Opposing war = passive support?
The US never has and never will attack someone just for being evil.
please tell me what sinister reasons were behind the actual purpose of "operation restore hope".
A few quick comments:
They don't even know what's going on in other parts of the war in Iraq, let alone the US and UK.
Wrong. The access our troops have to current information and communication methods in this war is astounding. Our soldiers have an unprecendented amount of information at their fingertips, and the knowledge of "what's going on in the world" is as close as the laptop in the backpack of the soldier standing next to you. Technology is allowing our servicemen/women to keep apprised of world events opinion about their war they are fighting. As to knowing what is happening in other areas, battlefield communication has come a very long way in the last several years. If you're impression of troop information sharing is based on old reruns of M*A*S*H, you're quite mistaken.
And by the way, moral support doesn't count as the soldiers aren't in a position to receive moral support until their return.
In addition to allowing greater communication between fighting forces, technology is also enabling them to receive messages of moral support from home. If you would like to send a general email message of support to the men and women overseas, one easy way to do so is by sending a message to firstname.lastname@example.org. In addition to general messages of support, many soldiers are able to contact their families via the internet. My children and I have gotten several emails from my husband, and were even able to use the AOL Instant messenger function to chat briefly.
My point is that we should never assume our troops are ignorant of the world climate beyond the stretch of desert they are on. Moral support does count, and is appreciated.
We didn't attack Somalia. I also do not know why all political decisions are made. You didn't respond to the heart of my post, though. Please read
and tell me why we shouldn't attack Mexico, Brazil, or Colombia if we're so interested in evil governments. Mexico is a good place to start, where the torture of people in custody is routine. The US couldn't care less about it.
no, we attacked farrah aidid and his gang.....and if im not mistaken you said "someone", not "a nation". anyhow..........
tell me why we shouldn't attack Mexico, Brazil, or Colombia if we're so interested in evil governments. Mexico is a good place to start, where the torture of people in custody is routine. The US couldn't care less about it.
i dont need to respond to the heart of your post, as ive already stated my opinion on it. check out my last few posts on this thread, and youll see that i dont even believe that "liberation" is the main reason or sole justification for the current war.
""tell me why we shouldn't attack Mexico, Brazil, or Colombia if we're so interested in evil governments. Mexico is a good place to start, where the torture of people in custody is routine. The US couldn't care less about it.""
The "similar cases" argument is a fallacy. The false choice is then to do nothing because we cannot do it all. Lets stick to the issues at hand, does the Devil deserve what he is getting? YES!
(Center for Non-Proliferation Studies: WMDs in Iraq)
(Washington Post: UNSCOM Tracks Terror Weapons)
(Washington Post: The Unconventional Arsenal)
(Palestine Chronicle: U.S. to Have Access to 21 Countries in Iraq War)
(Washington Times: Iraqi Scientist Says Materials for Nuclear Bombs in Hand)
(UK Times: 14 Years of Torture and Humiliation in Saddam's Jail)
How We Helped Create Saddam
And Gave Him Bioweapons PRNewswire
- Newsweek Cover:
- 'How We Helped Create Saddam' -- U.S. Supplied Iraq With Equipment and Materials In 1980s, Including Bacteria That Can Be Used To Make Biological Weapons Administration's Worry: Saddam Could Unleash Bio Weapons On U.S. Troops, Hand Out Bio Weapons To Terrorists
- NEW YORK (PRNewswire via COMTEX) -- During the 1980s, when Iraq was at war with Iran, the United States decided to help Iraq and began supplying Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with supplies and military hardware, including shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), Newsweek reports in the current issue. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export control documents obtained by Newsweek, the shopping list included a computerized data base for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably, to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications" chemical analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC); and, most unsettling, the numerous shipments of the bacteria, report Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas and Middle East Regional Editor Christopher Dickey in the September 23 cover story, "How We Helped Create Saddam," (on newsstands Monday, September 16).
- The U.S. almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging that the culprits were Saddam's own forces, Newsweek reports. There was only token official protest at the time. Saddam's men were unfazed. An Iraqi audiotape, later captured by the Kurds, records Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid (known as "Ali Chemical"), talking to his fellow officers about gassing the Kurds. "Who is going to say anything?" he asks. "The international community? F--- them!"
- As the Bush administration prepares to oust Saddam, one way or another, senior administration officials are very worried that Saddam will try to use his WMD arsenal. Saddam could try blackmail, threatening to unleash small pox or some other grotesque virus in an American city if U.S. forces invaded.
- Or, like a cornered dog, he could lash out in a final spasm of violence, raining chemical weapons down on U.S. troops, handing out his bio weapons to terrorists. "That's the single biggest worry in all this," a senior administration official tells Newsweek. "We are spending a lot of time on this," said another top official.
- It is unclear what kind of justice would follow Saddam's fall. The Bush administration is determined not to "overthrow one strongman only to install another," a senior administration official tells Newsweek. This official says that the president has made clear that he wants to press for democratic institutions, government accountability, and the rule of law in post-Saddam Iraq. But no one really knows how that can be achieved. Bush's advisers are counting on the Iraqis themselves to resist a return to despotism. "People subject to horrible tyranny have strong antibodies to anyone who wants to put them back under tyranny," says a senior administration official. But as another official acknowledged, "a substantial American commitment" to Iraq is inevitable, Newsweek reports.
- Read Newsweek's news releases at <http://www.Newsweek.MSNBC.com>http://www.Newsweek.MSNBC.com.
- SOURCE Newsweek
You are half right. We supplied materials that ended up being used by Iraq as a "duel use" for these type of things. Who would have known that this Devil was so tricky? However, what the story fails to state, that once discovered, the US put a stop to it, pronto! The US was wrong for not spotting the duel use materials misuse right off the bat!
Duel use.........is that for having a duel?
Who would have known that this Devil was so tricky?
A clued in diplomatic corps, an intelligence service based on French or UK structures, and politicians who would be well advised to switch off 'The Waltons' and read a history book every now and again. Foreign policies are built on an understanding of the thinking of people outside ones own national boundaries. There seems to be an historical attitude that prevails in US Government circles that the whole world is either American or aspiring to be so when they grow up.
Frances Harbor's, 'Thinking About International Ethics - Moral Theory And Cases From American Foreign Policy' is a good start to understanding the motivation behind many decisions made in US Foreign Policy that leave people wondering 'Who could have known that this Devil was so tricky?'
The fact was that Sanctions existed when the US sent these duel (pun) use items. Geopolitically, It was in our best interest at the time since we just experienced the hostage crises in Iran.....
I believe that a more, on topic, apropos, book that addresses these types of "alleged" News Stories would be :
Day, Louis A. Ethics in media communications: cases and controversies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. ; 1999..
""There seems to be an historical attitude that prevails in US Government circles that the whole world is either American or aspiring to be so when they grow up. ""
Very simplistic nonsense......but it fits you.