IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted May 25, 2003 Tovarish- "Unfortunately these are more than wet dreams *edit* More on the particular "Incidents" mentioned above " Damn that sucks. I hear Castros been getting a bit repressive again lately but there is absolutely zero excuse for acts like that. Its just plain terrorism but of course the US government will say they are not involved and are unaware of any terrorists on US soil. Denoir- "I don't know if anybody caught the immense irony of that. USA's current agenda is to eliminate terrorist states while it publicly announces that it will support Iranian terrorists" Freedom fighters! They are only terrorists if you dont love freedom, liberty and...i really cant be bothered but thats what someone who earnestly believes in that endeavour might say.Of course the Iranians will say they are not aware of any terrorists on Iranian soil. Well im seeing something of a pattern here. They say history repeats itself. It seems more like its stuck like a badly scratched CD to me. Perhaps that the USA using proxies to fight for it is a bad idea has not yet sunken in inside the Bush Administration but i hope i am somehow wrong in that regard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted May 25, 2003 We are we supporting the terrorists we plan on killing? That post made no sence whatsoever. No you are planning on supporting terrorist that fight against the Iranian government. It's not the same terrorist that fight you (yet). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Postduifje 0 Posted May 25, 2003 Isn't that what they've allways done, like the Taliban, OBL, and the Iraqi's. (maybe this next few years adds some of the Kurdish and the Iranian terrorists, and parts of the northern alliance). -Post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted May 25, 2003 Well, I hate it when I am right. What the fuck is Mr Bush after ? WW3 ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted May 25, 2003 Quote[/b] ]If its any help im not American, my coherance is questionable but i like arguing Yes, devils advocate is your second name then Quote[/b] ]An American might argue that thats just not what happens. The US requests that a country stops doing something (such as aiding international terrorists) if the country does nothing to change its policies then it may be seen as a threat to US national security and the US acts accordingly (in line with its own national sovereignty) Yes, an american might argue just like that - but where will you draw the line between what's acceptable consequenses of other nations actions - and what's not? Remember, if USA takes military action against a state harbouring or supporting "terrorists" a few - or many will nessecarily die from such actions. There will also be a certain amount of innocent people in that category. So in my pretty basic logic US would be guilty of murder in that respect. Let's take a look at the argument from another point of view. What if we're not speaking about terrorism - but the other nation's actions still cause death and tradgedy. Do you believe that Ireland, Norway and Denmark should attack your own country because of your careless attitude to the Sellafield problem? Quote[/b] ]Might makes right. Its not politically correct or palatable to the 'international community' but at the same time it remains a hard truth. An American might argue that if the UN is not willing to act on its supposed principles then someone else has to. I see your point but have to (partly) disagree. The UN system would have worked if it got the chance. UN is by no means more effective than the sum of it's (veto-members) parts. It wouldn't be very hard to claim that US has played a significant role in undermining UN's integrity. By doing so one could very well say US never wanted the UN system to work - except from the when it fitted it's own interests. Communicative rationality is only possible if the acting participants restrains their demands every now and then. Quote[/b] ]Who listens to the UN and why should they? I would say answers to both of the questions are obvious - wouldn't you? Quote[/b] ].......Authoritarians should be institutionally hounded by the UN and punished for their abuses of the UNs own charter.... How would you punish utter lies being presented to the security council by the US' foreign secretary - you know - the "evidence" . Quote[/b] ]As long as the US is a superpower dont be holding your breath. The US is power and few can ignore power for long. You are right of course - but then again US are not the only nation on this planet. I remember I used to wonder about Rumsfeld's rather unintelligent comment about France and Germany being irrelevant. I wonder how it will be for US to live in an irrelevant world. They can't fight and occupy all of us - and they can't punish us all economically. The cost of trying would hurt US as much - if not more - as it would hurt us. Quote[/b] ]But then im not American and i mostly agree with you . Doesn't matter really - because I haven't been on this forum for a long time and thus I need to adress my energetic anger at someone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Commander-598 0 Posted May 26, 2003 Quote[/b] ]I used to wonder about Rumsfeld's rather unintelligent comment about France and Germany being irrelevant. Militarily speaking, they are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted May 26, 2003 Quote[/b] ]I used to wonder about Rumsfeld's rather unintelligent comment about France and Germany being irrelevant. Militarily speaking, they are. France is militarily irrelevant   Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted May 26, 2003 Quote[/b] ]I used to wonder about Rumsfeld's rather unintelligent comment about France and Germany being irrelevant. Militarily speaking, they are. Not really - because France is a nation whom never had any trouble defending it's ongoing interests in the former colonies. Why do you suppose they are stationed in Africa? If you are thinking about a possible war between "Europe" and USA you are correct. But then again, that won't happen - ever. If so, do you really think France, Germany and possibly Italy and Spain would be a simple pushover? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tovarish 0 Posted May 26, 2003 Tovarish- "Unfortunately these are more than wet dreams*edit* More on the particular "Incidents" mentioned above " Damn that sucks. I hear Castros been getting a bit repressive again lately but there is absolutely zero excuse for acts like that. Its just plain terrorism but of course the US government will say they are not involved and are unaware of any terrorists on US soil. Of course. It may surprize you but this is nothing new, it is an ongoing thing. Remember those planes flown by an exile organization called Brothers to the Rescue shot down by Cuban MiGs a few years ago? There was a huge shitstorm about that but what hardly was mentioned was that members of the group were wanted in Cuba for terrorism. Interesting little tidbit to ignore don't you think? Another thing that was hardly mentioned was that the Cessnas they were flying had been bought from the USAF and still had USAF insignias when they were shot down. If you want to see how extensive and lengthy this Cuban "War against terror" is, here's a doccument listing the incidents that occurred from 1970-1979: CUBAN INFORMATION ARCHIVES DOCUMENT 0073 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted May 26, 2003 Well, you're not biased. Anyway, if Iran doesn't have any control over the terrorists the least they could do is cooperate with us and help us get them out of their country. Â If they don't cooperate it tells me that they are interacting with the terrorists and do control them. Yes, if they don't want US troops jackbooting around on their soil telling them what they can and can't do it obviously means they are in cahoots with the terrorists, doesn't it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
booradley60 0 Posted July 15, 2003 I was just wondering if it was ok to dig up this older thread since the newer one was closed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 15, 2003 well within forum rules Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
