Originally posted by Soulstice
Can you quote exactly where he says the UN is uninterested therefore the US should take up the baton by itself?
I didn't state that. He called for the UN to get involved, explicitly recognizing the use of force in such situations. THis is practically an
implicit endoresement of US global hegemony, considering that the UN is incapable of doing what he is saying is necessary.
What Iraqi WMD was that again?
Please pay more attention to what I am saying. I said that hussein would reactivate the dormant programmes. After the war, it was learned that
hussein's weapons programme was dormant, not dismantled. He was even hiding chemical manufacturing plants from the UN inspectors. And we've found
large numbers of old chemical munitions, they were claimed to have been destroyed also and couldn't be found by the inspectors. The US and the rest
of the world was wrong on the issue of iraq having chemical weapons at the ready, it was right on them being a chemical weapons threat.
Why isn't it?
I don't know why you'd think that supporting alternative energy research is an answer to pressing foreign policy concerns. Its a good idea, but,
again, its not a foreign policy.
Or [911] may have happened a lot sooner.
[my edit]
Or maybe it'd've never happened, since it was a complex operation that required massive financial support, training camps, coordinating committees,
and even the sheltering protection of a state like taliban occupied afghanistan. If the US had acted to smash up the al-qaida terror network, and
prevented an organization like the taliban from coming to power in afghanistan, there'd be no one to make the attack. Any organization of that size
and sophistication will allways be open to attack, especially when there aren't any states like iraq, taliban afghanistan, iran, or north korean, to
protect, nuture, and enable them.
this aggression you speak of does not solve problems
That is fundamentally false. The only time agression doesn't work is when it is hindered and inadequately applied.
What do you want, a world that cowers before the West in exchange for access to it's own resources?
How about a world that isn't stupid enough to kill nearly 3,000 american civilians and think that there won't be a global occupation in
retaliation?
The entire world will not accept one rampant militarised superpower and its satellite supporters.
What the heck makes you think that? The 'world', as in 'not the us and its 'satellites', has a long history of loving dicatorships and being
strongarmed and having to kowtow. Its not necessary for the US to create something liek that, but the world sure as
hell would accept it.
mrgerbik
Osama's gameplan is to get you to react impatiently and kill arabs.
I am well aware of this. His plan is to create a chaotic world state in which he and his cronies can come to power, in their own region if they
can't expand it.
So what? Its a
bad plan, its not going to work. The US is going to re-organize the middle east into a new order, not merely attack, stir up a
'hornets nest' and then run away. The US is
still occupying japan and germany, that war ended conclusively over 50 years ago! 50 years is a
lot of middle east generations. DO you really think that the grandkids of the people in iraq now are going to be bothering to strap on suicide
belts? To fight a benign moderately representative native government? Out of some silly fear of 'global US hegemony'???? Of course not, they're
going to get on with their lives, and look at any local terror groups that pop up as criminals that should be destroyed.
What makes you different than Russia in Afghanistan?
The only reason the mujahideners won in afghanistan is because the US was funding them and giving them shoulder fired missiles to destroy the soviet
helicopters. The Russian-Afghan War was a war within the Cold War, they were fighting against the US, not afghans and migrant arabs.
There never would be a 911 if we didn't continue to build a military presence for corporate interests in their countries.
And
that is why the US
has to continue on the path its on now. So long as their is american influence, there will be anti-american
organizations. The US
can't withdraw from the world, its not physically capable of doing that, so there's allways going to be a threat from
911 type attacks,
unless the US destroys the states that enable groups like al-qaida, and seeks out and kills people that support groups like
al-qaida.
I really find it astounding this logic of kill them before they kill you.
Its worked throughout history and there's nothing that indicates it magically doesn't work today. The only times agression hasn't worked out has
been where the agressor threw its hands up and gave in.
Who is "THEM" and how do you define "them"
'They" are the ones organizing and agitating to kill us.
and why is it okay that the arabs do not defend themselves against a occupying force?
The arabs aren't 'them'. And terrorists are welcome to try to attack the US, indeed, its their right,
just as its the right of the US to go
after them and kill them. The difference is, its
stupid to attack the US, which is far more powerful than any state on the planet, let alone
any terorrist organization. Lots of countries are able to effectively 'stand up to' the US and its 'hegemony', like France, Germany, Russia,
China, etc, without doing something as utterly stupid as killing nearly 3,000 Americans. Violence isn't an effective measure against someone that is
stronger than you.
When you yourself would do the same thing, NYGDAN as any of would.
So why the hell does Mr. Tanakian think that the US has no right to go out and use violence against those that it deems are
its enemies? The
use of force is perfectly legitimate on the international level, they can use it, and we can use it. The difference is, we can actually use it to
effect.
