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.
[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."
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 doesn?t 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.
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 doesn?t 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>
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.
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.
<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.
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.
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).
Comments
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.
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.
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?
<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 doesn?t 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>
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 doesn?t 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>
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.
<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.
<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.
<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
<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
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).