US Access to Osama

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Ohh yes how could I have forgotten? The USA is like the chubby bully in grade 5 who wants to always have his way as he wants it but everyone else has to do what he says... Just like how they didn't sign the no land mines deal either.

So why is the USA in the United Nations and a permanent member if they're not abiding or accepted or even INCLUDED in the laws that govern international politics?

Basically that means they really don't care. Geeez... Wonder why 9/11 happened? Hmmm, can't put my finger on it....

:

First off, to even attempt to justify 09/11 in any way makes you just fricken' dispicable.  

RE:   The USA and international law, let's put this into clear perspective:

The USA was blocked from obtaining UN Security Council Approval by France, Russia and China.
France - Huge debt for illegal arms sales + $1 billion per annum in kickbacks from Oil-for-Food + Oil Contracts in place with ELF as soon as sanctions lifted.
Russia - Larger debt for previous arms sales + $2 billion per annum in kickbacks from Oil-for-Food + Oil Contracts in place with various Russian companies as soon as sanctions lifted.
China - Small debt + smaller kickbacks from Oil-for-Food + Large Oil Contracts in place with Chinese companies as soon as sanctions lifted.

In short, each of these so-called allies were taking bribes to not only protect Saddam, but to pro-actively lift sanctions regardless of WMD findings, and they were more than willing to profit at the expense of the Iraqi Population.

I would add that the Chinese have also been a huge stumbling block regarding UN Sanctions against Sudan as once again they have conditional oil rights contracts from the government.

Bottom Line:   Make sure you know what these "objective" international nations have in terms of conflict-of-interests before assessing the credibility of their statements otherwise you could look like a real ass.




Matthew.    

 

[a_majoor]

Reading the article which started this thread doesn't give me a feeling that we are getting reliable information. Nor does it matter anyway, the Clinton Administration also had many chances to "get" Osama, but chose not to.

In the 1990's Americans did not take the threat of war with the Jihadis seriously (and neither did anyone else. I read a book titled "Target the West" and thought the author was overstating the case. It turns out he understated it...). The transfer of authority in 2000 included briefings on what the world situation was, and many of the people who developed that information were retained on the Bush team, to ensure a smooth transition. With the entire weight of the American Intelligence bureaucracy leaning towards the "these guys are annoying and dangerous nutbars" interpretation of the data, one guy thinking he's James Bond isn't going to change the situation.

A little sidebar here, the invasion of Iraq is an integral part of the strategic plan to disrupt terrorism. The Ba'athists not only openly supported various terrorist groups, but were also eager and willing to use any means available to weaken American power in the Persian Gulf. Sanction busting and supporting terrorist actions directed against American interests were the courses of action open to Saddam, so he took them. Although no video of Saddam and Osama sharing a cigar exists, enough circumstantial evidence of collaboration is around to make a thinking person's hair stand up. I have yet to see the Czechs repudiate the idea that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer just before 9/11, and the British still maintain Saddam's agents were trying to buy Uranium Hexafluoride (Yellowcake) in Africa. Given the known and suspected connections between terrorist groups and the Ba'athist regime, toppling Saddam severs links between the terrorist groups as well as the links the terrorist groups had to a source of shelter and support. The Americans could have stated this far more forcefully. What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant.

While many nations and people in the world are afraid of American dominance, it should be noted the Americans themselves don't seem interested in a global empire. There are no American Proconsuls permanently stationed in conquered territories, and neither we nor anyone else pay tribute or taxes to the American Government, unless they are American citizens. People should try to imagine what a worlds dominated by the Soviet Union would have been like, or fast forward to a world dominated by China. We should be pleased with our good fortune in living in the American Century.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S.
pressure and Canadian opinion -- a familiar position for Canadian prime
ministers --

How about leadership?

 

[banko]

If you're saying that Chretien wan't a very good leader, I certainly won't argue with you on that point... I'd think neither would anyone else...

 

[banko]

As for â Å“The Rest of the Worldâ ?, who exactly is that?

Most of world is made up of dictatorships and corrupt pseudo-governments. Are those the opinions you're talking about?

For clarification:
If you're talking about my post, the "Rest of the World" was meant popular opinion of people throughout the world. It seemed that the majority of common people, regardless of national origin, sided with the US during / after 9/11. There are always going to be people that think that 9/11 was justified but if someone did a global survey, I think the majority of people in the world were sympathetic towards the loss of life on 9/11.

 

[rifleman]

I think you would be wrong.

 

[a_majoor]

When Palestinians were dancing in the streets after 9/11, I would find it rather difficult to believe there was much "popular" sympathy for the United States. When a best selling book in France has as its thesis "the Americans staged 9/11", it is hard to think there is much sympathy.

Oddly enough, if the Jihadis had flown a plane into the Eiffel tower, or blown up some European or Asian cultural icon, the Americans would have been there as fast as possible with hardhats, laptops and tools in hand, while sending their military to the far corners of the Earth looking for the perpetrators. That, my friend, is why I would side with the Americans before the "rest of the world".

 

[rifleman]

Oddly enough, if the Jihadis had flown a plane into the Eiffel tower, or blown up some European or Asian cultural icon, the Americans would have been there as fast as possible with hardhats, laptops and tools in hand, while sending their military to the far corners of the Earth looking for the perpetrators. That, my friend, is why I would side with the Americans before the "rest of the world".

I believe they'd have helped with the tools etc. but they wouldn't be in Afganistan or Iraq right now

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

If you're saying that Chretien wan't a very good leader, I certainly won't argue with you on that point... I'd think neither would anyone else...

I guess I am, but I was suggestesting more importantly that the writer's premise is wrong: that the PM has no choice but to 'balance' Cdn. public opinion against US interests ... he is casting the PM in the victim's role.  While I don't disagree that this was likely the case here, I don't accept the idea that there isn't an alternative (like the PM shouldn't a victim of popular opinion and US interests but should rather concentrate on doing what is best for Canadian interests).

I also find that recalling long-since-settled disputes in (relatively) ancient US-Canada history completely irrelevant to refuting the claim that the US would come to Canada's aid if we were attacked!

 

[rifleman]

I guess I am, but I was suggestesting more importantly that the writer's premise is wrong: that the PM has no choice but to 'balance' Cdn. public opinion against US interests ... he is casting the PM in the victim's role.   While I don't disagree that this was likely the case here, I don't accept the idea that there isn't an alternative (like the PM shouldn't a victim of popular opinion and US interests but should rather concentrate on doing what is best for Canadian interests).

He did what was in the best interest of Canadians (probably the only time IMO)

 

[FastEddy]

I believe they'd have helped with the tools etc. but they wouldn't be in Afganistan or Iraq right now

I presume that you know this for a fact or have documented information that would support a indication of non-military intervention or action.
According to the general public opinion that they are always sticking their noses into things or places, starting wars, sending the Marines or being the World's Policemen, tends to suggest that they most likely would.
Or is this just another subtle, disguised way of American bashing

 

[48Highlander]

I tend to agree with him.  Terrorism has been taking place around the world for a long time, and the US has never stepped in to stop it before.  In fact, in Kosovo they sided with known terrorist organizations against a soverign nation.  If an ally like France had been hit by an attack like 9/11, the US certainly would have provided humanitarian assistance, and if France had decided to invade Afghanistan the US probably would have assisted, but I seriously doubt that we'd be fighting a "war on terror" if the US hadn't been the target.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

you might be right that we wouldn't be fighting a war on terror if we hadn't been the target, but in GW1 France helped out the coalition even though it wasn't a target... and 'supporting terrorists against a soveriegn state' is a very dangerous proposition, I am sure you know the old mantra about 'one mans terrorist is anothers...'

 

[48Highlander]

The KLA were on the US list of known terrorist organization.  Once Serbia invaded Kosovo, the KLA were suddenly "freedom fighters".  Their rationale for doing it might have been good and honourable, but that doesn't change the fact that they were helping a known terrorist organization.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

and America was on Britians list of 'terrorist states' during the revolution. whats your point? that we can't aid organizations for the greater good? because that is exactly what they have done twice in afghanistan.

 

[banko]

When Palestinians were dancing in the streets after 9/11, I would find it rather difficult to believe there was much "popular" sympathy for the United States. When a best selling book in France has as its thesis "the Americans staged 9/11", it is hard to think there is much sympathy.

Oddly enough, if the Jihadis had flown a plane into the Eiffel tower, or blown up some European or Asian cultural icon, the Americans would have been there as fast as possible with hardhats, laptops and tools in hand, while sending their military to the far corners of the Earth looking for the perpetrators. That, my friend, is why I would side with the Americans before the "rest of the world".

Palestinians were dancing in the streets because the US is such a close ally with Isreal. I agree that there would have been offers for humanitarian aid, but I'm not so sure about military aid. After the Bali bombings, I don't remember the Americans offering either...

 

[banko]

and America was on Britians list of 'terrorist states' during the revolution. whats your point? that we can't aid organizations for the greater good? because that is exactly what they have done twice in afghanistan.

And look where that got them, fighting OBL and his band of "Freedom fighters" after they flew planes into the world trade centre...

 

[FormerEnlisted]

And look where that got them, fighting OBL and his band of "Freedom fighters" after they flew planes into the world trade centre...

...and peace in Kosovo, eviction of the russians, support of taiwan, and end to the Nazi's.... not every idea works well, but the long term causes can't always be seen.

 

[48Highlander]

and America was on Britians list of 'terrorist states' during the revolution. whats your point? that we can't aid organizations for the greater good? because that is exactly what they have done twice in afghanistan.

 The greater good in Kosovo would have been keeping our noses out of it.  What exactly is YOUR point?  So what if the Americans were on Britains list of terrorist states during the revolution?  Did Brittain give them aid?  Ship them weapons?  Drop bombs on Brittish cities?  No, they fought AGAINST this "terrorist state".  They may have lost but at least they stayed true to their principles.  The fact that now, over a century later, the US and UK are allies has nothing to do with how the Brits viewed their wayward colonies back then.

 The US considered the KLA terrorists because that's what they were.  Kind of like a european version of the PLO.  They killed civilians, bombed government institutions, and generaly did bad sh*t all around.  The US, along with the rest of NATO, got scammed into beleiving that the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo, so they bombed Serbia and gave supplies and weapons to the KLA.  NATO beleived it's goal was just, so I can't fault them for fighting against the Serbs.  But I certainly can fault them for giving weapons to a group which has demonstrated that it has no compunctions about killing civilians.  I beleive that in Afghanistan they called that "sponsoring terrorism", and promised to show no mercy to any country which does it.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

With that in mind I retract my point.