US Government inconsistancy on bio weapons

[Silverquick]

Then the Problem you need to elaborate is not that the US is involved, but that it is NOT involved.

The Frank truth is the United States doesnt get involved in 3rd world countries anymore like it used to. It pretty much stays out of them except where it left problem children like Noriega.

But THEN you need to stop and look at the fact that even when the USA does that it suddenly becomes branded as an "Imperialist" nation and everyone joins the parade to stab the USA in the Back.

[Bullvye]

I am a former u.s special forces operator ( U.S. Air Force Pararescue ). Many of my closest friends are either gone or awaiting the next command! Thought my prayers are with them, I feel helpless. I want to be on the ground! I have, for as long as I can remember, never been on this side,(of a civilian)and looked on as other Americans fought and died for the people of our country!

I find myself asking many questions!
What happens when we allow a government to give asylum to terrorists?
Are they any different from the the ones that they protect and harbor? Weather the controlling party be small or large, what's the difference? Those few in the world that seek to use religion to serve the insanity of their own personal or political agenda with the innocent killing of thousands MUST have a high penalty to pay! Their lives! As harsh as it may be, these men must suffer a terrorists death, as example for anyone who would follow in their evil footsteps! If not,....will you and I ever be truly free?

What do I do, when I hear that my comrades are operating there, far from home?.........How do I act, when going about my daily life?
I want to be there with them....to help in any way I can! But its hard, and I feel helpless at times.

Any thoughts?

[This message has been edited by Bullvye (edited 10-19-2001).]

[Silverquick]

Then the Problem you need to Elaborate is not that the United States is Involved... but that its NOT involved.

The USA doesnt get involved with 3rd world countries the way it used to during the Cold War.

The only times the United States has made efforts in 3rd world countries nowadays is when they have had to remove problem children that refused to see and change when the Cold War was over like Noriega (whom yes we supported, it was either the Mean nasty Cuba and USSR OR a mean nasty evil Dictator who was against them). Had the man stopped doing what he was doing when we asked, the situation would have been different.

But then you have to consider that When the United States Does that It usually faces war cries of "Imperialism" which most nations kindly endulge to plunge knives into our backs.

If the United States had left Noriega in office would the Panamanians been better off? It was our mess, we cleaned it up.

We no longer engage nations like that because we dont have to and that pisses people off. Everyone one of them who doesnt get a piece of the American pie gets annoyed.

Any money we send to them ends up in their pockets rather than their people's pockets. Some we still put up with but ignore overall so that our businesses can function over there in the interests of stabillity.

Basically so long as we ignore those Dictators that keep their population in poverty and we give them money the "USA IS WONDERFUL".

When we stop that or remove them, "That Imperialist USA is Trying to run the country"

[Bullvye]

Originally posted by Silverquick: Then the Problem you need to Elaborate is not that the United States is Involved... but that its NOT involved. The USA doesnt get involved with 3rd world countries the way it used to during the Cold War. The only times the United States has made efforts in 3rd world countries nowadays is when they have had to remove problem children that refused to see and change when the Cold War was over like Noriega (whom yes we supported, it was either the Mean nasty Cuba and USSR OR a mean nasty evil Dictator who was against them). Had the man stopped doing what he was doing when we asked, the situation would have been different. But then you have to consider that When the United States Does that It usually faces war cries of "Imperialism" which most nations kindly endulge to plunge knives into our backs. If the United States had left Noriega in office would the Panamanians been better off? It was our mess, we cleaned it up. We no longer engage nations like that because we dont have to and that pisses people off. Everyone one of them who doesnt get a piece of the American pie gets annoyed. Any money we send to them ends up in their pockets rather than their people's pockets. Some we still put up with but ignore overall so that our businesses can function over there in the interests of stabillity. Basically so long as we ignore those Dictators that keep their population in poverty and we give them money the "USA IS WONDERFUL". When we stop that or remove them, "That Imperialist USA is Trying to run the country"

Would it be a flame to say that this is TRULY a misinformed and ignorant group of statements?( unless sarcasm is involved ) Sorry if it is, I mean no harm!.........hey Bin Laden


[This message has been edited by Bullvye (edited 10-19-2001).]

[Silverquick]

No, its litterally true,

We usually KNOW when someone is doing something like that to their country, If we refuse to engage them in essence pay them off, they and their people complain about how the The United States is doing nothing to help the poor in their nation and that we are against them.

If we actually go in and Pay them off usually they are very quiet, nothing gets done about the poor and in the end all we end up doing is supporting another dictator. Unfortunately the truth is, when we do that, we litterally support a dictator who perpetuates it.

It is cynical yes, but that is the case. If they have something the United States needs we usually will go in and stay quiet. If the United States makes makes the effort to change things then we get blamed for Imperialism.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: No, to issue a warrant you need some kind of proof, not to just suspect that something is going on. Could you imagine if a cop at to go see a judge to get a warrant to stop you on the road... no one would ever be stopped, they just stop you anyway. Not that it matters because, like I said before, if an international agreement was ratified by the Government, it would in effect become a law and Constitution or not, businesses would have to comply wether they liked it or not (kinda like if you want to do business with the Government, you have to meet these criterias and you can be inspected without notice).

Here you make a really good point Ryanamur. Although, you make it for me. If a company *wants* to work with the govt, that is the company's choice. That's been my whole point, choice. Trying to force the same standards on a private company that wants no direct business dealings with the US(or any other govt), for no better reason than the company works with pharmacuticals, is wrong! You impinge on the busniess owners rights at that point. And what if it was a small business. A few employees. Everyone has been talking about large, essentially faceless corporations. What happens when you get down to little companies, individuals. The loss of freedom is a terrifying thing for most Americans. As a general rule, we fight tooth and nail whenever our freedoms are impinged upon.

For the sake of completeness, you should know that the number one employer in the US is 'self'.

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Well, I guess I'm just plain stupid. I don't remember saying ALL Americans lived in fantasy-land. And I personally find the way some people enjoy putting me down and putting worst-possible constructions on what I say every time I open my mouth is Fljotsdale-bashing. Should I bellyache about it? Not very constructive, I must say.

So, essentially, what you're saying is, that its ok to be snide, rude, and insulting...as long as you dont do it to everyone. Just the people you disagree with.

Do I understand you correctly? I dont want to put words in your mouth. Or Fljotsdale bash. I just want to be crystal clear on what your point is.

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by DragonMage: Well, I guess it boils down to this for me: If our companies already submit to our OWN random inspections, why the big deal to submit to an 'international' inspection as well. Again, it rarely interferes with the work being accomplished and if all is well, it won't affect the company adversely at all. It would also serve the purpose of 'leading the way' for other countries. Iraq would look pretty foolish, not to mention suspicious, if they refuse and we didn't. Maybe I'm being a bit too optimistic here, but if we (Americans) want to truly be the 'good guys', then we have to lead by example - and I don't think we have been a good example enough if people on this forum from other countries view us as bullies and arrogant. We can't have it both ways. If others have to have the inspections, I see no reason - treaty or no treaty - to refuse. What do we stand to lose? And don't say 'freedoms' or 'rights' because you don't lose freedom by cooperating to ensure safety. Or am I still missing something here?

Hi DM. I replied to Ryanamur. That post pretty much answers this post too. I'm too lazy to cut/paste, but the reply is on page 8.

BTW...Thanks for the compliment earlier. I wasn't even aware that you knew who I was, much less liked my opinions. You learn something new every day. A very great pleasure to meet you.

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Then how the heck can you account for know terrorists to obtain legal visas to the US using their real name? How can you account for the attacks even taking place when the US were pre-warned that this was coming? How can you account for the constant cuts in military budgets since the mid-90? How can you account for cutting intelligence budgets when experts kept warning that terrorism would be the battle of the future and that we needed the intelligence? No, sorry, people don't ask the though questions. They ask questions allright, but they don't ask the though ones and they certainly don't make the though decisions they should make or this would have never taken place. No, instead, our elected members are more worried about pleasing this and this group of people, cutting budgets and the military, letting terrorists roam free. Well, I'm sure you get the picture. The people don't want decisive leaders in place, they wan't people who will tell them that everything is OK and who will act in a way that will make everything look OK because everything is OK in the first place. And should someone say it's not OK, he'll be discredited 'cause he doesn't know what he talking about and he's trying to burst the little magic bubble.

Ummm...Ouch! And, unfortunately, pretty accurate. There *are* those of us that question. That ask those hard questions. That vote our conscience. Unfortunately, we tend to get drowned out by the hordes of 'activists' screaming about this or that silly cause. And those 'activists' seem to be the best fund raisers out there. They shamelessly prey upon people's fears, without a trace of morals or decency, and they get their 'activist' politicians elected, and then the lobby, and the lobby, and they lobby. And, unfortunately, they have been successful. And since these same people are, for the most part, the ones in control of the major media outlets, they have also been very successful in either discrediting, or browbeating their detracters into submission. And that tends to effect the morale of the rest of us. And unfortunately, people being what they are, apathy tends to set in.

But 09-11-01 was most defenitely a wake up call. As much of a horrible, despicible tragedy as it was, it has woken up people sense of responsibility. I think that, in 10 years, you will see signifigant changes in the US.

Anyway...very good post Ryanamur. It pains me to have to agree with this one. Not cuz its you...cuz its accurate.

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: American's always ask the hard questions but we aren't always listened to and sometimes we can seem a bit paranoid. Terrorists got legal Visas because somebody, an American, screwed up. The cuts in military budgets were what American's wanted. They wanted to spend less money to protect the world. Intelligence was cut because no one wanted to pay for a build up, it was being used as too much of an intrusion on our "rights", and because no one thought we needed it because we were untouchable. Another American(s) screwed up. Our elected leader were very concerned with making American's and everyone else happy in this "new" world. After September 11th, it seemed especially a new world, but in a much different way. By the way, are you an American living in Canada expecting perfection, or another non-American upset because this has caused some concern as to whether or not the USA can keep you safe? If you are an American, you're asking the tough questions! Were you asking them before? Probably. If not...

Excellent post Ronn_BMan.

I took a slightly different tack, but I think we arrived at basically the same conclusion. Very nice job.

------------------
"In Memorium of those who are gone, and all those that bought our freedom with their hearts blood!"

"May the Colors of Liberty never run"