Why do they hate us?

Each of those 3 points you stated already have large threads devoted to them. If you would go back and look at them, you will find all the opposing reasons you want.

 

Nonsense. Your just avoiding the issue. I know what your like, Coolguy. Your views are quite extreme.

"How about the fact that it goes against our Constitution?"

Yeah, i mean, we shouldn't forget that the Constitution is, like, the average American's Bible. It's practicly gospel. Let's just forget that the best thing about the Constitution is that it's laws can be changed to fit the times and new situations.

We all know that the REAL reason Bush doesn't want to be part of an international court is because he doesn't like the idea of people telling him he can't nuke other countries if he wants to, or invade other countries. It's about power, and nothing else.

 

Yeah, I agree with Kaine.

I've talked to Bush and he confided me that if he can't nuke atleast one country a week he gets antsy.

 

I agree.

Like I said before, the U.S. has been picking fights only with all the little guys in the neighborhood for the past 40 years. If we're gonna have a war, let's have a real one. U.S.A. vs. China...no nukes and ALL land battles...that should be a quality bloodbath!


(We'd lose big-time of course!)

 

It was called the Korean War. The United States and China have already met in direct combat.

 

Both the U.S. and China would be devastated. Their millitaries are roughly the same size, so it's pretty hard to determine who would win.

If you ask me, the "victor's" country would be in really bad shape.

EDIT: The U.S. and China did not use their full millitary might in Korea because of fear of a WW3.

 

Just imagine if the Chinese government convinced most of the men to join the military to fight against the U.S. You'd literally be fighting an army of billions.

 

China has a population of something like 1.2 billion. It would be hundreds of millions, not billions. However, the United States would also be able to rally a lot of men and women. I think an all-out war between the US and China would be hurling nukes at each other.

 

No. I meant a war where they fought DIRECTLY and not used another nation to hide behind and fight their battle in. Like how we fought the "Communists"...essentially the Soviet's indirectly by fighting the Vietnam war.

If we're gonna pick a fight, let's pick it with someone that's on an even playing field! I just find it funny that for the past 40-50 years, the U.S. has fought Korea, Vietnam, Greneda, Iraq, and a bunch of other insignificant tiny countries whose military's posed no true threats to the U.S. IMO. Dubya's mentality: "Economy sucks...let's bomb some 3rd world country!" Genuis.

The whole U.S. fighting China things was meant sarcastically, though.

 

Oh, darn. I wanted to start a US versus China debate.

 

Well, I can say that easily, CoolGuy, mainly 'cause I'm not ignorant of terrorism and I know my ***t.
Your arrogance, and the arrogance of people in the Pentagon, State and at Langley, didn't see this attack coming did they? And if they're [al-Qaeda] so dumb, and America the Brave is so smart, why is Osama at large, and America's got two embassies in Africa, one warship, 3 buildings trashed and thousands dead? The simple fact is, he is a smart man. Most of his troops, the ones who attacked the WTC, actually had degrees. They were learned men, they perpetrated these attacks for religious ideals. You know in Hollywood, the noble sacrifice? Like Red Leader in ANH? To the Wahabis, that's exactly what these guys did.

"Obviously you have no idea what was going on in Afghanistan."

Must...resist...urge...to...crush...ignorant fool...

OK, CoolGuy, I'm willing to bet I know more about Afghanistan drunk and on no sleep than you could ever hope. I'm one of the guys specifically studying Islamic extremism so as to beat them when haughty fools like you make policy. Now, when you were whistling the Star Spangeled Banner, embarrassing yourself and your compatriots and writing your post, did you actually read mine, pray tell?

"We ARE smarter then them, how could you say that the greatest nation in the world with all the finest technology is stupider than a few guys in a cave with AK-47's and box knives who learn how to fly a plane into a building from said nation's schools is smarter? "

I didn't say dumber. I said you can't assume you're smarter. You underestimate your enemy. According to Bob Baer, who's written a book and done a few interviews (ex-CIA, BTW), any and all intel on Bin Laden and his Saudi connections was ignored. "Ha, we are mighty, they can't threaten us! <Quaffquaff!>"

It amazes me how so many here can't see the forest for the trees? Osama Bin Laden didn't wake up and declare America was evil because he'd just watched a Bruckheimer movie (tho he'd be justified in called Scmuckheimer evil). You underestimate him in your haughty manner, and yet he's 1-0 on you. You will not catch him until you get smart about this. This is an enemy who is more dangerous than you acknowledge. Now amount of patriotism is going to help if you don't respect his intelligence and trap him. A few USMC dudes with rifles, supported by the odd M1A2 isn't going to cut it. You want to catch a master terrorist? Ask the French how they caught Carlos. They trapped him. Didn't send in GIGN, or the Army.

I know there will be replies which will say "But we have a-bombs, and we have F22 fighters, and we have this technology..." So what. You had that before 9/11 and it didn't help. Technology and patriotism won't work. As the old adage goes, "To catch a thief..."

BTW, I'm not anti-American. I'm pro-American, as are most of my countrymen. We're just frustrated at being unable to communicate the other side, the "grey" if you will, to you guys on this. We're not the enemies here. As Ali G said, "R-E-S-T-E-C-P"

E_S

 

<Referring back to page 29, Obihavekenobi's post clipped from al-Qaeda transcipt>

""America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited.
America's standing with the Christians of the world against the Muslims has stripped the camouflage from its face. Much can be said about this regarding the Sudan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, Macedonia, Bosnia, and other tragedies. America's siege on the Islamic countries as punishment for their rebellion against its laws has transgressed all limits, and Muslims have suffered economic losses that outstrip the imagination.""

OK, so explain this to me. I know what it all means, I've been researching Wahabi extremism since 1999. I want to see what you guys think. Why do they think this? And if you're gonna say they're stupid or just nuts, then take your thread somewhere else. Back to the gene wading pool you and your family came from. Let's try and be smart and work out why our enemies think what they do.

AAAAANNNNND, the ICC matter has NOTHING to do with nuclear weapons or imperialism. Here are the simple facts, man:
1) To be able to put US military personnel on trial under an international court is potentially an excuse for anti-American sentiment to railroad the ICC's agenda.
2) The President of the USA is also CIC of the armed forces, thus liable, and
3) Sovereignity issues. You can't expect a nation like America to surrender those rights. Not consistent with American ideals. However, you can't say the USA does not let it's own get away with murder (literally) - for example, what happened the My Lai guys?

I would like to see America in the ICC, but I totally agree with the Administration's (and indeed previous Admin.'s) position on this. Now is not a good time to surrender sovereignty to a foreign, supra-national court.

E_S

 

"Must...resist...urge...to...crush...ignorant fool..."

LMAO! Wow, you rule man.

 

Thank you sir. One does appreciate an audience.

E_S

EDIT: I think you forget CoolGuy that in Afghanistan, you're pummeling Talibani forces, not al-Qaeda cells. The Taliban may have housed the al-Qaeda guys, but that doesn't make them terrorists per se.

<sigh>

 

Agree with much of what you've said, ES.

However, I do think you are ignoring some of the more imporant points relating to the situation in Afghanistan.

No, the Taliban are not terrorists. However, you know that the Taliban was little more than a client state of al qaida and its wahabbi backers, and intrinsically connected. The growth in al qaida's capabilities and scope of attacks is directly related to the protective conditions they had secured in Afghanistan. State funding and nurturing (resources, protection, training, etc) of global terrorism increases their effectiveness and danger tenfold.

Second, the islamist movement that wahhabbi and al qaida represent is an armed ideology, and it is necessary to defeat armed ideologies by force. One of the bedrock assumptions they made was about America's political will and military effectiveness, and as such defeating and disproving this ideology is just as important as reforming and improving the other 'root causes' of Western dealings with the muslim world.

 

I don't deny it must be met with armed resistance. HOWEVER; I do contest that sending the US Army after them will help. They don't fight conventionally, so why sent conventional units after them? Send clandestine units after them, sure, but conventional army units won't be effective. The Russians weren't effective against Afghan guerilla units in their war, and I doubt that US Army troops against less, but better trained, men will have a better chance.

E_S

 

It doesn't have to be US Army personnel...have you missed what happened in Afghanistan over the past year?

The new government is tenuous still, and there is lots of instability, but it is a far, far, far cry from the negative predictions of last September of Afghanistan's invincibility. US military power affected that change.

Additionally, part of bin Ladin's chorus against the US centers on the weakness of the US military, and the ability of the Islamic world to defeat the West in a struggle spanning politics, military, will, culture, etc.

 

The USA didn't suffer many military losses because a) They used the Northern Alliance for alot of the fighting b) (and most important) they weren't trying to take over the country. The Soviets also conquered Afghanistan pretty quickly. It was keeping it conquered that was the problem. The Taliban aren't destroyed yet. Afghanistan is not a democracy, Afghanistan is not a stable country, and it won't be for some years I think.

 

But, it is a lot better off than it was a year ago. It has a much better chance to acheive stability. The framework for the latter is in place, and just needs support and vigilence. Would anyone have predicted that things would have gone this well, keeping in mind the current complications, a year ago??!

Application of military power and will do not require the sacrifice of men, especially in this case. So, the US didn't lose men or commit many troops...doesn't that make the successes that much more surprising and noteworthy?


There are still risks, but they are mostly political, and require more willpower and commitment than brute strength to succeed. And I bring this back to bin LAdin's pronouncements about Afghanistan, and defeating the Soviets and Americans there, and how thoroughly they have been discredited. And this is a good thing.

 

I didn't miss what happened if Afghanistan dude, OUR SASR was there too. What I'm trying to say is that the coalition of forces, lead by the US at the US' initative, won't succeed in catching him. Simple prediction; I'd say that if anyone is going to get bin Laden it'll be MI6 or DGSE. Same as the reward did not yield results, nor will troopers. You don't have to agree.


E_S

 

Hey, MI6 is cool and all, but the CIA has drugged diving suits and exploding clams.

(Check out their history with Castro. It's hilarious.)

 

You miss the subtle irony there. A SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE shouldn't have a public history. MI6 doesn't publish their doings around the world. They don't have memoirs published (Tomlinson doesn't count, I find it hard to believe a man as gifted for espionage as he says he is fired over a tie), and don't advertise what they do. The CIA on the other hand, does. THEY EVEN HAVE A PR CONSULTANT IN HOLLYWOOD!!!
The Castro incident was a joke. Thank god for Executive Order 12333! I like the CIA, but I'm hearing alot about their being gutted (Robert Baer esp.) and run by politically correct, career minded people and lawyers (shudders).

Still, I say if anyone will catch Osama, it'll be MI6 or the DGSE (General Directorate of External Security, France).

E_S

 

"A SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE shouldn't have a public history."

Which is one of the reasons I think the CIA is funny.

The NSA, though, now that's an intelligence service. I'd wager that half the people in this country never heard of it before Enemy of the State and XXX, and both those movies got it completely wrong.

 

I would just like to say that before I respond to these statements, they are the best proof one would need to see that the Senate Floor is truely a place for the Higher form of Flaming, and I would say that this isn't really even that high. Just let me tell you that whatever you feel towards me, the feeling is entirely mutual.

Your just avoiding the issue. I know what your like, Coolguy. Your views are quite extreme.

[sarcasm] Oh yes, I am the extreme one. [/sarcasm] I am not avoiding any issues, I think you are avoiding several giant threads devoted entirly to what you are trying to talk about here. If you took the time to look at said threads you would see I have responded to people just like you.


I think you forget CoolGuy that in Afghanistan, you're pummeling Talibani forces, not al-Qaeda cells. The Taliban may have housed the al-Qaeda guys, but that doesn't make them terrorists per se.


I think Red-Seven covered this, but in case you didn't notice, we HAVE been busting al-Qaeda cells.


"Must...resist...urge...to...crush...ignorant fool..."


I sure hope you aren't refering to me or any other posters because I think that deserves a trip to banland. Too bad KW is asleep.


Well, I can say that easily, CoolGuy, mainly 'cause I'm not ignorant of terrorism and I know my ***t.

Might want to cover up that swear better next time. I hope you arn't insinuating that I don't know my **** because that would also be a flame.

OK, CoolGuy, I'm willing to bet I know more about Afghanistan drunk and on no sleep than you could ever hope. I'm one of the guys specifically studying Islamic extremism so as to beat them when haughty fools like you make policy. Now, when you were whistling the Star Spangeled Banner, embarrassing yourself and your compatriots and writing your post, did you actually read mine, pray tell?

I don't know how you could have tried to insult me more, but I am just a kid right out of HS. I don't know how you could think I didn't read your post because I copied half of it. I agree that we must learn what are enemies are thinking and doing, but I don't see how that ties in with the fact that we are smarter than them. That doesn't mean we are invicible. There are a lot of idiots who can do a lot of dammage.

The problem with Secret police is that they usually end up violating the very priciples of liberty that we set out to defend.

The fact is, we can't entirely stop terrorism and maintain such a free society. Now if we reverted to some sort of totalitarian state it would make security a much easier problem to deal with. The most we can do now is to try and suppress terror.

 

You can't stop terrorism unless you recognise fault on your behalf first. Ask yourself this; why have Australians never suffered a terrorist attack? I'll tell you why; because we're not a superpower, though we host US installations, we don't tell people how to live and we don't make other's lives miserable so ours can be better. The United States does tell people how to live, it makes others' lives miserable to increase the comfort level of it's own citizens and it gets involved in world affairs. As long as the US continues to act with this assumed impunity, it will face people who will not tolerate such behavior, and who can only strike back by slaughtering innocents.

Al-Qaeda isn't confined to just Afghanistan. There are cells pretty much everywhere. Berlin, for example, is the second largest Turkish city in the world (population wise). How do you know that extremist Turks aren't members of al-Qaeda, or IJO, or any other Islamic terrorist network? You can't assume you've wiped al-Qaeda out because of Afghanistan.

I'm sorry my posts were insulting, I get tired of trying to talk to people who seriously underestimate the scope of this problem. The USA created the anti-American sentiment, and it must first recognise this. Have you guys heard of the term "blowback?"

And I disagree about secret services. Making them transparent (like giving them websites...) means they are accountable for their actions to the public, and in doing so you compromise your ability to collect intelligence and run agents. If you want to stop civil abuses, do what every government does; ASIS/MI6/CIA are all banned from conduting activites pertaining to intelligence collection on their own soil. They have domestic security offices for that; ASIO/MI5/Homeland Security & FBI. And Eschelon...

Darth Geist, have you read "Body of Secrets" about the NSA? Good book. It's funny how films get the NSA wrong - they're cryptologists and codebreakers, mostly. I haven't seen xXx but then again, I don't want to. It looks like a Reaganite's wet dream!

E_S

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to add a public apology for my offensive comments earlier. Sorry.