Subject:
|
Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:09:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> <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?
A lot of people in America aren't impressed with us being the world's
policemen, either, regardless of the individual cases. But to run down the
list...
Pakistan: if we were to deal with Pakistan, we would have to deal with the
trigger device also, India. And then we'd have to deal with India's other
trigger device, China. It's beyond the scope of America to deal with by
itself, not to mention singularly ungrateful considering the staging support
Pakistan gave against Afghanistan.
North Korea: Again, China has already demonstrated it's unwillingness to
have American forces next to its borders. Why China would like to have the
loopy North Korean leadership to have nukes next to its borders is beyond
me, but that's their problem. But then, I feel we should pull our military
out of South Korea anyway.
Bin Laden: I would agree, Bush is trying to shift focus from his failure to
track him down. This is where we should be focusing on, rather than some
localized tyrant who is merely motivated by oil.
Israel: Israel wants aid, but without strings attached. I'm of the opinion
that we need to fashion the strings out of steel, or simply cut them
ourselves. This is an alliance with a one-way advantage - we get nothing
out of it. It's time to force some kind of settlement or tell them that
they are on their own.
> 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.
Middle East oil goes to Europe, where they drive their 5 liter V12 engines
at 300kph, burning gas as fast as they can. ;-) I'm not a fan of the
current fascination America has for the dangerous and inefficient SUV, but I
think this is going to be resolved by rising gas prices.
> <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>
The above is Frank's comment. I have to disagree. I don't feel we have any
responsiblity to protect Europe. They are perfectly capable of protecting
themselves. However, judging by past indiscretions, they aren't to be
trusted to look after themselves, and for our own sakes, its best we keep an
eye on things (though Europeans have been doing better of late, with the
exception of the Balkans which seems to be trying to live up to its billing
as the powderkeg of Europe).
> 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.
The guilty need to be punished, but if Canadians had bombed Americans, it
would have been the exact same scenario - it is up to the various allies to
police themselves. Do you feel that nothing has been done, or is this a
case of you feeling the Netherlands has been slighted? The story you spin
seems a bit, well, paranoid?
> <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.
The question becomes are we diffusing it or starting it? I don't see
attacking Iraq as diffusing it. But perhaps Bush is trying to win
concessions by sabre-rattling. Personally speaking, I don't give him even
that much credit.
>
> <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.
I'm sorry to say that I don't have much respect for the opinions you voice
above - would you have the Netherlands engage in the activities you advocate?
I would like to see some sort of final settlement made that had real teeth
against any further disrupting party and Israel would have to give up major
tracks of land, but let's be honest: the best way to diffuse the situation
is for the various countries of Europe that persecuted the jews so that they
were inspired to migrate, pay to take them back and re-establish them in
Europe. Not gonna happen? So, as usual, the US is stuck with a mess
created by Europe. Not that I care for what we have done with it, mind you.
>
> <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?
The business is left unfinished with Bin Laden still at large, but the
unrestricted sanctuary for Al Qaeda is gone. It was not a complete success
by any means, but it was hardly a failure. The real failure is Bush running
off to a new conflict when he has yet to wrap this one up. I see no
compelling evidence linking Al Qaeda and Iraq.
As for America going in and screwing up, while the Europeans have to clear
up the remainder: you may wish to hold back on the bitter sarcasm a bit. I
could easily turn that around to say that when the real fighting took place,
the Europeans kept their heads down and only came out when things were safe
(I'm not saying that, by the way, I don't need to denigrate their efforts
just to counter one voice).
>
> 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!
Air-head and Blair-head? I'm gonna TM that and sell it on T-shirts in
Europe! :-)
> 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...
Guess they shouldn't have agreed to let them in in the first place. Spies
are covert, inspectors aren't.
> 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.
The Neville Chamberlain syndrome (convincing yourself that they are
cooperating enough). But despite that, I think the efforts are better spent
elsewhere.
> 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!
Maybe Bush actually did study: the Austro-Hungarian solution to Serbia
agreeing to all it's terms. Just declare war and drag all your allies in
with you, kicking and screaming.
>
> Can someone please give Georgie some innocent little oil company to run and
> get a real president in again?
Innocent oil company. A contradiction in terms. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
