|
|
Register | Netphoria's Amazon.com Link | Members List | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-11-2002, 06:41 AM | #61 |
Posts: n/a
|
I agree with BlueStar. Being in the military, I'm slightly biased. But I'd rather they hold the guy, if there's sufficient evidence against him, than let him go. Because wouldn't someone feel like an ass if the guy left a dirty bomb somewhere after he got released... say, in a hockey stadium during the Stanley Cup perhaps? Or during the NBA Finals?
Better safe than sorry, I'd say. Granted, you can't hold somebody for nothing, but it sounds like they have a decent amount to suspect him. ------------------ AIM: JenniferZero censored25: Dont be sad, Jesus loves your ass |
|
06-11-2002, 06:43 AM | #62 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-11-2002, 06:43 AM | #63 | |||||
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And yeah, like I previously said, it was an opportunity for the U.S. to fully go after Al Queda. Quote:
However, it's generally accepted that, in these situations, nations have the right to respond in self-defence or “anticipatory self-defence” (although what can be classified as self-defence is not always clear). So, rather than go to war, heads of state are encouraged to assemble an international coalition and use diplomatic efforts. If force is deemed necessary, the President should seek the authorization of the U.N. Security Council. If an attack on the terrorist group in China was supported by other countries (as in Bush was able to form an international coalition), yes we would have gone after those terrorists. Quote:
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif Do you REALLY believe that any terrorist group from any country can come into the U.S., attack and kill enormous amounts of civilians, and then the U.S. would just walk away as if nothing had happened?? ------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|||||
|
06-11-2002, 06:49 AM | #64 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-11-2002, 06:51 AM | #65 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
My example of this being sourced from somewhere like CHina was to show you that in different circumstances you wouldn't have the US action in a way that could be termed a war. An anti-US faction in China could not be targetted by the US without confronting the China. Very simple. Just look what happened when you're planes get a bit too close. I'm not talking about if these terrorists were supported by a governemnt or not. I'm just saying that these middle eastern terrorists are in a situation where the US doesn't really care if it upsets the governments around them. The US can send bombs into Arabia at will because there's a GREATER chance it would be doing that anyway at some point. |
|
|
06-11-2002, 06:52 AM | #66 | ||
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
||
|
06-11-2002, 06:57 AM | #67 |
Posts: n/a
|
and is bombing an innocent country and its people in "accordance with the laws and customs of war"?
NO america makes up the rules as it goes along |
|
06-11-2002, 06:58 AM | #68 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
It's impossible to specualte about what would have happened if the terrorists had been from China. A swift response from the U.S. defintiely would not have happened. There would have been a hell of a lot more talking going on between various countries. But, a military response would have happened. And if the international laws were followed, yeah, war with China could have been a possibility. And it is impossible to specualate on how the Chinese government would have acted if the terrorists had been from their country. So arguing about how everything that has happened/is happening is only because it's the Middle East is fucking pointless. Once again, it is impossible to say what would have occured had the country been different...so there's no point to the argument. ------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:01 AM | #69 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I raised this example as a scenario where you have a terrorist group inside a large, powerful nation at odds with the US. In this scenario, the terrorists are distinct from the regime in which they hide. You could have all your allies holding your hands but unless China directly backed these terrorists there is no way on earth the US would go into China to fight terrorism. Weak Afghani Govt -> terrorists <- US comapred to... Huge Fucking China -> terrorists <- US You're telling me that with support from other countries both situations are palatable for the US ? Above all else, the US goes to war with terrorism in the Middle East knowing it can get away with a lot because of previous conflicts and successes. Post Sep 11 we're in a "been here, done that" scenario. |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:03 AM | #70 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
We were attacked. We fought back. "Casualites of war" are an unfortunate consequence. And ummm...no more Taliban. ------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:05 AM | #71 | ||
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg [This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).] |
||
|
06-11-2002, 07:11 AM | #72 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
And having lived in NYC during 9/11 and gone through all that...I admit that I am coming from a very emotional place in arguing all this. ------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:12 AM | #73 | |||
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
that was Al Qaeda. and guess what? they're still alive and kicking... |
|||
|
06-11-2002, 07:15 AM | #74 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
If we didn't make up situations to test the validity of what is actually happening we'd get back to my very first remark about the government loving people like you. "Oh no. What's happening is confusing but it's pointless thinking about hypotheticals because they're not real, and this is,so let's just accept this and deal with it" |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:17 AM | #75 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
It amazes me how people here can be so uncaring sometimes towards Sept. 11 (not talking about anyone in particular in this thread or anything.. just in general), but I remember seeing the thread that was going on while everything was happening, and the way everyone was feeling the same thing. No one'll admit it now, how freaked out they were. That's sad. ------------------ AIM: JenniferZero censored25: Dont be sad, Jesus loves your ass |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:17 AM | #76 |
Posts: n/a
|
Since a reference has been made to US agenda in the middle east, I think I'll repost this for conversational purposes:
1991-1997 - Major U.S. oil companies including ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell and Enron directly invest billions in cash bribing heads of state in Kazakhstan to secure equity rights in the huge oil reserves in these regions. The oil companies further commit to future direct investments in Kazakhstan of $35 billion. Not being willing to pay exorbitant prices to Russia to use Russian pipelines the major oil companies have no way to recoup their investments. [“The Price of Oil,” by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, July 9, 2001 – The Asia Times, “The Roving Eye Part I Jan. 26, 2002.] December 4, 1997 – Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Subsequent reports will indicate that the negotiations failed, allegedly because the Taliban wanted too much money. [Source: The BBC, Dec. 4, 1997] February 12, 1998 – Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca – later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan – testifies before the House that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan the trans-Afghani pipeline needed to monetize the oil will not be built. [Source: Testimony before the House International Relations Committee.] April, 1999 – Enron with a $3 billion investment to build an electrical generating plant at Dabhol India loses access to plentiful LNG supplies from Qatar to fuel the plant. Its only remaining option to make the investment profitable is a trans-Afghani gas pipeline to be built by Unocal from Turkmenistan that would terminate near the Indian border at the city of Multan. [Source: The Albion Monitor, Feb. 28, 2002.] July, 2001 – Three American officials: Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. [Source: The Guardian, September 22, 2001] ------------------ http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg [This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).] |
|
06-11-2002, 07:19 AM | #77 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
But, Bush's statement was as follows: “For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid.... [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice... We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences..." So, yeah, in going after the terrorists, we went after Afghanistan. I do not agree with everything that the U.S. has done. I do not like war. War is shitty and shitty things happen. I don't like it. But, the U.S. could not sit back and do nothing when it was attacked like that. Bin Laden was not going to sit down with President Bush and have a discussion and together they reach some sort of peace agreement. The U.S. did what was necessary. Killing is never right or good. However, I am supportive of this "war". I do not agree with everything that has taken place, but I do think that it was necessary. The U.S. has a moral responsibility to ensure the freedom of its citizens. ------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg [This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).] |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:23 AM | #78 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:29 AM | #79 |
Posts: n/a
|
what's your point in quoting that and highlighting 'October'?
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:32 AM | #80 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Everyone cares. Everyone was saddened by what happened. No-one wants to see it happen again. But maybe those that seem uncaring are the ones that don't want the US to tread blindly into it again. |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:35 AM | #81 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg [This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-11-2002).] |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:37 AM | #82 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
they were some of the first ideas I read about post Sep 11 and people still over-look them. Too good to be true it would seem. |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:41 AM | #83 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:43 AM | #84 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg [This message has been edited by BlueStar (edited 06-11-2002).] |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:47 AM | #85 |
Posts: n/a
|
Please god, don't start citing the UN charter as a moral framework for the US to work within, as if America doesn't contravene UN decisions at every opportunity.
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:49 AM | #86 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:51 AM | #87 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:52 AM | #88 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
however, i think 13 was attempting to illustrate that the US had a vested interest in the area and was considering military action anyway, regardless of 9/11. Or perhaps, more worryingly, the US was already planning her retribution for 9/11 before it happened [This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-11-2002).] |
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:54 AM | #89 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-11-2002, 07:56 AM | #90 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|