Are You Serious?

[ol_benkenobi]

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? How heavy-handed can Israel get and still have us all turn a blind eye?

[Ralf Wiggum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[T_richard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

T_richard

We'd be there before the dust settled.

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

(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.)