Yes, yes. Its such a drag turning the mirror to the Europeans. What a bore!
Much more fun to dis the US… at least in doing so the light stays off the Europeans…
Who gave the topic a thump. Not me. Someone phrased it to ALL after I had made my clarification. I am saying that we did not act in a willy nilly fashion so there is no reason for us not to develop a plan to attack. But whenever attack is mentioned, it immediately draws the hyperbole that you see me responding to. I am not the one that brought it up, but point taken, and nevermind. Too busy for this pointless discussion today. Sorry over and out.
If u realize the true reasons for some of the European opposition, then you have to admit to the real reasons behind the US’s actions, which are definitely not wholey defined by 9/11 retribution and promoting democracy across the lands… I think there has to be a middle road in between the 'states and nations like France (oops, sorry for the f’word Fred 
) ideologies of doing nothing and doing whatever damn everyone else. Not that I want to start into the whole weapons inspection thing, but I do remember several nations, Canada comes to mind, others elude me right now, around that time proposed alternative solutions that would have enabled UN supported regime change after a set period for Hans to finish up. How different would world sentiments be if that had occurred?
As for writing out a white paper on consequences to another attack, am I the only person that realizes that mister terrorist doesn’t care about what might happen to his countrymen because:
a) he’s part of a wealthy/powerful elite that just don’t give a damn
b) his country/land/area is already destroyed so let them bomb the rubble
c) he doesn’t associate himself with anywhere, so just doesn’t give a damn
D) he’s crazy and just doesn’t give a damn!
The “showing them the consequences” mentality has rarely worked throughout history. Did bodies on London Bridge stop crime? Did ransacking villages in Vietnam win the war? One could say that long prison terms present day dissuade some from a life of crime, but I’ll argue that most heavy crimes like murder and rape et al. are going to happen anyways due to the preceding conditions. Fix the source of the problem, not the symptoms.
[quote=“Freakin’ Amazing”]As for writing out a white paper on consequences to another attack, am I the only person that realizes that mister terrorist doesn’t care about what might happen to his countrymen because:
a) he’s part of a wealthy/powerful elite that just don’t give a damn
b) his country/land/area is already destroyed so let them bomb the rubble
c) he doesn’t associate himself with anywhere, so just doesn’t give a damn
D) he’s crazy and just doesn’t give a damn!
The “showing them the consequences” mentality has rarely worked throughout history.[/quote]
At the risk of causing Traveller go into another crazed rant about my alleged propensity to be semantic and or pedantic, please allow me to point out that fred smith did NOT suggest informing the terrorists that there would be consequenses to another terrorist attack. Rather, and Traveller, if you’r reading this, it is an important distinction that must be made, fred smith is suggesting that we inform the countries (i.e., the governments of nations) that are found to have been supporting and or encouraging terrorists… i.e., such as Saddam’s old regime in Iraq.
See the difference?
For my edification, please advise as to the true reasons for some of the European opposition and the real reasons behind the US’ actions.
[quote=“The magnficently Semantic Tigerman”][quote=“Freakin’ Amazing”]As for writing out a white paper on consequences to another attack, am I the only person that realizes that mister terrorist doesn’t care about what might happen to his countrymen because:
a) he’s part of a wealthy/powerful elite that just don’t give a damn
b) his country/land/area is already destroyed so let them bomb the rubble
c) he doesn’t associate himself with anywhere, so just doesn’t give a damn
D) he’s crazy and just doesn’t give a damn!
The “showing them the consequences” mentality has rarely worked throughout history.[/quote]
At the risk of causing Traveller go into another crazed rant about my alleged propensity to be semantic and or pedantic, please allow me to point out that fred smith did NOT suggest informing the terrorists that there would be consequenses to another terrorist attack. Rather, and Traveller, if you’r reading this, it is an important distinction that must be made, fred smith is suggesting that we inform the countries (i.e., the governments of nations) that are found to have been supporting and or encouraging terrorists… i.e., such as Saddam’s old regime in Iraq.
See the difference?[/quote]
I have accused you of being overly semantic in a different thread with different issues on hand. I for one have never confused what Fred wrote, nor can you prove i have in this thread. In this case your post only clarifies Fred’s original, has nothing to do with semantics or pedantry.
See the difference ?
You mean the issues you deliberately confused? You know, when you changed the issue in that other thread?
TM, for the last time of writing it, i did not change or confuse the issue, you did that all by yourself. Stop trying to lay of the blame for that on others. :loco: :loco:
Okay enough about all that, let’s talk about how Europe is wrong and America is right. That’s a fair compromise on this issue I would say, how about it Traveller?
Freddie my boy 
nothing is that black and white, as you know only to well, but the attempt to relieve current tensions post is appreciated, 
well at least by one.
Yes, it is a bore if it’s done to avoid the argument(s) that happen to oppose your views.
This thread was started by no other than fred himself, about the US, and now you are complaining that it’s all about dissing the US because you have to listen to some opposing views and arguments - is that what you consider a discussion!?
TM, if you wish to read a meaning into a post, that was not the intention of the original poster, dont start accusing them of obfuscation, that belongs in your court. No one else seemed to misundertand the post, or read the wrong meaning into. I wonder why that is, ulterior motives perhaps?
Would suggest that in future perhaps you leave your legal thinking and thought processes where they belong, ie not on this board.
Yes, it is a bore if it’s done to avoid the argument(s) that happen to oppose your views.
This thread was started by no other than fred himself, about the US, and now you are complaining that it’s all about dissing the US because you have to listen to some opposing views and arguments - is that what you consider a discussion!?[/quote]
Since when do I complain about opposing arguments?
Let’s keep clear here… I do not shy from responding to dissing of the US. I am only remarking on Traveller’s apparent disinclination to even consider faults of Europe.
That’s all.
Tigerman, Europe’s faults were not part of this discussion until it was brought up in response to some critical argument about the US but it does not bear any relevance to that argument.
So why is it therefore so difficult to understand that people object against that kind of “strategy” and refuse to answer, a “strategy” that is so often used by fred and does nothing but sidetrack and obfuscate!?
I have asked this before and never got an answer: does the answer to the question about what others (Germany, France, Russia etc.) did wrong explain, excuse or justify any wrong-doings by the US?
Fred’s argument always pretends that the other poster is in full support of his government or Europe and implies that we do not acknowledge or even care if they do wrong. That is not true (at least not for me) and thus could be seen as a personal attack based on my nationality or race.
I stop right here before this get’s out of hand - and instead of responding to defend yourself or fred why not sit down a while and think if there is not the slightest possibility that we may have a point.
[quote=“Rascal”]Tigerman, Europe’s faults were not part of this discussion until it was brought up in response to some critical argument about the US but it does not bear any relevance to that argument.
So why is it therefore so difficult to understand that people object against that kind of “strategy” and refuse to answer, a “strategy” that is so often used by fred and does nothing but sidetrack and obfuscate!?
I have asked this before and never got an answer: does the answer to the question about what others (Germany, France, Russia etc.) did wrong explain, excuse or justify any wrong-doings by the US?
Fred’s argument always pretends that the other poster is in full support of his government or Europe and implies that we do not acknowledge or even care if they do wrong. That is not true (at least not for me) and thus could be seen as a personal attack based on my nationality or race.
I stop right here before this get’s out of hand - and instead of responding to defend yourself or fred why not sit down a while and think if there is not the slightest possibility that we may have a point.[/quote]
You do indeed have a point… and I agree, others’ wrongs do not justify my wrongs.
But, that doesn’t mean that it is never appropriate to point to the faults of others, when trying to understand the criticisms of such others.
[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]Let’s keep clear here… I do not shy from responding to dissing of the US. I am only remarking on Traveller’s apparent disinclination to even consider faults of Europe.
That’s all.[/quote]
Kindly prove that statement. I am well aware of the faults of European policies, maybe better than you, being a citizen from there.
The same accusation can be raised against you regarding considering the faults of Bush and the US.
What can i do about the intransigence of certain nations, there attitudes towards certain issues, foreign policy etc, nothing, all i can do is to vote for the political party of my choice during elections, same thing as you, as an individual.
Hell, i even agreed flat out with Fred that the US forces should be removed form Europe, only difference was timing, i wanted them out quicker than he did.
Well again, now that we have determined that Europe is populated with racist, whinging, whining, weaklings with no morals nor sense nor balls, let’s get back to what kind of strategy the US should have and what it should entail.
I think that we have to draw up a specific plan to show say Syria and Iran and even North Korea that if they supply wmds to terrorists, we will consider it an act of war and will retaliate accordingly. This INCLUDES any actions taken by “rogue” elements within their regimes. Either they clean these people out now or they ALL pay later. This should include nuclear strikes against their cities IF nuclear weapons are used against America INCLUDING dirty bombs. It should include chemical or bio attacks IF these are used against America. Now, I am not saying some terrorist does something and we take out a whole country. I am saying target these government agencies that are involved with appropriate and commeasurate force. This I believe will go a long way to preventing the aid and succor that would enable these forces to go on. Why were these terrorist groups allowed to set up shop in Iraq before? Iraq has now paid the price as has Afghanistan but ONLY in that the regime has suffered. Would anyone want to argue that the average Iraqi or Afghani has suffered more NOW? I don’t think so.
Anyone else?
Also, I don’t want to hear any of this bullshit that America is a guntoting cowboy and that our actions are somehow random and overly destructive. They are sensible well thought out policies that people can disagree with but cannot refute by launching into bullshit arguments about how Europeans pursue “peaceful dialogue” and how “war isn’t the answer.” Au contraire. Sometimes it is.
[quote=“fred smith”]
Anyone else?
Also, I don’t want to hear any of this bullshit that America is a guntoting cowboy and that our actions are somehow random and overly destructive. [/quote]
nobody said the US is… people said that Bush is… I think even some Americans ( don’t know the precentage) would agree with that. According to the Gallop Bush Kerry Poll about 50%
When people say Americans they mean Bush and his administration not the ordinary American person
Fine. But that does not change my point. For all the talk, Bush did not go off half-cocked to willy nilly rain vengeful destruction down upon the Arab masses. These plans were deliberated and the best course of action was chosen in a very considered manner.
Where do we go from here? What kind of strategic plan should we have to deal with terrrorist threats and to threaten the nations that support them that a will happen if b will happen if c. Etc. What is the plan?
Let’s talk about it now so that it may have some preventive value and also ensure that Europe does not wake up again shocked that we mean what we say.
How about it?
[quote=“fred smith”]Fine. But that does not change my point. For all the talk, Bush did not go off half-cocked to willy nilly rain vengeful destruction down upon the Arab masses. These plans were deliberated and the best course of action was chosen in a very considered manner.
Where do we go from here? What kind of strategic plan should we have to deal with terrrorist threats and to threaten the nations that support them that a will happen if b will happen if c. Etc. What is the plan?
Let’s talk about it now so that it may have some preventive value and also ensure that Europe does not wake up again shocked that we mean what we say.
How about it?[/quote]
Fred, in general, i would have no problem with that, nor i suspect would many countries, european or otherwise.
To me there will be two main areas of potential conflict, the devil is in the detail, and what would the US do if there is it is not in the majority over what it wants to do.
If it will do whatever it wants and sod the consequences, then why even bother having a group with which to try and reach a consensus. Is that not what part of the UN was all about in the first place.