fraud, or even common murder. This is genocide, and whoever is responsible needs to be identified and killed expeditiously.

So I say, in this time of need, we offer all logistical and intelligence support that we can. If we are asked to supply ground troups, that’s to be carefully considered. If the US overreacts, we can deal with that when it occurs. The more fully other nations cooperate with any reasonable requests, the more we will be heard if there comes a time when the US needs to be reigned in. For now, let them play their hand.

[Moonshine]

Without getting into the whole USA/ IRA thing I totally agree with London Calling:

‘Blair was as quick as lightening to set up NATO involvement. That means anything has to go through the consultation framework so input in guaranteed and the degree of participation remains flexible.’

This also goes for Britain’s own support of the US right now. Let us not forget that every country has its own interests at heart first.

The two other things to bear in mind right now are firstly that Britain does have a strong military, however they also have a substantial strength in information gathering, it was the case during the cold war and continues to be the case. Secondly, lots and lots of countries strongly support the US now, but nothing has actually happened yet, that picture might change substantially when actual action is required to back up the pretty words. I’m not making any moral point here, I’m just pointing out that this line up will definately change.

[Chez_Guevara]

Nobody seems to be giving the Bush administration any credit for an approach which, in the opinion of this Briton, seems to be the right one so far.

Presumably a war strategy is being discussed at the Pentagon as we speak, but at the same time I am reading of diplomatic efforts on at least two fronts.

In addition to leaning on Pakistan for some support regarding intelligence gathering, and prevailing upon them to lean on Taleban, US diplomats are trying to find out what other, more friendly countries think of this situation.

Having accepted that some form of retribution is going to be exacted here, I am more than happy with with these diplomatic efforts. It shows that the US is willing to listen and think before taking any military action.

I was originally concerned that the US would respond quickly and, perhaps, unwisely. The longer they take in responding to 11 September, within reason, the happier I will be. Let there be a fully thought out strategy which considers all the options.

The aspect which I find somewhat less pleasing is the rhetoric used by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair in vowing to destroy terrorism. I’m not sure they know how terrorism is spawned, how it spreads and how it works.

Finally, the US needs to be aware that all those countries who are supporting them now, and rightly so, will quickly review their support should unacceptable civilian casualties occur during the inevitable military action.

So, carte blanche? No, not really. Please be careful out there. Oh, and I hope that the US isn’t thinking of sending ground forces into Afghanistan. It won’t work.

Ask the Russians.

[London_Calling]

Thanks Gary for addressing the first issue of this person’s, ahem, naivety. Now,

*Originally posted by mswas *
In otherwords the government is more or less going to support who they need to strategically first, but if the overwhelming support of hte people was for the Irish, we would write England off in a second.

President Clinton did - as President Bush now does – supports the will of the Irish people, as per the Irish people’s support of the Good Friday Agreement. The problem used to be, in the US (and until the early 90’s, IMHO), a question of informing the debate - I haven’t heard your degree of naivety about the politics of Ireland from a US citizen for several years. I honestly thought we were beyond the ‘England out of Ireland’ days.

Just out of interest, did you see the news reporting a couple of weeks ago on the kids trying to go to school in the Ardoyne district of Belfast ? – did you notice the Catholic and Protestants separated by the police ? – didn’t it strike you that there may be more to this than the most simplistic of solutions ?

*Originally posted by mswas *
The government cannot pick and choose the politics of it’s people, in this country anyhow. That flies in the face of the first amendment.

Oh boy…You might find that one of the problems is that the people don’t always know or care (what is done in their name) by their elected representatives. If you want one * very simple* case study, type ‘Iran-Contra’ into a search engine.

Then you could maybe try phrases like ‘Who owns the media’ and ‘media manipulation’, just for kicks.

*Originally posted by mswas *
In otherwords the United States cannot completely turn it’s back on it’s heritage just to placate one of it’s allies. ESPECIALLY when that heritage is based upon NOT being that specific ally.

Have you taken 20th century hisory classes yet ?

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by dave99 *
While we’re at it, let’s drop this talk of bringing suspects to trial. This is not a bank robbery or mail fraud, or even common murder. This is genocide, and whoever is responsible needs to be identified and killed expeditiously.

It isn’t genocide, I’m afraid, which according to Webster is:

Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

• geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective

This was a cowardly act that slaughtered people of different races, politics and cultures.

But I absolutely agree with your point that is is beyond a normal crime - this is a crime against humanity, which is exactly why I feel it should be tried as such by a war crime tribunal. I’m all for any operation that will take the likely candidate away from his stronghold and bring him before a tribunal where they can be tried openly before the world. Whether this is done using political and economic pressure or done by force of arms is an issue for another debate.

We can’t just abandon our principles when we’re the ones who are being attacked. Israel has had it’s policy of assasinating members of the PLF condemned - how could we justify using the same methods? To me, it would be a victory for the terrorists if we abandon our morals and act out of rage.

[TwistofFate]

I wasn’t expecting an exact figure, for the reasons you give, and the question was semi-rhetorical for that reason. The salient point is that a very large number of British people have died over the years at the hands of an organisation directly supported by American money, despite the best efforts of our government to make it clear why an organisation of that sort shd not be supported.

The 3000+ figure is a total killed in the troubles by all parties, including UDA, UFF, UVF, Red Hand Commando’s, LVF, INLA as well as the IRA.)

And if Donating to the IRA is one thing, perhaps supporting the British Army should be mentioned aswell, (e.g. Bloody Sunday).
But all this is neither here nor there.

mswas,

Read the boards for any of Ruadh’s, Yojimbo’s, Irishgirl’s, Hibernicus’ posts on this subject (or mine, for that matter)to get a proper understanding of what People in Ireland actually feel about what hass been happening in this country for the last 30+ years, and then come back to this topic. It’s not as simple as you seem to believe it is.
L_C: Ahoy-hoy Mate!! Keepin’ Your end up?

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by dave99 *
While we’re at it, let’s drop this talk of bringing suspects to trial. This is not a bank robbery or mail fraud, or even common murder. This is genocide, and whoever is responsible needs to be identified and killed expeditiously.

The thing is, you see, we live by something called ‘The Rule of Law’. To ignore that, for any reason whatsoever, undermines the very essence of what we call ’ civilised society’.

However, If you do want to bandy about terms like ‘Genocide’ or even ‘Act of War’ and use them in a legal, rather than political, sense, I’d suggest taking a look at what constitutes a legitimate target. For instance, this:

Not as easy to spot a war crime as one might imagine

Crimes of War points out that Article 52 of the additional protocols which were adopted in 1977 to supplement the original Geneva conventions of 1949 go well beyond legitimising the bombing of television stations. They define almost any part of the infrastructure of modern states as legitimate targets. These include anything “which by its nature, location, purpose, or use, makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralisation, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”.

I don’t believe there’s any doubt the destruction of the WTC gained a “military advantage” (the effect on US national psychology, the economic impact, etc.) so it was a “legitimate target” within the legal definition, IMHO. One only needs to look at the targets we hit in Serbia during the Kosovo conflict for confirmation.

Therefore, .categorising the WTC as an ‘Act of War’ in order to trigger Article Five of the NATO Treaty and in order to steel the general public is one thing, putting OBL on trial at The Hague (the War Crimes Tribunal) is quite another.

At the moment, IMHO, the most appropriate forum in which to try suspects in relation to this tragedy, would be an International Criminal Court (ICC). Unfortunately, we don’t have one yet. Some would argue that the most significant reason why we don’t is because the US Administration will not incorporate Human Rights legislation into its law – it’s difficult to have an ICC if it ain’t internationally recognised.

The final *legal *option – and a most reasonable one, IMHO - is to try suspects within the US (or the UK, or within the jurisdiction of any country that lost citizens at the WTC) Criminal Code

From a non-legal perspective, what has happened in the past is that people seriously suspected of conducting terrorist activities (or actually conducting them) and against whom evidence has not been sufficiently obtained, have tended to come to an unfortunate end during the action to capture them i.e. “It all happened in the heat of battle, sorry 'bout that”

*Originally posted by TwistofFate *
L_C: Ahoy-hoy Mate!! Keepin’ Your end up?

Hi, Johnny boy !
Oh yes, Matron. Still, occasionally, playing a long innings at the crease.
Hope you’re well.

[Rysdad]

::: Yank raises his hand for a moment :::

Even we haven’t given George W. carte blanche to nuke or carpet bomb anybody.

The only way I could see that changing would be if there was a chemical or biological attack. Then all bets are off.

Besides, we don’t need nor ask for carte blanche…just your assistance. The most effective way to combat terrorists is to sharing intelligence.

Tell ya what…you don’t even have to do the dirty work. Just tell us where they are.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by Rysdad *
Tell ya what…you don’t even have to do the dirty work. Just tell us where they are.

That’s the big question and, if the Falklands, the Gulf, Kosovo, etc. are in any way templates for the ‘Human Intelligence’ aspect of this conflict, that’s what we are doing. Not going to do, but doing.

By now, the SAS will likely be on the ground (or in the mountains, to be accurate) watching – we won’t know until the Biographies come out in two or three years time but I’ll eat my keyboard if someone can tell me they’re not either on their way or already in Northern Afghanistan and across the border in the Southern (former USSR) Republics.

And that, Rysdad, is the “dirty work”, IMHO.

No macho bollocks. It’s standard practice in these situations.

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by rob_s *
I’ve not got a cite for this at the moment, but I seem to remember that the Real IRA were recently taken off the list of “terror groups” as part of the Good Friday agreement. There was some talk about them being put back on if arms decommisioning was stalled any more, but as it stands I believe that the laws quoted above no longer apply to the IRA.

The Real IRA were added to the list last year. You however are talking about the Provisional IRA, who never were on the list, because they’ve been on ceasefire for as long as that list has been maintained.

[zoony]

Originally posted by Nostradamus
I was originally concerned that the US would respond quickly and, perhaps, unwisely. The longer they take in responding to 11 September, within reason, the happier I will be. Let there be a fully thought out strategy which considers all the options.

The aspect which I find somewhat less pleasing is the rhetoric used by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair in vowing to destroy terrorism. I’m not sure they know how terrorism is spawned, how it spreads and how it works.

Which leads me to my question - what are we hoping to accomplish with “retaliation” however we choose to define it?

bin Laden may be captured, and the US may possibly destroy ‘terrorist training camps’, but can anyone honestly say they believe that armed conflict will make the world safe from terrorism? And what tangible good would the capture/trial/killing of bin Laden serve in the interests of “eradicating” terrorism? Martyrs are very powerful motivators. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be punished - if he is in fact responsible - but when the smoke of that conflagration clears, how far ahead will the world be in terms of global security?

As Nostradamus stated, I too am very gratified that the Bush adminstration seems to be moving ahead in a measured - if somewhat ominous - manner. I think that in all things, the Western Allies must display the rational and carefully considered actions so obviously lacking in those who spread terror. But as far as carte blanche being given to the US by her allies (and more to the point in my POV, Canada), I think the biggest service we as Allies can provide is the sober second thought.

Absolutely, we must support the US in its efforts to right itself in the wake of this heinous act, and to move forward in guaranteeing the safety of its citizens. But we must also be the voice of reason that ensures that any measures taken are not patently vindictive, purely vengeful, or wantonly destructive.

We’re supposed to be the civilzed party, after all.

Z

[furt]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rob_s *
**

*Originally posted by furt *
**

So much for mutual fucking defense. Nobody has asked anybody to do anything, and these cowards are falling all over themselves to run away.

I can no longer consider any of these 3 countries “allies” of the US in any real sense, even if they did send flowers. **

I didn’t see the US mobilising troops when the IRA were bombing Manchester and London through the 90s… But when it happens on US soil we are expected to come running…?

The US lends its support when it suits it to do so - fair enough I reckon, but at least admit that it is the case rather than pretending you are fighting for freedom and justice for all (I’d rather fight my own fights, ta very much).

[quote]

My points, and I’ll admit that I didn’t make them clear, having posted minutes after I read the stories, are not simply that they aren’t sending troops.

1)Less than 2 days after agreeing that these were “attacks on civilization” the German gov’t (and Italian and Norwegian) went out of their way to say they wouldn’t send troops.

Civilization is attacked + We will not defend it =

You do the math.
2)They weren’t even asked. The Euro governments could easily have whispered in Colin Powell’s ear “look, we’re gonna support you, but we’re not comfortable sending troops.” That’s a little disappointing; I mean, you can’t spare one pilot? But we probably weren’t looking for multi-national force anyway. US, UK, Canada maybe, and that’s it. A few others along to observe and keep the appearences up.

But, no. These countries made a point, while the fires were still smoldering, to make these loud public pronouncements that they, essentially, are not involved. They are not willing to even lend token support – and hence political cover – to US counterstrikes.

Why? Because they are shitting their pants that this will happen to them too. And they are right: ObL’s crusade is against all the values common to both US and EU. But they are content to let the US do the work and suffer the casualties.

I am in complete agreement with Zoony. I want our Allies to be our “cooler heads.” I want them to advise, and yes, maybe to hold us back us a bit if we look ready to go too far. But you can only hold somebody back if you’re behind them to begin with.

Italy and Germany have sent the signal that they aren’t behind us.

…

As for the IRA, that was an internal affair, hence the US naturally had no desire to get involved directly. But are you saying that had the UK come out and asked for military aid the US would have refused? No chance.

[tomndebb]

Italy and Germany have sent the signal that they aren’t behind us.

No. They said that they are not prepared to send troops into battle. Given that the U.S. has more than enough troops to handle any of the countries that have currently been named as terrorist-supporting suspects, a statement that they do not intend to supply troops means just that: of the dozens of ways in which any given country might support the effort, they have identified one in which they will not participate.

Does that make them cowards? Not really. It could very easily be the most prudent thing to do. Germany has a very large contingent of immigrants from the Mid-East. I believe Italy does, as well. (I do not know how many of them have voting rights.) I’m also under the impression that each country is currently operating under a coalition government. If any member party of the coalition is strongly opposed to sending troops, pledging that action could bring down the government, with no guarantee that the replacement government would provide any support at all.

Given that NATO invoked Article 5 without (so far as I have seen) any prompting or request by the U.S., I see no reason to bash any members of NATO who choose to define the particulars of their commitment.

[rob_s]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by furt *
**

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rob_s *

*Originally posted by furt *
So much for mutual fucking defense. Nobody has asked anybody to do anything, and these cowards are falling all over themselves to run away.

I can no longer consider any of these 3 countries “allies” of the US in any real sense, even if they did send flowers.

I didn’t see the US mobilising troops when the IRA were bombing Manchester and London through the 90s… But when it happens on US soil we are expected to come running…?

The US lends its support when it suits it to do so - fair enough I reckon, but at least admit that it is the case rather than pretending you are fighting for freedom and justice for all (I’d rather fight my own fights, ta very much).

My points, and I’ll admit that I didn’t make them clear, having posted minutes after I read the stories, are not simply that they aren’t sending troops.

1)Less than 2 days after agreeing that these were “attacks on civilization” the German gov’t (and Italian and Norwegian) went out of their way to say they wouldn’t send troops.

Civilization is attacked + We will not defend it =

You do the math.

**Perhaps that’s part of the problem. The idea that these other nations are not ‘civilised’ in the same way that we are serves to underline the whole ‘cultural imperialism’ thing. Many of the mid-East states have a history and tradition which extends far beyond any ‘Western’ nation - it’s a trite point (I know) but the US has only been in existence for a few hundred years.

You may argue that the acts of last week were not the actions of civilised nations, and you might well be right. But speaking as a Brit (and therefore heir to one of the foremost traditions of oppresion and genocial extermination in the world today) it hardly compares to some of the stuff we have put other nations through… The Germans certainly share this mantle, as do the French, the Belgians, and the Spanish - as do the USA themselves (cf. treatment of the native americans).

None of this excuses Tuesday’s attacks but this idea that the US (and to an extent Europe) are the Enlightened visionaries leading those nations still in their nonage into the glorious light of Freedom and Democracy I think explains in part why so many nations feel aggressive towards us.

I’m aware that’s a pretty contentious paragraph (or two), and I hope the way I explained myself is not too offensive.

And before you slate it too much I seem to remember that on the day of the attacks one of the lead new stories of that morning concerned racial segregation down in Alabama or somewhere (still a way to go before that counts as ‘civilised’) - obviously that all got sidelined so I’m not too sure what the whole story was about though… Apologies if I missed the mark there.

**2)They weren’t even asked. The Euro governments could easily have whispered in Colin Powell’s ear “look, we’re gonna support you, but we’re not comfortable sending troops.” That’s a little disappointing; I mean, you can’t spare one pilot? But we probably weren’t looking for multi-national force anyway. US, UK, Canada maybe, and that’s it. A few others along to observe and keep the appearences up.

But, no. These countries made a point, while the fires were still smoldering, to make these loud public pronouncements that they, essentially, are not involved. They are not willing to even lend token support – and hence political cover – to US counterstrikes.

Why? Because they are shitting their pants that this will happen to them too. And they are right: ObL’s crusade is against all the values common to both US and EU. But they are content to let the US do the work and suffer the casualties.

**

I think it is naive to suggest that “freedom and democracy” were under attack last week. Those suicide pilots did not crash the planes because we elect our leaders, or because we have a free press etc… (I assume that’s the kind of thing you mean by ‘shared values’?)

Look at what was targeted:

1. the World Trade Centre - symbol (in many eyes) of agressive Western capitalism. The type of capitalism which forces farmers in S.America to buy GM seeds from New York based seed conglomerates, for example. Or the type of capitalism (in Britain’s case) which sells torture instruments to Indonesia.

It’s perhaps worth noting that while most of the world was cancelling various political and sporting events last week as a mark of respect, the International Arms Fair in London continued - that’s how we go about sharing our values with the world…

2. the Pentagon - symbol of US militarism. The same reason the USS Cole was attacked - if it had been in a Danish port it’s unlikely (I would suggest) that it would have been bombed.

3. the Senate / Capitol - symbol of a government which supports regimes when it suits US interests so to do.

I’ll bet Denmark or Iceland aren’t particularly worried at the moment. It tends to be those nations which have been dabbling their fingers in the lives of people who don’t want to be dabbled with.

**m in complete agreement with Zoony. I want our Allies to be our “cooler heads.” I want them to advise, and yes, maybe to hold us back us a bit if we look ready to go too far. But you can only hold somebody back if you’re behind them to begin with.

Italy and Germany have sent the signal that they aren’t behind us.**

Fair enough - that’s their perogative. Their actions may come back to haunt them when they ask for US help in the future - who knows… As TomnDebb said, Germany has 5 million Turkish-Germans living within its borders - a blanket condemenation of all Arabs (which we have heard from the US and other places) will cause dangerous social instability within Germany and Europe as a whole.

…

**

As for the IRA, that was an internal affair, hence the US naturally had no desire to get involved directly. But are you saying that had the UK come out and asked for military aid the US would have refused? No chance. **

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was pretty much the same as Ireland in that it was one nation attempting to re-claim land from a sovereign state which it claimed belonged to it. But the US went into Kuwait - purely because their oil interests were at stake.