Are You Serious? [Archive]

kbf1

5th Dec 2001, 22:48

Not a huge surprise that our septic cousins want to reach for the buckets of sunshine, it fits their culture. After all, they get it rammed down their faces from infancy about them being the home of the brave and the land of the free. They just don't get it when they come accross someone unfortunate enough not to have been born in Uncle Sam's great land, and are even more baffled by the fact that, being such a great place an' all, someone is quite happy being a nationality other than their own. Because they would destroy a nation with "Son of Star Wars", that's how everyone else would try and take on the US..right? So, when Bin Liner has a couple of his clones fly into a building, pretty low tech solution for a high tech nation, they just can't get their heads round it. They are presented with a problem that requires a long term solution. Well, Americans can't wait more than a nano-second for something to happen witout their heads spinning off, so rather than do the job properly they just want to push a button, job done, and back in time for MTV and burgers.

Simple really.

RRAAMJET

6th Dec 2001, 01:00

KBF, that is such a simplistic view of the way Americans see this situation. As a former RAF pilot now living over here, I can assure you that most of them are well aware of what's going on, and that they fully realise that this requires more subtlety than a mushroom cloud. Don't believe that CNN represents the average American's intellect - CNN has it's own agenda.

I, for one, have been extremely impressed with the measured response to this crisis over here in the US. How would the UK have coped if someone had flown two BA jets into NatWest Tower or the Houses of Parliament? It could easily have been done. The US has suprised the extremists by it's resilience, and by the outpouring of national pride. Americans got up at the "one count" after a low blow. Bin Laden and his cronies never have, and never will, understand the American culture. They're not Admiral Yamamoto ("...awaken a sleeping giant...").

Anyone who has done an exchange tour over here can testify to the genuine friendliness of Americans; they simply don't understand the hostilities of others towards them, or anybody else for that matter, and they are starting to realise that it is poverty that breeds extremism, more than ideology. But hit them, and they will hit back - harder. It's the creed they built their independence on. We Brits were slow to learn that in the 1800's.

BEagle's posting was quite insightful...

Talking Radalt

6th Dec 2001, 01:51

"Well, Americans can't wait more than a nano-second for something to happen witout their heads spinning off"
Yup, in one of the serious broad sheets I recently read that over 25% of "average" Americans, can't even remember what triggered the war with Afghanistan.
Appendix:
"Average American" see: "The Springer Show" :rolleyes:

helmet fire

6th Dec 2001, 05:30

What is REALLY scary about that 25% statistic is the question. A war against Afghanistan? When did that start? I thought it was against the bigbad Al Q and then the Taliban in order to get to the bigbad Al Q.

Ah well, to the bar, to the bar........

Megaton

6th Dec 2001, 05:39

helmut fire:

Now that IS an insightful comment.

MajorMadMax

6th Dec 2001, 06:05

Sorry for my late arrival to this thread...

First of all, Ham Phisted, you ARE a pacifist, at least compared to everyone else living in Texas! :p :p And what are you doing having intellectual debates with USAF lieutenants? Let's have a rational discussion about it over lunch and a beer tomorrow, like civilized men!

Now for the rest of you who view American military and politics as being straight out of "Dr Strangelove", don't let the comments of one idiot USAF engineer (how'd he even get into the bar in the first place??) represent the US stand on Afghanistan. If we only wanted to level the place into a flat, boring wasteland (why bother when we already have west Texas?), then we wouldn't be spending all our time and effort dropping humanitarian relief to the locals. We could pack more Daisy Cutters into the back of the C-17s and have ourselves a nice little fireworks show!

And as for that media survey, as helmet fire so aptly pointed out, it was a loaded question. Pretty much along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?" It's what happens to the press in a free society when there is nothing sensational to report. If there is no news than make some. And as for statistics...

Hey, could be worse, it could be a Greek prison!

Cheers!

ozbiggles

6th Dec 2001, 06:18

For those who sit at home safe and sound and think they have a peaceful solution to all the Worlds problems.

The Night Before Christmas

‘Twas the night before Christmas, he lived,
In a one-bedroom house, made of plaster and stone.

I had come down the chimney, with presents to give,
And to see just whom, in this home, did live.

I looked all about a strange sight I did see,
No tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.

No stocking by the mantle, just boots filled with sand,
On the wall hung pictures of a far distant land.

With medals and badges, awards of all kinds,
A sober thought came to mind.

For this house was different, it was dark and dreary,
I found the home of a soldier, once I could see clearly.

The soldier lay sleeping, silent and alone,
Curled up on a poncho, in this one-bedroom home.

The face was so gentle, the room in such disorder,
Not how I pictured an Australian soldier.

Was the hero of whom I just read?
Curled up on a poncho, the floor for a bed?

I realised the families, that I saw that night,
Owed their lives to these soldiers who were willing to fight.

Soon around the world children would play,
And grownups would celebrate a bright Christmas Day.

They all enjoyed freedom, each month of the year,
Because of the soldiers, like the one lying here.

I couldn’t help wonder how many lay alone,
On a cold Christmas Eve in a land far from home.

The very thought brought a tear to my eye,
I dropped to my knees and I started to cry.

The soldier awakened, and I heard a rough voice,
“Santa don’t cry, this is my choice;

I fight for freedom, I don’t ask for more,
My life is my God, my country, my corps.”

The soldier rolled over and drifted to sleep,
I couldn’t control it I continued to weep.

I kept watch for hours so silent and still,
And we both shivered from the cold night chill.

I didn’t want to leave on that cold dark night,
This guardian of honour, so willing to fight.

Then the soldier rolled over with a voice so soft and pure,
Whispered “carry on Santa, it’s Christmas day, all is secure.”

One look at my watch and I new he was right.
“ Merry Christmas my friend and to all a goodnight.”

This poem was written by a Peacekeeping soldier, stationed overseas.
The following is his request. I think is reasonable…

PLEASE. Would you do me this favour of sending this to as many people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to our Australian Service men and women for our being able to celebrate these festivities. Let’s try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe.

Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us. Please do your small part to plant this small seed.

everhard

6th Dec 2001, 06:47

Dear all,
Having just spent the last 12 weeks against my will in the land of the free, I can say that it is true CNN does not represent the intellect of the average American in Arizona - none of them are so clever. The level of ignorance over here is astounding, and clearly Phoenix only exists to take all the rednecks that can't navigate to Texas!
I for one can't wait to get home to the only country with 'Great' in the title, and get away from all this flag-waving, in-your-face bulls**t!

Don't leave with the impression that I dislike Americans (I don't as it happens), but the ability of a nation with so much potential, to be so collectively stupid is mind-boggling. It also bugs me that their news media still refer to the IRA as 'freedom fighters', and not one European or Israeli appears on their '22 most wanted' terrorist list - why?

Lets hope the Americans pull their head out of their ass long enough to take a reality check what the rest of the world (yes, it does extend beyond 50 states!) actually does, and just maybe things might change in the future.

MajorMadMax

6th Dec 2001, 07:15

Hey, ErikEverhard, two words, Good Riddence!

I have never heard of the IRA referred to as 'freedom fighters' anywhere in the US, and I've lived here over 30 years. And name one European or Israeli that has ever attacked the US. Perhaps during your stay here you noticed the events of 11 Sep, and all that died at the Pentagon, WTC, and in Pennsylvania. Consider those events and you might get a clue into who DOES appear on our '22 most wanted' terrorist list.

Spare us your lectures, mate, and get off your damned horse.

West Coast

6th Dec 2001, 11:45

That USAF engineer no more represents the American viewpoint than does KBF or Ericneverhard convey those of the British.

Wiley

6th Dec 2001, 15:27

I posted this on another thread earlier today, but this thread is probably more apt.

I'm reading a book about the American Revolution. It's interesting to read about the likes of Samuel Adams, one of the precipitators of the American Revolution. Adams' extremist views and sometimes quite radically intemperate actions polarised his more even-tempered fellow revolutionaries (and the large numbers of non-revolutionaries among the colonists, who preferred to remain loyal to England) early in the period of turmoil. He was almost certainly seen by the majority, even people on his side, as the Osama Bin Laden of his day.

I sometimes wonder if the Americans, with their current 'war on terrorism', ever pause to ponder on the irony that their own nation was born thanks to what the law abiding Establishment of those times would have seen as terrorism no less heinous than that perpetrated by today's Islamic radicals. (Roger's Rangers, irregular Continental troops who fought totally outside the accepted norms of combat, were the PFLP of the day.) The society the American Revolutionaries were attempting to create, a republic with voting rights for the common, untitled man and a democratically elected head of state, would have been seen by the Royalists of the day to have been every bit as threatening, radical and extreme as the Islamic society Bin Laden and his followers aspires towards today. Even closer to the current age, thinking Israelis must squirm when they look back on some of their founding fathers, like the leaders of the Stern Gang for instance, one of whom later became their Prime Minister. The irony gets really thick when an Israeli asks from whom did the Palestinians learn the ground rules in using terrorism to advance their political case.

Jackonicko

6th Dec 2001, 15:58

I'm slightly critical of America on the war in Afghanistan, as regular PPRuNers will know.

(My worries were that the response was not adequately focused against the guilty - I'm entirely with BEagle in believeing that "bin Laden and Al Queera or whatever it's called deserve all that's coming..." - but I'm less comfortable with the legitimacy of a war with the Taliban - I hate them too, mind you, and will be pleased to see them fall. I'm also worried that military action has been allowed to drag on too long, and that a shorter, sharper, more focused and more intensive campaign would have been better than this Kosovo-type slogging match from a PR and public/international support point of view. Finally, I don't think enough has been done to bring the moderate Arab/Islamic world onside, nor to correct the misapprehension that this was a US act of retaliation and revenge for 11 September.)

All that said, I'm a great fan of the American people. Kind, generous, moral, hospitable and honourable as they are. And Arizona is especially great, with particularly wonderful Americans living there. The crack about Phoenix is just plain wrong - though why they didn't continue on to Tucson, or over to Santa Fe is a bit of a mystery! We may joke about America's MacDonalds culture and all the rest, and may sometimes poke fun but I wonder whether the average American is any more or less stupid than the average Brit. Comparing CNN and Sky News, or the Sport and Sun with US tabloids is an unprofitable and depressing game for either nationality, I fear.

It may be that some key sections of US society have a broader education than comparable sections over here, or it may not, but I think that a legitimate criticism is that Americans do tend to be a little insular and inward-looking, and that Erik Everhard's post, while over-the-top and insulting does contain a grain of truth.

Major Mad asks us to: "name one European or Israeli that has ever attacked the US." almost proving the point. Terrorism existed before 11 September, and other targets have been attacked by equally evil men.

Moreover, 11 September itself is more complicated than is comfortable. However much we'd prefer to reduce it to good and evil, those who perpetrated this atrocity were driven by what they perveresely saw as 'right', and there are underlying problems which must be addressed if the problem of global terrorism (and especially Islamic terrorism) is to be addressed.

I'm not entirely sure that supporting Israel's state terrorism against the Palestinian authorities (rather than against the Hamas terrorists responsible, who 'deserve everything they get') is either just or, more importantly, wise. In the long run, peace and reconciliation can probably only be achieved by encouraging Israel to disgorge the territory it took by force of arms in 1967, removing illegal settlements and allowing a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital - while simultaneously offering guarantees of the security of Israel's remaining territory. Watching the IDF targeting Arafat and the Palestinian police, and killing more 15 year-olds is an undeifying spectacle, and to pretend that Israel's brutality and intransigence on land for police isn't partially responsible for the depressing cycle of violence is short-sighted and foolish.

What a depressing world we live in....

BEagle

6th Dec 2001, 17:44

Mark you, when you think about it, the US has never had it particularly easy. Like the settlers who, having got fed up with the East with its rain, fog, cold in the winter, not to mention unfriendly tribes of Indians, undecipherable Brooklyn accents and power-shouldered NooYarkers, set off for the West in their waggons. After many long weeks they made it to Kansas, took one look and kept going. Finally one day they decided to stop for the night as California was supposed to be just over the horizon. Imagine their horror when dawn broke the next day and there was Pike's Peak! "Thank you so b£oody much, O Lord", they cried - "that's all we needed!". It was then a toss-up - stay and get frozen in Colorado where the weather was chilly but at least there was Coors, or hack it over the Rockies to California where there was surfing to be done and babes on the beach to ogle, 'twas said. No contest really - although the settlers with the particularly gaily painted waggons decided to give San Francisco a go instead and took to wearing leather underpants.....

Meanwhile the East got bigger and richer and was the welcoming sight for many a repressed refugee escaping from persecution or the threat of having to appear in a movie with Kate Winslet; until one fine day out of the clear blue September sky some mad ba$tards used the freedom of US air travel to murder thousands of innocent people. So don't expect the peace-loving Americans who suffered this outrage to show much mercy to the cowards hiding in their Afghanistani caves.....

ol_benkenobi

6th Dec 2001, 19:38

:( The main thing to I take from this is the detraction from a war on terrorism and its supporters to the assistance in the overthrow of a ruling power. Although I agree with it, I do not believe NATO and the UN are adhering to closely to the letter of International Law. No, the Taliban not nice blokes but how many ‘wrongs’ can the Yanks get away with ‘to make a right’.
Moreover, what about Round 2? When the new democratically Bonn elected Gov’t is in place where to next? American troops peacekeeping in the Gaza strip? :eek: How heavy-handed can Israel get and still have us all turn a blind eye?
;)

Ralf Wiggum

6th Dec 2001, 20:06

Don't want to upset anyone here, but the American dream is not everyones dream and neither is the British one. If we insist that only governments that meet with our approval are in power, then we are not much better than Al Q and the Talibans.

The American viewpoint is somewhat understandable after the 11th of September, but the world has been afflicted with terrorism for hundreds of years. It is nothing new and if the media is to be believed, the US has been sponsoring certain aspects of terrorism for many years. Was Dusty Bin Laden not once involved with US policies and given funding from there? I don't know, but the media imply that.

Turning the place into glass would not fix anything and I'm pleased that it was an Engineer who spouted that one, not some General or politician. If we were to take that sort of revenge against the sponsors of the IRA and those people who live in such areas, Boston would not exist.

Don't forget either that during the Empire days, us Brits were nothing more than bullies and terrorists who created misery for many. How far we have come in order to point the finger!

Finally, I recall on a number of occasions that I have been told by our allies in OOA/TDY that 'In the US we do ...' I have news for everyone from the other side of the pond. OOAs/TDYs are not in your nation. I also heard a senior RAF Officer talk about the Human Rights Act in relation to the Taliban. Since when did our Statute Law become World Law?

I still support the American and British policies on this conflict, but in order to stay on side, we all have to be very careful. Let's not forget what the mission is and as far as possible, lets leave the innocent people out of this conflict.

West Coast

6th Dec 2001, 21:16

Jacko
Excellent post, thank you. Where I divurge is on the Tailiban. If OBL was an unwelcome house guest, vis a vis the PLO and Lebanon and the Tailiban were unable to show him the door I would agree with you. That however appears at least to me not to be the situation but rather that the Taliban provided him a save haven.

Ralf Wiggum

6th Dec 2001, 21:43

Hey West Coast, it wasn't too long ago that an IRA prisoner shot a prison officer dead and escaped to US of A. The appropriate extradition was applied for and rejected. Guess who looked after him? Yeah, you got it, the USA. How's that different to UBL?

Anyone got a black pot?

West Coast

6th Dec 2001, 21:52

Not familier with the case, therefore not able to comment on it. I am however familier with cases in that European governments refused to extradite to the U.S. for various reasons, it goes both ways. You better order a couple more pots if you intend to stick to that line of logic.

Ralf Wiggum

6th Dec 2001, 22:02

WC (How appropriate), last word from me on the subject. Extradition for fraud, drugs etc is not an issue here. If you spout off about terrorists, that's a different matter. I'm saying that it's not just the Taleban that have protected terrorists. Check out the US policy on the IRA my friend and say a prayer for the widow of the prison officer and her children and hundreds of others who have suffered.

Wiley

6th Dec 2001, 22:08

Just a politically incorrect opinion, but I think that great leveller – time – will all too reveal that the current "war against terrorism" in Afghanistan has a lot more to do with the massive as yet undeveloped oil reserves that are said to exist in the former Soviet Republics immediately to the north of Afghanistan than with any great desire on the part of the Americans to punish anyone for 911.

To get at said oil, the US (and others) will need a pipeline to a warm water port easily accessible to the world's super tanker fleets. Now let's see… harking back to Geography 101, let's see if I can identify what would be the most appropriate country for the West to install a nice, friendly government to allow them to run a pipeline through said country.

West Coast

6th Dec 2001, 23:08

Ralf
I will pray for her as long as you agree to pray for all the mothers in Chile that lost sons. I wonder how many of them felt justice was at hand only to have it snatched from them by Jack Straw's decision not to extradite Pinochet for trial. I trust I need not educate you to his regime. Pinochet was a frequent and welcomed visitor to the U.K. especially when he brought his checkbook. I am the first to say that the U.S. has blood on its hand as it relates to him, as do you chaps. However you Brits had a perfect chance to wash your hands of the blood of innocents and bring him to justice via a legit extradition request. His was not fraud nor petty crime to paraphrase you , but genocide.
Trust when I say that there are plenty of American with a sense of history as it applies to the actions of the U.S. in the past and present. I suggest prior to being so critical about the U.S. you should be a bit more introspective and do the same of your past and present policies. you will find plenty to keep you busy for awhile.

kbf1

6th Dec 2001, 23:31

WC...I do not and have never claimed to speak for the UK, any opinions expressed are my own, you may not like it, but there you go.

T_richard

6th Dec 2001, 23:53

Ahh Erik If your last post reflects your opion of someone you "like", I'd hate to see how you'd describe someone you truly despise. I'm sure you met some rather ignorant people during your stay in America. I also am sure that I could find some subhuman creatures in the land of Shakespere. The easiest place to look would probably be one of your football matches. Ignorant hooligans is a term often used in your press after some of those matches. I have never had the pleasure of going to England, but I know that the scourge of every World Cup match in Europe is not representative of all of England. I suggest you get your head out of your a** and look a little harder at a country before you claim to understand its people.

Nil nos tremefacit

7th Dec 2001, 00:51

ol_ben

Not sure which international law the UN are not adhering to.

The Taliban's legitimacy was only ever based on a military force that had overthrown the internationally recognised government of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance had as much, if not more, right to their 10% as the Taliban had to the other 90%.

The President recognised by the UN has only returned to Kabul in the last few days. His legitimate predecessor, Najibullah, was tortured and publicly hanged by the Taliban in defiance of the then laws of Afghanistan. Even Najibullah's legitimacy - supported by the Soviet Union after their illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan - is in doubt. The King in exile is equally as valid as the Taliban. When Afghanistan was a monarchy it was recognised by all other nations as independent and sovereign. The Taliban were only ever recognised by 3 countries - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and another one that escapes me. To put it into perspective - Hitler's annexation of Czechoslovakia had considerably more legitimacy being recognised at the time by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Rumania, Hungary, Poland (who also invaded a part of Slovakia) etc etc.

The UN, representative as it is of the whole world give or take a little, is entitled to support the removal of the illegal Taliban government. Afghanistan's seat at the UN was still occupied by the Afghan Government in exile as were most of their embassies, including the one in London, at the start of the present conflict. It is only now that a new government has been cobbled together that the previous President and his ambassadors will have to renounce their diplomatic credentials to make way for those of the new regime. I suspect that the embassy staff who have been existing in limbo will probably be retained as part of the proof of the continuity of the old government now replaced with an interim internationally recognised leadership.

Since Afghanistan has been represented at the UN throughout the conflict, and since that legitimate government supports the liberation of the country it is wrong to say that anybody has been at war with Afghanistan. Indeed the attacks on the Taliban when viewed from the position of the Government in exile have international legitimacy and are perfectly legal. If anything the UN forces have been fighting for Afghanistan and not against it.

Just my view of course. ;)

helmet fire

7th Dec 2001, 04:13

From the comments above re the pot and the kettle, some food for thought:

British genocide of the Australian Aborginals.
Belgian attrocities in The Congo.
The CIA and Belgian police overthrow the first democratically elected Congo government and have the first Prime Minister executed.
French and Dutch occupations and enslavements of Indochina/Indonesia.
Iraqi genocide of the Kurdish people.
Turkish oppression of the Kurdish people.
Kurdish terrorism.
British blackmailing of China, the Opium wars.
Japanese occupation of China.
China's occupation of Tibet.
Russian purges.
German genocide of the Jews.
Israel is in contravention of 6 UN resolutions whilst Iraq is only contraveneing two.
US aid to Israel.
US, Australian, and Canadian aid for the IRA.
The Khmer Rouge was an internationally recognised government.
The ANC was a terrorist organisation.
Indonesia in East Timor.
Malaysian racial wars in the '60s.
Blah, blah, blah........

Gotta love human nature.

Any one got a righteous finger to point?

:confused:

T_richard

7th Dec 2001, 06:42

Helmut Touche' you nailed it right on the head. I am not a true student of history so I couldn't develope that list. But we all know it's true. Incidentaly (sp) I have heard that Irish-American financial support for the IRA has plummeted since 9-11. a silver lining? Thank you for leveling the playing field

superfurryanimal

7th Dec 2001, 08:21

Hi chaps, looks like a good fight, so I think I'll join in.

Yep, I'm sure all our respective predecessors have done some rather shi**y things to other nations/people, but it does seem rather sickening that the USA only decides to lead a crusade against 'world' terrorism after continental USA is attacked. Said crusade does seem rather biased towards all the nations which the USA doesn't like, and rather conveniently ignores all the other acts of terrorism taking place elsewhere in the world, often funded by US money and/or weaponry.

Are we really supposed to believe that after the US (sorry - the 'world') has finished in Afghanistan, and then moved on to the next target as voted for in CNN viewers choice poll, that US troops will roll into Jerusalem/Belfast etc? No, didn't think so either. Also, will Dubya's promise to punish those responsible for promoting and funding terrorism around the world apply to those well-meaning US citizens supporting the Israeli state and IRA? Get real.

Come on Americans, let's not have any more self-righteous chest beating on behalf of the world, when its all really just about what the US government wants. A little honesty would keep most of the criticism at bay. And whatever happens, this time try not to meddle too deeply with affairs after the Taliban have been kicked out - there seems to be an unhealthy pattern of miserable foreign policy failures in your past leading to current troubles.

West Coast

7th Dec 2001, 11:38

B.K.

"It does rather sickening that the USA only deciedes to lead a crusade against world terrorism after the continental USA is attacked"

The only thing sickening was the attack on NYC and D.C. I say confidently that 9/11 is one of if not the greatest single day loss due to terrorism in British history with about 200 killed. This is not just the United States war, its yours also. It seems to me that if a 747 flew into Harrods that the UK would be leading the charge. The provacation was against the U.S. and as such the response should be primarily from us. the magnitude of Sept11 reqires more than just chucking a few cruise missles at them. The reach required can only be shouldered by a country with the military and assets the size of the U.S. This is not a slight to the Brit military, I served with many Royal Marines, and they are simply the finest fighting force on earth, what it is, is the fact that only the U.S. has the size to do it. Remember, your country is hated only slightly less in the middle east than mine.

"Crusade does seem rather biased towards all the nations the usa doesn't like"

Well that's where the bad guys tend to congregate.

"Acts of terrorism taking place elsewhere in the world often funded by U.S. money and weapons"

You Brits were a major supplier to folks like Pinochet in Chile, but I guess you can overlook that and the juggernaut that The British arms industry is. The UDF in NI delivers food to the needy right? Many a Catholic has died while the military looked the other way, but I digress.
It must be problematic to your arguement to infuse the idea that the special relationship that our two countries share is based on mutual, symbiotic policies. As goes our foreign policy, does yours and vice versa. Any blood on our hands drips down to yours, so again get your own affairs in order prior to looking elsewhere.

"Self righteous chest beating on behalf of the world when its really what the U.S. government wants"

And the French, Egyptians, Aussies, Brits and others don't want the the threat eliminated? Justice for WTC is hardly chest beating. You make it sound as if the civilized world is ambivalent about the attacks and only mildly interested in its outcome. In the immediate days following Sept11 I knew that not to be the truth, I can only hope that has not changed. I know you blokes over there prefer the stoic, stiff upper lip approach, but I cannot apologize for being a bit bellicose after 3000+ died over the course of an hour for the crime of going to work.

Before you take the U.S. to task, ask yourself what would be your response if it had been you instead of us. Would I and fellow Americans be accusing you of chest beating and acting asymmetrically? Nope.

Nil nos tremefacit

7th Dec 2001, 11:59

WC (unlucky initials)

I fully understand and support the USA position in dealing with the source of terrorism directed at it. I also believe that the UK is right to support the USA, but I'm not convinced that a similar attack on the UK would have engendered the same response from the USA. I honestly think that if Canary Wharf had been destroyed we would not have had the support of the USA in pulling together a coalition. I think they might, just might, have closed down a couple of bank accounts, but experience shows that the USA does not go to war until it's own interests are threatened - WWI, WWII are clear examples. Did you know that by the time the USA went to war in WWII we had already had all of our major industrial cities bombed (2000 citizens were killed in 2 nights in my hometown alone)? Indeed the USA didn't go to war to defeat Nazi Germany. The Germans declared war on the USA to support their Japanese allies.

I'm sorry, but if Harrods (Arab owned) had been destroyed the USA would have turned it's back on us as would everyone else. Indeed the response after the last bombing of Harrods (IRA Xmas bombing campaign) was for citizens of the USA to pay more money for more bombs - c*nts.

Where were you after Omagh?

DamienB

7th Dec 2001, 12:16

Nil nos. Don't be silly. The USA started and won WWII. I've seen it in films you know, and they were in colour, so they must be true.

Ralf Wiggum

7th Dec 2001, 18:12

WC, quite agree with you on Pinochet. Should have been sent for trial, but I'm not in government. If you read my first thread, you'd see that I mentioned the Brits as being nothing but bullies and terrorists during the empire days. Sorry, I wasn't there for that!

The whole thread seems to have got off to a slanging match between the US and UK. Let's not forget, we are supposedly allies. What annoyed me about the thread was the completely unconstructive view from the US engineer, which from experience, is one that has been repeated by many Americans I have met since 9/11.

If we keep that sort of attitude, WW3 might not be too far away. Something for the Holywood writers I suppose!

Just one final note on NI. Having served there, I know quite a bit about the history of the terrorist groups, funding and killings. You should really get the facts before you attempt to quote stuff on the situation. So far off the mark my friend!

T_richard

7th Dec 2001, 18:52

Gentlemen, I am dismayed by the remarks made by my british friends. The only one I'll respond to is the suposition as to whether we would or would not provide support and assistance in the event of a terrorist assault on Britain of the same magnitude as 9-11. I speak as a umpteenth generation american who's roots are traced back to a graveyard in England in the 1600's. We'd be there before the dust settled. Period. End of transmission.

Megaton

7th Dec 2001, 18:59

T_richard

We'd be there before the dust settled.

Fairly obvious point but you were two years late for the Second World War. :D

(No offence meant. I work with the USAF and find them to be highly professional and generally more cosmopolitan and wordly-wise than their civilian counterparts. The USAF lt who sparked this thread is, in my experience, an ill-informed minority.)

T_richard

7th Dec 2001, 19:23

Dear Ham
#1:I seem to recall a strictly volunteer American effort that preceded our official intervention. I could be wrong though.
#2:We may have been late to the party, (WWII) but we all showed up didn't we? and we didn't f*ck around once we got there. Believe me, WTC happens in Gb, you won't have to turn on the TV to hear our reaction, just look up, the B-1s will be over your head. Ignore what you read in our press, that's the journalists and the pundits talking to each other. John Q Public want OBL dead now, and he wants next a**hole who attacks citizens of a foreign country like Al Qatda (sp) did to be run down and turned into dust. We may be a little late to this party (terrorism), but we are sorely pissed off.

[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: T_richard ]

Megaton

7th Dec 2001, 20:14

T_richard

Perfectly familiar, thank you, with Eagle squadrons who acquited themselves admirably during Second World War. Also familiar with quiet yet thoroughly effective support given to the UK by US during Falkland Islands War.

whowhenwhy

7th Dec 2001, 23:35

As the person who precipitated the thread may I add that I certainly did not want to start a trans-Atlantic slanging match. We've discussed in a previous thread the rights and wrongs of what's been going on and I think the majority vote was in favour. What I did want to do by highlighting the rather foolish comment by one individual, was try and establish whether his opinion was echoed by others. I think it's fair to say that he is in the minority and thank God for that. However, the comments by many have raised a serious question, how far wil this crusade against terrorism go? The IRA are obviously concerned because they've started trying to look like peacemakers, let's hope the other side take the hint!

Things are always worse than they seem!

T_richard

7th Dec 2001, 23:54

Hello Who As a taxpayer, and as a coworker of 5 people who died on or after 9-11, (one sweet girl suffered for six weeks in a burn unit before she died), I feel that the USA with or without the rest of the coalition, I really don't care, should run down every known terrorist group we can find. I'll pay the taxes, when my son is old enough I send him in, whatever it takes. I have never been this angry for this long in 47 years. I believe I'm not alone in my opinion. Yes we are late getting into this fight, believe me, it is a constant topic of conversation, but as I said earlier we have arrived at the party and we not leaving till its over and it isn't over till we say so. Omar wants peace, he better bury himself alive, cuz we'll use the tribunals and sentence him to death.

Flatus Veteranus

8th Dec 2001, 00:04

The Brits were nothing but bullies and terrorists in Empire days - Ralf Wiggum

You may have got an F for English Ralf, but you must have got SFA for History - unless you went to Hull or N London Poly where they can only peddle a Marxist view of History. I suppose it was the tooth fairies who sorted out the warring Mogus in India; gave the Indians their laws, courts, and a first class civil service and a language in which to administer themselevs; schools and hospitals of a quality we have long since forgotten in England; roads and railways; and laid the foundations in culture and infrastructure to create the the world's greatest democracy (in terms of population).

Africa by-and-large didn't make it and has gone back into the trees. But our finest achievement was the original empire in N America. True they eventually got a bit bolshie; but remember that the founding fathers were almost exclusively British colonials, very learned in British classical and political scholarship when they drafted the US constitution.

The monkey at the top of the greasey pole presents its least attractive aspect to those beneath it and is always detested. The Brits were "top monkey" once we had wopped the Frogs in the early years of the 19th Cent. We kept the Pax Britannica for 100 years and learned to accept being loathed. The Spams are doing fine but must get real and stop expecting to loved rather than envied! :D

T_richard

8th Dec 2001, 00:09

FV "Spams"????? and were you refering to USA when you mentioned bolshie? Is that as in bolshoviek (sp) I do however agree with your analysis of the sub continent

whowhenwhy

8th Dec 2001, 03:59

Everybody knows that US foreign policy hasn't changed one iota since they got interested in it in the 19th Century. "You have got a religion and a system of government that doesn't quite agree with ours, therefore we are going to do everything in our power to change your religion and system of government, so that it reflects ours, which is much better anyway!" Someone tell me if I'm being unfair!

Apologies for being inflammatory but as much as I actually agree with the Spam's stance on Afghanistan in general, you guys could do with taking a reality check on your own self-importance once in a while!
Things are always worse than they seem!

[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: whowhenwhy ]

Talking Radalt

8th Dec 2001, 05:27

T_richard:
"I feel that the USA with or without the rest of the coalition, I really don't care, should run down every known terrorist group we can find."
PS Except those connected with a North-East European location with which we all so loosely claim to have ancestral connections.

Will you people please WAKE UP?! :mad:

T_richard

8th Dec 2001, 06:53

Talking This north - east connection ? please forgive my ignorance; are you talking about the IRA? If so please understand that outside of Southie in Boston, Hells Kitchen in NYC, the IRA has about as much standing in US politics/society as the Mafia. Most non Irish/British don't understand it anymore than Europeans may understand our black/white relationships. We know there is a serious problem, we just don't know who's right/wrong. As a Irish/English American Catholic I do not claim to understand all the issues. My suspicion is that The IRA evolved from a political driveb terrorist group into a crimminal force years ago. In any case, I'd love to use a little Old West justice to clean up NI. I think the Brits and the Irish would take offense at US interference.

PS please don't talk about the Kennedys, I'll scream

West Coast

8th Dec 2001, 11:15

Nil nos
I am tugged in both directions on the issue of the timing of the United States entry in to WWI/II. In my opinion we should have emerged from our isolationist policies earlier and joined in the effort. But the fact is that we did join in and many fine Americans died on European battle fields far from their home. If hitler couldn't gap the channel, the mainland US was safe, so its arguable that the US was subject to a direct threat from Germany.
You surmise that if Bin Laden had struck the UK that the US would be ambivalent. Lets not forget that Sept 11 was not the first time Bin Laden has struck US assets. Where were you (the UK) when the Cole was almost sunk, the embassy bombings, etc? Didn't see any grass roots efforts in the UK to track the bad guys down.
The US has been quick to help out at your time of need. Remember when the Malvines, sorry Falklands were occupied by the Argies? After it was obvious that diplomacy was ineffective the US sided with the UK, provided access to bases, redeployed our assets to free up yours for the war effort.
BTW, whats unlucky about the initials WC? Too close to WTC?

Ralf,
We both have our Biases about NI, your from having been there, mine from growing up with grandparents who lived through the war of independance, you guys got alot of those, the Irish one to be specific, and parents who grew up during the occupation of the northern six. My great uncle died in the GPO on O'Connell street at the hands of the British army, My dad grew up with an absolute and primal hatred of all things British. Despite these inputs I maintain an even keel and recognize the military arm of the IRA for what it is, a bunch of thugs and terrorists that need to be eliminated. I am ashamed of Americans that provide assistance to them under some romantic ideal. I can tell you as a participant in the activities of the large Irish population in southern California that the support is non existant, either in deeds, actions or words. I also see the UDF for what they are, the same thugs and terrorists that the IRA are, I also recognize that the British army and the police had been less than enthusiastic about reining them in.

DeeBee

Don't believe everything you read in the paper or see at the movies. Rest assured the James Bond is your great equalizer, hell, we Americans pay good money to watch a Brit save us and the rest of the world.
I find it amusing that many of you blokes think we yanks need to tone down our movies, society, etc while you actually have a
government program(Cool Britannia) to mold your image internally from a dour curmudgeonly society to a more hip one.

Whowhenwhy
May I suggest you avoid absolutes in your arguement? "Everyone knows US foreign policy hasn't changed on iota" I couldn't get 10 people to agree its dark outside. It will add creedance to your arguements. If you do that I will promise to get spell check, or at least a dictionary to clean up my posts.

Flatus
Good post, we do have work to do on this side of the pond as it applies to our interaction with other nations.

Ralf Wiggum

8th Dec 2001, 19:33

WC the term 'WC' is olde worlde English for Water Closet - The bathroom to you and the Sh*t House for the rest of us. It has nothing to do with the WTC. Even British humour is sensitive to current feelings.

Ref the UDF et al, The Brit Forces side with no one. In fact, since you are so well informed, you will know that the British Forces were sent in to NI in the 60s to protect the Catholics. No prejudices!!! Sounds like the IRA propaganda is still getting over the pond if you really believe what you have written about the UDF. Our duties have changed little. We are there to protect anyone, no matter which side of the divide, in NI who needs such protection. Even members of Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA, were offered personal protection from the British Government when the NI Assembly were voted in.

superfurryanimal

9th Dec 2001, 08:54

Oooops!

Didn't quite mean it to come out the way it did. Sorry. Packing my bucket and spade as I speak to go build sandcastles in Afghanistan before it all turns to glass. TAXI!

OOOOOOOOH! What pretty rays of sunshine!!!

:cool:

Nil nos tremefacit

9th Dec 2001, 19:55

WC (seriously unlucky initials)

I not only surmise that the USA would not have joined a Brit led coalition to deal with terrorism, I know it wouldn't.

When IRA murderers, convicted under a perfectly legal system, escaped from the Maze prison some fled to the USA. It would be very nice if you had let us have the bu**ers back! It was not helpful for the IRA to have sympathisers in NY campaigning quite publicly against our extradition applications. If we catch Osama bin Laden and treat him in the same way that you lot treat the IRA you will never get him back because we'll give him a home and a job and the equivalent of a green card and call him freedom fighter and treat his mates as statesmen.

To be honest, it would be great if we did catch bin Laden. If I was HM's Government I'd do a swap - bin Laden for the IRA terrorists living in the USA. Can't say fairer than that - we give you OBL, you give us one(?) two(?) dozens(?) hundreds(?) of IRA hangers on.

I'm sorry, but I get upset about the IRA and US support. In NI I saw some int photos of a human body. The man was partially skinned, may have been castrated and had several burn marks. This was 'punishment' by the IRA - no court of law, no one to plead a case, no appeal, just a supposition that the man may have been an 'informer'. If you read 'Contact' you will also know that the IRA crucify 'informers' by pop-riveting them to the road and castrating them. Kneecapping, for the benefit of the Spams, involves drilling through the patella with a slow turning drill bit. Photos are not nice. Sophistication now means that victims have knees, wrists, ankles and/or elbows shot through. The best knee surgeons in the world are in Belfast. Kneecapping still takes place in IRA controlled areas.

I've also seen a photo of a policeman who was subsequently killed by having a slow drill bored through the top of his skull.

All this done with the full knowledge of the US Government's who hosted Adams etc.

Suddenly the US suffers a terrorist attack and the goal posts move. On September 10th 2001 it was still possible for the IRA to hold fund raising parties in NY and Boston. That is only 90 days ago!

I've got my medal for fighting terrorism - it's called the General Service Medal with Northern Ireland clasp.

War on terrorism - been there, seen it, done it...... :mad:

Chimbu chuckles

9th Dec 2001, 21:25

Flatus have you been to India ever, let alone lately? I have been to 5 or 6 places in India over the last 10 months, it's a beurocratic(sp?) nightmare $hithole! Bangladesh is worse, Pakistan a little better. As far as I'm concerned you could only improve the world if you applied the 'Very Bright Flash' to the place
;)

Chuck

Ps Only half joking about the VBF :D

West Coast

9th Dec 2001, 23:27

Nil mos
I will contemplate changing the initials.
I have had my fangs out for awhile on the issue of NI, let me soften abit. I have no doubt you have seen your share of killing in NI, more than your share. I spent seven months patolling the streets of Mogidishu Somalia years and pounds ago when I was a Marine. I saw how inhumane people act simply because someone from a differant clan from across the street ventures through their area. I saw alot of parallels to NI when I was there. I have become much more of a pacifist since. I abhor the taking of lives no matter whos name or whos cause it is. I say again that the military wing of the IRA are terrorists. American support for them is an embarrassment to me. Out of hand I cannot comment on th cases you mention. I also say again that some of the atrocities were visited upon the Catholics by the UDF and splinter groups with at times some knowledge of the authorities, McGurks pub is a shining example. A web search will bring up plenty of info on it. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Flatus Veteranus

10th Dec 2001, 22:27

Chuck

Yes,no. But I don't want to cavil with you over the state of the sub-continent. It just gets right up my nose when people villify our imperial record - usually because of the PC pap they have had dished up to them at school by "teachers" who got diplomas from various Marxist or Trot hot-houses.

Most of my forebears were either colonial administrators or soldiers in the "old" Indian (ie, British) Army. Dad was an Indian Civil Servant, and I met many of his contemporaries out in Burma when I was a boy. They were the finest type of public servant, highly educated (they top-sliced the Oxbridge output, above the Home Civil and the diplomatic)and dedicated to the country. They suffered long periods of family separation and retired on modest pensions. The soldiers were those who wanted to do real soldiering among the Pathans, rather than be wuperts at the London season.

To denigrate these men as "bullies and terrorists" is a ludicrous travesty. The main loser from the Imperial experience was the UK, which sacrificed too much of its potential leadership for too long. We still feel the effects of that today. Rant over! :(

moggie

11th Dec 2001, 13:10

BEagle - don't forget that the "Native Americans" were in fact friendly towards the settlers until they moved west, pushing them out of their ancestoral lands, destroying their food supply (buffalo) and generally persecuting them into near extinction.

The first settlers would have all perished if the Indians hadn't kept them alive that first couple of years - major cock-up or what!

Jackonicko

11th Dec 2001, 15:51

No-one would pretend that the British Empire was the Commonwealth of its day, though it was more benign than the Colonial rule of any other power - including the USA (which had its own overseas 'empire' albeit a small one, and albeit never called an empire.

We exploited the resources and people of our colonies, and imposed European cultural values, Westminster-based government, a British-type civil service, and arrogantly assumed that these (and the other 'benefeits' of colonialisation) were superior to what had gone before.

In some ways, they probably were, while in other ways we undeniably did damage and harm. But the Colonial administrators and military men were not terrorists, thugs or murderers, but were generally highly motivated, Christian philanthropists - who today might have chosen careers with Oxfam, or the UN, and who genuinely (and perhaps arrogantly) believed that the 'White Man's Burden' was to bring God, Education, Good Government etc. to their Colonial subjects, who were seen as being prepared for eventual independent self-government as part of what would become the Commonwealth.

It's fashionable to decry Imperialism and Colonialism in all its forms, and to draw no distinction between how the French (say) or the Portugese and the British ran their Empires. Britain may have made some mistakes, but the Colonial experience was often beneficial - and in some places is remembered with affection. At the last Farnborough air show, I was astonished when an Indian friend suggested that the best thing for India would be to get Britain back in to run it - paying Britain a fee for doing so as an equal partner, rather than as master/servant!

Any American intending to take exception to this post would be well advised to look back over the histories of the Philippines and Cuba, and to consider the impact of post-War 'Coca Cola Imperi

Jackonicko

11th Dec 2001, 15:58

MajorMadMax

11th Dec 2001, 18:44

Jackonicko -- heard you the first time! :p

The Guvnor

11th Dec 2001, 22:21

WC - surprised no one has mentioned yet that the reason that Pinochet came to power was the assassination of Allende by ... the CIA! :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:

So the problems there - as in many other parts of Latin America - are in fact directly attributable to US foreign policy.

West Coast

12th Dec 2001, 02:21

Hey Gov
I guess the blood you have on your hands is the same color as the stuff on mine, not handing over Pinochet was a failure of British foreign policy. You could claim some moral high ground if you had, but not to be, huh?

Jacko, I figured you were lurking in the shadows, long time no hear from.

moggie

12th Dec 2001, 13:15

The spanish decide that Pinochet was not fit to stand trial too. Then he practically skipped down the steps of his jet in Santiago. The man has a good doctor and deserves an Oscar.

The point seems to be that military/fascist/communist/religious extremist dictatorships are only bad if they are not on your side.

Pinochet was a lovely chap when we were ahving a go at the Argies - and never mind if his people kept disappearing. The communist chinese were great guys when they helped us to fight the japanese in WW2. Joe Stalin was a big mate as he helped us give Hitler a kicking.

None of these were popular once they had outlived their usefullness for the short term task. The Afghan freedeom fighters who fought the Russians included in their number a great many of the Taliban who are now the most evil people on the planet (or so it seems!).

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. However, maybe the USA will now "wake up and smell the coffee". There was tacit support for the IRA from the USA for many years and maybe America is now starting to see it from the other side. I am not taking joy from the appalling events of 11 Sept - I was as sickened as anyone else - but someone has to say it.

As a final note - is it not time that the USA did someting about the Israelies? Their behaviour since the establishment of Israel has been appalling. Annexing the Palestinian homelands was guaranteed to bring about a terrorist war - just like the one the Israelies fought to get their rightfull homeland established in the first place. Both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist but NO-ONE has a right to someone else's homeland.

Maybe we Brits ahev a lot to answer for in our history (not too much of a maybe) but we have now left most of these other countries to their own devices. However, I do draw a distinction between homelands and lumps of unpopulated godforsaken rock like the Flaklands!

Flatus Veteranus

12th Dec 2001, 16:18

Yes we were arrogant, Jacko, and did try to impose European cultural norms. And our administrators did live in privileged enclaves and isolate themselves from Kipling's "lesser breeds without the Law". Some historians date this trend to the opening of the Suez Canal, which made the sea voyage to India, and further East, acceptable to the Memsahibs. Hitherto the chaps had set themselves up with local mistresses and raised local families.
I am not too sure about "...we exploited the resources and peoples of our colonies..." Most of the studies on which this assertion is based were only of crudely measured outputs, ignored capital investment and disallowed any return on capital. Recent commentators (such as Corelli Barnett) traced UK's relative economic decline to the mid-19th Century when overseas investment began to starve UK industry of capital. I know more about Burma (now Myanmar) than any other former colony and I ask myself how many Burmese considered themselves worse off under the Brits than under their ancient kings; and how many of them consider their present form of government superior to he Westminster model?
About 20 years ago I was in a party of foreign attachés shown around a brand new military hospital in Ankara (the Gùlhane, donated and equipped by the Americans with all the bells and whistles). But there was no nursing and the wards were squalid and unhygienic. I remarked (politely) to the charming TAF one-star who was showing us around. He replied: "Ah, Yarbay, (Lt Col)if you were expecting nurses in starched white uniforms and polished floors, you forget that Turkey was never an English colony".

Wiley

12th Dec 2001, 16:28

Moggie, noble sentiments, but you've just made an oxymoronic statement in saying;

Both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist but NO-ONE has a right to someone else's homeland.

You can't have it both ways. I'd be willing to bet a sizeable amount that you wouldn't find more than a handful of Palestinians who wouldn't think (despite what their P.C. representatives might say in front of the cameras) that their homeland consists of the whole of present day Israel – as it did for around 1900 years until May 1948 when it was taken from them by UN decree. (The fact that the Jewish settlers had BOUGHT a sizeable proportion of the land for CASH from its Arab owners in the years before partition and developed it is conveniently overlooked in these P.C. times.)

Just when do you set a particular "homeland's" boundaries in concrete? England 'owned' a fair slice of France until a couple of hundred years ago, mainly because the people who 'owned' England were Frenchmen who INVADED England with William the Conqueror. Using your logic, surely the Brits should give England back to the Saxons. But wait a minute – didn't they take it from the Angles? And didn't they take it from the Jutes? …who took it from the Celts? … who no doubt took it from someone else… and don't forget the Romans were in there somewhere.

Don't get me started on the US, Northern Ireland with its Protestant Scottish migrants, South America, Australia, Fiji and New Zealand.

And finally, where in the hell does 'wake up and smell the coffee' come from?

Ralf Wiggum

12th Dec 2001, 17:24

WC, I'm sure I could find details to back up your one example of UDF/Miltary atrocities in connection with McGurk's Pub. Doesn't mean it's got to be true. I find it difficult to believe all that's on the web or in the media. There is so much more dissinformation from rumours and opinions on the WWW than there are hard and accurate facts. Just check out any sites dealing with 'SPACE ALIENS'. Thousands of sites and just how many facts? :confused:

West Coast

13th Dec 2001, 11:51

Ralf
My salient point is that blame lies on both sides. I believe we can find common ground on that.

moggie

13th Dec 2001, 16:37

Wake up and smell the coffee - chosen for the American reader, it means "open your eyes to what is going on around you".

The matter of when do you set borders in concrete is a tricky one. Who is right -Israel or Palestine? I don't claim to have the answer. The Romans chucked the Jews out - but was it not called Palestine at that time, anyway? The UN gave Israel some land - but they chucked the Palestinians out of most of the rest.

However, until both sides can be grown up enough to start talking rather than trading ever escalating revenge attacks we get nowhere.

i guess I was trying to say that we all have a right to have a homeland - but b*ggered if I know how we achieve it.

And don't mention Gibraltar!

Tricky Woo

13th Dec 2001, 17:48

Ahh, Gibraltar,

Set between a rock and a hard place, one hears.

TW

Wiley

13th Dec 2001, 17:52

I don't want to be drawn into defending the Israelis, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment, moggie. In May 1948, the State of Israel is declared after a UN resolution that squeezes through only because the Russians voted in favour of Partition to embarrass the British, who are the (embattled) mandated power in the area. Immediately, eight Arab countries declare war on the infant state and they stage a hit and miss 'invasion'. With the notable exception of the Jordanians, who display quite a bit of professionalism and willingness to fight, the invading Arab 'armies' are a shower who get their arses kicked in no uncertain manner by the equally ragtag Israeli forces.

Three short years after European Jews had been on the receiving end of exactly the same treatment from the Germans, the Israelis indulge in a little ethnic cleansing, terrorising - and in one notable case, killing - the inhabitants of Arab villages neighbouring their own settlements into leaving their villages. Many of the Israeli settlements have been established both before and after WW2 after Zionist groups purchased the land from Arab landowners. (Much of the land was swamp or waste land thought to be worthless until the Zionist settlers developed it with money and expertise brought in from overseas.) Perhaps not inaccurately, the Israelis justify their ethnic cleansing by asserting that the inhabitants of these villages have been either attacking, or harbouring the attackers of their settlements both before and after May 1948.

Despite being vastly outnumbered, the Israelis prevail over their attackers just about everywhere except in the Jerusalem area, where they come up against the highly disciplined Jordanians. So my question is this: when you take land from someone who's attacked you in the first place but then lost the war that they started, are you morally committed to returning boundaries to the pre-war status quo? Europe has never followed this dictum. After every modern war in Europe, boundaries have been re-written by the winning side. Just as two examples, I cite Alsace Lorraine after the Franco Prussian War of 1870, and Poland, which has moved east or west by the odd hundred miles (or been swallowed up completely in some cases) every time Russia and Germany (or in one case France) come to blows.

It's interesting to compare today with Biblical times. The Jews claim the Holy Land as their own, given by God (Jaweh) to them. But anyone with an even passing knowledge of the Bible knows that they took the place in the first place by force of arms from the Caanites, (who were almost certainly the antecedents, at least in part, of today's Palestinians) – and stayed there until the Diaspora began some 1900 years ago, when they were kicked out by force of (Roman) arms.

I think the saddest aspect of the current unsolvable Palestinian / Israeli mess is the way the Arab leaders of the time quite purposely - (some would say very cynically) – stranded the displaced Palestinians in the truly horrible camps, refusing to allow the displaced people to emigrate and assimilate into any other Arab countries – as tens of thousands of Europeans did into the US, Canada, Australia and South America in the very same period. Many of the people involved were skilled and well educated and would have been an enormous asset to the countries that took them. (Some have been so, but only as guest workers.) But they were left to rot in the camps because the leaders knew that left in such a squalid situation, their hatred would brew and grow into the very situation we have today.

I hope there's a special place in the Hereafter for politicians who play with people's lives like this.

Flatus Veteranus

13th Dec 2001, 22:05

Returning to Afghanistan...

I wonder what Ppruners think about Blair's obsession with the "battle for the (Afghans') hearts and minds" ? Is he being too "pushy" with his offer of UK leadership of a UN-mandated "stabilising" or "peace-keeping" force ? Granted that the British Army has more experience of (and presumably competence at) this sort of operation than any other available force, do we (the Brits) not carry just too much historical baggage in that area? (I have a collection of Afghan War and NW Frontier campaign medals in my family archive). I think our presence would be too obtrusive and provocative; and I am not sure that we have the air assets and logistic capability in that theatre to give the army the support they might need in a hurry. Perhaps a large force from predominantly Moslem Turkey, supported by Gyppos, might be better. I believe we should follow the US example and keep our sights on OBL and the Al Qa'eda. As for the rest of the Afghans, President Lyndon Johnson's famous aphorism seems to apply: "Grab'em by the b*lls and their hearts and minds will follow!" Anyway, perhaps Dear Tone is going OTT with his pitch for presidency of the EU - or Deputy JC.

ORAC

13th Dec 2001, 22:48

The Times, London, 13th Dec:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001320013-2001574252,00.html

Jackonicko

14th Dec 2001, 05:48

Wiley,
Even if you accept that the attacked victim should keep territory it gains if it wins the war (highly dubious, morally and legally), the whole of the West Bank and East Jerusalem were not taken in 1948 (after a war of 'Arab aggression' - though some would point to Israeli provocation - including massive illegal immigration, ethnic cleansing and dissatisfaction with an unfair allocation of territory under the UN partition plan) but in 1967. Which was an Israeli war of aggression.

When World War One ended (and it was a war in which Arab help was crucial in defeating the Turks) Jews formed only 10% of the population of Palestine. Only 30 years later, the indigenous Arab population saw the 'best half' of the homeland they'd occupied continuously for millenia being handed over by the UN to the Jewish minority. Is it any wonder that they didn't meekly accept the UN allocation of territory?

The PLO have long accepted that Israel has a right to exist, and have abandoned their claims on many of the areas allocated to the Palestinians in 1947, including places like Nazareth, even though some predominantly Arab towns (like Jaffa) were handed over to the Israelis depriving them of any meaningful access to the Med, any decent agricultural land, etc. And anyone can demonstrate superb agriculture if they control the water, and can extract water from the aquifers below Palestinian territory, so please don't give me the "the Arabs wouldn't havbe made such good use of the land" argument.

The PLO's demands for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza strip seem fairly modest against this historical background, IMHO.