|
09 Jan 07 - 11:51 PM (#1931995) Subject: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: dianavan Doesn't the president need the permission of congress before attacking another country? http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6333834,00.html Its interesting to note that the reason the U.S. attacked was based on reliable intelligence. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 12:44 AM (#1932024) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Don Firth I wonder if Bush and his minions have ever heard the story about the little boy who cried "Wolf?" So maybe they really did nail a couple of al Qaeda baddies this time. But how is a person to really know, considering all that "reliable intelligence" they've acted on in the past? Don Firth |
|
10 Jan 07 - 03:40 AM (#1932074) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: dianavan My question is this - if a terrorist was living down the street from me, would that give another country the right to attack my neighborhood? Once again, the U.S. has killed many civilians in an effort to 'get their man'. When will Congress stop the Bush rampage? |
|
10 Jan 07 - 03:51 AM (#1932078) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Jim Lad If he'd only do it in alphabetical order, I'd know when to leave the country. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 07:00 AM (#1932179) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Wolfgang Attacking another country???? The attack was endorsed by the UN recognised Transitional Federal Government of that country. That is something very different from attacking this country. The failed air strike in Pakistan, the successful air strike in Yemen fit much better the theme of this thread than this intervention (together with Ethiopia) in a civil war on the side of the government. If, in a civil war, some leaders of the (at that moment) losing side were near my house I'd run away if I could, for I knew I'd be in danger. If, however, in a country with no civil war, a foreign power would bomb my neighbourhood without warning to kill someone they assume to hide there that is a very different matter. As I said already, the Yemen and Pakistan cases were much better suited to discuss and (of course) condemn the US policy to kill terrorists whereever they presume them to be at whatever cost for foreign civilians. Wolfgang |
|
10 Jan 07 - 07:10 AM (#1932183) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Teribus Expanding the "War on Terror" ? Hardly they've been attacking you from there since 1994. While the current Somali President and Government seems quite pleased about it, Al-Qaeda's second in command does not. Remember the Union of Islamic Courts crowd who loudly voiced their protestations that they had no links with Al-Qaeda. As soon as Somali Government Troops and Ethiopian Troops weighed in against them, Ayman al-Zawahiri got the message out that all muslims should fight a Jihad against the Somali's (muslims) and Ethiopians (50% muslim). I think that I can remember mentioning in another thread that the only people that Akenaton's Islamic fundamentalists ever seem to threaten and actually take action against are their fellow muslims. Must be really hard for them to keep track of how many of these jihad things they've got on the go. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 01:11 PM (#1932481) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: McGrath of Harlow The failed air strike in Pakistan Well, it killed 17 people, and some of them might even have been people it was intended to kill. A pretty successful air strike really, in the same way 911 was pretty successful. ................................. One interesting aspect of Somalia is the way that the existence of the breakaway Republic of Somaliland gets studiously ignored, with its de facto independence since 1992 unrecognised internationally. (Or even by the Google spellchecker!) This piece from the Washington Post website today suggests that rcognition might be on the way - Somaliland: Will Be Recognized |
|
10 Jan 07 - 04:05 PM (#1932629) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Wolfgang They may get recognised once they have settled the quarrel with Puntland about which provinces belong to Somaliland and which to Puntland. That reminds me the joke from the time when the USSR and Jugoslavia broke up. An American tourist comes to Europe and asks a native: "How many different countries are there in Europe." "We had 35 yesterday, but I haven't yet read today's paper." Wolfgang |
|
10 Jan 07 - 04:10 PM (#1932633) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Wolfgang I disagree on the airstrike in Pakistan being successful in the eyes of the people who ordered it. It did not kill the intended target. The others were not worth any trouble with the Pakistan administration. The 9/11 airstrike was successful in the eyes of those who ordered it for it killed those that were intended to be killed: as many civilians as possible. Wolfgang |
|
10 Jan 07 - 04:30 PM (#1932649) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: dianavan Now that you bring Pakistan into the picture ... When will the U.S. realize that Pakistan is not really an ally in the war on terror? Pakistan is totally dependent on unprotected borders so that the drug trade is not disrupted. If Pakistan shuts the borders to prevent terrorists from re-grouping on their territory, they will disrupt the economy. By the leaving the borders open, the war on Afghanistan will continue indefinitely. There will be no end to the war on terrorism. The U.S. is entering a new economic phase. The continued existence of the U.S. as we know it today will be dependent on the sale of arms and ammunition and on contracts to reconstruct what is being destroyed. The war on terrorism cannot be won by aggression. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 08:24 PM (#1932791) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Teribus Wolfgang, It does not matter whether or not the intended target was hit, it is the inevitable likelyhood that eventually the correct target will be hit that provides the deterrant. Now realistically you tell me that the United States of America could not within an instant completely snuff out Iraq, Iran and North Korea and no one on Gods Earth would bat an eye-lid. That is power that they have - yet they refrain from doing so - now you tell me and everyone esle on this forum why they don't. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 09:16 PM (#1932807) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Little Hawk Chongo is quite relieved. He was afraid when he saw the thread title that they had decided to go after chimps. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 10:16 PM (#1932839) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Teribus "Little Hawk - PM Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:16 PM Chongo is quite relieved. He was afraid when he saw the thread title that they had decided to go after chimps." I really do hope that everyone on this forum recognises that what is quoted above represents someone talking to and about themselves. How pathetic can one get. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 11:55 PM (#1932900) Subject: RE: BS: Expanding the War on Terror From: Little Hawk Awww...you don't share my sense of humour, Teribus? I am sooooo devastated! Chongo is not me. He's not my alter ego either. Chongo is just a made-up cartoon character, like Popeye or Deputy Dawg. He is utterly unlike me, but he is fun at times. At least, I think so. ;-) And I don't care if you don't think so. I don't exist to make you happy. |