"If you're not with us, you're against us!" - Page 2

[quote]Originally posted by Rick1138:
<strong>I'm surprised that no one recognized the origin of this quote,albiet in a modified form:
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh, Rick... check out the second post in this thread. I'm surprised you missed it.

[quote]<strong>Perhaps he didnt mean it this way, but the litteral meaning of what he said is, for lack of better terms, disgusting. It rules out neutrality and passive attitudes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Neutrality is a myth.
There are degrees of involvement, but there is no such thing as neutrality, especially in this case.

Describe a passive attitude to me. What would, say, a passive France do with known terrorists? Nothing?

[quote]<strong>Now Im the first to admit that intent is what should be followed, not litteral speech, but when you in diplomatic ties with the rest of the world you need to show more disgresion in your speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In diplomatic terms, who has been off-put by the words?
Support for the U.S. in this instance is nearly universal, is it not?

A lesson from an armchair diplomat, eh?

[quote]<strong>However for strategic reasons they are not going to tell any one their evidence</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is it a massive conspiracy involving dozens of nations?

That Ogden thing is hilarious, a hippie thinking she is way more important than she really is. I remember talking with my fellow Greens about this on campus, hilarious conspiracy theories. She caused a ruckus and she got held, it happened to my brother last week who nearly missed his flight because he neglected to tell them about the TiBook in his backpack and they searched and questioned him.

They were obviously after him because he, uhh, has. . . umm, facial hair! CONSPIRACY!

[quote]

Uh, Rick... check out the second post in this thread. I'm surprised you missed it.

<hr></blockquote>

OK you got me on that one.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

Oh please, the President wouldn't mind. He probably doesn't even remember saying it. Actually, he probably doesn't even remember his own name half the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea well you got the quote wrong in as way that's important. Don't bother to correct your mistake.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>That's was the quote published by CNN.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then CNN is wrong. Is it in quotes or a paraphrase?

People like some of those on this thread really piss me off. What some people fail to realize is that people are getting locked up and then released. They have been arrested on charges of immigration violation. Nothing illegal is being done. Human rights violations my ass. George Bush (though he can't speak worth shit) is doing a great job and he is doing everything to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. What people seem to forget is that all of these things are being done to keep you safe! Without putting some of these people in jail, there might have already been another 9-11. As for the "you're with us or against us," it makes perfect sense. Some people say it is terrible or inappropriate or whatever but when something like this happens, we need to know who our friends are! Also, to the persron with the Irish tatoo, I truly am sorry for what happened to you at customs but in my oppinion it was understandable, but perhaps a bit excessive. Let's say that someone walked into the airport with something like a "Down with America" tatoo. That guy should be searched! Or if an arab guy with a long beard and a black turban (the official uniform of the taliban) walks in, he should at least be questioned and probably be searched. No human rights are being broken, they have been searched for a reason. They need to do this kind of searching to keep the attacks from happening again. I don't know why it is hard for people to understand this.
Then there is the bombing of Afganistan which people whine about. They talk about the civilian casualties and how it as all terrible and when is enough enough. Well let me tell you one thing, if our last president hadn't diverted so much money from the military, we would probably have bombs that didn't screw up as much. Also what people have to remember is civialian casualties are unfortunately, a part of war. If people want us to catch Osama Bin Laden, then we gotta fight. I hate it when people say that there must be a diplomatic solution. We tried, don't forget that. You can't "smoke out" a terrorist with words. "Oh mister Bin Laden, come out, we won't hurt you." It doesn't work that way. I won't say any more because many people are most likely mad at me already.

God Bless America!

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
Oh please, the President wouldn't mind. He probably doesn't even remember saying it. Actually, he probably doesn't even remember his own name half the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just because he whispers "what's my name bitch" in your ear doesn't mean he doesn't really know what his own name is.

macoracle, you make some good points, and I completely understand where you are coming from. I didn't mean to say that people in this thread were saying we shouldn't go after Bin Laden. I just meant to say that there are these people around.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>But it's exactly when world leaders go around saying things like this that people are not able to tell the difference between wrong and right. They will label everyone that disagrees in the slightest way as "against us"</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't agree with you. You know when Reagan went to the Berlin wall and said "tear down this wall" people said it was too bold and provoking. Not the language of diplomacy. Guess what? The wall came down.

Often times the clear message is the best one. You are either with us or with the terrorist.

BTW you still haven't corrected the quote.

Scott H said:

[quote]Often times the clear message is the best one. You are either with us or with the terrorist. <hr></blockquote>

Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists, first you have to define "terrorist" (the FBI has a working definition), and then apply it, EVEN_HANDEDLY; there must be no shirking, special favors, immunity or arbitrary privileges, or the whole thing becomes a sham, and all credibility and potential goodwill throughout the world re. the coalition goes down the proverbial wazoo.

This puts us in a very awkward spot, since we are on first name terms with some countries and parties who most definitely sponsor, harbor and use methods that fit very neatly with any definition of terrorism. The only way around this is yet more double standards. But duplicity is one of the evils of the world that causes so many of the problems in the first place, and will only undermine our cause in the longterm.

Perhaps a lazy, complicit (and increasingly centralized and controlled/propagandized) media that refuses to report or acknowledge duplicities and allows certain selected items of terrorism to escape attention will be our savior (regarding public opinion here?)

What's a superpower to do? :o

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists, first you have to define "terrorist" (the FBI has a working definition), and then apply it, EVEN_HANDEDLY; there must be no shirking, special favors, immunity or arbitrary privileges, or the whole thing becomes a sham, and all credibility and potential goodwill throughout the world re. the coalition goes down the proverbial wazoo.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh yes. Nothing more important than the coalition. The administration has already been specific about what they mean and about their intention to follow this thing through. We are going after terrorist organizations (and countries that harbor them) of global reach.
This is not a judgement in favor of those terrorist organizations that don't fall under that heading. It's just that the job is already big enough and complicated enough. One has to draw the line somewhere.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Scott H said:



Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists</strong><hr></blockquote>

The misquote goes on. Will anyone correct it or do I have to?

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Scott, if anyone is going to make good on a policy statement as bold as you are either with us or against us regarding terrorists, first you have to define "terrorist" (the FBI has a working definition), and then apply it, EVEN_HANDEDLY; there must be no shirking, special favors, immunity or arbitrary privileges, or the whole thing becomes a sham, and all credibility and potential goodwill throughout the world re. the coalition goes down the proverbial wazoo.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree. Which makes me wonder when will we cut ties to Saudi Arabia.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>This puts us in a very awkward spot, since we are on first name terms with some countries and parties who most definitely sponsor, harbor and use methods that fit very neatly with any definition of terrorism. The only way around this is yet more double standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well no. Another way around it is play some very hard ball with those countries. They need us more than we need them. If they don't want to play nice they can take their deflated ball and go home.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>But duplicity is one of the evils of the world that causes so many of the problems in the first place, and will only undermine our cause in the longterm.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe but this is not time to go around saying "your with us or with the terrorist unless the internal political situation in your country doesn't allow you close down the terrorist camps in your country. We'll understand. Hope we didn't offended you at all. Here some $$ aid for you"

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Perhaps a lazy, complicit (and increasingly centralized and controlled/propagandized) media that refuses to report or acknowledge duplicities and allows certain selected items of terrorism to escape attention will be our savior (regarding public opinion here?)

What's a superpower to do? :o </strong><hr></blockquote>

You must be reading the wrong media. Everyday I read about terrorist countries the US continues to glad hand day after day at <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/" target="_blank">Best of the Web</a>. Anything at starts with "Our Friends the ...." is a sarcastic jab at the terrorist counties that we still glad hand. I put Pakistan and Saudi Arabia top the list.

Bush did say the right thing. This is no time for limp wristed diplomacy. But like you say we need to stay the course. If the gutting of the Taliban isn't enough to turn those countries around then we need to move forward in the war. Might I suggest we do some house cleaning in the State Department to get rid of the people that make apologizes for the countries that are not "with us" even though they say they are.

SamJoOll, I'm choking on your idealism and I feel I may die.

1) You don't have to be perfect to defend yourself.

We have done naughty things, especially in Central/South America.

My question to you: How does this negate our actions in Afghanistan?

Pakistan practices terrorism on India. That's terrible, but it's not against us.

What you prescribe are the actions of a nation acting as if it runs the world as some kind of disciplinarian mother.

Where is the responsibility of the U.N. which is full of nations (besides the U.S.) that endorse and practice terrorism.

Using the dictionary definition, what nation HASN'T practiced terrorism?
And when you find the answer to that is "there isn't one" then I must ask again: Should all nations simply lock themselves in the closet beat themselves with leather straps for redemption.

They fostered a terrorist organization that killed 4k+ of our people. They are dead now or are on the road to death.

Israel hasn't organized terrorism against the U.S., so we haven't gotten involved against them militarily. If our military DID get involved and started bombing Israeli positions you would scream bloody murder, and you know it.

A little less idealistic sanctimony, please, and a little more common sense.

You don't have to be perfect to defend yourself.

Absolutely not. And you are making connections in my post that I never said or implied. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and it would be extremely hard, if not impossible to find anyone out there who thought otherwise.

We have done naughty things, especially in Central/South America. My question to you: How does this negate our actions in Afghanistan?

Again, you are making connections that I never stated or implied. There's a huge difference between what we have done in Central/South America, and our current campaign in Afghanistan. Some of our actions in Central/South America constituted terrorism or mass murder, without provocation. Those countries did not attack us, they did not threaten us militarily, and they didn't employ terrorism against the US. Their main crime was not to conform to US ideological and political preferences.

Re. Afghanistan, our actions there are in self defense or pre-emptive self defense because we were attacked by members of an organization that has facilities in that country, and threatened repeat attacks (Osama bin Laden's videotape released shortly after the Sept 11 attacks confirmed that). I have never said or implied that it is wrong for the US to defend itself against anyone who attacks us. My gripe is that we are going after one target whilst blatantly ignoring others because of favoritism, political expediency etc. If we continue to approach the terror issue in a duplicitous or un-evenhanded fashion, then the coalition will surely collapse.

Pakistan practices terrorism on India. That's terrible, but it's not against us.

I agree. But what if, say, Country A's terrorism against Country B happens to involve U.S interests? Or for that matter, the interests of *any member* of this International Coalition against Terror? The goals of the the Coalition against terror were to disable and destroy terrorist organizations with 'international reach'. Sure, we are the primary nation here, but those other nations, no matter how unimportant, do count. Or not?

What you prescribe are the actions of a nation acting as if it runs the world as some kind of disciplinarian mother.

Because of the military, economic and cultural leverage we have globally, pretty much in excess of all other nations even put together, isnt that what we do anyway?...except some of the 'children' can misbehave and get away a hug and a mild telling off, and others get beaten about the head and then grounded. This type of conduct may go unnoticed here, but for those directly affected, it goes down like the proverbial lead balloon. And the inevitable/likely consequences of such are not in the national security interests of America.

Where is the responsibility of the U.N. which is full of nations (besides the U.S.) that endorse and practice terrorism.

I agree, the U.N has a lot to live up to in this respect.

Using the dictionary definition, what nation HASN'T practiced terrorism? And when you find the answer to that is "there isn't one" then I must ask again: Should all nations simply lock themselves in the closet beat themselves with leather straps for redemption.

No, all nations should come out of the closet and make an effort to close down all organizations that use terror as a means to an end. Is that not what President Bush said to the world shortly after the Sept 11 attacks? Why should this effort be compromised? I don't feel that it is 'idealistic' or 'unrealistic' for the world to get together and really have a shy at this. But maybe we as a nation will have to make some compromises here, and resist the temptation to be the playgound bully as we have done in the past so often, with impunity, simply because we have the biggest muscles. I don't feel that such is 'unpatriotic'; maybe it lacks the mass appeal of machismo or yahoo-ism, but that's no great loss.

They fostered a terrorist organization that killed 4k+ of our people. They are dead now or are on the road to death.

We plowed $billions in weapons, facilities, funds, training etc for extremist mujahadeen fighters in order to de-stabilize a foreign country. Firstly this was because of our default paranoia of socialism, and secondly to eject the military of a country we didn't approve (USSR) that invaded a remote nation. The support of the mujahadeen and the defeat of the Soviets precipitated that country into a meltdown from some semblance of government to intertribal chaos, civil war and anarchy. A perfect environment and breeding-ground for malcontents like bin Laden, and the rise of the Taliban. Blowback in full flight here, and a perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight.

Israel hasn't organized terrorism against the U.S., so we haven't gotten involved against them militarily............If our military DID get involved and started bombing Israeli positions you would scream bloody murder, and you know it.

Why would the US bombing of 'Israeli positions' elicit my complaints any more than the bombing of anywhere else? It is never going to happen anyway. We give Israel $3.5 billion annually, much to purchase weapons which are used daily to terrorize and assassinate Palestinians. In this instance the US is sponsoring international terrorism. Is that OK? Or do we feel that we can do no wrong, no matter what?

A little less idealistic sanctimony, please, and a little more common sense.

That sentiment should be addressed to all.

[quote]<strong>Some of our actions in Central/South America constituted terrorism or mass murder, without provocation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You bring up our incidents in other nations when talking about Afghanistan only serves to draw parallels between the two.

United States' soldiers did not commit acts of terrorism or mass murder on the people of South and Central America. Those were incidents of the natives of those lands slaughtering themselves, sometimes with our help. But when discussing right and wrong in those conflicts the U.S. is not the nation to look at.

[quote]<strong>Their main crime was not to conform to US ideological and political preferences.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Spoken as if the U.S. took action within those nations. We backed (much like the Northern Alliance) factions that we thought were the best options.

[quote]<strong>My gripe is that we are going after one target whilst blatantly ignoring others because of favoritism, political expediency etc. If we continue to approach the terror issue in a duplicitous or un-evenhanded fashion, then the coalition will surely collapse.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps you missed my point.

[quote]<strong>But what if, say, Country A's terrorism against Country B happens to involve U.S interests?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wait wait wait. I thought it was a BAD thing to get involved because of "U.S. interests". Isn't that what makes the incidents in South and Central America so terrible?

Are you inadvertently justifying our actions there?

[quote]<strong>Sure, we are the primary nation here, but those other nations, no matter how unimportant, do count. Or not?</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's a great question that's going to require some specifics.
Which nations are involved in the Coalition against Terror and are suffering acts of terrorism by another nation?

[quote]<strong>isnt that what we do anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Isn't that THE grip about America?!

How on Earth can you recommend further unilateralism while saying our unilateral actions were negative!? You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth!

"Dahmer is an evil bastard for killing people, but he might as well kill my enemies because he's going to kill anyway."

[quote]<strong>And the inevitable/likely consequences of such are not in the national security interests of America.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed.
But when you're large, pissing someone off is inevitable. We used to get bitched at for being passive.

[quote]<strong>I don't feel that it is 'idealistic' or 'unrealistic' for the world to get together and really have a shy at this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think so.
Every nation has its own interest. It's in France's interest to embrace a man who bombs American businesses in France as a national hero. It's in Israel's interest to not get pushed into the sea by the numerous Arab nations that want them dead. And so on and so forth...

[quote]<strong>But maybe we as a nation will have to make some compromises here, and resist the temptation to be the playgound bully as we have done in the past so often, with impunity, simply because we have the biggest muscles.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I can't imagine where I got the idea that you thought our actions in Afghanistan were unjustified.

Impunity? Simply because we have the biggest muscles?

Un-**** yourself, then we'll talk.

[quote]<strong>I don't feel that such is 'unpatriotic'; maybe it lacks the mass appeal of machismo or yahoo-ism, but that's no great loss.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's justified but unenlightened, eh?
What's the enlightened solution?

[quote]<strong>Firstly this was because of our default paranoia of socialism, and secondly to eject the military of a country we didn't approve (USSR) that invaded a remote nation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Justified paranoia and to protect a sovreign nation from another nation. Yes.

[quote]<strong>Blowback in full flight here, and a perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What was the other option?
Let the USSR take over Afghanistan? Not help them?

It's quite brazen in idiotic to put the blame on America's shoulders for the collapse of Afghanistan. Pakistan has 40x the responsibility we could ever dream of having. But Pakistan is Muslim so they're not a good enough target for the wackos.

[quote]<strong>Why would the US bombing of 'Israeli positions' elicit my complaints any more than the bombing of anywhere else?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because Israel has done nothing to us. Who are we bombing now or who have we recently bombed that you felt were unjustly attacked?

[quote]<strong>In this instance the US is sponsoring international terrorism. Is that OK? Or do we feel that we can do no wrong, no matter what?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Israel is defending itself. They haven't been perfect, but let's not play at them being the bully picking on poor innocent Palestine.

Israel has had to fight two full wars to keep their people from being annihilated, all within the latter half of the 20th century. To act as if they are not under threat is idiotic.

Are all their actions fully justified? No.
Is it irresponsible to label them pure terrorists?
Yes.

Palestinians throw rocks at armed Israelis, if they had fully automatic rifles they would (and do) use those instead. Israel's methods are barbaric at times, but they are the result of being repeatedly attacked.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
We plowed $billions in weapons, facilities, funds, training etc for extremist mujahadeen fighters in order to de-stabilize a foreign country. Firstly this was because of our default paranoia of socialism, and secondly to eject the military of a country we didn't approve (USSR) that invaded a remote nation. The support of the mujahadeen and the defeat of the Soviets precipitated that country into a meltdown from some semblance of government to intertribal chaos, civil war and anarchy. A perfect environment and breeding-ground for malcontents like bin Laden, and the rise of the Taliban. Blowback in full flight here, and a perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight.
<hr></blockquote>

Ironically, Samantha, it was traditional Jeffersonian idealism that drove our response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. That's precisely the form of foreign policy you now advocate.

But then, I'm sure you realized that, seeing as how you an expert enough in foreign policy to recognize a "perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight."

Right?

I think with regard to Israel's actions, one should study historical episode in Jordan about 20 years ago or so when terrorists tried to send that country into ruin. King Hussein had a very effective campaign to end the conflict. Israel learned from Jordan.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
We plowed $billions in weapons, facilities, funds, training etc for extremist mujahadeen fighters in order to de-stabilize a foreign country. Firstly this was because of our default paranoia of socialism, and secondly to eject the military of a country we didn't approve (USSR) that invaded a remote nation. The support of the mujahadeen and the defeat of the Soviets precipitated that country into a meltdown from some semblance of government to intertribal chaos, civil war and anarchy. A perfect environment and breeding-ground for malcontents like bin Laden, and the rise of the Taliban. Blowback in full flight here, and a perfect example of short-term and ill-conceived foreign policy, and total lack of foresight.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This isn't a "blowback" situation. bin Landen is a rich kid gone bad. He used his own money and crafted his ideals independent of the US. Afghanistan has always been a hard place to live. Been that way forever. We didn't create that at all. The Taliban are a creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"blowback" is a term the Blame America crowed grasp at. It doesnt fit the current situation. We didn't cause the Taliban and we did incite Al Quada. Oh and hind site is always 20/20 when it comes to foreign policy. But if we had led Afghanistan to stable country then bin Laden would have just set up shop somewhere else.

So ... we're not to blame.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

This isn't a "blowback" situation. bin Landen is a rich kid gone bad. He used his own money and crafted his ideals independent of the US. Afghanistan has always been a hard place to live. Been that way forever. We didn't create that at all. The Taliban are a creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"blowback" is a term the Blame America crowed grasp at. It doesnt fit the current situation. We didn't cause the Taliban and we did incite Al Quada. Oh and hind site is always 20/20 when it comes to foreign policy. But if we had led Afghanistan to stable country then bin Laden would have just set up shop somewhere else.

So ... we're not to blame.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ostrich

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: S10 ]</p>

Bin Laden told us in the 80s that he would turn his guns on us if we put troops in Saudi Arabia even if they asked us to be there.

That's his beef with us. What we needed was someone with enough nutsack to take his ass out back when he bombed and killed just a few of our soldiers instead of thousands of our people. Blowing up dirt in Afghanistan and aspirin factories in Sudan with a few cruise missiles didn't help.

[quote]Originally posted by S10:
<strong>

Ostrich

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have my head in the ground? Because I know the people who try to pin the blame on us are all wrong? Often times the press plays the "who's to blame" game. They see a bad situation and then try to figure out what went wrong. Problem is they too often pin the blame locally rather then across the sea. Fact is these suicidal death cults from the arab world are their own creation. There's just about nothing we could have done to not piss them off. Short of pulling within our own borders and not saying "peep" to the world.

IMO everyone else has their head in the sand. Coulda Shoulda Woulda is the game the press plays. The finger should be pointed over seas because they are the ones that are the ones to blame. Not us.

I shudder to think what Russia would do if someone flew 2 jumbo jets into significant buildings in Moscow. Or Beijing.

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>I shudder to think what Russia would do if someone flew 2 jumbo jets into significant buildings in Moscow. Or Beijing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That could be very bad. They would likely not wait for other nations to approve of their retaliation as the US has done.

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

That could be very bad. They would likely not wait for other nations to approve of their retaliation as the US has done.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And they would be well within their right not to wait.

It's too bad for the UN that countries have the right to defend themselves

Also, you don't become a superpower like the US, Russia and China, by being 'nice' to your people who attack you. You have to defend your way of life at all costs. Or else there would be no borders... not that no borders would be a bad thing but humans just aren't ready for that.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

And they would be well within their right not to wait.

It's too bad for the UN that countries have the right to defend themselves </strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree wholly. But the method they would use for self-defense would quite possibly be nuclear considering the country that the attack orginated from and their history with that country. I was merely pointing out that the US has been quite reserved in their retaliation going so far as to wait for people to agree with us before we attacked another nation (to the possible detriment of the retaliation I might add).