| To: FaultLine who wrote (12572) | 12/3/2001 2:26:42 PM | | From: 49thMIMOMander | | | | Does this include texts like "this and that have always-never done that or this"
or "have always-never been like this or that"
Ilmarinen
"this and that have always-never, since the the Fall 2000 Clinton Camp David, done that or this and been
both"?? |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: MSI who wrote (12569) | 12/3/2001 2:28:01 PM | | From: TimF | | | | >"9/11 was not an attack by OPEC or Saudi against the US"
Errr, what were the nationalities of 15 of 19 hijackers?
What nationality was Timothy McVeigh? Does the fact that he was American mean that the Oklahoma City bombing was an attack by American as a nation against Oklahoma City?
Saudi Arabia hasn't been a very good ally, but 9/11 was an Al Qaida attack not a Saudi attack.
There is no question Saudi princes provided enormous support to bin Laden, financial, social and in manpower.
There is no question that a lot of their money eventyually went to OBL, but mostly this was through contracts that OBL's father had.
>"So I guess we are puppets of NATO, South Korea, varius balkan states and any other place were we have put US lives on the line to defend another country??"
These folks didn't fund attacks against US soil.
1 - You haven't established that the Saudi government funded attacks on the US.
2 - My comments where in response to your statement about the US government being the Saudi government's puppet. The two facts you mentioned in support of this where the $10mil that Guliani turned down and the US defense of Saudi from Iraq. If defending another country makes us a puppet then we would be the puppet of a large % of the world. If you could sustantiate that the Saudi government supported bin Laden after he started terror attacks against the US then you might have an argument against the US defending the Saudi's (but would you really rather Saddam Hussien move in?) but you still wouldn't have an argument supported the idea that the US was or is a Saudi puppet.
WRT the SI SubjMarks, it seemed to fail starting about 3am EST. I saw a post indicating they'll have it fixed "in a couple days", which is too bad, I use it a lot.
It seems to work now.
Tim |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (12584) | 12/3/2001 2:30:36 PM | | From: ThirdEye | | | | | Normally I would not engage in a discussion on this topic at all on this thread. Since you think that means I agree with Nadine, are you suggesting that my silence means I have also agreed with whatever you have posted in the past? Not likely. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Machaon who wrote (12568) | 12/3/2001 2:37:14 PM | | From: teevee | | | | Robert,
I'm a reasonable man. Please quote any part of my previous note to you, and prove why it should be considered anti-arab propaganda.
The Palestinian terrorists blow up Jewish children and the Palestinian people celebrate in the streets. Islamic terrorists destroy the WTC in New York and murder thousands of Americans, and some of the world's finest, and the Palestinian people celebrate in the streets.
Okay, you refer specifically to terrorists-Palestinian and Islamic terrorists. Then you white wash all Palestinian people in the following sentence. Did all Palestinian people celebrate or only a handful?
This is one of the big differences between the two cultures. The rest of the Arabs live happily, and in poverty, under repressive, racist Arab dictatorships. The Arab mission: Destroy Israel and change it into another uncultured, uncivilized, brutal Arab dictatorship.
Here again you bait and denegrate all Arabs with generalized statements about their state of mind, conditions and politics such as the "Arab mission".
Do you fault Syria or the Palestinians for the rape, looting and destruction of Lebanon? Lebanon used to be a showcase of Middle Eastern culture and education. Unlike the Palestinians, at one time Lebanon had a literacy rate of, something like, 90%.
Don't forget an important financial centre too. And who came to Lebanon's defense? Would you fault Israel (ie. all the Israeli's) for preventing a pregnant Palestinian women from getting through a checkpoint to get to a hospital, only to see her new born child die during delivery in the back of a car at the checkpoint?
The inflamatory nature of your language has left me with the impression that you hate all Arabs,not just terrorists. I do not wish to assume that you believe all Arabs are terrorists. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Machaon who wrote (12579) | 12/3/2001 2:40:47 PM | | From: 49thMIMOMander | | | | One mediator is not enough, many are usually needed.
In the NI conflict, as an example, the decision was three
- one representing USA
- one representing EU
- one really odd guy, not NATO but a little EU
Neighbors should usually have a say as should others who have been involved for a long time
and then hopfully some who have nothing to do with it, to be as neutral as possible.
Ilmarinen |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: tekboy who wrote (12484) | 12/3/2001 2:54:04 PM | | From: Hawkmoon | | | | the chief reason they're "holding off" is that the sane ones among them haven't got a clue what to do...
Hmm... Well, I'm sure there are many folks which plenty of ideas about what to do, but it's difficult to get any unity in the Knesset towards implementing any one particular policy. The Netayahu factions want to take Arafat out of the picture completely, while the Pere loyalists are afraid that the power vacuum left by Arafat's forced "retirement" will only play into the hands of the extremists, and create more regional animosity from neighboring states.
This is mainly going to be a case of seeing which faction in the Israel government dominates the other. And I think Sharon will receive carte blanche in the future to what is necessary. The moderates in Israeli society are capitulating just as the moderates in the PA are being assasinated and/or intimidated by the extremists.
I don't really believe the Israelis wish to reoccupy the west bank on a full-time basis, but I suspect that most realize that Arafat is more of an impediment to peace than facilitator. And as has been reported recently, they are looking for other Palestinians they can work with later on after Arafat is dethroned.
I would imagine the prevailing argument in Israel is what role Israel should play in overthrowing Arafat. Most anticipate that as the Palestinian factions grow more influential, Arafat will be placed in a position of opposing them (as we see this weekend), and eliminated like "Sadat" was... by his own people.
Then the Israelis would have the excuse for taking all steps necessary for destroying the extremists, and at the same time, would be able to play upon the sympathies of Palestinians who were loyal Arafat supporters, and empower more moderate Palestinians to replace him.
Either way... I have the sense that most sides in Israel consider Arafat a "dead man walking", but are primarily concerned about having Israel directly involved in his demise.
Btw, interesting speech Sharon gave today. A few pundits I listened called it straight, in that it was more of a "pulpit" speech aimed at pressuring opposition leaders to bow to Sharon's policy (which is to heavily pressure Arafat, or force his departure).
Very strong words against Arafat.. and taking out half of his fleet of choppers will impede his ability to move around the PA.
And it's clear that Arafat has not done all that he can do. His indecision and fence sitting is officially over, and it appears both the US and Israel will force him to take concrete steps towards opposing the extremists. And this works handily toward forcing an internal civil war between the PA and the extremists.
And should he be assassinated by the extremists, it will be more difficult for other Arab states to oppose Israeli action in the West Bank.
Hawk |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: pie-faced-mutt who wrote (12583) | 12/3/2001 3:02:26 PM | | From: teevee | | | | len,
Good post. Historically, America has always tried to destabilize other countries politically and economically, all in the name of national security. Oil is at the top of the list, and it would be no surprise to me if some scheme hatched by the NSC involved Mossad. The trouble with many vehement patriots working in such institutions, is that when field ops get underway, they often act before they think - shades of Oly North:-)). Thankfully, this usually leads to failed missions.
I stated earlier that in addition to the North Sea, Saudi oil fields are officially in decline, and the decline side of the production curve is always steep. There is no doubt that the politics of oil in the Caspian, Middle East, Russia, Canada and elsewhere in the world (ie. Mexico, Venezuala) will be at centre stage for a number of years ahead. When you consider that 25% of refined deisel fuel consumed by America comes from Venezualan refineries, and the Venezualan oil fields are getting old too, oil south of the Rio Grande must be high on the agenda. Oil is also the reason why America is trying to find reasons and excuses to go into Iraq, other than naked aggression. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
