'USS Cole a war declaration on region'

reply to post by Beachcoma

---

So they are basically interfering in the democratic process of another country, when they haven't been asked to - even by the country itself - BUT, coolhand and blueraja are sure to dispute the source, because it's not an approved US point of view - maybe if it came from fox news......

It's still Bullying, perhaps even more so.

Thanks for rescuing this with another source


[edit on 5/3/2008 by budski]

Well it's a good thing it does not matter since our ships can go anywhere in international waters.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

No-one said they couldn't

BUT, using military threats and bullying to try and influence the democratic process of another sovereign nation is a step too far.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think I killed it, now that it's clear what it looks like. I mean what are the people who say this isn't a case of interfering/bullying gonna say now? Arguing with the new sources also won't help -- it ultimately came from AFP, an approved/main stream media.

Edit: Oh, never mind. Spoke too soon.

[edit on 5/3/2008 by Beachcoma]

I guess our definitions of threats and bullying are different because I don't see it by having ships in international waters.

reply to post by Beachcoma

---

heh
it's not a mentality I understand - but they are entitled to their opinion

spose


I'm looking forwards to more fun in a similar vein

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

Yes, we've been going through that for the last few pages.

Seems you're in the minority.
as is your love of economic imperialism and unwarrented interference in other nations affairs.

To complete your sentence you should have added 'here at ATS'.
Besides, being in the minority does not mean you are incorrect. Hell, at one point in history, the majority thought the Earth was flat.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

Nope, should have added, in the world.

YOU might think that shrub throwing his weight around is great, but not many others do, considering the 6.5billion plus on the planet.
I'd say that puts shrub and his ilk in the minority.

He's an idiot, and probably the worst president of all times, but I must disagree that he caused the rise of terrorism in the mideast. He has only drawn their focus on us as the big prize. Islamic terrorists are bent on Sharia law being implemented in all muslim lands and eventually, for the big dreamers, the world. If the US and Israel disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow (don't get too excited, it's hypothetcial), and all western governments ignored the mideast completely, the Islamic fundamentalists would put their sights on any secularist government in the region, and if they achieved their goals there, they would expand and eventually support the muslim populations in Europe that want to see Sharia law implemented there as well, and the snowball would just grow.



I have been seeing that threat (now you're threatening us, lol) over and over. Realistically at this point, IMO at least, there is no country that can match the US and our allies conventionally. We have shown the Russians and Chinese time and again how we bowl over their technology. They have nukes to fall back on, yes, but do you REALLY think they would sacrifice their own countries to protect countries that they share NO values with and would be at odds with themselves? I doubt it, they will just do what they always do, protest loudly and demand we cease, while making behind the scenes deals to get their cut of whatever resources can be gained.



The dynamics of the world have changed greatly, and it's silly to look back in time to predict the future. The world economy is intertwined, oil is in it's dying days, and everybody is trying to get as much money as they can before the cash cow dies and we move to the next source of energy. Sure, it's wrong to invade countries for their resources, but as long as we're looking back in time we can see that humans have been conquering others for resources, land, etc. since the beginning. It's our nature, and until we evolve as a species, it will continue. China, Russia, or anybody else would be doing the EXACT same thing if they were the world superpower, I don't know why so many try to paint them as moral heroes that, any day now, will put the US in it's place. Even if that were to happen, they would just take our place, but probably even more aggressively.



The mideast is far from striking distance of the US for most of the terrorists, unlike Ireland to the UK. The only terrorist attacks that happen here, are the ones the government allows to gain the support of the American people for their conquest. If they just told the truth, and said we would all lose our cars, and most conveniences we depend on if China and India start using up more oil than we do, they would probably gain support to secure oil anyway. After all, that's what everybody agrees this is about, oil.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by 27jd]

reply to post by budski

---

I had no idea that President Bush was responsible for ordering the precise movements of United States warships. Why do people continue to blame President Bush for everything? I never voted for the man - in 2000 or 2004 - but pretty soon people will start blaming Bush for their bad hair days.

For someone who is accused of being such an idiot and raving lunatic by so many people, its amazing how ingenious he seems to be. I don't like Bush, but neither do I blame him...for things he did not do.

reply to post by Sublime620

---

How did I prove your point? Israel was willing to compromise, but the Palestinian leadership wouldn't meet them half way. Do you not believe that after WWII, that the Jewish people were owed anything(i.e. having their homeland back)? Israel gets along with Egypt and Jordan, because they're willing to have meaningful talks. Israel even gave Egypt their land back that they lost while invading Israel. If the Palestinians expect anything positive to be accomplished, they're gonna have to use diplomacy and compromise, rather than the continual killing of Israeli civilians.

reply to post by pacificwind

---

Who's in charge?
Bush
and if he's not giving the orders, then he shouldn't be where he is.

Of course he's giving the orders - he's a war and power hungry megalomaniac, and you don't need to be clever to say "bomb them" or "intimidate them"

enough said



[edit on 5/3/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski

---

I really don't think so. He was a figurehead, who takes the brunt of everybody's frustration and anger, all the while those who really dictate foreign policy are free from scrutiny. You can see how hollowed out he is after the last 8 years, his face is pained and his eyes are empty. He was a puppet of the neocon agenda, in which Cheney, who would have NEVER been elected as president was one of the main architects. Karl Rove got Bush elected, and Cheney and his goons called the shots. They all got as much money as they could, and left us with a mess. It was a heist, plain and simple, and Bush is the fall guy.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

It's like they are all picking from the same excuse roladex.

"Who says we threatened them?"

Our military.

"Well, it's international waters, so they can do anything they want"

But we shouldn't be threatening them.

"Well, who says we threatened them? We could have sent a real message if we wanted to!"

Pointless to argue with.

reply to post by budski

---

I recognize its cool to bash Bush, but really, if you think the President of the United States has the ability OR capacity to direct the precise movements of all military actions, then I am speechless. The President sets general policy, he does not direct troop movements, and the presidency has not done such things for some time. Obviously, as head of the executive branch, he has quite a full schedule, and ordering the precise movements of the military or any other executive branch program would be odd.

You cannot blame George Bush for everything, no matter how much you hate him. I dislike Bush, but I won't hop on the "OMG GEORGE BUSH DID IT" bandwagon.

reply to post by pacificwind

---

He's the boss. In the end, he's responsible. Whether or not he directs the actions, he appoints the people that do, and in the end approves of them. They are pushing his agenda, not the other way around.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620

---

Well then, why is it I don't see anyone blaming the Congress? After all, they must **APROVE** of Bush's appointments. But no one blames congress...

...oh wait. Because this is all colored by political ideology.

Sorry, I keep thinking people can move beyond party lines. Silly me...

I did, go back and read the first word of my response.

What is your point? I have been on the receiving end of tasking to conduct these kinds of missions in the past. I think that gives me a slight advantage to most folks here.

You still have yet to point out any actual bullying tactics that were used in this case.

Can't you come up with one? It is one thing to park a ship in international waters, it is another to then say that the ship will commence attacks if elections aren't held by a certain date. To my knowledge we have not made that kind of threat.