A Friendly Warning

Basic liberties - the ability of being able to travel from one country to another without too many hassles, for example - now, to go to the States, (for a foreigner like me), you need to have a special barcoded passport
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But now let me point out that you are really discussing how various liberties RELATE to one another and, yes, sometimes conflict with each other. Any one liberty does not exist all by itself.

To illustrate using your example: Do you think it is a "basic freedom" that you should be able to travel wherever you want, without restriction? If so, one can easily see that this can impact other people's basic freedoms to have private, restricted places, not to mention the basic freedom to feel secure. As a voting American, I am not about to vote AGAINST more stringent security measures. Do you really think all of this terrorism is a "conspiracy theory" cooked up by the government to gain control? Good God, Sarah....there ARE terrorists and they ARE killing innocent people.

The US is one of the most open societies the world has ever seen, and now you want to cry "foul" because we want to feel more secure? Without improved security, we can see what our future will look like by examining what is going on in both Israel, and now Iraq. Would you like a return to the IRA days of blowing-up innocent English citizens? Some of us Americans keep a keen eye on what has been going on in Israel, and we are determined that such terror will NOT happen on our soil. That is because Americans DO things...and I am not tooting a nationalistic horn here. Our culture has "grown up" by doing things that many people thought difficult. It is part of the fabric of who we are. Twice we intervened in European-based world wars because we saw the potential threats to ourselves. We DID something about it. The French couldn't handle completing the Panama Canal... so the Americans stepped-up to the challenge. A great American president said "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." After that speech Americans went to the Moon. And now we are being scoffed at for wanting to send man to Mars.

The world, including a formerly complacent America, was not DOING anything about terrorism. We can thank the terrorists themselves for 9/11, because that changed everything. When no one else in the world is willing to step up to the plate and DO something, America will take the lead. We don't really care if no one else wants to follow, and we don't care if people don't like it. SOMEONE has to do something, and we enjoy making things happen.

The one thing I fear about American society, after the threat of terrorism, is that our populace stops being DOERS and instead goes the way of other countries, who simply CRITICIZE those who do. I am not afraid to say that this is how most Americans feel about the French. Always quick to criticize, but so slow to DO SOMETHING THEMSELVES.

Liberties and freedoms must be protected, but they must also be balanced, for the reality is that many basic freedoms conflict. Us Americans might not "do it right" or "do it to everyone's satisfaction", but we are doing something which is a lot more than can be said for some countries.

Sorry to go off on a rant... but my main point, stated as a question, is: How do we rank our "basic freedoms", and do you ever think everyone will agree to any one ranking? Sticky wicket, eh?

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Us Americans might not "do it right" or "do it to everyone's satisfaction", but we are doing something which is a lot more than can be said for some countries.
Click to expand...

This is the important thing. You're right in that it admirable to be doing something about terrorism. But the question is whether the right things are being done. Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

The invasion of Iraq has set a dangerous precedent for pre-emptive strikes, a precedent that India and North Korea have both threatened to follow with nuclear action and one that Israel is using increasingly frequently. If you also take into account the illegal status of the war and the US's unilateral approach to the actions, it's subsequent illegal privatisation of Iraq's industries (making 80% of the Iraqi workforce redundant, and selling the contracts off to US contractors, while ensureing that any new Iraqi government will have no power to countermand these actions), the recent revelations and allegations of the torture of Iraqi prisoners, as well as the inaccessability and arbitrary detaination without charge of Iraqi citizens, the recent worst PR move made by anyone anywhere ever with regards to the bombing of a Mosque during evening prayers, as well as the reality of the post-invasion situation in Afgahnistan of the US-instilled government being little better than the Taliban, and the recent resurge and gain of power of the Taliban itself, the failure of the US to condemn actions by Israel, but their haste to condemn Palestinian actions, their alliances with states that sponsor and forge terrorism (why is Saudi Arabia an ally again?)...take all of that into account, as well as the numerous things that I haven't even mentioned for the sake of space aned not wanting to type for 6 hours straight and you have to question exactly how productive these anti-terrorism moves actually are.

You do not fight terrorists whose main rallying cry is that you hate their religion, have no respect for them and are brutal murderers by bombing a mosque full of civilians in the middle of evening prayers. You fight terrorism by altering the environment in which people live so that it does not have room to fester and grow. People believe what bin Laden says because they are brought up uneducated and unable to read. If you only hear lies, then you'll believe those lies. If you eduacte people and give them the ability to access information for themselves, then they can make an informed choice.

I realise that that's a vague and simplistic answer, but it's better than "blow up those terrorists that we don't have alliences with and/or detain them indefinately without trial". My approach won't work any miracles but can work to slowly change the environment of the world so that there is no call for terrorism (although you will never wipe it out entirely). The US's approach at the moment, I fear, may be effective at reducing the memberships of known terrorist cells and reducing the number of terrorists attacks per year (depending on how you define those terms) in the short-term. However, in 10 or 20 years those who have grown up in the current environment will be at it again, bigger and better and more numerous than before. The net effect, as I see it, will be to increase terrorism. In which case, doing nothing would be better.
 
The "illegal" status of the war? I'm sorry... maybe I missed the memo... but since when is the United States, a sovereign state, required to check with the rest of the world before it can act against it's self-avowed enemies?
 
Unilateral invasion of a soverign state and deposition of it's leader with no evidence of an imminant threat is illegal under international law.
 
1)It wasn't unilateral.

2)The U.N. seemed pretty convinced that there was evidence of an immenant threat.

3)Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force.. even if the U.N. was too cowardly and spineless to exercise it.
 
>>I have seen things that many of you have yet to see and they are things that I would not wish on my worst enenmy.<<

And how are the people here suppose to view this?
As you being a time traveler, in our limited definition, or someone who knows about or are planning a certain event to happen in the future?

Or, how did you come by this information, that you claim that you have seen, JTTS?

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
It wasn't unilateral.
Click to expand...

Depends which defination of the word you're using.

The U.N. seemed pretty convinced that there was evidence of an immenant threat.
Click to expand...

Really? I saw no evidence of that. I saw extreme skepticism during Powell's presentation of the supposed "evidence". Had the UN been convinced, then there would have been no problem making a second resolution.

Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force.. even if the U.N. was too cowardly and spineless to exercise it.
Click to expand...

Actually, it didn't, not specifically and at the time of drafting the resolution it was made clear that it did not authorise the use of force. Bush Snr. even went on record saying that going to Baghdad would exceed the UN mandate. One thing that the resolution also says, as do they all, in the final paragraph is "decides to remain seized of the matter". This is leagleese which says, simply and clearly that what happens with regards to the resolution is the descision of the Security Council and he Security Council alone. The resolution did not authorise military action and the Security council did not authorise military action.

Add to that the fact that the resolution said abosolutely nothing like the ultimatum that Bush gave to Saddam (leave the country and abdicate) and it's plain to see that the US, far from having it's actions justified by the UN and resolution 1441, it was actually acting contrary to them. And that's ignoring the question of the UN Charter which the war was in violation of, which is the basic foundation of the UN as a whole and international law.

So, yes, the war was illegal.
 
The USA has a Constitution, and other counties also have an equilivant.

How is traveling from Country to Country, something that refers only to the USA's Constitution?

Surely, they abide by their own laws and own freedoms. That freedom is only for your pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, according to all of the people and not just a few.

I also think that since ladies now get (or suppose to get paid the same, but it may not yet be fully implemented) that ladies also share for the equilivant with Rights and Freedom, although it is not specified, since all men are created equal.

Some people in this USA, have their own personal agenda, while trying to evoke others to act for them, for no pay, or satisfaction, except for the person originally doing that.

They call it fun and games, while I call it playing with people or a person.

Better to play a computerg game, then be lame, about what constitutes 'freedom' for the whole, or 'freedom' for an individual. As to me, there will never be 'freedom' for an individual, unless there is 'freedom' for the entire whole masses of people.

The debate continues, until one side, oversteps the boundary of what some people think this is, as a line in the sand. That, could, like anything else, be this day, or the next day, or any other day, as in the Past, or the Future, or the Now.

I still fail to see, why some people tell me things though that infer that they know what is about to happen, if they are not a part of it, and do not state it as an opinion, or some link to something like information, but generally form these statements as a fact.

I fail to see the facts, right now, which is my freedom, not to be tied up with overthinking, or reading a person's mind, or brain, or whatever.

This could be taken as fact if one wanted to:
There is more garbage in a human's brain, then perhaps, in all the landfill's of the world, if all the people are accounted for, which may be a lack of freedom, but nevertheless, a fact, that some people may consider in the Now, or Future, since the Past is not present, and if it is, as we can feel it, touch it, see it, prove it.

Brainwaves are an important tool, but the interference is amounting to staggering, at least to me.
Transmission concluded!
:oops:
 
One entry found for unilateral.


Main Entry: uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "yü-ni-'la-t&-r&l, -'la-tr&l
Function: adjective
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE-SIDED c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
2 a : having parts arranged on one side <a unilateral raceme> b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts <unilateral exophthalmos>
3 : UNILINEAL
4 : having only one side
- uni·lat·er·al·ly adverb
Click to expand...


Depends on which definition? How about the REAL definition??? That work for you?

Have you read 1441? I doubt it. 1441 said that there would be consequences (military).


And another thing, Saddam Hussein was REQUIRED to PROVE that there were NO WMDs in Iraq, and NO WMD programs. So even if the WMDs are never found... even if there never were any, he still violated U.N. mandate.
 
You fight terrorism by altering the environment in which people live so that it does not have room to fester and grow.
Click to expand...
And while we wait for this lagging solution to take effect, we simply allow terrorists to kill innocent people where and when they wish? I respectfully disagree. While I agree that the schooling they receive is a big part of the problem (and it seems not enough media attention is placed on US and International efforts to get Madrassas schools shut down), we must contend with the immediate threats of today.

I grew up in a military family, and there were two primary principles of military effectiveness that I was taught, and I believe should be talked about a lot more, both in America and around the world. Those principles are:

1) The best military in the world is impotent without the will to use it.
After 8 years of Bill Clinton doing nothing about terrorism (in fact, doing negative things like pulling out of Somalia before the job was done), both terrorists and radical fundamentalist states were clearly thinking America had lost its will to use its superior forces to keep tyrants in line. While I would be the first to agree that the WMD "reason" for invading Iraq was sketchy, one cannot insist that there were not others, namely the fact that Saddam murdered more muslims (many his own people) than anyone else. There is also ample evidence that he supported various forms of terrorism (why was Abu Nidal hanging out in Baghdad if not at the invitation of Saddam?). He willfully violated more than 1 UN resolution, and he was certainly a threat to many of his neighbors. Ask Saudi Arabia and Iran if they are sad to have Saddam gone. But perhaps one often overlooked reason, which only matters to the fact that America is the defacto world policeman, is that a clear message had to be sent to people and regiemes that thought that America had lost her will to BE the world policeman.

2) Take the fight to the enemy.
This is the one that I am most upset is not discussed more often in American society, and once again, you only need to look as far as Israel. Ask how many Americans whether they want that kind of wanton, massive bloodshed on the streets of America. Since any sane person will say "no", what follows then is the question "what are WE going to do to prevent it?" The answer is you take the fight to the enemy ON THEIR TURF. Thank God it IS difficult for terrorists to gain access to and plan operations within the USA. But since we can only do so much for our own protection in our own land, the next best thing is to fight it out with them where they live. Selfish? Maybe. Effective? Most definitely. You will note that our military brass predicted the terrorist attacks happening in Iraq before they began. They KNEW this would transpire, and for many different reasons. It is sad that Iraqi people are having to pay part of this price, but then again, they will have to learn to deal with this stuff for themselves, now that they are free of Saddam. And did they pay a bigger price under Saddam or under current conditions? I believe some recent polls show they are STILL happy to be free of Saddam, and while they admit to not liking us Americans all that much, they still see better times ahead for Iraq in the coming years.

I respect you, trollface {now that is a strange sounding sentence! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif}, because you are quite a knowledgeable person. But it is also clear that you have a more European view on the issue of terrorism than I and many Americans do. Until other countries who have the means to help police the world begin to develop the will to do so, America will act...first for the good of America, and second for the good of the rest of the world. I would heartily encourage you to use your knowledge and intelligence to help transform the EU into more of a "doer/helper" and less of a "criticizer". The EU block of nations is now beginning to experience the wealth and benefits that US federalism and US economic policies have provided for the US for many years. Clearly, the EU is already giving the US a run for our money in terms of economic muscle power. But along with all those benefits come responsibilities on the world stage. We need help to "do the right things". The US would NEVER turn away help in fixing the problems in our world. But we are not going to only take a long-term view, and we are certainly not going to pay attention to nations who do little more than criticize. We didn't put up with it in two world wars, and we are not about to start doing that now. So please....by all means tell us how you (EU) think the problems should be solved... but then immediately step-up and take definitive actions to DO, rather than just TALK.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unilateral

Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: “a unilateral advantage in defense”
Click to expand...

Depends on which definition? How about the REAL definition??? That work for you?
Click to expand...

There's no need to get sarky.

Have you read 1441? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Why do you doubt it? Have my interactions on this board so far been those of an uninformed and ignorant man? How do you think I could quote the text of it from memory?

Yes, of course I've read it, thoroughly, more than once. This isn't the fist time I've had this conversation, believe it or not.

1441 said that there would be consequences (military).
Click to expand...

Get rid of the "military" and you're right (unless you want to quote me the appropriate paragraph where military action is mandated. The text is here). It also says that supreme authority with regards to the situation remains in the hands of the Security Council. So that it says there will be consequences is irrelevant when addressing America's actions.

So even if the WMDs are never found... even if there never were any, he still violated U.N. mandate.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant, as the US was not enforcing the resolution in question.
 
And while we wait for this lagging solution to take effect, we simply allow terrorists to kill innocent people where and when they wish?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I'm not against the capture and punishment of terrorists in the here and now. I do think, though, that current things that are happening and the way that the problem is being tackled is countr-productive in the long-run and will cause a massive increase in terrorism.

[...] it seems not enough media attention is placed on US and International efforts to get Madrassas schools shut down
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and that's one of the things I mean. I still can't fathom why Saudi Arabia is one of our allies.

BTW, don't think for one moment that I'm at all sad that Saddam is gone. I do think, however, that there were other ways for the same goal to be achieved. There were certainly legal ways. Don't take my criticisms of the situation at the moment as saying that I'd be content with nothing happening. It's just that, as I see it, the situation is only likely to end up worse than it was before.

This is the one that I am most upset is not discussed more often in American society, and once again, you only need to look as far as Israel. Ask how many Americans whether they want that kind of wanton, massive bloodshed on the streets of America. Since any sane person will say "no", what follows then is the question "what are WE going to do to prevent it?" The answer is you take the fight to the enemy ON THEIR TURF.
Click to expand...

Well, look at Israel indeed. Look at the assasinations that Israel have carried out recently, thier airstrikes at Syria. Has this ended Palestinian terrorism or has it made the resolve of the fanatics stronger and, through the wonderful medium of demonising the enemy and inciting revenge killings actually made their cause stronger and created martyrs?

As for fighting the enemy on their own turf, there is merit in that. However, that is not to say that you can just arbitrarily invade any nation that the fancy takes you to, or that you can kidnap foriegn nationals. These things have their place, but diplomacy has to be the main route for peace. Peace at the end of a gun is a short-term uneasy peace, and breeds resentment, revolution and unrest.

I respect you, trollface {now that is a strange sounding sentence! }, because you are quite a knowledgeable person. But it is also clear that you have a more European view on the issue of terrorism than I and many Americans do.
Click to expand...

Well, thank you. I respect you too, FWIW. And, being a Brit, I don't find it surprising that I have a more Eurocentric view of the situation. However, you have to remember when you say that that America is still somewhat new to terrorism, wheras we've grown up with it. I mean, thingsa have been a lot quieter in the last 10 years or so, but for the majority of my life it's just been a fact of life that there would be 2 or 3 major bomb explosions every year in London or other cities because of the IRA. And that's just the IRA, not counting other assorted nailbombers, letterbombers and miscelanious wackos. I think that terrorism is still a lot more shocking for US citizens because you're not used to it, as well as the fact that there was a sense that America could not be touched before Sept 11th happened.

I would heartily encourage you to use your knowledge and intelligence to help transform the EU into more of a "doer/helper" and less of a "criticizer".
Click to expand...

To quote Eddie Izzard, "the EU is the cutting edge of politics in a very, very dull way." I'm positive that it's the way forwards, but I think we've got a decade or two to go before it's a viable, powerful political force. There's some prejudices to overcome, and some logistics to work out, but I do think that in due time the EU will be a major superpower.

But we are not going to only take a long-term view[...]
Click to expand...

My worry is that politicians rarely take the long-term view at all. Slow, effective, long-term solutions to problems don't win votes. Quick, short-term solutions full of buzz-words and soundbites do win votes. And by the time the long-term consequences come round...well, that politician is no longer in power, so why should they care?
 
Rainman -

Sorry, I'm new here and not sure how to reply with quote. But, you stated: Saddam willfully violated more than 1 UN resolution, and he was certainly a threat to many of his neighbors. Ask Saudi Arabia and Iran if they are sad to have Saddam gone"

I wanted to add that I grew up in a military family, also.

Saddam violated 14 UN resolutions.

Saudi Arabia and Iran wanted him gone....but are afraid of the democracy it will bring. I believe it's their people (as well as other extremists) that are making life miserable for our troops right now.
 
Saudi Arabia and Iran wanted him gone....but are afraid of the democracy it will bring. I believe it's their people (as well as other extremists) that are making life miserable for our troops right now.
Click to expand...
A very salient point you make here Sosuemtoo. I agree that some of the insurgents are from Iran, Syria, and perhaps some from Saudi Arabia. And yes, they ARE afraid of having a viable democracy in their neghborhood.... because history has shown that where democracy is planted and allowed to flourish, it has a tendency to spread to areas around it. The fact that Iran is now, essentially, surrounded on two sides by forces from a democratic nation is likely what has caused an uptick in Iranian reformist movements trying to excise the excessive fundamentalist control of their government.

To trollface - I think one of the obvious reasons Saudia Arabia is our ally is because they possess a great deal of energy resources. Yes, it IS about the oil, as this is a major element of any modern economy. While they are an ally, they know they are walking a thin line. And as the terrorists conduct more operations in their homeland, I think you will see them overtly asking for more help, and cozying up to us even more. And maybe that's not such a bad thing... we'd rather see a gradual evolution of Saudi Arabian culture, rather than revolution.

RainmanTime
 
The point is that if we're sending out messages about terrorism, then you cannot send out the message that it's okay to support terrorism, even create anti-Western terrorists, as long as you're nominally an ally and have economic clout. This is exactly the kind of thing that I think is counter-productive to a real fight against terrorism.

As for the evolution of the Saudi climate, I think you're right. I certainly wouldn't say that the situation there is a good thing, nor would I say that the officials there are incapable of lying, but I recently read a transcript of an interview with Saudi Prince Bandar that was, while couched in politicspeak and definately hiding quite a few truths and avoiding a few issues, it was encouraging nonetheless.

He freely admitted that his nation had been a terrorist nation and had encouraged xenophobia and all sorts of things along these lines, but he said that they had woken up after Sept 11th and that, while they were far from perfect, they were wroking hard to sort out their problems. Again, I'm sure he was lying through his teeth and I'm certainly not suggesting that we offer him the keys to the city, I do find it encouraging.

So, who'd have thought, it seems that we more or less agree after all.
 
Again, I'm sure he was lying through his teeth and I'm certainly not suggesting that we offer him the keys to the city, I do find it encouraging.

So, who'd have thought, it seems that we more or less agree after all.
Click to expand...
I think I may have seen that interview...was it the one on Fox?

Yes, I think the Saudis (at least their government) are getting the picture that they cannot be duplicitous and expect to remain immune to the violence that terrorism brings. Let's call it the way it is: While Saudi Arabia may be a religious state, controlled by a ruling class, the fact remains that they live a lifestyle every bit as extravagant (if not moreso) as the US population and other westernized countries.... and they LIKE that lifestyle. Who wouldn't like living in a state where oil revenues pay you such that you don't HAVE to work if you do not wish to? They are suckling at the teat of (productive) western economies. As any provider of a service or product knows, customer relations are your bread and butter.

It will be interesting to see how Saudi Arabia changes as things become a bit more established in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

RainmanTime
 
It was from MSNBC, apparently. You scared me for a second there; I thouhgt I'd attributed FOX as being a reputable news source.

As for Afgahnistan, at the moment it looks like things are going downhill again. I mean, for the average Afgahni citizen things didn't change much at all after the overthrow of the Taliban. Technically women were allowed to go to school, sure. But they'd still most likely be raped and beaten before they got there. Thre have been some bad reports through RAWA.

As it is now, the Taliban is rising up again and is taking power. They control at least 26 districts and, although reports have been very varied, there have been reports from reputable sources that claim anything up to 80% of the country is under the control of the Taliban again. The other extreme of the reporting is about 8%. That doesn't count the other Warlords who aren't exactly sympathetic to the West.

So, no, I wouldn't be counting the Afgahni situation as being likely to settle down any time soon, except may to return to the status quo that existed before Bush went in. It's certainly not a success story for the West which could be why it doesn't get reported on much over here.

And, yet again, this is a prime example of what I'm talking about with ineffective or counter-productive anti-terrorism measures. Because the overthrow of the Taliban was touted as a success public opinion of the situation over there is good. Which is all that seems to count. The short-term measures have done their job, the media attention is focused elsewhere, so it doesn't really matter that the long-term (hell, this isn't long-term, this is only mid-term) effects have been at best negligable. It simply doesn't matter any more.

That certainly seems to be the thinking.
 
i want to know where all the wmds went? considering the uk government sold them to iraq.....
as for the usa rescuing the iraqi people is one thing, oil and business transactions is another, don't know about the rest of you, but i think we are all in the s##t now.

keep it sweet , the pin men
 
Yes, I see your point. But let's not allow any revisionism as to what Afghanistan was all about. It was not about liberating Afghani people. It was not really even about deposing the Taliban. They were just incidental thugs to Al Qaeda. Unlike the WMD fray, the evidence that Bin Laden was there and operating was obvious. They (Taliban) were also given a warning and opportunity to avoid invasion by coughing up the criminal and closing his terror training camps. The goal was to close the camps, kill/capture as many terrorists as we could, and nab/kill Bin Laden. Removing the Taliban may not have been a goal had they owned-up to their sidling with Bin Laden. They set the way Time would play out. (hey, I even snuck Time travel in this post...sorta!)

So, since I know you will agree the reason for Afghanistan was nothing similar to our "reason" for Iraq, we certainly eliminated the terror camps, dispersed/killed/captured many terrorists and ring leaders, and Bin Laden knows he hasn't got much longer.

Any problem with that? We achieved the objectives, and let them know there will be further such spankings if they insist on killing innocent people.

RainmanTime

Edit: And oh by the way, as per my other post... Where is the rest of the world in helping to improve the plight of the Afghani people? I am hearing a bit more critcizing from you in that post, but would you be willing to champion the Afghani people's right to freedom and democracy? If so, did you put your $ where your mouth is? I can tell you I did. And many Americans gave $, goods, and Time (there it is again! the topic!). Since I respect you because you are a man of science who appreciates facts and hard figures, I'd like you to look at the international pledges to Afghanistan from the Tokyo conference at THIS web page. Look at the bottom line totals for the UN and other countries. And then compare it to the other major contributor listed at the bottom. And so I ask: Where is everyone else's generosity in helping other countries? Us Americans are far from ugly, oppresive Nazis. And isn't the line item for Saudia Arabia telling? All the money they make selling oil, and they have so little to donate to a FELLOW MUSLIM nation to help it rebuild?

In the spirit of responsibility,
Ray
 
Back
Top