Subject:
|
Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:58:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
450 times
|
| |
|
|
<snip> I think many countries want the US to be the policement, but only
when they're interests are at risk.</snip>
I don't know about other countries, but a lot of people here in Holland
aren't impressed with America taking the role of police around the world,
especially since the motivation is dubious.... Why attack Iraq, claiming it
has weapons nobody can find, and do nothing about Pakistan or North Korea,
countries that publicly announce they have nuclear weapons? Whatever
happened to the war against terror? Obviously now they let Bin Laden get out
of Afghanistan there's no hope in hell they're ever gonna catch him, so
let's just move the focus to Iraq. Why let Israel get away with organised
terror?
The answers are obvious: Iraq has oil and since America is refusing to do
anything to reduce the use(or rather waste) of oil/petrol it needs Iraq's
oil. (Let's be honest: you don't need 5liter V8 engines to drive 60mph. But
since a gallon in the US costs the same as a liter overhere who cares?).
Israel has always been friends of America, and are probably a good customer
of the war industry.
<snip> In my opinion, we have a small responsibility to protect Europe,
however, those countries being in pretty good economic condition, the help
should mostly be in the form of mutual aid pacts, not outright
defense.</snip>
No offense, but don't feel you guys have to protect us. I mean, thanks for
'45 and all, but we're okay now. Unless of course your idea of mutual aid is
passing a law that allows the US to attack Holland to free any US citizens
held by the International Court of Law in the Hague. Why would the US not
sign the treaty about the international court? Because in all those policing
actions things often go wrong. A few weeks ago a few Canadians were killed
by US planes. The pilots had been on duty, admitted taking speed(which seems
a regular thing in the US Air Force to keep pilots trigger happy-sorry awake
on long shifts) and were told by flight control to hold their fire until
flight control could confirm it was the enemy. They never listened to flight
control, and shot the canadians. If those pilots would be brought before the
International Court in the Hague America could attack the Netherlands to
free them.
<snip> We have a responsibility to ourselves and the world to become
involved if something of the scale of WW II starts to brew again.</snip>
Something is starting to brew. There's this country with a huge army that's
about to start a war that could unsettle the entire region. The rest of the
world are telling them not to, but they think they have the god-given right
to attack any country who's leader they don't like.
<snip> I think some support of Israel is worthwhile to the extent that it
would prevent nuclear war (because I have no doubt that if Israel feels
truly threatened that it will launch). I don't think they need as much
support as we are giving. I also don't think this is necessarily an
obligation, just a cost benefit issue.</snip>
Israel feeling truly threatened by a nation they've almost completely
destroyed? A nation that has nothing left but suicide attacks to defend
itself against one of the better equipped armies in the world? Give me a
break. Support the palestinians. Make sure no ammo of any form goes into
Israel, bomb Sharons village, his office, and a few random other towns in
Israel, just to get the situation levelled again.
<snip> I think we should look for ways to offer support for struggling
nations that pays us real benefits (and incidentally pays them real benefits
because they are able to take a step closer to the top of the pile).</snip>
Why not struggling nations in general?
<snip> Personally, I'm pretty happy with the whole Afghanistan
business.</snip>
What part of the business would that be? The part where America went in,
screwed up, and left the remain to European armies to clear up? And what
about Bin Laden? Is he left for George Bush the third in years to come,
keeping the family tradition of not finishing things of?
I think Bush has a few problems:
* Cry wolf. He's been threatening for so long it starts to sound a bit
hollow.
* The military build up. So much money has been invested it would be a waste
not to let them start a war now. Pitty the rest of the world doesn't agree.
The rest of the world minus lap-dog Tony Blair that is.
* His war against terror is a joke. They let Bin Laden get away and when he
went to Asia to get support for his Axis of Evil theory they laughed at him.
He needs to get the attention away from this failure.
* America's economy is falling apart, and there's not much he can do because
most of the greedy bastards that caused also got him where is now. Again he
needs to get the focus away from this mess.
So here we are. The biggest airhead ever to become president is acting like
a little child: I want my war with Saddam and I'll make sure I'll get it!
Attempt 1: We want our spies back in your country to check on you. You're
gonna refuse, and that'll allow me to pick a fight with you.
Oops, they let the spies in...
Attempt 2: Our spies want to look everywhere and talk to everyone so we can
uncover your secrets. You won't cooperate, so there's another reason to pick
a fight.
Oops, they are cooperating. Maybe not fully, but good enough for the rest of
the world.
Attempt 3: So I can't prove that you have evil toys. Let's turn this around:
you have to prove that you don't have them. You can't, so I can finally have
my war!
Can someone please give Georgie some innocent little oil company to run and
get a real president in again?
Duq
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
