People overreacting on Twin Tower?

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: You are supposed to apologise, silver feline, not just admire the excellence of his metaphore, lol!

But it were a luvverly metaphore......

Where you bin, Fljotsdale? You're like a West Midlands bus, you, nothing for hours and then three all at once!



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

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: My college proffesor was in the Airforce, Nuke division. He was telling us yesterday that our biggest export is in fact, weapons. The second biggest is entertainment(Hollywood). . He said that we have sold to both sides of an opposing force in the past, because money is money, and we needed to make it somehow. (that was hard for me to hear). Anyway, he was telling me about some of our nasty weapons of war...such as the cluster bomb. It is a bomb that when explodes, spreads 644 smaller multi-type bombs across a quadrant. Some are timed, some are motion sensitive, some are heavy weight sensitive, some are shrapnel based, some are bio's...etc... This is the ugliest weapon we have, except for a Nuke. And just like the Nukes, where the only way it can be launched is by using a code word that even the President don't know, the Cluster Bomb cannot be used unless a certain authority gives the proper codes to release it. Not anyone can do it. I am glad that we have that control capability. . Yet my teacher said that none of these would be considered in the war to come, because we have so many other resources to use against our enemies. If we wanted, we could just pay a country to go in and do it themselves. The Saudi Arabians would love to do that for us. We have so many options, that nukes are not even thought about (I am stressing this because last night my sister was afraid that we would ...)...anyway, if we completely wiped out the country our enemy is in, NATO would hold us in a charge of Overkill, and we would be charged with "crimes of war". Many of my class mates were shocked to learn that, even if we were to lose millions in some sort of Bio-warfare, if we retaliated in like manner, we would be seen as the uglier person. He gave an example of what he meant. People who blow up abortion clinics and profess to be christians, are not christians. I just wanted to share what I was told yesterday. Every piece of information and opinion is valuable to me, for higher learning.

Don't 'they' just make you sick, Larry? Money. No concern but money.

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

[Tuor]

Originally posted by Moni: The U.S. spends a significant amount of money maintaining military bases all over the world. Is this for our own protection or for the policing of countries who would pose a threat to the peace of their neighbors or even the rest of the world? Do you think terrorism would be more rampant without their presence? Why was the U.S. involved in the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 80's? How is it that the Syrians were able to kill 248 American Marines in 1983 if our country did not care enough to set themselves up in other people's countries for those people's protection? Am I wrong in remembering that our involvement in the Iran-Iraq conflict got us dogged world-wide for sticking our nose into other people's business for the purpose of protecting people who could not protect themselves from terrorists? The rest of the world cries for help when they need it but then screams foul when we take the upper hand...can you blame this country for taking a back seat to going in first when there are treaties protecting the lives of terrorists now? Daniel Pipes (director of the middle eastern forum, former director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute), who has a slew of credits toward his education and accomplishments as well as being a well respected journalist and international consultant for a number of boards poses the question regarding the Hamas infrastructure of the United States: "As these fundamentalist groups become more aggressive, more forceful, how will America respond? By appeasing them?" He then offers his suggestion: "The U.S. government and body politic should discredit them like it does the KKK. It should uplift the non-radical Moslems." A suggestion for a completely peaceful process...one that this country needs to follow if they don't want the rest of the world up in arms over our show of force in stopping terrorists when they can easily come from organizations that we allow to exist within our very borders. Of Chabali's plan to bring down the reign of the Saddam Hussien regime and for for enforcing the UN sanctioned inspections on Iraq? "I'm of two minds. Saddam is ghastly, from both a human point of view and from an American-interest point of view. But we Americans have a tendency to burden ourselves with other people's problems and thereby letting every one else off the hook. Why are we begging the local countries in the region to join our efforts? The Kuwaitis are standoffish, and why not? America is doing all the work anyway, they say, so we might as well reap the benefits. I'd like to turn the equation a round: have them pleading with us to take care of Saddam." These examples are some time after Vietnam are they not? More American lives have been lost on foreign soils for nothing more than the protection of people's basic human rights than any other country that I am presently aware of. War against other people's human rights and "ethnic cleansing" is as much "terrorism" as car bombings and crashing airplanes full of innocent people into large occupied and innocent buildings. If countries have not recieved any help from the U.S. I can only think that it would be because they have refused it or will not ask for it. Can you correct me if I am wrong here? Here is another example of just how much the U.S. cares: A Tribute In One Man's Perspective

I may have been misunderstood here, don't get angry I'll clarify what I mean and hopefully we come to some sort of agreement on this..

Firstly your military maintains bases all over the world as part of commitments to countries you have treaties with-such as your NATO allies and to maintain your supply lines and guard against threats from perceived enemies-China, Russia, North Korea, Iraq etc they are not there to prevent terrorist attacks. The reponsibility for that lies with the governmnet of the country who loan you the land to put your base on. Your bases act as deterrants for enemy attacks.

No they don't reduce terrorism the only way soldiers reduce terrorism is if they are patrolling on the streets where bombs are being planted, organising road blocks and actively searching for terrorists. Northern Ireland is a prime example thousands of British troops were stationed there for years and had relatively little effect in reducing the number of terrorist attacks

The US were involved in the Iran-Iraq war because you were worried that one and then the other nation would become too powerful and then destabilise the middle east, not to prevent terrorism. I'm not condemning it but that is an undisputable fact. You basically played them off against each other until they were both so weak neither posed a threat to anyone.

Can you remind me of what happened in 1983 because my memory is a bit hazy on exactly what you are talking about and then I'll reply to that. If it was an embassy bombing then your soldiers were there to protect your own staff in a dangerous area and not to run anti-terrorist operations.

The fact remains that everytime the US has sent troops into a foreign country since Vietnam it has been to stop wars not terrorism-Somalia is a bit different because you were trying to stop warlords running the country. Yes atrocities are committed but they are not terrorism as such and the perpetrators are easy to spot and take action against.

Everytime the US has intervened with troops the enemy can be easily located and fought against with conventional methods. i.e. troops, helicopters and so on.

The reason is your presidents don't want to have to justify casualty rates like the ones in Vietnam ever again over a situation in another nation and again rightly so.

When the US is not sure who the enemy is it chooses not to endanger its soldiers lives and instead uses cruise missiles to strike at the perpetrators. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that because it limits casualties although it's been shown to be less effective than ground assaults.

Terrorists hide, they plant cowardly bombs and never show themselves so you can hit back, you don't know who your enemy and your response to events is usually limited through necessity because they hide in the civilian population. That is not the case in a war-in Kosovo the US, UK etc knew who was on what side and could plan tactics around that.

I don't recall criticising the US foreign policy as you appear to think I was. I happen to think it is has been a lot more responsible since Reagan left the White House. I was merely presenting my views in a dispassionate way backed with facts. I appreciate emotions are running high at the moment but misintepreting my post and replying in the manner you have is not going to help the situation Moni.

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: By that, I hasten to add, I DONT mean dumbing down, or only reporting one side of things, but balancing reportage of all the atrocities that happen in the world with more reporting of the good, positive things. By that, I don't mean what celebrities had for dinner, or who they are currently sleeping with , but things that have been accomplished on the human rights, environmental, educational and other fronts. Good things that communities are going for themselves, and so on. There's lots of good things in the world, and I'd like to see details of more of them!

Me too! We have a whole lot of people/organisations/groups here in the UK (as well as in other countries) who do a great deal for their communities and individuals, but we rarely hear of them. I think if they received more publicity more people would realise that THEY can take positive action to benefit their neighbourhoods/those in need.

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

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: But it were a luvverly metaphore...... Where you bin, Fljotsdale? You're like a West Midlands bus, you, nothing for hours and then three all at once!

LOL! I thought that was London buses! West Midlands buses are 'nothing for hours then ONE that doesn't go all the way.....'!

As for where I've been.... collecting youngest grandson from school, then preventing him and his older brother from maiming each other for 2-3 hours, then coming home in the rain, getting soaked, having meal and relaxing with a book for a couple of hours to unwind..... I have such a profoundly interesting life-style! Satisfied?

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

Originally posted by Tuor: I may have been misunderstood here, don't get angry I'll clarify what I mean and hopefully we come to some sort of agreement on this.. Firstly your military maintains bases all over the world as part of commitments to countries you have treaties with-such as your NATO allies and to maintain your supply lines and guard against threats from perceived enemies-China, Russia, North Korea, Iraq etc they are not there to prevent terrorist attacks. The reponsibility for that lies with the governmnet of the country who loan you the land to put your base on. Your bases act as deterrants for enemy attacks. No they don't reduce terrorism the only way soldiers reduce terrorism is if they are patrolling on the streets where bombs are being planted, organising road blocks and actively searching for terrorists. Northern Ireland is a prime example thousands of British troops were stationed there for years and had relatively little effect in reducing the number of terrorist attacks The US were involved in the Iran-Iraq war because you were worried that one and then the other nation would become too powerful and then destabilise the middle east, not to prevent terrorism. I'm not condemning it but that is an undisputable fact. You basically played them off against each other until they were both so weak neither posed a threat to anyone. Can you remind me of what happened in 1983 because my memory is a bit hazy on exactly what you are talking about and then I'll reply to that. If it was an embassy bombing then your soldiers were there to protect your own staff in a dangerous area and not to run anti-terrorist operations. The fact remains that everytime the US has sent troops into a foreign country since Vietnam it has been to stop wars not terrorism-Somalia is a bit different because you were trying to stop warlords running the country. Yes atrocities are committed but they are not terrorism as such and the perpetrators are easy to spot and take action against. Everytime the US has intervened with troops the enemy can be easily located and fought against with conventional methods. i.e. troops, helicopters and so on. The reason is your presidents don't want to have to justify casualty rates like the ones in Vietnam ever again over a situation in another nation and again rightly so. When the US is not sure who the enemy is it chooses not to endanger its soldiers lives and instead uses cruise missiles to strike at the perpetrators. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that because it limits casualties although it's been shown to be less effective than ground assaults. Terrorists hide, they plant cowardly bombs and never show themselves so you can hit back, you don't know who your enemy and your response to events is usually limited through necessity because they hide in the civilian population. That is not the case in a war-in Kosovo the US, UK etc knew who was on what side and could plan tactics around that. I don't recall criticising the US foreign policy as you appear to think I was. I happen to think it is has been a lot more responsible since Reagan left the White House. I was merely presenting my views in a dispassionate way backed with facts. I appreciate emotions are running high at the moment but misintepreting my post and replying in the manner you have is not going to help the situation Moni.

*ahem* "replying in the manner you have is not going to help the situation Moni."?
I think I was pretty civil about it!
You came here and argued my point of view first, not the other way around.

Perhaps we both understood each other. The main point of this thread was based on the fact that Americans DO care about the rest of the world.
I don't know where it became limited to the fight against terrorism specifically but more "do we view ourselves as more important than the rest of the world".

My point was that we are there on a world-wide level and for you say that our bases act as deterrants against enemy attacks was exactly my point. We are there.
How many foreign military bases are set up in other countries world-wide for that purpose?

Not to be rude but because I have tests to study for right now, I am not even going to address the rest of your post until we can agree or disagree that we are on the same page...it would be pointless to say anything if we are both at a misunderstanding wouldn't it?

btw, The attack against the Marines in 1983 was a terrorist attack. A truck bomb driven into a barracks full of sleeping Marines. I don't remember any more details and I can't find any online references for you but if you want, I can ask people who do remember more or do research in the library to get you more info.

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


You know childhood is over when a puddle seems like an obstacle instead of an opportunity.

Is Too! Is Not! Is Too! Is Not!

[Liliara]

Originally posted by Donut: Of course it is impossible to generalise about a population of over 260 million but my experience of Americans that I have met in America is that they are extremely ignorant of the world outside the US. One of the benefits of a board like this is that I get to read posts from Americans that are obviously well informed about world events. The news is there but you have to go out of your way to find it. I met a man in Richmond, Virgina who, when he learned I was from London said that it must be great living on the coast! I met a woman on a bus between New York and Indianapolis who thought England was the capital of Europe. In contrast I met a barman in Tucaho, New York who was extremely well informed and with whom I spent many an hour debating world politics. I'm afraid that the majority of Americans show little or no interest in world affairs.

Yes, I am aware that some people have problems with geography. I don't see where this pertains to AFFAIRS of the world, though.

I also disagree that we have to search HARD to find outside news! We have 24 hour news channels that ALWAYS have world news, most of our newspapers have 'World News' sections, and quite a few of us on the net have a homepage that shows breaking news on the front page. (Yahoo, MSN, actually, I think most.)

Now if you are talking about the everyday, local news of other countries, I don't think I'm alone in saying that you're right, we're not interested.

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

Captain of Bouncers, Boogre Bar

LH Member

General Woundwort's body was never found. It could be that he still lives his fierce life somewhere else. But from that day forward, mothers would tell their kittens that if they were not good, the General would get them. Such was Woundwort's monument, and perhaps it would not have displeased him.

Originally posted by Liliara: Now if you are talking about the everyday, local news of other countries, I don't think I'm alone in saying that you're right, we're not interested.

Well it should not be discounted that there are Americans who care enough to keep up on localized news in other countries.

Even if they are a minority, they do exist.


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


You know childhood is over when a puddle seems like an obstacle instead of an opportunity.

Is Too! Is Not! Is Too! Is Not!

[Liliara]

Originally posted by Moni: Well it should not be discounted that there are Americans who care enough to keep up on localized news in other countries. Even if they are a minority, they do exist.

By my post, I think it's apparent that I didn't include EVERYONE. Thank you for reiterating, though!




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

Captain of Bouncers, Boogre Bar

LH Member

General Woundwort's body was never found. It could be that he still lives his fierce life somewhere else. But from that day forward, mothers would tell their kittens that if they were not good, the General would get them. Such was Woundwort's monument, and perhaps it would not have displeased him.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Ah, the old "love it or leave it" argument. Nactrafe, I addressed this sentiment recently, a bit before you joined. Here is the thread: http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/No...ML/002953.html What about my attitude is out of hand? What particular comments of mine are you so upset about? For the record, when it comes to history, I believe above all we should be honest about it. I have no axe to grind, other than I desire to know the truth about what has really been going on in the world. [This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 09-13-2001).]

Dio...sorry I didn't get to this earlier...I have been away from my puter all day. Something of a family emergency. And now i'm way to brain friend to debate intelligently. Tell you what...if you still want to talk after I've had some sleep, I'd love to. Right now, I'd probably make some incoherent flamey statement, and I'd regret it. I'm normally rather fond of ya.

I agree with you on the history thing BTW. That whole 'Those who do not learn frim History are doomed to Repeat it' thing. However, I disagree with you about not having an axe to grind. You seem to be grinding pretty hard, taking an aggressively arguementative stance on almost every thread I have read you in. Regardless of topic, your opinions *seem* to be meant to either provoke or be insuting (not too much of the latter, but I *have* seen it.{not going to hunt threads now...maybe later}) And really, its not any specific post, just a general, overall feeling I get from reading your collective posts. BTW...You, and others use that defense alot. "Quote me". "Give me a specific post in which I have said something hurtful/insulting/wrong." Etc. Any reasonably intelligent person can get a general sense of attitude and/or insinuation based on the tone of a post, just as easily as they can from direct comments. You do not have to say that I am scum for me to get the fact that you think that, based on what you almost, but not quite, say(BTW...this is an example) . Regardless, that defense is not as strong as you might hope.

As to the "Love it or Leave" thing. Perhaps I shouldn't have said that. I'm sort of in 'Ultra-Patriot' mode. Forgive me? Normally, I hate that attitude. Recent events have made me less tolerant that I normally might be.

Dammit...I said I wasn't going to debate...sorry!
I really will be better after some sleep. L8R!

------------------
"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"



[This message has been edited by Nachtrafe (edited 09-14-2001).]