Reasons for the crashing in WTC

[DingBat]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Well it seems that I have kicked up a lttle dust storm and people have gone a bit too far with the Re:Re:Re: thing. Anyway, if Americans really want to have the entire world to stop hating them, they would want to get rid of this could'nt care less attitude and absolute lack of geographical knowledge of the world. If Americans can learn to empathize with problems like world hunger, poverty and genocide in a serious and committed way, there will be no more Al Qaeda, Bin Laden or anybody.

Maybe.

Even if, some day, Americans were the most touchy, feely, socially aware people on the earth, each with graduate degrees in geography, political science, and sociology, tithed half their salary to the rest of the world, etc, there would still be those that hated them.

It's not that Americans are indifferent to the rest of the world, at least not entirely. A large part of it is that they are the "biggest". And that will always be there.

/bruce

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Well it seems that I have kicked up a lttle dust storm and people have gone a bit too far with the Re:Re:Re: thing. Anyway, if Americans really want to have the entire world to stop hating them, they would want to get rid of this could'nt care less attitude and absolute lack of geographical knowledge of the world. If Americans can learn to empathize with problems like world hunger, poverty and genocide in a serious and committed way, there will be no more Al Qaeda, Bin Laden or anybody.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

First, the entire world doesn't hate america. There are many Kuwaiti's and Afghani's who quite like America these days.

Second, American policy does respect geographical knowledge, you just may disagree with the American view on it. Al Qaeda and bin Laden could care less about living conditions, hunger, etc.. They had full control of the taliban government in Afghanistan and they used it to deviate from the basic teachings of the Muslim faith, repress women, and allow people to live in Poverty.

They exist to terrorize and kill innocent people for their own twisted needs. Most American's have no desire at this point to understand why that is, the US will simply take of the problem.

 

[FredLC]

I don’t know if it’s fair or not to say that Americans don’t know the world, in the sense that I actually hardly talked to any of them.

I don’t count the ones in, for instance, “History Forums”, because it is a sign that those particular ones have a special interest in such theme, and may not be the best ones to form my opinion about it. When I meet some in places where it’s not expected that people have some sort of knowledge, I’ll be able to judge better.

However, I think that the last post from Greadius is a signal that Americans don’t know about the world, even if due to lack of interest.

It remembers me of a e-mail that i received a few days after the WCT crash.

It had a GIF image with the following message:

“Due to the well-known lack of geography expertise from our USA brothers, we have prepared this map to help them to find the perpetrators of such a catastrophy.”

Following, there was a picture of south America, just with the name “Argentina” replaced for “Afghanistan”.

Well, of course it’s a joke exploring our rivalry against Argentina (specially in soccer – hehehe, the World Cup is at hand), but it’s also a display of how many people feel about the "obnoxious and uncompromising" and “we don’t care about the rest of the world” attitude.

I am not saying that it’s fair, accurate or reasonable, I’m just exposing facts, not expressing opinions.

Regards .

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Having spent long periods of my life in countries who needed military aid, I think you are discounting an important part of such aid...

Peacekeeping operations are military/humanitarian aid.

But of course for reference they are known only as military aid, due to the military presence there.

Many Americans are complete dolts when it comes to the rest of the world. I vividly remember Christmas '99 (I was in Gjilane, Kosovo), when people were questioned about the American troops in Kosovo, and the first two questions that most of them asked were "Where is that?" and "We have troops there?". Many of us were understandably livid.

That is about to change though.

While many Americans will continue to be as self-centered as before, more Americans are already seeing the need to look out from our expansive borders to the rest of the world. It is too bad that they didn't see this need before.

I understand the attack on America was fueled by our foriegn policies. That doesn't make it right that 4000 people died.

But when you say that America is so bad for helping countries defend their own borders, or to prevent ethnic cleansing, then maybe you should be lobbying your own country to send help first...

It would certainly make my job much easier.

Don't be jealous that your country doesn't have the sack to help out the world, and America does... And we do help, even though we also make stupid blunders as well.

Perhaps a history lesson is in order here: What happens when countries stand idly by and watch wars rage out of control?

If I sound harsh, that is because all the Anti-America talk is always missing one thing:

A solution without America.

 

[DingBat]

To really understand why America does some of the things it does you have to try to think like an American. A lot of the problems many here have with American "attitudes" or actions is that they can't adopt that point of view, imo.

Anyway, here's my take on Americans. Please, if you're an American and you think I'm way off base, let me know.

Canadians and Americans differ in some subtle ways (the old joke is that a Canadian is like an American, just without all the guns). Let's take one example with international application: peacekeeping.

It could be claimed that Canadians invented peacekeeping (whether or not that's a good thing remains to be seen) and have had some successes. Canadians have been able to go into a situation and live with the fact that neither side may be in the right. They can accept that the problem may have no solution and the best result may be simply to keep the combatants from killing each other. Sometimes a victory is when the situation doesn't get any worse.

Now, I would never send Americans on peacekeeping missions and I always cringe when it happens. Americans tend to believe that when there's a crisis there's a Good Guy and a Bad Guy. The Good Guys need a hand and the Bad Guy must be made unable to threaten the Good Guys again.

Even more importantly, they believe in fixing the situation, not just bandaging it over. Accepting a bad situation is intolerable for Americans. They are "can do", take charge, and aggressive and this doesn't mix well with situations with 26 different shades of grey.

Take two examples from recent events: Bosnia and Somalia.

Canadian peacekeepers distrusted all equally. I think they understood that the Croatian and Bosnian fighters were every bit as big a bunch of bastards as the Serbians, just that the Serbians had all the weapons at the moment.

Having all those weapons automatically made Serbia the Bad Guy for the Americans.

In Somalia, clan warfare had basically destroyed the society. Society had broken down to the point that food production and distribution, not to mention the rest of the economy, was totally disrupted. Obviously, the clans (and Aidid in particular) were the Bad Guys. The problem was, the Somalians weren't willing to give up the clans.

This is an extremely simplistic analysis. I use peacekeeping because I'm somewhat familiar with it's history and I've always been fascinated how two groups of peoples can grow up side by side in the same basic culture yet exhibit these subtle differences.

Also, don't get me wrong. Sometimes the American way is the best way. There've been Canadian peacekeepers in Cyprus for friggin decades now and no settlement in site. The peacekeeping situation has become the status quo and that's not good either, imo.

I like Americans and their outlook on life and the world. It just doesn't always jibe with the rest of us and gets them into trouble sometimes. But we (meaning the rest of the world) should really try to understand them, just as much as the U.S. should try to understand the world.

Just my opinion,
/bruce

 

[DingBat]

Talk about timing. Today's National Post has an editorial by the author Salman Rushdie. In it he addresses the issue of American bashing.

I can't reproduce it here, obviously, but I'll give the points. And please, if you disagree, let's not starting bashing Mr. Rushdie. Let's just chalk it up to someone whose opinion differs from your own.

1) The recent events in Afghanistan have uncovered a threat to the U.S. which could be even greater than Islamic fundamentalism: anti-American radicalism.

2) Islamic anti-Americanism isn't new, but western anti-Americanism is.

3) Islamic anti-Americanism may say that it is primarily motivated by the plight of the Palestinians, but that is not true. Anti-Americanism has become far too useful as a tool for diverting attention from Muslim nations' defects (authors words, not mine), which include their corruption, incompetence, scientific and cultural stagnation.

4) Western anti-Americanism, seems to stems from critics of the Afghan campaign who were proven wrong on almost every point and is also used as a diversionary tactic.

5) Anti-American radicals often exhibit the same characteristics which they claim to despise in Americans: close-mindedness, ignorance, stereotyping.

Rushdie does end by saying that the Americans should not let the source keep them from evaluating the criticisms they are hearing. The problem is filtering the constructive criticisms from those merely intended for harm.

His final paragraph:

"This is not the time to ignore the rest of the world and decide to go it alone. To do so would be to risk losing after you've won."

I think it basically sums up what we've been discussing here so far.

/bruce

 

[Sodak]

Richard III, yes, that sounds like Chomsky conspiracy talk, no doubt. Take a look at teevee news, tho. What gets covered, what is reduced to sound bites, what is omitted, does get slanted. Political news in the US is slanted in conservative favor. It isn't a crock at all. Yes, typical journalism students are "liberal" - one of my best friends is a newspaper editor, I'm familiar with the milieu. Opinions of people working in journalism is one thing, looking at the finished and distributed product is another.

 

[Greadius]

Am I the only American here...?

I think it is a waste of time to try to generalize how average Americans feel or give. We are far too diverse a people to be summarized like that. I think there are two important generalizations that CAN be made.

1. Americans are curious when they think they should care.
The perfect example was the Kosovo troop deployment. Instead of saying "That's nice" they asked questions about it. They didn't know, but they were generally curious because they thought it concerned them. I had a similar experience in one of my College classes on Sept. 12. I've always been fascinated by Afghanistan, I've read two books about the country and its history. The people in class were curious where and what the country was like, so I gave a short history and explenation of Afghanistan. Once again, they were curious after the fact.
2. Americans are individualists. I can't stress that idea enough in our formation of foreign policy. American's don't like asking for or getting help, and we sure don't like being forced to give it. Welfare is contreversial in this country! Americans as individuals give a LOT to domestic charity because they feel it is an individual contribution. Appeals to the world community or the poor will never rouse the interests of the general public.

I think the average American's education on geography and geopolitics is, for the most part, irrelevant to foreign policy. The only time the American public has disagreed strongly with foreign policy was Vietnam. There is a strong tradition in America to 'defer to the executive'. That is, whatever the President says is a good idea in foreign policy is fine with most Americans, primarily because they don't think it will effect them (which is true for the most part).

Its also important to remember our isolationist history. The government takes care of the rest of the world, and we worry about our lives and domestic issues. There are still strong strands of isolationism running through the American people.

I for one, being a voting American, don't care at all for foreign aid, military or otherwise. I see no reasonable or rational explenation in this entire thread as to how handing out money to poor people protects Americans. I think most of the world's problems begin within the nation that is most blighted by them, often because of specific conditions within that nation. Even if foreign aid is supplied, the initial cause of the problem is left untouched. Its throwing money at the problem, and THAT is as unAmerican as anything.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Sodak
Richard III, yes, that sounds like Chomsky conspiracy talk, no doubt. Take a look at teevee news, tho. What gets covered, what is reduced to sound bites, what is omitted, does get slanted. Political news in the US is slanted in conservative favor. It isn't a crock at all. Yes, typical journalism students are "liberal" - one of my best friends is a newspaper editor, I'm familiar with the milieu. Opinions of people working in journalism is one thing, looking at the finished and distributed product is another.

Ummm, most line TV reporters do their own editing. The assignment desk's big decisions after 10:00am are (a) how much time they get, and (b) when they air.

As for print editors, they would tend to be a bit more conservative, I grant you, but they're hired from the same pool as the reporters are

R.III

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Actually no...

I was part of the American task force deployed there... And the people that were asked didn't know, and weren't interested. They were a bit ashamed actually, and that was the only victory for us in the piece. (But a nice try on their defense!!!)

And Dingbat's take on Americans is dead-bang on. As a generalization of course.

As the loudest shouting government/pop culture in the world, we will always be a target.

And we will always have to defend ourselves from mudslingers

 

[Richard III]

And if I can just add a bit after reading Dingbat's post more closely, the trouble with Canadians is personified perfectly in your post.

Serbian Nationalists WERE the bad guys: it's empirically true if anything ever was. They created the political circumstances that accelerated secessions. They began the process of ethnic demonization that broke the federation apart. They then used their dominance of the military to try and beat several nations senseless along the way.

How very Canadian; to try and see an "other side." There were four consecutive wars in the Former Yugoslavia. The one thing they had in common was well-armed Serbs on one side in each. Funny, is that a coincidence? Yup. Or at least, that's what Canadians have trained themselves to beleive. It takes an incredible degree of naivete to have that kind of a lapse in judgement. My favorite part, though, was that there were still many Canadians who insisted on doing so when the fourth war started. As though it was Albania's fault, just like with the Slovenes.

If the great fault of the US is to be too "insensitive" about applying values to the world, in this war or in others, well, that's terrible. But I can think of far, far worse crimes, to say the least.

 

[DingBat]

RichardIII:

You misunderstood my post.

I've spoken with a few Canadian peacekeepers who were deployed to the area. Now these Canadians were deployed in an area where ethnic cleansing was being conducted by CROATIANS against Bosnians. They're opinion was unanimous: The Croatian were taking advantage of the situation with Serbia and putting the screws to Bosnia for their own gain.

Serbia, or more accurately, Milosevic was the Bad Guy. No argument there. The problem was this: there were no identifiable GOOD GUYS. Only the poor civilians stuck in the middle.

Obviously my characterization of Americans offended you. My apologies as that was not my intent.

/bruce

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Sodak
Richard III, yes, that sounds like Chomsky conspiracy talk, no doubt. Take a look at teevee news, tho. What gets covered, what is reduced to sound bites, what is omitted, does get slanted. Political news in the US is slanted in conservative favor. It isn't a crock at all. Yes, typical journalism students are "liberal" - one of my best friends is a newspaper editor, I'm familiar with the milieu. Opinions of people working in journalism is one thing, looking at the finished and distributed product is another.

I've seen you post this view twice now, and it is just not right. CNN was called the Clinton News Network for a reason, and it wasn't conservative. Dan Rather was practically in tears seeing GWB beat Gore, and he has held fund raisers for the DNC at his home.

The national media is clearly LEFT biased. Only FoxNews skews to the right, and now they have Van Susturn and Rivera, two noted left wing commentators.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


I've seen you post this view twice now, and it is just not right. CNN was called the Clinton News Network for a reason, and it wasn't conservative. Dan Rather was practically in tears seeing GWB beat Gore, and he has held fund raisers for the DNC at his home.

The national media is clearly LEFT biased. Only FoxNews skews to the right, and now they have Van Susturn and Rivera, two noted left wing commentators.

http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm

Dan Rather, and...?
CNN is the Clinton News Network because they only ran Monica Lewisnky stories 23 hours a day??

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
I understand the attack on America was fueled by our foriegn policies. That doesn't make it right that 4000 people died.

But when you say that America is so bad for helping countries defend their own borders, or to prevent ethnic cleansing, then maybe you should be lobbying your own country to send help first...

It would certainly make my job much easier.

Don't be jealous that your country doesn't have the sack to help out the world, and America does... And we do help, even though we also make stupid blunders as well.

Perhaps a history lesson is in order here: What happens when countries stand idly by and watch wars rage out of control?

If I sound harsh, that is because all the Anti-America talk is always missing one thing:

A solution without America.

This is a VERY interesting point. And i'd like to explore it a little further.

Well, first of all, you are very right that nothing justifies the death of 4.000 people. I think that is something that we all agreed since the original message, so I just don’t see the reason for pointing it out again. Well, perhaps for emphasis. I’ll settle for that.

Secondly, I am not at all against the USA helping other countries, in fact I am defending it all the time since the beginning of the discussion, but I repeat: not because I think it actually owe anything, but because helping people in need IF and WHEN you are able (I am not asking for sacrifices) is a civilized thing to do, at least more than leaving them to their fates.

Let’s just put it like this: I wouldn’t blame Colombia for not sending financial and military aid for Kosovo; they have their own problems. And if USA does it, it’s because it can, since I never heard of anyone with a gun by USA’s President’s ear, making he decide things against his will.

At least when it comes to me, there’s no jealousy involved. I admire the USA and I hope that, some day, Brazil will get there, but I don’t hate them because we didn’t yet. It’s just… not in my personal nature. An American thinking that everybody in the world is jealous of them is generalizing as much as any “anti-American” that thinks all of them are superficial and uncaring.

And I don’t want to be mistaken for one of those “ungrateful anti-Americans that can’t appreciate USA’s help”, so here I shout for all Americans to hear “HEY PALS, THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT. YOU GUYS ARE COOL”.

-----------------------

Well, now that I took it out of the way, I’d like to dig in your ideas. Well, ironies apart, since we in this discussion are not stupid, I think it’s safe to assume that we all understood that, for “history lesson about what happens when countries sit comfortably and watch wars going out of control”, you meant the WW II.

Well, I don’t think it was a good example.

In the WW II, we had a major world power that was deeply devoted to conquest and had a real possibility of taking control of a respectable amount of the world. To prevent that, other major powers had to stand against it with all their means. I can’t think of a better way to describe it than a “clash of titans”. So, USA interference was, in essence, a matter of its survival, since it’s reasonable to imagine that, after Europe were all defeated, the Nazis wouldn’t take long to get greedy again.

There is no comparison between that and ANY other military campaigns that USA made later on. There was never again a threat that endangered it’s own existence. Not even the Soviet Union, since the cold war never evolved to actual military combat (thanks God), And surely not Viet Nan or Afghanistan, both real trouble but unable to really do any profound damage to the structure, other than leaving a scar in the pride.

Then, since it is not about survival, wars to protect other countries borders and to avoid ethnic cleansing are, presumably, for either economical or moral reasons.

When reasons are economical, I think that there is little room for Americans being outraged by the fact that other people question their actions. After all, what should the world do, just stay quiet and clap hands? Everybody have economical interests, everybody wants to defend them, and everybody is as vulnerable to, for example, the necessity of Middle East oil resources as the USA.

It’s just that USA is the only one with the power to go there and set things straight. And leave a few military afterwards. Now, I; ME; FREDLC; maybe can believe that such a military presence is nothing to worry about (hopefully the irony was noticed), but also I can’t blame who does.

Specially because USA is a country with political freedom where many different government propositions can switch places, from open and integrated – like it looked like Clinton was – to more internal and excluding – like it appears to be Bush’s case.

I liked when someone (I think it was DingBat) Compared the USA with an elephant that can affect us with every grunt. It’s indeed very true; it can hurt most of us all very easily. So I don’t know why you guys feel so surprised if the rest of the world gets a little uneasy and suspicious even if USA’s trying to caress.

Now, when the matter is moral, things get real tricky. First of all, as we debated the “headman of the village” analogy, one of the points was that USA is not to control the world, among other reasons, because not everybody would agree with it’s decisions, either in the religious or political or moral or any other possible point of view imaginable. There’s always someone who will think it was something evil.

And that brings me to your statement of “nobody proposes a solution without America”. Well, want to know something? There’s always a solution whether America gets involved or not.

Just some solutions are not acceptable by American moral standards.

When USA gets involved in a moral war, without a clear economical reason and no actual defensive purposes, what it is doing is making sure that the outcome of a foreign conflict reaches an end that won’t be a moral indignity to USA citizens. It’s actually imposing it’s thinking to other people.

Because if a country is involved in a ethnic cleansing, horrible and inhuman as it sounds, situation would be resolved by letting them finishing it. A dreadful solution it is, but a solution nonetheless.

Now, just to emphasize: It’s a HORRIBLE thing and I DO believe that preventing it is the right thing to do. I repeat YET AGAIN, I believe in helping those who are suffering.

It’s just that to other nations, it’s a little harder to see a clear line marking what an American citizen, or a faction of USA politicians, will in the future consider “an event that calls for intervention”.

Is it just deflagrated war that can trigger it? Just “ethnic cleansing” measures? Or any other form of human suffering is in that game? Systematic hunger? Uncontrollable criminality? Unchallenged tyrannical Governments? The presence of Drug Lords or guerrillas that are powerful enough to face the legitimate government?

Well, again, to make my position clear. I, for one, am not an anti-American. I don’t believe that its interference will ever exceed reasonable degrees (at least until this days I have no reason to believe in that). But people less sympathetic have that sort of worries, and, even if not all that “verbalized”, it can be resumed with one single sentence:

“Ok, so Americans didn’t like what those guys did and had set them straight. What if some day they don’t like what I do?”

Bottom line is: USA sniffs, the rest of the world gets pneumonia. So, I think we all have every reason to worry and to thoughtfully debate and question where you put your money and why, and where you put your army and why. The price of being an elephant is that all the mice around is always watching you.

So, don't get things messed up; most people do not think America is "bad" or "worse than everybody else" when it decides to go do something. Most of us are just getting ready to the possibility of conflicting interests, even if we fail to express that. After all, we don't want to get caught off-guard by a stronger player.

Regards .

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Greadius


http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm

Dan Rather, and...?
CNN is the Clinton News Network because they only ran Monica Lewisnky stories 23 hours a day??

Well it was a big story, but the liberal media did successfully spin it into being only a sex scandel. Rather than the lying in a federal sexual harrassment suit case that it really was. What is more galling is that it is Clinton's own law (that he used to court further favor with the NOW) that should have hung him.

I could give a **** where the President wants to stick his dick, but if it were say, GWB I think that the story would we be differently told, and the women's groups who kept their mouths shut would be "outraged".

Your link goes to a private person's site who proposes a silly argument with no factual basis, and has nothing to do with liberal bias in the media. Nice picture of the kyaker though.

I laugh out loud at her/him complaining about Tim Russert...you do realize he was a democratic party writer for quite a long time? Complaining about Stephanoloplus???? A Former high ranking clinton advisor and claiming he is biased to the right???

Your counter argument is sadly lacking.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by fredlc

There is no comparison between that and ANY other military campaigns that USA made later on. There was never again a threat that endangered it’s own existence. Not even the Soviet Union, since the cold war never evolved to actual military combat (thanks God), And surely not Viet Nan or Afghanistan, both real trouble but unable to really do any profound damage to the structure, other than leaving a scar in the pride.

I believe I see your point in general and don't disagree that much of the world should be leery of US Policies. I disagree with the concept that Clinton was open, while Bush is closed. Bush has a much better foreign policy, and better people to handle it. Clinton was the personification of the term symbolism over substance.

Three counter points:

1) Most of the US troop deployments in the world, where they "leave people behind" are at the behest of the United Nations, or agreements such as NATO, SEATO, etc. not just the US acting unilaterally. Most americans would rather have their troops at home.

2) The USSR was a very real threat, and had firm intentions of crushing the west...saying so publically in a rather famous UN session.

3) Are you implying that if a terrorist plane killed three thousand people in Sao Paulo you would only see that as a scar on the pride of the Brazilian people?

If #3 is true, you will never find common ground with the American way of thinking. To us, that is a clear act of war, and the world should understand that the US has no desire to dominate militarily, and we may seem weak of will at many times, but beware of pissing off a majority of people in this democracy, the results will be quick, direct, and quite thorough.

 

[FredLC]

Hi there, pal. I also see your point, i also understand your arguments. So lemme strike back :

Ok, about the “Bush and Clinton external policies” thing; Well, I stand corrected. Perhaps I have misread their actions. Perhaps I have fallen for Clinton’s symbolism and misread Bush’s due to a few acts. So, thanks for setting me straight.

Now for the three points:

1 – True. USA usually acts with UN sanction and together with other countries. But the UN have no power in deciding which country should leave troops and how many troops and for how long (well, the agreements perhaps a little more, I’m not totally familiar with their terms). I mean, after USA have the legitimacy, for there on it’s USA decisions alone on doing that, it can’t be forced.

Well, I didn’t suggest that USA was acting without legitimacy; my point was exactly that, legitimate or not, USA actions are something to worry about.

And if it’s not the will of the USA citizens, it’s at least the will of the government, otherwise the troops would be removed.

Maybe other countries also leave troops. But I guess you can understand why the USA’s are the ones that worry me the most (sniff/pneumonia, remember?).

2 – Oh, I never imagined that URSS wasn’t a threat. I believe everybody in the Kremlin slept with dreams of blowing USA to Kingdom Come. What I said is that the threat INTENDED never came to exist, at least, in terms of military action. The “hot war” never took place, so, never USA’s existence was actually threatened in a "regular war" way.

3 – Well, of course not. It was indeed an act of war. USA is right beyond arguments in understanding it like this and acting accordingly. If someone blew away part of São Paulo, I’d be advocating Brazil’s declaration of war against the guilty too. As I said many times in this thread, I think that the present military action IS justified.

My real point was: regardless that, and that people back in Taliban’s headquarters probably also slept with dreams of blowing USA to the Kingdom Come, Afghanistan never head the means of being an actual threat to USA infrastructure. They lacked the resources and the firepower. Basically, they had bitten WAY more than they could chew.

The soviets once had the power to be a threat to USA that could resemble the Nazis. They just never went crazy enough to actually use it. The Afghans proved to BE crazy enough. But never had the power.

I at least, can’t imagine that at any moment the average USA Citizen had any doubt of their capability of going there and finishing the Talibans for good in a matter of weeks. Exactly like what happened.

In a crude comparison, the blowing of the WTC, for the USA, was like having the pink toe cut off - Hurts like hell, sure will be missed, it’s something that will be truly lamented forever, and let's hate until death whoever had done that - but never actually threatened it’s life.

Well, I hope that what I meant now sounds more clear.

Regards .

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Think about Rhwanda... All those people died because we couldn't go in. (After Somalia)

I have been on several NATO missions, and one U.N. mission. The U.N. or NATO do not dictate what troops are where.

The U.S. does. And when we want to pull out, or drawdown our forces, (or stay) it just happens. IF we had a REAL U.N., then perhaps we couldn't get away with that.

We watched Bosnia rage for 4 years before we stepped in. I agree with you on the morality issue. Who and want deserves our help?

But that is a government issue, not a people issue. When the people start clamoring for a deployment (Kosovo, anyone?) then the government will listen. Or in the case of Kuwait, a threat to it's economic well being will move us into action.

I understand how the rest of the world feels. Our policies can effect everybody.

But so can yours if you want them to!!! (Milosevic-bad, Sadat-good)

And the jealousy comment were for those who are always in these conversations, and never contribute anything but ill-will. They are jealous, and it shows.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
Think about Rhwanda... All those people died because we couldn't go in. (After Somalia)

See, here is where I would respectfully disagree.

All those people died because some Hutu's or Tutsi's killed them. The issues were theirs and the responsibility for the results are theirs and theirs alone.

Had the Hutu's and Tutsi's been able to get along like civilized human beings there would have been no need for U.S. involvement, would there?

Rwanda was a terrible tragedy. The Canadian commander of the mission suffers from PTSD because of this and retired soon after.

Could the West or the U.N. have done more? Absolutely. And that is something that should be discussed. But, in the end, the responsibility and blame must be shouldered by those who decided to pick up a gun, or a machete, and go out and kill others for no good reason other than that they belonged to another "social group".

Sometimes, it really isn't the fault of the U.S.

/bruce