Bush authorized Pentagon to strike Al-Qaeda in any country

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

If a foreign government attacked something on American soil, you'd all be baying for blood and you know it. But it's a great idea if America does it to someone else. The hypocrisy of that is fucking disgraceful.

That is exactly the hypocrisy - I'm glad you see that. Other countries should not attack the U.S., and in kind, we should not invade other countries. Sound reasonable?

Perfect. Now we just need to get everyone else to agree.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There are extreem examples in every circumstance. You use one here. Does not change anything.

On the other hand, if a group of people alow thenselves to be used as shields what other options do you have?

I and you know it is more complex than your post suggests

No it's not more complicated. The SAS slotting IRA members in Boston is no different to Navy SEALS slotting Al Qaeda members in Pakistan. And if you're OK with a bit of collateral damage because people are stupid enough to allow themselves to be used as human sheilds, you'd have no objections to using Cruise missiles in either case. No thanks mate, not acceptable.

What is acceptable is another debate. That is based on the risk and the situation

My point was that it is not as simple as you describe or would have it. In fact, it is complex. Trying to "simplify" it is just closing ones eyes to what this struggle has morphed into.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JackC 0]

Quote

What is acceptable is another debate. That is based on the risk and the situation

My point was that it is not as simple as you describe or would have it. In fact, it is complex. Trying to "simplify" it is just closing ones eyes to what this struggle has morphed into.

It isn't complex at all. If you lob missiles into Pakistan without authority from the Pakistan government, they would be quite justified in lobbing missiles right back at you. You'd have us believe it is complicated simply because Pakistan probably won't fight back so the US could get away with it. Well that doesn't make it right and just because Pakistan might not fight back, doesn't mean the Pakistani people won't. This policy will almost certainly come back to haunt you.

[champu 1]

Here's a better analogy:

Mexico has some criminals on their side of the border that are part of an ongoing fight in Texas. The US would like to do something about them, so we call up Calderòn and he says, "I'd love to help but my military is stretched thin as it is."

So the US gives him a crap load of money for his agreement to help us, but he turns around and spends it on advanced weapons because he's in the middle of an arms build-up with Guatemala, but that do him no good to help us.

So then we go to him and say, "Alright we've got some info-" and he cuts us off and says, "Look... our helicopters are in no shape to support the missions you want to send us on, we need new helicopters and parts for the ones we have."

So the head of the CIA, DoD, and the President shake their heads, and sit down and say, "Let's make an arrangement to collaborate on matters like this, get each others buy in, and go make the strike ourselves. And we'll monitor the operations closely."

The US makes an air strike on the criminal camp in Mexico destroying it, and before the plane even lands, a couple of the guys from another camp 100 miles away send photos of dead women and children and reports that the US just bombed an orphanage to the international press and all the local television stations, who readily broadcast the information without sending any of their own reporters to confirm it, because no one in their right mind would go out there.

Rinse and repeat.

Sure enough, some more people (though not "everyone" as some may claim) are fed up with the US now, because the strategy was incomplete. It took no measures to sell the idea to people while the enemy successfully sold hatred of it. For that reason, and because [hopefully?] things have changed for some countries in the past four years, the strategy should be re-evaluated. Good show, but let's try something else.

In the meantime, we can all go back to telling ourselves the idea had no merits, because that fits better into our political ideology.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Mexico has some criminals on their side of the border that are part of an ongoing fight in Texas. The US would like to do something about them, so we call up Calderòn and he says, "I'd love to help but my military is stretched thin as it is."

So the US gives him a crap load of money for his agreement to help us, but he turns around and spends it on advanced weapons because he's in the middle of an arms build-up with Guatemala, but that do him no good to help us.

No, we learned that lesson from the Contras. Just giving money to other countries (or insurgant groups) so they can build up their miltary doesn't work. I'm for US troops going into other countries to take out our enemies IF that country gives us permission, AND in the spirit of cooperation with their own military. In the event that Pakistan feels it cannot accomplish military action to kill Al-Qaeda in Pakistan AND they give US troops permission to work together to do so, then we should go into Pakistan to kill Al-Qaeda.

Giving money to Pakistan for their own military build-up won't achieve anything.

Bush, OTOH, thinks it's OK to charge right in without asking for cooperation, or even permission. Just because we can. Does it make sense now why other governments hate us?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

In the event that Pakistan feels it cannot accomplish military action to kill Al-Qaeda in Pakistan AND they give US troops permission to work together to do so, then we should go into Pakistan to kill Al-Qaeda.

And if cannot accomplish that military action and won't give permission for us to come in and do it? What then?

. . =(_8^(1)

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

" Its about an entire coalition of groups with a single goal: to control the entire world with radical Islam." ___________________________________________________ And the U.S trying to control the worlds resources thru military power paid for by the taxpayers for the benefit of the fat cats is any better?. Why do you think the fuckers hate us? Gimme a break.

A break you shall have but, the "hatred" you like to spit about happened way before and had little to do with US policy and actions.

To fully understand that you need only read the book that is their bible.

Now, I am not saying we may have fanned the fire but to lay blame the way you want to? Give me a break

I don't hate anybody. Maybe my last wife a little. Go read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and get back to me. This govt. and past govt. and their cronies are some corrupt bastards. (and that would be pretty much ALL govts.) You think they give a flying fuck about you? Maybe for your taxes or to send you to do their dirty deeds.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[riddler 0]

Quote

And if cannot accomplish that military action and won't give permission for us to come in and do it? What then?

These questions are all pretty easy to answer. Just reverse the position, as if another country wanted to come into the United States.

If Mexico wanted to send armed troops into the US to chase people they think are drug runners, and the US weren't able to help, but still said no to Mexican troops coming here ...

What should Mexico do? Should they invade the US anyway?

To me, the answer to both questions is no.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jgoose71 0]

We are all missing the big picture here. Obama has already said that he would bomb pakistan no matter what they have to say about us chasing Al-Qeda. Everybody remembers pakistan right? The islamic country with Nukes?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

These questions are all pretty easy to answer. Just reverse the position, as if another country wanted to come into the United States.

If Mexico wanted to send armed troops into the US to chase people they think are drug runners murdered thousands of thier citizens, and the US weren't able willing to help, but still said no to Mexican troops coming here ...

What should Mexico do? Should they invade the US anyway?

To me, the answer to both questions is no.

I made a simple change to your scenario, and in that case, I'd say Mexico would have every right to invade anyway.

While not buying into Bush's carte blanche bullshit, I'll disagree that the choices are simple.

. . =(_8^(1)

[gemini 0]

Quote

...we were attacked as a country, because of our invovements on other fronts, NOT because of a business deal gone sour....

ummhh...what about the US imposed blockade against Japan of strategic materials including oil prior to December 1941? Sounds economic to me when Japan was taking over countries to gain natural resources and we were in the way.

Blue skies,

Jim

[riddler 0]

Quote

I made a simple change to your scenario, and in that case, I'd say Mexico would have every right to invade anyway.

Both of us living in Colorado, it's tempting to say we've already been invaded by Mexico.

As far as Mexico invading with a real military, it's easy enough to say you think they have the right, but if it really happened, we would all be up in arms (literally), and we would respond with the same force that we have in the middle-east. After all, drug dealers there really have killed thousands of people, and many of those dealers live in the US, or travel here regularly, but Mexico is smart enough not to go chasing them across our borders.

I agree with you that most choices are not simple, but national sovereignity should be absolute. Otherwise we end up in world wars, like WW1, where nations banded together to try to prevent neighboring nations from invading.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[champu 1]

Quote

No, we learned that lesson from the Contras.

No, we absolutely did not.

My analogy was neither a suggestion nor was it a hypothetical.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

No, we absolutely did not..

Oooh ... I like that site! Lots of FOIA obtained data. Thanks.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying