War Against Taleban(Afganistan).

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 9:02 pm

If you call that flaming you people would despise most message boards on the internet.

It was a simple statement.

Do I care what anybody's opinion on this board is? No. If that offends you then too bad. I am my own person; if I let other people's opinions get in my way I'd be extremely different. PC is certainly not in for me. I might hear something new here or there, but in the end my opinion is my own and no can change that.

I've heard Ivan's opinions; I want to hear answers now.

If you feel you can condemn an action without proposing an alternative action then go ahead, but I will not agree with you.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 9:42 pm

Originally posted by Quark:
If you call that flaming you people would despise most message boards on the internet.

You're right, I do. So does Buck.

It was a simple statement.

Any remark is "a simple statement." Yours was also close to a flame.

Do I care what anybody's opinion on this board is? No.

Cue for thunder in the background. Bravado duly noted. In the meantime, I suggest you maintain a respect for Buck's rules, as posted in this forum, if you wish to keep posting here. Consider this a warning.

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 10:04 pm

Originally posted by Quark:
Do I care what anybody's opinion on this board is? No.
<snip>
I am my own person; if I let other people's opinions get in my way I'd be extremely different.
<snip>
I might hear something new here or there, but in the end my opinion is my own and no can change that.

If you don't care about other people's opinions, why are you at all participating in discussion? Is your aim merely to spread you own opinions without having any interest of what other people think?

If noone can change your opinion, that means you can never develop. If only internal, subjective events in your own head can affect you and you view people with other opinions than your own as "getting in you way", I suggest you do not participate in discussion at all.

Surely this cannot be what you mean???

CM · Post by CM » Thu Nov 01, 2001 2:18 am

Originally posted by Weasel:
I believe there is proof Bin Laden was involved in the planning of attacks on two embassys and a destroyer. But as I said...this doesn't matter.

"The Evil Americans made up the evidence"

There was proof here. But this wasn't enough to get him extridited. People walk thru the streets with his picture on their shirts...cheering. And you want me to have compassion for them? People who cheer at the deaths of not only my country's servicemen and women...but have a full blast party to celebrate the death of 4000 plus people?

I'm sorry...my compassion is at an end.

Ok for the this proof, i have no idea as i have not seen it.
I remember watching Dateline - NBC i think - which had a cover story on how the Kenyan Authorities had given the US prior knowledge about the bombing in the 2 embassies.
And how the FBI did not follow it up.
I watched this on a cassette record off tv at a friends house, so i don't know the date when it was aired.
But for the proof of these bombings of the cole and embassies.
If there is proof i would love to see it.

But you say it isn't or wasn't enough to extradite him.
Well that is not really the issue.
If you don't have an extradiction treaty with the nation you can't do anything.
So Osama stayed in nations which the US did not have diplomatic relations with the person.
Thus they could not do anything, unless the violated international laws.

Now you have said that there is proof, i bet there are news sources which i can check for articles that show a small portion of it.
Could you provide the source and the internet link if there is one of the source where you got this information from?

You don't need compassion for those who do celebrate the death of people.
But you should have compassion for the innocents dying in the nations.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 2:35 am

@Quark

Quark:
I've heard Ivan's opinions; I want to hear answers now.

I have already awnser your question. My last post is for you too(Happy Evil, Quark, Lazarus). Take a look( if you care).

Quark:
Do I care what anybody's opinion on this board is? No. If that offends you then too bad. I am my own person; if I let other people's opinions get in my way I'd be extremely different. PC is certainly not in for me. I might hear something new here or there, but in the end my opinion is my own and no can change that.

That do not offend, but shock me a lot. You waste your time talking to me. Why? If you don't care about my opinion, and none can change your opinion. You waste your time. Well, if you no longer want to talk, for me its OK.

@Lazarus

Lazarus:
So, we now have to go through the Taliban to get to Osama. Again: it is NOT our respsonsibility to save Afghani lives. That is the respsonsibility of the Afghani government. They could have avoided this had they simply handed over Osama, but they refused. Now that nation will pay a price for sins of the government they have allowed to gain and keep power.

Is our responsability to save inocent lifes. USA could avoid it if they don't attack civilians. And the Afegan people don't permit the Taliban to get the power, USA put them there.

@Happy Evil

Happy Evil:
@Ivan, it's true, i've never been hurt by any war ever, i've seen it's destruction personally, i've never lost anything from it, so yes, my oppions do lack that kind of experience. all though i have done a lot of reading and talked to a great deal of people about this.

Hmm. But you know a that a Total War is not something humane. Hospital burns and River poisoning are something lastimable(terrible).
And because of it caotic nature, a War, we must ever try to avoid.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Nov 01, 2001 2:43 am

Originally posted by Weasel:
It depends on what you mean by equality.

If you have 5 countries together.

Lets call them:

(A) Country with 5 billion supply of oil.

(B) Country with 1 Billion supply of oil.

(C) Country with no oil.

(D) Country with 5 billion supply of gas.

(E) Country With 1 billion supply of gas.

In your equality you would want all these treated the same. Take (A) country because it doesn't believe in allowing women to work, or men to smoke, the US is suppose to do what? Not buy oil from them? Instead do with out oil. Or should the US comdemn the way country (A) treats it's people and still buy the oil?

Country (B) see's the US not buying oil from country (A) and decides to raise the price of it's oil. Is this wrong? No it is not. Supply and demand. But is it in the best interest of the US to pay more?

Now we have country (C), seems country (D) (The aggressor) is in a dispute with country (C) over land. Should the US back country (C) because they are not the aggressor. In backing country (C), country (D) will..1. Cut off the supply to the US. 2. Raise the price of their gas to try and force the US to their side. You say, but gas at a higher price from country (E). Seems country (E) doesn't deal with the US. The US got on to them about the human rights issues in their country. So we are know in a spot where we have to get both country (C) and (D) to talk..meaning deals will have to be worked out. Deals both sides will not like, but will go along with. The gas then follows....till 6 months down the road (C) and (D) start again. More deals will have to be installed...with country (D) knowing it will get the better deal because of it's gas. Country (C) will know this and balk, even though the US could just said..Country (D) do what you want. Does the US do this? No they try and work a deal out. A deal just like before...one both (C) and (D) will hate, but will go along with.

Can you see equality working here? The US has to watch out for it's self first, the other countries after this. The deals cut will be in the interest of the US with as little fallout to the other countries as possible. Is this fair? Well is it fair to the US not to look out for it's self? Shouldn't a country think of it's self first? Most countries do, should the US be different? Just because we are the US means we have to give more?

You are looking at the economic aspect which is just half the issue.
And is a little simplistic with just 2 dominant suppliers of fuel.
But i will bite.
Now For Country A.
Well yes, you can buy andd put pressure.
What do you think the US did with Pakistan for the first 4 years of the 1990s and 3 years before that?
They put pressure on us for our nuclear program, but still traded with us and had some military officiers come over to give training to our military.
Heck you guys even aimed to sell us 60 F-16s until 1991.

Also why can't the US establish a democratic govt within the nation which is pro US.
It has done it before many times over the decades.

Yes supply and demand for country B, but it is only one oil producer in many.
If they increase their prices people won't buy from them.
So the US can buy from someone else.
Supply and demand.
If it is the sole supplier, well then trade with country A.
It has happened before.

As for country C and D - that is a little too similiar to pakistan and india.
But the US can do what it has always done, stall, and play around with the issue, while under the table discussions are held with each group.

So US interests come first.
In other words you are saying, if a ntion has something the US needs, it is a must, to hell with the people of the nation and issue of human rights and basic rights should be ignored?

Now i have a question for you.
This is how the US works and innocents don't have the same rights as others in this world.
Should you be at all surprised that people hate the US in the world today?

Editted from here on:
What is fair is your question.
yes the US should look after its own interest, but should that be to the determent of the values it espouses of democracy, human rights and freedom?
Should these values be compromised for oil?

Most countries think of themselves first, but the US does nothing about it if it is in its favour.
Pakistan was persuing its national interest and security because India tested a nuclear device in 1972.
Yet we had sanctions for more than a decade.
Why were we punished for persuing or national security?

Another edit.
Our national security was our nuclear program.
Second i am answering your questions about fairness with questions, as you know that i feel that the values the US espouses should come first.
These nations should follow these ideals and the US should still trade with them even if they don't but pressure should be put on them.
My question to you is because as an american do you think the freedoms you have should apply to others.
In theory the answer is yes.
But which comes first national interest or basic rights for all Humans?

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Fas ]

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Fas ]

NCT · Post by **NCT** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 2:58 am

@Ivan.Simple questions for you:Have you any idea what total war means?Have you ever,been threatened and /or threaten with grevious bodily harm.Are YOU aware of the "total war"-your term for it-against the Amazon tribes with total anihilation of civilians with the simple use of rat poison?Have you checked the history of your tiny part of the world just to see the numbers of civilians that have been missing in the past 10 years?Have you ever felt rage,uncontrollable rage,in front of helpless casualties,casualties because they did not and could not defend themselves?
I shall not carry on,respecting the rules of SYM,being on the verge of blowing my top.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 3:21 am

Originally posted by NCT:
@Ivan.Simple questions for you:Have you any idea what total war means?Have you ever,been threatened and /or threaten with grevious bodily harm.Are YOU aware of the "total war"-your term for it-against the Amazon tribes with total anihilation of civilians with the simple use of rat poison?Have you checked the history of your tiny part of the world just to see the numbers of civilians that have been missing in the past 10 years?Have you ever felt rage,uncontrollable rage,in front of helpless casualties,casualties because they did not and could not defend themselves?

Yes, I have the Idea of what is a total War. Where I live is not a war, but the thing is nasty, nasty enough for me perceive anything worst than this is the end of humanity. That's way I am against Total, Partial, Semi, Half,... Wars.
I don't understand what you mean with your question.
My conprehention of War of Terror make me hate its nature. Make me avoid it in all the ways.

You ask me if I was into a War. No, I were in some conflicts. I live in a place where you wake up with shot of rifles in the middle of the night. Lots of cadaver I have see, and, that is why I abominate anything worst than this(War).

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 6:53 am

Originally posted by Fas:
 i have no idea as i have not seen it.

I sit here and read back thru this thread and guess what I see. I have seen "I have not seen it". The almighty answer. If you presonally don't have the paper in front of you...it's not true.

End of disscussion. I see no reason to continue. You believe if the US says something and doesn't show proof, they are lying. I believe if the US says something and doesn't show proof, they have a reason not.

It all comes down to..."The Evil Americans"

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 7:55 am

Originally posted by Fas:

You are looking at the economic aspect which is just half the issue.
And is a little simplistic with just 2 dominant suppliers of fuel.

You missed my whole point. Yes it is a little simplistic with only 5 countries, should I add 50 more? 50 more the US has to deal with. 50 more ways deals will have to be cut. Your asking the US to be perfect and deal with every country the same. The US is not prefect. Name me a country that is?

Originally posted by Fas:
But i will bite.

I'm at a loss here? Did you think I was sitting a trap? Wait , I'm an American. No there was not not trap or a hidden motive.

(I don't have papers to prove this though)

Originally posted by Fas:
So US interests come first.
In other words you are saying, if a ntion has something the US needs, it is a must, to hell with the people of the nation and issue of human rights and basic rights should be ignored?

Now this could be called a trap.

if a ntion has something the BLANKY BLANK needs, it is a must, to hell with the people of the nation and issue of human rights and basic rights should be ignored?

I believe a lot of countries will fill the BLANKY BLANK spot.

But since we are talking about the US, it depends on the 'fallout' to the people of said nation. Do you want the US to come in and tell your nation how to run it's government? A government you can overthrow if you (and the majority) feel are not answering your needs.

But instead, you want the US to do your job for you. Instead of you standing up to your government and demanding "human rights and basic rights" the US should put itself in your place. Demand these things be done or what?? Sanctions (Lord forbid this) War (Lord forbid this as well) What then? Trade with another country? Is that helping your country? I'm sure Mr. so and so around the corner will trade with your government even if the US doesn't.

Tell me how exactly you want the US to force a government to do something for it's people. Should the people do something about their own government?

Originally posted by Fas:
Now i have a question for you.
This is how the US works and innocents don't have the same rights as others in this world.
Should you be at all surprised that people hate the US in the world today?

I'm to the point, let them hate me. That doesn't mean I have to hate them back. I believe the US government does what it takes to keep my country moving....with as little fallout to the people of the world as possible. If this means someone some where will not be allowed to work or smoke, I have faith that my government tried to do something about it, but I realize my government is not prefect. I also realize, women marched in my country to get the right to vote, it was not handed to them, another government didn't put pressure on my government to do it either.

But there is the US to blame for it all right?

Originally posted by Fas:

Second i am answering your questions about fairness with questions, as you know that i feel that the values the US espouses should come first.

I feel the country should come first. I hold nothing against any country in the world looking at for it's self.

Should your country have nukes to deter another country? Is this not a domino effect? Will not the country on the other side of you want one to deter you? Will not the one on the other side of him want one too? In this day and age no country needs nukes to deter anyone. The first country to use one will in almost likely hood be attacked by every other country in the world. The two that where used should have shown the world just how bad a nuke is.

Originally posted by Fas:
These nations should follow these ideals and the US should still trade with them even if they don't but pressure should be put on them.

You lost me here.

Originally posted by Fas:
My question to you is because as an american do you think the freedoms you have should apply to others.
In theory the answer is yes.

Do I think the US should force your government to be like the US? NO. I do not see where it is the US's place to tell you or your government how to do their business. If you and your people feel your are not getting fair treatment, call for a change of leadership or a change of government. Do not sit back and expect the US to come in and do it for you.

Originally posted by Fas:
But which comes first national interest or basic rights for all Humans?

I have already answered this. You look out for your country first. It's the sad facts. If a country did not look out for it's self first, it will in the end not be a country.

The difference in the US is the basic right for other people of other countries is always tooken it to account when deals are cut. Sometimes something can be done for them , sometimes it can't. The US is not prefect.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Nov 01, 2001 8:25 am

Originally posted by Weasel:
I sit here and read back thru this thread and guess what I see. I have seen "I have not seen it". The almighty answer. If you presonally don't have the paper in front of you...it's not true.

End of disscussion. I see no reason to continue. You believe if the US says something and doesn't show proof, they are lying. I believe if the US says something and doesn't show proof, they have a reason not.

It all comes down to..."The Evil Americans"

You have said you have seen the proof.
I have asked you to please tell me where you got this information.
Give me a news source and i will check for aritcles that cover this proof.
It does not come down to evil america.
I have not seen the proof, but provide the news sources that have this proof and i will read it.

Of course if you can not provide the sites that is a totally different issue.

Edit:
Also you believe the govt does what is right and has the proof.
Why do you think that?

I don't as i will not condemn a man without seeing all the proof.
But you will condemn without any proof with blind faith in the govt.

I guess the cliches:
"Seeing is believing" and "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" mean nothing to you.

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Fas ]

CM · Post by CM » Thu Nov 01, 2001 9:01 am

You missed my whole point. Yes it is a little simplistic with only 5 countries, should I add 50 more? 50 more the US has to deal with. 50 more ways deals will have to be cut. Your asking the US to be perfect and deal with every country the same. The US is not prefect. Name me a country that is?

I never asked the US to be perfect.
I asked it to be fair.
Is that impossible for the US?
Are only people in the US entitled to freedom and basic human rights.

I'm at a loss here? Did you think I was sitting a trap? Wait , I'm an American. No there was not not trap or a hidden motive.

(I don't have papers to prove this though)

I wasn't taking it as a trap, i wasn't going to discuss the issue because it didn't follow global reality, but i decided to discuss your scenerio.
That is all.

Now this could be called a trap.

if a ntion has something the BLANKY BLANK needs, it is a must, to hell with the people of the nation and issue of human rights and basic rights should be ignored?

I believe a lot of countries will fill the BLANKY BLANK spot.

No trap a simple question as i don't understand what you are trying to say.
Yes alot of nations fit in this space.

But since we are talking about the US, it depends on the 'fallout' to the people of said nation. Do you want the US to come in and tell your nation how to run it's government? A government you can overthrow if you (and the majority) feel are not answering your needs.

When the govt controls the army and uses it against its own people who will stand up against them without international support?

But instead, you want the US to do your job for you. Instead of you standing up to your government and demanding "human rights and basic rights" the US should put itself in your place. Demand these things be done or what?? Sanctions (Lord forbid this) War (Lord forbid this as well) What then? Trade with another country? Is that helping your country? I'm sure Mr. so and so around the corner will trade with your government even if the US doesn't.

Nobody is demanding anything.
It is a request.
Take Saudi as an example.
The US gives it materials and weapons which it uses against the opposition.
It uses it against its own people.
What do the people do then?

Also you point that people will trade with you if the US doesn't.
Who trades with Libya?
Not the US not Europe not nobody.

Tell me how exactly you want the US to force a government to do something for it's people. Should the people do something about their own government?

Yes they should take action against their govt, but if your govt kills you for anything against the govt what do you do then unless there is someone to back your cause.
What exactly?
A. Support the Opposition.
B. Second pressure on vital trading areas but not all like in saudis case, to take away US troops and protection.
C. Give media attention to the violation of human rights.
Provide knowledge and support to the people through the media.

I'm to the point, let them hate me. That doesn't mean I have to hate them back. I believe the US government does what it takes to keep my country moving....with as little fallout to the people of the world as possible. If this means someone some where will not be allowed to work or smoke, I have faith that my government tried to do something about it, but I realize my government is not prefect. I also realize, women marched in my country to get the right to vote, it was not handed to them, another government didn't put pressure on my government to do it either.

Again if the govt opens fire on its people who will actually go out if they get no international support?
I guess the people getting killed in iraq is as little fallout as possible right?
Is th US not to blame for the sanctions?
And your faith seems to defy logic - in my opinion.
Why do you have this faith in the US govt??

I feel the country should come first. I hold nothing against any country in the world looking at for it's self.

Then what is wrong with the Afghani Taliban providing Osama.
They need the money he gives them.
That is looking after themselves is it not?

And people wonder why the world hates the US and its govt?

Should your country have nukes to deter another country? Is this not a domino effect? Will not the country on the other side of you want one to deter you? Will not the one on the other side of him want one too? In this day and age no country needs nukes to deter anyone. The first country to use one will in almost likely hood be attacked by every other country in the world. The two that where used should have shown the world just how bad a nuke is.

If you have fought 3 wars with that nation, and you basically hate each others guts.
Do you really want to take the chance???

You lost me here.

The US can trade and provide pressure at the same time.
Nothing is at extremes.

Do I think the US should force your government to be like the US? NO. I do not see where it is the US's place to tell you or your government how to do their business. If you and your people feel your are not getting fair treatment, call for a change of leadership or a change of government. Do not sit back and expect the US to come in and do it for you.

Then why do countries with dictatorships have problems with the US?
Why is china condemned or lambasted for a single party.
Or Cuba, or Iran or Pakistan.

I have already answered this. You look out for your country first. It's the sad facts. If a country did not look out for it's self first, it will in the end not be a country.

The difference in the US is the basic right for other people of other countries is always tooken it to account when deals are cut. Sometimes something can be done for them , sometimes it can't. The US is not prefect.

Never said the US is perfect, it is lacking on many fronts.
And how are you sure that the basic rights are taken into consideration.
From what i have seen this is far from true.

So you have said that the country comes first.
Thus the basic human rights within nations which trade with the US are not important as long as it serves the US.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 9:30 am

Originally posted by Fas:

I never asked the US to be perfect.
I asked it to be fair.
Is that impossible for the US?
Are only people in the US entitled to freedom and basic human rights.

Then what is wrong with asking the fundamentalistic people ruling afganistan and Al-Quida(sp?)/Bin Laden and all other terrorists groups to be fair, so just because the US dosen't operate within their belif-system to refrain from mudering innocent civilians?

This goes more than one way - if the US is to "behave" in the eyes of these groups, why couldn't these groups behave themself?
Do you really expect these fundamentalistic groups to stop terror if the US didn't bomb Afganistan but "traded" with them?

Then, IMO, they (the fundamentalistic groups) would see this as a victory and continue their "tactics" to further gain the advances they want.

Is fairness possible from these groups/countries?

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

CM · Post by CM » Thu Nov 01, 2001 9:36 am

Originally posted by Xandax:
Then what is wrong with asking the fundamentalistic people ruling afganistan and Al-Quida(sp?)/Bin Laden and all other terrorists groups to be fair, so just because the US dosen't operate within their belif-system to refrain from mudering innocent civilians?

This goes more than one way - if the US is to "behave" in the eyes of these groups, why couldn't these groups behave themself?
Do you really expect these fundamentalistic groups to stop terror if the US didn't bomb Afganistan but "traded" with them?

Then, IMO, they (the fundamentalistic groups) would see this as a victory and continue their "tactics" to further gain the advances they want.

Is fairness possible from these groups/countries?

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

By all means they should be fair.
No attacking civilians.
I agree you can't deal with these people directly but indirectly you can.
Through muslim nations.
But if you attack Afghanistan, you kill people and you create further people who hate the US and create more Osamas.
The US can bomb the Afgahni by all means.
But they must be ready for the real long term problems of more groups like this spring up.
Then they might not hijack just 4 planes.
It could be much much worse.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 11:07 am

Fas writes:
By all means they should be fair.
No attacking civilians.
I agree you can't deal with these people directly but indirectly you can.
Through muslim nations.

How do you propose the US deal with bin Ladan "indirectly, through Muslim nations?" And wasn't that done when Pakistan sent several delegations repeatedly to convince the Taliban?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 11:57 am

Originally posted by Fas:

And how are you sure that the basic rights are taken into consideration.
From what i have seen this is far from true.

Well I guess from your point of veiw the US is Evil.

Nice conversation, but I feel this is going no where.

When you believe something is evil, no talking will change this. When you only allow your self to see one way, you are blinded to the truth.

I can admit the US is not perfect, all the time in the world will not make it perfect. Humans are not perfect, but you can pick one and decide to judge every other thing against it, seems fair to me.

As for the rest, you decided to evade the questions and instead ask me questions.

I never asked the US to be perfect.
I asked it to be fair.
Is that impossible for the US?
Are only people in the US entitled to freedom and basic human rights.

Your reply to ..

You missed my whole point. Yes it is a little simplistic with only 5 countries, should I add 50 more? 50 more the US has to deal with. 50 more ways deals will have to be cut. Your asking the US to be perfect and deal with every country the same. The US is not prefect. Name me a country that is?

Which meant the US cannnot be fair to all countries. They can try, but all countries will not agree with what the US has in mind.

I wasn't taking it as a trap, i wasn't going to discuss the issue because it didn't follow global reality, but i decided to discuss your scenerio.
That is all.

No it was an example that you completely took to think I was setting a trap. In your global reality you would have the US treat everyone the same, sorry it's not going to happen. Point blank, no country is ever going to treat every country equal. This is reality. Look next door to you and see what I mean. (India) (Your post on down the page proves this."
If you have fought 3 wars with that nation, and you basically hate each others guts.
Do you really want to take the chance???")

No trap a simple question as i don't understand what you are trying to say.
Yes alot of nations fit in this space.

Your reply to...

Now this could be called a trap.
if a ntion has something the BLANKY BLANK needs, it is a must, to hell with the people of the nation and issue of human rights and basic rights should be ignored?

I believe a lot of countries will fill the BLANKY BLANK spot.

Meaning just as you said...A lot. But since it's was YOU who decided in your orignal post to add the US in the Blanky Blank spot, I decide to show you any country can be put in to this spot.

When the govt controls the army and uses it against its own people who will stand up against them without international support?

Someone who has the guts to. Did England give up the colonies in North America without a fight? Oh Spain helped right? France too. Do you know how much help was given?

Vet War? Support from China? Right. Why did China help? Did China believe in the cause? Or was it a chance to bloody the US's nose?

The people still fought.

Why was anybody giving international support to the NA? Even without it they fought on. But why out of all the countries in the world was no one giving support? Do you want the US to be big brother and come help ever cause? How much do you want the US to give. I believe the figure is close to 3.4 Billion dollars is sent to Egypt every year so they will be friends with Israel. Must the US pay every country to have peace?

Nobody is demanding anything.
It is a request.
Take Saudi as an example.
The US gives it materials and weapons which it uses against the opposition.
It uses it against its own people.
What do the people do then?

Also you point that people will trade with you if the US doesn't.
Who trades with Libya?
Not the US not Europe not nobody.

And I have told you the US tries. But this is not enough. So now my country has 4 planes ,7 builds and 4000 + people dead.

Try harder next time? Sorry trying didn't work.

As for Libya, does it have an army? What equipment does this army use? The answer to this is who they trade with. Someone some where will sell you something if you have the money to pay.

What exactly?
A. Support the Opposition.
B. Second pressure on vital trading areas but not all like in saudis case, to take away US troops and protection.
C. Give media attention to the violation of human rights.
Provide knowledge and support to the people through the media.

(A) How are we to know the 'Opposition' might not be worst than the one we help get rid of?
(B)Sanctions do not work.

(C)Provide knowledge and support to the people through the media.? What people? the US people. In other words get the people of my country to force my government to do what you think is right? I turn on the TV everyday and see reports. I believe my government is trying it's best to help. You want me to believe they are not. Sorry I cannot believe you. I see the money that leaves the US to help feed the children over sea's

Last thing....then you can say all you want.

And people wonder why the world hates the US and its govt?

Hate me then. Hate will not get you nothing except more death. I hope your belief doesn't take into account hate. Might not make it to where you want go after you die.

[url="http://www.msnbc.com/news/631818.asp#BODY"]MSNBC[/url]

CM · Post by CM » Thu Nov 01, 2001 2:10 pm

Originally posted by fable:
How do you propose the US deal with bin Ladan "indirectly, through Muslim nations?" And wasn't that done when Pakistan sent several delegations repeatedly to convince the Taliban?

Indirectly?
You use the Pakistani ISI to coax elements within the Taliban to provide information on Osama.
Money makes the world go round.
You get the info and then go and take him out.
But you don't bomb a nation.

Second you could negotiate with the Taliban through the Pakistani or other govts.
Anything except for bombing the poor people of Afghanistan who are innocent.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 2:26 pm

Originally posted by Fas:
I think i should reply to this as i have said that US FP is to blame in words.

I’m probably going to regret discussing this, but here goes:

Using your vast knowledge of US foreign policy, please specify exactly which policy precipitated this attack. Since Al Queda has not made any demands, perhaps you also know which policies it is that they object to.

Re: Coaxing Bin Laden out: You obviously subscribe to the simplified notions that Osama = terrorism. He may be a highly visible figure, but he is far and away from being the only threat.