Scary thoughts
-
Twenty years ago Ronald Reagan was fighting Communism in Afghanistan and the CIA recruited an enthusiastic ally named Osama bin Laden to build a network of Islamic freedom fighters to drive the infidel Communists out of Afghanistan. Six years ago Afghanistan had been in anarchy for six years, since the Communists left. A nice conservative group of clerics called Taliban made a grab for power and Bill Clinton approved. Today George W. Bush is fighting Osama bin Laden and is signing up Pakistan, an unstable nation with nuclear bombs, to help us drive bin Laden out of Afghanistan. We have lifted the sanctions we imposed on Pakistan for its nuclear weapons program and have effectively given Pakistan the green light to resume developing nukes. W. is also cozying up to Saudi Arabia, conveniently forgetting the Saudis' ties to international terrorism and their stubborn refusal to hand over 13 members of Hezbollah whom the U.S. has indicted for a 1996 truck bombing that killed 19 American servicemen. Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Human life is too sacred to be taken on the battlefields of the world --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
Twenty years ago Ronald Reagan was fighting Communism in Afghanistan and the CIA recruited an enthusiastic ally named Osama bin Laden to build a network of Islamic freedom fighters to drive the infidel Communists out of Afghanistan. Six years ago Afghanistan had been in anarchy for six years, since the Communists left. A nice conservative group of clerics called Taliban made a grab for power and Bill Clinton approved. Today George W. Bush is fighting Osama bin Laden and is signing up Pakistan, an unstable nation with nuclear bombs, to help us drive bin Laden out of Afghanistan. We have lifted the sanctions we imposed on Pakistan for its nuclear weapons program and have effectively given Pakistan the green light to resume developing nukes. W. is also cozying up to Saudi Arabia, conveniently forgetting the Saudis' ties to international terrorism and their stubborn refusal to hand over 13 members of Hezbollah whom the U.S. has indicted for a 1996 truck bombing that killed 19 American servicemen. Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Human life is too sacred to be taken on the battlefields of the world --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
I think we should just build a huge wall around America and pretend that nobody else exists. Thus, we would never have to made decisions on things and then never be wrong in our choices. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Twenty years ago Ronald Reagan was fighting Communism in Afghanistan and the CIA recruited an enthusiastic ally named Osama bin Laden to build a network of Islamic freedom fighters to drive the infidel Communists out of Afghanistan. Six years ago Afghanistan had been in anarchy for six years, since the Communists left. A nice conservative group of clerics called Taliban made a grab for power and Bill Clinton approved. Today George W. Bush is fighting Osama bin Laden and is signing up Pakistan, an unstable nation with nuclear bombs, to help us drive bin Laden out of Afghanistan. We have lifted the sanctions we imposed on Pakistan for its nuclear weapons program and have effectively given Pakistan the green light to resume developing nukes. W. is also cozying up to Saudi Arabia, conveniently forgetting the Saudis' ties to international terrorism and their stubborn refusal to hand over 13 members of Hezbollah whom the U.S. has indicted for a 1996 truck bombing that killed 19 American servicemen. Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Human life is too sacred to be taken on the battlefields of the world --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Of course we will. But, all of the people who made the decisions that got us into these (and future) impossible situations will be dead or senile, lucky for them. There's a lot to be said for minding your own business. No, I really don't want to start a discussion about it :) -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
Twenty years ago Ronald Reagan was fighting Communism in Afghanistan and the CIA recruited an enthusiastic ally named Osama bin Laden to build a network of Islamic freedom fighters to drive the infidel Communists out of Afghanistan. Six years ago Afghanistan had been in anarchy for six years, since the Communists left. A nice conservative group of clerics called Taliban made a grab for power and Bill Clinton approved. Today George W. Bush is fighting Osama bin Laden and is signing up Pakistan, an unstable nation with nuclear bombs, to help us drive bin Laden out of Afghanistan. We have lifted the sanctions we imposed on Pakistan for its nuclear weapons program and have effectively given Pakistan the green light to resume developing nukes. W. is also cozying up to Saudi Arabia, conveniently forgetting the Saudis' ties to international terrorism and their stubborn refusal to hand over 13 members of Hezbollah whom the U.S. has indicted for a 1996 truck bombing that killed 19 American servicemen. Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Human life is too sacred to be taken on the battlefields of the world --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
I've always wondered why an attack on military personnel in a foreign country is considered an act of terrorism, rather than an act of war. What was the Boston Tea Party? But your point is well taken... we are getting ourselves deeper into this mess with every step we take.
-
Twenty years ago Ronald Reagan was fighting Communism in Afghanistan and the CIA recruited an enthusiastic ally named Osama bin Laden to build a network of Islamic freedom fighters to drive the infidel Communists out of Afghanistan. Six years ago Afghanistan had been in anarchy for six years, since the Communists left. A nice conservative group of clerics called Taliban made a grab for power and Bill Clinton approved. Today George W. Bush is fighting Osama bin Laden and is signing up Pakistan, an unstable nation with nuclear bombs, to help us drive bin Laden out of Afghanistan. We have lifted the sanctions we imposed on Pakistan for its nuclear weapons program and have effectively given Pakistan the green light to resume developing nukes. W. is also cozying up to Saudi Arabia, conveniently forgetting the Saudis' ties to international terrorism and their stubborn refusal to hand over 13 members of Hezbollah whom the U.S. has indicted for a 1996 truck bombing that killed 19 American servicemen. Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Human life is too sacred to be taken on the battlefields of the world --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Are you suggesting that US needs a anti-missile shield? ;P Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
-
Twenty years ago Ronald Reagan was fighting Communism in Afghanistan and the CIA recruited an enthusiastic ally named Osama bin Laden to build a network of Islamic freedom fighters to drive the infidel Communists out of Afghanistan. Six years ago Afghanistan had been in anarchy for six years, since the Communists left. A nice conservative group of clerics called Taliban made a grab for power and Bill Clinton approved. Today George W. Bush is fighting Osama bin Laden and is signing up Pakistan, an unstable nation with nuclear bombs, to help us drive bin Laden out of Afghanistan. We have lifted the sanctions we imposed on Pakistan for its nuclear weapons program and have effectively given Pakistan the green light to resume developing nukes. W. is also cozying up to Saudi Arabia, conveniently forgetting the Saudis' ties to international terrorism and their stubborn refusal to hand over 13 members of Hezbollah whom the U.S. has indicted for a 1996 truck bombing that killed 19 American servicemen. Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Human life is too sacred to be taken on the battlefields of the world --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
The costs of indecision and not doing the right thing far outweighs the short term costs of believing in democracy and civil liberties of all nations across the world. America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes. But, they do not do that for the sake of convenience and reducing costs and accessing large markets. It is time that all nations understood the repurcussions of supporting in word or action any regime which does not honour these basic human rights. Anything that happens around the world is important to everyone. Sooner or later, it is going to impact us. So it is in the best interests of all democracies to come together under a forum that does not allow visas/diplomacy/immigration/economic aid/business with any regime that does not value the freedom of its own people (ie, does not TRUST its own people). On a more aggressive front, if there is a hint of dissidence from the people of those regimes, they should be *helped* in every possible way to redeem themselves. Also: what would have been better? An allied attack on Germany in 1936 as Churchill suggested OR the World War II. When we think of options, we have to be very, very clear of the path we choose. Ignoring Hitler and making diplomatic efforts (Mein Kampf was already published and people knew Hitler's thoughts) was a bad choice. On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? As often discussed in this forum, UN is the *right* body to make the decision. But, it is too fragmented and does not have the effective leadership and power to force any of its member states on a diplomatic level. It is up to the powerful nations of the world to take the destiny in their own hands and exercise the power judiciously. -Thomas
-
I think we should just build a huge wall around America and pretend that nobody else exists. Thus, we would never have to made decisions on things and then never be wrong in our choices. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
..."pretend that nobody else exists"... up until the last few weeks I think many Americans did believe the world was just America... no wall is needed, it is already there. Actually it is quite amazing how different the average American is to the top echelon of Americans. The average American seems to know very little of the rest of the world (I can give countless tales of oddball questions from Americans I have met, e.g. "Africa? isn't India in Africa?") while the top echelon tend to have a finger in every pie in every country around the world. this is not meant as disrespect to victims of the latest events, simply from my experience Americans tend to be very closed minded to the rest of the world regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
-
Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Of course we will. But, all of the people who made the decisions that got us into these (and future) impossible situations will be dead or senile, lucky for them. There's a lot to be said for minding your own business. No, I really don't want to start a discussion about it :) -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
awww come on! you sure you don't want to get into this? *begs* yesterday was yesterday, today is a new day, ready for tons of arguements... ;P impossible situations will be dead or senile, lucky for them that is a shockingly accurate portrayal of how things work. Pity it is true though... Should we demonstrate peacefully then? :-D regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
-
..."pretend that nobody else exists"... up until the last few weeks I think many Americans did believe the world was just America... no wall is needed, it is already there. Actually it is quite amazing how different the average American is to the top echelon of Americans. The average American seems to know very little of the rest of the world (I can give countless tales of oddball questions from Americans I have met, e.g. "Africa? isn't India in Africa?") while the top echelon tend to have a finger in every pie in every country around the world. this is not meant as disrespect to victims of the latest events, simply from my experience Americans tend to be very closed minded to the rest of the world regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
It's not closemindedness, it's a severely deteriorating educational system. I went to school in the 60's and early 70's, so I know where India is. Unfortunately, it seems as if world geography is not as important as it was "way back then". Of course, the world map changes with such frequency that it's nearly impossible to keep up with what's going on in eastern europe, indonesia, and the middle east. The neccessity to stay on top of such changes is pretty much overshadowed by other (more immediate) concerns for most working folk here.
-
Twenty years hence, will the U.S. regret choices made today in the name of expediency? Of course we will. But, all of the people who made the decisions that got us into these (and future) impossible situations will be dead or senile, lucky for them. There's a lot to be said for minding your own business. No, I really don't want to start a discussion about it :) -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
"There's a lot to be said for minding your own business" Yeah, that tactic really worked well against Hitler. We are *not* being attacked because of bad foreign policy decisions. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
Are you suggesting that US needs a anti-missile shield? ;P Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
No. It's much more likely that they will ship a device on a container vessel. We can't exactly stop every freighter coming within 10 miles of a major city, and maritime shipping is so poorly regulated that it's very easy to sneak something onto a ship. Clearing customs is much harder, but if the bomb goes off in harbor before customs inspects the ship, too bad. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
..."pretend that nobody else exists"... up until the last few weeks I think many Americans did believe the world was just America... no wall is needed, it is already there. Actually it is quite amazing how different the average American is to the top echelon of Americans. The average American seems to know very little of the rest of the world (I can give countless tales of oddball questions from Americans I have met, e.g. "Africa? isn't India in Africa?") while the top echelon tend to have a finger in every pie in every country around the world. this is not meant as disrespect to victims of the latest events, simply from my experience Americans tend to be very closed minded to the rest of the world regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
I have to agree with you about Americans tend to think nobody else exists. It isn't because we are all stuck up and think we are better than everyone else. (But it is easy to find those people.) The big problem with America is that your average American doesn't have to deal with other countries on a day to day basis. It isn't like Europe where you walk 50 feet and you are in another country. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
The costs of indecision and not doing the right thing far outweighs the short term costs of believing in democracy and civil liberties of all nations across the world. America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes. But, they do not do that for the sake of convenience and reducing costs and accessing large markets. It is time that all nations understood the repurcussions of supporting in word or action any regime which does not honour these basic human rights. Anything that happens around the world is important to everyone. Sooner or later, it is going to impact us. So it is in the best interests of all democracies to come together under a forum that does not allow visas/diplomacy/immigration/economic aid/business with any regime that does not value the freedom of its own people (ie, does not TRUST its own people). On a more aggressive front, if there is a hint of dissidence from the people of those regimes, they should be *helped* in every possible way to redeem themselves. Also: what would have been better? An allied attack on Germany in 1936 as Churchill suggested OR the World War II. When we think of options, we have to be very, very clear of the path we choose. Ignoring Hitler and making diplomatic efforts (Mein Kampf was already published and people knew Hitler's thoughts) was a bad choice. On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? As often discussed in this forum, UN is the *right* body to make the decision. But, it is too fragmented and does not have the effective leadership and power to force any of its member states on a diplomatic level. It is up to the powerful nations of the world to take the destiny in their own hands and exercise the power judiciously. -Thomas
America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes Many Europian democracies ARE monarchies (UK, Spain, Norway...), and they are doing just fine. I vote pro drink :beer:
-
No. It's much more likely that they will ship a device on a container vessel. We can't exactly stop every freighter coming within 10 miles of a major city, and maritime shipping is so poorly regulated that it's very easy to sneak something onto a ship. Clearing customs is much harder, but if the bomb goes off in harbor before customs inspects the ship, too bad. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Imagine a version of the Oklahoma bomb, but the size of a ship. Take a look at Texas history about a freighter with fertilizer exploding. It took out a HUGE area. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/7651/ Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
"There's a lot to be said for minding your own business" Yeah, that tactic really worked well against Hitler. We are *not* being attacked because of bad foreign policy decisions. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
We are *not* being attacked because of bad foreign policy decisions. really? how do you know this? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
I have to agree with you about Americans tend to think nobody else exists. It isn't because we are all stuck up and think we are better than everyone else. (But it is easy to find those people.) The big problem with America is that your average American doesn't have to deal with other countries on a day to day basis. It isn't like Europe where you walk 50 feet and you are in another country. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
or in South Africa where you walk fifty feet and meet the rest of Africa living on your doorstop, running from their own countries... The rest of the world percieves Americans as arrogant simply because Americans have something to be very proud of in their country. We interpret the signals wrong most of the time. I still though feel that Americans should take an active interest in the rest of the world. Not to be a preacher or a geography teacher but we live in a fascinating world and knowing about it brings satisfaction and an amazing sense of place in your life. I know plenty about America and the rest of the world and don't understand why Americans are not the same way. I don't think it is because Americans have other things to think and worry about; we have those to, probably more so as life is not as cushy outside of America ;) Maybe Americans tend to be more satisfied with their lives and so do not go searching the world for a better one, while the "rest of us" are not as satisfied and so find out what life is like elsewhere. Sound plausible? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
-
The costs of indecision and not doing the right thing far outweighs the short term costs of believing in democracy and civil liberties of all nations across the world. America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes. But, they do not do that for the sake of convenience and reducing costs and accessing large markets. It is time that all nations understood the repurcussions of supporting in word or action any regime which does not honour these basic human rights. Anything that happens around the world is important to everyone. Sooner or later, it is going to impact us. So it is in the best interests of all democracies to come together under a forum that does not allow visas/diplomacy/immigration/economic aid/business with any regime that does not value the freedom of its own people (ie, does not TRUST its own people). On a more aggressive front, if there is a hint of dissidence from the people of those regimes, they should be *helped* in every possible way to redeem themselves. Also: what would have been better? An allied attack on Germany in 1936 as Churchill suggested OR the World War II. When we think of options, we have to be very, very clear of the path we choose. Ignoring Hitler and making diplomatic efforts (Mein Kampf was already published and people knew Hitler's thoughts) was a bad choice. On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? As often discussed in this forum, UN is the *right* body to make the decision. But, it is too fragmented and does not have the effective leadership and power to force any of its member states on a diplomatic level. It is up to the powerful nations of the world to take the destiny in their own hands and exercise the power judiciously. -Thomas
On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? Thanks for writing such a thoughtful response. I would add one thing to your list under human rights: Rwanda. If we think the WTC was bad, the 500,000 murdered in Rwanda, mostly one at a time with machetes, defies imagination. In the debates last year, Al Gore said that not having intervened in the Rwanda genocide was one of his great regrets about his vice presidency. George W. Bush said that the U.S. had no business intervening in Rwanda. His reasoning was:
There needs to be a clear statement of when and if we'll commit troops. I worry about Rwanda. I didn't like what went on in Rwanda. But I don't think we should commit troops to Rwanda. Nor do I think we ought to try to be the peacekeepers all around the world. I intend to tell our allies that America will help make the peace, but you get to put troops on the ground to keep warring parties apart. One of the reasons we have such low morale in the military today, is because we're over-deployed and under-trained. If you talk to the men and women who wear our uniform, who are married, they're constantly being separated as a result of deployments all around the world. We've got to be very careful about when and if we commit our troops.
I think we can see where Bush would have come down on intervening against Hitler before Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, as disturbing WWII parallels arise, I am particularly discouraged at the fact that a recent Time Magazine poll shows that of 1055 Americans interviewed, "31 percent would allow the internment in camps of Arabs who are U.S. citizens."
-
America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes Many Europian democracies ARE monarchies (UK, Spain, Norway...), and they are doing just fine. I vote pro drink :beer:
Compare the monarchy of UK with that of Saudi Arabia. UK is a monarchy for namesake. The queen has no power that will hamper a citizen's rights. The *elected* PM and ministry runs the government. That to me is not a monarchy in practical sense. If all nations had monarchies like UK, then it is fine. The reasoning was: There are certain countries that *do not* have a government that is setup by a system, which enables people to decide the rulers and remove them, when they go outside their limits in exercising power. Replace the word monarchy with *autocrat* and you may read it better. -Thomas
-
Imagine a version of the Oklahoma bomb, but the size of a ship. Take a look at Texas history about a freighter with fertilizer exploding. It took out a HUGE area. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/7651/ Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Excellent point. We propellerheads tend to look for excessively elaborate technological problems and solutions, when we should be worrying about simpler ones.
-
On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? Thanks for writing such a thoughtful response. I would add one thing to your list under human rights: Rwanda. If we think the WTC was bad, the 500,000 murdered in Rwanda, mostly one at a time with machetes, defies imagination. In the debates last year, Al Gore said that not having intervened in the Rwanda genocide was one of his great regrets about his vice presidency. George W. Bush said that the U.S. had no business intervening in Rwanda. His reasoning was:
There needs to be a clear statement of when and if we'll commit troops. I worry about Rwanda. I didn't like what went on in Rwanda. But I don't think we should commit troops to Rwanda. Nor do I think we ought to try to be the peacekeepers all around the world. I intend to tell our allies that America will help make the peace, but you get to put troops on the ground to keep warring parties apart. One of the reasons we have such low morale in the military today, is because we're over-deployed and under-trained. If you talk to the men and women who wear our uniform, who are married, they're constantly being separated as a result of deployments all around the world. We've got to be very careful about when and if we commit our troops.
I think we can see where Bush would have come down on intervening against Hitler before Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, as disturbing WWII parallels arise, I am particularly discouraged at the fact that a recent Time Magazine poll shows that of 1055 Americans interviewed, "31 percent would allow the internment in camps of Arabs who are U.S. citizens."
Al Gore said that not having intervened in the Rwanda genocide was one of his great regrets about his vice presidency. Do you really buy this? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
