Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 13:04
I thought when I read your first point you intended to be serious, some hope!

Do you HONESTLY believe the ridiculous rhetoric about wanting to destroy the western way of life?  Do you really think that is what this is all about?  Do you really believe 911 happened because the Americans were considered infidels?  I just hope there are people in your government with more sense than that!

And god forbid that the OWNERS of these resources would actually have the nerve to treat them as their own!  I wonder how it would be if the US owned the worlds oil?

As for the situation in Saudi Arabia, I suggest you aquaint yourself with a few more facts.

As for the "appeasement" of terrorists, I take it you believe the British government, with US assistance, was wrong to negotiate a ceasefire with the IRA?



If the whole of America holds your views, I fear for the world!

Somehow, I have once again lost you, or you me-

Where would I get any idea what Osama's stance would be? Where do you get your ideas?

Has there been anything in what we've seen from him that would indicate he would deign to negotiate with us?

Tell me what gives you any idea he wouldn't destroy us, for sins real or perceived?

Are we somehow supposed to ignore the actions and the rhetoric which constitute the sum total of the content of Osama's "message"?

Are we (with our "unenlightened" and "limited" views) to somehow divine Osama's truest and innermost "peaceful" thoughts?

Do you think he "yearns" for peace?

Does he "ache" when he terrorizes?

No, he does not-he laughs, as we have all seen.

I will not construct a total fantasy, Billy; you may proceed on your own.


As for the oil (which does, after all, belong to them), it does them (the citizens, anyway) no good not to trade or sell to us; its not as if other western countries could/would accomodate the production necessary to keep them in cash, and Osama, having lived a spartan existence these last few years, would have no qualms about demanding the same of others.

So the oil would stay in the ground, to the detriment of all.

I know all I need to know about Saudi Arabia, thank you very much.

As to the I.R.A., while they practiced terrorism, they did not export it as has Osama; I trust you see the difference.

My views are most certainly not held by the whole of America-that is why these problems exist.

Surely you are familiar with the slogan of I.B.M.? I have amended it for personal use:


THINK -like I do

[hobbes]

Billy,


From Hobbes

Could you flesh this out?

We went into Iraq on the "certain knowledge" that Sadam had "Weapons of mass destruction", and that he could, and would, use them. We were told they could be deployed in 45 minutes. You don't need me to point out the truth or otherwise of these claims. Had we gone in to kick out Sadam, world support would have been far different.

There are innumerable oppressive dictatorships in the world, if we had gone in under the premise that he was a "bad man", people would wonder why we supported him in the past. In addition, are we committing ourselves to a world tour of liberation. Where do you stop? As for WMD, my link on the last post is rather to the point.

And, militarily, this was a cock-up, an invading armed force, and a liberating armed force, are two different cookies.

By this I meant, the main problem in Iraq at the moment, is lack of services, water, food, medical supplies, electricity, etc. This should have been taken into account before the invasion. We didn't protect hospitals, museums, public buildings, nothing! In fact, our troops watched it happen and did nothing until the worlds press got on their backs, we then had a token effort to stop the looting. A liberating army would have protected all these things, would have gone in with thousands of tons of medical supplies, would have restored services as a top priority. They would have provided jobs for Iraqis, and included them in their planning for the rebuilding of their country.

To believe we would be welcomed with open arms is naive in the extreme. Do you think these people have forgotten the promises Bush senior made after the first Iraqi war? "You rise up against Sadam and we'll help you." They rose up all right, what did we do? We stood by and watched them get slaughtered!


Are you are saying that the attack was poorly planned, which is different from an intent to occupy. I think top priority was to capture Iraq and once supply lines and facilities were secure, then the relief effort could follow. As you see, this is not even the case now, wlth resistance disrupting attempts at return to normalcy. I agree that getting the average "joe iraqi" food, water and electricity has been disappointingly slow.

As far as occupation. I think that everyday that Iraqis are without food, water and basic medical care, resident US forces will come under mounting critcism. This would be unadvisable for an occupation. Why alienate the very people you were hoping to embrace you. We have enough people already trying to undermine us, as described in the prior post.

I think our troops watching the looting was a reflection of our fear that cracking down on the "innocent citizens of Iraq" would undermine the relationship we were trying to foster. It would be ideal for an Iraqi police force to handle this duty. Any sort of civilian shooting for stealing a TV or whatever by a US soldier would due irreparable harm. Remember, when a soldier goes to investigate a situation, he has no idea whether he will be facing a soldier or a plundering local. If he ponders the situation too much before taking action, he will be awarded a toe tag.

As for Basra, you are right. That is why I stressed the importance of the capture of Saddam, as his spectre still looms large.

As for Afghanistan, I'll give you one example, there are hundreds of stories like this: The US "intelligence" agencies, (and I use the term intelligence loosely) got wind of a wedding in a remote village. Their sources told them that the bridegroom was the niece of a top Taliban official. The US Air Force sent in a C130 gunship. These are the planes that fly around a target in a circular pattern and fire high powered, rapid fire, 150mm (?) cannon. They shot up the wedding, killed dozens of people, wounded many more, just on the off chance that the official may have been there, he wasn't.

I'm sorry, stories of bad intelligence don't change my mind. Besides, why not drop a bunker buster or whatever on the whole affair if random carnage is your game. You would expect the wedding of a top Taliban daughter to have many Taliban supporters in the wedding party. If Bush's daughter got married, you might expect quite a number of important government officials there as well, no?

Anyway, that is not a justification for shooting up a wedding, that would come off as "blindly patriotic". I am not into twisting reality until it fits my belief.

The bottom line is that something had to be done, and it had to be crushing and an example to the world. When the guilty melt with the innocent, the situation becomes quite problematic. I'm sorry, but I do not see an avoidable 30,000 being killed because we attacked weddings, funerals and other emotive events. I still am dissatisfied with the outcome.

If we played ball like China it would now be the Taligone and Bin Laden would be a glowing ember.

BTW, do you agree with me that the Taliban would not have turned over the Al Queda. Just let them filter into the hills, and poof, gone.


Final thoughts on Iraq: I believe that the reconstruction of Iraq is going so slowly because they are a country defined solely by a line on a map. They were only unified before by their fear or hatred toward Saddam Hussein.

With this commonality removed, the ethnic and religious factions of Iraq regard one another and say, "you know, I never really liked you". I think it is hard to generate momentum for a new government when the people who comprise this country have different agendas from on another.

[Rat Faced]

As to the I.R.A., while they practiced terrorism, they did not export it as has Osama; I trust you see the difference.

j2k4

Ask mainland Europe whether it was exported, and i believe the USA arrested some from Columbia not so long ago? Plus 1 or 2 shootings in the USA (although granted not a lot)

However, this aside. Your statement does not respond to Billy_Deans point, which was about abandoning "principles" and had nothing to do with "exportation".

Final thoughts on Iraq: I believe that the reconstruction of Iraq is going so slowly because they are a country defined solely by a line on a map. They were only unified before by their fear or hatred toward Saddam Hussein.

With this commonality removed, the ethnic and religious factions of Iraq regard one another and say, "you know, I never really liked you". I think it is hard to generate momentum for a new government when the people who comprise this country have different agendas from on another.

hobbes

Wasnt this what we were pointing out prior to the invasion?

That the whole area was rife for a totally different kind of war, that would make the Balkans look like a picnic?

[Everose]

Originally posted by echidna@11 August 2003 - 04:32

when the primary responses are that these people are guilty without any trial and that they deserve to die [so who cares how they'll be treated], i fear for what else could be sold to the USA's people, doesn't this worry anyone else?

Yes, it worries many of us.

[AussieSheila]

[QUOTE]=Billy_Dean,12 September 2003 - 18:04]
And god forbid that the OWNERS of these resources would actually have the nerve to treat them as their own! I wonder how it would be if the US owned the worlds oil?


Wot? I thought the US owned the world?




The following editorial appeared in todays Northern Star newspaper (NSW Australia) written by Russell Eldridge.

OUR APATHY WILL HAUNT US

The second anniversary of the September 11 attacks has been observed with due solemnity and expressions of resolve. But it is also a time to reflect on how the world and Australia in particular has changed in those two years.

The news is not good.

And Australians should consider seriously where this current Federal Government has taken us. And we should consider our own individual roles.

Australia is losing international respect. Our cherished reputation as an independant-thinking, larrikin, fair state has dissolved.

This government has taken us into Afghanistan. It has taken us into Iraq.

It's policies have made Australia a terrorist target.

Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.

When the build-up to the Iraq conflict began earlier this year, this newspaper took a stand against the war. We still believe the war was wrong.

Now, months after the so-called victory; after Australian troops returned home like grand final heroes, Iraq is a dangerous mess.

More US soldiers have died during the peace than during the war, and Iraq is a global rallying point for terrorists.

George Bush has asked for $US130 billion to continue the debacle.

Australia continues to pay millions for this absurd venture; millions of dollars that is now being denied to our hospitals, schools, universities and roads.

Yes, we can blame John Howard's government for leading us into this mess. But what have we as individuals done?

The polls show we know it's a mess, but we kick back and watch Friday night footy, or talk about real estate prices over a backyard barbeque.

If we choose apathy, we can't complain when terror comes knocking at our door.

[clocker]

AussieShiela,

While I can understand why Australians would be upset with their government ( contrary to popular belief- many Americans are, too) the article that you posted was riddled with errors of logic and fact.

Australia is losing international respect. Our cherished reputation as an independant-thinking, larrikin, fair state has dissolvedHe assumes that a independant, fair (I don't even know what "larrikin" means) state can't agree with the US without losing their status.

Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.


Those poor people died, not because they were Aussies, but because they had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The terrorists who set off that bomb had no way of knowing who might be killed and furthermore, they didn't care.

If we choose apathy, we can't complain when terror comes knocking at our door.
Apathy towards bitching about the US or apathy towards trying to deal with the growing spread of international terrorism?

[Billy_Dean]

@ Clocker.

Nearly 90 Australians died in Bali because of perceptions by extremists that this country is a military and ideological lackey of the United States.

Those poor people died, not because they were Aussies, but because they had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The terrorists who set off that bomb had no way of knowing who might be killed and furthermore, they didn't care.

Read the trial reviews Clocker. They knew they were Australians, this was Bali. They said at their trials that they knew. They shouted slogans against Australia as they were led in and out of court.

Australia is losing international respect. Our cherished reputation as an independant-thinking, larrikin, fair state has dissolved

He assumes that a independant, fair (I don't even know what "larrikin" means) state can't agree with the US without losing their status.

We aren't talking about agreeing here, we're talking about taking our country to war without the consent of the people. And the lack of respect he talks about has already been voiced. But then again, what would you know about Australian politics?

@ j2k4

As to the I.R.A., while they practiced terrorism, they did not export it as has Osama; I trust you see the difference.

This is the most uninformed statement you have made. Tell the citizens of England, Belgium, Germany, Gibraltar and the US that it wasn't exported! Add to that the training of foreign terrorists. Too smart for your own pants now eh?

Has there been anything in what we've seen from him that would indicate he would deign to negotiate with us?

Has he never stated his political aims, or have you just never bothered to listen?

@ Hobbes

There are innumerable oppressive dictatorships in the world, if we had gone in under the premise that he was a "bad man", people would wonder why we supported him in the past. In addition, are we committing ourselves to a world tour of liberation. Where do you stop? As for WMD, my link on the last post is rather to the point.

My point exactly, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. And please explain the difference between a world tour of liberation and a war on terror? Don't they involve doing the same things to the same countries?

The bottom line is that something had to be done, and it had to be crushing and an example to the world. When the guilty melt with the innocent, the situation becomes quite problematic. I'm sorry, but I do not see an avoidable 30,000 being killed because we attacked weddings, funerals and other emotive events. I still am dissatisfied with the outcome.

This statement is an absolute disgrace, an example to the world of all that is wrong with US policy in Afghanistan. What if these people had been hiding out in Hawaii? How many civilians would it have been OK to kill then? And by the way, it was someones niece, not daughter. I'd like to know if your opinion would have been different if members of your family had been at that wedding.


I'm glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn't care less, what's best for the US is best for the world attitude. So much so, you still don't understand, two years later, why 911 happened.

EDIT: Typo.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 23:28

I'm glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn't care less, what's best for the US is best for the world attitude.  So much so, you still don't understand, two years later, why 911 happened.

Well, then-

Just for us American thickos, why don't you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"?

[chalice]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 September 2003 - 04:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 September 2003 - 04:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 23:28

I&#39;m glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn&#39;t care less, what&#39;s best for the US is best for the world attitude. So much so, you still don&#39;t understand, two years later, why 911 happened.

Well, then-

Just for us American thickos, why don&#39;t you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"? [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m shuddering here, JK. This is a helluva thread. I wish I was qualified to comment.

[Billy_Dean]

Just for us American thickos, why don&#39;t you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"?

Yeah, like you&#39;d listen, or give a f*ck&#33;