# Wern't foriegners killed in WTC too? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2001, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052 "2001-11-30T01:47:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/41 "2001-12-06T00:05:00Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Freedom \* \*\* > [@](#): > > If you kill a Frenchman in China, then you face the Chinese judicial system, not the French system. \*\* If you kill a Frenchmen in China and get caught in Chile, chances are France will get you. You are assuming this French-killer was caught in China, but unless he is IN China, why would China care?Unless Bin LAden is in America, which is slightly unlikely, this analogy does not hold water. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Red\_Menace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/82dd89/32.png) [@The\_Red\_Menace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Red_Menace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/42 "2001-12-06T01:09:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by martinez \* > \*\* The point is that, amazing as it seems, The US, while the richest and most powerful country in the world, is NOT anymore important in international law than any other country, unless i am tottaly mistaken, and it should have to abide by the same laws as any country from Russia to Afghanistan to Swaziland. Your use of the ‘big boy on the block’ analogy, Freedom, is very interesting, as the last time i checked, that was another way to describe a bully. \*\* Whether or not the United States “should” abide by international law is unimportant when stood beside the fact that, due to the nature of international law, the US is indeed “more important” (whatever that means). Being a superpower has privileges, not the least of which is being able to say “what are you going to do about it”. The US takes Bin Laden and puts him on trial in a military tribunal; what’s the rest of the world going to do about it? An important consideration in international law is that states are bound only when they choose to be bound. If we decide to simply ignore certain tenets of international law, we’re probably powerful enough to withstand whatever recourse other nations may pursue. Sure the United States can be a bully, and you can decry American imperialism all you want, but the fact is is that the United States answers to no one. Also **Dave Stewart** is on to something when he says “the law is not the end of it.” It certainly isn’t. What happens to Bin Laden, I think, will be decided largely in the political realm, international law be damned. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/43 "2001-12-06T01:25:55Z")
> [@](#): > > It is this sort of enlightened thinking that makes me proud to be a non-american. > > I live in the US. most of the time, and it has given me a great deal. Typical ungrateful foreigner. > [@](#): > > Many foriegnors i have met look at the US with a feeling of apprehension and distrust, the fat, stupid, uncultured american lurking in their vision. I guess it must really piss them off that while they are so superior in their own eyes, America is still top dog. > [@](#): > > The point is that, amazing as it seems, The US, while the richest and most powerful country in the world, is NOT anymore important in international law than any other country, unless i am tottaly mistaken, and it should have to abide by the same laws as any country from Russia to Afghanistan to Swaziland. I guess you are mistaken. If you think anything in the world is fair and even between countries, then you are missing what is really going on. Want to explain why certain countries are permanant members of the Security council and others never really get a say? Do you wonder why the US was allowed to attack Afghanistan without anything making it “legal”? Do you think America will ever face an embargo or sanctions? We play pretty fair considering how much of an advantage we have, but when things get rough, you better watch out. > [@](#): > > Your use of the ‘big boy on the block’ analogy, Freedom, is very interesting, as the last time i checked, that was another way to describe a bully. …and like a bully, we are going to take what we want in this situation, whether you like it or not. What we want is Bin Laden. > [@](#): > > , and just because we are the “big boy on the block” we do not have the right “to tell every country what to do, and to hell with them if they don’t like it”. Any country which lost but 1 citizen in those attacks was hurt, and if they want to try bin laden, then if they capture him, they can try bin laden. Yeah right… Keep on dreaming. Bin Laden’s ass belongs exclusively to America now. When we are done with him I’m sure that we will be happy to ship his corpse over for other countries to try him and imprison him for all eternity. Fortunately, I’m pretty sure that the world’s leaders agree with me (for a change:)) on this one. Nobody wants to share in the vengence we are dishing out. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Red\_Menace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/82dd89/32.png) [@The\_Red\_Menace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Red_Menace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/44 "2001-12-06T02:04:06Z")
Except for the “typical ungrateful foreigner” comment and the comment that seemed to imply that America was also superior as well as being the most powerful, I think **Freedom** articulates well what the basic facts are. Bin Laden is ours, for better or worse, liked or not. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/45 "2001-12-06T02:53:16Z")
I’ve never come across an “ugly American” before, and I have to say it really is as bad as everyone says it is. First, **Red menace** > [@](#): > > Whether or not the United States “should” abide by international law is unimportant when stood beside the fact that, due to the nature of international law, the US is indeed “more important” (whatever that means). Being a superpower has privileges, not the least of which is being able to say “what are you going to do about it”. The US takes Bin Laden and puts him on trial in a military tribunal; what’s the rest of the world going to do about it? > > An important consideration in international law is that states are bound only when they choose to be bound. Entirely untrue, and a total misunderstanding of how international law works. Its a consensus basis. A certain number of countries are need to make a treaty international law. If the US, or any other country, chooses to ignore a treaty (such as the Berne Convention on Copyright, for example, for decades), then the US suffers for it. > [@](#): > > If we decide to simply ignore certain tenets of international law, we’re probably powerful enough to withstand whatever recourse other nations may pursue. > > Sure the United States can be a bully, and you can decry American imperialism all you want, but the fact is is that the United States answers to no one. So you are saying that the US is an empire? Even I wouldn’t go that far. Now, **Freedom** > [@](#): > > I guess it must really piss them off that while they are so superior in their own eyes, America is still top dog. Try this instead, on an expression of the roots of anti-American feeling abroad: [http://atimes.com/ind-pak/CJ20Df01.html](http://atimes.com/ind-pak/CJ20Df01.html) Democracy and human rights are not export products from the US. Makes you wonder how much of it is mere lip service and patriotic jingoism. > [@](#): > > Want to explain why certain countries are permanant members of the Security council and others never really get a say? Do you wonder why the US was allowed to attack Afghanistan without anything making it “legal”? Do you think America will ever face an embargo or sanctions? I’d love to hear your explanation as to the way the Security Council works. Of course the US will never face embargos nor sanctions. The attack on Afghanistan is entirely justified. Your patriotic ranting is spraying on topics which aren’t the subject of discussion, and at least for me, not in dispute. > [@](#): > > We play pretty fair considering how much of an advantage we have, but when things get rough, you better watch out. Four words for you, in respect of the last confrontation between the US and China: Dubya. Apologised. To. China. > [@](#): > > Fortunately, I’m pretty sure that the world’s leaders agree with me (for a change) on this one. Nobody wants to share in the vengence we are dishing out. You might want to tell that to the British SAS soldiers who were 2 hours behind bin Laden last week, or the thousands of French and Australian soldiers being deployed in Afghanistan. You do know other countries are involved in this, don’t you? > [@](#): > > We’ve got 4000+ dead, 270,000,000 live people and the most kick ass military and economy the world has ever seen that says any counry that touches Bin Laden will turn him over ASAP or face the consequences. Absolute rubbish. Fortunately, there are more informed and rational people than you leading your country, who recognise that the US is first amongst equals, and respect the fact that the US has rivals in the world. On your attack on Westphalian principles: kind of laughable, and hypocritical, since the US asserts its sovereign rights as much as anybody. Anyway, as I have said, one of the joys of living in a global anarchy is that this matter will be sorted out on a political level. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Red\_Menace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/82dd89/32.png) [@The\_Red\_Menace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Red_Menace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/46 "2001-12-06T03:08:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > **I’ve never come across an “ugly American” before, and I have to say it really is as bad as everyone says it is.** I’m not sure what you mean by this comment, but I fear I might know. I’ll hold on commenting on this, for now pending your clarification. > [@](#): > > First, **Red menace** > > > [@](#): > > > > Whether or not the United States “should” abide by international law is unimportant when stood beside the fact that, due to the nature of international law, the US is indeed “more important” (whatever that means). Being a superpower has privileges, not the least of which is being able to say “what are you going to do about it”. The US takes Bin Laden and puts him on trial in a military tribunal; what’s the rest of the world going to do about it? > > > > An important consideration in international law is that states are bound only when they choose to be bound. > > Entirely untrue, and a total misunderstanding of how international law works. Its a consensus basis. A certain number of countries are need to make a treaty international law. If the US, or any other country, chooses to ignore a treaty (such as the Berne Convention on Copyright, for example, for decades), then the US suffers for it. I think I failed to state my case clearly enough. What I mean is that there is no unified enforcing party when it comes to international law. If we choose to break international law, we will be punished by how other countries seek retribution if at all. In a case such as the Bin Laden case, it is likely that a breach of international law regarding the rights to try Bin Laden would result in few repurcussions for the US. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If we decide to simply ignore certain tenets of international law, we’re probably powerful enough to withstand whatever recourse other nations may pursue. > > > > Sure the United States can be a bully, and you can decry American imperialism all you want, but the fact is is that the United States answers to no one. > > So you are saying that the US is an empire? Even I wouldn’t go that far. Hardly. I probably should have put that term in parentheses, but I would have hoped it’s figurative context to have been obvious.{/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/47 "2001-12-06T03:11:52Z")
I suppose… I think i got a little off track there. My initial topic in the OP was that, since the WTC attacks and embassy bmbings killed pople from around the world, that a form of “World Court” or maybe a newly formed “Terrorist court” with allegiance to no particular country be responsible for Bin Laden’s trial. Freedom, If you read what i said in a less literal mindset, the “It is this sort of enlightened thinking that makes me proud to be a non-american” was my attempt at a subtle form of sarcasm, albeit an apperently not good one. Also, In my second sentence, you take away my “This country has many beautiful people, and a whole lot of great things to be proud of, Inculding the former WTC and the remarkable men and women who gave everything and more at the Pentagon, in Penn., and at Ground zero.” and leave only the insult. what i intended to say in that statement was that while The US has a lot of things that are great about it, it always(and so does EVERY counry) has room for improvement. Other countries can not really do that much to the US right now, by themselves anyway. I LIKE living here, and it is my sincere hope that the US adopt a more harmonious approach to Foreign policy, my reasoning being that someday we are going to push anoher country(s) over the edge, and the we will be screwed, and I do NOT want to move back to Mexico after all my years here in the States. I guess that we are going to ungainly force through this, and get bin laden, and have him summarily executed after a trial with a military tribunal. There is apperently no stopping us. After all, we are the United Sates of America, the most richest, powerful country of all time! It is only sad that we have been reduced from a beacon of freedom to a safe of freedom. In a perfect world… ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/48 "2001-12-06T15:12:15Z")
**Dave Stewert** > [@](#): > > Four words for you, in respect of the last confrontation between the US and China: > > Dubya. Apologised. To. China. Cite please? …and even if he did, that just backs up my assertion that we play fair most of the time. I don’t consider the airplane incident to be “rough”. Of course, China is playing the same game we do. They have a lot of strength, and while they can’t project it very far right now, that incident was right in their backyard. > [@](#): > > You might want to tell that to the British SAS soldiers who were 2 hours behind bin Laden last week, or the thousands of French and Australian soldiers being deployed in Afghanistan. You do know other countries are involved in this, don’t you? It seems you have a tendency to overstate your case. Over here: [http://www.smh.com.au/news/0112/04/world/world20.html](http://www.smh.com.au/news/0112/04/world/world20.html) They talk about 150 Australian troops. I can’t find anything about French troops actually being deployed, so please throw me a link if you have one. You have to remember that we own the skies over there. In today’s world, nobody is moving around Afghanistan without aircover and intelligence. That means no other country is going anywhere and doing anything without the direct approval and coordination with the US. We don’t have to worry about the French growing balls and finding Osama, because without our permission and cooperation, they won’t be doing anything other than guarding the airbases. Of course, there are a bunch of British over there. I recognize that and have been very touched by how much the British have stood shoulder to shoulder with us on this one. Nobody has come even close to them when it comes to suporting the US in this war. I have no doubt that if the Brits catch Osama, he will be handed over to American forces before the general public even knows he was captured. > [@](#): > > On your attack on Westphalian principles: kind of laughable, and hypocritical, since the US asserts its sovereign rights as much as anybody. > > Anyway, as I have said, one of the joys of living in a global anarchy is that this matter will be sorted out on a political level. My attack wasn’t on Westphalian principles, but rather on the notion they apply in this case. There is a reason it is called Westphalian Principles, and not Westphalian Reality. Countries step over the bounds all the time. Sometimes it leads to war, sometimes it leads to sanctions or other diplomatic means of persuassion but most of the time nothing happens. The treaty sure as hell didn’t succeed in making European countries respect each other’s sovereignty and stop fighting wars. So while it is a nice standard in peaceful lowkey situations, it just doesn’t apply to Bin Laden. **Martinez** > [@](#): > > Also, In my second sentence, you take away my … There was no attempt to change your meaning. Your entire post was right there for everybody to read. All I take away from your post is this: I’m from another country. I love living in this country and I don’t want to live anywhere else. I want to benefit from the fruits of this country’s citizens, but I never want to be one, and I want to stand to the side so that I may criticize them whenever it is convenient. Since I’m an outsider, I will work to change this country so that those changes may benefit the outside world instead of this country. I’m not impressed. This isn’t a perfect country, but I take criticism much better from people who don’t start off by telling me that they love living here but they are proud not to be a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![BigE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8edcca/32.png) [@BigE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigE)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/49 "2001-12-06T17:43:48Z")
**Freedom** , there are 3900 German troops available on call for the support of American operations in Afghanistan, including 100 special forces soldiers. If I had the time to look it up, I would give you a more accurate cite, but a look at [http://www.der-spiegel.de](http://www.der-spiegel.de) should help. You are also constantly, and somewhat appallingly, overrating the ability of the United States to decide on the way to wage war in Afghanistan. The U.S. won’t “allow” anyone to do anything but guard air bases? Bullshit, Sir. If the French went out and said, “We’ll get him, and no mistake about it.”, what are you going to do? Bomb them? The fact is that you are the leading member of a coalition, whose members operate under your control because they choose to – mainly, of course, they are there to help your soldiers. However, you cannot demand their adherence to your orders, nor can you enforce it. For what’s worth, the repetition of Dubya’s moronic “you’re either with us or against us” won’t make it any better. Lucky for him that the deeds of September 11th were so horrendous that moderately anti-American nations like China, etc., stood “with America” out of their own free will, and strongly anti-American nations such as Cuba and Libya did so for fear of inviting American retaliation. But if China had gone out and said, “we’re against America on this one”, what would you have done? Wage war against them? For what reason? Face it: you’re a nation of immense power and wealth, but your not capable of forcing your opinion on others by threat of force. And your political weight, while still immense, has probably been a less important incentive for the world’s rally behind you than the outrage over September 11th. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/50 "2001-12-06T18:28:09Z")
> [@](#): > > there are 3900 German troops available on call for the support of American operations in Afghanistan, including 100 special forces soldiers. Notice that they are “on-call” and not physically in the country. That means if we need or want them then we give Germany a yell and they send them to do what we want. Otherwise they sit tight away from the action. > [@](#): > > If the French went out and said, “We’ll get him, and no mistake about it.”, what are you going to do? Bomb them? If they said that and we believed it, then they wouldn’t be French, so the point only exists in a fantasy land. France does not have the capability to project military force far enough and in large enough numbers to do anything signifigant in Afghanistan without our support. Have you noticed that we have been losing our own closely supported soldiers due to friendly fire? what do you think would happen if another country tried to operate independently in the same area? It would be a cluster-fuck and soldiers would be dying by the truckload due to mistaken identity. > [@](#): > > The fact is that you are the leading member of a coalition, whose members operate under your control because they choose to – mainly, of course, they are there to help your soldiers. We agree on this point. > [@](#): > > However, you cannot demand their adherence to your orders, nor can you enforce it. We disagree on this point. I think we are doing an excellent job of illustrating just how we “enforce” our orders in Afghanistan. We ordered the Taliban to cough up Osama, and they declined. We then decided to go get him ourselves. There are not any soldiers from NATO countries that we do not want there. If we had a problem with a country’s soldiers, then we would just inform their chain of command that they were unwelcome and would not be included in mission planning. Their country could either decide to let them sit at a base somewhere or bring them home. Either way, we would proceed as we wished. It is a very simple equation, we have more willpower and desire to be in charge in Afghanistan right now than anyone else, and we have the firepower to back it up. There is nothing for any other country to gain by not agreeing with us. War is unpopular in all civilized countries, so if a country’s goals do not coincide with ours, then they will just sit on the sidelines. > [@](#): > > For what’s worth, the repetition of Dubya’s moronic “you’re either with us or against us” won’t make it any better. You just don’t get it do you? He means it. Sure, he’s not going to attack China because they don’t send troops, but America is going to do what it needs to do to protect itself. America has an agenda and getting in the way of what needs to be done is a bad place to be. GW has a 90%+ approval rating, and as long as that holds above 80%, he is going to do what he damn well pleases in order to stop terrorism. > [@](#): > > Face it: you’re a nation of immense power and wealth, but your not capable of forcing your opinion on others by threat of force. Tell that to the Taliban and Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![BigE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8edcca/32.png) [@BigE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigE)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/51 "2001-12-06T22:04:47Z")
Let’s try a different approach, shall we? You read what I write, and when you understand what I write, you post a reply. It is somewhat obvious that you didn’t do that with my last: > [@](#): > > If they said that and we believed it, then they wouldn’t be French, so the point only exists in a fantasy land. Do me the favor, will ya? I don’t mind living in fantasy land, if you will answer my question. Who is going to stop France from doing pretty much anything it pleases (or the British for that matter), and how? And besides, your repeated insults against France do not really support anything you say. To the contrary, it makes you come across as all-mouth, less-brain. > [@](#): > > There are not any soldiers from NATO countries that we do not want there. If we had a problem with a country’s soldiers, then we would just inform their chain of command that they were unwelcome and would not be included in mission planning. Their country could either decide to let them sit at a base somewhere or bring them home. Either way, we would proceed as we wished. > > It is a very simple equation, we have more willpower and desire to be in charge in Afghanistan right now than anyone else, and we have the firepower to back it up. Cool. Tell me, what do you know of foreign policy? Let me point out a few things to you: 1. There are no soldiers from NATO countries in Afghanistan that you do not want, because why should there be? Few nations have the capability or the desire to commit troops far from home. 2. That doesn’t mean anything the U.S. said, did, did not, said not, or made known otherwise has anything to do with the fact. Tell me about fantasy lands. 3. “Firepower to back it up”? So you’d bomb your friends and Allies if they do anything that is not ordered by America [insert patriotic hymn here]? Or what? 4. International relations _do not work this way_. You don’t go about bombing friends because they don’t do what you want them to do. You talk to them. Take notes about this, we’ll have a short exam later. > [@](#): > > You just don’t get it do you? > > He means it. _Smacks his head_ D’Oh! How much better that is! Shame if he hadn’t meant what he said to half the world’s population. Not an answer to my questions. Trouble is, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’ll repeat to you the question: if China says “We’re against you on this”, what is Dubya gonna do? Nothing. Why? Because he can’t. Because foreign policy doesn’t work in the simple forms you envisage. > [@](#): > > GW has a 90%+ approval rating, and as long as that holds above 80%, he is going to do what he damn well pleases in order to stop terrorism. Inside the U.S., sure. Outside the U.S.: I’ll pay _you_ a visit in dream land when I pass by next time. He is going to do what he can within the boundaries of the possible. Why isn’t he bombing Iraq at this minute? Because he doesn’t know if he can. He doesn’t know if it will break the precious unity the attacks of September 11th have created among so many nations. Of course he has the power to attack Iraq, no doubt. But understand that military power won’t get you anywhere, and there are limits to its use. Please, try to understand that. He can’t go about bombing everyone he “damn well pleases” because it is political suicide, at least in international relations. > [@](#): > > Tell that to the Taliban and Iraq. You misunderstood. You can force your “opinion” on people by bombs. But you can’t bomb everyone. Ergo: you can’t force your opinion on everyone. Simple. I’m not sure if this is really a worthwhile debate, though. I’ll defer to the opinion of the other Dopers here if I should reply again…I do not want to bore people. ---
**Author:** ![BigE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8edcca/32.png) [@BigE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigE)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2001, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/52 "2001-12-06T22:14:00Z")
Let’s try a different approach, shall we? You read what I write, and when you understand what I write, you post a reply. It is somewhat obvious that you didn’t do that with my last: > [@](#): > > If they said that and we believed it, then they wouldn’t be French, so the point only exists in a fantasy land. Do me the favor, will ya? I don’t mind living in fantasy land, if you will answer my question. Who is going to stop France from doing pretty much anything it pleases (or the British for that matter), and how? And besides, your repeated insults against France do not really support anything you say. To the contrary, it makes you come across as all-mouth, less-brain. > [@](#): > > There are not any soldiers from NATO countries that we do not want there. If we had a problem with a country’s soldiers, then we would just inform their chain of command that they were unwelcome and would not be included in mission planning. Their country could either decide to let them sit at a base somewhere or bring them home. Either way, we would proceed as we wished. > > It is a very simple equation, we have more willpower and desire to be in charge in Afghanistan right now than anyone else, and we have the firepower to back it up. Cool. Tell me, what do you know of foreign policy? Let me point out a few things to you: 1. There are no soldiers from NATO countries in Afghanistan that you do not want, because why should there be? Few nations have the capability or the desire to commit troops far from home. 2. That doesn’t mean anything the U.S. said, did, did not, said not, or made known otherwise has anything to do with the fact. Tell me about fantasy lands. 3. “Firepower to back it up”? So you’d bomb your friends and Allies if they do anything that is not ordered by America [insert patriotic hymn here]? Or what? 4. International relations _do not work this way_. You don’t go about bombing friends because they don’t do what you want them to do. You talk to them. Take notes about this, we’ll have a short exam later. > [@](#): > > You just don’t get it do you? > > He means it. _Smacks his head_ D’Oh! How much better that is! Shame if he hadn’t meant what he said to half the world’s population. Not an answer to my questions. Trouble is, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’ll repeat to you the question: if China says “We’re against you on this”, what is Dubya gonna do? Nothing. Why? Because he can’t. Because foreign policy doesn’t work in the simple forms you envisage. > [@](#): > > GW has a 90%+ approval rating, and as long as that holds above 80%, he is going to do what he damn well pleases in order to stop terrorism. Inside the U.S., sure. Outside the U.S.: I’ll pay _you_ a visit in dream land when I pass by next time. He is going to do what he can within the boundaries of the possible. Why isn’t he bombing Iraq at this minute? Because he doesn’t know if he can. He doesn’t know if it will break the precious unity the attacks of September 11th have created among so many nations. Of course he has the power to attack Iraq, no doubt. But understand that military power won’t get you anywhere, and there are limits to its use. Please, try to understand that. He can’t go about bombing everyone he “damn well pleases” because it is political suicide, at least in international relations. > [@](#): > > Tell that to the Taliban and Iraq. You misunderstood. You can force your “opinion” on people by bombs. But you can’t bomb everyone. Ergo: you can’t force your opinion on everyone. Simple. I’m not sure if this is really a worthwhile debate, though. I’ll defer to the opinion of the other Dopers here if I should reply again…I do not want to bore people. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2001, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052/53 "2001-12-07T06:06:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Freedom \* > \*\*\*\*Martinez, > > There was no attempt to change your meaning. Your entire post was right there for everybody to read. All I take away from your post is this: > I’m from another country. I love living in this country and I don’t want to live anywhere else. I want to benefit from the fruits of this country’s citizens, but I never want to be one, and I want to stand to the side so that I may criticize them whenever it is convenient. Since I’m an outsider, I will work to change this country so that those changes may benefit the outside world instead of this country. > > I’m not impressed. > > This isn’t a perfect country, but I take criticism much better from people who don’t start off by telling me that they love living here but they are proud not to be a citizen. \*\* Actually, I am proud of being a citizen. Born and raised. 🙂 I am not proud to be a citizen of ANYWHERE. not my thing. Also, like you say, this is not a perfect country. But it is by no means the best it could be. Besides, I do dream of changing this country. For the better. I envision country in harmony with the rest of the wold, a country where our incredible wealth and living standard has been spread to all reaches of the globe. It does not stroke my ego to see emaciated African/Asian/Eastern European etc. children with no food to eat while I am sitting on my couch eating some cheetos. No country is a perfect country, and all countries could do better at most anything. But the USA is Special! It has a fine legal system, a good guidelines of government, and a super high living stndard. It has the ability to change the world, FOR THE BETTER. To share it’s wealth and abundance and ideals with less fortunate people. Do you remember the Marshall Plan? A destroyed Europe was given money and supplies by a strong US, and it is now a great economical power with a high living standard. I did not notice the US “losing out” from that, and I honestly think that in the long run, if the US tells its people to cut back a little more(including me!) and gives the money to poor countries so they can develop, we will be much better off in the long run. We can not just say, “we are strnger than you, and we are better than you, so stuff it” because, amazng as it seems, JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE AN “AMERICAN” does not mean you are anymore imortant TO THE WORLD than anyone else. Obviously you are more important than the US than to other countries, but THE US IS NOT THE WORLD. Deal. “I’m from another country. I love living in this country and I don’t want to live anywhere else. I want to benefit from the fruits of this country’s citizens, but I never want to be one, and I want to stand to the side so that I may criticize them whenever it is convenient. Since I’m an outsider, I will work to change this country so that those changes may benefit the outside world instead of this country.” I went to protest a KKK rally with a couple of friends a few years(maybe 94? Something like that. Mama’s little rebel 😉 ) ago, and they said that “we” (I think I am icluded, but from what i understood, pretty much everyone ese except "True Americans (Whites who imagated here from Europe) were too) said almost EXACTLY that. Freedom, I hope that is not really what you think I said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wernt-foriegners-killed-in-wtc-too/96052.md?page=2)