Northern Alliance To Take Kabul Tomorrow

[Rags]

Thanks Ant.

I knew that not everyone could feel that to disagree with american public opion means you hate the country!

Fair enough.

And rags, I did find it hurtful, your comments about my 'hatred of americans/the west' (you have said both).

I apologize then.

The product of a free country is that you can disagree with the majority.

I agree. I also believe a product of a free country is that the majority should be allowed to disagree with the minority without labeling.

The sad attempts at bullying you have displayed in this thread do you no good at all.

I have gone over all my posts and have yet to see one example of bullying on my part. I have countered your posts quote for quote if you don't like debate, then fine.

Maybe I AM misinformed. I ALWAYS stand ready to be corrected. I have yet to recieve a reasoned argument to change my feeling/mind.

Maybe I am misinformed on things too, but please give me facts, not generalizations. Even your comments to Mordrid in this thread were filled with generalizations I am busting at the seems to counter, but I am sticking to our topic of discussion. But if you can point out exactly when Reagan and Bush funded those people and groups, I would appreciate it.

I know the US has supported some bad moves in the past. We are far from perfect, but I would like to think we really do try to do the right thing. In cases like this, we have to protect ourselves. No matter what the US has done in the past, it doesn't give them free reign to target civilians. Like I said before these are bad people with evil in their plans, if we don't do something about it now, you and others may be next in line as well. Maybe with this move we can go after the many other terrorist groups that hang in the world. NRA, Zionists, Cuba, et'al would be a nice roundup IMO.




Rags

[djroberts]

Now why in tarnation do I feel a "Red Neck" joke coming forth out of all this "Stupid American" stuff.

Y'all quit bickering and git along. For shits sake we're all we got in this pathetic world full of wackos. Why we even take for granted that we even have the rights and the means to discuss/disagree over almost any topic we choose to on these Forums.

Did any of your Mom's ever call the rest of the family to the bathroom and anounce that "Y'all better come and see this before I flush"

Then you might be a "Red Neck"

dj

[RusCoder]

In one corner we have the US that believes that Europe doesnt like them and has double standards and in the other we have the rest of the world who also believe the same of the US. ... <A> possible recourse is for both sides to give documented details to prove their case. Those with the most valid points wins

Sorry to spoil the party, but who's the referee?

Don King? Then I know the winner!

[Dr Mordrid]

Truman may have STATED them in 1945, but most Presidents waffled on actually implementing them in a strategy designed to do actual DAMAGE to their stability. Otherwise the Soviet Union would have collapsed at least 20 years earlier.

Most previous presidents tended more towards the maintenance of situational stasis.

Dr. Mordrid

[omegaRED]

I agree with Rags, there has been a general view that the Americans are stupid, care only about their SUVs and their wife`s boobs. Which is IMO wrong (we all care about our wife/GFs boobs ).

But there is also a general feeling that most Europeans (GB excluded) dislike and/or hate the US. This is, i believe, not the case. Often the US members here misunderstand the non-aproval, criticizing or disliking some US actions as disliking/hating the US or its citizens. There is no black and white here. I criticize what i think is wrong, but i dont praise the US. Why? Well what would be the point in that, it wont fuel a discussion. If you ask me about the good things the US has done, i can name at least a dozen (i dont pretend to know the history of the US or the world that much, and if you have noticed, i rarely engage in a discussion i dont have insight in. I mostly concetrate on the situation on the Balkans and my country, because i have some knowledge of them).

And often the tone of the discussions causes these generalizations to surface and the thread degenerates into a flame war and bashing. Try to keep it civil, if you see someone that has the wrong view of things, try to point them out in a civilized manner, not by saying "You`re blowing it out your ass", "Brain defect" or whatever ... You dont have to do that, but you have to realize that by insulting or talking down (is that the phrase?) to someone you wont gain their respect. You`ll look like a bully with a short fuse.

(Please dont laugh if i used wrong terms or phrases, i hope y`all understand what i`m trying to say.)

[cjolley]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the UN and NATO set aside articles for us to commence action, it became very clear we aren't ****ing around anymore, and Pakistan knows what will happen if they decide to support the Taliban
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/b]by RedRed[/b]
Er.... are you saying america would have attacked Packistan? Are you for real, man? This is not some iron age country (though it might look like it sometimes). This is a ****ing Nuke-/chem-/bio-hazard of the first division!!!! Packistan did not support the Taliban because it was intrested in getting its sancions lifted - not from fear of a US attack. Yes america would undoubitly be able to destroy Pakistan - no question... but america could also 'loose' entire western seaboard - they are almost at Mutually Assured Destruction levels of armament!!!
This does spawn another question: Will US attack any country with a reasonable chance if hitting them back? if so then the list of countries supporting international terrorism will be a long one!! (pakistan being one of them!!!)

You are out to lunch on this RR because you miss the gravity of it.
The US successfully kept the USSR at bay even though they had thousands of times as many nukes as Pakistan does.
The reason was that we maintained a credible threat of using our nukes. It was credible because we really would have used them.
Pakistan was not given the choice of sitting on the sidelines or quietly supporting their allies, the Talaban.
The threat to Pakistan was very real.
It still is.
chuck

PS My comments to Dr Mordred were to show him that even he was not grasping the magnitude of the problem Pakistan faced.

[cjolley]

As to the idea that the US should stop supporting bad governments and/or rebels, I couldn't agree more.
Hopefully this will turn out to be the last "proxy war" of the cold war.
I don't know how many world situations were warped by our fight with the USSR, but this is one of the last that was created, so maybe it will be one of the last to flare up.
chuck

[Dr Mordrid]

It won't be. We still have Iraq to deal with.

As for some Euros not liking to dislike the US...have you been to France in the last 30 years? I have, and have never been treated so badly based only on my nationality anywhere else in the world.

I got the distinct feeling that they have the very same anti-Anglo attitude as the radical Quebecois have on this side of the pond. That too was an experience to forget and not repeat.

Our car got egged and my family cursed...loudly....by a crowd in downtown Montreal just because we had a Michigan license plate. This at a time when there were no wars, international crisis or anything else going on.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

I lived in Germany from 1966-1970.
My High School sweetheart was German.
I didn't notice any anti-American feelings there.
I did in France, but if I demonstrated that I knew another language (German) the they became very friendly.

We went to Quebec City on vacation a few years ago and had a great time.
We had dinner in a nice resturant in Montreal and the waiter was very aloof. I wondered if we had offended him somehow.
However, after our meal was finished he came and talked to us for a long time. I turned out it was cultural for him to leave us alone while we were eating.

I think the perception that America/Americans are widely dissliked realy a question of the glass being half-empty or half-full for a person.
chuck

[Wombat]

When my friends go to Europe, they are treated <I>much</I> better if they say they're Canadian.

[The PIT]

I can remember going to leaving dinner with my Brother in law and sister in Germany. The hosts once realising that my German was V poor completly ignored me and talked through me. This a complete contrast to the pub across the road from where my sister lived where I spent a good time talking the locals who were quite happy to correct my German.
I think some people get offended by Americans because they say what they mean and are direct to the point. Some take this as arrogance. The British try not to offend will agree with any point and then say thats crap when the person they've been speaking too has left or well out of earshot. Just cultual differances.

[RedRed]

I think Pit has a point here. People the UK and tend to try to be polite about disagreeing with people. I tend to be a bit more direct, but perhaps not as full frontal as some of you guys.

I believe that international politics works in a simmilar way, especially where weapons of mass destruction are concerned. I dont believe that America nor the USSR nor any other country that has nukes CAN achieve all it wants to on the international stage by threatening to 'make a walmart parking lot' out of countries. I believe that yes, during the cold war, america had to willing to 'press the button', or there was no creditable threat.

I do not believe that whatever bin laden did, the political world outside the US, nor any mature US politician would have seriously considered threatening nuclear strikes against ANY soveriegn state. To have done so would not have sent out the message that 'america takes care of its own', as the conventional war in afghanistan did, it would have sent out the message that it was an international bully, and in so doing I believe it would and should be censured by EVERY other country in the world, including its current allies.

The US did not need to threaten anyone. It was the injured party.

It was why colin powell and envoy blair visited so often. You wouldnt have to do that if they where threatening the countries. You would not have the international 'allies' comming out with different statements at the start of the campaign, you would not have the Pakistan and Saudi govenments calling for a halt over Ramadan (though no need now, I guess)

Did no one teach you as a kid that you cant lead a gang/team with threats? Leading a gang/team takes L E A D E R S H I P.

Wombat & Mordrid:
I am sure that your friends have never been to Ireland.

The French do have an afinity with the Canadians, historically. and I have to be honnest, and say that I have met a few aloof and rude french people. (their women DO make great lovers though! ).

Most Germans I have met (I lived ther for a few months in my teens, before university (doing what the Irish do best (build things, drink & be "making the lourve"!!!)) were distant, until you knew them, then thay were lovely people.

RedRed

[Joel]

I do not believe that whatever bin laden did, the political world outside the US, nor any mature US politician would have seriously considered threatening nuclear strikes against ANY soveriegn state.

The US has already put on notice any country thinking of using weapons of mass destruction againist the US that we will retaliate with like.

To have done so would not have sent out the message that 'america takes care of its own',

And why not. We've been taken care of the rest of the world??

as the conventional war in afghanistan did, it would have sent out the message that it was an international bully, and in so doing I believe it would and should be censured by EVERY other country in the world, including its current allies.

This is complete BS. Our current allies already knows that we will use them if need be and already supports us, except for those cowards in the middle east, in that effort.

Joel

[RedRed]

Joel

Er.... Your first paragraph says it all. Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan Nor Binladen attacked the US with weapons of mass destruction. America WOULD be entitled to retaliate with Nukes, HAD that happened. It DIDNT! the American government COULDN'T justify to the world the use nor the threat of using Nuclear weapons in any thing OTHER than retaliation. That has been the main thrust of that paragraph, and I feel it is still valid.

You Know you were quoting out of context, Joel. Even with my poor comprehenson I can understand the bit wot i wrote....

consider, for a second, that dropping a Nuke in retaliation for a plane hitting a skyscraper might be considered excessive
(I could be wrong, but Kabul is home to around 1000000 people, none of which flew the planes, and few of which would even have heard of the world trade centers!). America has not formally gone to war with any nation.


I even seemed to get the spelling in ruffly rite in the last poste!!!

Regards
RedRed

[mdhome]

Although I havent always seen eye to eye with American policies I have to agree with Joel on this one. If you are gonna do NBC attacks against the US then expect them to start writing MASSIVE payback cheques. Rogue states or organisations must be made to realise that the civilised world will not accept this type of behaviour.

as an aside, do we have any more info on who performed the Anthrax attacks.


regards MD