Serious

[DrtyBlvd]

> From the NY Times
>
> U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
>
> February 27, 2003
>
> The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of
> resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a
> career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel
> Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.
>
> Dear Mr. Secretary:
>
> I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of
> the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S.
> Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The
> baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something
> back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was
> paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out
> diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them
> that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my
> country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic
> arsenal.
>
> It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I
> would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and
> selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human
> nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for
> understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been
> possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I
> was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world.
> I believe it no longer.
>
> The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only
> with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent
> pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international
> legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense
> and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to
> dismantle the largest and most effective web of international
> relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring
> instability and danger, not security.
>
> The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to
> bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a
> uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic
> distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American
> opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us
> stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international
> coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against
> the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those
> successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make
> terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely
> defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate
> terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the
> unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the
> motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth
> to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American
> citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as
> much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to
> so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model,
> a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in
> the name of a doomed status quo?
>
> We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the
> world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two
> years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and
> mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our
> partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is
> at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies
> wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in
> whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is
> blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to
> our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to
> terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in
> Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with
> Micronesia to follow where we lead.
>
> We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our
> friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up
> over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is
> justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift
> into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our
> President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our
> friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among
> its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our
> motto?
>
> I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here
> in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more
> and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly
> imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know
> that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a
> strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close
> partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it
> is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them
> convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty,
> security, and justice for the planet?
>
> Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability.
> You have preserved more international credibility for us than our
> policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of
> an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to
> the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an
> international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of
> laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on
> our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's
> ability to defend its interests.
>
> I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my
> conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S.
> Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is
> ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can
> contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the
> security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm speechless. Would that I could write something so well.

Says it all, and says it exceptionally well.

[MPSmith]

Thank god he resigned.

After 20 years, sounds like he just gave up on his job. We certainly don't need diplomats like him around! In fact, the position of "diplomat" is sort of antiquated anyway. The system probably needs to be updated and strengthened. Right now, a diplomat is just a pack of fake smiles and firm handshakes. Yecch! That might have been good for the 19th century, but not for these times.

Thanks for the post!

[DrtyBlvd]

*sigh*

[MPSmith]

*sigh*

Great response.

Believe me, I realize my views are in complete opposition to yours on this matter. I am not blind to that. The resignation of a U.S. diplomat who is so obviously opposed to the fight against terrorism, is a godsend. I'm thrilled he had the presence of mind to leave. He had clearly lost is desire to do what was right for his country.

Perhaps he was more accustomed to the blind diplomacy of Clinton and Carter. It was certainly easier to be a diplomat under the "appeasement-passes-for-leadership" rantings of their ilk. Under those kinds of presidents, diplomacy was the first, last and middle things you did in this kind of situation. Those presidents would have blamed our own society for what terrorism has done to the world!

I liked a quote I read today regarding the letter:

"The real reason for his resignation was fear. The United States is the only country that will actually do something for no other reason than its the RIGHT thing to do, and stopping the oppressive dictatorships that sponsor terror... Anyone not willing to do what it takes to make a real difference should resign"

[DrtyBlvd]

*sigh*

[Vincent M Ferrari]

The resignation of a U.S. diplomat who is so obviously opposed to the fight against terrorism, is a godsend. I'm thrilled he had the presence of mind to leave. He had clearly lost is desire to do what was right for his country.

Well said! Here here! :beer:

[AhuhX]

I liked a quote I read today regarding the letter:

"...The United States is the only country that will actually do something for no other reason than its the RIGHT thing to do..."

What an incredibly insulting statement to non-Americans.

No wonder Americans are so popular at the moment... :roll:

[MPSmith]

What an incredibly insulting statement to non-Americans.

It's fair to say that is an overstatement. No insult intended.

It's difficult and frustrating to watch so many nations in the UN oppose the fight against terrorism, or demand billions in aid to be dragged into the fight. But the U.S. has found some excellent allies in this war. These are nations that are weary of rogue dictators and terrorists from holding the world hostage.

With so much at stake, we can't be so worried about our "popularity" around the world. That's part of the mistake of some of our past presidents. We have to concentrate on doing what's right, to promote freedom and to protect our way of life.

[Pony99CA]

*sigh*
One day I actually hope to see a post by you that actually helps someone use a Pocket PC. :lol: I'm sure this thread is destined for the Hall of Flame & Shame.

Steve

[Vincent M Ferrari]

With so much at stake, we can't be so worried about our "popularity" around the world. That's part of the mistake of some of our past presidents. We have to concentrate on doing what's right, to promote freedom and to protect our way of life.

That's what leadership is about. It's about doing what's right, regardless of its popularity. Of course people that don't see that usually don't believe that evil exists either, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the definition of leadership is lost on them as well.

[Fishie]

*sigh*

Great response.

Believe me, I realize my views are in complete opposition to yours on this matter. I am not blind to that. The resignation of a U.S. diplomat who is so obviously opposed to the fight against terrorism, is a godsend. I'm thrilled he had the presence of mind to leave. He had clearly lost is desire to do what was right for his country.

Perhaps he was more accustomed to the blind diplomacy of Clinton and Carter. It was certainly easier to be a diplomat under the "appeasement-passes-for-leadership" rantings of their ilk. Under those kinds of presidents, diplomacy was the first, last and middle things you did in this kind of situation. Those presidents would have blamed our own society for what terrorism has done to the world!

I liked a quote I read today regarding the letter:

"The real reason for his resignation was fear. The United States is the only country that will actually do something for no other reason than its the RIGHT thing to do, and stopping the oppressive dictatorships that sponsor terror... Anyone not willing to do what it takes to make a real difference should resign"

What gives you the impression he is against a fight against terrorism?

[MPSmith]

Actually, it's basically ALL he says. The entire statement is a argument against fighting the terrorists. Let's look at three quotes:

"...this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally..."

"The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests"

"We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government."

Just in these three quotes, he makes a lot of odd statements. First, he says we shouldn't bother with Al Qaeda anymore and says in fact we are in league with them. Then he says our terrorism policy is incompatible with our national interest. Then he says he thinks that Iraq and terrorism are not connected. Also, he thinks that the current administration is doing all this just to bloat the military (not to fight terrorism) so that they can take our rights away.

And this guy was a diplomat?!?!?

[Steven Cedrone]

I'm sure this thread is destined for the Hall of Flame & Shame.

Well, this is the "off-topic" forum...

As long as everyone is civil, I probably won't touch it...

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator

[Janak Parekh]

The entire statement is a argument against fighting the terrorists.
I'm not going to get heavily into this discussion, but it's not so clear-cut. The question is if we're pursuing the right strategy in fighting the terrorists. And that's certainly up for debate.

"...this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally..."
There's several ways to look at this. First, our threats of aggression against Iraq are driving a lot of young Muslims in the Middle East towards radicalism. I know the terrorists already had a lot of converts, so it's not clear what the marginal cost is, but it's non-zero. Additionally, he raises questions as to whether we're leveraging the "war" for non-directly-related causes.

Then he says he thinks that Iraq and terrorism are not connected.
Find one substantial piece of evidence that connects the two. Say all you want about Hussein, he's a dictator and a bad one at that; but the US gov't has not succeeded in linking the two. If we want to take Iraq down, do it for other reasons.

Also, he thinks that the current administration is doing all this just to bloat the military (not to fight terrorism) so that they can take our rights away.
Have you read the Patriot Act? Or the successor to the Patriot Act the DOJ is/was preparing?

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it... I'm not going to say much further, because I'll get emotional and nasty, and I don't like that. ;) Besides, this Administration is very committed to their current direction, and nothing is going to change it.

--janak

[AhuhX]

What an incredibly insulting statement to non-Americans.

It's fair to say that is an overstatement. No insult intended.

It's difficult and frustrating to watch so many nations in the UN oppose the fight against terrorism, or demand billions in aid to be dragged into the fight. But the U.S. has found some excellent allies in this war. These are nations that are weary of rogue dictators and terrorists from holding the world hostage.

With so much at stake, we can't be so worried about our "popularity" around the world. That's part of the mistake of some of our past presidents. We have to concentrate on doing what's right, to promote freedom and to protect our way of life.

Actually I took the statement as just more grandstanding diatribe from an right-winged American politician. Who actually said it?

Regarding the "War on Terrorism". I'm not sure I agree with our retiring diplomatic friend that the issue of terrorism has been resolved either, but see the link between it and Iraq flimsy at best. I think this is where most people have issue with this impending war on Iraq. Personally, I don't quite follow how beating up some dictator during lunch break will resolve the growing issues of anti-westernism/anti-modernism and religeous fanastism in developing countries that seems to me to be the real core of terrorism. What's the plan? Beat up Saddam then hope all the other bullies fall into line? Seems a rather simplistic and fraught strategy that I just don't honestly get.

What's more, Bush's rhetoric of "pre-striking at enemies before they become threats" is particularly of concern to non-Americans and then you some of you guys wonder why the international community isn't all rushing to join you. If only the implications wern't so serious I'd laugh.

[DrtyBlvd]

One day I actually hope to see a post by you that actually helps someone use a Pocket PC. :lol: Steve

I'll see what I can do Steve :wink:

I do try you know! Just you lot always get there first... I blame timezones

[DrtyBlvd]

I'm sure this thread is destined for the Hall of Flame & Shame.

Well, this is the "off-topic" forum...

As long as everyone is civil, I probably won't touch it...

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator


:lol: I'll try harder next time, Mr Cedrone Sah :lol:

[Fishie]

Actually, it's basically ALL he says. The entire statement is a argument against fighting the terrorists. Let's look at three quotes:

"...this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally..."

"The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests"

"We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government."

Just in these three quotes, he makes a lot of odd statements. First, he says we shouldn't bother with Al Qaeda anymore and says in fact we are in league with them. Then he says our terrorism policy is incompatible with our national interest. Then he says he thinks that Iraq and terrorism are not connected. Also, he thinks that the current administration is doing all this just to bloat the military (not to fight terrorism) so that they can take our rights away.

And this guy was a diplomat?!?!?

Way to distort his words man.
Yes 9/11 is abused by the government to push whatever agendas they might have and the US government is using pretty transparent tactics to silence critics who opose the war.
A war against Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda, there are no links between the Iraqi government and Al Queda(no more so then there are between US government and Al Queda)
The government is using propaganda to submit people to compliance with what they want to achieve.
Ridicule those who opose youre views, demonise youre enemy and scare the people into submission.
Its going on right now.

Never once did this diplomat say he is against a so called war on terror.
He cant however moraly justify working for a government that is turning ally´s against them, he cant continue to defend a government that says either with us or against us and thus is breeding anti-american sentiments.

[Fishie]

Im gonna be gone in a little bit so I wont be able to post for a day or two so im just gonna post my vieuwpoint here, I fulle expect most of this thread to be moved to the hall of shame by the time I return.

Powells case against Iraq:
Using the same sort of evidence Powell used I found irrefutable proof that Bush Jr uses cocaine.
Here I have a CG pic of a nose, and in my other hand I hold a vial of milk powder, if that isnt irrefutable proof that Bush does coke, what is?
Sounds silly doesnt it?

Yet its exactly the kind of reasoning Powell used.
He shows us CG pics of mobile chemical labs and dramaticaly waves a vial of white stuff.
Now 18 huge trucks are quite visible trough satelite so the US shouldnt have a problem getting satelite pics of such a convoy right(after all those things cant travel underground)
The rest of his presentation was not much better and consisted with quoting from a document by the UK secret services wich turned out to be a plagiarised school paper, footage of a plane that was over a decade of and statements from defectors wich also were over a decade old.
The sites he mentioned and as being used to make WMD were visited by UN, some even before the pics of alleged clean ups were taken.

These are reasons why the US has lost support at an alarming rate and why they cant muster international co operation for an attack against Iraq.
Not becouse the rest of the world are a bunch of hippie three hugging idealists or anything.
The case the Bush administration simply isnt there.
For 9 months they have been promising irrefutable proof but after all this time still nothing, every time they said they would share inteligence it has amounted to nothing more then empty rhetoric.

America should realise that those who opose the war are NOT against America and are not against a so called war on terror(how can you declare a war on terror?)but are opposed to the bullying tactics the US is using in getting support for the war and against being blasted for daring to believe that this war would not be a just one.

[Fishie]

The following I posted almost a month ago on my LJ and was my reaction to an OT thread on a videogame board for a site I write for:

13th February 2003
12:12am: http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15427
Im sure most of you know that I have no love lost for Sony, and I do believe that the ad is simply playing into popular euro sentiment(troughout Europe, including the countries whose governments support the US support for a war at this moment stands at less then 20%).

The reactions here scare me tough, theyre proof that the Bush administrations policy of lying and deceiving and hatemongering and scaremongering of its own people are working.

I see people in this thread likening not attacking Iraq to allowing terrorists to roam the streets freely, I see people who want to gag oposing vieuws and I see people and a company get attacked for voicing an oppinion that in the end wont matter one bit.

We have newspapers calling France and germany the axis of weasel and further stirring up anti euro sentiment by claiming an anti war stance is akin to spitting on the graves of the soldiers who died in WW2, never once actually do they talk about real justification for war and instead tow the government line without any question.

It took US media 2 days to pick up on the news that the document powell was quoting at the UN to rally support was plagiarised from a school paper.
It took US media 3 days to report that the footage of a plane Powell showed was a decade old.
No one questioned the scaremongering tactics and CG he used since he seemed to lack REAL evidence and real fotos of the alleged mobile chemical labratories(18 big trucks surely are visible to satelite yet instead we get CG) and no one in American media mentioned that the only proof they were goin by for that were claims from Iraqi defectors wich yet again were over a decade old.

Instead those who are actually asking those questions, those who want to debate the isseu and want to be shown real proof are blasted as being anti american or terrorist supporters, we are called weasels and have concerted media campaigns against us.

The US used lies and propaganda to get support for the first Gulf war.
Bush Sr and his cabinet claimed Iraq had moved 230.000 troops and several batalins of tanks towards the Saudi border and that iraq was preparing to invade Saudi Arabia as well and they claimed to have satelite pictures to prove it.
As it turned out they didnt and Russian satelite pictures of the border disproved what they had been claiming.
Bush Sr and his cabinet brought before US congress a teenage girl claiming to be a Quwaiti nurse who told horror stories about Iraqi soldiers killing newborn Quwaiti babies.
After the war it turned out that the girl not only was born in the US but had never even been outside of US borders.

These arent some wild claims by some anti US conspiracy theorist(im a sane person and I absolutely love the US) these are things easily verifyable by legit sources if you do a simple internet search.

Now we have the same sort of sentiment used in every build up to war, propaganda, demonisation and dehumanisation.

Use propaganda and what flimsy knoledge you might or might not have to sway and scare people into supporting youre cause.
Demonise those who oppose youre views.
Dehumanise youre enemy so youre followers wont feel guild and wont see them as humans.

We have the US media being used as a great tool to further the US government agenda right now.
they seem to have lost theyre ability to ask tough questions or look for proof of the governments claims.
The examples I gave were all first reported on by Euro media and only reluctantly and much later picked up by US media and even then they were quite low key compared to the headlines that read SMOKING GUN ON IRAQ(even before Powell presented his flimsy case.
Bush Sr used lies and deception to gain support for his war so why wouldnt his son, just something to think about.

Yet here we are in a community where those who refuse to be scared into compliance and who refuse to be silenced by threats and rhetoric are the once who are being prosecuted for actually asking the questions that should be asked and seeking the truth behind both sides propaganda.


As for me, back in the 80s back when rumsfeld shook Saddam´s hand and called him a great friend of the US and early 90s when US ambassador for Iraq Glaspie told Saddam that the US would consider Iraqs pending invasion of Quwait as an internal Iraqi affair(again do a search for the transcript, she explicitly told Saddam the US would not interfere)I have been expressing my disgust about Saddam and his reign of terror.

The guy has been a menace to his people all his life and I wont shed a tear for his demise.
Fact remains tough that the Iraqi people have been suffering under him and under the Wests compliance for several decades now.
he was the wests preffered dictator so Europe and the Us didnt care he killed hunderds of thousands of his people and used mustardgas on the Kurds and Iran, and in the 90s over a million people have died in Iraq becouse of the draconian sanctions on the country.
meanwhile Saddam hasnt missed a meal over it.

We have failed the Iraqi people big time, first by supporting the person who oppreses them and then by the sanctions upon the country.
The Bush family doesnt have blood on its fingers, theyre swimming in it.

Before flaming me here and in email please do some searches online about the things I mentionend here.

[Fishie]

And this is part of a post I made on october 28th:

Full entry can be read here http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=fishie_flop_oog&itemid=18654

The ongoing troubles in the middle east wont be solved annytime soon, the 500.000 Chechens who survived 200 year of Soviet oppresion will remain to live life under a horrible siege, North Korea admitting to developing nuclear weapons (IMO this is just for bargaining reasons).

Then there is Saddam who in less then 6 weeks weeks went from Nuclear capabilities in 7 years (Benjamin Ben Elizier, defense minister Israel) to 2 to 3 years ( Tony Blair, Prime minister UK) to within a year ( George nucular Bush Jr, president of the US of A) and in one week went from He poses no threat to us and has no weapons that can harm us (Ben Elizier again) to he has weapons of mass destruction and poses an immediate threat to the entire free world(Bush again).

Bush and Blair of course have been claiming they have proof of all of theyre allegations for 6 months now, so why they havent shared it with a single one of theyre allies is kind of a mistery to me.

After all if ya have the proof and seek International support and especially support from UN Veto holders why not share it with the decision makers in those countries.

I understand that to protect sources inside Iraq making certain info public would put those sources at risk but surely iff you seek the aid of the president of France you could share the info with him right?



Personnaly I feel Saddam has terrorised his people and the region for far too long, none of his neighbouring countries has ever liked the guy EVER, sadly he was the wests in general and the US in particulars preffered partner in the region in the 80s.

On a BBC documentary recently I saw footage from the 80s with Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and calling him a great friend and close ally of the US.

That support allowed him to tighten his grip as a dictator and provided him with foreign aid to start his weapons programs.

Its a grave historical error and one that should have been taken care of long ago but sadly has not, meanwhile of course the needles suffering of the majority of the Iraqi people continues.

[MPSmith]

My only purpose was to put the diplomat's liberal double-speak diatribe (that was posted here for some reason) into plain English. He's pretty good at talking around what he's actually trying to say. Of course he's not going to say outright he is against the U.S. fighting terror. You have to read between the lines and analyze his words. IMO, he just doesn't have the stomach for it anymore. It's a tough war and some will fall by the sidelines.

Too many want this to be a simple fight, like "get Bin Laden and his henchmen". It's not limited to his terrorist group; it never was. It's like President Bush said "you're either with us, or you're against us, you either support terrorism or you fight against it". The world coalition led by the U.S. has done a suberb job so far of fighting back terrorism and I'm glad to see we aren't giving up. We can't be dissuaded by the notion that fighting back might create extremism in some funamentalists. You can't back down from the evil ones lest you be slaughtered.

Janek, nothing in international politics is EVER "that simple". I never said it was.

This will be my last post in this thread. I've said my peace.

[Pony99CA]

And this is part of a post I made on october 28th:
Three posts in five minutes (not counting the duplicate), none in response to anything, and two quoting old material you wrote. Are you trying to boost your post count? :lol:

Did the U.S. support Saddam in the past? Yes, because Iraq was fighting against Iran, which went from ally to enemy and kidnapped our citizens. We also supported the Afghanis that became the Taliban, because they were fighting our enemies, the Russians. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Sadly, those may not have been the best decisions, but they probably seemed like it at the time. When your crystal ball works, please send it to the U.S. so that we can see into the future and not make these mistakes again. :roll:

As for insulting Europeans, I'm crying. I believe in freedom of speech and the right to protest, even when I disagree with it. But when morons put swastikas on the U.S. flag and compare Bush to Hitler, they deserve to be called weasels. And I know not all French or Germans are weasels; I saw footage last week (I think) of a pro-U.S. rally in Paris.

No matter what you think of the U.S., I don't think we've committed genocide recently or invaded countries just to annex land. If anything, the U.S. generally sits on its butt far too long -- we did it in World War II and we did it with Osama bin Scumbag (I usually use another word that "son of" prefaces) after the first attempt at blowing up the World Trade Center.

I don't want the U.S. to play policeman to the world; we have better things to do with our tax dollars. But if nobody else will, I guess it's better than the alternative.

Steve

[Fishie]

My only purpose was to put the diplomat's liberal double-speak diatribe (that was posted here for some reason) into plain English. He's pretty good at talking around what he's actually trying to say. Of course he's not going to say outright he is against the U.S. fighting terror. You have to read between the lines and analyze his words. IMO, he just doesn't have the stomach for it anymore. It's a tough war and some will fall by the sidelines.

Too many want this to be a simple fight, like "get Bin Laden and his henchmen". It's not limited to his terrorist group; it never was. It's like President Bush said "you're either with us, or you're against us, you either support terrorism or you fight against it". The world coalition led by the U.S. has done a suberb job so far of fighting back terrorism and I'm glad to see we aren't giving up. We can't be dissuaded by the notion that fighting back might create extremism in some funamentalists. You can't back down from the evil ones lest you be slaughtered.

Janek, nothing in international politics is EVER "that simple". I never said it was.

This will be my last post in this thread. I've said my peace.

I disagree, after 9/11 Al queda has been the most active they have ever been.
There have been several attacks on Americans and American intrests as well as those that support the US, the rhetoric against Iraq aint helping matters much either becouse despite the Iraqi leadership and secular state being hated by al Queda and its followers the suffering the Iraqi people have been under and the casualties that the area suffered and will suffer are breeding grounds for hatred.
Its like the reports from the ocupied teritories where people who are/were against the suicide attacks against Israel say that as a civilian you have as much chance of being killed by Israel as a member of hamas so if youre gonna get killed anyway why not die with a gun in youre hand.
You dont win a fight against terrorism with force alone, you need to eliminate the breeding grounds of hatred and sadly that isnt happening.

[Janak Parekh]

Three posts in five minutes (not counting the duplicate), none in response to anything, and two quoting old material you wrote. Are you trying to boost your post count? :lol:
People get very emotional on this topic. And everyone has dug further into their argument trenches, so I won't dwell on it, because IMHO everything that could be said in this thread has been said a million times over. (If you're bored, Fark (fark.com) tends to have these debates once or twice a day. On 200+ message threads. Beware, the site is politically incorrect. ;))

I'll leave it by saying that, sadly, as a New Yorker - who is perhaps in one of the the most dangerous areas with respect to terrorist attacks - I don't feel safer today, based on the current political directions the world is taking, than I did on 9/12/01. I hope that'll change sooner rather than later.

--janak

[Rirath]

I'll leave it by saying that, sadly, as a New Yorker - who is perhaps in one of the the most dangerous areas with respect to terrorist attacks - I don't feel safer today, based on the current political directions the world is taking, than I did on 9/12/01. I hope that'll change sooner rather than later.

I have to ask Janak, why do you consider yourself at such high risk? It wasn't just NY that was attacked ya know. The Pentagon, and that other plane that crashed early. If you seriously look at your location as being that much more dangerous than any place else, I say you should probably chill out. :wink:

I've ignored almost all of this since I consider most of it pointless America bashing, but my comments are pretty much summed up word per word by MPSmith and Pony99CA. ...Oh, and DrtyBlvd, if you're going to start something like this the least you could do is give a proper respectful response. I don't agree with a thing Fishie has said, but at least he's made his case.

[Vincent M Ferrari]

I have to ask Janak, why do you consider yourself at such high risk? It wasn't just NY that was attacked ya know. The Pentagon, and that other plane that crashed early. If you seriously look at your location as being that much more dangerous than any place else, I say you should probably chill out.

I have to tell you, as a NY'er I agree with Janak. It's scary living here. You have subways, bridges, tunnels, and on top of that museums, theaters, Times Square, and God knows how many landmarks, along with the financial district... Everything that symoblizes the USA exists here, which is why we were hit in 1993, hit again in 2001, and are most likely still the juiciest target in the minds of most terrorists...

Having to live with that everyday is very disconcerting. Just think of it this way: DC has missile batteries. NY is a soft target.

[DrtyBlvd]

...Oh, and DrtyBlvd, if you're going to start something like this the least you could do is give a proper respectful response
If you can come up with a "respectful response", you're welcome to post it, Rirath. I would have thought it obvious that I don't have one.... I don't agree with a thing [Insert Nickname Here] has said, but at least he's made his case.

... so shall we leave it at that? :D

I think more has been said by the lack of views expressed than has been said by those so spoken.

[disconnected]

Regardless of where you stand on the idea of declaring war, there are a lot of thoughtful people, both here and abroad, who have serious reservations about it, so I don't think it's fair to characterize it as simply "pointless America bashing".

[Sunnyone]

You know, I think many Americans are undecided or unconvinced by the arguments on both sides of this issue. War is serious business. I'm not convinced that we have the whole story - or that we will ever have the whole story. I'm not trustful of Bush - never have been. But I'm not wholly unsupportive of a war. I'd like to see some definitive proof of the allegations of which Bush and the administration speaks. I really doubt that I will, though. I have a friend who was due to be out of the Army Reserves - at 48 yrs old. Since release was not an option at this point, he's now in Afghanistan. He's got 3 kids, 3 grandkids - and he's just one of many. It's a tough issue. I wish someone had some answers.

[Janak Parekh]

I have to ask Janak, why do you consider yourself at such high risk? It wasn't just NY that was attacked ya know.
I know. But try taking the subway every day during rush hour. It's completely packed, and by definition near-indefensible. I travel through the hub of midtown every day (Penn Station, Times Square), and you can't help but feel that either would be #1 targets on a terrorist's list -- the sheer efficacy of such a dense target must be appealing.

--janak

[Vincent M Ferrari]

I know. But try taking the subway every day during rush hour. It's completely packed, and by definition near-indefensible. I travel through the hub of midtown every day (Penn Station, Times Square), and you can't help but feel that either would be #1 targets on a terrorist's list -- the sheer efficacy of such a dense target must be appealing.

And if you come from the outer boroughs, where an attack is less likely to happen, it's scarier. Imagine, they get on in the Bronx, where there's no security whatsoever, not even a cop, and they end up in Manhattan ready to do the deed.

Only New Yorkers would understand what it's like being here at this point.

[Janak Parekh]

Only New Yorkers would understand what it's like being here at this point.
Absolutely. I've stopped buying newspapers because it's often too sobering/depressing... fortunately, I haven't lost sleep over it, but I'm sure others have. Thank goodness for Google news (http://news.google.com). :)

--janak

[Rirath]

Having lived in a rather small town my entire life, it is hard to picture. I think I get the idea a little closer now.