Airport Security

[TA 152]

Agree.

Never got the impression that you were a "hawk."
Only pointed out what sort of diplomacy that we have seen work like in Iraq 1991, later Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. After Slobo was bombed back to the stone age there were some intelligent diplomacy by the Finn Ahtisari and the Russinas who told him how flat Serbia would be if he did not settle for peace. They did a great job to negotiate the conditions though.

Can not think of one "ism" situation that has yet been resolved by diplomacy - expept possibly Cuba in 1962? Some of the ISMs detoriated by them selves from within like CommunISM in the USSR.

Religious ISMs are really the most difficult stuff in my view. Even in Ireland and Serbia people fight over religous controversies and fights from the 16th centrury are a good as new today as we know. Religion and emotions in a hot mix are dangerous wherever it is played.

Diplomacy can possibly work at its best as a "conflict dampener" to avoid full conflicts because it will usually fence off or dampen the worst agression.

North Korea will be a god measure I think. Saddam has probably nothing to gain whichver option he goes or are forced to go for. It is too late.

Not blaming USA for being aware. I was in Japan in 1998 exactly when they tested their new long range missile passing over Japan. It crashed in the sea east of Japan. Wasn?t especially comfortable due to all the desinformation flying around.

Was it planned or out of control.
Did it have Nuke tip?
Was it a technical failure which just as well could have dropped it on Japan?
If Yes could it have landed on me, with a nuke tip?
Wouldn?t need a nuke tip to get me either.

Strangely enough when WWII finally ended in Europe in 1989 Osama and his compadres sort of popped up. I though the world would be a better one when "Das Mauer" fell - cold war over. The advantage of the Soviet as an opponent was that it was there but sort of predicatble and if they wen for something it would be a full frontal in uniform. These other bastards we let in are just aiming to kill civilians and we let them in to do so. Our freedom may still have a price in the end.

I?d really like to see the ISM bastards go here, there and everywhere prefferably without use of military power.

R

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 06, 2003 09:37 AM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 06, 2003 09:52 AM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
Only when diplomacy is heavily funded does terrorism, particularly "religiously" motivated terrorism, ever stop.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me one clear example where this has worked.

[calgodot]

If the IRA, Sinn Fein or the Provos enjoyed substantial support from a foreign government, then there would have been little chance of peace in Northern Ireland. Al-Quaeda is bought and paid for with Saudi money, making it unlikely that diplomacy is going to lessen their ferocity.

How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi? I hope everyone here knows the answer to this one. But many (most?) Americans do not. A recent survey by Knight-Ridder asked the question, "To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?"

"Of those surveyed, only 17 percent knew the correct answer: that none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Forty-four percent of Americans believe that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi; another 6 percent believe that one of the hijackers was a citizen of that most notorious node in the axis of evil. That leaves 33 percent who did not know enough to offer an answer. "

(The article is on Salon.com, but its part of the premium service. Click on the ad to get a free day pass and be chilled by the effectiveness of the BushCo Propaganda Machine.)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature.../06/iraq_poll/

Whether we can all agree about facts, truth, or interpretation of same, or the validity of statistics and polls, I'm certain we can all agree that an ignorant, uneducated populace capable of this flagrantly incorrect belief is not a good thing.

I've come to the sad, sorry conclusion that the democratic experiment is dead in America. We do not have a democracy. We do not have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We do not have a representative government, and we have no efficient means of expressing our will to the government (provided they even want to hear it). We do not live in a totalitarian state, but we have taken steps that, if followed far enough or expanded, will lead inexorably to a dictatorship (which Bush has repeatedly, perhaps jokingly, said he would prefer).

I hope we don't go that route, but it seems to me that the majority of Americans would be OK with a dictatorship, as long as it did not impinge on their right to drive a gas-guzzling SUV with a 50-caliber sniper rifle in their gun rack.

[Greg Crawford]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cal godot:"We do not live in a totalitarian state, but we have taken steps that, if followed far enough or expanded, will lead inexorably to a dictatorship (which Bush has repeatedly, perhaps jokingly, said he would prefer)."America does not have any problem dealing with dectators, as look as they are our dictators.

I can see why Bush would prefer a dictatorship.
Then the us 'little people.' would not dare get in the his way.

This whole post 911 thing is giving George Boy a chance to "manufacture consent," for more security (read Nazi like rule) obliterating the freedoms we have known and love in America.

Anyone other than me worries about "secret tribunals, " the CIA having the power to kill Americans considered combatants, making conspiracy a capitol crime in some cases? What about the suspending of Americans constitutional rights. All justified because we are now fighting terrorists. Tomorrow it could be political enemy's. Anyone remember King Richard's enemy's list?

The political debate in this country is limited to the things both the Democrats and Republicans can agree to disagree on.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 07, 2003 04:17 PM: Message edited by: bossjock-dp ]</font>

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by S8 Booster:
WWII in Europe September 1942.

...." Britans next "good" neighbour was USA across the Atlantic. Alone?...."

R</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talk about "spinning" the facts to make a ridiculous political point!

Our soil may be across the Atlantic, but thanks to ships and planes, a significant number of our citizens and hardware were all over Europe getting full of lead as a favor to our "friends", who out of their infinite gratitude, chose not to mention any of this in their history books, apparently.
I now have a clear view on why my dad so disliked the British.
He was over there getting his butt shot at, and saw many of his friends killed, to defend a land that was not his own, from an enemy that had not attacked his country!
Then he had to hear the British brag about their own bravery, and barely, if at all, mentioning the absolute indesputable FACT that if we hadn't helped, and sacrificed so much in doing so, Brittain absolutely would not have been able to withstand Hitler.
You guys were getting your asses blown apart big time, until we came over and bailed you out. Churchill publicly acknowledged this, or have your history books so cleverly omitted any references to that as well?
We didn't do it all, I'm not saying that, but you didin't do it yourself either, and saying that we were "across the Atlantic", as if we sat out the war or something is insulting and assinine.
I know a lot of 70 year olds who left many dead friends in Europe, that would smack you upside the head just for saying that!
Geez! Get real!

And Roger is right, an Englishman criticizing America for expansionism is the utmost in hypocrisy.
And the old "oh, that was a long time ago" excuse doesn't cut it.


Matt Pacini

[lightfeat]

Matt, I believe, as the only Englishman to write in this thread, that your comments are aimed towards me. I find them ridiculous, ill founded and, a word you love to use, assinine.

Did I say, ever in this post, that America didn't fight in Europe. Do you really think that's what English history books read?

I said that Britain stood alone against Hitler. This is a fact. We had no allies. No-one else had declared war with Hitler when Britain did in 1939 (unless you include already defeated nations) When do your History books claim America joined in the war in Europe? When did your father come to Europe? What year? I'll bet it wasn't before 1943, and was more likely 1944. I meant no disrespect to your father, or any other American who fought valiantly in Europe, but was merely stating a fact, which has not been opposed by you or anyone on this forum. In 1939 and 1940, Britain had no help in the battle of Britain, and "stood alone against Hitler." America joined us much later, when we were truly donald ducked.

In regard to the writing of History, I believe that you should look to your own nation if you are looking for gross nationalistic rewritings. The Hollywood film industry rewrites History with extraordinary gaul year on year, and WW2 is no exception. If you were to watch Saving Private Ryan, for example, the only English soldiers in it are dead, and it is America who won the war single handedly. in U571, the German U-boat, complete with Enigma machine rescued and sailed back to England, which had an enormous influence on the winning of the war (it helped the code breaking work of the English, yes the English, without which it would not have been won) was not in fact taken by an all American crew, but an all English crew, many of whom are still alive, and were naturaly quite insulted by this. Can you imagine if the English had made Pearl Harbour and made the heroes English. How would that make your dad feel about the English?

Matt, I've posted here already that I am completely aware we were in the shit when America came and, yes, saved our asses. To claim that you sacrificed a lot, as a nation, however, is not even comparable. As a nation, you went on to have the most prosperous decade of any nation in History. Russia lost 30 Million people in the second world war, a fact seldom acknowledged. Britain destroyed its own economy and was rationing food until the 1960's, and this the former richest nation in the world - it is this that really established America as numero uno. The reason you still joke about our food being awful is because of this (despite that London restaurants now have more michelin stars than those of Paris) You wouldn't believe some of the hardships of the English during the war. On a personal level, I'm sure your father suffered greatly, and sacrificed very much. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't have come to our aid, or that we weren't grateful enough, claiming you had nothing to do with the victory? Well yes, I believe that some Londoners were quite angry with America for joining the war in Europe so late and not coming to our aid sooner. Indeed, I still to this day hear jokes about it; how America will join the world cup late after an easy qualifier, beat a knackered Germany and claim the World Cup, just like in the war. I apologise if this sounds unfair - it's just one of those jokes.

It's not Hypocracy for an Englishman to complain about Imperialism and colonialism, is it? Who better to understand its dangers? If a German were on here, concerned about another nation's military dictatorship, would you call them a hypocrite? Of course not. Because the German people are, in the main, resolutely sure that they will do everything in their powers to make sure it never happens to them again, and although we may associate them, quite unfairly, with Hitler, they quite naturally, totaly disassociate themselves from him.

Please try not to misconstrue my words, or my meanings. If I were completely inarticulate, I could understand it, but I'm not, so stick to what I actually say when you berate me so. I'm up against a lot of patriotic Americans on this forum, many of whom seem to think I am an Al Qaida terrorist hell bent on bringing your nation down. It couldn't be further from the truth. I am reading an American novel, typing on an Apple laptop, talking with a group of American Super8 film-makers, using Kodachrome, made in USA etc etc etc. I have very specific quarms with the American administration, my government's relationship to it, American foreign policy, Globalisation and Global Capital"ISM."

Anyway, I've go an essay to write, so...catch you later.

Lucas

[lightfeat]

My essay, by the way, is a comparative study between Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby' and Faulkner's 'As I Lay Dying,' both Modernist American novels.

Lucas

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
Only when diplomacy is heavily funded does terrorism, particularly "religiously" motivated terrorism, ever stop.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by moviestuff:
Give me one clear example where this has worked.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
Ireland.....Painful as it was to make enormous concessions to these people, the government finally did, releasing them from prison for horendous murders in some instances, in exchange for the laying down of weapons.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but (without choosing sides here), I'm not sure that giving in to terrorist's demands is the same thing as an example of diplomacy at work. While I am truly happy that you are finding some kind of peace, it is pretty clear that the terrorists simply wore down the British government, which is the goal of all terrorism. That seems like a pretty dangerous precedent to set, though I do understand diplomacy is a give and take process. And, before you ask, no I don't have an alternate solution. I am merely trying to make some sense of a very compicated situation. The concessions made by the British will be no doubt "spun" in history just as the demands lost by the IRA will also be "spun" to validate their efforts.

"Remember the Alamo" or "Recuerde de Alamo" ? [img]wink.gif[/img]

Roger

[lightfeat]

Diplomacy, in my definition, is about resolution through discussion - it can include persuasion, bribery, making consessions, making compromises. There must be compromises, ultimately, with terrorism, as the threat of war etc. can be retorted to with more terrorist acts. You can't kill all the terrorists - they can restock easily, especially when you're at war with them, as people become angry - think Israel. Diplomacy USA style, seems to be of the "Do exactly what we want or we'll destroy you" school. Now, I'm not picking on you unfairly here - this is America's International reputation - it's not just me being a meanie. Take famine relief, for example. The US is the only nation in the world to insist on donating only food to Africa, not money - US GM food, which would mean a future whereby the African nations who accepted it would no longer be able to trade with a Europe that has banned all GM produce. This is, rather cynically, the US trying to force poor desperate nations to become dependantly linked to their economy and technology. The food has been refused. It is one of dozens of examples of this kind of thing I've heard about the US in the broadsheets. The trademarking of the DNA of Basmati rice is another mad one, so by international law, the people of Basmati, who have been developing and growing their rice there for thousands of years, can't call their rice "Basmati Rice" anymore, because Basmati is now a rice type, patented by a US company, not merely an area of India. I kid you not.

Regarding the funding of diplomacy, the peacekeeping work of the UN has received less than 1% of the cost of the gulf wars in the past 12 years. America has also not paid its statutory payments to the UN of late, leaving it in serious trouble financially.

Sorry, I'm ranting again. The terrorists won't go away that easily. London's absolutely teeming with potential terrorists. Our doors have been open to assylum seekers from all over the place, some of which are crooks, gangsters, criminals and terrorists waiting for action. Osama used to live here. If you want to stop them striking, I would suggest that war in Iraq is not the first method that springs to mind.

Love and peas

Lucas

[digvid]

Well, I told myself I would not be sucked into the vortex of this political conversation, but here I go spinning down the drain...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The US is the only nation in the world to insist on donating only food to Africa, not money</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. The US has been giving cash to African nations for a number of years, particularly for AIDS relief. The United States is the LARGEST contributor to the United Nation's Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, of which Africa is one of the prime beneficiaries. In addition, the US just pledged a very hefty increase to this funding last week. Also, vast amounts of aid in the form of food, clothing, and money pours out of the US from private citizens and churches.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The trademarking of the DNA of Basmati rice is another mad one, so by international law, the people of Basmati, who have been developing and growing their rice there for thousands of years, can't call their rice "Basmati Rice" anymore, because Basmati is now a rice type, patented by a US company, not merely an area of India. I kid you not.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are going to make a case that the United States is a global bully intent on stealing everyone else's piece of the pie, do it with information, not disinformation.

I have a lot of Indian and Southeast Asian friends, and my wife's family is Southeast Asian as well. So I tend to keep up with goings-on in that area. I feel obligated to make a "correction" about a couple of statements here. First of all, this US company (RiceTec, I believe it is called) was granted patents on some strains of rice it crossbred. Although they did apply for patents for some strains of Basmati (which were indeed identical to the strains grown in Pakistan and India) the US patent office denied those patents, and the company also withdrew their claims. There are currently no restrictions on Indian exports of any kind of natural rice to the US, at least not in regards to patents. In fact, America has been increasing its consumption of Indian rice (the very Basmati rice you speak of) in the last few years. For example, Indian rice exports in 1999-2000 to the US were about 700 million Rupees. In 2000-2001 it increased to 1.2 billion rupees.

So the next time I sit at my favorite corner table at Sitar (a local Indian restaurant of which I am particularly fond) eating their Basmati rice, I will think about your post and thank God that the US patent office did not grant that patent.

- digvid