US prepared to go it alone - allies warned.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Djugashvili
Hopefully international pressure will cause the US to cease its phony 'war'.

Hey Hero, who said its a "phony war?" Seems like we got all the reason in the world we need, to fix those whom are terrorists and those whom harbor terrorists and those whom have "constructive" knowledge of terrorrists activities. If someone doesnt put an end to terrorism, stand up and make the hard calls, then one day it may happen in your back yard, then lets see if you are one of many "Sheeple" whom call blindly for helps, seeking refuge under a strong, brave country's flag of freedom!

I say if a country is harboring low-life cowards known as Terrorrists, and yes terrorrists are COWARDS!!!!! for attacking people innocently with random acts of violence, then I feel sorry for the country that is harboring them, because innocent civilians will indeed be lost, but such as the price we pay because too many pussey-footers want to allow "freedoms" for terrorrists!


Yours In Civin

Troll

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The problem is if you say a country has an 'AlQuaida Problem', and they deny, and it´s your word against theirs, you expect the entire world to believe you without proof.

Do you still need proof that Afghanistan had an Al Qaida problem? If so then we will never be able to prove anything to the rest of the world. At that point we will have to rely solely on power.

Fortunately I don't think that the vast majority of the people of earth who have contact with a free press will believe that the U.S. is attacking a bunch of sh!thole countries in order to reinstate imperialism, or as some sort of religious crusade. We do so for reasons of state that are almost uniformly accepted around the world, namely self-defense.

[Comrade Tribune]

If you call the Guardian slanted crap, I can´t take you serious. Whom would you believe? The Times? The Observer? I don´t think they quoted Rumsfeld any different.

For the rest, read what I said above.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This is crazy stuff. Why offend your allies?

Now, thats a funny way to look at things, like the two men and the elephant, one has hold of the trunk and the other the tail, but have a slightly different perspective. I pay hard earned taxes, LOTS and hate to give my money so as foreign countries can eagerly take my money but when we need something, they get real indignant. It wasnt that many years ago England was in SERIOUS need of our help! Seems to me, they need to get on right page, as well as France and any other countries that were under oppression before America, the Greatest Nation on God's beautiful earth, stepped up to defend them!

Offend allies you say Horsie?..Hmm..I think someone needs to offend our allies and get them to get with the program of erradicating terrorrists from the holes they hide in!

Yours In Civin

Troll

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
Do you still need proof that Afghanistan had an Al Qaida problem?

Who talked about Afghanistan? This thread is about possible future targets, right? I am positively convinced that neither Iran nor Iraq nor Korea have an AlQuaida Problem.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think part of the problem is Americans feel very emotional about Sept 11 and emotion rather than logic is driving policy. So when allies criticise things like the treatment of Camp X Ray prisoners, Americans get hurt feelings and say stuff like "we'll do it without you."

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well it is obvious that the 'War on Terrorism' from this point won't be an overt war. It'll be a covert war, using the CIA and elite military troops. So it isn't like we'll be invading new countries or anything unless they ask us to get involved.

Imran, I agree with you. The only thing I would add is this; If we find large cells within the borders of a country, then ..wait...do you hear that..why..it..almost sound like a freight train..no..much louder..why yes..B-52's..and if carpet bombing a country that trains terrorrists,harbors terrorrist and finance's terrorists activities, well..they got what they deserved, gather wood, add a propellant, fire up a match and then you get burned, then whom do you have to blame?...not the Fireman responding to a blaze out of control, attempting to prevent it from spreading to other areas!


Yours In Civin

Troll

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think part of the problem is Americans feel very emotional about Sept 11 and emotion rather than logic is driving policy. So when allies criticise things like the treatment of Camp X Ray prisoners, Americans get hurt feelings and say stuff like "we'll do it without you."

Yes Mr. AH, part of it is emotion, but emotion is a human trait we all possess in some way shape and form. But when you find documents from an "organization" that details ways to attack your homeland and wreak havoc upon your soil, what should the course of action be?..be still and wait..ask for a "congressional" inquiry, ask for a NATO resolution, an "embargo" or some other ineffective imminence front? No, I say we be the great nation and leader of freedoms and take the bull by the horn and kick it in its butt! NOT laydown and hope it goes away, as some spineless jellyfish would have us do!

Yours In Civin

Troll

[Comrade Tribune]

Sure, whatever. Problem is, no one will believe you there is a single AlQuaida in North Korea.

[Alexander's Horse]

Of course whilst people like troll wallow in pity, allied forces are fighting alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Strangely enough, those allies want to have a say over alliance policy.

It also seems to have been quickly forgotten by some stateside that citizens of just about every Western country were killed on September 11. So tell it to the priest.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Of course whilst people like troll wallow in pity, allied forces are fighting alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Including some Austrians, actually. But, to be honest: If I could veto that, I would.

Switzerland-style Neutrality would serve us much better.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Including some Austrians, actually. But, to be honest: If I could veto that, I would.

Switzerland-style Neutrality would serve us much better.

Digging your head into sand like an ostrich is of course a good solution.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Who talked about Afghanistan? This thread is about possible future targets, right? I am positively convinced that neither Iran nor Iraq nor Korea have an AlQuaida Problem.

My point is that the same claim was made before we hit Afghanistan. Now the Taliban is no more, and very few people who aren't getting their news from their local "Information" Ministry think that we just attacked an innocent government with no justification. We wouldn't risk the lives of our own men nor our reputation on an attack if we didn't have good information. Showing that information to our enemies via the press beforehand just assures that whatever people / facilities we had hoped to target will be forewarned. We will provide plenty of evidence to the public at large once the military significance of that evidence has lessened, and we are assured that we can protect our sources.

About The Guardian and the British press in general:

While I don't have any illusions about the U.S. press' dedication to getting the facts and leaving the opinions aside, it has been my experience that the British press is exceedingly sensationalistic, simplistic and jingoistic when covering the U.S. Of the famous papers The Guardian in particular has an anti-American bent. Even the vaunted BBC (which I watch several times a week to get a British perspective and to see news about Africa which is rarely covered here) has terrible coverage of the U.S.

(A good recent example is the non-story that went on for days regarding the treatment of Al Qaida prisoners in Cuba, and which has resulted in the abduction of an American reporter in Pakistan. Nothing has come of this barrage of negative and almost entirely British press other than a lot of posturing by Blair and then the U.S. government. No torture was going on, and therefore none was stopped. Of course the story was useful propoganda in the Muslim world for our enemies. The net effect of this charade is that it weakens the West who supports human rights and press freedoms, and strengthens the intolerant Islamic militants who have no compunctions about torture, murder or supressing freedom of speech using those methods.)

They start with an assumption popular with the tiny class of people who make up the members of the British press that the U.S. is run entirely by insane clowns whose every failure stems from a stubborn refusal to listen to the wise advice of their British allies, and whose every success either defies description (more commonly just ignored entirely), or was the result of dumb luck. They would be at enormous pains to explain the huge numbers of successes that the U.S. has had over the years and find it more profitable to begin the insane clown warning process about the next issue rather than challenging their own set of assumptions.

Similar opinions are held here in the U.S. by the 5% of the population who occupy the extreme left of our political spectrum and who not coincidently have no political power and no experience in any of the practical realities of occupying a position of high public trust. This doesn't stop them from being self-proclaimed experts on every issue, and to hear them tell it they could solve 80% of the world's problems on their first day in power through a bunch of fuzzy programs that have no track record whatsoever in history, or at least not good ones. Needless to say that I don't have much trust in the pronouncements of the propogandists of the left whether they are amateurs here in the U.S., or professionals working for the Guardian in London.

[Alexander's Horse]

Of course this unilateral U.S. policy could suit a lot of allies and neutrals down to the ground - let the U.S. do all the heavy lifting whilst they sit back and enjoy the benefits

[faded glory]

Ya AH, and in the end your lazyness and cowardness (cowardness ?) will be the sole reason why america lives and prospers, and why Australia wont.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Of course this unilateral U.S. policy could suit a lot of allies and neutrals down to the ground - let the U.S. do all the heavy lifting whilst they sit back and enjoy the benefits

That's very reasonable.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Transcend
Digging your head into sand like an ostrich is of course a good solution.

A solution to what? You seem to forget that we have no problem.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
We will provide plenty of evidence to the public at large once the military significance of that evidence has lessened, and we are assured that we can protect our sources.

I hope that information won´t turn out to be as true as the famous 'Saddam´s soldiers killed babies in Kuwait' story.

Or the Tonking Gulf incident which never happened.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


A solution to what? You seem to forget that we have no problem.

No problem? Do you little Austria depend on foreign resources or not? If that's the case, isolate yourself from the rest of the world will not help you. You better realize that entire Western countries are sitting in the same boat. Al-Qaeda is not going to distinguish between an American and an Austrian(or shall I say German?). They are all the same: Christian infidels.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Of course this unilateral U.S. policy could suit a lot of allies and neutrals down to the ground - let the U.S. do all the heavy lifting whilst they sit back and enjoy the benefits

I don´t think so. If they really flatten Iran, Europe is just going to lose a good business partner. How would we profit from that?

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I don´t think so. If they really flatten Iran, Europe is just going to lose a good business partner. How would we profit from that?

Fool! You profit by rebuilding Iran, just like America profited by help building up Europe after WW2!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Transcend
They are all the same: Christian infidels.

Do you really believe that?

AlQuaida bombed you for two, and only two, reasons:

1) US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

2) US unconditional support for Israel.

Please believe me this one thing at least: No one, and I mean: No one in Austria thinks that any Muslims are going to attack us, now or ever.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Transcend
You profit by rebuilding Iran, ...

Even if that were true (which I doubt), this sounds like a pretty cynical motive to help destroy a people who never did us any harm...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I don´t think so. If they really flatten Iran, Europe is just going to lose a good business partner. How would we profit from that?

simple. They bomb it and take all the flak and casualties. Then you come in as the good guys and rebuild it.

Americans don't seem to realise how they are hurting themselves international in so many ways, including trade and investment wise. I wouldn't be surprised if a few big U.S. companies like the oil giants didn't end up going in to tell the Administration to tone it down.

Another example is travel. The list of countries U.S. citizens could not dare visits grows longer by the day. For what?

This is really silly stuff.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I hope that information won´t turn out to be as true as the famous 'Saddam´s soldiers killed babies in Kuwait' story.

Or the Tonking Gulf incident which never happened.

That's the sort of 'information' that you get in real time when a government wants to justify it's actions. There were good reasons to intervene in Kuwait and Viet Nam, whether you agree with the actual policy developed or not. In both of these cases we were allied with a government which did not meet Western Standards of humanitarian conduct in many cases against other governments which were probably worse, for realpolitik reasons. Because of the tendency for fairly large portions of the Western World to believe that the only valid reasons for foreign policy are humanitarian reasons we needed to humanize our allies and vilify our enemies to sell what were in fact realpolitik policies to the moderate left.

Our task is much simplified in the case of the "war on terror", because chasing down these murderous SOBs is merely self-defense which 98% of the public understands. Expanding the war to Iraq will be a tougher sell, as it fits more properly into the realpolitik type war than a war of self-defense (with the information that is in the public sector as of now anyway). Either the administration will have to show some evidence that the Iraqi's are doing more than merely defying the terms of the armistace, or it will face a more difficult time selling the operation to the American people and the RoTW.

[Grrr]

Say red_jon, wheres the banana option.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
Either the administration will have to show some evidence that the Iraqi's are doing more than merely defying the terms of the armistace, or it will face a more difficult time selling the operation to the American people and the RoTW.

Of course it´s mostly the US that defies the terms of the armistice, or does the armistice allow bombing raids?

To the American people, you can sell anything, which these threads amply prove. Rotw: Mission Impossible. You are just going to breathe new life into the Shanghai agreement.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Do you really believe that?

AlQuaida bombed you for two, and only two, reasons:

1) US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

2) US unconditional support for Israel.

These are their stated purposes, but the Palestinian cause was added to their list fairly recently, and seems to be a cynical ploy to take advantage of the current support for the Palestinians on the "Arab street".

The strategic goals of Al Qaida are not the ones stated, but to replace secular governance in the Arab world with religious governance, with of course the leadership of Al Qaida playing a prominent role. U.S. troops hundreds of miles from Mecca are not an affront to Islam under even the most militant interpretation of the Q'uran, but are perceived as a real obstacle to the overthrow of the secular regime in Saudi Arabia.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Of course it´s mostly the US that defies the terms of the armistice, or does the armistice allow bombing raids?

We agreed to halt military action while the Iraqis met their obligations under the agreement. When they refused to do so, we felt no compunction to to fulfill our obligations under the contract without consideration. The contract has to be observed by both sides, or neither side is obligated to it. Thus we find ourselves in a continuing state of war with Iraq. If they are tired of that, then they can get rid of their WMDs, which are not feeding a single child or effectively protecting their country from the U.S. anyway. If their government is not meeting their needs, then they should replace it. Every nation pays the price for it's leadership.

[Roland]

Overall I welcome the "unilateral" approach, as well as the stunning hubris and arrogance of the US oligarchy. About time to set the things up for a clean divorce.

If the US wants to make ad-hoc alliances, Europe has to make up its mind: Do we still want a formal alliance that is of no benefit to us ? The "No" will be slow to come as long as jerks like Schröder, slimeballs like Blair and utter morons like Chirac are in power, but it will come. I also have little interest in seeing europe as part of a paranoid militarist "security" doctrine.

I've been of that opinion for a long time; sept 11th made me reconsider, post sept 11th confirmed this view. Time to move on.