[aldo_14]

I think the US response to 9/11 is inappropriate not just because the military targeting was flawed (abandoning Afghanistan for a seemingly pointless invasion of Iraq), but primarily because it's been used as a political tool.

People are basically being told that the number one threat to them is terrorist attack...that they should be afraid yadda yadda yadda.... so people are focusing on this one phantom enemy who, in relative terms to other domestic concerns, have actually done very little.

Possibly it's a Brit-centric view (what with have spent many decades dealing with the threat of the IRA*), but it seems as if terrorism, and 9/11 specifically, is being used as a method to push the US governments aims through - both in terms of foreign military action, and also in acts which curtail civil liberties to strengthen the intelligence services.

I think the Israeli / Palestinian situation is an effective example of why equal / excessive response doesn't work if you don;t tackle the base issues - if it did, it wouldn't still be necessary.  'Circle of violence' as a cliche, but it's a valid one... similar example can be used for the Irish troubles, which were only fully resolved with the Good Friday agreement.#

 It's the classic argument that you can't fight terrorism with more terror.... you have to destroy the basis & support for that terrorism.  Which civillian casualties do not do (the converse, in fact - the bereaved don't hold much truck for words like 'collateral damage' when they're friends or family are lying in a morgue or on a street).

*NB: you may say that the IRA campaign didn't have a single incident on the scale of 9/11.... but then again, they did launch several attacks directly at the British government (mortar bombing of Downing Street, bomb at the Brighton hotel hosting the Tory pary conference), which is something Al-Queda has not attempted.  And also the assassination of Lord Mountbatten, IIRC.

#Distasteful as it may be (and it bloody well is) to release IRA/ Loyalist prisoners under this agreement, it would seem that terrorist activity is no longer a major problem with regards to N.Ireland.

[vyper]

Originally posted by ionia23


Friend, if we go to war with china, the balance you speak of will be on the side of...cockroaches.

That's one subject I won't even debate about.  If russia/china/US go to full scale war in any combination, politics won't mean jack ****.  That's humanity rendered as a minor species, maybe even an extinct one.

Conventional conflict would come first. It'd be us that would use WMD first, in an attempt to take out the Chinese manpower issue.

The trick is to stop his nukes before yours. Can it be done? Maybe. Does it matter? No. China can't hit the entire world, nor will the fallouts be as fatal to the rest of the world as to the west coast of the US.

[aldo_14]

Fallout from Chernobyl continues to cause higher rates of leukemia in certain areas of Scotland nowadays, BTW.  A major nuclear war would be much worse....

[Vaelinx]

Originally posted by vyper


Conventional conflict would come first. It'd be us that would use WMD first, in an attempt to take out the Chinese manpower issue.

The trick is to stop his nukes before yours. Can it be done? Maybe. Does it matter? No. China can't hit the entire world, nor will the fallouts be as fatal to the rest of the world as to the west coast of the US.

Conventional conflict would be pointless.  We couldn't win in China, and China couldn't win in the US...  And I doubt they could win in Europe (with an allied front).  They know this, we know this.  It's old cold war like stuff again.  Nobody will engage unless one side thinks they can attain their objective.  Let's just say that some extreme things would have to go on between then and now for any WW3 to break out...  And that it would be horrible on a global scale...

But that assumes everyone stays as rational as they did during the cold war...   Meaning we keep the nukes/WMDs away from those who don't fear death and desire only destruction... you know who I mean...  

[aldo_14]

China & the US are probably happier trading with than fighting each other....  China's a good export market, and US companies also create lots of low-paid jobs over there.

The truth is that the US doesn't really give a **** about China being communist if they can make money out of it.  It's not like the Cold War, when the USSR was trying to expand the communist ideology

[ionia23]

Did someone say "behaving rationally??"

[Janos]

Originally posted by ionia23
Did someone say "behaving rationally??"

Pray, tell us, just what are you trying to say or prove?

[Flipside]

This sort of thing will continue long after the majority of calm is restored in Iraq, though that itself is a long way away, in much the same way as their were still active members of various sub-divisions of the IRA after the main body had called a truce.

I don't deny that people who do things like this are ignorant animals, commiting murder for murders sake, because they think they can blame it on Islam and clear their own guilt.

However, at this time and in this place, the world isn't ready for an 'American' solution, it takes the whole world to turn against terrorism and it's goals. Living in the UK or the US it is hard to see why this doesn't happen, but living in Iraq or Iran or Syria, I wonder what I would be thinking then?

[aldo_14]

It's always worth remembering there are zealots in every camp.  The aim has to be to remove the popular support / sympathy that gives them lifeblood - and you can't do that with bombs.

[ionia23]

Oooh, looky.  More rational behaviour courtesy of Chechen separatists.  Seems they just bombed a Moscow subway.  Way to go.

and in response to:
Pray, tell us, just what are you trying to say or prove?

Pfft, you're 'green', whatever that means.  No sense trying to say or prove anything to you.

[vyper]

[q]China & the US are probably happier trading[/q]

Who said we were though? We follow the US sometimes... sometimes the US follows us. See where I'm going? Remember we're losing power, we're losing credibility and we're losing our economy pretty much even if it has taken a long long time.

Last time, we were given the opportunity of a plate, this time we might have to cause it to happen.

[aldo_14]

The US only follows the UK when we know where oil is and they don't.

[Janos]

Originally posted by ionia23

and in response to:
Pray, tell us, just what are you trying to say or prove?

Pfft, you're 'green', whatever that means.  No sense trying to say or prove anything to you.

So:
1) You are making a personal attack. WAY TO GO CHIEF
2) Nobody still knows what you are trying to achieve
3) You can't prove whatever you are trying to say, therefore you won't     even give out a straight question.

 That's the way, dude.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Janos


So:
1) You are making a personal attack. WAY TO GO CHIEF
2) Nobody still knows what you are trying to achieve
3) You can't prove whatever you are trying to say, therefore you won't     even give out a straight question.

 That's the way, dude.

1. You chucked the first rock.  Don't cry that I threw it back at you.
2. Nobody cares what I'm trying to achieve.  My position is in the minority.
3.  I don't have to prove what I'm trying to say, that work has already been done.

[Janos]

Originally posted by ionia23


1. You chucked the first rock.  Don't cry that I threw it back at you.
2. Nobody cares what I'm trying to achieve.  My position is in the minority.
3.  I don't have to prove what I'm trying to say, that work has already been done.

1. what
You make an unclear statement. I then ask what it mean. Then you make a bad personal attack, I again ask what you were trying to achieve and you continue your attacks. You kinda suck at debating, dude.
2. You make a statement and I'm calling you on it.  
3. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Janos


1. what
You make an unclear statement. I then ask what it mean. Then you make a bad personal attack, I again ask what you were trying to achieve and you continue your attacks. You kinda suck at debating, dude.
2. You make a statement and I'm calling you on it.  
3. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

*sigh*  back to this again.  My original statement about 'rational behavior' ought to be self-explanatory.  Some of our post 9/11 actions have been very rational, some under the category of what-the hell.  But you put that in proportion with these idiot suicide bombers and we've been saints by comparison.  Some thing could be done better or differently (depending on who benefits), but at least we didn't resort to that.

If we used the same 'rational behavior' as those we are fighting, a large chunk of the planet would be radioactive by now.

Like I said, you threw the first rock.  Quit crying.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ionia23


*sigh*  back to this again.  My original statement about 'rational behavior' ought to be self-explanatory.  Some of our post 9/11 actions have been very rational, some under the category of what-the hell.  But you put that in proportion with these idiot suicide bombers and we've been saints by comparison.  Some thing could be done better or differently (depending on who benefits), but at least we didn't resort to that.

If we used the same 'rational behavior' as those we are fighting, a large chunk of the planet would be radioactive by now.

Like I said, you threw the first rock.  Quit crying.

Pulling your best Arab speakers out of Afgahnistan and the hunt for Bin Ladin to invade a completely unconnected country for false reasons, and thus inflaming the arab world?

Starting a slagging match with France & Germany for opposing a war at the UN? (so much for free speech).  

Whilst offering financial incentives to the small african dictatorship on the security council so they would support it?

Enacting laws repressive of civil liberties to 'combat terrorism', yet not allowing the FBI to check up on whether terrorist suspects have bought a gun?

Just because some nut is incensed enough to bomb / kill peope does not justify a foreign policy.  In fact, it calls its effectiveness into question.  

The difference is that when an government via military kills thousands of civillians, its couched in nice indirect terms like 'collateral damage'.

Is it worse to intentionally kill someone as a terrorist does, or to send in troops and tanks recklessly?  Or are they both equally bad in their real effect upon the rest of the world?

[Flipside]

Ah, but this is where religion makes a wonderful shield to hide behind. They're not dead, you see, everything they are hasn't been wiped from the face of the planet, their every hope, dream aspiration. Because they've gone to heaven, see, be it Christian or Muslim.

So, therefore it doesn't matter how many people we kill, because in reality we aren't actually killing anyone. We are simply pushing into a different plane of existence. Because, of course, If we thought we were really snuffing out human beings who are far more like ourselves than we like to admit, it would be horrible.

Religion, the worlds most comforting lie.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by aldo_14

Pulling your best Arab speakers out of Afgahnistan and the hunt for Bin Ladin to invade a completely unconnected country for false reasons, and thus inflaming the arab world?

Starting a slagging match with France & Germany for opposing a war at the UN? (so much for free speech).
Whilst offering financial incentives to the small african dictatorship on the security council so they would support it?

I wrote about the slagging in another thread, which was retarded from the get-go ('Freedom Fries', indeed).  Funny that the 'arab' world being referred to here can get inflamed at us for attempting to topple Hussein, but at the same time none of them liked him either.  I recall astonishment that the Republican Guard was crushed so quickly (now we're in the real war).

Originally posted by aldo_14

Enacting laws repressive of civil liberties to 'combat terrorism', yet not allowing the FBI to check up on whether terrorist suspects have bought a gun?

Just because some nut is incensed enough to bomb / kill peope does not justify a foreign policy.  In fact, it calls its effectiveness into question.  

No one held a gun to Bin Laden's head and said "start some ****".  He did that on his own.  I wonder sometimes if that was his true goal.  Either way, he didn't do his own religion, or their followers, any favors.  Our foreign policy is ****ed up.  I'd rather go isolationist.  Put it up to a vote and I'm in.

Originally posted by aldo_14

The difference is that when an government via military kills thousands of civillians, its couched in nice indirect terms like 'collateral damage'.   Is it worse to intentionally kill someone as a terrorist does, or to send in troops and tanks recklessly?  Or are they both equally bad in their real effect upon the rest of the world?

This is a loaded question.  I'd hardly call our troop deployments 'reckless' from a military standpoint.  Politically?  Absoltuely.  So to 'really' answer your question:

The terrorist is far worse, for the terrorist doesn't care who they kill.  

Okay, this is where I get bent out of shape.  I'm sorry, but wars are no longer fought on a big isolated battlefield where Winner Takes All.  You don't see the allied troops using Iraqi civilians as human shields, do you?  These people we fight will hide snipers in a mosque because they know we won't hit it.  We determine victory by whether or not our objectives were accomplished and how few non-combatants got killed in the process.  The terrorist doesn't give a damn who gets killed as long as the message gets out.  

I would have been perfectly content to leave the sanctions against Iraq in place indefinately.  I don't like the idea that the tax dollars I'm forced to pay out are footing the bill for this crap.  Oh sure, maybe someday people in Bagdhad will be able to go to work without worrying about being carbombed.  Great. Wonderful.  Do you really think anyone's going to THANK us for that?  Not likely.  We, and a good chunk of the planet, will be dealing with the consequences of these actions for a long, long time.

My co-worker from India was right. "Democracy is empowerment for idiots".

[Ace]

Actually these deployments are reckless from a military standpoint as well: overextension.