Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on February 15, 2005, 12:26:04 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/15/beirut.explosion/index.html
U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said ambassador Margaret Scobey was returning to Washington for "urgent consultations" due to "deep concerns" over Monday's "heinous act of terrorism."
-
Now they wouldn't do anything rash, would they? :wtf:
-
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42100
Though its wnd and jp and both are somewhere to the right of Mousselini I'm inclined to believe it, wouldnt be a smart move though given Moscow is standing behind them.
-
Well, they like to keep us guessing, don't they?
I don't think even Bush is stupid enough to invade yet another non-aggressive Middle Eastern state, though...
-
"I have been very careful to say we really don't know who committed this murder at this point, but we do know what effect the Syrian presence in Lebanon has," Boucher said. "And we do know that it doesn't bring security for Lebanese."
Why don't you show them how to do it correctly then like in Iraq!... ummm no. .... Afganistan......umm no.....ummmm.
Actually I'm of the opinion that the US planted the bomb so that they could declare Syria a rogue state and go after them too.
-
Well, he;d have even more problems getting backing for it. Both the UK and Russia have far better relationships with Syria, I can't see us sending troops for that one.
-
Backings not so much of a problem as you seem to think, Bar the UK and a few tinpot dictatorships no one really backed the US on Iraq, and the few that did either insisted on non-combat roles for their troops or in the case of the UK could barely afford to send them and had to skimp on stuff like bogroll. The problem the US has here really is people actively backing those they're rattling their sabre at, China and Russia are openly arming Iran and Syria, and not with popguns either
http://top.rbc.ru/english/index.shtml?/news/english/2005/01/25/25200624_bod.shtml
-
It's not so much a question of the Military power of the backing though, simply having the UK and other countries in there with them allowed more than one 'target' for complaint, and gave the War a higher apparent 'Legality'.
If the US went in alone, it's not the Military backing they will miss, it's a Political one.
-
Well they're probably not actually going to go in to Syria proper, most likely be spec force raids on whatever, limited military incursions on the border and heavy airstrikes. As for political backing, you really think they're all that worried about it? they've repeatedly shown they dont give two ****s what the world thinks of them.
-
Well, I'll say this, it's certainly looking far far more like a hate grudge against the Middle East, rather than any kind of 'Bringing about of Peace'. I've been trying to rationalise the whole and the only conclusion that seems apparent at the moment is :-
'We like bombing Arabs'.
Because, of course, no-one else would plant a bomb to spark off this precise situation would they? ;)
-
I wouldnt go that far, if they werent sitting on a lake of oil they'd probably be happy enough just to sell them the arms to do it themselves, although as a few of the right wingers pointed out before theres no harm in enjoying killing people if you're being paid to do it or soimething.
Btw I wouldnt be so quick to blame the US/Israel for this one, might be best to wait and see although Syria getting the blame for this does benefit them both, more so if the US actually does attack. Unrest in the leb would tie down Syrian troops and possibly Hez'bollah.
-
Oh, I'm not saying that the US or Israel planted the bomb, theres a lot more countries that could benefit from even more disruption in the Middle East.
The ' We like Bombing Arabs' statement was more along the lines of the image they are presenting rather than their actual motives. America gets annoyed that the rest of the world thinks they are bloodthirsty, and yet I see a lot of blame and shouting going back and forth, and yet nothing has been done about the very people who have earned the US a bad name.
People can shout at 'Anti-Americans' but at the end of the day, they didn't create the situation.
-
I think... the whole 'America hates Arabs' thing is very simple, because what Arabs see is the US going into places like Iraq or Afghanistan, or aiding Israel, and Arabs being killed in collateral damage. And whilst the US can justify that as protecting their own security from possible future attack, I think many Arabs can feel entitled to be aggreived, because it's they who are being killed (unintenionally or not); and what they probably would think is, "is one arab worth less than one American, because it's ok for us to be killed to maybe save an American life".
So I think sometimes America goes too far in protecting its interests, expanding its sphere of influence so far that it does look like an imperialistic state (or wannabe); there's no doubt that Saddam and the Taliban were utter gits (and that other governments are), but what right does the US have to make that decision for the people of those countries? And because America is the only superpower, it's not experienced that in a long, long time (if ever), and doesn't actually appreciate the damage that it is doing. The reason I tend to get pissed off at America in particular, is because I think as a democratic country with constiutionalised freedoms, it should know better than that.
Which is moving OT somewhat, I realise.
(NB: America == US government or foreign policy)
-
It goes back a bit further than that Aldo, remember it was the US who put the likes of Saddam and the Taliban in power in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Gank
It goes back a bit further than that Aldo, remember it was the US who put the likes of Saddam and the Taliban in power in the first place.
Well, of couse, but the whole bleating about 'anti-Americanism' is a more often aimed at people such as myself who were born after those events and use a more modern context.
-
I thought you were talking about arab attitudes towards the US. I wouldnt really get to fussed about being called anti-american anyways, its just a sad fap used by people who cant face up to the fact that their countrys not the shining light of peace and hope they like to think it is. Why anyone would think this when the countrys history involves the genocide of a native people and widespread slavery is beyond me.
-
Originally posted by Gank
I thought you were talking about arab attitudes towards the US.
Well, the views that would lead me to be labelled 'anti-American' are mostly centred around the damage being done to relations with the Arab world through US actions.
(And it's not like there aren't young, angry arabs who will remember the likes of Iraq or Afghanistan ahead of the days of the Shah)
-
The worst part of all is young Arabs in other countries, since they are getting extremely mixed messages about what is actually going on, particuarly in the UK where some teenagers think it's actually cool to 'look like a militant'.
The sad fact is that a lot of this comes from the teenage need to be a 'Martyr' and nothing whatsoever to do with Politics or Religion, just simply 'James Dean' syndrome.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, I'll say this, it's certainly looking far far more like a hate grudge against the Middle East, rather than any kind of 'Bringing about of Peace'. I've been trying to rationalise the whole and the only conclusion that seems apparent at the moment is :-
'We like bombing Arabs'.
Actually it's more about Americans believing that they have a manifest destiny to "civilize" the rest of the world by spreading the American dream.
Might be a good idea to get it working in their own country before exporting it though.
-
To subvert CBC's Royal Canadian Air Farce skit:
US recalls ambassador to Syria - American troops arrive Wednesday.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050216/wl_nm/iran_syria_dc
Things might just have gotten alittle more complicated...
-
Hmmmmmmmmm.... Judging from the response, that wasn't expected either... Funny, I'm surprised they didn't start doing this years ago.
-
So Iran is sandwhiched between Us forces in Iraq & Afghanistan, Syria between Israel and Iraq, and now Us forces in Iraq between Syria and Iran.
-
That could effectively be very very messy...
-
:lol:
The situation is starting to look like a multi-decked hamburger
:lol:
-
It's like one big game of Risk.
-
And then, once you add the Nutter in charge of North Korea, who is not only trying to play Risk, but trying to do it on a Monopoly board, things really get wobbly :(