What is the solution to America being a terrorist nation?

[Smurf]

I would expect that each nation would indeed act in their own best interest. I don't think Canada would like the US telling it how it conducts it's affairs.

... but it does!

Right...It only needs to invade other countries to take care of other countries. Like it did in WWII when it invaded France to remove the Germans. Then..but only then, the US can invade, because it is helping out OTHER countries. But if the US is attacked...what? We need permission to do anything at that point?

What does ww2 have to do with this if Iraq doesn't have anything to do with this?

 

[Townsend]

1. No one is equating the US with Al Qaeda.

I disagree, look at this board with the scathing anti-American diatribe covering every inch of this board its pretty hard for me to care what anyone thinks or says anymore.

In case you haven't noticed, equating America's actions with the actions of Terrorist was not my idea.

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

... but it does!

So how does that make you feel?

What does ww2 have to do with this if Iraq doesn't have anything to do with this?

It was only an example of when the world thinks America is allowed to do anything.

 

[Smurf]

So how does that make you feel?

It doesn't. I don't relate myself to "my" country. I don't care who controls it. I'm an anarchist, If I had my way neither the US nor Canada would exist at all (except Canada would, but purely as a name for a large chunk of land).

It was only an example of when the world thinks America is allowed to do anything.

Are you sure it wasn't a weak attempt to make America the hero of the world that we're all indebted to? I mean, if that's all you were looking for Afghanistan would be the simplest most reasonable example. Hell even the Canadians sent troops to Afghanistan.

 

[Smurf]

But I think I understand you Townsend, you're saying that the US is a sovereign state and therefor has no obligation to listen to anyone else just because, correct?

 

[Townsend]

It doesn't. I don't relate myself to "my" country. I don't care who controls it. I'm an anarchist, If I had my way neither the US nor Canada would exist at all (except Canada would, but purely as a name for a large chunk of land).

I see...

Are you sure it wasn't a weak attempt to make America the hero of the world that we're all indebted to?

Perhaps...but not intentionally...

I mean, if that's all you were looking for Afghanistan would be the simplest most reasonable example. Hell even the Canadians sent troops to Afghanistan.

What made Afghanistan ok for the US to invade? Just because the rest of the world said it was ok?

 

[Smurf]

What made Afghanistan ok for the US to invade? Just because the rest of the world said it was ok?

No, the rest of the world said it was OK because you had a legitimate reason, and by legitimate I mean one that conforms with international western standards of justice. That's the definition of when the world will accept thinks it's ok for the US to act.

 

[Townsend]

But I think I understand you Townsend, you're saying that the US is a sovereign state and therefor has no obligation to listen to anyone else just because, correct?

No...not entirely. I think it was irresponsible for the United States to go to war in Iraq like it did. But even if the rest of the world had said, 'go for it, we got your back' I would still think it was irresponsible.

That being said, if the United States finds FACTS(real facts) that it is about to be attacked by another terrorist, the United States does not need to get the permission of anyone to act in its own defense.

 

[Smurf]

No...not entirely. I think it was irresponsible for the United States to go to war in Iraq like it did. But even if the rest of the world had said, 'go for it, we got your back' I would still think it was irresponsible.

That being said, if the United States finds FACTS(real facts) that it is about to be attacked by another terrorist, the United States does not need to get the permission of anyone to act in its own defense.

Right, that's what I meant. You don't think the rest of the world's opinion should have any influence on the US's actions. Well, I agree with you... sorta.

I don't see why if Nation X says something, it should be considered law and Nation Y has no choice but to comply. However I think that a legal international body, such as the UN, can greatly help the world if it is put in such a position as to be able to legally enforce it's rulings on any nation.

 

[Townsend]

No, the rest of the world said it was OK because you had a legitimate reason, and by legitimate I mean one that conforms with international western standards of justice. That's the definition of when the world will accept thinks it's ok for the US to act.

Right...my point is, what if we had KNOWN that the attacks were about to happen but didn't when or how they were going to happen. What if, in an effort to stop them, the US invaded Afghanistan to capture OBL? Would the rest of the world have been ok with that?

 

[The Smoking Man]

That being said, if the United States finds FACTS(real facts) that it is about to be attacked by another terrorist, the United States does not need to get the permission of anyone to act in its own defense.

Does it surprise you that I agree?

Does it surprise you that everything from Kellogg-Briand and the UN Charter also agrees?

The only problem was that there were no 'real facts' apparently however, there has been evidence emerge that the 'facts' were invented and this is what the world judges you on.

That does not make America a 'nation of terrorists' but an 'administration of terrorists'.

 

[Smurf]

Right...my point is, what if we had KNOWN that the attacks were about to happen but didn't when or how they were going to happen. What if, in an effort to stop them, the US invaded Afghanistan to capture OBL? Would the rest of the world have been ok with that?

Probably not, because you didn't need to start a war to stop 9/11 had you known about it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't see why if Nation X says something, it should be considered law and Nation Y has no choice but to comply. However I think that a legal international body, such as the UN, can greatly help the world if it is put in such a position as to be able to legally enforce it's rulings on any nation.

That's where you need to re-read the charter of the United Nations again ... What it was for and why America was so wise in its creation.

 

[Smurf]

That's where you need to re-read the charter of the United Nations again ... What it was for and why America was so wise in its creation.

I'm not saying 'it is', I'm saying 'it should'.

 

[Townsend]

Does it surprise you that I agree?

Yes...

Does it surprise you that everything from Kellogg-Briand and the UN Charter also agrees?

The UN might say it but like you they don't practice it.

The only problem was that there were no 'real facts' apparently however, there has been evidence emerge that the 'facts' were invented and this is what the world judges you on.

So what your saying is that if we come up with real facts, then the UN will be behind the actions of the US 100 percent? Then troops from around the world will come to the aid of a US lead invasion? Even if the invasion exposes the corruption of the UN?

Yeah right dude...your killing me here...

 

[Townsend]

Probably not, because you didn't need to start a war to stop 9/11 had you known about it.

Had we known what and where it was going to happen, then you are right. But if we only knew who was going to do it but not where or what was that terrorist organization was going to do, then we could not have stopped it any other way.

 

[Smurf]

So what your saying is that if we come up with real facts, then the UN will be behind the actions of the US 100 percent? Then troops from around the world will come to the aid of a US lead invasion? Even if the invasion exposes the corruption of the UN?

Yeah right dude...your killing me here...

Well, no. You still went to war before you had facts, that's wrong. I will condemn that no matter what, even if it is later determined that that invasion undoubtably saved the world from utter destruction it was just a fluke because they still did it without justification. And I think that's what a lot of people would say. (well no, people are stupid, most would say 'good US' and forgive you forever).

 

[Smurf]

Had we known what and where it was going to happen, then you are right. But if we only knew who was going to do it but not where or what was that terrorist organization was going to do, then we could not have stopped it any other way.

If you didn't know 'what' they were going to do you don't have a case. You can't have a criminal without a crime. So no, you still have no reason to invade.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes...

The UN might say it but like you they don't practice it.


So what your saying is that if we come up with real facts, then the UN will be behind the actions of the US 100 percent? Then troops from around the world will come to the aid of a US lead invasion? Even if the invasion exposes the corruption of the UN?

Yeah right dude...your killing me here...

And if the evidence wuggests the corruption of the US administration at the same time?

Reality is ... you DID kill innocents while 'killing you' is merely a figure of speech.

 

[Townsend]

And if the evidence wuggests the corruption of the US administration at the same time?

So, are you choosing to not answer the question? Do you believe the UN is a purely benevolent organization that acts in the best interest of everyone equally? Or is the UN a corrupt organization that is rarely willing to do anything at all?

 

[Smurf]

I'm leaning towards option 1.

 

[The Smoking Man]

So, are you choosing to not answer the question? Do you believe the UN is a purely benevolent organization that acts in the best interest of everyone equally? Or is the UN a corrupt organization that is rarely willing to do anything at all?

You are naieve.

You think your own administration innocent while the UN is guilty.

I look upon who is the most dangerous.

UN or USA ... Who waged a war?

 

[Townsend]

You are naieve.

ditto

You think your own administration innocent while the UN is guilty.

No, I think they have acted irresponsibly and make mistakes. You have assumed too much, like always.

I look upon who is the most dangerous.

UN or USA ... Who waged a war?

So you are not willing to answer my question then. Well you will have to forgive me if I no longer value any thing you say. I have answered questions that have been directed at me but you seem to pretend they don't exist. That is not communication...

 

[Smurf]

The point is Townsend, the UN is incapable of corruption on it's own, it only reflects the corruption that may be in the countries that it is composed of. The UN is a council of nations, not a governing body in it's self.

 

[The Smoking Man]

ditto


No, I think they have acted irresponsibly and make mistakes. You have assumed too much, like always.



So you are not willing to answer my question then. Well you will have to forgive me if I no longer value any thing you say. I have answered questions that have been directed at me but you seem to pretend they don't exist. That is not communication...

You assume I am here to be interviewed by YOU?

You are presumptuous.

I stand for free speech which you seem to think should be directed by you.

I refuse to be led down garden paths with lame attempts at ambush at the end.

 

[Townsend]

You assume I am here to be interviewed by YOU?

You are presumptuous.

I stand for free speech which you seem to think should be directed by you.

I refuse to be led down garden paths with lame attempts at ambush at the end.

In other words you refuse to participate in an act called communication. While I and many others have had to question their positions you steadfastly refuse to communicate in such a manner that might make you have to agree with anyone that disagrees with you. Thats a real nice debate trick you got there...

So like I said...since you are unwilling to take a different perspective or question your own beliefs I will no longer find any value in your words.

 

[Smurf]

both of you grow up.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In other words you refuse to participate in an act called communication. While I and many others have had to question their positions you steadfastly refuse to communicate in such a manner that might make you have to agree with anyone that disagrees with you. Thats a real nice debate trick you got there...

So like I said...since you are unwilling to take a different perspective or question your own beliefs I will no longer find any value in your words.

LOL ... Then you are familiar with the word 'debate'.


This would explain why you have a penchant for posting unverified opinion as fact and then explain it away as your 'opinion'.

THAT's why most people stopped taking YOU seriously EONS ago.

When the debate gets tough for you, you just declare it opinion and WE have to accept it.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Townsend]

both of you grow up.

I am more than willing to answer questions...I am willing to admit it when I make a mistake. What more can I do?

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking a question when I have been willing to answer questions directed at me. It's a bit rude to not return the favor.

 

[Townsend]

LOL ... Then you are familiar with the word 'debate'.


This would explain why you have a penchant for posting unverified opinion as fact and then explain it away as your 'opinion'.

THAT's why most people stopped taking YOU seriously EONS ago.

When the debate gets tough for you, you just declare it opinion and WE have to accept it.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Can you please show me where I posted an opinion as a fact? I can show you where you have.

I have also admitted to being wrong...have you ever?

 

[Smurf]

What more can I do?

You can stop responding to Smoking Man. End your pointless bickering.

 

[Informal Logic]

I cannot believe this silly thread has gone for this many pages.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Can you please show me where I posted an opinion as a fact? I can show you where you have.

I have also admitted to being wrong...have you ever?

Townsend, you didn't give me a question, you gave me a binary option. On or Off. Black or White.

You took an organization as complex as the UN and all its subordinate offices, courts, legal systems, treaties, Pacts etc and expected me to answer yes or no because you do not want to discuss the complexities of the issue.

You have constantly posted that you think the UN is not an option because you think China, France and Russia were making too much cash off the situation for the decision to be made in the UN.

This is the 'corruption' you constantly speak about.

Well, that question has been answered dozens of times by the posters here in a variety of ways.

Unlike you, I don't need a constant re-statement of the tired old views of political parties and ideologies which are so bogged down with garbage that they have become unweildy.

In this little, 'game of chess' we keep re-starting you keep getting flustered when I block with the bishop when you make the same move repeatedly.

I keep bringing up new ways of looking at the same issues and you keep attempting to drag it back to the same tired points instead of progressing to other aspects.

I can see why.

The American perspective, being one of defence simply has one point of attack ... the same tired argument ... 'The UN is corrupt' based on one or two aspects so the whole thing is wrong.

When faced with a multifaceted argument, you deliberately ask the same series of questions again and again in an attempt to steer us up that path where you will yet again declare 'see! I told you I was right'.

I've deliberately broken new ground by stating pacts that go back to the 1920s with Kellogg-Briand, the League of Nations, McArthur in Japan, The UN historical position prior to 1984 (when supported by the USA), The Geneva Conventions, Downing Street and a dozen other arguments with each one introducing aspects not considered in your argument.

Your response has always been to drag out this old chestnut ... 'Is the UN corrupt?'

I've even waltzed with you over the viability of Nuclear war on a theoretical level with the Chinese only to have it thrown back in my face that I believe China would start a nuclear war because of 'face' when I have said no such thing. Until now, I have even made no mention of it.

I have posted reams of information here with quotes ... researched the links of others and found contrary documented information and now YOU accuse me of not communicating because I refuse to answer the same question again that you seem to ask and answer yourself on a daily if not hourly basis?

Puleeze.


Oh, and before I get nailed again for a 'personal attack' ... read back and see who is defending himself against an accusation.

 

[BobG]

Right...my point is, what if we had KNOWN that the attacks were about to happen but didn't when or how they were going to happen. What if, in an effort to stop them, the US invaded Afghanistan to capture OBL? Would the rest of the world have been ok with that?

Actually, this is precisely the situation that faced the US prior to 9/11. We new we would be attacked by Al-Qaeda, we knew where OBL's camps were in Afghanistan - we didn't know what the attacks would be, how bad they could be, nor when they would happen.

The reason we never did anything is because the rest of world would have been outraged by an invasion - they still believed you had to separate a legal government from unsavory characters that might reside within the country's borders and that you couldn't hold weak governments responsible for the acts of the terrorists groups within their country. I still don't hold the Taliban responsible for 9/11 - but the magnitude of the 9/11 attack made eliminating Bin Laden more important than the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

I do think the world has changed since 9/11 and you don't have to wait for an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or even Spain's 3/11 or London's subway attack. Once you have a few attacks, period, from the same organization (the first WTC attack, for example), and you have a reasonable assessment that they could mount even bigger attacks, you have enough justification to do what you have to do to prevent it.

In other words, the threshold for taking action has gotten much lower, but the attacks still have to be in response to something - an invasion to take out a terrorist organization that had yet to make any attacks just wouldn't fly unless you had some incredibly undeniable evidence.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, this is precisely the situation that faced the US prior to 9/11. We new we would be attacked by Al-Qaeda, we knew where OBL's camps were in Afghanistan - we didn't know what the attacks would be, how bad they could be, nor when they would happen.

The reason we never did anything is because the rest of world would have been outraged by an invasion - they still believed you had to separate a legal government from unsavory characters that might reside within the country's borders and that you couldn't hold weak governments responsible for the acts of the terrorists groups within their country. I still don't hold the Taliban responsible for 9/11 - but the magnitude of the 9/11 attack made eliminating Bin Laden more important than the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

I do think the world has changed since 9/11 and you don't have to wait for an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or even Spain's 3/11 or London's subway attack. Once you have a few attacks, period, from the same organization (the first WTC attack, for example), and you have a reasonable assessment that they could mount even bigger attacks, you have enough justification to do what you have to do to prevent it.

In other words, the threshold for taking action has gotten much lower, but the attacks still have to be in response to something - an invasion to take out a terrorist organization that had yet to make any attacks just wouldn't fly unless you had some incredibly undeniable evidence.

I tend to think violence begets more violence in the case of terrorism (as can be seen by the invasion of Iraq). There was a program recently that compared the Israeli approach (kill them first) to Spain's approach, which has been to find ways to live together. This is the reason Spain hasn't had terrorist bombings since Madrid, though of course Hawks will say they are just wimps for this appeasement. I think it was on MSNBC.