Subject:
|
Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:12:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
328 times
|
| |
|
|
Fixing quotes like Larry did...
Duq wrote:
> > 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.
> 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.
Inherently I support the idea of a world court, but I'm not sure how to
implement it to give it appropriate teeth. I was going to talk about my
feelings of two noteable incidents of US pilots attacking non-enemies.
From what I can see, I hope the pilots who bombed the Canadians get the
book thrown at them. They acted in a truly arrogant way.
On the other hand, the incident of the attack on the wedding is a little
different. I think the reaction was overboard, but honestly, people in
these unsettled parts of the world need to learn not to fire guns into
the air when they're happy. Especially in areas where there are still
tensions.
> > 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.
> 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.
No Israel is not terribly threatened by the current state of things, and
they need to find a way to solve the problem with less violence, but I
have no doubt that they are at risk. They are mitigating that risk by
building a very good army. If we went in and disarmed them (like some
people would seem to want), I have no doubt that they would be wiped
from the map. Of course it might be the US doing the wiping from the map
because Israel has sufficient fear (and historical precedent for that
fear) that should anyone try and disarm them, I'm pretty sure they'll
use the weapons first... The source of this fear is what should scare
the rest of the world. It should also be something we use to examine our
responses to other situations (which definitely indicates we need to
look for better ways to sold the crisis there, the Palestinians are
being put in almost the same position [I say almost because the area is
surrounded by Islamic countries which is very different from the Jewish
situation in WW II]).
> > 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).
> Why not struggling nations in general?
Because I think blanket handouts are part of the problem (and that goes
for our domestic aid also).
> > Personally, I'm pretty happy with the whole Afghanistan
> > business.
> 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?
Hmm, I don't see that we've "left the mess to the European armies to
clean up." It would have been nice to snatch bin Laden, but do you think
we just let him go to spice things up? (Well, I'm sure some folks think
so, and of course some folks think he's a CIA agent...).
But I'm not sure why I'm trying to argue with another America hater. We
probably should have just let you folks rot 50 years ago... Of course
the Japanese made the mistake of waking us up...
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
