'Spineless European Elites' Won't Stop USA
Mark Dawkins
THE GUARDIAN (London) Wednesday February 20, 2002
Washington dispatch from Julian Borger
_________________________________________________________________
AIN'T NO STOPPING US NOW
The Bush administration sees no particular virtue in seeking global
consensus in its war on terrorism, because it has limited respect for
governments whose opinions differ from its own.
After all the talk, George Bush actually comes face to face with the "axis
of evil" today, peering into the demilitarised zone between South and
North Korea, a frontier known in the president's increasingly Reaganesque
rhetoric as "the line dividing freedom and oppression".
Echoes of Ronald Reagan have reverberated through Bush's week-long Asia
tour, but never louder than at the DMZ.
It is Mr Bush's version of the former president's "tear down this wall"
speech in Berlin 15 years ago, and White House aides have been advertising
its iconic significance.
To heighten the anticipation Mr Bush even described it as "one of the most
dangerous places on earth".
The DMZ is at the same time one of the quietest places on the globe, and
surrounded by the encouraging glow of some 37,000 US troops, it is one of
the least challenging stops on the president's three-nation trip.
The visits to both Tokyo and South Korea were polite but strained by the
hosts' uneasiness over the whole "axis of evil" idea.
The White House retinue toned down the oratory, and Mr Bush was not
expected to use the fearsome phrase at the DMZ, but on the other hand
there is no doubt that this administration stands by its frank warnings to
Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
In Seoul, President Kim Dae Jung was doubtless wondering what Bush had
against him and his flagship "sunshine" policy of dialogue with the North.
Mr Bush chose Kim's visit to Washington nearly a year ago to declare an
end to the Clinton policy of engagement with Pyongyang.
Then, just as Kim was reshuffling his government to prepare for a new
diplomatic initiative, Mr Bush placed North Korea on the "axis of evil"
list in his January 29 state of the union speech.
The Japanese, as aware as anyone in the region of the dangers posed by
Pyongyang, had also invested hope in Kim's "sunshine" initiative.
Even before Bush arrived on Sunday, Japan's prime minister, Junichiro
Koizumi, had made it clear that he did not support the evil axis approach,
and only endorsed it through gritted teeth when asked.
The private reservations expressed in Tokyo are likely to come out in
public when Mr Bush arrives in China at the end of the tour.
Chinese officials have publicly cautioned the US against unilateral
intervention in Iraq and will repeat those warnings to the president's
face.
China's concerns over US interventionism are likely to have as much impact
as Japan's and South Korea's - that is to say, none at all.
When the Europeans plead for caution, the Bush administration sees only
lack of resolve. Privately, the president rails against spineless
"European elites", the contemptuous phrase increasingly used in the
conservative press to refer to European governments.
The decision to topple Saddam Hussein was based on pure national security
calculations, almost in isolation of the views of the rest of the world.
Simply put, the Bush team decided in January that the very cause for
extreme caution over Iraq was paradoxically the reason why action had to
be taken sooner rather than later, this year rather than next.
Saddam's chemical and biological weapons render any assault on his bunker
a perilous affair, but putting off an attack will only make it more
dangerous.
The Iraqi dictatorship will have had more time to prepare. In a few years,
it could even have a nuclear bomb.
Only Saddam's absolute and unconditional acceptance of international
weapons inspectors could muffle the drums of war in Washington, as
unfettered inspections could potentially wreak more damage on the regime's
arsenal than weeks of bombing.
But for that very reason, the Iraqi dictator is unlikely to give the
inspectors a free run. Washington has already declared its intention to
topple him, and he surely knows his fearsome weapons are just about the
only defences that make even the mighty Pentagon pause.
The most likely scenarios are either an Iraqi refusal to accept inspectors
or an initial acceptance followed by a return to Baghdad's policy of
"cheat-and-retreat" over site visits. Either way, military action is all
but inevitable by the end of the year, and the US central command has
moved its service headquarters to the region in preparation.
The marines are going to Bahrain where the navy is already based. The army
is in Camp Doha, in Kuwait, and according to unconfirmed reports the
special operations forces are setting up in Oman.
The Saudi government is unlikely to allow the air force to use its
state-of-the-art command centre at the Prince Sultan air base, but other
Gulf garrisons could be pressed into service. Qatar is one option,
increasingly mentioned in Washington.
The Iraq invasion plan drawn up by the US joint chiefs of staff envisaged
an overwhelming force of 200,000 US troops.
That is now seen by military strategists as a pre-Afghanistan dinosaur.
Smaller numbers of special forces troops, backing up trained and armed
Iraqi opposition fighters are now viewed as the key prongs of an effective
strategy that would minimise the vulnerability of US soldiers to chemical
and biological attack.
The CIA and the Green Berets are already reported to have begun
preparations for training Iraqi opposition guerrillas in Kuwait and
Kurd-run areas of northern Iraq, and rival Iraqi opposition leaders have
rushed to Washington to ensure they get a share of the arm-and-train
budget.
Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said he is
planning to hold a conference of senior defectors from Saddam's officer
corps next month, but there is already controversy over which generals
will attend.
Some senior officers have denounced the conference as an attempt by Mr
Chalabi to acquire some belated military legitimacy.
The row is just one of many squabbles between rival opposition leaders
that have provided a constant headache for the Iraq desk at the State
Department.
They also represent another important reason for caution. The risk of a
post-Saddam Hussein implosion into chaos and fragmentation is as real now
as it was 11 years ago, when the first President Bush passed up the
opportunity to march to Baghdad.
His son's advisors believe that once the US shows the Iraqi population
that it is determined to get rid of Saddam, viable alternatives will
present themselves.
It is a strategy fraught with risk, but after September 11 risk no longer
has a veto in the Bush White House.
======================
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the
original source. ***
Rodrigo Calvo de No
"Mark Dawkins" <daw...@aracnet.com> schreef in bericht
news:a50or...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Privately, the president rails against spineless
> "European elites", the contemptuous phrase increasingly used in the
> conservative press to refer to European governments.
Which is a very curious charge, to say the least, considering that, by and
large, the European governments and "elites" are far more considerate with
American concerns than the proverbial "man in the street". Since the
expression is very reminiscent of the "metropolitan elites" attacked by the
British Tories in the last elections, I must suspect that the Republicans
have been listening for too long to their fellow conservatives from Britain,
arguably the least qualified people to give anybody a correct image of
European society...A pity, really, since otherwise the US government would
understand that the European growls stem not from the alleged
anti-Americanism of an alleged elite, but from real disagreement at
grassroots level towards much of current US foreign policy, especially in
the Middle East.
This said, the hostility towards Europe in, say, the op-ed pages of the Wall
Street Journal beats the anti-Americanism of even the most far left
newspaper in Europe by far.
R.
rosignol
"Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
[zap]
> A pity, really, since otherwise the US government would
> understand that the European growls stem not from the alleged
> anti-Americanism of an alleged elite, but from real disagreement at
> grassroots level towards much of current US foreign policy, especially in
> the Middle East.
Mmm.
What do you think of the basic idea that the longer it's put off, the
nastier of a mess it's going to be to clean up, and it's been put off
too long already?
Would you rather deal with Saddam when he has a few nukes? Howabout
North Korea after they get their multi-stage ballistic missiles working?
There's hope that diplomacy will work on Iran, but the other two are
basically run by people who's only concern is keeping themselves on top.
> This said, the hostility towards Europe in, say, the op-ed pages of the Wall
> Street Journal beats the anti-Americanism of even the most far left
> newspaper in Europe by far.
You referring to the unsigned editorials by the WSJ editorial staff, or
one of the guest columnists?
In either case, I'd appreciate a link.
--
al Qaeda delenda est
Rodrigo Calvo de No
"rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht
news:rosignol-91D138...@news.nwlink.com...
> In article <a51474$5n0$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
>
> [zap]
>
> > A pity, really, since otherwise the US government would
> > understand that the European growls stem not from the alleged
> > anti-Americanism of an alleged elite, but from real disagreement at
> > grassroots level towards much of current US foreign policy, especially
in
> > the Middle East.
>
>
> Mmm.
>
> What do you think of the basic idea that the longer it's put off, the
> nastier of a mess it's going to be to clean up, and it's been put off
> too long already?
>
> Would you rather deal with Saddam when he has a few nukes?
See? First basic misunderstanding. The Europeans certainly have no sympathy
for Saddam and in fact we would have liked him to have been deposed the
first time around. Maintaining a status quo in which thousands of Iraqis
starve is certainly not what we are looking at either. But: what the hell
are your plans, and what does the US intend to do with Iraq once you get rid
of Saddam??
Also, the notion of him getting a "few nukes" is entirely ridiculous. He
couldn't when Iraq was one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle
East, is he going to be able now? A far more immediate concern would be that
Pakistan, who *does* have nukes, doesn't fall in the arms of the
fundamentalists.
Howabout
> North Korea after they get their multi-stage ballistic missiles working?
And putting *what* on top of them? North Korea is a paper tiger, and Kim
Jong Il, while a despicable tyrant, is not mad. Ballistic missiles may be
good for posturing, but Kim is wise enough to prefer covert actions whenever
he wants to act against his perceived enemies (South Korea, Japan or the
US).
Anyway, it isn't as if we were much concerned about what you do on that part
of the globe. Unlike the Middle East, it isn't in our neighbourhood...
> There's hope that diplomacy will work on Iran, but the other two are
> basically run by people who's only concern is keeping themselves on top.
Heh, so do most countries, US included. Iran is indeed one of the main
reasons that got the European governments complaining. In our view, it is
considerably more democratic and less fundamentalistic, even less involved
in supporting terrorism than that cosseted US ally, Saudi Arabia. It is also
undergoing a difficult transition and the least that can be said is that its
inclusion in the "axis of evil" wasn't helpful at all. It is not as if we
were in very friendly terms with Iran either: Britain had the Rushdie
affair, Germany the case of that businessman sentenced to death for adultery
and France caught the Iranian secret service murdering a former Iranian PM
on its territory. But we definitely don't understand the US obsession with
that country. Or maybe we do...
The main disagreement we have with the US hasn't to do with the American
treatment of either of those countries. It is the US treatment of Israel
that infuriates most Europeans, from the man in the street to the highest
"elite". As seen from Europe, the US has not only failed to rein in a
complete psychopath in power (Sharon) but also has continued to supply him
with high tech weapons and listen to an unprecedented extent to his
concerns. Leaving apart the horrendous Palestinian civilian casualties: when
Palestinian civilian installations (the Gaza port and airport as well as
Palestinian TV) which were paid for with EU money at the behest of the
Clinton administration are destroyed by Israeli F-16s and Apaches paid for
by US money, don't you think we have somewhat of a motive of grievance?
>
>
> > This said, the hostility towards Europe in, say, the op-ed pages of the
Wall
> > Street Journal beats the anti-Americanism of even the most far left
> > newspaper in Europe by far.
>
>
> You referring to the unsigned editorials by the WSJ editorial staff, or
> one of the guest columnists?
>
> In either case, I'd appreciate a link.
James Taranto "Best of Web" of yesterday:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=100001700
Happy?
R.
rosignol
"Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
> "rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht
> news:rosignol-91D138...@news.nwlink.com...
> > In article <a51474$5n0$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> > "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
> >
> > [zap]
> >
> > > A pity, really, since otherwise the US government would
> > > understand that the European growls stem not from the alleged
> > > anti-Americanism of an alleged elite, but from real disagreement at
> > > grassroots level towards much of current US foreign policy, especially
> in
> > > the Middle East.
> >
> >
> > Mmm.
> >
> > What do you think of the basic idea that the longer it's put off, the
> > nastier of a mess it's going to be to clean up, and it's been put off
> > too long already?
> >
> > Would you rather deal with Saddam when he has a few nukes?
>
> See? First basic misunderstanding. The Europeans certainly have no sympathy
> for Saddam
Then why do the French and German governments seem to be laying
groundwork for picking up some fat contracts once the sanctions are
lifted? From over here, european reluctance to go after him seems to
have more than a whiff of reluctance to throw all that work away.
> and in fact we would have liked him to have been deposed the
> first time around. Maintaining a status quo in which thousands of Iraqis
> starve is certainly not what we are looking at either. But: what the hell
> are your plans, and what does the US intend to do with Iraq once you get rid
> of Saddam??
I'd say that's the main reason we haven't moved yet. If Europe would
and make some constructive suggestions instead of whining about feeling
slighted and treating the Triggerhappy Texan with poorly concealed
disdain, I think Bush would be happy to hear some suggestions- so long
as you're willing to put some of your troops into the effort to
implement them.
> Also, the notion of him getting a "few nukes" is entirely ridiculous. He
> couldn't when Iraq was one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle
> East, is he going to be able now?
That was 10 years ago. This is now, and the Russians are unable to
account for all of their nukes. It is entirely possible that he already
has some.
> A far more immediate concern would be that
> Pakistan, who *does* have nukes, doesn't fall in the arms of the
> fundamentalists.
I think this is less likely than you do. The Taliban is gone, the
fundamentalist belief that Allah will make them invincible is
discredited. It's still dangerous, but it's dangerous as a terrorist
organization, not as a movement that can overthrow a government.
> Howabout
> > North Korea after they get their multi-stage ballistic missiles working?
>
> And putting *what* on top of them?
That one's easy- South Korea. Stable, fairly democratic, relatively
prosperous, and a country that can be counted on to pay attention to
world opinion, if only because trade sanctions would throw their economy
into the toilet.
> North Korea is a paper tiger, and Kim
> Jong Il, while a despicable tyrant, is not mad. Ballistic missiles may be
> good for posturing, but Kim is wise enough to prefer covert actions whenever
> he wants to act against his perceived enemies (South Korea, Japan or the
> US).
As bad as the Iraqis have it, the North Koreans have it worse. These are
people who try to escape to _China_, fer chrissakes!
> Anyway, it isn't as if we were much concerned about what you do on that part
> of the globe. Unlike the Middle East, it isn't in our neighbourhood...
Wrong. Look at a polar projection map sometime.
> > There's hope that diplomacy will work on Iran, but the other two are
> > basically run by people who's only concern is keeping themselves on top.
>
> Heh, so do most countries, US included.
The difference is one of how power is attained. In the US, and to a
lesser extent Iran, a significant proportion of the government is
elected.
In North Korea and Iraq, there are no elections. You obey, or you are
executed, and the people in charge are making decisions based not on
what is best for the country, but best for them, personally.
> Iran is indeed one of the main
> reasons that got the European governments complaining.
In that case, they haven't been paying attention.
> In our view, it is
> considerably more democratic and less fundamentalistic, even less involved
> in supporting terrorism than that cosseted US ally, Saudi Arabia.
...nevermind the freakin' boatful of weapons Iran tried to ship to
Arafat, hm?
> It is also
> undergoing a difficult transition and the least that can be said is that its
> inclusion in the "axis of evil" wasn't helpful at all.
Oh, no, it was *very* helpful. You see, they'd been hosting an afghan
warlord who had pledged to fight the interim government- within 48 hours
of Bush's speech, the offices of his organization had been closed, and
the Iranians were deciding if they wanted to just expel him, or turn him
over to the Afghan government.
The rally was for the home audience. Closing the offices was a
demonstration that they were willing to cooperate... and I find it
amazing that the EU doesn't realize what happened was precisely what we
*wanted* to happen, and has chosen that to be unhappy about. To us, it
is a non-issue (as Iran has shown that it is willing to cooperate), and
for the EU to be grumpy about it is an annoying distraction that makes
us wonder if there's some other issue, or if the EU is trying to suck up
to Iran.
What does the EU want, to be consulted every time the president makes a
speech?
> It is not as if we
> were in very friendly terms with Iran either: Britain had the Rushdie
> affair, Germany the case of that businessman sentenced to death for adultery
> and France caught the Iranian secret service murdering a former Iranian PM
> on its territory. But we definitely don't understand the US obsession with
> that country. Or maybe we do...
444 days. 'Great Satan'. A USMC barracks in Beiruit. 'Death to America'.
And others.
What are you having a hard time understanding?
> The main disagreement we have with the US hasn't to do with the American
> treatment of either of those countries. It is the US treatment of Israel
> that infuriates most Europeans, from the man in the street to the highest
> "elite".
....and is totally irrelevant with regards to North Korea, Iran, and
Iraq.
> As seen from Europe, the US has not only failed to rein in a
> complete psychopath in power (Sharon)
The man was elected. When the Israelis decide they want someone else in
charge, they'll elect someone else. In the meantime, it may be helpful
for you to consider the circumstances that led to Sharon being elected.
> but also has continued to supply him
> with high tech weapons and listen to an unprecedented extent to his
> concerns.
Do you think ignoring Sharon is going to make it better? Do you think
that the Israelis should just ignore the occasional not-so-smart-bomb,
the odd mortar round, a few RPGs, and intermittent sniping?
If I had to live under those conditions, I wouldn't be passively sitting
there and taking it.
> Leaving apart the horrendous Palestinian civilian casualties:
...because they're a long way from being all civilians...
> when
> Palestinian civilian installations (the Gaza port and airport as well as
> Palestinian TV) which were paid for with EU money at the behest of the
> Clinton administration are destroyed by Israeli F-16s and Apaches paid for
> by US money, don't you think we have somewhat of a motive of grievance?
No.
To say 'we paid for something and the stuff you paid for destroyed it'
without considering what they were being used for is to ignore very
relevant information.
> > > This said, the hostility towards Europe in, say, the op-ed pages of the
> Wall
> > > Street Journal beats the anti-Americanism of even the most far left
> > > newspaper in Europe by far.
> >
> >
> > You referring to the unsigned editorials by the WSJ editorial staff, or
> > one of the guest columnists?
> >
> > In either case, I'd appreciate a link.
>
> James Taranto "Best of Web" of yesterday:
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=100001700
>
> Happy?
I see no link to the WSJ on that page. Did the page change, or did you
mistype what newspaper you were referring to?
J.M.
world that a big enough bomb can't solve, but hey, you are American, you
don't know better.
"rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:rosignol-EF2CD9...@news.nwlink.com...
rosignol
"J.M." <jm...@gmx.de_remove_this> wrote:
> It's kind of sad that you seem to think that there is no problem in the
> world that a big enough bomb can't solve, but hey, you are American, you
> don't know better.
It's a pity you felt the need to quote an entire 260-odd line post only
to add three lines that contributed absolutely nothing to the
discussion.
Rodrigo Calvo de No
Why did the US government (pre-11-9) help an US company in its negotiations
with the Taliban for laying a gas pipeline all the way through Afghanistan?
Money, that's why. Also, while I see this accusation often repeated in the
US media, I've never seen any evidence substantiating it.
From over here, european reluctance to go after him seems to
> have more than a whiff of reluctance to throw all that work away.
>
What work? That's preposterous. Even from a purely pecuniary point of view,
a Saddam-less Iraq probably holds a lot more scope for contracts for
everybody than the current government, even if the sanctions were lifted.
(BTW, I've noticed that the Bush administration has made some noise about
the "blatant sanction-busting"...but it hasn't escaped my attention that
they haven't pointed any fingers. Maybe because the most notorious
sanction-buster is Turkey...)
>
> > and in fact we would have liked him to have been deposed the
> > first time around. Maintaining a status quo in which thousands of Iraqis
> > starve is certainly not what we are looking at either. But: what the
hell
> > are your plans, and what does the US intend to do with Iraq once you get
rid
> > of Saddam??
>
>
> I'd say that's the main reason we haven't moved yet. If Europe would
> and make some constructive suggestions instead of whining about feeling
> slighted and treating the Triggerhappy Texan with poorly concealed
> disdain,
I think there you are exaggerating a bit, really. Anger, yes. Disdain?
Hardly.
I think Bush would be happy to hear some suggestions- so long
> as you're willing to put some of your troops into the effort to
> implement them.
>
Which we have done every single time. In Afghanistan you didn't even want
them.
>
> > Also, the notion of him getting a "few nukes" is entirely ridiculous. He
> > couldn't when Iraq was one of the most prosperous countries in the
Middle
> > East, is he going to be able now?
>
>
> That was 10 years ago. This is now, and the Russians are unable to
> account for all of their nukes. It is entirely possible that he already
> has some.
>
Pfft. Stop reading Tom Clancy and get some more serious technical literature
about nukes.
>
> > A far more immediate concern would be that
> > Pakistan, who *does* have nukes, doesn't fall in the arms of the
> > fundamentalists.
>
>
> I think this is less likely than you do. The Taliban is gone, the
> fundamentalist belief that Allah will make them invincible is
> discredited. It's still dangerous, but it's dangerous as a terrorist
> organization, not as a movement that can overthrow a government.
>
Pakistan is currently ruled by a *very* unpopular military regime. Having
done away with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (and Bin Laden as well as Omar are
still unaccounted for) is by no means a guarantee against a popular uprising
in Pakistan. Remember Iran.
>
> > Howabout
> > > North Korea after they get their multi-stage ballistic missiles
working?
> >
> > And putting *what* on top of them?
>
You didn't get my point. What are the North-Koreans going to put on top of
those missiles? One thing is fairly established at the moment: they haven't
got any nukes, never mind missile-portable ones...(it took the US more than
10 years of development to go from the one to the other).
>
> That one's easy- South Korea. Stable, fairly democratic, relatively
> prosperous, and a country that can be counted on to pay attention to
> world opinion, if only because trade sanctions would throw their economy
> into the toilet.
>
In that case, Bush should have *listened* to the South Korean government,
which was elected on a policy of engagement with North Korea (the "sunshine
policy"). Instead, he has done its worst to sabotage it.
>
> > North Korea is a paper tiger, and Kim
> > Jong Il, while a despicable tyrant, is not mad. Ballistic missiles may
be
> > good for posturing, but Kim is wise enough to prefer covert actions
whenever
> > he wants to act against his perceived enemies (South Korea, Japan or the
> > US).
>
>
> As bad as the Iraqis have it, the North Koreans have it worse. These are
> people who try to escape to _China_, fer chrissakes!
>
Fully agreed.
>
> > Anyway, it isn't as if we were much concerned about what you do on that
part
> > of the globe. Unlike the Middle East, it isn't in our neighbourhood...
>
>
> Wrong. Look at a polar projection map sometime.
>
There are no 10 million North Koreans living in Europe. My country has a
direct border with the Arab world, and the Strait of Gibraltar is a mere 5
miles wide.
>
>
> > In our view, it is
> > considerably more democratic and less fundamentalistic, even less
involved
> > in supporting terrorism than that cosseted US ally, Saudi Arabia.
>
>
> ...nevermind the freakin' boatful of weapons Iran tried to ship to
> Arafat, hm?
>
Saudi Arabia sent far worse to Argelia, believe me.
>
> > It is also
> > undergoing a difficult transition and the least that can be said is that
its
> > inclusion in the "axis of evil" wasn't helpful at all.
>
>
> Oh, no, it was *very* helpful. You see, they'd been hosting an afghan
> warlord who had pledged to fight the interim government- within 48 hours
> of Bush's speech, the offices of his organization had been closed, and
> the Iranians were deciding if they wanted to just expel him, or turn him
> over to the Afghan government.
>
That's all? Frankly I don't think the speech had anything to do with that.
The Iranians have been far more helpful in Afghani matters than you may be
aware of.
> The rally was for the home audience. Closing the offices was a
> demonstration that they were willing to cooperate... and I find it
> amazing that the EU doesn't realize what happened was precisely what we
> *wanted* to happen, and has chosen that to be unhappy about. To us, it
> is a non-issue (as Iran has shown that it is willing to cooperate), and
> for the EU to be grumpy about it is an annoying distraction that makes
> us wonder if there's some other issue, or if the EU is trying to suck up
> to Iran.
>
*Our* reports are that the hardliners have been cosiderably strengthened by
that sentence.
> What does the EU want, to be consulted every time the president makes a
> speech?
>
No, just that he avoids making more harm.
>
> > It is not as if we
> > were in very friendly terms with Iran either: Britain had the Rushdie
> > affair, Germany the case of that businessman sentenced to death for
adultery
> > and France caught the Iranian secret service murdering a former Iranian
PM
> > on its territory. But we definitely don't understand the US obsession
with
> > that country. Or maybe we do...
>
>
> 444 days. 'Great Satan'. A USMC barracks in Beiruit. 'Death to America'.
> And others.
>
Did the Iranians ever organise a coup d'état against a democratically
elected US government? Have you ever heard of Moussadegh? If you had, you
may understand why the "Great Satan".
> What are you having a hard time understanding?
>
Your ignorance.
>
> > The main disagreement we have with the US hasn't to do with the American
> > treatment of either of those countries. It is the US treatment of Israel
> > that infuriates most Europeans, from the man in the street to the
highest
> > "elite".
>
>
> ....and is totally irrelevant with regards to North Korea, Iran, and
> Iraq.
>
Not in regard to the two latter.
>
> > As seen from Europe, the US has not only failed to rein in a
> > complete psychopath in power (Sharon)
>
>
> The man was elected.
So was Adolf Hitler.
When the Israelis decide they want someone else in
> charge, they'll elect someone else. In the meantime, it may be helpful
> for you to consider the circumstances that led to Sharon being elected.
We are aware of them. There are no angels in that part of the world. But it
may be helpful for you to consider the circumstances that lead the
Palestinians to their acts.
>
>
> > but also has continued to supply him
> > with high tech weapons and listen to an unprecedented extent to his
> > concerns.
>
>
> Do you think ignoring Sharon is going to make it better?
*Certainly NOT*! That's what Bush did for the first six months of his
presidency. Far from ignored he needs to be sanctioned, and severely so.
Do you think
> that the Israelis should just ignore the occasional not-so-smart-bomb,
> the odd mortar round, a few RPGs, and intermittent sniping?
>
No. But if they are such a clean, democratic country, they should refrain
from responding in kind. As we see it from Europe, the Israelis and
Palestinians differ little in their tactics (bombings, assasinations and so
on), only in their firepower and in the small matter that it is the Israelis
who are occupying foreign territory.
> If I had to live under those conditions, I wouldn't be passively sitting
> there and taking it.
>
Neither would I. In Spain we do have some experience of terrorism. We also
have the experience that it is more effective to fight it cleanly than by
"dirty wars". Indeed, it doesn't seem that Sharon's brutality would have
made Israel a safer place.
>
> > Leaving apart the horrendous Palestinian civilian casualties:
>
>
> ...because they're a long way from being all civilians...
>
Have a look at the (long) Palestinian casualty lists. Look at the ages.
Consider the 5:1 casualty ratio.
>
> > when
> > Palestinian civilian installations (the Gaza port and airport as well as
> > Palestinian TV) which were paid for with EU money at the behest of the
> > Clinton administration are destroyed by Israeli F-16s and Apaches paid
for
> > by US money, don't you think we have somewhat of a motive of grievance?
>
>
> No.
>
> To say 'we paid for something and the stuff you paid for destroyed it'
> without considering what they were being used for is to ignore very
> relevant information.
>
What were the port and airport being used for? The airport certainly for
nothing, since it had been closed months ago. Check *your* information
again.
>
> > > > This said, the hostility towards Europe in, say, the op-ed pages of
the
> > Wall
> > > > Street Journal beats the anti-Americanism of even the most far left
> > > > newspaper in Europe by far.
> > >
> > >
> > > You referring to the unsigned editorials by the WSJ editorial staff,
or
> > > one of the guest columnists?
> > >
> > > In either case, I'd appreciate a link.
> >
> > James Taranto "Best of Web" of yesterday:
> >
> > http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=100001700
> >
> > Happy?
>
>
> I see no link to the WSJ on that page. Did the page change, or did you
> mistype what newspaper you were referring to?
Are you blind or can't you read the upper left corner? I see "WSJ.com
OPINION JOURNAL from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Editorial Page". The WSJ's own
pages are for subscriptors only.
R.
jonivar skullerud
"rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:rosignol-EF2CD9...@news.nwlink.com...
> In article <a52aru$15t9$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
[i will try not to duplicate Rodrigos replies, since he makes many
of my points]
> > and in fact we would have liked him to have been deposed the
> > first time around. Maintaining a status quo in which thousands of Iraqis
> > starve is certainly not what we are looking at either. But: what the
hell
> > are your plans, and what does the US intend to do with Iraq once you get
rid
> > of Saddam??
>
>
> I'd say that's the main reason we haven't moved yet. If Europe would
> and make some constructive suggestions instead of whining about feeling
> slighted and treating the Triggerhappy Texan with poorly concealed
> disdain, I think Bush would be happy to hear some suggestions- so long
> as you're willing to put some of your troops into the effort to
> implement them.
Why troops? Is it perhaps inconceivable to your mind that there
might be solutions to problems that do *not* involve bombs and
guns?
Imho, digging back into history, although Colin Powells veto against
a march on Baghdad in 1991 was the only correct decision possible
under international law, the converse could have been justified and
would have been accepted -- and would have been better than the
slow genocide through sanctions. But what i can never forgive the
western powers for is standing back and allowing the kurds and
shias to be slaughtered by Saddam when they rose up. Probably
because they did not want an Iran-friendly regime in the south and
a threat to the "integrity" of Turkey in the north. Much better to
keep Saddam.
But that was then. Now that opportunity is long gone. There is no
justification for a military attack now. However, my only problem
with US support for the Iraqi National Congress is that they are
incompentent no-hopers. I welcome any US (and european, and
other) support for a credible Iraqi opposition or resistance force.
> > North Korea is a paper tiger, and Kim
> > Jong Il, while a despicable tyrant, is not mad. Ballistic missiles may
be
> > good for posturing, but Kim is wise enough to prefer covert actions
whenever
> > he wants to act against his perceived enemies (South Korea, Japan or the
> > US).
>
>
> As bad as the Iraqis have it, the North Koreans have it worse. These are
> people who try to escape to _China_, fer chrissakes!
I think that if you were starving you would not think twice about
escaping anywhere, even to Canada ;-)
But the nature of the north korean regime and how it acts towards
its own people is pretty irrelevant to what kind of threat it poses to
other people. Russia is the most brutal regime on earth today going
by how it treats its own citizens (in Chechnya), but it poses no threat
to anyone else at the moment.
North Korea is a paper tiger. But Bush has from Day 1 done his
utmost to portray it as a great threat and sabotage Kim Dae-Jungs
sunshine policy, because he wants and needs an enemy to justify
his perverse military spending and in particular NMD.
Todays quiz:
One of the following two countries has used weapons of mass
destruction against the other. Which one?
1. USA
2. North Korea
> > In our view, it is
> > considerably more democratic and less fundamentalistic, even less
involved
> > in supporting terrorism than that cosseted US ally, Saudi Arabia.
>
> ...nevermind the freakin' boatful of weapons Iran tried to ship to
> Arafat, hm?
As if the US never sold any weapons to Israel, eh?
I really fail to understand what the big deal was about that ship.
Either any weapons sales to either party in that conflict is despicable,
or both Israel and the palestinians have exactly the same right to
obtain weapons. Let us get this straight. Palestine is illegally
occupied territory. Under international law, palestinians have a right
to defend themselves, by force if so be it. For a country bristling
with the greatest arsenal in the region, including nuclear and probably
also chemical weapons, to profess moral outrage at weapons being
sold to the other side in the conflict, which has absolutely nothing,
just beggars belief. For the US to go along with it can only be put
down to them having just one eye to see with, probably because of
the big beam sitting across the other one.
If this is all you have as examples of iranian support for "terrorism"
you are really clutching at straws.
> > It is also
> > undergoing a difficult transition and the least that can be said is that
its
> > inclusion in the "axis of evil" wasn't helpful at all.
>
> Oh, no, it was *very* helpful. You see, they'd been hosting an afghan
> warlord
Oh yes, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The darling of CIA and ISI in the 1980s.
(And, at that time, Osama bin Ladens mentor, when bin Laden was
directly sponsored by CIA)
Someone with a virulent hatred of shia muslims, who would rather
destroy the entiry country than share power with the Iran-backed
seven-party alliance.
The amazing thing is that the iranians ever allowed him into the country
and did not expel him immediately to be dismembered by the Taliban.
> 444 days. 'Great Satan'. A USMC barracks in Beiruit. 'Death to America'.
> And others.
>
> What are you having a hard time understanding?
Motes and beams. Arguments between pots and kettles involving the
colour black.
Rodrigo mentioned overthrowing a democratically elected government
to bring in a brutal dictatorship. The US embassy was the headquarters
of the US war against the iranian people.
USS Vicennes; a civilian airliner deliberately shot down, killing 180.
No compensation has ever been paid, and the responsible have not
been brought to justice.
80 innocent people killed in a bomb attack in Beirut (while the leader
of Hizbollah escaped unhurt).
Is not "Great Satan" merely the mirror image of "Evil Empire" or
"Axis of Evil"?
As i said, motes and beams.
> Do you think ignoring Sharon is going to make it better? Do you think
> that the Israelis should just ignore the occasional not-so-smart-bomb,
> the odd mortar round, a few RPGs, and intermittent sniping?
>
> If I had to live under those conditions, I wouldn't be passively sitting
> there and taking it.
Why are you then demanding that the palestinians do just that?
Motes and beams.
> > when
> > Palestinian civilian installations (the Gaza port and airport as well as
> > Palestinian TV) which were paid for with EU money at the behest of the
> > Clinton administration are destroyed by Israeli F-16s and Apaches paid
for
> > by US money, don't you think we have somewhat of a motive of grievance?
>
>
> No.
>
> To say 'we paid for something and the stuff you paid for destroyed it'
> without considering what they were being used for is to ignore very
> relevant information.
Yes, tax offices and schools are the bases and roots of terrorism.
As we all know.
By that logic, there are a lot of legitimate targets in Israel. In fact,
it sounds suspiciously like the Islamic Jihad "logic".
What i really cannot understand is how a country that bristles with
weapons of mass destruction and has actually used them, that pushes
weapons here, there and everywhere, sponsors terrorism all over
the place, and has invaded more countries the past 50 years than
any other country in history, can profess great moral outrage about
others allegedly (with often little evidence) dabbling in such things
on a small scale.
Some guy from Arafat and Sharons region once said something
about motes and beams. I wish they both, along with Dubya Bush
and the rest of the lot, would once in a while reflect on that.
jonivar
--
In reality high profits tend much more to raise the price of work than
high wages.
-- Adam Smith
rosignol
"Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
> "rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht
> news:rosignol-EF2CD9...@news.nwlink.com...
> > In article <a52aru$15t9$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> > "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
[zap]
> > Then why do the French and German governments seem to be laying
> > groundwork for picking up some fat contracts once the sanctions are
> > lifted?
>
> Why did the US government (pre-11-9) help an US company in its negotiations
> with the Taliban for laying a gas pipeline all the way through Afghanistan?
Because the alternative was a pipeline that went very near (possibly
through) a place called Chechnya. Surely you've heard of it, yes?
In any case, the matter is moot, as the pipeline will not pass through
afghanistan.
> Money, that's why. Also, while I see this accusation often repeated in the
> US media, I've never seen any evidence substantiating it.
Oh, boy. Okay, free clue- US companies are forbidden from doing business
with Iran. Care to guess who isn't?
> From over here, european reluctance to go after him seems to
> > have more than a whiff of reluctance to throw all that work away.
> >
>
> What work? That's preposterous. Even from a purely pecuniary point of view,
> a Saddam-less Iraq probably holds a lot more scope for contracts for
> everybody than the current government, even if the sanctions were lifted.
> (BTW, I've noticed that the Bush administration has made some noise about
> the "blatant sanction-busting"...but it hasn't escaped my attention that
> they haven't pointed any fingers. Maybe because the most notorious
> sanction-buster is Turkey...)
Russia, actually. The most blatant would be Jordan, with barely the
pretense of border controls, but the Russians make up for it in
chutzpah, smuggling oil out by the supertanker.
[zap]
> > I'd say that's the main reason we haven't moved yet. If Europe would
> > and make some constructive suggestions instead of whining about feeling
> > slighted and treating the Triggerhappy Texan with poorly concealed
> > disdain,
>
> I think there you are exaggerating a bit, really. Anger, yes. Disdain?
> Hardly.
That's how it looks from over here. Aside from Blair and that guy in
italy who's name I keep mangling (and who I don't think Bush wants to
get too close to), the reaction from european leaders has been
somewhat... odd. Sometimes I see an expression that makes me think they
wish they could wake up from a bad dream- not a nightmare, exactly, more
something with a dull and poorly written plot, you know?
> I think Bush would be happy to hear some suggestions- so long
> > as you're willing to put some of your troops into the effort to
> > implement them.
> >
>
> Which we have done every single time. In Afghanistan you didn't even want
> them.
I'm sorry to say you weren't equipped for what turned out to be a very
unconventional war. Did you know that supply flights into our bases
there land at night, with the runway lights off? Our pilots use
night-vision gear that you don't have- and that's just one example.
Iraq will be much more along the lines of what you're equipped for, but
it seems like you don't want to be a part of it.
[zap]
> > That was 10 years ago. This is now, and the Russians are unable to
> > account for all of their nukes. It is entirely possible that he already
> > has some.
> >
>
> Pfft. Stop reading Tom Clancy and get some more serious technical literature
> about nukes.
I have. The russians are unable to account for a number of man-portable
'suitcase' nukes with yields in the low end of the kiloton range- I
forget how many, but it's a two-digit number (nukes, not kilotons).
About the only good news I can give you is that the radioactivity of the
fissile materials results in the explosives used to cause the chain
reaction becoming unreliable after about ten years- if they aren't used
in the next five or so years, they'll probably fizzle when someone does
try to use them.
> > > A far more immediate concern would be that
> > > Pakistan, who *does* have nukes, doesn't fall in the arms of the
> > > fundamentalists.
> >
> >
> > I think this is less likely than you do. The Taliban is gone, the
> > fundamentalist belief that Allah will make them invincible is
> > discredited. It's still dangerous, but it's dangerous as a terrorist
> > organization, not as a movement that can overthrow a government.
> >
>
> Pakistan is currently ruled by a *very* unpopular military regime. Having
> done away with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (and Bin Laden as well as Omar are
> still unaccounted for) is by no means a guarantee against a popular uprising
> in Pakistan. Remember Iran.
I do, but we can't take chances until Afghanistan begins to settle down.
Just a few more months until the loya jirga... <crosses fingers>
> > > Howabout
> > > > North Korea after they get their multi-stage ballistic missiles
> working?
> > >
> > > And putting *what* on top of them?
> >
>
> You didn't get my point. What are the North-Koreans going to put on top of
> those missiles? One thing is fairly established at the moment: they haven't
> got any nukes, never mind missile-portable ones...(it took the US more than
> 10 years of development to go from the one to the other).
I'd bet on chemical weapons.
> > That one's easy- South Korea. Stable, fairly democratic, relatively
> > prosperous, and a country that can be counted on to pay attention to
> > world opinion, if only because trade sanctions would throw their economy
> > into the toilet.
> >
>
> In that case, Bush should have *listened* to the South Korean government,
> which was elected on a policy of engagement with North Korea (the "sunshine
> policy"). Instead, he has done its worst to sabotage it.
It's not working. See my reply to Jonivar.
[zap]
> > > Anyway, it isn't as if we were much concerned about what you do on that
> part
> > > of the globe. Unlike the Middle East, it isn't in our neighbourhood...
> >
> >
> > Wrong. Look at a polar projection map sometime.
> >
>
> There are no 10 million North Koreans living in Europe. My country has a
> direct border with the Arab world, and the Strait of Gibraltar is a mere 5
> miles wide.
I wouldn't worry much about the Moroccans, and the revolutionaries in
Algeria have a much closer target to deal with.
> > > In our view, it is
> > > considerably more democratic and less fundamentalistic, even less
> involved
> > > in supporting terrorism than that cosseted US ally, Saudi Arabia.
> >
> >
> > ...nevermind the freakin' boatful of weapons Iran tried to ship to
> > Arafat, hm?
> >
>
> Saudi Arabia sent far worse to Argelia, believe me.
Did you mean Algeria, or is that the name of a city or person?
> > > It is also
> > > undergoing a difficult transition and the least that can be said is that
> its
> > > inclusion in the "axis of evil" wasn't helpful at all.
> >
> >
> > Oh, no, it was *very* helpful. You see, they'd been hosting an afghan
> > warlord who had pledged to fight the interim government- within 48 hours
> > of Bush's speech, the offices of his organization had been closed, and
> > the Iranians were deciding if they wanted to just expel him, or turn him
> > over to the Afghan government.
> >
>
> That's all? Frankly I don't think the speech had anything to do with that.
> The Iranians have been far more helpful in Afghani matters than you may be
> aware of.
That's all? Good lord...
Despite offical comments about not being involved in nation-building,
the US is paying a hell of a lot of attention to what's going on in
Afghanistan- take the offical comments as cover-your-ass material in
case it goes to shit, but the reality is that we want it to work. Badly.
And we're willing to help out, to the point of making a very, very
public threat to a nation that is doing something the US considers to be
counterproductive.
> > The rally was for the home audience. Closing the offices was a
> > demonstration that they were willing to cooperate... and I find it
> > amazing that the EU doesn't realize what happened was precisely what we
> > *wanted* to happen, and has chosen that to be unhappy about. To us, it
> > is a non-issue (as Iran has shown that it is willing to cooperate), and
> > for the EU to be grumpy about it is an annoying distraction that makes
> > us wonder if there's some other issue, or if the EU is trying to suck up
> > to Iran.
> >
>
> *Our* reports are that the hardliners have been cosiderably strengthened by
> that sentence.
...and I've seen a report that an additional 'person of interest' may
have turned up since then, and that the Iranian parliment wants to
investigate the origin of a shipment of armaments that the Israelis
intercepted a while back.
You could say that reports are mixed.
> > What does the EU want, to be consulted every time the president makes a
> > speech?
> >
>
> No, just that he avoids making more harm.
Short-term disruption may result in a significantly improved situation
in the long run. What do you prefer, status quo, or possible improvement?
> > > It is not as if we
> > > were in very friendly terms with Iran either: Britain had the Rushdie
> > > affair, Germany the case of that businessman sentenced to death for
> adultery
> > > and France caught the Iranian secret service murdering a former Iranian
> PM
> > > on its territory. But we definitely don't understand the US obsession
> with
> > > that country. Or maybe we do...
> >
> >
> > 444 days. 'Great Satan'. A USMC barracks in Beiruit. 'Death to America'.
> > And others.
> >
>
> Did the Iranians ever organise a coup d'état against a democratically
> elected US government? Have you ever heard of Moussadegh? If you had, you
> may understand why the "Great Satan".
>
> > What are you having a hard time understanding?
> >
>
> Your ignorance.
You've never heard the old joke about wars being god's way of teaching
Americans geography, have you? I hear that one dates back to the 19th
century...
> > > The main disagreement we have with the US hasn't to do with the American
> > > treatment of either of those countries. It is the US treatment of Israel
> > > that infuriates most Europeans, from the man in the street to the
> highest
> > > "elite".
> >
> >
> > ....and is totally irrelevant with regards to North Korea, Iran, and
> > Iraq.
> >
>
> Not in regard to the two latter.
What does Yasser Arafat have to do with Iran and Iraq?
> > > As seen from Europe, the US has not only failed to rein in a
> > > complete psychopath in power (Sharon)
> >
> >
> > The man was elected.
>
> So was Adolf Hitler.
Yup. And the conditions in Germany were pretty bad when it happened,
too.
> When the Israelis decide they want someone else in
> > charge, they'll elect someone else. In the meantime, it may be helpful
> > for you to consider the circumstances that led to Sharon being elected.
>
> We are aware of them. There are no angels in that part of the world. But it
> may be helpful for you to consider the circumstances that lead the
> Palestinians to their acts.
Let's hear them. I know the US media sucks for international news,
that's one of the reasons I came here and started annoying all the nice
friendly people in here. ;)
> > > but also has continued to supply him
> > > with high tech weapons and listen to an unprecedented extent to his
> > > concerns.
> >
> >
> > Do you think ignoring Sharon is going to make it better?
>
> *Certainly NOT*! That's what Bush did for the first six months of his
> presidency. Far from ignored he needs to be sanctioned, and severely so.
So why did you criticize us for listening to him? And what kind of
sanction do you have in mind?
> Do you think
> > that the Israelis should just ignore the occasional not-so-smart-bomb,
> > the odd mortar round, a few RPGs, and intermittent sniping?
> >
>
> No. But if they are such a clean, democratic country, they should refrain
> from responding in kind.
I think I see the essential disagreement between us. I am afraid it is
not something we are likely to change our minds on.
I trust appeals to someone's better nature much less than I trust the
other person knowing that if they pick a fight with me, they're going to
get hurt.
> As we see it from Europe, the Israelis and
> Palestinians differ little in their tactics (bombings, assasinations and so
> on), only in their firepower and in the small matter that it is the Israelis
> who are occupying foreign territory.
Bombing an evacuated building vs. bombing a mall, bar mitzvah, or
resturant full of civilians.
Assassinating a random passerby vs. assassinating someone thought to be
the one who ordered a bombing or built the bomb.
Yeah, small differences. Insignificant, you could say. Trivial, even.
[zap]
> > ...because they're a long way from being all civilians...
> >
>
> Have a look at the (long) Palestinian casualty lists. Look at the ages.
> Consider the 5:1 casualty ratio.
Do you remember the first intifada, when kids would go and throw rocks
at soldiers in riot gear, trying to provoke them into shooting at them?
Do you understand why?
> > > when
> > > Palestinian civilian installations (the Gaza port and airport as well as
> > > Palestinian TV) which were paid for with EU money at the behest of the
> > > Clinton administration are destroyed by Israeli F-16s and Apaches paid
> for
> > > by US money, don't you think we have somewhat of a motive of grievance?
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> > To say 'we paid for something and the stuff you paid for destroyed it'
> > without considering what they were being used for is to ignore very
> > relevant information.
> >
>
> What were the port and airport being used for? The airport certainly for
> nothing, since it had been closed months ago. Check *your* information
> again.
Smuggling in weapons would be the obvious reason.
[zap]
> Are you blind or can't you read the upper left corner? I see "WSJ.com
> OPINION JOURNAL from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Editorial Page". The WSJ's own
> pages are for subscriptors only.
Two things- first, the one link I found that was to something written by
someone who worked for the WSJ, was by the editor of the 'Leisure and
Arts' page. All of the other links were a 'best of the web' roundup, to
the BBC, Observer, CNN, New York Times, and so on.
Second, if you think that was hostility, you need to reread the article.
He was being condescending and dismissive- the writer thought Europe was
unworthy of hostility because Europe had ceased to _matter_.
I would consider that worse than hostility, but it's your call.
rosignol
"jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> "rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> news:rosignol-EF2CD9...@news.nwlink.com...
> > In article <a52aru$15t9$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> > "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
[zap]
> Why troops? Is it perhaps inconceivable to your mind that there
> might be solutions to problems that do *not* involve bombs and
> guns?
Sure. In Iraq's case, we've been trying 'civilized' sanctions for around
a decade (and how many thousands of dead Iraqi civilians have been
attributed to these 'civilized' sanctions? I'm pretty sure it's more
than we killed in combat....), in Iran's case, it's been two decades and
they're *still* supporting hizbullah, and in North Korea, sure, there's
been an armistace for around five decades but the situation is nowhere
near being resolved. How would you like to live in a country where the
north wall of many buildings is reinforced in case of shelling?
I am sorry to say that being civilized does not appear to be working,
and that our current President seems inclined to remind people what
happens when being civilized does not work.
> Imho, digging back into history, although Colin Powells veto against
> a march on Baghdad in 1991 was the only correct decision possible
> under international law, the converse could have been justified and
> would have been accepted -- and would have been better than the
> slow genocide through sanctions. But what i can never forgive the
> western powers for is standing back and allowing the kurds and
> shias to be slaughtered by Saddam when they rose up. Probably
> because they did not want an Iran-friendly regime in the south and
> a threat to the "integrity" of Turkey in the north. Much better to
> keep Saddam.
We were wrong.
> But that was then. Now that opportunity is long gone. There is no
> justification for a military attack now. However, my only problem
> with US support for the Iraqi National Congress is that they are
> incompentent no-hopers. I welcome any US (and european, and
> other) support for a credible Iraqi opposition or resistance force.
This is where we disagree. You seem to be saying (and do correct me if
I'm misinterpeting your statements) that unless Saddam gives us cause,
we have to continue the 'slow genocide through sanctions' (your words).
Fuck that. We were wrong, and by recognizing our error, the only correct
course of action left to us is to remedy that error with all due speed.
If this were possible via nonviolent means, I would be happy to try
them, but I do not think that it is.
> > > North Korea is a paper tiger, and Kim
> > > Jong Il, while a despicable tyrant, is not mad. Ballistic missiles may
> be
> > > good for posturing, but Kim is wise enough to prefer covert actions
> whenever
> > > he wants to act against his perceived enemies (South Korea, Japan or the
> > > US).
> >
> >
> > As bad as the Iraqis have it, the North Koreans have it worse. These are
> > people who try to escape to _China_, fer chrissakes!
>
> I think that if you were starving you would not think twice about
> escaping anywhere, even to Canada ;-)
>
> But the nature of the north korean regime and how it acts towards
> its own people is pretty irrelevant to what kind of threat it poses to
> other people. Russia is the most brutal regime on earth today going
> by how it treats its own citizens (in Chechnya), but it poses no threat
> to anyone else at the moment.
The choice is between either dealing with it now, when it is not a
threat to us, or dealing with it later, when it may be capable of
hitting American cities with missiles.
I would prefer to deal with it now, for fairly obvious reasons. Unlike
you, I live very near the largest city in the US that a North Korean
missile is likely to be able to hit.
> North Korea is a paper tiger. But Bush has from Day 1 done his
> utmost to portray it as a great threat and sabotage Kim Dae-Jungs
> sunshine policy, because he wants and needs an enemy to justify
> his perverse military spending and in particular NMD.
The Shunshine policy isn't accomplishing anything. NK's using it to
extract concessions from SK, which are being used to prop up NK's
government and is prolonging the suffering of the NK people.
Appeasement is the wrong course of action when dealing with dictators.
That's as true now as it was in the 1930s, and it pains me that europe
has forgotten this lesson.
> Todays quiz:
> One of the following two countries has used weapons of mass
> destruction against the other. Which one?
> 1. USA
> 2. North Korea
WMDs? What kind?
> > > In our view, it is
> > > considerably more democratic and less fundamentalistic, even less
> involved
> > > in supporting terrorism than that cosseted US ally, Saudi Arabia.
> >
> > ...nevermind the freakin' boatful of weapons Iran tried to ship to
> > Arafat, hm?
>
> As if the US never sold any weapons to Israel, eh?
Do you think it more likely that the weapons Iran was shipping to Arafat
would be used against the IDF, or israeli civilians?
> I really fail to understand what the big deal was about that ship.
> Either any weapons sales to either party in that conflict is despicable,
> or both Israel and the palestinians have exactly the same right to
> obtain weapons. Let us get this straight. Palestine is illegally
> occupied territory.
Illegally?
Conquered by force of arms, you mean. In a war the other side started.
Traditionally, that gives them clear title.
> Under international law, palestinians have a right
> to defend themselves, by force if so be it.
International law, again. Okay, Jonivar, here's your chance- what Treaty
with the relevant neighbors has Israel violated? Anyone? Anyone? What
treaty is there that says that you cannot defend yourself if attacked?
And when did Israel invade any of it's neighbors without some blatant
provocation, such as being shelled by howitzers and mortars, which are
traditionally condiered to be just cause for a retaliatory action?
> For a country bristling
> with the greatest arsenal in the region, including nuclear and probably
> also chemical weapons, to profess moral outrage at weapons being
> sold to the other side in the conflict, which has absolutely nothing,
It's interesting to know that you consider mortars to be 'absolutely
nothing'. Ditto for AK-47s, RPGs, and various explosives. Shit, the
survivalists over in Idaho would be delighted to have access to such
things.
> just beggars belief. For the US to go along with it can only be put
> down to them having just one eye to see with, probably because of
> the big beam sitting across the other one.
>
> If this is all you have as examples of iranian support for "terrorism"
> you are really clutching at straws.
Do you really want to know what I'm afraid of?
That the Palestinians will get the idea that a boatload of weapons will
make a damn bit of difference, try to do something really stupid, and
get slaughtered by the IDF. So long as they they know they're totally
outclassed in armaments, they won't do anything terminally stupid, and
there's a chance- however small- of a negotiated settlement eventually.
Shipping the Palestinians weapons does not help _anyone_, least of all
the palestinans.
> > > It is also
> > > undergoing a difficult transition and the least that can be said is that
> its
> > > inclusion in the "axis of evil" wasn't helpful at all.
> >
> > Oh, no, it was *very* helpful. You see, they'd been hosting an afghan
> > warlord
>
> Oh yes, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The darling of CIA and ISI in the 1980s.
> (And, at that time, Osama bin Ladens mentor, when bin Laden was
> directly sponsored by CIA)
> Someone with a virulent hatred of shia muslims, who would rather
> destroy the entiry country than share power with the Iran-backed
> seven-party alliance.
>
> The amazing thing is that the iranians ever allowed him into the country
> and did not expel him immediately to be dismembered by the Taliban.
There's also a rumor that they've got an Egyptian Doctor the US has
great interest in. And possibly someone else.
If you need to flee from an enemy, and the country to the north is where
the enemy is operating from, and the country to the south and east is
the ally of that enemy, but the country to the west calls your enemy
'the great satan', which way do you run?
Remember, there are many people in this world who believe 'the enemy of
my enemy is my ally', and I daresay some of them were in afghanistan.
Shake the tree, see what falls out. One of the oldest tricks in the
book.
You guys have really misestimated Dubya, you know. Granted, the man
isn't a physicist, but he's smart enough to pick good people and listen
to them, and some of those people are very smart indeed.
> > 444 days. 'Great Satan'. A USMC barracks in Beiruit. 'Death to America'.
> > And others.
> >
> > What are you having a hard time understanding?
>
> Motes and beams. Arguments between pots and kettles involving the
> colour black.
>
> Rodrigo mentioned overthrowing a democratically elected government
> to bring in a brutal dictatorship. The US embassy was the headquarters
> of the US war against the iranian people.
Stuff the hyperbole, Jonivar- this isn't an ATTAC meeting. If the US was
waging war against a people, a hell of a lot of people would be dead.
You'd have grounds for saying we were supporting- not waging- a war
against the iranian government, but I guess that wasn't dramatic enough.
Personal pet peeve about activists: the truth is rarely dramatic enough
to suit them, so they have to give it a little more punch by using more
impressive language that kinda sorta means the same thing, but not as
accurately as it did before it was rewritten. And then the rewrite gets
rewritten by someone else.
Feh.
> USS Vicennes; a civilian airliner deliberately shot down, killing 180.
> No compensation has ever been paid, and the responsible have not
> been brought to justice.
Do you really think a US warship would shoot down a civilian airliner
intentionally?
> 80 innocent people killed in a bomb attack in Beirut (while the leader
> of Hizbollah escaped unhurt).
>
> Is not "Great Satan" merely the mirror image of "Evil Empire" or
> "Axis of Evil"?
What you see in a mirror is a reflection, Jonivar. Not a copy.
> As i said, motes and beams.
>
> > Do you think ignoring Sharon is going to make it better? Do you think
> > that the Israelis should just ignore the occasional not-so-smart-bomb,
> > the odd mortar round, a few RPGs, and intermittent sniping?
> >
> > If I had to live under those conditions, I wouldn't be passively sitting
> > there and taking it.
>
> Why are you then demanding that the palestinians do just that?
Why is it that every time I hear about what the Israelis do, it is in
retaliation for a Palestinian attack?
> Motes and beams.
I'd rather have a mote in my eye than my head up an ass.
> > > when
> > > Palestinian civilian installations (the Gaza port and airport as well as
> > > Palestinian TV) which were paid for with EU money at the behest of the
> > > Clinton administration are destroyed by Israeli F-16s and Apaches paid
> for
> > > by US money, don't you think we have somewhat of a motive of grievance?
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> > To say 'we paid for something and the stuff you paid for destroyed it'
> > without considering what they were being used for is to ignore very
> > relevant information.
>
> Yes, tax offices and schools are the bases and roots of terrorism.
> As we all know.
When the schools are teaching the students that martyrdom by killing
israelis is a wonderful thing? Why yes, they are.
> By that logic, there are a lot of legitimate targets in Israel. In fact,
> it sounds suspiciously like the Islamic Jihad "logic".
The difference being that we have the capability to act in ways that
they do not, and there is the proof that your analogy is false. If we
did think that way, they would be *gone*.
> What i really cannot understand is how a country that bristles with
> weapons of mass destruction and has actually used them, that pushes
> weapons here, there and everywhere, sponsors terrorism all over
> the place, and has invaded more countries the past 50 years than
> any other country in history, can profess great moral outrage about
> others allegedly (with often little evidence) dabbling in such things
> on a small scale.
<sarcasm>
It's because they're amateurs. Instead of taking decisive action to
resolve the matter or taking steps towards some overall plan, they
choose to harass and annoy for years on end just for the sake of pissing
off the other guy. Then it gets out of hand, and becomes a major crisis
that they're not able to deal with, and _we_ get sucked into trying to
clean up their shit, and the rest of the planet bitches at us if we
don't.
Being a superpower is not without it's annoyances. Everybody expects you
to solve their problems, and if something goes wrong, it's our fault,
because everyone knows the superpower is all-knowing, all-seeing, and
all-fucking-powerful, so whatever happens did so because the superpower
wanted it to be that way, so we always get the blame.
</sarcasm>
That kind of idiocy makes me wish there was a bomb that would only kill
stupid people.
> Some guy from Arafat and Sharons region once said something
> about motes and beams. I wish they both, along with Dubya Bush
> and the rest of the lot, would once in a while reflect on that.
The quality of your posts has declined. You used to be high on facts and
thoughtful analysis, and low on hyperbole and false comparisons. I miss
the jonivar of old.
Rodrigo Calvo de No
> In article <a53gos$2gt9$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
>
> > "rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:rosignol-EF2CD9...@news.nwlink.com...
> > > In article <a52aru$15t9$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> > > "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
>
> [zap]
>
> > > Then why do the French and German governments seem to be laying
> > > groundwork for picking up some fat contracts once the sanctions are
> > > lifted?
> >
> > Why did the US government (pre-11-9) help an US company in its
negotiations
> > with the Taliban for laying a gas pipeline all the way through
Afghanistan?
>
>
> Because the alternative was a pipeline that went very near (possibly
> through) a place called Chechnya. Surely you've heard of it, yes?
>
There was a rather better alternative through another place called
Iran...which, say what you want, would still have been better than Taliban
country.
> In any case, the matter is moot, as the pipeline will not pass through
> afghanistan.
>
>
> > Money, that's why. Also, while I see this accusation often repeated in
the
> > US media, I've never seen any evidence substantiating it.
>
>
> Oh, boy. Okay, free clue- US companies are forbidden from doing business
> with Iran. Care to guess who isn't?
>
Indeed. Our companies are allowed to do business in Iran and Cuba as well.
The European electorate is not so keen on being told where European
companies should do business and where not.
Whether some European governments are putting a lot of effort into actually
encouraging such deals is an entirely different matter.
>
> > From over here, european reluctance to go after him seems to
> > > have more than a whiff of reluctance to throw all that work away.
> > >
> >
> > What work? That's preposterous. Even from a purely pecuniary point of
view,
> > a Saddam-less Iraq probably holds a lot more scope for contracts for
> > everybody than the current government, even if the sanctions were
lifted.
> > (BTW, I've noticed that the Bush administration has made some noise
about
> > the "blatant sanction-busting"...but it hasn't escaped my attention that
> > they haven't pointed any fingers. Maybe because the most notorious
> > sanction-buster is Turkey...)
>
>
> Russia, actually. The most blatant would be Jordan, with barely the
> pretense of border controls, but the Russians make up for it in
> chutzpah, smuggling oil out by the supertanker.
>
Russia does not share a border with Iraq. And being a large oil exporter
itself, is it possibly the least interested country in the world in
assisting Iraqi oil exports. Also, I'm not aware of Russia having a
noticeable tanker fleet. Jordan hardly exports any oil and its own
consumption is rather limited. But the one border which is long enough and
very porous is Turkey's. And Turkey, being rather short of money and in
rather bad relations with both Russia and most of the Arab world *needs* the
Iraqi oil badly.
>
> [zap]
>
> > > I'd say that's the main reason we haven't moved yet. If Europe would
> > > and make some constructive suggestions instead of whining about
feeling
> > > slighted and treating the Triggerhappy Texan with poorly concealed
> > > disdain,
> >
> > I think there you are exaggerating a bit, really. Anger, yes. Disdain?
> > Hardly.
>
>
> That's how it looks from over here. Aside from Blair and that guy in
> italy who's name I keep mangling (and who I don't think Bush wants to
> get too close to), the reaction from european leaders has been
> somewhat... odd.
You are forgetting my own PM, Mr. Aznar (or, according to Dubious "Anzar")
who is at least as helpful as Blair and only marginally less servile than
Berlusconi.
Sometimes I see an expression that makes me think they
> wish they could wake up from a bad dream- not a nightmare, exactly, more
> something with a dull and poorly written plot, you know?
>
Does not necessarily have much to do with Bush. They have enough trouble at
home: Jospin and Chirac can't stand each other and Schröder is starting to
come to terms with the fact that at this pace he's going to be remembered as
the least effective chancellor since WWII.
>
> > I think Bush would be happy to hear some suggestions- so long
> > > as you're willing to put some of your troops into the effort to
> > > implement them.
> > >
> >
> > Which we have done every single time. In Afghanistan you didn't even
want
> > them.
>
>
> I'm sorry to say you weren't equipped for what turned out to be a very
> unconventional war. Did you know that supply flights into our bases
> there land at night, with the runway lights off? Our pilots use
> night-vision gear that you don't have- and that's just one example.
Actually (speaking of condescending), they do have it, as they needed it to
supply Sarajevo for two whole years in all weather conditions and under
heavy gunfire. What the Europeans couldn't provide where heavy bombing
capabilities, reconnaisance and some long-haul helicopter lift.
<snip>
> > > > Howabout
> > > > > North Korea after they get their multi-stage ballistic missiles
> > working?
> > > >
> > > > And putting *what* on top of them?
> > >
> >
> > You didn't get my point. What are the North-Koreans going to put on top
of
> > those missiles? One thing is fairly established at the moment: they
haven't
> > got any nukes, never mind missile-portable ones...(it took the US more
than
> > 10 years of development to go from the one to the other).
>
>
> I'd bet on chemical weapons.
>
As the Germans found out during WWII and Saddam himself during the Gulf War,
ballistic missiles are pretty useless for carrying anything else than
nuclear warheads. Their accuracy is in the kilometer range and reentry
velocity is so high that they make quite a deep hole into the ground before
exploding, which wouldn't be very helpful for spreading chemical weapons.
The only way to do it would be to develop a system to make the warhead
explode in the air before impact, and it wouldn't be all that easy.
>
> > > That one's easy- South Korea. Stable, fairly democratic, relatively
> > > prosperous, and a country that can be counted on to pay attention to
> > > world opinion, if only because trade sanctions would throw their
economy
> > > into the toilet.
> > >
> >
> > In that case, Bush should have *listened* to the South Korean
government,
> > which was elected on a policy of engagement with North Korea (the
"sunshine
> > policy"). Instead, he has done its worst to sabotage it.
>
>
> It's not working. See my reply to Jonivar.
>
Why don't you let the South Koreans decide? I wouldn't trust Kim Jong-Il
further than I can throw a stone, but one gets the nagging suspicion that
North Korea is right now the only reason Bush can give in support of NMD,
and that now that he's about to plunge billions of dollars into that
program, he is not about to put that danger into question.
>
> [zap]
>
> > > > Anyway, it isn't as if we were much concerned about what you do on
that
> > part
> > > > of the globe. Unlike the Middle East, it isn't in our
neighbourhood...
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong. Look at a polar projection map sometime.
> > >
> >
> > There are no 10 million North Koreans living in Europe. My country has a
> > direct border with the Arab world, and the Strait of Gibraltar is a mere
5
> > miles wide.
>
>
> I wouldn't worry much about the Moroccans
I would, I have been there. It's a hellhole with 50% illiteracy rate,
rampant corruption, drug trafficking and 60-80% of all young adults wanting
to leave the country.
And the government is really fucked up.
, and the revolutionaries in
> Algeria have a much closer target to deal with.
>
They nevertheless thought the Paris Metro a worthy target five years ago. Or
didn't you hear of those attacks?
>
> > > > In our view, it is
> > > > considerably more democratic and less fundamentalistic, even less
> > involved
> > > > in supporting terrorism than that cosseted US ally, Saudi Arabia.
> > >
> > >
> > > ...nevermind the freakin' boatful of weapons Iran tried to ship to
> > > Arafat, hm?
> > >
> >
> > Saudi Arabia sent far worse to Argelia, believe me.
>
>
> Did you mean Algeria, or is that the name of a city or person?
Algeria indeed. I post late at night.
<snip>> >
> > *Our* reports are that the hardliners have been cosiderably strengthened
by
> > that sentence.
>
>
> ...and I've seen a report that an additional 'person of interest' may
> have turned up since then, and that the Iranian parliment wants to
> investigate the origin of a shipment of armaments that the Israelis
> intercepted a while back.
>
The Iranian parliament wanted to investigate that already *before* the "axis
of evil" remark. You should remember that there is a fight for power going
on in Iran and the reformers in the parliament may be interested in knowing
both who organized the weapons shipment and who alerted the Israelis. Call
me a cynic, but I suspect (and probably so does the Iranian parliament) that
it may well have been one and the same person...
> You could say that reports are mixed.
>
>
> > > What does the EU want, to be consulted every time the president makes
a
> > > speech?
> > >
> >
> > No, just that he avoids making more harm.
>
>
> Short-term disruption may result in a significantly improved situation
> in the long run. What do you prefer, status quo, or possible improvement?
>
I prefer the hypocratic approach: "First, do no harm". I don't want to hear
again that "we had to destroy the village in order to liberate it".
>
> > > > It is not as if we
> > > > were in very friendly terms with Iran either: Britain had the
Rushdie
> > > > affair, Germany the case of that businessman sentenced to death for
> > adultery
> > > > and France caught the Iranian secret service murdering a former
Iranian
> > PM
> > > > on its territory. But we definitely don't understand the US
obsession
> > with
> > > > that country. Or maybe we do...
> > >
> > >
> > > 444 days. 'Great Satan'. A USMC barracks in Beiruit. 'Death to
America'.
> > > And others.
> > >
> >
> > Did the Iranians ever organise a coup d'état against a democratically
> > elected US government? Have you ever heard of Moussadegh? If you had,
you
> > may understand why the "Great Satan".
> >
> > > What are you having a hard time understanding?
> > >
> >
> > Your ignorance.
>
>
> You've never heard the old joke about wars being god's way of teaching
> Americans geography, have you? I hear that one dates back to the 19th
> century...
Well, in this case it is more a matter of history. In 1953, the
democratically elected PM of Iran decided to nationalise the mostly
British-owned Iranian oil industry. MI6 requested help from the CIA into
stopping this by the simple remedy of organizing a putsch to overthrow him
and reinstate the Shah's absolute rule. It worked, and the severe
reppression that followed, greatly assisted by American intelligence created
the reservoir of resentment that would explode nearly 30 years later.
This was one of the West's (not jus the US') least respectable acts during
the Cold War, together with the similar operation in Guatemala on behalf of
the United Fruit Company and what may have happened (we'll know when the
documentation becomes available to the public) in Chile.
>
>
> > > > The main disagreement we have with the US hasn't to do with the
American
> > > > treatment of either of those countries. It is the US treatment of
Israel
> > > > that infuriates most Europeans, from the man in the street to the
> > highest
> > > > "elite".
> > >
> > >
> > > ....and is totally irrelevant with regards to North Korea, Iran, and
> > > Iraq.
> > >
> >
> > Not in regard to the two latter.
>
>
> What does Yasser Arafat have to do with Iran and Iraq?
>
A lot. Everything in the Middle East is interconnected: oil, water,
pipelines, fundamentalism, the Palestinians...
Iran hates Israel because of what it considers the humiliation and murder of
Muslims. Israel has trouble digesting that it was thrown out of Lebanon by
the Iran-backed Hezbollah. Also, Israel would prefer the pipelines from the
Caspian Sea to go through its close ally Turkey (therefore ensuring its own
oil supplies) rather than through its sworn enemy Iran. The Iranian
hardliners see Israel as a useful tool to block any possible detente between
Iran and the US. Saddam still thinks (and is maybe right) that his salvation
lies only into an all-out war between Israel and the Arab world. The more he
is driven against the wall, the more he's going to attempt to precipitate
that war.
>
> > > > As seen from Europe, the US has not only failed to rein in a
> > > > complete psychopath in power (Sharon)
> > >
> > >
> > > The man was elected.
> >
> > So was Adolf Hitler.
>
>
> Yup. And the conditions in Germany were pretty bad when it happened,
> too.
Which excuses his acts as little as it does Sharon's.
>
>
> > When the Israelis decide they want someone else in
> > > charge, they'll elect someone else. In the meantime, it may be helpful
> > > for you to consider the circumstances that led to Sharon being
elected.
> >
> > We are aware of them. There are no angels in that part of the world. But
it
> > may be helpful for you to consider the circumstances that lead the
> > Palestinians to their acts.
>
>
> Let's hear them. I know the US media sucks for international news,
> that's one of the reasons I came here and started annoying all the nice
> friendly people in here. ;)
>
Yesterday night, the Israeli army shot at the president of the Palestinian
parliament (Shimon Peres offered his humblest apologies today, which raises
the question of whether the government is entirely in control of the army).
No-one was killed in that incident, but simultaneously, in another
checkpoint they shot at the car in which a Palestinian man was driving his
pregnant wife, who was about to give birth, to the hospital. The man was
killed, the woman and her father injured...That was just one night in the
occupied territories.
>
> > > > but also has continued to supply him
> > > > with high tech weapons and listen to an unprecedented extent to his
> > > > concerns.
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you think ignoring Sharon is going to make it better?
> >
> > *Certainly NOT*! That's what Bush did for the first six months of his
> > presidency. Far from ignored he needs to be sanctioned, and severely so.
>
>
> So why did you criticize us for listening to him? And what kind of
> sanction do you have in mind?
>
Stop sending him weapons for free, to start with. Israel alone takes up more
US foreign aid than any other country. After that, he should be made clear
that any gross infraction of human rights will lead to immediate
consequences in regard to trade and the freedom of movement of Israeli
citizens abroad. Does that sound drastic? Not so much if you consider that
Israel is a clear case of a country which is known to have covertly
developed weapons of mass destruction, nuclear for sure, and very likely
chemical and biological as well...
>
> > Do you think
> > > that the Israelis should just ignore the occasional not-so-smart-bomb,
> > > the odd mortar round, a few RPGs, and intermittent sniping?
> > >
> >
> > No. But if they are such a clean, democratic country, they should
refrain
> > from responding in kind.
>
>
> I think I see the essential disagreement between us. I am afraid it is
> not something we are likely to change our minds on.
>
> I trust appeals to someone's better nature much less than I trust the
> other person knowing that if they pick a fight with me, they're going to
> get hurt.
>
You haven't understood our disagreement, then. I agree with that. I do
however also think that, while a democratic state is entitled to use
violence in its defence (what are police for, after all?) some very strict
safeguards are needed, and I do not see them in Israel. Shin Beth can not be
allowed to be judge, prosecutor and executioner in one and in secret, for
instance.
>
> > As we see it from Europe, the Israelis and
> > Palestinians differ little in their tactics (bombings, assasinations and
so
> > on), only in their firepower and in the small matter that it is the
Israelis
> > who are occupying foreign territory.
>
>
> Bombing an evacuated building vs. bombing a mall, bar mitzvah, or
> resturant full of civilians.
For an army which only bombs "evacuated buildings", Tsahal seem to be making
an awful lot of casualties (see above my account of what happened last
night). Just the other day they proudly announced the killing of something
like two or three dozen Palestinian policemen in a single attack. Maybe that
particular building wasn't so "evacuated" as you seem to think.
One thing is clear: there have been a lot more Palestinian than Israeli
deaths (and the Israeli death counts also include Arab Israelis killed by
fellow Israelis). You may excuse me if I wonder whether "self-defence"
really needs so many killings.
>
> Assassinating a random passerby vs. assassinating someone thought to be
> the one who ordered a bombing or built the bomb.
>
Firstly, neither is right. This is not even a matter of whether you accept
the death penalty or not: in these cases there has been no court and no
lawyers. Democratic countries are not known to act that way, and when
they've done so, they've often ceased to be democratic as a direct result.
You have to understand that this is not just a matter of whether the Israeli
government is better or worse than Palestinian terrorists. It is about
whether it is good enough to deserve all the very considerable material
support it gets (and not just from the US, but from the EU as well, although
Israelis may often not be aware of that).
Secondly, the Israelis have been known to hit the wrong targets in their
assassinations. In fact that has happened quite often, and "collateral
damage" has also been rather copious. Will you bother to explain the
difference to the victims'relatives?
> Yeah, small differences. Insignificant, you could say. Trivial, even.
>
When there are such numbers of innocent victims on both sides, the
differences become indeed trivial.
>
> [zap]
>
> > > ...because they're a long way from being all civilians...
> > >
> >
> > Have a look at the (long) Palestinian casualty lists. Look at the ages.
> > Consider the 5:1 casualty ratio.
>
>
> Do you remember the first intifada, when kids would go and throw rocks
> at soldiers in riot gear, trying to provoke them into shooting at them?
>
> Do you understand why?
>
Because they couldn't throw anything worse? Anyway, no matter how much he's
provoked, if a soldier then shoots and kills one of the kids, he is the
killer, not anybody else. In particular if the soldier had no business being
there in the first place! Who is provoking who?
The Israeli position here is rather hypocritical: on one side they say that
they need to maintain their occupation and continue receiving military
assistance because they are vulnerable and weak; on the other hand they
dismiss the huge Palestinian casualties by saying that the Palestinians try
to compensate for *their* weakness by producing martyrs for the media.
>
> > > > when
> > > > Palestinian civilian installations (the Gaza port and airport as
well as
> > > > Palestinian TV) which were paid for with EU money at the behest of
the
> > > > Clinton administration are destroyed by Israeli F-16s and Apaches
paid
> > for
> > > > by US money, don't you think we have somewhat of a motive of
grievance?
> > >
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > To say 'we paid for something and the stuff you paid for destroyed it'
> > > without considering what they were being used for is to ignore very
> > > relevant information.
> > >
> >
> > What were the port and airport being used for? The airport certainly for
> > nothing, since it had been closed months ago. Check *your* information
> > again.
>
>
> Smuggling in weapons would be the obvious reason.
>
The airport was closed. It didn't work. Period. And smuggling (as the
Israelis themselves showed) can be stopped by other methods than destroying
the port (especially when any weapon smugglers can discharge their loads at
the beach besides anyway).
>
> [zap]
>
> > Are you blind or can't you read the upper left corner? I see "WSJ.com
> > OPINION JOURNAL from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Editorial Page". The WSJ's
own
> > pages are for subscriptors only.
>
>
> Two things- first, the one link I found that was to something written by
> someone who worked for the WSJ, was by the editor of the 'Leisure and
> Arts' page. All of the other links were a 'best of the web' roundup, to
> the BBC, Observer, CNN, New York Times, and so on.
>
The matter were not the content of the links, but the comments attached to
them.
> Second, if you think that was hostility, you need to reread the article.
> He was being condescending and dismissive- the writer thought Europe was
> unworthy of hostility because Europe had ceased to _matter_.
>
> I would consider that worse than hostility, but it's your call.
>
I do consider that schoolyard hostility of a particularly mean kind.
R.
Sol Taibi
> "Mark Dawkins" <daw...@aracnet.com> schreef in bericht
> news:a50or...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Privately, the president rails against spineless
> > "European elites", the contemptuous phrase increasingly used in the
> > conservative press to refer to European governments.
>
> Which is a very curious charge, to say the least, considering that, by and
> large, the European governments and "elites" are far more considerate with
> American concerns than the proverbial "man in the street". Since the
> expression is very reminiscent of the "metropolitan elites" attacked by the
> British Tories in the last elections, I must suspect that the Republicans
> have been listening for too long to their fellow conservatives from Britain,
Other way around, actually. Ever since Reagan and Thatcher.
> arguably the least qualified people to give anybody a correct image of
> European society...A pity, really, since otherwise the US government would
> understand that the European growls stem not from the alleged
> anti-Americanism of an alleged elite, but from real disagreement at
> grassroots level towards much of current US foreign policy, especially in
> the Middle East.
> This said, the hostility towards Europe in, say, the op-ed pages of the Wall
> Street Journal beats the anti-Americanism of even the most far left
> newspaper in Europe by far.
Few Americans read the Wall Street Journal.
Anti-European and anti-British sentiment in the US are one and
the same in most cases. This has little to do with the EU or the
French foreign minister's latest snide remarks. Differences over
foreign policy only serve to intensify an existing sentiment in
certain people. Not just Republicans, either.
viz. "Are you the Europeans whose asses we saved
or the Europeans whose asses we kicked?" etc.
rosignol
"Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
> "rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht
> news:rosignol-EE4F7D...@nntp-in-news.nwlink.com...
> > In article <a53gos$2gt9$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> > "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
[zap]
> > Because the alternative was a pipeline that went very near (possibly
> > through) a place called Chechnya. Surely you've heard of it, yes?
> >
>
> There was a rather better alternative through another place called
> Iran...which, say what you want, would still have been better than Taliban
> country.
That's like offering someone a choice of between being shot in the left
foot, or the right foot. You do know they still call the US 'the Great
Satan' there, right? Run a pipeline through that place? Are you insane?
[zap]
> Indeed. Our companies are allowed to do business in Iran and Cuba as well.
> The European electorate is not so keen on being told where European
> companies should do business and where not.
What do you think sanctions _are_?
> Whether some European governments are putting a lot of effort into actually
> encouraging such deals is an entirely different matter.
Such deals are still seen as a way to gain political influence, and
european governments (particularly the French) are as active in that
arena as ever.
[zap]
> > Russia, actually. The most blatant would be Jordan, with barely the
> > pretense of border controls, but the Russians make up for it in
> > chutzpah, smuggling oil out by the supertanker.
> >
>
> Russia does not share a border with Iraq. And being a large oil exporter
> itself, is it possibly the least interested country in the world in
> assisting Iraqi oil exports.
Because the government of Iraq will sell the oil for pennies per gallon
so they can get money that doesn't have to go into the humainitarian aid
fund.
You are being extraordinarily nďeve.
> Also, I'm not aware of Russia having a noticeable tanker fleet.
The flag on the tanker is irrelevant. Follow the money.
[zap]
> Sometimes I see an expression that makes me think they
> > wish they could wake up from a bad dream- not a nightmare, exactly, more
> > something with a dull and poorly written plot, you know?
> >
>
> Does not necessarily have much to do with Bush. They have enough trouble at
> home: Jospin and Chirac can't stand each other and Schröder is starting to
> come to terms with the fact that at this pace he's going to be remembered as
> the least effective chancellor since WWII.
Mmmm. Think they should have kept Kohl?
> > > I think Bush would be happy to hear some suggestions- so long
> > > > as you're willing to put some of your troops into the effort to
> > > > implement them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which we have done every single time. In Afghanistan you didn't even
> want
> > > them.
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry to say you weren't equipped for what turned out to be a very
> > unconventional war. Did you know that supply flights into our bases
> > there land at night, with the runway lights off? Our pilots use
> > night-vision gear that you don't have- and that's just one example.
>
> Actually (speaking of condescending), they do have it, as they needed it to
> supply Sarajevo for two whole years in all weather conditions and under
> heavy gunfire. What the Europeans couldn't provide where heavy bombing
> capabilities, reconnaisance and some long-haul helicopter lift.
The newest stuff, that solves the depth-perception problems?
Leaving most of Europe out of the military action afghanistan wasn't a
deliberate snub- what we needed most was intelligence, and on that
Europe has come through handsomely. The averted attack on the embassy in
Paris, and now another one in Rome, for example.
[zap]
> > I'd bet on chemical weapons.
> >
>
> As the Germans found out during WWII and Saddam himself during the Gulf War,
> ballistic missiles are pretty useless for carrying anything else than
> nuclear warheads. Their accuracy is in the kilometer range and reentry
> velocity is so high that they make quite a deep hole into the ground before
> exploding, which wouldn't be very helpful for spreading chemical weapons.
> The only way to do it would be to develop a system to make the warhead
> explode in the air before impact, and it wouldn't be all that easy.
Sure, it's easy. Just use a GPS reciever- when you're aiming at a city,
who cares if it's off by ~10 meters?
[zap]
> > It's not working. See my reply to Jonivar.
> >
>
> Why don't you let the South Koreans decide? I wouldn't trust Kim Jong-Il
> further than I can throw a stone, but one gets the nagging suspicion that
> North Korea is right now the only reason Bush can give in support of NMD,
> and that now that he's about to plunge billions of dollars into that
> program, he is not about to put that danger into question.
Starting a war with North Korea is unlikely. Offering the senior people
comfortable exile somewhere in exchange for reunification isn't- but in
order to make exile look good, you have to convince them that the status
quo of having an entire country as a playground isn't going to last. So
you have to put some pressure on them, and that's what Bush is doing.
As far as the billions of dollars is concerned, it's only money.
[zap]
> > I wouldn't worry much about the Moroccans
>
> I would, I have been there. It's a hellhole with 50% illiteracy rate,
> rampant corruption, drug trafficking and 60-80% of all young adults wanting
> to leave the country.
> And the government is really fucked up.
Sounds kinda like Mexico, except for the literacy rate.
> , and the revolutionaries in
> > Algeria have a much closer target to deal with.
> >
>
> They nevertheless thought the Paris Metro a worthy target five years ago. Or
> didn't you hear of those attacks?
Nope.
[zap]
> > > *Our* reports are that the hardliners have been cosiderably strengthened
> by
> > > that sentence.
> >
> >
> > ...and I've seen a report that an additional 'person of interest' may
> > have turned up since then, and that the Iranian parliment wants to
> > investigate the origin of a shipment of armaments that the Israelis
> > intercepted a while back.
> >
>
> The Iranian parliament wanted to investigate that already *before* the "axis
> of evil" remark. You should remember that there is a fight for power going
> on in Iran and the reformers in the parliament may be interested in knowing
> both who organized the weapons shipment and who alerted the Israelis. Call
> me a cynic, but I suspect (and probably so does the Iranian parliament) that
> it may well have been one and the same person...
Yup. And the reactionaries in government have veto power over all
legislation, disqualify political candidates they don't like, shut down
newspapers at will, and have even been implicated in using the secret
police to assassinate reformers.
It is not unreasonable to think that even if they find out who did it,
not much will come of it.
[zap]
> > Short-term disruption may result in a significantly improved situation
> > in the long run. What do you prefer, status quo, or possible improvement?
> >
>
> I prefer the hypocratic approach: "First, do no harm". I don't want to hear
> again that "we had to destroy the village in order to liberate it".
...to stretch your analogy a bit, you're relying on herbal remedies when
an operation is necessary.
[zap]
> > You've never heard the old joke about wars being god's way of teaching
> > Americans geography, have you? I hear that one dates back to the 19th
> > century...
>
> Well, in this case it is more a matter of history. In 1953, the
> democratically elected PM of Iran decided to nationalise the mostly
> British-owned Iranian oil industry. MI6 requested help from the CIA into
> stopping this by the simple remedy of organizing a putsch to overthrow him
> and reinstate the Shah's absolute rule. It worked, and the severe
> reppression that followed, greatly assisted by American intelligence created
> the reservoir of resentment that would explode nearly 30 years later.
> This was one of the West's (not jus the US') least respectable acts during
> the Cold War, together with the similar operation in Guatemala on behalf of
> the United Fruit Company and what may have happened (we'll know when the
> documentation becomes available to the public) in Chile.
And the Iranians still on speaking terms with the Brits, of course.
Figures.
[zap]
> > What does Yasser Arafat have to do with Iran and Iraq?
> >
>
> A lot. Everything in the Middle East is interconnected: oil, water,
> pipelines, fundamentalism, the Palestinians...
>
> Iran hates Israel because of what it considers the humiliation and murder of
> Muslims. Israel has trouble digesting that it was thrown out of Lebanon by
> the Iran-backed Hezbollah. Also, Israel would prefer the pipelines from the
> Caspian Sea to go through its close ally Turkey (therefore ensuring its own
> oil supplies) rather than through its sworn enemy Iran. The Iranian
> hardliners see Israel as a useful tool to block any possible detente between
> Iran and the US. Saddam still thinks (and is maybe right) that his salvation
> lies only into an all-out war between Israel and the Arab world. The more he
> is driven against the wall, the more he's going to attempt to precipitate
> that war.
...except that the Arab world knows they'd get their asses kicked
_again_, and won't do any such thing.
> > > > > As seen from Europe, the US has not only failed to rein in a
> > > > > complete psychopath in power (Sharon)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The man was elected.
> > >
> > > So was Adolf Hitler.
> >
> >
> > Yup. And the conditions in Germany were pretty bad when it happened,
> > too.
>
> Which excuses his acts as little as it does Sharon's.
You missed the point. Consider what caused the electorate to vote for
these people. Nothing happens in a vaccum.
[zap]
> > Let's hear them. I know the US media sucks for international news,
> > that's one of the reasons I came here and started annoying all the nice
> > friendly people in here. ;)
> >
>
> Yesterday night, the Israeli army shot at the president of the Palestinian
> parliament (Shimon Peres offered his humblest apologies today, which raises
> the question of whether the government is entirely in control of the army).
> No-one was killed in that incident, but simultaneously, in another
> checkpoint they shot at the car in which a Palestinian man was driving his
> pregnant wife, who was about to give birth, to the hospital. The man was
> killed, the woman and her father injured...That was just one night in the
> occupied territories.
No, that was at the checkpoints leading out of the palestinian areas.
Put a bunch of scared twenty year olds with guns in a tense situation,
and accidents will happen.
We did hear about the pregnant woman.
> > > > > but also has continued to supply him
> > > > > with high tech weapons and listen to an unprecedented extent to his
> > > > > concerns.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you think ignoring Sharon is going to make it better?
> > >
> > > *Certainly NOT*! That's what Bush did for the first six months of his
> > > presidency. Far from ignored he needs to be sanctioned, and severely so.
> >
> >
> > So why did you criticize us for listening to him? And what kind of
> > sanction do you have in mind?
> >
>
> Stop sending him weapons for free, to start with. Israel alone takes up more
> US foreign aid than any other country.
Yup. As one of the conditions of the Camp David peace accords, Uncle Sam
sends a check with many zeros on it to Israel _and_ another one to Egypt
every year. Call it checkbook diplomacy if you like, but it works.
> After that, he should be made clear
> that any gross infraction of human rights will lead to immediate
> consequences in regard to trade and the freedom of movement of Israeli
> citizens abroad. Does that sound drastic? Not so much if you consider that
> Israel is a clear case of a country which is known to have covertly
> developed weapons of mass destruction, nuclear for sure, and very likely
> chemical and biological as well...
They're also a country who's neighboring states have decided to invade
them en masse. Repeatedly. If I was in that situation, I'd have every
weapon I could lay hands on, in quantity, and make damn sure everyone
knew I was ready to use them.
[zap]
> > I think I see the essential disagreement between us. I am afraid it is
> > not something we are likely to change our minds on.
> >
> > I trust appeals to someone's better nature much less than I trust the
> > other person knowing that if they pick a fight with me, they're going to
> > get hurt.
> >
>
> You haven't understood our disagreement, then. I agree with that. I do
> however also think that, while a democratic state is entitled to use
> violence in its defence (what are police for, after all?) some very strict
> safeguards are needed, and I do not see them in Israel. Shin Beth can not be
> allowed to be judge, prosecutor and executioner in one and in secret, for
> instance.
You'd feel better if there was a secret court reviewing evidence and
saying who Shin Beth may or may not assassinate?
Hm. I can agree with that, actually- I wouldn't want the CIA running
around whacking anyone that got put on their list of bad guys without
some kind of review.
[zap]
> > Bombing an evacuated building vs. bombing a mall, bar mitzvah, or
> > resturant full of civilians.
>
> For an army which only bombs "evacuated buildings", Tsahal seem to be making
> an awful lot of casualties (see above my account of what happened last
> night). Just the other day they proudly announced the killing of something
> like two or three dozen Palestinian policemen in a single attack. Maybe that
> particular building wasn't so "evacuated" as you seem to think.
For several months, they targeted evacuated buildings- I think they may
have been calling ahead and warning them. Didn't work. So they stopped
hitting the empty ones.
> One thing is clear: there have been a lot more Palestinian than Israeli
> deaths (and the Israeli death counts also include Arab Israelis killed by
> fellow Israelis). You may excuse me if I wonder whether "self-defence"
> really needs so many killings.
Comparing the numbers of dead is a bad way to determine who is in the
wrong.
> > Assassinating a random passerby vs. assassinating someone thought to be
> > the one who ordered a bombing or built the bomb.
> >
>
> Firstly, neither is right. This is not even a matter of whether you accept
> the death penalty or not: in these cases there has been no court and no
> lawyers. Democratic countries are not known to act that way, and when
> they've done so, they've often ceased to be democratic as a direct result.
Actually, most have, in the past- but not inside their own territory.
> You have to understand that this is not just a matter of whether the Israeli
> government is better or worse than Palestinian terrorists.
If they were just killing random people, like the palestinian suicide
bombers are, they'd be equivalent. But what I've seen leads me to
believe that the Israelis are striking at 1) the people they think are
directly responsible for the attacks, and 2) at someone they think has
the power to prevent the attacks and is deliberately choosing not to.
IMO, this is reasonable, even if I think they're wrong about 2).
> It is about
> whether it is good enough to deserve all the very considerable material
> support it gets (and not just from the US, but from the EU as well, although
> Israelis may often not be aware of that).
Well, we're still giving them stuff, so it looks like we think so.
> Secondly, the Israelis have been known to hit the wrong targets in their
> assassinations. In fact that has happened quite often, and "collateral
> damage" has also been rather copious. Will you bother to explain the
> difference to the victims'relatives?
And the US hit a red cross warehouse in afghanistan- twice. And a bunch
of anti-taliban fighters were killed in a raid by US special forces, up
close and personal. And there have been a few missiles that hit people
who turned out to be someone other than who we thought they were.
Accidents happen, and I expect the israelis would like to avoid them
just as much as we would.
[zap]
> > Do you remember the first intifada, when kids would go and throw rocks
> > at soldiers in riot gear, trying to provoke them into shooting at them?
> >
> > Do you understand why?
> >
>
> Because they couldn't throw anything worse? Anyway, no matter how much he's
> provoked, if a soldier then shoots and kills one of the kids, he is the
> killer, not anybody else. In particular if the soldier had no business being
> there in the first place! Who is provoking who?
What kind of monster sends a child out to assault a soldier, hoping that
the soldier will harm the child, so that the monster can go to the world
and say 'this soldier harmed one of my children'?
That's what the Israelis are fighting against. They're not angels,
granted- but what they're fighting against is worse.
> The Israeli position here is rather hypocritical: on one side they say that
> they need to maintain their occupation and continue receiving military
> assistance because they are vulnerable and weak; on the other hand they
> dismiss the huge Palestinian casualties by saying that the Palestinians try
> to compensate for *their* weakness by producing martyrs for the media.
The palestinians know they cannot win by military means. So they fight
in the media, trying to turn public opinion against the Israelis- and
they're good at it. Unfortunately for them, the population of Israel's
patron has an obliviousness to what happens outside of their own country
that is nothing less than legendary... and we've all seen what happens
when you attack the US at home.
It's not going to work.
[zap]
> > > Are you blind or can't you read the upper left corner? I see "WSJ.com
> > > OPINION JOURNAL from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Editorial Page". The WSJ's
> own
> > > pages are for subscriptors only.
> >
> >
> > Two things- first, the one link I found that was to something written by
> > someone who worked for the WSJ, was by the editor of the 'Leisure and
> > Arts' page. All of the other links were a 'best of the web' roundup, to
> > the BBC, Observer, CNN, New York Times, and so on.
> >
>
> The matter were not the content of the links, but the comments attached to
> them.
>
>
> > Second, if you think that was hostility, you need to reread the article.
> > He was being condescending and dismissive- the writer thought Europe was
> > unworthy of hostility because Europe had ceased to _matter_.
> >
> > I would consider that worse than hostility, but it's your call.
> >
>
> I do consider that schoolyard hostility of a particularly mean kind.
Can you prove him wrong?
From here, it looks like certain Europeans convinced themselves that
history was over and military strength no langer mattered, that a
sophisticated culture of enlightenment and compassion could somehow
compensate for not being able to kill your enemies (Enemies? What
enemies?), and that what happened outside of Europe wasn't their
concern- 'let the Americans deal with it'.
And now, certain nations get to wake up to the unpleasant realization
that it has fallen so far behind that the US is no longer in the
position of having to cooperate with them to achieve it's objectives.
Then they get pissy because they're not being consulted on matters where
their cooperation is not necessary- after years of 'let America deal
with it'- and is indignant when the US acts 'unilaterally', i.e.,
"doesn't consult us".
Please excuse me for thinking certain european governments are being
quite schizoid about this, and other european governments remaining
silent on the matter is leading the US to believe the one making the
noise speaks for all of them.
Andreas Prucha
news:rosignol-EF2CD9...@news.nwlink.com:
> Then why do the French and German governments seem to be laying
> groundwork for picking up some fat contracts once the sanctions are
> lifted? From over here, european reluctance to go after him seems to
> have more than a whiff of reluctance to throw all that work away.
I do not think so. Some stupid politicans might maintain close contacts,
but it does not happen on a regular basis. BTW, the US also had close
contacts to quite strange regimes: To the Taliban because in order to help
Unocal. Anyway, such things are always wrong and always a big mistake.
> I'd say that's the main reason we haven't moved yet. If Europe would
> and make some constructive suggestions instead of whining about feeling
> slighted and treating the Triggerhappy Texan with poorly concealed
> disdain, I think Bush would be happy to hear some suggestions- so long
> as you're willing to put some of your troops into the effort to
> implement them.
And what if the suggestions do not need troops?
> I think this is less likely than you do. The Taliban is gone, the
> fundamentalist belief that Allah will make them invincible is
> discredited.
I doubt it. The Taliban are /not/ gone. The followers just wear other
"clothes" now. Or do you think a follower of the taliban confess this now?
The killing of Pearl is not a really good sign.
> The difference is one of how power is attained. In the US, and to a
> lesser extent Iran, a significant proportion of the government is
> elected.
>
> In North Korea and Iraq, there are no elections. You obey, or you are
> executed, and the people in charge are making decisions based not on
> what is best for the country, but best for them, personally.
I completely agree.
>
> ...nevermind the freakin' boatful of weapons Iran tried to ship to
> Arafat, hm?
>
And Europeans get weapons from the US. The US gets weapons form the EU. The
Isrealis get weapons from both. And so on. That's bad. But it's always bad.
However, more important is what the weapos are used for.
> The rally was for the home audience. Closing the offices was a
> demonstration that they were willing to cooperate... and I find it
> amazing that the EU doesn't realize what happened was precisely what we
> *wanted* to happen, and has chosen that to be unhappy about. To us, it
> is a non-issue (as Iran has shown that it is willing to cooperate), and
> for the EU to be grumpy about it is an annoying distraction that makes
> us wonder if there's some other issue, or if the EU is trying to suck
> up to Iran.
IIRC they were already cooperating at this time, so the Bush's speech was
not very helpful, IMO.
>
> What does the EU want, to be consulted every time the president makes a
> speech?
>
Ermm, no. Just that he thinks before speaking.
>
> 444 days. 'Great Satan'. A USMC barracks in Beiruit. 'Death to
> America'. And others.
>
> What are you having a hard time understanding?
I would not take this too serious after Bush's speech. That was just the
answer. I mean, if Bush can call the Iran evil, the people there can also
call the US evil. Both is quite stupid, but I would not take this too
serious. IMO Iran is developing quite well and esp. the younger people
/want/ a more open society. They tend to prefere a more "western"
lifestyle. Public attacks are not very helpful.
> No.
>
> To say 'we paid for something and the stuff you paid for destroyed it'
> without considering what they were being used for is to ignore very
> relevant information.
But afaik most of the destroyed infrastructure was not used for terror
(e.g. the airport or the helicopters). Sharon just wanted to destroy
symbols of the independence of the Palestinians.
Andreas Prucha
news:rosignol-EE4F7D...@nntp-in-news.nwlink.com:
> Because the alternative was a pipeline that went very near (possibly
> through) a place called Chechnya. Surely you've heard of it, yes?
>
> In any case, the matter is moot, as the pipeline will not pass through
> afghanistan.
The alternative would have been to build /no/ pipeline. That's the point.
> Oh, boy. Okay, free clue- US companies are forbidden from doing
> business with Iran. Care to guess who isn't?
I think in the case of the Iran this is a wrong decision. As long a country
is going into the right direction, it should not be sanctioned. Even if it
still has a long way to go. Sactions usually just stabilize the current
regime because the local leaders can blame someone for the bad situation of
the people. Of course I would not sell weapons to them, but normal business
contacts should be OK. Unfortunately the US (and Europe to some degree)
have a history to maintain close contacts to the worst regimes as long they
(or we) think that they are helpful.
> That's how it looks from over here. Aside from Blair and that guy in
> italy who's name I keep mangling (and who I don't think Bush wants to
> get too close to), the reaction from european leaders has been
> somewhat... odd.
Which Italian guy? Berluscony? I think that their way of thinking are quite
similar. Unfortunately.
> Iraq will be much more along the lines of what you're equipped for, but
> it seems like you don't want to be a part of it.
The question is: Who will be the next leader?
> Do you remember the first intifada, when kids would go and throw rocks
> at soldiers in riot gear, trying to provoke them into shooting at them?
Errm, thrown stones are hardly a reason to shoot.
Rodrigo Calvo de No
> In article <a5ejta$2ae3$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
>
> > "rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:rosignol-EE4F7D...@nntp-in-news.nwlink.com...
> > > In article <a53gos$2gt9$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> > > "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
>
> [zap]
>
> > > Because the alternative was a pipeline that went very near (possibly
> > > through) a place called Chechnya. Surely you've heard of it, yes?
> > >
> >
> > There was a rather better alternative through another place called
> > Iran...which, say what you want, would still have been better than
Taliban
> > country.
>
>
> That's like offering someone a choice of between being shot in the left
> foot, or the right foot. You do know they still call the US 'the Great
> Satan' there, right? Run a pipeline through that place? Are you insane?
>
Money talks, and the Iranians are just as keen on it as anybody else. They
*do* take dollars...
>
> [zap]
>
> > Indeed. Our companies are allowed to do business in Iran and Cuba as
well.
> > The European electorate is not so keen on being told where European
> > companies should do business and where not.
>
>
> What do you think sanctions _are_?
>
Er, what? Aren't you mistaking international sanctions with unilateral ones?
If US Congress, for reasons known only to itself in some cases (and
sometimes rather stupid reasons, see Cuba), decides on its own to impose
sanctions on a certain country, why should we necessarily follow suit? Maybe
the German foreign minister had a point when he decided to remind the US
that "we are allies, not satellites". We may disagree with you from time to
time, you know, and I'm personally happy that the EU is generally less keen
on economic sanctions than the US, since in my experience they only serve to
reinforce dictators in power.
>
> > Whether some European governments are putting a lot of effort into
actually
> > encouraging such deals is an entirely different matter.
>
>
> Such deals are still seen as a way to gain political influence, and
> european governments (particularly the French) are as active in that
> arena as ever.
>
I wouldn't put it past any government to get its hands dirty, and in the
French case there is the additional motivation that TotalElfFina is partly
state-owned and very well connected. However, you should at least try to
substantiate that allegation. It is one I've already seen several times in
the US press, but never accompanied by the tiniest shred of evidence.
>
> [zap]
>
> > > Russia, actually. The most blatant would be Jordan, with barely the
> > > pretense of border controls, but the Russians make up for it in
> > > chutzpah, smuggling oil out by the supertanker.
> > >
> >
> > Russia does not share a border with Iraq. And being a large oil exporter
> > itself, is it possibly the least interested country in the world in
> > assisting Iraqi oil exports.
>
>
> Because the government of Iraq will sell the oil for pennies per gallon
> so they can get money that doesn't have to go into the humainitarian aid
> fund.
>
> You are being extraordinarily nïeve.
And you are not considering the economics of the case. Russia is the second
biggest oil producer in the world. It has no interest whatsoever in
assisting Iraq in dumping its oil, thus sinking the price of Russian oil.
Russia already restrains its *own* oil production in order to keep the
prices high: why would they be helping to sell Iraqi oil instead of their
own???
>
>
> > Also, I'm not aware of Russia having a noticeable tanker fleet.
>
>
> The flag on the tanker is irrelevant. Follow the money.
>
The flag on the tanker is *very* relevant. If a tanker carries the
Panamanian flag, all the US Navy would need would be a short telephone call
to be *invited* by the Panamanian authorities to board and inspect the boat.
I don't think the Russians would be that forthcoming. But I generally don't
think that supertankers can go in and out of Iraqi ports that easily. It
isn't as if they were inconspicuous...
>
> [zap]
>
>
> > Sometimes I see an expression that makes me think they
> > > wish they could wake up from a bad dream- not a nightmare, exactly,
more
> > > something with a dull and poorly written plot, you know?
> > >
> >
> > Does not necessarily have much to do with Bush. They have enough trouble
at
> > home: Jospin and Chirac can't stand each other and Schröder is starting
to
> > come to terms with the fact that at this pace he's going to be
remembered as
> > the least effective chancellor since WWII.
>
>
> Mmmm. Think they should have kept Kohl?
>
No. And I don't think that they should take Stoiber now, either. It is just
that Schröder is a characterless waste of talent. He out-Clintons Clinton on
that aspect.
>
> > > > I think Bush would be happy to hear some suggestions- so long
> > > > > as you're willing to put some of your troops into the effort to
> > > > > implement them.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which we have done every single time. In Afghanistan you didn't even
> > want
> > > > them.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry to say you weren't equipped for what turned out to be a very
> > > unconventional war. Did you know that supply flights into our bases
> > > there land at night, with the runway lights off? Our pilots use
> > > night-vision gear that you don't have- and that's just one example.
> >
> > Actually (speaking of condescending), they do have it, as they needed it
to
> > supply Sarajevo for two whole years in all weather conditions and under
> > heavy gunfire. What the Europeans couldn't provide where heavy bombing
> > capabilities, reconnaisance and some long-haul helicopter lift.
>
>
> The newest stuff, that solves the depth-perception problems?
There you lose me. Binocular night-vision gear should already solve any
depth-perception problems. Anyway, they *have* been landing at night and in
bad weather on unlit runways for a longish while. The Europeans' airlift
problems are a matter of quantity, not quality.
>
> Leaving most of Europe out of the military action afghanistan wasn't a
> deliberate snub- what we needed most was intelligence, and on that
> Europe has come through handsomely. The averted attack on the embassy in
> Paris, and now another one in Rome, for example.
>
I'm somewhat sceptical about Rome. It may well have been a matter of
Berlusconi trying to steal the limelight.
>
> [zap]
>
> > > I'd bet on chemical weapons.
> > >
> >
> > As the Germans found out during WWII and Saddam himself during the Gulf
War,
> > ballistic missiles are pretty useless for carrying anything else than
> > nuclear warheads. Their accuracy is in the kilometer range and reentry
> > velocity is so high that they make quite a deep hole into the ground
before
> > exploding, which wouldn't be very helpful for spreading chemical
weapons.
> > The only way to do it would be to develop a system to make the warhead
> > explode in the air before impact, and it wouldn't be all that easy.
>
>
> Sure, it's easy. Just use a GPS reciever- when you're aiming at a city,
> who cares if it's off by ~10 meters?
>
Except that during most of reentry, there is can't be radio contact, as the
overheated, ionised air surrounding the reentry body isolates it. A problem
well-known of astronauts. Also, reentry of a ballistic missile is pretty
fast. I don't think that the GPS receiver could work out its position fast
enough after blackout to explode at the right moment: too early and the
chemical will simply drift away in the atmosphere; too late and you'll just
have a hole in the ground.
>
> [zap]
>
> > > It's not working. See my reply to Jonivar.
> > >
> >
> > Why don't you let the South Koreans decide? I wouldn't trust Kim Jong-Il
> > further than I can throw a stone, but one gets the nagging suspicion
that
> > North Korea is right now the only reason Bush can give in support of
NMD,
> > and that now that he's about to plunge billions of dollars into that
> > program, he is not about to put that danger into question.
>
>
> Starting a war with North Korea is unlikely. Offering the senior people
> comfortable exile somewhere in exchange for reunification isn't- but in
> order to make exile look good, you have to convince them that the status
> quo of having an entire country as a playground isn't going to last. So
> you have to put some pressure on them, and that's what Bush is doing.
>
> As far as the billions of dollars is concerned, it's only money.
>
But a whole lot of it. And "only money" can be pretty influential in about
any capital: see Enron. The defence companies involved in NMD have a much,
much longer experience than "Kenny Boy" in lobbying and buying political
influence. Wouldn't you expect an industry that does *all* of its business
with governments to be very proficient in that? If Eisenhower (hardly a
pacifist) already warned America about that almost half a century ago, don't
you think that you shouldn't underestimate it?
>
> [zap]
>
> > > I wouldn't worry much about the Moroccans
> >
> > I would, I have been there. It's a hellhole with 50% illiteracy rate,
> > rampant corruption, drug trafficking and 60-80% of all young adults
wanting
> > to leave the country.
> > And the government is really fucked up.
>
>
> Sounds kinda like Mexico, except for the literacy rate.
>
It is much worse than Mexico. It has less than 1/3 of Mexico's GDP per head
($1,200 against $3,800), a five years shorter life expectancy (67 against
72) and, as you point out, almost half its literacy rate (Mexico's is 90%).
While Mexico won't win any governance prices, it has become now somewhat of
a functioning democracy with alternating political parties in power and a
federal setup. Morocco is and remains an absolutist monarchy, ruled by a
king whose highest passion is waterskiing.
>
> > , and the revolutionaries in
> > > Algeria have a much closer target to deal with.
> > >
> >
> > They nevertheless thought the Paris Metro a worthy target five years
ago. Or
> > didn't you hear of those attacks?
>
>
> Nope.
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_357000/357808.stm
It was actually already seven years ago. Since then (actually, already
before, but then things got really serious) the French intelligence services
have been keeping close tabs on Islamic fundamentalists. Ironically, it took
Sept. 11 for the British to extradite one of the main suspects to France:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1587000/1587989.stm
Also, Algerian extremists were also involved in a series of attacks to money
transports in France and Belgium:
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_62000/62528.stm
This is why the French may get slightly sarcastic when their involvement in
the "war against terrorism" is put into question: this is a war they have
already been fighting for a while, with not always much support from "les
Anglo-Saxons".
There is only so much the hardliners can get away with if the population is
set against them. Remember that they have first-hand experience of what a
popular uprising looks like.
However, if Iran is publicly put in an "axis of evil", they are given the
oportunity to wrap themselves in the Iranian flag and start persecuting
"unpatriotic" reformers with less fear of a backlash...
>
> [zap]
>
> > > You've never heard the old joke about wars being god's way of teaching
> > > Americans geography, have you? I hear that one dates back to the 19th
> > > century...
> >
> > Well, in this case it is more a matter of history. In 1953, the
> > democratically elected PM of Iran decided to nationalise the mostly
> > British-owned Iranian oil industry. MI6 requested help from the CIA into
> > stopping this by the simple remedy of organizing a putsch to overthrow
him
> > and reinstate the Shah's absolute rule. It worked, and the severe
> > reppression that followed, greatly assisted by American intelligence
created
> > the reservoir of resentment that would explode nearly 30 years later.
> > This was one of the West's (not jus the US') least respectable acts
during
> > the Cold War, together with the similar operation in Guatemala on behalf
of
> > the United Fruit Company and what may have happened (we'll know when the
> > documentation becomes available to the public) in Chile.
>
>
> And the Iranians still on speaking terms with the Brits, of course.
> Figures.
Hmm, with the British? Not really, at least not on very good terms, mind
you. I think even that they still haven't reestablished full diplomatic
relations (those were broken at the time of the Rushdie affair). Still, I
suppose that at least they appreciate that the British have long recognised
their role in that conspiracy and been mildly apologetic about it.
>
>
> [zap]
>
> > > What does Yasser Arafat have to do with Iran and Iraq?
> > >
> >
> > A lot. Everything in the Middle East is interconnected: oil, water,
> > pipelines, fundamentalism, the Palestinians...
> >
> > Iran hates Israel because of what it considers the humiliation and
murder of
> > Muslims. Israel has trouble digesting that it was thrown out of Lebanon
by
> > the Iran-backed Hezbollah. Also, Israel would prefer the pipelines from
the
> > Caspian Sea to go through its close ally Turkey (therefore ensuring its
own
> > oil supplies) rather than through its sworn enemy Iran. The Iranian
> > hardliners see Israel as a useful tool to block any possible detente
between
> > Iran and the US. Saddam still thinks (and is maybe right) that his
salvation
> > lies only into an all-out war between Israel and the Arab world. The
more he
> > is driven against the wall, the more he's going to attempt to
precipitate
> > that war.
>
>
> ...except that the Arab world knows they'd get their asses kicked
> _again_, and won't do any such thing.
>
The Palestinians get their "asses kicked" every day and night and they still
come back for more...
>
> > > > > > As seen from Europe, the US has not only failed to rein in a
> > > > > > complete psychopath in power (Sharon)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The man was elected.
> > > >
> > > > So was Adolf Hitler.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yup. And the conditions in Germany were pretty bad when it happened,
> > > too.
> >
> > Which excuses his acts as little as it does Sharon's.
>
>
> You missed the point. Consider what caused the electorate to vote for
> these people. Nothing happens in a vaccum.
Not even throwing stones. The Middle East's big problem is indeed that
*everybody* has very good reasons to hate their neighbours.
>
>
> [zap]
>
> > > Let's hear them. I know the US media sucks for international news,
> > > that's one of the reasons I came here and started annoying all the
nice
> > > friendly people in here. ;)
> > >
> >
> > Yesterday night, the Israeli army shot at the president of the
Palestinian
> > parliament (Shimon Peres offered his humblest apologies today, which
raises
> > the question of whether the government is entirely in control of the
army).
> > No-one was killed in that incident, but simultaneously, in another
> > checkpoint they shot at the car in which a Palestinian man was driving
his
> > pregnant wife, who was about to give birth, to the hospital. The man was
> > killed, the woman and her father injured...That was just one night in
the
> > occupied territories.
>
>
> No, that was at the checkpoints leading out of the palestinian areas.
What do you think I was calling the "occupied territories"?
> Put a bunch of scared twenty year olds with guns in a tense situation,
> and accidents will happen.
Well, who put them there? Besides, it is more than that: those twenty year
olds were under orders to shoot:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=135109&contrassID
=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
This is from one of Israel's biggest newspapers...
> > Stop sending him weapons for free, to start with. Israel alone takes up
more
> > US foreign aid than any other country.
>
>
> Yup. As one of the conditions of the Camp David peace accords, Uncle Sam
> sends a check with many zeros on it to Israel _and_ another one to Egypt
> every year. Call it checkbook diplomacy if you like, but it works.
Really? Right now not so much. Anyway, the US'aid to Israel, particularly
the military side, goes way beyond those obligations.
>
>
> > After that, he should be made clear
> > that any gross infraction of human rights will lead to immediate
> > consequences in regard to trade and the freedom of movement of Israeli
> > citizens abroad. Does that sound drastic? Not so much if you consider
that
> > Israel is a clear case of a country which is known to have covertly
> > developed weapons of mass destruction, nuclear for sure, and very likely
> > chemical and biological as well...
>
>
> They're also a country who's neighboring states have decided to invade
> them en masse. Repeatedly. If I was in that situation, I'd have every
> weapon I could lay hands on, in quantity, and make damn sure everyone
> knew I was ready to use them.
>
A lot of countries could claim the same. AFAIK, Poland is not developing
nukes. India and Pakistan both have very good reasons to distrust each
other, and yet that defence (rightly) cut very little ice with the US when
they started exploding nukes.
>
> [zap]
Shin Beth can not be
> > allowed to be judge, prosecutor and executioner in one and in secret,
for
> > instance.
>
>
> You'd feel better if there was a secret court reviewing evidence and
> saying who Shin Beth may or may not assassinate?
>
Why not a *public* court?
> Hm. I can agree with that, actually- I wouldn't want the CIA running
> around whacking anyone that got put on their list of bad guys without
> some kind of review.
Exactly, especially as Mossad has been known to do the dirty work for both
American and European intelligence agencies in exchange of favours.
>
>
> > Secondly, the Israelis have been known to hit the wrong targets in their
> > assassinations. In fact that has happened quite often, and "collateral
> > damage" has also been rather copious. Will you bother to explain the
> > difference to the victims'relatives?
>
>
> And the US hit a red cross warehouse in afghanistan- twice. And a bunch
> of anti-taliban fighters were killed in a raid by US special forces, up
> close and personal. And there have been a few missiles that hit people
> who turned out to be someone other than who we thought they were.
>
> Accidents happen, and I expect the israelis would like to avoid them
> just as much as we would.
Knowing that "accidents happen", the best way to avoid them is restraint.
Revenge attacks are already morally very dubious, but when their "collateral
damage" surpasses the casualties that motivated them in the first place,
well...
>
>
> [zap]
>
> > > Do you remember the first intifada, when kids would go and throw rocks
> > > at soldiers in riot gear, trying to provoke them into shooting at
them?
> > >
> > > Do you understand why?
> > >
> >
> > Because they couldn't throw anything worse? Anyway, no matter how much
he's
> > provoked, if a soldier then shoots and kills one of the kids, he is the
> > killer, not anybody else. In particular if the soldier had no business
being
> > there in the first place! Who is provoking who?
>
>
> What kind of monster sends a child out to assault a soldier, hoping that
> the soldier will harm the child, so that the monster can go to the world
> and say 'this soldier harmed one of my children'?
That is a point often made by the Israelis. It overlooks that those children
and adolescents are doing it eagerly, and that while they *are* fed
propaganda by truly monstruously cynical politicians (although no more than
in many other wars elsewhere in history), their own situation is desperate
enough to motivate them. How would you expect American children (and
parents!) to act if they were living under foreign occupation, without
freedom of movement and in squalor? If those children are "sent" to attack
soldiers, then as much by the Israeli government as by their own
politicians.
>
> That's what the Israelis are fighting against. They're not angels,
> granted- but what they're fighting against is worse.
>
>
> > The Israeli position here is rather hypocritical: on one side they say
that
> > they need to maintain their occupation and continue receiving military
> > assistance because they are vulnerable and weak; on the other hand they
> > dismiss the huge Palestinian casualties by saying that the Palestinians
try
> > to compensate for *their* weakness by producing martyrs for the media.
>
>
> The palestinians know they cannot win by military means. So they fight
> in the media, trying to turn public opinion against the Israelis- and
> they're good at it.
Do you think so? Not me. I think they are rather very bad at it. They have
very legitimate grievances, yet their choice of weapons (the intifada
itself, never mind terrorism) works against them. On the other hand the
Israelis are very good at PR.
>
> From here, it looks like certain Europeans convinced themselves that
> history was over and military strength no langer mattered, that a
> sophisticated culture of enlightenment and compassion could somehow
> compensate for not being able to kill your enemies (Enemies? What
> enemies?), and that what happened outside of Europe wasn't their
> concern- 'let the Americans deal with it'.
Actually, you are onto something there. Most Europeans thing that defence
forces should be exactly that: defence forces; and that any military effort
should be restricted at the strict necessary to ensure our security.
Enforcing *our* will onto other countries by military force is not a popular
choice.
In short, many European countries simply do not see any current military
threat against their territories, which makes taxpayers and voters naturally
reluctant to put money into anything as unproductive as arms (Germany being
the best example of that trend). Therefore, the only countries still ready
to invest in the military are those who either still fancy themselves world
powers (Britain and France) or see *some* military threat at their borders
(Spain, Italy and obviously Greece). The rest wouldn't mind losing their
armies, and who can really blame them? This is not so much a matter of "let
the Americans deal with it" as of "well, if the Americans *really* want to
deal with it, that's their problem, then". In short, now it is us who have
become isolationists.
R.
Till M Ruessmann
>
>
> What i really cannot understand is how a country that bristles with
> weapons of mass destruction and has actually used them, that pushes
> weapons here, there and everywhere, sponsors terrorism all over
> the place, and has invaded more countries the past 50 years than
> any other country in history, can profess great moral outrage about
> others allegedly (with often little evidence) dabbling in such things
> on a small scale.
>
> Some guy from Arafat and Sharons region once said something
> about motes and beams. I wish they both, along with Dubya Bush
> and the rest of the lot, would once in a while reflect on that.
>
Presumably the US way is the best one in the world, for everybody in
the world. Those who share this view are with US. Those who don't are
against it (didn't Bush say something along those lines?).
Andreas Prucha
news:rosignol-212B6F...@news.nwlink.com:
> That's like offering someone a choice of between being shot in the left
> foot, or the right foot. You do know they still call the US 'the Great
> Satan' there, right? Run a pipeline through that place? Are you insane?
Hmm, if the US has a problems with all countries in the region, it should
just not build the pipeline.
>> Indeed. Our companies are allowed to do business in Iran and Cuba as
>> well. The European electorate is not so keen on being told where
>> European companies should do business and where not.
>
>
> What do you think sanctions _are_?
But AFAIK these are "private" sanctions of the US against these countries,
but not UN-sanctions. Why should the EU automatically follow these
sanctions. Just imagine the EU decided to to sanction Israel. Would the US
automatically follow? Of course not. Why? Because the US would disagree
with the EU. So why should the EU follow the US if it disagrees?
International UN sanctions are something different because these things are
decided at an international level.
>
> Such deals are still seen as a way to gain political influence, and
> european governments (particularly the French) are as active in that
> arena as ever.
As the US is in other regions. Again: Both is not good.
>
> Because the government of Iraq will sell the oil for pennies per gallon
> so they can get money that doesn't have to go into the humainitarian
> aid fund.
>
> You are being extraordinarily nïeve.
I agree that the ordinary people in Iraq will not see any money. But I am
not sure if this is really the motivation of the US.
>
> Yup. And the reactionaries in government have veto power over all
> legislation, disqualify political candidates they don't like, shut down
> newspapers at will, and have even been implicated in using the secret
> police to assassinate reformers.
Yes, I know. But the situation seems to be a little bit better than a few
years ago because they younger, educated people want a change. IMO pressure
or (even verbal) attacks from outside can stop or destroy this positive
development. It's similar to the US: When it's attacked (verbal or raeal)
from outside the majority is supporting the government. Something like that
also happended in Austria two years ago: We got a quite strange new
government and the other EU-countries said that they are not very happy
about this government and that they will not have more contacts to this
government than necessary. Polls after the election showed that only 25 %
wanted the new coalition. But when the other countries "sanctioned" the new
government, the majority of the people did not say "thank you for the
help", but were angry against the other EU-countries. IMO that's a stupid,
but unfortunately normal reaction. The same might happen in Iran. Too much
pressure from outside can lead to more support for the reactionaries
because they always said that the "wester world" is evil. Some diplomatic
pressure (codes) are OK, but the people should not feel attacked.
> It is not unreasonable to think that even if they find out who did it,
> not much will come of it.
May be. However, what I know SA is a allie in the war on terror, but AFAIK
most of the money came from SA. This may also lead to internal conflicts. I
am not really sure, but IMO Iran is less of a problem at the moment.
>
> You missed the point. Consider what caused the electorate to vote for
> these people. Nothing happens in a vaccum.
>
But is also valid from the other point of view.
The situation at the moment seems to be that one side uses the violence of
the other side for even more violence. And since this is such a old
conflict I can understand both sides to some degree. But I do not accept
the violence.
>
> No, that was at the checkpoints leading out of the palestinian areas.
> Put a bunch of scared twenty year olds with guns in a tense situation,
> and accidents will happen.
I do not see this as accident. These people are soldiers. They should not
be there if they are too stupid to handle such situations.
A poll shows that the majority (not a huge majority, but more than 50 %) of
the Israelis support the idea of leaving the palestinian areas as a first
step. The population seems to be more intelligent than the leaders.
And I heard about a group of soldiers in Israel who refuse to serve in the
palestinian areas. IMO that's a good sign.
> Hm. I can agree with that, actually- I wouldn't want the CIA running
> around whacking anyone that got put on their list of bad guys without
> some kind of review.
Exactly. Especially since intelligence agencies have to show some results
of their work form time to time.
>
> Comparing the numbers of dead is a bad way to determine who is in the
> wrong.
>
It does not automatically show who is right or wrong, but it shows which
sides uses more violence.
>
>
> The palestinians know they cannot win by military means. So they fight
> in the media, trying to turn public opinion against the Israelis- and
> they're good at it.
That's a normal strategy used by every group or government. That's why I do
not trust any government esp. in wartimes. Did you hear about the idea of
the "Office for startegic influence"? ;-)
> From here, it looks like certain Europeans convinced themselves that
> history was over and military strength no langer mattered, that a
> sophisticated culture of enlightenment and compassion could somehow
> compensate for not being able to kill your enemies (Enemies? What
> enemies?),
Well, that would be the optimal world.
> And now, certain nations get to wake up to the unpleasant realization
> that it has fallen so far behind that the US is no longer in the
> position of having to cooperate with them to achieve it's objectives.
Why falling behind?
> Then they get pissy because they're not being consulted on matters
> where their cooperation is not necessary- after years of 'let America
> deal with it'- and is indignant when the US acts 'unilaterally', i.e.,
> "doesn't consult us".
I agree that this is one of Europes biggest mistakes. One of our problem is
that we do not consolidate the opinions of the EU-members. It's quite easy
for the US to play with us. The situation would be similar if the EU did
not negotiate with the US-government, but with the governors of the states.
It would be much easier to find at least a few states which supports our
ideas. "Unfortunately" the US is not so stupid to let this happen. If the
US does not get support from - let's say - Germany it try it with the UK,
France or Italy. One or the other may agree even if the majority does not
agree. This should not happen. What some european states call
"independence" is just accepting to be a satelite state.
> Please excuse me for thinking certain european governments are being
> quite schizoid about this, and other european governments remaining
> silent on the matter is leading the US to believe the one making the
> noise speaks for all of them.
Yep.
jonivar skullerud
> In article <a59412$sn$8...@news.surfnet.nl>,
> "jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > "rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> > news:rosignol-EF2CD9...@news.nwlink.com...
> > > In article <a52aru$15t9$1...@news.versatel.net>,
> > > "Rodrigo Calvo de No" <rcalvoNO...@in-your-dreams.nl> wrote:
>
> [zap]
>
> > Why troops? Is it perhaps inconceivable to your mind that there
> > might be solutions to problems that do *not* involve bombs and
> > guns?
>
>
> Sure. In Iraq's case, we've been trying 'civilized' sanctions
If this werent so deadly serious i would say ha ha.
> for around
> a decade (and how many thousands of dead Iraqi civilians have been
> attributed to these 'civilized' sanctions? I'm pretty sure it's more
> than we killed in combat....),
Estimates vary between 50000 and a million. Albright once said that
half a million dead children was 'worth it'. (Worth what? On this i
agree with you: the sanctions have achieved nothing positive.)
> I am sorry to say that being civilized does not appear to be working,
> and that our current President seems inclined to remind people what
> happens when being civilized does not work.
I am sorry to say that it appears to me that you, and your president,
have decided in advance that "being civilized does not work". None
of your arguments, certainly regarding Iran or North Korea, are even
remotely convincing and have all the hallmarks of feverishly searching
for justification for a predetermined conclusion.
> This is where we disagree. You seem to be saying (and do correct me if
> I'm misinterpeting your statements) that unless Saddam gives us cause,
> we have to continue the 'slow genocide through sanctions' (your words).
You are misinterpreting. By all means, i am not suggesting that you
abandon your watch on Saddam -- the guy is still a potential threat
to his neighbours (including, perhaps most of all, Iran) -- and as i
already said i support a policy aimed at building up an opposition
which might overthrow him.
Indeed, if the kurdish areas in the north would make a unilateral
declaration of independence tomorrow, with the backing of US forces
to prevent any invasion by Saddam, i would support them (and the US)
wholeheartedly.
But the dilemma you pose is a false one. You do not have to continue
the sanctions. The sanctions are not working. They are only hurting
ordinary iraqis and not Saddam. So the thing to do is end them.
When you are in a hole, you stop digging. You do not point an
accusing finger at the person who suggests you stop digging and say
"hey smart-arse, so whats your alternative then?".
> > North Korea is a paper tiger. But Bush has from Day 1 done his
> > utmost to portray it as a great threat and sabotage Kim Dae-Jungs
> > sunshine policy, because he wants and needs an enemy to justify
> > his perverse military spending and in particular NMD.
>
> The Shunshine policy isn't accomplishing anything. NK's using it to
> extract concessions from SK, which are being used to prop up NK's
> government and is prolonging the suffering of the NK people.
>
> Appeasement is the wrong course of action when dealing with dictators.
> That's as true now as it was in the 1930s, and it pains me that europe
> has forgotten this lesson.
The quality of your posts has declined. You used to be high on facts and
thoughtful analysis, and low on hyperbole and false comparisons. I miss
the rosignol of old.
I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that North Korea is a threat
to anyone either now or in the foreseeable future. Your hyperbole
does not constitute either argument or evidence.
It is of course also pretty rich to be talking about appeasement of
dictators at the same time as the US is appeasing dictators in Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan and Pakistan, of whom the former two are not much
better than Kim Jong-Il. And tell me, when is the US going to
invade Burma (sorry, Myanmar)?
> > Todays quiz:
> > One of the following two countries has used weapons of mass
> > destruction against the other. Which one?
> > 1. USA
> > 2. North Korea
>
>
> WMDs? What kind?
Chemical.
> > > ...nevermind the freakin' boatful of weapons Iran tried to ship to
> > > Arafat, hm?
> >
> > As if the US never sold any weapons to Israel, eh?
>
> Do you think it more likely that the weapons Iran was shipping to Arafat
> would be used against the IDF, or israeli civilians?
And israeli weapons were never used against palestinian civilians?
> > I really fail to understand what the big deal was about that ship.
> > Either any weapons sales to either party in that conflict is despicable,
> > or both Israel and the palestinians have exactly the same right to
> > obtain weapons. Let us get this straight. Palestine is illegally
> > occupied territory.
>
> Illegally?
Illegally.
> Conquered by force of arms, you mean. In a war the other side started.
>
> Traditionally, that gives them clear title.
Oh please. This is becoming embarrassing.
Please try to check facts before posting. It would save you
from further embarassment
> > Under international law, palestinians have a right
> > to defend themselves, by force if so be it.
>
>
> International law, again.
Obviously, you are of the opinion that international law does not
exist and that the only right is the right of the strongest. Why can you
not put aside your prejudice for just a moment and try to consider
the situation from the point of view of someone other than the bully?
> Okay, Jonivar, here's your chance- what Treaty
> with the relevant neighbors has Israel violated? Anyone? Anyone?
UN resolutions 242 and 334. The Geneva Conventions of 1949,
banning population transfers to occupied territories.
Next question please.
Look, this discussion would be a lot easier if you actually bothered
to aquaint yourself with some of the most basic facts about the conflict,
rather than just parroting the most extremist pro-Israel propaganda.
I know the media situation in the US is dire, not least because you
say so yourself, but you also claim to be interested in getting a wider
view of the issues. So go read some european newspapers. *Any*
european newspaper. Your knowledge about the conflict in Palestine
is non-existent.
> What
> treaty is there that says that you cannot defend yourself if attacked?
> And when did Israel invade any of it's neighbors without some blatant
> provocation, such as being shelled by howitzers and mortars, which are
> traditionally condiered to be just cause for a retaliatory action?
For sure, they have a right to defend themselves when attacked.
They do not have a right to indefinitely occupy foreign territory,
keep other people under perpetual siege, inflict collective punishment
on a whole people, or retaliate out of any proportion.
> Do you really want to know what I'm afraid of?
>
> That the Palestinians will get the idea that a boatload of weapons will
> make a damn bit of difference, try to do something really stupid, and
> get slaughtered by the IDF. So long as they they know they're totally
> outclassed in armaments, they won't do anything terminally stupid, and
> there's a chance- however small- of a negotiated settlement eventually.
Nice to know where we have you. There is a chance of a settlement
as long as the palestinians are forced to accept whatever Israel
dictates.
> Shipping the Palestinians weapons does not help _anyone_, least of all
> the palestinans.
> > > 444 days. 'Great Satan'. A USMC barracks in Beiruit. 'Death to
America'.
> > > And others.
> > >
> > > What are you having a hard time understanding?
> >
> > Motes and beams. Arguments between pots and kettles involving the
> > colour black.
> >
> > Rodrigo mentioned overthrowing a democratically elected government
> > to bring in a brutal dictatorship. The US embassy was the headquarters
> > of the US war against the iranian people.
>
> Stuff the hyperbole, Jonivar- this isn't an ATTAC meeting. If the US was
> waging war against a people, a hell of a lot of people would be dead.
A hell of a lot of people *did* die under the shah. That is the period
i was talking about. Not the post-revolution era.
But anyway, ok, i will for the future restrict my use of the term "war"
to its literal meaning: organised military action against a well-defined
enemy. I also hope then to hear no more talk of such nonsense as
"war on terrorism", "war on drugs" or "war against poverty".
> > USS Vicennes; a civilian airliner deliberately shot down, killing 180.
> > No compensation has ever been paid, and the responsible have not
> > been brought to justice.
>
>
> Do you really think a US warship would shoot down a civilian airliner
> intentionally?
Yes. They did.
Ok, there is the outside possibility that the crew on the warship, sitting
in iranian territorial waters, inside a big island, so there is no question
that they were deliberately violating iranian territory (with Bush blatantly
lying, erasing the island from the map to cover that up) -- that they were
then unable to distinguish between a passenger jet on its way up and
an F16 fighter on its way down and towards them. There is also the
little matter that at least one person in the control room demonstrably
knew that it was a passenger jet, since his voice saying so can be heard
on the tapes that have reached the public.
But i may give you that it may not have been deliberate, and that instead
it was a bunch of gung-ho incompetents determined to shoot anything
that moved. I consider that less likely, but not much better.
What most iranians think is not in doubt though, and that is what
matters here. Can it be any surprise that they hate you, and that
many consider the US "the Great Satan"?
I can add another point as well. The US supported Saddam Hussein
when he attacked Iran, and gave Saddam full support, sending in
war ships to protect his oil exports (along with those of Kuwait)
and shipping heaps of weapons to him, in the 8-year war that ensued.
The Vincennes affair was just part of that.
> > 80 innocent people killed in a bomb attack in Beirut (while the leader
> > of Hizbollah escaped unhurt).
> >
> > Is not "Great Satan" merely the mirror image of "Evil Empire" or
> > "Axis of Evil"?
>
> What you see in a mirror is a reflection, Jonivar. Not a copy.
And your point was?
> > As i said, motes and beams.
I leave this in here. It seems to irk you.
But until people (not just you, *everyone*) grasp this simple, basic
issue -- until people show some willingness to see the issue from the
other side and stop denouncing the other side as wholly evil and
painting themselves as wholly good and justified in all they do, there
will never be a chance of resolving most conflicts in the world.
> > > Do you think ignoring Sharon is going to make it better? Do you think
> > > that the Israelis should just ignore the occasional not-so-smart-bomb,
> > > the odd mortar round, a few RPGs, and intermittent sniping?
> > >
> > > If I had to live under those conditions, I wouldn't be passively
sitting
> > > there and taking it.
> >
> > Why are you then demanding that the palestinians do just that?
>
> Why is it that every time I hear about what the Israelis do, it is in
> retaliation for a Palestinian attack?
Because you only ever hear the israeli version of the story.
If all you heard was the palestinian version of the story, then you
would know that every palestinian attack is in retaliation to israeli
attacks and repression.
Both are equally wrong.
> > Motes and beams.
>
>
> I'd rather have a mote in my eye than my head up an ass.
I must have struck a raw nerve there.
Ok, if that is the level you prefer:
How does it feel having both?
> > Yes, tax offices and schools are the bases and roots of terrorism.
> > As we all know.
>
>
> When the schools are teaching the students that martyrdom by killing
> israelis is a wonderful thing? Why yes, they are.
Yes, i am sure that is what they taught in the quaker school in
Ramallah that the israeli missiles hit. It is probably also what they
preached in the church in Bethlehem that israeli soldiers stormed into
and used as a base to shoot from while holding 14 choir boys as
human shields.
And of course, no school in Israel has ever taught that the jews are
Gods chosen people with a divine right to whatever they want and
that the arabs are subhuman. Oh no.
No israeli media outlet has ever broadcast anti-arab propaganda.
Oh no.
There are no laws in Israel discriminating against non-jews. Of
course not.
While, of course, all palestinians are terrorists, and all they do is
terrorism.
> > By that logic, there are a lot of legitimate targets in Israel. In
fact,
> > it sounds suspiciously like the Islamic Jihad "logic".
>
> The difference being that we have the capability to act in ways that
> they do not, and there is the proof that your analogy is false. If we
> did think that way, they would be *gone*.
<sarcasm>
No, the israelis are not like that, not at all. They are quite right to
rip up all those terrorist olive groves, tear down those terrorist houses
that are built without permission [because non-jews never get permission
to build anything at all], prevent those terrorist pregnant, sick and
injured people from getting to the terrorist hospitals, and of course
prevent any of those terrorists academics, priests and others from
leaving the country. Obviously they also have to take all the water,
since palestinians only use water for terrorist purposes. Palestinians
are, after all, a terrorist people, whose raison d'etre is living, breathing
terrorism.
</sarcasm>
It is quite striking isnt it, that while US and UK politicians and
goverment spokespeople are always at pains to stress that they are
not the enemy of the iraqi/serbian/afghan people, you never hear
anything similar from israeli politicians.
Indeed, i detect a very very nasty undertone in what you write, which
borders dangerously on racism -- you are coming very dangerously
close to saying that palestinians are not human beings, that they are
subhumans (or "monsters" as you call them).
I include a letter to the Guardian from a few days ago which may,
if you want to try to understand (and from your tone i have my doubts
about that), help you see how the palestinians may see it.
=============== begin quote =================
The horrific suicide attacks have a deep psychological impact on Israelis.
But Jack Straw must also acknowledge the devastating psychological damage on
young Palestinians of living without hope of normal life under a harsh
military occupation which has lasted 35 years.
Every Palestinian struggles each day to shop for food, go to school, reach
medical care, visit friends and family. Half now live below the poverty
line, with 65% unemployment in many areas. Ordinary families live with the
daily fear of their towns and villages being bombed by F-16s, helicopter
gunships and tanks, or of soldiers moving in to demolish their homes or
uproot their olive trees. Whatever the military justification for these
actions, their psychological impact is certain. They destroy hope. When hope
is lost, extremism flourishes.
[...]
Daleep Mukarji
Director, Christian Aid
Barbara Stocking
Director, Oxfam
And nine other aid agencies
================ end quote ==================
Events do not usually happen in a vacuum. Almost everyone thinks
that they are doing the right thing -- and certainly when they are doing
something deliberately, they always think themselves justified. And
the thought processes behind this are pretty universal; they are
exactly the same psychological mechanisms that go on within you
and me.
This is why blathering on about "evil" is both wrong and singularly
unhelpful. Some acts are without doubt atrocious acts of evil. But
there is no separate breed of "evildoers" or "monsters" committing
such acts. They are done by ordinary people like you and me.
And the evidence that ordinary, decent people can very easily be
transformed into "monsters" is, frankly, too overwhelming to
ignore.
So the "demonological" view of evil, that it is a specific "thing", which
is done by specific "evildoers", is
a) utterly wrong, both philosophically and psychologically;
b) totally unhelpful, since it prevents us from looking within us and
identifying the causes of evil, suggesting that "decent" people are
immune to this kind of thing and need not worry; and
c) itself evil, since it suggests that the way of dealing with "evil" is to
exterminate the "evildoers".
After that philosophical aside, back to the issue at hand. Both sides
in the conflict see themselves, with ample justification, as wronged, and
as victims. That victim mentality is a powerful source of evil, since it
blinds them to the other side of the story. This is what has happened
with the[1] serbs. They cannot conceive of themselves as anything but
victims. They cannot see anything but the wrong done to them. They
see everything they have done as self-defence and response to the
wrongs done to them. It also tends to lead to the view of the opponent
as wholly evil, as less than fully human. They refuse to see their
suffering. Both the israeli jews (and their supporters) and the
palestinians
(and their one-eyed supporters) revel in this victim mentality.
Point is, it is alas no mystery at all why both sides act as they do. And
there is no need for recourse to "evil" or "monsters" to account for the
feelings of ordinary people on both sides. And there will never be any
end to the violence until both people recognise that the others are also
human beings with feelings, and the grievances which lead to the violence
are addressed.
Israel needs security. I have full sympathy for the fear that if they just
withdrew from the occupied territories, they would be attacked by
groups bent on the destruction of the country. I think it is naive to think
that once a palestinian state is declared on the West Bank and Gaza,
peace will reign for ever after. On the other hand, palestinians have
exactly the same human rights as jews, and Israel cannot go on treating
them as subhumans. They need to be allowed to live ordinary lives,
free of occupation. And it is also understandable that they are
suspicious of Israels motives, being victims of brutal ethnic cleansing
that Israel has never apologised for[2], but is continuing unabated to this
day.
A specific point about the "monsters" as you call them who "send their
children out to attack soldiers". My father has told me about how
they were taunting german soldiers during WWII. And he was only
eight when the war ended. And there were no, or hardly any, parents
telling them to do it. There was no propaganda in schools or media
either, since that was all under german control. (Lots of people had an
illegal radio, where they listened to broadcasts from London, but i
doubt they told children to go out and taunt soldiers.) Kids do such
things on their own accord. They soak up what is going on. They do
not need to be told to do anything by anyone but their peers. I bet you
would have done the same in the same situation.
And my mind boggles when you imply that these "monsters" will react
by anything but fury to be shot at, harassed, have their houses torn down,
etc etc even more. Are you serious in saying that the "monsters" will,
on being shot at, and believing they are right in their resistance (as they
see it), suddenly say "oh sorry, we were wrong, and now that you shoot
us we realise that"? Should i take it then that if Osama bin Laden
succeeds in sending 40 more passenger jets crashing into major
buildings in the US, the US will withdraw from Saudi Arabia?
[1] the typical, dominant serb (jewish, palestinian) mentality, not, of
course, every individual serb, jew or palestinian.
[2] Indeed, even to question the exclusively jewish character of the
state (ie the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1947-49) is to put
yourself beyond the pale.
> > What i really cannot understand is how a country that bristles with
> > weapons of mass destruction and has actually used them, that pushes
> > weapons here, there and everywhere, sponsors terrorism all over
> > the place, and has invaded more countries the past 50 years than
> > any other country in history,
On reflection, i cannot believe this is true. It is certainly the case that
the US has launched more invasions than the Roman Empire, but i
find it impossible to believe that 3000+ years of chinese history has
not added up to more invasions. Presumably the people who totted
up those figures had a western bias.
Damien Surjus
>
> > > Todays quiz:
> > > One of the following two countries has used weapons of mass
> > > destruction against the other. Which one?
> > > 1. USA
> > > 2. North Korea
> >
> >
> > WMDs? What kind?
>
> Chemical.
+ nuclear... (WW2). But nobody ever says it was against the Geneva Convention
:-(
Damien Surjus
Damien Surjus wrote:
I meant not against North Korea, but against foreign civilians.
jonivar skullerud
> Look, this discussion would be a lot easier if you actually bothered
> to aquaint yourself with some of the most basic facts about the conflict,
> rather than just parroting the most extremist pro-Israel propaganda.
I take that back. The most extreme pro-Israel propaganda comes from
those who take their cue from Deuteronomy 20, believe that God has
given all the land in the region to the jews and also given them a right
to kill everyone else who lives there. You have never been in that class.
jonivar
--
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the
measure you give will be the measure you get.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not
notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your
brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the
log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your
own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your
brother's eye.
SIMON F. HARRIS
Mark,
I am saddened that you think of Europe in this way. As a European
citizen while respecting your view I strongly disagree with you. I am
"pro-American" and gretly admire your fine nation. However, lets be
honest not only does the EU depend on America, America also depends on
the EU. You import our goods and services, you set up business in our
countries, we work together in the UN and NATO and many Americans
flock to Europe on holidays.
The EU is not trying to become like the US. We do not want a
superstate. All countries in the EU enjoy their independence. The EU's
aim is to establish a cooperation between member states not a
federation. The US and the EU should work together not argue and taunt
each other. Between us we contain the majority of the world's wealth
and much of the population.
A system of great cooperation and friendship between these 2
continents will provide stability to the world. Europe considers
herself an ally of America not a part of America.
Thanks for reading this. Talk to you soon.
Simon
Sol Taibi
I don't. I'm merely pointing out that it's a common attitude.
Not necessarily a majority attitude, but nothing to be
surpised about when I encounter it.