For all you non-Americans out there

[TKD_McGee]

Although, the British do depend on Middle East oil more than America does, so they are IFFY in some areas of Anti-Terrorism.

 

 

[YODA]

Good point TKD - there are few totally innocent parties in this.

 

 

[AnonymousOne]

Despite New Zealand's not so close relationship with the USA these days, which was bought about by us banning US warships over nuclear issues, we support the anti-terrorism stance on the whole.

 

I think Bush is doing a good job, I like him, but we must realise no one is perfect

 

 

[g]

i think its a great coincidence that there are huge oil reserves that are landlocked and best accesed by pipelines through Afganistan

[striking_cobra]

this a powerfull subject...i'm with the president all the way...

 

 

[Piastre]

g,

 

You wouldn't be cynically suggesting that the U.S. only act when they have vested interests , such as in Kuwait? Or that nobody in the west gave a rats a$$ when Muslim and Jew were killing each other in increasingly copious and imaginative ways in the middle east until an atrocity happened on American soil?

 

Shame on you.

[Bitseach]

I am curious. Now that it is strongly suspected that the IRA terrorists were indeed in Columbia helping FARC terrorists in the global terror network and that one of the sworn enemies of FARC is the USA, when will America be bombing Ireland?

 

ETA are also in on all this - I await the "daisycutters" landing on the Basque region of Spain, with great anticipation.

 

Incidently, as the US courts have, on many occasions, sheltered IRA terrorists and refused to extradite them to the UK (your ALLY) where they were found guilty of planting bombs and killing and maiming innocent people (albeit not quite on the same scale as the 11/9) should the US be bombing itself? Sounds like state-sanctioned terrorism to me.

 

...and then of course there was the Iran-Contras affair, that red-neck moron Oliver North, and the good President Alzheimer Raygun himself... they should probably all be in cages in Gitmo Bay?

 

Surely we/they should not be so selective in the fight against terrorism? And remember, the guys we are arming today will no doubt be our enemies in a few years' time.

 

[ This Message was edited by: Bitseach on 2002-04-25 08:03 ]

[Bitseach]

On 2002-04-18 09:02, TKD_McGee wrote:

 

I would take Red Necks over mexican gangs in LA any day of the year. At least "Red Necks" don't harass you. What do you define as a Red Neck anyways... The original definition for a Red Neck was a communist union organizer.. they called him a "Red Neck" because he was communist.

 

You wouldn't say that if you were gay or an ethnic minority, or in any way openly liberal!!

[BrerRobot]

When we put troops on the ground instead of bombs we risk high american casualties. thats why we bomb. Most americans dont want our soldiers to die. People hate israel for its retaliations but they are sending people directly into the middle of terrorist base camps, when they could easily bomb. People cant complain about the way we treat the taliban pow's. what we do to them is more than humane compared to what they would do to any of us.

[Bitseach]

Ah but the US is a civilised nation and the Taliban weren't. So the US should be showing themselves - clearly and transparently - to be morally superior than their enemy. Not making any specific point about treatment of prisoners here, but I do think "our" standards should be higher then "theirs" (speaking as one of the Alliance nations).

 

After all, the Taliban are not signatories of the Geneva Convention whereas the UK and USA (I think, anyway) are. The GC rules apply even when one is fighting non-GC signatories. And no, that's not fair, but thems the rules of war!