On 1 Aug 2002 at 19:53, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Hermit 1] But you remind me of another point. If an "objective
> perspective" results in Joe Dees' conclusions, then how come the
> Whitehouse now sees "Around the world, from western Europe to the far
> east, many see the United States as arrogant, hypocritical,
> self-absorbed, self-indulgent, and contemptuous of others." and "that
> Washington itself had done a lot to undermine America's standing by
> its rejection of international treaties on the environment, the
> international criminal court and the global arms race."
>
> [Hermit 1] Which is what, I think, I have been saying for quite a
> while to the apparent discomfort of our "objective" friend.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] That may be the opinion of some
>
> [Hermit] No. That is what the vast majority of civilized people,
> including many Americans are saying. Based on "objective facts."
> Remember:? [*]International Criminal Court
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,762663,00.html
> [*]Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,764631,00.html [*]UN
> Protocol on Torture
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,762663,00.html [*]Funding
> for the United Nations population fund (UNFPA)
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,761987,00.html [*]1972
> anti-ballistic missile treaty
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,542020,00.html
> [*]1972 convention on biological and toxin weapons
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,494257,00.html
> [*]Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,689478,00.html
> [*]Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,640593,00.html
> [*]UN conference on small arms
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,525877,00.html
> [*]Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,710728,00.html
> [Hermit 3] Which makes the following non-responsive. But I will
> address it anyway.
>
As I said before, in some cases we need to present our position better,
and in other cases to change it. Examples of presenting our position
better include the abrogation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty; Bush &
co. pointed out to Putin that his nation was in even more danger of
nuclear missile attack in the mid-to-long-term future from its Islamic
underbelly than the US is, and we promised to share the technology
with him.
PS. For an internationalist, I notince that you concentrate a lot on the
UK Guardian, which persists in gadflying even though its government is
a staunch supporter of our pursuit of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and
elsewhere, and also sees our point vis-a-vis Iraq (after all, head of
UNSCOM Richard Butler, whose scathing remarks re Saddam's
noncooperation were contained in the articles I sent, is a Brit, so it is
beyond belief that Blair is unaware of that situation and its ramifications.
besides, signatures have proven to mean nothing to countries lacking
honor; many nasty nations, including Iraq, have signed many of those
without missing a step in their continued violation of them, hoping we
will unilaterally hamstring ourselves while leaving them free reign.
After, lying to infidels for the greater glory and final victory of Allah is
smiled upon in the Koran.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] , but outside of the rabid Dar-al-Islami Ummah,
> practically no nation or people I can think of objects to our pursuit
> of Al Quaeda operatives wherever we can find them, with the 'host'
> nation's help if they will give it, and without it if they will not.
>
> [Hermit 3] The objections are not to apprehending al Qu'aeda. It is
> how this is achieved and what it costs - and how precipitating war in
> the Middle East is going to achieve it.
>
> [Hermit 3] Given the infamy of the assault, obtaining UN sanction for
> reasonable action should not have been difficult. The US instead chose
> to "go it alone" -
>
Several other nations have contributed troops to Afghanistan, including
Great Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Russia and Turkey. Hardly
'going it alone'. And time was of the essence, to coin a nevertheless
true cliche; the longer we waited, the tougher it was going to be, and
the more time they would have to plan and perhaps execute further
terrorist attacks and to disperse their operatives to carry on their Great
Work against the Great Satan US.
>
> and the immediate result of that decision has been
> the destabilization of the world, the demolition of structures built
> over the course of in excess of a century - usually after nasty
> episodes which persuaded people that what had happened was so
> unacceptable that they should not allow it to reoccur and the
> provision of a reason for anyone who feels they have an excuse to
> bypass the UN and simply go to war. That makes the world a much more
> dangerous place for everyone, Americans included.
>
Sorry Charley, but your logic is as fishy as your 'objectivity'. The
destruction of those structures happened the moment those planes
were piloted into the twin towers, for they showed them to be outdated,
antiquated, and woefully inadequate in forfending instantaneous mass
murder terror attacks in a modern technological world. The rout of the
Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and its pursuit across the globe is
restabilizing the world around the consensus that terrorism is the
common enemy of all civilizations, and that they should cooperate in its
elimination (I exclude those few countries where fascist politico-
religious fanaticism persuades their governments to allow, permit or
even encourage or facilitate it as a way of expanding the Dar-Al Islami
Ummah to encompass the globe). NO country in the history of the
world, faced with such an attack, has failed to act in its own defence
and pursue the perpetrators and those who chose to shield them when
it possessed the resources to do so. This is bound to make the world
safer for ALL of us - with the exception of the terrorists themselves and
those governments and people rabid or insane enough to assist them.
>
> [Hermit 3] In any case, the people of Afghanistan had done nothing to
> the US. Yet many more Afghan civilians have died at the hands of
> Americans than Americans died on 911.
>
This is indeed, as far as I can tell, patently untrue. The biased count
that was first put forth has been thoroughly discredited.
>
>Worth noting that this may be
> incompetence more than malice. After all, more American soldiers have
> died in Afghanistan of "own fire" than have been killed by the Taliban
> and al Qu'aeda combined. Even so, while the dead don't care, their
> relatives and those who empathise with them, do. This does not make
> the world a safer or better place.
>
We have lost less than two dozen soldiers in Afghanistan from hostile
combat. And those who empathize with dead terrorists most likely
empathized with them when they were alive; that is a wash, or a net
negative, since dead terrorists reduce the total.
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=25862>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT