About 9/11

[Johnd]

"So Chill craigsub" ? ... I am sure you just happened to invent, 25 years ago, the phrase the left has been using for the past 18 months.

The Justified War Theory was not "invented" (more accurately "coined") by me 25 years ago, nor "by the left 18 months ago." That theory has been around for quite a long time, and it is interesting to engage that point of view when appropriate. Cheers.

 

[craigsub]

Certainly you'd be unlikely to be attacked by the government directly, but that's because it's a shambles. Iraqis themselves are increasingly unhappy with the current state of the country (lack of water, electricity, security).

However, as predicted by many experts (before the start of US action), Iraq appears to be sliding down a dark path. Some info to start with: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4894148.stm




Without question the Saddam regime was brutal, but that still doesn't hide the fact that our governments turned a blind eye for decades, and that some sections of our own troops now appear to be behaving in a similar manner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

Oh, and whilst turning a blind eye, they were also selling him chemicals: http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html




This kind of language says so much. You make numerous assumptions without any knowledge of who I am, what I stand for, or my allegiances.

Given that I have previously posted a little information on Iraq's history, using a term like "Ignorance" does look a little misguided.

What you have largely done is regurgitate the US government propaganda I see so often, and used their tactic of engaging in a personal attack when faced with differing information (instead of entering into a reasoned argument based on factual data). Basically, it's the indoctrination into Americans that any disagreement isn't a counter argument, it's a sign that the person isn't a patriot/is anti-American, and therefore anything they say must be wrong. A superb, and unfortunately very effective, deception.

What saddens me is the fact that this runs so deep in US society - where day after day you are given the messages of a government that stands for "truth, freedom and justice", whilst frequently engaging in anything but.

I've lost count of the number of Americans I've met around the world, who are surprised and upset that they sometimes get a cold response. Whilst they are told at home that their government are the 'good guys', and should therefore been seen in a good light, the reality on the ground is so often different.

Sometimes, this doesn't even come from a deliberately aggressive act - I've seen US representatives (in this case soldiers) doing something deeply offensive in the Middle East, without even intending to be rude. This all stems from having been given a view of the world (from news at home) that's so narrow, and frequently misleading, that it's almost inevitable.

I appreciate I'm not going to change your view, and you'll most likely resort to name calling again, but you have the use of the Internet - do some searching for information, expand your mind beyond Fox news and you might be surprised (and somewhat disgusted at what you're not being told).

As a "starter for ten", take a look at where your tax dollars are now going (hint: the pockets of the government's friends, rebuilding the very country they've just flattened). Here's one to get you going: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm

Sploo, You certainly are entertaining. It was a member of your House of Lords who was the source of my information, not any member of the US Government. And thank YOU for this littany of assumptions about me.

Great stuff !

 

[craigsub]

The Justified War Theory was not "invented" (more accurately "coined") by me 25 years ago, nor "by the left 18 months ago." That theory has been around for quite a long time, and it is interesting to engage that point of view when appropriate. Cheers.

The "justification for war" has been the mantra on the left for about 18 months now, and in this justification, they keep saying that nothing about liberating the Iraqi people from the brutal regime was mentioned until after no WMD's were found.

This is a lie, as can be seen by anyone who bothers to read even something as easy to find as the 2003 SOTU address. Just tryng to keep some factual information out there.

Cheers.

 

[sploo]

It was a member of your House of Lords who was the source of my information

If your view of the (incredibly complex) Iraq situation has come from a single person, then that's your right. I would however suggest looking at a few other sources to gain a wider view. Again, if you don't wish to, that's your right.

 

[Johnd]

You guys are getting personal again...I'd watch it.

I do not watch the mantras, indoctrinations, etc. of which you speak. The Justified War Theory is a universally accepted theory that was here long before the Iraqi war, or me. It is not a new theory, or one that is unique to the Iraqi war. jfyi Cheers.

 

[Johnd]

Just for clarification, The Justified War Theory goes like this:

It was estimated that a 1945 Allied invasion of Japan would incur 1,000,000 casualties.
It was estimated that the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would incur 100,000 casualties, albeit almost entirely civilian (it may actually be closer to 200,000, but the Allies really had no way of exacting the casualty count).
Since the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima incurred a 10%-20% casualty loss of an Allied invasion, albeit almost purely civilian, the action is "justified" by the Justifed War Theory.

It is tangental that not one Allied member lost life during the bombing. The attrition rate was cut by 80%-90%, so the action was "justified." Any Allied losses would simply be factored into the total loss, and if the total loss was less than the calculated loss of an Allied invasion, the action is "justified."

 

[craigsub]

If your view of the (incredibly complex) Iraq situation has come from a single person, then that's your right. I would however suggest looking at a few other sources to gain a wider view. Again, if you don't wish to, that's your right.

Yes, Getting the viewpoint of a man who visited the country several times is a bad idea, got it. Once again, you are making another assumption.

I have talked to military personel, business people, and others who have been there in the recent past.

I have never said the situation there is perfect, but it is far better now than it was 5 years ago.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Russia Warns Against Threatening Iran

Haven't we already threatened them?
Although this isn't directly related to 9/11, I didn't feel like starting a new thread. Russia must have something up their sleeve.


By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

MOSCOW - A top Kremlin diplomat warned against threatening
Iran with sanctions or the use of force, saying that would only aggravate the international standoff over Tehran's suspect nuclear program, Russian media reports said Saturday.

Rather than getting Iran to stop uranium enrichment, a tougher stance could result in Tehran's total refusal to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, said Oleg Ozerov, deputy director of the Foreign Ministry's Middle East and North Africa Department, according to ITAR-Tass.

"We firmly stand today for resolving the problems in and around Tehran diplomatically rather than militarily. Increasing international pressure on Iran has no prospects," Ozerov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

The United States and European allies are pushing for sanctions because of Iran's refusal to suspend its enrichment program, as demanded by the
U.N. Security Council. They suspect Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons in violation of its treaty commitments.

The Iranian regime insists the program has only the peaceful purpose of generating electricity. Russia, which has close ties with Iran and is building that nation's first nuclear power plant, opposes sanctions.

Despite what U.S. and Russian officials have described as increasingly close positions on the Iranian nuclear program in recent years, they appear far apart heading into the Friday deadline set by the Security Council for Iran to stop enrichment.

The United States and Britain say that if Iran doesn't meet the deadline, they will try to get the council to make the demand compulsory, which would raise the possibility of sanctions.

Seeking to avoid having the sanctions issue come before the council, Russian officials argue that the
International Atomic Energy Agency should take the lead for the
United Nations in trying to resolve tensions over Iran's nuclear program.

Ozerov stressed Russia's opposition to the use of force against Iran — an issue that got close attention in state-run Russian media after
President Bush said last week that military action could not be ruled out.

"The forceful option is extremely dangerous and not constructive," ITAR-Tass quoted Ozerov as saying during a seminar on global security.

The report added that Ozerov also warned Iran against making belligerent statements.

Moscow has been frustrated by Tehran's uncooperative attitude, and ITAR-Tass said Ozerov expressed regret over the failure to reach a final agreement with Iran on a compromise proposal to have the Iranian uranium enrichment program operate on Russian territory.

The two nations announced a "basic agreement" in February on implementing the plan, which would allow closer international monitoring of Iranian enrichment program — which can produce both fuel for power-generating nuclear reactors and the core material for atomic bombs.

Iran is prepared for more talks on the Russian proposal, Iran's IAEA envoy said in Moscow on Friday. But Ali Asghar Soltanieh stressed that the details were unresolved and needed much more discussion.

Iranian officials already undercut the intent of Russia's plan by insisting that they would continue some enrichment work at home.

 

[mustang_steve]

Yeah, I've already heard plenty of theories about the Pentagon and the WTC collapse. My opinion still is:

There was no conspiracy to take down the WTC for financial gain, nor was it to create a need for war. Some enemies to our nation commited this act.

However, I do think the govt had at least a good idea that it was going to happen and failed to do anyhting about it until it was too late.

WTC has been a favorite target of our enemies for years, since to many, it is one of the very symbols of our nation....as unique as the statue of liberty, or the empire state building.

The other side of it is, how did these people, many of which were here on expired Visas, even get onto the planes? Last I checked, prior to 9/11...you needed to at least present photo ID to get your tickets, as a measure to prevent fraud....so unless they were accepting expired IDs (which they are not supposed to do, but I did successfully with an expired license in 2004) I don't see how this worked out.

My thing is how the heck did these people get onto the plane...not how the building went down.

People will find conspiracies everywhere....just like the infamous "Church's chicken was engineered to make black men impotent" conspiracy....not only is it extremely biologically unfeasable, but it's just stupid. Yes, let's make sure our customers cannot reproduce...great way to insure a future generation of customers...what a nice business model. That one always made me angry at the person spreading it....

Pretty much people want drama, and when they can't find the drama they want, they will create it.

....now where is my alien spacecraft I traded the UPC codes from 10,000,000 MREs for?

 

[racquetman]

The other side of it is, how did these people, many of which were here on expired Visas, even get onto the planes? Last I checked, prior to 9/11...you needed to at least present photo ID to get your tickets, as a measure to prevent fraud....so unless they were accepting expired IDs (which they are not supposed to do, but I did successfully with an expired license in 2004) I don't see how this worked out.

My thing is how the heck did these people get onto the plane...not how the building went down.

I'm going to guess that with the time they put into planning the attacks, preparing a fake Visa was the least of their problems. I doubt it's that hard to fool most airline workers.

Pretty much people want drama, and when they can't find the drama they want, they will create it.

I totally agree with this statement.

 

[mustang_steve]

As for Iran (since it was mentioned)....all i have heard is hearsay "they might use this to make bombs".

....that's the thing with knowledge...most technologies can be used to kill and destroy....nuclear arms are one of the most terrifying...but when questions are raised, is making threats a proper course of action?

I honestly think our Govt really dropped the ball on this one by spewing forth accusations and even on a few occaisions veiled threats. That's not a way for diplomacy, and I'm not surprised Iran decided to go forward with their plans considering all of that.

I don't know their intent either, and I do hope it's for the best, but if they did get attacked, and we found out they had no weapons making capability....then what?

As for their desire to have nuclear power...yeah they have Oil....maybe they would rather sell it than use it. I have no idea really.

Either way, the entire thing was a giant 3-ring circus, and when something gets as loud and whiny as this got, i tend to be against the loudest mouths, since they are 90% of the noise....facts would have helped in swaying my stance....but again, like Iraq, we have no facts...just a bunch of "I think"s and hearsay that in itself amounts to conspiracy theories until proven.

 

[Johnd]

It is of global interest for world peace and safety that no additional countries obtain or develop nuclear weapons. The ultimate goal ought to to to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

The first line of defense is the IAEA, and the UN. Their inspections ascertain that nuclear plants can be used exclusivley for energy, and cannot be retrofitted for any weaponry development. Iran has continually refused to allow these inspections to take place. Therefore, more assertive measures are warranted, and in fact, are necessary.

 

[shokhead]

You cant get rid of nukes because somebody always wants/needs to be the boss. I will never,never happen,never.

 

[Buckle-meister]

It is of global interest for world peace and safety that no additional countries obtain or develop nuclear weapons.

Absolutely.

The ultimate goal ought to to to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Then why don't America/U.K. et al lead by example and get rid of their own? Regardless of the fact that just about everyone would be happier if Iran (but any country for that matter) didn't develop nuclear weapons, it surely is utter hypocrisy for countries with significant nuclear weapons to preach to others that they shouldn't somehow be allowed to 'join the club' as it were, never mind impose sanctions on them when they unreasonably fail to 'see the error of their ways' and desist.

 

[Johnd]

The IAEA and UN are not "somebody", but an international body with world peace and order as their primary interest.

 

[Buckle-meister]

The IAEA and UN are not "somebody", but an international body with world peace and order as their primary interest.

Then perhaps they should look inwards as well as outwards.

 

[BMO]

Absolutely.



Then why don't America/U.K. et al lead by example and get rid of their own? Regardless of the fact that just about everyone would be happier if Iran (but any country for that matter) didn't develop nuclear weapons, it surely is utter hypocrisy for countries with significant nuclear weapons to preach to others that they shouldn't somehow be allowed to 'join the club' as it were, never mind impose sanctions on them when they unreasonably fail to 'see the error of their ways' and desist.

The fact that we had the bomb and no one else at the end of WWII, yet choose not to use it to exspand our ideoligy, or borders, should answere the question above.
Thank god , or whomever, that we have it, and know what a devistating weapon it is.Thank god we'll use it as as last resourse to" defend " our freedoms.
You can not say that about Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.It's a dangerous world, and even though we may not like the responsibilities that go with being" all powerful"Somebody has to do it. I wish it were some one else, but it's not.
Thank whomever you want, but at the end off WWII, had the Soviets had our weapon would they have set on it or shoved it up everybodies you-know- what. Yes I wish nobody had the weapon,I also wish there wasn't any sin in the world.

 

[markw]

Good points all.

The fact that we had the bomb and no one else at the end of WWII, yet choose not to use it to exspand our ideoligy, or borders, should answere the question above.
Thank god , or whomever, that we have it, and know what a devistating weapon it is.Thank god we'll use it as as last resourse to" defend " our freedoms.
You can not say that about Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.It's a dangerous world, and even though we may not like the responsibilities that go with being" all powerful"Somebody has to do it. I wish it were some one else, but it's not.
Thank whomever you want, but at the end off WWII, had the Soviets had our weapon would they have set on it or shoved it up everybodies you-know- what. Yes I wish nobody had the weapon,I also wish there wasn't any sin in the world.

If we (the US) were going to "take over the world", it would have been done long, long ago.

Face it, no sane country with an economic position in the global economy will use nuclear as a first strike. that's why China, Russia (or whatever they call themselves nowadays), Brazil or other nuclear nations are not a first strike threat.

Please note that this effectively ignores terrorist organizations and religiously governed countries because they think they cannot be pinpointed to any one locale. But, should they try it, they might be surprised to find that those locals where they are thought to be hiding may quickly become acres upon acres of glass.

And, which middle eastern country that is lately bragging about nuclear acquisitions has also been calling for the total destruction of another one?

Basically, if the "good guys" put their weapons down, the bad guys will rush in to destroy them. Ask Israel about this.

And, don't kid yourself. Germany was working on nuclear weapons during WW2. You can thank your scottish *** that we developed and deployed them first. You're just lucky htat Germany didn't consider your country worthy of attack, unlike England which suffered greatly. Maybe they figured that haggis was punisment enough?

 

[Johnd]

Then why don't America/U.K. et al lead by example and get rid of their own?

If developing countries refuse to to be dissuaded from accumulating/developing nuclear weapons by way of economic and political sanctions through the UN, IAEA or the US, and further refuse abandonment of nukes when the US threatens destruction of those facilities (capable of developing nuclear weapons), what makes you think a unilateral disarmament will in any way prove to be more persuasive?

It would be foolish for the US to unilaterally abandon their nuclear prowess when faced with the current threats of nuclear proliferation by developing countries and illicit governments.

 

[Buckle-meister]

(sigh) I’m being naïve aren’t I?